This month’s open thread for climate science issues.
Reader Interactions
409 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Aug 2018"
Carriesays
227 MA Rodger may not be so clear to others, who I suspect care as little as I do, but it quite clear to me that you could be best described as having a fence post stuck in one eye while the other eye remains shut, then you carry on as if you can see forever (as the song goes.)
If through misfortune I would find myself seated besides you on a bus or a country train in the Midlands I predict that I would get goosebumps and and the heebie-jeebies even if a single word was not spoken between us. Yeah, I would move seats into a another carriage if they allowed. You may be ok with math and stuff, but something is not quite right here. Just sayin’ even if you’re really a sweet old man who wouldn’t hurt a fly, I am still glad there are oceans and continents between us.
Out of the mouths of babes. Nah tell me it isn’t so niglej. Did you ask for MARs permission before posting that link and saying what you said? LOL too funny for words.
Worrying? How very skyrockety of you niglej, you horribilus we-told-you-so doom-sayer you. You’re on the outer now pal. Questioning climate models — my god man wash your mouth out with salt water right now.
Carriesays
233 nigelj “But I’m a HOLISTIC thinker. […] Do you get where Im coming from now? I really hope so.”
Nah I think you’re more like a flag on a flag pole. You’re hearts in the right place and you’re doing the best you can with what you got. But your knowledge and judgement is atrocious and isn’t helping anyone but yourself to feel better that all might be OK. You love your comfortable life now that you can sit back and pontificate on matters import.
That’s ok you’ve earned it I supposed in your “lifes/western” context at least. So enjoy it and be who you are, even if you’re not quite the Holistic thinker you think you are. :)
“I don’t think its locked in yet.” Like you;d know if it was. :-)
“… but we have to go on the best information science has.”
Yes. Then stop ignoring it and get real about it. We are being flooded in it today. Then you turn around and pretend it doesn’t exist and believe fools like MAR is an “expert”. No wonder Killian spits the dummy at you so often lol. You’re far worse than antagonizing. Must be a pain to live with. You know everything and then change your mind each other minute. And then return back to what you said yesterday claiming you never said anything different. Maddening to say the least. What does/did the missus say about that? :-)
Carriesays
235 Mr. Know It All says: “How big are these thawing lakes with permafrost underneath them?”
Here’s is a unique thought that will entail you doing something you’ve probably never done before – go read the paper ref’d and find out! Lose your Virginity KIA.
“I can’t imagine permafrost below a lake of much size.”
Funny how ‘permafrost’ sits comfortably under the sea bed of the Continental shelves too hey KIA. Ain’t science so god damned shockin’ to the senses some days? :)
18 Billion years old, the Universe? God damn.
Here son, I say here boy, let me help you cross the street without gittin’ run over boy.
1) You’re in the wrong thread. Please some accuracy, please! :-)
2) Waddhams was but one minor ref used as example. Jem’s paper and discussion topics do not rely upon the efficacy of Waddhams blog claims, youtube vids nor his published papers. Hurry before you run out of cherries.
3) Jem lists a number of refs. and discusses a number of issues that could be read holistically and in context. Replace Waddhams with Francis refs if it makes you happier. It doesn’t change the points he is making.
4) Add in a Gavin Ref that says all Models are wrong as well if you like. You may as well given where your heading and your narrow cast motivations.
5) The ASI loss driven Albedo Feedback is not the only ASI Positive Feedback mechanism worth including in these complex interrelated issues.
6) Are IPCC Arctic Sea Ice projections famously under-projecting the levels of sea ice loss or not? Yes.
7) Do the CIMP5 modelling and thus IPCC AR5 projections for AGW include all current best practice Positive feedbacks into the future and are they still in line with the present 2018 knowledge base or not? No.
8) Does it significantly matter to the topics of discussion and conclusions / warnings of inaction to rapidly drive down GHG emissions by humans and natural sinks in the Deep Adaption paper by Jem? No.
9) Is this true and reasonably accurate? “”The albedo effect due to vanishing sea ice is already responsible for about 25 percent of global warming, according to Jennifer Francis, a research professor at Rutgers University’s School of Environment and Biological Sciences.”” Yes.
10) That’s great, now what? Remove Waddhams from the face of the earth as if he never said or wrote a single thing in this life – now what’s your point exactly? :-)
11) Is this true and reasonably accurate? “These three tropical regions released 2.5 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere than they did in 2011″ and ” In 2015 and 2016, OCO-2 recorded atmospheric carbon dioxide increases that were 50 percent larger than the average increase seen in recent years preceding these observations.” and “That increase was about 3 parts per million of carbon dioxide per year — or 6.3 gigatons of carbon.” – Yes.
12) Please show me where these land based vegetative mass emissions of CO2 are included in prior CIMP5 modelling and thus IPCC AR5 projections for AGW circa by 2015-2016.
13) Please show me in the AR5 where such feedbacks to AGW are included out to 2030 and then to 2050 which also are following accurate projections the net GHG real world emissions scenario data of 2010 to 2020, then 2020-2030.
Now was there a useful definitive point you wanted to make? Don’t forget to shift back to the right thread and post #s.
Thanks, there’s a good sport. Maybe go write your own Future Scenarios Paper that Analyses Deep Adaption issues inclusive of the required Mitigation needed 2020-2040 to avoid destabilizing the Climate system and forestalling Societal Collapse. It’s easy isn’t it? Simply say there’s nothing at all to worry about – people just need to calm down and not go nuts – so here’s your chance MAR to be the Pied Piper and still the waters.
Must be time for YOU to sell a positive realistic story to the public and policy makers MA Rodger that’s grounded in credible referenced Climate Science Data Modelling. Yes?
—
(smile) I bet you were cute as button when you were 3 yrs old.
Carriesays
PS to KIA before you say something silly again. Yes I do know there is a difference between sea beds and the bottom of Lakes.
I intentionally avoided refs to Lakes as an aid to perhaps motivate you to go find the information by yourself and actually reading a scientific paper about LAKES and Permafrost!
You can do it if you only try before you die. (smile)
#233 nigelj said Carrie @212, ok there’s some good thoughts in there and holistic thinking is important.
How would you know? This is not what you do. The evidence is clear. You probably mean wholisitc thinker, for which there is some evidence, but the whole does not fully support it. Let’s say… you seem to honestly think you are.
However I already know the climate problem is serious
You do not understand how serious, which is likely her point.
I already think well ahead.
Not in evidence. Referencing the future and understanding it are not the same thing.
Most of those tipping points happen from 2 – 5 degrees, and ok we can’t be sure, but we have to go on the best information science has.
False. This is negotiating with the truth. Common, but that excuses nothing. Appropriate risk assessment, in fact, rests on long-tail assessment, not mid-range assessment. Pretty much all of you get this wrong… along with all of everyone else… even permies.
Solutions? We already know the solutions: The IPCC report covers mitigation
Yes.
renewable energy
No. Bridge.
and we have things like carbon taxes
A bridge tactic that could easily result in delaying solutions in the long run. In the short run, a dividend, e.g., would boost consumption as lower economic levels spend the excess to survive or live better. Unintended consequences.
Useful discussion would centre on fixing those problems.
No, real solutions would focus on regenerative government, regenerative design, simplification. Anything else cannot solve these problems because they won’t work fast enough giventhe risk assessment and can’t go far enough in the long or short term.
More later… maybe.
Killiansays
Re #233 nigelj said If you are suggesting we all go and live on little self sufficient farms
I don’t recall anyone on this site ever suggesting 9 billion people all live on their own self-sufficient farms. Stop lying. Self-sufficient as a metric is idiocy. The appropriate term is self-reliant. But, hey, you’re a holistic thinker…
then perhaps you should actually think this through a bit more, because its not the simple answer you think it is.
You are clueless in this regard. Arrogant! You have no idea how to create such a place, yet spew about the possibilities? Stop talking, already.
And if you can’t convince people on this website, how would you convince someone like Trump or even just the average person?
Show me who on this website even attempts to learn how to design their own space? Even Kevin, talker on ecological issues that he is, has never bothered to learn. Strough has a clue, but he leans in directions that make his full knowledge a bit unclear. But he’s as close as we get here.
You can lead a horse tow water, but if it thinks tech is all, it won’t drink. This is a specialized site where I would not expect to find people who get regenerative systems. That is why I post here. If you all already got it, I wouldn’t need to be here.
But I’m a HOLISTIC thinker. I think we sould be promoting the whole lot
That is NOT what that word means. So, yet again, you’re barking words. You are calling for The Middle Way, as you see it (which is also incorrect, but for current purposes we’ll pretend you understand it), not holism. You see nothing BUT parts. If we do this thing over here, that thing over there — regardles how unsustainable they are — then all will be fine.
NO. Holism, or holistic thinking, sees the whole system, thus **understands it.** You are… barking words.
renewable energy, carbon taxes, a bit more self sufficiency, regenerative farming, experiments with alternative economic systems and lifestyles and lower population growth. Then we will see what gains traction.
See what gains traction? Who the hell cares if it “gains traction?” that is irrelevant. What matters is one thing and one thing only: Does it get us to sustainability?
Stop barking words. Learn.
Killiansays
Re #234 Fred Magyar said, Al Bundy @ 215 says
Fred and Killian,
If some comment is on the wrong thread then there’s nothing that prevents you from answering on the right thread. DUH, eh?
Most Esteemed Al Bundy,
While I can not, in good conscience, proffer to speak for Killian.
If not for your thoughtful elucidation, It is difficult for me to even conceive of the possibility, that I might otherwise have been able to come up with such a brilliant deduction, if left solely to my own devices!
Yours, in eternal gratitude!
Fred Magyar
Agreed, Fred.
That is, Bundy, don’t be a petty goddamned child.
nigeljsays
Carrie @249, sigh, you are a cantankerous sort of character, but rather than get another telling off like that I did some work using “google”. So look up “climate change feedback” on wikipedia. It has great detailed discussion on all the various feedbacks, and states what feedbacks are in the IPCC projections (so the models).
Briefly the projections include the obvious ones, plus ice albedo and the various carbon cycle feedbacks (as MAR pointed out). I didnt know he was an engineer but it makes no great difference to me anyway.
Perhaps realclimate could do an article on the subject, if nothing else is on their agenda.
nigeljsays
Carrie @253, no, I’m a careful holistic thinker who knows the mitigation strategies that you, killian, KM, zebra and others talk about all have value, and all are required , and many are mutually related and reinforcing. (although killian is too extreme in his views). Thats what holistic means. You clearly dont really know what holistic means :)
“You’re hearts in the right place and you’re doing the best you can with what you got. ”
More personal BS that has no place on this website. And didn’t you criticise people for being mocking? Practice what you preach, just for once.
And yes I like to be comfortable. Its not evil you know.
“… but we have to go on the best information science has.” “Yes. Then stop ignoring it and get real about it. ”
What have I ignored? Just because I’m sceptical of some fringe claim from some eccentric scientist does not mean I’m ignoring the “best information”. I ignore the stupid information.
“You’re far worse than antagonizing.”
Only to you and Killian, because I ask questions that have you at a loss for answers, so you get annoyed and personal.
“You know everything and then change your mind each other minute.”
Where have I done that?
nigeljsays
Carrie @252 if you only realised how stupid you make yourself look with content free, personalised, rhetoric like that. You are on your way to getting yourself banned, just letting you know because you are too dumb to see it coming :)
nigeljsays
Victor @239
“The costs of achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating are projected to be between USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030 with minimal effects on GHG emissions (limited evidence, medium agreement).”
“Did you notice that last bit?: “with minimal effects on GHG emissions.” After spending “USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030.” Nothing in the whole document speaks to the futility of the whole “mitigation” enterprise so strongly as that single phrase. ”
It means the policies of universal access to electricty would have minimal affects on the “process of reducing emissions”.
nigeljsays
Chuck @247 no, no Victor and KIA have to be different people. They have very different styles of writing and points of view, apart from their general denialism. Neither are smart enough to fake a style, to make it look like two separate people.
Imho Victor is some sort of scientific crank who means well, but simply doesnt learn and think hard enough about what he is reading, while KIA is driven by conservative small government values ( he has talked about this)and anecdotal thinking.
Quote from WGIII: “The costs of achieving nearly universal
access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating are projected to be between USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030 with minimal effects on GHG emissions (limited evidence, medium agreement).”
Victor: Did you notice that last bit?: “with minimal effects on GHG emissions.” After spending “USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030.” Nothing in the whole document speaks to the futility of the whole “mitigation” enterprise so strongly as that single phrase. Yet it is tossed off as though the enormous problem it raises is inconsequential.
You seem to be missing the point of your own quote. It seems quite clear to me that the expected benefit of “achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating” is, well, everybody having access to electricity and clean heat.
It is *not* intended to reduce GHG emissions.
On the other hand, the fact that it doesn’t appreciably *increase* GHG emissions is a good-news item, making mitigation easier, not–as you seem to suppose–illustrating its impossibility.
I don’t know why you think that the quoted sum is such a shocking deal-breaker, either; the world spends probably ~$1,800 billion yearly on defense (of which 35% is American expenditure). Personally, I think that diverting less than 20% of that for the humanitarian purposes proposed would probably do more for international security than all the tanks, bombs and strategists we’re buying now.
In more general budgetary terms, Gross World Product is supposed to be something like %80-110 trillion, depending mostly on how you figure exchange. So enormous gains in human welfare could apparently be made by the expenditure of about a tenth of a percent of that.
Las Vegas (NV) Review-Journal
Wednesday, August 15, 2018 5:30 PM
Nevada-California desert ‘half empty’ of birds after population collapse
By Henry Brean / Las Vegas Review-Journal
Bird populations have collapsed in the desert along the Nevada-California border, and climate change could be to blame, according to a new study by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley.
Over the past century, the number of bird species has fallen by an average of 43 percent at survey sites across an area larger than New York state. Almost a third of species are less common and widespread now than they once were throughout the region.
Al Bundysays
Carrie,
Yeah, and don’t forget that 0.7C spike in temps that is currently suppressed by pollution. By definition we are not at the peak of forcing because of aerosols.
How did the debt come about? Easy. The rich lobbied to have their tax rate dropped by 2/3 and “loaned” us their tax obligations instead.
Nigel, add the 0.7C suppressed warming to current temps and your most wildly optimistic drawdown of emissions scenario. Note that the total is likely above 2C. Like the joke says, nobody ever died from falling. Twas the sudden stop (or feedback release) at the end. We’re committed to 2C+.
Nigel: the safest, eaiest bet in the world
AB: was betting against the Cornhuskers in a bowl game. They played podunk running teams in the regular season and trounced them. Then their muscle was useless against the passing games of their bowl opponents.
—–
Ron R,
Most mining has an inherent problem. Lots of atoms are toxic. In nature, those atoms tend to get rejected by various means and are buried below the biosphere. Mining dredges them up. Killian’s right when he speaks against mining, though he’s way too absolutist in my opinion.
—–
MARodger,
I was under the impression that the IPCC reports had to be signed off on by the governments of the world. Now, I certainly don’t know the specifics, but the above certainly means that folks must shade statements so that the USA, Saudi, Russia, et al will sign. Of all the truculants, I believe the Republican party is the most truculant and powerful of all.
—-
Killian: Holocaust victims had no choice.
AB: Bull. They could have fought tooth and nail instead of cattling to compounds so as to make munitions for their oppressors. Of course, human nature is what it is and blaming them for contributing to the Nazi war effort would be wrong. Please lose you knee-jerkiness.
And seriously, why would I challenge a person with average intelligence? My beef with you is that you’re unpleasant and offense. By the way, you are right about lifespan. Lots of folks used to die in giving birth and in childhood, but human lifespan’s increase hasn’t been terribly impressive.
—–
Carrie,
Yes. More succinctly is: global warming is global. The atmosphere is a tiny sliver of the globe. The ocean is the vast bulk of the globe. Thus, one can’t assume atmospheric temps are a reliable measure of global warming. Additionally, the 1998 through 20xx atmospheric anomoly was actually a severe spike and a reversion to trend as opposed to a hiatus. Basically, the oceans barfed a whole lot of heat into the atmosphere in 1998 and the planet took a decade or so to sort out its indigestion.
Carrie-aka-Thomas @249, (1,361 words)
Your bad-mouthing of other commenters, including myself, coupled to your own self-agrandizment is way way over the top. Get a grip, man. This thread is meant to be discussing climate science and not a repository for your overly-verbose and non-sciencey “blather” which is not “getting tedious”: it has always been so, and in such volume as to wreck the entire thread. (60 words)
Carrie-aka-Thomas @251, (154 words)
You are responding to me @227 in which I set out the substance of your comment @195 and I did put the notion that you could “add any corrections.” As your response @251 is pure ad hominem, we can conclude with certainty that @195 the quote enfolded within your presentation of Dessler & Forster (2018) is simply you mouthing off and pretending to quote some learned source, and the “many papers” you talked of simply don’t exist. As I concluded @227 – “Well done you!” (87 words)
Carrie-aka-Thomas @256, (605 words)
Of the thirteen-point critique you set out, apart from the posting on the wrong thread, petty-much all you attempt to establish is vaccuous error. Some will be robustly demonstrated when I get round the the “To be continued…” comment indicated @226. Others simply reinforcing the message I set out @160, that a “big long list of what could be construed as looming disasters” is being wielded by many who shoud know better (as well as jokers like yourself), and that any one of the list-items is enough to exaggerate into evidence supporting an incorrect assertion that already “we are off to hell in a handcart.” My point with the comments @160, @226 & the “To be continued…” comment is to demonstrate the fallacy of such doom-mongering.
Note that the paper by Jem (are you on first-name terms with the man?) as you say does indeed mention “a number of papers” but the “paper by Jem” failed to find publication precisely because it is not supported by scientific literature, something “Jem” appears to consider a badge of honour rather than a criticism.
Finally, I note your last two points are actually questions. As presented, the answers would be curt and not to your liking. So do you really want answers or are those questions rhetorical? (216 words)
TTauri @200,
I don’t see anybody responding to your enquiry up-thread. The source of the quote you present is not apparent to me which makes any response less easy. And the mechanics of oceans is no simple subject.
Certainly there is good evidence of warmer ocean surfaces being associated with shallower Ocean Mixed Layer, certainly in the seasonal sense. I am less clear as to whether AGW is expected to also result in shallower mixing and I don’t ever recall it being seen as a climate feedback mechanism. (If it were it would impact ‘Tranient Climate Response’ and not Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity’ which may give reason for a lack of mention.) However I did not long ago read a paper that said there was no evidence of the mixing layer “shoaling” and that paper proved to be Somavilla et al (2017) ‘The warmer the ocean surface, the shallower the mixed layer. How much of this is true?’
Ray Ladburysays
Chuck: “Does anybody know if Mr. Killed In Action and Weaktor are the same Moron?”
No, I think they arrived at their stupidity independently. It may seem astounding that two such mediocre minds think alike until you realize they are downloading the same patches from the denialist mothership.
You all are probably receiving countless advertising mails for the International Journal of Everything and Applications (IJEA) and friends. Even though those journals have very high levels of scientific novelty and an extremely narrow focus, their titles suggest otherwise. Honesty is the most central value of science. However, some journals — even if only by accident — do accept papers which are not consistent with their advertised high levels of standards they set themselves. Striving for the ultimate in honesty, we wanted to avoid readers being disappointed by any paper — by setting the bar as low as possible, and then lowering it further.
Al Bundysays
Carrie: It was called an Hiatus, a pause, a slowdown “in temperature increases” aka “flattening below the long term trend” and below “the forecast trend of temp increases” from the major peak in 1998 into 2010.
AB: But it wasn’t a flattening below the long term trend nor below the forecast trend. From 1999 through 2014 there are six years below the trend, seven years above, and two years essentially on the trend. The easiest way to see the truth is to simply remove 1998. Without 1998, there is absolutely nothing that remotely hints at a hiatus. Tis one of those failings of the human eye, which is why BPL has repeatedly done the math for the eyeballers! (And I looked it up, “a hiatus” is correct.) https://www.a-or-an.com/a_an/hiatus
You said, “We’re being told that CO2 levels have to be reduced by such and such a percentage by such and such a date, but no one has a clue as to how that could be achieved, short of a major worldwide revolution followed by the imposition of universal martial law so onerous that no society anywhere would be willing to accept it. Nor does anyone have a clue as to what the effect on the climate would be if such a revolution WERE possible and the required reductions achieved.”
So many false premises. Of course we know how to do it.
It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies.
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.
1)Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
2)Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
3)Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.
None of these solutions is overly complicated. Both our energy infrastructure and our agricultural models have been historically heavily subsidized by governments. ALL governments! There are no exceptions. Who do you think built our transportation grid? Electrical grid? The green revolution in agriculture? All our national parks? It is a necessary function of government to have these sorts of public works projects. The only difference needed is to start funding the ones that mitigate AGW and stop funding the ones that cause AGW. This is so simple even an idiot politician can understand it.
The idea that it requires martial law to change the projects politicians fund is ridiculous! And absolutely we know exactly what benefits would happen if such a thing were achieved. Better public health, reduced poverty, dramatically reduced world hunger, vast improvements in ecosystem health. Major improvements in many endangered species numbers. Huge advancements in all the economies of the world, including both developed and developing nations. Massive sustainable increases in wealth in all socioeconomic levels from the bottom to the top.
These are of course secondary side effects of the main purpose which is reversing AGW.
There is no known or projected or even imagined downside. None. Even you have to make stuff up with no evidence at all to even contemplate your neo-luddite fallacies.
“The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn’t destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy.”
That technological change can cause short-term job losses is widely accepted. The view that it can lead to lasting increases in unemployment and economic loss has been refuted time and time again since Aristotle’s time and probably even earlier. There is never a long term negative impact on jobs or the economy when we change to new more efficient and sustainable systems to replace obsolete systems.
And since these new technologies are all higher paying with less negative social and health negative side effects, everyone from the top to the bottom benefits. Ironically, even the neo-luddites funding the merchants of doubt campaign would benefit too, although they are too stupid to even realise this.
Is it perfect? No. But is it better? Across the board yes!
Killiansays
One climate impact I’ve been expecting for a few years, as many have after NY got hit by a dying hurricane, is more storms heading further north. It’s not unheard of for a typhoon to track along the western coast of Korea, but i expect it to become mroe common. We have one on the way right now that might make landfall as far north as Seoul or even into the southwest of NK.
The problem is, if the eye stays offshore, well, the West (Yellow) Sea is pretty shallow, so warmer thant the open Pacific, which might keep the storm chugging along at Cat 1 longer than it would otherwise.
Victor, quoting IPCC report: “Some mitigation policies raise the prices for some energy services and could hamper the ability of societies to expand access to modern energy services to underserved populations (low confidence). These potential adverse side-effects can be avoided with the adoption of complementary policies (medium confidence). Most notably, about 1.3 billion people worldwide do not have access to electricity and about 3 billion are dependent on traditional
solid fuels for cooking and heating with severe adverse effects on health, ecosystems and development. Providing access to modern energy services is an important sustainable development objective. The costs of achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating are projected to be between USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030 with minimal effects on GHG emissions (limited evidence, medium agreement).”
Victor: “Did you notice that last bit?: “with minimal effects on GHG emissions.” After spending “USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030.” Nothing in the whole document speaks to the futility of the whole “mitigation” enterprise so strongly as that single phrase. Yet it is tossed off as though the enormous problem it raises is inconsequential.”
Victor, what are you talking about? What “enormous problem”? There is nothing there that suggests any “futility of the mitigation enterprise”. They are talking about providing energy services for currently under-served populations — which they state correctly to be an important social goal — and they note in passing that this will (fortunately) have “minimal effects on GHG emissions”. Fine. What’s the big deal? What are you talking about?
Nemesissays
@MA Rodger et al
FIRST I understood the (capitalist) Sytem, it’s smoke and mirrors, it’s lies and ignorance and juggling, it’s made-up myths and calculated, optimistic “positive thinking”, it’s thimblerig, shell games, tag playing gamez. I learned to see through all of it through sheer pain and disillusionment (that’s why I quoted Sunao: ” Spitting blood clears up reality and dream alike.”).
And THEN, from there on, it was easy to find fossil fuel induced climate heating, mass die-off and the rest of it. Sustain the cause, sustain the (capitalist) system, sustain Empire and you will be grilled.
Mr. Know It Allsays
258 – Hank
Thank you for proving my point. From the conclusion in your 2nd link:
“Ponds, i.e., waterbodies with surface areas smaller than 1×10^4 m2 are the dominant waterbody type found in all study areas across the Arctic.” Like I said, small bodies of water, probably quite shallow. Like I said, huge chunks of the far north turn into a big shallow swamp in the summer.
240 – nigelj
The reason I asked you about permafrost under lakes is because you and Al Bundy posted comments about it with links so I thought you might know something about it. I did cite the wrong post numbers – should have been 230 and 231.
254 – Carrie
Yes, there is supposedly permafrost below the continental shelves. How can permafrost exist under liquid water? Perhaps that’s because sea water freezes at a temperature a few degrees lower than fresh water. It’s that science again, right?
246,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257 – Carrie
Excellent work Thomas! :)
alan2102says
155 Carrie 13 Aug 2018: “international cooperation breakdown and then collapse is…inevitable. Isn’t it obvious?”
OK. So what do we do? Relax and throw a party cuz we’re all hopelessly f**ked? Jet around the country like McPherson and give seminars telling people that they might as well relax and throw a party cuz we’re all hopelessly f**ked?
Carrie: “This is self-evident for those capable of seeing the big picture over time into the future and who have been able to both keep up to date and to connect the dots of the SYNERGISTIC EVIDENCE”
DIY self-directed gish gallop, whipping oneself into a frenzy of fear and/or a dead zone of nihilistic defeatism by staring into the kaleidoscope of intersecting dots of “synergistic evidence”.
“Did you notice that last bit?: “with minimal effects on GHG emissions.” After spending “USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030.” Nothing in the whole document speaks to the futility of the whole “mitigation” enterprise so strongly as that single phrase. ”
nj: It means the policies of universal access to electricty would have minimal affects on the “process of reducing emissions”.
V: Precisely. And what does that have to do with “mitigation”? Nothing. So in addition to all the other sky high costs implied by all the other pointless recommendations they make, 95 billion a YEAR will be earmarked to INCREASING access to the very sources of power they expect us to DECREASE access to. Don’t you get it? The project of ameliorating poverty is in direct conflict with the project of ameliorating CO2 emissions. But this is the UN, fighting poverty is just as important a mission for them as fighting climate change, so they dare not ignore it. (Nor should they!)
Also I don’t buy that this sort of project will have “minimal effects on GHG emissions,” though it certainly won’t lower them. “Providing access to modern energy services” to approximately 1.3 billion poverty stricken individuals worldwide would drive GHG emissions far higher than currently projected, well beyond the limits of the Paris agreement. Unless, of course, we could manage to do that using renewables, but that possibility raises all sorts of very tough questions they don’t attempt to answer.
The notion that we can somehow “do it all,” i.e., provide billions of impoverished people with modern energy sources AND drastically cut back on the production of modern energy sources goes to the heart of the naive, pie-in-the-sky nature of the whole deluded IPCC enterprise.
Victorsays
268 Kevin McKinney says:
“You seem to be missing the point of your own quote. It seems quite clear to me that the expected benefit of “achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating” is, well, everybody having access to electricity and clean heat.
It is *not* intended to reduce GHG emissions.”
V: No it isn’t. Agreed. And no, I haven’t missed the point. That IS the point, the point being that this plan has NOTHING to do with AGW mitigation.
“On the other hand, the fact that it doesn’t appreciably *increase* GHG emissions is a good-news item, making mitigation easier, not–as you seem to suppose–illustrating its impossibility.”
V: But of course it would increase GHG emissions. By a HUGE factor. How gullible can you get? Oh yes, they SAY it would have no effect. But the IPCC report is chock full of wishful thinking along such lines. That bit is tossed in with NO explanation, NO justification, NO proposal as to how one could provide access to modern sources of energy to billions of people without drastically increasing GHG emissions. THAT’s what I meant
KM: I don’t know why you think that the quoted sum is such a shocking deal-breaker, either; the world spends probably ~$1,800 billion yearly on defense (of which 35% is American expenditure). Personally, I think that diverting less than 20% of that for the humanitarian purposes proposed would probably do more for international security than all the tanks, bombs and strategists we’re buying now.
V: Possibly. But it would put a serious monkey wrench into any attempt to meaningfully mitigate AGW — making it a perfect example of the naive, hare-brained thinking behind so much we can see in the IPCC reports, if we look with a sufficiently jaundiced eye.
KM: In more general budgetary terms, Gross World Product is supposed to be something like %80-110 trillion, depending mostly on how you figure exchange. So enormous gains in human welfare could apparently be made by the expenditure of about a tenth of a percent of that.
V: Yes. And I hear that, in cloud cuckoo land, all sorts of delicious foods and enticing treats grow on trees with branches that conveniently descend to deposit their contents directly into your mouth.
nigeljsays
Killian @261
“And if you can’t convince people on this website, how would you convince someone like Trump or even just the average person?”
“Show me who on this website even attempts to learn how to design their own space? Even Kevin, talker on ecological issues that he is, has never bothered to learn. Strough has a clue, but he leans in directions that make his full knowledge a bit unclear. But he’s as close as we get here.” “This is a specialized site where I would not expect to find people who get regenerative systems”
Well my point exactly, if you cant convince anyone, especially people on this website…to learn, to adopt and are you going to convince the general public? Sigh.
Perhaps you might have some better success if you were more consistent in your views, and used less vague jargon, and were a great deal more precise and prescriptive, and much less abusive. That is not all, but it would be a start.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @270
“Nigel, add the 0.7C suppressed warming to current temps and your most wildly optimistic drawdown of emissions scenario. Note that the total is likely above 2C. Like the joke says, nobody ever died from falling. Twas the sudden stop (or feedback release) at the end. We’re committed to 2C+.”
2 degrees could be locked in. It all depends on which study you look at. Anyway my point is its not too late to do some good. Surely you realise this? :)
And the so called pause may have been partly due to the increase in coal burning over those years, and the 2015 – 2016 temperatures could be partly due to the decrease in use of coal globally for those two years. However its a guess because I dont know if the changes were enough to have much affect, because they were pretty small.
“MARodger, I was under the impression that the IPCC reports had to be signed off on by the governments of the world. ”
They do, and there is evidence that the summary for policy makers has some of its wording influenced by politics, but theres no evidence the main body of the report, the basic research, modelling and basic IPCC projections are contaminated by politics and I doubt they would be. That part of things isn’t signed off by governments. Subtle but important difference. Of course conspiracy thinkers will disagree.
Nemesis @280 there’s a fair sized grain of truth in your critique of capitalism, in that it has an alarming tendency to wreck the environment. This is best summed up as a tragedy of the commons problem, or in a more geeky way as a market failure (a bit of a euphemism).
These sorts of things can be fixed with laws or taxes if there is a political will, which is conspicuously lacking currently, but might return. Please remember we have fixed a variety of environmental problems, from the ozone hole to particulate emissions.
The remaining big problem is capitalism thrives on growth, which ultimately cannot be sustained indefinitely on a finite planet, at least not growth based on extractive industries. However its certainly theoretically possible to have growth in services, and alternatively a private ownership market economy based on zero growth, again if we want.
And not all ownership has to be private. Theres nothing wrong with essential services being publicly or state owned in some fashion.
If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!
Oh yes theres Killians system of community ownership, considerably reduced resource use and eventual deliberate move to zero use of mineral resources, and so the lifestyle of a primitive. If you want to go there.
All this discourse on “systems and solutions” is better on forced responses under older entries, should you wish to continue.
Carriesays
271 MA Rodger, well I cannot get away from the fact that I consider you and people like you as scientific illiterates. I suspect that Gavin et al do too but they are busy with their day jobs to waste their times on self-opinionated tongue-wavers like you, who poison the well for the naive and gullible therefore only ever attracting kudos from the likes of well meaning people such as Nigel who don’t know any better. (where Wikipedia is the go to source for positive feedbacks knowledge!)
However it’s you and people like you are, imo, far more dangerous and causing far more irritations for decent climate scientists (vs Judith Curry/Roy Spencer) and for rational environmentalists than the problems caused by folks like Victor, KIA, or a Chris Monckton and the Heartland Institute or even Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) who Mike Mann had to deal with.
So it’s my view that people like you MAR need to be challenged for misrepresenting the current conclusions of accumulated climate science and their prognosis for the short term and medium term futures given the present stasis situation where in effect nothing is being done yet to address the causes and reverse the trends. AS at May 2018 Global CO2 readings were 2.6 ppm above 2017 levels and still increasing.
My little gift to you and Nigel which no doubt you will ignore and even if you didn’t and read the entire thing you would still be incapable of understanding it’s meaning.
This is what real climate science looks like – it is already way out of date – the world needs to stop ignoring these matters and start ignoring people like you MAR.
Extreme impacts can result from extreme weather and climate events, but can also occur without extreme events.
This chapter examines two broad categories of impacts on human and ecological systems, both of which are influenced by changes in climate, vulnerability, and exposure: first, the chapter primarily focuses on impacts that result from extreme weather and climate events, and second, it also considers extreme impacts that are triggered by less-than-extreme weather or climate events. These two categories of impacts are examined across sectors, systems, and regions. Extreme events can have positive as well as negative impacts on ecosystems and human activities.
60 pages of scientific evidence based output. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX-Chap4_FINAL.pdf
The whole story is here
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) 234 pages and then some. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/
With Love from Carrie aka Alice aka VV Putin aka Goldilocks
Not that it matters one way or the other.
Carriesays
Inconvenient News Reports
Guardian coverage of essay on potential of future “hothouse” climate is generally accurate, but misstates some details
Analysis of “Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state”
Published in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts on 7 Aug. 2018
“Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state”
Richard Betts, Professor, Met Office Hadley Centre & University of Exeter:
“Move into” makes it sound sudden, but the paper suggests that, although the feedbacks could be triggered soon and become self-perpetuating, they could take centuries to millennia to take full effect.
More accurate content would warrant a revised title, eg “Domino-effect of climate events could set Earth on path towards a ‘hothouse’ state”.
–
That is about this recent Paper
Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene by Will Steffen et al
Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115
for example
Washington Post story puts recent weather extremes in accurate climate change context
in The Washington Post, by Joel Achenbach, Angela Fritz
“This article accurately describes the broader climate context of recent heat extremes throughout the Northern Hemisphere. There are a couple spots where specific claims are somewhat stronger than justified by the existing scientific evidence, but in general the piece gives an accurate impression regarding the role of climate change and recent advances in extreme event attribution science.”
Dr Phil Williamson, climate researcher at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said:
That didn’t matter that much to us then; it does now – with human processes also part of the mix. As a result of human impacts on climate, the new paper argues that we’ve gone beyond any chance of the Earth cooling ‘of its own accord’. Instead, there is the opposite risk, involving a vicious circle of positive feedbacks, each accentuating warming.
For example, [as already stated by Carrie no less @RC ] by permafrost thawing, forest dieback and the biological release of carbon from the soil and ocean. Together these effects could add an extra half a degree Celsius by the end of the century to the warming that we are directly responsible for ‒ thereby crossing thresholds and tipping points that seem likely to occur around 2⁰C, and committing the planet to irreversible further change, as Hothouse Earth.
Steffen and his colleagues argue that we need to be much more proactive in that regard, not just ending greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible, but also building resilience in the context of complex Earth system processes that we might not fully understand until it is too late. In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight.
Prof Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at UCL, said:
To avoid such a fate, Steffen et al point out that a deep transformation is required based on a fundamental reorientation of human values, equity, behaviour, institutions, economies and technology. Given the evidence of human history, this would seem a naive hope at the best of times. But at a time of the widespread rise of Right Wing Populism, with its associated rejection of the messages of those perceived as “cosmopolitan elites” and specific denial of climate change as an issue, the likelihood that the combination of factors necessary to allow humanity to navigate the planet to an acceptable “intermediate state” must surely be close to zero.
The future habitability of the planet thus appears to rest on chance – that the sensitivity of the climate system to greenhouse gas emissions and other human disruptions is fortuitously very low – or that some other global scale social calamity dramatically reduces human emissions before any runaway planetary threshold is breached. The latter offers cold comfort.
Prof Martin Siegert, Co-Director of the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said:
“The geological record can advise on what the earth looks like under various CO2 scenarios, (Pliocene 5Ma with 400 ppm CO2; Cretaceous 100 Ma with 1000 ppm). We’re already at Pliocene levels, and heading to Cretaceous if we keep going as now.
“As in his previous work, John and co-workers discuss the nuances of this situation, and present the idea of a threshold from which we can’t pull back. Again, threshold and tipping points have been discussed previously, but to state that ‘2C’ is a threshold we can’t pull back from is new, I think. I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ there is for this – or indeed whether there can be until we experience it. It’s just a ‘suggestion’ in any case.
“The paper is essentially an essay (or review of others work), rather than original research, but they’ve collated previously published ideas and theories to present a narrative on how the threshold change would work. It’s rather selective, but not outlandish (nor Skyrockety).”
—
I speak from first person and use my own words and phrasing (which I take self-responsibility for) yet surprisingly almost all of I convey is actually based on the good work and ideas of expert climate scientists etc. – be that from a decade ago, 3 decades ago or last week. Sometimes I even incl refs to papers or lectures by experts, and sometimes I do not. Whether I do or don’t won’t ever stop some individuals totally ignoring the accumulated Science – twisting it out of all recognition – then tilting at windmills like a crazed Man of La Mancha instead. https://www.bard.org/study-guides/synopsis-man-of-la-mancha
Carriesays
Earth Climate System: Tipping Points to Hothouse?
Prof Paul Beckwith digs into the numbers contained in the Appendix of the paper https://youtu.be/lsm6hB2tyz8?t=3m22s
Alternatively feel free to believe and follow ‘expert’ internet forum jockeys like MA Rodger Nigelj et al instead. Climate change is complex & uncertain not simple or clear.
Killiansays
Re #271 MA Rodger said
Carrie-aka-Thomas @249, (1,361 words)
Your bad-mouthing of other commenters, including myself, coupled to your own self-agrandizment is way way over the top.
Oh. My.
I believe you will find the above quote on Wikipedia under multiple headings: Hypocrisy, irony, gaslighting. Etc.
I think best might be, “Dude!”
Carriesays
Want more info?
Wait for the next study that might cover this ‘anecdotal’ surprising shift.
Cherskiy, RussiaNikita Zimov was teaching students to do ecological fieldwork in northern Siberia when he stumbled on a disturbing clue that the frozen land might be thawing far faster than expected.
In April he sent a team of workers out with heavy drills to be sure. They bored into the soil a few feet down and found thick, slushy mud. Zimov said that was impossible. Cherskiy, his community of 3,000 along the Kolyma River, is one of the coldest spots on Earth. Even in late spring, ground below the surface should be frozen solid.
Except this year, it wasn’t.
Every winter across the Arctic, the top few inches or feet of soil and rich plant matter freezes up before thawing again in summer. Beneath this active layer of ground extending hundreds of feet deeper sits continuously frozen earth called permafrost, which, in places, has stayed frozen for millennia.
But in a region where temperatures can dip to 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, the Zimovs say unusually high snowfall this year worked like a blanket, trapping excess heat in the ground. They found sections 30 inches deep—soils that typically freeze before Christmas—that had stayed damp and mushy all winter. For the first time in memory, ground that insulates deep Arctic permafrost simply did not freeze in winter.
But the economy is doing great! GDP is up. Stock market through the roof. lowest unemployment in decades. Coal miner jobs are all coming back, steel mills are opening again. We are winning the trade wars with all our now evil former allies. China and Russia are on their knees to us. The US is now totally energy independent and we no longer have to worry about automobile fuel and emissions standards!
And you’re worried about some birds in the desert?! Get a grip, man!
/sarc!
P.S. Sigh! I had to do some serious soul searching before I decided that it might be the better part of valor to add that sarcasm tag…
alan2102says
Speaking of holism, herewith is a scholarly holistic view of climate science and mitigation, both. Though “mitigation” is in the title, the first half of the paper deals with the science and the science vis a vis Paris; the emphasis is on grave risk that is not necessarily reflected in official scientific pronouncements.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1946756716673640?journalCode=wfra
A Realistic (Holistic) Approach to Climate Mitigation
Graeme Taylor, First Published November 17, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756716673640
Abstract
At this time, most climate researchers are only using a limited range of futures approaches: for example, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) future scenarios have been developed primarily with empirical predictive methods that extrapolate trends. These seriously underestimate the risk of nonlinear developments and critical failures. This article examines the Paris Climate Conference (COP) 21 agreement on climate mitigation; explains why current efforts are based on false assumptions and likely to fail; argues that holistic, integrative methods are needed to avoid disaster; and uses these methods to develop a practical strategy for accelerating systemic transformation. Despite the impressive diplomatic achievements of the Paris Agreement, there is a dangerous lag between the pace of political, economic, and technological change and the rapid (nonnegotiable) rate of climate change. The challenge is to find ways to manage the conflict between the need to work within existing institutional frameworks and the reality that they are not (and may be structurally incapable of) acting quickly enough to prevent catastrophic outcomes. This dichotomy may be resolved by using a three-track strategy: the first track will focus on accelerating existing climate mitigation efforts by encouraging decision-makers to use holistic, critical-safety risk management methods. The second track will counter ideological opposition with constructive alternative narratives. The third track will help catalyze the global movement needed to empower structural transformation and the emergence of a sustainable global system. It will not be possible to resolve many complex global socioecological problems (climate, water, food, energy, growing inequality, etc.) without transformational change. Integrative, whole-systems methods are now needed to accelerate the evolution of a sustainable global system.
“The Paris Agreement will not work because it is not holistic. The Paris Agreement is unlikely to achieve its goals because it only addresses part of the problem. Because it does not take a holistic, precautionary risk management approach to climate modeling, it does not recognize that biophysical limits and timelines are nonnegotiable, and that passing critical thresholds creates the potential for systemic failure or state change. For example, the Paris Agreement does not place safety limits on atmospheric CO2 and other GHG concentrations, an absolute cap on ocean and atmospheric temperature increases, an absolute cap on ocean acidification, or a specified timeline for reducing GHG emissions.
The lack of a whole-systems approach is also shown by the failure of the Agreement to address the need for sustainable solutions for the 80 percent of emissions that do not come from the production of electricity (Heinberg 2015). The Agreement also ignores the need for whole-systems accounting to accurately evaluate environmental, economic, and social costs, benefits and risks, and to put a realistic price on carbon (Hansen 2015). Nor is there any mention of the need to stop fossil fuel subsidies, which in 2014 were four times as large as subsidies for renewable energies (IEA 2015).”
another snippet:
“Research at Climate Outreach confirms that while people often reject fear-based messages they will accept climate change threats and solutions if they are framed within a larger positive vision of health, quality of life, and new opportunity.” END quote.
Yes, fear-based messages like “collapse is inevitable; isn’t it obvious?” — Carrie. Generally, messages from the Carrie/McPherson/Bendell Axis of Nihilistic Climate Doomerism, Defeatism and Despair (the CMBANCDDD, hereafter).
“We’re hopelessly screwed, so why not buy a 12-pack and relax with friends? Like, what difference does it make? Collapse is inevitable anyway!”
In contrast, we have messages like the article above by Graeme Taylor: infinitely more intelligent, wise, humane, charitable and constructive than anything on offer from the CMBANCDDD.
I recommend the full text of Taylor’s article to everyone. You too, Victor.
Warning, however: Taylor’s article (the last half of it, pertaining to mitigation) is written at the level of vision, and adumbrated strategy; i.e. at a high level. If you are looking for a detailed roadmap with each step spelled out, you will be disappointed. That is not the purpose of his paper.
Vision is critical. Without it, the people perish.
NOAA has reported for July 2018 with an anomaly of +0.75ºC, a little up on June’s +0.74ºC so in NOAA July is not the coolest anomaly for the year so far. (Previous 2018 months range from +0.83ºC to +0.69ºC.)
It is the 4th warmest July in NOAA (for GISTEMP it was 3rd, BEST 2nd, for the satellite TLT records, July was 4th in UAH & 3rd in RSS) below 1st-placed July 2016 (+0.88ºC), 2017 (+0.83ºC) & 2015 (+0.82ºC) and not far ahead of =5th placed July 2010 & 1998 (+0.73ºC).
July 2018 is the 58th warmest anomaly on the full all-month NOAA record. (In GISTEMP it was =44th warmest anomaly, BEST 77th.)
The NOAA ‘Climate at a Glance’ page also allows us to quickly check if the anomaly over NH Land was a record for July (which is the sort of assertion we have been getting up-thread from Carrie-aka-Thomas). It appears July 2018 was not the July record-holder but sits in =4th place (with 1998) with a NH Land anomaly of +1.13°C, behind record-holding 2012 (+1.22°C), 2nd-placed 2010 (+1.19°C) & 3rd-placed 2016 (+1.14°C). And the combined June/July anomaly also sees 2018 in 4th place for the summer-so-far NH Land anomaly. The 2018 Spring came in as 5th warmest. So whatever the heat over NH Lands this Spring/Summer, whatever its “massive unprecedented” nature, it is not entirely “bleeding obvious.” The GISTEMP temperature anomaly mapping page also provides a trace of the anomaly for a period by latitude (but here including ocean although the amount of ocean in the higher NH is not so influential) and this also shows no record temperature anomaly for high latitude (above 45ºN) occuring in 2018, so far.
Carriesays
Tell me it isn’t so. Did Steffan’s paper on the AMOC say it’s not as bad they expected it might be? Has there been a climate paper issued in 2018 that has said “oh this means impacts are going to be less than projected before”?
The influence of Arctic amplification on mid-latitude summer circulation
D. Coumou, G. Di Capua, S. Vavrus, L. Wang & S. Wang
We show that interactions between Arctic teleconnections and other remote and regional feedback processes could lead to more persistent hot-dry extremes in the mid-latitudes. The exact nature of these non-linear interactions is not well quantified but they provide potential high-impact risks for society. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05256-8
BOX 1 Recent mid-latitude summer weather extremes and their impacts
(not including 2018)
Many recent high-impact summer heatwaves occurred in the far-tail of the distribution and are difficult to explain by the direct radiative warming effect of greenhouse gas forcing alone18,19,20,21. In 2010, Russia saw 33 consecutive hot-and-dry days (with temperatures above 30 °C), resulting in an estimated 55,000 heat-related deaths, more than 500 wildfires near Moscow and grain-harvest losses of 30%4. A quantitative global analyses showed that the 2010 event was the most-severe heatwave ever recorded worldwide, based on a heatwave index that can be used across different regions20. Intriguingly, all record-setting heatwaves based on this index occurred in the mid-latitudes, indicating that here heatwaves are becoming more intense at a pace that exceeds the global mean20. Extreme summer heat in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes now far exceeds historical frequencies in the twentieth century117. Over the last decade, Europe has seen an exceptionally rapid increase in the chance of extremely hot summers similar to the 2003 extreme21. Other notable high-impact and record-breaking droughts and heatwaves occurred in the USA in 2011 and 20124,20, leading to billions of dollars in agricultural losses120,121.
I would like to warn people to stay away from my latest 2 posts. You are NOT allowed to read them.
Ah, Mr. Walker, it appears you have your own echo chamber. I, for one, will gladly stay away from your posts, as I assume they merely echo one or more of your familiar, incompetent objections to the consensus of climate scientists for AGW. Sorry, no matter how many times you rebunk them, they’re still wrong.
Genuinely skeptical RC visitors can find concise, definitive rebuttals to 238 popular AGW-denialist memes, sorted by category and summarized at Skeptical Science. They’re still the correct responses for specific dearly-held denier misconceptions. You may wish to cite them simply by number.
BTW, my apologies to John Hartz 8^}!
Carriesays
New Video showing Data slides with explanations – no audio – very clear
Contemporary Global Warming placed in geological context
227 MA Rodger may not be so clear to others, who I suspect care as little as I do, but it quite clear to me that you could be best described as having a fence post stuck in one eye while the other eye remains shut, then you carry on as if you can see forever (as the song goes.)
If through misfortune I would find myself seated besides you on a bus or a country train in the Midlands I predict that I would get goosebumps and and the heebie-jeebies even if a single word was not spoken between us. Yeah, I would move seats into a another carriage if they allowed. You may be ok with math and stuff, but something is not quite right here. Just sayin’ even if you’re really a sweet old man who wouldn’t hurt a fly, I am still glad there are oceans and continents between us.
231
nigelj says:
18 Aug 2018 at 4:09 PM
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180816143035.htm
Worrying research : “‘Abrupt thaw’ of permafrost beneath lakes could significantly affect climate change models”
==============================================================
Out of the mouths of babes. Nah tell me it isn’t so niglej. Did you ask for MARs permission before posting that link and saying what you said? LOL too funny for words.
Worrying? How very skyrockety of you niglej, you horribilus we-told-you-so doom-sayer you. You’re on the outer now pal. Questioning climate models — my god man wash your mouth out with salt water right now.
233 nigelj
“But I’m a HOLISTIC thinker. […] Do you get where Im coming from now? I really hope so.”
Nah I think you’re more like a flag on a flag pole. You’re hearts in the right place and you’re doing the best you can with what you got. But your knowledge and judgement is atrocious and isn’t helping anyone but yourself to feel better that all might be OK. You love your comfortable life now that you can sit back and pontificate on matters import.
That’s ok you’ve earned it I supposed in your “lifes/western” context at least. So enjoy it and be who you are, even if you’re not quite the Holistic thinker you think you are. :)
“I don’t think its locked in yet.” Like you;d know if it was. :-)
“… but we have to go on the best information science has.”
Yes. Then stop ignoring it and get real about it. We are being flooded in it today. Then you turn around and pretend it doesn’t exist and believe fools like MAR is an “expert”. No wonder Killian spits the dummy at you so often lol. You’re far worse than antagonizing. Must be a pain to live with. You know everything and then change your mind each other minute. And then return back to what you said yesterday claiming you never said anything different. Maddening to say the least. What does/did the missus say about that? :-)
235 Mr. Know It All says: “How big are these thawing lakes with permafrost underneath them?”
Here’s is a unique thought that will entail you doing something you’ve probably never done before – go read the paper ref’d and find out! Lose your Virginity KIA.
“I can’t imagine permafrost below a lake of much size.”
Funny how ‘permafrost’ sits comfortably under the sea bed of the Continental shelves too hey KIA. Ain’t science so god damned shockin’ to the senses some days? :)
18 Billion years old, the Universe? God damn.
Here son, I say here boy, let me help you cross the street without gittin’ run over boy.
IPCC reports? God damn them IPCCCs
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-7-2-4.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4607703/ God damn them buggers!
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter10/Ency_Oceans/Sub-sea_Permafrost.pdf far out! Damned cold down them there parts son!
Best reference of all time – bar none
http://www.barbneal.com/wp-content/uploads/fogleg03.mp3
234 Fred Magya, life’s so funny sometimes, hey? :-) Good to see someone else here with a decent sense of humor and self-awareness. A.B. will like you.
63 Carrie says:
18 Aug 2018 at 12:28 AM
copied from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/are-the-heatwaves-caused-by-climate-change/comment-page-2/#comment-709547
51 MA Rodger;
1) You’re in the wrong thread. Please some accuracy, please! :-)
2) Waddhams was but one minor ref used as example. Jem’s paper and discussion topics do not rely upon the efficacy of Waddhams blog claims, youtube vids nor his published papers. Hurry before you run out of cherries.
3) Jem lists a number of refs. and discusses a number of issues that could be read holistically and in context. Replace Waddhams with Francis refs if it makes you happier. It doesn’t change the points he is making.
4) Add in a Gavin Ref that says all Models are wrong as well if you like. You may as well given where your heading and your narrow cast motivations.
5) The ASI loss driven Albedo Feedback is not the only ASI Positive Feedback mechanism worth including in these complex interrelated issues.
6) Are IPCC Arctic Sea Ice projections famously under-projecting the levels of sea ice loss or not? Yes.
7) Do the CIMP5 modelling and thus IPCC AR5 projections for AGW include all current best practice Positive feedbacks into the future and are they still in line with the present 2018 knowledge base or not? No.
8) Does it significantly matter to the topics of discussion and conclusions / warnings of inaction to rapidly drive down GHG emissions by humans and natural sinks in the Deep Adaption paper by Jem? No.
9) Is this true and reasonably accurate? “”The albedo effect due to vanishing sea ice is already responsible for about 25 percent of global warming, according to Jennifer Francis, a research professor at Rutgers University’s School of Environment and Biological Sciences.”” Yes.
10) That’s great, now what? Remove Waddhams from the face of the earth as if he never said or wrote a single thing in this life – now what’s your point exactly? :-)
11) Is this true and reasonably accurate? “These three tropical regions released 2.5 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere than they did in 2011″ and ” In 2015 and 2016, OCO-2 recorded atmospheric carbon dioxide increases that were 50 percent larger than the average increase seen in recent years preceding these observations.” and “That increase was about 3 parts per million of carbon dioxide per year — or 6.3 gigatons of carbon.” – Yes.
12) Please show me where these land based vegetative mass emissions of CO2 are included in prior CIMP5 modelling and thus IPCC AR5 projections for AGW circa by 2015-2016.
13) Please show me in the AR5 where such feedbacks to AGW are included out to 2030 and then to 2050 which also are following accurate projections the net GHG real world emissions scenario data of 2010 to 2020, then 2020-2030.
Now was there a useful definitive point you wanted to make? Don’t forget to shift back to the right thread and post #s.
Thanks, there’s a good sport. Maybe go write your own Future Scenarios Paper that Analyses Deep Adaption issues inclusive of the required Mitigation needed 2020-2040 to avoid destabilizing the Climate system and forestalling Societal Collapse. It’s easy isn’t it? Simply say there’s nothing at all to worry about – people just need to calm down and not go nuts – so here’s your chance MAR to be the Pied Piper and still the waters.
Must be time for YOU to sell a positive realistic story to the public and policy makers MA Rodger that’s grounded in credible referenced Climate Science Data Modelling. Yes?
—
(smile) I bet you were cute as button when you were 3 yrs old.
PS to KIA before you say something silly again. Yes I do know there is a difference between sea beds and the bottom of Lakes.
I intentionally avoided refs to Lakes as an aid to perhaps motivate you to go find the information by yourself and actually reading a scientific paper about LAKES and Permafrost!
You can do it if you only try before you die. (smile)
Mr. Can’t Imagine At All says the meltwater lakes on permafrost “must be small”
A clear example of wishing-it-so, well, easy enough to find among deniers.
LMGTFY:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/554576141586672710/
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/9/317/2017/essd-9-317-2017.pdf
Wheat up 20%. I guess it’s my imagination I predicted a surge in commodity prices/low crop yields weeks ago because, well, I’m a shot analyst.
;-)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-wheat-harvest/heatwave-ravages-european-fields-sending-wheat-prices-soaring-idUSKBN1KN0L9
#233 nigelj said Carrie @212, ok there’s some good thoughts in there and holistic thinking is important.
How would you know? This is not what you do. The evidence is clear. You probably mean wholisitc thinker, for which there is some evidence, but the whole does not fully support it. Let’s say… you seem to honestly think you are.
However I already know the climate problem is serious
You do not understand how serious, which is likely her point.
I already think well ahead.
Not in evidence. Referencing the future and understanding it are not the same thing.
Most of those tipping points happen from 2 – 5 degrees, and ok we can’t be sure, but we have to go on the best information science has.
False. This is negotiating with the truth. Common, but that excuses nothing. Appropriate risk assessment, in fact, rests on long-tail assessment, not mid-range assessment. Pretty much all of you get this wrong… along with all of everyone else… even permies.
Solutions? We already know the solutions: The IPCC report covers mitigation
Yes.
renewable energy
No. Bridge.
and we have things like carbon taxes
A bridge tactic that could easily result in delaying solutions in the long run. In the short run, a dividend, e.g., would boost consumption as lower economic levels spend the excess to survive or live better. Unintended consequences.
Useful discussion would centre on fixing those problems.
No, real solutions would focus on regenerative government, regenerative design, simplification. Anything else cannot solve these problems because they won’t work fast enough giventhe risk assessment and can’t go far enough in the long or short term.
More later… maybe.
Re #233 nigelj said If you are suggesting we all go and live on little self sufficient farms
I don’t recall anyone on this site ever suggesting 9 billion people all live on their own self-sufficient farms. Stop lying. Self-sufficient as a metric is idiocy. The appropriate term is self-reliant. But, hey, you’re a holistic thinker…
then perhaps you should actually think this through a bit more, because its not the simple answer you think it is.
You are clueless in this regard. Arrogant! You have no idea how to create such a place, yet spew about the possibilities? Stop talking, already.
And if you can’t convince people on this website, how would you convince someone like Trump or even just the average person?
Show me who on this website even attempts to learn how to design their own space? Even Kevin, talker on ecological issues that he is, has never bothered to learn. Strough has a clue, but he leans in directions that make his full knowledge a bit unclear. But he’s as close as we get here.
You can lead a horse tow water, but if it thinks tech is all, it won’t drink. This is a specialized site where I would not expect to find people who get regenerative systems. That is why I post here. If you all already got it, I wouldn’t need to be here.
But I’m a HOLISTIC thinker. I think we sould be promoting the whole lot
That is NOT what that word means. So, yet again, you’re barking words. You are calling for The Middle Way, as you see it (which is also incorrect, but for current purposes we’ll pretend you understand it), not holism. You see nothing BUT parts. If we do this thing over here, that thing over there — regardles how unsustainable they are — then all will be fine.
NO. Holism, or holistic thinking, sees the whole system, thus **understands it.** You are… barking words.
renewable energy, carbon taxes, a bit more self sufficiency, regenerative farming, experiments with alternative economic systems and lifestyles and lower population growth. Then we will see what gains traction.
See what gains traction? Who the hell cares if it “gains traction?” that is irrelevant. What matters is one thing and one thing only: Does it get us to sustainability?
Stop barking words. Learn.
Re #234 Fred Magyar said, Al Bundy @ 215 says
Fred and Killian,
If some comment is on the wrong thread then there’s nothing that prevents you from answering on the right thread. DUH, eh?
Most Esteemed Al Bundy,
While I can not, in good conscience, proffer to speak for Killian.
If not for your thoughtful elucidation, It is difficult for me to even conceive of the possibility, that I might otherwise have been able to come up with such a brilliant deduction, if left solely to my own devices!
Yours, in eternal gratitude!
Fred Magyar
Agreed, Fred.
That is, Bundy, don’t be a petty goddamned child.
Carrie @249, sigh, you are a cantankerous sort of character, but rather than get another telling off like that I did some work using “google”. So look up “climate change feedback” on wikipedia. It has great detailed discussion on all the various feedbacks, and states what feedbacks are in the IPCC projections (so the models).
Briefly the projections include the obvious ones, plus ice albedo and the various carbon cycle feedbacks (as MAR pointed out). I didnt know he was an engineer but it makes no great difference to me anyway.
Perhaps realclimate could do an article on the subject, if nothing else is on their agenda.
Carrie @253, no, I’m a careful holistic thinker who knows the mitigation strategies that you, killian, KM, zebra and others talk about all have value, and all are required , and many are mutually related and reinforcing. (although killian is too extreme in his views). Thats what holistic means. You clearly dont really know what holistic means :)
“You’re hearts in the right place and you’re doing the best you can with what you got. ”
More personal BS that has no place on this website. And didn’t you criticise people for being mocking? Practice what you preach, just for once.
And yes I like to be comfortable. Its not evil you know.
“… but we have to go on the best information science has.” “Yes. Then stop ignoring it and get real about it. ”
What have I ignored? Just because I’m sceptical of some fringe claim from some eccentric scientist does not mean I’m ignoring the “best information”. I ignore the stupid information.
“You’re far worse than antagonizing.”
Only to you and Killian, because I ask questions that have you at a loss for answers, so you get annoyed and personal.
“You know everything and then change your mind each other minute.”
Where have I done that?
Carrie @252 if you only realised how stupid you make yourself look with content free, personalised, rhetoric like that. You are on your way to getting yourself banned, just letting you know because you are too dumb to see it coming :)
Victor @239
“The costs of achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating are projected to be between USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030 with minimal effects on GHG emissions (limited evidence, medium agreement).”
“Did you notice that last bit?: “with minimal effects on GHG emissions.” After spending “USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030.” Nothing in the whole document speaks to the futility of the whole “mitigation” enterprise so strongly as that single phrase. ”
It means the policies of universal access to electricty would have minimal affects on the “process of reducing emissions”.
Chuck @247 no, no Victor and KIA have to be different people. They have very different styles of writing and points of view, apart from their general denialism. Neither are smart enough to fake a style, to make it look like two separate people.
Imho Victor is some sort of scientific crank who means well, but simply doesnt learn and think hard enough about what he is reading, while KIA is driven by conservative small government values ( he has talked about this)and anecdotal thinking.
#239, Victor–
You seem to be missing the point of your own quote. It seems quite clear to me that the expected benefit of “achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating” is, well, everybody having access to electricity and clean heat.
It is *not* intended to reduce GHG emissions.
On the other hand, the fact that it doesn’t appreciably *increase* GHG emissions is a good-news item, making mitigation easier, not–as you seem to suppose–illustrating its impossibility.
I don’t know why you think that the quoted sum is such a shocking deal-breaker, either; the world spends probably ~$1,800 billion yearly on defense (of which 35% is American expenditure). Personally, I think that diverting less than 20% of that for the humanitarian purposes proposed would probably do more for international security than all the tanks, bombs and strategists we’re buying now.
In more general budgetary terms, Gross World Product is supposed to be something like %80-110 trillion, depending mostly on how you figure exchange. So enormous gains in human welfare could apparently be made by the expenditure of about a tenth of a percent of that.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/nevada-california-desert-half-empty-of-birds-after-population-collapse/
Carrie,
Yeah, and don’t forget that 0.7C spike in temps that is currently suppressed by pollution. By definition we are not at the peak of forcing because of aerosols.
How did the debt come about? Easy. The rich lobbied to have their tax rate dropped by 2/3 and “loaned” us their tax obligations instead.
Nigel, add the 0.7C suppressed warming to current temps and your most wildly optimistic drawdown of emissions scenario. Note that the total is likely above 2C. Like the joke says, nobody ever died from falling. Twas the sudden stop (or feedback release) at the end. We’re committed to 2C+.
Nigel: the safest, eaiest bet in the world
AB: was betting against the Cornhuskers in a bowl game. They played podunk running teams in the regular season and trounced them. Then their muscle was useless against the passing games of their bowl opponents.
—–
Ron R,
Most mining has an inherent problem. Lots of atoms are toxic. In nature, those atoms tend to get rejected by various means and are buried below the biosphere. Mining dredges them up. Killian’s right when he speaks against mining, though he’s way too absolutist in my opinion.
—–
MARodger,
I was under the impression that the IPCC reports had to be signed off on by the governments of the world. Now, I certainly don’t know the specifics, but the above certainly means that folks must shade statements so that the USA, Saudi, Russia, et al will sign. Of all the truculants, I believe the Republican party is the most truculant and powerful of all.
—-
Killian: Holocaust victims had no choice.
AB: Bull. They could have fought tooth and nail instead of cattling to compounds so as to make munitions for their oppressors. Of course, human nature is what it is and blaming them for contributing to the Nazi war effort would be wrong. Please lose you knee-jerkiness.
And seriously, why would I challenge a person with average intelligence? My beef with you is that you’re unpleasant and offense. By the way, you are right about lifespan. Lots of folks used to die in giving birth and in childhood, but human lifespan’s increase hasn’t been terribly impressive.
—–
Carrie,
Yes. More succinctly is: global warming is global. The atmosphere is a tiny sliver of the globe. The ocean is the vast bulk of the globe. Thus, one can’t assume atmospheric temps are a reliable measure of global warming. Additionally, the 1998 through 20xx atmospheric anomoly was actually a severe spike and a reversion to trend as opposed to a hiatus. Basically, the oceans barfed a whole lot of heat into the atmosphere in 1998 and the planet took a decade or so to sort out its indigestion.
Carrie-aka-Thomas @249, (1,361 words)
Your bad-mouthing of other commenters, including myself, coupled to your own self-agrandizment is way way over the top. Get a grip, man. This thread is meant to be discussing climate science and not a repository for your overly-verbose and non-sciencey “blather” which is not “getting tedious”: it has always been so, and in such volume as to wreck the entire thread. (60 words)
Carrie-aka-Thomas @251, (154 words)
You are responding to me @227 in which I set out the substance of your comment @195 and I did put the notion that you could “add any corrections.” As your response @251 is pure ad hominem, we can conclude with certainty that @195 the quote enfolded within your presentation of Dessler & Forster (2018) is simply you mouthing off and pretending to quote some learned source, and the “many papers” you talked of simply don’t exist. As I concluded @227 – “Well done you!” (87 words)
Carrie-aka-Thomas @256, (605 words)
Of the thirteen-point critique you set out, apart from the posting on the wrong thread, petty-much all you attempt to establish is vaccuous error. Some will be robustly demonstrated when I get round the the “To be continued…” comment indicated @226. Others simply reinforcing the message I set out @160, that a “big long list of what could be construed as looming disasters” is being wielded by many who shoud know better (as well as jokers like yourself), and that any one of the list-items is enough to exaggerate into evidence supporting an incorrect assertion that already “we are off to hell in a handcart.” My point with the comments @160, @226 & the “To be continued…” comment is to demonstrate the fallacy of such doom-mongering.
Note that the paper by Jem (are you on first-name terms with the man?) as you say does indeed mention “a number of papers” but the “paper by Jem” failed to find publication precisely because it is not supported by scientific literature, something “Jem” appears to consider a badge of honour rather than a criticism.
Finally, I note your last two points are actually questions. As presented, the answers would be curt and not to your liking. So do you really want answers or are those questions rhetorical? (216 words)
TTauri @200,
I don’t see anybody responding to your enquiry up-thread. The source of the quote you present is not apparent to me which makes any response less easy. And the mechanics of oceans is no simple subject.
Certainly there is good evidence of warmer ocean surfaces being associated with shallower Ocean Mixed Layer, certainly in the seasonal sense. I am less clear as to whether AGW is expected to also result in shallower mixing and I don’t ever recall it being seen as a climate feedback mechanism. (If it were it would impact ‘Tranient Climate Response’ and not Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity’ which may give reason for a lack of mention.) However I did not long ago read a paper that said there was no evidence of the mixing layer “shoaling” and that paper proved to be Somavilla et al (2017) ‘The warmer the ocean surface, the shallower the mixed layer. How much of this is true?’
Chuck: “Does anybody know if Mr. Killed In Action and Weaktor are the same Moron?”
No, I think they arrived at their stupidity independently. It may seem astounding that two such mediocre minds think alike until you realize they are downloading the same patches from the denialist mothership.
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/08/15/meet-the-journal-full-of-baloney-and-cheese/
Carrie: It was called an Hiatus, a pause, a slowdown “in temperature increases” aka “flattening below the long term trend” and below “the forecast trend of temp increases” from the major peak in 1998 into 2010.
AB: But it wasn’t a flattening below the long term trend nor below the forecast trend. From 1999 through 2014 there are six years below the trend, seven years above, and two years essentially on the trend. The easiest way to see the truth is to simply remove 1998. Without 1998, there is absolutely nothing that remotely hints at a hiatus. Tis one of those failings of the human eye, which is why BPL has repeatedly done the math for the eyeballers! (And I looked it up, “a hiatus” is correct.) https://www.a-or-an.com/a_an/hiatus
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/
Fourth graph, GISTEMP L-OTI (1970-2014)
@victor 197
You said, “We’re being told that CO2 levels have to be reduced by such and such a percentage by such and such a date, but no one has a clue as to how that could be achieved, short of a major worldwide revolution followed by the imposition of universal martial law so onerous that no society anywhere would be willing to accept it. Nor does anyone have a clue as to what the effect on the climate would be if such a revolution WERE possible and the required reductions achieved.”
So many false premises. Of course we know how to do it.
It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies.
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.
1)Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
2)Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
3)Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.
None of these solutions is overly complicated. Both our energy infrastructure and our agricultural models have been historically heavily subsidized by governments. ALL governments! There are no exceptions. Who do you think built our transportation grid? Electrical grid? The green revolution in agriculture? All our national parks? It is a necessary function of government to have these sorts of public works projects. The only difference needed is to start funding the ones that mitigate AGW and stop funding the ones that cause AGW. This is so simple even an idiot politician can understand it.
The idea that it requires martial law to change the projects politicians fund is ridiculous! And absolutely we know exactly what benefits would happen if such a thing were achieved. Better public health, reduced poverty, dramatically reduced world hunger, vast improvements in ecosystem health. Major improvements in many endangered species numbers. Huge advancements in all the economies of the world, including both developed and developing nations. Massive sustainable increases in wealth in all socioeconomic levels from the bottom to the top.
These are of course secondary side effects of the main purpose which is reversing AGW.
There is no known or projected or even imagined downside. None. Even you have to make stuff up with no evidence at all to even contemplate your neo-luddite fallacies.
“The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn’t destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy.”
That technological change can cause short-term job losses is widely accepted. The view that it can lead to lasting increases in unemployment and economic loss has been refuted time and time again since Aristotle’s time and probably even earlier. There is never a long term negative impact on jobs or the economy when we change to new more efficient and sustainable systems to replace obsolete systems.
And since these new technologies are all higher paying with less negative social and health negative side effects, everyone from the top to the bottom benefits. Ironically, even the neo-luddites funding the merchants of doubt campaign would benefit too, although they are too stupid to even realise this.
Is it perfect? No. But is it better? Across the board yes!
One climate impact I’ve been expecting for a few years, as many have after NY got hit by a dying hurricane, is more storms heading further north. It’s not unheard of for a typhoon to track along the western coast of Korea, but i expect it to become mroe common. We have one on the way right now that might make landfall as far north as Seoul or even into the southwest of NK.
The problem is, if the eye stays offshore, well, the West (Yellow) Sea is pretty shallow, so warmer thant the open Pacific, which might keep the storm chugging along at Cat 1 longer than it would otherwise.
Should be interesting… Where are my sandbags?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/yin-yang-6.png
I would like to warn people to stay away from my latest 2 posts. You are NOT allowed to read them. They are:
1) Closed Mind
https://agree-to-disagree.com/closed-mind
2) AndThenTheresPhizzics
https://agree-to-disagree.com/andthentheresphizzics/
239 Victor 19 Aug 2018:
Victor, quoting IPCC report: “Some mitigation policies raise the prices for some energy services and could hamper the ability of societies to expand access to modern energy services to underserved populations (low confidence). These potential adverse side-effects can be avoided with the adoption of complementary policies (medium confidence). Most notably, about 1.3 billion people worldwide do not have access to electricity and about 3 billion are dependent on traditional
solid fuels for cooking and heating with severe adverse effects on health, ecosystems and development. Providing access to modern energy services is an important sustainable development objective. The costs of achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating are projected to be between USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030 with minimal effects on GHG emissions (limited evidence, medium agreement).”
Victor: “Did you notice that last bit?: “with minimal effects on GHG emissions.” After spending “USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030.” Nothing in the whole document speaks to the futility of the whole “mitigation” enterprise so strongly as that single phrase. Yet it is tossed off as though the enormous problem it raises is inconsequential.”
Victor, what are you talking about? What “enormous problem”? There is nothing there that suggests any “futility of the mitigation enterprise”. They are talking about providing energy services for currently under-served populations — which they state correctly to be an important social goal — and they note in passing that this will (fortunately) have “minimal effects on GHG emissions”. Fine. What’s the big deal? What are you talking about?
@MA Rodger et al
FIRST I understood the (capitalist) Sytem, it’s smoke and mirrors, it’s lies and ignorance and juggling, it’s made-up myths and calculated, optimistic “positive thinking”, it’s thimblerig, shell games, tag playing gamez. I learned to see through all of it through sheer pain and disillusionment (that’s why I quoted Sunao: ” Spitting blood clears up reality and dream alike.”).
And THEN, from there on, it was easy to find fossil fuel induced climate heating, mass die-off and the rest of it. Sustain the cause, sustain the (capitalist) system, sustain Empire and you will be grilled.
258 – Hank
Thank you for proving my point. From the conclusion in your 2nd link:
“Ponds, i.e., waterbodies with surface areas smaller than 1×10^4 m2 are the dominant waterbody type found in all study areas across the Arctic.” Like I said, small bodies of water, probably quite shallow. Like I said, huge chunks of the far north turn into a big shallow swamp in the summer.
240 – nigelj
The reason I asked you about permafrost under lakes is because you and Al Bundy posted comments about it with links so I thought you might know something about it. I did cite the wrong post numbers – should have been 230 and 231.
254 – Carrie
Yes, there is supposedly permafrost below the continental shelves. How can permafrost exist under liquid water? Perhaps that’s because sea water freezes at a temperature a few degrees lower than fresh water. It’s that science again, right?
246,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257 – Carrie
Excellent work Thomas! :)
155 Carrie 13 Aug 2018: “international cooperation breakdown and then collapse is…inevitable. Isn’t it obvious?”
OK. So what do we do? Relax and throw a party cuz we’re all hopelessly f**ked? Jet around the country like McPherson and give seminars telling people that they might as well relax and throw a party cuz we’re all hopelessly f**ked?
Carrie: “This is self-evident for those capable of seeing the big picture over time into the future and who have been able to both keep up to date and to connect the dots of the SYNERGISTIC EVIDENCE”
DIY self-directed gish gallop, whipping oneself into a frenzy of fear and/or a dead zone of nihilistic defeatism by staring into the kaleidoscope of intersecting dots of “synergistic evidence”.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
266 nigelj says:
Victor @239
“Did you notice that last bit?: “with minimal effects on GHG emissions.” After spending “USD 72 and 95 billion per year until 2030.” Nothing in the whole document speaks to the futility of the whole “mitigation” enterprise so strongly as that single phrase. ”
nj: It means the policies of universal access to electricty would have minimal affects on the “process of reducing emissions”.
V: Precisely. And what does that have to do with “mitigation”? Nothing. So in addition to all the other sky high costs implied by all the other pointless recommendations they make, 95 billion a YEAR will be earmarked to INCREASING access to the very sources of power they expect us to DECREASE access to. Don’t you get it? The project of ameliorating poverty is in direct conflict with the project of ameliorating CO2 emissions. But this is the UN, fighting poverty is just as important a mission for them as fighting climate change, so they dare not ignore it. (Nor should they!)
Also I don’t buy that this sort of project will have “minimal effects on GHG emissions,” though it certainly won’t lower them. “Providing access to modern energy services” to approximately 1.3 billion poverty stricken individuals worldwide would drive GHG emissions far higher than currently projected, well beyond the limits of the Paris agreement. Unless, of course, we could manage to do that using renewables, but that possibility raises all sorts of very tough questions they don’t attempt to answer.
The notion that we can somehow “do it all,” i.e., provide billions of impoverished people with modern energy sources AND drastically cut back on the production of modern energy sources goes to the heart of the naive, pie-in-the-sky nature of the whole deluded IPCC enterprise.
268 Kevin McKinney says:
“You seem to be missing the point of your own quote. It seems quite clear to me that the expected benefit of “achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuels for cooking and heating” is, well, everybody having access to electricity and clean heat.
It is *not* intended to reduce GHG emissions.”
V: No it isn’t. Agreed. And no, I haven’t missed the point. That IS the point, the point being that this plan has NOTHING to do with AGW mitigation.
“On the other hand, the fact that it doesn’t appreciably *increase* GHG emissions is a good-news item, making mitigation easier, not–as you seem to suppose–illustrating its impossibility.”
V: But of course it would increase GHG emissions. By a HUGE factor. How gullible can you get? Oh yes, they SAY it would have no effect. But the IPCC report is chock full of wishful thinking along such lines. That bit is tossed in with NO explanation, NO justification, NO proposal as to how one could provide access to modern sources of energy to billions of people without drastically increasing GHG emissions. THAT’s what I meant
KM: I don’t know why you think that the quoted sum is such a shocking deal-breaker, either; the world spends probably ~$1,800 billion yearly on defense (of which 35% is American expenditure). Personally, I think that diverting less than 20% of that for the humanitarian purposes proposed would probably do more for international security than all the tanks, bombs and strategists we’re buying now.
V: Possibly. But it would put a serious monkey wrench into any attempt to meaningfully mitigate AGW — making it a perfect example of the naive, hare-brained thinking behind so much we can see in the IPCC reports, if we look with a sufficiently jaundiced eye.
KM: In more general budgetary terms, Gross World Product is supposed to be something like %80-110 trillion, depending mostly on how you figure exchange. So enormous gains in human welfare could apparently be made by the expenditure of about a tenth of a percent of that.
V: Yes. And I hear that, in cloud cuckoo land, all sorts of delicious foods and enticing treats grow on trees with branches that conveniently descend to deposit their contents directly into your mouth.
Killian @261
“And if you can’t convince people on this website, how would you convince someone like Trump or even just the average person?”
“Show me who on this website even attempts to learn how to design their own space? Even Kevin, talker on ecological issues that he is, has never bothered to learn. Strough has a clue, but he leans in directions that make his full knowledge a bit unclear. But he’s as close as we get here.” “This is a specialized site where I would not expect to find people who get regenerative systems”
Well my point exactly, if you cant convince anyone, especially people on this website…to learn, to adopt and are you going to convince the general public? Sigh.
Perhaps you might have some better success if you were more consistent in your views, and used less vague jargon, and were a great deal more precise and prescriptive, and much less abusive. That is not all, but it would be a start.
Al Bundy @270
“Nigel, add the 0.7C suppressed warming to current temps and your most wildly optimistic drawdown of emissions scenario. Note that the total is likely above 2C. Like the joke says, nobody ever died from falling. Twas the sudden stop (or feedback release) at the end. We’re committed to 2C+.”
2 degrees could be locked in. It all depends on which study you look at. Anyway my point is its not too late to do some good. Surely you realise this? :)
And the so called pause may have been partly due to the increase in coal burning over those years, and the 2015 – 2016 temperatures could be partly due to the decrease in use of coal globally for those two years. However its a guess because I dont know if the changes were enough to have much affect, because they were pretty small.
“MARodger, I was under the impression that the IPCC reports had to be signed off on by the governments of the world. ”
They do, and there is evidence that the summary for policy makers has some of its wording influenced by politics, but theres no evidence the main body of the report, the basic research, modelling and basic IPCC projections are contaminated by politics and I doubt they would be. That part of things isn’t signed off by governments. Subtle but important difference. Of course conspiracy thinkers will disagree.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interests
Nemesis @280 there’s a fair sized grain of truth in your critique of capitalism, in that it has an alarming tendency to wreck the environment. This is best summed up as a tragedy of the commons problem, or in a more geeky way as a market failure (a bit of a euphemism).
These sorts of things can be fixed with laws or taxes if there is a political will, which is conspicuously lacking currently, but might return. Please remember we have fixed a variety of environmental problems, from the ozone hole to particulate emissions.
The remaining big problem is capitalism thrives on growth, which ultimately cannot be sustained indefinitely on a finite planet, at least not growth based on extractive industries. However its certainly theoretically possible to have growth in services, and alternatively a private ownership market economy based on zero growth, again if we want.
And not all ownership has to be private. Theres nothing wrong with essential services being publicly or state owned in some fashion.
If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!
Oh yes theres Killians system of community ownership, considerably reduced resource use and eventual deliberate move to zero use of mineral resources, and so the lifestyle of a primitive. If you want to go there.
All this discourse on “systems and solutions” is better on forced responses under older entries, should you wish to continue.
271 MA Rodger, well I cannot get away from the fact that I consider you and people like you as scientific illiterates. I suspect that Gavin et al do too but they are busy with their day jobs to waste their times on self-opinionated tongue-wavers like you, who poison the well for the naive and gullible therefore only ever attracting kudos from the likes of well meaning people such as Nigel who don’t know any better. (where Wikipedia is the go to source for positive feedbacks knowledge!)
However it’s you and people like you are, imo, far more dangerous and causing far more irritations for decent climate scientists (vs Judith Curry/Roy Spencer) and for rational environmentalists than the problems caused by folks like Victor, KIA, or a Chris Monckton and the Heartland Institute or even Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) who Mike Mann had to deal with.
So it’s my view that people like you MAR need to be challenged for misrepresenting the current conclusions of accumulated climate science and their prognosis for the short term and medium term futures given the present stasis situation where in effect nothing is being done yet to address the causes and reverse the trends. AS at May 2018 Global CO2 readings were 2.6 ppm above 2017 levels and still increasing.
My little gift to you and Nigel which no doubt you will ignore and even if you didn’t and read the entire thing you would still be incapable of understanding it’s meaning.
This is what real climate science looks like – it is already way out of date – the world needs to stop ignoring these matters and start ignoring people like you MAR.
Extreme impacts can result from extreme weather and climate events, but can also occur without extreme events.
This chapter examines two broad categories of impacts on human and ecological systems, both of which are influenced by changes in climate, vulnerability, and exposure: first, the chapter primarily focuses on impacts that result from extreme weather and climate events, and second, it also considers extreme impacts that are triggered by less-than-extreme weather or climate events. These two categories of impacts are examined across sectors, systems, and regions. Extreme events can have positive as well as negative impacts on ecosystems and human activities.
60 pages of scientific evidence based output.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX-Chap4_FINAL.pdf
The whole story is here
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) 234 pages and then some.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/
With Love from Carrie aka Alice aka VV Putin aka Goldilocks
Not that it matters one way or the other.
Inconvenient News Reports
Guardian coverage of essay on potential of future “hothouse” climate is generally accurate, but misstates some details
Analysis of “Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state”
Published in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts on 7 Aug. 2018
Five scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be ‘high’.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Insightful.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/guardian-potential-future-hothouse-climate-generally-accurate-but-misstates-details-jonathan-watts/
eg one comment goes:
“Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state”
Richard Betts, Professor, Met Office Hadley Centre & University of Exeter:
“Move into” makes it sound sudden, but the paper suggests that, although the feedbacks could be triggered soon and become self-perpetuating, they could take centuries to millennia to take full effect.
More accurate content would warrant a revised title, eg “Domino-effect of climate events could set Earth on path towards a ‘hothouse’ state”.
–
That is about this recent Paper
Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene by Will Steffen et al
Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115
–
For other reports – see main page
https://climatefeedback.org/feedbacks/
for example
Washington Post story puts recent weather extremes in accurate climate change context
in The Washington Post, by Joel Achenbach, Angela Fritz
“This article accurately describes the broader climate context of recent heat extremes throughout the Northern Hemisphere. There are a couple spots where specific claims are somewhat stronger than justified by the existing scientific evidence, but in general the piece gives an accurate impression regarding the role of climate change and recent advances in extreme event attribution science.”
— 31 Jul 2018
Scientists contribute their insights
August 6, 2018 expert reaction to perspective piece on the trajectories of the Earth System
Scientists explore a “Hothouse Earth” scenario in a study published in PNAS.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-perspective-piece-on-the-trajectories-of-the-earth-system/
Dr Phil Williamson, climate researcher at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said:
That didn’t matter that much to us then; it does now – with human processes also part of the mix. As a result of human impacts on climate, the new paper argues that we’ve gone beyond any chance of the Earth cooling ‘of its own accord’. Instead, there is the opposite risk, involving a vicious circle of positive feedbacks, each accentuating warming.
For example, [as already stated by Carrie no less @RC ] by permafrost thawing, forest dieback and the biological release of carbon from the soil and ocean. Together these effects could add an extra half a degree Celsius by the end of the century to the warming that we are directly responsible for ‒ thereby crossing thresholds and tipping points that seem likely to occur around 2⁰C, and committing the planet to irreversible further change, as Hothouse Earth.
Steffen and his colleagues argue that we need to be much more proactive in that regard, not just ending greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible, but also building resilience in the context of complex Earth system processes that we might not fully understand until it is too late. In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight.
Prof Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at UCL, said:
To avoid such a fate, Steffen et al point out that a deep transformation is required based on a fundamental reorientation of human values, equity, behaviour, institutions, economies and technology. Given the evidence of human history, this would seem a naive hope at the best of times. But at a time of the widespread rise of Right Wing Populism, with its associated rejection of the messages of those perceived as “cosmopolitan elites” and specific denial of climate change as an issue, the likelihood that the combination of factors necessary to allow humanity to navigate the planet to an acceptable “intermediate state” must surely be close to zero.
The future habitability of the planet thus appears to rest on chance – that the sensitivity of the climate system to greenhouse gas emissions and other human disruptions is fortuitously very low – or that some other global scale social calamity dramatically reduces human emissions before any runaway planetary threshold is breached. The latter offers cold comfort.
Prof Martin Siegert, Co-Director of the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said:
“The geological record can advise on what the earth looks like under various CO2 scenarios, (Pliocene 5Ma with 400 ppm CO2; Cretaceous 100 Ma with 1000 ppm). We’re already at Pliocene levels, and heading to Cretaceous if we keep going as now.
“As in his previous work, John and co-workers discuss the nuances of this situation, and present the idea of a threshold from which we can’t pull back. Again, threshold and tipping points have been discussed previously, but to state that ‘2C’ is a threshold we can’t pull back from is new, I think. I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ there is for this – or indeed whether there can be until we experience it. It’s just a ‘suggestion’ in any case.
“The paper is essentially an essay (or review of others work), rather than original research, but they’ve collated previously published ideas and theories to present a narrative on how the threshold change would work. It’s rather selective, but not outlandish (nor Skyrockety).”
—
I speak from first person and use my own words and phrasing (which I take self-responsibility for) yet surprisingly almost all of I convey is actually based on the good work and ideas of expert climate scientists etc. – be that from a decade ago, 3 decades ago or last week. Sometimes I even incl refs to papers or lectures by experts, and sometimes I do not. Whether I do or don’t won’t ever stop some individuals totally ignoring the accumulated Science – twisting it out of all recognition – then tilting at windmills like a crazed Man of La Mancha instead.
https://www.bard.org/study-guides/synopsis-man-of-la-mancha
Earth Climate System: Tipping Points to Hothouse?
Prof Paul Beckwith digs into the numbers contained in the Appendix of the paper
https://youtu.be/lsm6hB2tyz8?t=3m22s
Alternatively feel free to believe and follow ‘expert’ internet forum jockeys like MA Rodger Nigelj et al instead. Climate change is complex & uncertain not simple or clear.
Re #271 MA Rodger said
Carrie-aka-Thomas @249, (1,361 words)
Your bad-mouthing of other commenters, including myself, coupled to your own self-agrandizment is way way over the top.
Oh. My.
I believe you will find the above quote on Wikipedia under multiple headings: Hypocrisy, irony, gaslighting. Etc.
I think best might be, “Dude!”
Want more info?
Wait for the next study that might cover this ‘anecdotal’ surprising shift.
Cherskiy, RussiaNikita Zimov was teaching students to do ecological fieldwork in northern Siberia when he stumbled on a disturbing clue that the frozen land might be thawing far faster than expected.
In April he sent a team of workers out with heavy drills to be sure. They bored into the soil a few feet down and found thick, slushy mud. Zimov said that was impossible. Cherskiy, his community of 3,000 along the Kolyma River, is one of the coldest spots on Earth. Even in late spring, ground below the surface should be frozen solid.
Except this year, it wasn’t.
Every winter across the Arctic, the top few inches or feet of soil and rich plant matter freezes up before thawing again in summer. Beneath this active layer of ground extending hundreds of feet deeper sits continuously frozen earth called permafrost, which, in places, has stayed frozen for millennia.
But in a region where temperatures can dip to 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, the Zimovs say unusually high snowfall this year worked like a blanket, trapping excess heat in the ground. They found sections 30 inches deep—soils that typically freeze before Christmas—that had stayed damp and mushy all winter. For the first time in memory, ground that insulates deep Arctic permafrost simply did not freeze in winter.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-arctic-permafrost-may-thaw-faster-than-expected/
Hank Roberts @ 269:
But the economy is doing great! GDP is up. Stock market through the roof. lowest unemployment in decades. Coal miner jobs are all coming back, steel mills are opening again. We are winning the trade wars with all our now evil former allies. China and Russia are on their knees to us. The US is now totally energy independent and we no longer have to worry about automobile fuel and emissions standards!
And you’re worried about some birds in the desert?! Get a grip, man!
/sarc!
P.S. Sigh! I had to do some serious soul searching before I decided that it might be the better part of valor to add that sarcasm tag…
Speaking of holism, herewith is a scholarly holistic view of climate science and mitigation, both. Though “mitigation” is in the title, the first half of the paper deals with the science and the science vis a vis Paris; the emphasis is on grave risk that is not necessarily reflected in official scientific pronouncements.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1946756716673640?journalCode=wfra
A Realistic (Holistic) Approach to Climate Mitigation
Graeme Taylor, First Published November 17, 2016
https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756716673640
Abstract
At this time, most climate researchers are only using a limited range of futures approaches: for example, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) future scenarios have been developed primarily with empirical predictive methods that extrapolate trends. These seriously underestimate the risk of nonlinear developments and critical failures. This article examines the Paris Climate Conference (COP) 21 agreement on climate mitigation; explains why current efforts are based on false assumptions and likely to fail; argues that holistic, integrative methods are needed to avoid disaster; and uses these methods to develop a practical strategy for accelerating systemic transformation. Despite the impressive diplomatic achievements of the Paris Agreement, there is a dangerous lag between the pace of political, economic, and technological change and the rapid (nonnegotiable) rate of climate change. The challenge is to find ways to manage the conflict between the need to work within existing institutional frameworks and the reality that they are not (and may be structurally incapable of) acting quickly enough to prevent catastrophic outcomes. This dichotomy may be resolved by using a three-track strategy: the first track will focus on accelerating existing climate mitigation efforts by encouraging decision-makers to use holistic, critical-safety risk management methods. The second track will counter ideological opposition with constructive alternative narratives. The third track will help catalyze the global movement needed to empower structural transformation and the emergence of a sustainable global system. It will not be possible to resolve many complex global socioecological problems (climate, water, food, energy, growing inequality, etc.) without transformational change. Integrative, whole-systems methods are now needed to accelerate the evolution of a sustainable global system.
for the full text, go here:
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/1946756716673640
snippet from full text, to give a flavor:
“The Paris Agreement will not work because it is not holistic. The Paris Agreement is unlikely to achieve its goals because it only addresses part of the problem. Because it does not take a holistic, precautionary risk management approach to climate modeling, it does not recognize that biophysical limits and timelines are nonnegotiable, and that passing critical thresholds creates the potential for systemic failure or state change. For example, the Paris Agreement does not place safety limits on atmospheric CO2 and other GHG concentrations, an absolute cap on ocean and atmospheric temperature increases, an absolute cap on ocean acidification, or a specified timeline for reducing GHG emissions.
The lack of a whole-systems approach is also shown by the failure of the Agreement to address the need for sustainable solutions for the 80 percent of emissions that do not come from the production of electricity (Heinberg 2015). The Agreement also ignores the need for whole-systems accounting to accurately evaluate environmental, economic, and social costs, benefits and risks, and to put a realistic price on carbon (Hansen 2015). Nor is there any mention of the need to stop fossil fuel subsidies, which in 2014 were four times as large as subsidies for renewable energies (IEA 2015).”
another snippet:
“Research at Climate Outreach confirms that while people often reject fear-based messages they will accept climate change threats and solutions if they are framed within a larger positive vision of health, quality of life, and new opportunity.” END quote.
Yes, fear-based messages like “collapse is inevitable; isn’t it obvious?” — Carrie. Generally, messages from the Carrie/McPherson/Bendell Axis of Nihilistic Climate Doomerism, Defeatism and Despair (the CMBANCDDD, hereafter).
“We’re hopelessly screwed, so why not buy a 12-pack and relax with friends? Like, what difference does it make? Collapse is inevitable anyway!”
In contrast, we have messages like the article above by Graeme Taylor: infinitely more intelligent, wise, humane, charitable and constructive than anything on offer from the CMBANCDDD.
I recommend the full text of Taylor’s article to everyone. You too, Victor.
Warning, however: Taylor’s article (the last half of it, pertaining to mitigation) is written at the level of vision, and adumbrated strategy; i.e. at a high level. If you are looking for a detailed roadmap with each step spelled out, you will be disappointed. That is not the purpose of his paper.
Vision is critical. Without it, the people perish.
NOAA has reported for July 2018 with an anomaly of +0.75ºC, a little up on June’s +0.74ºC so in NOAA July is not the coolest anomaly for the year so far. (Previous 2018 months range from +0.83ºC to +0.69ºC.)
It is the 4th warmest July in NOAA (for GISTEMP it was 3rd, BEST 2nd, for the satellite TLT records, July was 4th in UAH & 3rd in RSS) below 1st-placed July 2016 (+0.88ºC), 2017 (+0.83ºC) & 2015 (+0.82ºC) and not far ahead of =5th placed July 2010 & 1998 (+0.73ºC).
July 2018 is the 58th warmest anomaly on the full all-month NOAA record. (In GISTEMP it was =44th warmest anomaly, BEST 77th.)
In the NOAA year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 4th (It was 3rd in both GISTEMP & BEST.)
Table ranked by average of Jan-to-July anomalies.
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.04ºC … … … +0.95ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.90ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.91ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.77ºC
2010 .. +0.76ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 5th
2014 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 4th
1998 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 12th
2002 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 14th
2005 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 7th
2013 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 6th
The NOAA ‘Climate at a Glance’ page also allows us to quickly check if the anomaly over NH Land was a record for July (which is the sort of assertion we have been getting up-thread from Carrie-aka-Thomas). It appears July 2018 was not the July record-holder but sits in =4th place (with 1998) with a NH Land anomaly of +1.13°C, behind record-holding 2012 (+1.22°C), 2nd-placed 2010 (+1.19°C) & 3rd-placed 2016 (+1.14°C). And the combined June/July anomaly also sees 2018 in 4th place for the summer-so-far NH Land anomaly. The 2018 Spring came in as 5th warmest. So whatever the heat over NH Lands this Spring/Summer, whatever its “massive unprecedented” nature, it is not entirely “bleeding obvious.” The GISTEMP temperature anomaly mapping page also provides a trace of the anomaly for a period by latitude (but here including ocean although the amount of ocean in the higher NH is not so influential) and this also shows no record temperature anomaly for high latitude (above 45ºN) occuring in 2018, so far.
Tell me it isn’t so. Did Steffan’s paper on the AMOC say it’s not as bad they expected it might be? Has there been a climate paper issued in 2018 that has said “oh this means impacts are going to be less than projected before”?
The influence of Arctic amplification on mid-latitude summer circulation
D. Coumou, G. Di Capua, S. Vavrus, L. Wang & S. Wang
We show that interactions between Arctic teleconnections and other remote and regional feedback processes could lead to more persistent hot-dry extremes in the mid-latitudes. The exact nature of these non-linear interactions is not well quantified but they provide potential high-impact risks for society.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05256-8
BOX 1 Recent mid-latitude summer weather extremes and their impacts
(not including 2018)
Many recent high-impact summer heatwaves occurred in the far-tail of the distribution and are difficult to explain by the direct radiative warming effect of greenhouse gas forcing alone18,19,20,21. In 2010, Russia saw 33 consecutive hot-and-dry days (with temperatures above 30 °C), resulting in an estimated 55,000 heat-related deaths, more than 500 wildfires near Moscow and grain-harvest losses of 30%4. A quantitative global analyses showed that the 2010 event was the most-severe heatwave ever recorded worldwide, based on a heatwave index that can be used across different regions20. Intriguingly, all record-setting heatwaves based on this index occurred in the mid-latitudes, indicating that here heatwaves are becoming more intense at a pace that exceeds the global mean20. Extreme summer heat in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes now far exceeds historical frequencies in the twentieth century117. Over the last decade, Europe has seen an exceptionally rapid increase in the chance of extremely hot summers similar to the 2003 extreme21. Other notable high-impact and record-breaking droughts and heatwaves occurred in the USA in 2011 and 20124,20, leading to billions of dollars in agricultural losses120,121.
New report—titled What Lies Beneath: The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk—
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf
Interesting read, to say the least.
Sheldon Walker:
Ah, Mr. Walker, it appears you have your own echo chamber. I, for one, will gladly stay away from your posts, as I assume they merely echo one or more of your familiar, incompetent objections to the consensus of climate scientists for AGW. Sorry, no matter how many times you rebunk them, they’re still wrong.
Genuinely skeptical RC visitors can find concise, definitive rebuttals to 238 popular AGW-denialist memes, sorted by category and summarized at Skeptical Science. They’re still the correct responses for specific dearly-held denier misconceptions. You may wish to cite them simply by number.
BTW, my apologies to John Hartz 8^}!
New Video showing Data slides with explanations – no audio – very clear
Contemporary Global Warming placed in geological context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihPWZe87Am4
It’s so simple and obvious maybe even Victor and KIA and MAR will understand what it means.