This month’s open thread. Topics might include the record breaking hurricane season, odds for the warmest year horse race (and it’s relevance or not), or indeed anything climate science related.
Reader Interactions
304 Responses to "Unforced variations: Dec 2020"
mikesays
The moon controls the release of methane in Arctic Ocean
Date:
December 14, 2020
Source:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Summary:
The moon controls one of the most formidable forces in nature – the tides that shape our coastlines. Tides, in turn, significantly affect the intensity of methane emissions from the Arctic Ocean seafloor. High tides may even counter the potential threat of submarine methane release from the warming Arctic.
“”We noticed that gas accumulations, which are in the sediments within a meter from the seafloor, are vulnerable to even slight pressure changes in the water column. Low tide means less of such hydrostatic pressure and higher intensity of methane release. High tide equals high pressure and lower intensity of the release” says co-author of the paper Andreia Plaza Faverola.
“It is the first time that this observation has been made in the Arctic Ocean. It means that slight pressure changes can release significant amounts of methane. This is a game-changer and the highest impact of the study.” Says another co-author, Jochen Knies.”
Interesting piece related to methane release in the
Arctic. I think all it tells us is that we can expect methane release from shallow sediments to be larger at low tide. I think that would also mean that the released methane would be moving through a somewhat shorter water column, so that might have some impact on how much will be absorbed in the water column and how much might be expected to be bubbling out at the surface.
Killian @96,
Humour me.
Demonstrate how that “the last two years” of Arctic Sea Ice minimums constitutes that “dramatic new downward trend on the road to an ice-free Arctic,” this the condition I set out @55 without which Wadhams would remain ‘not correct’. Because without such a demonstration you also would remain ‘not correct’. And I would mind you not attribute to me such unfounded beliefs.
nigeljsays
Mike @100, “ the point at 86 is that one person’s list of respected scientists is another’s person’s list of cranks/skeptics/charlatans.”
It’s not entirely subjective like that. It’s a fact that most people in your list are not climate scientists. It is a fact most of them are climate sceptics by any sane definition. I think you would find a fairly broad consensus among people here that at least a couple of them are cranks, and it appears you accept the usefulness of the idea of consensus. Its also a fact that some people on both sides of the debate make claims not backed by evidence or even an explanation, their only reasoning being “it might be possible” or “you can’t completely rule anything out”, but even if technically true, by that definition anything is possible. We might all be living in “the matrix”. I think such views are best discarded.
And if we are to consider a range of views as AB suggested, I don’t think it makes sense to include everybody’s, even the village idiot. For practical purposes you need boundaries. Spencer and Hansen are climate scientists, published and I don’t hear anyone calling them cranks. In an imperfect world that might be good enough. And I think Wadhams is perfectly acceptable, he is a climate scientist, quite well respected, and his only gaffe was a bad prediction. Semiletov/Shakhova/Gustaffson are credible scientists. Can you explain who here has claimed they are not credible scientists? Its possible to reject some of their findings and they are still credible scientists isn’t it?. But because they are usually right does not mean we can assume they are always right, eh? Its important to not overdo hero worship, the halo effect where our heroes can never do any wrong.
GISTEMP has posted for November with an anomaly of +1.13ºC, the warmest November on the GISTEMP record (ahead of 2015 +1.06ºC, 2019 +1.00ºC and 2016 +0.91ºC) and substantially up on the October anomaly of +0.88ºC. The 2020 monthly anomalies range from +0.87ºC up to +1.25ºC and average +1.04ºC, the highest Jan-Nov average anomaly on record (ahead of 2016 +1.03ºC, 2019 +0.97ºC and 2017 +0.92ºC).
To maintain top spot for the full canendar December’s anomaly would have to drop below a rather frosty +0.75ºC. So it looks like we have “scorchyissimo!!!” to end the year with. (At least in GISTEMP.) NOAA have also reported for November with the year-to-date average of +1.00ºC, a shade below 2016’s Jan-Nov average of +1.01ºC with a December 2020 anomaly above +0.94ºC required to give 2020 top spot within the NOAA record.
nigeljsays
KIA @93 “On lack of concern for future beings, I agree. The VAST majority of people who express concern for AGW – people like Greta and AOC as well as the neighbor across the street are apparently willing to do almost nothing to stop spewing CO2”
No, Greta has become a vegetarian and doesn’t fly anymore so that is just two things Im aware of and they are significant. And bear in mind she’s a child so not all choices might be hers to make, if her parents disagree. You know this, so you are a nasty piece of work quoting her as an example.
nigeljsays
Somebody who predicted arctic sea ice and global warming trends quite accurately, using a relatively simple climate model: “A 50-Year-Old Global Warming Forecast That Still Holds Up. In 1972, Mikhail Ivanovich Budyko used a simple methodology to make climate predictions that remain surprisingly accurate today and that could serve as a new “business-as-usual” scenario.”
BPL: Which gets us into Hume’s proof that what happened in the past won’t necessarily happen in the future. Which is absolutely useless.
K: (Hey, you guys, do you think he realizes he just agreed with me?)
BPL: What part of “absolutely useless” do you not understand? Hume’s proof is ignored because in practice, whether it’s philosophically justifiable or not, the past IS a perfectly good guide to how natural laws will perform in the future.
…people like Greta and AOC as well as the neighbor across the street are apparently willing to do almost nothing to stop spewing CO2.
Dunno about AOC’s personal carbon footprint, but Greta is literally the poster child for radical reduction in same via ‘just saying no’–which is precisely what KIA advocates we all do. She’s been quite ruthless about it; no FF transport, no meat, efficiency wherever possible, not even any new clothes (she is strictly a second-hand shopper).
For the N + 1st time, KIA says “that which is not.”
The N + 2nd is when he claims that “Even blue states and leftist-greenie nations are making little progress…”
For example, California:
Pollution overall remained well below the state’s 2020 climate target of 431 million metric tons, which the state hit four years early, in 2016. But the uneven progress underscores the challenge California faces as it pursues the more ambitious goal of slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions another 40% by 2030.
That’s the very first search result; there are numerous others, including the fact that entire continent of Europe met its Kyoto targets, and is continuing to decarbonize:
The EU is well on track to meet its 20% emissions reduction target for 2020… EU greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 24% between 1990 and 2019, while the economy grew by around 60% over the same period.
Admittedly, this is still insufficient progress relative to the needed mitigation. But exceeding agreed targets, both in terms of time and quantity, is clearly not “little progress.”
Which makes the N + 3rd time the generalized assertion that systemic change isn’t necessary, and now.
(Part of the problem is KIA’s misframing of “goobermint” as somehow radically separate from citizenry, as if it were administered from Alpha Centauri, and by computer algorithm at that.)
The latest data from NASA records a new record meteorological annual temperature anomaly of +1.05 K. The meteorological year runs from December to November. NASA have last year’s anomaly as +1.04 K but if you take the average of the twelve months it comes to 1.045 K which is 1.05 to two decimal places. The previous record in 2016 was 1.040 K.
108 Barton Paul Levenson:68 Barton Paul Levenson:“We know ECS…”
K 45: Incorrect. We know PAST ECS.
BPL: Which gets us into Hume’s proof that what happened in the past won’t necessarily happen in the future. Which is absolutely useless.
K: (Hey, you guys, do you think he realizes he just agreed with me?)
BPL: What part of “absolutely useless” do you not understand? Hume’s proof is ignored because in practice, whether it’s philosophically justifiable or not, the past IS a perfectly good guide to how natural laws will perform in the future.
Get this through your head: Current conditions have never existed on this planet before. The future will not be like the past, just as it has not been since @ 1750. This will only become more true.
Physics is physics, but clearly the science is far from perfect and consistently lags. It will continue to lag due to reticence.
Smell the coffee: You will continue to get the future wrong because of this.
Killiansays
102 MA Rodger:Killian @96,
Humour me.
Demonstrate how that “the last two years” of Arctic Sea Ice minimums constitutes that “dramatic new downward trend on the road to an ice-free Arctic,” this the condition I set out @55 without which Wadhams would remain ‘not correct’. Because without such a demonstration you also would remain ‘not correct’. And I would mind you not attribute to me such unfounded beliefs.
Waste of time. You’re at least as scientifically reticent than, e.g. Schmidt, if not more so. You never accede that change happened until we are so far past you can no longer deny it. Remember those spikes at Mauna Loa in Jan. you said were nothing… then they kept happening? And are still happening?
Yeah, if it’s not already in the data and essentially proved, it doesn’t exist for you. Sadly, one cannot set policy that way and expect good outcomes in the context of existential threats.
Further, as I have said many times, I am pattern literate which allows me to surmise things before the numbers are fully confirmed. You are unable to do this so it looks like magic to you. It’s just pattern literacy.
So… anywho….
1. The last two years should not have happened according to what we knew at the time. Something was going on. I did not claim to know what, but it was obvious: Too much melt given conditions.
2. One reason is very likely June insolation as there is a high correlation with June, and to a lesser extent, July, insolation.
3. The other reason may be as very recently positied by Jim Hansen: Aerosols.
4. There is a proposed *negative* feedback from Francis and Wu:
One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 yr ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September
2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the
northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.
This is important because I had noted a shift several years ago, and posted here about it, where refreeze was happening later and peak was shifting more consistently into March and would likely to do so. This should result in /thinner weaker sea ice and more melt. This we have seen. However, I had also noted, the first time around 2016, I think, that the late summers since 2012 had been very mild helping avoid new record lows several years – including last year.
Now we may know why due to Francis and Wu.
Pattern literacy, it’s a thing.
Wadhams has been far too pessimistic and I have called out those like him who let their emotions, pessimism and biases override what the numbers and patterns are telling us. So, yes, he’s been wrong on magnitude, but he is correct: BOE is coming and we truly do not know the year. It could be literally any year. Temps will continue to climb generally, maybe we get a year with high levels of high latitude snow, extensive June and July AO insolation, and get a GAC all in the same year. Add to that Hansen’s note that the solar cycle is ramping up and is likely to coincide at peak or near-peak with an El Nino and, well, things may get quite nasty.
Don’t be surprised by a BOE around mid-decade.
mikesays
at Nigel: read AB at 81. read me at 85. The discussion that AB started was specifically about the “most conservative respected scientist.”
I think that was where the goalposts were set. Even if you move the goalposts to “most conservative respected climate scientist” the problem still arises. Let’s move the goalposts and use the most respected conservative climate scientist. Who would that be?
Does that help?
Cheers,
Mike
siddsays
Is AGU2020 streaming somewhere easy to access ? i tried the site
but failed to navigate the registration process. The presentations seem to wind up on youtube eventually, so i could just wait i suppose. But i seem to remember in the past two or three years there was a different convoluted process that i could penetrate and it actually remembered my previous registration over successive years. I think they’ve changed sumpn.
““Honestly, many of us have long recognised that the HadCRUT data set underestimated the warming,” says Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University.
There are two main reasons for the 0.16°C upwards revision in past warming. The biggest was changes to how the HadCRUT team looked at sea surface temperatures, specifically how it was measured by ships taking the temperature of sea water in their engine rooms.
The other is that gaps in the data set’s coverage of the Arctic, which has been warming two to three times as fast as the global average, have been filled in. Previously, grid squares for the region were left empty if there was no observational data – now they are estimated with data from nearby squares…
The new research may effectively shrink the world’s carbon budget, the amount that can be emitted without breaching temperature targets. The UN’s climate science panel, the IPCC, said in 2018 that global emissions need to roughly halve by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to have a two-thirds chance of staying under 1.5°C.
It is too early to say how much today’s update may change that timeline. “The IPCC have overestimated the available carbon budget through choices that tend to underestimate the warming we’ve already experienced. That of course means that there is a lot more work to do if we are to avert dangerous warming,” says Mann.”
I think paleoclimate calculations regarding ECS may not be as useful as some folks think in our current situation because the pulse of CO2 and other ghg that we have injected in the atmosphere have almost no parallels in the climate record.
I think we would be smart to be more cautious with our fascinating experiment of injecting a huge amount of ghg into the atmosphere.
CO2? How are we doing? the weekly numbers are not real terrible:
December 6 – 12, 2020 413.39 ppm
December 6 – 12, 2019 411.28 ppm
December 6 – 12, 2010 389.32 ppm
Cheers
Mike
Al Bundysays
mike: Let’s move the goalposts and use the most respected conservative climate scientist. Who would that be?
AB: Yeah, that’s what I had in mind. I totally spaced the “Deniers are scientists, too” thing. Fortunately, whoever is doing the communication gets to select which conservative climate scientist to give voice to. There is little or no reason to consider contrarians. You’re not trying to impress deniers by including their heroes. You’re trying to ensure that your communication encompasses reality.
Ray Ladburysays
Mike@100: “the point at 86 is that one person’s list of respected scientists is another’s person’s list of cranks/skeptics/charlatans.”
Utter, complete fucking bullshit. Whether YOU respect a scientist is utterly irrelevant. He or she won’t care a tinker’s damn. What matters is the esteem in which a scientist is held by his or her peers–those publishing and being cited actively in their chosen field. To a lesser extent, the opinions of scientists in related fields or even scientists in general may also register. You…not so much.
Many, many years ago, I was an editor at Physics Today with a responsibility for assessing the latest research in a variety of subfields of physics. I noticed that in each subfield, there were 2 or 3 people who were universally recommended for a take on new research. Invariably, these people had an impressive list of influential publication. However, another characteristic they shared was that while they were happy to give you their personal perspective, they were also willing to put it to one side and try to give a more balanced view. There are a few folks like this in all fields–they are amazingly influential.
The folks on the BI list are the opposite. They are almost universally viewed as clowns by all but the most blinkered ideologues. The one exception may be Dyson–he’s just an embarrassment.
nigeljsays
mike 117
“at Nigel: read AB at 81. read me at 85. The discussion that AB started was specifically about the “most conservative respected scientist.”I think that was where the goalposts were set.”
Yes AB did say scientist, but if you read his statement he also referred to climate scientists, so its a bit confusing. Probably just a typo and I think its fairly obvious he meant climate scientists.
“Even if you move the goalposts to “most conservative respected climate scientist” the problem still arises. Let’s move the goalposts and use the most respected conservative climate scientist. Who would that be?”
I suggested Roy Spencer twice above as fitting the definition of respected conservative leaning climate scientist. He is a climate scientist, hes conservative in his climate views leaning sceptical on agw to some extent, but hes got good academic qualifications and appears to be generally respected. Yes I know ultimately its partly a subjective choice, I hear where you are coming from, but I would not ignore ABs suggestion simply because we are stuck with some level of subjectivity.
nigeljsays
Killian @116 started off previously by suggesting the last two years of very low arctic sea ice could constitute a new trend (something that will continue for many years) and now says this new trend is because he is “pattern literate”.
I wondered what he meant exactly, and a google search brings up a book “Becoming pattern literate” by Toby Hemenway (biologist and permaculturalist) who says. “…a pattern includes the notion that somewhere, a process is repeated. A pattern, then, can be a guide that tells what to make via a repetitive process, or it can be the result of that process.” Ok this is credible, but science also looks at repeating patterns as a clue to understanding things and underlying processes, so I don’t see that the basic idea is new, although how its applied to permaculture might be new.
And its not clear how the last 2 years of significant arctic sea ice decline constitutes a pattern, unless Killian sees it as a continuation of the big decline in 2012 and caused by the same things, which might definitely make sense. But it points towards a pattern that repeats as a cyle probably of natural origins, rather than agw and a new associated and accelerated melting trend taking hold.
Killian posts peoples views on various plausible causes for the last two years of significant arctic sea ice decline including solar activity and aerosols, and a study by Francis and Wu. The solar activity and aerosols due to the covid 19 issue are likely to be cyclical or one off types of issues so don’t constitute a continuous trend setting in, and the study by Francis and Wu suggests a negative feedback so doesnt appear to suggest an accelerating decline in sea ice.
That said, I think the arctic sea ice decline will very slowly accelerate due to the positive feedback compounding ,but you obviously need more than two years to discern this trend. I’m not suggesting there is no problem. I think the arctic will be ice free in about two of decades.
nigeljsays
Killian @155
I think BPL is right the past IS a perfectly good guide to how natural laws will perform in the future. Including climate sensitivity derived from past history. Which tells us we are at risk of causing serious, damaging levels of climate change. You clearly and rightly think we are in for serious climate change, so Im not sure why you are questioning levels of climate sensitivity derived from past history and thinking they dont apply now.
“Get this through your head: Current conditions have never existed on this planet before.”
Current CO2 levels have existed on this planet before. Current solar conditions have as far as we know. Rates of warming of about 1 degree or more per century appear to have existed before as below, in the very distant past.
Some of the minor greenhouse gases generated by industry might not have or not in quantity, but they are taken into account in the science. Deforestation is considered in the science. So what do you mean? Do you mean its not clear if the past ever had such a huge and rapid increase in CO2 levels? If so this acceleration probably just means warming could now be rapid and substantial, which is exactly what the science is telling us it will be anyway, assuming we go on burning fossil fuels. So what do you mean? What have people missed?
Al Bundysays
“To American intelligence experts, two things have become clear: Certain parts of the world might one day use the effects of climate change as rungs on a ladder toward greater influence and prosperity. And the United States, despite its not-unfavorable position geographically, is more likely to lose than win — not least because so many of its leaders have failed to imagine the magnitude of the transformations to come.”
“In the end, the players were reluctant to face the migration challenges in depth — a worrisome sign that, in the real world, wealthy nations like the United States would be likely to cling to the status quo even as large-scale humanitarian crises begin to unfold. “One of the insights we got was that migration was just an absolute no-go zone,” Burke said. “I wasn’t expecting that.” ”
“By the time Podesta went to China in late 2014 to negotiate an emissions agreement — a diplomatic feat that laid the groundwork for the Paris climate accord — he had come to believe that it was climate-driven food scarcity that posed the dominant threat to global security and to American interests. ”
“Sea-level rise, for one, could displace 14 million Americans by 2050, even with modest warming, while in Russia fewer than two million people are at risk. American military installations around the world are also particularly vulnerable.”
“If you take any factor out of your calculus, you create blind spots. One telling example: Russia has 34 icebreakers, and China, which is nowhere near the Arctic, has four; the United States has just two, one of which is nearly a half-century old.”
“And yet climate data analyzed for this project suggest that the U.S. farming industry is in danger. Crop yields from Texas north to Nebraska could fall by up to 90 percent by as soon as 2040 as the ideal growing region slips toward the Dakotas and the Canadian border. And unlike in Russia or Canada, that border hinders the U.S.’s ability to shift north along with the optimal conditions.”
“at the Russian Far East Investment and Export Agency in Vladivostok, Absamat Dzhanboriev, the agency’s agricultural investment director, describes a steep rise in agricultural production that can come only from large-scale corporate farming. In 2018 more than 900,000 tons of soybeans were exported from the East. Soon, he says, the region will harvest two million tons of soybeans from 3.7 million acres of farmed land — an area roughly the size of Connecticut. And the more the land warms, the farther north the industry will be able to push, eventually doubling farmed land again, producing nearly six million tons or more each year.”
I know the jet streams have not been in the best of shape, but I was startled today by the severe fragmentation over the eastern Pacific Ocean where there are large splits and bands across the entire tropics. The rest of the northern jets are pretty broken up, too. See Climate Reanalyzer and Earth Nullschool. Is this a routine picture? Does it merit comment from anyone?
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
…
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
I do not imply that all Evangelicals are science deniers: the obvious counter-example is Katharine Hayhoe, whose religion seems not to interfere with her scientific training and discipline, and whose outreach to her co-religionists on behalf of climate realism is heroic. But if “the first principle [of science] is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest to fool” (R. Feynman), then with his signature on the declaration, Spencer declared his willingness to fool himself rather than acknowledge that the energy in fossil carbon isn’t a gift from his deity, but comes with deferred and socialized costs. He has forfeited all claim to scientific respectability thereby. IMHO, of course.
nigeljsays
Mal Adapted @128
“Here’s where I bring up religion on this thread. Roy Spencer signed the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states exactly what signatories believe……Spencer declared his willingness to fool himself rather than acknowledge that the energy in fossil carbon isn’t a gift from his deity, but comes with deferred and socialized costs. He has forfeited all claim to scientific respectability thereby. IMHO, of course.”
Yes maybe you are right. I had forgotten about that. I picked Spencer as a useful example of a conservative leaning climate scientist( always risky picking a specific example, but oh what the hell) because he seems to have the respect of his peers, where some others don’t so much. I think that respect of ones peers has to be the main criterion for selection as others have implied, however Spencers signing that document really does pretty much put a big question mark over him. I wonder what on earth he was thinking doing that.
And I agree that is an example of religion that is very relevant to the climate issue, so its reasonable to discuss it.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Ah yes, the record breaking hurricane season that wasn’t:
“In terms of the intensity, duration and frequency of storms, 2020 does not compare to the record set in 2005. That year, eight hurricanes reached Category 3 status or higher. Three of those hurricanes were a Category 5. The year 2005 is memorable in a bad way for many. One of the storms that season was Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 3 at landfall but a Category 5 at its strongest. The storm devastated much of New Orleans and killed more than 1,500 people.
This year, two hurricanes — Laura and Delta — reached Category 4 status before making landfall in Louisiana and Texas. Both storms caused damage. So far this year there have been no Category 5 hurricanes.”
In summary, lot of storms, but mostly weak ones. Source is leftist NBC:
In other climate/weather news, a dangerous winter storm has dumped over 3 feet of snow in parts of the NE USA creating many power outages and dangerous travel conditioins. If you have plans to travel in that area during the Holidays, do be safe and prepare for just about anything. Oh, when did Al Gore say we’d have no more snow? Just want to fact check him – keep him on the straight and narrow. ;)
In other AGW related news, Norway, darling of RE preachers around the world is having a pretty good year for oil production. Can you say “climate criminals”, “Nuremburg trials”? :)
“And yet climate data analyzed for this project suggest that the U.S. farming industry is in danger. Crop yields from Texas north to Nebraska could fall by up to 90 percent by as soon as 2040 as the ideal growing region slips toward the Dakotas and the Canadian border.
Now, where have we heard food security would be an issue sooner than later? I remember in 2011 telling my friend in Detroit the extremes were the problem, not the averages so much, and to expect chaos already…. and, yes, we have seen it. That next Spring we had a huge die off of fruit blooms in hte midwest. The projections for some small percent reduction in food production by mid- to late century were always gross underestimates.
Pattern literacy and logic. Simple.
William B Jacksonsays
#130 Ignoring the rest o0f the nonsense, NBC leftist LOL! Centrist perhaps but leftist, what a load of hogwash.
Dansays
re: 130.
Once again the synagogue-killer deflector (hint: he was one of your brethren) shows that he has no clue about what he is talking about. A. NBC bent over backwards for your racist, impeached messiah. They put him on the map and fawned all over him when he would call into the Today Show by “surprise”. B. For the umpteenth time, Al Gore is a politician. When you can’t quote peer-reviewed scientists but only have a politician to complain about, you have complete lost the supposed argument, junior. Go ahead, please cite a peer-reviewed article by Gore which says what you made up. You can’t. You lied. Which brings up the obvious: Someone completely failed when bringing you up to teach you that blatant lying is unacceptable. Stop flaunting your ignorance of science.
BTW, still waiting for your explanation as to why the stratosphere is cooling when it ought to be warming if natural causes (the sun) are the cause of global warming. You can’t because you have never read the science. And you do not even understand the basics laws of thermodynamics.
BPL: Which shows how far right KIA is. He regards NBC as “leftist.”
jgnfldsays
@130
Question for mods: Why?
Ray Ladburysays
Nigel and Mal,
Isn’t the whole point that the denialist scientists have rejected the climate consensus without proposing anything better and without having truly compelling evidence to motivate them? If so, doesn’t that make them crappy scientists?
“”To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere.””
mikesays
ICE 15 December 2020 16:00
New climate models suggest faster melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
“we knew already from the observed melt and runoff of Greenland over the past couple of decades that the CMIP5 models seemed to be on the low side”. She adds the CMIP6 models have “updated physics” and seem to be doing “a better job”.
I think it would be accurate to say that the folks who developed the models have failed us all to a certain extent by underestimating the Greenland melt and runoff rates.
A lot of folks line up to slam a scientist if they overestimate the impact of global warming, but I don’t see a long line of folks slamming the scientists who missed the mark on the low side. Accuracy is appreciated, but hard to deliver with global warming. I think the accuracy level is probably close enough if you take the errors on the high side of impact and balance against the low side of impact. That kind of fits with the idea of balancing high side scientists (Wadhams, Shakhova et al) with the mainstream (CMIP) modelers who have pretty consistently been low side. I think we don’t have to reach as far down as Spencer, Pielke etc for balance and accurate range assessment. I could be wrong about that.
No worries,
Mike
mikesays
Here’s a prediction on the models, the CMIP6 models will prove to have underestimated melt and runoff just like the CMIP5 models did. How soon will we know that? I would think 5 to 8 years and we will be reading science stories that discuss how CMIP6 models did not keep up with the observational data. I suspect this persistent gap between model and observations feeds a lot of the friction that we see between the observational scientist and the computer modeling scientists.
Cheers
Mike
mikesays
to Nigel: you say “Spencers signing that document really does pretty much put a big question mark over him. I wonder what on earth he was thinking doing that.”
I think he was simply stating his faith and belief in God and God’s intelligent design. Why are you puzzling over what he was thinking? It’s pretty clear on its face, isn’t it?
When we consider who might qualify as a conservative climate scientist who is well-respected by their peers (move the goal posts again), are we automatically tossing out the folks who don’t accept theory of evolution etc and instead want to go with some version of intelligent design or put their bets on a supreme deity who will step in and bail us out? For me, that kind of fundamental (yeah, I know) decision about science and creation means that climate scientist doesn’t make the first cut.
FYI, be aware that ANOTHER winter storm is coming to the USA, this one potentially an existential threat to survival. Make preparations now so you and your family have a chance to survive this dangerous, pre-ice-age Holiday season storm:
The 2020 Arctic Sea Ice season has been exceptional since the height of the melt back in July when it was setting lowest-on-record JAXA daily Sea Ice Extent for 5 weeks. This was followed by running a strong second-lowest to 2012 through the 7 weeks of the annual ice minimum August-to-October and another 2 weeks setting record lows in late October.
Since the start of November, the JAXA 2020 Arctic Sea Ice Extent levels have sat persistently second-lowest between the record-holding slow-freeze-up year of 2016 and the rest.
Now, after 7 weeks of that (and 10 days before 2016 relinquished its record-holding) 2020 JAXA Arctic SIE has become less exceptional. On 18 Dec it froze up with SIE levels no longer in 2nd-place but suddenly now in 5th (although effectively joining 2010, 2017, 2018 & 2019 in =2nd spot).
The lowest-ten JAXA 18th December Arctic SIE levels run:-
2016 … 11.300M sq km
2017 … 11.547M sq km
2010 … 11.548M sq km
2019 … 11.554M sq km
2020 … 11.562M sq km
2018 … 11.564M sq km
2012 … 11.653M sq km
2006 … 11.682M sq km
2015 … 11.711M sq km
2007 … 11.723M sq km
J Doug Swallowsays
#130 17 Dec 2020 at 4:54 PM Mr. Know It All says: “Ah yes, the record breaking hurricane season that wasn’t”. Thank you for inserting some truth into what others comment about at this site where the truth is not all that important, it seems.
“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”– George Orwell
Regarding hurricanes: “The United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, experiencing its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period. And IPCC’s 2018 Interim Report observes there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”
Claiming that “increasingly strong hurricanes are battering the Gulf coast” is a lie. Between Hurricane Wilma in 2005 and Hurricane Harvey in 2017 a record 4,323-days, 142-months, 12-year long major hurricane drought occurred shattering the previous record of 96 months set between September 1860 and August 1869.
J Doug Swallowsays
#130 17 Dec 2020 at 4:54 PM Mr. Know It All says: “In other AGW related news, Norway, darling of RE preachers around the world is having a pretty good year for oil production. Can you say “climate criminals”, “Nuremburg trials”? :)”
To build this Troll-A Platform and get it moved and into place takes some very sharp people to get all of this done so that they can have people, who know nothing, curse them because they produce something the world demands and needs.
“Troll-A Platform: Largest Object Ever Moved by Man March 12, 2013
The Troll A platform is an offshore natural gas platform in the Troll gas field off the west coast of Norway. At 1.2 million ton ballasted under tow, 472 meters high, with underwater concrete structure at 369 meters, and dry weight of 656,000 tons, the Troll A platform is a majestic piece of design and construction. Not only is Troll A among the largest and most complex engineering projects in history, it is the largest object ever to be moved by man across the surface of the Earth. The platform was a televised sensation when it was towed into the North Sea in 1996, where it is now operated by Statoil.” http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/troll-platform-largest-object-ever.html
J Doug Swallowsays
#126 Al Bundy says [by way of the New York Times]:
“In the end, the players were reluctant to face the migration challenges in depth — a worrisome sign that, in the real world, wealthy nations like the United States would be likely to cling to the status quo even as large-scale humanitarian crises begin to unfold. “One of the insights we got was that migration was just an absolute no-go zone,” Burke said. “I wasn’t expecting that.” ”
Did the New York Times & Al Bundy never hear about these amazing revelations that occurred because more people had reliable energy supplies provided by fossil fuels?
This lifting people out of poverty was accomplished on the back of fossil fuels. If the climate alarmist had their way, the trend would be reversed and more people would be living in destitution and sorrow.
“One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialisation trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely within another couple of decades. It is the reason why the Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas said that once you start thinking about economic growth and the improvements in standards of living, it is hard to stop.” http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470
“According to the most recent estimates, in 2015, 10 percent of the world’s population or 734 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day. That’s down from nearly 36 percent or 1.9 billion people in 1990. Forecasts suggest the number is now below 8 percent”. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Another view of how the use of fossil fuels is helping humanity. Can anyone give an example of how the climate alarmist has helped anyone other than themselves?
Growth of the global middle class and falling extreme poverty
Over the course of the last generation more than a billion people left the most destitute living conditions behind. Can we expect this progress to continue over the coming decade?
The world economy is growing. In less than a generation the value of the yearly global economic production has doubled.1
Increasing productivity around the world meant that many left the worst poverty behind. More than a third of the world population now live on more than 10 dollars per day. Just a decade decade ago it was only a quarter. In absolute numbers this meant the number of people who live on more than 10 dollars per day increased by 900 million in just the last 10 years.2 https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
J Doug Swallowsays
#126 Al Bundy says [by way of the New York Times]:
“By the time Podesta went to China in late 2014 to negotiate an emissions agreement — a diplomatic feat that laid the groundwork for the Paris climate accord — he had come to believe that it was climate-driven food scarcity that posed the dominant threat to global security and to American interests. ”
Why didn’t Al Bundy, The New York Times, & Podesta get up to speed on what was happening in the world regarding food production?
IGC sees record grain output, trade in 2020-21
06.26.2020
LONDON, ENGLAND — Global grains production and trade are forecast to reach record highs in 2020-21, according to the International Grains Council’s (IGC) latest monthly grain market report, released June 25.
The IGC projects total grains production in 2020-21 to increase by 62 million tonnes from the previous year, led by a 55-million-tonne increase in corn output and a 6-million-tonne jump in wheat production, both of which would be record highs if realized.
While consumption prospects are somewhat uncertain for the coming marketing year, the IGC said “all components of demand are assumed to rise, taking total use to fresh high of 2.218 billion tonnes.”
“As projected supplies are more than ample to meet anticipated demand, the first build-up of global stocks in four years is expected, placed 20 million tonnes higher year-on-year at 635 million tonnes,” the IGC said. “This includes increases for wheat and barley, but a fourth successive depletion of corn inventories, to a seven-year low.”
https://www.world-grain.com/articles/13876-igc-sees-record-grain-output-trade-in-2020-21
J Doug Swallowsays
#124 16 Dec 2020 at 6:56 PM nigelj says: “That said, I think the arctic sea ice decline will very slowly accelerate due to the positive feedback compounding ,but you obviously need more than two years to discern this trend. I’m not suggesting there is no problem. I think the arctic will be ice free in about two of decades”.
Does nigelj wonder what was happening in the Arctic with the sea ice when this happened. This is documented facts, not the baseless conjecture like Al Gore’s remark that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. “On December 13, 2008, junk scientist Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience on December 13, 2008. Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.” ”
Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at “The Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
The moon controls the release of methane in Arctic Ocean
Date:
December 14, 2020
Source:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Summary:
The moon controls one of the most formidable forces in nature – the tides that shape our coastlines. Tides, in turn, significantly affect the intensity of methane emissions from the Arctic Ocean seafloor. High tides may even counter the potential threat of submarine methane release from the warming Arctic.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201214104716.htm
“”We noticed that gas accumulations, which are in the sediments within a meter from the seafloor, are vulnerable to even slight pressure changes in the water column. Low tide means less of such hydrostatic pressure and higher intensity of methane release. High tide equals high pressure and lower intensity of the release” says co-author of the paper Andreia Plaza Faverola.
“It is the first time that this observation has been made in the Arctic Ocean. It means that slight pressure changes can release significant amounts of methane. This is a game-changer and the highest impact of the study.” Says another co-author, Jochen Knies.”
Interesting piece related to methane release in the
Arctic. I think all it tells us is that we can expect methane release from shallow sediments to be larger at low tide. I think that would also mean that the released methane would be moving through a somewhat shorter water column, so that might have some impact on how much will be absorbed in the water column and how much might be expected to be bubbling out at the surface.
Cheers
Mike
Killian @96,
Humour me.
Demonstrate how that “the last two years” of Arctic Sea Ice minimums constitutes that “dramatic new downward trend on the road to an ice-free Arctic,” this the condition I set out @55 without which Wadhams would remain ‘not correct’. Because without such a demonstration you also would remain ‘not correct’. And I would mind you not attribute to me such unfounded beliefs.
Mike @100, “ the point at 86 is that one person’s list of respected scientists is another’s person’s list of cranks/skeptics/charlatans.”
It’s not entirely subjective like that. It’s a fact that most people in your list are not climate scientists. It is a fact most of them are climate sceptics by any sane definition. I think you would find a fairly broad consensus among people here that at least a couple of them are cranks, and it appears you accept the usefulness of the idea of consensus. Its also a fact that some people on both sides of the debate make claims not backed by evidence or even an explanation, their only reasoning being “it might be possible” or “you can’t completely rule anything out”, but even if technically true, by that definition anything is possible. We might all be living in “the matrix”. I think such views are best discarded.
And if we are to consider a range of views as AB suggested, I don’t think it makes sense to include everybody’s, even the village idiot. For practical purposes you need boundaries. Spencer and Hansen are climate scientists, published and I don’t hear anyone calling them cranks. In an imperfect world that might be good enough. And I think Wadhams is perfectly acceptable, he is a climate scientist, quite well respected, and his only gaffe was a bad prediction. Semiletov/Shakhova/Gustaffson are credible scientists. Can you explain who here has claimed they are not credible scientists? Its possible to reject some of their findings and they are still credible scientists isn’t it?. But because they are usually right does not mean we can assume they are always right, eh? Its important to not overdo hero worship, the halo effect where our heroes can never do any wrong.
GISTEMP has posted for November with an anomaly of +1.13ºC, the warmest November on the GISTEMP record (ahead of 2015 +1.06ºC, 2019 +1.00ºC and 2016 +0.91ºC) and substantially up on the October anomaly of +0.88ºC. The 2020 monthly anomalies range from +0.87ºC up to +1.25ºC and average +1.04ºC, the highest Jan-Nov average anomaly on record (ahead of 2016 +1.03ºC, 2019 +0.97ºC and 2017 +0.92ºC).
To maintain top spot for the full canendar December’s anomaly would have to drop below a rather frosty +0.75ºC. So it looks like we have “scorchyissimo!!!” to end the year with. (At least in GISTEMP.)
NOAA have also reported for November with the year-to-date average of +1.00ºC, a shade below 2016’s Jan-Nov average of +1.01ºC with a December 2020 anomaly above +0.94ºC required to give 2020 top spot within the NOAA record.
KIA @93 “On lack of concern for future beings, I agree. The VAST majority of people who express concern for AGW – people like Greta and AOC as well as the neighbor across the street are apparently willing to do almost nothing to stop spewing CO2”
No, Greta has become a vegetarian and doesn’t fly anymore so that is just two things Im aware of and they are significant. And bear in mind she’s a child so not all choices might be hers to make, if her parents disagree. You know this, so you are a nasty piece of work quoting her as an example.
Somebody who predicted arctic sea ice and global warming trends quite accurately, using a relatively simple climate model: “A 50-Year-Old Global Warming Forecast That Still Holds Up. In 1972, Mikhail Ivanovich Budyko used a simple methodology to make climate predictions that remain surprisingly accurate today and that could serve as a new “business-as-usual” scenario.”
https://eos.org/features/a-50-year-old-global-warming-forecast-that-still-holds-up
KIA 93: people like Greta and AOC as well as the neighbor across the street are apparently willing to do almost nothing to stop spewing CO2.
BPL: Obviously false as Greta’s efforts to cut her CO2 footprint have been very public.
68 Barton Paul Levenson:“We know ECS…”
K 45: Incorrect. We know PAST ECS.
BPL: Which gets us into Hume’s proof that what happened in the past won’t necessarily happen in the future. Which is absolutely useless.
K: (Hey, you guys, do you think he realizes he just agreed with me?)
BPL: What part of “absolutely useless” do you not understand? Hume’s proof is ignored because in practice, whether it’s philosophically justifiable or not, the past IS a perfectly good guide to how natural laws will perform in the future.
#93, KIA–
Dunno about AOC’s personal carbon footprint, but Greta is literally the poster child for radical reduction in same via ‘just saying no’–which is precisely what KIA advocates we all do. She’s been quite ruthless about it; no FF transport, no meat, efficiency wherever possible, not even any new clothes (she is strictly a second-hand shopper).
For the N + 1st time, KIA says “that which is not.”
The N + 2nd is when he claims that “Even blue states and leftist-greenie nations are making little progress…”
For example, California:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-19/californias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rose-slightly-in-2018
That’s the very first search result; there are numerous others, including the fact that entire continent of Europe met its Kyoto targets, and is continuing to decarbonize:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress_en
Admittedly, this is still insufficient progress relative to the needed mitigation. But exceeding agreed targets, both in terms of time and quantity, is clearly not “little progress.”
Which makes the N + 3rd time the generalized assertion that systemic change isn’t necessary, and now.
(Part of the problem is KIA’s misframing of “goobermint” as somehow radically separate from citizenry, as if it were administered from Alpha Centauri, and by computer algorithm at that.)
#93, and my last response to it, should have been on FR…
Sorry about the latter.
Giant iceberg may soon landfall at South Georgia island.
https://graphics.reuters.com/CLIMATE-CHANGE/ICEBERG/yzdvxjrbzvx/
The latest data from NASA records a new record meteorological annual temperature anomaly of +1.05 K. The meteorological year runs from December to November. NASA have last year’s anomaly as +1.04 K but if you take the average of the twelve months it comes to 1.045 K which is 1.05 to two decimal places. The previous record in 2016 was 1.040 K.
The data is at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The data from NASA is at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt.
108 Barton Paul Levenson:68 Barton Paul Levenson:“We know ECS…”
K 45: Incorrect. We know PAST ECS.
BPL: Which gets us into Hume’s proof that what happened in the past won’t necessarily happen in the future. Which is absolutely useless.
K: (Hey, you guys, do you think he realizes he just agreed with me?)
BPL: What part of “absolutely useless” do you not understand? Hume’s proof is ignored because in practice, whether it’s philosophically justifiable or not, the past IS a perfectly good guide to how natural laws will perform in the future.
Get this through your head: Current conditions have never existed on this planet before. The future will not be like the past, just as it has not been since @ 1750. This will only become more true.
Physics is physics, but clearly the science is far from perfect and consistently lags. It will continue to lag due to reticence.
Smell the coffee: You will continue to get the future wrong because of this.
102 MA Rodger:Killian @96,
Humour me.
Demonstrate how that “the last two years” of Arctic Sea Ice minimums constitutes that “dramatic new downward trend on the road to an ice-free Arctic,” this the condition I set out @55 without which Wadhams would remain ‘not correct’. Because without such a demonstration you also would remain ‘not correct’. And I would mind you not attribute to me such unfounded beliefs.
Waste of time. You’re at least as scientifically reticent than, e.g. Schmidt, if not more so. You never accede that change happened until we are so far past you can no longer deny it. Remember those spikes at Mauna Loa in Jan. you said were nothing… then they kept happening? And are still happening?
Yeah, if it’s not already in the data and essentially proved, it doesn’t exist for you. Sadly, one cannot set policy that way and expect good outcomes in the context of existential threats.
Further, as I have said many times, I am pattern literate which allows me to surmise things before the numbers are fully confirmed. You are unable to do this so it looks like magic to you. It’s just pattern literacy.
So… anywho….
1. The last two years should not have happened according to what we knew at the time. Something was going on. I did not claim to know what, but it was obvious: Too much melt given conditions.
2. One reason is very likely June insolation as there is a high correlation with June, and to a lesser extent, July, insolation.
3. The other reason may be as very recently positied by Jim Hansen: Aerosols.
4. There is a proposed *negative* feedback from Francis and Wu:
This is important because I had noted a shift several years ago, and posted here about it, where refreeze was happening later and peak was shifting more consistently into March and would likely to do so. This should result in /thinner weaker sea ice and more melt. This we have seen. However, I had also noted, the first time around 2016, I think, that the late summers since 2012 had been very mild helping avoid new record lows several years – including last year.
Now we may know why due to Francis and Wu.
Pattern literacy, it’s a thing.
Wadhams has been far too pessimistic and I have called out those like him who let their emotions, pessimism and biases override what the numbers and patterns are telling us. So, yes, he’s been wrong on magnitude, but he is correct: BOE is coming and we truly do not know the year. It could be literally any year. Temps will continue to climb generally, maybe we get a year with high levels of high latitude snow, extensive June and July AO insolation, and get a GAC all in the same year. Add to that Hansen’s note that the solar cycle is ramping up and is likely to coincide at peak or near-peak with an El Nino and, well, things may get quite nasty.
Don’t be surprised by a BOE around mid-decade.
at Nigel: read AB at 81. read me at 85. The discussion that AB started was specifically about the “most conservative respected scientist.”
I think that was where the goalposts were set. Even if you move the goalposts to “most conservative respected climate scientist” the problem still arises. Let’s move the goalposts and use the most respected conservative climate scientist. Who would that be?
Does that help?
Cheers,
Mike
Is AGU2020 streaming somewhere easy to access ? i tried the site
https://www.agu.org/fall-meeting
but failed to navigate the registration process. The presentations seem to wind up on youtube eventually, so i could just wait i suppose. But i seem to remember in the past two or three years there was a different convoluted process that i could penetrate and it actually remembered my previous registration over successive years. I think they’ve changed sumpn.
O tempora, o mores.
sidd
K 115: Get this through your head: Current conditions have never existed on this planet before.
BPL: Get this through your head: It doesn’t mean science can’t analyze it.
Earth may be even closer to 1.5°C of global warming than we thought
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2262953-earth-may-be-even-closer-to-1-5c-of-global-warming-than-we-thought/#ixzz6gn76rmdr
a few snips from that article:
““Honestly, many of us have long recognised that the HadCRUT data set underestimated the warming,” says Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University.
There are two main reasons for the 0.16°C upwards revision in past warming. The biggest was changes to how the HadCRUT team looked at sea surface temperatures, specifically how it was measured by ships taking the temperature of sea water in their engine rooms.
The other is that gaps in the data set’s coverage of the Arctic, which has been warming two to three times as fast as the global average, have been filled in. Previously, grid squares for the region were left empty if there was no observational data – now they are estimated with data from nearby squares…
The new research may effectively shrink the world’s carbon budget, the amount that can be emitted without breaching temperature targets. The UN’s climate science panel, the IPCC, said in 2018 that global emissions need to roughly halve by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to have a two-thirds chance of staying under 1.5°C.
It is too early to say how much today’s update may change that timeline. “The IPCC have overestimated the available carbon budget through choices that tend to underestimate the warming we’ve already experienced. That of course means that there is a lot more work to do if we are to avert dangerous warming,” says Mann.”
I think paleoclimate calculations regarding ECS may not be as useful as some folks think in our current situation because the pulse of CO2 and other ghg that we have injected in the atmosphere have almost no parallels in the climate record.
I think we would be smart to be more cautious with our fascinating experiment of injecting a huge amount of ghg into the atmosphere.
CO2? How are we doing? the weekly numbers are not real terrible:
December 6 – 12, 2020 413.39 ppm
December 6 – 12, 2019 411.28 ppm
December 6 – 12, 2010 389.32 ppm
Cheers
Mike
mike: Let’s move the goalposts and use the most respected conservative climate scientist. Who would that be?
AB: Yeah, that’s what I had in mind. I totally spaced the “Deniers are scientists, too” thing. Fortunately, whoever is doing the communication gets to select which conservative climate scientist to give voice to. There is little or no reason to consider contrarians. You’re not trying to impress deniers by including their heroes. You’re trying to ensure that your communication encompasses reality.
Mike@100: “the point at 86 is that one person’s list of respected scientists is another’s person’s list of cranks/skeptics/charlatans.”
Utter, complete fucking bullshit. Whether YOU respect a scientist is utterly irrelevant. He or she won’t care a tinker’s damn. What matters is the esteem in which a scientist is held by his or her peers–those publishing and being cited actively in their chosen field. To a lesser extent, the opinions of scientists in related fields or even scientists in general may also register. You…not so much.
Many, many years ago, I was an editor at Physics Today with a responsibility for assessing the latest research in a variety of subfields of physics. I noticed that in each subfield, there were 2 or 3 people who were universally recommended for a take on new research. Invariably, these people had an impressive list of influential publication. However, another characteristic they shared was that while they were happy to give you their personal perspective, they were also willing to put it to one side and try to give a more balanced view. There are a few folks like this in all fields–they are amazingly influential.
The folks on the BI list are the opposite. They are almost universally viewed as clowns by all but the most blinkered ideologues. The one exception may be Dyson–he’s just an embarrassment.
mike 117
“at Nigel: read AB at 81. read me at 85. The discussion that AB started was specifically about the “most conservative respected scientist.”I think that was where the goalposts were set.”
Yes AB did say scientist, but if you read his statement he also referred to climate scientists, so its a bit confusing. Probably just a typo and I think its fairly obvious he meant climate scientists.
“Even if you move the goalposts to “most conservative respected climate scientist” the problem still arises. Let’s move the goalposts and use the most respected conservative climate scientist. Who would that be?”
I suggested Roy Spencer twice above as fitting the definition of respected conservative leaning climate scientist. He is a climate scientist, hes conservative in his climate views leaning sceptical on agw to some extent, but hes got good academic qualifications and appears to be generally respected. Yes I know ultimately its partly a subjective choice, I hear where you are coming from, but I would not ignore ABs suggestion simply because we are stuck with some level of subjectivity.
Killian @116 started off previously by suggesting the last two years of very low arctic sea ice could constitute a new trend (something that will continue for many years) and now says this new trend is because he is “pattern literate”.
I wondered what he meant exactly, and a google search brings up a book “Becoming pattern literate” by Toby Hemenway (biologist and permaculturalist) who says. “…a pattern includes the notion that somewhere, a process is repeated. A pattern, then, can be a guide that tells what to make via a repetitive process, or it can be the result of that process.” Ok this is credible, but science also looks at repeating patterns as a clue to understanding things and underlying processes, so I don’t see that the basic idea is new, although how its applied to permaculture might be new.
And its not clear how the last 2 years of significant arctic sea ice decline constitutes a pattern, unless Killian sees it as a continuation of the big decline in 2012 and caused by the same things, which might definitely make sense. But it points towards a pattern that repeats as a cyle probably of natural origins, rather than agw and a new associated and accelerated melting trend taking hold.
Killian posts peoples views on various plausible causes for the last two years of significant arctic sea ice decline including solar activity and aerosols, and a study by Francis and Wu. The solar activity and aerosols due to the covid 19 issue are likely to be cyclical or one off types of issues so don’t constitute a continuous trend setting in, and the study by Francis and Wu suggests a negative feedback so doesnt appear to suggest an accelerating decline in sea ice.
That said, I think the arctic sea ice decline will very slowly accelerate due to the positive feedback compounding ,but you obviously need more than two years to discern this trend. I’m not suggesting there is no problem. I think the arctic will be ice free in about two of decades.
Killian @155
I think BPL is right the past IS a perfectly good guide to how natural laws will perform in the future. Including climate sensitivity derived from past history. Which tells us we are at risk of causing serious, damaging levels of climate change. You clearly and rightly think we are in for serious climate change, so Im not sure why you are questioning levels of climate sensitivity derived from past history and thinking they dont apply now.
“Get this through your head: Current conditions have never existed on this planet before.”
Current CO2 levels have existed on this planet before. Current solar conditions have as far as we know. Rates of warming of about 1 degree or more per century appear to have existed before as below, in the very distant past.
https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm
Some of the minor greenhouse gases generated by industry might not have or not in quantity, but they are taken into account in the science. Deforestation is considered in the science. So what do you mean? Do you mean its not clear if the past ever had such a huge and rapid increase in CO2 levels? If so this acceleration probably just means warming could now be rapid and substantial, which is exactly what the science is telling us it will be anyway, assuming we go on burning fossil fuels. So what do you mean? What have people missed?
“To American intelligence experts, two things have become clear: Certain parts of the world might one day use the effects of climate change as rungs on a ladder toward greater influence and prosperity. And the United States, despite its not-unfavorable position geographically, is more likely to lose than win — not least because so many of its leaders have failed to imagine the magnitude of the transformations to come.”
“In the end, the players were reluctant to face the migration challenges in depth — a worrisome sign that, in the real world, wealthy nations like the United States would be likely to cling to the status quo even as large-scale humanitarian crises begin to unfold. “One of the insights we got was that migration was just an absolute no-go zone,” Burke said. “I wasn’t expecting that.” ”
“By the time Podesta went to China in late 2014 to negotiate an emissions agreement — a diplomatic feat that laid the groundwork for the Paris climate accord — he had come to believe that it was climate-driven food scarcity that posed the dominant threat to global security and to American interests. ”
“Sea-level rise, for one, could displace 14 million Americans by 2050, even with modest warming, while in Russia fewer than two million people are at risk. American military installations around the world are also particularly vulnerable.”
“If you take any factor out of your calculus, you create blind spots. One telling example: Russia has 34 icebreakers, and China, which is nowhere near the Arctic, has four; the United States has just two, one of which is nearly a half-century old.”
“And yet climate data analyzed for this project suggest that the U.S. farming industry is in danger. Crop yields from Texas north to Nebraska could fall by up to 90 percent by as soon as 2040 as the ideal growing region slips toward the Dakotas and the Canadian border. And unlike in Russia or Canada, that border hinders the U.S.’s ability to shift north along with the optimal conditions.”
“at the Russian Far East Investment and Export Agency in Vladivostok, Absamat Dzhanboriev, the agency’s agricultural investment director, describes a steep rise in agricultural production that can come only from large-scale corporate farming. In 2018 more than 900,000 tons of soybeans were exported from the East. Soon, he says, the region will harvest two million tons of soybeans from 3.7 million acres of farmed land — an area roughly the size of Connecticut. And the more the land warms, the farther north the industry will be able to push, eventually doubling farmed land again, producing nearly six million tons or more each year.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russia-climate-migration-crisis.html
AB: It will be ever so easy to keep under 3C, eh?
I know the jet streams have not been in the best of shape, but I was startled today by the severe fragmentation over the eastern Pacific Ocean where there are large splits and bands across the entire tropics. The rest of the northern jets are pretty broken up, too. See Climate Reanalyzer and Earth Nullschool. Is this a routine picture? Does it merit comment from anyone?
nigelj:
Here’s where I bring up religion on this thread. Roy Spencer signed the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states exactly what signatories believe:
I do not imply that all Evangelicals are science deniers: the obvious counter-example is Katharine Hayhoe, whose religion seems not to interfere with her scientific training and discipline, and whose outreach to her co-religionists on behalf of climate realism is heroic. But if “the first principle [of science] is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest to fool” (R. Feynman), then with his signature on the declaration, Spencer declared his willingness to fool himself rather than acknowledge that the energy in fossil carbon isn’t a gift from his deity, but comes with deferred and socialized costs. He has forfeited all claim to scientific respectability thereby. IMHO, of course.
Mal Adapted @128
“Here’s where I bring up religion on this thread. Roy Spencer signed the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states exactly what signatories believe……Spencer declared his willingness to fool himself rather than acknowledge that the energy in fossil carbon isn’t a gift from his deity, but comes with deferred and socialized costs. He has forfeited all claim to scientific respectability thereby. IMHO, of course.”
Yes maybe you are right. I had forgotten about that. I picked Spencer as a useful example of a conservative leaning climate scientist( always risky picking a specific example, but oh what the hell) because he seems to have the respect of his peers, where some others don’t so much. I think that respect of ones peers has to be the main criterion for selection as others have implied, however Spencers signing that document really does pretty much put a big question mark over him. I wonder what on earth he was thinking doing that.
And I agree that is an example of religion that is very relevant to the climate issue, so its reasonable to discuss it.
Ah yes, the record breaking hurricane season that wasn’t:
“In terms of the intensity, duration and frequency of storms, 2020 does not compare to the record set in 2005. That year, eight hurricanes reached Category 3 status or higher. Three of those hurricanes were a Category 5. The year 2005 is memorable in a bad way for many. One of the storms that season was Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 3 at landfall but a Category 5 at its strongest. The storm devastated much of New Orleans and killed more than 1,500 people.
This year, two hurricanes — Laura and Delta — reached Category 4 status before making landfall in Louisiana and Texas. Both storms caused damage. So far this year there have been no Category 5 hurricanes.”
In summary, lot of storms, but mostly weak ones. Source is leftist NBC:
https://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/weather-connection/2020-saw-the-busiest-hurricane-season-on-record-but-maybe-not-the-worst/2477195/
In other climate/weather news, a dangerous winter storm has dumped over 3 feet of snow in parts of the NE USA creating many power outages and dangerous travel conditioins. If you have plans to travel in that area during the Holidays, do be safe and prepare for just about anything. Oh, when did Al Gore say we’d have no more snow? Just want to fact check him – keep him on the straight and narrow. ;)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/winter-storm-blasts-east-coast-dumping-more-snow-some-saw-n1251526
In other AGW related news, Norway, darling of RE preachers around the world is having a pretty good year for oil production. Can you say “climate criminals”, “Nuremburg trials”? :)
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/norways-2021-oil-investments-set-fall-less-feared
“And yet climate data analyzed for this project suggest that the U.S. farming industry is in danger. Crop yields from Texas north to Nebraska could fall by up to 90 percent by as soon as 2040 as the ideal growing region slips toward the Dakotas and the Canadian border.
Now, where have we heard food security would be an issue sooner than later? I remember in 2011 telling my friend in Detroit the extremes were the problem, not the averages so much, and to expect chaos already…. and, yes, we have seen it. That next Spring we had a huge die off of fruit blooms in hte midwest. The projections for some small percent reduction in food production by mid- to late century were always gross underestimates.
Pattern literacy and logic. Simple.
#130 Ignoring the rest o0f the nonsense, NBC leftist LOL! Centrist perhaps but leftist, what a load of hogwash.
re: 130.
Once again the synagogue-killer deflector (hint: he was one of your brethren) shows that he has no clue about what he is talking about. A. NBC bent over backwards for your racist, impeached messiah. They put him on the map and fawned all over him when he would call into the Today Show by “surprise”. B. For the umpteenth time, Al Gore is a politician. When you can’t quote peer-reviewed scientists but only have a politician to complain about, you have complete lost the supposed argument, junior. Go ahead, please cite a peer-reviewed article by Gore which says what you made up. You can’t. You lied. Which brings up the obvious: Someone completely failed when bringing you up to teach you that blatant lying is unacceptable. Stop flaunting your ignorance of science.
BTW, still waiting for your explanation as to why the stratosphere is cooling when it ought to be warming if natural causes (the sun) are the cause of global warming. You can’t because you have never read the science. And you do not even understand the basics laws of thermodynamics.
KIA 130: Source is leftist NBC
BPL: Which shows how far right KIA is. He regards NBC as “leftist.”
@130
Question for mods: Why?
Nigel and Mal,
Isn’t the whole point that the denialist scientists have rejected the climate consensus without proposing anything better and without having truly compelling evidence to motivate them? If so, doesn’t that make them crappy scientists?
Knucklehead in America (KIA):
Horseshit. There were 6 hurricanes this year that reached Cat 4 or above: Laura, Teddy, Delta, Epsilon, Eta and Iota. Four of those made landfall.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb_latest/tws_atl_latest.gif
I know the author of this paper is also a contributor to Principia Scientifica.
I know it is rubbish.
What I don’t understand is how this paper could be published at all anywhere?
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
What is this journal doing?
“”To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere.””
ICE 15 December 2020 16:00
New climate models suggest faster melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
“we knew already from the observed melt and runoff of Greenland over the past couple of decades that the CMIP5 models seemed to be on the low side”. She adds the CMIP6 models have “updated physics” and seem to be doing “a better job”.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-climate-models-suggest-faster-melting-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet
I think it would be accurate to say that the folks who developed the models have failed us all to a certain extent by underestimating the Greenland melt and runoff rates.
A lot of folks line up to slam a scientist if they overestimate the impact of global warming, but I don’t see a long line of folks slamming the scientists who missed the mark on the low side. Accuracy is appreciated, but hard to deliver with global warming. I think the accuracy level is probably close enough if you take the errors on the high side of impact and balance against the low side of impact. That kind of fits with the idea of balancing high side scientists (Wadhams, Shakhova et al) with the mainstream (CMIP) modelers who have pretty consistently been low side. I think we don’t have to reach as far down as Spencer, Pielke etc for balance and accurate range assessment. I could be wrong about that.
No worries,
Mike
Here’s a prediction on the models, the CMIP6 models will prove to have underestimated melt and runoff just like the CMIP5 models did. How soon will we know that? I would think 5 to 8 years and we will be reading science stories that discuss how CMIP6 models did not keep up with the observational data. I suspect this persistent gap between model and observations feeds a lot of the friction that we see between the observational scientist and the computer modeling scientists.
Cheers
Mike
to Nigel: you say “Spencers signing that document really does pretty much put a big question mark over him. I wonder what on earth he was thinking doing that.”
I think he was simply stating his faith and belief in God and God’s intelligent design. Why are you puzzling over what he was thinking? It’s pretty clear on its face, isn’t it?
When we consider who might qualify as a conservative climate scientist who is well-respected by their peers (move the goal posts again), are we automatically tossing out the folks who don’t accept theory of evolution etc and instead want to go with some version of intelligent design or put their bets on a supreme deity who will step in and bail us out? For me, that kind of fundamental (yeah, I know) decision about science and creation means that climate scientist doesn’t make the first cut.
Cheers
Mike
The record-breaking hurricane season that was:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/12/03/592520.htm#:~:text=A%20record-setting%20Atlantic%20hurricane%20season%20that%20saw%20the,records%20while%20producing%20a%20record%2030%20named%20storms.
FYI, be aware that ANOTHER winter storm is coming to the USA, this one potentially an existential threat to survival. Make preparations now so you and your family have a chance to survive this dangerous, pre-ice-age Holiday season storm:
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/another-big-one-new-storm-expected-christmas-week
;)
Simon Barr Sinister says: “Freeze your ass off!”
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute
https://www.wunderground.com/weather/ca/churchill
:)
The 2020 Arctic Sea Ice season has been exceptional since the height of the melt back in July when it was setting lowest-on-record JAXA daily Sea Ice Extent for 5 weeks. This was followed by running a strong second-lowest to 2012 through the 7 weeks of the annual ice minimum August-to-October and another 2 weeks setting record lows in late October.
Since the start of November, the JAXA 2020 Arctic Sea Ice Extent levels have sat persistently second-lowest between the record-holding slow-freeze-up year of 2016 and the rest.
Now, after 7 weeks of that (and 10 days before 2016 relinquished its record-holding) 2020 JAXA Arctic SIE has become less exceptional. On 18 Dec it froze up with SIE levels no longer in 2nd-place but suddenly now in 5th (although effectively joining 2010, 2017, 2018 & 2019 in =2nd spot).
The lowest-ten JAXA 18th December Arctic SIE levels run:-
2016 … 11.300M sq km
2017 … 11.547M sq km
2010 … 11.548M sq km
2019 … 11.554M sq km
2020 … 11.562M sq km
2018 … 11.564M sq km
2012 … 11.653M sq km
2006 … 11.682M sq km
2015 … 11.711M sq km
2007 … 11.723M sq km
#130 17 Dec 2020 at 4:54 PM Mr. Know It All says: “Ah yes, the record breaking hurricane season that wasn’t”. Thank you for inserting some truth into what others comment about at this site where the truth is not all that important, it seems.
“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”– George Orwell
Regarding hurricanes: “The United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, experiencing its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period. And IPCC’s 2018 Interim Report observes there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ipcc-and-skeptics-agree-climate-change-is-not-causing-extreme-weather_3400695.html?fbclid=IwAR06D_l7QrIXY2QF5EFxDw44l-jNsfrcpm0udhL_Bb02Q55d9i2Ssr9x7c4
Claiming that “increasingly strong hurricanes are battering the Gulf coast” is a lie. Between Hurricane Wilma in 2005 and Hurricane Harvey in 2017 a record 4,323-days, 142-months, 12-year long major hurricane drought occurred shattering the previous record of 96 months set between September 1860 and August 1869.
#130 17 Dec 2020 at 4:54 PM Mr. Know It All says: “In other AGW related news, Norway, darling of RE preachers around the world is having a pretty good year for oil production. Can you say “climate criminals”, “Nuremburg trials”? :)”
To build this Troll-A Platform and get it moved and into place takes some very sharp people to get all of this done so that they can have people, who know nothing, curse them because they produce something the world demands and needs.
“Troll-A Platform: Largest Object Ever Moved by Man March 12, 2013
The Troll A platform is an offshore natural gas platform in the Troll gas field off the west coast of Norway. At 1.2 million ton ballasted under tow, 472 meters high, with underwater concrete structure at 369 meters, and dry weight of 656,000 tons, the Troll A platform is a majestic piece of design and construction. Not only is Troll A among the largest and most complex engineering projects in history, it is the largest object ever to be moved by man across the surface of the Earth. The platform was a televised sensation when it was towed into the North Sea in 1996, where it is now operated by Statoil.”
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/troll-platform-largest-object-ever.html
#126 Al Bundy says [by way of the New York Times]:
“In the end, the players were reluctant to face the migration challenges in depth — a worrisome sign that, in the real world, wealthy nations like the United States would be likely to cling to the status quo even as large-scale humanitarian crises begin to unfold. “One of the insights we got was that migration was just an absolute no-go zone,” Burke said. “I wasn’t expecting that.” ”
Did the New York Times & Al Bundy never hear about these amazing revelations that occurred because more people had reliable energy supplies provided by fossil fuels?
This lifting people out of poverty was accomplished on the back of fossil fuels. If the climate alarmist had their way, the trend would be reversed and more people would be living in destitution and sorrow.
“One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialisation trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely within another couple of decades. It is the reason why the Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas said that once you start thinking about economic growth and the improvements in standards of living, it is hard to stop.” http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470
“According to the most recent estimates, in 2015, 10 percent of the world’s population or 734 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day. That’s down from nearly 36 percent or 1.9 billion people in 1990. Forecasts suggest the number is now below 8 percent”.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Another view of how the use of fossil fuels is helping humanity. Can anyone give an example of how the climate alarmist has helped anyone other than themselves?
Growth of the global middle class and falling extreme poverty
Over the course of the last generation more than a billion people left the most destitute living conditions behind. Can we expect this progress to continue over the coming decade?
The world economy is growing. In less than a generation the value of the yearly global economic production has doubled.1
Increasing productivity around the world meant that many left the worst poverty behind. More than a third of the world population now live on more than 10 dollars per day. Just a decade decade ago it was only a quarter. In absolute numbers this meant the number of people who live on more than 10 dollars per day increased by 900 million in just the last 10 years.2
https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
#126 Al Bundy says [by way of the New York Times]:
“By the time Podesta went to China in late 2014 to negotiate an emissions agreement — a diplomatic feat that laid the groundwork for the Paris climate accord — he had come to believe that it was climate-driven food scarcity that posed the dominant threat to global security and to American interests. ”
Why didn’t Al Bundy, The New York Times, & Podesta get up to speed on what was happening in the world regarding food production?
IGC sees record grain output, trade in 2020-21
06.26.2020
LONDON, ENGLAND — Global grains production and trade are forecast to reach record highs in 2020-21, according to the International Grains Council’s (IGC) latest monthly grain market report, released June 25.
The IGC projects total grains production in 2020-21 to increase by 62 million tonnes from the previous year, led by a 55-million-tonne increase in corn output and a 6-million-tonne jump in wheat production, both of which would be record highs if realized.
While consumption prospects are somewhat uncertain for the coming marketing year, the IGC said “all components of demand are assumed to rise, taking total use to fresh high of 2.218 billion tonnes.”
“As projected supplies are more than ample to meet anticipated demand, the first build-up of global stocks in four years is expected, placed 20 million tonnes higher year-on-year at 635 million tonnes,” the IGC said. “This includes increases for wheat and barley, but a fourth successive depletion of corn inventories, to a seven-year low.”
https://www.world-grain.com/articles/13876-igc-sees-record-grain-output-trade-in-2020-21
#124 16 Dec 2020 at 6:56 PM nigelj says: “That said, I think the arctic sea ice decline will very slowly accelerate due to the positive feedback compounding ,but you obviously need more than two years to discern this trend. I’m not suggesting there is no problem. I think the arctic will be ice free in about two of decades”.
Does nigelj wonder what was happening in the Arctic with the sea ice when this happened. This is documented facts, not the baseless conjecture like Al Gore’s remark that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. “On December 13, 2008, junk scientist Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience on December 13, 2008. Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.” ”
Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at “The Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
“The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heavily relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artic or see the link to the original PDF below:”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-