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"
nigeljsays
Victor @78,
The Bingham article you quoted makes the point that a single volcano or even several volcanoes wouldn’t be nearly enough to explain ice loss in the antarctic. The rest of the Bingham article is conjecture about another phenomenon being wider magma related volcanic activity in the antarctic, and is full of “ifs, buts and maybes” and no actual evidence.
But here’s the point. They do not claim wider scale magma related activity would “melt the ice” as a whole, they claim it would affect the underside of the ice and increase glacier flow towards the oceans. So the agw problem and magma related volcanic activity would add together. It looks like you did’t really read the article carefully.
Just speaking more generally, I was once curious as to whether volcanic activity on land and under the oceans could be a cause of our recent climate change. Straight away we have the problem Ray Ladbury mentioned that typical levels of volcanic and geothermal activity don’t produce remotely enough heat energy (or CO2 emissions).
In addition, you would have to find evidence of an absolutely huge global scale ‘increase’ in volcanic activity since 1900, and particularly since 1980. If you look on wikipedia at ” list of large volcanic eruptions in the 19th century”, and “list of large volcanic eruptions in the 20th century” there’s just no significant differences. Such changes over long time periods are not common anyway.
The only thing about volcanoes that is having some impact on climate is aerosols, but that is only for a year or two normally. I suggest do your considerable detective work a bit more thoroughly.
Christoffer B Hardersays
Having heard people glow about a new supposedly “deniers” having a paper in (Energy & Environment) (no wonder), I wonder if you had a quick response to this paper (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0958305X18756670)? They claim to find an enormous hitherto undetected warming 1920-50 by looking only at “Ocean sind-sheltered sites”.
They say that they have used “unadjusted” data which is a pretty big read flag from the outset. The lead author, Frank Lansner, is one of the biggest and funniest Dunning-Krügerish clowns I have ever encountered (he has, among many things, previously made it clear that he does not understand how the greenhouse effect works “how can radiation from the cold tropopause 10 km up roast the Earth´s much warmer surface below?”, claimed that Venus is heated by “turbulence” forcefully pressing heat downwards from above, and that Arrhenius would not have formulated his greenhouse theory if only he had known about the Ideal Gas Law (never mind petite details such as the fact that Clausius, Clapeyron and Boyle laid out the foundations for this 50-100 years before Arrhenius).
Thus, I would not be surprised if he had simply forgotten to take into account anything such as station moves, TOBS or change of equipment (or just ignored this) – and I have trouble grasping their identification of several alleged “ocean affected stations” in places such as central Kansas, Wyoming and Montana.
But if anyone more knowledgeable could offer their comment and confirm, deny or better yet elaborate on these objections, I would be happy. Best, Christoffer
Bill D @83,
I’m not so sure that your coin-tossing/black-box analogy is that helpful for a discussion about (as you put it @47) “how the interface between weather events and climate shifts is handled by the science”. An actual example (or examples) of weather/climate would be my choice.
Do note that by going with the coin-tossing analogy you also introduce the probabilities from that analogy. I have to disagree with Ray Ladbury @64 who says of a 90:10 result “Well it could happen.” Without a severely biased coin, such a result would be so unlikely that it can be considered an impossible event within a normal time-period – it is a one-in-a-million-billion event.
The sort of variation you would see in the analogy is 38:62 – a one-in-a-hundred event or 34:66 – a one-in-a-thousand event. When such runs start appearing frequently, you can be sure the coin has become a bit bent. Of course in the real AGW world, our records are not very long so we cannot be certain that a particular event did have a particular probability in the past. So if within a pre-AGW-norm of 50:50, 40:60, 60:40, if 38:62 becomes more common, it might be a result of AGW but there will still be the possibility that such runs of 38:62 had existed in the pre-AGW-norm but beyond our records.
Victorsays
84 Al Bundy: “Victor works from belief to justification.”
V: Not so. On the topic of climate change I started as an agnostic. And I’d have left it at that if it weren’t for the constant media drumbeat that began to look more and more like hype. That made me suspicious, and when I looked into the evidence I became increasingly skeptical — the opposite of belief.
I’m certainly not an expert and have never claimed to be. I like to think I operate more like a detective investigating a case. My model is the TV detective Columbo. So strongly do I identify with Columbo that I usually smoke a cigar when watching reruns of that show. Now Columbo is an expert on nothing and makes no bones about that. He is constantly dealing with extremely successful suspects who know much more than he does on all sorts of things. But Columbo has a nose for sniffing out pretense, that’s his great gift. And I like to think I have a similar gift. Columbo gets suspicious when things don’t add up. Belief plays no role in his approach. He likes to ask all sorts of “dumb” questions and is often ridiculed for that. But after the smoke clears we realize his questions weren’t so dumb after all.
Now I’m on the “climate change” case. And, what do you know, things don’t add up in that case either. And when I ask the usual “dumb” questions, the suspect too often gives himself away, just as in “Columbo,” by his visible discomfort, his pretensions to superiority and yes, his insults and personal attacks. But Columbo never gives up. He’s as persistent as a bulldog. And eventually, in the long run, he always wins. I like Bertolt Brecht also, another cigar smoker.
Ron R.says
Observations: I live on the coast of California, a Mediterranean climate. The last 5 years or so I’m noticing more lizards than before, a warm weather preferring animal (though adapted to a variety of climates globally). I’m not sure if they really are increasing or of it’s just that I’m noticing them more because I’m looking for them.
Also, it seems to me that deciduous trees are becoming evergreen here (i.e. losing leaves all year rather than just fall), and holding onto their leaves in fall much longer than normal.
nigeljsays
Killian @88, you keep suggesting I’m defending the IPCC estimates, when I have said about TEN TIMES on this page I have long considered them on the low side, and that sea level would be nearer 2 metres than their estimates of 900mm.
So you just go on blatantly misrepresenting me. Its because what I say doesn’t fit your beliefs, so rather than have to think about your beliefs, you misrepresent and attack people. You think your clever rhetoric disguises this? ha ha ha (draws breath) ha ha ha.
RSS has posted its TLT anomaly for June at with an anomaly of +0.46ºC, a little up on May’s +0.41ºC. It is 7th warmest June in RSS TLT (UAH was =8th warmest) sitting behind 2016, 2010, 1998 (all El Nino years) and 2015, 2014 & 2017. June 2018 is the 77th warmest month in the full all-month RSS TLT record (in UAH it was =93rd).
A graph of the various monthly anomalies through recent years is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Now halfway though 2018, in the RSS TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 5th (=6th in UAH).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.90ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.59ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.49ºC
2015 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 5th
2005 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 6th
2002 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … … 11th
2013 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 9th
nigeljsays
Mike @95, I can see how my comments on the Guardian could be interpreted that way. My comments were really rushed, but 1) I have been proven correct and 2) I was not lukewarming! Its just that when the media get things wrong and exaggerate they do us no favours.
V 104: Columbo gets suspicious when things don’t add up. Belief plays no role in his approach. He likes to ask all sorts of “dumb” questions and is often ridiculed for that. But after the smoke clears we realize his questions weren’t so dumb after all.
BPL: You do realize he was a fictional character, right? The actor who played him was named Peter Falk.
Killiansays
#58 Al Bundy said So, please show everyone here that you are a man by apologizing for your “number two filled” post.
Every response, iirc, you have made to me in the past 6 months (or so? I don’t remember you before recent months, frankly) has been a personal attack. I see no reason to apologize for telling the truth.
Walk away until you have some science to discuss.
nigeljsays
Victor @104, you will notice I had already worked out your “detective” motivations, in my comment printed just above yours, and its not a bad way to view complex issues, and I agree Columbo was a great show. However you need to do better detective work, because I mean seriousy…. Yeah.
The peer reviewed literature is the gold standard, and the devils in the detail. The vast majority of this literature points towards agw climate change, so you have to have very good evidence that the “sceptical” literature (Willie Soon etc) is correct and there isn’t any. The published sceptical literature, and the informal sceptical internet commentary (Wattsup etc) is weak. It’s so easy to shoot down, and it is mostly cherry picking. So many cherries it would feed a troll army!
CCHolleysays
Victor @104
ROFLMAO
Victor is no Columbo. Columbo sought out all the evidence by asking the right questions and from that he developed a big picture, something Victor cannot and does not do.
Prime example of Victor’s proclivity of seeking the truth are his claims on the Hansen’s West Side Highway sea level prediction. He did some research meaning Victor looked at denier web sites for information. If Victor had simply read the SALON interview to see what was actually said it would have been obvious that the interview was in response to the publishing of the book. Then he could have looked at what the book actually said. That would have been real research, the type that Columbo would do. But no, Victor doesn’t actually seek truth, only justification of his preconceived beliefs so the discussion went on and on because Victor was unable to accept what he was being told. When finally faced with irrefutable evidence he finally did some research (research he should have done up front) and he conceded. A rare concession at that. Victor always works from belief to justification. He is deluded to think otherwise or just plain dishonest.
Yes, Victor is no Columbo. He hasn’t a clue what constitutes evidence nor is he interested in evidence that is contrary to his preconceived beliefs.
Victorsays
BPL: You do realize he was a fictional character, right? The actor who played him was named Peter Falk.
V: “Art is a lie that makes you see the truth.” Picasso
And besides, you’re forgetting the cigar. :-)
nigelj: It’s so easy to shoot down, and it is mostly cherry picking. So many cherries it would feed a troll army!
V: Cherries are in the eye of the beholder. Ouch!
CCHolley: Victor is no Columbo.
V: True enough. :-(
CC: Columbo sought out all the evidence by asking the right questions and from that he developed a big picture, something Victor cannot and does not do.
V: Not so. Columbo tends to focus on certain details that don’t make sense and ultimately give the game away. He rarely needs to develop a big picture to solve a case. One little slip and the game is up. In the climate change case we see a great many details that give the game away. The “big picture” you like to see is more like a big smoke screen.
Al Bundysays
Carrie,
You surprise me with your admonition for me to reduce my reading from three or four nonfiction books per week to cracking a single book sometime. It makes me wonder if you read for comprehension or to find attack points. My opinion of you just degraded.
Duh the world isn’t a coin. Duh, an anology was brought up. Duh, I joined the conversation productively. Your point?
To be clear, my thoughts on the situation are that anthropogenic global warming is a misnomer. AGW is simply a trigger that should be compared to orbital wobbles. The artillery shell is the resulting feedbacks. The biosphere as we know it is toast, especially since fossil fuels have almost no cost, which means that their price can be set as low as needed to ensure that they are competitive. Renewables can’t beat Saudi oil, US methane, or Siberian all of the above. And neither Russia nor Republicans care about warming. Republicans only care about competitive advantage and Russia thinks a few degrees would be a good thing (and yes, I’m being simplistic with regard to motivation)
The reason Killian is “attacked” is because he is incredibly offensive. Seriously, you, Carrie, are a stupid piece of garbage. Ah, didn’t that untruthful description of you make you want to attack me?
And as to Killian’s scientificness:
_
Killian wonders if sea level rise can dilute acidification significantly.
No. Not even laughable. Rise due to expansion does nothing and a meter or two (or even a few dozen if/when it all melts) compared to the depths of the ocean is a drop in the world’s biggest bucket
Al Bundysays
Nigel,
Your point that Antarctica’s rift volcanoes can’t be causing the recession of the coastal glaciers is even more valid since if Victor’s hypothesis were true then the increased flow from the interior would increase the supply of ice arriving at the coast and so one would expect that Thwaites et al would grow!
On another topic and another pole I’ve gotten around to researching polar bears. Some fun facts:
A 1400lb polar bear can walk on ice that’s so thin that a human would fall through because they’ve evolved snowshoe feet. Their paws are wider than a man’s forearm is long! This also makes them grand swimmers.
Bears in general are omnivorous but polar bears aren’t. Their teeth have evolved so as to be quite pointy and when they do eat vegetation their digestive tract doesn’t digest it very well. And with those huge paws they are are incredibly inefficient at land movement. It takes them about twice the energy to walk/run as other mammals. So they rarely bother to hunt on land. (And their potential prey rarely bothers to avoid them) But, of course they can and sometimes do kill people. Getting swiped by a huge paw with sharp claws will ruin your day.
So, they have specialized themselves so much that they can’t adjust to eating anything except seals, dead whales, and human garbage. While the continental shelf’s ice is melted (the basin is resource poor) they survive on stored fat. (Their primary hunting ground is at the intersection of the stationary landfast ice and the circulating offshore ice because that’s where the leads, and so the seals are) Thus, as the ratio of the time when coastal ice exists to coastal waters exists per year shrinks, they suffer. This especially affects pregnant females, who den on land and must now wait longer and longer to get back on the ice while losing massive amounts of weight nursing their cubs.
And females are about half the size of males. So, as things go south the guys start stealing the gals’ kills. And the guys have no problem with eating cubs.
So, since they are long-lived and slow reproducers, and the females are having smaller litters (it used to be usually two and sometimes three; now it’s trending towards one), the population is moving towards big old canabilistic males and not enough young.
Prognosis? Toast except in the refugia of NW Greenland/NE Canada, where things are improving because the multi year ice is devolving to annual ice.
Of course, if the folks who predict that the added insulation provided by a humid atmosphere combined with the elimination of stratification (Atlantification) are correct and ice-free summers equals ice free winters then polar bears will get to live in zoos.
nigeljsays
Victor @113
“Cherries are in the eye of the beholder. Ouch!”
Actually no they are not. We can be objective in deciding if something is a cherry pick. The common definition of cherry picking is “selectively choose (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available.”
In terms of science cherrypicking can have a reasonable definition: Picking selected data that is not truly representative of the data needed to reach a conclusion. Or picking selected data that suits a certain perspective while ignoring data that doesn’t.
When someone claims or implies temperatures are doing something globally, and we find they are referring to one country or one city, for example, this is cherry picking, and we see this sort of thing all the time from the denialists.
The IPCC reports go to considerable lengths to evaluate ALL the data and ALL the published research. Even if you “disagree” with what the IPCC conclude, they have taken a full, open perspective, and looked at everything, which is why the reports are so long. And if the data doesn’t yet support a prediction they are open about that, they dont cherry pick a ‘subset’ of the data to pretend it does. You have to be smart to see what they do, and how devious and deceptive the denialists are.
The IPCC and also looked at the big picture, something you dont pay enough attention to. They also know which details are important. The details you agonise over amuse me because they are not crucial things and there are just obvious potential viable explanations.
Its like evolution, there are some challenging details not resolved, including some significant ones, but they dont undermine the theory, they are just hard to solve. You have already said you believe in evolution.
Al Bundysays
Killian,
I apologise if I’ve ever attacked you personally. Given that I am still working on being less caustic, I’m certain that I have.
However, you are probably fuming about my penchant for reposting your comments while removing everything except your insults and attacks on others. Please note that my doing so is not a personal attack on you, but your self-inflicted wound.
And seriously, you really outdid yourself this month. The insults took up a huge paragraph. And the placement right after a call for peace. And then to say that you had no choice “it had to be said”! I have to thank you, dude. I haven’t laughed that loud in years.
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor,
The problem you have is that you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no conception of the problem, so you really are in no position to discern whether things add up or not. Were I to ask you whether the signal for the Higgs Boson from CERN adds up, how would you respond?
CCHolleysays
Not so. Columbo tends to focus on certain details that don’t make sense and ultimately give the game away. He rarely needs to develop a big picture to solve a case. One little slip and the game is up. In the climate change case we see a great many details that give the game away. The “big picture” you like to see is more like a big smoke screen.
Baloney. Those details complete the picture, the big picture. Victor does not understand what the *big picture* means. Since it is obvious that Victor does not understand the science or the *big picture* of climate change science he is incapable of making any kind of good judgement on the details. Victor’s pontifications are the only smokescreens.
CCHolleysays
Victor @113
Not so. Columbo tends to focus on certain details that don’t make sense and ultimately give the game away. He rarely needs to develop a big picture to solve a case. One little slip and the game is up. In the climate change case we see a great many details that give the game away. The “big picture” you like to see is more like a big smoke screen.
Baloney. Those details complete the picture, the big picture. Victor does not understand what the *big picture* means. Since it is obvious that Victor does not understand the science or the *big picture* of climate change science he is incapable of making any kind of good judgement on the details. Victor’s pontifications are the only smokescreens.
Killiansays
Re #106 nigelj said Killian @88, you keep suggesting I’m defending the IPCC estimates, when I have said about TEN TIMES on this page I have long considered them on the low side, and that sea level would be nearer 2 metres than their estimates of 900mm.
So you just go on blatantly misrepresenting me.
Except what I said was not constrained to SLR, as you can see, and should have seen when you read it, reposted here:
No, it’s because you are consistently on the low side in what you allow yourself to believe regardless of the evidence. The IPCC is *not* the authority on most likely outcomes, it is the keeper of the scientific reticence aka the middle road aka what can be stated with a degree of certitude vs. what more recent data is suggesting.
I will leave it to you to sort as it is simply not important *whether* you sort it or not. Still, I balk at being falsely characterized. Truth matters, whether tattered in error or with ill intent.
Anthony Watts and Koch-political-operative-who-plays-a-reporter Michael Bastasch teamed up yesterday to try and gaslight Los Angeles into thinking its record-breaking heat wasn’t record-breaking.
The argument, first presented by Watts at WUWT then repackaged by Bastasch (and tweeted by Drudge) is that each of the half-dozen or so temperature stations which recorded record-high temperatures in Southern California can’t be trusted….
Links in the text at the original page
flxiblesays
Victor imagines he’s a fantasy character, just the wrong one.
Much more akin to Walter Mitty.
Now I’m on the “climate change” case. And, what do you know, things don’t add up in that case either.
In order to be taken seriously, would you please provide references to the peer-reviewed, scientific literature about what “doesn’t add up”.
We’ll wait.
mikesays
Daily CO2
July 9, 2018: 408.18 ppm
July 9, 2017: 407.35 ppm
June CO2
June 2018: 410.79 ppm
June 2017: 408.84 ppm
Noisy numbers, but they are under 2.0 ppm a lot of the days/weeks and even months right now. I think this is the trough in yoy comparison that is to be expected after a big EN event. I would love to see the numbers continue under 2.0 ppm in yoy comparison. At some point, maybe 18 months to two years of such a run, I would start to hope that we are actually seeing a decline or flattening of the rate of increase of CO2 in oceans and atmosphere. Flat level of increase would be lovely, but we actually need to turn that corner and work for a falling level of increase and movement toward a zero emissions target.
Make it so! please
Don’t feed the trolls. Keep the vitriol to a minimum, it serves no one, it’s just useless silliness imho.
Nigel, Killian and I agree that you don’t have to worry about the alarmist label. A couple years ago, when the record temps and CO2 jumps started up, I remember some folks saying, whoah, it’ just one month… don’t make too much of it… etc. Cooler heads were trying to tamp down concern. When that actually happened, it was actually four or five months in a row of record temps, enough heat to cause a reasonable person to sit and take notice, which I did. Ray, do you remember that exchange?
SLR is going to be like the record temp question, but the time frame will be record years of slr increase. I believe in ten years, maybe 5, only the lukewarmers will still be talking about SLR of less than 2 meters by 2100. I would love to be wrong about that, but I am alarmed and hence, I might be accurately described as an alarmist. Set a tickler in your calendar and let’s revisit if you want and we are both still around.
The wild boars are all out alive. Our species can do some amazing things when we set our minds to it. I am pretty happy about that miracle.
Warm regards all,
Mike
Karsten V. Johansensays
It would be very interesting both for me and hopefully others to have some comments on the topic of how far we have to go back in time to find a stable level of CO2 above 400 ppmv. In this very good interwiev Gavin said of this topic around 3,5 million years:
You have to click on the pdf-symbol to the right to download that comment/summary, which relies on a range of fairly recent scientific research on the sucject.
I am no expert and look forward to comments and links, especially from Gavin.
Karsten V. Johansensays
I should also want some expert comment on the level of heat and drought around the northern hemisphere this spring and summer. Here in Scandinavia and Northern Europe the heat and lack of any precipitation is remarkably strong and have been now since the beginning of may. There is no end in sight even on the forecasts reaching from one to three months forward in time.
The US drought monitor also show extremely severe drought in the Midwest and a global site shows drought over around half of Asia but maybe overestimate this a bit? I’ll submit the links in my next post.
http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1052 (Norway, where I live, has severe drought almost everywhere, but is without data on this map for some reason unknown, because other non-members of the EU like Russia not missing). There is some discrepancy with the above global link, but that is up to date, while the european map is two weeks old.
The definitions of drought in these maps also not quite in accordance with each other. Comments?
Al Bundysays
Victorious: Columbo tends to focus on certain details that don’t make sense and ultimately give the game away. He rarely needs to develop a big picture to solve a case.
AB: Have you ever watched the show? In order to ASK the “dumb” question Columbo had to have developed the big picture before opening his mouth. He TRAPPED suspects by forming the solution ahead of time and then pretending to be stupid while massaging the suspect’s ego so the suspect would incriminate himself. The question was NOT about figuring things out because Columbo already knew the answer. The question was about gathering proof that would stand up in a court of law.
It’s interesting how you adore watching reruns over and over and over. Kinda sounds like your commenting policy.
Karsten V. Johansensays
If I may be allowed a short comment about some of the discussion above, I just think that “Victor” should do some scientific research to test his hypoteses (if there are any?) and then let the baffled world know about his mind-blowing results which would overwhelm all communities of climate scientists everywhere with their originality and theoretical revolutionizing, are we to believe his foregone conclusions. But the proof is in the pudding. No exercise in rethorics whatsoever will change neither nature nor the science about it. And that’s all I think anyone should say on that subject here until “Victor” publishes his baffling results.
Nemesissays
A rather hot tweed from Katharine Hayhoe:
” Writing the 4th US National Climate Asst this past year, we included a section on paleoclimate analogues for present + future conditions for the 1st time. It was simultaneously the most fascinating & horrifying perspective…”
Emissions of CO2 and methane from wetlands and thawing permafrost as the climate warms could cut the “carbon budget” for the Paris Agreement temperature limits by around five years, a new study says. (Good photos in this article)
nigeljsays
Mike @114, I remember when we were in the middle of the so called ‘pause’ after 1998, I predicted a big catch up / jump in temperatures coinciding with an el nino within the next few years. What did you predict back then?
Carriesays
121 nigelj carbon budgets (are already blown for 2C); 120 Nemesis paleoclimate analogues; 115 Karsten V. Johansen sensibly raises the issue of CO2 above 400 ppmv for discussions and ‘expert’ advice; 114 mike always on point and to ‘the point’ (TY); 107 MA Rodger shows his short term sky-plummeting cooling math; 105 Ron R. raises real world example of the usefulness of observations to inspire better scientific rigor and focus; while the majority of the rest is mindless mind-numbing arguments about nothing burgers between resident trolls.
Recent topics here have been on SLR projections & coin tosses; proven increasing CO2 growth vs unfounded/false skyrocketeering claims; climate sensitivity – what is it?; nth hemi heat waves now; ongoing higher global temps despite short term math; extreme weather events; bigger droughts; wild fires; WAIS loss; but have overlooked recent flooding rains eg Thailand and Japan and the hurricane shooting up the US east coast.
Let’s try this then: A useful summary article of the above state of play with multiple reference links provided by real scientists:
It references back to this – 2nd workshop on Pliocene climate, Bristol, September 2013 – when the last “Yet Again Conservative” IPCC reports were being delivered.
5 min overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLvPT5a6jg
Enjoy!
……………………
Misc. Quotes
A few years ago, we passed 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, a level that we have not experienced for about 3 million years, during the Pliocene epoch.
There is little doubt that increased carbon dioxide concentrations will cause global warming. The key questions are how much, and with what consequences.
During that time, across several ice ages, the planet’s climate sensitivity showed warming of about 2.5-3°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide … Ice core records, however, extend back no more than a million years … If we want to explore climate sensitivity on a warmer planet, we must look further back into Earth history, to times such as the Pliocene.
In particular, it seems an increase of carbon dioxide from about 280ppm (equivalent to that before the industrial revolution) to about 400ppm in the Pliocene resulted in an Earth warmer by 2°C.
[ Meaning, it is only about +1.3°C with CO2 @ 410 ppmv already, meaning the Paris 2°C Budget is already blown – and truth be told, ‘we’ know that but ‘we’ just do not want to admit it, yet. ]
The below figure shows the sea surface temperatures reconstructed for the Pliocene …. notice how much hotter the oceans were, especially at high latitudes.
This next figure is derived from an ensemble of climate models … Again, note how much higher temperatures were at high latitudes… but also continental interiors. We are seeing a manifestation of this now ….
Taking into account other factors, this suggests a climate sensitivity of about 3°C, which confirms both the Pleistocene and model-based estimates. It also suggests that we have yet to experience the full consequences of the greenhouse gases already added to the atmosphere, let alone those we are still putting into it. And finally, it suggests that there is a risk that we have already surpassed the agreed limits of the Paris Climate Agreement.
[ Who knew? Millions knew! It’s a conga line that could circle the earth a 100 times at least. Top of the billing? Prof Keven Anderson for one. ]
The changes in the climate we are inducing is a problem for us humans, and for our societies, not the planet we’re on.
Second, the Pliocene was a rather different world. For example, higher global temperatures were associated with a climate that was also wetter than at present.
Perhaps most striking, sea level in the Pliocene appears to have been between 10 to 40 metres higher than today, indicating that both the Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctic Ice Sheet were markedly smaller.
[ NOT 2 metres but 40 metres – Didn’t that radical Hansen dude suggest, what 12 metres to 20 metres ? Wasn’t it that meanieKillian who mentioned only a couple days ago now the notion of hysteresis in discussions about the unknown of SLR forecasts? ]
One widely discussed concept is ice sheet hysteresis. This is a fancy way of saying that due to feedback mechanisms …. On the other hand if hysteresis is rather weak, then the question is not whether we will see such a massive sea level change, but how long it will take to arrive (probably hundreds or even thousands of years).
It also reveals that climate does not just change randomly: it changes when forced in ways that are relatively well understood
……………………..
Now wtf is going to be done about the Consequences of this and when? About the sustained extremely conservative approach of, and the very tame speech from the majority of climate scientists and other ‘experts’ in this field?
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @115, yes arctic polar bears are not well adapted to eating vegetation and humans left over food. They do eat seabirds eggs, but those are in limited supply as a food source. In fact various sub populations of bears are looking decidedly under nourished, from what I have read.
Bear population numbers have only dropped slightly, but I think it will reach a tipping point in about 20 years, with massive declines in numbers as sea ice really contracts and thins to the point of destruction. Its the spring sea ice that is critical to seals mating, as well as polar bears.
In fact winter / spring sea ice showed a decline last year, but I cant recall the article I was reading.
No doubt my statements / predictions won’t be pessimistic enough for Killian / Mike. I will have to work on being more gloomy.
Carriesays
Some house-keeping
56 nigelj says: 5 Jul 2018 at 6:32 PM
Al Bundy @46, read last months UV particularly the comment by Kevin McKinney near the end of the thread. Dr Wanless was misreported, and seems to have modified his views.
The two articles you reference do not claim sea level rise of 5 metres by 2100 (or similar) and appear to be talking about multi metre sea level rise spread over several centuries. If you disagree, provide specific quotations from them.
This is what I call good research because AB went direct to the original Source – it’s also called taking personal responsibility for what one “believes” and then “repeats” to others.
1,000 Gold Stars go to AB for teaching by way of example. Now, everyone else who always have the ‘answers’, lift your game to AB’s level!
alan2102says
87 Carrie 7 Jul 2018: “5 years ago here people were … demanding that everyone agrees that with wind solar being so cheap then and it’s rapid growth that nirvana was going to break out across the energy sectors and that Coal was dead and so were the ff ICEV very soon.”
Please cite a single post that said or implied that “nirvana is going to break out” (i.e. “we’ve arrived at a glorious new renewable future! we can all relax now! problems solved!”), or that “coal is dead”. I don’t think you can, because NO ONE ever said or implied such a thing, in my experience — and I’ve spent many hundreds of hours reading this forum over ~10 years.
Your “nirvana is going to break out” is a straw man that you trot-out whenever anyone mentions anything that is slightly inconsistent with your nihilistic, all-is-lost outlook on things. Yes, Carrie, maybe all IS lost; maybe we’re toast and that’s that. Or maybe not. We don’t know yet, do we? You accuse others of “nirvana is going to break out” Pollyanna-ism, when in fact NO ONE is making such claims. Meanwhile, your own outlook is of “Armageddon is going to break out any day now” uber-doomerism. Strangely, you have made of yourself the mirror image of the (non-existent) people that you decry.
nigeljsays
Carrie @135, the pliocene is indeed interesting. As I have stated myself these past climates are a glimpse of the considerable problems we are inviting. I think its going to be really hard to pin down climate sensitivity theoretically, so past climates may be our best guide as to what happens at “x” degree of warming and CO2 concentrations.
However its probably common knowledge for readers here that 2 degrees will cause 6 metres or more of sea level rise over millenia, (possibly considerably more) and nobody here has actually argued against this. I have simply stated its unlikely to happen by the year 2100. Please don’t confuse the two.
Please provide evidence anyone has suggested multi metre long term sea level rise is not going to happen.
General question for the experts. The difficulty with climate sensitivity appears to be clouds. Is it not possible to use the CERN cloud chamber to investigate this somehow? Or is it just too small to get a realistic assessment of real world conditions?
Al Bundysays
CCHolley: Victor’s pontifications are the only smokescreens.
AB: So? Lots of folks think cigar smoke smells good. But then after a few decades of Colombo reruns cigar smoke gets a tad stale (but not to Vic)
Steven E: We’ll wait.
AB: You’ll starve.
Karsten: I just think that “Victor” should do some scientific research
AB: Vic has been quite forthcoming in his admission that he’s too stupid to understand science, let alone do research. But, of course, that doesn’t change his belief that he’s right. Vic ain’t Dunning Kruger; he’s, as Tamino describes, “Proud to be stupid”.
———
nigel links to: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas – approximately 26 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere, although it only lasts for around a decade in the atmosphere.
AB: These quotes peeve me no end. Methane does NOT go away after a decade. Instead it transforms into CO2! That’s way worse than what absolutely everybody quotes as “fact”. (10yrs X 26 = 260 500yrs X 1 = 500) Yeah, I gave a random number for CO2 persistence and ignored that CH4 goes away gradually. Adjust as you desire.
Carrie: Wasn’t it that meanie Killian who mentioned
AB: I agree. Killian is caustic but he generally has something productive to say. Frankly, I consider him the closest analog to me on this site. (Note that I have some personal data about Killian that explains a lot. We should cut him some slack)
nigeljsays
Alan 2102 @138 yes that needed saying. I’m tired of the doom, nihilism, pessimism and cynicism as well. Without hope we have nothing.
Al Bundysays
nigel: Bear population numbers have only dropped slightly, but I think it will reach a tipping point in about 20 years, with massive declines in numbers as sea ice really contracts and thins to the point of destruction.
AB: True, though I think you’re conservative. 5-10 years is my guess. Note that population numbers are a crude metric. Consider that Japan’s population is by and large above the age of reproductive capability as compared to Nigeria’s population. Similarly, polar bears are older and more male today than they were a couple decades ago. So, even though the population numbers haven’t declined too terribly much, the “viable” population is teetering (as you hint). And, as I noted, all those old males are actually a harmful component because they steal resources from and cannibalize viable individuals. This is similar to why dedicated hunts of rare species are productive. Get rich a**holes to pay big bucks to slaughter old males who interfere with productive animals and you not only get to strip jerks of their money but help the species in question by providing the funds for conservation efforts (that really ought to come from reductions in Offense budgets).
Carriesays
138 alan2102. I get the impression that Captain Ahab has caught himself a whale. You’re confusing literary license, personal taste and style with a straw man. It can’t be a straw man because I wasn’t having an argument with someone nor twisting what they said and putting words in their mouth.
Putting aside the fact that now you’re searching back 5 days to ‘cherry pick 6 words’ to argue about and beat me over the head with it. Slow down and reconsider your approach. It’s not going to work. :-)
Carriesays
114 Al Bundy says: The reason Killian is “attacked” is because he is incredibly offensive. Seriously, you, Carrie, are a stupid piece of garbage. Ah, didn’t that untruthful description of you make you want to attack me?
No, not in the least. I attack ‘things’ that people say, think and believe. Besides there’s some truth to your characterization, just not 24/7 and if that is all you have (as per alan atm) well you don;t have much worth listening to in the moment. Tomorrow the patient may be better, we’ll see.
PLUS “And as to Killian’s scientificness: Killian wonders if sea level rise can dilute acidification significantly.
No. Not even laughable. Rise due to expansion does nothing and a meter or two (or even a few dozen if/when it all melts) compared to the depths of the ocean is a drop in the world’s biggest bucket.”
If anyone wonders about something or asks what you “feel” is a really dumb question, then all you really need to do is say “NO” and explain why you believe that’s the correct account.
Besdies several hundred to thousands of years of human science is replete with people “wondering” the strangest odd ball things and asking the dumbest questions on this planet – through that foundational process our knowledge grew.
For every one good idea in science scientists are wondering about 1000 really stupid pieces of garbage. Some still do it right here.
I do not expect perfection from Killian 24/7 nor do I expect perfection from you or me. Anymore than I expect perfection from Scientists!
And hey, if you never wanted someone to say to you “go crack a book sometime” you should have informed us all proper that you read 4 fiction books a day in your first post to this forum – or added as a ‘signature’ on every subsequent post. See how this works? But don’t miss my huge compliment to you recently. It’s genuine too. :-)
Killiansays
Re #114 Al Bundy hypocricied And as to Killian’s scientificness:
Killian wonders if sea level rise can dilute acidification significantly.
No. Not even laughable.
As a teacher, one thing I don’t do is punish thinking. I certainly don’t insult sincere inquiry, even if it *is* laughable. Yet, what you do here is de regueur for most of the core posters here. I have noted some recent improvements, though you seem to be taking the opposite tack.
Now, I have never attacked you that I can recall, yet…
As for my meanieness, it never – never – starts with me. I do have a principle re engagement that makes me vulnerable to people like you in that I don’t accept the rather stupid idea that insults vary in degree. Whether one says, for example, prevaricate, less than truthful, lie, playing fast and loose with, etc., etc., makes no difference. Here’s a good one:
So you just go on blatantly misrepresenting me.
Misrepresenting is bad enough given it is 100% false, but to put blatantly in there makes it 100% ill-intentioned. I was called a liar, straight up, for doing nothing more than pointing out someone was in no way an alarmist on climate. <– How terrible of me!
Now, had I chosen not to lead by example and responded to this as I might have last month and earlier, how should I have? The word "liar" wasn't used, but it was still stated. Am I mean if I say so? Am I mean if I point out how obvious it is I did not? If I say how obvious, does that not also, quite unavoidably, impugn the writer's reading comprehension, or sensitivity, or…?
The tap dancing is silly. Get the damned tiff over with. Don't draw it out. Waste of time. So, when I am choosing to be as efficient and direct as I prefer, things come out leaving no doubt what I think of whatever or whomever i am responding to.
That you think *I* am the meanie says it all.
What matters is that one's character is impugned, not which word or phrase was used. Thus, when people come at me some see my responses as not proportional. I don't care. Those are word games best left to those whose jollies are gotten by wasting their time on pages of escalation before ending up where they were destined to be from the beginning.
So, am I a meanie? Only when attacked. Do you believe this? Do I care? The answer to both is no. I make my own decisions. This is why I have been ahead of the curve for the last 10+ years. And *that* is why I am treated as I am, not my style. That is just an excuse because my "style" is the product of the level of discourse.
This will be my last to your phishing. Enjoy your point over having gotten a bite.
To the science.
Rise due to expansion does nothing and a meter or two (or even a few dozen if/when it all melts) compared to the depths of the ocean is a drop in the world’s biggest bucket
Given acidification happens at the surface primarily, and new inflows happen there and we are not ignoring the context – including possible rapid draw down of CO2 – I am not certain your certitude is warranted. I do not, however, know and have not spent time on acidification.
That’s why I asked. Try not to shit on people’s inquiries without cause.
A final point: Trying to insult someone for their lack of science (or math) chops when they self-describe as non-scientist and leaning on logic, inference, TEK, analysis, etc., rather than hard numbers is a bit like laughing at Rudolph for his nose.
Guess you got me… (Oops… sarcasm. Dammit….!)
Al Bundysays
Alan: yes Carrie, maybe all is lost; maybe we’re toast and that’s that. Or maybe not. We don’t know that…
AB: Maybe not “we”, but I do. (Been there, done that) The only question is how burnt said toast is. Statistics and insurance analysis are what they are and the propensity to ignore/minimize feedbacks until it’s too late is baked into your species. You are toast. Period. But it is still possible that a percentage of the bread won’t turn into CO2, CH4, and ash.
That’s my purpose – to salvage and redirect your species. (Pronouns are fun, especially for a Weaver)
It’s still “worse than you think” and nobody dies quietly.
Jonathan Patz, MD, MPH, is Professor and John P. Holton Chair of Health and the Environment at the University of Wisconsin. He is Director of the Global Health Institute.
Website: Citizens Climate Lobby. https://citizensclimatelobby.org
Lise Van Susteren, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington, DC. A climate activist, she has a special interest in the psychological effects of climate change.
Website: Climate Neutral Now https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now
The podcast of this program will be available the Monday after the broadcast date. The show can be streamed online from this site and podcasts can be downloaded for free.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @142, another thing on arctic polar bears is there was a moratorium on hunting about 20 years ago that may have disguised a decline in numbers. And here’s an enviromental website with some published science which suggests they will be extinct in 30 – 40 years, so a bit closer to my guesstimate. Not good either way.
With another El Nino apparently building now I suspect the Monthly growth rate will be back above 3 ppm again within the next 12 months (all other things being equal.) That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though.
This weeks CO2 growth is tracking +1.90 ppm, up a little from last week. We’ll see how that goes (and all of July) after the event.
While renewable energy growth continues so does fossil fuel use and rainforest destruction continue to grow e.g. Until recently, mining operations were thought to have only a small comparative impact upon the rainforest, which covers 40% of South America. Estimates previously put the figure at just 1%-2%; however, a new study published by researchers at the University of Vermont (UVM) is as much as ten times that. This is, in part, because for the first time, the researchers looked at the overall impact of all mining operations, and the results are cause for grave concern. https://www.mining-technology.com/features/minings-big-environmental-footprint-amazon/
Carriesays
142 Al Bundy, I have a much better idea. Transport all our psychopaths capitalists and lazy do nothing investors to temporary arctic gulags to be used as Feed for the Polar Bears? Solving (killing) two birds with one stone. Economic efficiency and high productivity in action.
Not my idea (not that clever) I got it from a T-shirt that read
“Save the Whales: eat the Japanese!”
Victor @78,
The Bingham article you quoted makes the point that a single volcano or even several volcanoes wouldn’t be nearly enough to explain ice loss in the antarctic. The rest of the Bingham article is conjecture about another phenomenon being wider magma related volcanic activity in the antarctic, and is full of “ifs, buts and maybes” and no actual evidence.
But here’s the point. They do not claim wider scale magma related activity would “melt the ice” as a whole, they claim it would affect the underside of the ice and increase glacier flow towards the oceans. So the agw problem and magma related volcanic activity would add together. It looks like you did’t really read the article carefully.
Just speaking more generally, I was once curious as to whether volcanic activity on land and under the oceans could be a cause of our recent climate change. Straight away we have the problem Ray Ladbury mentioned that typical levels of volcanic and geothermal activity don’t produce remotely enough heat energy (or CO2 emissions).
In addition, you would have to find evidence of an absolutely huge global scale ‘increase’ in volcanic activity since 1900, and particularly since 1980. If you look on wikipedia at ” list of large volcanic eruptions in the 19th century”, and “list of large volcanic eruptions in the 20th century” there’s just no significant differences. Such changes over long time periods are not common anyway.
The only thing about volcanoes that is having some impact on climate is aerosols, but that is only for a year or two normally. I suggest do your considerable detective work a bit more thoroughly.
Having heard people glow about a new supposedly “deniers” having a paper in (Energy & Environment) (no wonder), I wonder if you had a quick response to this paper (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0958305X18756670)? They claim to find an enormous hitherto undetected warming 1920-50 by looking only at “Ocean sind-sheltered sites”.
They say that they have used “unadjusted” data which is a pretty big read flag from the outset. The lead author, Frank Lansner, is one of the biggest and funniest Dunning-Krügerish clowns I have ever encountered (he has, among many things, previously made it clear that he does not understand how the greenhouse effect works “how can radiation from the cold tropopause 10 km up roast the Earth´s much warmer surface below?”, claimed that Venus is heated by “turbulence” forcefully pressing heat downwards from above, and that Arrhenius would not have formulated his greenhouse theory if only he had known about the Ideal Gas Law (never mind petite details such as the fact that Clausius, Clapeyron and Boyle laid out the foundations for this 50-100 years before Arrhenius).
Thus, I would not be surprised if he had simply forgotten to take into account anything such as station moves, TOBS or change of equipment (or just ignored this) – and I have trouble grasping their identification of several alleged “ocean affected stations” in places such as central Kansas, Wyoming and Montana.
But if anyone more knowledgeable could offer their comment and confirm, deny or better yet elaborate on these objections, I would be happy. Best, Christoffer
Bill D @83,
I’m not so sure that your coin-tossing/black-box analogy is that helpful for a discussion about (as you put it @47) “how the interface between weather events and climate shifts is handled by the science”. An actual example (or examples) of weather/climate would be my choice.
Do note that by going with the coin-tossing analogy you also introduce the probabilities from that analogy. I have to disagree with Ray Ladbury @64 who says of a 90:10 result “Well it could happen.” Without a severely biased coin, such a result would be so unlikely that it can be considered an impossible event within a normal time-period – it is a one-in-a-million-billion event.
The sort of variation you would see in the analogy is 38:62 – a one-in-a-hundred event or 34:66 – a one-in-a-thousand event. When such runs start appearing frequently, you can be sure the coin has become a bit bent. Of course in the real AGW world, our records are not very long so we cannot be certain that a particular event did have a particular probability in the past. So if within a pre-AGW-norm of 50:50, 40:60, 60:40, if 38:62 becomes more common, it might be a result of AGW but there will still be the possibility that such runs of 38:62 had existed in the pre-AGW-norm but beyond our records.
84 Al Bundy: “Victor works from belief to justification.”
V: Not so. On the topic of climate change I started as an agnostic. And I’d have left it at that if it weren’t for the constant media drumbeat that began to look more and more like hype. That made me suspicious, and when I looked into the evidence I became increasingly skeptical — the opposite of belief.
I’m certainly not an expert and have never claimed to be. I like to think I operate more like a detective investigating a case. My model is the TV detective Columbo. So strongly do I identify with Columbo that I usually smoke a cigar when watching reruns of that show. Now Columbo is an expert on nothing and makes no bones about that. He is constantly dealing with extremely successful suspects who know much more than he does on all sorts of things. But Columbo has a nose for sniffing out pretense, that’s his great gift. And I like to think I have a similar gift. Columbo gets suspicious when things don’t add up. Belief plays no role in his approach. He likes to ask all sorts of “dumb” questions and is often ridiculed for that. But after the smoke clears we realize his questions weren’t so dumb after all.
Now I’m on the “climate change” case. And, what do you know, things don’t add up in that case either. And when I ask the usual “dumb” questions, the suspect too often gives himself away, just as in “Columbo,” by his visible discomfort, his pretensions to superiority and yes, his insults and personal attacks. But Columbo never gives up. He’s as persistent as a bulldog. And eventually, in the long run, he always wins. I like Bertolt Brecht also, another cigar smoker.
Observations: I live on the coast of California, a Mediterranean climate. The last 5 years or so I’m noticing more lizards than before, a warm weather preferring animal (though adapted to a variety of climates globally). I’m not sure if they really are increasing or of it’s just that I’m noticing them more because I’m looking for them.
Also, it seems to me that deciduous trees are becoming evergreen here (i.e. losing leaves all year rather than just fall), and holding onto their leaves in fall much longer than normal.
Killian @88, you keep suggesting I’m defending the IPCC estimates, when I have said about TEN TIMES on this page I have long considered them on the low side, and that sea level would be nearer 2 metres than their estimates of 900mm.
So you just go on blatantly misrepresenting me. Its because what I say doesn’t fit your beliefs, so rather than have to think about your beliefs, you misrepresent and attack people. You think your clever rhetoric disguises this? ha ha ha (draws breath) ha ha ha.
RSS has posted its TLT anomaly for June at with an anomaly of +0.46ºC, a little up on May’s +0.41ºC. It is 7th warmest June in RSS TLT (UAH was =8th warmest) sitting behind 2016, 2010, 1998 (all El Nino years) and 2015, 2014 & 2017. June 2018 is the 77th warmest month in the full all-month RSS TLT record (in UAH it was =93rd).
A graph of the various monthly anomalies through recent years is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Now halfway though 2018, in the RSS TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 5th (=6th in UAH).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.90ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.59ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.49ºC
2015 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 5th
2005 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 6th
2002 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … … 11th
2013 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 9th
Mike @95, I can see how my comments on the Guardian could be interpreted that way. My comments were really rushed, but 1) I have been proven correct and 2) I was not lukewarming! Its just that when the media get things wrong and exaggerate they do us no favours.
V 104: Columbo gets suspicious when things don’t add up. Belief plays no role in his approach. He likes to ask all sorts of “dumb” questions and is often ridiculed for that. But after the smoke clears we realize his questions weren’t so dumb after all.
BPL: You do realize he was a fictional character, right? The actor who played him was named Peter Falk.
#58 Al Bundy said So, please show everyone here that you are a man by apologizing for your “number two filled” post.
Every response, iirc, you have made to me in the past 6 months (or so? I don’t remember you before recent months, frankly) has been a personal attack. I see no reason to apologize for telling the truth.
Walk away until you have some science to discuss.
Victor @104, you will notice I had already worked out your “detective” motivations, in my comment printed just above yours, and its not a bad way to view complex issues, and I agree Columbo was a great show. However you need to do better detective work, because I mean seriousy…. Yeah.
The peer reviewed literature is the gold standard, and the devils in the detail. The vast majority of this literature points towards agw climate change, so you have to have very good evidence that the “sceptical” literature (Willie Soon etc) is correct and there isn’t any. The published sceptical literature, and the informal sceptical internet commentary (Wattsup etc) is weak. It’s so easy to shoot down, and it is mostly cherry picking. So many cherries it would feed a troll army!
Victor @104
ROFLMAO
Victor is no Columbo. Columbo sought out all the evidence by asking the right questions and from that he developed a big picture, something Victor cannot and does not do.
Prime example of Victor’s proclivity of seeking the truth are his claims on the Hansen’s West Side Highway sea level prediction. He did some research meaning Victor looked at denier web sites for information. If Victor had simply read the SALON interview to see what was actually said it would have been obvious that the interview was in response to the publishing of the book. Then he could have looked at what the book actually said. That would have been real research, the type that Columbo would do. But no, Victor doesn’t actually seek truth, only justification of his preconceived beliefs so the discussion went on and on because Victor was unable to accept what he was being told. When finally faced with irrefutable evidence he finally did some research (research he should have done up front) and he conceded. A rare concession at that. Victor always works from belief to justification. He is deluded to think otherwise or just plain dishonest.
Yes, Victor is no Columbo. He hasn’t a clue what constitutes evidence nor is he interested in evidence that is contrary to his preconceived beliefs.
BPL: You do realize he was a fictional character, right? The actor who played him was named Peter Falk.
V: “Art is a lie that makes you see the truth.” Picasso
And besides, you’re forgetting the cigar. :-)
nigelj: It’s so easy to shoot down, and it is mostly cherry picking. So many cherries it would feed a troll army!
V: Cherries are in the eye of the beholder. Ouch!
CCHolley: Victor is no Columbo.
V: True enough. :-(
CC: Columbo sought out all the evidence by asking the right questions and from that he developed a big picture, something Victor cannot and does not do.
V: Not so. Columbo tends to focus on certain details that don’t make sense and ultimately give the game away. He rarely needs to develop a big picture to solve a case. One little slip and the game is up. In the climate change case we see a great many details that give the game away. The “big picture” you like to see is more like a big smoke screen.
Carrie,
You surprise me with your admonition for me to reduce my reading from three or four nonfiction books per week to cracking a single book sometime. It makes me wonder if you read for comprehension or to find attack points. My opinion of you just degraded.
Duh the world isn’t a coin. Duh, an anology was brought up. Duh, I joined the conversation productively. Your point?
To be clear, my thoughts on the situation are that anthropogenic global warming is a misnomer. AGW is simply a trigger that should be compared to orbital wobbles. The artillery shell is the resulting feedbacks. The biosphere as we know it is toast, especially since fossil fuels have almost no cost, which means that their price can be set as low as needed to ensure that they are competitive. Renewables can’t beat Saudi oil, US methane, or Siberian all of the above. And neither Russia nor Republicans care about warming. Republicans only care about competitive advantage and Russia thinks a few degrees would be a good thing (and yes, I’m being simplistic with regard to motivation)
The reason Killian is “attacked” is because he is incredibly offensive. Seriously, you, Carrie, are a stupid piece of garbage. Ah, didn’t that untruthful description of you make you want to attack me?
And as to Killian’s scientificness:
_
Killian wonders if sea level rise can dilute acidification significantly.
No. Not even laughable. Rise due to expansion does nothing and a meter or two (or even a few dozen if/when it all melts) compared to the depths of the ocean is a drop in the world’s biggest bucket
Nigel,
Your point that Antarctica’s rift volcanoes can’t be causing the recession of the coastal glaciers is even more valid since if Victor’s hypothesis were true then the increased flow from the interior would increase the supply of ice arriving at the coast and so one would expect that Thwaites et al would grow!
On another topic and another pole I’ve gotten around to researching polar bears. Some fun facts:
A 1400lb polar bear can walk on ice that’s so thin that a human would fall through because they’ve evolved snowshoe feet. Their paws are wider than a man’s forearm is long! This also makes them grand swimmers.
Bears in general are omnivorous but polar bears aren’t. Their teeth have evolved so as to be quite pointy and when they do eat vegetation their digestive tract doesn’t digest it very well. And with those huge paws they are are incredibly inefficient at land movement. It takes them about twice the energy to walk/run as other mammals. So they rarely bother to hunt on land. (And their potential prey rarely bothers to avoid them) But, of course they can and sometimes do kill people. Getting swiped by a huge paw with sharp claws will ruin your day.
So, they have specialized themselves so much that they can’t adjust to eating anything except seals, dead whales, and human garbage. While the continental shelf’s ice is melted (the basin is resource poor) they survive on stored fat. (Their primary hunting ground is at the intersection of the stationary landfast ice and the circulating offshore ice because that’s where the leads, and so the seals are) Thus, as the ratio of the time when coastal ice exists to coastal waters exists per year shrinks, they suffer. This especially affects pregnant females, who den on land and must now wait longer and longer to get back on the ice while losing massive amounts of weight nursing their cubs.
And females are about half the size of males. So, as things go south the guys start stealing the gals’ kills. And the guys have no problem with eating cubs.
So, since they are long-lived and slow reproducers, and the females are having smaller litters (it used to be usually two and sometimes three; now it’s trending towards one), the population is moving towards big old canabilistic males and not enough young.
Prognosis? Toast except in the refugia of NW Greenland/NE Canada, where things are improving because the multi year ice is devolving to annual ice.
Of course, if the folks who predict that the added insulation provided by a humid atmosphere combined with the elimination of stratification (Atlantification) are correct and ice-free summers equals ice free winters then polar bears will get to live in zoos.
Victor @113
“Cherries are in the eye of the beholder. Ouch!”
Actually no they are not. We can be objective in deciding if something is a cherry pick. The common definition of cherry picking is “selectively choose (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available.”
In terms of science cherrypicking can have a reasonable definition: Picking selected data that is not truly representative of the data needed to reach a conclusion. Or picking selected data that suits a certain perspective while ignoring data that doesn’t.
When someone claims or implies temperatures are doing something globally, and we find they are referring to one country or one city, for example, this is cherry picking, and we see this sort of thing all the time from the denialists.
The IPCC reports go to considerable lengths to evaluate ALL the data and ALL the published research. Even if you “disagree” with what the IPCC conclude, they have taken a full, open perspective, and looked at everything, which is why the reports are so long. And if the data doesn’t yet support a prediction they are open about that, they dont cherry pick a ‘subset’ of the data to pretend it does. You have to be smart to see what they do, and how devious and deceptive the denialists are.
The IPCC and also looked at the big picture, something you dont pay enough attention to. They also know which details are important. The details you agonise over amuse me because they are not crucial things and there are just obvious potential viable explanations.
Its like evolution, there are some challenging details not resolved, including some significant ones, but they dont undermine the theory, they are just hard to solve. You have already said you believe in evolution.
Killian,
I apologise if I’ve ever attacked you personally. Given that I am still working on being less caustic, I’m certain that I have.
However, you are probably fuming about my penchant for reposting your comments while removing everything except your insults and attacks on others. Please note that my doing so is not a personal attack on you, but your self-inflicted wound.
And seriously, you really outdid yourself this month. The insults took up a huge paragraph. And the placement right after a call for peace. And then to say that you had no choice “it had to be said”! I have to thank you, dude. I haven’t laughed that loud in years.
Weaktor,
The problem you have is that you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no conception of the problem, so you really are in no position to discern whether things add up or not. Were I to ask you whether the signal for the Higgs Boson from CERN adds up, how would you respond?
Baloney. Those details complete the picture, the big picture. Victor does not understand what the *big picture* means. Since it is obvious that Victor does not understand the science or the *big picture* of climate change science he is incapable of making any kind of good judgement on the details. Victor’s pontifications are the only smokescreens.
Victor @113
Baloney. Those details complete the picture, the big picture. Victor does not understand what the *big picture* means. Since it is obvious that Victor does not understand the science or the *big picture* of climate change science he is incapable of making any kind of good judgement on the details. Victor’s pontifications are the only smokescreens.
Re #106 nigelj said Killian @88, you keep suggesting I’m defending the IPCC estimates, when I have said about TEN TIMES on this page I have long considered them on the low side, and that sea level would be nearer 2 metres than their estimates of 900mm.
So you just go on blatantly misrepresenting me.
Except what I said was not constrained to SLR, as you can see, and should have seen when you read it, reposted here:
No, it’s because you are consistently on the low side in what you allow yourself to believe regardless of the evidence. The IPCC is *not* the authority on most likely outcomes, it is the keeper of the scientific reticence aka the middle road aka what can be stated with a degree of certitude vs. what more recent data is suggesting.
I will leave it to you to sort as it is simply not important *whether* you sort it or not. Still, I balk at being falsely characterized. Truth matters, whether tattered in error or with ill intent.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/10/1779390/-Watts-and-Bastasch-Who-re-You-Going-To-Believe-Deniers-Or-Your-Own-Sweat
Links in the text at the original page
Victor imagines he’s a fantasy character, just the wrong one.
Much more akin to Walter Mitty.
Yeah, Victor-not-Venema is the star in his own movie and book review.
More trailers and teasers will certainly continue to be posted.
Victor@104:
In order to be taken seriously, would you please provide references to the peer-reviewed, scientific literature about what “doesn’t add up”.
We’ll wait.
Daily CO2
July 9, 2018: 408.18 ppm
July 9, 2017: 407.35 ppm
June CO2
June 2018: 410.79 ppm
June 2017: 408.84 ppm
Noisy numbers, but they are under 2.0 ppm a lot of the days/weeks and even months right now. I think this is the trough in yoy comparison that is to be expected after a big EN event. I would love to see the numbers continue under 2.0 ppm in yoy comparison. At some point, maybe 18 months to two years of such a run, I would start to hope that we are actually seeing a decline or flattening of the rate of increase of CO2 in oceans and atmosphere. Flat level of increase would be lovely, but we actually need to turn that corner and work for a falling level of increase and movement toward a zero emissions target.
Make it so! please
Don’t feed the trolls. Keep the vitriol to a minimum, it serves no one, it’s just useless silliness imho.
Nigel, Killian and I agree that you don’t have to worry about the alarmist label. A couple years ago, when the record temps and CO2 jumps started up, I remember some folks saying, whoah, it’ just one month… don’t make too much of it… etc. Cooler heads were trying to tamp down concern. When that actually happened, it was actually four or five months in a row of record temps, enough heat to cause a reasonable person to sit and take notice, which I did. Ray, do you remember that exchange?
SLR is going to be like the record temp question, but the time frame will be record years of slr increase. I believe in ten years, maybe 5, only the lukewarmers will still be talking about SLR of less than 2 meters by 2100. I would love to be wrong about that, but I am alarmed and hence, I might be accurately described as an alarmist. Set a tickler in your calendar and let’s revisit if you want and we are both still around.
The wild boars are all out alive. Our species can do some amazing things when we set our minds to it. I am pretty happy about that miracle.
Warm regards all,
Mike
It would be very interesting both for me and hopefully others to have some comments on the topic of how far we have to go back in time to find a stable level of CO2 above 400 ppmv. In this very good interwiev Gavin said of this topic around 3,5 million years:
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/expect-more-complete-surprises-from-climate-change-nasa-s-schmidt-20180212-p4z035.html
However, others argue that the correct number is closer to above 25 million years ago:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.696.9961&rank=1
You have to click on the pdf-symbol to the right to download that comment/summary, which relies on a range of fairly recent scientific research on the sucject.
I am no expert and look forward to comments and links, especially from Gavin.
I should also want some expert comment on the level of heat and drought around the northern hemisphere this spring and summer. Here in Scandinavia and Northern Europe the heat and lack of any precipitation is remarkably strong and have been now since the beginning of may. There is no end in sight even on the forecasts reaching from one to three months forward in time.
The US drought monitor also show extremely severe drought in the Midwest and a global site shows drought over around half of Asia but maybe overestimate this a bit? I’ll submit the links in my next post.
Some links about drought now:
US: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/data-snapshots/data-source-drought-monitor
Global: http://spei.csic.es/map/maps.html#months=1#month=5#year=2018
Europe:
http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1052 (Norway, where I live, has severe drought almost everywhere, but is without data on this map for some reason unknown, because other non-members of the EU like Russia not missing). There is some discrepancy with the above global link, but that is up to date, while the european map is two weeks old.
The definitions of drought in these maps also not quite in accordance with each other. Comments?
Victorious: Columbo tends to focus on certain details that don’t make sense and ultimately give the game away. He rarely needs to develop a big picture to solve a case.
AB: Have you ever watched the show? In order to ASK the “dumb” question Columbo had to have developed the big picture before opening his mouth. He TRAPPED suspects by forming the solution ahead of time and then pretending to be stupid while massaging the suspect’s ego so the suspect would incriminate himself. The question was NOT about figuring things out because Columbo already knew the answer. The question was about gathering proof that would stand up in a court of law.
It’s interesting how you adore watching reruns over and over and over. Kinda sounds like your commenting policy.
If I may be allowed a short comment about some of the discussion above, I just think that “Victor” should do some scientific research to test his hypoteses (if there are any?) and then let the baffled world know about his mind-blowing results which would overwhelm all communities of climate scientists everywhere with their originality and theoretical revolutionizing, are we to believe his foregone conclusions. But the proof is in the pudding. No exercise in rethorics whatsoever will change neither nature nor the science about it. And that’s all I think anyone should say on that subject here until “Victor” publishes his baffling results.
A rather hot tweed from Katharine Hayhoe:
” Writing the 4th US National Climate Asst this past year, we included a section on paleoclimate analogues for present + future conditions for the 1st time. It was simultaneously the most fascinating & horrifying perspective…”
https://mobile.twitter.com/khayhoe/status/1016404251742961665
https://www.carbonbrief.org/permafrost-wetland-emissions-could-cut-1-5c-carbon-budget-five-years?utm_content=buffer7bde8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Emissions of CO2 and methane from wetlands and thawing permafrost as the climate warms could cut the “carbon budget” for the Paris Agreement temperature limits by around five years, a new study says. (Good photos in this article)
Mike @114, I remember when we were in the middle of the so called ‘pause’ after 1998, I predicted a big catch up / jump in temperatures coinciding with an el nino within the next few years. What did you predict back then?
121 nigelj carbon budgets (are already blown for 2C); 120 Nemesis paleoclimate analogues; 115 Karsten V. Johansen sensibly raises the issue of CO2 above 400 ppmv for discussions and ‘expert’ advice; 114 mike always on point and to ‘the point’ (TY); 107 MA Rodger shows his short term sky-plummeting cooling math; 105 Ron R. raises real world example of the usefulness of observations to inspire better scientific rigor and focus; while the majority of the rest is mindless mind-numbing arguments about nothing burgers between resident trolls.
Recent topics here have been on SLR projections & coin tosses; proven increasing CO2 growth vs unfounded/false skyrocketeering claims; climate sensitivity – what is it?; nth hemi heat waves now; ongoing higher global temps despite short term math; extreme weather events; bigger droughts; wild fires; WAIS loss; but have overlooked recent flooding rains eg Thailand and Japan and the hurricane shooting up the US east coast.
Let’s try this then: A useful summary article of the above state of play with multiple reference links provided by real scientists:
The Pliocene – The last time Earth had 400 ppm of Carbon Dioxide
Posted on July 9, 2018 by r.d.pancost
http://richpancost.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2018/07/09/the-pliocene-the-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-of-carbon-dioxide/
It references back to this – 2nd workshop on Pliocene climate, Bristol, September 2013 – when the last “Yet Again Conservative” IPCC reports were being delivered.
5 min overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLvPT5a6jg
Enjoy!
……………………
Misc. Quotes
A few years ago, we passed 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, a level that we have not experienced for about 3 million years, during the Pliocene epoch.
There is little doubt that increased carbon dioxide concentrations will cause global warming. The key questions are how much, and with what consequences.
During that time, across several ice ages, the planet’s climate sensitivity showed warming of about 2.5-3°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide … Ice core records, however, extend back no more than a million years … If we want to explore climate sensitivity on a warmer planet, we must look further back into Earth history, to times such as the Pliocene.
In particular, it seems an increase of carbon dioxide from about 280ppm (equivalent to that before the industrial revolution) to about 400ppm in the Pliocene resulted in an Earth warmer by 2°C.
[ Meaning, it is only about +1.3°C with CO2 @ 410 ppmv already, meaning the Paris 2°C Budget is already blown – and truth be told, ‘we’ know that but ‘we’ just do not want to admit it, yet. ]
The below figure shows the sea surface temperatures reconstructed for the Pliocene …. notice how much hotter the oceans were, especially at high latitudes.
This next figure is derived from an ensemble of climate models … Again, note how much higher temperatures were at high latitudes… but also continental interiors. We are seeing a manifestation of this now ….
Taking into account other factors, this suggests a climate sensitivity of about 3°C, which confirms both the Pleistocene and model-based estimates. It also suggests that we have yet to experience the full consequences of the greenhouse gases already added to the atmosphere, let alone those we are still putting into it. And finally, it suggests that there is a risk that we have already surpassed the agreed limits of the Paris Climate Agreement.
[ Who knew? Millions knew! It’s a conga line that could circle the earth a 100 times at least. Top of the billing? Prof Keven Anderson for one. ]
The changes in the climate we are inducing is a problem for us humans, and for our societies, not the planet we’re on.
Second, the Pliocene was a rather different world. For example, higher global temperatures were associated with a climate that was also wetter than at present.
Perhaps most striking, sea level in the Pliocene appears to have been between 10 to 40 metres higher than today, indicating that both the Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctic Ice Sheet were markedly smaller.
[ NOT 2 metres but 40 metres – Didn’t that radical Hansen dude suggest, what 12 metres to 20 metres ? Wasn’t it that meanie Killian who mentioned only a couple days ago now the notion of hysteresis in discussions about the unknown of SLR forecasts? ]
One widely discussed concept is ice sheet hysteresis. This is a fancy way of saying that due to feedback mechanisms …. On the other hand if hysteresis is rather weak, then the question is not whether we will see such a massive sea level change, but how long it will take to arrive (probably hundreds or even thousands of years).
It also reveals that climate does not just change randomly: it changes when forced in ways that are relatively well understood
……………………..
Now wtf is going to be done about the Consequences of this and when? About the sustained extremely conservative approach of, and the very tame speech from the majority of climate scientists and other ‘experts’ in this field?
Al Bundy @115, yes arctic polar bears are not well adapted to eating vegetation and humans left over food. They do eat seabirds eggs, but those are in limited supply as a food source. In fact various sub populations of bears are looking decidedly under nourished, from what I have read.
Bear population numbers have only dropped slightly, but I think it will reach a tipping point in about 20 years, with massive declines in numbers as sea ice really contracts and thins to the point of destruction. Its the spring sea ice that is critical to seals mating, as well as polar bears.
In fact winter / spring sea ice showed a decline last year, but I cant recall the article I was reading.
No doubt my statements / predictions won’t be pessimistic enough for Killian / Mike. I will have to work on being more gloomy.
Some house-keeping
56 nigelj says: 5 Jul 2018 at 6:32 PM
Al Bundy @46, read last months UV particularly the comment by Kevin McKinney near the end of the thread. Dr Wanless was misreported, and seems to have modified his views.
The two articles you reference do not claim sea level rise of 5 metres by 2100 (or similar) and appear to be talking about multi metre sea level rise spread over several centuries. If you disagree, provide specific quotations from them.
…………………
AB replies but in ‘different’ thread?
174
Al Bundy says:
10 Jul 2018 at 3:29 PM
I contacted Hal Wanless and asked him if the Jeff Goodall quote about Dr Wanless’ personal belief of “15 feet by 2100” was accurate. Dr Wanless wrote, “I was not misquoted”.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/comment-page-4/#comment-707765
……………………..
This is what I call good research because AB went direct to the original Source – it’s also called taking personal responsibility for what one “believes” and then “repeats” to others.
1,000 Gold Stars go to AB for teaching by way of example. Now, everyone else who always have the ‘answers’, lift your game to AB’s level!
87 Carrie 7 Jul 2018: “5 years ago here people were … demanding that everyone agrees that with wind solar being so cheap then and it’s rapid growth that nirvana was going to break out across the energy sectors and that Coal was dead and so were the ff ICEV very soon.”
Please cite a single post that said or implied that “nirvana is going to break out” (i.e. “we’ve arrived at a glorious new renewable future! we can all relax now! problems solved!”), or that “coal is dead”. I don’t think you can, because NO ONE ever said or implied such a thing, in my experience — and I’ve spent many hundreds of hours reading this forum over ~10 years.
Your “nirvana is going to break out” is a straw man that you trot-out whenever anyone mentions anything that is slightly inconsistent with your nihilistic, all-is-lost outlook on things. Yes, Carrie, maybe all IS lost; maybe we’re toast and that’s that. Or maybe not. We don’t know yet, do we? You accuse others of “nirvana is going to break out” Pollyanna-ism, when in fact NO ONE is making such claims. Meanwhile, your own outlook is of “Armageddon is going to break out any day now” uber-doomerism. Strangely, you have made of yourself the mirror image of the (non-existent) people that you decry.
Carrie @135, the pliocene is indeed interesting. As I have stated myself these past climates are a glimpse of the considerable problems we are inviting. I think its going to be really hard to pin down climate sensitivity theoretically, so past climates may be our best guide as to what happens at “x” degree of warming and CO2 concentrations.
However its probably common knowledge for readers here that 2 degrees will cause 6 metres or more of sea level rise over millenia, (possibly considerably more) and nobody here has actually argued against this. I have simply stated its unlikely to happen by the year 2100. Please don’t confuse the two.
Please provide evidence anyone has suggested multi metre long term sea level rise is not going to happen.
General question for the experts. The difficulty with climate sensitivity appears to be clouds. Is it not possible to use the CERN cloud chamber to investigate this somehow? Or is it just too small to get a realistic assessment of real world conditions?
CCHolley: Victor’s pontifications are the only smokescreens.
AB: So? Lots of folks think cigar smoke smells good. But then after a few decades of Colombo reruns cigar smoke gets a tad stale (but not to Vic)
Steven E: We’ll wait.
AB: You’ll starve.
Karsten: I just think that “Victor” should do some scientific research
AB: Vic has been quite forthcoming in his admission that he’s too stupid to understand science, let alone do research. But, of course, that doesn’t change his belief that he’s right. Vic ain’t Dunning Kruger; he’s, as Tamino describes, “Proud to be stupid”.
———
nigel links to: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas – approximately 26 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere, although it only lasts for around a decade in the atmosphere.
AB: These quotes peeve me no end. Methane does NOT go away after a decade. Instead it transforms into CO2! That’s way worse than what absolutely everybody quotes as “fact”. (10yrs X 26 = 260 500yrs X 1 = 500) Yeah, I gave a random number for CO2 persistence and ignored that CH4 goes away gradually. Adjust as you desire.
Carrie: Wasn’t it that meanie Killian who mentioned
AB: I agree. Killian is caustic but he generally has something productive to say. Frankly, I consider him the closest analog to me on this site. (Note that I have some personal data about Killian that explains a lot. We should cut him some slack)
Alan 2102 @138 yes that needed saying. I’m tired of the doom, nihilism, pessimism and cynicism as well. Without hope we have nothing.
nigel: Bear population numbers have only dropped slightly, but I think it will reach a tipping point in about 20 years, with massive declines in numbers as sea ice really contracts and thins to the point of destruction.
AB: True, though I think you’re conservative. 5-10 years is my guess. Note that population numbers are a crude metric. Consider that Japan’s population is by and large above the age of reproductive capability as compared to Nigeria’s population. Similarly, polar bears are older and more male today than they were a couple decades ago. So, even though the population numbers haven’t declined too terribly much, the “viable” population is teetering (as you hint). And, as I noted, all those old males are actually a harmful component because they steal resources from and cannibalize viable individuals. This is similar to why dedicated hunts of rare species are productive. Get rich a**holes to pay big bucks to slaughter old males who interfere with productive animals and you not only get to strip jerks of their money but help the species in question by providing the funds for conservation efforts (that really ought to come from reductions in Offense budgets).
138 alan2102. I get the impression that Captain Ahab has caught himself a whale. You’re confusing literary license, personal taste and style with a straw man. It can’t be a straw man because I wasn’t having an argument with someone nor twisting what they said and putting words in their mouth.
Putting aside the fact that now you’re searching back 5 days to ‘cherry pick 6 words’ to argue about and beat me over the head with it. Slow down and reconsider your approach. It’s not going to work. :-)
114 Al Bundy says: The reason Killian is “attacked” is because he is incredibly offensive. Seriously, you, Carrie, are a stupid piece of garbage. Ah, didn’t that untruthful description of you make you want to attack me?
No, not in the least. I attack ‘things’ that people say, think and believe. Besides there’s some truth to your characterization, just not 24/7 and if that is all you have (as per alan atm) well you don;t have much worth listening to in the moment. Tomorrow the patient may be better, we’ll see.
PLUS “And as to Killian’s scientificness: Killian wonders if sea level rise can dilute acidification significantly.
No. Not even laughable. Rise due to expansion does nothing and a meter or two (or even a few dozen if/when it all melts) compared to the depths of the ocean is a drop in the world’s biggest bucket.”
If anyone wonders about something or asks what you “feel” is a really dumb question, then all you really need to do is say “NO” and explain why you believe that’s the correct account.
Besdies several hundred to thousands of years of human science is replete with people “wondering” the strangest odd ball things and asking the dumbest questions on this planet – through that foundational process our knowledge grew.
For every one good idea in science scientists are wondering about 1000 really stupid pieces of garbage. Some still do it right here.
I do not expect perfection from Killian 24/7 nor do I expect perfection from you or me. Anymore than I expect perfection from Scientists!
And hey, if you never wanted someone to say to you “go crack a book sometime” you should have informed us all proper that you read 4 fiction books a day in your first post to this forum – or added as a ‘signature’ on every subsequent post. See how this works? But don’t miss my huge compliment to you recently. It’s genuine too. :-)
Re #114 Al Bundy hypocricied And as to Killian’s scientificness:
Killian wonders if sea level rise can dilute acidification significantly.
No. Not even laughable.
As a teacher, one thing I don’t do is punish thinking. I certainly don’t insult sincere inquiry, even if it *is* laughable. Yet, what you do here is de regueur for most of the core posters here. I have noted some recent improvements, though you seem to be taking the opposite tack.
Now, I have never attacked you that I can recall, yet…
As for my meanieness, it never – never – starts with me. I do have a principle re engagement that makes me vulnerable to people like you in that I don’t accept the rather stupid idea that insults vary in degree. Whether one says, for example, prevaricate, less than truthful, lie, playing fast and loose with, etc., etc., makes no difference. Here’s a good one:
Misrepresenting is bad enough given it is 100% false, but to put blatantly in there makes it 100% ill-intentioned. I was called a liar, straight up, for doing nothing more than pointing out someone was in no way an alarmist on climate. <– How terrible of me!
Now, had I chosen not to lead by example and responded to this as I might have last month and earlier, how should I have? The word "liar" wasn't used, but it was still stated. Am I mean if I say so? Am I mean if I point out how obvious it is I did not? If I say how obvious, does that not also, quite unavoidably, impugn the writer's reading comprehension, or sensitivity, or…?
The tap dancing is silly. Get the damned tiff over with. Don't draw it out. Waste of time. So, when I am choosing to be as efficient and direct as I prefer, things come out leaving no doubt what I think of whatever or whomever i am responding to.
That you think *I* am the meanie says it all.
What matters is that one's character is impugned, not which word or phrase was used. Thus, when people come at me some see my responses as not proportional. I don't care. Those are word games best left to those whose jollies are gotten by wasting their time on pages of escalation before ending up where they were destined to be from the beginning.
So, am I a meanie? Only when attacked. Do you believe this? Do I care? The answer to both is no. I make my own decisions. This is why I have been ahead of the curve for the last 10+ years. And *that* is why I am treated as I am, not my style. That is just an excuse because my "style" is the product of the level of discourse.
This will be my last to your phishing. Enjoy your point over having gotten a bite.
To the science.
Rise due to expansion does nothing and a meter or two (or even a few dozen if/when it all melts) compared to the depths of the ocean is a drop in the world’s biggest bucket
Given acidification happens at the surface primarily, and new inflows happen there and we are not ignoring the context – including possible rapid draw down of CO2 – I am not certain your certitude is warranted. I do not, however, know and have not spent time on acidification.
That’s why I asked. Try not to shit on people’s inquiries without cause.
A final point: Trying to insult someone for their lack of science (or math) chops when they self-describe as non-scientist and leaning on logic, inference, TEK, analysis, etc., rather than hard numbers is a bit like laughing at Rudolph for his nose.
Guess you got me… (Oops… sarcasm. Dammit….!)
Alan: yes Carrie, maybe all is lost; maybe we’re toast and that’s that. Or maybe not. We don’t know that…
AB: Maybe not “we”, but I do. (Been there, done that) The only question is how burnt said toast is. Statistics and insurance analysis are what they are and the propensity to ignore/minimize feedbacks until it’s too late is baked into your species. You are toast. Period. But it is still possible that a percentage of the bread won’t turn into CO2, CH4, and ash.
That’s my purpose – to salvage and redirect your species. (Pronouns are fun, especially for a Weaver)
It’s still “worse than you think” and nobody dies quietly.
https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2018/07/05/show-1127-the-health-impact-of-environmental-disaster
Al Bundy @142, another thing on arctic polar bears is there was a moratorium on hunting about 20 years ago that may have disguised a decline in numbers. And here’s an enviromental website with some published science which suggests they will be extinct in 30 – 40 years, so a bit closer to my guesstimate. Not good either way.
https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/12/03/what-science-polar-bear/
Apparently, since April 2010, the 12-month running mean for CO2 Growth YoY has been above 2 ppm (except during the 2011-2012 strong La Nina period.)
Graph by wolfpack513
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2231.0;attach=104458;image
With another El Nino apparently building now I suspect the Monthly growth rate will be back above 3 ppm again within the next 12 months (all other things being equal.) That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though.
This weeks CO2 growth is tracking +1.90 ppm, up a little from last week. We’ll see how that goes (and all of July) after the event.
While renewable energy growth continues so does fossil fuel use and rainforest destruction continue to grow e.g.
Until recently, mining operations were thought to have only a small comparative impact upon the rainforest, which covers 40% of South America. Estimates previously put the figure at just 1%-2%; however, a new study published by researchers at the University of Vermont (UVM) is as much as ten times that. This is, in part, because for the first time, the researchers looked at the overall impact of all mining operations, and the results are cause for grave concern.
https://www.mining-technology.com/features/minings-big-environmental-footprint-amazon/
142 Al Bundy, I have a much better idea. Transport all our psychopaths capitalists and lazy do nothing investors to temporary arctic gulags to be used as Feed for the Polar Bears? Solving (killing) two birds with one stone. Economic efficiency and high productivity in action.
Not my idea (not that clever) I got it from a T-shirt that read
“Save the Whales: eat the Japanese!”