This month’s open thread. We know people like to go off on tangents, but last month’s thread went too far. There aren’t many places to discuss climate science topics intelligently, so please stay focused on those.
Climate science from climate scientists...
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Week beginning on June 17, 2018: 410.36 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.32 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 387.71 ppm
Comments
410.36 is +2.04 ppm above 2017
+2.27 ppm/yr Decadal Growth Rate
Versus May +1.65 ppm growth rate
May 2018: 411.25 ppm
May 2017: 409.65 ppm
Last updated: June 5, 2018
Recent Daily Readings have jumped again after decreasing
June 23: 410.76 ppm
June 22: 410.00 (est)
June 21: 411.17 ppm
Misc weekly growth rates Jan-May
2018 1 7 +2.18
2018 2 4 +2.18
2018 3 4 +3.74
2018 4 22 +1.76
2018 5 20 +1.49
Where the spread of daily/weekly readings go ‘strange/wild’ during March – June versus the previous decade pattern.
The ENSO Outlook has been raised to El Niño WATCH. This means that the El Niño–Southern Oscillation remains neutral, but the chance of El Niño forming in the austral spring (Sept/Oct) has now increased to around 50%; twice the normal likelihood.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
Should the El Nino develop this will likely have a positive impact on CO2 readings in the first half of 2019 at least.
weekly data:
June 17 – 23, 2018 410.36 ppm
June 17 – 23, 2017 408.32 ppm
June 17 – 23, 2009 387.71 ppm
2.04 ppm increase in yoy numbers over past year, noisy number
22.65 ppm increase over ten year period, suggesting by my boe calculation that the rate of increase in 2013 was 2.265 ppm. The smoothed/background rate of increase for 2009(if that could be agreed upon) would have been less than the decadal average. The smoothed/background rate of increase for 2017 would be higher because the rate of increase has been accelerating during this period.
source: https://www.co2.earth/weekly-co2
So, what is the current smoothed/background rate of increase? I think the background rate is in the 2.4 to 2.5 ppm range. We see a dip in yoy comparison numbers at the present moment because 2017 still appears to be carrying some of the large EN bump.
Are these numbers skyrockety? I don’t know, they are just the numbers that are arising from measurements at MLO.
Have human fossil fuel emissions been reduced? Maybe, but again, reductions in annual ff emissions are heavily influenced by global economics, so teasing out the true background rate of ff usage by our species is not a simple matter.
What is the key issue to monitor and consider? The key issue is the global carbon cycle and how it functions in a warmed and warming world. I think CO2 accumulation in atmosphere is the best/easiest way to keep an eye on the global carbon cycle status. At any given moment, we probably have about a ten year lag between CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere and the heat buildup that will naturally follow from the increase in greenhouse effect from the accumulation. The linkage between direct human emissions and CO2 accumulation is modulated by the global carbon cycle. The global carbon cycle functions through numerous natural carbon sources and sinks. The natural carbon sources and sinks are subject to change in function over time and the change in function might best be detected through the MLO numbers. One of the things that changes the functions of carbon sources and sinks is heat buildup on the planet.The link and relationship between human CO2 emissions (proxy for all ghg) and MLO CO2 readings is not necessarily direct on something like a one to one relationship. Human emissions are fed into the global carbon cycle and one of the outputs from our emissions is accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, as measured at MLO and elsewhere. There are other planetary sources of CO2 at work. There are certain global features that function as carbon sinks – oceans, forests, natural calcification – and these global features are dynamic in the way they function.
So, what is a person to make of this? I think, watch the MLO numbers. If they are going up and don’t show clear signs of moving toward zero, then we are continuing to overwhelm the global carbon cycle and that will change the planet in ways that we will not enjoy. If we ever see a zero emissions state, we will need to evaluate the state of the planet and decide if we need to make reparations in the manner of reducing CO2 accumulations from the oceans and atmosphere. I think reparation comes from the word repair. Reparations have normally been experienced as painful on the folks who have to make them.
One thing I think we know for certain is that our species is better at functioning as a carbon source in the global carbon cycle than it is at functioning as a carbon sink.
Tried to make that as clear and simple as possible, but I read back and edited and changed things a bit, so I can’t be sure I have my thoughts down right. Best way to find editing errors is to hit the submit or send button, so here goes!
Cheers,
Mike
Re #184 Mal Adapted wormed Killian:
Last bit, just to remind all that looking at climate through economics is simply unintelligent. Frankly, looking at anything through economics is.
It seems the ‘e’ word provokes Killian’s narcissistic rage.
LOL… I was not the first to opine economics is bull. Steve Keen says it’s broken, among many others. Your lie via Ad Hom that somehow I speak out of 1. narcicissm and 2. rage? LOL… neither the topic nor you are worth any rage. It’s boring to watch you people spew nonsense all over this board.
This might be your most childish post yet.
and June 24: 410.97 ppm
Still appears to me to be above the ‘norm’ for late June.
#202, mike–
“…reductions in annual ff emissions are heavily influenced by global economics…”
Indeed–but this year, I think so far its rather been the case that an *increase* in emissions has been driven by global economics. Oil prices are one clue; macroeconomic data are another.
On the ‘hopeful’ side, our so-called president’s trade war is shaping up nicely, and has real potential to chill the global economy as a whole, so there’s that. Not my choice for reducing emissions, but perhaps we will no longer be able to say that he never did *anything* good for climate.
Still, other nations are trying other approaches:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/06/20/is-indias-227gw-renewables-target-achievable/
Nigel at 195 says: “I had a play with the numbers and it just looked like the last couple of years are decelerating but this was just curiosity and of no great significance”
What numbers are you looking at? If you are looking at yoy comparisons, you will be misled by the slump that happens in the year after an EN bump occurs. Those average out to be the background trend. That is the number that I try to watch.
Tamino does a very good job with the mathematical smoothing operations to tease out the background trend with large data sets. T does not find any indication that the trend has changed in the past few years.
I agree that pessimism that leads to despondency is not helpful, but I attempt to be, first and foremost, a realist. I think there are many reasons to be optimistic and joyous about the natural world where we have had the good fortune to be born. It’s an amazing dynamic place that has shown the ability to recover from multiple big system shocks (aka extinction events) and return to a pretty verdant diverse state in about ten million years post-shock. Dinosaurs might have felt depressed and despondent during the K-T extinction event, but it would not have been necessary. A connection to all living things and joyous participation in the planetary parade of biodiversity is a better choice. More on that here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/planetary-thinking/
I think our species should be alarmed by what is happening around us as we are pretty clearly in the early stage of a great extinction event. The alarm might be useful in motivating us to alter our pattern of existence to seize a slightly longer “day in the sun” for ourselves, but I don’t see that we have the capability of reducing our numbers through any thoughtful process so it appears we will continue to throw fuel on the fire and the fire is an extinction event.
If we could choose a different path as a species, it would depend on a clear understanding of our current path. Having a play with the numbers for a couple of years with the goal of finding a reassuring trend might actually set us back from doing our best in this situation, so I encourage you to use nothing less than ten year time periods if you wish to see the underlying trend.
Enjoy your day in the sun,
Mike
seas going to rise. Rise up in the morning, rise up during the night.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/26/rising-seas-florida-climate-change-elizabeth-rush?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=279276&subid=11249832&CMP=GT_US_collection
unfortunately, there are more and more dead zones in our rising seas:
https://truthout.org/articles/area-of-global-dead-zones-doubling-every-10-years/
Don’t panic, don’t get despondent, but understand the reality of our situation and think hard about how we should live in this situation.
Cheers
Mike
193 Dan says: did you stop long enough to even read and absorb what I actually said in my post before replying? Nope. Go on admit, the trigger words got you big time. I used data – I was following the data – the specially selected reliable Polling services’ data in specific STATES not the national RCP combined averaging worms you were might have been suckered into believing meant Hillary was going to win – because she was always ahead – guess what she was in most of “the polls” and then she wasn’t in the Voting booths. Look at who is in the WH and read what I wrote before.
I was objectively following the data where it led – not wasting my time listening to the news media talking crap 24/7 like they still do … all of them. Before Comey’s little speech thing were already shifting 3-4 weeks out of the election (ever so slightly at first) in the key “Polls” in the key States.
Like I said they moved as more and more people dropped out of the Undecided Category – that was a sign not a definite until the 2 days before where it looked to wining the Electoral College was dead set 50-50 proposition. Try comparing each of polls with the actual results state by state. (oh too busy, no time – pity, I was real busy the 4 weeks at the end of the campaign checking every day and making notes. What were you doing? Celebrating Trump losing probably.
But somehow this means that I am the one who is “an absolute, cowardly bald-face lie. Completely bogus.”? (smiling) Oh boy. Some people just hate Math.
Me doing Math in 2016 didn’t make Trump win … the Voters did. Go bitch at them and get off my back.
” but it has sent Carrie into paroxysms of anger and annoyance! Many feathers ruffled, ha ha. ”
I think you must be seriously nuts saying garbage like that. Get a life.
[relitigating the election is OT]
“5 x BS” elevates you to HPD: histrionic personality disorder. Either I have the last word or you will. Let’s guess at which.
Killian:
1. Is this the argumentum ad verecundiam? 2. Does Steve Keen get enraged when someone distinguishes between the subject matter and the people who write papers about it?
K:
Er – it would be the argumentum ad hominem if I dismissed your claims because you’re the one making them, rather than on their logical merits. Your arguments, OTOH, aren’t supported or even defined well enough to be considered on their merits: “climate is not an economic issue” and “looking at climate through economics is simply unintelligent” are but personal opinions, however strongly you hold them.
Nope, our exchange initiated when I took MAR’s quote by a physicist out of context (I humbly apologize to MAR for appearing to put words in his mouth, BTW), to point out yet again that AGW is a tragedy of the Commons: a Behavioral Sciences term for a class of phenomena in which utility-maximizing behavior by individuals creates socialized disutility in aggregate, requiring collective action to mitigate. The discussion subsequently has been about your emotional reaction to the ‘[Ee]’ word, as evinced by your hostile characterizations.
K:
Ah, but you wouldn’t be engaging with me if the topic and/or I were merely boring ;^). No, my bloggy frenemy, this is about you. For people with unacknowledged narcissistic personality disorder*, it usually is! Sadly, we narcissistically disordered persons seldom recognize our pathological ways of behaving until late in life, if ever 8^(. Better late than never, though, and I’m here to tell you there’s hope. Contemplation of the mediocrity principle can help you accept yourself for who you are. And in your daily interactions with other people, just ask yourself “What would Narcissus do?” (WWND), then resist doing that. Or at least tone it down a little ;^D!
* Wikipedia, as we all know, is an entry point into the topic, not the last word. Readers wishing to follow up on personality psychology should exercise scientific metaliteracy.
200 – Carrie
“I was there. I know what I saw and saw what happened. You weren’t.”
Was this you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs
211 JCH get lost, you do not have a clue what you’re talking about.
You claim “BS” based on nothing – big deal for you. Go give yourself a “Know Nothing Say Nothing Internet Troll Medal”
Breaking News: JCH said ‘BS’ so the world stopped to listen to this great insightful wisdom.
212 Mal Adapted pathetically childish of no value.
K has a different opinion than you do about ‘economics’ generally and has a different perspective on looking at climate as climate vs economics (being that the climate issues take precedence and priority over any and all economic issues) and so you twist all that into a kindergarten point-scoring sand pit fight culminating in diagnosing him as a narcissist with deep seated character personality flaws – K. isn’t the one who is psychologically sick. But that’s only my unqualified opinion from afar.
206 mike says: RE Nigel at 195
“so I encourage you to use nothing less than ten year time periods if you wish to see the underlying trend.”
Which is precisely what I showed at 114 on the 16 Jun 2018 at 10:57 PM https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/unforced-variations-june-2018/comment-page-3/#comment-705953 and yet nigelj continued for the next 10 days to side step and dance around that in post after post. And it’s not the first time the decadal trend of CO2 levels has been discussed here and the rest of the world either or Tamino’s opinion of his data analysis.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. But the scenic route is also good so long as one eventually arrives at the right destination without getting lost.
Besides nothing serious nor significant enough is being done as yet about Global Warming and it’s knock on effects. And all available evidence shows nothing will be done and therefore it’s full speed ahead to a totally different climate system by mid-century where all living species will either adapt through evolution or die out.
Of course as the scientists (and mike above) have already pointed out in spades a step change like this in a hundred years (1950-2050) versus the usual millions of years is problematic for adaption.
Waiting for the CO2 levels to decrease while Fossil Fuel use continues to rise year after year and other sources of CO2 also rise as the temperatures rise is not merely a fantasy it’s delusional.
for Doc at 205: quite right, I should have said wobbles or fluctuations in the economy. The economy functions much a LN EN wobble in creating short term changes in fossil fuel emissions or CO2 accumulation, respectively.
Thanks for clarifying. Trade war? Good or bad? I think bad, generally becuz it is a pretty adversarial process when I think what we need is a global cooperative model. Almost certainly not going to happen, but I think the global cooperative model is what is needed. Unilateral carbon taxes with carbon import/export tariffs assigned to countries that are not cooperating is a model of trade war I might get behind.
Cheers,
Mike
The comment at the World Gas Confrence from the boss of Total as reported by Reuters:-
thus could be construed as a mis-speak or a maverick-rant except the Reuters report goes on to say:-
which, with Sen. Bill “widespread-deployment-of-natural-gas” Cassidy, constitutes the entire panel. So we can sumise that the oil industry is still living a delusional world (at least in public). So no surprise there.
But the point of bringing this denialism here – that leaves the Pouyanne quote above “It’s been scientifically proven.” Debunking such a misguided comment would be better done if the ‘science’ being bandied in defence of unfettered NatGas production were known. So anybody any leads on Pouyanne’s presumably-dodgy source? Or is it the more likely situation – just a denialist mis-speaking/maverick-ranting, again?
Mike, #212–
+1
#207 mike said seas going to rise. Rise up in the morning, rise up during the night.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/26/rising-seas-florida-climate-change-elizabeth-rush?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=279276&subid=11249832&CMP=GT_US_collection
Doubling every 7 years. Last year, maybe the one before, I calculated a 5-year doubling: Basically all the ice on the planet gone this century. But the scientist says,
then immediately offers this caveat:
Ermmm… if the science says it will, then why does the scientist say it won’t? What’s going to stop it? Consider: It will take decades, at best, to make massive changes. I do not believe 350ppm will stop melt because it started at a far lower level and in a far more intact ecosystem. But, hey, let’s just say it gets low enough – whatever that number is (between 260 and 315 *cough*) – over the next 50 years. Then it *begins* to stabilize “within decades.” Um… doesn’t that put us at the century mark just to START slowing down?
But let’s not scare anyone… But, hey, 15ft. is bad enough. Still, if he’s saying there is a way to avoid 200 ft, then what the heck is it?
#212 Mal Adapted Peanut sputtered Killian:
LOL… I was not the first to opine economics is bull. Steve Keen says it’s broken, among many others.
1. Is this the argumentum ad verecundiam?
Is that what you call facts? OK…
2. Does Steve Keen get enraged when someone distinguishes between the subject matter and the people who write papers about it?
Already showed this as false. Why continue with it?
Your lie via Ad Hom that somehow I speak out of 1. narcicissm and 2. rage?
Er – it would be the argumentum ad hominem if I dismissed your claims because you’re the one making them
You are. You are making a false claim of my state, something you have zero knowledge of, in order to invalidate my argument rather than argue for or against the argument itself, all while tying me to opinions that existed long before I agreed with them in order to invalidate the very valid opinion that “The Economist Wears No Clothes.”
rather than on their logical merits.
Peanut, you have never, and will never, win an argument with me because for you it’s all a stupid ego game. You have never, and will never, admit to being wrong if I am involved in the discussion, no matter how blatant the error.
Your arguments… are but personal opinions, however strongly you hold them.
False. The history of economics is established.
The discussion subsequently has been about your emotional reaction to the ‘[Ee]’ word, as evinced by your hostile characterizations.
OK, Trump. …narcicissm and rage…, was it you said?
Ah, but you wouldn’t be engaging with me if the topic and/or I were merely boring
False. And worse, it’s ignorant and ideologically driven. However, it is dangerous for people to misunderstand the moment. Climate is caused by misuse if resources. Economics merely *attempts*, and *fails*, to describe that misuse. People need to understand that nothing in economics is useful or important in a sustainable world. There would be zero need to ever use the word except in discussing history. Remember, it ignores the natural world. It isn’t any more real than Superman. And, there is no “big E, little e.” Take a look here then explain to all why it is not capitalized… on the website of a university recruiting kids to study economics. Or is it Economics? Perhaps Eeconomics? Peanutnomics?
;^). No, my bloggy frenemy, this is about you. For people with unacknowledged narcissistic personality disorder*
Except that my response to you was solely about economics and climate. I did not turn this into peanuttle, you did, Trumpeanut, in post #83.
You’ve got a problem with honesty. What a stupid waste you make of this forum. Talk about narcissism.
Oops. Here’s the website quote:
WHY STUDY ECONOMICS AS AN UNDERGRADUATE? Economics is the study of how societies, governments, businesses, households, and individuals allocate their scarce resources. Our discipline has two important features. … The study of economics can also provide valuable knowledge for making decisions in everyday life.
re: 193. Well, well, well. We clearly see you are all about assumptions such as “did you stop long enough to even read and absorb what I actually said in my post before replying? Nope. Go on admit” and “not the national RCP combined averaging worms you were might have been suckered into believing”, the truly desperate “I was real busy the 4 weeks at the end of the campaign checking every day and making notes. What were you doing? Celebrating Trump losing probably” and the pathetic “Some people just hate Math.” But you just make wild ass assumptions. Nope, not even close. Busted! In fact if you had a clue about polls you would know that anyone worth their salt never uses RCP. Regardless, you certainly took the bait big time because you don’t have a clue about my knowledge or profession (hint, it involves math everyday) or my knowledge of polls(of course you will likely now come up with some sort of ad hom about it). *If* you actually took the time to note the “STATE” polls (it is clear you did at all), you would know which “STATE” polls (as if capital letters somehow helps the point) were indicating which candidate was ahead. Note I said “If” because it is doubtful you did since you then resort to gross assumptions about me. “smiling”…indeed.
Killian @220,
Come on, guy! This is meant to be a science blog!!
What do you talk of when you say there is “doubling every 7 years”? (I assume it is the same thing that you tell us “last year, maybe the one before, I calculated a 5-year doubling.”) I ask because, given your link to the Guardian’s Elizabeth Rush/Harold Wanless piece and the following quotes from it, the inference is that you talk of SLR but this acceleration you describe does not sound like SLR.
And when you ask “if the science says it will, then why does the scientist say it won’t?” what ‘science’ and what ‘scientist’?
(As a hint, the Guardian piece does set out some SLR science – the IPCC (which reviews the scientific literature) are quoted “expecting a 2ft rise by 2100” (although this – 0.63m – is a mean value for 2090 (under RCP8.5) and often considered an underestimate), the UN (of which the IPCC is a functionary) expects “3ft” but this is a “UN” finding I am unfamiliar with, and the NOAA which “estimates an upper limit of six and a half feet.” The Guardian piece also mentions the Hansen 5m (16ft) SLR by 2100, an ever-controversial value but today provided with a supporting hypothesis in Hansen et al (2016). These references presumably encompas the “science” of which you speak.)
People squabbling at RC produce work rather less interesting than
the arguments over deck chair arrangement on the Titanic.
Not even as much fun to watch as the poo-slinging at the zoo.
Meanwhile this youngster got a PhD and is turning out real science. Congratulations to Kaitlin, proprietor of the Climatesight blog.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0854.1
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0854.1
Future Projections of Antarctic Ice Shelf Melting Based on CMIP5 Scenarios
Kaitlin A. Naughten
http://climatesight.org/2018/06/26/future-projections-of-antarctic-ice-shelf-melting/
Oops. Dagnabbit:
Killian, #220–
According to your source, it wasn’t ‘science’ that said that; it was naive extrapolation “Ponzi scheme style,” as the researcher put it.
Another instance of an illustrative statement being taken as a ‘scientific prediction?’
Killian, as someone who deals with economics on a daily basis, I find your comments wanting.
I deal with ‘E’conomics when discussing the discipline and the work of my economist colleagues (or the work of economists of whatever provenance).
When talking to clients about a transaction, I deal with ‘e’conomics, meaning the financial impact of that transaction. This is FAR removed from the discipline of ‘E’conomics. Also, do be clear, this is done with full knowledge that our ‘e’conomic analysis does not factor in every possible variable that might be important in a larger context but represents as completely as we can the financial factors that are important to them.
In fact, many (probably most) practitioners of ‘E’conomics know that their field does not do everything correctly (to put it mildly). Many are utterly dismissive of classical economics (I’m gonna go to the more typical spelling now…). They seek better ways to model the behavior of individuals, markets, companies or whatever organizing unit/principal of humanity is pertinent. They employ agent models, econometric models and I’m sure many other methods that I have never heard of (for instance, a friend who was did quantitative modeling of evolution is working on something that sounds really intriguing). There are also multiple efforts to incorporate many of the factors that are so dismissively waived away externalities in more classical economics. This includes, for example, ecosystems and resource depletion.
To dismiss economics because classical economics does a shitty job of some (or even a lot of) things, is almost (but not quite) like dismissing physics because Newtonian physics does a poor job of representing relativity or quantum physics. Disciplines improve over time. To be entirely clear, I am NOT saying economics is or ever will be like physics in its robustness.
As an aside, if you had to compare economics to a scientific discipline, I would suggest ecology (my area of education and previous experience). Both are of a similar order of complexity. Frankly, some aspects of economics should probably incorporate some ecology… Personally, I have found thinking about ecological models and flows to be pretty instructive when think about economic systems.
No surprise here
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26062018/california-cities-climate-change-lawsuits-dismissed-fossil-fuels-industry-rising-sea-levels
#228 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #220–
if the science says it will…
According to your source, it wasn’t ‘science’ that said that; it was naive extrapolation “Ponzi scheme style,” as the researcher put it.
Another instance of an illustrative statement being taken as a ‘scientific prediction?
Incorrect. It was in no connotation of the word, naive. It was based on skilled analysis and, yes, an extrapolation, but of scientific data.
My point stands: The extrapolation is there, there current rate of melt is there, the acceleration over time is there: What is to stop it? Show me the hysteresis.
224 Dan “In fact if you had a clue about polls you would know that anyone worth their salt never uses RCP.”
Just picking on one silly thing – when I stated I didn’t use RCP but others do and did take the “worm” to be meaningful. So you criticize me for doing precisely what say I should be doing.
Whoopee …. here’s what you said before, in case you have forgotten it already: Wow, what an absolute, cowardly bald-face lie. Completely bogus and
But no, just go ahead and regurgitate a lie that someone told you and that you want to believe, actual data be damned.
No one told me anything – the STATE by STATE Data from a range of the (historically) more reliable Pollsters I was monitoring told me things.
and you also falsely claimed : “So, a. the media was completely correct reporting the polls, [ giving the public WRONG information about the potential Electoral College result and the DEM voters a false sense of security b. you are completely, utterly wrong, and b. we know you won’t admit it.
I am not wrong so there is nothing to admit to. Also I was not listening to Fox News nor Breibart because I was monitoring the SELECTED POLLING DATA and that is what my earlier comment was about MY DATA …. so the question is wtf is wrong with you Dan that have not once but twice now got everything so screwed up in what I actually said?
Do you hate Math and the truth that much? Appears so.
The Guardian, normally a good newspaper, claim that sea level rise has been “doubling every seven years” and paraphrasing” if continuing as a ponzi scheme would lead to 230 feet (about 75 metres) of sea level rise by 2100, or alternatively maybe about 25 feet is realistically possible (about 8 metres)”
It’s moronic of course, and unfortunate that journalists get things so wrong, because it gives the denialists fresh meat to use as a weapon. Its not substantiated by the data, and you cannot assume a doubling would continue.
I think they have mixed it up with the acceleration of ice loss in the antarctic, a huge worry, but not likely to lead to 230 feet or even 23 feet by 2100.
A more intelligent view is to look at the underlying physical realities, and paleo climate history. In that basis I think 3-6 feet (1 – 2 metres) by 2100 is very possible. This is catastrophic enough to contend with without, needing exaggeration. I think the IPCC is obviously an excellent source and the science as it stands, but too conservative.
Here you go Killian :)
What are the real “Romantic Illusions”?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2336.0;attach=103516;image
from Kevin Anderson at
https://urplay.se/program/205843-ur-samtiden-baltic-sea-future-stabilitet-eller-kaos-vagval-for-klimatet
229 MartinJB suggests: “To dismiss economics because classical economics does a shitty job of some (or even a lot of) things”
It does do a shitty job but not as badly as Neo-Classical Economics and Neoliberal Economics does. Which are downright dangerous for Humanity and the planet as a whole.
“When it comes to Economists there is one thing you can always ‘count’ on – they will be wrong.” Anonymous
Please add this into your Funk and Wagnells under CO2 decadal growth trend
Was curious what the year-over-year change for every month looks like rather than 1 single point per year. Red line is running 12-month average. Just did last 10 years but that includes several of Niños and Niñas.
Graph:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2231.0;attach=103566;image
Source: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2231.msg161135.html#msg161135
#231, Killian–
With respect, I disagree. Yes, Dr. Wanless knows what he is doing, and yes, the data is real. However, extrapolation in the absence of consideration of system dynamics is always ‘naive’–and its consideration of system dynamics that constitutes the actual science. It’s in the literature, and there’s still a *lot* of uncertainty, but no-one looking at how ice can melt and otherwise degrade/break down can get even close to ~200 feet of sea level rise by century’s end. Presumably, that’s what Dr. Wanless means when he says “I don’t think we’re going to get that much SLR…”
Again, with respect, I disagree. I don’t think your point stood in the first place, and I don’t think it stands now, either. You ask “What is to stop it?”
I’d suggest that one very probable thing that will stop acceleration is the exposure of ice to conditions suitable for melting. Right now, we’re getting a ‘pulse’ (Wanless’s word) because we’re creating rapid warming and the ice state is still largely reflective (no pun intended) of a colder equilibrium. So marginal ice is highly vulnerable to warming so far. But as we lose the ‘low-hanging fruit’ to melt, we’re left with much greater quantities of ice that are farther inland, that are in higher (and colder) zones, and so forth. So acceleration doesn’t continue indefinitely. Melt may well continue, and SLR may well continue, but at a slower rate. (And that’s just one possibility.)
And yes, it’s much more complicated than that; there are competing effects (such as the negative grounding slope of many glaciers such as Jacobshavn or the PIG). Yes, it’s reason for serious worry anyway–to quote Hank, “Reality is scary enough.”
But remember Gavin’s dictum that “Exponential growth rarely sustains itself over long time spans”–because the process soon begins to affect the very conditions that initiated it.
#229 MartinJB said Because I say so!
Well, OK then!
I deal with ‘E’conomics when discussing the discipline and the work of my economist colleagues (or the work of economists of whatever provenance).
No, you don’t. (Try to figure it out.)
When talking to clients about a transaction, I deal with ‘e’conomics, meaning the financial impact of that transaction.
Again, this is nothing but jargon used as shorthand for detailing all the issues of business/daily activity.
Like, “Sir, you shouldn’t be seen with her; the optics aren’t good.”
Optics is a new area of optometry? No. It’s jargon.
This is FAR removed from the discipline of ‘E’conomics.
No, it’s just using the term as a catch-all for all those things you think economics is.
Many are utterly dismissive of classical economics
Oh, goody. Less deluded does not mean not deluded.
They employ agent models, econometric models and I’m sure many other methods
Ooh! They put math on it!
Didn’t change a thing except to fool people like you.
efforts to incorporate many of the factors that are so dismissively waived away externalities in more classical economics. This includes, for example, ecosystems and resource depletion.
Oh? You mean the people I’ve been pointing to for ten years or better, like Daly, Keen, etc.? Thanks for the heads up!
Good lord…
To dismiss economics because classical economics does a shitty job of some (or even a lot of) things, is almost (but not quite) like dismissing physics because Newtonian physics does a poor job of representing relativity or quantum physics.
Sooo… if you have no idea why I am critical of economics, why are you responding?
Your analogy is wrong. Maybe you understand neither econ nor physics. Physics is incomplete. Econ is delusion with math added later to try to make it seem legit.
As an aside, if you had to compare economics to a scientific discipline, I would suggest ecology (my area of education and previous experience). Both are of a similar order of complexity.
Complexity does not define the nature of either. Another failed analogy.
Frankly, some aspects of economics should probably incorporate some ecology… Personally, I have found thinking about ecological models and flows to be pretty instructive when think about economic systems.
Oh, reeeeallllyyy? Hmmmm… imagine that… At least we know you are lost, but not hopeless.
Dear God, the Peanut Gallery is back. Ah, what a wonderful quiet while they were busy chasing fools…
225 MA Rodger says: Killian @220…
Dear Argumentative Pedantic Peanut,
Please keep all word salad in your own bowl. Or, rather, peanuttle in your candy dish.
Every reference was clear, source was clear, who said what was clear.
Yes, it’s a science blog, so keep your testy, petulant, dishonest attempts to shame your bettors to yourself. Keep a diary, perhaps.
Dear Mods… I hope you are noting the rise of the Peanut Gallery and will act appropriately to reel them in before we get back to past levels of idiocy.
Re 233 nigelj said The Guardian, normally a good newspaper, claim that sea level rise has been “doubling every seven years”
It didn’t. A scientist did. Does that make you the moron?
if continuing as a ponzi scheme would lead to 230 feet (about 75 metres) of sea level rise by 2100, or alternatively maybe about 25 feet is realistically possible (about 8 metres)”
You are, of course, completely effing this up. The quote did not mean the extrapolation was a ponzi scheme, but only used the mathematics of ponzi schemes as an analogy people might understand. Few have an intuitive sense of exponential change. The pyramid form of the ponzi scheme is a good choice.
It’s moronic of course
Indeed. You and MA need a reading comprehension class. Come by tomorrow.
Its not substantiated by the data, and you cannot assume a doubling would continue.
Again, the scientist said it. And who says it isn’t substantiated? And, he didn’t assume it would. In fact, the opposite. He assumed it wouldn’t and we’d only see about 15 feet. Who’s the moron here? That said, you also cannot assume it *won’t*, and pooh-poohing the possibility it will is the “moronic” risk assessment.
I think they have mixed it up with the acceleration of ice loss in the antarctic, a huge worry, but not likely to lead to 230 feet or even 23 feet by 2100.
Umm… that is exactly what they were, indeed, talking about.
A more intelligent view…
You have no idea what a more intelligent view is. That phrasing for this context is unintelligent.
is to look at the underlying physical realities, and paleo climate history. In that basis I think 3-6 feet (1 – 2 metres) by 2100 is very possible. This is catastrophic enough to contend with without, needing exaggeration. I think the IPCC is obviously an excellent source and the science as it stands, but too conservative.
No, that is incredibly poor risk analysis. And to call years-old science “more intelligent” than the far more recent data is, in fact, “moronic,” to use your own petard.
HadCRUT have reported for May with an anomaly of +0.60ºC, a small drop from April’s +0.63ºC which was itself a rise from March (+0.61ºC), and a larger rise from Jan & Feb.
HadCRUT’s May 2018 sits as the 5th warmest May on record after 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2014 (GISS, NOAA & BEST each gave 4th warmest Mays). It is 64th highest on the HadCRUT all-month-anomaly record (GISS was =33rd, NOAA =37th, BEST 44th). And it is the 8th warmest start to the year [Jan-May average]. (GISS was 3rd, NOAA was 5th, BEST’s was 4th). Most of the years in HadCRUT with warmer starts than 2018 that pushed it down to 8th were El Nino years so they were relatively cooler through the later parts of the year and a fair few likely will be bested by 2018 over the full calendar year
HadCRUT years ranked by averaged anomaly Jan-may.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.77ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.61ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 13th
2002 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 12th
2018 .. +0.58ºC
2014 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
2005 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 6th
2004 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.45ºC … … … 15th
Is sea level rise accerating?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
NASA says, yes.
This link will take you to a page that jumps back and forth between describing that the increase has been accelerating to desribing that the increase is accelerating. That should push buttons for some folks and I encourage those folks to take the argument directly to NASA ala Nathan Myhrvold.
Here’s a bet/prediction: in ten years (maybe 5?), Nigel’s sense at 233 that 3-6 feet of sea level rise by 2100 is very possible will look wildly optimistic. Hope I am wrong.
Cheers and warm regards all,
Mike
“The rate of sea level rise is currently doubling every seven years, and if it were to continue in this manner, Ponzi scheme style, we would have 205 feet of sea level rise by 2095,” he says. “And while I don’t think we are going to get that much water by the end of the century, I do think we have to take seriously the possibility that we could have something like 15 feet by then.”
that is a quote from the Guardian article. The source of the quote is Harold Wanless (or Hal per the article). who is Hal? “Dr. Harold Wanless researches climate change as chair of the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Miami in Coral Gables. He documents coastal erosion caused by hurricane damage – and the impact of sea-level rise.”
http://wlrn.org/post/um-climatologist-no-quick-fix-sea-level-rise-south-florida
Hal might be wrong, of course, but he is the primary source being quoted in the article.
Mike
re: 232. “Do you hate Math and the truth that much? Appears so.”
Once again, there you go with absurd assumptions. Speaks volumes about critical thinking ability. Here is a clue for you and my last word on the subject since you do not seem to comprehend basic poll information: Learn about the poll MOEs and how it specifically applied to your “selected polling data” going into Election Day in the close states. smh
Carrie: (being that the climate issues take precedence and priority over any and all economic issues)
AB: Egad! Them’s fighting words. Few wealthy folks will unclutch their ill-gotten gains and few poor folks will die in the gutter for your “precedence”. Seriously, they’ve got way more fossil reserves than can ever be extracted unless we’re willing to play “six cylinders full” Russian roulette and yet they burn over 600 billion US dollars a year so as to add to the carbon bubble –and– they are building brand new gas powered power plants and SUVs that guarantee that emissions MUST continue. Climate issues MUST be suppressed. Period. ….The End….
————–
Killian: Incorrect. It was in no connotation of the word, naive.
AB: Do you realized that you only wound yourself with such total tripe? You were wrong. Note that folks admire people who admit their errors. While you, well, pile wrong on wrong on wrong so as to avoid admitting truth. Please note the reaction you engender. Does it feel good?
————
nigelj: Its [sic] not substantiated by the data, and you cannot assume a doubling would continue.
AB: So you think we should discount Dr Hansen? Dr Mann says that we ignore Dr Hansen at our own peril. So you think they are both full of it? Frankly, I think the data is stark and the probabilities point to Dr Hansen being at least in the ballpark (though I think, without reason, that he’s a bit over the top on melt projections). So, on what do you base your point?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/are-past-climates-telling-us-were-missing-something/
New sea level rise article on past sea level rise in the miocene, supporting my views on sea level rise scenarios we could be facing.
nigel, #233–
I don’t think the statement is on the Guardian, nigel; it’s reported as a direct quote from Harold Wanless, who is chair of geological sciences at U Miami (Coral Gables), and whose specialty is climate.
Story link
I’m not sure what the evidentiary basis is for the 7-year doubling rate claim, but unless the Guardian completely misquoted Dr. Wanless, the onus (if any) is on him, not the Guardian.
[Google search…]
No, the Guardian did not misquote Dr. Wanless. Here he is, in his own words, in a piece he authored for a consortium called “The Invading Sea”, a partnership of several major south Florida media outlets:
Story link
A little more searching fails to find anyone else talking about a 7-year doubling time, though various folks from Tamino to February’s PNAS paper from Nerem et al., which identifies a much slower rate of acceleration in the satellite data from the last 25 years:
PS “if you had to compare economics to a scientific discipline, I would suggest ecology”
See that, right there, is the problem with the kind of thinking and beliefs that goes on in and about economics. Please let me explain that by way of examples.
1) There is no such a thing as a Null Hypothesis in economics for starters
2) Economics is more like Alchemy – mad warlocks mixing up miracle potions in a giant pot imagining they can make gold out of turkey gizzards.
3) They get their potions and by using sophistry go an convince a group of Politicians (who know next to nothing about anything) that putting X in the water supply will create a booming commerce and employment and increased Taxation Pools for the Politicians to spend on their favorite activity.
4) If Economists were Biologists they would transfer the brain of a jelly fish into half the sheep in world sheep on their whims that doing so would increase the quality and production of wool – iow they implement mass scale live experiments on whole sectors of society within existing commerce and business practices.
5) If economists were Engineers they would build the worlds largest ever Dam wall on the worlds largest river system only to discover after the event that had forgotten to install the pipes and hydro-power turbines in the middle of it – having then to destroy that dam wall and start over again.
6) The they would not take responsibility for destroying the livelihood of the 100 million who were using that river system for sustainable farming who of course all died while the economists (backed in by the power of foolish politicians) sat back to declare this was only the unknown impacts of the Invisible Hand of the Market.
7) The closest thing economists come to having a discipline is as Accountants – but I still doubt they can even count reliably.
8) As such Economics as a field of “study” belongs as a Sub-Set to Accounting and Social Sciences – an interesting subject that occasionally suggests interesting insights but that should never ever be anywhere near the Levers of Power because their IDEAS and BELIEFS and METHODS are dangerous to people and have been repeated proven to be so.
Unfortunately they have had excellent Public Relations promoters who have convinced others how wonderful, essential and indispensable they are to the world.
The world would be a better place without them – especially those particular creeps who are fanatical Neoliberal Ideologues
Please.
Keven McKinney @247, ok Dr Wanless made the claim, but it doesnt change the substance of what I said. He is obviously flat wrong, thats the main point. Thank’s for the details.