This month’s open thread on climate science topics. Dominant theme this month will probably be the release of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC. The final report will be released later this week, and when it does we’ll give a brief summary. The hastag to follow on Twitter is #SR15.
While the September Minimum in Arctic Sea Ice Extent is seen as the headline measure of the health of the Arctic sea ice, it does rather pull its punch.
The twelve lowest Arctic SIE minimums (tabulated by NSIDC) have (as noted at CarbonBrief) “all occurred in the last twelve years.” That might sound like a powerful message but like Mr ‘Preview’ in the famous Morcambe & Wise sketch, many will not be that convinced. They may be “all the right years but they are not necessarily in the right order.” And as such, like Morecombe’s piano playing, the annual minimum fails to be convincing. Further, the minimum is not a good measure of the health of Arctic sea ice.
This year came in =6th in the annual minimum league. But in many ways the ice is in worse shape than ever. The annual average is perhaps a better measure (although even that can be mis-represented by denialist trolls as Tamino has pointed out). In the Jan-to-Sept average, 2018 sits as =2nd alongside 2017 and behind 2016. A look at the trace of the year-on-year JAXA daily SIE anomalies for the last 17 years (graphed here – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment) shows 2018 was the least-freezy winter on record, the second most-melty in the first half of the melt season (after the crazy 2016) but during July the melt season took a bit of a holiday, yet still claimed that =6th spot minimum.
And now as we enter the beginning of the freeze-up, are we seeing 2018 starting to challenge those crazy anomalies of 2016 October through December?
In my mind, =6th simply fails to properly describe the state of Arctic SIE in 2018.
#1 MA Rodger,
“the headline measure”
The problem is that the data shows a problematic trend, but people breathlessly reporting every short-term variation, in particular the one summer minimum day, is not helpful.
I’ve pointed this out before, and it is just simple physics. There is this very big drop in extent Every! Freakin’! Year!, but the extent recovers. So, even if(when) we see one day with extent counted as “zero”, that big heat sucker called the universe is still going to operate on the ocean during the winter, so that magic number… isn’t all that magic.
Look at the Charctic graph:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Now, erase individual curves and just look at the three decadal averages supplied. Winter extent goes down about 6%, if my mental arithmetic still works. So, lots of “ice free” water doesn’t result in a state change, and another couple of million sq km gone is not in itself going to do the trick.
Will the ice disappear eventually with BAU, and will the humans around at the time be screwed? Sure. Maybe the Russians will be happy, maybe not, since chaotic systems like to do surprises. But it isn’t going to happen tomorrow, and it is not going to be caused by the conditions over a period of a day or a couple of weeks.
Again, it isn’t helpful to over-hype short-term data. And yes, I know that extent isn’t volume, yadda yadda… but as you say, extent is the headline.
Good news and bad news. Climate denial has ceased and the Age of Climate Fatalism has finally arrived, it’s now official US policy, suitable for use in at least some types of planning and decision making.
Trump Administration environmental impact statement says that 7 degrees F by 2001 is inevitable:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.da04560b368b
Robert Rhode (minute 3, etc.) and Michael Mann (minute 7, etc.), on the interfaces between weather and climate change–in particulars. This is new.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csxlq9
I think the particular kind of work that they are doing here is very important–to draw connections, not only globally but regionally and locally–and in regard to particular events, often as not.
Part II (on attribution) of the same series.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csxlqb
MAR, #1–
Yes. One of the strange things about this year’s minimum is that, because it came quite late, its ranking by date was much lower than its ranking as minimum. Right now–by which I really mean ‘as of September 30th’–it appears to me that we are at the 3rd-lowest extent for this date in the JAXA extent record. (Of course, other algorithms may produce slightly differing results.)
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent/&time=2018-09-30%2000:00:00
(I believe the graph will update.)
Yeah, the state of the ice is not good.
More bad news. CH4 picks up at least15% more heat than previously understood, thus making Arctic permafrost and clathrates that much more of a current and future problem. To what extent might this be contributing to “faster than expected” outcomes, one wonders.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/jupiter-and-titan-findings-underpin-troubling-news-about-earth-methane-emissions
@4 I misspelled Robert Rohde’s name. “Rohde” is correct. Apologies. The interview with Rohde starts at minute 2. Mann is heard 7:51-13:27 and 18:50-21:08.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csxlq9
Richard Lawson @208(UVSeptember),
Your request for explanation appears to have gone unanswered so far.
The comments bouncing around that twitter thread contain (apparently) two bogus contrarian arguments.
♣ The first is that Casey (2009) disproves the mechanisms of AGW by arguing the toss about centuries-old physics (and I am inclined not to delve very deeply into this rather lengthy paper because it duscusses such ancient subject-matter). Suffice to say that Casey (2009) is evident nonsense. He states in the Abstract:-
This can be demonstrated as nonsense. Fourier’s Law describes the conduction of heat. If a body is heat-saturated in an oven (rather than being warmed by a radiation source which is the situation on Earth but a complication not required to disprove the assertion) and then placed un-heated in a vaccuum, the position of any insulating material will be very significant for the temperature of that body. Put a skim of high insulation over the surface and the body remains hotter than if the same insulation material is placed at the centre of the body.
♥ The second bogus argument concerns the Global Mean Energy Balance diagram Fig 1 from Wilde et al (2013). The bogus contrarian twitter assertion isn’t evident but @208 it is put that because there is only 240 Wm^-2 entering the system, there cannot be 340 Wm^-2 appearing from the atmosphere to warm the surface. The twitering contrarian says:-
The diagram shows no energy ‘created’ because it sets out not not energy but energy flux.
In simple terms, there is 161 packets of energy/second from the sun absorbed by the planet surface, this only 32% of the energy emitted by surface which totals 503 packets of energy/second. The imbalance is because only 32% of the energy emitted from the surface makes it to space, the other 68% being ‘held in’ by the GHGs and returned to the surface. The energy takes roughly three goes to exit the planet. Being in balance, there is no increase in temperature at the surface, temperature being defined by the 503 packets of energy/second which sets average surface temperature at 288 Kelvin.
So what happens when more GHG is added?
MLO weekly result
Week beginning on September 23, 2018: 405.54 ppm +2.74 YoY
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 402.80 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 383.02 ppm
Last updated: September 30, 2018
Burn baby burn!
#1 MA Rodger, then I hope to see your detailed PIOMASS analysis?
It tells a much more significant (and accurate definable) and surprisingly “skyrockety” and “catastrophic” story the ASIE is able to.
Maybe then you might hazard a peak at the Global Sea Ice situation and the Global CO2 situation and then turn your mind to Coral Reefs loss acidity etc., and the extent of global drought and extremely dry soils conditions.
Then maybe if spare time is available go check out the crisis is global fisheries collapse. My tip is start at China data / info and see how beyond frightening it is now. Despite the global alarm bells that have been ringing for 2 decades. And yest it is definitely not simply a matter of over-fishing by AGW/CC also plays a role (logically and evidence wise)
I recommend sourcing a local Chinese speaking volunteer to find that data.
#2, zebra–
Look at the volume measurement, then; at minimum, we’re down on the order of 75% from historical levels. That’s really drastic.
https://tinyurl.com/HamiltonLongTermPiomasGraph
And extent–or, really, area–does matter; reduced area means increased albedo feedback, as we all know, and (less often-discussed, but still active after the coming of the Arctic night) increases to both water-vapor feedback and energy flux from sea to atmosphere.
(And, FWIW, I didn’t see any indication that MAR thinks the short-term variations (he generally calls them ‘wiggles’) ’cause’ any of this, so I was puzzled by your comments around that.)
UAH have posted September’s TLT anomaly at a rather chilly +0.14ºC, the lowest monthly anomaly for some time (since July 2015). Previously this year the UAH monthly anomalies have sat within the range +0.32C to +0.18ºC.
It is the 14th warmest September in UAH TLT. Last year we saw the highest September anomaly on record (+0.54ºC) which followed 2016 which had also claimed the top spot (+0.45ºC).
September 2018 is the 152nd warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month UAH TLT record.
In the UAH TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 7th. With a lot more variation in TLT records, it is more difficult predicting the final annual 2018 ranking with three months to go. The previous years of the UAH record suggest 2018 could be anywhere within the range of 5th to 10th warmest year on the UAH record..
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
1998 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.48 ºC … … … 2nd
2016 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.51 ºC … … … 1st
2010 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.33 ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.34ºC … … … +0.38 ºC … … … 3rd
2002 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.22 ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27 ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.22ºC
2005 .. +0.20ºC … … … +0.20 ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.20ºC … … … +0.16 ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.18 ºC … … … 9th
2003 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.19 ºC … … … 8th
No surprise, 2m of sealevel rise and 4°C baked in:
” New Evidence That Climate Change Poses a Much Greater Threat to Humanity Than Recently Understood Because the IPCC has been Systematically Underestimating Climate Change Risks: An Ethical Analysis”
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/09/21/new-evidence-that-climate-change-poses-a-much-greater-threat-to-humanity-than-recently-understood-because-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-has-been-systematically-underestimating-climate/amp/
I repeat:
The System is on a suicide course and nothing will stop it ;)
Daily CO2
October 1, 2018: 405.29 ppm
October 1, 2017: 402.93 ppm
Weekly CO2
Last Week
September 23 – 29, 2018 405.54 ppm
September 23 – 29, 2017 402.80 ppm
yoy numbers are creeping back up as an annual damping of the comparison numbers walk their way out of the picture. I expect October month on month change to be around 2.4 ppm increase.
Cheers,
Mike
Schizophrenia at best:
” Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100″
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/
(not just) The Trump scenario:
4°C baked in = (not just) The fall of Empire baked in :)
Correction of my last comment:
The link I posted was an error, here’s the corrected link:
” Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100″
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.105bb4ca91ec
Awhile ago, Prof. Pielke (senior) proposed that an effective thermal diffusivity could be estimated from measurements of ocean heat content at different depths. I do not imagine it would differ greatly from other estimates, but if someone is aware of attempts along those lines, i would like a pointer.
sidd
This is what Global Warming looks like.
Warning – may cause nightmares.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like
Climate Models
Climate modeling is at the core of the work by IPCC, and in developing future emission and warming scenarios a 2007 report by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies Center for New American Security recognized the that: “Recent observations indicate the projections from climate models have been too conservative,” and “the effects of climate change are unfolding faster and more dramatically than expected,” and, “multiple lines of evidence support the position that the 2007 IPCC reports’ projections of impacts are systematically biased low.” (WLB, p.18) For instance, the paper concludes:
The models used to project future warming either omit or do not account for uncertainty in potentially important positive feedbacks that could amplify warming (e.g., release of greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost, reduced ocean and terrestrial CO2 removal from the atmosphere, and there is some evidence that such feedbacks may already be occurring in response to the present warming trend. Hence, climate models may underestimate the degree of warming from a given amount of greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere by human activities alone. Additionally, recent observations of climate system responses to warming (e.g. changes in global ice cover, sea level rise, tropical storm activity) suggest that IPCC models underestimate the responsiveness of some aspects of the climate system to a given amount of warming. (WLB, p.18)
Climate models simply omit emissions from warming permafrost, but we know that is the wrong answer because this tacitly assumes that these emissions are zero and we know that’s not right. (WLB, p.18)
The WLB report characterizes IPCC reports as presenting “detailed, quantified (numerical) modeling results-such as feedbacks that the models account for in a descriptive non-quantified form. Sea-levels, polar ice sheets, and some carbon-cycle are three examples. Because policymakers and the media are often drawn to the headline numbers, this approach results in less attention being given to the most devastating, high-end, non-linear and difficult to quantify outcomes.” (WLB, p. 19).
The WLB report concludes about this tendency: “The emphasis on consensus in IPCC reports has put the spotlight on expected outcomes which then become anchored via numerical estimates in the minds of policymakers.” (WLB, p. 19)
The WLB report also notes that one of the problems with IPCC is the strong desire to rely on physical models. (WLB, p. 20)
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/09/21/new-evidence-that-climate-change-poses-a-much-greater-threat-to-humanity-than-recently-understood-because-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-has-been-systematically-underestimating-climate/amp/
If you are interested in the topic of how we get more people to listen and take action on climate issues, clinical psychologist and climate emergency campaigner Jane Morton’s 45-minute presentation provides some food for thought.
We are at a point where the truth is frightening. Some say we must protect people from ‘doom and gloom’ and not mention the climate emergency. This talk by Jane Morton explains that the messages that move people to action combine emotionally compelling description of a serious, personally relevant threat with emotionally compelling description of solutions that will fully address the threat, and indicate a clear path to take action.
http://climateemergencydeclaration.org/janemorton/
My work is done. Time is now to enjoy my retirement
3: Tom Adams, What should happen now is at every press briefing with trump, they ought to raise that issue time and time. Seeing it’s now official gov policy he surely can’t backtrack and pretend he wasn’t aware of the contents of that assessment?
The ramifications of that environmental statement are truely massive and should cause many senators to realign their stance with the POTUS.
#11 “New Evidence That Climate Change Poses a Much Greater Threat to Humanity Than Recently Understood Because the IPCC has been Systematically Underestimating Climate Change Risks: An Ethical Analysis”
V: Gee, looks like we all better get together and do something DRASTIC to curb CO2 emissions, and do it NOW!!!!
Re #11 Carrie said Climate Models…
The WLB report concludes about this tendency: “The emphasis on consensus in IPCC reports has put the spotlight on expected outcomes which then become anchored via numerical estimates in the minds of policymakers.” (WLB, p. 19)
I’ve been calling for risk-based analysis and policy for YEARS.
Re: Jane Morton: See above.
———-
Hank: Yes, pretty much always ahead of the curve. Rather than trying to pretend that is a bad thing, why don’t you try acknowledging, then learn how to do it?
———–
Re #312 Lawrence Coleman said The ramifications of that environmental statement are truely massive and should cause many senators to realign their stance with the POTUS.
The huge error so many – virtually all – are making is to focus on Trump. Fail. The things with Trump is exactly as I have said since before the 2016 election: His presidency is the wake-up call the Left/Progressives/Greens, etc., need to become activists in the actual sense of the word. I knew Trump would freak people out, and that’s his value. What he is doing is almost irrelevant overall. Yes, some extreme crap like the detentions of children, etc., but policy-wise there is a very simple fix: Flip Congress, flip the presidency.
The next non-Trump president is going to have a stack of presidential decrees, etc., a yard high his first day in office to be signed reversing everything Trump has done. Congress will be flooded with bills to do the same.
Trump is an opportunity. Clinton? She would have presided over 8 years of stagnation. This way we end up getting an activist public and to some real change much more quickly.
Keep your eye on the prize. In the meantime, until I see people in the streets, it’s all just whining.
Lawrence Coleman: Seeing it’s now official gov policy he surely can’t backtrack and pretend he wasn’t aware of the contents of that assessment?
AB: Uh, have you ever received any news from any source about Donald Drumpf’s mind? It is quite likely that he doesn’t know, and if by some chance a fact has entered his noggin (and not immediately exited – and you can’t blame the fact; I mean if I was a fact and found myself in that cesspool I’d skedaddle pronto) he will surely both pretend that he isn’t aware, as well as fire someone for having the audacity to get their “facts” from someplace other Drumpf himself. Seriously, Drumpf is a super-mega-genius and so they should have known that anything anybody says that does not toe Drumpf’s line is a Chinese hoax and a plot to destroy the Local Billionaires’ Club (aka the USA’s owners). I believe that the firing will resolve the dissonance and Drumpf will merrily go on ensuring the planet gets baked almost as badly as his mind.
sidd @9
While its an obvious first 1D toy model for someone just starting out, we know
that much of the vertical heat transfer is via ocean currents, which have strong vertical motion in only a small fraction of the ocean. So any diffusive model is unlikely to come close to simulating the realworld.
Hi Sheldon,
Thanks for writing that. It shows me that you either did not read the IPCC reports or didn’t understand them, as it has multiple sections on regional warming and impacts, and thus does not assume that 2 degrees is equally bad no matter the average temperature – heck it even mentions that some places will benefit from this warming! It also shows you do not understand that 2 degrees can definitely be bad in cold places, as less cold means melting ice and hence rising seas. Note that 2 degrees (global) is about 30% of the temperature difference between glacial and interglacial – that is, between most of the US and Europe covered in ice, and ice only in the most northern parts.
Think some more, Sheldon, before making large claims.
And RSS have posted September’s TLT anomaly but nowhere as chilly as the UAH TLT value. The September RSS TLT anomaly is +0.488ºC, just a little down on August’s +0.505ºC. The 2018-to-date anomalies sit in the range +0.57ºC to +0.41ºC, so unlike in UAH, September is not the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far.
The slight reduction in anomaly since August was due to a significant drop in the Northern mid-latitudes anomaly, all other zones showing an increase (except the South Pole).
It is the 9th warmest RSS TLT September on record (14th in UAH TLT). Last year we saw the highest September anomaly on record (+0.86ºC) which followed 2016 which had also claimed the top spot (+0.78ºC).
September 2018 is the 75th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month RSS TLT record (152nd in UAH).
In the RSS TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 6th which almost certainly will be its final annual 2018 ranking. (UAH TLT could still end up anywhere within the range of 5th to 10th.).
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.77ºC … … … 1st
2010 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 3rd
1998 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 2nd
2015 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.57ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.51ºC
2005 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 7th
2014 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.45ºC … … … 6th
2007 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 10th
2002 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 11th
2013 .. +0.40ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 9th
Tamino doesn’t want me to participate in the discussion about slowdowns.
He won’t publish my comment on his website.
Luckily I have my own website, where I can say whatever I like.
Here is the comment which Tamino didn’t want people to see.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-dishonest
Carrie
Thanks for #11
It seems rather obvious that the IPCC is off the pace. (There’s a clue to the reason in the ‘I’ for ‘Intergovernmental’). However, it’s good to see the issue rising up the public agenda (whatever that means).
If the urgency is so great, we must find new ways of living. Among other things this means phasing out cars as quickly as possible. We need to begin the transformation of our cities. One of my suggestions is to tack carfree, low carbon settlements onto existing towns and cities and spread the carlessness. See Garden Cities and ‘Green Evolutionary Settlements’.
A miniscule bit of good news is that the new National Planning Policy Framework in the UK has incorporated UN resolution 42/187. As this says we must not damage the world for future generations, this should mean that no new housing schemes should be planned for people with cars.
@28 Sheldon: While saying “whatever I like” You still ignore the multiple testing problem. It’s almost like you scanned through 100 coin flips, found a run of 5 heads in a row (p<=.03), and declare that there is a tails hiatus based on the significantly low probability of observing 5 heads in a row. In 5 throws from scratch, it is mildly interesting. In 5 throws in 100, it is so totally expectable as to be nearly a significant event if it is NOT seen. A string 100 flips with no streaks of 4 heads would, indeed, be significantly unexpected.
So, say whatever you like. Just don't pretend it has any statistical meaning when you miss something so basic.
The following is a transcription of Dr. Richard Alley’s Paragraph # 2, Appendix # 2, to his year 2000 Bio-Sci popularization of his early researches on Coring & Analyzing Greenland’s Ice [The Two Mile Time Machine (Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and our Future ) ]:
“When I started teaching large classes at Penn State, I was fired by the opportunity to reach hundreds of students at a time, and I taught only in metric. But in talking to students & grading papers, I came to realize that many of my students didn’t know what I was talking about. Certainly, the students had been exposed to the metric system, but the metric units were not familiar enough for some of these students to make conversions and keep up with conversions at the same time. I also found that non-US students often could make the conversions readily—these students had learned the units when they learned English.
So I was faced with choosing what was more important—information on ground water pollution and global climate change and biodiversity and geological hazards, or information on converting kilometers to miles. It took me a few years, but I switched back to customary units. . . . “
Amen, Dr. Alley.
Sheldon Walker,
Did I miss your comment where you explained the trend with 1998 replaced with an on-trend value? You came in here all full-of-spunk and throwing down the gauntlet. I agreed and gave you the terms. You then ranted about how I would probably dis your yet-unmade choice of 1998 value. I gave you a recursive method that removes any and all choice for the 1998 value. It is what it is.
Radio silence…. or did I miss your actually doing what you promised, no, blusteringly challenged?
Do what you said you’d do. (Oh, and after reading one of your links um, I believe it was “solving global warming is easy, here’s how” or something, I surely won’t read any more. “Rename all cities!” is a punchline to a joke, and I prefer to read jokes that are actually funny.)
Sidd @17:
Before putting too much trust into Roger Pielke Sr’s prognostications on ocean thermal measurements, you might want to look back at his participation in this old RC thread on “Global warming and ocean heat content”.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content
If you are in conversation with Dr. Pielke, you may want to ask him if he has figured out the difference between “flux” and “flux divergence”. He seemed to struggle with that seven years ago.
Geoff@28:
“One of my suggestions is to tack carfree, low carbon settlements onto existing towns and cities and spread the carlessness”
Interesting timing, BART (the commuter train service for San Franscisco) has been given a new task, the creation of new housing on land it owns near its stations. It is of course controversial, everyone agrees there is a housing crisis, but everyone wants the new housing to go up on some one else’s district.
There have been a few comments on Artic ice on this thread. The problem that has been generated by scientists and the media over many years is that it was predicted to have totaaly disappeared at the minimum by now. I would suggest,to restore public confidence, that this failure is explained.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/03/climate-scientists-are-struggling-find-right-words-very-bad-news/
Washington Post
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 6:08 PM
Climate scientists are struggling to find the right words for very bad news
A much-awaited report from the U.N.’s top climate science panel will show an enormous gap between where we are and where we need to be to prevent dangerous levels of warming….
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis
21 Victor, hi Vic. This is for you and KIA.
Video 4:14 “Well, there’s quite a few obstacles but the biggest one we face is that there’s some very powerful very wealthy people who are paid to spread lies and they buy newspapers and they buy TV channels and they pay paper people like Andrew Bolt to spread things that they know are lies.
And we would have got ahead a lot faster if we weren’t up against really powerful people telling lies. So I won’t go into that much more but the thing about them is that they do know they’re telling lies. This is not their Right Wing Values showing through. This is their Greed and Self-Interest showing through. And those are not Right Wing Values. That is a failure to access your values Victor.”
Yes they are talking to you Victor!
Clinical Psychologist Dr Jane Morton in 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBGHTRx6xAU and here
http://climateemergencydeclaration.org/janemorton/
I suggest you be silent Victor and watch the entire talk. Then remain silent for as long as humanly possible for you.
Almost gone. I’m pleasantly amused when I hear non-climate scientists explaining not only the basics of climate chnage science but actually communicating it with profound simplicity and clarity.
More than that, they often can teach people how to better understand all the interconnections of the issue, how think better themselves, and how to understand what it all means and/or what they themselves can think and do about it going forward to make the most of the climate science they are aware of themselves. Politically and otherwise. Like where they would be best living instead of where they presently are.
Here is one such example by Psychologist Jane Morton: Don’t mention the emergency? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBGHTRx6xAU
small example:
06:10 “There’s also things like what’s called The Mercer Effect This was a guy John Mercer, a really eminent Antarctic scientist climatologist who way back said “Look I think Antarctic is going to melt.” Well he turned out to be right.
“He was ahead of his time slot. Most people (ie working Scientists) thought that Antarctica would not melt. He was pilloried he lost his job, he was persecuted. So this is the Mercer effect. How you have to be very very brave as a scientist to make a strong prediction.
“When Dr James Hanson does it these days, he writes a paper, James Hanson he puts about 20 authors, co-authors on it. He gets the most eminent authors as he can, that he can find, because he knows if he wants to put something strong into the scientific literature he is going to be licked half to death. Unless he’s got 20 eminent scientists backing him up. That’s quite hard.
“There’s another paper that, a little article he wrote, just about how he was made to take the word dangerous out of the heading of his scientific paper. They would not publish it until he took the word dangerous out, right.
“It’s because, in science, there’s great value to a rationality. And that’s for good reason, you know. You don’t want scientists being driven by their emotions. You want scientists, you know, examining the facts for us, but it means that scientists are in the habit of communicating things with a lot of uncertainty and without much emotion.
“That’s what they’re trained to do. That’s sort of good, but it’s sort of bad when it comes to climate understanding for everyone else.”
(some edits for clarity)
Some people refer to this issue as those “Conservative Climate Scientists”
More info and advice http://climateemergencydeclaration.org/janemorton/
In memory of Ed Greish RIP
“Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.” Robert A. Heinlein
Now ain’t that truth you also know Killian! (smile)
Champion Geoff … it’s the only direction to be traveling. There is no option. Or excuses.
@18 & 27 Sheldon Walker: I disagree with you on the name of your site. I’m calling it: agree-to-call-other-people-names.
22: Killian, ok! Official Republican administrative policy then.
I was hoping this report will spur people to become passionate activists as what it is effectively saying; is that the earth is screwed anyway so why bother to tighten vehicle emission standards. I am the father of a teenager and looking at the exponential global temp graph from 1880-2040 I am worried, very bloody worried for his and to a slightly lessor extent his parent’s future. People must again muster all their dormant but inherent passion and anger to fight this government.
We cannot afford to wait another 1-2 years and hope and pray that the incumbents get booted out. This cynical about-face by the Republicans must be exposed at every opportunity.
One last anecdote. I was looking at some and thinking in broad terms based on the present situation regarding global warming and the kinds of responses being tried and well how thing are in the world at the moment alongside future projections for energy use growth and so on. All things being equal and not assuming the re is major financial crisis or expansive global war, both possibilities that are rapidly increasing in likelihood …
In 2008 Global CO2 was close to 385 ppm
Holocene stable level was around 300 ppm maybe 330 give or take a few things.
Today 2018 a decade later Global CO2 levels are at 408 ppm and steadily rising with some pressure on increasing growth rates.
While I won’t around to decide how close I may be I cannot see Global CO2 being below 460 ppm in 2038 2 decades from now.
My upper expectation is more likely for CO2 @ +475 ppm
Not a good number.
Peace
Killian, #22:
“…until I see people in the streets, it’s all just whining.”
Pretty much nailed it there.
To date, we haven’t been anything like inconvenient enough.
Mind you, there’s a very thick layer of official indifference to pierce, and media has not been very helpful. I was there for the 2017 March for Climate, which was amazing at street level; participation was into 6 digits. But media coverage? You’d have barely known it happened unless you searched out Democracy Now or Pro Publica.
Hence the need to find ways to inconvenience the oligarchy.
Apropos of the oligarchy’s willful attempts to wreck the planetary climate:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/04/trump-nominates-fossil-fuel-hawk-to-ferc/
Into the breach, dear friends…
#34 Titus,
See guys (MA Rodger and Kevin M), you open a nice door for them to walk through. If you are unwilling to deal with the physics, how are you smarter/better than the Denialists?
I guess it’s drama and rhetoric, all the way down.
Titus: If you can give an actual reference for what you say, which gives an actual quantitative prediction, I will be happy to answer your question.
We see some criticism that the IPCC are too conservative in their findings, with a good review posted by Carrie and others, and some of it certainly looks like valid criticism. But I was reminded the other day of the IPCC emissions scenarios with a possible worst case of 12 degrees c by 2300 if we go on burning fossil fuels. This doesn’t look conservative to me!
The trouble is such things get lost in the huge volumes of detail, and focus on the year 2100. But the year 2300 is not that far away in terms of human history.
SW 27: Here is the comment which Tamino didn’t want people to see.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-dishonest
BPL: Gee, I wonder why?
T 34: Artic ice … was predicted to have totaaly disappeared at the minimum by now.
BPL: Who predicted that, where and when?
“Hence the need to find ways to inconvenience the oligarchy.”
Bingo!
We have a winner.
In SF we put thousands in the street, without any media coverage.
That is no longer the goal.
Something that puts the oligarchy at risk is what they will pay attention to—-
Kevin: Hence the need to find ways to inconvenience the oligarchy.
Um well have you tried burning their houses down including the Congress? Taking an 1000 strong army of protesters with battery powered drills and at the same moment along a 1000 miles stretch of oil/gas pipeline all drilling holes into it?
Locate Rupert Murdoch’s home and drop condy’s crystals into the pool from a drone. It’ll turn it purple and they have to drain, clean out the filter system and refill it. Good time to do is in the middle of water restrictions in a drought LOL
Now go find the Koch brothers homes …. and find all the other oligarchs and war mongers homes you can find and get an army of activists two for each home as team and on the same night all across the country … hey shit man all around the world … and drop a bag of condy’s crystals into their swimming pools. Do it to Mar Lago LOL
Do it to every single person in the MEDIA who LIE and also target the Congress too … not only the politicians the staffers as well.
You know what the real problem is Kevin?
NOT TOO MANY REALLY CARE …. and those that do care they totally lack imagination and creativity and are simply too lazy to ACT!!!!
They waste their their lives – literally years – on forums like this talking … but talk is cheap.
That’s why the oligarchs get to do what they do and get to keep doing it.
Have you ever considered dropping a small packet of acid from a drone onto the roof of some assholes luxury car as they drive to their meeting with the President? But drones are not as cheap as talk. :)
And yeah yeah the powers are so insane now that act would be deemed as a terrorists act they’d try to get you locked up for 50 years for it.
Well so? No faith in the Jury system to let you off? Oh OK .. so you know your Justice system to totally corrupted & BROKEN TOO and yet STILL no one does anything about it?
Then BURN the Supreme Court down and go to jail for the rest of your life. At least you did something to wake people up.
( all hypothetically speaking of course! )
To the Ramparts Kevin :)
What is a 25 year prison sentence to a person who is 70, 75 or 80 years old already? Or even a Life sentence or multiple sentences that add up to 300 years?
Versus the lives of your children’s children’s children?
Questions questions, always with the questions!
BYE