592 Responses to "Unforced Variations: August 2017"
CCHolleysays
Mr. Know It All @36
I was starting to lean “believer” until I saw this list of high temps by state. WOW! Most happened nearly a century ago when CO2 was WAY lower than now. Those “deniers” may end up being right after all.
Nice cherry pick. Typical.
Most of these records were in the 1930s dust bowl era when weather patterns over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans shifted with the Pacific being unusually cold and the Atlantic warmer weakening the jet stream and changing its direction. Hence record hot and dry air drawn over the mid-west. This was a weather anomaly.
I suggest you look at the annual temperature trends for the entire U.S. along with the daily record temperatures to see if, in fact, the U.S. is warming. And guess what? You will see that it clearly is.
Thomassays
38
folbec, skimmed the post and may be heldful some people to really think about rationally, if they are aware of all the facts.
This caught my eye early on “… and we plan to get a wall battery for storage” which I assume must be a Tesla battery.
Here they cost about $10,000AUD. There’s new kinds of wetcell batteries one could install that are half the price and twice as efficient in charging discharging and will likely have a longer effective life cycle too. There there is the potentially more advanced and definitely cheaper tech coming out of Taiwan based on aluminium carbon batteries, but are not yet ready for manufacture though.
Just goes to show the power of marketing and brand names. Even the guy warning people about: “For every expensive crisis that comes along, though, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of scams, schemes, and bad ideas to take advantage of it.”
Tesla is no exception here. Which are perhaps more suitable for very small apartments, trailer homes or the retired ‘gray army’ living in their Winnabagos and traveling 12 mths of the year.
When it comes to purchasing decisions 98% of the time it’s all about ego and salving one’s ‘cognitive dissonance’ … look at me I am doing something about AGW/CC … aren’t I a really good person?
While ignoring the fact that even if every householder had a solar/wind energy supply it makes no serious long term ‘significant’ difference to increased emissions, GHG ppm, and rising temps into the future – the direction will still be up.
Which is why on many occasions I have offered up this cognitive science factoid here by Prof. George Lakoff – Reason is 98% Subconscious Metaphor in Frames & CULTural Narratives See? Even those committed to action on agw/cc have much difficulty making choices that doesn’t include throwing their money away by making poor choices, acting emotionally and continuing to waste precious earth resources and energy.
As a collective group, human beings really are not that smart and are definitely not logical beings by default. (which relates back to ‘communication’ barriers of effecting global change to stop AGW/CC – which is possible and yet highly unlikely long term (imho) for what should be obvious reasons by now.
But thanks for posting the link … it may push a few more folks hot buttons to be much more careful acting on their “freedom of choice” consumer rights.
Thomassays
39 Andrew says: “That’s not a very useful way to think about climate change, nor is it a very good excuse for everything TUE gets wrong.”
And that’s not a very useful way to communicate why you disagree with what he said. It kills understanding and learning rather than enhancing it. Simply saying “No, I am right and you are wrong.” is a total waste of time, effort, and pixels. If you believe you have a better understanding then you need to offer the other person the reasons why what they say/think is not useful – then they may learn something they didn’t know before and/or find a better way to ‘think’ through the issues. It’s counterproductive to your own credibility to engage in “concern trolling” about the poor standard of communication style/facts in one DWW article repeatedly and then commit the very same errors you’re accusing him of yourself. Don’t you think? Mmmm, maybe not.
Thomassays
39 Andrew says: “But does all this change one iota to the necessity to peak GHG emissions as soon as possible (~2020) and then reduce them as quickly as possible?
Redundant? What’s your plan Andrew to make that happen between now and 2020?
Besides complaining about DWW’s TUE article that is? Let’s pretend for a moment that DWW never published that article at all – say it never happened – then what difference would it make to the necessity to peak GHG emissions as soon as possible (~2020) and then reduce them as quickly as possible — is still an impossible fiction that is not going to happen – Paris Agreement Treaty or not, Stefan’s post on RC or not?
Thomassays
PS My questions to Andrew are obviously “rhetorical” in nature for the benefit of others. I’m not silly. Though it sometimes appears that I am. Hehehehe. :-)
34 Thomas: Science as a whole could be viewed as a jigsaw puzzle. I’m talking about publishing about specific predictions like SLR. The IPCC previously published about SLR reaching about 2 feet in 2100 and left out land ice collapse (the biggest factor in SLR) because it did not have good models for it. Now they say about 3 feet but they are still leaving out many factors. I helped Jim Hansen with his 2012 TED talk. He asked me if I had a picture of Florida under ~15 feet of water. I said I did but I told him he should focus on BAU this century. He said he was!
39 Andrew: I’m all for debunking any nonsensical claims (i.e., some things in TUE and most of Guy McPherson). But if any TUE claims are credible, we should be talking about them. We talk about terrorism all the time even though the probability of dying from a terrorist incident (in the US) is minuscule, especially when compared to climate risks.
You are correct that some people (including Jim Hansen) believe that +2C will be catastrophic but, of course, many more agree that +4C will be. My understanding is that the Paris Accord, if implemented by all countries, will (optimistically) keep us at +3.7C this century. The +2C goal is only achievable if the world implements about 10GT-CO2 of annual “negative emissions” (direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere). That is more sequestration of excess emissions than the oceans provide!
Thomassays
Th says in reply above: “…the necessity to peak GHG emissions as soon as possible (~2020) and then reduce them as quickly as possible — is still an impossible fiction that is not going to happen – Paris Agreement Treaty or not, Stefan’s post on RC or not?
Andrew, are you able to be more definitive than saying: “then reduce them as quickly as possible”?
Is there a specific timeline that will ensure global temps do not hit 2C in the future?
Is there a specific known quantity of what is “possible” from 2020 onward, that you can point to with reliability backed up with science, economics, GDP growths, changes in technology deployment and the global realities of land use, agriculture, cement use, GHG emissions and the provision/use of energy globally?
Would you mind pointing me to the accepted ‘science’ Papers and/or the IPCC AR5 Reports that show definitively that IF emissions peak in 2020, and that they are “then reduced as quickly as possible” that global temp will not in fact hit +2C before 2050 or thereafter?
Perhaps, and yes it is a “maybe”, what Dr. James Hansen has said, and that I have quoted and ref’ed recently to you directly, that the Paris event/agreement is a Fraud upon all people of the world and is in fact the real truth of the matter right now today.
And that as per the ref by Mike Mann I also provided for a higher level of context is equally more accurate and telling about “doom and gloom” scenarios already contained in the IPCC AR5 reports than any of your comments of late and concern trolling over ONE irrelevant published article in the New Yorker?
But everyone who comes here to comment brings with them their own particular personal interest concern and point of view and opinions – none of which has or will change a damned thing regarding AGW/CC science nor action to mitigate it.
In fact some people’s ‘opinion’ has been that even Mike’s CO2ppm posts are nothing more than concern trolling too aka pushing his own barrow here. While Victor imagines his fictional beliefs that he’s the most intelligent talent with critical thinking skills than all other posters and the RC scientists themselves — GO FIGURE that one out. lol
This is an online forum and that’s what happens. It’s called “normal” to me. Everyone (well most) tends to think that our own ideas, issues, and concerns should be everybody’s too and the oh so critically important!
You are no different on that score Andrew. So, good luck with that! (patiently smiling)
Me too …. and yet still so many could never grasp that I already knew the posters here would miss what and why I was saying what I was saying and simply say ‘hey shut up!’ – Fact is my ‘target audience’ was not the existing posters here at all. (go figure that one out lol)
Best not to make any assumptions – when seeking genuine understanding it is always more productive and effective to ask questions of others instead – rather than leap into the fictional unknown and believe that is reality when it isn’t. I learned that one the hard way decades ago but still have the ‘scars’ to prove it. LOL
Have a Great Day Andrew and one and all …. I for one really appreciate your time and to contact us here to share your concerns and experience with the DWW / TUE article so far. As a growing global network of people genuinely concerned about the implications of AGW/CC we are all continuously making efforts to help improve the public’s awareness about this important issue. Most are making steps to find more convenient and more effective ways in which to communicate the importance of this issue for the benefit of all humanity, like you.
I also appreciate your professionalism and initiative to do things like investing the time to speak with clarity here about your concerns. While many may not exactly agree with your point of view and conclusions it’s encouraging that at least you have the communication skills to article exactly with clarity what your concerns are in a clear direct and polite manner.
Please Andrew, just continue doing what you do best and I am confident that you will gain a string of satisfied listeners along the way. I truly appreciate the passion and drive you are exhibiting in being an activist partner in this urgent battle to save planet Earth and humanity and all life.
And do let me know if you need any further help in that regard. Your friend and partner in this great work, Thomas.
BPL: Then you are accusing me and my colleagues of conducting a hoax, sir. Produce evidence for your charges, or shut up.
Thomassays
OT sidebar: although I am able draw a very fine obscure on-topic connection between this event below and recent comments that “Fear” is not a good motivator for the public to change their behavior and for Governments to institute logical rational factual evidence based rules and regulations to minimise potential harm to their citizens and voters – in their and the nations best long term interests – and for the citizenry at large to submit to and accept those Govt enforced changes as being absolutely necessary – and no matter how inconvenient or costly that may be to all individuals or negatively affect existing BUSINESSES customer services, pricing, revenues, and profitability.
Recent Sydney terror plot – “The Etihad check-in at Sydney airport, where a terrorist bomb plot was foiled a week ago.”
In this age of “fake news” and “rubbery news lost in the noise” I would like to pass onto to anyone here interested, that that statement floating around on news reports is provably untrue and/or not the whole truth of it.
The attempted planting of a bomb on Etihad airlines was on the 15th July 2017 — and that did not succeed because the luggage was rejected at check in as being over-weight~!!!
Australian Intel/police had no idea about this until the 24th July when they got Intel from an overseas agency about this tiny group of IS terror plotters. Then they raided their homes and arrested them and located the evidence etc.
Logic and reason suggests that had that item of luggage not been rejected then it may or may not have been detected as a IED bomb before being loaded into the planes cargo hold or as carry on luggage.
Therefore please be aware that there were TWO terrorist plans in train – the first one at Sydney Airport failed by sheer LUCK … the second plan was ONLY foiled after the Etihad plane didn’t blow up and the Intel services were alerted 9 days later from overseas.
These men were not on terror alert watch either by local authorities online or physically.
I conclude this directly from all the specific public statements made by Australian police and officials to date. Feel free to read ALL those for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Only then should one make of this post what you will.
(naturally there is a possibility I have got a factoid wrong as well, or am relying on a false/inaccurate report and am in error. I do not believe that is the case, but open to correction as always)
Another attack on the Bureau [BOM], but top politicians have stopped listening to climate change denial August 4, 2017 Just this week The Australian has run a series of articles attacking the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather observations. Meanwhile, the federal and Queensland governments continue to promote Adani’s planned [biggest in the world ever] coal mine, despite considerable environmental and economic obstacles. And Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions are rising again. So far, so familiar. But something has changed. https://theconversation.com/another-attack-on-the-bureau-but-top-politicians-have-stopped-listening-to-climate-change-denial-81993
and audio current affairs Radio – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) lacking in crucial climate scientists: says expert [no surprises there after the cutbacks and sackings by the neoliberal conservative RW ‘long term deniers’ Govt currently in power] http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4712196.htm
Australia is confused … unsure of it wants to remain a “leader” in this world or just another “loser”. Time will tell, but it’s still not looking good, despite item #2 – spin is still spin after all – for actions speak louder than words, right?
André Balsasays
Re: #28 mike
“I think you don’t understand why and what I am watching with the CO2 numbers. I am not watching a tachometer, I am watching for perturbations in a large data array that might suggest underlying changes in a complex system.”
mike,
Apart from the fact that we all have access to the Keeling Curve website https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ or the NOAA ESRL website https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
(neither of which you ever mention), I would like you to realize that your uninterrupted and frequent copy/pasting of what you call “CO2 numbers” just contributes to the background “noise” here at RC. Your remarks add zero value to the raw data, unlike websites like for example Jim Pettit’s splendid “Pettit Climate Graphs” https://sites.google.com/view/pettitclimategraphs.
And in as much as you insist that it is more important to keep a “watchful eye” on (daily, weekly) CO2 concentration numbers rather than any action on reducing GHG emissions, you are just doing as much damage to climate change communication as any of the other (probably paid) trolls that have been assigned to assault RC and prevent any kind of meaningful discussion here.
From your gardening remarks, I am guessing you are retired, have lots of spare time and may want to feel useful by “watching for perturbations in a large data array that might suggest underlying changes in a complex system”. Well, you do exactly that, keep watching. But perhaps scale back a bit on the copy/pasting here?
André Balsasays
The climate change news of the day, which should be headlines on the front page of any newspaper / website in the world, is that the Unites States of America have officially communicated to the United Nations their intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Here: https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273050.htm
No, this is not the end of the world and we are not “all going to die” because of President Donald J. Trump, but it certainly does not help in the fight against climate change, and it also certainly signals that climate change communication has failed to some degree in the US.
Andrewsays
Re: #21 Alastair McDonald
Further to my points above, and just for reference, the latest AR5 contains a lengthy discussion of Arctic sea ice, including the latest data (at the time) 2010-2011-2012 (2012 which as we all know was the record low summer Arctic sea ice extent and volume in the entire satellite record – 1979 to present).
I am guessing we can expect an update of the projections for Arctic sea ice in the AR6 and further discussions of the consequences of the updated trends.
Note that there is no discussion of a 50GT burst of methane from the Arctic sea floor, nor is there a projected immediate 3K increase in global average temperatures due to a decrease in albedo, or other end-of-the-world, catastrophic consequences. Personally I think the disappearance of one of the world’s most pristine eco-environments (and the human culture that depended on it i.e. the Inuit, or “the people” in Inuktitut) over a span of just 5 decades or so is enough of a tragedy as it is.
Why no discussion of end-of-the-world scenarios (in the context of summer Arctic sea ice disappearance)? Imho, it’s not because scientists are “reticent” or lack the vivid imagination of DWW*, it’s just because it’s impossible to determine the exact consequences of summer Arctic sea ice loss on global climate, and discussing in details very low probability and highly uncertain events is just a waste of time when it comes to climate science (but not necessarily when it comes to risk management).
*: the Inuit and their preditable tragic fate are obviously not mentioned in DWW’s “TUE”. As I wrote, reality is anathema in an article about “climate change doom” that is written specifically with the purpose of entertaining the audience of New York Magazine.
Andrewsays
Re: #21 Alastair McDonald (continued)
There is a lot of information one can dig up by exploring the AR5. For example, this FAQ in Chapter 6: FAQ 6.1 | Could Rapid Release of Methane and Carbon Dioxide from Thawing Permafrost or Ocean Warming Substantially Increase Warming?
The answer is quite long and detailed, but summarizing: no, not in the short/medium term.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA: “I was starting to lean “believer” until I saw this list of high temps by state.”
Well, I’m glad you were able to find a straw you could grasp to maintain your delusion. Never mind that 1)you are looking at ~2% of the globe’s area, 2)that there were other causes to explain the higher temperatures, 3)that extreme value statistics are not necessarily the proper metric. No, forget all of that. What matters is that you have maintained your predilection to do nothing. That’s fine. You are too dim to do anything productive in any case.
Dan H.says
Mike,
I think there is a real problem with people crying wolf. Every failed or exaggerated prediction is highlighted as just another utopian scare tactic to enact new regulations to further enslave the people (this is an exaggeration in and of itself, but I think you get my drift). Peter Wadhams did the Arctic scientists a great disservice, when he proclaimed the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice by 2016. Who has need this paraded about numerous times. Remember Al Gore touting the extremely active 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as the new normal? Tropical activity has dwindled since. How about the UNEP claim of 50 million climate refugees by 2010? The problem is these claims make headlines, not those of continued warming throughout the century. No one cares about 2 or 3 mm of sea level rise. But when someone claims that New York or Florida will be underwater soon, it gets posted all over the news. Every time one of these predictions fails, it sets back public response years. Public distrust of climate scientists is at an all-time high. Many view the issue as a political tool used by the left to counter the opposing views of the right, given each equal credibility. Those promoting crying wolf louder and more often, are just further promoting this belief. This will continue until something dire actual happens, that was accurately predicted.
zebrasays
Thomas #47,
Thanks for the reference to the paper– it seems to support my understanding of the physical process.
If Alastair disagrees, I would be interested in the reasoning. I suggest carefully reading the entire text, though.
Alastair McDonaldsays
Zebra @ 26 & 27.
The winter sea ice will not reform, once the multi year ice has gone. It is needed for the winter ice to regrow, otherwise the air cannot cool enough to freeze the sea water. As pointed out by CEP Brooks (1947), with the perennial sea ice the Arctic has a continental climate similar to that of Siberia. Without the sea ice the Arctic Ocean will have a maritime climate similar to that of the North Atlantic. It is quite clear from the way the sea ice is declining that it is not a linear process. One summer with no ice, then that is the sea ice gone for good.
What is your explanation for the abrupt warming that happened at the start of the Holocene?
Ray Ladbury @65,
If we are forgetting “all of that,” perhaps it isn’t the right time to add (4)that these ‘extreme value statistics’ aren’t necessarily that reliable.
With the fall of the 1922 world record high temperature at El Azizia, Libya, the attention has now turned towards the California state record that took over from El Azizia as providing that world record high temperature. It appears the California state record is now found also to be in doubt, a product of “observer error” rather than exceptionally high temperature.
Good pointer to an interesting page, as part of a thoughtful post. Thank you.
Thomassays
56 Dan Miller, thanks for the pleasant reply. Clearly I was speaking to the already sensible. :-) Years ago I came across G McF and would check it regularly – he raised what I thought were issues ‘facts’ I thought were worth checking more deeply for my own self-education. Can’t recall how long it took but I stopped going there and have ignored him ever since. There are many others in that basket today. I just don’t bother anymore. 50% of what Hansen now says I also ignore sticking only with the Columbia’s (Sato’s) genuine science data outputs which I use as part of my “measuring sticks” for simplicity sake.
I also get Kevin Anderson, but one also need sot be careful as he can tend to cherry pick and present some ‘logical fallacy’ like info – eg last year in one of his talks he presented a scenario of how many nuclear power plants would be needed to produce 100% of all grid electricity globally to show how impossible that was. But it was a false comparison – because for nuclear to play a positive role with moving to GenIV safe versions Nuclear only needed to account for 15-25% of electricity by 2050 to make a serious long term dent in GHG emissions from electricity generation when al other low emission supply was considered in place by 2050.
The devil is always in the detail … most people – even scientists can miss it – for reasons already mentioned by me and some others. (sigh) Now we have to put up with the denier conspiracy teams raving about the ‘errors/fallacies/extreme comments’ in Al Gore’s latest doco as ‘proof’ that the ‘genuine science conclusions and data’ is wrong – I’d also wish more people would realise that the UNFCCC/IPCC & Paris Agreement bodies are Govt created entities and do not represent the actual hard science/data of AGW/CC valid scientific outputs and the real BAU scenario. (sigh)
Thomassays
63 Andrew, if look more closely at key information in the IPCC Reports, AR5 included, you may discover that negative feedbacks from such things as a disappearing arctic sea ice albedo changes, methane releases from a warming arctic circle etc are not included/imputed into their RCP scenarios/forecasts/projections of the future.
I recommend you focus on ascertaining what “data/science” is included in RCPs and what is not. That would help you a lot. So just continue doing what you do best and I am confident that you will gain a string of satisfied listeners along the way.
I truly appreciate the passion and drive you are exhibiting in being an activist partner in this urgent battle to save planet Earth and humanity and all life.
And do let me know if you need any further help in that regard. Your friend and partner in this great work, Thomas.
Mal Adaptedsays
Mr Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
I was starting to lean “believer”
He’s lying. As a committed conspiracist, Mr. IAT needs to delude himself that he and his fellow conspiracists know something the rest of the world doesn’t. He is unable to believe that AGW is not a hoax.
Alastair McDonaldsays
Andrew,@63 & 64,
I am not trying to think up some doomsday scenario. I am trying to warn of an impending catastrophe.I realized 20 years ago that the both the abrupt climate changes at the entry to and the exit from the Younger Dryas had been caused by the positive feedbacks from sea ice albedo and water vapour. This idea was obvious and not new. However, it had been rejected because it could not be replicated by the models. That was when I first suspected the models were wrong.
The models do not replicate the fast decline in Arctic sea ice, and they predict warming in the tropical troposphere which is not happening. In fact, where ever you look they only give the correct result because they have been bias corrected. In every branch of Earth science the models have problems, but because it is so specialized no-one realizes that the other branches are having problems too. So they all think that the models are working and it is just their branch where more work is needed in getting better proxy data.
I mentioned that I first came up with my idea 20 years ago. If I was wrong surely the models would now be able to reproduce the start of and end of the YD, but they can’! Moreover, then they were struggling with clouds, and are still doing so. And there are problems modelling Venus and Mars.
The mistake is to believe that the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere depends directly on the surface temperature. In fact the TOA balance is maintained by clouds, on all three planets and the moon Titan. Their surface temperatures depend on the melting point of their surfaces, dust storm temperature in the case of Mars.
Of course it is complicated, but basically CO2 acts indirectly by modifying planetary albedo, not directly by altering outgoing longwave radiation.
Mr. Know It Allsays
52 – Thomas
Someday, if I’m lucky, I’ll build a small, very simple, off-grid, passive solar heated home. I’d like some PV panels with batteries for an off-grid power system. I’ll use DC applicances where possible, but will also include an inverter for AC power. I’ll have a small electrical room inside the house for the batteries, disconnects, fuses or breakers, inverter, charge controller, etc. This will be a small system. I want batteries that produce NO flammable gasses so they are safe to have indoors without ventilation of any kind. What type would you recommmend based on existing technology?
58 – BPL
My “IT’S A HOAX” comment was a joke. :) No, I do not believe working scientists are conducting a hoax since those working in the field today did not start the theory. I believe you are sincere; as are most others who are believers; and you all MAY be right. But it is odd that all those old high-temp records, across the entire country have stood for as long as they have – and things like that ARE evidence for non-believers. Then, if the records do indicate an overall warming trend, you’d have to do a lot of research on the heat island effect, location of land-based sensors, etc, since the nation and world are becoming more and more urbanized, covered with concrete and asphalt, deforestation…..
nigeljsays
Conservatively worded science versus alarmism and doomsday stuff. The IPCC reports seem conservative in their findings, for example sea level rise. We have quite a few reputable studies saying it could be substantially worse.
This could be partly a natural, healthy conservatism of not overstating things and looking foolish if things trail behind expectations a lot. It’s a credibility issue so understandable that they may be a little conservative.
But IPCC reports might be conservative due to the fact they are signed off by governments, many of whom would presumably not wish to acknowledge we are warming the planet. This would mean they are very understated reports, and this would be very concerning. If this is the case then yes you will get frustrated people like Wells with his doomsday predictions as reactionary sort of thing. So cause and effect here rather than blaming Wells?.
Thomassays
anosognosic – I learned a new word today. TY :-)
Thomassays
67 zebra, thx, glad it was useful to you. I suspect you and A McD are coming at this from different perspectives, so much may get lost in translation, but good luck anyway. Much the same as Andrew’s pov isn’t jelling with others broader/different considerations re “communication” and the hard problems in effective positive changes for the better, faster. Nor his focus on out of date AR5 outputs (which were pretty much moot by the time of publication in some areas, from what RC and other scientists said at the time – from memory here) – and that the UNFCCC negotiations that came much later were still being broadly based on the AR5 conservative analysis then many years out of date.
66 Dan H – I hear what your saying there – difficult issue to first sort out though is what defines a true case of “crying wolf” ???
You know, just because something gets labelled as such does not mean it’s a valid label. It depends on who is saying it is, and their own pov, motivations and expertise.
One’s mans conservative long term view about climate science and the threat of AGW/CC is very often reported as being hyperbolic extreme unhinged bullshit crap a fraud manipulated a conspiracy of evil entities and/or crying wolf — that’s only some of the things the IPCC Reports have been called (smile)
It’s far too easy to throw around emotional button pushing phrases like “crying wolf” as accusations against XYZ … that ain’t science and its never credible. It’s merely BS walking.
Genuine scientists (still on an even keel) do not respond in kind, they either ignore that kind of stuff …. or eventually trot out an uptodate review of the latest indications from real climate science work – eg right here by Gavin et al.
Unfortunately ~98% of people who hear about AGW/CC cannot tell the difference between the two very distinct approaches. hehehe.
nigeljsays
Trump appoints man who thinks climate science is ‘junk’ to top science post:
Pretty much speaks for itself, himself. Though disappointed he didn’t nail the immediate consequences of the loss of coral reefs, the first cab off the rank for dire permanent “crying wolf”? effects – being the collapse of major fish stocks globally from then on what will come from that. It’s a key step in “communication” he missed imho – maybe he addresses that in his new doco more specifically but am not sure.
That being said, it was like listening to myself speaking in an echo chamber. LOL – though I am far less optimistic than Al Gore says he is.
His very early comment about the conspiratorial denier crusaders and them hiring the very same Advertising Agency/s that was used to promote the interests of Big Tobacco is more than telling, imho. I am flummoxed that fire is not being used to fight fire in this regard – led by a solid group climate scientists – and coordinated globally – for it’s as easy as crowd founding could possibly be. The Ad Agency/s would even be able to create a decent script/advert to promote the crowd funding – and then there are phone Apps that could be designed and released for a pittance by Volunteers.
But again, and again, imho.
I am unsure if this interview is viewable overseas but a VPN app will get you there easily enough.
Thomassays
Sorry, PS. There’s some aspects to what Al Gore says that will simply fly over the head of the real deal climate skeptic/denier rw/neoliberal Anosognosic ideologue & gullible twit – it will be as if he may as well be speaking in Japanese to a Tennessee farmer – it will simply not compute – like a pinball machine on Tilt! I have mentioned this hard problem before too here – see if you can recognise that and why there is a ‘battle’ going in the first place.
PPS a little bird told me that the POTUS might be stepping back from his Twitter addiction soon. If only :-)
Enjoy the next few weeks folks. Stay safe. I’m heading for my (hypothetical) underground bunker. Good luck.
zebrasays
Alastair M #68,
If we keep burning FF, we will eventually end up with an ice-free Arctic.
But there is no evidence that there will be some step-change, caused by albedo loss, which is what your original statement implies, in any time frame that needs concern us. It simply makes no physical sense.
Look at the extent curve as it currently exists. At the minimum, there is an enormous amount of open water relative to the winter max. And yet, it freezes.
Killiansays
#23 Dan H. said …To add to Nigelj’s post, “some things are ahead of predictions”, while others are behind.
B.S.
Much of this may just be natural variability. We must be careful not to read to much into short-term variations, and remain focused on the long term. We must be careful not to cry wolf too often, lest we become ignored when the time actually arrives.
You’ve been using this same denier meme for years. Knock it off. It was a prevarication the first time, it is this time, it is every time. The time has long past arrived. There is no future tense here.
Only a fool says, “A bullet is coming your way. Think carefully before ducking, it might be a cap gun.”
Dan at 66: I have little or no disagreement with what you say about the danger of specific predictions. The general situation and the general predictions are nonetheless quite dire. The general situation is that we have allowed a significant buildup of ghg in the atmosphere and that is powering significant global warming that does produce dire results now. The buildup has also increased ocean acidification and that is also quite dire. Neither of these two general dire situations are subject to any short or midterm fix that our species can devise.
It is foolish in this situation to require that anyone raising an alarm about this situation accurately predict specific results that are subject to the complexity of global weather.
If you think in terms of the card game Black Jack or 21, it is not necessary the actual face value of each of two or more specific cards to determine whether it makes sense to take another card. The important value is the total number value(s) of the cards and the limit of going over a specific number (21 or 2 degrees?) that is structured as a loss in the specific game.
I think you are expressing concern in good faith about the dangers of specific claims and the danger of raising an alarm in terms of specific dangers. If that is true, then we would both likely agree that the committed opposition to the consensus climate science will quote and misquote predictions to score debating points and increase confusion and uncertainty and to slow/prevent appropriate responses to the general situation, which is dire imho.
So it appears a large part of the US population is going to hop in their cars and drive to the eclipse path in a couple of weeks.
Are any meteorologists watching for what burning all that gasoline does in the surrounding atmosphere?
Seems like one of those “natural” experiments (like the contrail studies that shutting down aviation after 9/11 provided).
I wonder if we’ll see a line of photochemical smog form crossing the continent ….
Thomassays
75 Mr. Know It All asks : “What type would you recommmend based on existing technology?”
Yeah, not a bad question for a genuine honest person with integrity to ask.
So in case there is one, then I would recommend to you GO CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL EXPERT. (Doh!)
Unfortunately for KIA the greatest Fools cannot even work out how overtly and obviously their non-stop deceits and hapless attempts to manipulate and insult others really is.
Will someone at Al’s Climate Reality project please do the math and tell us how many Hiroshima bombs worth of CO2 radiative forcing a total eclipse subtracts from their usual calculus ?
Digby Scorgiesays
mike @87
I for one appreciate your continuing monitoring of the Keeling curve — saves me the bother. Please ignore churlish comments to the contrary.
Regarding the reasons for the Keeling curve’s refusal to change direction, I was intrigued by an article at VisualCarbon.org by the investigative journalist Barry Saxifrage. Have you seen it? He delved into the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017 and deduced some interesting data about global fossil-fuel consumption — data not made explicit at all in the review. The essential results are as follows:
Firstly, for the world consumption of oil-equivalent we have:
7 Gt in 1990
8 Gt in 2000
10 Gt in 2007
11 Gt in 2012
11.4 Gt in 2017
Certainly no sign of any decrease recently.
Secondly, for fossil fuel’s share of global energy we have:
88% in 1990
87% in 1995
86% in 2015
A miserably small decrease over time. So much for renewable energy sources making a significant contribution to global energy consumption.
Andrewsays
Re: #74 Alastair McDonald
“…
That was when I first suspected the models were wrong.
…
Of course it is complicated, but basically CO2 acts indirectly by modifying planetary albedo, not directly by altering outgoing longwave radiation.”
Sorry, but that hypothesis has been proved wrong in a number of ways, not just using “the models”. I am surprised that you are still clinging on to it after 20 years, and posting about it here on RC (but perhaps I shouldn’t be).
Digby Scorgiesays
Thomas @81
“POTUS might be stepping back from his Twitter addiction”. I wish. It would be really nice to see the end of Twump’s tweets for twits.
Fahad Ziasays
Hello Sir,
My name is Fahad Zia and I am BS Disaster Management student. My degree is almost completed. Sir I want to conduct research on Climate change Modeling, so please if you have any book regarding methodologies for Climate change research then do share it with me. 2nd I studied Alot regarding Climate change I studied a lot. So the other thing is I need a best book on Climate change modeling too.
Regards
Fahad Zia
BS student.
Dan H.says
Mike,
Thank you. The problem is that the opposition does not have to misquote predictions, as the actual quotes have given them enough ammunition. I will include a quote from James Hansen on this subject,
“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue…. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.”
As an example, I will agree that the Arctic is headed for an ice-free summer, but not in the next few years. This has been predicted and failed at least three times in the past. I tend to align myself more closely to those scientists predicting an ice-free Arctic somewhere in the 2050s.
Granted, these could be wrong, but they match the current observations and measurements. Continued measurements and observations over the next several years, may alter this forecast significantly, one way or the other. These are the claims that should be emphasized, and will likely be acceptable to a much broader range of people, without giving opponents unneeded ammunition. I am not saying that one muct accurately predict the exact year. However, when someone makes a prediction that is so far off, they look rather foolish. Just like the player taking a hit on 19. If he gets a two, he looks like a genius, but the deck is stacked against him.
Alastair McDonaldsays
Zebra re 84
But there is no evidence that there will be some step-change, caused by albedo loss, which is what your original statement implies, in any time frame that needs concern us. It simply makes no physical sense.
Look at the extent curve as it currently exists. At the minimum, there is an enormous amount of open water relative to the winter max. And yet, it freezes.
There is evidence of step changes 13,500,14,500, and 16,00 years ago as well as during the Dansgaard/Oeschger events before that. I am not the only one to suggest these events were caused by sea ice switches[Gildor & Tziperman, 2003].
These are abrupt events which implies that they occur with little warning!
What I am saying is that there is a tipping point where the extent of summer sea ice is not great enough for the winter ice to regrow. Last year, it regrew more slowly than usual. Check it out here http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ . The less ice there is during summer, the warmer the Arctic Ocean becomes and the more difficult it is to freeze.
“Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study ….”
PS, and unsurprisingly there’s much kerfluffle, mostly by the usually suspicious, in the comments on that page at Retractionwatch
Andrewsays
Re: #91 Digby Scorgie
“So much for renewable energy sources making a significant contribution to global energy consumption.”
Fossil fuel paid trolling, pathetic.
Here are the real numbers for 2016: Solar PV, Wind and Hydro together made up more than half of all net new electricity generation capacity installed worldwide.
In the U.S.:
1. In 2016 the US produced nearly 8 times as much renewable electricity from the sun and the wind as it had in 2007.
2. Energy use in the US has fallen by 3.6% since 2007, even though the population and economy have continued to grow.
3. 2016 was the biggest solar year in US history, with the country generating 43 times more solar power than in 2007.
4. Among the states with the biggest growth in wind energy, four produced at least 10 times as much wind energy in 2016 as they did in 2007: Oklahoma, Kansas, Illinois, and North Dakota.
5. Distributed solar energy, which includes panels installed on residential and commercial rooftops, grew 28 times, while utility-scale generation increased 60 times.
6. In March 2017 the US drew 10% of its overall energy from wind and solar — for the first time!
7. 8 out of 10 US citizens support more wind power.
8. 9 out of 10 US citizens want more solar.
9. Twice as many Americans are pushing for energy policy conservation over production.
10. While sunny states like Arizona and Nevada are in the Top 10 states for solar energy additions since 2007, several northeastern states such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York have provided strong policy support for solar energy, too.
The future of energy is 100% renewables, despite the well-funded social media trolls, despite the fossil fuel bought Murdoch media propaganda, and despite President Trump’s claim that climate change is “a Chinese hoax”.
Mr. Know It All @36
Nice cherry pick. Typical.
Most of these records were in the 1930s dust bowl era when weather patterns over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans shifted with the Pacific being unusually cold and the Atlantic warmer weakening the jet stream and changing its direction. Hence record hot and dry air drawn over the mid-west. This was a weather anomaly.
I suggest you look at the annual temperature trends for the entire U.S. along with the daily record temperatures to see if, in fact, the U.S. is warming. And guess what? You will see that it clearly is.
38
folbec, skimmed the post and may be heldful some people to really think about rationally, if they are aware of all the facts.
This caught my eye early on “… and we plan to get a wall battery for storage” which I assume must be a Tesla battery.
Here they cost about $10,000AUD. There’s new kinds of wetcell batteries one could install that are half the price and twice as efficient in charging discharging and will likely have a longer effective life cycle too. There there is the potentially more advanced and definitely cheaper tech coming out of Taiwan based on aluminium carbon batteries, but are not yet ready for manufacture though.
Just goes to show the power of marketing and brand names. Even the guy warning people about: “For every expensive crisis that comes along, though, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of scams, schemes, and bad ideas to take advantage of it.”
Tesla is no exception here. Which are perhaps more suitable for very small apartments, trailer homes or the retired ‘gray army’ living in their Winnabagos and traveling 12 mths of the year.
When it comes to purchasing decisions 98% of the time it’s all about ego and salving one’s ‘cognitive dissonance’ … look at me I am doing something about AGW/CC … aren’t I a really good person?
While ignoring the fact that even if every householder had a solar/wind energy supply it makes no serious long term ‘significant’ difference to increased emissions, GHG ppm, and rising temps into the future – the direction will still be up.
Which is why on many occasions I have offered up this cognitive science factoid here by Prof. George Lakoff – Reason is 98% Subconscious Metaphor in Frames & CULTural Narratives See? Even those committed to action on agw/cc have much difficulty making choices that doesn’t include throwing their money away by making poor choices, acting emotionally and continuing to waste precious earth resources and energy.
As a collective group, human beings really are not that smart and are definitely not logical beings by default. (which relates back to ‘communication’ barriers of effecting global change to stop AGW/CC – which is possible and yet highly unlikely long term (imho) for what should be obvious reasons by now.
But thanks for posting the link … it may push a few more folks hot buttons to be much more careful acting on their “freedom of choice” consumer rights.
39 Andrew says: “That’s not a very useful way to think about climate change, nor is it a very good excuse for everything TUE gets wrong.”
And that’s not a very useful way to communicate why you disagree with what he said. It kills understanding and learning rather than enhancing it. Simply saying “No, I am right and you are wrong.” is a total waste of time, effort, and pixels. If you believe you have a better understanding then you need to offer the other person the reasons why what they say/think is not useful – then they may learn something they didn’t know before and/or find a better way to ‘think’ through the issues. It’s counterproductive to your own credibility to engage in “concern trolling” about the poor standard of communication style/facts in one DWW article repeatedly and then commit the very same errors you’re accusing him of yourself. Don’t you think? Mmmm, maybe not.
39 Andrew says: “But does all this change one iota to the necessity to peak GHG emissions as soon as possible (~2020) and then reduce them as quickly as possible?
Redundant? What’s your plan Andrew to make that happen between now and 2020?
Besides complaining about DWW’s TUE article that is? Let’s pretend for a moment that DWW never published that article at all – say it never happened – then what difference would it make to the necessity to peak GHG emissions as soon as possible (~2020) and then reduce them as quickly as possible — is still an impossible fiction that is not going to happen – Paris Agreement Treaty or not, Stefan’s post on RC or not?
PS My questions to Andrew are obviously “rhetorical” in nature for the benefit of others. I’m not silly. Though it sometimes appears that I am. Hehehehe. :-)
34 Thomas: Science as a whole could be viewed as a jigsaw puzzle. I’m talking about publishing about specific predictions like SLR. The IPCC previously published about SLR reaching about 2 feet in 2100 and left out land ice collapse (the biggest factor in SLR) because it did not have good models for it. Now they say about 3 feet but they are still leaving out many factors. I helped Jim Hansen with his 2012 TED talk. He asked me if I had a picture of Florida under ~15 feet of water. I said I did but I told him he should focus on BAU this century. He said he was!
39 Andrew: I’m all for debunking any nonsensical claims (i.e., some things in TUE and most of Guy McPherson). But if any TUE claims are credible, we should be talking about them. We talk about terrorism all the time even though the probability of dying from a terrorist incident (in the US) is minuscule, especially when compared to climate risks.
You are correct that some people (including Jim Hansen) believe that +2C will be catastrophic but, of course, many more agree that +4C will be. My understanding is that the Paris Accord, if implemented by all countries, will (optimistically) keep us at +3.7C this century. The +2C goal is only achievable if the world implements about 10GT-CO2 of annual “negative emissions” (direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere). That is more sequestration of excess emissions than the oceans provide!
Th says in reply above: “…the necessity to peak GHG emissions as soon as possible (~2020) and then reduce them as quickly as possible — is still an impossible fiction that is not going to happen – Paris Agreement Treaty or not, Stefan’s post on RC or not?
Andrew, are you able to be more definitive than saying: “then reduce them as quickly as possible”?
Is there a specific timeline that will ensure global temps do not hit 2C in the future?
Is there a specific known quantity of what is “possible” from 2020 onward, that you can point to with reliability backed up with science, economics, GDP growths, changes in technology deployment and the global realities of land use, agriculture, cement use, GHG emissions and the provision/use of energy globally?
Would you mind pointing me to the accepted ‘science’ Papers and/or the IPCC AR5 Reports that show definitively that IF emissions peak in 2020, and that they are “then reduced as quickly as possible” that global temp will not in fact hit +2C before 2050 or thereafter?
Perhaps, and yes it is a “maybe”, what Dr. James Hansen has said, and that I have quoted and ref’ed recently to you directly, that the Paris event/agreement is a Fraud upon all people of the world and is in fact the real truth of the matter right now today.
And that as per the ref by Mike Mann I also provided for a higher level of context is equally more accurate and telling about “doom and gloom” scenarios already contained in the IPCC AR5 reports than any of your comments of late and concern trolling over ONE irrelevant published article in the New Yorker?
But everyone who comes here to comment brings with them their own particular personal interest concern and point of view and opinions – none of which has or will change a damned thing regarding AGW/CC science nor action to mitigate it.
In fact some people’s ‘opinion’ has been that even Mike’s CO2ppm posts are nothing more than concern trolling too aka pushing his own barrow here. While Victor imagines his fictional beliefs that he’s the most intelligent talent with critical thinking skills than all other posters and the RC scientists themselves — GO FIGURE that one out. lol
This is an online forum and that’s what happens. It’s called “normal” to me. Everyone (well most) tends to think that our own ideas, issues, and concerns should be everybody’s too and the oh so critically important!
You are no different on that score Andrew. So, good luck with that! (patiently smiling)
Me too …. and yet still so many could never grasp that I already knew the posters here would miss what and why I was saying what I was saying and simply say ‘hey shut up!’ – Fact is my ‘target audience’ was not the existing posters here at all. (go figure that one out lol)
Best not to make any assumptions – when seeking genuine understanding it is always more productive and effective to ask questions of others instead – rather than leap into the fictional unknown and believe that is reality when it isn’t. I learned that one the hard way decades ago but still have the ‘scars’ to prove it. LOL
Have a Great Day Andrew and one and all …. I for one really appreciate your time and to contact us here to share your concerns and experience with the DWW / TUE article so far. As a growing global network of people genuinely concerned about the implications of AGW/CC we are all continuously making efforts to help improve the public’s awareness about this important issue. Most are making steps to find more convenient and more effective ways in which to communicate the importance of this issue for the benefit of all humanity, like you.
I also appreciate your professionalism and initiative to do things like investing the time to speak with clarity here about your concerns. While many may not exactly agree with your point of view and conclusions it’s encouraging that at least you have the communication skills to article exactly with clarity what your concerns are in a clear direct and polite manner.
Please Andrew, just continue doing what you do best and I am confident that you will gain a string of satisfied listeners along the way. I truly appreciate the passion and drive you are exhibiting in being an activist partner in this urgent battle to save planet Earth and humanity and all life.
And do let me know if you need any further help in that regard. Your friend and partner in this great work, Thomas.
KIA: IT’S A HOAX!
BPL: Then you are accusing me and my colleagues of conducting a hoax, sir. Produce evidence for your charges, or shut up.
OT sidebar: although I am able draw a very fine obscure on-topic connection between this event below and recent comments that “Fear” is not a good motivator for the public to change their behavior and for Governments to institute logical rational factual evidence based rules and regulations to minimise potential harm to their citizens and voters – in their and the nations best long term interests – and for the citizenry at large to submit to and accept those Govt enforced changes as being absolutely necessary – and no matter how inconvenient or costly that may be to all individuals or negatively affect existing BUSINESSES customer services, pricing, revenues, and profitability.
Recent Sydney terror plot – “The Etihad check-in at Sydney airport, where a terrorist bomb plot was foiled a week ago.”
In this age of “fake news” and “rubbery news lost in the noise” I would like to pass onto to anyone here interested, that that statement floating around on news reports is provably untrue and/or not the whole truth of it.
The attempted planting of a bomb on Etihad airlines was on the 15th July 2017 — and that did not succeed because the luggage was rejected at check in as being over-weight~!!!
Australian Intel/police had no idea about this until the 24th July when they got Intel from an overseas agency about this tiny group of IS terror plotters. Then they raided their homes and arrested them and located the evidence etc.
Logic and reason suggests that had that item of luggage not been rejected then it may or may not have been detected as a IED bomb before being loaded into the planes cargo hold or as carry on luggage.
Therefore please be aware that there were TWO terrorist plans in train – the first one at Sydney Airport failed by sheer LUCK … the second plan was ONLY foiled after the Etihad plane didn’t blow up and the Intel services were alerted 9 days later from overseas.
These men were not on terror alert watch either by local authorities online or physically.
I conclude this directly from all the specific public statements made by Australian police and officials to date. Feel free to read ALL those for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Only then should one make of this post what you will.
(naturally there is a possibility I have got a factoid wrong as well, or am relying on a false/inaccurate report and am in error. I do not believe that is the case, but open to correction as always)
Misc news – incl. an item that gets the difference between climate and weather – which is lost on KIA et al.
A study {…} found that “by 2020- 2030 conditions suitable for snowmaking are projected to decline substantially”.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/snowy-retreat-climate-change-puts-australias-ski-industry-on-a-downhill-slope-20170804-gxp74h.html
and maybe a little ray of light?
Another attack on the Bureau [BOM], but top politicians have stopped listening to climate change denial August 4, 2017
Just this week The Australian has run a series of articles attacking the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather observations. Meanwhile, the federal and Queensland governments continue to promote Adani’s planned [biggest in the world ever] coal mine, despite considerable environmental and economic obstacles. And Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions are rising again. So far, so familiar. But something has changed.
https://theconversation.com/another-attack-on-the-bureau-but-top-politicians-have-stopped-listening-to-climate-change-denial-81993
and audio current affairs Radio – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) lacking in crucial climate scientists: says expert [no surprises there after the cutbacks and sackings by the neoliberal conservative RW ‘long term deniers’ Govt currently in power]
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4712196.htm
Australia is confused … unsure of it wants to remain a “leader” in this world or just another “loser”. Time will tell, but it’s still not looking good, despite item #2 – spin is still spin after all – for actions speak louder than words, right?
Re: #28 mike
“I think you don’t understand why and what I am watching with the CO2 numbers. I am not watching a tachometer, I am watching for perturbations in a large data array that might suggest underlying changes in a complex system.”
mike,
Apart from the fact that we all have access to the Keeling Curve website https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ or the NOAA ESRL website https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
(neither of which you ever mention), I would like you to realize that your uninterrupted and frequent copy/pasting of what you call “CO2 numbers” just contributes to the background “noise” here at RC. Your remarks add zero value to the raw data, unlike websites like for example Jim Pettit’s splendid “Pettit Climate Graphs” https://sites.google.com/view/pettitclimategraphs.
And in as much as you insist that it is more important to keep a “watchful eye” on (daily, weekly) CO2 concentration numbers rather than any action on reducing GHG emissions, you are just doing as much damage to climate change communication as any of the other (probably paid) trolls that have been assigned to assault RC and prevent any kind of meaningful discussion here.
From your gardening remarks, I am guessing you are retired, have lots of spare time and may want to feel useful by “watching for perturbations in a large data array that might suggest underlying changes in a complex system”. Well, you do exactly that, keep watching. But perhaps scale back a bit on the copy/pasting here?
The climate change news of the day, which should be headlines on the front page of any newspaper / website in the world, is that the Unites States of America have officially communicated to the United Nations their intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Here: https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273050.htm
No, this is not the end of the world and we are not “all going to die” because of President Donald J. Trump, but it certainly does not help in the fight against climate change, and it also certainly signals that climate change communication has failed to some degree in the US.
Re: #21 Alastair McDonald
Further to my points above, and just for reference, the latest AR5 contains a lengthy discussion of Arctic sea ice, including the latest data (at the time) 2010-2011-2012 (2012 which as we all know was the record low summer Arctic sea ice extent and volume in the entire satellite record – 1979 to present).
Please check section 11.3.4 of this document: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
I am guessing we can expect an update of the projections for Arctic sea ice in the AR6 and further discussions of the consequences of the updated trends.
Note that there is no discussion of a 50GT burst of methane from the Arctic sea floor, nor is there a projected immediate 3K increase in global average temperatures due to a decrease in albedo, or other end-of-the-world, catastrophic consequences. Personally I think the disappearance of one of the world’s most pristine eco-environments (and the human culture that depended on it i.e. the Inuit, or “the people” in Inuktitut) over a span of just 5 decades or so is enough of a tragedy as it is.
Why no discussion of end-of-the-world scenarios (in the context of summer Arctic sea ice disappearance)? Imho, it’s not because scientists are “reticent” or lack the vivid imagination of DWW*, it’s just because it’s impossible to determine the exact consequences of summer Arctic sea ice loss on global climate, and discussing in details very low probability and highly uncertain events is just a waste of time when it comes to climate science (but not necessarily when it comes to risk management).
*: the Inuit and their preditable tragic fate are obviously not mentioned in DWW’s “TUE”. As I wrote, reality is anathema in an article about “climate change doom” that is written specifically with the purpose of entertaining the audience of New York Magazine.
Re: #21 Alastair McDonald (continued)
There is a lot of information one can dig up by exploring the AR5. For example, this FAQ in Chapter 6: FAQ 6.1 | Could Rapid Release of Methane and Carbon Dioxide from Thawing Permafrost or Ocean Warming Substantially Increase Warming?
Page 530 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
The answer is quite long and detailed, but summarizing: no, not in the short/medium term.
Mr. KIA: “I was starting to lean “believer” until I saw this list of high temps by state.”
Well, I’m glad you were able to find a straw you could grasp to maintain your delusion. Never mind that 1)you are looking at ~2% of the globe’s area, 2)that there were other causes to explain the higher temperatures, 3)that extreme value statistics are not necessarily the proper metric. No, forget all of that. What matters is that you have maintained your predilection to do nothing. That’s fine. You are too dim to do anything productive in any case.
Mike,
I think there is a real problem with people crying wolf. Every failed or exaggerated prediction is highlighted as just another utopian scare tactic to enact new regulations to further enslave the people (this is an exaggeration in and of itself, but I think you get my drift). Peter Wadhams did the Arctic scientists a great disservice, when he proclaimed the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice by 2016. Who has need this paraded about numerous times. Remember Al Gore touting the extremely active 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as the new normal? Tropical activity has dwindled since. How about the UNEP claim of 50 million climate refugees by 2010? The problem is these claims make headlines, not those of continued warming throughout the century. No one cares about 2 or 3 mm of sea level rise. But when someone claims that New York or Florida will be underwater soon, it gets posted all over the news. Every time one of these predictions fails, it sets back public response years. Public distrust of climate scientists is at an all-time high. Many view the issue as a political tool used by the left to counter the opposing views of the right, given each equal credibility. Those promoting crying wolf louder and more often, are just further promoting this belief. This will continue until something dire actual happens, that was accurately predicted.
Thomas #47,
Thanks for the reference to the paper– it seems to support my understanding of the physical process.
If Alastair disagrees, I would be interested in the reasoning. I suggest carefully reading the entire text, though.
Zebra @ 26 & 27.
The winter sea ice will not reform, once the multi year ice has gone. It is needed for the winter ice to regrow, otherwise the air cannot cool enough to freeze the sea water. As pointed out by CEP Brooks (1947), with the perennial sea ice the Arctic has a continental climate similar to that of Siberia. Without the sea ice the Arctic Ocean will have a maritime climate similar to that of the North Atlantic. It is quite clear from the way the sea ice is declining that it is not a linear process. One summer with no ice, then that is the sea ice gone for good.
What is your explanation for the abrupt warming that happened at the start of the Holocene?
Ray Ladbury @65,
If we are forgetting “all of that,” perhaps it isn’t the right time to add (4)that these ‘extreme value statistics’ aren’t necessarily that reliable.
With the fall of the 1922 world record high temperature at El Azizia, Libya, the attention has now turned towards the California state record that took over from El Azizia as providing that world record high temperature. It appears the California state record is now found also to be in doubt, a product of “observer error” rather than exceptionally high temperature.
Good pointer to an interesting page, as part of a thoughtful post. Thank you.
56 Dan Miller, thanks for the pleasant reply. Clearly I was speaking to the already sensible. :-) Years ago I came across G McF and would check it regularly – he raised what I thought were issues ‘facts’ I thought were worth checking more deeply for my own self-education. Can’t recall how long it took but I stopped going there and have ignored him ever since. There are many others in that basket today. I just don’t bother anymore. 50% of what Hansen now says I also ignore sticking only with the Columbia’s (Sato’s) genuine science data outputs which I use as part of my “measuring sticks” for simplicity sake.
I also get Kevin Anderson, but one also need sot be careful as he can tend to cherry pick and present some ‘logical fallacy’ like info – eg last year in one of his talks he presented a scenario of how many nuclear power plants would be needed to produce 100% of all grid electricity globally to show how impossible that was. But it was a false comparison – because for nuclear to play a positive role with moving to GenIV safe versions Nuclear only needed to account for 15-25% of electricity by 2050 to make a serious long term dent in GHG emissions from electricity generation when al other low emission supply was considered in place by 2050.
The devil is always in the detail … most people – even scientists can miss it – for reasons already mentioned by me and some others. (sigh) Now we have to put up with the denier conspiracy teams raving about the ‘errors/fallacies/extreme comments’ in Al Gore’s latest doco as ‘proof’ that the ‘genuine science conclusions and data’ is wrong – I’d also wish more people would realise that the UNFCCC/IPCC & Paris Agreement bodies are Govt created entities and do not represent the actual hard science/data of AGW/CC valid scientific outputs and the real BAU scenario. (sigh)
63 Andrew, if look more closely at key information in the IPCC Reports, AR5 included, you may discover that negative feedbacks from such things as a disappearing arctic sea ice albedo changes, methane releases from a warming arctic circle etc are not included/imputed into their RCP scenarios/forecasts/projections of the future.
I recommend you focus on ascertaining what “data/science” is included in RCPs and what is not. That would help you a lot. So just continue doing what you do best and I am confident that you will gain a string of satisfied listeners along the way.
I truly appreciate the passion and drive you are exhibiting in being an activist partner in this urgent battle to save planet Earth and humanity and all life.
And do let me know if you need any further help in that regard. Your friend and partner in this great work, Thomas.
Mr Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
He’s lying. As a committed conspiracist, Mr. IAT needs to delude himself that he and his fellow conspiracists know something the rest of the world doesn’t. He is unable to believe that AGW is not a hoax.
Andrew,@63 & 64,
I am not trying to think up some doomsday scenario. I am trying to warn of an impending catastrophe.I realized 20 years ago that the both the abrupt climate changes at the entry to and the exit from the Younger Dryas had been caused by the positive feedbacks from sea ice albedo and water vapour. This idea was obvious and not new. However, it had been rejected because it could not be replicated by the models. That was when I first suspected the models were wrong.
The models do not replicate the fast decline in Arctic sea ice, and they predict warming in the tropical troposphere which is not happening. In fact, where ever you look they only give the correct result because they have been bias corrected. In every branch of Earth science the models have problems, but because it is so specialized no-one realizes that the other branches are having problems too. So they all think that the models are working and it is just their branch where more work is needed in getting better proxy data.
I mentioned that I first came up with my idea 20 years ago. If I was wrong surely the models would now be able to reproduce the start of and end of the YD, but they can’! Moreover, then they were struggling with clouds, and are still doing so. And there are problems modelling Venus and Mars.
The mistake is to believe that the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere depends directly on the surface temperature. In fact the TOA balance is maintained by clouds, on all three planets and the moon Titan. Their surface temperatures depend on the melting point of their surfaces, dust storm temperature in the case of Mars.
Of course it is complicated, but basically CO2 acts indirectly by modifying planetary albedo, not directly by altering outgoing longwave radiation.
52 – Thomas
Someday, if I’m lucky, I’ll build a small, very simple, off-grid, passive solar heated home. I’d like some PV panels with batteries for an off-grid power system. I’ll use DC applicances where possible, but will also include an inverter for AC power. I’ll have a small electrical room inside the house for the batteries, disconnects, fuses or breakers, inverter, charge controller, etc. This will be a small system. I want batteries that produce NO flammable gasses so they are safe to have indoors without ventilation of any kind. What type would you recommmend based on existing technology?
58 – BPL
My “IT’S A HOAX” comment was a joke. :) No, I do not believe working scientists are conducting a hoax since those working in the field today did not start the theory. I believe you are sincere; as are most others who are believers; and you all MAY be right. But it is odd that all those old high-temp records, across the entire country have stood for as long as they have – and things like that ARE evidence for non-believers. Then, if the records do indicate an overall warming trend, you’d have to do a lot of research on the heat island effect, location of land-based sensors, etc, since the nation and world are becoming more and more urbanized, covered with concrete and asphalt, deforestation…..
Conservatively worded science versus alarmism and doomsday stuff. The IPCC reports seem conservative in their findings, for example sea level rise. We have quite a few reputable studies saying it could be substantially worse.
This could be partly a natural, healthy conservatism of not overstating things and looking foolish if things trail behind expectations a lot. It’s a credibility issue so understandable that they may be a little conservative.
But IPCC reports might be conservative due to the fact they are signed off by governments, many of whom would presumably not wish to acknowledge we are warming the planet. This would mean they are very understated reports, and this would be very concerning. If this is the case then yes you will get frustrated people like Wells with his doomsday predictions as reactionary sort of thing. So cause and effect here rather than blaming Wells?.
anosognosic – I learned a new word today. TY :-)
67 zebra, thx, glad it was useful to you. I suspect you and A McD are coming at this from different perspectives, so much may get lost in translation, but good luck anyway. Much the same as Andrew’s pov isn’t jelling with others broader/different considerations re “communication” and the hard problems in effective positive changes for the better, faster. Nor his focus on out of date AR5 outputs (which were pretty much moot by the time of publication in some areas, from what RC and other scientists said at the time – from memory here) – and that the UNFCCC negotiations that came much later were still being broadly based on the AR5 conservative analysis then many years out of date.
fwiw if looking for an “argument” (smile) good uptodate info via this site http://ocean.dmi.dk/models/hycom.uk.php or search thru / ask questions at neven’s ASI blog http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net
—
66 Dan H – I hear what your saying there – difficult issue to first sort out though is what defines a true case of “crying wolf” ???
You know, just because something gets labelled as such does not mean it’s a valid label. It depends on who is saying it is, and their own pov, motivations and expertise.
One’s mans conservative long term view about climate science and the threat of AGW/CC is very often reported as being hyperbolic extreme unhinged bullshit crap a fraud manipulated a conspiracy of evil entities and/or crying wolf — that’s only some of the things the IPCC Reports have been called (smile)
It’s far too easy to throw around emotional button pushing phrases like “crying wolf” as accusations against XYZ … that ain’t science and its never credible. It’s merely BS walking.
Genuine scientists (still on an even keel) do not respond in kind, they either ignore that kind of stuff …. or eventually trot out an uptodate review of the latest indications from real climate science work – eg right here by Gavin et al.
Unfortunately ~98% of people who hear about AGW/CC cannot tell the difference between the two very distinct approaches. hehehe.
Trump appoints man who thinks climate science is ‘junk’ to top science post:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-climate-change-skeptic-sam-clovies-appointed-usda-science-junk-a7850991.html
Another unfortunate blow against sanity and reason.
I get a real kick out of coincidences and synchronicity when they happen. Here’s a very good interview downunder recently with Al Gore 28 minutes.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/one-plus-one/NU1741H027S00
Pretty much speaks for itself, himself. Though disappointed he didn’t nail the immediate consequences of the loss of coral reefs, the first cab off the rank for dire permanent “crying wolf”? effects – being the collapse of major fish stocks globally from then on what will come from that. It’s a key step in “communication” he missed imho – maybe he addresses that in his new doco more specifically but am not sure.
That being said, it was like listening to myself speaking in an echo chamber. LOL – though I am far less optimistic than Al Gore says he is.
His very early comment about the conspiratorial denier crusaders and them hiring the very same Advertising Agency/s that was used to promote the interests of Big Tobacco is more than telling, imho. I am flummoxed that fire is not being used to fight fire in this regard – led by a solid group climate scientists – and coordinated globally – for it’s as easy as crowd founding could possibly be. The Ad Agency/s would even be able to create a decent script/advert to promote the crowd funding – and then there are phone Apps that could be designed and released for a pittance by Volunteers.
But again, and again, imho.
I am unsure if this interview is viewable overseas but a VPN app will get you there easily enough.
Sorry, PS. There’s some aspects to what Al Gore says that will simply fly over the head of the real deal climate skeptic/denier rw/neoliberal Anosognosic ideologue & gullible twit – it will be as if he may as well be speaking in Japanese to a Tennessee farmer – it will simply not compute – like a pinball machine on Tilt! I have mentioned this hard problem before too here – see if you can recognise that and why there is a ‘battle’ going in the first place.
PPS a little bird told me that the POTUS might be stepping back from his Twitter addiction soon. If only :-)
70 Hank Roberts: Nice, with row of animations: http://iwantsomeproof.com/3d/siv-ds-weekly-3d.php
Enjoy the next few weeks folks. Stay safe. I’m heading for my (hypothetical) underground bunker. Good luck.
Alastair M #68,
If we keep burning FF, we will eventually end up with an ice-free Arctic.
But there is no evidence that there will be some step-change, caused by albedo loss, which is what your original statement implies, in any time frame that needs concern us. It simply makes no physical sense.
Look at the extent curve as it currently exists. At the minimum, there is an enormous amount of open water relative to the winter max. And yet, it freezes.
#23 Dan H. said …To add to Nigelj’s post, “some things are ahead of predictions”, while others are behind.
B.S.
Much of this may just be natural variability. We must be careful not to read to much into short-term variations, and remain focused on the long term. We must be careful not to cry wolf too often, lest we become ignored when the time actually arrives.
You’ve been using this same denier meme for years. Knock it off. It was a prevarication the first time, it is this time, it is every time. The time has long past arrived. There is no future tense here.
Only a fool says, “A bullet is coming your way. Think carefully before ducking, it might be a cap gun.”
[edit – keep it civil]
Dan at 66: I have little or no disagreement with what you say about the danger of specific predictions. The general situation and the general predictions are nonetheless quite dire. The general situation is that we have allowed a significant buildup of ghg in the atmosphere and that is powering significant global warming that does produce dire results now. The buildup has also increased ocean acidification and that is also quite dire. Neither of these two general dire situations are subject to any short or midterm fix that our species can devise.
It is foolish in this situation to require that anyone raising an alarm about this situation accurately predict specific results that are subject to the complexity of global weather.
If you think in terms of the card game Black Jack or 21, it is not necessary the actual face value of each of two or more specific cards to determine whether it makes sense to take another card. The important value is the total number value(s) of the cards and the limit of going over a specific number (21 or 2 degrees?) that is structured as a loss in the specific game.
I think you are expressing concern in good faith about the dangers of specific claims and the danger of raising an alarm in terms of specific dangers. If that is true, then we would both likely agree that the committed opposition to the consensus climate science will quote and misquote predictions to score debating points and increase confusion and uncertainty and to slow/prevent appropriate responses to the general situation, which is dire imho.
I will stop there and await a response from you.
Warm regards
Mike
So it appears a large part of the US population is going to hop in their cars and drive to the eclipse path in a couple of weeks.
Are any meteorologists watching for what burning all that gasoline does in the surrounding atmosphere?
Seems like one of those “natural” experiments (like the contrail studies that shutting down aviation after 9/11 provided).
I wonder if we’ll see a line of photochemical smog form crossing the continent ….
75 Mr. Know It All asks : “What type would you recommmend based on existing technology?”
Yeah, not a bad question for a genuine honest person with integrity to ask.
So in case there is one, then I would recommend to you GO CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL EXPERT. (Doh!)
Unfortunately for KIA the greatest Fools cannot even work out how overtly and obviously their non-stop deceits and hapless attempts to manipulate and insult others really is.
Will someone at Al’s Climate Reality project please do the math and tell us how many Hiroshima bombs worth of CO2 radiative forcing a total eclipse subtracts from their usual calculus ?
mike @87
I for one appreciate your continuing monitoring of the Keeling curve — saves me the bother. Please ignore churlish comments to the contrary.
Regarding the reasons for the Keeling curve’s refusal to change direction, I was intrigued by an article at VisualCarbon.org by the investigative journalist Barry Saxifrage. Have you seen it? He delved into the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017 and deduced some interesting data about global fossil-fuel consumption — data not made explicit at all in the review. The essential results are as follows:
Firstly, for the world consumption of oil-equivalent we have:
7 Gt in 1990
8 Gt in 2000
10 Gt in 2007
11 Gt in 2012
11.4 Gt in 2017
Certainly no sign of any decrease recently.
Secondly, for fossil fuel’s share of global energy we have:
88% in 1990
87% in 1995
86% in 2015
A miserably small decrease over time. So much for renewable energy sources making a significant contribution to global energy consumption.
Re: #74 Alastair McDonald
“…
That was when I first suspected the models were wrong.
…
Of course it is complicated, but basically CO2 acts indirectly by modifying planetary albedo, not directly by altering outgoing longwave radiation.”
Sorry, but that hypothesis has been proved wrong in a number of ways, not just using “the models”. I am surprised that you are still clinging on to it after 20 years, and posting about it here on RC (but perhaps I shouldn’t be).
Thomas @81
“POTUS might be stepping back from his Twitter addiction”. I wish. It would be really nice to see the end of Twump’s tweets for twits.
Hello Sir,
My name is Fahad Zia and I am BS Disaster Management student. My degree is almost completed. Sir I want to conduct research on Climate change Modeling, so please if you have any book regarding methodologies for Climate change research then do share it with me. 2nd I studied Alot regarding Climate change I studied a lot. So the other thing is I need a best book on Climate change modeling too.
Regards
Fahad Zia
BS student.
Mike,
Thank you. The problem is that the opposition does not have to misquote predictions, as the actual quotes have given them enough ammunition. I will include a quote from James Hansen on this subject,
“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue…. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.”
As an example, I will agree that the Arctic is headed for an ice-free summer, but not in the next few years. This has been predicted and failed at least three times in the past. I tend to align myself more closely to those scientists predicting an ice-free Arctic somewhere in the 2050s.
http://cpo.noaa.gov/Meet-the-Divisions/Climate-and-Societal-Interactions/RISA/News-Events/ArtMID/6326/ArticleID/643/Scientists-have-created-new-methods-to-detect-climate-prediction-failures
http://www.albany.edu/news/41685.php
Granted, these could be wrong, but they match the current observations and measurements. Continued measurements and observations over the next several years, may alter this forecast significantly, one way or the other. These are the claims that should be emphasized, and will likely be acceptable to a much broader range of people, without giving opponents unneeded ammunition. I am not saying that one muct accurately predict the exact year. However, when someone makes a prediction that is so far off, they look rather foolish. Just like the player taking a hit on 19. If he gets a two, he looks like a genius, but the deck is stacked against him.
Zebra re 84
There is evidence of step changes 13,500,14,500, and 16,00 years ago as well as during the Dansgaard/Oeschger events before that. I am not the only one to suggest these events were caused by sea ice switches[Gildor & Tziperman, 2003].
These are abrupt events which implies that they occur with little warning!
What I am saying is that there is a tipping point where the extent of summer sea ice is not great enough for the winter ice to regrow. Last year, it regrew more slowly than usual. Check it out here http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ . The less ice there is during summer, the warmer the Arctic Ocean becomes and the more difficult it is to freeze.
Paper retracted. RC mentioned in the discussion at:
http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/11/paper-claiming-hottest-60-year-span-in-1000-years-put-on-hold-after-being-published-online/
With a hat tip to Steve McIntyre:
“Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study ….”
PS, and unsurprisingly there’s much kerfluffle, mostly by the usually suspicious, in the comments on that page at Retractionwatch
Re: #91 Digby Scorgie
“So much for renewable energy sources making a significant contribution to global energy consumption.”
Fossil fuel paid trolling, pathetic.
Here are the real numbers for 2016: Solar PV, Wind and Hydro together made up more than half of all net new electricity generation capacity installed worldwide.
In the U.S.:
1. In 2016 the US produced nearly 8 times as much renewable electricity from the sun and the wind as it had in 2007.
2. Energy use in the US has fallen by 3.6% since 2007, even though the population and economy have continued to grow.
3. 2016 was the biggest solar year in US history, with the country generating 43 times more solar power than in 2007.
4. Among the states with the biggest growth in wind energy, four produced at least 10 times as much wind energy in 2016 as they did in 2007: Oklahoma, Kansas, Illinois, and North Dakota.
5. Distributed solar energy, which includes panels installed on residential and commercial rooftops, grew 28 times, while utility-scale generation increased 60 times.
6. In March 2017 the US drew 10% of its overall energy from wind and solar — for the first time!
7. 8 out of 10 US citizens support more wind power.
8. 9 out of 10 US citizens want more solar.
9. Twice as many Americans are pushing for energy policy conservation over production.
10. While sunny states like Arizona and Nevada are in the Top 10 states for solar energy additions since 2007, several northeastern states such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York have provided strong policy support for solar energy, too.
The future of energy is 100% renewables, despite the well-funded social media trolls, despite the fossil fuel bought Murdoch media propaganda, and despite President Trump’s claim that climate change is “a Chinese hoax”.
FZ94 — see if you can get a copy of McGuffie and Henderson-Sellers’s book “A Climate Modeling Primer” (4th edition 2014) .