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.
Mr. Swallow is clearly a troll, and not worth rebutting in detail.
However, some idiocies still have power to amuse, like this one from #172:
It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that CO₂ has nothing to do with any weather event.
Let’s ring the changes on this one:
It is hard to believe that in 1906 building codes could possibly have contributed to the most deadly earthquake to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that building codes have nothing to do with any earthquake casualty event.
It is hard to believe that in 1865 machine guns could possibly have contributed to the most deadly war to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that machine guns have nothing to do with any wartime casualty event.
It is hard to believe that in 1346 pest control could possibly have contributed to the most deadly pandemic to have ever struck Europe. The logical answer is that pest control has nothing to do with any pandemic casualty event.
One could continue for a long time, as the supply of fallacies is effectively endless… but then, Mr. Swallow has already illustrated that sad truth. (I seem to have worn out the amusement I initially felt around this nonsense.)
Doug “Gish Gallop” (#172) listed the 7 most active hurricane seasons per weather underground–of which, 4 occurred in the present young century, and only 2 of which did not happen during the modern warming era.
This, in a record going back at least to 1887, and hence divided at least 83/50 pre-warming/warming era (roughly 60%/40%). Figuring it another way, the 4 most active seasons came in the most recent 12% of the historical record.
“Own goal,” anyone?
Al Bundysays
Nigel,
Their theory boils down to:
tiny carrot (enough to not starve)
and huge stick.
It feels good feeding the destitute. That would go away under Yang.
CCHolleysays
RE. J. Doug Swallow @ 171
The people who believe that a trace gas absolutely essential for all life, CO₂, could have been….
So I wonder what it is, CO2 as a trace gas can be so essential for all life yet at the same time as just being a trace gas cannot be responsible for other profound attributes such as hindering heat loss to space? Being essential for life is A BIG DEAL for just being a trace gas, isn’t it? How is that so?
I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it. Afterwards he should tell us if 400 ppm can have any kind of a profound effect on him. Yup, actually he won’t be able to because he would be dead.
mikesays
Carbon Brief has a story about a study in Nature on the Greenland Icesheet melt.
The point of this story is that the CMIP5 models underestimated ice melt. That’s being fixed in CMIP6. I think we are expected to believe that the CMIP6 melt rates will turn out to be more accurate and won’t need to be “adjusted” in CMIP7 if/when melt rates are observed to be faster than modeled in CMIP6.
I think it’s strange that more folks don’t jump up and slam the scientists who signed on to CMIP5 for underestimating the melt. Folks sure love to beat up on Wadhams about missing melt on the high side. Where is the consternation about the scientists who have clearly underestimated the melt?
FTE = faster than expected, why do we keep hearing that phrase?
Cheers
Mike
J Doug Swallowsays
#192 23 Dec 2020 at 7:44 AM MA Rodger says: “Maybe this paper says something of interest to the assembly here”.
This is the same MA Rodger who felt the need to write this to me; “You seem to be happily trolling down this thread with grand assertions but with little enough in the way of supporting evidence. So forgive me for investigating what species of troll you are”. The abstract for the link that MA Rodger presented was typical of alarmist propaganda in that it says; “…and methane (CH4), representing a potential ecosystem feedback to climate change not included in international climate agreements.” & “Current fluxes of CH4 and carbon dioxide (CO2) to the water column were estimated at 18 (2–34) and 38 (13–110) megatons C yr−1, respectively”, where everything is some wild estimate not based on facts.
MA Rodger needs to note that the reason for the research below is: “International research has begun, with a primary goal of obtaining the methane in these hydrates as an energy source”.
“Ocean Floor Methane Gas Hydrate Exploration
Introduction: Over the last decade, large deposits of methane hydrates have been identified along the world continental margins. Frozen mixtures of hydrocarbon gas (mostly methane) and water occur over large areas of the ocean floor and vastly exceed other carbon-energy reservoirs. With a maximum content of 164 m3 of methane and 0.8 m3 of water at standard temperature and pressure per cubic meter of hydrate and an estimated range of 26 to 139 X 1015 m3 globally, this is a significant new energy source. The content of methane in hydrates is variable and is controlled by geothermal gradients and biological methane production. International research has begun, with a primary goal of obtaining the methane in these hydrates as an energy source.
This requires a broad range of scientific efforts to address the methane hydrate presence, develop mining strategies, and predict the impact on the environment and platform stability. The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has developed strong research topics regarding methane hydrates over the last 30 years. NRL has unique field and laboratory expertise that couples physical, chemical, and biological parameters to address methane hydrate distribution, formation, and stability. Recent, current, and planned field work is active on the Texas-Louisiana Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, Nankai Trough off the eastern coast of Japan, Blake Ridge in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, the Cascadia Margin in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, and the Haakon-Mosby Mud Volcano (MV) in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea”.
The content, location and distribution of methane in hydrate is variable and controlled by geothermal gradients and biological and thermal methane production. Large deposits of methane hydrates, frozen mixtures of hydrocarbon gas (mostly methane) and water, occur over large areas of the ocean floor. International research has begun with a primary goal of obtaining the methane in these hydrates as an energy source. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091122095413.htm
J Doug Swallowsays
#104 14 Dec 2020 at 7:51 PM MA Rodger says: “GISTEMP has posted for November with an anomaly of +1.13ºC, the warmest November on the GISTEMP record….”
Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937. I will even list them; Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia & Wisconsin adds up to 25 states whose record HIGH have all occurred between 1930 & 1936.
These 13 states listed below had their record highs occur BEFORE 1930 & 1936, such as; Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia & Washington.
The above in formation came from this source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
A total of fourteen states set record highs in 1936 that obviously still stand. They occurred from July 5th to August 10th although July 10th has four of the records for high temperature in include Maryland which tied the record set in July 3, 1898 of 109°F, the rest that set records that year are New Jersey, Penn. & Virginia.
MA Rodger says: “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”. This is the information that MA Rodger did not take the time to show on his comment. From this plot, we can see that 2020 is cooler than 2016.
Global Haywood Plots
Choose from the options below and click “Plot” to create a year-to-date time series of each year of the period of record. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/haywood/globe/land_ocean
J Doug Swallowsays
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F)
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain, Aug. 4, 1881 (122F): (for what ever reason, this one has been changed to what is shown below)
Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada, Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania; Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30’s? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
J Doug Swallowsays
This is a record that still holds after 107 years. Two years ago I went to Death Valley to see this place where this record was set. Perhaps MA Rodger has an explanation for why this 107 year old record still stands on the planet that he is convinced is going to be too hot to exist in, and soon, I’m sure, from his recent comment.
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
The alarmist are bring up the Australian heat wave without looking at what happened in the past.
A Real Heat Wave Credit: Dreams time.
The town of Marble Bar in Western Australia is legendary for its hot weather. From Oct. 31, 1923, to April 7, 1924, the tiny town scorched with 160 consecutive days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (37.8 degrees Celsius). That’s a world record.
Think of the 194 people in Marble Bar next time it gets hot in your hometown. Their average high temperature is over 100 F for January, February, March, November and December (the summer months in the Southern Hemisphere). http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/997-weird-weather-anomalies-110302.html
Please notice, MA Rodger, that one of the above two records were set in 1913, or 107 years ago, and the Australian Marble Bar record was set in 1922, or 98 years ago. What part did your devil in the sky, CO₂, play in these extremely hot conditions?
David B. Bensonsays
Feliz Navidad
William B Jacksonsays
JDS Individual high and low temp records are interesting however climate is trends and long term changes that cause real net changes in the types of growth to be found and the crops that can be reliably raised. In other words climate is climate and weather is weather! Your posts while interesting are unconvincing as you totally mistake the point.
J Doug Swallowsays
#204 23 Dec 2020 at 8:02 PM CCHolley says:, among other nonsense: “I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it. Afterwards he should tell us if 400 ppm can have any kind of a profound effect on him. Yup, actually he won’t be able to because he would be dead”. The thought process of some alarmist is amazing, to say the least. To try to equate the vastness of the Earth’s atmosphere with the confines of the human body is preposterous. First off; this is what CO₂ is.
“Atmospheric CO2 is essential to life on earth, since plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.
Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor” http://co2coalition.org/2019/08/01/despite-what-democrats-said-at-their-debate-were-not-heading-toward-climate-apocalypse/
“The following are facts about carbon dioxide that were extracted from several scientific publications:
CO2 is neither a pollutant nor does it endanger public health.
CO2 is a plant nutrient and necessary for existence of life on earth.
Additional CO2 causes an astonishing plant growth. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, with only a 105 parts per million (0.0105 percent) increase, the Earth has had an average growth increase of about 12 percent for plants and 18 percent for trees. CO2 is Earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.
Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates.
According to scientists from the USGS and NASA, CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere (0.0385 percent) and is a requirement for most of life to continue on this planet.
Natural causes, such as volcanic activity and biologic activity in the oceans, annually put 97.1 percent of the CO2 into the atmosphere. All of man’s activities account for only 2.9 percent”.
One could only hope that CCHolley has the capacity to understand what a lifeless world he would exist in if it were not for the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth TRACE gas, CO₂, or the Sun that has controlled the Earth’s climate since the beginning of time, that makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system.
I use to live in Fairbanks, AK and do know about the arsenic in the ground water to the point that many people went to the spring near Fox to get drinking water; but, the question is, what does CCHolley know about arsenic?
“Please direct yourself to the papers that have stated a shift in temperatures starting around 2015 is in play. Previously been posted to these fora. I noticed it in 2019, but it became clear in 2020 for the simple reason already stated: The temperatures of ’19 and ’20 had no freaking reason to be occurring, so why did they? The ASI melt levels had no clear reason to be happening, so why were they? I have noted this multiple times over the last year, particularly WRT ASI effects.I ALREADY posted about that.But, hey, pretend I haven’t already given you the context. As I said… waste of time.”
I acknowledge you have posted some context before, but I dont recall it because I dont read everything on this website, and nobodies memory is perfect. Even your own memory is not perfect given you said MAL when it should have been MAR.Your comments need to be self contained or with a link or clear reference. Nobody is going to search back on this website hundreds of pages to find material.
Yes the last two years of rapid warming trend and rapid ASI trends do look strange and ominous. However its hard to see how it constitutes a new trend. The latest evidence you posted yourself @ 116 included Hansens views that its due to fewer aerosols (I assume this is due to reduced emissions due to covid 19, a one off thing), or the solar cycle. Being only 2 years it could also just be weather conditions. You could be right that it could still turn out to be an ominous new trend, but I think we would need a couple more years of data to be sure its not very short term natural variation.
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @196, Watts might have got something right somewhere, but largely hes unconvincing. Regarding your post and its links:
“Richard Muller said if Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today….In 2007 Watts initiated the Sur/acestatiQns.org project,…”
I don’t give Watts or Muller many points. I checked the Sur/acestatiQns.org project as below out of curiosity, and a different, fuller picture emerges:
“In 2007, Watts launched the Surface Stations project, encouraging volunteers to take photographs of weather stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network to record their condition.[9][11][48] By 2009, around 650 volunteers had reported on around 70% of the 1,221 stations, and suggested most were below “good or best” reliability………The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) investigated the matter. While acknowledging the suboptimal conditions of many stations, NOAA concluded in 2010 that any bias had been nearly eliminated by their models, which compared stations over regions and time.[53] To the very limited extent that there was any measurement bias, it was in the opposite direction of what Watts expected: stations that were considered poorly situated reported slightly cooler temperatures.[54][55]”
It didn’t lead to a need to correct Americas historical temperature record, as far as I can tell. Unless someone has proof. Of course sometimes climate change sceptics do contribute something useful, but its rare. It gets drowned out by the noise of the thousands of crazy sceptics. But the climate change sceptic Muller didnt achieve much. He set out to prove the global temperature record wrong and ended up conceding he couldn’t. He eventually founded the Berkley Earth group.
“This “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Animation 2016-2018” doesn’t seem to be much different than what we saw back over 100 years ago (records from whaling ships in the Bering sea area from the link Swallow posted)”
The Bering sea is a small part of the arctic, so the records are of very little use. Did you even read it? Proper reconstructions show the following:
“Satellites have continuously monitored sea ice since 1979. To gauge what Arctic sea ice was like before then, scientists use a combination of historical records and proxy measurements such as marine sediment cores. Taken together, these records indicate that the current Arctic sea ice decline is unprecedented in the last several centuries.”
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @198 says
“GLACIERGATE” HIGHLIGHTS IPCC FLAWS”
One mistake found in many thousands of pages, and a non critical mistake. Compare this to the huge volume of proven mistakes coming from the denialists (refer to a very long list of information on skepticalscience.com). I know who I prefer, and the IPCC deserve a medal. They are not perfect, but they are damn good.
———————————-
J Doug Swallow @200
Many thank’s for confirming that the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has been increasing globally in recent years. However its a shame you and Curry dont understand something like the greenhouse effect, which has been demonstrated over and over, and is not disputed even by sceptical climate scientists like Roy Spencer.
“Would it then be logical to assume that the sea-surface temperatures around the globe were dropping for this below to have been written on June 26, 2017” (The article you quote refers to a smaller number of hurricanes of all types making landfall prior to 2017).
No. You establish sea surface temperatures with thermometers not numbers of hurricanes making landfall. The reduced number of hurricianes making landfall has happened in the past, although not often, and only for short periods, and it can happen with high sea surface temperatures, probably all due to short term climate cycles related to local winds. I have read that the trend has now changed anyway.
And it is quite a different thing to what I quoted, “the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has been increasing globally in recent years.” And if even a few of those make landfall, watch out. But you are determined to miss the point and the dangers of a warming world, being a troll.
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @207
“Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937. ”
No. America had extreme heatwave conditions in that early period. Extreme heatwaves happen sporadically. Its been suggested that is was a freak occurence “Research by Dr Markus Donat from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and colleagues has revealed that unusually warm sea surface temperatures occurring at exactly the same time in two very specific locations were likely responsible for creating the record breaking heat.” Only took me a few seconds to find this.
The record shows America is warmer now overall, and the planet a lot warmer now than in the 1930s. Expect something like the 1930s in America, only much worse in the not too distant future, amplified by the current warming trend.
JDS 207: Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937.
#211 24 Dec 2020 at 11:25 PM William B Jackson says: “JDS Individual high and low temp records are interesting however climate is trends and long term changes that cause real net changes in the types of growth to be found and the crops that can be reliably raised”. Below demonstrates what the trends are that is caused by more CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere.
This that follows is what I spend my time doing, searching for the truth.
April 26, 2016
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
“Earth’s atmosphere consists of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, a varying 0 to 4% of water vapor at any one place and a small, 0.0400%, amount of CO2 and a few other trace gasses. The amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is very small but that small amount delivers a huge impact on the plant and animal kingdoms. By simply increasing this small amount of CO2 almost twofold, thousands of peer reviewed studies indicate that the result would be a tremendous “greening” of Earth as well as most individual ecosystems and habitats. To actually reduce CO2 levels as some extremists groups propose, would be catastrophic to the hundreds of millions of people (and animals) currently living on the edge of starvation.” http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?act=documentdetails.aspx&documentid=318
“Similarly, we can now examine the processes behind the extraordinary greening of the Earth over recent decades as CO₂ levels have climbed. Up to 50% of vegetated land is now greener than it was 30 years ago. The increasing human-driven CO2 fertilization effect on vegetation was estimated to be the dominant driver.
We now have satellites that can study this process at spatial resolutions of tens of metres – meaning we can also keep tabs on processes that undo this greening, such as deforestation.” https://phys.org/news/2017-10-satellites-view-earth-carbon.html
William B Jackson needs to explain what is bad about the planet getting greener.
Ray Ladburysays
J. Doug Swallow,
Thank you for making it abundantly clear that you are utterly clueless when it comes to extreme-value statistics.
Dansays
re:209.
Goodness, it takes 30 seconds on the internet to read and learn the fundamental difference between weather and climate. Basic stuff. There is no excuse for coming to a blog site run by peer-reviewed climate scientists and not having the slightest clue what “climate” means.
Killiansays
213 nigelj: Killian @191,
I acknowledge you have posted some context before, but I dont recall it because I dont read everything on this website
Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter.
That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable. Not bragging, just asking that you pay fucking attention.
“Even your own memory is not perfect given you said MAL when it should have been MAR”
Actually, I wondered myself, but just didn’t give enough of a shit to go back and check bc… it was just not that important.
Your comments need to be self contained or with a link or clear reference.
Really? Because I am not utterly consistent on these issues? Puh-leeeease.
Yes the last two years of rapid warming trend and rapid ASI trends do look strange and ominous. However its hard to see how it constitutes a new trend.
Actually, I had said ’19 and ’20. The SCIENCE has said since 2015.
The latest evidence you posted yourself @ 116 included Hansens views that its due to fewer aerosols (I assume this is due to reduced emissions due to covid 19, a one off thing)
Fucking READ it.
Being only 2 years
Hansen didn’t say TWO years. Jesus…
You could be right that it could still turn out to be an ominous new trend, but I think we would need a couple more years of data to be sure its not very short term natural variation.
Really, Sherlock? Will you PLEASE try to understand the difference between a supposition and an established trend, but also the VALUE of investigating a supposition BECAUSE there are different ways of knowing other than hard data?
nigeljsays
Killian @222
“Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter…. That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable. Not bragging, just asking that you pay fucking attention.”
Please provide evidence you have been most accurate. Thats how things usually have to go. And I don’t recall anyone other than you posting those sorts of predictions here, so there’s nothing to compare you with. That doesn’t make you better or worse than anyone it just means its hard to evaluate.
I read the thoughts and predictions of both scientists and lay people all over the place and with interest and I value it all, including many of yours , but its not clear why you should be given special preference over other people when 1) you didn’t even include a comment above summarising all your predictions for people to look at 2) Likewise you didn’t mention your methodology in any detail, 3) I remember you admitting your prediction of when the arctic would be ice fee was very wrong, 4) I remember a couple of other predictions and that they proved to be correct in terms of direction, but not terribly accurate in terms of time. If my recollection on any of this is wrong, please clarify exactly what you said, and give a link or reference to a specific comment thread.
I’m sure you are more astute than many people, but its just no more compelling to me than my own internal assessment of things. I would ultimately rather rely on the scientists, even if they are a bit conservative. Science is about formulas and methods all out in the open. And its not as if they have been horribly wrong. Warming is tracking about where it was expected to. Sea level rise is towards the upper range. Even the so called “conservative leaning ” IPCC reportsare very scary and Im not sure adding an extra degree or whatever changes things substantially or will motivate the complacent people.
I’m very reluctant to put my trust completely in some lay person who is using an alternative approach that isn’t too clear, relies on instincts as well as hard analysis, and has a less than perfect record, and your over the top nastiness doesn’t help either. Its too much like following the leader of some new age cult. I will listen with interest, but no way am I putting full trust in it.
“Hansen didn’t say TWO years. Jesus…”
Ok so Hansen thinks theres been an acceleration in warming in the last couple of years as below, but building up since 2015. This could obviously be a factor in the rapid ASI decline.
What do other people think of his research study? It looks good, but I thought you would need about 10 years to be sure there was a “new trend?”
“Really, Sherlock? Will you PLEASE try to understand the difference between a supposition and an established trend, but also the VALUE of investigating a supposition BECAUSE there are different ways of knowing other than hard data?”
I understand the difference perfectly well. All MAR asked was for an explanation of why you “supposed” there could be a new trend. That’s all I wanted to know. Your response appeared to be pattern literacy, followed by a denial it was pattern literacy, and now some statement that its “other ways of knowing” and I’m afraid that isn’t too clear either. I’m prepared to consider the value of “other ways of knowing” and obviously for example intuition has value, up to a point, but I do need a bit of coherent detail about the “other ways of knowing” especially their application to climate issues.
nigeljsays
Killian @222
“Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter. That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable.”
I seem to recall you admitting on a previous UV thread that your prediction on when the arctic would be ice free was wrong. This is rather a large thing to get wrong. If my recollection is wrong, please advise. However, I did a quick google search and this came up on artic sea ice. It certainly looks like a prediction, even if its an informal sort of prediction or suggestion:
“PermOccupy – A Pathway to a Sustainable Future,” by Killian O’Brien. Interview on PermOccupy with Killian by Willi Paul. Presented by Planetshifter.com Magazine. Submitted by Willi Paul on Thu, 03/22/2012 – 11:10”
“– Arctic Sea Ice Canary in Coal Mine: Gone by 2017?”
prlsays
J Doug Swallow @208: [Highest temperature recorded in] Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
It lists the top recorded temperature as:
Oodnadatta Airport (South Australia), 2 January 1960, 50.7°C [123.3°F]
None of listings for the three top temperatures in Queensland (the state where Cloncurry is) are for Cloncurry. All three are for (two different stations in) Birdsville.
Some reasons why at least Australian temperature records before 1910 can’t be relied on (About Rainfall and Temperature Records):
“To enable valid comparisons of extreme temperatures to be made, it is very important to have high-quality observations measured in a consistent way. Standards relating to the accuracy of the instruments, their exposure and the height (above ground level) at which measurements are taken have been in place for temperature since early in the 20th century. The Stevenson Screen became a national standard by 1910, but before then thermometers were sheltered in a variety of ways, sometimes resulting in the instrument being in direct sunlight.”
Marble Bar continues being very hot for extended periods (same page as previous quote): “More recently, Marble Bar reached at least 42°C [107.6°F] on 43 consecutive days between 16 January and 27 February 2007, and the mean maximum temperature for that month of February was 44.9°C, the highest ever recorded in Australia.”
Africa: 10 of 17
Antarctica (regions): 3 of 4
Asia: 24 of 39
Europe: 30 of 45
North America: 6 of 16
Oceania: 6 of 9
South America: 7 of 10
countries (regions) have dated maximum temperatures in this century.
Some countries list more that one maximum temperature (same temperature recorded twice). I have counted those as separate maxima on both sides of the “of”.
* some temperatures are undated, a number of countries have had more than one equal maximum
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @208 posts a cherry picked list of record high temperatures for about 12 countries, many during the earlier part of last century. What about the other 180 countries in the world? A quick checks shows most record high temperatures are relatively recent:
The records early last century were set by freak weather events. The many recent records are driven by weather but amplified by global warming.
What about the fact average temperatures are much higher now, and this is what drives the melting of ice sheets?
nigeljsays
J Doug Swallow @219 claims:
“By simply increasing this small amount of CO2 almost twofold, thousands of peer reviewed studies indicate that the result would be a tremendous “greening” of Earth.”
He quotes about three papers, so I dont know that there are thousands of papers, and this is what one says about Swallows statement about “Africa’s deserts are in “spectacular” retreat”
“But there is confusion over why the Sahel is becoming green. Rasmussen believes the main reason is increased rainfall since the great droughts of the early 1970s and 1980s. But farmers have also been adopting better methods of keeping soil and water on their land.”
Oops no mention of CO2 greening the Sahel. It’s almost comical the things he posts. And of course this greening of the earth in some places tends to lead to crops with lower nutritional value:
“A number of studies indicate that plants that grow in extra carbon dioxide often end up containing lower concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen, copper and potassium. As more carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere, the problem will grow.” And an increasing preponderance of heatwaves reduces the output of crops that we rely on. There are two sides of the story about this greening of the earth and its not all some wonderful bounty. The negatives outweigh any positives.
——————————-
Mr. Know It Allsays
221 – Dan
“There is no excuse for coming to a blog site run by peer-reviewed climate scientists and not having the slightest clue what “climate” means.”
The site may be run by peer-reviewed climate scientists, but many of the comments are posted by non-scientist hacks; in fact I’d guess that was the case for the vast majority of the comments. Am I right? :)
207 – JDS
“Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937.”
That’s just plum mean of you to confuse the believers with facts! :)
201- Kevin McKinney
“It is hard to believe that in 1906 building codes could possibly have contributed to the most deadly earthquake to have ever struck the US.”
I’m gonna go out on a big, long, rotten limb and guess that geological faults, plate tectonics, and that kinda stuff contribute a lot more to ANY earthquake than building codes.
:)
“It is hard to believe that in 1865 machine guns could possibly have contributed to the most deadly war to have ever struck the US.”
“Machine guns” saw very limited use and were of little consequence in the first US Civil War:
Quote: “For the most part, although Requa and Coffee Mill guns were issued to infantry units, as were later machine guns, they were employed as artillery pieces, usually in roles better served by actual artillery. In the end, however, imperfect ammunition combined with a lack of tactical ingenuity assured that the machine gun would fulfill no more than a novelty role in the Civil War.” ;)
204 – CCHolley
“I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it. ……he would be dead.”
Maybe, maybe not, but good exam question, thanks:
Toxicity to Animals: Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 145 mg/kg [Mouse]. Per the MSDS:
OK, you chemists, show us the real numbers: what PPM of arsenic in a cup of coffee will ensure death? You coffee drinkers have no need to be afraid, it’s just math. :)
JDS 212: CO2 is neither a pollutant nor does it endanger public health.
BPL: Anything is a pollutant if present in the wrong place or in excess quantity. Water is a pollutant if you’re trying to prepare anhydrous ammonia. Oxygen is a pollutant if you’re trying to prepare a container full of pure argon. As the toxicologists say, “The dose makes the poison.”
Increased CO2 endangers public health by causing global warming.
J Doug Swallow @206,207,208&209,
You noted that I branded you a troll @184 because of all that nonsense you assailed us with about hurricanes. Having noted my comment @184, do you intend to answer the questions I put to you? Or are you employing the troll-tactic of only answering the stuff that suits your trollish purposes?
Perhaps I should remind you that [assuming there is just the one of you] our paths have crossed before on a site with heavier moderation than here. You didn’t last very long there. And do note that the climatologist you accused back then of “using falsified tree ring observations from two trees in Siberia to make his hockey stick graph” is one of our hosts here at RealClimate.
…
So let us see what nonsense you present @206,207,208&209. No mention of hurricanes any more but you kick-off by branding Sayedi et al (2020) as being “typical of alarmist propaganda … where everything is some wild estimate not based on facts.” Is that any more than simple trolling? Do you think the numbers from 2002 you go on to present @206 were any less “wild” in their estimation?
We are then treated to some ageing quote that I see elsewhere you have wielded multiple times in the past but which is now cut from the interweb archives. You also add a rogue quote from more recent times (2009) which perhaps does not properly reflect the nature of the ‘research’ being described, it also being described by Masutani & Coffin (2001). And when I say “not properly,” be advised that I am branding your use of this reference here as downright improper.
So J Doug Swallow, you then gibber-on at length about still-standing historic temperature records but within that blather we have a wonderous demonstration of your inability to grasp the more basic aspects of climatology (& not the only example down this thread).
The NOAA Haywood Plot you want the world to see presents exactly the same situation that I described @104. And why shouldn’t it? It is presenting the same NOAA data!!
What you actually present is you failure to grasp what those “Haywood Plots” are. They plot cumulative data, in this case average year-to-date global temperature anomalies. J Doug Swallow, you even manage to cut-&-paste an instruction from the NOAA webpage saying they are “year-to-date time series”!!! So when the gap shrinks between 2016 above & 2020 below it means 2020 is warmer than 2020 in that month.
Presumably you are drawn to these plots because seeing 2020 sitting consistently in second hottest spot (rather than top spot) brings much comfort to a climate-change denying troll like yourself.
As for the still-standing historic temperature records you gibber-on about, there are reasons for them persisting within a warming global climate but such ‘reasons’ can include them being incorrect readings, which has been established for the Lybian & Death Valley readings. The Australian one could well be the same, some jolly swagman boiling his billie under the shade of a stevenson screen.
Yet these still-standing historic temperature records do not in any way contradict the fact that “global temperature continues to increase.” Such temperature records are not inconsistent with global climate (of which they are a part). But it is probably too much to ask that you engage your brain to allow you understand why your input down this thread comprises nought but fake argument.
As for your “devil in the sky, CO₂”, I would refer you to my comment @184.
Ray Ladburysays
Ah, I see that Mr. KIA has jumped on Mr. Swallows bandwagon of innumerate and illogical idiots.
So, first let us identify the logical fallacy: Cherrypicking.
Of all the possible statistics one could choose to elucidate a rising global temperature–global mean, #s of local record highs vs. local record lows…they choose the maximum measured temperatures on continental or global scales.
Now why is this a poor statistic? First, local temperature depends on a lot of local variables, so that in itself makes it at the very least noisy. But they aren’t content to look just at local maxima. No, they are looking at the maxima of the local maxima over very large areas with highly variable conditions. They are looking at extreme values OF extreme values.
Extreme value theory is a beautiful and elegant field of statistics. Basically, the extrema (maxima or minima) do depend on the underlying distributions for the measurement. However, they depend most strongly on the tails of the distribution, the portion of the distribution for which we have the least data.
Now consider a data series, with data drawn from an underlying distribution. Our statistic is the maximum of the data series. As you can imagine, initially, we get new maxima fairly rapidly. Our first datum is our first maximum. Our second maximum might be our second datum, or it might not. Eventually, though, we’ll have started to sample from the upper tail of our distribution, and new maxima will come far less frequently. This makes the maximum a poor descriptor of our underlying distribution.
Now imagine that our distribution is a time series, and that it is changing slowly. If the rate of change is fairly slow, relative to the initial degree of variability and if our time series is long to begin with, the maximum will be very slow to reflect the underlying changes in the distribution. It is an even poorer statistic or reflecting changes in the distribution than it is of the initial distribution.
So in summary: crack a stats text, dumbasses!
Al Bundysays
the nigel&Killian show:
My track record is solid and unassailable.”
I seem to recall you admitting on a previous UV thread that your prediction on when the arctic would be ice free was wrong.
AB: Since Killian threw down the gauntlet I’ll note that my long-held prediction of 2025 is looking solid. I derived it rather scientifically:
2020 vision is difficult. Within five years is awfully good (and it’s always worse than we thought), so 2025.
As confirmed by “In the year 2525”, Zager and Evan’s song about the future.
The thread felt true two decades ago, and it’s felt so ever since.
Al Bundysays
AB: The thread felt true two decades ago, and it’s felt so ever since.
AB: No, there was that time when the ice took a nosedive and I lost faith in this particular fantasy. Current crowing generally hits the past’s high points, eh?
Al Bundysays
JDS 219: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
BPL: Look again.
AB: I assume but don’t care whether JDS’s whatever (didn’t notice but dayam, I am showing serious restraint by not playing with his initials) mentioned the greening of the Arctic, where greening vs rot is the local CO2 equation (hint: rot’s winning).
Your links point towards what’s happening in warmer realms, where green is largely limited by water. Green vs fire (hint: fire’s winning).
Killiansays
232 Barton Paul Levenson: K 222: if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool.
BPL: Then I must be a damned fool, because I rarely read your posts.
Honesty begins with the self.
Killiansays
224 nigelj: Killian @222
“Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter. That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable.”
I seem to recall you admitting on a previous UV thread that your prediction on when the arctic would be ice free was wrong.
What prediction? I made no prediction. A fellow with the Naval Observatory created a statistical model that set 2013, then 2016 as the midranges for a possible ice-free Arctic.
I took this risk seriously and felt it had a fair chance of being correct. But I also revise my expectations of the ASI yearly. And I post them in public. Because I’m not afraid of imperfect analysis since all forward-looking analysis is.
That said, there has yet to be a year that I have set out an analysis of ASI that I have been wrong.
So… you are attempting to call me out for… calling myself out? For honesty?
And, you do this with as a Red Herring given the statement was to ***show me anyone who had been more accurate,*** not to “…show me where I have ever been imprefect.
You’re still an idiot.
This is rather a large thing to get wrong.
1. Not wrong: There was no prediction, only a possibility – one not presented by me, but one that seemed to have merit, and it did. The maths were solid. Nature simply didn’t follow the math. And, 2016 was a new record for 2nd lowest extent which was well within the range of the scenarios presented.
2. See that question mark? Do you not understand WTF a question mark means?
3. Why do you still not know the difference between probabilities, scenarios and predictions?
The ASI IS A CANARY IN THE COAL MINE FOR CLIMATE, whether or not there was a blue ocean event in 2017.
4. The interview in question was FIVE YEARS EARLIER. If you spent time using your goddamned head instead of regurgitating others’ intelligent comments, you’d know ASI extent is notoriously difficult to predict, yet, I have yet to be wrong on any in-year scenario.
5. I repeat: You can only engage the Red Herring fallacy because you cannot answer the challenge: There is nobody that has been more accurate than I have over the last ten years, scientist or layperson.
6. Everything else in that list you cherry picked that **2012** quote from is still dead-on, including the half you ignore: ASI is a climate canary.
So, asshat, who, exactly, has been more accurate than I have been?
Piotr Trelasays
J. Doug Swallow (171) The people who believe that a trace gas absolutely essential for all life, CO₂, could have been….
CCHolley (204) “I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it”
J. Doug Swallow (212 ) “among other nonsense”, “The thought process of some alarmist is amazing, to say the least. To try to equate the vastness of the Earth’s atmosphere with the confines of the human body is preposterous. First off; this is what CO₂ is”
hence the “ppm”, genius!
Since you are not the sharpest knife in a drawer, EVEN for a climate change denier, let me help you: Using RELATIVE numbers TAKES CARE of the difference between the mass of body and of Earth’s atmosphere.
And after that, _you_ pontificate on “thought processes”? Priceless!
Piotrsays
Mr. Know It All, the Gift That Can’t Stop Giving (229):
J.D. Swallow (172): “ It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that CO₂ has nothing to do with any weather event.”
Kevin McKinney (201): It is hard to believe that in 1865 machine guns could possibly have contributed to the most deadly war to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that machine guns have nothing to do with any wartime casualty event.
Mr. Know It All (229): “Machine guns” saw very limited use and were of little consequence in the first US Civil War: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-most-lethal-weapons-the-us-civil-war-17566 https://www.historynet.com/civil-war-guns
Quote: “For the most part, although Requa and Coffee Mill guns were issued to infantry units, as were later machine guns, they were employed as artillery pieces, usually in roles better served by actual artillery. In the end, however, imperfect ammunition combined with a lack of tactical ingenuity assured that the machine gun would fulfill no more than a novelty role in the Civil War.” ;)
Duh, that was the WHOLE POINT of this analogy, genius … What _else_ did you think it was about???
A related chicken and egg question – do you guys becoming climate change deniers because you are so dense, or are you becoming so dense, because of the climate change denial (e.g. sacrificing one’s intellect on the altar of ideology, or ego validation – look at me how brave contrarian I am!)
CCHolleysays
RE. Mr. Know Nothing @229
OK, you chemists, show us the real numbers: what PPM of arsenic in a cup of coffee will ensure death? You coffee drinkers have no need to be afraid, it’s just math. :)
The lethal dose of arsenic in acute poisoning ranges from 100 mg to 300 mg. The Risk Assessment Information System database states “The acute lethal dose of inorganic arsenic to humans has been estimated to be about 0.6 mg/kg/day” https://pmj.bmj.com/content/79/933/391
The fatal human dose for ingested arsenic trioxide is 70 to 180 milligrams (mg) or about 600 micrograms per kilograms (kg)/day [ATSDR 2007].
Mr. Know Nothing assumes in his calculation that it is 400 ppm by weight when the comparison is made to the atmosphere where CO2 makes up just over 400 ppm by volume, not mass.
To make a direct comparison in a liquid, one needs to look at the ratio of moles not mass. The mass of coffee is roughly 18 grams/mole whereas arsenic is about 75 grams per mole. Given that the cup of coffee has a mass of approximately 240 grams it would contain about 13 moles. 400 ppm of that would be 0.005 moles. 0.005 moles of arsenic has a mass of about 0.4 grams. 0.4 grams (400 milligrams) of arsenic is well over the top end of the lethal dose of 300 milligrams.
If we were to do it by weight, that cup of coffee weighing about 240,000 milligrams, 400ppm milligrams by mass = 96 milligrams. Still likely quite fatal according to the ASTDR.
0.6 milligrams/kg would be only 54 milligrams for a 200 pound man.
Chug away.
Of course the whole point is that CO2 as a trace gas can have profound effects and the physics clearly tells us it does. The disinformers can call it just a trace gas all they want to confuse, but it doesn’t change the physics. AND, it is ironic that the disinformers tout the importance of the trace gas as being so important to life yet reject its role in warming the planet because it is only a trace gas while without that warming, there’d likely be no life.
Piotrsays
J Doug Swallow (219): W.B. Jackson (211): “JDS Individual high and low temp records are interesting however climate is trends and long term changes that cause real net changes in the types of growth to be found and the crops that can be reliably raised. In other words climate is climate and weather is weather!”
J Doug Swallow (219): “ [What] follows is what I spend my time doing, searching for the truth.”
Just to clarify, you “ search for the truth “, when you uncritically repeat climate denier cliches? Here examples of the cliches from JUST a couple of your recent posts:
1. confusing local weather with global climate (compare: Donald J. Trump: “ In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded […] What the hell is going on with Global Warming?“)
2. thinking that if there were hot periods before human emissions of CO2 then CO2 cannot affect climate (by the same logic: Your Honour, true, my client was caught with two empty gas cans and singed eyebrows, but he couldn’t possibly start the forest fire because wildfires happened long, long, before humans)
3. arguing that BECAUSE CO2 is only 400 ppm of atmosphere – it could not possibly affect the climate (by the same logic: Your Honour, true, my clients applied novichok to the underwear of Mr. Navalny, but it was only 0.001 ppm, so it could not possibly have any noticeable harmful effect)
4. in the next post arguing that CO2 DESPITE having only 400 ppm – CAN have great effect after all (JDS:” Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth”)
5. that CO2 can’t be bad, because plants need it (by the same logic: Your Honour, true, my client drowned the victim, but he is not responsible for his death, quite the opposite – here is a link to the paper “People die without water”. )
And I love when in addition to repeating the climate deniers fallacies, you try to add something from yourself: like here to the argument that temperature extremes are “weather” and not “climate” – you cut the part of the quote about the difference between “weather” and “climate”, assure everybody how you “search for the truth” and … change the subject from TEMPERATURE extremes to … how CO2 is good for plants (CO2 fertilization).
Are you and Mr. Know it All, the intellectual best the climate change denier community can offer?
With 2020 just a handful of days to run, we can declare 2020 as having the least Arctic Sea Ice Extent, that is averaged through the calendar year. Thus using JAXA SIE data, 2020’s average daily SIE sits at 9.65M sq km and would have to average in the last 5 days of the year an impossible SIE of 15M sq km** to equal the 9.73M sq km of the previous ‘least icy’ year 2016. (**Such levels of SIE have not been seen since 2003 and then at the height of the freeze.)
The lowest annual average SIE thus runs:-
2020 … … … 9.69M sq km (estimated)
2016 … … … 9.73M sq km
2019 … … … 9.77M sq km
2018 … … … 9.93M sq km
2017 … … … 9.97M sq km
2012 … … … 9.97M sq km
2011 … … .. 10.06M sq km
2007 … … .. 10.09M sq km
2015 … … .. 10.12M sq km
2010 … … .. 10.33M sq km
2014 … … .. 10.33M sq km
2020 has achieved this least-icy accolade without too much time placed as the ‘lowest SIE for time of year’. 2016 still tops the table for ‘most days as least icy’ with 2020 siting down in 5th spot:-
2016 … 125 days
2012 …. 68 days
2018 …. 58 days
2019 …. 43 days
2020 …. 35 days
2017 …. 25 dyad
2015 ….. 8 days
2010 ….. 4 days
The site may be run by peer-reviewed climate scientists, but many of the comments are posted by non-scientist hacks; in fact I’d guess that was the case for the vast majority of the comments. Am I right? :)
With strained forbearance, no. Your error, of course, is the fallacy of the excluded middle: you’re ignoring the range of backgrounds between “trained, disciplined, professional scientist” and “untrained, undisciplined, volunteer hack”. The blog’s principal authors are all clearly at the “scientist” end. The majority of comments that address their posts are respectful. There may be some commenters at the “hack” end on this thread, who shall remain ‘nymless, but who invite only endless scorn. I, for one, place myself closer to the mode of the distribution: respectful of science, scornful of pseudo-skeptical hacks. You’ve read The Relativity of Wrong, by I. Asimov? Silly me, of course you haven’t! I’ll leave the rest of your undead (take your pick), rebunked, denialist (def. 2) hacks for other climate realists to scorn.
#229–KIA displays not only his trademark ignorance, but a truly impressive ability to miss the point.
Uh, dude, we don’t care whether or not machine guns actually made a big difference during the American Civil War, or whether in discussing the “most deadly earthquake” we are more concerned with the deadliness or the earthquake itself. What we care about is the fact that JDS put forth a big, huge, honkin’ non sequitur. That’s what I was satirizing (and I do hope some were suitably amused.)
For those who missed it–and I include KIA in that number–here’s what JDS said:
It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that CO₂ has nothing to do with any weather event.
Let’s stipulate that the Galveston hurricane was little affected one way or another by CO2. It doesn’t actually matter, because the “answer” doesn’t follow.
Why not? Because there are numerous other factors that we *know* contributed to the hurricane’s exceptional deadliness–most notably, perhaps, the very vulnerable location and the lack of timely warning of the hurricane’s approach and character.(1) But clearly, that such factors made for an exceptionally deadly event does *not* imply in any way that CO2 “has nothing to do with any weather event.”
You might as well say that because ricin wasn’t used to poison Socrates, therefore ricin has nothing to do with any ‘poisoning event.’ Or that because the great Chicago fire was caused by a cow, arson doesn’t exist. Or any of the other things I already said on this topic.
_____________________________________________________________
Oh, and nigel, a little reminder: I am still the only person I know of, period, not just on these fora, to have predicted (yes, predicted) new minimum or near new minimum ASI extent a full year in advance.
nigeljsays
Killian @239 so you agreed with someones prediction on ASI that turned out to be wrong. This is much the same as getting a prediction you made wrong. You cant escape just by saying someone else said so.
And then there is your comment I mentioned @224 that also proved to be wrong: “PermOccupy – A Pathway to a Sustainable Future,” by Killian O’Brien. Interview on PermOccupy with Killian by Willi Paul. Presented by Planetshifter.com Magazine. Submitted by Willi Paul on Thu, 03/22/2012 – 11:10”…..“– Arctic Sea Ice Canary in Coal Mine: Gone by 2017?” I saw the question mark and I didnt say it was a prediction. I said it “certainly looks like a prediction, even if its an informal sort of prediction or suggestion” . So fine your suggestion was wrong. And I dont think that makes things much better.
Then as I previously stated @223 there are another two instances I recall where you claimed your predictions were right in terms of direction ( and they were as I recall) but you admitted your predictions were significantly wrong on the timing or magnitude although I cant recall the details. And I would say timing is important – its easy to predict things might go a certain way, anyone can do that. You have 50 / 50 odds even if you just guess it.
So I’m somewhat underwhelmed. Like I said I listen and read some of what you post with interest, and some of the stuff has value, but thats about it. You make grand claims for yourself. Grand claims need a grand level of attainment proof and I dont see this level of proof and attainment.
Heres a clue. Stop calling people idiots, and you wont get your comments attacked quite so much and you probably wont get quite such a hostile response from people, eg BPL. Public relations 101. Psychology 101. You did do a pschology degree, right?.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @235
“AB: Since Killian threw down the gauntlet I’ll note that my long-held prediction of 2025 is looking solid. I derived it rather scientifically: 2020 vision is difficult. Within five years is awfully good (and it’s always worse than we thought), so 2025.As confirmed by “In the year 2525”, Zager and Evan’s song about the future.”
I assume you mean a blue arctic (or close to it). Possible although I would still think about 2040.
And since Killian and you have thrown down gauntlets, my long held prediction made somewhere around 2005 was that warming would track approximately in the middle of the range, (as in the modelling discussed on this website regularly) sea level rise would be towards the upper part of the range, the IPCC sea level rise estimates looked a bit low, and I thought sea level rise could be 1500 – 2000 by year 2100 (possible worst case scenario) and climate sensitivity would prove to be medium. I also thought the weather could become more extreme a bit faster than was thought, eg heatwaves and hurricane intensity. Not crazy extreme and crazy faster, but somewhat faster. Basically that weather might be quite sensitive to even modest warming and middle range climate sensitivity.
So far Im almost dead right because warming is in the middle of the range, sea levels have risen more towards the upper end of the range and predictions have been revised up from about 400mm – 900mm end of this century and word is the next IPCC report will revise them up to 1250. Most research appears to be climate sensitivity will still be in the middle although some models suggest high. There seems to be some evidence weather is becoming more extreme faster than expected, but I dont know if there is any consensus yet.
So eat that Mr Killian and Mr Bundy. But I dont publish this stuff on websites, normally anyway. Nobody is going to pay attention to a laypersons predictions unless they can provide a lot of detail and maths and I dont have the time for all that. Its really just a combination of mental math, instincts, looking at peoples research, studying trends, and reading up on paleo climate history.
But I definitely dont buy into the very extreme predictions that I see around the place of billions dead within a decade or so and temperatures soaring ten degrees within a decade you see on some websites. This is just too crazy, hysterical and speculative end of the world stuff like some new age cult. And before Killian bites my head off, Im not suggesting hes claiming such things although I do think hes a bit high on some things.
Vendicar decariansays
Re: 178 – ” It’s clear that devout religious faith doesn’t necessarily entail denial of scientifically justified knowledge!”
It is true, without question, that religionists are liars.
The more devout, the more they deceive.
You can not be a religionist without lying to yourself every day that your God is real, and by extension lying to those around you of the same thing.
Those who are practiced in lying about their God/God’s are more prone to lying about other things, and are more prone to believing the lies told to them by others.
This is why Religionists are prone to support America’s Lying, Mentally Ill president.
Mr. Swallow is clearly a troll, and not worth rebutting in detail.
However, some idiocies still have power to amuse, like this one from #172:
Let’s ring the changes on this one:
One could continue for a long time, as the supply of fallacies is effectively endless… but then, Mr. Swallow has already illustrated that sad truth. (I seem to have worn out the amusement I initially felt around this nonsense.)
Oh, I forgot to mention the other funny thing.
Doug “Gish Gallop” (#172) listed the 7 most active hurricane seasons per weather underground–of which, 4 occurred in the present young century, and only 2 of which did not happen during the modern warming era.
This, in a record going back at least to 1887, and hence divided at least 83/50 pre-warming/warming era (roughly 60%/40%). Figuring it another way, the 4 most active seasons came in the most recent 12% of the historical record.
“Own goal,” anyone?
Nigel,
Their theory boils down to:
tiny carrot (enough to not starve)
and huge stick.
It feels good feeding the destitute. That would go away under Yang.
RE. J. Doug Swallow @ 171
So I wonder what it is, CO2 as a trace gas can be so essential for all life yet at the same time as just being a trace gas cannot be responsible for other profound attributes such as hindering heat loss to space? Being essential for life is A BIG DEAL for just being a trace gas, isn’t it? How is that so?
I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it. Afterwards he should tell us if 400 ppm can have any kind of a profound effect on him. Yup, actually he won’t be able to because he would be dead.
Carbon Brief has a story about a study in Nature on the Greenland Icesheet melt.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-climate-models-suggest-faster-melting-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet
Nature study here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20011-8
The point of this story is that the CMIP5 models underestimated ice melt. That’s being fixed in CMIP6. I think we are expected to believe that the CMIP6 melt rates will turn out to be more accurate and won’t need to be “adjusted” in CMIP7 if/when melt rates are observed to be faster than modeled in CMIP6.
I think it’s strange that more folks don’t jump up and slam the scientists who signed on to CMIP5 for underestimating the melt. Folks sure love to beat up on Wadhams about missing melt on the high side. Where is the consternation about the scientists who have clearly underestimated the melt?
FTE = faster than expected, why do we keep hearing that phrase?
Cheers
Mike
#192 23 Dec 2020 at 7:44 AM MA Rodger says: “Maybe this paper says something of interest to the assembly here”.
This is the same MA Rodger who felt the need to write this to me; “You seem to be happily trolling down this thread with grand assertions but with little enough in the way of supporting evidence. So forgive me for investigating what species of troll you are”. The abstract for the link that MA Rodger presented was typical of alarmist propaganda in that it says; “…and methane (CH4), representing a potential ecosystem feedback to climate change not included in international climate agreements.” & “Current fluxes of CH4 and carbon dioxide (CO2) to the water column were estimated at 18 (2–34) and 38 (13–110) megatons C yr−1, respectively”, where everything is some wild estimate not based on facts.
MA Rodger needs to note that the reason for the research below is: “International research has begun, with a primary goal of obtaining the methane in these hydrates as an energy source”.
“Ocean Floor Methane Gas Hydrate Exploration
Introduction: Over the last decade, large deposits of methane hydrates have been identified along the world continental margins. Frozen mixtures of hydrocarbon gas (mostly methane) and water occur over large areas of the ocean floor and vastly exceed other carbon-energy reservoirs. With a maximum content of 164 m3 of methane and 0.8 m3 of water at standard temperature and pressure per cubic meter of hydrate and an estimated range of 26 to 139 X 1015 m3 globally, this is a significant new energy source. The content of methane in hydrates is variable and is controlled by geothermal gradients and biological methane production. International research has begun, with a primary goal of obtaining the methane in these hydrates as an energy source.
This requires a broad range of scientific efforts to address the methane hydrate presence, develop mining strategies, and predict the impact on the environment and platform stability. The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has developed strong research topics regarding methane hydrates over the last 30 years. NRL has unique field and laboratory expertise that couples physical, chemical, and biological parameters to address methane hydrate distribution, formation, and stability. Recent, current, and planned field work is active on the Texas-Louisiana Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, Nankai Trough off the eastern coast of Japan, Blake Ridge in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, the Cascadia Margin in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, and the Haakon-Mosby Mud Volcano (MV) in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea”.
The content, location and distribution of methane in hydrate is variable and controlled by geothermal gradients and biological and thermal methane production. Large deposits of methane hydrates, frozen mixtures of hydrocarbon gas (mostly methane) and water, occur over large areas of the ocean floor. International research has begun with a primary goal of obtaining the methane in these hydrates as an energy source.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091122095413.htm
#104 14 Dec 2020 at 7:51 PM MA Rodger says: “GISTEMP has posted for November with an anomaly of +1.13ºC, the warmest November on the GISTEMP record….”
Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937. I will even list them; Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia & Wisconsin adds up to 25 states whose record HIGH have all occurred between 1930 & 1936.
These 13 states listed below had their record highs occur BEFORE 1930 & 1936, such as; Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia & Washington.
The above in formation came from this source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
A total of fourteen states set record highs in 1936 that obviously still stand. They occurred from July 5th to August 10th although July 10th has four of the records for high temperature in include Maryland which tied the record set in July 3, 1898 of 109°F, the rest that set records that year are New Jersey, Penn. & Virginia.
MA Rodger says: “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”. This is the information that MA Rodger did not take the time to show on his comment. From this plot, we can see that 2020 is cooler than 2016.
Global Haywood Plots
Choose from the options below and click “Plot” to create a year-to-date time series of each year of the period of record.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/haywood/globe/land_ocean
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F)
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain, Aug. 4, 1881 (122F): (for what ever reason, this one has been changed to what is shown below)
Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada, Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania; Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30’s?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
This is a record that still holds after 107 years. Two years ago I went to Death Valley to see this place where this record was set. Perhaps MA Rodger has an explanation for why this 107 year old record still stands on the planet that he is convinced is going to be too hot to exist in, and soon, I’m sure, from his recent comment.
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
The alarmist are bring up the Australian heat wave without looking at what happened in the past.
A Real Heat Wave Credit: Dreams time.
The town of Marble Bar in Western Australia is legendary for its hot weather. From Oct. 31, 1923, to April 7, 1924, the tiny town scorched with 160 consecutive days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (37.8 degrees Celsius). That’s a world record.
Think of the 194 people in Marble Bar next time it gets hot in your hometown. Their average high temperature is over 100 F for January, February, March, November and December (the summer months in the Southern Hemisphere).
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/997-weird-weather-anomalies-110302.html
Please notice, MA Rodger, that one of the above two records were set in 1913, or 107 years ago, and the Australian Marble Bar record was set in 1922, or 98 years ago. What part did your devil in the sky, CO₂, play in these extremely hot conditions?
Feliz Navidad
JDS Individual high and low temp records are interesting however climate is trends and long term changes that cause real net changes in the types of growth to be found and the crops that can be reliably raised. In other words climate is climate and weather is weather! Your posts while interesting are unconvincing as you totally mistake the point.
#204 23 Dec 2020 at 8:02 PM CCHolley says:, among other nonsense: “I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it. Afterwards he should tell us if 400 ppm can have any kind of a profound effect on him. Yup, actually he won’t be able to because he would be dead”. The thought process of some alarmist is amazing, to say the least. To try to equate the vastness of the Earth’s atmosphere with the confines of the human body is preposterous. First off; this is what CO₂ is.
“Atmospheric CO2 is essential to life on earth, since plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.
Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor”
http://co2coalition.org/2019/08/01/despite-what-democrats-said-at-their-debate-were-not-heading-toward-climate-apocalypse/
“The following are facts about carbon dioxide that were extracted from several scientific publications:
CO2 is neither a pollutant nor does it endanger public health.
CO2 is a plant nutrient and necessary for existence of life on earth.
Additional CO2 causes an astonishing plant growth. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, with only a 105 parts per million (0.0105 percent) increase, the Earth has had an average growth increase of about 12 percent for plants and 18 percent for trees. CO2 is Earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.
Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates.
According to scientists from the USGS and NASA, CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere (0.0385 percent) and is a requirement for most of life to continue on this planet.
Natural causes, such as volcanic activity and biologic activity in the oceans, annually put 97.1 percent of the CO2 into the atmosphere. All of man’s activities account for only 2.9 percent”.
One could only hope that CCHolley has the capacity to understand what a lifeless world he would exist in if it were not for the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth TRACE gas, CO₂, or the Sun that has controlled the Earth’s climate since the beginning of time, that makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system.
I use to live in Fairbanks, AK and do know about the arsenic in the ground water to the point that many people went to the spring near Fox to get drinking water; but, the question is, what does CCHolley know about arsenic?
He could brush up on the topic by going to this site below.
Ground-water studies in Fairbanks, Alaska : a better understanding of some of the United States’ highest natural arsenic concentrations.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/ground-water-studies-in-fairbanks-alaska-a-better-understanding-of-some-of-the-united-states-highest-natural-arsenic-concentrations/oclc/48271962
Killian @191,
“Please direct yourself to the papers that have stated a shift in temperatures starting around 2015 is in play. Previously been posted to these fora. I noticed it in 2019, but it became clear in 2020 for the simple reason already stated: The temperatures of ’19 and ’20 had no freaking reason to be occurring, so why did they? The ASI melt levels had no clear reason to be happening, so why were they? I have noted this multiple times over the last year, particularly WRT ASI effects.I ALREADY posted about that.But, hey, pretend I haven’t already given you the context. As I said… waste of time.”
I acknowledge you have posted some context before, but I dont recall it because I dont read everything on this website, and nobodies memory is perfect. Even your own memory is not perfect given you said MAL when it should have been MAR.Your comments need to be self contained or with a link or clear reference. Nobody is going to search back on this website hundreds of pages to find material.
Yes the last two years of rapid warming trend and rapid ASI trends do look strange and ominous. However its hard to see how it constitutes a new trend. The latest evidence you posted yourself @ 116 included Hansens views that its due to fewer aerosols (I assume this is due to reduced emissions due to covid 19, a one off thing), or the solar cycle. Being only 2 years it could also just be weather conditions. You could be right that it could still turn out to be an ominous new trend, but I think we would need a couple more years of data to be sure its not very short term natural variation.
J Doug Swallow @196, Watts might have got something right somewhere, but largely hes unconvincing. Regarding your post and its links:
“Richard Muller said if Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today….In 2007 Watts initiated the Sur/acestatiQns.org project,…”
I don’t give Watts or Muller many points. I checked the Sur/acestatiQns.org project as below out of curiosity, and a different, fuller picture emerges:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#Surface_Stations_project
“In 2007, Watts launched the Surface Stations project, encouraging volunteers to take photographs of weather stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network to record their condition.[9][11][48] By 2009, around 650 volunteers had reported on around 70% of the 1,221 stations, and suggested most were below “good or best” reliability………The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) investigated the matter. While acknowledging the suboptimal conditions of many stations, NOAA concluded in 2010 that any bias had been nearly eliminated by their models, which compared stations over regions and time.[53] To the very limited extent that there was any measurement bias, it was in the opposite direction of what Watts expected: stations that were considered poorly situated reported slightly cooler temperatures.[54][55]”
It didn’t lead to a need to correct Americas historical temperature record, as far as I can tell. Unless someone has proof. Of course sometimes climate change sceptics do contribute something useful, but its rare. It gets drowned out by the noise of the thousands of crazy sceptics. But the climate change sceptic Muller didnt achieve much. He set out to prove the global temperature record wrong and ended up conceding he couldn’t. He eventually founded the Berkley Earth group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
—————————-
J Doug Swallow @197
Nice try, but no. Not even slightly.
“This “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Animation 2016-2018” doesn’t seem to be much different than what we saw back over 100 years ago (records from whaling ships in the Bering sea area from the link Swallow posted)”
The Bering sea is a small part of the arctic, so the records are of very little use. Did you even read it? Proper reconstructions show the following:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/01/arctic-sea-ice-satellites
“Satellites have continuously monitored sea ice since 1979. To gauge what Arctic sea ice was like before then, scientists use a combination of historical records and proxy measurements such as marine sediment cores. Taken together, these records indicate that the current Arctic sea ice decline is unprecedented in the last several centuries.”
J Doug Swallow @198 says
“GLACIERGATE” HIGHLIGHTS IPCC FLAWS”
One mistake found in many thousands of pages, and a non critical mistake. Compare this to the huge volume of proven mistakes coming from the denialists (refer to a very long list of information on skepticalscience.com). I know who I prefer, and the IPCC deserve a medal. They are not perfect, but they are damn good.
———————————-
J Doug Swallow @200
Many thank’s for confirming that the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has been increasing globally in recent years. However its a shame you and Curry dont understand something like the greenhouse effect, which has been demonstrated over and over, and is not disputed even by sceptical climate scientists like Roy Spencer.
“Would it then be logical to assume that the sea-surface temperatures around the globe were dropping for this below to have been written on June 26, 2017” (The article you quote refers to a smaller number of hurricanes of all types making landfall prior to 2017).
No. You establish sea surface temperatures with thermometers not numbers of hurricanes making landfall. The reduced number of hurricianes making landfall has happened in the past, although not often, and only for short periods, and it can happen with high sea surface temperatures, probably all due to short term climate cycles related to local winds. I have read that the trend has now changed anyway.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a012200/a012251/script_41084_01.html
And it is quite a different thing to what I quoted, “the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has been increasing globally in recent years.” And if even a few of those make landfall, watch out. But you are determined to miss the point and the dangers of a warming world, being a troll.
J Doug Swallow @207
“Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937. ”
No. America had extreme heatwave conditions in that early period. Extreme heatwaves happen sporadically. Its been suggested that is was a freak occurence “Research by Dr Markus Donat from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and colleagues has revealed that unusually warm sea surface temperatures occurring at exactly the same time in two very specific locations were likely responsible for creating the record breaking heat.” Only took me a few seconds to find this.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150504101248.htm#:~:text=Two%20ocean%20hot%20spots%20have,United%20States%20many%20months%20out.
The record shows America is warmer now overall, and the planet a lot warmer now than in the 1930s. Expect something like the 1930s in America, only much worse in the not too distant future, amplified by the current warming trend.
JDS 207: Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937.
BPL: Do you not understand what “global” means?
DBB 210,
Merry Christmas!
#211 24 Dec 2020 at 11:25 PM William B Jackson says: “JDS Individual high and low temp records are interesting however climate is trends and long term changes that cause real net changes in the types of growth to be found and the crops that can be reliably raised”. Below demonstrates what the trends are that is caused by more CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere.
This that follows is what I spend my time doing, searching for the truth.
April 26, 2016
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
“Earth’s atmosphere consists of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, a varying 0 to 4% of water vapor at any one place and a small, 0.0400%, amount of CO2 and a few other trace gasses. The amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is very small but that small amount delivers a huge impact on the plant and animal kingdoms. By simply increasing this small amount of CO2 almost twofold, thousands of peer reviewed studies indicate that the result would be a tremendous “greening” of Earth as well as most individual ecosystems and habitats. To actually reduce CO2 levels as some extremists groups propose, would be catastrophic to the hundreds of millions of people (and animals) currently living on the edge of starvation.”
http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?act=documentdetails.aspx&documentid=318
Africa’s deserts are in “spectacular” retreat
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811-africas-deserts-are-in-spectacular-retreat/
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER Greening of the Earth and its drivers Nature Climate Change 25 April 2016 “CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.” http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
“The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both”
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2?fbclid=IwAR0O-wR2sTkC8NDfwLMRKsICCOu8MmZh2nY_t_nx9JU2-CO0PFhDbkiXj8g
“Similarly, we can now examine the processes behind the extraordinary greening of the Earth over recent decades as CO₂ levels have climbed. Up to 50% of vegetated land is now greener than it was 30 years ago. The increasing human-driven CO2 fertilization effect on vegetation was estimated to be the dominant driver.
We now have satellites that can study this process at spatial resolutions of tens of metres – meaning we can also keep tabs on processes that undo this greening, such as deforestation.”
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-satellites-view-earth-carbon.html
William B Jackson needs to explain what is bad about the planet getting greener.
J. Doug Swallow,
Thank you for making it abundantly clear that you are utterly clueless when it comes to extreme-value statistics.
re:209.
Goodness, it takes 30 seconds on the internet to read and learn the fundamental difference between weather and climate. Basic stuff. There is no excuse for coming to a blog site run by peer-reviewed climate scientists and not having the slightest clue what “climate” means.
213 nigelj: Killian @191,
I acknowledge you have posted some context before, but I dont recall it because I dont read everything on this website
Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter.
That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable. Not bragging, just asking that you pay fucking attention.
“Even your own memory is not perfect given you said MAL when it should have been MAR”
Actually, I wondered myself, but just didn’t give enough of a shit to go back and check bc… it was just not that important.
Your comments need to be self contained or with a link or clear reference.
Really? Because I am not utterly consistent on these issues? Puh-leeeease.
Yes the last two years of rapid warming trend and rapid ASI trends do look strange and ominous. However its hard to see how it constitutes a new trend.
Actually, I had said ’19 and ’20. The SCIENCE has said since 2015.
The latest evidence you posted yourself @ 116 included Hansens views that its due to fewer aerosols (I assume this is due to reduced emissions due to covid 19, a one off thing)
Fucking READ it.
Being only 2 years
Hansen didn’t say TWO years. Jesus…
You could be right that it could still turn out to be an ominous new trend, but I think we would need a couple more years of data to be sure its not very short term natural variation.
Really, Sherlock? Will you PLEASE try to understand the difference between a supposition and an established trend, but also the VALUE of investigating a supposition BECAUSE there are different ways of knowing other than hard data?
Killian @222
“Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter…. That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable. Not bragging, just asking that you pay fucking attention.”
Please provide evidence you have been most accurate. Thats how things usually have to go. And I don’t recall anyone other than you posting those sorts of predictions here, so there’s nothing to compare you with. That doesn’t make you better or worse than anyone it just means its hard to evaluate.
I read the thoughts and predictions of both scientists and lay people all over the place and with interest and I value it all, including many of yours , but its not clear why you should be given special preference over other people when 1) you didn’t even include a comment above summarising all your predictions for people to look at 2) Likewise you didn’t mention your methodology in any detail, 3) I remember you admitting your prediction of when the arctic would be ice fee was very wrong, 4) I remember a couple of other predictions and that they proved to be correct in terms of direction, but not terribly accurate in terms of time. If my recollection on any of this is wrong, please clarify exactly what you said, and give a link or reference to a specific comment thread.
I’m sure you are more astute than many people, but its just no more compelling to me than my own internal assessment of things. I would ultimately rather rely on the scientists, even if they are a bit conservative. Science is about formulas and methods all out in the open. And its not as if they have been horribly wrong. Warming is tracking about where it was expected to. Sea level rise is towards the upper range. Even the so called “conservative leaning ” IPCC reportsare very scary and Im not sure adding an extra degree or whatever changes things substantially or will motivate the complacent people.
I’m very reluctant to put my trust completely in some lay person who is using an alternative approach that isn’t too clear, relies on instincts as well as hard analysis, and has a less than perfect record, and your over the top nastiness doesn’t help either. Its too much like following the leader of some new age cult. I will listen with interest, but no way am I putting full trust in it.
“Hansen didn’t say TWO years. Jesus…”
Ok so Hansen thinks theres been an acceleration in warming in the last couple of years as below, but building up since 2015. This could obviously be a factor in the rapid ASI decline.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20201214_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf
What do other people think of his research study? It looks good, but I thought you would need about 10 years to be sure there was a “new trend?”
“Really, Sherlock? Will you PLEASE try to understand the difference between a supposition and an established trend, but also the VALUE of investigating a supposition BECAUSE there are different ways of knowing other than hard data?”
I understand the difference perfectly well. All MAR asked was for an explanation of why you “supposed” there could be a new trend. That’s all I wanted to know. Your response appeared to be pattern literacy, followed by a denial it was pattern literacy, and now some statement that its “other ways of knowing” and I’m afraid that isn’t too clear either. I’m prepared to consider the value of “other ways of knowing” and obviously for example intuition has value, up to a point, but I do need a bit of coherent detail about the “other ways of knowing” especially their application to climate issues.
Killian @222
“Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter. That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable.”
I seem to recall you admitting on a previous UV thread that your prediction on when the arctic would be ice free was wrong. This is rather a large thing to get wrong. If my recollection is wrong, please advise. However, I did a quick google search and this came up on artic sea ice. It certainly looks like a prediction, even if its an informal sort of prediction or suggestion:
https://www.planetshifter.com/index.php?q=node/2001
“PermOccupy – A Pathway to a Sustainable Future,” by Killian O’Brien. Interview on PermOccupy with Killian by Willi Paul. Presented by Planetshifter.com Magazine. Submitted by Willi Paul on Thu, 03/22/2012 – 11:10”
“– Arctic Sea Ice Canary in Coal Mine: Gone by 2017?”
J Doug Swallow @208: [Highest temperature recorded in] Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Not according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology: Rainfall and Temperature Records
It lists the top recorded temperature as:
Oodnadatta Airport (South Australia), 2 January 1960, 50.7°C [123.3°F]
None of listings for the three top temperatures in Queensland (the state where Cloncurry is) are for Cloncurry. All three are for (two different stations in) Birdsville.
Some reasons why at least Australian temperature records before 1910 can’t be relied on (About Rainfall and Temperature Records):
“To enable valid comparisons of extreme temperatures to be made, it is very important to have high-quality observations measured in a consistent way. Standards relating to the accuracy of the instruments, their exposure and the height (above ground level) at which measurements are taken have been in place for temperature since early in the 20th century. The Stevenson Screen became a national standard by 1910, but before then thermometers were sheltered in a variety of ways, sometimes resulting in the instrument being in direct sunlight.”
Marble Bar continues being very hot for extended periods (same page as previous quote): “More recently, Marble Bar reached at least 42°C [107.6°F] on 43 consecutive days between 16 January and 27 February 2007, and the mean maximum temperature for that month of February was 44.9°C, the highest ever recorded in Australia.”
J Doug Swallow @208
In Wikipedia’s List of weather records
Africa: 10 of 17
Antarctica (regions): 3 of 4
Asia: 24 of 39
Europe: 30 of 45
North America: 6 of 16
Oceania: 6 of 9
South America: 7 of 10
countries (regions) have dated maximum temperatures in this century.
Some countries list more that one maximum temperature (same temperature recorded twice). I have counted those as separate maxima on both sides of the “of”.
* some temperatures are undated, a number of countries have had more than one equal maximum
J Doug Swallow @208 posts a cherry picked list of record high temperatures for about 12 countries, many during the earlier part of last century. What about the other 180 countries in the world? A quick checks shows most record high temperatures are relatively recent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
The records early last century were set by freak weather events. The many recent records are driven by weather but amplified by global warming.
What about the fact average temperatures are much higher now, and this is what drives the melting of ice sheets?
J Doug Swallow @219 claims:
“By simply increasing this small amount of CO2 almost twofold, thousands of peer reviewed studies indicate that the result would be a tremendous “greening” of Earth.”
He quotes about three papers, so I dont know that there are thousands of papers, and this is what one says about Swallows statement about “Africa’s deserts are in “spectacular” retreat”
“But there is confusion over why the Sahel is becoming green. Rasmussen believes the main reason is increased rainfall since the great droughts of the early 1970s and 1980s. But farmers have also been adopting better methods of keeping soil and water on their land.”
Oops no mention of CO2 greening the Sahel. It’s almost comical the things he posts. And of course this greening of the earth in some places tends to lead to crops with lower nutritional value:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html#:~:text=Extra%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Can%20Make,atmosphere%2C%20the%20problem%20will%20grow.
“A number of studies indicate that plants that grow in extra carbon dioxide often end up containing lower concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen, copper and potassium. As more carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere, the problem will grow.” And an increasing preponderance of heatwaves reduces the output of crops that we rely on. There are two sides of the story about this greening of the earth and its not all some wonderful bounty. The negatives outweigh any positives.
——————————-
221 – Dan
“There is no excuse for coming to a blog site run by peer-reviewed climate scientists and not having the slightest clue what “climate” means.”
The site may be run by peer-reviewed climate scientists, but many of the comments are posted by non-scientist hacks; in fact I’d guess that was the case for the vast majority of the comments. Am I right? :)
207 – JDS
“Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937.”
That’s just plum mean of you to confuse the believers with facts! :)
201- Kevin McKinney
“It is hard to believe that in 1906 building codes could possibly have contributed to the most deadly earthquake to have ever struck the US.”
I’m gonna go out on a big, long, rotten limb and guess that geological faults, plate tectonics, and that kinda stuff contribute a lot more to ANY earthquake than building codes.
:)
“It is hard to believe that in 1865 machine guns could possibly have contributed to the most deadly war to have ever struck the US.”
“Machine guns” saw very limited use and were of little consequence in the first US Civil War:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-most-lethal-weapons-the-us-civil-war-17566
https://www.historynet.com/civil-war-guns
Quote: “For the most part, although Requa and Coffee Mill guns were issued to infantry units, as were later machine guns, they were employed as artillery pieces, usually in roles better served by actual artillery. In the end, however, imperfect ammunition combined with a lack of tactical ingenuity assured that the machine gun would fulfill no more than a novelty role in the Civil War.” ;)
204 – CCHolley
“I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it. ……he would be dead.”
Maybe, maybe not, but good exam question, thanks:
Toxicity to Animals: Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 145 mg/kg [Mouse]. Per the MSDS:
https://hmdb.ca/system/metabolites/msds/000/001/873/original/HMDB02290.pdf?1358893456
A small adult might weigh 45 kg, so you’d need 145 x 45 = 6525 mg = 6.5 g to kill that person (assuming humans have same toxicity as animals).
A “cup” of coffee weighs ~ 0.24 kg = 240 g. 6.5g/240g = 2.7% by weight. Seems like a lot more than 400 ppm on a crude weight basis. Am I right?
It’s possible I’m off by a factor of 10 per this table, but this only gives a 50% kill rate:
https://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Table.pdf
OK, you chemists, show us the real numbers: what PPM of arsenic in a cup of coffee will ensure death? You coffee drinkers have no need to be afraid, it’s just math. :)
JDS 212: CO2 is neither a pollutant nor does it endanger public health.
BPL: Anything is a pollutant if present in the wrong place or in excess quantity. Water is a pollutant if you’re trying to prepare anhydrous ammonia. Oxygen is a pollutant if you’re trying to prepare a container full of pure argon. As the toxicologists say, “The dose makes the poison.”
Increased CO2 endangers public health by causing global warming.
JDS 219: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
BPL: Look again.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/?fbclid=IwAR0HPBWAbFXyAN_HWT7k9mYOjxt0DkQn78f2onqBzPaW4lCLD4hCTd2bYwk
K 222: if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool.
BPL: Then I must be a damned fool, because I rarely read your posts.
J Doug Swallow @206,207,208&209,
You noted that I branded you a troll @184 because of all that nonsense you assailed us with about hurricanes. Having noted my comment @184, do you intend to answer the questions I put to you? Or are you employing the troll-tactic of only answering the stuff that suits your trollish purposes?
Perhaps I should remind you that [assuming there is just the one of you] our paths have crossed before on a site with heavier moderation than here. You didn’t last very long there. And do note that the climatologist you accused back then of “using falsified tree ring observations from two trees in Siberia to make his hockey stick graph” is one of our hosts here at RealClimate.
…
So let us see what nonsense you present @206,207,208&209. No mention of hurricanes any more but you kick-off by branding Sayedi et al (2020) as being “typical of alarmist propaganda … where everything is some wild estimate not based on facts.” Is that any more than simple trolling? Do you think the numbers from 2002 you go on to present @206 were any less “wild” in their estimation?
We are then treated to some ageing quote that I see elsewhere you have wielded multiple times in the past but which is now cut from the interweb archives. You also add a rogue quote from more recent times (2009) which perhaps does not properly reflect the nature of the ‘research’ being described, it also being described by Masutani & Coffin (2001). And when I say “not properly,” be advised that I am branding your use of this reference here as downright improper.
So J Doug Swallow, you then gibber-on at length about still-standing historic temperature records but within that blather we have a wonderous demonstration of your inability to grasp the more basic aspects of climatology (& not the only example down this thread).
The NOAA Haywood Plot you want the world to see presents exactly the same situation that I described @104. And why shouldn’t it? It is presenting the same NOAA data!!
What you actually present is you failure to grasp what those “Haywood Plots” are. They plot cumulative data, in this case average year-to-date global temperature anomalies. J Doug Swallow, you even manage to cut-&-paste an instruction from the NOAA webpage saying they are “year-to-date time series”!!! So when the gap shrinks between 2016 above & 2020 below it means 2020 is warmer than 2020 in that month.
Presumably you are drawn to these plots because seeing 2020 sitting consistently in second hottest spot (rather than top spot) brings much comfort to a climate-change denying troll like yourself.
As for the still-standing historic temperature records you gibber-on about, there are reasons for them persisting within a warming global climate but such ‘reasons’ can include them being incorrect readings, which has been established for the Lybian & Death Valley readings. The Australian one could well be the same, some jolly swagman boiling his billie under the shade of a stevenson screen.
Yet these still-standing historic temperature records do not in any way contradict the fact that “global temperature continues to increase.” Such temperature records are not inconsistent with global climate (of which they are a part). But it is probably too much to ask that you engage your brain to allow you understand why your input down this thread comprises nought but fake argument.
As for your “devil in the sky, CO₂”, I would refer you to my comment @184.
Ah, I see that Mr. KIA has jumped on Mr. Swallows bandwagon of innumerate and illogical idiots.
So, first let us identify the logical fallacy: Cherrypicking.
Of all the possible statistics one could choose to elucidate a rising global temperature–global mean, #s of local record highs vs. local record lows…they choose the maximum measured temperatures on continental or global scales.
Now why is this a poor statistic? First, local temperature depends on a lot of local variables, so that in itself makes it at the very least noisy. But they aren’t content to look just at local maxima. No, they are looking at the maxima of the local maxima over very large areas with highly variable conditions. They are looking at extreme values OF extreme values.
Extreme value theory is a beautiful and elegant field of statistics. Basically, the extrema (maxima or minima) do depend on the underlying distributions for the measurement. However, they depend most strongly on the tails of the distribution, the portion of the distribution for which we have the least data.
Now consider a data series, with data drawn from an underlying distribution. Our statistic is the maximum of the data series. As you can imagine, initially, we get new maxima fairly rapidly. Our first datum is our first maximum. Our second maximum might be our second datum, or it might not. Eventually, though, we’ll have started to sample from the upper tail of our distribution, and new maxima will come far less frequently. This makes the maximum a poor descriptor of our underlying distribution.
Now imagine that our distribution is a time series, and that it is changing slowly. If the rate of change is fairly slow, relative to the initial degree of variability and if our time series is long to begin with, the maximum will be very slow to reflect the underlying changes in the distribution. It is an even poorer statistic or reflecting changes in the distribution than it is of the initial distribution.
So in summary: crack a stats text, dumbasses!
the nigel&Killian show:
My track record is solid and unassailable.”
I seem to recall you admitting on a previous UV thread that your prediction on when the arctic would be ice free was wrong.
AB: Since Killian threw down the gauntlet I’ll note that my long-held prediction of 2025 is looking solid. I derived it rather scientifically:
2020 vision is difficult. Within five years is awfully good (and it’s always worse than we thought), so 2025.
As confirmed by “In the year 2525”, Zager and Evan’s song about the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic
The thread felt true two decades ago, and it’s felt so ever since.
AB: The thread felt true two decades ago, and it’s felt so ever since.
AB: No, there was that time when the ice took a nosedive and I lost faith in this particular fantasy. Current crowing generally hits the past’s high points, eh?
JDS 219: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
BPL: Look again.
AB: I assume but don’t care whether JDS’s whatever (didn’t notice but dayam, I am showing serious restraint by not playing with his initials) mentioned the greening of the Arctic, where greening vs rot is the local CO2 equation (hint: rot’s winning).
Your links point towards what’s happening in warmer realms, where green is largely limited by water. Green vs fire (hint: fire’s winning).
232 Barton Paul Levenson: K 222: if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool.
BPL: Then I must be a damned fool, because I rarely read your posts.
Honesty begins with the self.
224 nigelj: Killian @222
“Please produce evidence *anybody* posting on this site has been more accurate than I have been over the last ten years…. or any shorter time frame, for that matter. That is, if you are not reading my posts, you’re a damned fool. My track record is solid and unassailable.”
I seem to recall you admitting on a previous UV thread that your prediction on when the arctic would be ice free was wrong.
What prediction? I made no prediction. A fellow with the Naval Observatory created a statistical model that set 2013, then 2016 as the midranges for a possible ice-free Arctic.
I took this risk seriously and felt it had a fair chance of being correct. But I also revise my expectations of the ASI yearly. And I post them in public. Because I’m not afraid of imperfect analysis since all forward-looking analysis is.
That said, there has yet to be a year that I have set out an analysis of ASI that I have been wrong.
So… you are attempting to call me out for… calling myself out? For honesty?
And, you do this with as a Red Herring given the statement was to ***show me anyone who had been more accurate,*** not to “…show me where I have ever been imprefect.
You’re still an idiot.
This is rather a large thing to get wrong.
1. Not wrong: There was no prediction, only a possibility – one not presented by me, but one that seemed to have merit, and it did. The maths were solid. Nature simply didn’t follow the math. And, 2016 was a new record for 2nd lowest extent which was well within the range of the scenarios presented.
2. See that question mark? Do you not understand WTF a question mark means?
3. Why do you still not know the difference between probabilities, scenarios and predictions?
The ASI IS A CANARY IN THE COAL MINE FOR CLIMATE, whether or not there was a blue ocean event in 2017.
4. The interview in question was FIVE YEARS EARLIER. If you spent time using your goddamned head instead of regurgitating others’ intelligent comments, you’d know ASI extent is notoriously difficult to predict, yet, I have yet to be wrong on any in-year scenario.
5. I repeat: You can only engage the Red Herring fallacy because you cannot answer the challenge: There is nobody that has been more accurate than I have over the last ten years, scientist or layperson.
6. Everything else in that list you cherry picked that **2012** quote from is still dead-on, including the half you ignore: ASI is a climate canary.
So, asshat, who, exactly, has been more accurate than I have been?
J. Doug Swallow (171) The people who believe that a trace gas absolutely essential for all life, CO₂, could have been….
CCHolley (204) “I think J. Doug Swallow should put 400 ppm of arsenic into his next cup of coffee and then drink it”
J. Doug Swallow (212 ) “among other nonsense”, “The thought process of some alarmist is amazing, to say the least. To try to equate the vastness of the Earth’s atmosphere with the confines of the human body is preposterous. First off; this is what CO₂ is”
hence the “ppm”, genius!
Since you are not the sharpest knife in a drawer, EVEN for a climate change denier, let me help you: Using RELATIVE numbers TAKES CARE of the difference between the mass of body and of Earth’s atmosphere.
And after that, _you_ pontificate on “thought processes”? Priceless!
Mr. Know It All, the Gift That Can’t Stop Giving (229):
J.D. Swallow (172): “ It is hard to believe that in 1900 CO₂ could possibly have contributed to the most deadly hurricane to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that CO₂ has nothing to do with any weather event.”
Kevin McKinney (201): It is hard to believe that in 1865 machine guns could possibly have contributed to the most deadly war to have ever struck the US. The logical answer is that machine guns have nothing to do with any wartime casualty event.
Mr. Know It All (229): “Machine guns” saw very limited use and were of little consequence in the first US Civil War:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-most-lethal-weapons-the-us-civil-war-17566
https://www.historynet.com/civil-war-guns
Quote: “For the most part, although Requa and Coffee Mill guns were issued to infantry units, as were later machine guns, they were employed as artillery pieces, usually in roles better served by actual artillery. In the end, however, imperfect ammunition combined with a lack of tactical ingenuity assured that the machine gun would fulfill no more than a novelty role in the Civil War.” ;)
Duh, that was the WHOLE POINT of this analogy, genius … What _else_ did you think it was about???
A related chicken and egg question – do you guys becoming climate change deniers because you are so dense, or are you becoming so dense, because of the climate change denial (e.g. sacrificing one’s intellect on the altar of ideology, or ego validation – look at me how brave contrarian I am!)
RE. Mr. Know Nothing @229
The lethal dose of arsenic in acute poisoning ranges from 100 mg to 300 mg. The Risk Assessment Information System database states “The acute lethal dose of inorganic arsenic to humans has been estimated to be about 0.6 mg/kg/day”
https://pmj.bmj.com/content/79/933/391
The fatal human dose for ingested arsenic trioxide is 70 to 180 milligrams (mg) or about 600 micrograms per kilograms (kg)/day [ATSDR 2007].
Mr. Know Nothing assumes in his calculation that it is 400 ppm by weight when the comparison is made to the atmosphere where CO2 makes up just over 400 ppm by volume, not mass.
To make a direct comparison in a liquid, one needs to look at the ratio of moles not mass. The mass of coffee is roughly 18 grams/mole whereas arsenic is about 75 grams per mole. Given that the cup of coffee has a mass of approximately 240 grams it would contain about 13 moles. 400 ppm of that would be 0.005 moles. 0.005 moles of arsenic has a mass of about 0.4 grams. 0.4 grams (400 milligrams) of arsenic is well over the top end of the lethal dose of 300 milligrams.
If we were to do it by weight, that cup of coffee weighing about 240,000 milligrams, 400ppm milligrams by mass = 96 milligrams. Still likely quite fatal according to the ASTDR.
0.6 milligrams/kg would be only 54 milligrams for a 200 pound man.
Chug away.
Of course the whole point is that CO2 as a trace gas can have profound effects and the physics clearly tells us it does. The disinformers can call it just a trace gas all they want to confuse, but it doesn’t change the physics. AND, it is ironic that the disinformers tout the importance of the trace gas as being so important to life yet reject its role in warming the planet because it is only a trace gas while without that warming, there’d likely be no life.
J Doug Swallow (219): W.B. Jackson (211): “JDS Individual high and low temp records are interesting however climate is trends and long term changes that cause real net changes in the types of growth to be found and the crops that can be reliably raised. In other words climate is climate and weather is weather!”
J Doug Swallow (219): “ [What] follows is what I spend my time doing, searching for the truth.”
Just to clarify, you “ search for the truth “, when you uncritically repeat climate denier cliches? Here examples of the cliches from JUST a couple of your recent posts:
1. confusing local weather with global climate (compare: Donald J. Trump: “ In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded […] What the hell is going on with Global Warming?“)
2. thinking that if there were hot periods before human emissions of CO2 then CO2 cannot affect climate (by the same logic: Your Honour, true, my client was caught with two empty gas cans and singed eyebrows, but he couldn’t possibly start the forest fire because wildfires happened long, long, before humans)
3. arguing that BECAUSE CO2 is only 400 ppm of atmosphere – it could not possibly affect the climate (by the same logic: Your Honour, true, my clients applied novichok to the underwear of Mr. Navalny, but it was only 0.001 ppm, so it could not possibly have any noticeable harmful effect)
4. in the next post arguing that CO2 DESPITE having only 400 ppm – CAN have great effect after all (JDS:” Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth”)
5. that CO2 can’t be bad, because plants need it (by the same logic: Your Honour, true, my client drowned the victim, but he is not responsible for his death, quite the opposite – here is a link to the paper “People die without water”. )
And I love when in addition to repeating the climate deniers fallacies, you try to add something from yourself: like here to the argument that temperature extremes are “weather” and not “climate” – you cut the part of the quote about the difference between “weather” and “climate”, assure everybody how you “search for the truth” and … change the subject from TEMPERATURE extremes to … how CO2 is good for plants (CO2 fertilization).
Are you and Mr. Know it All, the intellectual best the climate change denier community can offer?
With 2020 just a handful of days to run, we can declare 2020 as having the least Arctic Sea Ice Extent, that is averaged through the calendar year. Thus using JAXA SIE data, 2020’s average daily SIE sits at 9.65M sq km and would have to average in the last 5 days of the year an impossible SIE of 15M sq km** to equal the 9.73M sq km of the previous ‘least icy’ year 2016. (**Such levels of SIE have not been seen since 2003 and then at the height of the freeze.)
The lowest annual average SIE thus runs:-
2020 … … … 9.69M sq km (estimated)
2016 … … … 9.73M sq km
2019 … … … 9.77M sq km
2018 … … … 9.93M sq km
2017 … … … 9.97M sq km
2012 … … … 9.97M sq km
2011 … … .. 10.06M sq km
2007 … … .. 10.09M sq km
2015 … … .. 10.12M sq km
2010 … … .. 10.33M sq km
2014 … … .. 10.33M sq km
2020 has achieved this least-icy accolade without too much time placed as the ‘lowest SIE for time of year’. 2016 still tops the table for ‘most days as least icy’ with 2020 siting down in 5th spot:-
2016 … 125 days
2012 …. 68 days
2018 …. 58 days
2019 …. 43 days
2020 …. 35 days
2017 …. 25 dyad
2015 ….. 8 days
2010 ….. 4 days
JAXA daily data plotted as anomalies (so missing the annual cycle) is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
With strained forbearance, no. Your error, of course, is the fallacy of the excluded middle: you’re ignoring the range of backgrounds between “trained, disciplined, professional scientist” and “untrained, undisciplined, volunteer hack”. The blog’s principal authors are all clearly at the “scientist” end. The majority of comments that address their posts are respectful. There may be some commenters at the “hack” end on this thread, who shall remain ‘nymless, but who invite only endless scorn. I, for one, place myself closer to the mode of the distribution: respectful of science, scornful of pseudo-skeptical hacks. You’ve read The Relativity of Wrong, by I. Asimov? Silly me, of course you haven’t! I’ll leave the rest of your undead (take your pick), rebunked, denialist (def. 2) hacks for other climate realists to scorn.
#229–KIA displays not only his trademark ignorance, but a truly impressive ability to miss the point.
Uh, dude, we don’t care whether or not machine guns actually made a big difference during the American Civil War, or whether in discussing the “most deadly earthquake” we are more concerned with the deadliness or the earthquake itself. What we care about is the fact that JDS put forth a big, huge, honkin’ non sequitur. That’s what I was satirizing (and I do hope some were suitably amused.)
For those who missed it–and I include KIA in that number–here’s what JDS said:
Let’s stipulate that the Galveston hurricane was little affected one way or another by CO2. It doesn’t actually matter, because the “answer” doesn’t follow.
Why not? Because there are numerous other factors that we *know* contributed to the hurricane’s exceptional deadliness–most notably, perhaps, the very vulnerable location and the lack of timely warning of the hurricane’s approach and character.(1) But clearly, that such factors made for an exceptionally deadly event does *not* imply in any way that CO2 “has nothing to do with any weather event.”
You might as well say that because ricin wasn’t used to poison Socrates, therefore ricin has nothing to do with any ‘poisoning event.’ Or that because the great Chicago fire was caused by a cow, arson doesn’t exist. Or any of the other things I already said on this topic.
_____________________________________________________________
(1) Some stories on the Galveston storm:
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/566950355/the-tempest-at-galveston-we-knew-there-was-a-storm-coming-but-we-had-no-idea
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-galveston-hurricane-of-1900-became-the-deadliest-u-s-natural-disaster
https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/galv_hurricane/
Oh, and nigel, a little reminder: I am still the only person I know of, period, not just on these fora, to have predicted (yes, predicted) new minimum or near new minimum ASI extent a full year in advance.
Killian @239 so you agreed with someones prediction on ASI that turned out to be wrong. This is much the same as getting a prediction you made wrong. You cant escape just by saying someone else said so.
And then there is your comment I mentioned @224 that also proved to be wrong: “PermOccupy – A Pathway to a Sustainable Future,” by Killian O’Brien. Interview on PermOccupy with Killian by Willi Paul. Presented by Planetshifter.com Magazine. Submitted by Willi Paul on Thu, 03/22/2012 – 11:10”…..“– Arctic Sea Ice Canary in Coal Mine: Gone by 2017?” I saw the question mark and I didnt say it was a prediction. I said it “certainly looks like a prediction, even if its an informal sort of prediction or suggestion” . So fine your suggestion was wrong. And I dont think that makes things much better.
Then as I previously stated @223 there are another two instances I recall where you claimed your predictions were right in terms of direction ( and they were as I recall) but you admitted your predictions were significantly wrong on the timing or magnitude although I cant recall the details. And I would say timing is important – its easy to predict things might go a certain way, anyone can do that. You have 50 / 50 odds even if you just guess it.
So I’m somewhat underwhelmed. Like I said I listen and read some of what you post with interest, and some of the stuff has value, but thats about it. You make grand claims for yourself. Grand claims need a grand level of attainment proof and I dont see this level of proof and attainment.
Heres a clue. Stop calling people idiots, and you wont get your comments attacked quite so much and you probably wont get quite such a hostile response from people, eg BPL. Public relations 101. Psychology 101. You did do a pschology degree, right?.
Al Bundy @235
“AB: Since Killian threw down the gauntlet I’ll note that my long-held prediction of 2025 is looking solid. I derived it rather scientifically: 2020 vision is difficult. Within five years is awfully good (and it’s always worse than we thought), so 2025.As confirmed by “In the year 2525”, Zager and Evan’s song about the future.”
I assume you mean a blue arctic (or close to it). Possible although I would still think about 2040.
And since Killian and you have thrown down gauntlets, my long held prediction made somewhere around 2005 was that warming would track approximately in the middle of the range, (as in the modelling discussed on this website regularly) sea level rise would be towards the upper part of the range, the IPCC sea level rise estimates looked a bit low, and I thought sea level rise could be 1500 – 2000 by year 2100 (possible worst case scenario) and climate sensitivity would prove to be medium. I also thought the weather could become more extreme a bit faster than was thought, eg heatwaves and hurricane intensity. Not crazy extreme and crazy faster, but somewhat faster. Basically that weather might be quite sensitive to even modest warming and middle range climate sensitivity.
So far Im almost dead right because warming is in the middle of the range, sea levels have risen more towards the upper end of the range and predictions have been revised up from about 400mm – 900mm end of this century and word is the next IPCC report will revise them up to 1250. Most research appears to be climate sensitivity will still be in the middle although some models suggest high. There seems to be some evidence weather is becoming more extreme faster than expected, but I dont know if there is any consensus yet.
So eat that Mr Killian and Mr Bundy. But I dont publish this stuff on websites, normally anyway. Nobody is going to pay attention to a laypersons predictions unless they can provide a lot of detail and maths and I dont have the time for all that. Its really just a combination of mental math, instincts, looking at peoples research, studying trends, and reading up on paleo climate history.
But I definitely dont buy into the very extreme predictions that I see around the place of billions dead within a decade or so and temperatures soaring ten degrees within a decade you see on some websites. This is just too crazy, hysterical and speculative end of the world stuff like some new age cult. And before Killian bites my head off, Im not suggesting hes claiming such things although I do think hes a bit high on some things.
Re: 178 – ” It’s clear that devout religious faith doesn’t necessarily entail denial of scientifically justified knowledge!”
It is true, without question, that religionists are liars.
The more devout, the more they deceive.
You can not be a religionist without lying to yourself every day that your God is real, and by extension lying to those around you of the same thing.
Those who are practiced in lying about their God/God’s are more prone to lying about other things, and are more prone to believing the lies told to them by others.
This is why Religionists are prone to support America’s Lying, Mentally Ill president.