Killian @136 says “You’re not helping here. There was no rewrite, there was an application of logic. BPL may pay lip service to supporting Regen Ag, but his views of climate policies, economics, etc., as I said, support none of what will make global regenerative ag possible.”
And yet this same Killian guy tells us how regenerative agriculture is taking off like a rocket in… capitalist countries!
Not what I said and your paraphrase is inappropriate. The growth is likely exponential, but starting from a small level so widespread uptake will take time – but not anywhere near the decades or centuries you’ve pissed and moaned about.
The fact is regenerative agriculture is just a way of farming
That is an extremely ignorant comment. What makes Regen AG regenerative is that it is a systemic design approach, not “just a way of farming.”
and it could happen under just about any economic system.
Let us be clear: Nigel has no knowledge or experience with Regen Ag yet feels qualified to make repeated falsifications about it. Further, I have drawn the distinction *repeatedly* between applying a few of the most basic – though vital – aspects of RA to a farm (truly, just farming) and actually designing regeneratively. The former can be done under any system, but is completely inadequate to solving our problems. The latter cannot be done under any current economic system and is vital to our survival – particularly surviving well.
I have not contradicted myself in any way. You have, however, once again, either out of ignorance or ill will, completely misrepresented my words.
Its just more Killian BS.
I literally never B.S. It is not in my DNA to do so. But you are literally always wrong when you throw these tantrums.
nigeljsays
Carbomontanus @145 that is certainly rather interesting and compelling. Perhaps the dung beetle is just not adapted to living with those concentrations, so hence it was negatively affected by a slightly higher background rate.
———————-
Susan Andersons snow leopard link. I read the whole thing. I thought the main messages were firstly avoid the blame game. And secondly dont fall in love so deeply with the natural world and personalise our negative impacts on it so much, that you start thinking humans are evil and the planet is better off without them. Both good points I would have thought.
nigeljsays
Killian @150 said “Further, I have drawn the distinction *repeatedly* between applying a few of the most basic – though vital – aspects of RA to a farm (truly, just farming) and actually designing regeneratively. The former can be done under any system, but is completely inadequate to solving our problems. The latter cannot be done under any current economic system and is vital to our survival – particularly surviving well.”
Why cant regenerative design as related to agriculture by done under virtually any economic system?
Killian @149,
We could engage in a civilised discussion of the 1972 Club of Rome study rather than have a shouty bish-bash exchange, but you do seem to go all shouty rather too easily so maybe we couldn’t.
For the record, my own view of the 1972 Club of Rome study is perhaps best summed up in a screed wot I rote back in 2007.
“Attempts to identify the limits to society’s growth (food, minerals, energy, pollution, disease) have always underestimated mankind’s ability to find solutions, with the one exception of global warming where the ability is collectively to avoid all solutions.
…
“In so many ways we H sapiens walk the same tightrope that we always did. It is just that now it is fixed much higher above the ground than ever before.” – RodgerMA (Unpublished) ‘Homo Sapiens – A Vestigial History’
And Killian, talking of “for the record”, a record here which is quite well peppered with your ‘humble’ statements of self-assessed prescience (for which #51 stands as a good example), may I remind you of your comment @51 where you told us concerning Arctic Sea Ice and the coming summer SIE minimum:-
“My summer minimum will be posted sometime between the 10th and 15th. My very early call a couple months ago was around 4M, subject to revision in July.”
@51 it was my comment @8 you were responding to and It’s now 27th July. Thus I feel it is my responsibility to point out to you that “sometime between the 10th and 15th” has come and gone, never to return. But hey, here it would be better late than never**. I do know you have posted a prediction at Arctic Neven’s (**which was too late for a deadline) but most visitors to this thread likely do not venture that far (although Neven’s is a most excellent Forum for stuff cryospherical).
That is where I worked for 3 weeks in the summer and saw a lot of things. Sømme later got very fameous and scored very high.
We haven been discussing regenerative agriculture here, and I have launched Justus von Liebig, actually the founder of biochemistery and pioneer of agro- chemistery.
Truth is that Liebig was a concerned scientist, who thought especially in terms of sustainability and regenerative agriculture.
I found very eager and fanatic agro-political disputes in his very large, German biography, Arguments and fameous formkulas that have been taken over word for word by recent “biodynamics” and “organics” and religious political chemophobes.
What was lacking in Liebigs context and learnings was the cyanobacter and azotobacter, that we rather set on and live in peace with.
Liebig only knew electrical sparks as a possible binder of nitrogen from the atmosphere. And the recently found, large Chile- salpeter resources of those days, were running out in foreseeable tempo. Wherefore he eagerly recommended seaweeds and re- cycling of urban piss.
I have checked up further on Collemboles, the springtails.
You can guess and you can bet on whether those tiny hexapod- creatures tolerate DDT and Lindan or not.
Because if not, recent massive use of very potent, broad spectered “Pesticides” will have had large impacts on the humus- situation worldwide, effects that should not be confused with and blamed on NPK fertillizer and dolomite, but on facultary agrochemical ignorance, mis- use of chemicals, and potent chemicals in the hands of minors.
Inorganic mineral “chemical” fertillizer, as far as I could see for myself and get convinced of, rather helps building up humus and vegetation and soil metabolisms along with Liebigs autentic original recommendations, in sheere, humus- free, crushed rock and glacio-fluvial sediments. As in sheere, poor podsolized sand dunes in Germany.
Thus rather tell everyone to grasp elementary chemistery and not be at war with the rainworms, the insects, the spiders and the soil and garden microfauna, “those worms, spiders, and the ugly “bugs””.
Rather care that highest natural predator in those systems thrives well.
When GOD created the whasps, he did that in order to teach people behaviours and self- control!
Stay back… and do behave. And they will become your best allies.
They eat and they piss like all other animals, their body mass in terms of flesh underground is higher than the herd of cows on the same fertile meadow area, according to Darwin.
If they get eagerly and blindly poisoned and driven out because you hate worms and bugs…,
…then you inherit certain agricultrural duties in order to have the same yield.
You will be due to buy waggons of “chemical fertillizer” to replace that activity, more and more until you are broke.
And your land will lay back as a grey battlefield, where waggons of classic Gunpowder was set off quite recently. Which is also the elementary truth. You did “farm it out!”
Hr. B.P Levenson:
Drosofila has got into our kitchen and language so I wrote it that way to their honour.. I cecked up the greek origin.
Killiansays
154 MA Rodger says:
27 Jul 2021 at 4:43 AM
Killian @149,
We could engage in a civilised discussion of the 1972 Club of Rome study rather than have a shouty bish-bash exchange, but you do seem to go all shouty rather too easily so maybe we couldn’t.
Starting with a hypocritical insult is always the best way, I guess. See how I always start things?
:eyeroll:
I have no interest in convincing you of your incorrect analysis in this regard bc the two certainties to be found in the attempt are that you will *never* budge on your stance and my time will be better spent solving problems.
Whether you understand the import of LtoG or not is no more important to the world than whether you believe in Santa Claus actually coming down your chimney: The truth of the former and fiction of the latter are truths not subject to the ethereal winds of opinion.
There is value in discussing the implications, but, hell, I’ve been doing that for over ten years here and have only barely moved the needle here at RC. Still, that can be done on the other thread (though the timing of collapse is completely relevant to the hard science of Climate Change.)
nigeljsays
Killian @158, wow that said a lot of actual substance (SARC).
Reality Checksays
@157 well said, thqnks.
especially this part: If they get eagerly and blindly poisoned and driven out because you hate worms and bugs…,
…then you inherit certain agricultrural duties in order to have the same yield.
You will be due to buy waggons of “chemical fertillizer” to replace that activity, more and more until you are broke.
And your land will lay back as a grey battlefield, where waggons of classic Gunpowder was set off quite recently. Which is also the elementary truth. You did “farm it out!”
Abundantly rational and scientific. Reminded me of this –
Quoting a recent article related to Covid19 and science: The key (to science) was to have a “bold conjecture” to test it against reality and abandon it and construct another if it didn’t match the observable facts. This was the progress of scientific knowledge, said Popper. Not a matter of certainty or absolute truth, but of what “worked” in the real world.
In other words – and I think this is a key insight – you can be rational without being certain.
But there is a problem. Philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn explored how scientists actually behaved, and found that they did not meet Popper’s ideal of rational behaviour. They clung to their theories long after anomalies and problems had emerged.” […]
Oh dear don’t we cling.
Reality Checksays
IPCC Jul 27
“Throughout this cycle, we have been telling the world that science has spoken & it’s now up to the policymakers for action.” – #IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee at today’s opening ceremony for the 54th Session of the IPCC & the 14th Session of Working Group I. https://twitter.com/IPCC_CH/status/1419665171493031940
News – Negotiations began on Monday to approve a UN science report which will anchor high level summits later this year, charged with boosting climate action worldwide.
The report, Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis, by IPCC Working Group I brings together the latest advances in climate science and multiple lines of evidence to provide an up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change.
… the world is at a “climate crossroads” and decisions taken this year would determine whether it will be possible to limit global warming to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial era by the end of the century. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/07/1096422
RegenAg related info keeps falling out of the sky and hitting me on the head of late: New Book – Beautifully written and full of hope, Our Sunburnt Country shows that there is a way to protect our land, our food and our future, and it is within our grasp.
Because it seems that there are more than just one drunken sailor here;
I allowed myself to suggested what to do with Mr. Know it all.
Killians comment 108 may give us a clue to what to do with him and how to treat him
He says that when youn build or think or design, care that it has got 2 solid purposes or reasons. But thaqt principle tends to be dia- lecticd materialism.
There I have learnt better, and can give it as a poetic formula that is easily remembered.
It contains the universal (Greek?) principle of Trinity and further solid principle of 3 good reasons.
“In war and love, all is permitted. There one must doubble-check.
But in civil life, we must tripple check!
(else it will become love and / or war)
(to check and doublle check has more meanings you see, if you are married or engaged, allways keep another one also in reserve.)
Gen. Schwarzkoppf said it again and again and again in their press- briefings: “Yes, we have heard that, but we cannot buil onn it before we have it from an independent source… next question pleace?”
Saddam Hussein checked only once before he ran out, and lost. Whereas Gen. Schwarzkoppf allways checked 2 times and won.
My learning however from the faculty of philosophy and from the chemical and the pharmacological lab dept. of poisons and court- pharmacology and chemistery, is that: In order to send it to court with the hope that it will stand, we must secure that it has been shown by 3, systematically independent empirical methods.
Which is the very good rule of how to build or how to state proof regardless of dicipline or facfulty. It is the principle of the tri- pod of the chemical lab.
(The diamond is therefore the most rigid of all “stands” because of its triangulated arcitecture by especially strong molecular bonds.)
and further how to shoot on target. You need 3 independent bullets in the target before you can judge a mean-point and begin to screw and adjust for that. And 3 nails in the board or 3 screws in the plate before you can dare to set on it and build further on it.
In Holland I heard that they have 2 systematically independent national systems for controlling their waterstaat, and even a 3rd one independent of that , under repair and investigation, that can also be quickly utilized in reserve.
That is how In have arranged my cellar pumps. 2 independent pumps and a 3rd system also under rational investigation.
100 Doctors withnessing the same (= good statistics) does not keep, when they all step up in white coats and all are members of the Norwegian doctors union, sustaining each other, talking with one voice.
Just one doctor should be enough if you also take a veterinarian to look at it. Remember we are fur animals.
And ask the patient also.
That will give the needed, 3 systematically independent empirical reasons.
Because good statistics hardly rules out systematic errors.
Think of that Mr.Killian.
Because you often rush out too early, as if it was love or war.
But such behaviours are neither civilized nor scientific.
The Greco-Latin genus name of the fruit fly is Drosophila; the most frequently used lab species Drosophila melanogaster.
Mikesays
to K: I generally just skim what MAR posts. It’s normally a waste of time to engage with him, but I think he occasionally posts something interesting.
Climate makes the news:
A new study tracking the planet’s vital signs has found that many of the key indicators of the global climate crisis are getting worse and either approaching, or exceeding, key tipping points as the earth heats up.
Overall, the study found some 16 out of 31 tracked planetary vital signs, including greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean heat content and ice mass, set worrying new records.
“There is growing evidence we are getting close to or have already gone beyond tipping points associated with important parts of the Earth system,” said William Ripple, an ecologist at Oregon State University who co-authored the new research, in a statement.
“The updated planetary vital signs we present largely reflect the consequences of unrelenting business as usual,” said Ripple, adding that “a major lesson from Covid-19 is that even colossally decreased transportation and consumption are not nearly enough and that, instead, transformational system changes are required.”
I’d mentioned not giving much attention to this issue for years, and am still on a bit of roll catching up with where things are at now. So I’m sharing some items that stand out to me. I’ll run out of steam eventually. In the meantime here’s another:
In 2019, Ripple and colleagues (2020) warned of untold suffering and declared a climate emergency together with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from 153 countries. They presented graphs of planetary vital signs indicating very troubling trends, along with little progress by humanity to address climate change. On the basis of these data and scientists’ moral obligation to “clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat,” they called for transformative change.
Since the article’s publication, more than 2,800 additional scientists have signed that declaration of a climate emergency; in addition, 1,990 jurisdictions in 34 countries have now formally declared or recognized a climate emergency.
But, at the same time, there has been an unprecedented surge in climate-related disasters since 2019 (see their list)
There is also mounting evidence that we are nearing or have already crossed tipping points associated with critical parts of the Earth system, including the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, warm-water coral reefs, and the Amazon rainforest.
Recent trends in planetary vital signs
In the present article, we investigate recent changes in planetary vital signs since the publication of Ripple and colleagues (2020). Out of the 31 variables that we track, we found that 18 are at new all-time record lows or highs ….
… On the basis of recent trends in planetary vital signs, we reaffirm the climate emergency declaration and again call for transformative change, which is needed now more than ever to protect life on Earth and remain within as many planetary boundaries as possible.
The speed of change is essential, and new climate policies should be part of COVID-19 recovery plans. We must now join together as a global community with a shared sense of urgency, cooperation, and equity.
By the way, as I grew and studied those “fruit flies” in highschool, I also came over wild ones on fermenting pears outdoor at quite lower temperatures. They were obvious Drosphilæ, that I could see, but they were quite much larger, black and grey, where D. melanogaster is red and orange.
Their life cyclus was almost twice as long compared in vitro at room temperature. All other details and aspects were systematically the same. It even was another unmistakeable “melanogaster”.
Unluckily, the window was left open in late autumn, so all my drosophilæ froze and died. Not a single eg or larva or puppy did survive. Only because of a slight frost event. I did hope my large black ones were more hardy, but no.
So I really wonder in what way they can survive for all the year and show up in swarms quite regularly in the living rooms and kitchens, in the season, whenever there is overripe fruit on the tables and naturally bubbling juices in the jugs and bottles.
Solar Jimsays
On attribution:
I’m sure the doubling (yes 100% increase) of heat flow (flux) into the Earth system recorded by NASA during a recent decade (ie. during a ten year period) had nothing to due with global climate seeming to go even more haywire than before. Right? So it took 1750 to 2005 to ramp up to somewhere around 0.5 W/m2 and now, during the third decade of this once and future century, it begins to exceed 1.0 W/m2, and rising.
Multiply that out by the Earth’s surface in square meters (5.1 x 10e14 m2) and it makes the world electrical power generation seem like spit, if one where to make that comparison.
We (ie. world nation-states) might want to consider that there has been an error, a mistake. That realization might begin with a recognition that the three forms of matter underground (fossil carbon and uranium) are not three “forms of energy.” Their “energy efficiency” might be much worse than zero, ie. undefined, although our species certainly is able to convert/destroy those materials to other forms of matter by rapid oxidation or fission. (Sorry to be off the science track)
Killiansays
166 Reality Check
I hear an echo… Multiple echos…
low ASIE in 2019~2020, no apparent reason for it, I said… looks like a phase change. 2016, El Nino. ’17 and ’18 were “rebound’ years. Then great ice conditions, but very low ice…
Hmmm…
Pattern Literacy for the win… or loss… depending on how you look at it…
Killiansays
165, 166
A final word
On the basis of recent trends in planetary vital signs, we reaffirm the climate emergency declaration and again call for transformative change, which is needed now more than ever to protect life on Earth and remain within as many planetary boundaries as possible. The speed of change is essential, and new climate policies should be part of COVID-19 recovery plans. We must now join together as a global community with a shared sense of urgency, cooperation, and equity
hmmm…. sounds an awful lot like an entirely new system is needed. Oh, my! How very… radical! How very… extreme! How very alarmist!
Carbonmontanus: Saddam Hussein checked only once before he ran out, and lost. Whereas Gen. Schwarzkoppf allways checked 2 times and won.
RtW: I dunno. Maybe the outcome was determined by a massive modern killing machine versus a scraggly set of disorganized conscripts who had inadequate amounts of fourth rate equipment, along with zero intelligence assets. Slaughtering a blind cripple is not a sign of diddly squat except a willingness to slaughter in a killing field while avoiding any fair and so honorable fighting.
Pretending that the rules of war apply to such situations is reprehensible. The powerful shouldn’t be allowed to just slaughter the weak by labeling the slaughter ‘war’.
Wars have undetermined winners. Once military dominance is achieved a totally different word applies. Go ahead, pick or invent one, but there were NO USA/Iraq ‘wars’ and so the laws of war do not apply.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Maybe if you don’t want to be slaughtered, you should not invade your neighbors who have powerful allies, eh?
Richard the Weaversays
Carbonmontanus,
And Saddam did check twice and he did win. He asked the USA if he could reabsorb Iraq’s lost province. The USA gave what could only be interpreted as an all clear.
Saddam believed the USA (would you?). He did as the USA pretended to approve of and won. All those oil fields and the world’sost powerful imperial power approved!
Until the USA stabbed Iraq in the back.
But hey, the folks who write the stories say that the USA is Perfect in Every Way. So Iraq? You get to be the bad guys as far as history is concerned. And the USA’s owners get to be even richer because pounding your country back into the stone age is way profitable (and what American gives a shit about the resulting shithole country?).
nigeljsays
Important new study: “Clouds study finds that low climate sensitivity is ‘extremely unlikely’”
“It is “very likely” that the way clouds change as the world warms will drive further temperature rise, a new study finds. ”
“The response of clouds to a change in global temperature – known as the “cloud feedback” – plays a crucial role in how much the planet will warm. However, estimates of cloud feedback are uncertain. The new study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, uses global satellite observations to reduce this uncertainty.”
“Taking their findings into account, the authors produce a central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) – the global temperature change resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – of 3.2C. They add that low ECS values below 2C are “extremely unlikely”.
Imo this study does seen quite convincing. I thought back in 2000 that climate sensitivity would turn out to be in the middle, about 3.0 degrees. I mentioned this at comment 169 on the Rapid Attribution of the PNW heatwave page. Piotr I’m the REAL Prophet. Ha ha just joking. Sadly. But not bad intuition.
Killiansays
174 nigelj says:
30 Jul 2021 at 5:57 PM
“Taking their findings into account, the authors produce a central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) – the global temperature change resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – of 3.2C. They add that low ECS values below 2C are “extremely unlikely”.
Imo this study does seen quite convincing. I thought back in 2000 that climate sensitivity would turn out to be in the middle, about 3.0 degrees.
Charney is not the measure that matters long term, it’s ECS. However, does it make sense for Charney to be 3.2 if the high approaches 5 and hte low is more than 2? No. I promise you ALL of the measures of sensitivity will be on the high end because if they were not, we would not be seeing the changes we are. We are nowhere near equilibrium, yet look at the changes.
And, gosh, it was stated as 3 and you said it should be 3ish? Wow. That’s soooo impressive…
smdh
Carbomontanussays
173 R. the Weaver
I tend to agree with you on Saddam
He was an admirer and very good friend of the USA.
He drank CocaCola, and performed in cowboy- hat, he shot loosely in the air like in Hollywood Western, he clearly aspired. He wore a moustage and he had charm. He entered the saloons, gave his ordeers, and never paid the bill. John Wayne could not have performed better.
The US lost a big opportunity there. Saddam could have been given a role, his voice could have been dubbed. A bungalow with SPA in hololywood and a top flat wit casino in Las Vegas.
BPL: Who writes your material, Baghdad Bob? Stop fronting for inhuman dictatorships. Everyone knows the Iraq War was a fiasco. That doesn’t make Saddam Hussein a good guy.
Mr. Know It Allsays
They were referring to Saddam Hussein and General Schwarzkopf, so I think the discussion was about the 1991 war that occurred when Saddam invaded Kuwait. That war was not a “fiasco”. It was fully justified. Saddam had a respectably large army with thousands of tanks, but our technology made them obsolete. It was over far quicker than anticipated – the military estimated the US would have thousands of casualties per hour and called out a lot of National Guard troops to help deal with that scenario. Fortunately it worked out far better for us than we thought – due to our smart bombs and other technology – which most Americans were not aware of until that war when we got to see bombs guided down chimneys of buildings, etc.
Moral to that story was: if you are a bully dictator and want to invade a small innocent country, you had better size up their allies before you do it. Saddam learned that the hard way.
Solar Jim @168,
The NASA reference showing the rise that you highlight of the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) through the period 2005-19 refers to Loeb et al (2021) ‘Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate’ and it has certainly got denialists running round looking for excuses because, of course EEI = 1Wm^-2 is double the measure of 2005 but, hey, it is still so tiny-tiny relative to other global energy fluxes and it cannot be called “unprecedented” because the reliable data doesn’t run back before 2005. (I’m sure if the denialists were more competent they could do better than those excuses.)
The sensible point to make is that the measure of EEI is a measure of the rate-of-change of AGW, the ΔT rather than the surface-T. In terms of the surface-T, the measure which remains the main driver of our climate, the rise has been remarkably linear over the last four decades. So by surface temperature ΔT=constant, roughly.
To illustrate this linearity and ΔT=constant, HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP are plotted 1975-to-date in this WoodForTrees link. Most would agree that HadCRUT4 (which is still showing zero signs of any acceleration so is still linear) isn’t a good measure of surface-T and there is the start of signs of acceleration in GISTEMP, but does that (for the period 2005-19) still amount to a doubling of the rate, a doubling of ΔT, when the previous 30-year surface T is shown alongside?
There are folk (eg here) who feel that using the IEE and its ‘integral’ Σ(EEI) provides a measure of AGW preferable to surface-T and this would be a very-much-more powerful argument if the reliable IEE record was longer.
Yet while to-date there may have been a linearity of surface-T increase driving AGW, that linearity does not mean the impacts of AGW to-date will have also been linear. As the wheels fall off the climate-certainties-of-old, the climatic crashes and shudders we experience will be increasing in a far-from linear fashion.
And perhaps I am a little concerned by talk of ‘AGW has arrived’ because the deniers will simply run with a message that ‘The house is still standing! AGW!! It isn’t so bad.’
AGW may be here but it has hardily got its foot in the door.
Carbomontanussays
RtW,
Your comment 172 is more tricky
Neither you nor I are enttled to define what is war, and to define rules of war. That would be very whisful thinking, and we would compeat in the special trade of Genosse Killian.
The far more realistic rule is: In war and love all is permitted, Punctum!
My professor of philosophy said “Love is clearly madness, but it is healthy madness!” War may then be unhealthy madness.
Are there rules of craziness?
There is a geneva- convention of war- crimes, that is supposed to be respected. They spoke of Slobodan Milosevic after that civil war with war crimes, that he was obviously mad.
Self- defence in the form of killing is legal, but that must be decided on afterwards in legal and civil court. Nothing in that context states that you should not kill an obviously dangerous an wild, mad person because he / she is a blind cripple without intelligence.
The real troubble came out later. Saddam showed to have no weapons of mass destruction after all, the “allied frorces” had been lying about him in that respect.
Shoot first and ask thereafter… may occasionally be the healthiest rule at war, especially when war is not declared and warnings are ignored.
Then it comes to Evtanasia.
If 2 persons meet on a plank after shipwreck and the plank or life raft can carry only one of them, and if they cannot agree on which one, who is then entitled to kill his next person, to save one life at least? If no such decision is taken, both will drown.
That is a classic problem of ethical dilemma.
This dilemma came up theoretically, and a certain Mr.Christianus spoke: “We, the christians, do not thrive for money, wherefore we never go to sea, and thus never suffer shipwreck, and do not enter into such dilemmas!”
Also here in Norway it is permitted to shoot bears if they get too interested and no other method is at hand. It is even compulsary allways to have also a sharp gun at hand when trafficking in the arctic wilderness.
That idea of “noble wars” Man against man with equal weaponry and chanses is unhealthy. To my opinion it is mad.
It is forbidden here where I live.
In Russia, it has been out of question to take any nobleman to court exept for a short period around 1860. Disputes between noble men were settled in the form of Duell strictly within the high, outer walls of the noble mansion gardens. And by only one part in the noble dispute, by Russian roulette.
nigeljsays
Killian @175
“No. I promise you ALL of the measures of sensitivity will be on the high end because if they were not, we would not be seeing the changes we are. We are nowhere near equilibrium, yet look at the changes.”
Or it could just mean we do have middle climate sensitivity of 3 degrees and this generates bigger changes than were anticipated. Climate sensitivity is just a measure of how much warming per doubling of CO2 as you and everyone knows. It doesn’t say a lot about how much effect that will have on weather other than it will make certain weather events more intense or frequent. 3 degree climate sensitivity looks like it makes weather events become more extreme and frequent than anticipated like these heatwaves and floods recently, and ice sheets disintegrate faster than thought. Sea level rise is tracking towards the upper limits of projections.
“And, gosh, it was stated as 3 and you said it should be 3ish? Wow. That’s soooo impressive…”
I also said “middle of the range for climate sensitivity”, which IS taken to be 3 degrees.
Most research points to 3 degrees. Refer below. Its a bit old, but it has some good background information and may be of interest to people:
Key point: “All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more.”
nigeljsays
Saddam Hussein was an “expendable asset”. That’s Americas philosophy.
Killiansays
More support for rapid decarbonization as a study using MAGICC 6.8 shows stabilization of the cryosphere with return to pre-industrial. Other studies have shown the same.
Grand idea about turning Saddam into, um, an Elvis. Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge…
The USA’s problem (one of many) is that their system is set up so politicians seek to win votes instead of reality. Yet another example of eating reality to fund the metric.
And no, this isn’t inevitable. All it takes is a modern form of democracy. The first New Axiom?
There shall be no voting districts. Geography is relevant in the definition of the area governed, but subdivision of said area for voting purposes can only be destructive.
The 2021 North Atlantic hurricane season provided its first Hurricane in July with Elsa, the fifth named storm of the season. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy of these storms totals 12.8 according to the Wikithing page which sources this CSU site. That puts 2021 well above the 1981-2010 climatology (ACE=8) and just above the average Seasonal-ACE-to-date back to 2005 (ACE-12) being in fifth place behind 2005 (ACE=63), 2008 (ACE=37), 2020 (ACE=16) & 2018 (ACE=14). (2005 is as far back as my thro-the-season numbers go.)
…
And on the subject of looking back at past storms, July saw a paper by Vecchi et al (2021) ‘Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century which concludes that “After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s.”
Thus they are saying there is no AGW-induced increase in Atlantic hurricane numbers, although an earlier paper Vecchi & Knutson (2011) concluded the trend was downwards, so this latest conclusion is perhaps a step towards seeing a more stormy world ahead of us.
My own view of these storm-number studies is that it soon becomes a rather quixotic activity. It is not so easy to see if storms momentarily upped their speeds to gain Storm status, or Hurricane status and did this momentarily. Given that difficulty, it is never going to be realistic deciding whether there were on average two or three or four or whatever unaccounted Storms/Hurricanes in the 1870s. (Even today, we see upgrading post-season with 2021 Storm Gamma becoming Hurricane and Hurricane Zeta becoming Major Hurricane after the event.)
And while tropical cyclones in the Atlantic usually only make a single continental landfall which would favour a simple ‘Storm/Hurricane/MajorHurricane Count’ as a measure of storm activity, this ignores folk facing such storms on Caribbean islands or elsewhere in the world where cyclone records do not stretch back so far (which give the Atlantic record its prominence).
For me, a reckoning of seasonal ACE is a more obvious measure of storminess and thus a measure of the storms now flying about under AGW. And if there were a few storms missing from the record in 1877 or whenever, they likely would not go without notice if they had a significant part to play in the season’s ACE.
Solar Jimsays
RE: MAR at 178 –
Thanks for your reply. I’ll reiterate my concern by suggesting that the world’s discussion of climate, including some of the absurdity of “climate economics,” is driving the globalized economy by observing through the rear window.
For example, the Met link asserted: “Earth’s energy imbalance is the fundamental driver of planetary heating and the various resulting ‘symptoms’ that constitute climate change.”
Temperature increase, therefore, would be more clearly seen as a symptom resulting from past human emissions, rather than the purported forward looking of financial markets and political economy. Further, if the impacts are increasing on a non-lineal curve, perhaps exponentially, while surface temperature increases linearly, then we might be measuring the wrong indicator.
Killiansays
159 nigelj kirjoitti:
27 Jul 2021 5:08 PM
Killian @158, wow that said a lot of actual substance (SARC).
“You’re momma!” is supposed to be my response, I guess?
Killiansays
162 Carbomontanus
You have spoken without knowing, trying to tell the teacher they don’t understand their material when it is you who does not, so let me edify:
about 108 Killian:
What shall we do with the drunken sailor????
Because it seems that there are more than just one drunken sailor here;
I allowed myself to suggested what to do with Mr. Know it all.
Killians comment 108 may give us a clue to what to do with him and how to treat him
This is poor;y written WRT the use of pronouns, but I will assume you meant how to treat me, from my own post, which is funny in its off-target irony.
He says that when youn build or think or design, care that it has got 2 solid purposes or reasons. But thaqt principle tends to be dia- lecticd materialism.
Actually, the principle is “at least two” and I did say, “The more the merrier.”
There I have learnt better
That is, you *thought* you had.
Which is the very good rule of how to build or how to state proof regardless of dicipline or facfulty. It is the principle of the tri- pod of the chemical lab.
Ah, well, nature goes way, way, way beyond a mere three, which is why she is a better teacher tahn your university and philosophers when it comes to creating regenerative communities and beyond.
and further how to shoot on target. You need 3 independent bullets in the target before you can judge a mean-point and begin to screw and adjust for that. And 3 nails in the board or 3 screws in the plate before you can dare to set on it and build further on it.
You think you are teaching a man with one eye about the importance of triangulation. LOL… Yeah, been there, done that. Sadly, I had to teach myself why tracking a ball on a long curving arc while I was also moving was so much harder for me than the other kids. Silly PE teachers had no clue. I, of course, thought I was “uncoordinated.” Turns out, I had no triangulation to rely on.
Because good statistics hardly rules out systematic errors.
Think of that Mr.Killian.
Think on these:
1. Your three is inadequate.
2. We are talking design principles, not court evidence or triangulation, etc.
3. Every element supporting *at least* two other elements and every element being supported by *at least* two elements is the minimum standard, not the maximum standard.
4. Those are only two of at least 12 ecological engineering principles. It is a holistic, comprehensive system, not drawn from the limited minds of men, but from the limitless wisdom of Nature.
5. Take a permaculture course. I teach them.
That was fun. I assumed your post was not ill-intended, so do take this post as being written with bemusement and humor.
Good luck on your TEK/Permaculture journey.
Carbomontanussays
Genosse:
About that triangular or trinity form of proof:
I leant it from my uncle at the Roal University Dept of court- pharmacology. For instance,: drunky driving must be shown to cort by 3 systematically independent empirical methods.
1, chemical analysis of volatile, reducing substance in the blood
2, Gas- cromatography of the same blood where 3+3 samples are taken from the patient with 1 hour in between.
3, clinical test, …you are told to walk on a narrow line and say Et sommerforlystelsesetablissemang in Skelskør, and Ibsens ribsbusker og andre buskvekster again and again and again.
Only if that is done and in order, they dare to send it to court and hope that it will stand.
That is in order to stop any discussion of such things in court.
Because, such discussions allways tries to deny the credibility of the University. The way King Donald Grozny also did it.
The further epistimological principle is that 2 points definje a line. But 3 points , the third point being out of line with the two others, fixes it in space. And humans do think and believe in terms of space. That is a common property of human mentality.
You can try with boards,nail, and hammer. One nail fixes a point bul you can still moove and turn and shake it in 2 dimensions.. 2 nails apart will define a line, you can still bend and moove it in space around with that line.
But by 3 nails will fix it, and you can dare to set on it and build further on it.
Dilettants and minors believe “the more the better” and may smash further 9 nails into that same board to make it 12, calling it “permaculture” until the very board, that should keep it all together, splits and cracks and falls apart.
Scientific reason however, rather recommends:
ENTIA NON SUNT MVLTIPLICANDEM PRÆTER NECESSITATEM!
or:
Simplicity works!
Or
Simsalabim!
That rules also for carpentery and masonry.
Killiansays
177 Barton Paul Levenson kirjoitti:
31 Jul 2021 8:42 AM
RtW: Until the USA stabbed Iraq in the back.
BPL: Who writes your material, Baghdad Bob? Stop fronting for inhuman dictatorships. Everyone knows the Iraq War was a fiasco. That doesn’t make Saddam Hussein a good guy.
You do have trouble with factual statements that don’t meet your ideology. Jeez…
1. Your straw man is either a weird assumption or ignorance of the history or just you being you as you clearly enjoy insulting others without cause, but RtW in no way showed support for Hussein. He reported known history: Saddam got a non-no from the U.S. and took that silence as assent, which it seems to have clearly been. At the very least, it certainly was not, “No.”
Kid: Mom, can have a cookie?
Mom:
Kid: Cool. nom-nom-nom
2. What he *did* do was show an example of the unethical behavior by the US Gov. Perhaps that is what stuck in your craw?
Carbomontanussays
184 Dr.Keith Wollards
I do hate that rumor suggestion of the chicken and the egg…
140
Killian @136 says “You’re not helping here. There was no rewrite, there was an application of logic. BPL may pay lip service to supporting Regen Ag, but his views of climate policies, economics, etc., as I said, support none of what will make global regenerative ag possible.”
And yet this same Killian guy tells us how regenerative agriculture is taking off like a rocket in… capitalist countries!
Not what I said and your paraphrase is inappropriate. The growth is likely exponential, but starting from a small level so widespread uptake will take time – but not anywhere near the decades or centuries you’ve pissed and moaned about.
The fact is regenerative agriculture is just a way of farming
That is an extremely ignorant comment. What makes Regen AG regenerative is that it is a systemic design approach, not “just a way of farming.”
and it could happen under just about any economic system.
Let us be clear: Nigel has no knowledge or experience with Regen Ag yet feels qualified to make repeated falsifications about it. Further, I have drawn the distinction *repeatedly* between applying a few of the most basic – though vital – aspects of RA to a farm (truly, just farming) and actually designing regeneratively. The former can be done under any system, but is completely inadequate to solving our problems. The latter cannot be done under any current economic system and is vital to our survival – particularly surviving well.
I have not contradicted myself in any way. You have, however, once again, either out of ignorance or ill will, completely misrepresented my words.
Its just more Killian BS.
I literally never B.S. It is not in my DNA to do so. But you are literally always wrong when you throw these tantrums.
Carbomontanus @145 that is certainly rather interesting and compelling. Perhaps the dung beetle is just not adapted to living with those concentrations, so hence it was negatively affected by a slightly higher background rate.
———————-
Susan Andersons snow leopard link. I read the whole thing. I thought the main messages were firstly avoid the blame game. And secondly dont fall in love so deeply with the natural world and personalise our negative impacts on it so much, that you start thinking humans are evil and the planet is better off without them. Both good points I would have thought.
Killian @150 said “Further, I have drawn the distinction *repeatedly* between applying a few of the most basic – though vital – aspects of RA to a farm (truly, just farming) and actually designing regeneratively. The former can be done under any system, but is completely inadequate to solving our problems. The latter cannot be done under any current economic system and is vital to our survival – particularly surviving well.”
Why cant regenerative design as related to agriculture by done under virtually any economic system?
Killian @149,
We could engage in a civilised discussion of the 1972 Club of Rome study rather than have a shouty bish-bash exchange, but you do seem to go all shouty rather too easily so maybe we couldn’t.
For the record, my own view of the 1972 Club of Rome study is perhaps best summed up in a screed wot I rote back in 2007.
And Killian, talking of “for the record”, a record here which is quite well peppered with your ‘humble’ statements of self-assessed prescience (for which #51 stands as a good example), may I remind you of your comment @51 where you told us concerning Arctic Sea Ice and the coming summer SIE minimum:-
@51 it was my comment @8 you were responding to and It’s now 27th July. Thus I feel it is my responsibility to point out to you that “sometime between the 10th and 15th” has come and gone, never to return. But hey, here it would be better late than never**. I do know you have posted a prediction at Arctic Neven’s (**which was too late for a deadline) but most visitors to this thread likely do not venture that far (although Neven’s is a most excellent Forum for stuff cryospherical).
C 145: Drosofila
BPL: Carbomontanus, it’s “Drosophila.”
BPL at 155,
I’ve seen it spelled drosofila in Italian and Portuguese. And sometimes in Spanish.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/18586/ph-for-the-f-sound-is-old-english-responsible-for-this-swap
Thanks for your interests, Hr Nigelj
You can check up Lauritz Sømme on Wikipedia.
That is where I worked for 3 weeks in the summer and saw a lot of things. Sømme later got very fameous and scored very high.
We haven been discussing regenerative agriculture here, and I have launched Justus von Liebig, actually the founder of biochemistery and pioneer of agro- chemistery.
Truth is that Liebig was a concerned scientist, who thought especially in terms of sustainability and regenerative agriculture.
I found very eager and fanatic agro-political disputes in his very large, German biography, Arguments and fameous formkulas that have been taken over word for word by recent “biodynamics” and “organics” and religious political chemophobes.
What was lacking in Liebigs context and learnings was the cyanobacter and azotobacter, that we rather set on and live in peace with.
Liebig only knew electrical sparks as a possible binder of nitrogen from the atmosphere. And the recently found, large Chile- salpeter resources of those days, were running out in foreseeable tempo. Wherefore he eagerly recommended seaweeds and re- cycling of urban piss.
I have checked up further on Collemboles, the springtails.
You can guess and you can bet on whether those tiny hexapod- creatures tolerate DDT and Lindan or not.
Because if not, recent massive use of very potent, broad spectered “Pesticides” will have had large impacts on the humus- situation worldwide, effects that should not be confused with and blamed on NPK fertillizer and dolomite, but on facultary agrochemical ignorance, mis- use of chemicals, and potent chemicals in the hands of minors.
Inorganic mineral “chemical” fertillizer, as far as I could see for myself and get convinced of, rather helps building up humus and vegetation and soil metabolisms along with Liebigs autentic original recommendations, in sheere, humus- free, crushed rock and glacio-fluvial sediments. As in sheere, poor podsolized sand dunes in Germany.
Thus rather tell everyone to grasp elementary chemistery and not be at war with the rainworms, the insects, the spiders and the soil and garden microfauna, “those worms, spiders, and the ugly “bugs””.
Rather care that highest natural predator in those systems thrives well.
When GOD created the whasps, he did that in order to teach people behaviours and self- control!
Stay back… and do behave. And they will become your best allies.
They eat and they piss like all other animals, their body mass in terms of flesh underground is higher than the herd of cows on the same fertile meadow area, according to Darwin.
If they get eagerly and blindly poisoned and driven out because you hate worms and bugs…,
…then you inherit certain agricultrural duties in order to have the same yield.
You will be due to buy waggons of “chemical fertillizer” to replace that activity, more and more until you are broke.
And your land will lay back as a grey battlefield, where waggons of classic Gunpowder was set off quite recently. Which is also the elementary truth. You did “farm it out!”
Hr. B.P Levenson:
Drosofila has got into our kitchen and language so I wrote it that way to their honour.. I cecked up the greek origin.
154 MA Rodger says:
27 Jul 2021 at 4:43 AM
Killian @149,
We could engage in a civilised discussion of the 1972 Club of Rome study rather than have a shouty bish-bash exchange, but you do seem to go all shouty rather too easily so maybe we couldn’t.
Starting with a hypocritical insult is always the best way, I guess. See how I always start things?
:eyeroll:
I have no interest in convincing you of your incorrect analysis in this regard bc the two certainties to be found in the attempt are that you will *never* budge on your stance and my time will be better spent solving problems.
Whether you understand the import of LtoG or not is no more important to the world than whether you believe in Santa Claus actually coming down your chimney: The truth of the former and fiction of the latter are truths not subject to the ethereal winds of opinion.
There is value in discussing the implications, but, hell, I’ve been doing that for over ten years here and have only barely moved the needle here at RC. Still, that can be done on the other thread (though the timing of collapse is completely relevant to the hard science of Climate Change.)
Killian @158, wow that said a lot of actual substance (SARC).
@157 well said, thqnks.
especially this part:
If they get eagerly and blindly poisoned and driven out because you hate worms and bugs…,
…then you inherit certain agricultrural duties in order to have the same yield.
You will be due to buy waggons of “chemical fertillizer” to replace that activity, more and more until you are broke.
And your land will lay back as a grey battlefield, where waggons of classic Gunpowder was set off quite recently. Which is also the elementary truth. You did “farm it out!”
Abundantly rational and scientific. Reminded me of this –
Quoting a recent article related to Covid19 and science:
The key (to science) was to have a “bold conjecture” to test it against reality and abandon it and construct another if it didn’t match the observable facts. This was the progress of scientific knowledge, said Popper. Not a matter of certainty or absolute truth, but of what “worked” in the real world.
In other words – and I think this is a key insight – you can be rational without being certain.
But there is a problem. Philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn explored how scientists actually behaved, and found that they did not meet Popper’s ideal of rational behaviour. They clung to their theories long after anomalies and problems had emerged.” […]
Oh dear don’t we cling.
IPCC Jul 27
“Throughout this cycle, we have been telling the world that science has spoken & it’s now up to the policymakers for action.” – #IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee at today’s opening ceremony for the 54th Session of the IPCC & the 14th Session of Working Group I.
https://twitter.com/IPCC_CH/status/1419665171493031940
News – Negotiations began on Monday to approve a UN science report which will anchor high level summits later this year, charged with boosting climate action worldwide.
The report, Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis, by IPCC Working Group I brings together the latest advances in climate science and multiple lines of evidence to provide an up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change.
… the world is at a “climate crossroads” and decisions taken this year would determine whether it will be possible to limit global warming to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial era by the end of the century. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/07/1096422
RegenAg related info keeps falling out of the sky and hitting me on the head of late: New Book – Beautifully written and full of hope, Our Sunburnt Country shows that there is a way to protect our land, our food and our future, and it is within our grasp.
‘Anika Molesworth invites us to imagine a better future. Read this book and be inspired.’ – Michael E. Mann
https://www.panmacmillan.com.au/9781760982744/our-sunburnt-country/
Anika http://www.climatewiseagriculture.com/
And Co-Founder of farmers taking climate action
https://farmersforclimateaction.org.au/
climate smart agriculture toolkit – tips and strategies you can employ on your farm https://farmersforclimateaction.org.au/climate-smart-agriculture-toolkit/
about 108 Killian:
What shall we do with the drunken sailor????
Because it seems that there are more than just one drunken sailor here;
I allowed myself to suggested what to do with Mr. Know it all.
Killians comment 108 may give us a clue to what to do with him and how to treat him
He says that when youn build or think or design, care that it has got 2 solid purposes or reasons. But thaqt principle tends to be dia- lecticd materialism.
There I have learnt better, and can give it as a poetic formula that is easily remembered.
It contains the universal (Greek?) principle of Trinity and further solid principle of 3 good reasons.
“In war and love, all is permitted. There one must doubble-check.
But in civil life, we must tripple check!
(else it will become love and / or war)
(to check and doublle check has more meanings you see, if you are married or engaged, allways keep another one also in reserve.)
Gen. Schwarzkoppf said it again and again and again in their press- briefings: “Yes, we have heard that, but we cannot buil onn it before we have it from an independent source… next question pleace?”
Saddam Hussein checked only once before he ran out, and lost. Whereas Gen. Schwarzkoppf allways checked 2 times and won.
My learning however from the faculty of philosophy and from the chemical and the pharmacological lab dept. of poisons and court- pharmacology and chemistery, is that: In order to send it to court with the hope that it will stand, we must secure that it has been shown by 3, systematically independent empirical methods.
Which is the very good rule of how to build or how to state proof regardless of dicipline or facfulty. It is the principle of the tri- pod of the chemical lab.
(The diamond is therefore the most rigid of all “stands” because of its triangulated arcitecture by especially strong molecular bonds.)
and further how to shoot on target. You need 3 independent bullets in the target before you can judge a mean-point and begin to screw and adjust for that. And 3 nails in the board or 3 screws in the plate before you can dare to set on it and build further on it.
In Holland I heard that they have 2 systematically independent national systems for controlling their waterstaat, and even a 3rd one independent of that , under repair and investigation, that can also be quickly utilized in reserve.
That is how In have arranged my cellar pumps. 2 independent pumps and a 3rd system also under rational investigation.
100 Doctors withnessing the same (= good statistics) does not keep, when they all step up in white coats and all are members of the Norwegian doctors union, sustaining each other, talking with one voice.
Just one doctor should be enough if you also take a veterinarian to look at it. Remember we are fur animals.
And ask the patient also.
That will give the needed, 3 systematically independent empirical reasons.
Because good statistics hardly rules out systematic errors.
Think of that Mr.Killian.
Because you often rush out too early, as if it was love or war.
But such behaviours are neither civilized nor scientific.
The Greco-Latin genus name of the fruit fly is Drosophila; the most frequently used lab species Drosophila melanogaster.
to K: I generally just skim what MAR posts. It’s normally a waste of time to engage with him, but I think he occasionally posts something interesting.
Climate makes the news:
A new study tracking the planet’s vital signs has found that many of the key indicators of the global climate crisis are getting worse and either approaching, or exceeding, key tipping points as the earth heats up.
Overall, the study found some 16 out of 31 tracked planetary vital signs, including greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean heat content and ice mass, set worrying new records.
“There is growing evidence we are getting close to or have already gone beyond tipping points associated with important parts of the Earth system,” said William Ripple, an ecologist at Oregon State University who co-authored the new research, in a statement.
“The updated planetary vital signs we present largely reflect the consequences of unrelenting business as usual,” said Ripple, adding that “a major lesson from Covid-19 is that even colossally decreased transportation and consumption are not nearly enough and that, instead, transformational system changes are required.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/27/global-heating-critical-measures-tipping-point-study
Daily CO2
Jul. 27, 2021 = 416.28 ppm
Jul. 27, 2020 = 413.59 ppm
Cheers
Mike
Discouraging:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biab079/6325731?login=true
Becomes worse and worser.
I’d mentioned not giving much attention to this issue for years, and am still on a bit of roll catching up with where things are at now. So I’m sharing some items that stand out to me. I’ll run out of steam eventually. In the meantime here’s another:
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021
William J Ripple et al Published: 28 July 2021
(full paper) – https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biab079/6325731?login=true
In 2019, Ripple and colleagues (2020) warned of untold suffering and declared a climate emergency together with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from 153 countries. They presented graphs of planetary vital signs indicating very troubling trends, along with little progress by humanity to address climate change. On the basis of these data and scientists’ moral obligation to “clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat,” they called for transformative change.
Since the article’s publication, more than 2,800 additional scientists have signed that declaration of a climate emergency; in addition, 1,990 jurisdictions in 34 countries have now formally declared or recognized a climate emergency.
But, at the same time, there has been an unprecedented surge in climate-related disasters since 2019 (see their list)
There is also mounting evidence that we are nearing or have already crossed tipping points associated with critical parts of the Earth system, including the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, warm-water coral reefs, and the Amazon rainforest.
Recent trends in planetary vital signs
In the present article, we investigate recent changes in planetary vital signs since the publication of Ripple and colleagues (2020). Out of the 31 variables that we track, we found that 18 are at new all-time record lows or highs ….
… On the basis of recent trends in planetary vital signs, we reaffirm the climate emergency declaration and again call for transformative change, which is needed now more than ever to protect life on Earth and remain within as many planetary boundaries as possible.
The speed of change is essential, and new climate policies should be part of COVID-19 recovery plans. We must now join together as a global community with a shared sense of urgency, cooperation, and equity.
Enjoy and share – https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biab079/6325731?login=true
@ 163 BPL
By the way, as I grew and studied those “fruit flies” in highschool, I also came over wild ones on fermenting pears outdoor at quite lower temperatures. They were obvious Drosphilæ, that I could see, but they were quite much larger, black and grey, where D. melanogaster is red and orange.
Their life cyclus was almost twice as long compared in vitro at room temperature. All other details and aspects were systematically the same. It even was another unmistakeable “melanogaster”.
Unluckily, the window was left open in late autumn, so all my drosophilæ froze and died. Not a single eg or larva or puppy did survive. Only because of a slight frost event. I did hope my large black ones were more hardy, but no.
So I really wonder in what way they can survive for all the year and show up in swarms quite regularly in the living rooms and kitchens, in the season, whenever there is overripe fruit on the tables and naturally bubbling juices in the jugs and bottles.
On attribution:
I’m sure the doubling (yes 100% increase) of heat flow (flux) into the Earth system recorded by NASA during a recent decade (ie. during a ten year period) had nothing to due with global climate seeming to go even more haywire than before. Right? So it took 1750 to 2005 to ramp up to somewhere around 0.5 W/m2 and now, during the third decade of this once and future century, it begins to exceed 1.0 W/m2, and rising.
Multiply that out by the Earth’s surface in square meters (5.1 x 10e14 m2) and it makes the world electrical power generation seem like spit, if one where to make that comparison.
We (ie. world nation-states) might want to consider that there has been an error, a mistake. That realization might begin with a recognition that the three forms of matter underground (fossil carbon and uranium) are not three “forms of energy.” Their “energy efficiency” might be much worse than zero, ie. undefined, although our species certainly is able to convert/destroy those materials to other forms of matter by rapid oxidation or fission. (Sorry to be off the science track)
166 Reality Check
I hear an echo… Multiple echos…
low ASIE in 2019~2020, no apparent reason for it, I said… looks like a phase change. 2016, El Nino. ’17 and ’18 were “rebound’ years. Then great ice conditions, but very low ice…
Hmmm…
Pattern Literacy for the win… or loss… depending on how you look at it…
165, 166
hmmm…. sounds an awful lot like an entirely new system is needed. Oh, my! How very… radical! How very… extreme! How very alarmist!
How very… Regenerative Governance. No? Yes.
Will you listen now?
C,
It’s probably spontaneous generation.
Carbonmontanus: Saddam Hussein checked only once before he ran out, and lost. Whereas Gen. Schwarzkoppf allways checked 2 times and won.
RtW: I dunno. Maybe the outcome was determined by a massive modern killing machine versus a scraggly set of disorganized conscripts who had inadequate amounts of fourth rate equipment, along with zero intelligence assets. Slaughtering a blind cripple is not a sign of diddly squat except a willingness to slaughter in a killing field while avoiding any fair and so honorable fighting.
Pretending that the rules of war apply to such situations is reprehensible. The powerful shouldn’t be allowed to just slaughter the weak by labeling the slaughter ‘war’.
Wars have undetermined winners. Once military dominance is achieved a totally different word applies. Go ahead, pick or invent one, but there were NO USA/Iraq ‘wars’ and so the laws of war do not apply.
Maybe if you don’t want to be slaughtered, you should not invade your neighbors who have powerful allies, eh?
Carbonmontanus,
And Saddam did check twice and he did win. He asked the USA if he could reabsorb Iraq’s lost province. The USA gave what could only be interpreted as an all clear.
Saddam believed the USA (would you?). He did as the USA pretended to approve of and won. All those oil fields and the world’sost powerful imperial power approved!
Until the USA stabbed Iraq in the back.
But hey, the folks who write the stories say that the USA is Perfect in Every Way. So Iraq? You get to be the bad guys as far as history is concerned. And the USA’s owners get to be even richer because pounding your country back into the stone age is way profitable (and what American gives a shit about the resulting shithole country?).
Important new study: “Clouds study finds that low climate sensitivity is ‘extremely unlikely’”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/clouds-study-finds-that-low-climate-sensitivity-is-extremely-unlikely
“It is “very likely” that the way clouds change as the world warms will drive further temperature rise, a new study finds. ”
“The response of clouds to a change in global temperature – known as the “cloud feedback” – plays a crucial role in how much the planet will warm. However, estimates of cloud feedback are uncertain. The new study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, uses global satellite observations to reduce this uncertainty.”
“Taking their findings into account, the authors produce a central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) – the global temperature change resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – of 3.2C. They add that low ECS values below 2C are “extremely unlikely”.
Imo this study does seen quite convincing. I thought back in 2000 that climate sensitivity would turn out to be in the middle, about 3.0 degrees. I mentioned this at comment 169 on the Rapid Attribution of the PNW heatwave page. Piotr I’m the REAL Prophet. Ha ha just joking. Sadly. But not bad intuition.
174 nigelj says:
30 Jul 2021 at 5:57 PM
“Taking their findings into account, the authors produce a central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) – the global temperature change resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – of 3.2C. They add that low ECS values below 2C are “extremely unlikely”.
Imo this study does seen quite convincing. I thought back in 2000 that climate sensitivity would turn out to be in the middle, about 3.0 degrees.
Charney is not the measure that matters long term, it’s ECS. However, does it make sense for Charney to be 3.2 if the high approaches 5 and hte low is more than 2? No. I promise you ALL of the measures of sensitivity will be on the high end because if they were not, we would not be seeing the changes we are. We are nowhere near equilibrium, yet look at the changes.
And, gosh, it was stated as 3 and you said it should be 3ish? Wow. That’s soooo impressive…
smdh
173 R. the Weaver
I tend to agree with you on Saddam
He was an admirer and very good friend of the USA.
He drank CocaCola, and performed in cowboy- hat, he shot loosely in the air like in Hollywood Western, he clearly aspired. He wore a moustage and he had charm. He entered the saloons, gave his ordeers, and never paid the bill. John Wayne could not have performed better.
The US lost a big opportunity there. Saddam could have been given a role, his voice could have been dubbed. A bungalow with SPA in hololywood and a top flat wit casino in Las Vegas.
RtW: Until the USA stabbed Iraq in the back.
BPL: Who writes your material, Baghdad Bob? Stop fronting for inhuman dictatorships. Everyone knows the Iraq War was a fiasco. That doesn’t make Saddam Hussein a good guy.
They were referring to Saddam Hussein and General Schwarzkopf, so I think the discussion was about the 1991 war that occurred when Saddam invaded Kuwait. That war was not a “fiasco”. It was fully justified. Saddam had a respectably large army with thousands of tanks, but our technology made them obsolete. It was over far quicker than anticipated – the military estimated the US would have thousands of casualties per hour and called out a lot of National Guard troops to help deal with that scenario. Fortunately it worked out far better for us than we thought – due to our smart bombs and other technology – which most Americans were not aware of until that war when we got to see bombs guided down chimneys of buildings, etc.
Moral to that story was: if you are a bully dictator and want to invade a small innocent country, you had better size up their allies before you do it. Saddam learned that the hard way.
Solar Jim @168,
The NASA reference showing the rise that you highlight of the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) through the period 2005-19 refers to Loeb et al (2021) ‘Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate’ and it has certainly got denialists running round looking for excuses because, of course EEI = 1Wm^-2 is double the measure of 2005 but, hey, it is still so tiny-tiny relative to other global energy fluxes and it cannot be called “unprecedented” because the reliable data doesn’t run back before 2005. (I’m sure if the denialists were more competent they could do better than those excuses.)
The sensible point to make is that the measure of EEI is a measure of the rate-of-change of AGW, the ΔT rather than the surface-T. In terms of the surface-T, the measure which remains the main driver of our climate, the rise has been remarkably linear over the last four decades. So by surface temperature ΔT=constant, roughly.
To illustrate this linearity and ΔT=constant, HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP are plotted 1975-to-date in this WoodForTrees link. Most would agree that HadCRUT4 (which is still showing zero signs of any acceleration so is still linear) isn’t a good measure of surface-T and there is the start of signs of acceleration in GISTEMP, but does that (for the period 2005-19) still amount to a doubling of the rate, a doubling of ΔT, when the previous 30-year surface T is shown alongside?
There are folk (eg here) who feel that using the IEE and its ‘integral’ Σ(EEI) provides a measure of AGW preferable to surface-T and this would be a very-much-more powerful argument if the reliable IEE record was longer.
Yet while to-date there may have been a linearity of surface-T increase driving AGW, that linearity does not mean the impacts of AGW to-date will have also been linear. As the wheels fall off the climate-certainties-of-old, the climatic crashes and shudders we experience will be increasing in a far-from linear fashion.
And perhaps I am a little concerned by talk of ‘AGW has arrived’ because the deniers will simply run with a message that ‘The house is still standing! AGW!! It isn’t so bad.’
AGW may be here but it has hardily got its foot in the door.
RtW,
Your comment 172 is more tricky
Neither you nor I are enttled to define what is war, and to define rules of war. That would be very whisful thinking, and we would compeat in the special trade of Genosse Killian.
The far more realistic rule is: In war and love all is permitted, Punctum!
My professor of philosophy said “Love is clearly madness, but it is healthy madness!” War may then be unhealthy madness.
Are there rules of craziness?
There is a geneva- convention of war- crimes, that is supposed to be respected. They spoke of Slobodan Milosevic after that civil war with war crimes, that he was obviously mad.
Self- defence in the form of killing is legal, but that must be decided on afterwards in legal and civil court. Nothing in that context states that you should not kill an obviously dangerous an wild, mad person because he / she is a blind cripple without intelligence.
The real troubble came out later. Saddam showed to have no weapons of mass destruction after all, the “allied frorces” had been lying about him in that respect.
Shoot first and ask thereafter… may occasionally be the healthiest rule at war, especially when war is not declared and warnings are ignored.
Then it comes to Evtanasia.
If 2 persons meet on a plank after shipwreck and the plank or life raft can carry only one of them, and if they cannot agree on which one, who is then entitled to kill his next person, to save one life at least? If no such decision is taken, both will drown.
That is a classic problem of ethical dilemma.
This dilemma came up theoretically, and a certain Mr.Christianus spoke: “We, the christians, do not thrive for money, wherefore we never go to sea, and thus never suffer shipwreck, and do not enter into such dilemmas!”
Also here in Norway it is permitted to shoot bears if they get too interested and no other method is at hand. It is even compulsary allways to have also a sharp gun at hand when trafficking in the arctic wilderness.
That idea of “noble wars” Man against man with equal weaponry and chanses is unhealthy. To my opinion it is mad.
It is forbidden here where I live.
In Russia, it has been out of question to take any nobleman to court exept for a short period around 1860. Disputes between noble men were settled in the form of Duell strictly within the high, outer walls of the noble mansion gardens. And by only one part in the noble dispute, by Russian roulette.
Killian @175
“No. I promise you ALL of the measures of sensitivity will be on the high end because if they were not, we would not be seeing the changes we are. We are nowhere near equilibrium, yet look at the changes.”
Or it could just mean we do have middle climate sensitivity of 3 degrees and this generates bigger changes than were anticipated. Climate sensitivity is just a measure of how much warming per doubling of CO2 as you and everyone knows. It doesn’t say a lot about how much effect that will have on weather other than it will make certain weather events more intense or frequent. 3 degree climate sensitivity looks like it makes weather events become more extreme and frequent than anticipated like these heatwaves and floods recently, and ice sheets disintegrate faster than thought. Sea level rise is tracking towards the upper limits of projections.
“And, gosh, it was stated as 3 and you said it should be 3ish? Wow. That’s soooo impressive…”
I also said “middle of the range for climate sensitivity”, which IS taken to be 3 degrees.
Most research points to 3 degrees. Refer below. Its a bit old, but it has some good background information and may be of interest to people:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
Key point: “All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more.”
Saddam Hussein was an “expendable asset”. That’s Americas philosophy.
More support for rapid decarbonization as a study using MAGICC 6.8 shows stabilization of the cryosphere with return to pre-industrial. Other studies have shown the same.
https://twitter.com/safiume/status/1421631616552607751?s=20
Carbo,
Grand idea about turning Saddam into, um, an Elvis. Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge…
The USA’s problem (one of many) is that their system is set up so politicians seek to win votes instead of reality. Yet another example of eating reality to fund the metric.
And no, this isn’t inevitable. All it takes is a modern form of democracy. The first New Axiom?
There shall be no voting districts. Geography is relevant in the definition of the area governed, but subdivision of said area for voting purposes can only be destructive.
Q. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1961.15
A. temperature
The 2021 North Atlantic hurricane season provided its first Hurricane in July with Elsa, the fifth named storm of the season. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy of these storms totals 12.8 according to the Wikithing page which sources this CSU site. That puts 2021 well above the 1981-2010 climatology (ACE=8) and just above the average Seasonal-ACE-to-date back to 2005 (ACE-12) being in fifth place behind 2005 (ACE=63), 2008 (ACE=37), 2020 (ACE=16) & 2018 (ACE=14). (2005 is as far back as my thro-the-season numbers go.)
…
And on the subject of looking back at past storms, July saw a paper by Vecchi et al (2021) ‘Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century which concludes that “After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s.”
Thus they are saying there is no AGW-induced increase in Atlantic hurricane numbers, although an earlier paper Vecchi & Knutson (2011) concluded the trend was downwards, so this latest conclusion is perhaps a step towards seeing a more stormy world ahead of us.
My own view of these storm-number studies is that it soon becomes a rather quixotic activity. It is not so easy to see if storms momentarily upped their speeds to gain Storm status, or Hurricane status and did this momentarily. Given that difficulty, it is never going to be realistic deciding whether there were on average two or three or four or whatever unaccounted Storms/Hurricanes in the 1870s. (Even today, we see upgrading post-season with 2021 Storm Gamma becoming Hurricane and Hurricane Zeta becoming Major Hurricane after the event.)
And while tropical cyclones in the Atlantic usually only make a single continental landfall which would favour a simple ‘Storm/Hurricane/MajorHurricane Count’ as a measure of storm activity, this ignores folk facing such storms on Caribbean islands or elsewhere in the world where cyclone records do not stretch back so far (which give the Atlantic record its prominence).
For me, a reckoning of seasonal ACE is a more obvious measure of storminess and thus a measure of the storms now flying about under AGW. And if there were a few storms missing from the record in 1877 or whenever, they likely would not go without notice if they had a significant part to play in the season’s ACE.
RE: MAR at 178 –
Thanks for your reply. I’ll reiterate my concern by suggesting that the world’s discussion of climate, including some of the absurdity of “climate economics,” is driving the globalized economy by observing through the rear window.
For example, the Met link asserted: “Earth’s energy imbalance is the fundamental driver of planetary heating and the various resulting ‘symptoms’ that constitute climate change.”
Temperature increase, therefore, would be more clearly seen as a symptom resulting from past human emissions, rather than the purported forward looking of financial markets and political economy. Further, if the impacts are increasing on a non-lineal curve, perhaps exponentially, while surface temperature increases linearly, then we might be measuring the wrong indicator.
159 nigelj kirjoitti:
27 Jul 2021 5:08 PM
Killian @158, wow that said a lot of actual substance (SARC).
“You’re momma!” is supposed to be my response, I guess?
162 Carbomontanus
You have spoken without knowing, trying to tell the teacher they don’t understand their material when it is you who does not, so let me edify:
about 108 Killian:
What shall we do with the drunken sailor????
Because it seems that there are more than just one drunken sailor here;
I allowed myself to suggested what to do with Mr. Know it all.
Killians comment 108 may give us a clue to what to do with him and how to treat him
This is poor;y written WRT the use of pronouns, but I will assume you meant how to treat me, from my own post, which is funny in its off-target irony.
He says that when youn build or think or design, care that it has got 2 solid purposes or reasons. But thaqt principle tends to be dia- lecticd materialism.
Actually, the principle is “at least two” and I did say, “The more the merrier.”
There I have learnt better
That is, you *thought* you had.
Which is the very good rule of how to build or how to state proof regardless of dicipline or facfulty. It is the principle of the tri- pod of the chemical lab.
Ah, well, nature goes way, way, way beyond a mere three, which is why she is a better teacher tahn your university and philosophers when it comes to creating regenerative communities and beyond.
and further how to shoot on target. You need 3 independent bullets in the target before you can judge a mean-point and begin to screw and adjust for that. And 3 nails in the board or 3 screws in the plate before you can dare to set on it and build further on it.
You think you are teaching a man with one eye about the importance of triangulation. LOL… Yeah, been there, done that. Sadly, I had to teach myself why tracking a ball on a long curving arc while I was also moving was so much harder for me than the other kids. Silly PE teachers had no clue. I, of course, thought I was “uncoordinated.” Turns out, I had no triangulation to rely on.
Because good statistics hardly rules out systematic errors.
Think of that Mr.Killian.
Think on these:
1. Your three is inadequate.
2. We are talking design principles, not court evidence or triangulation, etc.
3. Every element supporting *at least* two other elements and every element being supported by *at least* two elements is the minimum standard, not the maximum standard.
4. Those are only two of at least 12 ecological engineering principles. It is a holistic, comprehensive system, not drawn from the limited minds of men, but from the limitless wisdom of Nature.
5. Take a permaculture course. I teach them.
That was fun. I assumed your post was not ill-intended, so do take this post as being written with bemusement and humor.
Good luck on your TEK/Permaculture journey.
Genosse:
About that triangular or trinity form of proof:
I leant it from my uncle at the Roal University Dept of court- pharmacology. For instance,: drunky driving must be shown to cort by 3 systematically independent empirical methods.
1, chemical analysis of volatile, reducing substance in the blood
2, Gas- cromatography of the same blood where 3+3 samples are taken from the patient with 1 hour in between.
3, clinical test, …you are told to walk on a narrow line and say Et sommerforlystelsesetablissemang in Skelskør, and Ibsens ribsbusker og andre buskvekster again and again and again.
Only if that is done and in order, they dare to send it to court and hope that it will stand.
That is in order to stop any discussion of such things in court.
Because, such discussions allways tries to deny the credibility of the University. The way King Donald Grozny also did it.
The further epistimological principle is that 2 points definje a line. But 3 points , the third point being out of line with the two others, fixes it in space. And humans do think and believe in terms of space. That is a common property of human mentality.
You can try with boards,nail, and hammer. One nail fixes a point bul you can still moove and turn and shake it in 2 dimensions.. 2 nails apart will define a line, you can still bend and moove it in space around with that line.
But by 3 nails will fix it, and you can dare to set on it and build further on it.
Dilettants and minors believe “the more the better” and may smash further 9 nails into that same board to make it 12, calling it “permaculture” until the very board, that should keep it all together, splits and cracks and falls apart.
Scientific reason however, rather recommends:
ENTIA NON SUNT MVLTIPLICANDEM PRÆTER NECESSITATEM!
or:
Simplicity works!
Or
Simsalabim!
That rules also for carpentery and masonry.
177 Barton Paul Levenson kirjoitti:
31 Jul 2021 8:42 AM
RtW: Until the USA stabbed Iraq in the back.
BPL: Who writes your material, Baghdad Bob? Stop fronting for inhuman dictatorships. Everyone knows the Iraq War was a fiasco. That doesn’t make Saddam Hussein a good guy.
You do have trouble with factual statements that don’t meet your ideology. Jeez…
1. Your straw man is either a weird assumption or ignorance of the history or just you being you as you clearly enjoy insulting others without cause, but RtW in no way showed support for Hussein. He reported known history: Saddam got a non-no from the U.S. and took that silence as assent, which it seems to have clearly been. At the very least, it certainly was not, “No.”
Kid: Mom, can have a cookie?
Mom:
Kid: Cool. nom-nom-nom
2. What he *did* do was show an example of the unethical behavior by the US Gov. Perhaps that is what stuck in your craw?
184 Dr.Keith Wollards
I do hate that rumor suggestion of the chicken and the egg…
….because it hides and discriminater the rooster.
It is male- discrimatory.
Thus, avoid it from now on!
KW, #184–
One might want to think carefully about whether the chicken and egg are in the same location, or not–lest one lay an egg oneself.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.24/plot/hadcrut4nh/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1961.15
I don’t really understand your point sorry Kevin. CO2 still lags temp in your display doesn’t it????