Michael Mann with Thom Hartmann a couple of years back when the Madhouse Effect had come out. I remember seeing it on RT back then. Discussing permafrost feedbacks and a recent study that had come out, and this is Michael Mann speaking about this and Modelling.
Hartmann: “… soil starts outgassing methane and you know you were a little more laid back it seems, that as scientists and and and I don’t mean that in any negative way I you know I honor your your methodical approach to all this stuff but it seems that science is starting to get scary can-can am I am I exaggerating here?”
Mann: No not at all and you know our critics accuse us sometimes the scientists of being alarmist because of the you know what we have to say
because of the problem that we’re describing and you could say that what we have to say is alarming and the irony here is if anything we have been overly reticent that includes myself at times we tend to be conservative in terms of our pronouncements because we want to be convinced by the evidence before we state something to be true.
Now on methane feedbacks there still is a legitimate debate within the climate research community as to how substantial those might be but this latest article that you described is a good example of one of these you know, unknowns, known unknowns if you will, and an example of how uncertainty has not been our friend because we are in fact learning that there may be some additional positive feedback processes and that sounds like a good thing but it’s not the positive.
Feedback is a vicious cycle it means the problem worsens itself and in this case by warming the planet and warming the soils we’re increasing the activity this bacterial activity in a way that actually causes the soils from being as you alluded to a net sink that’s pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and helping keep CO2 levels lower than they would otherwise be.
That appears to be turning into a source it’s actually adding to the CO2 build-up from the burning of fossil fuels there are other examples of these so-called carbon cycle feedbacks that typically have not been incorporated into climate models so only in more recent years of climate modelers started to incorporate these processes and and this is an example of why it’s been so difficult.
We’re still doing the basic research necessary to understand these mechanisms so that we can put them in a mechanistic models and here is an example of a study that may cause modelers to reconsider whether we are properly accounting for microbial activity in these models we use to examine the you know the effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations on our climate. So this is an example of an unwelcome surprise, another example of how things in some sense might be worse than we had thought, not better.
[end quote]
—
OK so that’s the nice friendly way Mann speaks to the public about quite complex moving climate issues. And since that interview many more studies have been published, regards permafrost / microbial activity and other ‘positive feedbacks’ since then, which offer up many more examples of ‘how things might be worse than we had thought, not better.’
Many people here, including myself a few times, have posted refs to these new studies of larger positive feedbacks arising, since Mann was chatting to Hartmann. But I still do not know if any of this later work post-AR4 & AR5 has been included in those “mechanistic models” as yet – or to what degree and in which Models. This year there are new studies and papers being published every day which continue to ask such questions. It’s hard for me to comprehend how difficult it must be today for the climate scientists, as a whole and individually, could possibly keep up and be able to integrate it all – let alone ensure the latest best practice is captured in the most important GCMs / Models.
Apparently we are supposed to understand a priori that the cited work really means the opposite of what it says it means, based solely on your (unexpressed) opinion that that is the case.
Hey, we’re good–but we’re not that good.
And we’re also apparently supposed to agree that your unsupported opinion is superior to that of scholars writing in their area of expertise.
We’re better than that.
As to the claim that the WG3 analysis is unfounded, I plan to come back when I have more time and find it for you, because I assure you, it is there.
N.B. All this follows from Victor’s #239:
19 Aug 2018 at 12:30 AM
Your original claim was that you were wondering if the climate models and IPCC projections included all the feedbacks.
I have shown you an article on political interference. There’s evidence this applies to the summary for policy makers, not the modelling.
Scientists are not the fools you obviously think they are. They will include feedbacks as appropriate based on the evidence and the science. If new issues emerge they will go into future modelling.
The wikipedia article certainly says the feedbacks are included. It has plenty of links and references, and this sort of article would be scrutinised by a voluntary team of scientists. I have read several other articles stating the same. When I read several articles in mainstream science magazines that say the feedbacks are included, why would a normal person doubt this?
If you are still suspicious, its hard to know what would satisfy you, so that is why I suggested this website do an article. You could also download some of the research papers on climate models and look at the equations. Again climate modelling on wikipedia has links to models you can download which is a start.
Killiansays
Re #294 alan2102 said Speaking of holism, herewith is a scholarly holistic view of climate science and mitigation…
Somebody tell this guy to credit me if he’s going to riff off my work, eh?
“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.”
Yeah… uh… where have you heard this before? Let me see…
“The Paris Agreement will not work because it is not holistic.
Oh, *really?!*
Because it does not take a holistic, precautionary risk management approach
A what now? Risk management approach? How novel! How never before seen or heard!
Seriously, I need to sue this guy. (Not really seriously, tongue-in-cheek-but-really-why-the-eff-do-people-listen-to-this-doofus-when others-have-said-the-same-for-years seriously.)
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.
Really, really hard to hear with all the echoing…
Well, but, he **says** things like holistic and sustainable…
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)
…but then he says things like “economics” and “price on carbon”, which indicate a tech response. Hmmm. Will have to read the thing. Fornow, someone please tell this guy to stop ripping off my work.
:-)
Killiansays
Re #288 Carrie said 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
What, like permaculture design for everyone?
climate
Well, the first takes care of the second, so…
and societies
and the third…
and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes
and the 4th, 5th and 6th…
technological innovations
and even this, but only for very specific, mostly unavoidable needs…
new governance arrangements
You mean like… Regenerative Governance, which is a tiered, egalitarian problem-solving process anchored in a Commons?
transformed social values.
Meh… sooner turn the tide. Principles – natural principles – are universal, values are not.
Killiansays
285 nigelj said And if you can’t convince people on this website
“Show me who on this website even attempts to learn how to design their own space?”
Well my point exactly
No, you are trying to say I can’t convince you dolts, so I can’t convince anyone. Buy a clue: I am not trying to convince you or anyone else. I speak to those that can and will hear. It is *their* job to reach out to the rest. That is not my aim, goal, or skill set. I analyze, others outreach.
if you cant convince anyone, especially people on this website…to learn
And you lot are willfully ignorant, not open to learning.
to adopt and are you going to convince the general public?
See above.
Perhaps you might have some better success if you were more consistent in your views
I hate liars. Deeply. Passionately.
Disgusting.
Your ignorance is always your weak-assed weapon against others. You are a stupid, stupid man. You can go back ten years on this site and see I have made the same points that entire time, yet you have the gall to makes such an absurd claim?
Liar.
Killiansays
Re #270 Al Bundy said 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.
OK, nigel. You equate them, then say you aren’t.
Disgusting.
Your analogy was bullshit, your response is worse.
Killiansays
Re #264 nigelj said Carrie @253, no, I’m a careful holistic thinker
No, you are not. Not careful, not holisitc, not a thinker. Thinking and being a thinker have entirely different connotations. Yes, you have a brain; no, you do not use it well.
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.
Wrong. You are parroting after many months of being bashed upside the head to get your eyes to even begin to open, and they are still largely closed.
although killian is too extreme in his views
Huh. Said the most ignorant poster on this board sans the outright deniers.
Interesting how Steffen, et al., echo what I’ve been saying for a decade.
Thats what holistic means. You clearly dont really know what holistic means :)
Oh, jesus… give him a dictionary, he can’t read it, apparently.
relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts
Yet parts is exactly what you argue for. Capitalism is anything but holistic, yet you champion its continuance, e.g.
Just. Stop.
“You’re hearts in the right place and you’re doing the best you can with what you got. ”
More personal BS
It’s an accurate and honest assessment. Truth hurts. You do not belong here.
didn’t you criticise people for being mocking? Practice what you preach, just for once.
She didn’t mock you.
And yes I like to be comfortable. Its not evil you know.
And how does that fit with holistic thinking? You can be comfortable, help kill the planet, but you think holistically? Your efforts at intellectualism are clownish.
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.
And you are more qualified than they? How, exactly?
Only to you and Killian, because I ask questions that have you at a loss for answers
No, you damned fool. You ask questions that are ignorant, even stupid, and repetitiously so.
OK, I found the source of the claim that Victor dismisses out of hand, ie. that:
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).
It comes from the Global Energy Assessment (2012), the SPM for which you may read here:
(I will grant Victor that a) WGIII is not easy reading; and b) citation/bibliography in the SPM could be a heck of a lot easier to follow.)
Evidently the GEA did a lot of economic modeling to arrive at their conclusion, as cited, tracing 60 or so economic ‘pathways’ to achieve various policy goals–ie., testing the various possibilities–and found quite a few workable ones.
WRT the quoted bit, which has to do with the Sustainable Development goal of universal access to modern energy carriers and clean cooking, see Section 6, “Summaries”, and particularly p. 21, where the reason that meeting this goal would not be problematic for carbon mitigation is given:
Transitioning to such fuels or stoves is not likely to have negative implications for climatic change. This is because transitioning to modern fuels (even in the case that these are fossil based) will displace large quantities of traditional biomass use. Current technologies that use traditional biomass are a factor 4–5 times less efficient than cooking with modern fuels such as LPG, and are associated with significant emissions of non-CO 2 Kyoto gases (e.g., CH 4, N2O) and aerosols (e.g., BC, OC) due to incomplete combustion.
It appears to me that the details would be found in Chapter 17, cited as:
Riahi, K., F. Dentener, D. Gielen, A. Grubler, J. Jewell, Z. Klimont, V. Krey, D. McCollum, S. Pachauri, S. Rao, B. van Ruijven, D. P. van Vuuren and C. Wilson, 2012: Chapter 17 – Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1203-1306.
Says here the entire report–another epic, at 1200 pages or so–is currently available for purchase from Cambridge U. Press:
I hope Victor will take all this as an indication that, just maybe, the WG III authors actually thought about the statement they made for more than the 10 seconds it probably took Victor to decide they were just making shit up.
Are readers convinced and satisfied that current GCMs and other Models being relied upon today since the AR5 adequately represent best practice up-to-date accurate forecasts and projections of the climate system out to 2050?
nigeljsays
Killian @307, I have never referred to the holocaust, and it seems an odd thing to appear on a climate website. I trust your comment was a typo.
nigeljsays
Killian @306
” You can go back ten years on this site and see I have made the same points that entire time, yet you have the gall to makes such an absurd claim?”
You make the same nonsensical, inconsistent points.
Your main point according to your various comments is you really want us all to become like peasants or primitives, because in your view its wrong and unsustainable to use mineral resources. You want them left in the ground, – permanently. You grudgingly allow us to use some limited technology for a few years, but your desired goal is for humanity to live like primitives.
Your ideas are like a religion, and are totally 100% crazy.
Carriesays
303 nigelj “I’m a blind man from NZ” says: “Carrie @287, Your original claim was that you were wondering if the climate models and IPCC projections included all the feedbacks.”
Yes, plus how accurate are those feedbacks (especially AR4/AR5 feedback) to the degree / forcing numbers assigned to those feedsbacks in the near distant future; given the “flood” (?) of new up-to-date research by climate scientists since the AR4/AR5 scenarios were done.
nigel, stop selectively choosing what I say by ignoring most of it, then going off on irrelevancies “I have shown you an article on political interference. There’s evidence this applies to the summary for policy makers, not the modelling.”
Well doh nigel. The Sun rises in the east too. And now Nigel again makes stuff up on the run when cornered: “Scientists are not the fools you obviously think they are.”
I have never once thought climate scientists are fools. I have definitely never said anything of the kind either. Please don’t conflate me thinking people like you and MAR are fools means I think the same about others here or climate scientists. ioe as Killian might put it – Stop lying!
Finally nigel again shows how mentally blind and foolish he is: “They will include feedbacks as appropriate based on the evidence and the science.” and “The wikipedia article certainly says the feedbacks are included.” (in past modelling)
Yes. Though that is quite different to saying : they include ALL Feedbacks or saying ALL Feedbacks have been calculated at the appropriate degree they should be – given current state of climate science accumulated new knowledge of the last 5-6 years. Fools and the ignorant have no right to judge others as wanting Nigel. I am sorry it’s so hard for you “Know It Alls” to keep up. http://www.barbneal.com/wp-content/uploads/fogleg51.mp3 :-)
Read better, think better, before you speak next time ok?
Carriesays
296 MA Rodger proves his incomprehensible foolishness and rank incompetence as amateur climate scientist by claiming about recent Nth H weather events and temps : whatever its “massive unprecedented” nature, it is not entirely “bleeding obvious.”
Can’t work out the difference between global hemi avg temps from regional temps, precip, soil moisture loss, vegetation moisture loss, and wind speeds and direction. What a Know It All biased fool who openly cherry-picks climate science data so he appear like he’s always right.
Carriesays
295 alan2102, yes much more accurate and all encompassing than most prognostications about the Paris agreement that’s for sure.
How long before the febrile right wing climate denying politicians disruption in Australia where they are willing to bring down their own Party’s current Federal government (and Trump’s US of course) starts to infest and poison other nations as they start to hit the brick wall of confronting the reality of new 2030 emissions targets and ensure electricity reliability at the same time?
Things are cranking up and will continue to become even more problematic for Governments being caught between a rock a hard place while heatwaves and fires rage and crops fail more and more.
Carriesays
281 Mr. Know It All; my advice to read the scientific papers stands about permafrost/ice under water. Be it salty or fresh, deep or shallow. It’s that “science” thing you love and like to rely upon so much. :)
Carriesays
273 Ray Ladbury & Chuck: I suspect that Mr KIA and MAR are the same moron.
Nemesissays
@nigelji, #278
” If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!”
I said it quite often: I am completely a- political. Please ask the politicians and/or the rich and powerful for a better system, politics is their job, not mine. And be sure:
They’ll give a complete shit about my view anyway as I’m just a complete nobody with no wealth and no power whatsoever. I take care of my personal Karma resp a very low ecological footprint. End of story.
Btw, I see NO insects and NO birds in my area anymore and it was exactly the same when I were in the netherlands some days ago. So all I do in preparation for the future is this:
Letting go, preparing for Death as I did my whole life (totally disillusioned, having no children, nothing to lose).
” Spitting blood clears up reality
and dream alike.”
Carrie-aka-Thomas @287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293. (1,804 words)
You reply to me @271 by first calling me a “scientific illiterate” and then; well it is difficult to grasp the rationale for the displeasure you express. Are you calling Curry & Spencer “decent climate scientists”? And suggesting that my comments here are “far more dangerous” than the Heartland Institute?
As usual, you make no reply to the substance of my comment.
It is true that your ‘interpretation’ of the climate science is at odds with mine (& the IPCC) although we all agree (if your words are to be trusted) that climate change mitigation needs stepping up a gear or two, or three. Yet you provide no scientific reason for your position. Why not? Is it because you are the “scientific illiterate”?
So what do you provide?
Your ‘skyrocketry’ now leads you to ignore the MLO measurements and latch on to the ESRL global CO2 record which currently shows higher rates than MLO. Myself, I would not adopt those global data to provide a meaningful rate on monthly timescales. They are smoothed too much for such use. Do consider the annual cycle in the high northern latitudes will impart a lot more noise into the record if there isn’t heavy smoothing.
And your “little gift” is to highlight the 2012 IPCC SREX report. You brag up-thread that you “have read every page of every IPCC report “ so you will have read the SPM for SREX where it sets out the increases in extreme temperatures as being“about 2°C to 5°C by the late 21st century, depending on the region and emissions scenario (based on the B1, A1B, and A2 scenarios).” And you would be familiar with these scenarios, the least severe being B1 which has CO2 emissions rates rising until mid-century, giving by century’s-end CO2 emissions four-times greater than the ‘below 2°C’ IPCC AR5 CO2 budget.
So how does this differ from the findings of AR5? Where is the message you set out that mankind is already off to hell in a handcart?
Of course this missing message is the now-contradictory message you attempt to set out in your overly-lengthy commenting @288-290, your “Inconvenient News Reports”. The substance of this is mighty thin as it all leads back to Steffen et al (2018) ‘Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene’, a paper that is not based on any in-depth analysis but more a conceptual analysis of what AGW could engender. Even so, it struggles to state the “bleeding obvious” that the Earth System has already“passed one ‘fork in the road’ of potential pathways, a bifurcation taking the Earth System out of the next glaciation cycle “ And if AGW remains below 2°C, where is its doom-mongering, or anything in any way controversial below 3°C.
So how does this differ from the findings of AR5? Where is the message you set out that mankind is already off to hell in a handcart? (485 words)
Nemesissays
@nigelji, #278
Addendum to my last comment:
” If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!”
Well, anarchy and chaos, that’s exactly where the system is heading to. And again:
Don’t ask a complete nobody about solutions for problems he did not create, as the system, the wealthy and powerful give a total shit about what I might think about any solutions anyway, they never asked me what I think nor what I want and they never will :) Please ask those who created that mess (the fossil fuel industry resp the military-industrial complex, the beautiful, wealthy and powerful “elite”) for solutions^^
See, we are on a sinking ship and I was never the captain nor part of the officers crew, they never asked me what I think about the route of the ship nor about my opinions at all, they totally wrecked havoc, completely messed it up because of their greed and ignorance- and NOW you ask ME, a complete nobody for solutions on a f* irrevocably sinking ship ?! That’s one of the BEST jokes I ever heard. Wherever I look I see the most obvious fact:
The ship is sinking and NOBODY will save it anymore, it’s simply too late to save it, there is NO solution anymore. And there is ONE fact I do really like about that:
The captain, the officers crew will go down too, not just the innocent slaves.
And now call me (as someone who consumes as little as possible, a complete nobody^^) a f* communist, Marxist, socialist, leftist or “a part of the problem” or whatever you like to call me and sooner or later you will realize that calling me whatever you like is exactly like calling names on a tree or a mountain or the ocean, it won’t prevent the ship from sinking I swear.
Somebody at another website, said this to me,
“I think that the problem is that most of us can’t understand what you are on about.”
Here is my reply.
=================
I understand what you mean, when you say, “I think that the problem is that most of us can’t understand what you are on about.”.
There is something about global warming contour maps, that many people find confusing. The format of the graph is unusual. It is displaying 4 dimensions, using 2 axes (the X-axis and the Y-axis) for 2 dimensions, colour for 1 dimension (warming rate), and the other dimension is hidden (you can calculate it from the X-axis and Y-axis).
So there are a number of things about contour maps which are counter-intuitive.
I have spent about 2 and a half years developing global warming contour maps. And even I have to be careful when I interpret them.
All temperature series are probably not perfect. That is why you should look at all of them.
Global warming contour maps give you the most comprehensive view of the temperature data, that it is possible to get. Not only does it show you how the warming rate varies over time, but it also shows you how the warming rate varies for different trend lengths.
That lets you see if warming rates are consistent, or changing over time and/or trend length.
Global warming contour maps show the chaotic nature of climate. Every contour map shows the short-term warming and cooling events along the bottom. The El Nino’s and La Nina’s. You can actually SEE the 1998 El Nino, in colour (actually 2 colours, red for the warming phase, and blue for the cooling phase).
I have worked hard to try and make global warming contour maps more understandable. I invented Robot-Train contour maps to try and help people understand contour maps. I don’t know what else I can do, to make it easier. People have to be prepared to make a little effort, to understand them. I am always happy to answer questions, and help people in any way that I can.
I get a lot of hostility from Alarmists and Warmists. I am not joking, when I say that I have been called a Denier, and verbally abused, for over 9 years. I also get verbally abused by Skeptics, who don’t understand what contour maps are saying. I am frequently accused of being an Alarmist or Warmist.
I don’t really expect to win. But I am still here fighting after 2 and a half years. If I can’t win with mathematics and logic, I will just keep going until people surrender, because they can’t stand me any longer.
Have a closer look at global warming contour maps. You might even enjoy it. I do.
It was a year ago today (23rd August) that the storm soon to become Hurricane Harvey re-ignited and so, after a reasonably quiet start to the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season (many storms but it initially broke the record for producing a string of weak and weedy ones), initiating from the end of August through to mid-October a string of strong storms and a level of hurricane activity the like of which had never been seen before.
So far, no signs of a repeat for the 2018 Atlantic season. While the Pacific, well that could be on a different planet for all the attention it gets in western media.
You equate being comfortable with being rich? What an incredibly illogical, stupid view to have. You have lost touch with reality.
nigeljsays
My finger is getting cramp form scrolling through all the utter crap from Killian and Carrie. The whole lot should be boreholed!
nigeljsays
Carrie @313
“Yes, plus how accurate are those feedbacks (especially AR4/AR5 feedback) to the degree / forcing numbers assigned to those feedsbacks in the near distant future; given the “flood” (?) of new up-to-date research by climate scientists since the AR4/AR5 scenarios were done.”
Obviously the climate models right now probably don’t include all the latest science. They will be updated. Are you so stupid you cant even grasp this? Come on you are not stupid, so stop acting like it :)
“nigel, stop selectively choosing what I say by ignoring most of it,”
That is not true. I have heard your concerns, and given you numerous leads on information on the feedback issue and the newspaper article on political interference is relevant. I cant help it if the information isn’t perfect, you don’t want to read anything, or cant understand it, and don’t trust what it says. It was material I was aware of is all.
“I have never once thought climate scientists are fools.’
You have repeatedly disparaged scientists in general on this website, including by using your numerous and obvious sock puppets. Like Killian you are constantly contradicting yourself.
“Finally nigel again shows how mentally blind and foolish he is: “They will include feedbacks as appropriate based on the evidence and the science.” and “The wikipedia article certainly says the feedbacks are included.” (in past modelling)”
“Yes. Though that is quite different to saying : they include ALL Feedbacks or saying ALL Feedbacks have been calculated at the appropriate degree they should be – given current state of climate science accumulated new knowledge of the last 5-6 years. Fools and the ignorant have no right to judge others as wanting Nigel. ”
I have addressed this above. Obviously projections and models have included what feedbacks scientists think should be included. I trust their judgement AND have read enough to think they include the right things. I have had similar suspicions to you about models – so I’m not saying you are wrong to be suspicious- but I think you are getting a bit paranoid about it.
Obviously models will be updated to include any new science if its compelling science. You say you don’t regard scientists as fools, so presumably you accept they would do this.
You have not provided any EVIDENCE that the projections and models have left things out that should have been included.
You want to accuse scientists of leaving important things out, or somehow being negligent, or whatever, then prove it or shut up.
nigeljsays
Nemesis, ok fair enough, I hear where you are coming from. You might be right about everything in the end, but I prefer to be a little more optimistic for my own sanity!
I don’t disparage leftists, just for the record. For me it always comes down to someones or some Parties specific ideas and arguments and whether they make sense. I have never been a hugely partisan person, loyal to one political party, or movement. I have never fitted into groups very well, and tend to go my own way.
Mr. Know It Allsays
321 – Sheldon
Your line graphs are easily understood.
For your contour maps, you need a page on how to read them, with arrows, pointing to various spots on a map and explaining what that spot means, how to calculate the data in the hidden dimension, etc.
They may be the best graphs ever created, but if few can understand them, that’s a problem.
nigeljsays
I find it fascinating how Killian and Carrie leap on Steffan et al, 2018 as if it somehow proves all their multidudinous and sometimes inane claims to be correct. It doesn’t even come close. I don’t think I have ever read so much cherrypicking and confirmation bias from two people who have enough brains to know better!
I have already referred to this paper myself, (its a good paper) and what it does is list possible tipping points some of which it believes occur from 1-3 degrees and some of which occur nearer 5 degrees. I instinctively think they are probably right, but clearly it doesn’t mean catastrophe is locked in. Sufficient mitigation can certainly vastly reduce the chance of those tipping points particularly those that are above 2 degrees.
Now obviously we “might” have already crossed one or two tipping points, or they may be hard to avoid, but without spending pages analysing each one too much, its reasonable to say that each taken alone would cause trouble and add them together and they cause even more trouble, so we still have good opportunity to reduce problems.
But looking at a couple in slightly more detail, the more immediate tipping points from 1 – 3 degrees relate to the great ice sheets and so sea level rise. This could cause massive sea level rise over multiple centuries rather than rapid sea level rise this century. So some of this may be locked in, although I prefer not to be too pessimistic about it.
Now if you look at the tipping points nearer 5 degrees, these include changes in the eastern antarctic ice sheet, permafrost issues and the monsoon (and others). Imho these are the killer tipping points that could lead to 1) rapid sea level rise and 2) sharply increased temperatures and 3) catastrophe for countries like India. We are still in a good position to mitigate these, because we are a long way from 5 degrees being locked in. Perhaps I state the obvious, but it seems necessary given some of the commentary from some people.
As to the mitigation strategies listed in the paper. The descriptions are general and virtually everything possible is mentioned from renewable energy to carbon sinks to solar geoengineering to reduced carbon footprints. For Killian to claim it vindicates his position is a huge stretch, given the paper is so general and all encompassing. It has nothing about dramatic reduction in the use of mineral resources on the scale Killian proposes, and its comments on socio economic systems are so general it could mean anything.
Killiansays
Re #311 nigelj said Killian @307, I have never referred to the holocaust, and it seems an odd thing to appear on a climate website. I trust your comment was a typo.
!!!!!
:-)
:-)
:-)
Game, set, match.
Killiansays
Re #287 and eventual deliberate move to zero use of mineral resources, and so the lifestyle of a primitive.
If I tell you you have ten days of food and 20 days before your next delivery, but that delivery is uncertain, does that mean it’s unsustainable, so don’t eat it? Or, does it mean it’s unsustainable, so use it wisely?
Please, do not let yourselves get distracted by petty, intentionally misleading comments or extremely poor analysis.
Nemesissays
@nigelji
Sorry, if my words sounded harsh, but I talk straight like I feel. Capitalism kills social democracy because capitalism enables individuals to accumulate insane amounts of money, we just can’t afford such amount of wealth for every individual on a global scale, but that’s exactly what too many people are running after:
Mountains of money, mountains of consumption, mountains of material dreams no planet can every feed.
We’d have to limit profit strictly, but too many people always find ways to strech that limit, so there were’nt any noticable success limiting profit so far. I’d prefer HORIZONTAL distribution of goods instead of vertical distribution of goods, some sort of a GLOBAL sharing economy, but I think the powers that be would fight a sharing economy with teeths and claws and furthermore I think it’s too late anyway, capitalism failed and it will fall teriffic quickly.
Man, I just have to see all the insects and birds GONE and I know we are done. Yeah, I know, that’s no kids stuff, but it’s true.
Sheldon walker @321, I give you credit for being non shouty. The trouble is you are not telling me in a couple of sentences what important new thing you believe you have discovered about the climate issue or data processing. So why would I bother to read the long, complex, and not intuitively obvious discourse on your website?
Carriesays
For the amateurs and Know It Alls (not the experts) :-)
2014 Ted Talk – Schmidt and his cohorts aren’t in the business of building social movements to promote action on climate change. That’s up to us. There’s clearly a need for skilled communicators to help us to focus our vague feelings of discomfort into meaningful action. But we all need to remember that we have agency here.
What goes into a climate model? Gavin Schmidt looks at how we use past and present data to model potential futures. https://www.ted.com/speakers/gavin_schmidt (old news/info)
Note the curves he shows are DATA, not model results. The warming he describes already happened (and is relative to a 1951-1980 baseline).
As for what caused the warming, this is a site by and for climate scientists, so I do not need to demonstrate to the folks here that the warming is primarily caused by manmade burning of fossil fuels!! Go look at IPCC reports if you are in doubt.
In the Hansen report, check out the Summer graph for Mediterranean and Middle East (Figure 4). The 3-sigma-plus summers that (just 50 years ago) used to happen every 500 years or so now happen about every 3 years! Now that’s climate change!
[end quote]
I may disagree with people like Dan about F&D but I am quite happy to agree with them when they make perfect sense and while presenting evidence based reality for the world to see. (Noodle headed KIAs being the obvious exception)
Carriesays
“Choose your experts – don’t let the ‘experts’ choose you.” aka a credible Emeritus Climate Scientist or an Emeritus Engineer?
Figure 2, from our paper, shows that global warming has greatly increased the frequency or chance of an extreme hot summer, e.g., two standard deviations or more warmer than average 1951-1980 climate. The bell curve is shifted by 1-1.5 standard deviations by 2005-2015 in the regions shown in Figure 2.
This large warming and movement of the bell curve, if it is representative of the coming decade, is an acceleration of the warming trend. Of course, a strong El Nino (Figure 3) contributed to 2015-2018 warmth.
However, we will argue that the present 12-month running mean (Fig. 3) has already reached the inter-El Nino minimum global temperature, at a value that is above the trend line for the average.
If the latter assertion is correct, we may have entered a period of accelerated global warming. Jeremy Grantham, in The Race of Our Lives Revisited, draws that conclusion from comparison of global temperatures at the peaks of the last two El Ninos.
An acceleration of warming is consistent with recent acceleration of climate forcings described in Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions.
“We review the scientific evidence behind three leading hypotheses on the influence of Arctic changes on mid-latitude summer weather: Weakened storm tracks, shifted jet streams, and amplified quasi-stationary waves. 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.”
“Given the societal risks and large uncertainties, we argue for coordinated research efforts to address the knowledge gaps described above. To efficiently address this overarching theme, tighter collaboration between sub-disciplines within climate sciences is desirable, including scientists studying Arctic processes, monsoons, storm track dynamics, (sub) seasonal forecasts, and extreme weather.”
Summary Quote
“Future impacts from extreme weather are likely to be most pronounced in summer, as most ecological activity and agricultural production takes place in this season. Though the uncertainties are large, changes in atmosphere dynamics have the potential to cause rapid transitions at a regional scale leading to surprises for society. In summer synergistic effects between thermodynamic and dynamic drivers of extreme weather could act in the same direction to cause very-extreme extremes. Recent summers have seen such anomalous weather and these events are not well understood. This presents risks for society and in particular for global food production, given that the major breadbasket regions are located in the mid-latitudes with many crop types vulnerable to heat extremes”
“The current literature provides robust evidence that Arctic Amplification influences mid-latitude summer circulation substantially by weakening the storm tracks. The uncertainties to do with other dynamical aspects and with how dynamical changes ultimately affect regional weather conditions are admittedly large. Nevertheless, we identified several possible feedback mechanisms for how storm track weakening can lead to persistent and therefore extreme weather in the mid-latitudes. Several studies suggest that Northern Hemisphere summer weather is indeed already becoming more persistent”
“In summary, this review shows that Arctic Amplification is likely to have substantial impacts on mid-latitude summer circulation. The societal impacts can be severe due to tail risks arising from radiatively forced mean summer warming combined with local and remote processes that favor more persistent summer weather. A coordinated research agenda focusing on summer circulation, its drivers and extremes is needed to resolve the key knowledge gaps.”
—
Are there any alternative views? Yes. MAR says Carrie is so fat she can’t be believed. Therefore she must be the cheap Troll because she also goes by other names of John, Thomas, and Alice in Wonderland.
Continuing on from my blather up-thread @226.
(A recap:- @160 is argument that the IPCC projections of 21st century climate were not as greatly impacted by unconsidered feedbacks as some* on this thread argue they do. [*That is the ‘some’ who assert such feedbacks massively impact the IPCC work which should be showing an inevitable off-to-hell-in-a-handcart future for mankind.] @226 descriptions of an exemplar feedback (‘forcing’ due to reduced NH snow & ice cover) were set out – Wadhams (2016) that (including black carbon) it adds 50% to the CO2 forcing, TheVerge (2018) quoting Francis that sea ice alone adds 25% to AGW. I asserted that this seemingly-alraming situation was not actually as it seems.)
To kick-off, let us clear up the gross errors presented by Wadhams & by TheVerge.
Although Rutger’s Prof Francis is cited in the TheVerge (2018), this appears an error. TheVerge actually references Pistone et al (2014) (which is the same evidential basis as that employed by Wadams 2016) but Francis is not one of the authors. And both Wadham (2016) and TheVerge (2018) misrepresent the paper Pistone et al (2014).
The paper’s analysis obtains a sea-ice-loss feedback equal to 25% of the increase of CO2 forcing 1979-2011 (a CO2 forcing NOAA put at 0.79Wm^-2), this 25% being given by Pistone et al as 0.21Wm^-2 while describing their attribution of this sea-ice-loss feedback to AGW alone as being ”the extreme assumption.”
Wadhams (2016) does not restrict this maximum-sea-ice-feedback equivalence to CO2 forcing of any time-period but instead equals the feedback to 25% of all CO2 forcing which today sits at 2Wm^-2. Thus a value derived by Pistone et al of less-than 0.21Wm^-2 is presented by Wadhams (2016) as being equal-to 0.5Wm^-2 (which is said to doubled when snowcover feedbacks and black-carbon-on-snow/ice forcings are added).
TheVerge (2018) apply the 25% to being equal-to ”about 25 percent of global warming“ AGW which (acording it IPCC AR5 AII) as of 2011 had a net forcing of 2.3Wm^-2 (thus 25%=0.51Wm^-2) and 2018 perhaps 2.6Wm^-2 (thus 25%=0.64Wm^-2) while today’s sea ice levels and presumably the feedbacks are not greatly different from 2011.
It is very evident that both Wadhams (2016) and TheVerge (2018) greatly exaggerate the findings of Pistone et al (2014); both more than doubling the value.
Yet in AGW terms, the sea-ice-feedback findings of Pistone et al are not insignificant. And they are part of a big long list of potentially-scary feedbacks which are not properly accounted within IPCC modelling. Indeed there is still the snowcover feedback and black carbon-on-snow/ice forcing mentioned by Wadhams (2016). And even on sea-ice, there are a whole lot of other considerations besides. So where does that leave us?
To be continued….
Killiansays
320 Nemesis said @nigelji, #278 Addendum to my last comment:
” If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!”
Well, anarchy and chaos, that’s exactly where the system is heading to.
As one of the few with any depth of understanding here, please do not play dumb.
Don’t ask a complete nobody about solutions for problems he did not create, as the system, the wealthy and powerful give a total shit about what I might think about any solutions anyway, they never asked me what I think nor what I want and they never will :)
Whoopdeefuckin’do. Sustainability is ultimately local, thus so is “saving the planet.”
Please ask those who created that mess (the fossil fuel industry resp the military-industrial complex, the beautiful, wealthy and powerful “elite”) for solutions^^
See, we are on a sinking ship and I was never the captain nor part of the officers crew, they never asked me what I think about the route of the ship nor about my opinions at all, they totally wrecked havoc, completely messed it up because of their greed and ignorance- and NOW you ask ME, a complete nobody for solutions on a f* irrevocably sinking ship ?! That’s one of the BEST jokes I ever heard. Wherever I look I see the most obvious fact:
The ship is sinking and NOBODY will save it anymore, it’s simply too late to save it, there is NO solution anymore. And there is ONE fact I do really like about that:
The captain, the officers crew will go down too, not just the innocent slaves.
And now call me (as someone who consumes as little as possible, a complete nobody^^) a f* communist, Marxist, socialist, leftist or “a part of the problem” or whatever you like to call me and sooner or later you will realize that calling me whatever you like is exactly like calling names on a tree or a mountain or the ocean, it won’t prevent the ship from sinking I swear.
Victorsays
309 Kevin McKinney
Oy! More endless reams of jargon to plow through.
But yes, I do appreciate your effort, Kevin, to clarify the muddled thinking we see in the IPCC reports and yes, at least some of the material you’ve pointed us to does seem to make some sense, though the lack of the necessary references is unforgivable. Let me take some time to explore this terrain and I’ll get back to you.
Carriesays
329 nigelj says:
“I find it fascinating how Killian and Carrie leap on Steffan et al, 2018 as if it somehow proves all their multidudinous and sometimes inane claims to be correct.”
That’s a funny statement to be making. Does nigelj even know what Killian or I are “claiming”? I think not. No, I know not. Neither does MAR. I think they should stick with only attacking the assertions by deniers who are more at their simplistic level. There’s too many logical fallacies especially ad hominems to address from both. A waste of space to be ignored.
Nemesissays
@Killian, #340
” Whoopdeefuckin’do. Sustainability is ultimately local, thus so is “saving the planet.”
Ah yeah, as said it already here and there, I don’t drive any car, I don’t fly, most of my furniture is second hand, I consume almost nothing ect ect. But it did not save the planet so far. But maybe the powers that be, the wealthy folks and shit will follow my way :’D :’D :’D
mikesays
Daily CO2
Aug 23, 2018: 406.48 ppm
Aug 23, 2017: 404.27 ppm
from co2.earth
for the folks tracking CO2: after several months of yoy numbers showing less 2.0 ppm increase, the yoy increase number has climbed back above 2.0 ppm. Very short time frame to work with in terms of stating that something has changed, but the yoy number has been above 2.0 day after day. I think we will see that 2.0 ppm plus range show up at MLO in the Aug 29 weekly reading. I don’t know what to make of it. Not enough data yet to do much more than raise an eyebrow.
If you are interested, you can probably go back through the day to day averages and see the change occur.
Too bad updating here is so slow, Mr. KIA. If you’d followed the pointer to Tamino’s test of Sheldon Walker’s graph innovation (by feeding it an artificial data set and showing that he discovers slowdowns in his charts that don’t exist in the source data) — you might praise him less
And you might understand why he’s so down on Tamino and others who test his new method of discovering trends against known reliable statistical methods.
And of course you might understand why he “publishes” at WTFUWT.
Or maybe not.
Nemesissays
@nigelj, #327
” Nemesis, ok fair enough, I hear where you are coming from. You might be right about everything in the end, but I prefer to be a little more optimistic for my own sanity!”
I respect your personal optimism, I just saw optimism failing all too often, so I gave it up quite a while ago.
” I don’t disparage leftists, just for the record. For me it always comes down to someones or some Parties specific ideas and arguments and whether they make sense. I have never been a hugely partisan person, loyal to one political party, or movement. I have never fitted into groups very well, and tend to go my own way.”
I don’t disparage leftists either, I feel more comfortable with leftist ideas than with the ideas of the right wing. But history showed that power is corrupted as soon as it rises, as we could see in communism as well as we can see in capitalism, so I don’t believe in any political power anymore. I go my own way too, just without any political party at all, I take care of my very own single individual karma and responsibility for my very own deeds (staying away from greed, ignorance, consumerism ect), that’s it.
James Wilson (Chuck)says
Help. I teach this stuff and need some guidance.
Soden et al., (Science,361,326. 27 July 2018)tell us that not all models make use of line-by-line radiation codes (no surprise), and that those that do not can be off in predicting CO2 forcing by a considerable margin (4.7 W/m2 for LBL and 3.2 for not-LBL models at 200 mb. Or at TOA discrepancies can be as large as 2.9 (LBL) vs 2.4. Since I work at the University of Denver and am aware of Murcray’s and Goldman’s work and HITRAN, I have often assumed and said that we know what CO2 forcing is. But lots of models apparently do not spend the flops to make use of that knowledge. I have the following questions:
1. Does IPCC’s error estimate for CO2 forcing include the variation in the models or just the uncertainty in the line-by-line calculations?
2. Eyeball estimates from the graph suggests that TOA forcing would increase if the LBL calculations were used instead of the average of the radiation parameterizations. Is this the case? Would it lead to an increase in the average model sensitivity to CO2 if all models used LBL radiation calculations?
3. Soden et al. suggest that the uncertainties in predictions of future climates could decrease by nearly 50% if everyone followed their (and Cess’s) advice. Is it reasonable to suggest that the result would be higher (than current) mean sensitivity and narrower uncertainties?
4. Uncertainties in aerosol and aerosol-cloud interactions are also large. The unknowns are not likely to go away any time soon. It is hard to believe that half of the range in model sensitivity is due to non-LBL calculations and the other half due to aerosol-cloud/aerosol interactions. What else is out there? And what is being ignored in this parsing of unknowns?
Any takers?
Chuck
… Orwell talks about this in chapter 12 of The Road to Wigan Pier, incidentally: the naturalness of hostility to the softening that results from modern machine civilization. That’s the feeling, he explains. But, of course, next comes the thought.
“So long as the machine is there, one is under an obligation to use it. No one draws water from the well when he can turn on the tap … Deliberately to revert to primitive methods, to use archaic tools, to put silly difficulties in your own way, would be a piece of dilettantism, of pretty-pretty arty and craftiness. It would be like solemnly sitting down to eat your dinner with stone implements. Revert to handwork in a machine age, and you are back in Ye Old Tea Shoppe or the Tudor villa with the sham beams tacked to the wall.”
“It’s the beginning of a planetary catastrophe,” he tells CNN. “I was too slow to become vocal about it.”
…”Somewhere between a quarter and a third of all marine species everywhere has some part of their life cycle in coral reefs,” he says. “So, you take out coral reefs and a third to a quarter of all species gets wiped out. Now that is ecological chaos, it is ecological collapse.”
But…
“What the scientists hope to do is to help nature along a bit if they can, and that is to do all we can to repopulate, help the corals, after the big carbon dioxide increase is over and it starts to come down,” he says.
12 mins interview What Do We Do When the Science Gets Scary: Climate Change and the End of Civilization?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pg3RnPBXRY
Michael Mann with Thom Hartmann a couple of years back when the Madhouse Effect had come out. I remember seeing it on RT back then. Discussing permafrost feedbacks and a recent study that had come out, and this is Michael Mann speaking about this and Modelling.
Hartmann: “… soil starts outgassing methane and you know you were a little more laid back it seems, that as scientists and and and I don’t mean that in any negative way I you know I honor your your methodical approach to all this stuff but it seems that science is starting to get scary can-can am I am I exaggerating here?”
Mann: No not at all and you know our critics accuse us sometimes the scientists of being alarmist because of the you know what we have to say
because of the problem that we’re describing and you could say that what we have to say is alarming and the irony here is if anything we have been overly reticent that includes myself at times we tend to be conservative in terms of our pronouncements because we want to be convinced by the evidence before we state something to be true.
Now on methane feedbacks there still is a legitimate debate within the climate research community as to how substantial those might be but this latest article that you described is a good example of one of these you know, unknowns, known unknowns if you will, and an example of how uncertainty has not been our friend because we are in fact learning that there may be some additional positive feedback processes and that sounds like a good thing but it’s not the positive.
Feedback is a vicious cycle it means the problem worsens itself and in this case by warming the planet and warming the soils we’re increasing the activity this bacterial activity in a way that actually causes the soils from being as you alluded to a net sink that’s pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and helping keep CO2 levels lower than they would otherwise be.
That appears to be turning into a source it’s actually adding to the CO2 build-up from the burning of fossil fuels there are other examples of these so-called carbon cycle feedbacks that typically have not been incorporated into climate models so only in more recent years of climate modelers started to incorporate these processes and and this is an example of why it’s been so difficult.
We’re still doing the basic research necessary to understand these mechanisms so that we can put them in a mechanistic models and here is an example of a study that may cause modelers to reconsider whether we are properly accounting for microbial activity in these models we use to examine the you know the effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations on our climate. So this is an example of an unwelcome surprise, another example of how things in some sense might be worse than we had thought, not better.
[end quote]
—
OK so that’s the nice friendly way Mann speaks to the public about quite complex moving climate issues. And since that interview many more studies have been published, regards permafrost / microbial activity and other ‘positive feedbacks’ since then, which offer up many more examples of ‘how things might be worse than we had thought, not better.’
Many people here, including myself a few times, have posted refs to these new studies of larger positive feedbacks arising, since Mann was chatting to Hartmann. But I still do not know if any of this later work post-AR4 & AR5 has been included in those “mechanistic models” as yet – or to what degree and in which Models. This year there are new studies and papers being published every day which continue to ask such questions. It’s hard for me to comprehend how difficult it must be today for the climate scientists, as a whole and individually, could possibly keep up and be able to integrate it all – let alone ensure the latest best practice is captured in the most important GCMs / Models.
Victor, #283-4:
Apparently we are supposed to understand a priori that the cited work really means the opposite of what it says it means, based solely on your (unexpressed) opinion that that is the case.
Hey, we’re good–but we’re not that good.
And we’re also apparently supposed to agree that your unsupported opinion is superior to that of scholars writing in their area of expertise.
We’re better than that.
As to the claim that the WG3 analysis is unfounded, I plan to come back when I have more time and find it for you, because I assure you, it is there.
N.B. All this follows from Victor’s #239:
19 Aug 2018 at 12:30 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-5/#comment-709599
Carrie @287,
Your original claim was that you were wondering if the climate models and IPCC projections included all the feedbacks.
I have shown you an article on political interference. There’s evidence this applies to the summary for policy makers, not the modelling.
Scientists are not the fools you obviously think they are. They will include feedbacks as appropriate based on the evidence and the science. If new issues emerge they will go into future modelling.
The wikipedia article certainly says the feedbacks are included. It has plenty of links and references, and this sort of article would be scrutinised by a voluntary team of scientists. I have read several other articles stating the same. When I read several articles in mainstream science magazines that say the feedbacks are included, why would a normal person doubt this?
If you are still suspicious, its hard to know what would satisfy you, so that is why I suggested this website do an article. You could also download some of the research papers on climate models and look at the equations. Again climate modelling on wikipedia has links to models you can download which is a start.
Re #294 alan2102 said Speaking of holism, herewith is a scholarly holistic view of climate science and mitigation…
Somebody tell this guy to credit me if he’s going to riff off my work, eh?
“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.”
Yeah… uh… where have you heard this before? Let me see…
“The Paris Agreement will not work because it is not holistic.
Oh, *really?!*
Because it does not take a holistic, precautionary risk management approach
A what now? Risk management approach? How novel! How never before seen or heard!
Seriously, I need to sue this guy. (Not really seriously, tongue-in-cheek-but-really-why-the-eff-do-people-listen-to-this-doofus-when others-have-said-the-same-for-years seriously.)
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.
Really, really hard to hear with all the echoing…
Well, but, he **says** things like holistic and sustainable…
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)
…but then he says things like “economics” and “price on carbon”, which indicate a tech response. Hmmm. Will have to read the thing. Fornow, someone please tell this guy to stop ripping off my work.
:-)
Re #288 Carrie said 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
What, like permaculture design for everyone?
climate
Well, the first takes care of the second, so…
and societies
and the third…
and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes
and the 4th, 5th and 6th…
technological innovations
and even this, but only for very specific, mostly unavoidable needs…
new governance arrangements
You mean like… Regenerative Governance, which is a tiered, egalitarian problem-solving process anchored in a Commons?
transformed social values.
Meh… sooner turn the tide. Principles – natural principles – are universal, values are not.
285 nigelj said And if you can’t convince people on this website
“Show me who on this website even attempts to learn how to design their own space?”
Well my point exactly
No, you are trying to say I can’t convince you dolts, so I can’t convince anyone. Buy a clue: I am not trying to convince you or anyone else. I speak to those that can and will hear. It is *their* job to reach out to the rest. That is not my aim, goal, or skill set. I analyze, others outreach.
if you cant convince anyone, especially people on this website…to learn
And you lot are willfully ignorant, not open to learning.
to adopt and are you going to convince the general public?
See above.
Perhaps you might have some better success if you were more consistent in your views
I hate liars. Deeply. Passionately.
Disgusting.
Your ignorance is always your weak-assed weapon against others. You are a stupid, stupid man. You can go back ten years on this site and see I have made the same points that entire time, yet you have the gall to makes such an absurd claim?
Liar.
Re #270 Al Bundy said 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.
OK, nigel. You equate them, then say you aren’t.
Disgusting.
Your analogy was bullshit, your response is worse.
Re #264 nigelj said Carrie @253, no, I’m a careful holistic thinker
No, you are not. Not careful, not holisitc, not a thinker. Thinking and being a thinker have entirely different connotations. Yes, you have a brain; no, you do not use it well.
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.
Wrong. You are parroting after many months of being bashed upside the head to get your eyes to even begin to open, and they are still largely closed.
although killian is too extreme in his views
Huh. Said the most ignorant poster on this board sans the outright deniers.
Interesting how Steffen, et al., echo what I’ve been saying for a decade.
Thats what holistic means. You clearly dont really know what holistic means :)
Oh, jesus… give him a dictionary, he can’t read it, apparently.
relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts
Yet parts is exactly what you argue for. Capitalism is anything but holistic, yet you champion its continuance, e.g.
Just. Stop.
“You’re hearts in the right place and you’re doing the best you can with what you got. ”
More personal BS
It’s an accurate and honest assessment. Truth hurts. You do not belong here.
didn’t you criticise people for being mocking? Practice what you preach, just for once.
She didn’t mock you.
And yes I like to be comfortable. Its not evil you know.
False.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/03/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich
And how does that fit with holistic thinking? You can be comfortable, help kill the planet, but you think holistically? Your efforts at intellectualism are clownish.
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.
And you are more qualified than they? How, exactly?
Only to you and Killian, because I ask questions that have you at a loss for answers
No, you damned fool. You ask questions that are ignorant, even stupid, and repetitiously so.
Victor, #239, et seq–
OK, I found the source of the claim that Victor dismisses out of hand, ie. that:
It comes from the Global Energy Assessment (2012), the SPM for which you may read here:
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/Flagship-Projects/Global-Energy-Assessment/GEA-Summary-web.pdf
(I will grant Victor that a) WGIII is not easy reading; and b) citation/bibliography in the SPM could be a heck of a lot easier to follow.)
Evidently the GEA did a lot of economic modeling to arrive at their conclusion, as cited, tracing 60 or so economic ‘pathways’ to achieve various policy goals–ie., testing the various possibilities–and found quite a few workable ones.
WRT the quoted bit, which has to do with the Sustainable Development goal of universal access to modern energy carriers and clean cooking, see Section 6, “Summaries”, and particularly p. 21, where the reason that meeting this goal would not be problematic for carbon mitigation is given:
It appears to me that the details would be found in Chapter 17, cited as:
Riahi, K., F. Dentener, D. Gielen, A. Grubler, J. Jewell, Z. Klimont, V. Krey, D. McCollum, S. Pachauri, S. Rao, B. van Ruijven, D. P. van Vuuren and C. Wilson, 2012: Chapter 17 – Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1203-1306.
Says here the entire report–another epic, at 1200 pages or so–is currently available for purchase from Cambridge U. Press:
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/Flagship-Projects/Global-Energy-Assessment/Home-GEA.en.html
You can also browse some of their data and analytic structure here:
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/Energy/Global-Energy-Assessment-Database.en.html
I hope Victor will take all this as an indication that, just maybe, the WG III authors actually thought about the statement they made for more than the 10 seconds it probably took Victor to decide they were just making shit up.
regarding Hartmann Mann video, it is very recent and relates to this new paper https://climatenewsnetwork.net/soil-microbes-speed-up-global-warming/ Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades by Ben Bond-Lamberty et al https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0358-x
Are readers convinced and satisfied that current GCMs and other Models being relied upon today since the AR5 adequately represent best practice up-to-date accurate forecasts and projections of the climate system out to 2050?
Killian @307, I have never referred to the holocaust, and it seems an odd thing to appear on a climate website. I trust your comment was a typo.
Killian @306
” You can go back ten years on this site and see I have made the same points that entire time, yet you have the gall to makes such an absurd claim?”
You make the same nonsensical, inconsistent points.
Your main point according to your various comments is you really want us all to become like peasants or primitives, because in your view its wrong and unsustainable to use mineral resources. You want them left in the ground, – permanently. You grudgingly allow us to use some limited technology for a few years, but your desired goal is for humanity to live like primitives.
Your ideas are like a religion, and are totally 100% crazy.
303 nigelj “I’m a blind man from NZ” says:
“Carrie @287, Your original claim was that you were wondering if the climate models and IPCC projections included all the feedbacks.”
Yes, plus how accurate are those feedbacks (especially AR4/AR5 feedback) to the degree / forcing numbers assigned to those feedsbacks in the near distant future; given the “flood” (?) of new up-to-date research by climate scientists since the AR4/AR5 scenarios were done.
nigel, stop selectively choosing what I say by ignoring most of it, then going off on irrelevancies “I have shown you an article on political interference. There’s evidence this applies to the summary for policy makers, not the modelling.”
Well doh nigel. The Sun rises in the east too. And now Nigel again makes stuff up on the run when cornered: “Scientists are not the fools you obviously think they are.”
I have never once thought climate scientists are fools. I have definitely never said anything of the kind either. Please don’t conflate me thinking people like you and MAR are fools means I think the same about others here or climate scientists. ioe as Killian might put it – Stop lying!
Finally nigel again shows how mentally blind and foolish he is: “They will include feedbacks as appropriate based on the evidence and the science.” and “The wikipedia article certainly says the feedbacks are included.” (in past modelling)
Yes. Though that is quite different to saying : they include ALL Feedbacks or saying ALL Feedbacks have been calculated at the appropriate degree they should be – given current state of climate science accumulated new knowledge of the last 5-6 years. Fools and the ignorant have no right to judge others as wanting Nigel. I am sorry it’s so hard for you “Know It Alls” to keep up. http://www.barbneal.com/wp-content/uploads/fogleg51.mp3 :-)
Read better, think better, before you speak next time ok?
296 MA Rodger proves his incomprehensible foolishness and rank incompetence as amateur climate scientist by claiming about recent Nth H weather events and temps : whatever its “massive unprecedented” nature, it is not entirely “bleeding obvious.”
Can’t work out the difference between global hemi avg temps from regional temps, precip, soil moisture loss, vegetation moisture loss, and wind speeds and direction. What a Know It All biased fool who openly cherry-picks climate science data so he appear like he’s always right.
295 alan2102, yes much more accurate and all encompassing than most prognostications about the Paris agreement that’s for sure.
How long before the febrile right wing climate denying politicians disruption in Australia where they are willing to bring down their own Party’s current Federal government (and Trump’s US of course) starts to infest and poison other nations as they start to hit the brick wall of confronting the reality of new 2030 emissions targets and ensure electricity reliability at the same time?
Things are cranking up and will continue to become even more problematic for Governments being caught between a rock a hard place while heatwaves and fires rage and crops fail more and more.
281 Mr. Know It All; my advice to read the scientific papers stands about permafrost/ice under water. Be it salty or fresh, deep or shallow. It’s that “science” thing you love and like to rely upon so much. :)
273 Ray Ladbury & Chuck: I suspect that Mr KIA and MAR are the same moron.
@nigelji, #278
” If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!”
I said it quite often: I am completely a- political. Please ask the politicians and/or the rich and powerful for a better system, politics is their job, not mine. And be sure:
They’ll give a complete shit about my view anyway as I’m just a complete nobody with no wealth and no power whatsoever. I take care of my personal Karma resp a very low ecological footprint. End of story.
Btw, I see NO insects and NO birds in my area anymore and it was exactly the same when I were in the netherlands some days ago. So all I do in preparation for the future is this:
Letting go, preparing for Death as I did my whole life (totally disillusioned, having no children, nothing to lose).
” Spitting blood clears up reality
and dream alike.”
– Sunao
Carrie-aka-Thomas @287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293. (1,804 words)
You reply to me @271 by first calling me a “scientific illiterate” and then; well it is difficult to grasp the rationale for the displeasure you express. Are you calling Curry & Spencer “decent climate scientists”? And suggesting that my comments here are “far more dangerous” than the Heartland Institute?
As usual, you make no reply to the substance of my comment.
It is true that your ‘interpretation’ of the climate science is at odds with mine (& the IPCC) although we all agree (if your words are to be trusted) that climate change mitigation needs stepping up a gear or two, or three. Yet you provide no scientific reason for your position. Why not? Is it because you are the “scientific illiterate”?
So what do you provide?
Your ‘skyrocketry’ now leads you to ignore the MLO measurements and latch on to the ESRL global CO2 record which currently shows higher rates than MLO. Myself, I would not adopt those global data to provide a meaningful rate on monthly timescales. They are smoothed too much for such use. Do consider the annual cycle in the high northern latitudes will impart a lot more noise into the record if there isn’t heavy smoothing.
And your “little gift” is to highlight the 2012 IPCC SREX report. You brag up-thread that you “have read every page of every IPCC report “ so you will have read the SPM for SREX where it sets out the increases in extreme temperatures as being“about 2°C to 5°C by the late 21st century, depending on the region and emissions scenario (based on the B1, A1B, and A2 scenarios).” And you would be familiar with these scenarios, the least severe being B1 which has CO2 emissions rates rising until mid-century, giving by century’s-end CO2 emissions four-times greater than the ‘below 2°C’ IPCC AR5 CO2 budget.
So how does this differ from the findings of AR5? Where is the message you set out that mankind is already off to hell in a handcart?
Of course this missing message is the now-contradictory message you attempt to set out in your overly-lengthy commenting @288-290, your “Inconvenient News Reports”. The substance of this is mighty thin as it all leads back to Steffen et al (2018) ‘Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene’, a paper that is not based on any in-depth analysis but more a conceptual analysis of what AGW could engender. Even so, it struggles to state the “bleeding obvious” that the Earth System has already “passed one ‘fork in the road’ of potential pathways, a bifurcation taking the Earth System out of the next glaciation cycle “ And if AGW remains below 2°C, where is its doom-mongering, or anything in any way controversial below 3°C.
So how does this differ from the findings of AR5? Where is the message you set out that mankind is already off to hell in a handcart? (485 words)
@nigelji, #278
Addendum to my last comment:
” If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!”
Well, anarchy and chaos, that’s exactly where the system is heading to. And again:
Don’t ask a complete nobody about solutions for problems he did not create, as the system, the wealthy and powerful give a total shit about what I might think about any solutions anyway, they never asked me what I think nor what I want and they never will :) Please ask those who created that mess (the fossil fuel industry resp the military-industrial complex, the beautiful, wealthy and powerful “elite”) for solutions^^
See, we are on a sinking ship and I was never the captain nor part of the officers crew, they never asked me what I think about the route of the ship nor about my opinions at all, they totally wrecked havoc, completely messed it up because of their greed and ignorance- and NOW you ask ME, a complete nobody for solutions on a f* irrevocably sinking ship ?! That’s one of the BEST jokes I ever heard. Wherever I look I see the most obvious fact:
The ship is sinking and NOBODY will save it anymore, it’s simply too late to save it, there is NO solution anymore. And there is ONE fact I do really like about that:
The captain, the officers crew will go down too, not just the innocent slaves.
And now call me (as someone who consumes as little as possible, a complete nobody^^) a f* communist, Marxist, socialist, leftist or “a part of the problem” or whatever you like to call me and sooner or later you will realize that calling me whatever you like is exactly like calling names on a tree or a mountain or the ocean, it won’t prevent the ship from sinking I swear.
Somebody at another website, said this to me,
“I think that the problem is that most of us can’t understand what you are on about.”
Here is my reply.
=================
I understand what you mean, when you say, “I think that the problem is that most of us can’t understand what you are on about.”.
There is something about global warming contour maps, that many people find confusing. The format of the graph is unusual. It is displaying 4 dimensions, using 2 axes (the X-axis and the Y-axis) for 2 dimensions, colour for 1 dimension (warming rate), and the other dimension is hidden (you can calculate it from the X-axis and Y-axis).
So there are a number of things about contour maps which are counter-intuitive.
I have spent about 2 and a half years developing global warming contour maps. And even I have to be careful when I interpret them.
All temperature series are probably not perfect. That is why you should look at all of them.
Global warming contour maps give you the most comprehensive view of the temperature data, that it is possible to get. Not only does it show you how the warming rate varies over time, but it also shows you how the warming rate varies for different trend lengths.
That lets you see if warming rates are consistent, or changing over time and/or trend length.
Global warming contour maps show the chaotic nature of climate. Every contour map shows the short-term warming and cooling events along the bottom. The El Nino’s and La Nina’s. You can actually SEE the 1998 El Nino, in colour (actually 2 colours, red for the warming phase, and blue for the cooling phase).
I have worked hard to try and make global warming contour maps more understandable. I invented Robot-Train contour maps to try and help people understand contour maps. I don’t know what else I can do, to make it easier. People have to be prepared to make a little effort, to understand them. I am always happy to answer questions, and help people in any way that I can.
I get a lot of hostility from Alarmists and Warmists. I am not joking, when I say that I have been called a Denier, and verbally abused, for over 9 years. I also get verbally abused by Skeptics, who don’t understand what contour maps are saying. I am frequently accused of being an Alarmist or Warmist.
I don’t really expect to win. But I am still here fighting after 2 and a half years. If I can’t win with mathematics and logic, I will just keep going until people surrender, because they can’t stand me any longer.
Have a closer look at global warming contour maps. You might even enjoy it. I do.
https://agree-to-disagree.com
It was a year ago today (23rd August) that the storm soon to become Hurricane Harvey re-ignited and so, after a reasonably quiet start to the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season (many storms but it initially broke the record for producing a string of weak and weedy ones), initiating from the end of August through to mid-October a string of strong storms and a level of hurricane activity the like of which had never been seen before.
So far, no signs of a repeat for the 2018 Atlantic season. While the Pacific, well that could be on a different planet for all the attention it gets in western media.
> Sheldon Walker
I don’t think he said anything offensive in responding to you:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/response-to-sheldon-walker/
Killian @308
“And yes I like to be comfortable. Its not evil you know.”
“False.”
“https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/03/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich’
You equate being comfortable with being rich? What an incredibly illogical, stupid view to have. You have lost touch with reality.
My finger is getting cramp form scrolling through all the utter crap from Killian and Carrie. The whole lot should be boreholed!
Carrie @313
“Yes, plus how accurate are those feedbacks (especially AR4/AR5 feedback) to the degree / forcing numbers assigned to those feedsbacks in the near distant future; given the “flood” (?) of new up-to-date research by climate scientists since the AR4/AR5 scenarios were done.”
Obviously the climate models right now probably don’t include all the latest science. They will be updated. Are you so stupid you cant even grasp this? Come on you are not stupid, so stop acting like it :)
“nigel, stop selectively choosing what I say by ignoring most of it,”
That is not true. I have heard your concerns, and given you numerous leads on information on the feedback issue and the newspaper article on political interference is relevant. I cant help it if the information isn’t perfect, you don’t want to read anything, or cant understand it, and don’t trust what it says. It was material I was aware of is all.
“I have never once thought climate scientists are fools.’
You have repeatedly disparaged scientists in general on this website, including by using your numerous and obvious sock puppets. Like Killian you are constantly contradicting yourself.
“Finally nigel again shows how mentally blind and foolish he is: “They will include feedbacks as appropriate based on the evidence and the science.” and “The wikipedia article certainly says the feedbacks are included.” (in past modelling)”
“Yes. Though that is quite different to saying : they include ALL Feedbacks or saying ALL Feedbacks have been calculated at the appropriate degree they should be – given current state of climate science accumulated new knowledge of the last 5-6 years. Fools and the ignorant have no right to judge others as wanting Nigel. ”
I have addressed this above. Obviously projections and models have included what feedbacks scientists think should be included. I trust their judgement AND have read enough to think they include the right things. I have had similar suspicions to you about models – so I’m not saying you are wrong to be suspicious- but I think you are getting a bit paranoid about it.
Obviously models will be updated to include any new science if its compelling science. You say you don’t regard scientists as fools, so presumably you accept they would do this.
You have not provided any EVIDENCE that the projections and models have left things out that should have been included.
You want to accuse scientists of leaving important things out, or somehow being negligent, or whatever, then prove it or shut up.
Nemesis, ok fair enough, I hear where you are coming from. You might be right about everything in the end, but I prefer to be a little more optimistic for my own sanity!
I don’t disparage leftists, just for the record. For me it always comes down to someones or some Parties specific ideas and arguments and whether they make sense. I have never been a hugely partisan person, loyal to one political party, or movement. I have never fitted into groups very well, and tend to go my own way.
321 – Sheldon
Your line graphs are easily understood.
For your contour maps, you need a page on how to read them, with arrows, pointing to various spots on a map and explaining what that spot means, how to calculate the data in the hidden dimension, etc.
They may be the best graphs ever created, but if few can understand them, that’s a problem.
I find it fascinating how Killian and Carrie leap on Steffan et al, 2018 as if it somehow proves all their multidudinous and sometimes inane claims to be correct. It doesn’t even come close. I don’t think I have ever read so much cherrypicking and confirmation bias from two people who have enough brains to know better!
I have already referred to this paper myself, (its a good paper) and what it does is list possible tipping points some of which it believes occur from 1-3 degrees and some of which occur nearer 5 degrees. I instinctively think they are probably right, but clearly it doesn’t mean catastrophe is locked in. Sufficient mitigation can certainly vastly reduce the chance of those tipping points particularly those that are above 2 degrees.
Now obviously we “might” have already crossed one or two tipping points, or they may be hard to avoid, but without spending pages analysing each one too much, its reasonable to say that each taken alone would cause trouble and add them together and they cause even more trouble, so we still have good opportunity to reduce problems.
But looking at a couple in slightly more detail, the more immediate tipping points from 1 – 3 degrees relate to the great ice sheets and so sea level rise. This could cause massive sea level rise over multiple centuries rather than rapid sea level rise this century. So some of this may be locked in, although I prefer not to be too pessimistic about it.
Now if you look at the tipping points nearer 5 degrees, these include changes in the eastern antarctic ice sheet, permafrost issues and the monsoon (and others). Imho these are the killer tipping points that could lead to 1) rapid sea level rise and 2) sharply increased temperatures and 3) catastrophe for countries like India. We are still in a good position to mitigate these, because we are a long way from 5 degrees being locked in. Perhaps I state the obvious, but it seems necessary given some of the commentary from some people.
As to the mitigation strategies listed in the paper. The descriptions are general and virtually everything possible is mentioned from renewable energy to carbon sinks to solar geoengineering to reduced carbon footprints. For Killian to claim it vindicates his position is a huge stretch, given the paper is so general and all encompassing. It has nothing about dramatic reduction in the use of mineral resources on the scale Killian proposes, and its comments on socio economic systems are so general it could mean anything.
Re #311 nigelj said Killian @307, I have never referred to the holocaust, and it seems an odd thing to appear on a climate website. I trust your comment was a typo.
!!!!!
:-)
:-)
:-)
Game, set, match.
Re #287 and eventual deliberate move to zero use of mineral resources, and so the lifestyle of a primitive.
If I tell you you have ten days of food and 20 days before your next delivery, but that delivery is uncertain, does that mean it’s unsustainable, so don’t eat it? Or, does it mean it’s unsustainable, so use it wisely?
Please, do not let yourselves get distracted by petty, intentionally misleading comments or extremely poor analysis.
@nigelji
Sorry, if my words sounded harsh, but I talk straight like I feel. Capitalism kills social democracy because capitalism enables individuals to accumulate insane amounts of money, we just can’t afford such amount of wealth for every individual on a global scale, but that’s exactly what too many people are running after:
Mountains of money, mountains of consumption, mountains of material dreams no planet can every feed.
We’d have to limit profit strictly, but too many people always find ways to strech that limit, so there were’nt any noticable success limiting profit so far. I’d prefer HORIZONTAL distribution of goods instead of vertical distribution of goods, some sort of a GLOBAL sharing economy, but I think the powers that be would fight a sharing economy with teeths and claws and furthermore I think it’s too late anyway, capitalism failed and it will fall teriffic quickly.
Man, I just have to see all the insects and birds GONE and I know we are done. Yeah, I know, that’s no kids stuff, but it’s true.
and he was equally gentle, seems to me, here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/how-sheldon-walker-views-global-warming/
Sheldon walker @321, I give you credit for being non shouty. The trouble is you are not telling me in a couple of sentences what important new thing you believe you have discovered about the climate issue or data processing. So why would I bother to read the long, complex, and not intuitively obvious discourse on your website?
For the amateurs and Know It Alls (not the experts) :-)
Carbon Brief explains in detail how scientists use computers to understand our changing climate.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
Overview CMIP6 Experimental Design and Organization
https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip/wgcm-cmip6
2014 Ted Talk – Schmidt and his cohorts aren’t in the business of building social movements to promote action on climate change. That’s up to us. There’s clearly a need for skilled communicators to help us to focus our vague feelings of discomfort into meaningful action. But we all need to remember that we have agency here.
“For better or worse, we are masters of our climate destiny,” says Schmidt. Now’s the time to start behaving like it.
https://ideas.ted.com/we-are-masters-of-our-climate-destiny-so-lets-act-like-it/
What goes into a climate model? Gavin Schmidt looks at how we use past and present data to model potential futures.
https://www.ted.com/speakers/gavin_schmidt (old news/info)
For the noodle headed KIA :)
82 Dan Miller says:
22 Aug 2018 at 11:17 PM
#75 Zebra and others…
Here is the link to Hansen’s latest temperature report:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/July2018.pdf
Note the curves he shows are DATA, not model results. The warming he describes already happened (and is relative to a 1951-1980 baseline).
As for what caused the warming, this is a site by and for climate scientists, so I do not need to demonstrate to the folks here that the warming is primarily caused by manmade burning of fossil fuels!! Go look at IPCC reports if you are in doubt.
In the Hansen report, check out the Summer graph for Mediterranean and Middle East (Figure 4). The 3-sigma-plus summers that (just 50 years ago) used to happen every 500 years or so now happen about every 3 years! Now that’s climate change!
[end quote]
I may disagree with people like Dan about F&D but I am quite happy to agree with them when they make perfect sense and while presenting evidence based reality for the world to see. (Noodle headed KIAs being the obvious exception)
“Choose your experts – don’t let the ‘experts’ choose you.” aka a credible Emeritus Climate Scientist or an Emeritus Engineer?
quote from http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/July2018.pdf
Figure 2, from our paper, shows that global warming has greatly increased the frequency or chance of an extreme hot summer, e.g., two standard deviations or more warmer than average 1951-1980 climate. The bell curve is shifted by 1-1.5 standard deviations by 2005-2015 in the regions shown in Figure 2.
This large warming and movement of the bell curve, if it is representative of the coming decade, is an acceleration of the warming trend. Of course, a strong El Nino (Figure 3) contributed to 2015-2018 warmth.
However, we will argue that the present 12-month running mean (Fig. 3) has already reached the inter-El Nino minimum global temperature, at a value that is above the trend line for the average.
If the latter assertion is correct, we may have entered a period of accelerated global warming. Jeremy Grantham, in The Race of Our Lives Revisited, draws that conclusion from comparison of global temperatures at the peaks of the last two El Ninos.
An acceleration of warming is consistent with recent acceleration of climate forcings described in Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions.
It’s raining papers in 2018
The influence of Arctic Amplification on mid-latitude summer circulation – D. Coumou et al (full paper)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05256-8
Quote
“We review the scientific evidence behind three leading hypotheses on the influence of Arctic changes on mid-latitude summer weather: Weakened storm tracks, shifted jet streams, and amplified quasi-stationary waves. 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.”
“Given the societal risks and large uncertainties, we argue for coordinated research efforts to address the knowledge gaps described above. To efficiently address this overarching theme, tighter collaboration between sub-disciplines within climate sciences is desirable, including scientists studying Arctic processes, monsoons, storm track dynamics, (sub) seasonal forecasts, and extreme weather.”
Summary Quote
“Future impacts from extreme weather are likely to be most pronounced in summer, as most ecological activity and agricultural production takes place in this season. Though the uncertainties are large, changes in atmosphere dynamics have the potential to cause rapid transitions at a regional scale leading to surprises for society. In summer synergistic effects between thermodynamic and dynamic drivers of extreme weather could act in the same direction to cause very-extreme extremes. Recent summers have seen such anomalous weather and these events are not well understood. This presents risks for society and in particular for global food production, given that the major breadbasket regions are located in the mid-latitudes with many crop types vulnerable to heat extremes”
“The current literature provides robust evidence that Arctic Amplification influences mid-latitude summer circulation substantially by weakening the storm tracks. The uncertainties to do with other dynamical aspects and with how dynamical changes ultimately affect regional weather conditions are admittedly large. Nevertheless, we identified several possible feedback mechanisms for how storm track weakening can lead to persistent and therefore extreme weather in the mid-latitudes. Several studies suggest that Northern Hemisphere summer weather is indeed already becoming more persistent”
“In summary, this review shows that Arctic Amplification is likely to have substantial impacts on mid-latitude summer circulation. The societal impacts can be severe due to tail risks arising from radiatively forced mean summer warming combined with local and remote processes that favor more persistent summer weather. A coordinated research agenda focusing on summer circulation, its drivers and extremes is needed to resolve the key knowledge gaps.”
—
Are there any alternative views? Yes. MAR says Carrie is so fat she can’t be believed. Therefore she must be the cheap Troll because she also goes by other names of John, Thomas, and Alice in Wonderland.
Continuing on from my blather up-thread @226.
(A recap:- @160 is argument that the IPCC projections of 21st century climate were not as greatly impacted by unconsidered feedbacks as some* on this thread argue they do. [*That is the ‘some’ who assert such feedbacks massively impact the IPCC work which should be showing an inevitable off-to-hell-in-a-handcart future for mankind.] @226 descriptions of an exemplar feedback (‘forcing’ due to reduced NH snow & ice cover) were set out – Wadhams (2016) that (including black carbon) it adds 50% to the CO2 forcing, TheVerge (2018) quoting Francis that sea ice alone adds 25% to AGW. I asserted that this seemingly-alraming situation was not actually as it seems.)
To kick-off, let us clear up the gross errors presented by Wadhams & by TheVerge.
Although Rutger’s Prof Francis is cited in the TheVerge (2018), this appears an error. TheVerge actually references Pistone et al (2014) (which is the same evidential basis as that employed by Wadams 2016) but Francis is not one of the authors. And both Wadham (2016) and TheVerge (2018) misrepresent the paper Pistone et al (2014).
The paper’s analysis obtains a sea-ice-loss feedback equal to 25% of the increase of CO2 forcing 1979-2011 (a CO2 forcing NOAA put at 0.79Wm^-2), this 25% being given by Pistone et al as 0.21Wm^-2 while describing their attribution of this sea-ice-loss feedback to AGW alone as being ”the extreme assumption.”
Wadhams (2016) does not restrict this maximum-sea-ice-feedback equivalence to CO2 forcing of any time-period but instead equals the feedback to 25% of all CO2 forcing which today sits at 2Wm^-2. Thus a value derived by Pistone et al of less-than 0.21Wm^-2 is presented by Wadhams (2016) as being equal-to 0.5Wm^-2 (which is said to doubled when snowcover feedbacks and black-carbon-on-snow/ice forcings are added).
TheVerge (2018) apply the 25% to being equal-to ”about 25 percent of global warming“ AGW which (acording it IPCC AR5 AII) as of 2011 had a net forcing of 2.3Wm^-2 (thus 25%=0.51Wm^-2) and 2018 perhaps 2.6Wm^-2 (thus 25%=0.64Wm^-2) while today’s sea ice levels and presumably the feedbacks are not greatly different from 2011.
It is very evident that both Wadhams (2016) and TheVerge (2018) greatly exaggerate the findings of Pistone et al (2014); both more than doubling the value.
Yet in AGW terms, the sea-ice-feedback findings of Pistone et al are not insignificant. And they are part of a big long list of potentially-scary feedbacks which are not properly accounted within IPCC modelling. Indeed there is still the snowcover feedback and black carbon-on-snow/ice forcing mentioned by Wadhams (2016). And even on sea-ice, there are a whole lot of other considerations besides. So where does that leave us?
To be continued….
320 Nemesis said @nigelji, #278 Addendum to my last comment:
” If you have a better system apart from anarchy and chaos, lets have it!”
Well, anarchy and chaos, that’s exactly where the system is heading to.
As one of the few with any depth of understanding here, please do not play dumb.
Don’t ask a complete nobody about solutions for problems he did not create, as the system, the wealthy and powerful give a total shit about what I might think about any solutions anyway, they never asked me what I think nor what I want and they never will :)
Whoopdeefuckin’do. Sustainability is ultimately local, thus so is “saving the planet.”
Please ask those who created that mess (the fossil fuel industry resp the military-industrial complex, the beautiful, wealthy and powerful “elite”) for solutions^^
See, we are on a sinking ship and I was never the captain nor part of the officers crew, they never asked me what I think about the route of the ship nor about my opinions at all, they totally wrecked havoc, completely messed it up because of their greed and ignorance- and NOW you ask ME, a complete nobody for solutions on a f* irrevocably sinking ship ?! That’s one of the BEST jokes I ever heard. Wherever I look I see the most obvious fact:
The ship is sinking and NOBODY will save it anymore, it’s simply too late to save it, there is NO solution anymore. And there is ONE fact I do really like about that:
The captain, the officers crew will go down too, not just the innocent slaves.
And now call me (as someone who consumes as little as possible, a complete nobody^^) a f* communist, Marxist, socialist, leftist or “a part of the problem” or whatever you like to call me and sooner or later you will realize that calling me whatever you like is exactly like calling names on a tree or a mountain or the ocean, it won’t prevent the ship from sinking I swear.
309 Kevin McKinney
Oy! More endless reams of jargon to plow through.
But yes, I do appreciate your effort, Kevin, to clarify the muddled thinking we see in the IPCC reports and yes, at least some of the material you’ve pointed us to does seem to make some sense, though the lack of the necessary references is unforgivable. Let me take some time to explore this terrain and I’ll get back to you.
329 nigelj says:
“I find it fascinating how Killian and Carrie leap on Steffan et al, 2018 as if it somehow proves all their multidudinous and sometimes inane claims to be correct.”
That’s a funny statement to be making. Does nigelj even know what Killian or I are “claiming”? I think not. No, I know not. Neither does MAR. I think they should stick with only attacking the assertions by deniers who are more at their simplistic level. There’s too many logical fallacies especially ad hominems to address from both. A waste of space to be ignored.
@Killian, #340
” Whoopdeefuckin’do. Sustainability is ultimately local, thus so is “saving the planet.”
Ah yeah, as said it already here and there, I don’t drive any car, I don’t fly, most of my furniture is second hand, I consume almost nothing ect ect. But it did not save the planet so far. But maybe the powers that be, the wealthy folks and shit will follow my way :’D :’D :’D
Daily CO2
Aug 23, 2018: 406.48 ppm
Aug 23, 2017: 404.27 ppm
from co2.earth
for the folks tracking CO2: after several months of yoy numbers showing less 2.0 ppm increase, the yoy increase number has climbed back above 2.0 ppm. Very short time frame to work with in terms of stating that something has changed, but the yoy number has been above 2.0 day after day. I think we will see that 2.0 ppm plus range show up at MLO in the Aug 29 weekly reading. I don’t know what to make of it. Not enough data yet to do much more than raise an eyebrow.
If you are interested, you can probably go back through the day to day averages and see the change occur.
Funny old planet!
Mike
Chuckle.
Too bad updating here is so slow, Mr. KIA. If you’d followed the pointer to Tamino’s test of Sheldon Walker’s graph innovation (by feeding it an artificial data set and showing that he discovers slowdowns in his charts that don’t exist in the source data) — you might praise him less
And you might understand why he’s so down on Tamino and others who test his new method of discovering trends against known reliable statistical methods.
And of course you might understand why he “publishes” at WTFUWT.
Or maybe not.
@nigelj, #327
” Nemesis, ok fair enough, I hear where you are coming from. You might be right about everything in the end, but I prefer to be a little more optimistic for my own sanity!”
I respect your personal optimism, I just saw optimism failing all too often, so I gave it up quite a while ago.
” I don’t disparage leftists, just for the record. For me it always comes down to someones or some Parties specific ideas and arguments and whether they make sense. I have never been a hugely partisan person, loyal to one political party, or movement. I have never fitted into groups very well, and tend to go my own way.”
I don’t disparage leftists either, I feel more comfortable with leftist ideas than with the ideas of the right wing. But history showed that power is corrupted as soon as it rises, as we could see in communism as well as we can see in capitalism, so I don’t believe in any political power anymore. I go my own way too, just without any political party at all, I take care of my very own single individual karma and responsibility for my very own deeds (staying away from greed, ignorance, consumerism ect), that’s it.
Help. I teach this stuff and need some guidance.
Soden et al., (Science,361,326. 27 July 2018)tell us that not all models make use of line-by-line radiation codes (no surprise), and that those that do not can be off in predicting CO2 forcing by a considerable margin (4.7 W/m2 for LBL and 3.2 for not-LBL models at 200 mb. Or at TOA discrepancies can be as large as 2.9 (LBL) vs 2.4. Since I work at the University of Denver and am aware of Murcray’s and Goldman’s work and HITRAN, I have often assumed and said that we know what CO2 forcing is. But lots of models apparently do not spend the flops to make use of that knowledge. I have the following questions:
1. Does IPCC’s error estimate for CO2 forcing include the variation in the models or just the uncertainty in the line-by-line calculations?
2. Eyeball estimates from the graph suggests that TOA forcing would increase if the LBL calculations were used instead of the average of the radiation parameterizations. Is this the case? Would it lead to an increase in the average model sensitivity to CO2 if all models used LBL radiation calculations?
3. Soden et al. suggest that the uncertainties in predictions of future climates could decrease by nearly 50% if everyone followed their (and Cess’s) advice. Is it reasonable to suggest that the result would be higher (than current) mean sensitivity and narrower uncertainties?
4. Uncertainties in aerosol and aerosol-cloud interactions are also large. The unknowns are not likely to go away any time soon. It is hard to believe that half of the range in model sensitivity is due to non-LBL calculations and the other half due to aerosol-cloud/aerosol interactions. What else is out there? And what is being ignored in this parsing of unknowns?
Any takers?
Chuck
Drat. Maybe it really is the Sun at fault, ours has way too much carbon ….
The Interstellar Carbon Budget and the Role of Carbon in Dust and Large Molecules
Theodore P. Snow(1), Adolf N. Witt
Science 01 Dec 1995:
Vol. 270, Issue 5241, pp. 1455-1460
DOI: 10.1126/science.270.5241.1455
http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/11/dead_right.html
=============
Charlie Veron – Master of Corals
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/08/world/great-barrier-reef/
But…