This month’s open thread for climate science related topics. The climate policy open thread is here.
Reader Interactions
307 Responses to "Unforced Variations: July 2018"
Killiansays
May the long-term regulars here learn some civility and manners so this forum can be what it could be. I’ve looked back at old posts and they didn’t used to be so… difficult. I used to have quite civil discussions with them all.
Let’s leave our egos at the door.
Killiansays
From June: #286 Hank Roberts said K: “we do know there are multiple analyses of multiple areas of the cryosphere melting at doubling and tripling times of under a decade. “
Citation please? I looked and did not find your source.
It’s possible to have a firm impression, when you saw something somewhere at some time, and yet be unable to find a reference. Some of RC’s hosts will know where to look, perhaps. There are, unfortunately, some truly wacko people out there makng unsourced claims about the rate of change
Be sure to give Hansen, et al., my regards when you send them their notification of having been declared wackos, e.g. Kevin, I think, mentioned it.
Yeah, so, as I said, 0.109/yr acceleration. I laid it out, clearly. It includes Hansen, et al., laying out the possibility of 10-year and even 5-year melt rates based on, iirc, paleodata and current melt rates in limited locations, iirc, Greenland; it includes the Antarctic instability papers, two of them, at least one of which estimated 10 ft. by 2100; it includes, regardless any misquotes from a reporter, what Wanless *meant* to convey: Rate of melt is accelerating, and he sees as much as 15 (but there is zero support for my saying melt can double in sub-decade time frames); it includes Nerem, et al., with their estimated top end of 0.109, as I laid out in a post none of you read, or none of you understood.
And it includes the simple observation that all this acceleration is matched all over the planet by other accelerations of different kinds and virtually no hysteresis to speak of anywhere.
That none of you can keep the totality of the science in your nitpicky little heads is the bane of the board, second only to your intentionally hostile attitudes.
Then you have the utterly biased ridiculousness of nigelj, for example, not even blinking at Arse Bundy agreeing with Hansen when that is essentially all I have done. Stupid. Utterly damned stupid discourse from you all.
I have no problem with having taken a reporter as accurate and been *in part* incorrect. None. Mistakes happen. Won’t be my last. But you all got so hung up on the exact numbers you completely missed the point: Being sanguine about melt rates is suicidally stupid. This one presentation by one professor misquoted by one reporter IS NOT THE GODDAMNED POINT. The point is we have sources, as I already said, from multiple types of studies, multiple areas of the globe, indicating doubling rates that are uncomfortably short and already capable of ending civilization as you know it.
But, god, yes, you got your gotcha!
Stupid, stupid, stupid crap that I am tired of experiencing here. I have a son. His life matters, so shut the hell up and do some work.
I was right about SLR ten years ago and I will be again. Meanwhile, you’ll be proving someone forgot to cross a goddamned t.
Shame on you all. Again. And again…. will it ever effing end? Christ…
————————————-
And, nigel, I am absolutely certain you have never presented anything novel on climate science, ever. Zero doubt. But what is so incredibly stupid is how you have again completely massacred a comment and twisted into a petty, PTA debate over the best cookies. I would, of course, have no idea what you do elsewhere, and I hope to god I never encounter you elsewhere in this world, for it would be a monumental waste of my time, so *of course* the only frame of reference was these boards. How can you *not* figure that out for yourself?
Victorsays
Much to my extreme consternation, I recently found myself reading, on the notorious WUWT blog, a post by Tim Ball titled “Evolutionary and Global Warming Theory: Predictable Responses with No Empirical Evidence.” (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/01/evolutionary-and-global-warming-theory-predictable-responses-with-no-empirical-evidence/#comment-2393641) In this piece, Ball attempts to equate skepticism regarding the climate change paradigm with his nutty conspiracy theory regarding Darwinian evolution. I knew about his feelings re climate change, but his attitude toward evolution was something I didn’t really notice until now.
I find all this particularly disturbing because someone posting here not too long ago expressed the suspicion that “Victor” was a pseudonym for Tim Ball. Yikes! So I want to take this opportunity to declare in no uncertain terms that I am most definitely NOT Tim Ball, nor do I subscribe to his extremely naive, if not paranoid, view of Darwinian evolution as some sort of conspiracy on the part of “big government” to control the minds of its citizens. Sadly this is a view held by many on the extreme right of the political spectrum, and since many of these people claim to also be climate change skeptics, this poses a problem for skeptics like myself who have nothing in common with right wing ideologues and are not inclined to support conspiracy theories.
To make my position clear, here’s the comment I posted in response to Ball’s essay:
While there are a great many other reasons to accept the Darwinian view of evolution, this evidence should settle the matter. As for all the many other questions you raise, many have been explained, others remain to be explained. But the basic idea behind Darwin’s theory has held up very well over many years of careful study. Climate change is another matter entirely.”
UAH is reporting June 2018 TLT with an anomaly of +0.21ºC, a little up on May’s +0.18ºC. It is =8th warmest May in UAH TLT, matching 2017 and below first-placed 1998 (+0.57ºC and in UAH way out front, still), 2016, 2010, 1991, 2015, 2002 (all pitching in at roughly +0.31ºC) & 2014. April 2018 is the =93rd warmest month on the full all-month UAH TLT record.
Now halfway though 2018, in the UAH TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits =6th. .
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.31ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … … 3rd
2002 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.22ºC
2007 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 10th
2005 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … … 7th
2003 .. +0.18ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 8th
2004 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 15th
…
And those who have missed JAXA’s ViSHOP polar SIE web page of late (which has been down with some computer problems), it is now back up and running again.
Summarising: Important research on the Miocene, when temperatures and CO2 levels were similar to what we expect this century. Sea levels ultimately rose 40 metres (!)over thousands of years, more than previously thought, but equally importantly there were rapid periods of sea level rise of about 2 metres per century….
The article discusses a wet and very green landscape, where climate models don’t predict quite this. However other material suggests the Miocene was quite arid in large parts of the world.
Al Bundysays
nigelj, I didn’t say Dr Hansen is right. I said, “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 I think we’re more or less in agreement, perhaps with me being a tad more “alarmist” than you.
On meltwater pulse 1a, my comment was based on the speculation that it came primarily from Canada’s Laurentide Ice Sheet. Given that ice is heavy, perhaps much of Canada was below sea level at the time, so I see your point. I’m sure you have far more knowledge on 1a than I do. Care to expound?
———
On sniping and insulting:
I think that it’s bleed-over from Victor-sniping. Folks go after Vic because he’s ever so proudly DK. The blood stains everyone and since we’re in shark-mode the feeding frenzy becomes cannibalistic.
nigeljsays
Killian @1 and 2
“May the long-term regulars here learn some civility and manners so this forum can be what it could be. ”
Killian then goes on to insult and abuse all of us. I mean I just dont have the words for the level of hypocrisy.
“I would, of course, have no idea what you do elsewhere”.
I was simply pointing out I had made other predictions on other websites. You are the person making an issue of this. However I had made a specific prediction on sea level rise here, which you conveniently ignored.
“The point is we have sources, as I already said, from multiple types of studies, multiple areas of the globe, indicating doubling rates that are uncomfortably short and already capable of ending civilization as you know it.”
Of course we have doublings in some trends, I assume you mean the antarctic ice issue and decline in insect and bird populations etc. I have posted some of these myself. But this is a long way from an ‘exponential trend’ and the causes are multiple and not due to just climate change. The impacts on our civilsation (and animal species) could be severe but everyone here seems to accept this from what I have read, so WHY do you imply we dont?
“Then you have the utterly biased ridiculousness of nigelj, for example, not even blinking at Arse Bundy agreeing with Hansen ”
What nonsense. I have twice questioned why Al bundy agrees with Hansen so much.
Killian you are just blathering on with ridiculous statements by the dozen.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @6
“So I think we’re more or less in agreement, perhaps with me being a tad more “alarmist” than you.”
Yes exactly! I do think Hansen has looked hard at physical mechanisms, and so if he says 5 metres by 2100 is ‘possible’ then I accept its “possible”, but its a stretch, and I think 2 metres is the number.
Just look up “meltwater pulse 1a” on wikipedia which caused 5 metres in one century. About half was from american ice sheets, (which must have depressed the substrate as you say) and about half from the antarctic, and appeared to be from warm currents undermining the ice. Some is of course from Greenland and Europe etc.
Since we dont have huge ice sheets over the Americas etc today, this suggests to me Antarctica and Greenland will be the main sources of rapid sea level rise this century. Antarctica certainly looks like it has the potential for serious ice loss, Greenland not quite as fast although it depends on how many fissures the ice develops. But add it all together and theres less ice sheets today and so it looks to me like 2 metres by 2100 is a very possible figure.
On sniping and insulting. I have been guilty of being abrasive at times, but certain people like Killian are way over the top, and its not frigging acceptable.
Victorsays
To the moderators. I am, of course, fully aware that my viewpoint is very different from yours and that I frequently take positions antithetical to the orthodox position on climate change that you so forcefully advocate. Nevertheless, I consistently take pains to back up literally all my assertions either with evidence or references to legitimate, published sources. And in the rare cases where I am unable to produce evidence I make it clear that I am only offering an opinion. Moreover, you may have noticed that I am among the very few posting here who scrupulously avoids personal attacks.
I find it disappointing, therefore, that you see fit to consign so many of my posts to the Bore Hole, not only because I don’t appreciate being muzzled, but also because you thereby deprive others from responding. I’m especially disappointed to see that you’ve bore-holed my recent response to Tamino, thus depriving him of the opportunity to defend his views in the light of my critique.
By censoring so many posts, both mine and those of others, you give the impression that you are either afraid of or unable to deal with the sort of controversy that is part and parcel of all science.
[Response: Your stuff goes to the Bore Hole because it’s boring. The cherry picks are obvious, the points being made are stale, your lack of interest in dealing with the bigger picture is manifest. Up your game. – gavin]
nigeljsays
Killian, accuses me of unoriginality (yawn) and is ever boasting, clearly believes he is a great original thinker. But his simplification philosophy is not new, and I reached similar conclusions for myself after reading “limits to growth” and I’m sure Im not alone. At best he has possibly added a few details.
His exponential growth is more applicable to population and economic output than climate. So I’m not sure Killian is making the right distinction between various types of growth curves and phenomena.
Killian boasts of his predictions. I dont know what Killian has predicted over the years, but I would bet serious money his strike rate is probably 50 / 50, especially given the way he has fallen flat on his face on several issues on this website. We all delude ourselves we are perfect.
But hey, he is entitled to his views and is light years ahead of Victor.
Nemesissays
Deniers like Victor and lots of abusive language, worse than any climate heating.
Adam Leasays
1: I would recommend you practice what you preach. Much of what you post consists of insulting other posters who dare to question or disagree with you (e.g constant peanut gallery references). It is a shame because you do make some good points, but they are polluted by your hostile retaliations which makes reading your posts very off-putting. Questioning an opinion or theory of yours does not equate to calling you an idiot.
nigelj @5,
You did earlier link to that same Howard Lee article in last month’s UV thread suggesting the Mid Miocene was supporting your view on potential future SLR (although without explaining more). In many ways the article is a bit of a strange account, perhaps explained by it being a re-write/update of a simlar account from earlier years.
For myself, I do not feel the Mid Miocene shows anything we do not already know. The idea that mankind will precipitate multi-metre SLR if AGW rises above 2ºC is surely not controversial. Greenland will certainly melt-out at such levels of AGW, a process which would become unstoppable if it is allowed to run long enough. Antarctica must also hold similar threats, perhaps ones that would more readily create a rapid bout of unstoppable multi-metre SLR.
The question is thus about the stability of today’s polar ice caps and how long the caps can stay stable while AGW temperatures peak for some period near/beyond the 2ºC limit, (this assuming that our descendents will be soon sucking our CO2 out of the atmosphere with their whizzy technologies to reverse the excesses of our AGW).
So would our imprecise understanding of the Mid Miocene improve our understanding of the threat of multi-metre SLR under AGW? It certainly shows us there is a threat. But beyond that, is there anything to learn? I don’t see it can be argued that there is.
[Response: Your stuff goes to the Bore Hole because it’s boring. The cherry picks are obvious, the points being made are stale, your lack of interest in dealing with the bigger picture is manifest. Up your game. – gavin]
When you present evidence, it’s evidence, when I present evidence, it’s “cherry picking.” Looks like a double standard to me. I offer evidence that hardly anyone here wants to consider, such as the evidence I recently presented regarding that melting Antarctic ice sheet. Does the fact that this situation had been noted already during the 1960’s, and attributed to a process that was at least 1,000 years old constitute cherry picking? Does the fact that studies have shown the West Antarctic ice sheet to be undermined by geothermal heating, and that over 100 volcanoes have been discovered lurking beneath it, constitute cherry picking? I’d imagine this is the sort of thing people discussing the science would want to know about.
As for the big picture, my claim is very simply that a diagonal line starting at 1900 and continuing through 2018 does not constitute a meaningful trend and all the statistics in the world won’t make it so. Just because it is now hotter than it was at the turn of the 20th century tells us nothing about AGW unless we are able to establish a clear and convincing correlation between CO2 emissions and temperatures AND establish a clear and convincing cause and effect relationship.
Killian, one final point. I don’t owe anyone any apology. I’m not responsible for the fact the Guardian misquoted Dr Wanless so dramatically, and in fairness neither are you. But you should have known the claims in the Guardian were nonsensical, because you must surely have looked at basic sea level rise trends.
nigeljsays
“Deniers like Victor and lots of abusive language, worse than any climate heating.”
Exactly. Best quote of the week.
nigeljsays
MA Rodger @13,
I linked to the Miocene paper because it was interesting and well written and has popped up on other websites, and was relevant to the sea level rise issues on UV recently.
It seems a lot to claim it shows nothing new. It does find total sea level rise on millenia time scales could be considerably more than previously thought, so not insignificant I would have thought!
“The question is thus about the stability of today’s polar ice caps and how long the caps can stay stable while AGW temperatures peak for some period near/beyond the 2ºC limit,”
Well yes and you make good comments on this, I couldn’t agree more, but it’s the longer term picture over many centuries. But for me the more interesting issue is what sea level can we expect by 2100? Or perhaps 2200? Because there’s a huge difference for humanity between 600mm, or 2000mm or 5000mm, although none are good.
The Miocene article did mention that sea level rise had been 2 metres at times per century, and we could be at risk of this (to cut a long story short) and I’m pretty sure it mentioned accelerated rates of ice loss in the Antarctic, the very thing we are now seeing evidence of. This was my main take away, that temperatures and CO2 concentrations were similar in the Miocene to what we expect this century, and sea level rise appeared to be rapid at times. Of course temperatures in the Miocene were possibly well established before the antarctic tipped in to a period of rapid melting, and it comes down to just how fast the antarctic could destabilise this century, but if it destabilised quickly back then in a single century, then why wouldn’t this happen now?
Meltwater pulse 1a was much later, but exhibited similar warming trend to today and rapid sea level rise within just one century.
So any way, it seems at least the antarctic destabilised rather rapidly during both the miocene and the later ice age related period, and in a single century, so its a clue to worst case scenarios by 2100 for us. I’m not seeing 5 metre’s per century as some have predicted, but 2 metre’s seems very possible. I’m speculating of course. I would be interested in your view.
Of course sea level rise this century has to be based on physics and modelling predictions, but the past history needs to be considered as well I think.
Al Bundysays
Killian: learn some civility and manners [followed immediately with no intervening posts by anyone] your nitpicky little heads truly wacko people utterly biased ridiculousness of nigelj Arse Bundy Stupid. Utterly damned stupid discourse from you all. Stupid, stupid, stupid crap nigel never presented anything novel so incredibly stupid massacred a comment and twisted into a petty, PTA I hope to god I never encounter you elsewhere in this world How can you *not* figure that out for yourself? Shame on you all will it ever effing end? Christ…
AB: When I spoke about the bleedover from VictorSniping I considered mentioning you but refrained because I wanted to be civil.
——————–
nigelj: I think 2 metres is the number.
AB: That would be my guess, too. But if the freedom to pollute via bunker-fueled container ships is extended to the arctic ocean then Hansen might be proven inaccurate in an unfortunate way. And, of course, the melt rate will be far higher in 2100 than it is today which means that there will be no beaches, no reefs, and no stable coastlines.
Killian, I have a question concerning the numbers you put up on comment 281 of the June thread. Are you using your functions for melt rate as a proxy for sea level more generally? Or is there a function in between your melt rates and sea level rise?
The reason I ask, is that I get pretty different results. I use 4.8mm/year as the current rate of SLR and sum from 2018 to 2100.
For the linear 0.109mm/y acceleration, I get 0.76m. For the 7-year doubling rate, the total is 163m. This is a bit higher than the 10% increase per year, which comes in at 125m. The 7-year doubling should be higher, because 7-year doubling is approximately a 10.4% increase per year (rule of 7, anyone?). The 5% increase per year comes out to 5.3m.
Also, I really think you need to posit some kind of physical mechanism if you want to extrapolate an exponential function. Honestly, I can’t come up with one. It seems physically implausible…
In fact, it might not be surprising to see the 2nd derivative decline once the edges of the ice sheets (especially Arctic) have withdrawn and are no longer in contact with the ocean (note the elevation of the Arctic continent and a recent study suggesting rebound of the continent). Once the Arctic ice is only in contact with the still-freezing air and not the warmer water, it might well start losing ice at a lower rate. Obviously, this is pure speculation, but I’d love to get the thoughts of the usual contributors (or even those that are less usual).
Killiansays
#12 Adam Lea said 1: I would recommend you practice what you preach. Much of what you post consists of insulting other posters who dare to question or disagree with you (e.g constant peanut gallery references). It is a shame because you do make some good points, but they are polluted by your hostile retaliations which makes reading your posts very off-putting. Questioning an opinion or theory of yours does not equate to calling you an idiot.
I’ll just leave this right here.
Killiansays
Just finishing old business at #2, nigel. Don’t get too excited. That post needed posting. And nobody was insulted. You, as usual, cannot tell the difference. And completely failed to address the main point of the latter half of the post.
What nonsense. I have twice questioned why Al bundy agrees with Hansen so much.
But you weren’t an ass about it. To wit: Yes exactly! I do think Hansen has looked hard at physical mechanisms, and so if he says 5 metres by 2100 is ‘possible’ then I accept its “possible”, but its a stretch, and I think 2 metres is the number.
Now go back and see how you responded to ME saying the same damned thing. These two things are not equal. And you have zero support for that two meters at this point. The Miocene is not analogous and the recent research of the last two years makes two meters very unlikely. Referring back to 6 year-old science is absurd, isn’t it?
Now, move on to more adult things.
nigeljsays
Killian @24 “and the recent research of the last two years makes two meters very unlikely”
Please show EXACTLY how you conclude this.
CCHolleysays
Victor @16
As for the big picture, my claim is very simply that a diagonal line starting at 1900 and continuing through 2018 does not constitute a meaningful trend and all the statistics in the world won’t make it so. Just because it is now hotter than it was at the turn of the 20th century tells us nothing about AGW unless we are able to establish a clear and convincing correlation between CO2 emissions and temperatures AND establish a clear and convincing cause and effect relationship.
This isn’t a big picture. It its simply a position statement.
Victor doesn’t even know what dealing with the big picture means. Dealing with the big picture means covering the entire perspective of an issue and Victor is incapable of understanding the big picture let alone dealing with it. Victor neglects any evidence that is contrary to his viewpoint and ignores many of the factors that contribute to planetary temperatures. For the most part he ignores wide swaths of the science and physics including what it tells us about heat transfer in the climate system and the radiative properties of greenhouse gases. What is possible and what isn’t. And he most certainly ignores statistics because he knows better. In his simple mind statistics must be wrong just because he cannot eyeball a trend that a world renown statistician tells him exists. Oh, the arrogance. And finally, Victor declares once again that there is no correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures although he has been shown time and time again that there is significant correlation and that a clear and convincing cause and effect relationship has been established.
Victor cannot deal with the big picture, he is incapable of it.
With Victor it is rinse lather repeat. He learns nothing. He is arrogant. He never admits he is wrong.
He is boring and adds nothing to the discussion of the science.
CCHolley @26,
It is fair to say that the moron Victor Grauer of Pittsburg PA does provide a good insight into the febrile processes of denialism. For some reason, such morons feel they can legitimately refute science simply because they refuse to agree with the findings. Note that for Victor the evidential basis of AGW requires that “we are able” to provide it, the “we” being inclusive of Victor himself with his Neanderthal rebutals of modern science.
I found it humerous that his counter to accusations of cherry-picking evidence was to point to some cherry-picked evidence he had wielded recently while furthering a different aspect of his denialism. (This evidence Victor claims as an exemplar of his use-of-evidence became boreholed but his argument runs that the volcanoes/volcanic-activity under Western Antarctica has to be a pre-AGW phenomenon and obviously (if you are a deluded moron like Victor Grauer of Pittsburg PA) you will not stop volcanoes/excessive-SLR/climate-change by “cutting back on CO2 emissions.” And in saying this, it is evident is that the moron Victor Grauer of Pittsburg PA has not bothered to properly read the documents he cites.)
Ray Ladburysays
So, Weaktor, let’s talk about why what you are doing not only is not science, but is anti-science. In science, we gather information not only to answer questions, but to generate new questions that we need to gather evidence to answer and so forth. You gather only so much evidence as you need to quiet your worries that you may be wrong and to sate your feeble curiosity.
Case in point–your attempt to attribute Antarctic ice loss to volcanoes smouldering beneath the ice. However, the Antarctic has lost 2.72 petatonnes of ice since 1992. Now even if all that ice was at 0 degrees C (it wasn’t) and we only had to provide enough energy to melt it, that represents ~910 exajoules of energy! Also note that the 2.72 petatonnes is a net amount. The ice loss from those portions of Antarctica that are actually losing ice is even larger.
Problem: A years worth of volcanic activity on Earth releases ~50 petajoules. Mt. Saint Helens released ~1 exajoule, and that was a pretty impressive eruption. Is it seriously your contention that all your volcanoes have been erupting continually with energy release equivalent to Mt. Saint Helens for over 20 years?
Seriously, Weaktor, if you are too dim to do the math, surely you can find somebody in Pittsburgh who is capable. But that isn’t the point, is it? What you are after is something–anything, no matter how absurd–to keep you from actually having to think.
re my own comment (@22): Obviously, I hope, I meant Antarctica where I said Arctic… D’oh!
jgnfldsays
One thing I love about vic’s eyeball statitics is his insistence that “wiggles” in the record must perfectly align in order for there to be a “significant” correlation. Therefore, I can only assume that if 2 variables are 180 degrees completely out of phase, there can be no significant correlation. Right?
Killiansays
#25 nigelj said Killian @24 “and the recent research of the last two years makes two meters very unlikely”
Please show EXACTLY how you conclude this.
I already have. Please read for content.
——————————–
#22 MartinJB said Killian, I have a question concerning the numbers you put up on comment 281 of the June thread. Are you using your functions for melt rate as a proxy for sea level more generally? Or is there a function in between your melt rates and sea level rise?
The reason I ask, is that I get pretty different results. I use 4.8mm/year as the current rate of SLR and sum from 2018 to 2100.
For the linear 0.109mm/y acceleration, I get 0.76m.
I try to include a caveat and invitation any time I trot out math because I suck at it. Probably my error, assuming we’re actually shooting for the same calculation. Your numbers seem to be correct after checking my formula.
For the 7-year doubling rate, the total is 163m.
Higher than mine.
This is a bit higher than the 10% increase per year, which comes in at 125m. The 7-year doubling should be higher, because 7-year doubling is approximately a 10.4% increase per year (rule of 7, anyone?). The 5% increase per year comes out to 5.3m.
I’m not going to recheck these. I suspect your numbers are fine and mine are wacky. I am poor at math and worse with excel-type apps.
All these numbers are disasters, so… hopefully people will begin to get the gist of the issue here.
Also, I really think you need to posit some kind of physical mechanism if you want to extrapolate an exponential function. Honestly, I can’t come up with one. It seems physically implausible…
I don’t. The point is about risk. The risk is high; it is disastrous. What more do we need to know? However, the rapid decline is not implausible. Melt pulses from the Texas coast coral measurements show 1.5m in decadal time frames. How many of those might we see? What is not OK is to say all this has no evidence: It all does. It is wrong to belittle people for *reasoning* where science cannot go: The future. I have said for years, there is precious little going on in the way of hysteresis. Not once has a scientist here or a poster here made even the slightest contradiction of that point, and the import of it is this: The planet has never been here before. Low-balling the possibilities makes for a very poor risk assessment, IMO.
Still, the various mechanisms of melt are known to this group, I’d think. Do I really need to repeat them? I think the issue is, why *can’t* things just keep accelerating? The only answer to that might be Nature just doesn’t work that way. It’s punctuated changes laid over trends. But will a system with so little hysteresis behave similarly to the past? It makes sense to me to assume a never before seen regime will produce never before seen changes.
In fact, it might not be surprising to see the 2nd derivative decline once the edges of the ice sheets (especially Arctic) have withdrawn and are no longer in contact with the ocean (note the elevation of the Arctic continent and a recent study suggesting rebound of the continent).
Sure. Or maybe it will have gone so fast by then the land ice is already collapsing. But, yes, one would hope if the face of the glaciers were on land things would slow down, but all that ice on land now is only being slowed by the ice in the water blocking it. Studies show when the ice shelves are removed the ice streams move *faster,* so I wouldn’t place too large a bet on slowing.
Again, what is key here on this board is for those suggesting more sluggish outcomes to understand their conservatives views are no more likely than the high estimates. Less, actually. And, again, it’s poor risk assessment when the risk is collapse or worse.
Thanks for the response and the better math.
——————————
Al,
Please add content to your posts. This isn’t the PTA or a drunken soiree.
Killiansays
#20, et al., nj and MA:
The Miocene is a weak proxy, not a good proxy, so keep that in mind. There is no good proxy for today; there were no ice caps when the dinos were (mostly) taken out, and that would be the closest proxy in terms of rapidity of change. What is it we hear, up to a 1,000x faster than ever before? How does that not have an effect? How does it lead to *conservative* numbers?
And, while you look to the Miocene and numbers similar to today, are you bearing in mind the Arctic started melting at numbers not close to the Miocene max? Approximately 315ppm in 1953 for extent, iirc? (Numbers could be a little off, but not enough to matter.) Even Antarctica started melting decades ago (though I’ve never heard what that specifically meant.)
The ice sheet over far western Europe is thought to have made its final melt within a century.
Where’s a graveyard? I’ve some whistling I’m in the mood for…
Hank Robertssays
… numerous locations in the Northern Hemisphere have witnessed their hottest weather ever recorded over the past week.
Large areas of heat pressure or heat domes scattered around the hemisphere led to the sweltering temperatures.
No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global warming. But collectively, these heat records are consistent with the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world….It’s not only been hot but also exceptionally humid….
Until late in the 20th century, large-scale coral bleaching events around the world occurred about every 27 years, on average, the Climate Council said in a report published Thursday. Now, it said, the rate is once every six years.
Killian, as far as I can tell from what you write, you have no physical basis for saying that an exponential SLR function is more likely than a quadratic. Even to get to 2m (a number that would surprise no-one here, I think) of SLR in 2100, the rate of acceleration has to be 5x higher than the upper end of the quoted published range (0.084 +/-2.4 mm/y^2). So, when you say the risk is “high” for an exponential increase in SLR, are you talking about the odds or the impact? I assume you mean the odds, but that seems unsupported. And no-one here underestimates the impact.
You probably shouldn’t be disappointed then that people have a hard time taking your risk analysis less than seriously. But I don’t think that will stop you from insulting them. E.g. “That none of you can keep the totality of the science in your nitpicky little heads is the bane of the board, second only to your intentionally hostile attitudes.” Some people might have a different idea of the “bane of the board”.
I’ll just leave that right there, in the hope that you do a little soul-searching…
nigeljsays
Victor Grauer is a musicologist, a musician of some sort with a degree in music analysis. I think he is a guy who loves an audience, hence his ranting on this website. His climate analysis is terrible, but his music sounds even worse as follows:
Killian says “I don’t. The point is about risk. The risk is high; it is disastrous. What more do we need to know?”
I agree, and I think the risk is disastrous whether its 1 or 2 or 5 metres of sea level rise by 2100, and all are at least “possible”. Therefore reducing emissions is just simply essential.
However two points have to be made:
1) Its important for the science community to have defensible, solid sea level rise consensus and analysis, and numbers, because if people make wild claims at the outer extreme, its so easy for denialists to ridicule them. I saw several denialist articles tearing the Guardian article to pieces for example.
Yet the IPCC is so darned conservative as we all know. But this is why I highlighted 2 metres by 2100, (sorry to harp on about it people) because it at least has some historical evidential basis, so is defensible, where 5 metres is stretching things.
Only J Hansen to my knowledge has formally predicted 5 metres by 2100. (Killian posted another paper showing more acceleration in existing sea level rise than thought, but a quick boe calculation shows it would lead to about 1 metre by 2100 as a simple extrapolation.)
2) Regarding Killians question “why wouldn’t things keep accelerating?” (I take this to mean in a monumentally serious, exponential or generally out of control fashion). I think we have reasons to think this is implausible.Its hard to see why they would. The antarctic destabilisation of the ice shelves was anticipated anyway.
Our mitigation response has to be based on plausible levels of acceleration based on scientific assessment, or we would become completely confused and lost. We certainly expect on this basis that warming and sea level rise will follow a curve rather than a linear trend, but not an exponential curve to my knowledge. But then I’m just a layperson, and stand to be corrected by experts.
And mitigation has to be based on levels of risk which are quite high enough without needing to speculate that anything is vaguely possible. However there are a lot of unknowns in sea level rise, and I would agree with the definite possibility it could possibly be considerably higher than the rather limited IPCC estimates, and because of the risks sea level rise presents, even of just 1 metre, we need to recognise the precautionary principle and cut emissions fast.
The Miocene is not a perfect proxy for today. Point taken, Such a thing doesn’t exist because the planet is continually evolving, and the processes are so varied and complex, but the Miocene gives a definite clue what we could be facing, and its not good.
Killiansays
Nigel at #10:
You have no idea what I have predicted, but it must be wrong.
Yes, sure. Certainly you are correct in not knowing, but being certain.
It is not boasting to state facts of history. In reality, I have yet to be wrong. Not always on the nose, but never wrong. Some things are long-term so not yet fully known where they will end, e.g. CH4 and clathrates. But even there the concentration keeps rising and we see new phenomena since 2007 when I stated it would become a problem at a rate faster than Archer and Schmidt were suggesting. I was also on the side of a faster “blue ocean” in the Arctic, but we’re about to pass the +/- on Maslowski’s prediction, but still have two minima to go. (Also, please do not try to stupidly suggest this predicts 100 absence of ice; it is a prediction of 80% loss from long-term highs. I believe we are already there in terms of volume, or very close. I said a long time ago extent is the least important measurement and expect it to be the last of the three to reach the 80% threshhold.) What is important here, however, is not the exact year, but the idea it will likely happen much faster than thought in 2007. If we are accurate on that by decades, nitpicking is childish. Overall rate of change is what all of this is about. Tipping points. We shall see.
These are facts. I mention them for a simple reason: The constant attempts by et al., to defame. I’m an INTP. I like facts. I think they should matter, though clearly this is not important to others. You saying I have “fallen flat on my face on issues” does not make it so. I have not. It is your opinion, false, that I have. Name one. I am not wrong about anything regarding trends in climate science, and anything else is trivial.
You want to take something like a flawed article and pretend that having incorrect information and thus being incorrect on some details because of the incorrect info is meaningful, go ahead, but it is a childish manner of discussion. Am I wrong about rates of melt increasing? No. Am I wrong that they can continue to increase on average? No. Am I wrong about punctuated melt events? No. Am I wrong that scientific papers have suggested 10 ft this century? No. Was I wrong the El Nino would bring record or near new record melt to the Arctic? No.
Have I been right for over ten years that the *system* was accelerating faster than the scientists thought? Yes.
Is that the gist of my comments over time, that rapid change is upon us and risk assessment and policy had better deal with this? Yes. Has anything suggested over those ten years that is not the case? No. I don’t care if I am wrong on specific points, I care that I am right or wrong about the overall systemics. I think I have framed my comments here often enough and clearly enough for this to be a non-controversial statement. Risk, rates of change, policy. Those are broad strokes. Besides, any time I am wrong in the more conservative side, the better for all of humanity. You can try shaming me if I end up having been overly pessimistic, but you will be patting yourself on the back in isolation: A mistake is an opportunity to learn. For the intelligent, sincere, objective, non-egoist learner.
Yet, you are so very sure of your own extremely conservative prediction. I tell you now your prediction will fail. Sadly, I will not likely be alive to point it out when it does. C’est la vie.
Tell us all, please, what original thought you have had on climate and where it came to pass while all or most others were largely incorrect. Bated breath… You regurgitate and you downplay. Nothing more. This is not a crime, but when one speaks of boasting it is useful to note it is most associated with people who have not actually done anything, yet boast of their prowess. That does not fit me, nor my personality, nor my manner, nor the way those who actually know me see me.
It does fit someone always nipping at the heels of those who do have something to boast about, yet who has nothing to offer him-/herself.
[edit]
Killiansays
Re #33 Hank Roberts said Until late in the 20th century, large-scale coral bleaching events around the world occurred about every 27 years, on average, the Climate Council said in a report published Thursday. Now, it said, the rate is once every six years.
Hmmm… a near-quintupling… but such changes are not possible…. right?
I hope people make more effort to see the wholistic nature of the Earth system. If you see a quintupling here, a doubling there, a tripling elsewhere in less sensitive parts of the system, one would be wise to think just maybe it portends some serious issues with acceleration in the most sensitive parts of the system.
nigelj @20,
On SLR, you say “I would be interested in your view.”
The start point is surely IPCC AR5 which is projecting SLR up-to about 3ft from 1990 through to 2100 under RCP8.5. If you add on the 20th century SLR, this matches the studies trying to set the upper limit for 2100 which were usually setting it at near to 4ft. There are a few analyses that the AR5 bats into the long grass (including the NOAA study of 2012 mentioned up-thread that put the worst-case limit at 6½ft). But note that the AR5 goes on to say of their 3ft limit ”Only the collapse of the marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause GMSL to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise.” I think this pretty-much completes the picture; up-to-6ft SLR by 2100 relative to 1900. I don’t see this as signifiantly underplaying SLR (as AR4 did).
And note that the up-to-6ft SLR by 2100 is projected under RCP8.5 with the rate of SLR at the top end of those projections reaching multi-metre/century by 2100. So the Mid Miocene rates of SLR are being seen in these projections. (I would shy away from considering rates of SLR through the last deglaciation. I don’t see comparable situations.) And the take-away – This SLR under RCP8.5 is somewhere we don’t want to be going, just like so many othere consequences of RCP8.5.
So if we avoid RCP8.5 and avoid destabalising the ice caps Greenland & Antarctica by keeping AGW below 2ºC, what then? The SLR remaining is not accelerating through to 2100 but does remain greatly significant if allowed to continue for successive centuries. That will require serious reductions in CO2 levels to prevent. (Hopefully future generations will be able to enact such reductions.)
And beyond all that is Hansen.
I have ever struggled with Hansen’s multi-metre SLR. The rate of SLR he is projecting at 2100 to achieve his 15ft SLR is crazily high. Hansen et al (2016) provides a hypothesis to give the idea some respectibility but it still requires a mass of work to develop it from being just speculation.
Victorsays
28 Ray, as you well know, I’m not a scientist and I’m certainly not in a position to “do the math.” Whether your calculations are correct or even meaningful, I have no idea — maybe you could point us to the peer-reviewed research behind the evidence you’ve presented.
I also have no idea regarding the relative influence of geothermal heat due to volcanic activity and heat due to “climate change.” Nor, as I gather from some of the recent literature, does anyone else.
I simply pointed to the fact that undermining of the glacier in question is thought to have begun thousands of years ago. And since well over 100 volcanoes have been discovered beneath it, I’d say it does make some sense to speculate that geothermal heat could have played an important role. And if that’s the case it could be continuing to play the same role today.
My point was not to insist that volcanic activity was the principal player in the breakdown of Pine Island and Thwaites, but to wonder how anyone could think that cutting back on fossil fuel emissions (in itself a gargantuan task) could have much of an influence in slowing a process that began thousands of years ago and is likely to continue regardless of anything we do or don’t do. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s scientific findings in this regard, I’m just using simple common sense. Has anyone actually calculated the effect cutting back on fossil fuels (say by 50%) would have on the W. Antarctic ice sheet? How much of a delay might such a measure produce? 1 year? 2? 10?
mikesays
Hey, Nigel
What was your prediction for SLR by 2100 in 2013?
Same question for 2008?
Do you remember what you thought about SLR 5 years ago and 10 years ago?
If yes, are you willing to share those memories and discuss the implications?
Cheers,
Mike
mikesays
Evolving thinking on SLR on a warmed and warming planet:
cliff notes: Stefan Rahmstorf was on the high side of the discussion by talking about 1.4 meters of SLR by 2100. Huybrechts was on the low side. Differences were driven by models used.
from the article: “Process models generally predict rather less than 1 meter of rise by 2100, whereas semi-empirical models top out at between 1 and 2 meters — enough, at the higher end, to flood the homes of 187 million people. These high-end, semi-empirical estimates are extremely controversial, and the IPCC has low confidence in them. “The only advantage of these models is that they’re easy to calculate,” says Philippe Huybrechts, an ice modeler at the Brussels Free University. “I think they’re wrong.”
I can’t find any 2018 statements from Huybrechts, but Prof Rahmstorf is still talking and his projections from 2013 are more like mainstream thinking now. Does anyone know if Huybrechts has changed his position and projection in the past 5 years?
Here is another interesting read from the 2013 time capsule:
“Based on this historical record and the fact that the Laurentide melted away under summertime temperatures similar to those expected in Greenland by the end of this century, Carlson and his colleagues forecast glacial melting that contributes somewhere between 2.8 inches (seven centimeters) and 5.1 inches (13 centimeters) of sea level rise per year, or as much as a 4.3-foot (1.3-meter) increase by 2100.”
and
“sea level rise from all other melting ice and the expansion of seawater as the weather gets warmer over the next century would be somewhere between 2.6 feet (0.8 meter) and six feet (two meters)—or nearly twice as much as projected last year by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
“Hansen concludes that even if the human race could maintain today’s level of atmospheric CO2, which stands at 385 ppm—not even halfway to the atmospheric doubling we are headed for—sea level would rise several meters thanks to the disintegration of continental ice sheets. Moreover, he thinks disintegration may happen much faster than one might naively expect.”
“As with many of Hansen’s assertions, this one pushes the science further than some of his colleagues would be willing to go. Back in 1998, for example, Hansen was arguing that the human impact on climate was unquestionable, even as other leading climate scientists continued to question it. He was subsequently proved right, not only about the human influence but about the approximate pace of future temperature rise.”
Maybe I will take a look back 15 yrs and see what SA was publishing on SLR in 2003. I chose Scientific American because it is so mainstream and I think it is representative of the mainstrean science sources that tend to inform folks like Nigel.
Cheers
Mike
mikesays
A search for discussion of SLR in the Scientific American from 2003 turns up nothing in my quick search. Here is that search result:
The “mainstream” scientific discussion reflected in SA in 2003 was still about whether AGW was real.
15 years seems like a long time, but it’s really not that long, unless you are behind bars or start the time period as a toddler.
30 years ago, James Hansen was convinced that AGW was happening and the impacts would be serious. Smart guy and dedicated scientist imho.
My guess is that if you asked Nigel about SLR in 2003, you would have gotten the mainstream science position reflected in SA that AGW is not settled science, so AGW-related SLR discussion makes no sense. Contrarians, lukewarmers, etc. are always late to the party. These folks pride themselves on a certainty that the dullards haven’t understood the science yet and are bringing up the rear, while the alarmists have misunderstood the science and have over-estimated the impact. So far, as 5 year time frames pass, the alarmists have been proven most accurate time after time. There are scientific outliers on the alarm side and there are folks who think the world is flat on the other end of the spectrum. I think we can leave those folks out of the discussion.
CO2? How are we doing?
Last Week
June 24 – 30, 2018 410.57 ppm
June 24 – 30, 2017 407.87 ppm
Daily CO2
July 4, 2018: 409.79 ppm
July 4, 2017: 409.30 ppm
Noisy numbers. The number that matters? the 410 ppm range we are thumping along at and how far that is from the 350-385 range where we might have best chance of a relatively stable global climate like the one in which our evolved… if you believe in evolution. I do.
Cheers,
Mike
Cheers
Al Bundysays
nigelj: Only J Hansen to my knowledge has formally predicted 5 metres by 2100.
AB: In 2016 at a gathering in Miami Dr Hal Wanless said that he personally predicts 15 feet by 2100. (ref: “The Water is Coming” – I forget the author)
nigelj: there’s a huge difference for humanity between 600mm, or 2000mm or 5000mm, although none are good.
AB: Since the end result is likely baked in, I’d say the faster the better for humanity. With three feet by 2100 humanity will expend huge amounts of energy trying to save Miami et al in a hopeless struggle. Spewing massive amounts of carbon without a payoff just makes things worse. The MOSE project that hopes to save Venice is a good example. Billions of dollars and the associated carbon is being tossed in the trash because MOSE is likely to be worthless quite soon after it’s completed. If 15 feet is in the cards then humanity will wake the ef up rather quickly.
Al Bundysays
nigelj,
Another 5M+ prediction just came out:
“sea levels may rise six metres or more even if the world meets the 2°C target, according to an international team of researchers from 17 countries.
The findings published last week in Nature Geoscience”
A general question prompted by recent weather events. At what point do individual extreme weather events start to become clearly indicative of longer term climate shifts?
Just as a for example consider the recent and ongoing heatwaves. Assuming some sort of agreed measure of normal ranges of variability of for example temperature records are there some levels at which an individual extreme event is so far outside “normal” variability that it becomes possible to see it as evidence for a shift in the previous pattern?
Clearly any event just outside previous “normal” variability isn’t going to do this as it could be argued that it simply might indicate that the “normal” variability might be seen to allow for less frequent extremes. But there must come a point I assume when a single weather event, or episode, or run of events has moved so far outside the previous expected level of variability that it indicates something more significant.
I would be interested in how such links between weather events ( or runs of weather events eg a series of record temp years) are made with longer term climate shifts. I guess I’m asking how the interface between weather events and climate shifts is handled by the science.
July 5 at 4:45 PM
The No. 2 official at the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler, has spent a decade working for just the sort of companies he will now be expected to regulate as EPA’s acting administrator.
Even if Wheeler ends up recusing himself from some decisions, his record as a lobbyist at the firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting suggests he will have no trouble picking up where Pruitt left off. Wheeler represented energy companies, mining companies and a mixture of others with issues ranging from food to salvaging automobiles. Among his professional activities, he listed his post as vice president of the Washington Coal Club….
…
“There is every reason to expect that he will pursue just as vigorously all the regulatory policies and initiatives in progress that were initiated by Pruitt,” said Joseph Goffman, executive director of Harvard Law School’s environmental law program.
As a lobbyist, Wheeler’s best-paying client was the coal mining firm Murray Energy, which paid the firm $300,000 or more annually from 2009 through 2017, according to records from the Center for Responsive Politics.
…
As a lobbyist, Wheeler commented on a 2010 National Journal blog post that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “has functioned more as a political body than a scientific body” and that the group should revisit its 2009 finding that carbon-dioxide emissions posed a threat to public health.
…
Many Republicans will find that track record makes Wheeler the sort of EPA leader they want.
“Andrew Wheeler is the perfect choice to serve as Acting Administrator,” Inhofe said in a statement Thursday. “Andrew worked for me for 14 years, has an impeccable reputation and has the experience to be a strong leader at the EPA. I have no doubt and complete confidence he will continue the important deregulatory work that Scott Pruitt started while being a good steward of the environment.”
nigeljsays
Mike @41, I have thought sea level rise could be two metres by 2100 for about three years now. I have always thought the IPCC looked too conservative on it right from the 1990’s. Whats your point anyway?
May the long-term regulars here learn some civility and manners so this forum can be what it could be. I’ve looked back at old posts and they didn’t used to be so… difficult. I used to have quite civil discussions with them all.
Let’s leave our egos at the door.
From June: #286 Hank Roberts said K: “we do know there are multiple analyses of multiple areas of the cryosphere melting at doubling and tripling times of under a decade. “
Citation please? I looked and did not find your source.
It’s possible to have a firm impression, when you saw something somewhere at some time, and yet be unable to find a reference. Some of RC’s hosts will know where to look, perhaps. There are, unfortunately, some truly wacko people out there makng unsourced claims about the rate of change
Be sure to give Hansen, et al., my regards when you send them their notification of having been declared wackos, e.g. Kevin, I think, mentioned it.
From June #287 Hank Roberts said P.S., here’s a rate change “more than double” for sea level rise: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/sea-level-acceleration-2/
Yeah, so, as I said, 0.109/yr acceleration. I laid it out, clearly. It includes Hansen, et al., laying out the possibility of 10-year and even 5-year melt rates based on, iirc, paleodata and current melt rates in limited locations, iirc, Greenland; it includes the Antarctic instability papers, two of them, at least one of which estimated 10 ft. by 2100; it includes, regardless any misquotes from a reporter, what Wanless *meant* to convey: Rate of melt is accelerating, and he sees as much as 15 (but there is zero support for my saying melt can double in sub-decade time frames); it includes Nerem, et al., with their estimated top end of 0.109, as I laid out in a post none of you read, or none of you understood.
And it includes the simple observation that all this acceleration is matched all over the planet by other accelerations of different kinds and virtually no hysteresis to speak of anywhere.
That none of you can keep the totality of the science in your nitpicky little heads is the bane of the board, second only to your intentionally hostile attitudes.
Then you have the utterly biased ridiculousness of nigelj, for example, not even blinking at Arse Bundy agreeing with Hansen when that is essentially all I have done. Stupid. Utterly damned stupid discourse from you all.
I have no problem with having taken a reporter as accurate and been *in part* incorrect. None. Mistakes happen. Won’t be my last. But you all got so hung up on the exact numbers you completely missed the point: Being sanguine about melt rates is suicidally stupid. This one presentation by one professor misquoted by one reporter IS NOT THE GODDAMNED POINT. The point is we have sources, as I already said, from multiple types of studies, multiple areas of the globe, indicating doubling rates that are uncomfortably short and already capable of ending civilization as you know it.
But, god, yes, you got your gotcha!
Stupid, stupid, stupid crap that I am tired of experiencing here. I have a son. His life matters, so shut the hell up and do some work.
I was right about SLR ten years ago and I will be again. Meanwhile, you’ll be proving someone forgot to cross a goddamned t.
Shame on you all. Again. And again…. will it ever effing end? Christ…
————————————-
And, nigel, I am absolutely certain you have never presented anything novel on climate science, ever. Zero doubt. But what is so incredibly stupid is how you have again completely massacred a comment and twisted into a petty, PTA debate over the best cookies. I would, of course, have no idea what you do elsewhere, and I hope to god I never encounter you elsewhere in this world, for it would be a monumental waste of my time, so *of course* the only frame of reference was these boards. How can you *not* figure that out for yourself?
Much to my extreme consternation, I recently found myself reading, on the notorious WUWT blog, a post by Tim Ball titled “Evolutionary and Global Warming Theory: Predictable Responses with No Empirical Evidence.” (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/01/evolutionary-and-global-warming-theory-predictable-responses-with-no-empirical-evidence/#comment-2393641) In this piece, Ball attempts to equate skepticism regarding the climate change paradigm with his nutty conspiracy theory regarding Darwinian evolution. I knew about his feelings re climate change, but his attitude toward evolution was something I didn’t really notice until now.
I find all this particularly disturbing because someone posting here not too long ago expressed the suspicion that “Victor” was a pseudonym for Tim Ball. Yikes! So I want to take this opportunity to declare in no uncertain terms that I am most definitely NOT Tim Ball, nor do I subscribe to his extremely naive, if not paranoid, view of Darwinian evolution as some sort of conspiracy on the part of “big government” to control the minds of its citizens. Sadly this is a view held by many on the extreme right of the political spectrum, and since many of these people claim to also be climate change skeptics, this poses a problem for skeptics like myself who have nothing in common with right wing ideologues and are not inclined to support conspiracy theories.
To make my position clear, here’s the comment I posted in response to Ball’s essay:
“It will ease your mind, Tim, to learn that humans share 98.8% of their genome with chimps, according to numerous studies based on DNA — thus proving unequivocally that chimps and homo sapiens have a common ancestor. See https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps/
While there are a great many other reasons to accept the Darwinian view of evolution, this evidence should settle the matter. As for all the many other questions you raise, many have been explained, others remain to be explained. But the basic idea behind Darwin’s theory has held up very well over many years of careful study. Climate change is another matter entirely.”
UAH is reporting June 2018 TLT with an anomaly of +0.21ºC, a little up on May’s +0.18ºC. It is =8th warmest May in UAH TLT, matching 2017 and below first-placed 1998 (+0.57ºC and in UAH way out front, still), 2016, 2010, 1991, 2015, 2002 (all pitching in at roughly +0.31ºC) & 2014. April 2018 is the =93rd warmest month on the full all-month UAH TLT record.
Now halfway though 2018, in the UAH TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits =6th. .
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.31ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … … 3rd
2002 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.22ºC
2007 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 10th
2005 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … … 7th
2003 .. +0.18ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 8th
2004 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 15th
…
And those who have missed JAXA’s ViSHOP polar SIE web page of late (which has been down with some computer problems), it is now back up and running again.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/are-past-climates-telling-us-were-missing-something/
Summarising: Important research on the Miocene, when temperatures and CO2 levels were similar to what we expect this century. Sea levels ultimately rose 40 metres (!)over thousands of years, more than previously thought, but equally importantly there were rapid periods of sea level rise of about 2 metres per century….
The article discusses a wet and very green landscape, where climate models don’t predict quite this. However other material suggests the Miocene was quite arid in large parts of the world.
nigelj, I didn’t say Dr Hansen is right. I said, “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 I think we’re more or less in agreement, perhaps with me being a tad more “alarmist” than you.
On meltwater pulse 1a, my comment was based on the speculation that it came primarily from Canada’s Laurentide Ice Sheet. Given that ice is heavy, perhaps much of Canada was below sea level at the time, so I see your point. I’m sure you have far more knowledge on 1a than I do. Care to expound?
———
On sniping and insulting:
I think that it’s bleed-over from Victor-sniping. Folks go after Vic because he’s ever so proudly DK. The blood stains everyone and since we’re in shark-mode the feeding frenzy becomes cannibalistic.
Killian @1 and 2
“May the long-term regulars here learn some civility and manners so this forum can be what it could be. ”
Killian then goes on to insult and abuse all of us. I mean I just dont have the words for the level of hypocrisy.
“I would, of course, have no idea what you do elsewhere”.
I was simply pointing out I had made other predictions on other websites. You are the person making an issue of this. However I had made a specific prediction on sea level rise here, which you conveniently ignored.
“The point is we have sources, as I already said, from multiple types of studies, multiple areas of the globe, indicating doubling rates that are uncomfortably short and already capable of ending civilization as you know it.”
Of course we have doublings in some trends, I assume you mean the antarctic ice issue and decline in insect and bird populations etc. I have posted some of these myself. But this is a long way from an ‘exponential trend’ and the causes are multiple and not due to just climate change. The impacts on our civilsation (and animal species) could be severe but everyone here seems to accept this from what I have read, so WHY do you imply we dont?
“Then you have the utterly biased ridiculousness of nigelj, for example, not even blinking at Arse Bundy agreeing with Hansen ”
What nonsense. I have twice questioned why Al bundy agrees with Hansen so much.
Killian you are just blathering on with ridiculous statements by the dozen.
Al Bundy @6
“So I think we’re more or less in agreement, perhaps with me being a tad more “alarmist” than you.”
Yes exactly! I do think Hansen has looked hard at physical mechanisms, and so if he says 5 metres by 2100 is ‘possible’ then I accept its “possible”, but its a stretch, and I think 2 metres is the number.
Just look up “meltwater pulse 1a” on wikipedia which caused 5 metres in one century. About half was from american ice sheets, (which must have depressed the substrate as you say) and about half from the antarctic, and appeared to be from warm currents undermining the ice. Some is of course from Greenland and Europe etc.
Since we dont have huge ice sheets over the Americas etc today, this suggests to me Antarctica and Greenland will be the main sources of rapid sea level rise this century. Antarctica certainly looks like it has the potential for serious ice loss, Greenland not quite as fast although it depends on how many fissures the ice develops. But add it all together and theres less ice sheets today and so it looks to me like 2 metres by 2100 is a very possible figure.
On sniping and insulting. I have been guilty of being abrasive at times, but certain people like Killian are way over the top, and its not frigging acceptable.
To the moderators. I am, of course, fully aware that my viewpoint is very different from yours and that I frequently take positions antithetical to the orthodox position on climate change that you so forcefully advocate. Nevertheless, I consistently take pains to back up literally all my assertions either with evidence or references to legitimate, published sources. And in the rare cases where I am unable to produce evidence I make it clear that I am only offering an opinion. Moreover, you may have noticed that I am among the very few posting here who scrupulously avoids personal attacks.
I find it disappointing, therefore, that you see fit to consign so many of my posts to the Bore Hole, not only because I don’t appreciate being muzzled, but also because you thereby deprive others from responding. I’m especially disappointed to see that you’ve bore-holed my recent response to Tamino, thus depriving him of the opportunity to defend his views in the light of my critique.
By censoring so many posts, both mine and those of others, you give the impression that you are either afraid of or unable to deal with the sort of controversy that is part and parcel of all science.
[Response: Your stuff goes to the Bore Hole because it’s boring. The cherry picks are obvious, the points being made are stale, your lack of interest in dealing with the bigger picture is manifest. Up your game. – gavin]
Killian, accuses me of unoriginality (yawn) and is ever boasting, clearly believes he is a great original thinker. But his simplification philosophy is not new, and I reached similar conclusions for myself after reading “limits to growth” and I’m sure Im not alone. At best he has possibly added a few details.
His exponential growth is more applicable to population and economic output than climate. So I’m not sure Killian is making the right distinction between various types of growth curves and phenomena.
Killian boasts of his predictions. I dont know what Killian has predicted over the years, but I would bet serious money his strike rate is probably 50 / 50, especially given the way he has fallen flat on his face on several issues on this website. We all delude ourselves we are perfect.
But hey, he is entitled to his views and is light years ahead of Victor.
Deniers like Victor and lots of abusive language, worse than any climate heating.
1: I would recommend you practice what you preach. Much of what you post consists of insulting other posters who dare to question or disagree with you (e.g constant peanut gallery references). It is a shame because you do make some good points, but they are polluted by your hostile retaliations which makes reading your posts very off-putting. Questioning an opinion or theory of yours does not equate to calling you an idiot.
nigelj @5,
You did earlier link to that same Howard Lee article in last month’s UV thread suggesting the Mid Miocene was supporting your view on potential future SLR (although without explaining more). In many ways the article is a bit of a strange account, perhaps explained by it being a re-write/update of a simlar account from earlier years.
For myself, I do not feel the Mid Miocene shows anything we do not already know. The idea that mankind will precipitate multi-metre SLR if AGW rises above 2ºC is surely not controversial. Greenland will certainly melt-out at such levels of AGW, a process which would become unstoppable if it is allowed to run long enough. Antarctica must also hold similar threats, perhaps ones that would more readily create a rapid bout of unstoppable multi-metre SLR.
The question is thus about the stability of today’s polar ice caps and how long the caps can stay stable while AGW temperatures peak for some period near/beyond the 2ºC limit, (this assuming that our descendents will be soon sucking our CO2 out of the atmosphere with their whizzy technologies to reverse the excesses of our AGW).
So would our imprecise understanding of the Mid Miocene improve our understanding of the threat of multi-metre SLR under AGW? It certainly shows us there is a threat. But beyond that, is there anything to learn? I don’t see it can be argued that there is.
Congratulations to Victor on upholding evolutionary theory.
Made a new video during a heatwave
Active volcano discovered beneath Antarctic ice sheet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sof_sJxD8yQ
[Response: Your stuff goes to the Bore Hole because it’s boring. The cherry picks are obvious, the points being made are stale, your lack of interest in dealing with the bigger picture is manifest. Up your game. – gavin]
When you present evidence, it’s evidence, when I present evidence, it’s “cherry picking.” Looks like a double standard to me. I offer evidence that hardly anyone here wants to consider, such as the evidence I recently presented regarding that melting Antarctic ice sheet. Does the fact that this situation had been noted already during the 1960’s, and attributed to a process that was at least 1,000 years old constitute cherry picking? Does the fact that studies have shown the West Antarctic ice sheet to be undermined by geothermal heating, and that over 100 volcanoes have been discovered lurking beneath it, constitute cherry picking? I’d imagine this is the sort of thing people discussing the science would want to know about.
As for the big picture, my claim is very simply that a diagonal line starting at 1900 and continuing through 2018 does not constitute a meaningful trend and all the statistics in the world won’t make it so. Just because it is now hotter than it was at the turn of the 20th century tells us nothing about AGW unless we are able to establish a clear and convincing correlation between CO2 emissions and temperatures AND establish a clear and convincing cause and effect relationship.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/07/03/625653735/how-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-air-could-lead-to-more-human-disease
Killian, one final point. I don’t owe anyone any apology. I’m not responsible for the fact the Guardian misquoted Dr Wanless so dramatically, and in fairness neither are you. But you should have known the claims in the Guardian were nonsensical, because you must surely have looked at basic sea level rise trends.
“Deniers like Victor and lots of abusive language, worse than any climate heating.”
Exactly. Best quote of the week.
MA Rodger @13,
I linked to the Miocene paper because it was interesting and well written and has popped up on other websites, and was relevant to the sea level rise issues on UV recently.
It seems a lot to claim it shows nothing new. It does find total sea level rise on millenia time scales could be considerably more than previously thought, so not insignificant I would have thought!
“The question is thus about the stability of today’s polar ice caps and how long the caps can stay stable while AGW temperatures peak for some period near/beyond the 2ºC limit,”
Well yes and you make good comments on this, I couldn’t agree more, but it’s the longer term picture over many centuries. But for me the more interesting issue is what sea level can we expect by 2100? Or perhaps 2200? Because there’s a huge difference for humanity between 600mm, or 2000mm or 5000mm, although none are good.
The Miocene article did mention that sea level rise had been 2 metres at times per century, and we could be at risk of this (to cut a long story short) and I’m pretty sure it mentioned accelerated rates of ice loss in the Antarctic, the very thing we are now seeing evidence of. This was my main take away, that temperatures and CO2 concentrations were similar in the Miocene to what we expect this century, and sea level rise appeared to be rapid at times. Of course temperatures in the Miocene were possibly well established before the antarctic tipped in to a period of rapid melting, and it comes down to just how fast the antarctic could destabilise this century, but if it destabilised quickly back then in a single century, then why wouldn’t this happen now?
Meltwater pulse 1a was much later, but exhibited similar warming trend to today and rapid sea level rise within just one century.
So any way, it seems at least the antarctic destabilised rather rapidly during both the miocene and the later ice age related period, and in a single century, so its a clue to worst case scenarios by 2100 for us. I’m not seeing 5 metre’s per century as some have predicted, but 2 metre’s seems very possible. I’m speculating of course. I would be interested in your view.
Of course sea level rise this century has to be based on physics and modelling predictions, but the past history needs to be considered as well I think.
Killian: learn some civility and manners [followed immediately with no intervening posts by anyone] your nitpicky little heads truly wacko people utterly biased ridiculousness of nigelj Arse Bundy Stupid. Utterly damned stupid discourse from you all. Stupid, stupid, stupid crap nigel never presented anything novel so incredibly stupid massacred a comment and twisted into a petty, PTA I hope to god I never encounter you elsewhere in this world How can you *not* figure that out for yourself? Shame on you all will it ever effing end? Christ…
AB: When I spoke about the bleedover from VictorSniping I considered mentioning you but refrained because I wanted to be civil.
——————–
nigelj: I think 2 metres is the number.
AB: That would be my guess, too. But if the freedom to pollute via bunker-fueled container ships is extended to the arctic ocean then Hansen might be proven inaccurate in an unfortunate way. And, of course, the melt rate will be far higher in 2100 than it is today which means that there will be no beaches, no reefs, and no stable coastlines.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19042018/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-climate-change-arctic-pollution-sea-level-rise-algae-black-carbon
Killian, I have a question concerning the numbers you put up on comment 281 of the June thread. Are you using your functions for melt rate as a proxy for sea level more generally? Or is there a function in between your melt rates and sea level rise?
The reason I ask, is that I get pretty different results. I use 4.8mm/year as the current rate of SLR and sum from 2018 to 2100.
For the linear 0.109mm/y acceleration, I get 0.76m. For the 7-year doubling rate, the total is 163m. This is a bit higher than the 10% increase per year, which comes in at 125m. The 7-year doubling should be higher, because 7-year doubling is approximately a 10.4% increase per year (rule of 7, anyone?). The 5% increase per year comes out to 5.3m.
Also, I really think you need to posit some kind of physical mechanism if you want to extrapolate an exponential function. Honestly, I can’t come up with one. It seems physically implausible…
In fact, it might not be surprising to see the 2nd derivative decline once the edges of the ice sheets (especially Arctic) have withdrawn and are no longer in contact with the ocean (note the elevation of the Arctic continent and a recent study suggesting rebound of the continent). Once the Arctic ice is only in contact with the still-freezing air and not the warmer water, it might well start losing ice at a lower rate. Obviously, this is pure speculation, but I’d love to get the thoughts of the usual contributors (or even those that are less usual).
#12 Adam Lea said 1: I would recommend you practice what you preach. Much of what you post consists of insulting other posters who dare to question or disagree with you (e.g constant peanut gallery references). It is a shame because you do make some good points, but they are polluted by your hostile retaliations which makes reading your posts very off-putting. Questioning an opinion or theory of yours does not equate to calling you an idiot.
I’ll just leave this right here.
Just finishing old business at #2, nigel. Don’t get too excited. That post needed posting. And nobody was insulted. You, as usual, cannot tell the difference. And completely failed to address the main point of the latter half of the post.
What nonsense. I have twice questioned why Al bundy agrees with Hansen so much.
But you weren’t an ass about it. To wit: Yes exactly! I do think Hansen has looked hard at physical mechanisms, and so if he says 5 metres by 2100 is ‘possible’ then I accept its “possible”, but its a stretch, and I think 2 metres is the number.
Now go back and see how you responded to ME saying the same damned thing. These two things are not equal. And you have zero support for that two meters at this point. The Miocene is not analogous and the recent research of the last two years makes two meters very unlikely. Referring back to 6 year-old science is absurd, isn’t it?
Now, move on to more adult things.
Killian @24 “and the recent research of the last two years makes two meters very unlikely”
Please show EXACTLY how you conclude this.
Victor @16
This isn’t a big picture. It its simply a position statement.
Victor doesn’t even know what dealing with the big picture means. Dealing with the big picture means covering the entire perspective of an issue and Victor is incapable of understanding the big picture let alone dealing with it. Victor neglects any evidence that is contrary to his viewpoint and ignores many of the factors that contribute to planetary temperatures. For the most part he ignores wide swaths of the science and physics including what it tells us about heat transfer in the climate system and the radiative properties of greenhouse gases. What is possible and what isn’t. And he most certainly ignores statistics because he knows better. In his simple mind statistics must be wrong just because he cannot eyeball a trend that a world renown statistician tells him exists. Oh, the arrogance. And finally, Victor declares once again that there is no correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures although he has been shown time and time again that there is significant correlation and that a clear and convincing cause and effect relationship has been established.
Victor cannot deal with the big picture, he is incapable of it.
With Victor it is rinse lather repeat. He learns nothing. He is arrogant. He never admits he is wrong.
He is boring and adds nothing to the discussion of the science.
CCHolley @26,
It is fair to say that the moron Victor Grauer of Pittsburg PA does provide a good insight into the febrile processes of denialism. For some reason, such morons feel they can legitimately refute science simply because they refuse to agree with the findings. Note that for Victor the evidential basis of AGW requires that “we are able” to provide it, the “we” being inclusive of Victor himself with his Neanderthal rebutals of modern science.
I found it humerous that his counter to accusations of cherry-picking evidence was to point to some cherry-picked evidence he had wielded recently while furthering a different aspect of his denialism. (This evidence Victor claims as an exemplar of his use-of-evidence became boreholed but his argument runs that the volcanoes/volcanic-activity under Western Antarctica has to be a pre-AGW phenomenon and obviously (if you are a deluded moron like Victor Grauer of Pittsburg PA) you will not stop volcanoes/excessive-SLR/climate-change by “cutting back on CO2 emissions.” And in saying this, it is evident is that the moron Victor Grauer of Pittsburg PA has not bothered to properly read the documents he cites.)
So, Weaktor, let’s talk about why what you are doing not only is not science, but is anti-science. In science, we gather information not only to answer questions, but to generate new questions that we need to gather evidence to answer and so forth. You gather only so much evidence as you need to quiet your worries that you may be wrong and to sate your feeble curiosity.
Case in point–your attempt to attribute Antarctic ice loss to volcanoes smouldering beneath the ice. However, the Antarctic has lost 2.72 petatonnes of ice since 1992. Now even if all that ice was at 0 degrees C (it wasn’t) and we only had to provide enough energy to melt it, that represents ~910 exajoules of energy! Also note that the 2.72 petatonnes is a net amount. The ice loss from those portions of Antarctica that are actually losing ice is even larger.
Problem: A years worth of volcanic activity on Earth releases ~50 petajoules. Mt. Saint Helens released ~1 exajoule, and that was a pretty impressive eruption. Is it seriously your contention that all your volcanoes have been erupting continually with energy release equivalent to Mt. Saint Helens for over 20 years?
Seriously, Weaktor, if you are too dim to do the math, surely you can find somebody in Pittsburgh who is capable. But that isn’t the point, is it? What you are after is something–anything, no matter how absurd–to keep you from actually having to think.
re my own comment (@22): Obviously, I hope, I meant Antarctica where I said Arctic… D’oh!
One thing I love about vic’s eyeball statitics is his insistence that “wiggles” in the record must perfectly align in order for there to be a “significant” correlation. Therefore, I can only assume that if 2 variables are 180 degrees completely out of phase, there can be no significant correlation. Right?
#25 nigelj said Killian @24 “and the recent research of the last two years makes two meters very unlikely”
Please show EXACTLY how you conclude this.
I already have. Please read for content.
——————————–
#22 MartinJB said Killian, I have a question concerning the numbers you put up on comment 281 of the June thread. Are you using your functions for melt rate as a proxy for sea level more generally? Or is there a function in between your melt rates and sea level rise?
The reason I ask, is that I get pretty different results. I use 4.8mm/year as the current rate of SLR and sum from 2018 to 2100.
For the linear 0.109mm/y acceleration, I get 0.76m.
I try to include a caveat and invitation any time I trot out math because I suck at it. Probably my error, assuming we’re actually shooting for the same calculation. Your numbers seem to be correct after checking my formula.
For the 7-year doubling rate, the total is 163m.
Higher than mine.
This is a bit higher than the 10% increase per year, which comes in at 125m. The 7-year doubling should be higher, because 7-year doubling is approximately a 10.4% increase per year (rule of 7, anyone?). The 5% increase per year comes out to 5.3m.
I’m not going to recheck these. I suspect your numbers are fine and mine are wacky. I am poor at math and worse with excel-type apps.
All these numbers are disasters, so… hopefully people will begin to get the gist of the issue here.
Also, I really think you need to posit some kind of physical mechanism if you want to extrapolate an exponential function. Honestly, I can’t come up with one. It seems physically implausible…
I don’t. The point is about risk. The risk is high; it is disastrous. What more do we need to know? However, the rapid decline is not implausible. Melt pulses from the Texas coast coral measurements show 1.5m in decadal time frames. How many of those might we see? What is not OK is to say all this has no evidence: It all does. It is wrong to belittle people for *reasoning* where science cannot go: The future. I have said for years, there is precious little going on in the way of hysteresis. Not once has a scientist here or a poster here made even the slightest contradiction of that point, and the import of it is this: The planet has never been here before. Low-balling the possibilities makes for a very poor risk assessment, IMO.
Still, the various mechanisms of melt are known to this group, I’d think. Do I really need to repeat them? I think the issue is, why *can’t* things just keep accelerating? The only answer to that might be Nature just doesn’t work that way. It’s punctuated changes laid over trends. But will a system with so little hysteresis behave similarly to the past? It makes sense to me to assume a never before seen regime will produce never before seen changes.
In fact, it might not be surprising to see the 2nd derivative decline once the edges of the ice sheets (especially Arctic) have withdrawn and are no longer in contact with the ocean (note the elevation of the Arctic continent and a recent study suggesting rebound of the continent).
Sure. Or maybe it will have gone so fast by then the land ice is already collapsing. But, yes, one would hope if the face of the glaciers were on land things would slow down, but all that ice on land now is only being slowed by the ice in the water blocking it. Studies show when the ice shelves are removed the ice streams move *faster,* so I wouldn’t place too large a bet on slowing.
Again, what is key here on this board is for those suggesting more sluggish outcomes to understand their conservatives views are no more likely than the high estimates. Less, actually. And, again, it’s poor risk assessment when the risk is collapse or worse.
Thanks for the response and the better math.
——————————
Al,
Please add content to your posts. This isn’t the PTA or a drunken soiree.
#20, et al., nj and MA:
The Miocene is a weak proxy, not a good proxy, so keep that in mind. There is no good proxy for today; there were no ice caps when the dinos were (mostly) taken out, and that would be the closest proxy in terms of rapidity of change. What is it we hear, up to a 1,000x faster than ever before? How does that not have an effect? How does it lead to *conservative* numbers?
And, while you look to the Miocene and numbers similar to today, are you bearing in mind the Arctic started melting at numbers not close to the Miocene max? Approximately 315ppm in 1953 for extent, iirc? (Numbers could be a little off, but not enough to matter.) Even Antarctica started melting decades ago (though I’ve never heard what that specifically meant.)
The ice sheet over far western Europe is thought to have made its final melt within a century.
Where’s a graveyard? I’ve some whistling I’m in the mood for…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/03/hot-planet-all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-in-last-week/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/world/australia/great-barrier-reef.html
Killian, as far as I can tell from what you write, you have no physical basis for saying that an exponential SLR function is more likely than a quadratic. Even to get to 2m (a number that would surprise no-one here, I think) of SLR in 2100, the rate of acceleration has to be 5x higher than the upper end of the quoted published range (0.084 +/-2.4 mm/y^2). So, when you say the risk is “high” for an exponential increase in SLR, are you talking about the odds or the impact? I assume you mean the odds, but that seems unsupported. And no-one here underestimates the impact.
You probably shouldn’t be disappointed then that people have a hard time taking your risk analysis less than seriously. But I don’t think that will stop you from insulting them. E.g. “That none of you can keep the totality of the science in your nitpicky little heads is the bane of the board, second only to your intentionally hostile attitudes.” Some people might have a different idea of the “bane of the board”.
I’ll just leave that right there, in the hope that you do a little soul-searching…
Victor Grauer is a musicologist, a musician of some sort with a degree in music analysis. I think he is a guy who loves an audience, hence his ranting on this website. His climate analysis is terrible, but his music sounds even worse as follows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZUSSfO7O7g
Killian @31 and 32.
Killian says “I don’t. The point is about risk. The risk is high; it is disastrous. What more do we need to know?”
I agree, and I think the risk is disastrous whether its 1 or 2 or 5 metres of sea level rise by 2100, and all are at least “possible”. Therefore reducing emissions is just simply essential.
However two points have to be made:
1) Its important for the science community to have defensible, solid sea level rise consensus and analysis, and numbers, because if people make wild claims at the outer extreme, its so easy for denialists to ridicule them. I saw several denialist articles tearing the Guardian article to pieces for example.
Yet the IPCC is so darned conservative as we all know. But this is why I highlighted 2 metres by 2100, (sorry to harp on about it people) because it at least has some historical evidential basis, so is defensible, where 5 metres is stretching things.
Only J Hansen to my knowledge has formally predicted 5 metres by 2100. (Killian posted another paper showing more acceleration in existing sea level rise than thought, but a quick boe calculation shows it would lead to about 1 metre by 2100 as a simple extrapolation.)
2) Regarding Killians question “why wouldn’t things keep accelerating?” (I take this to mean in a monumentally serious, exponential or generally out of control fashion). I think we have reasons to think this is implausible.Its hard to see why they would. The antarctic destabilisation of the ice shelves was anticipated anyway.
Our mitigation response has to be based on plausible levels of acceleration based on scientific assessment, or we would become completely confused and lost. We certainly expect on this basis that warming and sea level rise will follow a curve rather than a linear trend, but not an exponential curve to my knowledge. But then I’m just a layperson, and stand to be corrected by experts.
And mitigation has to be based on levels of risk which are quite high enough without needing to speculate that anything is vaguely possible. However there are a lot of unknowns in sea level rise, and I would agree with the definite possibility it could possibly be considerably higher than the rather limited IPCC estimates, and because of the risks sea level rise presents, even of just 1 metre, we need to recognise the precautionary principle and cut emissions fast.
The Miocene is not a perfect proxy for today. Point taken, Such a thing doesn’t exist because the planet is continually evolving, and the processes are so varied and complex, but the Miocene gives a definite clue what we could be facing, and its not good.
Nigel at #10:
You have no idea what I have predicted, but it must be wrong.
Yes, sure. Certainly you are correct in not knowing, but being certain.
It is not boasting to state facts of history. In reality, I have yet to be wrong. Not always on the nose, but never wrong. Some things are long-term so not yet fully known where they will end, e.g. CH4 and clathrates. But even there the concentration keeps rising and we see new phenomena since 2007 when I stated it would become a problem at a rate faster than Archer and Schmidt were suggesting. I was also on the side of a faster “blue ocean” in the Arctic, but we’re about to pass the +/- on Maslowski’s prediction, but still have two minima to go. (Also, please do not try to stupidly suggest this predicts 100 absence of ice; it is a prediction of 80% loss from long-term highs. I believe we are already there in terms of volume, or very close. I said a long time ago extent is the least important measurement and expect it to be the last of the three to reach the 80% threshhold.) What is important here, however, is not the exact year, but the idea it will likely happen much faster than thought in 2007. If we are accurate on that by decades, nitpicking is childish. Overall rate of change is what all of this is about. Tipping points. We shall see.
These are facts. I mention them for a simple reason: The constant attempts by et al., to defame. I’m an INTP. I like facts. I think they should matter, though clearly this is not important to others. You saying I have “fallen flat on my face on issues” does not make it so. I have not. It is your opinion, false, that I have. Name one. I am not wrong about anything regarding trends in climate science, and anything else is trivial.
You want to take something like a flawed article and pretend that having incorrect information and thus being incorrect on some details because of the incorrect info is meaningful, go ahead, but it is a childish manner of discussion. Am I wrong about rates of melt increasing? No. Am I wrong that they can continue to increase on average? No. Am I wrong about punctuated melt events? No. Am I wrong that scientific papers have suggested 10 ft this century? No. Was I wrong the El Nino would bring record or near new record melt to the Arctic? No.
Have I been right for over ten years that the *system* was accelerating faster than the scientists thought? Yes.
Is that the gist of my comments over time, that rapid change is upon us and risk assessment and policy had better deal with this? Yes. Has anything suggested over those ten years that is not the case? No. I don’t care if I am wrong on specific points, I care that I am right or wrong about the overall systemics. I think I have framed my comments here often enough and clearly enough for this to be a non-controversial statement. Risk, rates of change, policy. Those are broad strokes. Besides, any time I am wrong in the more conservative side, the better for all of humanity. You can try shaming me if I end up having been overly pessimistic, but you will be patting yourself on the back in isolation: A mistake is an opportunity to learn. For the intelligent, sincere, objective, non-egoist learner.
Yet, you are so very sure of your own extremely conservative prediction. I tell you now your prediction will fail. Sadly, I will not likely be alive to point it out when it does. C’est la vie.
Tell us all, please, what original thought you have had on climate and where it came to pass while all or most others were largely incorrect. Bated breath… You regurgitate and you downplay. Nothing more. This is not a crime, but when one speaks of boasting it is useful to note it is most associated with people who have not actually done anything, yet boast of their prowess. That does not fit me, nor my personality, nor my manner, nor the way those who actually know me see me.
It does fit someone always nipping at the heels of those who do have something to boast about, yet who has nothing to offer him-/herself.
[edit]
Re #33 Hank Roberts said Until late in the 20th century, large-scale coral bleaching events around the world occurred about every 27 years, on average, the Climate Council said in a report published Thursday. Now, it said, the rate is once every six years.
Hmmm… a near-quintupling… but such changes are not possible…. right?
I hope people make more effort to see the wholistic nature of the Earth system. If you see a quintupling here, a doubling there, a tripling elsewhere in less sensitive parts of the system, one would be wise to think just maybe it portends some serious issues with acceleration in the most sensitive parts of the system.
Perhaps that is just me…
nigelj @20,
On SLR, you say “I would be interested in your view.”
The start point is surely IPCC AR5 which is projecting SLR up-to about 3ft from 1990 through to 2100 under RCP8.5. If you add on the 20th century SLR, this matches the studies trying to set the upper limit for 2100 which were usually setting it at near to 4ft. There are a few analyses that the AR5 bats into the long grass (including the NOAA study of 2012 mentioned up-thread that put the worst-case limit at 6½ft). But note that the AR5 goes on to say of their 3ft limit ”Only the collapse of the marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause GMSL to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise.” I think this pretty-much completes the picture; up-to-6ft SLR by 2100 relative to 1900. I don’t see this as signifiantly underplaying SLR (as AR4 did).
And note that the up-to-6ft SLR by 2100 is projected under RCP8.5 with the rate of SLR at the top end of those projections reaching multi-metre/century by 2100. So the Mid Miocene rates of SLR are being seen in these projections. (I would shy away from considering rates of SLR through the last deglaciation. I don’t see comparable situations.) And the take-away – This SLR under RCP8.5 is somewhere we don’t want to be going, just like so many othere consequences of RCP8.5.
So if we avoid RCP8.5 and avoid destabalising the ice caps Greenland & Antarctica by keeping AGW below 2ºC, what then? The SLR remaining is not accelerating through to 2100 but does remain greatly significant if allowed to continue for successive centuries. That will require serious reductions in CO2 levels to prevent. (Hopefully future generations will be able to enact such reductions.)
And beyond all that is Hansen.
I have ever struggled with Hansen’s multi-metre SLR. The rate of SLR he is projecting at 2100 to achieve his 15ft SLR is crazily high. Hansen et al (2016) provides a hypothesis to give the idea some respectibility but it still requires a mass of work to develop it from being just speculation.
28 Ray, as you well know, I’m not a scientist and I’m certainly not in a position to “do the math.” Whether your calculations are correct or even meaningful, I have no idea — maybe you could point us to the peer-reviewed research behind the evidence you’ve presented.
I also have no idea regarding the relative influence of geothermal heat due to volcanic activity and heat due to “climate change.” Nor, as I gather from some of the recent literature, does anyone else.
I simply pointed to the fact that undermining of the glacier in question is thought to have begun thousands of years ago. And since well over 100 volcanoes have been discovered beneath it, I’d say it does make some sense to speculate that geothermal heat could have played an important role. And if that’s the case it could be continuing to play the same role today.
My point was not to insist that volcanic activity was the principal player in the breakdown of Pine Island and Thwaites, but to wonder how anyone could think that cutting back on fossil fuel emissions (in itself a gargantuan task) could have much of an influence in slowing a process that began thousands of years ago and is likely to continue regardless of anything we do or don’t do. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s scientific findings in this regard, I’m just using simple common sense. Has anyone actually calculated the effect cutting back on fossil fuels (say by 50%) would have on the W. Antarctic ice sheet? How much of a delay might such a measure produce? 1 year? 2? 10?
Hey, Nigel
What was your prediction for SLR by 2100 in 2013?
Same question for 2008?
Do you remember what you thought about SLR 5 years ago and 10 years ago?
If yes, are you willing to share those memories and discuss the implications?
Cheers,
Mike
Evolving thinking on SLR on a warmed and warming planet:
from 2013: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-big-questions-remain-about-sea-level-rise/
cliff notes: Stefan Rahmstorf was on the high side of the discussion by talking about 1.4 meters of SLR by 2100. Huybrechts was on the low side. Differences were driven by models used.
from the article: “Process models generally predict rather less than 1 meter of rise by 2100, whereas semi-empirical models top out at between 1 and 2 meters — enough, at the higher end, to flood the homes of 187 million people. These high-end, semi-empirical estimates are extremely controversial, and the IPCC has low confidence in them. “The only advantage of these models is that they’re easy to calculate,” says Philippe Huybrechts, an ice modeler at the Brussels Free University. “I think they’re wrong.”
I can’t find any 2018 statements from Huybrechts, but Prof Rahmstorf is still talking and his projections from 2013 are more like mainstream thinking now. Does anyone know if Huybrechts has changed his position and projection in the past 5 years?
Here is another interesting read from the 2013 time capsule:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise
So, read these two pieces, think hard about what they say and how far “mainstream” SLR thinking has moved in only five years.
I will take a similar look back for the 2008 time frame.
Cheers
Mike
Here is some info from Scientific American ca 2008 that has some SLR discussion:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-will-global-warming-raise-sea-levels/
“Based on this historical record and the fact that the Laurentide melted away under summertime temperatures similar to those expected in Greenland by the end of this century, Carlson and his colleagues forecast glacial melting that contributes somewhere between 2.8 inches (seven centimeters) and 5.1 inches (13 centimeters) of sea level rise per year, or as much as a 4.3-foot (1.3-meter) increase by 2100.”
and
“sea level rise from all other melting ice and the expansion of seawater as the weather gets warmer over the next century would be somewhere between 2.6 feet (0.8 meter) and six feet (two meters)—or nearly twice as much as projected last year by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-beyond-the-co2/
(largely a James Hansen piece)
“Hansen concludes that even if the human race could maintain today’s level of atmospheric CO2, which stands at 385 ppm—not even halfway to the atmospheric doubling we are headed for—sea level would rise several meters thanks to the disintegration of continental ice sheets. Moreover, he thinks disintegration may happen much faster than one might naively expect.”
“As with many of Hansen’s assertions, this one pushes the science further than some of his colleagues would be willing to go. Back in 1998, for example, Hansen was arguing that the human impact on climate was unquestionable, even as other leading climate scientists continued to question it. He was subsequently proved right, not only about the human influence but about the approximate pace of future temperature rise.”
Maybe I will take a look back 15 yrs and see what SA was publishing on SLR in 2003. I chose Scientific American because it is so mainstream and I think it is representative of the mainstrean science sources that tend to inform folks like Nigel.
Cheers
Mike
A search for discussion of SLR in the Scientific American from 2003 turns up nothing in my quick search. Here is that search result:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&biw=1131&bih=723&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2003%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2003&ei=OTs-W8-sLLSQ0PEPirWYuA0&q=scientific+american+global+warming&oq=scientific+american+global+warming&gs_l=psy-ab.3…4194.9921.0.10264.28.24.0.0.0.0.125.2065.19j5.24.0..2..0…1.1.64.psy-ab..6.10.1014…0j0i22i30k1j35i39k1j0i20i263k1j0i20i264k1.0.klIhjgTLJy8
The “mainstream” scientific discussion reflected in SA in 2003 was still about whether AGW was real.
15 years seems like a long time, but it’s really not that long, unless you are behind bars or start the time period as a toddler.
30 years ago, James Hansen was convinced that AGW was happening and the impacts would be serious. Smart guy and dedicated scientist imho.
My guess is that if you asked Nigel about SLR in 2003, you would have gotten the mainstream science position reflected in SA that AGW is not settled science, so AGW-related SLR discussion makes no sense. Contrarians, lukewarmers, etc. are always late to the party. These folks pride themselves on a certainty that the dullards haven’t understood the science yet and are bringing up the rear, while the alarmists have misunderstood the science and have over-estimated the impact. So far, as 5 year time frames pass, the alarmists have been proven most accurate time after time. There are scientific outliers on the alarm side and there are folks who think the world is flat on the other end of the spectrum. I think we can leave those folks out of the discussion.
CO2? How are we doing?
Last Week
June 24 – 30, 2018 410.57 ppm
June 24 – 30, 2017 407.87 ppm
Daily CO2
July 4, 2018: 409.79 ppm
July 4, 2017: 409.30 ppm
Noisy numbers. The number that matters? the 410 ppm range we are thumping along at and how far that is from the 350-385 range where we might have best chance of a relatively stable global climate like the one in which our evolved… if you believe in evolution. I do.
Cheers,
Mike
Cheers
nigelj: Only J Hansen to my knowledge has formally predicted 5 metres by 2100.
AB: In 2016 at a gathering in Miami Dr Hal Wanless said that he personally predicts 15 feet by 2100. (ref: “The Water is Coming” – I forget the author)
nigelj: there’s a huge difference for humanity between 600mm, or 2000mm or 5000mm, although none are good.
AB: Since the end result is likely baked in, I’d say the faster the better for humanity. With three feet by 2100 humanity will expend huge amounts of energy trying to save Miami et al in a hopeless struggle. Spewing massive amounts of carbon without a payoff just makes things worse. The MOSE project that hopes to save Venice is a good example. Billions of dollars and the associated carbon is being tossed in the trash because MOSE is likely to be worthless quite soon after it’s completed. If 15 feet is in the cards then humanity will wake the ef up rather quickly.
nigelj,
Another 5M+ prediction just came out:
“sea levels may rise six metres or more even if the world meets the 2°C target, according to an international team of researchers from 17 countries.
The findings published last week in Nature Geoscience”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0146-0
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-global-climate.html
A general question prompted by recent weather events. At what point do individual extreme weather events start to become clearly indicative of longer term climate shifts?
Just as a for example consider the recent and ongoing heatwaves. Assuming some sort of agreed measure of normal ranges of variability of for example temperature records are there some levels at which an individual extreme event is so far outside “normal” variability that it becomes possible to see it as evidence for a shift in the previous pattern?
Clearly any event just outside previous “normal” variability isn’t going to do this as it could be argued that it simply might indicate that the “normal” variability might be seen to allow for less frequent extremes. But there must come a point I assume when a single weather event, or episode, or run of events has moved so far outside the previous expected level of variability that it indicates something more significant.
I would be interested in how such links between weather events ( or runs of weather events eg a series of record temp years) are made with longer term climate shifts. I guess I’m asking how the interface between weather events and climate shifts is handled by the science.
For Bill D., this discussion answers your question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_years_of_climate_data_are_necessary_to_find_out_climate_has_been_changing_in_the_particular_coastal_region
In other news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/epas-acting-administrator-has-long-lobbying-record-on-issues-before-the-agency/
Mike @41, I have thought sea level rise could be two metres by 2100 for about three years now. I have always thought the IPCC looked too conservative on it right from the 1990’s. Whats your point anyway?