This month’s open thread for climate science topics. A new two-part community assessment of tropical storms and climate change is online at BAMS: Knutson et al. (2019a ; 2019b). And for those interested in Arctic Sea Ice, there is always the NSIDC.
References
- T. Knutson, S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, K. Emanuel, C. Ho, J. Kossin, M. Mohapatra, M. Satoh, M. Sugi, K. Walsh, and L. Wu, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I: Detection and Attribution", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 100, pp. 1987-2007, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0189.1
- T. Knutson, S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, K. Emanuel, C. Ho, J. Kossin, M. Mohapatra, M. Satoh, M. Sugi, K. Walsh, and L. Wu, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part II: Projected Response to Anthropogenic Warming", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 101, pp. E303-E322, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0194.1
Nigel and Ray,
I have found that the best evidence that someone would do a stellar job is their insistence that they are too flawed to do the work. The Dunning Kruger effect has a corollary: those who are capable often don’t see it because they’re suffering from the impostor syndrome.
Alan2102: So, what gives? Comments welcome.
AB: zebra answered this with his question: “Does adding CO2 increase the energy in the system”
Ya add energy and ya increase churn. “Life” ain’t just the half of the equation that includes humans. Fun and green and trees and flowers are by definition balanced by putrescence. The caveat is carbon sequestration vs carbon addition. Currently we’re way way way pushing the system towards carbon addition so stuff like us will dominate until we turn off the tap and see what we’ve wrought.
41 – David Benson
“Increased global temperature results in a nonlinear increase in precipitation. The relative humidity cannot increase.”
Thank you. True, RH may not go up but absolute humidity does – warmer air has more H2O per pound than cooler air at the same RH – visible graphically on a psychrometric chart. Thus, my guess: that both are true – the air holds more water and more comes out as rain.
47 – Kevin
“Counting back just 8 years, to 2005, we’ve had 11.
…..but it does illustrate pretty clearly the trend toward stronger hurricanes in the Atlantic.”
Kevin, not sure where you are getting 11 Cat 5s in 8 years. The past 8 years would be 2011 to 2019 – there were 5. From 2005, going forward 8 years to 2013, there were 6, four of them in 2005 alone. From 2008- 2015 there were zero (0) cat 5s. From 1924 to 1938 there were 8. Number of cat 5s appears to be decreasing. Would this be expected due to lower temp gradient from equator to N pole due to warming Arctic?
Here’s the cat 5 list – are you using a different one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes
53 – Zebra
“If we begin with the premise that there has been an increase in energy, then we can certainly attribute Dorian’s characteristics to that increase. As I pointed out on a couple of the attribution threads, the probability of Dorian (or some other event) occurring as it did absent that energy difference is essentially zero.”
Why do you assume there is more energy in Dorian? Dorian’s clone also occurred in 1935 before any “assumed” increase in energy. If scientists had enough data on the 1935 storm, perhaps the energy could be calculated. Seriously doubt such data exists. Let’s not “assume” science – let’s do the number crunching before we make conclusions or energy policy.
55 – Ray L.
“Wrong as usual. We’re up to Gabrielle.”
Thanks Ray, I was referring to the storms as of Sept 5, and remember Katrina in 2005 is 4 more than Gabrielle in 2019. Let your experts know that K comes AFTER G. ;)
62 – nigelj
“Anyone should question cc science, because that is basic healthy scepticism,…”
Thank you – good comment.
67 – Kevin
“Reminder: the actual argument is that Cat 5s are now much more likely than they used to be–which is pretty irrefutable on the data.”
Kevin, please see comment above.
71 – Nick O.
Your approach sounds good to me.
93 – Victor
Is the book available on Amazon or a website with a pdf link?
95 – nigelj
I think the moderators do a pretty good job here. They allow HUGE leeway for people to bicker at each other like little kids – they are pretty generous.
96 – nigelj
“Victor @93 complains bitterly about the huge “psychological stress” he contends would be caused by climate change mitigation, yet he doesn’t give any examples……….. the heavy lifting has to be done by governments and corporates, like renewable electricity generation, and the costs of that can be absorbed by the economy and are not huge, and such technical issues don’t impact on ordinary people.”
Costs to the economy are paid for by the people one way or another. We have a complex society based on FFs – replacing it will not be a moderate change – it will be our WWII per AOC. On stress, do you think children being told EVERY DAY in school that the world will end in 11 years causes stress?
Nigel,
At the top level systems design has little to do with noticing or considering factoids and specific situations. A good system should handle ANYTHING, preferably with little or no modification. Yeah, you might need to flick a switch or whatever, but the system itself should be robust enough so that as long as the function involved continues the system will easily evolve along with the function. The key is adding “levers”. If the user has enough control levers the programmer’s function after launch is reduced to tweaking and educating. My favorite story comes from Lucent Technologies North Andover plant, where they made communications gear like switching systems. A user called me up and asked if I could do “X”. I said, “Sure. Give me 15 minutes and I’ll have it in test”. About five minutes later I wandered over to my “boss”‘s (I was a consultant) cube to let him know that I was headed to the sys admins’ cube. He was on the phone, denying my user’s request because it would take four programmers three months to do the job.
I worked with Rich SeaPak for a year. They used external vendors as “salespersons” and they constantly changed the rules (had promotions). This created a problem. The vendors were paid based on the really squirrelly rules that applied to that specific sale and specific date. Maybe one vendor got a cut from another vendor’s sales, for example.
This drove programmers nuts. They had to rewrite their systems pretty much monthly. This drove vendors nuts. They knew that their commission checks were incorrect (and “incorrect” is mostly remembered when one is getting screwed). The whole system was on the cusp of collapse, with vendors, tired of using calculators every month to challenge their cut, about to say “Ef it!” and quitting the relationship.
There was a meeting and I was invited. I calmly said that I would design and code a system that would not require any programmer input. A clerk would simply enter the data, the system would verify that the clerk’s work was rational, and when an error was made it could be corrected with a minimal amount of fuss. The vendors would get an english-language understandable sort of report that would describe why they got whatever for each of their (or other vendors’) sales. I guaranteed 100% vendor satisfaction without any programmer intervention beyond training.
One manager laughed at me, “That’s impossible”.
I bet him a lunch that I could build the commissions system I just described.
Rich SeaPak is on St Simons Island so I ordered the fish of the day.
And my commissions system ran without modification until Rich SeaPak dumped their Progress software for SAP.
Nigel,
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the second key. Programmers shouldn’t just write code but also write instructions to the computer that tell it how to write code. That commissions system took the clerk’s input and translated it into source code. I wrote the wrapper. The clerk wrote the “code”. My wrapper provided guardrails so the clerk would be safe. And if stuff went off the rails everything was remembered. The clerk said, “Oops!”, entered corrections, and the system sent off a correction report.
Indirect programming is fun as heck.
Victor Grauer @98
“I urge you to check out some of Greta Thunberg’s lectures, where she expresses a very different view, in which “half measures” won’t be nearly enough, and urges all of us to, literally, panic. She’s been getting standing ovations from some of the most influential people in the world.”
Greta is largely saying the same as I and others do about mitigating climate change: namely polticians and corporations need to do far more, and individuals should do more, but NOT that ordinary people have to engage in some primitive “hair shirt lifestyle”, and thus become genuinely stressed or distinctly impoverished.If she has said this in something I havent read, nobody will do that anyway, so maybe YOU shouldnt panic. Just so what you can.
Flying substantially less doesn’t have to stress anyone out. We got by just fine without flying all the time. Buying an electric car isnt stressfull, assuming one can afford it, and there are moves towards subsidising the cost of these to make them easily affordable. Eating a low meat diet will probably REDUCE stress and save money. I could go on, but would you (and KIA) ever get the point?
William B Jackson @90, I thought the same about KIA posts.
zebra, #92–
Me, too. So why on Earth would I tailor my discourse to an event so unlikely?
Actually, no, since the Labor Day hurricane of 1935 was pretty much a Dorian. Mr. KIA has you, there.
Just sayin’ you are wrong. Like Mr. KIA, you missed the simple point: in a more ‘energized’ climate system, the probability of a hurricane such as Dorian, or the Labor Day hurricane, rises considerably–and to the disadvantage of humanity in general, and everyone who lives in areas likely to be affected. But that probability wasn’t zero, or near-zero, to start with.
This is eminently supported by the ‘factoid’ I gave (ie., 8 Cat 5s in the first 27 years of the official record, versus 11 in the most recent 15 years.) And while we’re quibbling, it’s not really a “factoid”, but rather a plain fact.
#96, 96–
IMO, it’s unclear what will be required of us in terms of so-called ‘lifestyle’ changes. (It’s very possible that extinction of the term “lifestyle” will occur, however. As the current media tag has it, “Crisis is the absence of choice,” and life for most of humanity has always consisted of doing what one needs to do, not (so much) what one chooses to do.)
Despite our best pontifications, none of us has an actual crystal ball or equivalent. nigel’s guess is “It won’t be so bad,” because technology will do a lot of the work for us, just as we are accustomed to. killian’s is also “It won’t be so bad,” but rather because he expects simplification to lead to a more satisfying way of life, despite or perhaps because of the material challenges involved.
Victor bitterly rails against ‘scaring the children.’ He is right to do so, since he genuinely believes that the fear involved is nothing but fear of an imaginary bogeyman.
Unfortunately, he is wrong about that. Ask the folks from Marsh Harbor what ‘scary’ really is.
75: “A very useful category 6 would begin just above the most powerful hurricane or typhoon in history. Colloquially, these storms can be called “Anthropomorphic Cyclones”.”
I think the most powerful in terms of wind speed was hurricane Patricia. As I understand it, that is very close too, if not equal to the strongest a tropical cyclone can get on this planet. There is a restriction on how strong the surface winds can get which is related to frictional dissipation near the ground, which acts as a negative feedback.
In any case, the point of having defined categories is to communicate the destruction potential to the public. If there is no difference in destruction potential once you get over 160 mph (basically everything is wrecked), what is the point of introducing another category?
67: “Reminder: the actual argument is that Cat 5s are now much more likely than they used to be–which is pretty irrefutable on the data.”
Irrefutable, yes, but you have to be careful when comparing with historical records. At least some of that increase is down to improvements in observations. There was no satellite data, Dvorak technique or reconnaissance aircraft to monitor and measure the intensity of tropical cyclones well out at sea, and for landfalling storms, inferring the peak intensity at landfall is going to depend on what was damaged on the ground (and there is far more stuff to wreck now than 100 years ago). Even where a storm hit a populated area, can you really distinguish from the damage whether it was a 130 kt category 4 or 140 kt category 5? Pressure measurements help, but even there, there is a wide range of central pressures that can be found in a storm of any category.
The issues with historical observations of tropical cyclones and determining trends is pretty much a consensus amongst most scientists who work in the field of tropical cyclones.
#87 Al Bundy,
Sure Al, volunteer me for the suicide mission! I think I’ll stick to being the unofficial noodge on these things. ;-)
Anyway, it isn’t clear to me what the issue is about moderation, other than the delays that often occur in comments getting posted. Is that what you are trying to fix?
What I’m getting at with my critique is that this science has matured greatly over the last decades, and that fact is not being clearly conveyed. That’s something for individuals to address in how they respond to questions… whether serious or troll-generated… and explain things. I’ve said that to a couple of the official scientists, with what I took as a positive response, but it’s more important, I think, for the people here acting as “tutors”, since they are doing the bulk of responding.
It seems completely appropriate to me, for example, to require a response from KIA on my question about system energy, if he wants to engage in a discussion. If you come here to ask a question or make a claim, then you should have to demonstrate your seriousness by establishing the reasoning behind it. Otherwise, that person should just be ignored.
Re #94 Nemesis said @Killian, #91
” 1. Not sustainable”
Sustainable agriculture
Said whom?
sustainable electricity
This does not exist, ergo…
sustainable water management
Said whom?
You are making the claims, you must show they are true. I have no trouble thinking the first and third claims are generally true, but I very much doubt it. People, apparently yourself included, are not willing to face what is truly sustainable. Odd, really, you being defensive about something you think is impossible: Solutions.
“2. Controlled and funded by gov’t agency.”
Not true. Sources please…
100% true. Read the damned website. You know, the foundation, the secretary, etc. The foundation was *not* created by the residents, e.g.
Weaktor – Preprints are available free of charge to all my fans on this blog. Feel free to request a copy by emailing me at doktorgosh (at) live.com.
Hahahaha! (gasp)
Victor is patiently waiting for all those book orders:
https://www.stockvault.net/data/2017/02/10/222374/preview16.jpg
“stuff like us will dominate until we turn off the tap and see what we’ve wrought.”
Primary productivity increases with more CO2. Putrification and combustion increase with higher temperature. Whenever temperature is lower than the equilibrium temperature (as is the current case) putrification/combustion lags and things don’t appear as screwed as they really are. Counting the current absorption of CO2 by the biosphere on the “good” side of the ledger is laughably optimistic. Peat and permafrost fires don’t extinguish easily. Heck, even forest fires challenge via scale. Forest, big (especially Siberia and the Amazon). Humans, small. As if planting a trillion matchsticks, uh, trees will alter the equation. It’s primarily about how much carbon is in the biosphere and trees are above ground. They’re an inadequate one-time reduction since those trees’ progeny’s carbon absorption will be offset by the first generation’s rot/burn.
Gaia seeks balance so when you pump fossil carbon into the system said carbon will find its way to equilibrium.
I wonder how many people I scare the sh*t out of. Please pass the popcorn, Nemesis. By the way, your couch is quite comfy.
nigel: I couldn’t agree more in theory, but the problem is that sort of teacher / pupil discussion and asking of questions etc requires a great deal of back and forth discussion, which is very time consuming.
AB: There’s never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over
and over and over and over and over and over and….
Victor says:
14 Sep 2019 at 2:00 PM
So yes, everyone’s favorite troll has gone and written another book. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Only this one’s different. How different can be gleaned from these excerpts from the introduction:
The cover looks really interesting, I must say and it tells me where you get most of your information on Climate Change. I highly recommend people take a look for themselves before (passing) judgement:
https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uuuploads/worst-book-covers-titles/worst-book-covers-titles-31.jpg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
“NOAA staff warned in Sept. 1 directive against contradicting Trump. Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president….” A sad state of affairs but I wont labour the point as its a bit political for this thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Nigel,
Listen to Nemesis. Slap-downs are quick, easy, fun, and stupidly ineffectual.
If ya don’t give a crap about the planet keep feeding the dopamine and serotonin systems. I understand. It’s friggin’ fun! But if ya give a crap, take the time to follow zebra (he’s got a black-and-white outfit so obviously he’s the ref).
Apologies to 81- my reply was to 83
Zebra @92
“If you start with the premise that CO2 has resulted in a larger energy content for the climate system, then, as I have said multiple times with no contradiction, Dorian would have essentially zero probability of occurring absent that difference in energy.”
Okay, I’m contradicting you. Your oft-repeated truism about the larger energy content of the climate system has very little to do with the specific dynamics that allow the development of particular storms within that system.
For example, there is no greater concentration of energy, nor higher winds, in any meteorological system on this planet than can be found in a well-developed severe tornado. So how is it that the worst tornadoes occur with greatest frequency in the U.S., rather than some locale in the tropics, where the energy in the system is higher year round? And why do they occur
most often in the winter and spring months, rather than the summer? “More energy in the system” does not suffice to explain this distribution!
In the case of hurricane Dorian, the storm stayed over waters that had temperatures near seasonal normals over the entire track until after it had reached maximum intensity. The rapid intensification came once it had moved past Puerto Rico, not because the water was warmer, but (based on National Hurricane Center discussions) because it tracked into a region with little wind shear, and without the dry air aloft that hampered intensification earlier in the storm. This has nothing to do with “more energy in the system.” In fact, you could make an argument that “more energy” inhibited development by enhancing the lower humidity air aloft.
I see no indication that “more energy in the system” aided the explosive development of Dorian. It looks more like a case study for how a random event can boost hurricane development; it happened to track into a moist pocket in the middle of an anticyclone aloft. Ocean temperatures were warm, but not warmer than normal for the location and season.
This, in passing, are some notes on renewables, how they could work, and their limitations. I am not sure it is appropriate here, but it is at least a technically-based policy paper. Discouragingly, I do not see any appropriate forum for it, yet if we are to mitigate AGW we must begin to address these issues.
The Green New Deal: Running the Numbers
If you are moved to comment over there, be aware that comments on older posts on my blog are moderated. I will be checking in every so often, but it may be a while before your remarks appear.
@96 Re.” “half measures” won’t be nearly enough
While I understand her idea here, it is also true that to get to full measures on must pass through the half measures point on the way at some moment in time.
Deniers often take the position that since we cannot do everything immediately, we should do nothing now. That’s simply stupid. But Greta’s possible error may be the converse: Ignoring that change of the magnitude needed to change the energy and all related industries–which includes just about everything–to other sources and methods occurs in steps and takes time and may be just as unrealistic. That said, creating the movement to reach beyond as quickly as possible is much more on the right track than the denier position.
Another person thinks that climate change is moving faster than expected and is scared by what they are seeing. I hope the “cool heads” here will get in touch with Sir David King and help him calm down.
“Extreme events linked to climate change, such as the heatwave in Europe this year, are occurring sooner than expected, an ex-chief scientist says.
Prof Sir David King says he’s been scared by the number of extreme events, and he called for the UK to advance its climate targets by 10 years.
But the UN’s weather chief said using words like “scared” could make young people depressed and anxious.
Campaigners argue that people won’t act unless they feel fearful.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof King, a former chief scientific adviser to the government, said: “It’s appropriate to be scared. We predicted temperatures would rise, but we didn’t foresee these sorts of extreme events we’re getting so soon.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49689018?ocid=global_bbccom_email_16092019_top+news+stories
RES159 Kurz mal einfrieren lassen
Markus Rex ist am Alfred-Wegener-Institut Leiter der MOSAiC-Expedition. Das ist die größte Arktis-Expedition aller Zeiten, bei der der Forschungseisbrecher Polarstern sich im Eis einfrieren lässt, um dann ein Jahr lang mit dem Eis durch die Arktis zu driften.
Die ForscherInnen begeben sich damit auf die Spuren von Fridtjof Nansen, der dieselbe Sache schonmal Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, allerdings mit schlechterer Ausrüstung, gemacht hat.
Nansen hat damals im Wesentlichen Eisdicken und Temperaturen gemessen, und genau das ist – neben vielen anderen Experimenten – was uns auch heute interessiert, denn an kaum einem Ort zeigt sich die Klimakrise so stark wie in der Arktis.
Das ganze, einstündige Gespräch gibt’s in der nächsten Ausgabe des Resonators.
https://resonator-podcast.de/2019/res159-kurz-mal-einfrieren-lassen/
CO2? Weekly:
September 8 – 14, 2019 408.59 ppm
September 8 – 14, 2018 405.31 ppm Up 3.28 ppm over last year
September 8 – 14, 2009 384.69 ppm 23.90 ppm over same week in 2009
Slow steady move upward. The movement upward has not slowed, it has gone the wrong direction. Not skyrockety, just slow and steady. It’s not a tsuanami, it’s more akin to the rise of sea level. Move your beach towels to slightly higher ground every few years and you should be alright.
Warm regards,
Mike
At first glance, this trend may seem ironic: Many on the far right dismiss the science behind climate change. Some see political efforts to confront it as a globalist conspiracy.
But a strain of white nationalist thinking has seized on the dire warnings from experts of what could be in store as climate change advances: Swaths of the world could become uninhabitable, resulting in mass migrations to relatively hospitable climes.
These concerns have become particularly common among younger members of the far right — including the El Paso and Christchurch killers — who seem to accept mainstream climate predictions and incorporate them into their worldviews. The older cohorts, by contrast, either hew to dated notions of an impending Malthusian catastrophe, fretting about overpopulation, or hedge their planning for a migrant invasion with outward skepticism about the reality of global warming.
But for both the Christchurch and El Paso killers, climate change provided a sense of urgency, mixed in with anxiety about a so-called “Great Replacement.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/white-nationalists-latch-on-to-climate-change-for-mass-migration-hysteria
A Little more from the same TPM article above:
“The interest in climate change is the latest iteration of a long overlap between white nationalism and environmentalism. Today’s claims that population displacement sparked by climate change threatens whites have roots in fears of global overpopulation during the 1970s.
Far-right anti-immigration activist John Tanton, the founder of influential group Federation for Immigration Reform, proclaimed his concerns about the environmental effects of overpopulation throughout the 1960 and ’70s, and pushed virulent attempts to curb non-white immigration. Tanton, a member of the Sierra Club, even urged that organization to turn toward anti-immigrant activism.
Heidi Beirich, head of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s intelligence project, described Tanton to TPM as a “diehard environmentalist who specifically blamed immigrants for destroying America’s environment.”
Over the years, he morphed into a para-mainstream figure, with FAIR exerting influence on the Trump administration’s border policies. Even now, FAIR and similar groups like the Center for Immigration Studies publish articles linking immigrants to pollution.
By mixing them with rhetoric about climate change, Spencer and others have kept overpopulation fears alive on the far right.
“Overpopulation is a global problem,” Spencer told TPM. “And it’s not one in Western, Central Europe, among white Americans, or Japan.”
Spencer added that he would support policies including “humane family planning” and other “national policies” to protect the “founding stock” of countries from the effects of climate change.
But when pressed on where or how that policy would be applied, Spencer replied, “When I’m talking about promoting humane family planning, that’s something that desperately needs to be done in Africa.”
Hartmann, the Hampshire College professor, warned that well-intentioned environmental advocates need to be wary of using rhetoric that plays into apocalyptic narratives related to mass displacement by climate change.
“We need to be cautious around the idea of large mass migrations of climate refugees,” Hartmann told TPM, warning that it conflates the complicated political, individual, and economic reasons that lead people to immigrate into a vision of “one horde of people coming over the border.”
“People need to be aware that the apocalyptic discourse around climate change can trigger unintended consequences,” she said.”
Re #113 mike said Speaking to the BBC, Prof King, a former chief scientific adviser to the government, said: “It’s appropriate to be scared. We predicted temperatures would rise, but we didn’t foresee these sorts of extreme events we’re getting so soon.”
Didn’t we? Some have been saying this is/would be exactly the case.
And that truth in advertising was also vital because 1. dying is a morivator, 2. collapse of everything you know is a motivator 3. when coupled with solutions.
You know, a long-tail risk analysis with solutions…?
Where have we heard this before? Hmmm…
Now, if some knew the correct messaging and approach, why is it we get no credit for this? And, if some of us knew the correct messaging and approach, does it not stand to reason we *may* also know the best way forward? Why not listened to?
Humanity is suicidally immature.
Re #124 jgnfld said @96 Re.” “half measures” won’t be nearly enough
While I understand her idea here, it is also true that to get to full measures on must pass through the half measures point on the way
False. Not how deep systemic hcange happens.
Re #123 Raven Onthill:
The appropriate forum is Forced Responses, set up specifically for mitigation/adaptation discussions – though dominated by stupidity. says:
16 Sep 2019 at 1:00 AM
This, in passing, are some notes on renewables, how they could work, and their limitations. I am not sure it is appropriate here, but it is at least a technically-based policy paper. Discouragingly, I do not see any appropriate forum for it, yet if we are to mitigate AGW we must begin to address these issues.
The Green New Deal: Running the Numbers
If you are moved to comment over there, be aware that comments on older posts on my blog are moderated. I will be checking in every so often, but it may be a while before your remarks appear.
Al Bundy @100
nigelj: . This will probably only convince a small number of denialists,
AB: Correct ONLY if one includes ZERO in the definition of small numbers. Pretending that mathturbation might get a small number of the supermodels off that you’re mathturbating to sure feels good, eh?
Nigelj :You dont know that, and certainly haven’t given any justification for your statement! Opinion has shifted towards greater acceptance of climate science (according to Pew Research) so there has to be a reason for this. Part of the reason is likely to be refutation of what denialists say, adding up over time.
Of course some denialists will never change their minds because they are too proud or its become political for them, but to put everyone with some scepticism about climate change in the same category like that doesnt make sense, because a) you dont know exactly what category people are in and b) humans are far more complex that that.
A few high profile hard core denialists have admitted they have changed their mind in the media. I cant remember their reasons, but its likely to be after considering the facts.
Plus its not all about someone like KIA or Victor. If I respond to these guys, I do it because other more open minded sceptics read websites and I have them in mind.
And I noticed you responded to Victor yourself, so you are trying to have things both ways!
@Killian, #114
Ok, in the end all projects within capitalism are futile. Capitalism gotta fall first, that’s all I care about from now on, because it’s the easiest and yet most efficient way:
Lay back and wait to see capitalism fall by it’s very own hand.
Al Bundy @101
nigelj: Plus a team of 7 moderators would lead to huge inconsistencies. Did ya consider all that?
AB: Of course. Note that the potential moderators I listed have diverse talents and a proper system is never single-layered. When a post comes in the mod on duty’s first job (when a post requires more than minimal thought) is to decide which of the team is best equipped to handle the issue. Perhaps the comment should be sent back with a note so as to allow the person to improve it. Posting someone’s first thought could be considered an abusive gotcha! after all. The goal is to improve not just the site but also the contributors and the contributors’ reputation.
Nigelj: You dont need moderators with ‘diverse talents’. Its not a think tank. Ideally all you need for a good moderator is people trained in a set of standards or at least to be given guidelines, and you need a certain type of person who likes that sort of job and someone well educated, and not too politically partisan. It doesn’t require anything more – you are over complicating it.
Nobody is going to adopt a complicated system like yours. At the most if someone doesnt know what to do, they ask the head moderator, that’s all you need. You are often in tune with things but you have it backwards this time.
“I’m quite sure that the folks I listed are not ego-driven and so would happily pass analysis and decisions to the member of the team most capable of deriving the best decision.”
There’s some ego in all of us. Ray Ladbury is also a poor choice as a moderator, because hes way to personally critical of people, (although hes probably right about them).
—————————–
Al Bundy @102,
AB: Nigel and Ray, I have found that the best evidence that someone would do a stellar job is their insistence that they are too flawed to do the work. The Dunning Kruger effect has a corollary: those who are capable often don’t see it because they’re suffering from the impostor syndrome.
Nigelj: Thank’s and probably true, but I still don’t want the job! You ain’t getting me that way! I really think that we have been too close to discussion to be fair minded moderators, although KM would do a good job because hes meticulous and hasn’t had any nasty conflicts with anyone.
Al Bundy @105, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about a computer systems analyst? Whats that got to do with the climate? Jobs are often messy things with silly systems frustrating everybody. Email me on it.
Al Bundy @120
AB: Listen to Nemesis. Slap-downs are quick, easy, fun, and stupidly ineffectual.
Nigelj: There’s nothing wrong with responding to denialists partly for fun or the mental exercise. We need some of that. I need some of that.
And slap downs are not ineffectual, provided they are not nasty name calling. I have explained why refutations most probably do work to some extent in a previous comment. I think we know some people are just mildly sceptical, some are in more complete denial, and some of those always will be in complete denial. Its often difficult to be certain which category people are in (although Victor and KIA are very stubborn) so you don’t want to jump to conclusions about who you are responding to. I sometimes respond and make some points well aware it may not convince them, but it may help other people reading things that are just mildly sceptical. These sorts of refutations helped convince me we were warming the planet. Plus I don’t put much time into it.
In case you haven’t noticed, refutations have also lead to some interesting discussions. I’m just interested in science, it doesn’t always have to be about persuading people or testing debating skills or having fun. Dont respond to denliasts if you don’t want to, but you just don’t know nearly enough to be able to say its pointless. You think you do but you don’t.
AB: “If ya don’t give a crap about the planet keep feeding the dopamine and serotonin systems. I understand. It’s friggin’ fun!
Nigelj: Your first sentence is a non sequitur. We can save the planet and have fun at the same time. If saving the planet means not having fun as well, to hell with the planet.
AB “But if ya give a crap, take the time to follow zebra (he’s got a black-and-white outfit so obviously he’s the ref).”
Nigelj: You are not LISTENING to me. Please go back and read what I said.
I will try it in simpler terms: Zebras educational approach of agreeing on basics etc is a nice idea, but requires an enormous number of back and forth posts between two people, and few people have time for that, especially as there is no guarantee the denialist will stick around. I have tried it myself elsewhere. I mostly only really have the time and inclination for a single facts based post refuting denialists, and maybe a brief exchange of views. And (big sigh) Zebras approach will still lead to a discussion of the FACTS anyway, so you haven’t thought it through enough.
If Zebra and yourself think you have the right approach, please demonstrate it in practice.
Mr. Know It All @104
“Thank you. True, RH may not go up but absolute humidity does ”
Correct, and this will contribute to seriously dangerous heatwaves:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people
“Anyone should question cc science, because that is basic healthy scepticism,…”
“Thank you – good comment.”
Sadly a lot of what you post falls into the deliberate stupidity category. That is what happens when you allow politics to guide your thinking on science.
“I think the moderators do a pretty good job here. They allow HUGE leeway for people to bicker at each other like little kids – they are pretty generous.”
I agree the moderators are doing quite well right now. My comments were a bit hypothetical and general.
“Costs to the economy are paid for by the people one way or another. We have a complex society based on FFs – replacing it will not be a moderate change – it will be our WWII per AOC. ”
This simply doesn’t need to be too stressful. I believe we can cope with the costs having looked at various studies on it, although inherent in my answer is an assumption that meeting a 1.5 degree target isn’t really feasible because we just don’t have enough time, even if we had the will and policies in place. Such a short time frame would be stressful, but meeting the 2 degree Paris target still looks doable without meaning people have to go without the basics of life and make huge sacrifices. I have quite a low carbon footprint, and I don’t feel stressed.
“On stress, do you think children being told EVERY DAY in school that the world will end in 11 years causes stress?”
I agree this is very stressful for children, but it appears to be a thing in a few parts of America, because it isn’t being promoted where I live. It is also such an inaccurate message and so over hyped. However if we don’t do something pretty quickly and robustly to mitigate climate change, the results are certainly likely to be horrendous by the end of this century, or perhaps earlier. Quite a bit of evidence is emerging that suggests the IPCC are actually much too conservative in their estimates on sea level rise and changes in the weather. Easily enough googled.
Russell:
That’s OK, Russell, I wasn’t paying attention 8^).
Mr. KIA: “Victor
Is the book available on Amazon or a website with a pdf link?”
It should be available soon via Amazon, as a Kindle book. But you’ll have to pay for it then. I’m offering the preprint free of charge to readers of various blogs to get feedback (positive or negative) and suggestions for improvement. Naturally I don’t expect much interest from most of those participating here, as God forbid they might learn something. But I’m pleased to see that you’re interested, so by all means email me and I’ll send you a free copy. doktorgosh (at) live.com
Kevin McKinney @110, on lifestyle changes. I will respond on FR.
zebra – 92 and Kevin – 109
zebra, #92– Anyway, what do you think would be KIA’s answer? I’m pretty sure there will never be one.
Kevin – 109 Me, too. So why on Earth would I tailor my discourse to an event so unlikely?
zebra and Kevin, See my answer to your questions in 104 above.
To calculate the “energy” in a hurricane, you’d need a mountain of data that probably doesn’t exist. You would need a cross section through the entire thing, divided into a grid, with data for velocity, temperature, humidity, pressure, density, etc so you could estimate the “energy” in each grid. I doubt we have that data for Dorian, much less the 1935 storm.
Check out the pressure in the 1935 storm – 892 hPa! Only Wilma in 2005 and Gilbert in 1988 are lower – 882 hPa and 888 hPa respectively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes
Here’s some info on the 1935 storm:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/09/irma-most-intense-hurricane-florida-keys-1935-history/
https://www.wbir.com/article/weather/labor-day-hurricane-1935-dorian-comparison/51-7ca66622-8dea-492a-ac23-6630df25d44d
127 – mike
“September 8 – 14, 2019 408.59 ppm
September 8 – 14, 2018 405.31 ppm Up 3.28 ppm over last year
September 8 – 14, 2009 384.69 ppm 23.90 ppm over same week in 2009”
Nit pick: change that 23.90 to 20.62? Could change your acceleration calculation. ;)
Kevin McKinney @110 on the UV thread.
“IMO, it’s unclear what will be required of us in terms of so-called ‘lifestyle’ changes. ”
Oh come on Kevin, its clear enough what we need to do now, and what will be required. The (very) short answer is we need to make our homes energy efficient, ie well insulated etc, but solar panels / battery instillations are still too expensive for the average person, so we are reliant on corporations and governments building a renewable electricity grid, at least for the forseeable future until battery costs fall significantly more.
We need to buy electric cars or at least use buses if there is a bus service available. We need to eat a low meat diet, even if ways are found to reduce cattle methane emissions. We need to fly a lot less, at least until some other solution is found, which is some way off. I rarely fly.
There is more of course, but those are the big issues. None of this is likely to change. Why would it, specifically?
“nigel’s guess is “It won’t be so bad,” because technology will do a lot of the work for us ”
Technology has to do a lot of the work for us (but it cant do all the work) because it’s plainly unlikely that people will engage in radical lifestyle changes where they go without the basics in life like electric heating and cooling systems, or go largely without motorised transport etcetera. After decades of knowing about the climate threat virtually nobody is doing that, so why would this change? I cant see it changing. Radical changes like that are painful. The threat is serious, but it mainly affects future generations and is not life threatening for our generation so its hard to see why people would radically downgrade their lifestyle.People have empathy for future generations but it has its limits it seems.
However its equally plain people will make some lifestyle changes, significant ones, because we see this happening, and many of these changes are not that stressful. So its reasonable to say the envelope can be pushed more in that direction, but there are going to be limits, and so we need plenty of technology as well.
Oops posted my response to KM on the wrong thread. Apologies.
Kevin McKinney,
If I remember correctly, the 1935 hurricane came AFTER pre-industrial times (or, more accurately, AFTER agriculture arose). Seriously, just because there have been two “pauses” the starting point doesn’t change. Zebra still “wins”.
nigelj: Eating a low meat diet will probably REDUCE stress and save money. I could go on, but would you (and KIA) ever get the point?
AB: You don’t understand. Denialists seek the freedom to be manipulated by oligarchs who use systems that hijack innate brain systems. For example, humans are “designed” to seek out salt because salt is rare. Humans are “designed” to seek out fat because calories are rare. Humans are “designed” to seek out fruit because it is healthy and contains calories, too.
So corporations hire folks with more brains than morals to design fake food that hits all of the above innate targets without any of the benefits said targets evolved to achieve, but rather the toxic result from excess and the selection of ingredients based on cost with zero regard to the health of the customer. “Buuuurp”!
They’re fools who insist on “being fooled” as enforced by the law of the jungle.
#122 John Pollack,
Thanks for your response. I explained this in one of the recent attribution threads as follows:
Let’s call our planet Earth A. Let’s say there is a “parallel universe” planet, B, where everything is exactly identical except…
On B, when carbon is fossilized as coal, oil, gas, and then burned, the CO2 molecule formed does not absorb radiant energy.
So, everything would be the same. Humans would evolve, locate in the same areas, same population, learn science and technology, cut down forests, exactly the same, and then have the same industrial revolution and start burning fossil fuels. But, the climate system would not increase in energy as a result.
Are you suggesting that people on B would have a history of weather events identical to us on A? That somehow the exact combination of conditions that you have described would occur at the same time at the same location?
I’m happy to hear your reasoning on this, but given the nature of ‘chaotic’ systems, such a conclusion makes no sense. We have the different input, not of flapping butterfly wings, but the energy of some large number (I forget) of Hiroshima bombs. How could you have the same output?
Kevin McKinney: killian’s is also “It won’t be so bad,” but rather because he expects simplification to lead to a more satisfying way of life,
AB: Kevin, meet Killian. He sincerely believes that we will F*CK ourselves. He notes that if only we followed his plan things would be OK but he is under no delusions.
____________
Adam Lea: If there is no difference in destruction potential once you get over 160 mph (basically everything is wrecked), what is the point of introducing another category?
AB: PR. Plain and simple. But I note that “everything is wrecked” isn’t the point of a Cat 6. Cat 6 (or a Cat 5 that lingers) is about “Death”.
Adam Lea: I think the most powerful in terms of wind speed was hurricane Patricia.
AB: OK, but only pre-industrial or pre-agricultural cyclones qualify for non-anthropomorphic. Dorian’s claim to fame was both wind speed and stalling right over an island. Strange enough to invoke agency. Why was God pissed at the Bahamas?
__________
zebra: Sure Al, volunteer me for the suicide mission! I think I’ll stick to being the unofficial noodge on these things. ;-)
Anyway, it isn’t clear to me what the issue is about moderation, other than the delays that often occur in comments getting posted. Is that what you are trying to fix?
AB: You’re not on my page, yet. I’m a systems designer and an inventor. I see the comments section of this site and want to barf. So much inefficiency. So mutual masturbationesque. Are you here to get off? (I often am, and it feels dirty afterwards)
I want to fix this. This ain’t a suicide mission. I’m friggin’ good at what I do. How about you?
zebra: It seems completely appropriate to me, for example, to require a response from KIA on my question about system energy, if he wants to engage in a discussion.
AB: Thus, KIA’s comment (pick a comment, almost any comment) should be sent back with a note noting that his next published comment WILL contain his answer to that question. No borehole, no nothing. Not banned, just given some homework to do. In lieu of his comment, a placeholder noting his “assignment” will be published so everyone knows the situation. (Isn’t it interesting that we’re actually on the same page?)
Seriously, when KIA sings praises about this site’s comment section…
KIA, #104–
Clearly, when I wrote “Counting back just 8 years, to 2005, we’ve had 11 [Cat 5s],” my editor was having one of those extended lunches, and I was having a minor brain spasm. It should have read “just 14 years…”
It’s less dramatic with the correct number, to be sure, but the comparison of 8 Cat 5s in the first 26 years of the record with 11 in just the last 14 still seems indicative of the increasing Cat 5s. And it’s not just that the observations seem to show more Cat 5s happening; it’s that there is a solid set of physical reasons for that increase, as reflected in both human understanding, and in numerical modeling of the phenomenon.
You say, “[The] Number of Cat 5s appears to be decreasing.” But it doesn’t so “appear”. You tried to make it appear that way by arbitrarily picking short spans to compare, AKA “cherry-picking”.
To illustrate further, let’s get just slightly more sophisticated with our stats here. Let’s do decadal bins.
1920s: 2
1930s: 6
1940s: 0
1950s: 2
1960s: 4
1970s: 3
1980s: 3
1990s: 2
2000s: 8 (!)
2010s: 5
Cat 5 hurricanes are rare, and tend to run in bunches, so the data are noisy. But there is a clearly discernible trend when the first 50 years of the record produce 14 Cat 5s and the last 50 produce 21.
I am looking for an explanation on the relatively high ECS of CMIP6 models. Anyone have good references?