This month is IPCC month – the Sixth Assessment Report from Working Group 1 is out on Monday August 9. We’ll have some detailed comments once it’s out, but in the meantime, feel free to speculate widely (always considering that IPCC is restricted to assessing existing literature…).
Open thread – please stick to climate science topics.
Trillian: The only solution to global warming is RADICAL SIMPLIFICATION! Anyone who disagrees is a climate criminal!
Engineer-Showboat: The only solution to global warming is NUCLEAR POWER! Anyone who disagrees is an eco-communist being paid by the fossil fuel industry!
Sir Nigel: I agree with regenerative agriculture, but–
Trillian: Shut up! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!!!
Feed my zebra: 2 + 2 could be any integer.
Ray, bury the lad: The lowest possible value of 2 is 1.5, and above 2.5 minus epsilon, you no longer have 2. Therefore the possible values of 2 + 2 are constrained to the range from (1.5 + 1.5) to (2.5 – epsilon to 2.5 – epsilon), or 3 to just under 5. The mean value of 2 is 2, and thus the mean value of the answer is 2 + 2, or 4, which is also the arithmetic mean of the possible range of answers.
Feed my zebra: You and your statistics! Well what about James Hansen? Do you think he’s an idiot, too?
Ray, bury the lad: Hansen never said 2 + 2 didn’t equal 4.
Feed my zebra: Yes he did! Can’t you read?
Ray, bury the lad: Better than you, apparently.
After many a swallow dies the swan: CO2 can’t warm anything! The Earth is kept warm by God’s heavenly angels vibrating their wings!
BP & L: But in the high middle ages, it was mooted than an infinite number of angels could dance on a pinhead. Let’s assume 10^12 is infinite for all practical purposes. The area of a pinhead is approximately 10^-12 square meters. The Earth’s total surface area is therefore 5.10066 x 10^26 pinheads, implying a total angel population of 5.10066 x 10^38. If they flap their wings a mere once per second (1 Hz), then Earth would be fried.
Trillian: We could easily feed over 250 trillion people if everyone would just raise a Victory garden!
BP & L: Are you trying to kill everybody?
Trillian: That’s just the sort of lying, gaslighting, peanut gallery comment I’ve come to expect from you AND EVERYBODY ELSE HERE!!! Liar liar pants on fire!
Sir Nigel: I think what BP & L was trying to say is that–
Trillian: And now this pathological hypocritical liar chimes in! Everybody is against me! I am surrounded by incompetents! Mother of Mercy, is this is end of Rico?
Mike and Ike:
Today: CO2 417.658213 ppmv.
Yesterday: CO2 417.651368 ppmv.
(Repeat until you have something better to do.)
BPL. Very entertaining and on point. We need a bit of light relief and perspective. I like the use of ‘Sir’.
Reality Check: Here is the latest by M Mann…posts 10 pages of copy and paste…oops I forgot here is more…another 10 pages, and 25 links on regenerative agriculture…..and some video links…. and some more…..
Nigel: My eyes are glazing over and my finger is hurting from scrolling. (Dont take this the wrong way. Some of those links are actually good value)
Reality Check: And dont promote renewables. Its just cannot be done! It will not be done! It shall not be done! I say so! Everyone who counts says so! Any counter arguments are all strawmen and illogical.
Mike: I’m confused. Its hard following discussion. What day is it?
@Killian
I see what you mean now when you say Nigel lies. He does. A lot. So does Barton Paul Levenson.
But if that’s what they need to do to feel like they have won an argument, or proved a point, then I say: let them go for it – as often as they feel like it.
If other people believe them, follow along or are swayed by their rhetoric and disinformation, that’s not only their problem to deal with, it is their right to be misled or to believe whatever.
Either way, I don’t care. I am not responsible for what people say or believe. Nor am I responsible for how the forum is moderated. Best thing for me to do is to ignore the distractions. Be genuine and honest about what I think and believe myself. To share information I think is worthwhile, potentially useful and on topic.
Everyone else can do, think and say whatever they want to.
Reality Check, it is satire. It was obviously never meant to be taken literally. You have no sense of humour or insight.
And ironically, my description of you is fairly accurate anyway.
It’s satire? And you don’t realize satire is a form of insult? You can’t be honest enough to admit all the nasty bits of humor are against people he doesn’t like, while all the neutral to nice bits are about the people he does like?
It’s a lame attempt to insult everyone he doesn’t like, and you only take it lightly because it wasn’t attacking you. Had I or Reality Check done something like that targeting you, you’d be screaming about how mean and nasty we are.
Tired of the gaslighting, but it is clear the nastiness and dishonesty of the Peanut Gallery will never end.
Time for Susan to tell us all how nice we should be – except the Peanut Gallery.
RC: I see what you mean now when you say Nigel lies. He does. A lot. So does Barton Paul Levenson.
BPL: Apparently RC has his head so far up Killian’s ass, he has adopted Killian’s policy of calling everybody who disagrees with him a liar. I think psychologists call that projection.
I disagree with many people who I do not call nor consider liars. Liars, however, I call liars. When people spend years misrepresenting, Straw Manning, gaslighting, they’re dishonest.
This is not hard to figure out unless, of course, you’re the one doing those things.
You are unique in one way: You are the only person on this board who posts solely to insult others completely unprovoked. I will call someone a liar when they have lied, you attack people for the sheer fun of it – which you have admitted on more than one occasion.
Careful with that dirty, broken halo.
@Killian speaks the truth again:
(BPL is) the only person on this board who posts solely to insult others completely unprovoked.
And he’s really good at it too. Of course what he said above is not true. Another lie, another false accusation, another waste of space.
I think what psychologists call projection is someone with their head so far up his own ass, he is seeing all this stuff float past he imagines is on the outside. :)
Now, where’s that killfile?
Hilarious! Good job, BPL!
That was more useful than 99% of the comments here.
:)
:)
:)
Last comment on this nastiness: Others have the good manners and good sense to never post like this on this forum and reserve it, if it is done at all, for Forced Responses.
This tells us much about BPL’s attitude toward these fora.
Yes, Barton Paul Levenson, repeat that until you have something better to do or reach a level of maturity.
Maybe one day even you will develop the self-control necessary to ignore that which you have no interest in.
Who says I have no interest in it? Correcting errors and disputing misinformation is fun.
Bullying, insulting and trolling do not equal, “Correcting errors and disputing misinformation.”
K: Bullying, insulting and trolling do not equal, “Correcting errors and disputing misinformation.”
BPL: Then you should stop doing those things.
You want me to back and copy and paste from the last five years all the hundreds of times you jumped on my ass without cause, unprovoked?
No, you don’t.
Stop lying and stop being an ass to people just because the mods let you do whatever you want around here. Have some self-respect.
@Levenson
Lying about other people have said, mean, and shared is not Correcting errors and disputing misinformation. It is Disreputable Disinformation, Errors and Lies.
While nasty insults and throwing adhominem ridicule on others here does not equal a basic level of maturity in adult circles. Internet Trolls do that and you are really good it. But do not let me stop you making yourself out to be an idiot and a fool.
It’s clear how and why both Levenson and Nigel are generally ignored on this forum.
Reality Check says “While nasty insults and throwing ad hominem ridicule on others here does not equal a basic level of maturity in adult circles”
Then you should stop doing those things. And please stop spamming the website with vast tracts of copied and pasted information. Brevity is a virtue. Pick out just the important quotes.
I don’t even know what to say. I’m just so glad you told me.
On second thoughts:
re-quoting @Susan to minimize wasting my time:
Your approval or disapproval is a counterproductive distraction. The blog owners are our hosts, not you.
The comment section of a blog is not “owned” by commenters, who imnsho are guests. It’s not about taking sides.
RealClimate is a quality science site and I am grateful to its hosts. It is my guess that they don’t have the time and energy for all this pettiness.
I agree. And if or when the ‘owners’/’moderators’ of RealClimate decide my comments (or others) are inappropriate, then they will not publish it, borehole it, or will tell us directly what to change.
In the meantime, I will continue to submit comments here until the day I die, hell freezes over, or I decide otherwise. The same as everyone else continues to do.
What this means is that:
I will continue choosing to post quotes from scientific research and other data/information, or political/media aspects related to Real Climate topics while highlighting what I think are the most critical points.
I will continue commenting on that material, as well as posting examples of what I judge are low quality, misguided, self-defeating and/or unhelpful “scientific papers” and general information which I think is worth sharing with others here.
I will continue expressing my own judgement, beliefs, opinions, analysis, and jokes about the facts, the news, scientific papers and other analyses.
I will continue commenting upon the comments and material posted by others as I see fit. The same as everyone else does.
A negative feedback possibility!
“Cold regions contain vast stores of permafrost carbon. Rapid warming will cause permafrost to thaw and plant respiration to accelerate, with a resultant loss of CO2, but could also increase the fixation of CO2 by plants. A network of 32 eddy covariance sites on the Tibetan Plateau, which has the largest store of alpine permafrost carbon on Earth, shows that this region functions as a net CO2 sink. Our sensitivity analyses, experiments, and model simulations consistently showed that the fixation of CO2 by plants outpaces the loss of CO2 from permafrost and accelerates plant respiration. This indicates a plant-dominated CO2 balance on the Tibetan Plateau, which could provide a negative feedback to climate warming.”
https://www.pnas.org/node/993982.abstract?collection=
Nice, but its *cold* up there. It does support to some degree a soil-based solution set for GHGs, however.
Ray Ladbury: While it is true that correlation does not equal causation, it is even more true that if you have both correlation AND a physical mechanism, you almost certainly have a causal mechanism.
The correlation is strong. The evidence for the physical mechanism is even stronger–involving both theory and empirical evidence.
V: No Ray. The correlation is NOT strong. The statistics presented by Grumbine and MA Rodger, and apparently endorsed by BPL, are misleading — as very clearly demonstrated by the blog post all of you have chosen to ignore: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
Regardless, to establish a cause and effect relation you need more than the two bodies of evidence you mention. You need an EXPLANATION for precisely HOW one element caused the other. And when we study the data we see NO basis for any such explanation. A 40 year period when temperatures retreat or remain steady while CO2 levels are soaring has to be explained. I don’t care what statistics you think you’ve come up with. And the effort to blame industrial aerosols for masking the expected warming won’t work, as I’ve demonstrated here: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
And the previous period, during which temperatures rose while CO2 levels remained relatively stable is no help. Aside from a single 20 year period where both happened to rise in tandem, all you have are the many many failed attempts to debunk a hiatus that appeared long after the issue was settled in any case.
I dont wish to be mean Victor, because I think you mean well and are obviously well educated, but there is something wrong in your head. You are wrong about the climate issue, and obsessive and delusional about it all. Cant quite find the right words, but see a doctor for your own good.
I’m not sure why the troll is accusing me of presenting statistics that are “misleading.”
However I note the silly blog-page the troll insists folk have “chosen to ignore” does quote the other person he accuses of presenting statistics that are “misleading,” a blogger named Grumbine who is quoted on the troll’s silly blog-screed saying “It’s awfully hard to look at this [graphic] and say that there’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature.” The troll reproduces this same graphic, a plot of HadCRUT4 1850-2007 against atmospheric CO2 which demonstrates a convincing CO2-Temperature correlation which is “awfully hard” to deny, but not impossible if you are as stupid as Victor the Troll.
Of course the world has moved on since 2007 and the 13 data points that could now be added to the graphic would sit six below the old OLS regression line, five above and two slap on the line, extra data making it even more “awfully hard to look at this [graphic] and say that there’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature.”
But if you are as stupid and deluded as Victor the Troll, evidence counts for nothing. Why should it when you know you are plainly right from the get-go while the others are plainly wrong. And all their analysis is all very well-&-good but as Victor points out, a wise man once said “If you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything,” the wise man being usually seen as the economist Ronald Coase although Coase said he was misquoted..
As an example of how ridiculously stupid this pathetic troll is, he presents a graphic on his silly blog-page showing monthly HadCRUT4 for the period Jan 1997 to Dec 2016. This, he insists shows no warming with the peak in 2016 caused by an El Niño which “does not reflect long-term temperature trends” (presumably like the 1998 El Niño sitting at the other end of his graphic). And through this period Jan1998-Dec2015 that “long-term temperature trend” in the shape of the 60-month rolling average of HadCRUT4 actually rises by +0.331ºC or +0.185ºC/decade. This period 1998-2015 the troll called a “hiatus” and apparently is in some profound way different to the period 1980-1998 when he tells us “temperatures shot up so rapidly.” Though the period Jan1980-Jan1998 that same 60-month rolling average “shot up” +0.302ºC or a rate of +0.168ºC/decade.
So this is all very confusing. It seems this “hiatus”, this pause in something, allowed global temperature to accelerate as it “shot up” more quickly through the “hiatus” period Jan1998-Dec2015 than it did the preceding normal period Jan1980-Jan1998.
(And did I mention HadCRUT4 has now been superseded by HadCRUT5?)
Of course, none of the objections you raise stand up to informed scrutiny. That YOU find YOUR arguments convincing is not enough.
Well, waddya know. According to just about everyone posting here, Victor is an idiot. I’d feel badly if I weren’t in such good company. Or haven’t you noticed? According to the “experts” posting here, Judith Curry is an idiot, Freeman Dyson is an idiot, Bjorn Lomborg is an idiot, Ivar Giaever is an idiot, Will Happer is an idiot, Michael Crichton is (was) an idiot, Willie Soon is an idiot, Christopher Monckton is an idiot, Fred Singer is an idiot, Roy Spencer is an idiot. And so on. Any one of these people has far more scientific credentials than the totality of those regularly commenting here. Yet according to the collective wisdom, we are all idiots.
Fortunately for you all I actually get a kick out of casting my pearls before swine. I’m not here to persuade you — just to insert a dash of badly needed common sense into the proceedings from time to time.
I haven’t called these people idiots. I have attempted to show you why their views are DELUSIONAL. And you cant even get their backgrounds right: Half of them aren’t even scientists. Bjorn Lomberg has a maths degree and he writes books (terrible books). Michael Crichton has an arts degree and writes fiction novels.. . Will Happer is retired. Christopher Moncton has an arts degree. in literature. So apparently these are the people you get your climate information from. No wonder you are so deluded.
If we accept that Victor the Troll has the slightest modicum of brain-power, he is admitting that he posts here solely in his role of ‘troll;.
Of course, folk who suffer with denialism to the extent that Victor does make very unreliable statements, but at least above he is correctly assessing the abilities of a bevy of headline denialists, those with impressive records of scientific publication, so this assessment of his trolling activities my also be considered correct.,
There are victims, then there are propagandists. You know you are the latter. It’s rather bold of you to list key con-conspirators, though.
We know for a fact people have been paid to post denial on the internet. I sometimes wonder how much you get paid. And I have no doubt you do.
Before you get bent out of shape, the above is an honest, hard-won perspective. There is no insult in it. You are what you are and all here know this. I spent from 2007 to about 2019 fighting every climate denial troll that came my way, but that was because we need a social tipping point of climate awareness to get consistent change happening. That moment is past. I do not spend much time on people who are criminals guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and the currently-non-legislated, but very real, Crime Against Nature/Ecocide. Nobody should. They are wasting very valuable time bailing sinking ships when they need to be tending to lifeboats, i.e. solving the problem.
And that is why you are here. It is a delaying tactic. It’s clear we aren’t going backwards on climate, yet here you are. Why? Delay. It’s still the best tactic for the denial industry laid bare by Exxon Secrets, Oreskes, et al. and others.
But, getting back to my point, I have always been able to spot a climate troll with ease. I spent many weeks banned from this site, from The Oil Drum, and other sites for calling out denialists. I cannot possibly count the many times perfectly sane climate activists gave me a hard time for calling out a denier only to have them soon reveal themselves. Y’all used to hide. Cowards. Now, what’s the point? You’ve lost the propaganda war and are now fighting the delay battle. In that sense, you are winning.
I still hope for EcoNuremberg. I used to be one of a very saying such thing, but things are moving towards a law for Nature, for Ecocide to be laid out in law, and the prosecutions, that will be a sad, but necessary and, in the sense of justice, a beautiful thing.
I very much hope it is made a retroactive law. That is not the standard in law, but this time we need an exception: The risks are too great, the damage already done incalculable, and maybe fatal for us all in the end.
So, I see you. I always have. Everyone here has. We have named you. You are branded with your sludgy D for denial.
Victor. No you aren’t nearly clever enough to make that company. The people you list have mostly made an effort to articulate, publish and have their thoughts peer reviewed. The fact is that almost without exception their work has not stood up to that scrutiny .
Judith Curry hasn’t published anything in the last decade,
Freeman Dyson ‘Dyson replied that “[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much,….’
Bjorn Lomberg wrote a book found to be ‘scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question”
Ivar Giaever a physicist specializing in superconductors who works for the Heartland Institute
‘Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist’
Michael Crichton wrote amusing books – “”The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor … if your doctor tells you you need to intervene here, you don’t say ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem’.””
Willie Soons employer’s view “Willie’s opinions regarding climate change are his personal views not shared within our research organization”. .. Irwin Shapiro said no attempt had been made to suppress Soon’s views, and there had been no complaints from other scientists there: “As far as I can tell, no one pays any attention to him.”
Christopher Monckton – A journalist and professional ideological politician, studied Classics at university which we all know is no better a background than musicology for understanding the environment .
Fred Singer – ‘”full of long-discredited claims, including that carbon dioxide emissions are good because they stimulate life”
Roy Spencer appears to believe that everything is OK because God won’t let anything bad happen to us (presumably he discounts Noah’s flood….maybe he just really loves rainbows.
V: Judith Curry is an idiot, Freeman Dyson is an idiot, Bjorn Lomborg is an idiot, Ivar Giaever is an idiot, Will Happer is an idiot, Michael Crichton is (was) an idiot, Willie Soon is an idiot, Christopher Monckton is an idiot, Fred Singer is an idiot, Roy Spencer is an idiot.
BPL: Note that in the 10 names Victor mentions, only 2 (Curry and Spencer) can be considered climate scientists. Happer if you stretch a point. Of the rest, Dyson is an astrophysicist, Lomborg an economist, Giaever… the less said the better, Crichton was an MD and novelist who believed in psychic auras and that second-hand smoking was harmless (but died of throat cancer), Soon is an astronomer, Monckton has one journalism degree and one in classics, and Singer was another physicist. Just sayin’.
Victor, it’s your arguments that make you an idiot (your words, not mine). Any time you want to contribute some “pearls” of “common sense,” go right ahead. It would be a refreshing change from your misinformed dross. It might help if you had an inkling about the physics behind our understanding of global warming to INFORM that common sense.
Victor, your ‘common sense’ is nothing more than rampant self-delusion.
Sorry, but there it is.
Weaktor says: “Fortunately for you all I actually get a kick out of casting my pearls before swine.”
I am truly in awe of your Dunning-Kruger affliction. I personally think you get a kick out of getting your ass handed to you repeatedly by career professionals. You’re like a drunk passenger who thinks he knows how to fly a 727 and tries to storm the cockpit and ends up getting duct taped to his seat by the airline stewardess and laughed at by the other passengers.
Somebody needs to put you in a pet taxi and take you to the animal shelter. STAT
Wow, Victor doesn’t do his cause much good by attempting to associate himself with a group of self serving, mostly fossil fuel paid shills many of whom are actually in their own way, idiots.
Building on what others already posted.
Actually no. I count only two that have any scientific experience and training in climate science. Curry and Spencer. Three of the examples, Lomborg, Crichton, and Moncton, have zero scientific background at all. So no most certainly no, three have no scientific credentials at all.
Anyway, let’s take a brief look at Victor’s heroes.
Roy Spencer and Will Happer for example. Both were deemed to be non credible witnesses by the trial judge when they were hired and paid by Peabody Coal Company to testify that the ECS for CO2 was low in a case for setting the environmental and socioeconomic costs of fossil fuel based power in Minnesota.
Spencer is currently associated with the Heartland Institute, a Koch backed anti-science climate denying think tank as is Happer who is associated with many other right wing Koch backed climate denying think tanks. Credible scientists do not associate themselves with such political organizations. Happer was even caught in a pay for climate denying paper scam by Greenpeace showing his lack of honesty and scruples.
Freeman Dyson wasn’t a true climate denier like Victor and likely he would not have supported Victor’s arguments—he was not an idiot. He admitted he was not an expert or knowledgable of climate science, but questioned the ability of models to predict the future or that climate change would be a bad thing.
Willie Soon is another good one. He has accepted in the millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests to publish baloney in non-creditable scientific journals. Is he an idiot? Dunno, but flawed research paid for by the fossil fuel industry is the only way he can earn a living. His theories are easily overturned under basic scientific scrutiny.
Michael Crichton wasn’t an idiot, but he certainly wasn’t a scientist nor did he have any formal scientific education. Why would anyone give any credence to what Crichton had to say about the science? Especially when he got obvious facts wrong and much of the science wrong in his book of fiction.
Don’t know for sure if Christopher Monckton is an idiot, but surely anyone who thinks this conman has anything to say intelligently about climate science is an idiot. Moncton has zero training in the sciences and is nothing but a hustler and failed politician. He’s made bogus claims such as winning the Nobel Prize, being a member of the House of Lords, and having developed cures for numerous diseases. Snake oil anyone?
Fred Singer. Aw, the guy that claimed there was no link between sunlight exposure to melanoma, that fluorocarbons did not deplete the ozone layer, and that smoking wasn’t harmful. Maybe not an idiot, but sure didn’t have much of a track record for being right.
Ivar Giaever, probably a smart guy, but never did any work in climate science. And here he is talking about where he got his knowledge:
Not too impressive.
Bjorn Lomborg is educated in political science. He has no background in climate science or any other science. After Lomborg published his book, The Skeptical environmentalist, he was accused of scientific dishonesty by a group of environmental scientists, who brought complaints against him to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. The DCSD found the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.
No Judith Curry isn’t an idiot, she knows where her biggest clients come from that earn her a very comfortable living—energy companies. Curry doesn’t deny that CO2 influences climate, just that natural variation plays a larger role although she has never been able to show scientifically why this is so. Doubt if she would claim that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
Anyway.
Common sense? Bahahaha.
#Greenland was ice-free sometime between 400k and 1M ya?! During the #IceAge of the last @ 3M years? Jesus… that speaks to a *highly* sensitive #GIS.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/rediscovered-ice-cores-could-help-000000954.html
Killian
I cannot tell you this exacly, but care not to violate the 2nd ammendment of Moses, at least.
On drilling into the ices, they have got to the bottom both on Antarktis and Grønland now. And it is official that the Grønland glacier is quite much younger than the Antarctic. I do not remember in terms of years however.
They try and drill at “Høgste breakulen”, = highest glacier bump = the top point of that Jøkull- system, where it sinks right down and wherefrom it floats to all sides. The Jøkull (icelandic and old norse term still at use here ) is normally thickest at that spot.
Another indicator (rather of the nature of large glaciers) is the spot of maximum land upheval speed, like Umeå in Sweden and a spot seemingly nortwest in the baffin bay. That is the mark of Høgste breakulen in both large glaciers that are gone now..
You can compare the Data from Antarktis and Grønland if you find any, and see how far back in climate history or time that they claim to have drilled and got data.
From CO2- data I tend to remember that it takes Antarktis data to discuss 4 million years back in time because Grønland only goes to about 800 000 years.
In any case, this is a way you can try and frind this out for yourself in order to be critical , instead of having to call Jesus whenever you feel helpless.
They weren’t ice cores.
And stop being pointlessly, needlessly, unprovokedly rude. We are not on a high school debate team.
Well, if you discuss the age of glaciers some elementary glaciology is due first. and looking through your reference I found radio-Beryllium and Aluminium mentioned, that is modern methods of radiological dating of what has been soaked with fresh rain.
Your further problem may thus be related to private frustrations at your high- school debate- team, where you were due to smash Jesus in their heads at any suggestions of possible scientific methods for finding out of the same.
Killian,
“Greenland was ice-free sometime between 400k and 1M ya?” That isn’t quite what the video says. Firstly the ice samples were from a time without an ice sheet elevated to kilometers into the air. (The known ice loss from Greenland during the Eemian was enough to provide such a result.) Secondly, the various other samples could be from as little as 400kya but could also be “before 1Mya”.
The statement was from 400k to “over 1M”, but it seems you are attempting to make that sound like it could be 5M or 20M or whatever. Clearly, within the context, it implies not much over 1M and absolutely within the period of the current Ice Age which began 3M ya-ish. Do you not understand this is talking about the most recent 1/3 of the lifetime of the GIS, not the first 1/3m which generally we should expect to be the colder portion of the age?
ANY significant ice-free period for Greenland, whether partial or total occurring less than 3M ya is a major change in our sense of the stability of that ice sheet. Why would you focus on the 1M+ rather than the 400k?
What I said was accurate. You have no germane point to make here. A little beyond 1M ya is the important part here? No. Not even close to it. It’s that the ice sheet has had significant, even massive, ice loss during the last 3M years.
Killian,
You happily state that “sometime between 400k and 1M ya” includes “over 1M” and translate my “as little as 400kya but could also be before 1Mya” as meaning “attempting to make that sound like it could be 5M or 20M or whatever. “ These are interesting interpretations.
And now you tell us “ANY significant ice-free period for Greenland, whether partial or total occurring less than 3M ya is a major change in our sense of the stability of that ice sheet.”
Myself, I see no change.
Extensive Arctic ice is usually seen as arriving following the formation of the Panama Isthmus between N & S America 3Mya and this kicking-off a series of ice ages which for the last 800ky have lasted 100ky (rather than 40ky). The specific history of Greenland Ice Sheet is less obvious. It is seen to have melted down in the Eemian interglacial and also 400kya but not to the point of making Greenland ice-free.
The sort of environment indicated by the plant matter reported from Camp Century does no more than support the view that “We conclude that the GrIS persisted through much of the Pleistocene but melted and reformed at least once since 1.1 Ma.” (Christ et al 2021), so nothing different from the likes of Schaefer et al (2016).
See other post.
“See other post”
There are a total of 221 posts within this thread, the vast majority of them being presumably candidates for being “other.” If I assume this “other post” is one written by Killian that would reduce the potential number to below 26, and to below 7 if this “other post” is written by Killian during the same day as he made the reference.
If ‘so’, which of these six candidate “others” am I expected to “see”!??
The first three are no more than rants about “gaslighting” and lies being fling about, while the other three are about an entirely different subjects.
So apparently it is not ‘so’.
However, there is perhaps another ‘candidate’ for “other post” that cleared moderation at the same time as my post which Killian was replying to.
Interestingly this ‘candidate’ for “other post” exhibits the same ‘now you see it now you don’t’ nonsense that I was objecting-to; that is Killian takes the quotation “at least once since 1.1 Ma” and converts it into *possibly more than once during he last 1Mys” and thence converts it into “it also melted in the earlier period of the Ice Age. (See paper.) That’s *at least* twice and maybe more than twice.”
As for whether this ‘candidate’ for “other post” stands to make the “See other post” a sensible comment, my main point was that the “at least once since 1.1 Ma” was not a new finding. This is not addressed so maybe I have not managed to find the correct “other post.”
Something I have not seen discussed anywhere WRT the extreme heat waves (doesn’t mean it hasn’t been, only that I have not seen it) is the extensive positivity of the Arctic Oscillation. The OA has been positive (meaning the circumpolar winds are relatively strong and coherent enough to constrain the cold in the Arctic) during the hearts of June and July and is heading that way again here in mid-August.
We are in a neutral phase after a La Nina and thought to be heading into another La Nina, yet we are having record heat. Why? The freezer door has been locked shut despite some of the meanderings of the Jet Stream. If the AO had been significantly negative, I seriously doubt we’d have seen the same intensity of heat waves. We would have seen anomalous weather because of the cut-off highs and lows and slow-moving systems, but with more cold getting into the sub-arctic and mid-latitudes.
So, scientists, here’s my question: Does this give us a sense of what the true level of warming is in terms of noticeable effects? And, if the AO continues to tend positive in the winters, as it has done pretty regularly since 2012, will be not see greater heating up below the Arctic Circle? And will that not help speed up/trigger greater changes and tipping points?
What a weird double-edged sword…
Hr. Killian
“The freezer door has been locked- shut–”
That is another vulgar and popular misconsception, that the poles are what cools us.
If so, they would have melted very long ago. Populism simply cannot keep budget.
Minors and dilettants forget the distance from pole to equator, =10 000 km, and ignore the really cool side of the globe that encloses it all, that is just about 12 Km right up,
I have been there, and saw personally down to – 70 celsius from the outdoor thermometer, in a Jumjbojet in bright early afternoon sunshine 50 deg north, at equnox south of Island .
There were consequent temperatures all the way between 11.5 to 12 km over the atlaqntic that were quite much deeper than at midnight midwinter in Siberia.
Explain that very typical and consequent chill first.
It is the the earths very fameous isotermj layer all the way around, the tropopause.
On venus and in that quite much stronger sunshine than on earth, the same isoterm layer and tropopause measures -40 celsius in very bright and direct sunshine.,
=To be explained and taken serious first.
Because, from that point and from the sharp knick in the lapse rate there, and the field of the very worlds fleet of long distance civil jetliner traffic, you can wind up the very climate easily.
It is due to a relativistic effect namely BIG BANG that measures 2 pi and keeps only 3K. , in combination with a quantum mechanical effect, the effect of CO2. radiating the very heat of its surroundings right to space. The door to the cooler vanishes there just about a short mile above our heads all the time, so why go all the way to the poles for chill?
There is snow- hurricane atop of the tropic hurricanes even with the sun right in Zenith onto it. And quite an enormeous chilling effect condensing all that H2O- vapour from extreemly warm and stormy tropical oceans,……
……chilling and condensing it in quantities that drowns the very states of Texas and Florida.
That is reality.
Not that the poles are cooling us and making the winters. That is old supersticion.
It is lack of sunshine and lack of isolation righ up verically that causes the chills and the winters..
12 to 10 000 Km horisontaloly, is only 1.2 millimeters to the meter. But the large area of a hurricane exchanging its heat directly to that isoterm layer just only 12-15 Km up, that cools and condenses really efficiently.
That is another vulgar and popular misconsception, that the poles are what cools us.
That is not what I said, I didn’t read any further because GIGO: False premises lead to false conclusions.
Minors and dilettants forget the distance from pole to equator
This sort of unnecessary rudeness is why I read your posts less and less. These are serious times. We need serious people, Try harder.
Genosse K:
It looks that you are misconsceived again.
I tried to remind of the very long distancen from po0le to equator through a frappingly thin and shallow layer of air through which, hardly any very large quantity of heat or chill can be exchanged. And compared to that, the very large area of a tropical hurricane all with a very short distance from bottom to top, and with an even higher temperature gradient than from equator to the poles . Solidly sustained by the heat of the Sun and the chill of the BIG BANG..
I was also told in school that the temperaturev differende between tropic and temjpered and polar zones are “driving” the stormy weathers and sea currents.
But it is as misconsceived and old supersticious as to say that you are diving your car,
when you do not drive it at all. Driving is done by a very strong combustion engine of 2CV at least, and up to 250 PS and hitgher. You only stear your car with very little effort and by tiny weak forces compared to what actually drives your car.
So I think it is high time even for Killian to learn and to grasp also the basics of energetics and meteorology and physical & matematical geography,……
……. that may better stear and control his very fierce, combusting, breathing and exhausting, smoking, consuming wasting and polluting, moral political forces and energies.
Chuck: Okay, I will admit I’m not a scientist but does anyone care to take a stab at this?
What’s a “knick”? How does the BIG BANG affect the “door to the cooler”?
Carbomontanus says
13 AUG 2021 AT 3:34 PM
(Because, from that point and from the sharp knick in the lapse rate there, and the field of the very worlds fleet of long distance civil jetliner traffic, you can wind up the very climate easily.
It is due to a relativistic effect namely BIG BANG that measures 2 pi and keeps only 3K. , in combination with a quantum mechanical effect, the effect of CO2. radiating the very heat of its surroundings right to space. The door to the cooler vanishes there just about a short mile above our heads all the time, so why go all the way to the poles for chill?”
Don`t be so funny.
A knick is better to say than a break, because that may mean broken off.
The Lapse rate is relatively constant upwards to the isoterm layer. There, within very short distance, the temperarure falls no more, it rather rises again a bit, further upwards.
Awareness of that phaenomkenon that encloses the very gjobe, in a very characteristic way, and willingness to give it a true, physicalo explaination, is quite primary to healthy understandinjg of the very climate,
Thus totally absent and ignored among denialists and climate surrealists.
BiG BANG is only another word for the darkness of the night sky. That becomes very visible and obvious in bright sunshine from about 12 Km and upwards .
Read further of Olbers Paradox on Wikipedia, where it is well explained.
Killian,
You ask a question of “scientists” based it seems on having the impression that heatwaves in the Northern Extratropics are being more intense with the Arctic Oscillation being presently positive, shutting away all that cooling freezer-air at high northern latitudes.
Rather than have you posting your “I told you so” nonsense for ever and a heatwave, perhaps addressing your question would be the way to go.
We could, for instance, plot monthly AO against some measure of the northern hemisphere temperature, perhaps the value of RSS TLT Arctic monthly Arctic anomaly minus RSS TLT monthly ExtraTropics Northern anomaly, as these data (AO and RSS TLT) are to hand.
Using available monthly data (1979-on) this does yield a statistical correlation of -0.30 to -0.24 (1sd) with this correlation is saying the difference in TLT anomalies (Arctic minus ExTN) will be larger for low AO values. So the freezer is warmer if you leave the door open.
And repeating the process for Global minus ExT(N) yields -0.13 to -0.11 (1sd). So the kitchen is cooler with the freezer door open.
And as this is heatwaves, the summer months are perhaps the ones of relevance (you mention June, July & August) and these too give similar results.
All this is known as we get NOAA’s AO page providing these AO numbers saying:-
But the average monthly temperature anomaly for the ExT N through the summer is probably not a good measure for heatwaves.
So we could look at recent summers and see if high AO and intense heatwaves coincide.
Firstly there is the AO side of things. Ignoring serious wobbles, AO has been on the rise since 1950 but this is not the case for summer AO (JJA) which is more wobble and less rise. Thus the 5-year averages for AO (JJA) dipped strongly 1995-2010 and since 2010 have risen and now regained much of their positivity. Within this there are particular summer months and summers which may also be worth noting – June 2006 was high while JJA in both 2019 & 2020 were low.
So to heatwaves. Do we see an absence of ExT N heatwaves 2004-16 or particularly 2019-20? How do you define a heatwave? Indeed, is there heatwave data set out somewhere?
For a start there is good old Wikkithing which, although anecdotal is probably better than a mere impression. Sadly it doesn’t readily give much support to the supposition with record breaking heatwaves in the depths of a negative AO period. Or perhaps more analytically, NOAA’s US heatwave data which also is not cooperating with an +AO=heatwaves theory. Or the European summer heat wave magnitude index HWMId graphed here 1980-2015.
So the simplistic idea that the AO is the driver of our heatwaves hasn’t been getting any support from the actual real evidence. Of course that “doesn’t mean it hasn’t been, only that I have not seen it.” So presuming there is a “weird double-edgedl sword” about is perhaps a little premature.
So the simplistic idea that the AO is the driver of our heatwaves
That is not what I said. Straw Man or comprehension error? Regardless, Try again,
I said, to six-year-old it for you, a negative AO affects the heat further south, not that it is a cause of heat waves. I even said there would still be heatwaves with a more negative AO, but that they *may* be less intense.
You being rude and condescending does not help people learn anything here – particularly when you don’t understand what you have read and answer incorrectly because of it.
@killian
A snippet about abrupt change, it’s old info (2014 earlier) about greenland 10C change in 50 years, and 5C in 5 years, in YD termination period. Via ice cores. @15 mins on
https://youtu.be/hZdhPnsp4Is?t=933
James White, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
You probably know all this, but his comments reminded me of your ‘dialogue’ here, so in case it’s useful to you or others I add it now.
I really like how he explains things, in particular in the beginning about abrupt changes and abrupt impacts arriving from slow changes in climate.
Hat tip to Jeremy Grimm https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/deciphering-the-spm-ar6-wg1-code/#comment-794868
All one needs to know about abrupt climate change: Chaotic system being goosed faster than ever before. Result: Chaos, eh?
People need to learn to think in terms of First Principles. Few seem to.
@killian, 22 Aug 2021 at 8:02 PM
Yes, I agree.
In future where I do not reply assume an affirmation.
It’s increasingly difficult to respond in kind or follow discussions and comments due to the site changes. I am going to stop checking or replying so much, as it takes too much time. O think I will stick to presenting info I am interested in, and I feel is useful rather than commenting on comments.
Victor, that was a nice roundup of idiocy. For once, you made me smile.
Important note: humans are complex things. Dyson was a public idiot about climate, and very interesting in many other areas. Slightly oversimplifying, the rest of the crowd are nothing but idiots in public, at least on climate. I have no doubt that they can be (or were when alive) kind to animals and small children, and even engaging dinner guests, in other contexts.
As a loyal fan of science, logic, and fairness, I will of course change this opinion with appropriate new evidence. That could be a thorough change of heart. Or, it could be a significant, long-term prediction that diverges importantly from those of mainstream scientists working in climate, and turns out to be way closer to reality than the mainstreamers. For example, 3 or 4 decades in a row with global cooling, leaving us about where we were when we baby boomers were toddlers. Alas, that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. Anything else along those lines? From the skeptics/contrarians/idiots/what have you, I seem to be missing the part about putting up or shutting up.
More on the *soil* cores from the former Camp Century
https://theconversation.com/ancient-leaves-preserved-under-a-mile-of-greenlands-ice-and-lost-in-a-freezer-for-years-hold-lessons-about-climate-change-157105
Quotes from the article, from a participant:
Paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/13/e2021442118
Key quotes from the paper:
Bold is mine. At least once, but *possibly more than once* during he last 1Mys. Note it also melted in the earlier period of the Ice Age. (See paper.) That’s *at least* twice and maybe more than twice.
None of this is good news and indicates a heretofore unexpected level of instability. I don’t think the scientist who did the study and wrote the article would use the term “Rosetta Stone” carelessly. This is key new information, particularly when we consider the recent paper saying Greenland may have already reached a tipping point.
”See other post”
There are a total of 221 posts within this thread,
Yeah, that was real hard to find.
Serious times, serious people needed. Be better.
Killian takes the quotation ”at least once since 1.1 Ma” and converts it into *possibly more than once during he last 1Mys”
It’s not a conversion; it has exactly the same connotation, “At least” is *exactly* used when the possibility of more exists, else it would say simply, “once.”
and thence converts it into ”it also melted in the earlier period of the Ice Age.
It’s also not a conversion, it’s a fact. Other cores show there was also a significant melt much earlier.
Your scientific reticence is off the charts and maladaptive, IMO, given the climatic context of the last few years. Minimizing changes in the system can only serve to lessen the urgency for needed changes.
RE: “None of this is good news and indicates a heretofore unexpected level of instability.”
While true, this type of statement has been occuring for many years now. In my opinion, the now-establihed historic oversight of “science” to recognize that climate is not some undefined plateau of stability but instead a knife edge of instability, may be partially due to subservience of ecological science, ie. study of the living world in an ecosphere, to other more war-derived science establihments, such as physics. This would manifest, for example, with focus on calculated projection’s of extimated global temperatures, rather than understanding basic fundamentals of preserving of life on Earth, and would make “ocean acidification” due to inevitable combination with water of CO2 to produce Carbonic Acid (H2O + CO2 = H2CO3) just a side show to the “great debate” over 1.5 or 2.0 C (both immoral), as well as other diversions, such as a purported Carbon Budget (which if anything is negative).
@solar
Very well said Jim. Clever and witty.
( Gosh I do hope no other correspondent gets offended and complains about me giving credit where credit is due, as has happened before on more than one occasion. Mind you, there is no accounting for taste and tone, so I am prepared for anything now no matter how vile or untrue. )
SJ: climate is not some undefined plateau of stability but instead a knife edge of instability
BPL: What? No it isn’t. Where did you get that idea?
BPL: Answer: From surveying widely in ecologic, historic and contemporary scientific literature, such as geologic extinction events, species temperature boundary limits, ocean scientist Wally Broecker’s research, concluding that “Climate is an angry beast,” and the rest of the extensive research of institutions such as Lamont Dougherty Earth Observatory. It seems apparent to me that “climate” today is interlinked with life, ie. the biosphere and broader ecosphere.
Much of which seem totering today on collapse or “non-linearity” (exponential?) “tipping points” ie. self reinforcing feedbacks. The existence of “feedbacks” would seem to indicate instability.
SJ: The existence of “feedbacks” would seem to indicate instability.
BPL: Some feedbacks reinforce stability, like the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation from the surface.
There are negative as well as positive feedbacks–from the big one, the Planck thermodynamic feedback, to, say, the negative ASI feedback whereby ice regrowth tends to “accelerate” with lower ice extents at minimum.
That’s not to say that your concern (and mine) is unmerited. Personally, I think the feedbacks we should worry about most are in the human realm: as stress on society increases, so does the predilection for irrational and destructive behavior. (C.f., Covid responses which actually make things worse, embraced and peddled not only by conspiracy theorists who may be “rational”, if rather short-sighted, when they monetize their crap, but by some public officials whose decisions are clearly not even in their own best interest.)
But “climate” is bigger than us, and much more resilient–in the longer term, at least.
Hr S.Jim
I am a facultary chemist, and this is one of my favourite correctures to old, vulgar, and fameous supersticion.
The molecule H2CO3, the “carbonic acid”, hardly exists in the universe, not at any pressure or temperature. Not even as an intermediate stage.
The better way to state it is CO2 + OH- -> HCO3-
Because all theese molecules are real, and we can easily see also why that reaction is highly corelated to pH.
GISTEMP has posted for July with a global SAT anomaly of +0.92ºC, the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date and up on the May anomaly of +0.85ºC. The Jan-Jun 2021 monthly anomalies sat in the range +0.64ºC to +0.89ºC.
July 2021 is the 3rd warmest July on the (3rd in ERA5 re-analysis) behind 2019 (+0.94ºC) while ahead of July 2020 (+0.91ºC) & 2016 (+0.85ºC). July 2021 is the =34th highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record.
The first seven months of 2021 averages +0.81ºC and is the 7th warmest start-to-the-year on the GISTEMP record (6th in ERA5). For the full calendar year to climb to 6th spot above 2018 wound require the 2021 Aug-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +0.91ºC.
…….. Jan-Jul Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.09ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.08ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.97ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.81ºC
2010 .. +0.77ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 11th
2014 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 7th
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 18th
2002 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 15th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 9th
The IPCC estimates 0.18˚C / decade. Hansen doubles to 0.36˚C / decade. That means 2.0˚C in 2040. Can anyone comment on Hansen’s claim?
https://mailchi.mp/caa/july-temperature-update-faustian-payment-comes-due?e=ff820d665a
Without looking at any data, I’m guessing 1. 0,18 is the middle of a range and 2. that Hansen is being his typically outspoken, prescient self and engaging in a lot less scientific reticence than the vast majority of climate scientists, thus getting a higher number based on adding in feedbacks that are not necessarily as nailed down as the IPCC requires, yet address the risks we face much more accurately.
Just a guess, though.
@killian @aksel
This is long (but useful I think), he reviews the history of censorship and reticence, and blackballing, and the Ice Melt paper etc. May relate back to the AO/@Rodger reaction above too.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210614_ForewordHansen.pdf
Hansen turns 80 this year. As busy as ever.
I don’t know if Hansen left or was ousted, but certainly the latter is entirely possible. The man gives zero effs. A true hero, and I don’t do “heroes,”
Certain denizens of the peanut gallery have constructed a straw man named “Victor,” who arrogantly claims to know more than highly trained scientists. Sorry but I don’t recognize that person. I have never made such claims. Most of what I’ve posted here consists largely of questions:
how do we reconcile the 40 year warming “pause” of 1940-1979 with the notion that CO2 emissions drive global warming? how can we claim this pause was driven by industrial aerosols when the same pause can be found in so many regions without much in the way of industrial activity? how can we deny the existence of the notorious “hiatus” of 1998-2015 when even the IPCC itself acknowledges that such a pause took place, beginning in 1998 (see blog post above)? how can we claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when that rise began at a time prior to 1880, when global temperatures were relatively stable? how can we claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when the rate of rise has remained relatively stable from 1880 through the present, while global temperatures have risen and fallen at varying rates during this same period? How can we reconcile the observations reported in Fasullo et al., acknowledging that sea level rise has actually decelerated during the satellite era with the notion, claimed Rahmstorf that the rise has accelerated?
These are not really claims, but questions — questions that remain unanswered by anyone posting here, people who prefer to toss insults rather than seriously consider scientific issues.
Another problem I continually encounter is the clueless literal mindedness of so many posting here. From time to time I post something clearly tongue in cheek, obviously not meant to be taken literally, yet that’s exactly how it’s taken by those all too eager to attack me for any reason. To be clear: NO I do not expect the IPCC to change its conclusions based on anything I’ve ever posted anywhere. I feel sure the great majority are totally unaware of my existence. Against my better judgement I sometimes try to be amusing. But that effort is lost on the fanatics regularly posting here.
Get over yourselves, folks. “Victor” is not the problem. The problem consists of the questions he raises that you are unwilling to even consider.
Victor the Troll.
It is true that the crap you spout down these comment threads (which is highly insulting to those who consider AGW is a threat to the future of human civilization and suffer your continued and unreasonable repeating of this crap) could be construed as you questioning the science, except you never pay the slightest heed to the answer.
The notions you present here are not the problem. It is your presence here continually hurling crap.
So you say that you ask“how do we reconcile the 40 year warming “pause” of 1940-1979 with the notion that CO2 emissions drive global warming?”
There are ready-made answers to be found on the web; for instance New Scientist ‘Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming’.
Or we could present a tailor-made answer.
The additional forcing from CO2 1940-1970, 1970 being when warming began post-1940, was about 0.25Wm^-2, significantly less than the additional forcing post-1970 which was some 0.45Wm^-2 and thus the negative forcings from SO2 pollution could easily mask that additional CO2 positive forcing preventing any warming through that period.
Simples!!
So Victor, there is your answer. Demonstrate your true nature.
@Victor
Stating the questions or the riddles in a solvable form is quite an art, and it is often characteristic of what we call intelligence.
Another old rule is that a fool can ask more that 10 wise men can answer.
Both theese things may be problematic.
Trolls are known to be less intelligent, and often foolish. That is also a proper old rule.
V: how do we reconcile the 40 year warming “pause” of 1940-1979 with the notion that CO2 emissions drive global warming?
BPL: Asked and answered. You continue to assume that AGW theory says temperature must move in lockstep with CO2. You have been told, over and over again, that other factors also have an influence. If you ever took a statistics course, you would be familiar with a concept called “analysis of variance” that puts this into precise mathematical terms. But your unwillingness to learn puts you at a permanent disadvantage.
MiniTuck: Certain denizens of the peanut gallery have constructed a straw man named “[Tucker]” who arrogantly claims to know more than highly trained scientists. Sorry but I don’t recognize that person. I have never made such claims. Most of what [Tucker says] consists largely of questions
And a few a background in Communications, Cognitive Science and Scientific Epistemology. Skill sets that are never to late to improve.
Not that humanity at large is particularly convinced by reason.
Escalating climate anomalies seem to be having some effect however
Ladies and Gentlemen of this important Tavern / Pub: where people are supposed to meet and to discuss it:
Permit me to make you all aware of the
One ocean expedition
by
Statsraad Lehmkuhl
:/I repeat/:
in the regie of several world forces and powers, including the UN.
It is a very finest tall sailship,
I saw it in Bremerhaven where it had won the Regatta from Edibourgh. The harbour was full of veteran sailships, mostly just dilletanic nostalgic rot, but some of it also close to “ship- shape”,
and Statsraad Lemkuhl really the best of it all.
Now they are entitled to represent and to sell Norway, (Which I am not) but also the UN and the IPCC, on behalf of several institutions and supporters.
Where I can mention the Bjerknes Center and
The Nansen Center of Signals…
both worthy of a look and closer examination.
Bjerknes is on the levels of NOAA and the PIK, The Potzdam institute of climate impact research in Berlin (where Rahmstorf does recide),
Whatever is referred to Nansen is due to keep up with his pioneering results in the ices, but also in humanity and in politics.
Nansen was professor of Oceanography and marine biology in Bergen, where Statsraad Lehmkuhl is also harboured.
Bjerknes emigrated to Californjia where he invented and showed the ENSO for you.
S. Lehmjkuhl has now sailed our magnificant rugged coast as the official “summer ship”, online on national TV, and will set out from Arendal on 20 aug 2021 onto La Coruna and onward via both capes and several important sites and harbours to circumjnavigate the globe.
We whish them well, Bon voyage! A- dieu..!
We hope they will not capsize or run aground. Or have Pest on board underway.
Remember and look at Statsraad Lehmkuhl, that will come up in the media and be mentioned in the media now for the next 2 years.
A really fine 3 masted Barque. from Bergen.
MARodger: “thus the negative forcings from SO2 pollution could easily mask that additional CO2 positive forcing preventing any warming through that period.”
V: Sorry Mr. Rodger. There is no evidence that some sort of underlying warming trend was masked by industrial emission of SO2 during the period in question. As I’ve demonstrated, no such warming trend is evident in the temperature records of several regions with little to no industrial activity. For details see: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
Care to tackle my other questions?
Victor says : “As I’ve demonstrated, no such warming trend is evident in the temperature records of several regions with little to no industrial activity. For details see:”
And I explained to you previously that those places had cooling or flat temperature trends mid last century, because aerosols emanating from the industrial centres move thousands of kilometres on air currents, and that air masses at a given temperature move thousands of kilometres driven by the atmospheres circulatory system. I gave you source material for this. I also showed you that the flat period mid last century was strongest in the northern hemisphere, where aerosols were most dominant, with evidence. This is what you would expect to see.
But you never learn. You have probably invested so much in your theories you cant turn back. But there’s nothing wrong and no dishonour with changing your mind in the face of evidence.
Steady now, Victor!!
You argument that locations remote from areas of large SO2 emissions should show signs of warming has been discussed before and show to be in error (although I recall your last attempt with it at RealClimate ended up in the Borehole). You may feel that the “relevant temperature data” would be that from “the Arctic, the Antarctic, Africa, Madagascar, Siberia, Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Kyrgistan and New Caledonia” (as you presented in your latest efforts at this analysis) and that such places should have warmed merrily 1940-70 being well away from areas emitting SO2.
However, the deficiencies of this type of analysis has been explained to you before, probably more than once.
The effect of SO2 pollution is not confined to those emitting areas. As is well known (here quoting from Seo et al (2020):-
Perhaps the signal to look for is not one of warming in those chosen remote places but rather should be seen in the pattern of changing regional temperatures through the period. Thus areas emitting all that global-cooling SO2 pollution will cool more than other areas whose climate is not so dependent on those emitting regions and such areas may even see some warming from the particularly small increase in AGW-driving CO2 through that period.
So we could trawl through the various locations you cite identifying the level and timing of any cooling/warming and then perhaps compare them with the places where SO2 exerted “a much larger influence.” But a less tedious approach is perhaps using this GISTEMP anomaly map showing the warming 1940-70 which amply suffices to demonstrate the point.
Once again, the arrogance of Victor, presuming to know more than the many scientists that study the effect of aerosols on the climate system.
Victor does a simple analysis with zero knowledge of how aerosols actual work to cool and then proclaims there is no evidence because the temperatures records of several regions with no industrial activity show no warming trend. Of course this ignores how aerosols actually work and disperse in the atmosphere and how heat actually moves through the climate system. Note that aerosols work both directly, by scattering sunlight, and indirectly by increasing cloud formation, cloud life, and changing cloud properties. Aerosols do not distribute uniformly in the atmosphere, but they are generally NOT localized in the way that Victor assumes. Victor has no clue as to how to do a proper analysis of how aerosols effect the climate. It’s far more complex than Victor’s simple approach.
Victor states he has never claimed to know more than highly trained scientists, but here he is once again proclaiming scientists got it wrong and he got it right.
No straw man, Victor demonstrates once again his pure arrogance.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345/
Let’s briefly look at some of the evidence.
Aerosols clearly cause cooling as can be seen after major volcanic eruptions. Observations of such go back 2000 years. More recently, for example, the cooling effect of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 was well documented and analyzed with the aid of satellites. The most impressive example was the year there was no summer—1816, after the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia. Note the lack of proximity of Tambora to North America and Europe, regions that were highly effected. Volcanic emissions of sulfur clearly shows that the cooling effect of aerosols is real and can be widespread from the source of the emissions.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ROG2000.pdf
https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanoes-can-affect-climate
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/mount-tambora-and-year-without-summer
As for the period of 1940-1979, we can clearly see the very sharp rise in sulfur emissions starting about 1940 and peaking around 1979. There is a strong correlation of the sulfur aerosol rise and the cooling. Even Victor’s keen eye should be able to discern the correlation. Aerosols absolutely cause cooling and aerosol levels rose sharply.
https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf
Although global temperatures failed to rise during the period 1940-1979, the effect was actually limited to daytime temperatures—night time temperatures continued to rise during the period. Although masked by aerosol cooling during the day, the greenhouse effect, the slowing heat loss to space, was still evident in the night time temperature record.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028031
So, although there is some uncertainty in exactly what was occurring with the climate and aerosols during the period in question due to lack of solid data, especially from satellites, there most certainly is evidence that industrial aerosol emissions played a role.
But dear Victor knows better than the scientists that have actually studied the climate of this period.
Gensse Victor:
“Sorry, Mr. X, there is no evidence hat…..”
Your problem and situation, that you make for yourself, often seems to be that of sole- ipsism,…
….that is, being the sole and only conscious and thinking entity in the universe and down into the univeral details, down into this website.
(That looks to me like a traditional saloon, pub, and restaurant. ” eine Kneipe”.)
Thus if you claim that “There is no evidence…” people may get upset at the tables..
They know of a lot of evidence and are seeing a lot of evidence, thus by your manners, you are fighting, badgering, and disqualifying the senses, the knowledge, and the seeing of people.
You violate, and you are at war with, their very seeing and understanding….. at the tables…. in the saloon.
Which is not quite polite and dignified in the saloons and on the websites with open doors to the streets.
It is not salon- fähig or “clean” you may say.
In closed societies and in the Party and the “Unions”, where you may be having it from, that may be different. But that is not “common” or Universal of “reasonable”
Wherefore, In any such civil, legally authorized and qualified saloons, pubs, and restaurants with open doors to the streets, there are further 3 doors. quite visible in the backround:
1, Ladies
2 Gentlemen and
3, Men only!
Where any such special and private necessites can also be performed.
=================000
Hr Schmidt, Dr R.Climate & al
My wife is north Geman of Peasant and Urban Hanseatic heritage.,
They had a tavern. And due to the church and my beliefs, I took in there, seduced, and stole their princess!
And learnt a lot of things at the tables and especially in the backgrounds.
As it came to it, I was also the only one as a young and quite clever scientist, who could go and creap down into the septics, “De Scietkuhle” under the toilets there in an official and qualified public tavern and repair it for them.
I had the advantage of having learnt it allready from rural and from academic side and of being an experienced “free diver” (= possibly autentic marine biology), with exsperienced control of mouth, nose, ears, and the uvula- lock, breathing, and furter regulation systems.
So that was routine for me, I could close off both breething and the smells and still perform.
But elementary shit also in ones eyes, I can tell you, that is ugly..
“Fyyyyy-Faen…” I shouted
Werner, the plumber from above: “Was sagst du?”
…….”Zum Teufel..”
W. from above: “…da bin ich auch genau deiner Auffassung!”
There is also wonders down there like fully albino spiders and flies and brilliant cristals, probably of “microchosmic salt”, that is Na(NH4)HPO4 . 4H2O.
————
In any case Hr. Schmidt, , the labeled doors and the sewage system in your establishment, not just the imports from the right breweries and destilleries,……… that is also quite an art,……. that did require certificates in the past. and shall need it further.
But the Guinness book of records was written and published to end and to “moderate” any such large Auras with general claims on behalf of the Übermensch in the pubs, That was the disaster to it all as long as it lasted.
It is as importanjt as in the virological laboratories, in the swine-yards and in the henyards, and in the atomic reactors.
There must be orders, and there must be enlighted hygiene.
BPL: Asked and answered. You continue to assume that AGW theory says temperature must move in lockstep with CO2. You have been told, over and over again, that other factors also have an influence. If you ever took a statistics course, you would be familiar with a concept called “analysis of variance” that puts this into precise mathematical terms. But your unwillingness to learn puts you at a permanent disadvantage.
V: Reasons for a lack of evidence do not constitute evidence.
Or, from another perspective: “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” — William of Occam
Obergenosse (?) Victor:
A very fameous aspect and horizon of dispute and denialism, that was recdommended by Frank Lunz to the Heartland and CATO institutes, was that of havinn ignored or stuck away and cheated or forgotten about the natural variances.
Lunz later withdrew and quit from that employment.
When shall the broad masses follow him also in that respect?
“V: Reasons for a lack of evidence do not constitute evidence.”
BPL: Are you completely insane?
Why am I even asking? Of course you are.
V: Or, from another perspective: “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” — William of Occam
BPL: Which logically implies that they SHOULD be multiplied when there IS necessity, you fatuous ass. Once again, NOBODY EVER, EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, EVER SAID THAT CO2 IS THE ONLY THING THAT INFLUENCES TEMPERATURE. Stop saying that multiple causation is “multiplying necessities.” It is not. You’re wrong. Multiple causation is the way of reality..
The Moon’s orbit isn’t just caused by it’s velocity. It’s also caused by the Earth’s gravity, the Earth’s orbit around the sun, and perturbations from the other planets. Multiple causes.
Your weight isn’t just caused by how much you eat. It’s also influence by how much you exercise, what the ambient temperature is, how much and what kind of clothing you wear, etc. Multiple causes.
The atmospheric pressure around you isn’t just caused by the column mass of atmosphere above you. It’s also caused by the Earth’s gravity, local winds, local temperatures, etc. Multiple causes.
REAL THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES. So does Earth’s temperature. Stop pretending you’ve made some great discovery by finding out that one seventh of its variance can’t be accounted for by CO2. EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS AND IT’S NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY.
Physicists just published a paper in the peer-reviewed Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal saying the sun is driving warming, not CO2:
http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080
https://www.newsmax.com/scitech/sun-co2-global-warming-climate/2021/08/16/id/1032560/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html
That “paper” you quoted is authored by one of the longest list of dishonest and incompetent scientists and AGW deniers I have seen in a long time. A good take down of that “paper” can be found here:
https://tinyurl.com/yejyyrv5
As for the 2 links you provide to support that “paper”, they are extreme right wing rags where honesty is not one of their strong points.
Wow! That you would even link to that article suggests that your children should be thinking of taking away your car keys. Here’s a hint: Seeing Willie Soon, or Legates or any of the other authors on that list would be a red flag to anyone who follows climate science. Seeing all of them on the same article and published in an obscure journal with zero overlap with climate science should have alerted even you that it was bullshit.
Your learning curve doesn’t have a positive slope.
And BTW, the epoch times is the house rag of the Falun Gong cult in exile.
Yeah, that’s an ad hom–but IMO, any pretense of objective in that paper is just that–pretense.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/8/19/2046885/-Willie-Soon-s-Home-Made-Report-Can-t-Even-Defend-Its-Own-Claim-That-The-Sun-Causes-Climate-Change
BPL: Your weight isn’t just caused by how much you eat. It’s also influence by how much you
RtW: think. The brain is tremendous for cardiovascular training. Which burns through more calories, a multi game chess match or a marathon?
Yo, Vic! I suggest you start running.
K: You want me to back and copy and paste from the last five years all the hundreds of times you jumped on my ass without cause, unprovoked?
BPL: You can’t do that, because I’ve never jumped on your ass without being provoked. If you honestly believe you never provoke anybody, you’re further out of touch with reality than even I thought it, and I’ve thought you were way out there for a long time.
I’ve been away from the faux climate debate for a few years, mostly because I got sick of seeing pointless discussions about “the pause” and so on. I dropped in here the other day to see what was up with the latest report, and I see many of the same arguments are still ongoing, which is disappointing.
For a while I thought it wasn’t possible to defend the existence of “the pause” in good faith – I thought that anyone discussing trendlines that started with an outlier was obviously trolling for the sake of it. I’ve come to realise that there are cognitive sinkholes that some people fall into, and some of the folks who seem exactly like trolls actually believe what they post. They still bear responsibility for remaining ignorant, of course. But their trolling is not quite as self-aware as I once imagined. Either way, it remains the case that discussing things with them is a colossal waste of time.
Seeing many of you argue against Victor makes him seem a more worthwhile opponent than he actually is. I don’t know what the answer is, but maybe he should be quietly ignored? Maybe there should be a heavier hand in moderation? I do know that there are much more interesting things to discuss than whether a trendline starting at 1998 means anything, and I think there is already ample evidence in this thread alone that Victor cannot be educated on these matters.
Personally, I would like to be able to hide all posts from people with a long history of posting nonsense, so I don’t have to waste time scrolling past zombie denialist arguments.
TWOE, It’s called codependency.
If you could hide all posts from someone, would that also hide the replies to that person?
This could become a very short list of comments.
FYI, just because you don’t agree with the point someone makes doesn’t mean it is false. However, it is true that there is a subset of people today who run bawling to their safe space or else will assault you if you say something they disagree with.
I’d be happy enough to miss the replies, as well. Some of the debunking contains useful information, but if it is in response to nonsense, the yield is usually low. Often the logical flaws in the posts of someone like Victor are so obvious I don’t need to read a clever rebuttal.
I am well aware that just because I disagree with someone does not necessarily mean they are wrong. But it is also true that just because something is posted it does not necessarily mean it deserves space in my day. And it is a fairly good rule of thumb that anyone defending “the pause” in 2021 is not worth the time it takes to scroll past their post.
There are hundreds of smart people out there who really know this field of science – I would prefer to hear what they have to say rather than listen to the Dunning-Krusaders.
Your safe space would be Newsmax I suppose? Please repair to it and take your addle pated nonsense with you.
It’s been said over and over. It easily takes up half the space on this forum, maybe more. Great advertising for denial.
CCHolley: Aerosols do not distribute uniformly in the atmosphere, but they are generally NOT localized in the way that Victor assumes. Victor has no clue as to how to do a proper analysis of how aerosols effect the climate. It’s far more complex than Victor’s simple approach.
V: “The distribution of anthropogenic aerosols’ climate effects depends on the geographic distribution of the aerosols themselves. Yet many scientific and policy discussions ignore the role of emission location when evaluating aerosols’ climate impacts. . . This suggests that climate accounting should differentiate between aerosols emitted from different countries and that aerosol emissions’ evolving geographic distribution will impact the global-scale magnitude and spatial distribution of climate change. . . Aerosols’ heterogeneous spatial distribution is recognized to influence their overall climate impact relative to more homogeneous climate forcers, like carbon dioxide.” (Divergent global-scale temperature effects from identical aerosols emitted in different regions, as published in Nature, August 2018)
Which is exactly what I stated, broadly regional (not global), but not localized in the way Victor assumes. But of course the troll Victor only sees what he wants to see and apparently didn’t read the entirety of the first paper linked: Aerosols and their Relation to Global Climate, which graphically shows aerosol’s widespread effect including many non-industrialized areas such that Victor uses to make his uninformed case.
And of course, Victor didn’t read the paper: Impact of Global Dimming and Brightening on Global Warming and ignores the evidence of rising night time temperatures during the period in question that could only occur if night time heat loss to space is diminished over time i.e. the growing greenhouse effect.
Nope, Victor never said he was smarter than or more knowledgable than climate scientists, but here, once again, even when presented with the scientific evidence, he still proclaims them wrong. Deluded arrogance.
And just to be more clear, Victor’s reference, Divergent global-scale temperature effects from identical aerosols emitted in different regions as published in Nature, actually counters his argument and shows that aerosols emitted by both the United States and Western Europe, the strongest emitters of the period, 1940 to 1978, cool most of the earth’s surface.
See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05838-6/figures/2
BPL:
“V: Reasons for a lack of evidence do not constitute evidence.”
BPL: Are you completely insane?
Why am I even asking? Of course you are.
V: There is clearly no evidence for a warming trend during the period 1940-1979. Attempts have been made to provide reasons why. Regardless of how convincing these reasons might be, they can not in themselves constitute evidence that the warming actually occurred. Suppose for example that someone claims he made some important scientific discovery before anyone else. When asked for the evidence, he claims he can’t provide it because his original paper was lost in a fire and he doesn’t have a duplicate. He provides ample evidence that the fire in question did indeed occur. Does that constitute evidence for his claim? Is it insane to doubt him?
V: Or, from another perspective: “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” — William of Occam
BPL: Which logically implies that they SHOULD be multiplied when there IS necessity, you fatuous ass.
V: What then is the necessity? Can you spell it out? The only necessity I can think of is the necessity of supporting the prevailing theory.
Occam’s Razor remains an essential scientific principle because it guards against precisely the sort of “evidence” you are invoking. I.e., if you can’t find any direct evidence for your claim then cast about for any other evidence you can find that might support it.
“Even if some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary, there still remains a justified general bias toward the simpler of two competing explanations. To understand why, consider that for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives. This is so because one can always burden a failing explanation with an ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses are justifications that prevent theories from being falsified.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
BPL: Once again, NOBODY EVER, EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, EVER SAID THAT CO2 IS THE ONLY THING THAT INFLUENCES TEMPERATURE. Stop saying that multiple causation is “multiplying necessities.” It is not. You’re wrong. Multiple causation is the way of reality..
The Moon’s orbit isn’t just caused by it’s velocity. It’s also caused by the Earth’s gravity, the Earth’s orbit around the sun, and perturbations from the other planets. Multiple causes.
V: Yes, but the moon’s orbit very clearly exists. It’s been observed. We don’t need gravity or the Earth’s orbit or perturbations from other planets to know this. According to your thinking, the existence of the moon and its orbit could be inferred by our knowledge of all these other forces even if there were no direct evidence for it. Similarly the existence of all the multiple factors you’ve invoked should be accepted as evidence of rising temperatures despite the fact that rising temperatures have not been observed.
V: Similarly the existence of all the multiple factors you’ve invoked should be accepted as evidence of rising temperatures despite the fact that rising temperatures have not been observed.
BPL: Nobody is arguing that temperatures must always rise. A monotonic rise in temperatures is not part of the theory. You have the theory wrong. In short, you’re arguing against a straw man.
Occam’s Razor has been discussed ad nauseam on this site yet Victor still doesn’t get it. According to Victor’s logic, scientists should never attempt to understand complex systems, because that would be against Occam’s Razor. To Victor, Occam’s Razor must somehow rule out the possibly of systems being complex.
What Victor ignores (among thousands of other things) is that aerosol cooling is a point of fact, it has been shown to be true. And, as the data clearly shows, aerosol emissions rapidly increased during the period that Victor questions.
Making a claim that aerosols resulted in cooling during the period in question is clearly not “multiplying entities beyond necessity” because it is a logical follow of, aerosols cause cooling (scientific fact), aerosols increased rapidly during the period (fact). It would be fatal to a scientist’s reputation to claim that rising aerosols did not influence temperatures during the period in question and that it is just “multiplying entities beyond necessity” to make some theory work.
Given the fact that we know that aerosols caused cooling in the period in question, the question then becomes was it actually masking greenhouse warming? Victor, claims there is no evidence of this and attempts to show the lack of evidence with his misguided analysis of the temperatures of non-industrial areas ignoring that the aerosol effect is widespread. Regardless, the fact that aerosols could be masking the warming with what we know about greenhouse forcing should be enough, it isn’t “multiplying entities beyond necessity” because both aerosol cooling and greenhouse warming are real artifacts of determining global temperatures. Global temperatures are driven by multiple known causes (forcings) that are relatively well understood.
Never-the-less, there is strong evidence that aerosols masked greenhouse gas warming during the period in question.
Most import is the fact that nights continued to warm during the period. This can only occur by increases in the restriction of radiative heat loss to space during nights. Increased greenhouse effect is the only plausible explanation for this to have occurred. Real evidence.
Secondly, although there is uncertainty in how much the aerosols blocked incoming sunlight during the period in question, based on studies using satellite data in the modern era, good estimates can be surmized and applied to modeling of the climate of the era in question. Results of such studies well match the temperatures of the period. Real evidence.
So regardless of Victor’s claims, the slightly cooling period from about of 194o to 1979 does not cast any serious doubt on AGW. There is strong physical evidence that AGW is a reality–it is an almost certainty. And, the hypothesis that aerosols masked the expected warming of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is most certainly plausible and highly likely based on the evidence. It is most certainly is not “multiplying entities beyond necessity.”
@Victor
“There is clearloy no evidence for a warming trend during the period 1940-1979..”
Sea level rise according to the rather undisputed Chuch & White curve has been going on steadily and consequently during all that period. And with no apparent discontinuities in the growth rate anno 1940 and anno 1979.
The only next thing that has grown that consequently is the Keeling- curve and its also rather undisputed causes.
Can you perhaps explain that?
Possibly it’s not very wise to hang your hat on the ‘absence of evidence’ of a cherry-picked span.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1935/to:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1935/to:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1945/to:1979/trend
TheWarOnEntropy: “I’ve been away from the faux climate debate for a few years, mostly because I got sick of seeing pointless discussions about “the pause” and so on. I dropped in here the other day to see what was up with the latest report, and I see many of the same arguments are still ongoing, which is disappointing.
For a while I thought it wasn’t possible to defend the existence of “the pause” in good faith – I thought that anyone discussing trendlines that started with an outlier was obviously trolling for the sake of it. I’ve come to realise that there are cognitive sinkholes that some people fall into, and some of the folks who seem exactly like trolls actually believe what they post. They still bear responsibility for remaining ignorant, of course. But their trolling is not quite as self-aware as I once imagined. Either way, it remains the case that discussing things with them is a colossal waste of time.”
V: Sorry to disabuse you, WOE, but there is and always was good scientific evidence to support the existence of the “pause” that bothers you (and so many others) so much.
And not only from skeptics and “deniers.” Here are some excerpts from a paper published in Nature, authored by none other than Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Ed Hawkins among others. ( https://michaelmann.net/sites/default/files/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf ):
“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by
a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is
unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”
“In all three observational datasets the most recent 15-year trend (ending in 2014) is lower than both the latest 30-year and 50-year trends. This divergence occurs at a time of rapid increase
in greenhouse gases (GHGs).”
“Our results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001–2014 period — a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate. A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations.”
WOE: Seeing many of you argue against Victor makes him seem a more worthwhile opponent than he actually is. I don’t know what the answer is, but maybe he should be quietly ignored? . . .
Personally, I would like to be able to hide all posts from people with a long history of posting nonsense, so I don’t have to waste time scrolling past zombie denialist arguments.
V: Your response, like those of so many others posting here, has little to do with science and more to do with your emotional state. Clearly your response is prompted by a reluctance to seriously consider any argument and any evidence that threatens your deeply ingrained certainties. Time and again I’ve presented evidence based on perfectly legitimate research only to have it dismissed out of hand, often in the most offensive manner. This is not the response of real scientists, who are expected to welcome skepticism as a helpful widening of their perspectives. This sort of response is what one would expect from members of a cult, rather than those with a sincere interest in science. Your over the top reaction to my defense of the “hiatus” is a perfect example.
Victor should look in the mirror. Time and again Victor has presented his same old garbage that he believes constitutes evidence and then when it is clearly refuted,with actual evidence and science he ignores it. Correlation anyone? Not once in seven years have we seen Victor accept or even acknowledge any of the science and evidence that has been presented to him—the real science, the real evidence. It is Victor, NOT many others posting here, that is reluctant to seriously consider any argument and any evidence that threatens his deeply ingrained belief that the over 200 years of science, the consensus science, related to the greenhouse effect and AGW is wrong. Victor dismisses legitimate science out of hand, over and again without fail. Always.
Yes, skepticism is welcome in science as helpful in widening perspectives. But what Victor does is not true skepticism because true science skeptics are just as open to criticism of their ideas as any scientist. Victor most certainly is not. Not in the least. Victor ignores ALL the science and evidence behind AGW in its entirety, and that’s not a skeptic, that’s a science denier.
Seven years ago discussing the science with Victor was somewhat enjoyable, it was fun to try to explain the intricacies of the physics and science in a way that someone with little scientific background could understand. But it quickly became abundantly clear that Victor was incapable of having an informed discussion or learn anything. Why? Because Victor would never attempt to learn the science nor would he ever accept the real science and evidence that was presented to him. Victor is never ever wrong. Victor already has the answers. For Victor, discourse is never in the spirit of learning, rather it is to arrogantly proclaim superior knowledge in areas for which the evidence shows he has little or no knowledge or expertise. Nope, he never ever has shown an interest in actually learning what the science tells us—a sincere interest in science? Respect for science? Certainly not Victor.
Victor’s arguments have been so thoroughly and completely refuted so many times on this forum by so many it has become so tiresome and such a bore. In spite of that, he still repeats the same old information and arguments over and over again. Seven years!
Victor has thoroughly earned being dismissed out of hand in an offensive manner.
Science and its Pretenders: Pseudoscience and Science Denial
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=5143
Real science:
Follows evidence to a conclusion versus works backward from a desired conclusion
Real science:
Minimize biases versus doesn’t want to believe
Real science:
Objectively evaluates evidence versus impossibly high standard of evidence
Real science::
Conclusion based on body of evidence versus cherry picks evidence
Real science:
Tentative, willing to change with evidence versus overly confident, unwilling to change
Real science::
Scientific community provides checks and balances versus pretender community rewards biases and views criticism as a conspiracy
But Victor is right, CC. You and the others who keep responding belong to the “Victor Cult”. It is a classic case of codependency… you guys are addicted to interacting with the addict when he is acting out. You just can’t let go.
And you are in Denial that that’s what it is.
Yup. It is THE biggest problem in these fora, reinforcing the lies, the false equivalence and ideologies of the denialists and taking up a huge portion of the space all these years,
Victor has thoroughly earned being dismissed out of hand in an offensive manner.
No he hasn’t.
you guys are addicted to interacting with the addict
Go to the source of the problem … the ‘Drug Pusher.’?
Those obtaining a huge amount of vicarious pleasure from watching all the dramas being played out by others.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vicarious-pleasure
Sadly, you are probably correct.
Of interest: “Is Western U.S. experiencing a ‘megadrought’? Intense, prolonged droughts called ‘megadroughts’ occurred regularly during the Middle Ages. Now the U.S. West may be in a new, climate-fueled megadrought period………”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/is-western-u-s-experiencing-a-megadrought/
Old news, really. As I have long suggested, a long-tail risk/rapud tipping points perspective is the appropriate view. That makes what we are seeing unsurprising. And the depth 8f the droughts in recent years has been discussed quite a bit as indicating a long-term drought phase is underway.
I don’t think megadrought is the right word, though it describes the immediate practical ramifications. But droughts end. This is a transition. Not necessarily to what we’re seeing today .
We’ve been over how disruptive it would be to have a coastline that retreats over hundreds of years. Once things get going it could take generations to get the climate beast to stop bucking.
I think we might be seeing a megadrought and also a climate transition, but it’s not possible to be certain about that. Be that as it may, I agree with you that identifying the current situation as a megadrought may be inaccurate and misleading.
https://therevelator.org/megadrought-aridification-climate/
Cheers
Mike
Megadroughts don’t end in manageable time frames. They can go on for hundreds of years with an occasional short respite, but not enough to keep the society going as it did in wetter times.
More on this: “Scientists may have unraveled the mystery of what triggered decade-long droughts during medieval times in the American Southwest. These so-called megadroughts were so devastating that entire civilizations may have collapsed in their wake.”
https://www.livescience.com/66032-medieval-megadroughts-return-global-warming.html
Another wacky response from Mr. MAR:
“However, the deficiencies of this type of analysis has been explained to you before, probably more than once.
The effect of SO2 pollution is not confined to those emitting areas. As is well known (here quoting from Seo et al (2020):-
” Anthropogenic aerosols have affected global climate while exerting a much larger influence on regional climate by their short lifetime and heterogeneous spatial distribution.” [My bold]
V: Sorry but how does this quotation support your point? Yes, no question, Anthropogenic aerosols do indeed exert “a much larger influence on regional climate by their short lifetime and heterogeneous spatial distribution.” Or don’t you understand the meaning of the phrase “much larger”? While such aerosols might eventually spread to other regions, clearly they would be seriously dissipated the farther afield they go. For a more authoritative view see my response to CCHolley, above.
“Perhaps the signal to look for is not one of warming in those chosen remote places but rather should be seen in the pattern of changing regional temperatures through the period. Thus areas emitting all that global-cooling SO2 pollution will cool more than other areas whose climate is not so dependent on those emitting regions and such areas may even see some warming from the particularly small increase in AGW-driving CO2 through that period.
So we could trawl through the various locations you cite identifying the level and timing of any cooling/warming and then perhaps compare them with the places where SO2 exerted “a much larger influence.”
Oh yes. “Perhaps.” I find the above paragraph totally incoherent. The point remains: There is NO evidence of an underlying warming trend just about anywhere we look, including areas with no industrial activity that would be minimally impacted by industrial SO2 emissions.
“But a less tedious approach is perhaps using this GISTEMP anomaly map showing the warming 1940-70 which amply suffices to demonstrate the point.”
Sorry, but that link goes nowhere.
The paper cited does not support Victors claim. There is dissipation, but the paper clearly states that aerosols have a global effect, but how great that effect is depends on where the aerosols originate.
” Emissions from the U.S. and Western Europe have the largest forcing efficacies (1.32 ± 0.06 and 1.09 ± 0.07 K(Wm−2)−1, respectively), producing outsized temperature responses for the effective radiative forcing they generate. Emissions from regions like Brazil, meanwhile, produce a comparable effective radiative forcing to emissions from Western Europe or the U.S., but generate much smaller global-mean temperature change (Fig. 3b)”
Link to how regional aerosol emissions effect global surface temperatures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05838-6/figures/2
Note that the cooling effect of emissions from Western Europe and the United States, where most of the aerosols during the 1940-1975 period came from, cover most of the globe.
This Troll-speak from Victor the Troll [17 AUG 2021 AT 5:24 PM] requires some translation for humankind who are used to the more trustworthy comment of their fellow humans.
It is true that SO2 emissions have an impact on climate that has regional variation (this the point initially being made to the Troll). This is initially because the emissions are regional and short-lived and the resulting climate forcing is not evenly spread globally. However, the climate itself also does its work spreading the effect about. Unlike trolls who return beneath their bridges at daybreak, the winds and ocean waters flow off wherever they are sent, true globe-trotters.
The troll has managed to admit above that dissipated aerosols “might might eventually spread to other regions” and even up-thread cites Persad & Caldeira (2018) which models how the extent of various regional aerosol emissions, showing in the case of W European, USA & Chinese aerosol emissions, that impact is more global than regional.
And the Troll (not for the first time in this UV comment thread) resorts to the ‘I see no evidence’ gambit, telling us “There is NO evidence of an underlying warming trend just about anywhere we look.” His “look” has extended to “the Arctic, the Antarctic, Africa, Madagascar, Siberia, Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Kyrgistan and New Caledonia.” The pathetic analysis he carried out earlier this year and proudly posted on his silly website has graphics of noisy annual temperature series for these locations and insists there is cooling ca. 1940 to ca 1979, a situation which is not exactly obvious or even attributable. His conclusion runs “So! Where on Earth, pray tell, is all the warming that “would have” happened were it not for industrial aerosols?”
And he insists the “less tedious approach [of[ using this GISTEMP anomaly map“ to answer his question failed to register. He says the link doesn’t work but then couldn’t be bothered to seek an alternative route to the data, perhaps by visiting the GISTEMP website himself and creating his own map.
But what should we expect. Victor the Troll is exceptionally stupid, even for a troll.
Vic,stupid? Maybe by some standards. But he’s effective. How many inches of goop did he get you to rant about how bad Vic’s Vomit stinks?
He got you to reduce your own cred. Been there. Done been owned like that. Trying to learn. Lots of us are.
No, I am not that impressed
. The more efficient hypothesis, I believe, is that he is owned and paid and ordered by someone, or perhaps aspires by highly impregnated and trained routine for such kind of a situation.
He seems devoted and trained to obey and to serve and to contribute under that very ideal and abstract kind of a grand old “Party”. that took over for the eastern catolic church during the Soviet- period.
Perhaps elementary methods like sniffdogs and urine tests would clear up things here. also, because they often get sustained and medicated in their own way to be able to carry on way beyond the bitter end.
For that sake, The CIA managed secretly to get a Urine sample even from Brjesnjev. That told quite very much. of his private situation and medication, that also was top state secret, and could not be asked out by other means.
His ideas are typical and conventional orthodox among inaugurated and trained climate surrealists,
who mostly are old and incureable national and international socialists, who once joined that uniformed moovement, , were inaugurated , and saw the light there very long ago.
That alternative communion also rules for eternity, you see,
wherefore I call him Genosse..
Dave_Geologist sez:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/08/09/ipcc-ar6-wg1/#comment-199263
And that’s not warming anywhere near as fast as now…
Oh thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. Something interesting and different to the idiotic ramblings of Victor.
Not picking a fight here, but it bears repeating: He is a monster of all your own making.
Feed trolls, they get big and strong and post forever if there is no admin to delete them. Ignore them, they get bored and wither away and die. It’s enough, and all may paraphrase any way that suits them, to say:
V/MKIA: “Crazy crap that is criminally negligent”
Everyone Else: “this is Crazy Crap. It has no basis in fact. Ignore, Dear Readers.”
a monster, of all your own making and no admin to delete them
People already know how infuriating, maddening and annoying that dumb neighborhood dog is who barks at, then chases every car that drives down the street. Victor is the car. The rest should be obvious.
I’m oblivious to it. I see and hear nothing.
RC. So now you are implying that myself and scientists on this website like CCH and MAR are a “dumb neighbourhood dog”. You constantly insult fellow warmists all over this website like this. Your behaviour on this website is disgusting. Its absolutely beneath contempt.
RC has defended Killian, Victor, and the fossil fuel companies. I sincerely doubt that he is a “warmist” of any stripe. He is a troll, working for the other side. Killian is too dumb to see it, but to the rest of us it should be obvious.
The rest is obvious.
RSS TLT has been posted for July with a global SAT anomaly of +0.67ºC, the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date and so up on the June anomaly of +0.57ºC. The Jan-Jun 2021 monthly anomalies sat in the range +0.47ºC to +0.65ºC.
July 2021 is the 5th warmest July on the RSS TLT record (3rd in GISS & the ERA5 SAT re-analysis) behind July 2020 (+0.75ºC), July 2019 (+0.72ºC), 2010 (+0.70ºC) & 2016 (+0.69ºC). July 2021 is the 49th highest anomaly in the all-month RSS TLT record (=65th in UAH TLT, and in SAT records, =34th in GISTEMP, 30th in NOAA and 43rd in Copernicus ERA5) .
The first seven months of 2021 averages +0.57ºC and are the 7th warmest start-to-the-year on the RSS TLT record (12th in the trend-busting UAH TLT, 7th in GISS, 6th in ERA5).
…….. Jan-Jul Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
2010 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 7th
2017 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 4th
2021 .. +0.57ºC
2018 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2014 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 12th
2013 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 11th
CCHolley: Occam’s Razor has been discussed ad nauseam on this site yet Victor still doesn’t get it. According to Victor’s logic, scientists should never attempt to understand complex systems, because that would be against Occam’s Razor. To Victor, Occam’s Razor must somehow rule out the possibly of systems being complex.
V: You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of what Occam’s Razor is all about. It certainly does NOT rule out complex systems and that’s not at all what I claimed. What it does rule out are what is known as “saving hypotheses,” i.e. efforts to shore up a failing theory by adding unnecessarily complicating elements. As quoted above: “consider that for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives. This is so because one can always burden a failing explanation with an ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses are justifications that prevent theories from being falsified.”
CC: Making a claim that aerosols resulted in cooling during the period in question is clearly not “multiplying entities beyond necessity” because it is a logical follow of, aerosols cause cooling (scientific fact), aerosols increased rapidly during the period (fact). It would be fatal to a scientist’s reputation to claim that rising aerosols did not influence temperatures during the period in question and that it is just “multiplying entities beyond necessity” to make some theory work.
V: Once again you miss the point. I never claimed aerosols had no cooling effect. What I observed was the the lack of any evidence of any underlying warming trend in a variety of different locations where the influence of cooling aerosols is minimal. If I had instead observed warming trends in these regions that would have been different, and I would have been happy to concede that an underlying warming trend may well have been masked by aerosols. But since I found no such evidence it wasn’t difficult to see the aerosol hypothesis as an unnecessary ad hoc complication with no bearing on the issue at hand.
CC: Given the fact that we know that aerosols caused cooling in the period in question, the question then becomes was it actually masking greenhouse warming? Victor, claims there is no evidence of this and attempts to show the lack of evidence with his misguided analysis of the temperatures of non-industrial areas ignoring that the aerosol effect is widespread.
V: Sigh. We’ve been over this before. While the effect might be widespread, the aerosols would clearly be highly dissipated the farther afield they went. To quote the paper I’ve already cited above: “The distribution of anthropogenic aerosols’ climate effects depends on the geographic distribution of the aerosols themselves. . . Aerosols’ heterogeneous spatial distribution is recognized to influence their overall climate impact relative to more homogeneous climate forcers, like carbon dioxide.”
CC: Secondly, although there is uncertainty in how much the aerosols blocked incoming sunlight during the period in question, based on studies using satellite data in the modern era, good estimates can be surmized and applied to modeling of the climate of the era in question. Results of such studies well match the temperatures of the period. Real evidence.
V: What studies? And how would they be relevant? If no sign of warming appears in regions where the effect of aerosols would be minimal then how is it possible to claim warming was masked by such aerosols?
CC; So regardless of Victor’s claims, the slightly cooling period from about of 194o to 1979 does not cast any serious doubt on AGW.
V: It’s not so much the cooling as the lack of evidence anywhere of any warming trend during a period of roughly 40 years when CO2 emissions were steadily growing. How is it possible to maintain a cause and effect relation between these emissions and global temperatures when we see NO evidence of such over a four decade period?
LOL
Prime example of Victor ignoring the evidence presented to him, in his own cited paper.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05838-6/figures/2
CCH, Victor doesn’t understand the map.. You need to explain it in very simple language. because he’s a lay person. The map shows how aerosols spread a long way from their source and cause widespread cooling over quite large parts of the globe, the blue areas. Apart from that I admire your patience and knowledge.
nigelj . . . thanks for that.
I do enjoy discussing the science and debunking denialist memes; however, unfortunately, Victor has successfully sucked me down the rabbit hole as others have noted and I do need to stop.
I can only wish the moderators would just banish his tripe to the Bore Hole where it belongs.
CCHolley: Time and again Victor has presented his same old garbage that he believes constitutes evidence and then when it is clearly refuted,with actual evidence and science he ignores it.
V: I’ve seen this tiresome complaint over and over on this blog: “Victor stubbornly refuses to be instructed on the fallacies he so arrogantly presents despite the fact that the weakness of his arguments has been demonstrated over and over again.” Problem is — the “instructive” responses to my perfectly valid questions have in almost every case been either beside the point, ad hominem or easily refuted. I have refused to accept such “instruction” because there is really nothing instructive about it. In just about every case all it demonstrates is a refusal to acknowledge either very simple logic, clear evidence or arguments drawn from the scientific literature.
CC: Correlation anyone?
Yes, I’ve argued for the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, backing up my assertion with a thorough analysis, as presented on my blog ( http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html ). If you go to the trouble of reading what I wrote you’ll see that there is indeed no MEANINGFUL correlation. Why? Because the scattergrams presented by Grumbine and MARodger ignore the fact that their “correlation” is based exclusively on the events of a 20 year period, the only period where CO2 levels and temperatures happened to rise in tandem. Since their scattergrams conveniently omit any reference to dates, their results are seriously misleading. This should be a no-brainer, but not on this site. Not one person attempted to challenge my reasoning on its merits. Instead I was accused of “knowing nothing about statistics” and a number was offered that was supposed to prove me wrong, though for what reason I have no idea, since no reasonable explanation was forthcoming.
A more sensible scattergram, including the relevant dates, was presented by one Danley Wolfe some years ago: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg?resize=622%2C461
Wolfe’s diagram clearly sets the 20 year period in question apart from the data prior to and subsequent to that period, providing a much clearer picture of what really happened over a total of 56 years. According to Wolfe, “In fact the cross plot below covering over the period mentioned there were two hiatuses totaling 35 years out of the total 56 years (nearly two-thirds of the time), exhibiting no or very little correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature.” ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/12/a-look-at-carbon-dioxide-vs-global-temperature/ )
Naturally Wolfe was subject to a vicious personal attack on these threads, as though he knew nothing at all about statistics (he holds a Ph. D. from Ohio State in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering).
CC: Yes, skepticism is welcome in science as helpful in widening perspectives. But what Victor does is not true skepticism because true science skeptics are just as open to criticism of their ideas as any scientist. Victor most certainly is not. Not in the least. Victor ignores ALL the science and evidence behind AGW in its entirety, and that’s not a skeptic, that’s a science denier.
V: C’mon CC. You are the one in denial. To cite one example out of many: as documented above, you persist in claiming the existence of an underlying warming trend over a 40 year period despite my very clear demonstration that no such evidence exists. You persist in claiming that industrial aerosols have a significant cooling effect on regions thousands of miles away from significant industrial activity, in defiance of both common sense and scientific evidence.
Victor, perhaps your inexpert “demonstration” and “analysis” don’t show what you think they show?
I see the troll yet again takes my name in vain.
Victor, you cretin, you were saying up-thread that you were no troll, that you were the one posing questions of the science. And, after we stop laughing, we were demonstrating time and time & time & time & time again that you were wrong but you simply ignore the answers. Come October, we’d had this crap from you for seven long years.
On the subject of Wolfe’s seven-year-old thesis nailed to the bog-house door on Wattsupia, that has since been laboriously debunked and your returning it here today, Victor, shows a blazing level of stupidity and/or denial.
Concerning aerosol cooling 1940-70, up-thread you have dodged the evidence. You say “we see NO evidence” so let me here attempt to set another display of this evidence before you. All you need to do is open your eyes.
Your crappy blog-page denies that AGW was masked by aerosol pollution 1940-79. (The period 1940-70 is a better assessment.) You present a series of unsmoothed annual temperature data from various global locations and say that you see no warming.when there should be warming so far away from aerosol emissions.
No warming?
Well there was warming through this period in Oceania and in S America. There was moderate cooling in Africa and Asia while there was strong cooling in Europe and very strong cooling in N. America.
We can even use this BEST by-location temperature source to show northern hemisphere land cooled through this period while southern hemisphere land warmed.
So it is strange that you crappy blog-page runs a similar analysis and reached the opposite conclusion. Why is that? Why are you setting out opinion that flies in the face of all the evidence? It doesn’t sound like you are questioning the science, does it?
ROFLMAO
Hr Victor
You are having a hard time here, and most people would say that you are making a fool of yourself.
You were even adviced to the doctor, and your learning curve has been suggested to have a negative slope.
By looking a bit closer to your arguments, I see you are discussing the lack of co-relation between the known very regular keeling curve of CO2 and its really quite certain and just as monotone extrapolation backwards in time, compared to the official , quite noisy and blurred, longtime graphs of global and local, regional, atmospheric, mean temperatures.
At the moment and situation of your struggle and partisan war against science and their worshipful, blind believers,……… flat earthers….
I think I should first make you aware of your weakest point as I can see it. You never learnt how to state proof!
“Æidi pørcent proof!” does not rule reality and common civilized reality you see. However Western.
In the Wild West, they took a paper cartidge of gunpowder and soaked it in the given- conventional local brandy. Then set it on the counter. Tore off a phosphor stick and set fire to it . If it burnt, that was “Proof!” in that Wild West. It prooves that the whiskey or brandy or Rhum has got more than 57% EtOH.
But that “æidi pørcent proof!” gives only 45% schnapps. also sold as “dobbelkorn”. or standard strong Jamaika Rhum, alternatively Potatoe and 80% “dobbeltrensa”… , that was also marketed.
(Or do you relate to and try and sell the alternative pure, heavy and stong, glass- clear industrial “Vodka”- from the late USSR? That gives the same percentages. You get drunk and fall under the table and have to be carried out befrore youn can state any proof at all.)
But all this, however Western saloon orthodox and seriously convincing, is lacking elementary pharmacia, where the upper standart evtecticvm is 96% vol.
100% is called “absolute alcohol” not for sale to everyone.
Proofs different from what is defined by the Paris Convention and The Royal Society,….
(where you better resign on your arbitrary mother and her stupid tounge way out and down there in the provinces, and look up to Harward, that is easily comprehensible, and maybe the Berkeley university in California as an alternative)…..
…….hardly states proof or proove anything at all.
Fish spaddeling on the line however large, is no proof. Everyone can tell of that.
Fish properly slaughtered and on deck and hanging, , that is proof!
Because, do not announce and sell the Fur before the Bear is shot.
Because all those inferiour alternatives have not yet taken The Guinness book of Records for serious when claiming to state proofs in the saloons!
Being a socialist as you tell it, is also quite demanding.
It is even more tricky than being a christian or a moslem or a chimney- sweeper or an “engineer” or sceptic,…. Protestant, or anything.
Thus maybe look into the Guinness book of records first, that is some of the very best from Ireland..
Please admin, if you want to keep this site open to trolls (which might be a perfectly reasonable choice to avoid the charge of censorship), could you at least implement an ignore feature? Everyone should be given an opportunity to state their opinion, but that opportunity has already been abused ad nauseum, and I personally don’t need any more evidence of recalcitrant idiocy.
Agreed! An ignore feature or kill file would be a very useful addition to this site.
An ignore feature or kill file would be a very useful addition to this site.
I agree 10,000%
So much so I am offering to fund such a feature for 3 years.
nigelj: Oh thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. Something interesting and different to the idiotic ramblings of Victor.
V: Actually that should be “different from.” “Different to” is ungrammatical.
Victor, it’s a shame your mastery of good grammar isn’t matched by even the most basic understanding of science and maths.
This actually the most cogent comment Victor’s made as far back as I can remember.
It’s raining on the summit of Greenland for the first time on record. And it’s no light shower — it’s 7 billion tons of water. Jennifer Mercer with @NSF told me operations at the Summit Station would now need to change because of the significant rain event.
“We need to consider weather events that we have not had to deal with before in the history of our operations there.”
Temperatures at the Greenland summit over the weekend rose above freezing for the third time in less than a decade. The warm air fueled an extreme rain event that dumped 7 billion tons of water on the ice sheet, enough to fill the Reflecting Pool at the National Mall in Washington, DC, nearly 250,000 times.
It was the heaviest rainfall on the ice sheet since record keeping began in 1950, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and the amount of ice mass lost on Sunday was seven times higher than the daily average for this time of year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/19/weather/greenland-summit-rain-climate-change/index.html
I cannot say for Grønland, but warm rain falling on the glaciers in summer is what “eats” them really, as is known from several popular tourist glaciers in Norway. And what the glacier tourist guides really do not like.
The “Blue ice” is what indicates plus- degrees in summer.
On thawing of lake- ice, green algae growth in the water and ice- slurry is what indicates “rotten ice” and sudden collapse in sprintime.. There is also red microbic algae growth on the glaciers in summer and late summer. That is the typical Caroten , typical of alpine chlorophyll vegetation for their protection against UV.
Large rosy red areas of that sort have been seen now for several years on the Grønland- glacier.
It is positive biological feedback from that pioneering vegetations side to help them get away with that ice.
A very magnificant example of theese phaemnomenae is the Hardangerjøkull glacier found by Google-maps satelite photos in the summer, a glacier that is rapidly vanishing now.
That glacier is believed to have been totally gone in Max holocene and then come up again.
It is indications of the temperatures and climate now being even warmer than max holocene.
But don`t worry. Sahara was a green sawanna during that period, and central Asia is known to have dried up in the last 2000 years on negative milancevic transcient after max holocene. and caused the fameous mass- migration of people westwards to the greener Europe.
so this looks rather quite OK.
Exept for the severely high CO2- levels in the atmosphere now with no signs as far as I can se, for curving off again.
CCHolley: LOL
Prime example of Victor ignoring the evidence presented to him, in his own cited paper.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05838-6/figures/2
V: Sorry CC, but those maps, constructed around 2018 (the date of publication), don’t represent the conditions that prevailed during the period in question (1940-1979), which were clearly very different from what they are now, when industrial activity is far more intense and widely dispersed than during the mid-20th-century era.
In any case, as reported in the same paper: “These results demonstrate that geographic location substantially influences the cooling potential of a given aerosol emission.”
It is evident that Victor has never read Persad & Caldeira (2018) ‘Divergent global-scale temperature effects from identical aerosols emitted in different regions’ even though he has presented quotes from the paper’s Abstract.
Or perhaps he has read it but simply was unable to understand it.
Obligatory reference to “A Fish Called Wanda”:
Otto: “Apes do not read philosophy!”
Wanda: “Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it!”
LOL, sorry, but Victor either didn’t read his own cited paper or he conveniently failed to grasp the significance of its conclusions. The maps represent model runs of how emissions from different parts of the world effect cooling across the globe given equal emission levels…they have nothing to do with actual emissions levels for any specific point in time or location except that for the point of the exercise the amount for each scenario is—“equivalent to China’s total annual year 2000 anthropogenic emissions.”
These model runs simply represent hypotheticals for a direct comparison of the differing impacts of various emission areas to global climate using a global atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model.
Most of the industrial activity of the period 1940-1979 took place in the United States and Western Europe before scrubbing of SO2 was used. Emission levels for both regions grew rapidly during the period and by the end both regions were emitting close to what China’s emission levels were in 2000, so the cooling shown is fairly representative of that period and, of course, we need to combine the cooling shown for both regions. But regardless, that is really moot because the point of referencing the maps is simply that aerosols emitted by both the United States and Western Europe during the period in question would cool most of the earth’s surface as shown…the spacial relationships would be the same as shown on these maps regardless of emission levels or the time period. The maps show that emissions from the United States and Western Europe no matter when emitted cool most of the Earth’s surface. PERIOD. As such, Victor’s analysis clearly proves, or disproves, NOTHING.
Victor reads this as the aerosol’s effect is only regional rather than what it actually says–the region of the emission determines how widespread the effect is.
That is, it is referring to geographic locations such as India, East Africa, Indonesia, and Brazil with emerging industrialization whose cooling effect from emissions DO NOT cover nearly as much of the earth’s surface as the United States and Western Europe. They clearly have less cooling potential at a given level of aerosol emission per the maps. Per the paper, policy should be set accordingly.
“In other words, regions like Western Europe, Indonesia, and (to a slightly lesser extent) the United States strongly export the climate impacts of their emissions, while regions like India more strongly experience the cooling effects of their own emissions.”
“In the mid-20th century, North America and Western Europe were the primary anthropogenic aerosol source regions, whereas today South and East Asian sources dominate anthropogenic aerosol emissions.”
Victor only sees what he wants to see.
Anyway, I’m done.
CCHolley,
Just a minor correction to your comment.
You wrote:-
The SO2 emissions of the US (& Canada) & Europe (E & W) were both close to China’s 2000 SO2 emissions at the start’ of the period with their 1940 emissions being 23Mt(SO2) & 19Mt(SO2) respectively to China’s 2000 emissions of 22Mt(SO2). By 1970 the US & European SO2 emissions had skyrocketed to 38Mt(SO2) & 65Mt(SO2), this sudden rise providing the forcing that stalled AGW over the period.
CCHolley: The maps show that emissions from the United States and Western Europe no matter when emitted cool most of the Earth’s surface. PERIOD.
V: The question is not whether some cooling might result, but the degree to which the cooling effect is significant. Regardless of what these maps are intended to show, they are presented as hypotheticals, based on a model, rather than depictions of the actual extent and impact of the aerosols in question. The methodology of this paper is highly speculative, but the essential message is incontrovertible: “Aerosols’ heterogeneous spatial distribution is recognized to influence their overall climate impact relative to more homogeneous climate forcers, like carbon dioxide.”
Industrial aerosols are known to 1. be highly localized and 2. dissipate strongly after only a few days. It stands to reason therefore that aerosols produced in some industrial center can have only a very limited cooling effect on far distant regions. I don’t care what sort of modeling was done by the authors of this paper in formulating their hypotheses, simple logic tells us that an underlying worldwide warming trend is not going to be masked everywhere by aerosols generated by industrial activity stemming from a single highly localized region. While some cooling effects might be possible, they will be far weaker than those affecting the region of origin — certainly too weak to everywhere mask a worldwide rise in temperatures due to rising CO2 levels.
ROFLMAO. And there you have it folks, Victor doesn’t care what the science says, his logic supersedes all scientific effort and evidence!!!
CCHolley,
Is it acceptable to make fun of the afflicted? In Victor Grauer’s case, it probably is.
I see the troll tells us “the essential message [of Persad & Caldeira 2018] is incontrovertible” but fails to state what this ” essential message” actually is. Instead for some reason he presents some quote from the paper’s introduction, hardily where you would expect to find such a message.. (The ” essential message” is that the global mean cooling effect of short-lived aerosol emissions and their global spread are greatly dependent on the location of the emissions. Their modelling shows global impacts can vary by 14-to-1.)
Strangely the troll gives primacy to the “highly localised” nature of short-lived anthropogenic aerosol emissions, rather forgetting the highly localised nature of long-lived anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
And the troll is entirely correct in that he doesn’t “care what sort of modeling was done by the authors of this paper.” which is the entire purpose of the paper. This is because the paper contradicts his own fantastical interpretation of AGW.
This trollish fantasy is based on a truth – aerosol climate forcing has been “certainly too weak to everywhere mask a worldwide rise in temperatures due to rising CO2 levels.”Yet the troll deniest his situation occurred through the period 1940-70 (although the troll insists the period for consideration should be 1940-79).
Yet the regional warming during the 1940-70 global cooling is easily demonstrable using mapping generated at the GISTEMP website or regional graphics at the BEST website. Such evidence has been presented up-thread to prevent the troll from making a bigger fool of himself. Unfortunately our troll Victor Grauer has some physical affliction that prevents him from suffering the shock of reality and forcing him to continue living in his silly fantasy world.
No Victor. Its entirely feasible that widely dispersed aerosols could mask a global warming trend. It depends on the strength of the warming trend and affect of aerosols. Remember the warming trend mid last century was significantly weaker than presently, because CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were approximately 100 ppm lower than this presently. And aerosols can have a significant affect, even in low concentrations. It is therefore easy enough to see that aerosols could mask this warming trend.
The ONLY way of knowing for certain is to do the physics and maths, and you haven’t done this. Your attempts to rebut the theory by saying “its stands to reason” are just empty rhetoric. Scientists have looked at it in depth and concluded the global cooling period mid last century is explained by aerosols and other factors.
MARodger: I see the troll yet again takes my name in vain. etc.
V: My response to this post by MAR seems to have gotten lost, so I’ll give it another try.
MAR: On the subject of Wolfe’s seven-year-old thesis nailed to the bog-house door on Wattsupia, that has since been laboriously debunked and your returning it here today, Victor, shows a blazing level of stupidity and/or denial.
V: If you think it’s been debunked then please remind me, as I don’t recall any such thing. What I recall is that it was simply dismissed, largely because Wolfe published at the much reviled WUWT site.
MAR: No warming? Well there was warming through this period in Oceania and in S America. There was moderate cooling in Africa and Asia while there was strong cooling in Europe and very strong cooling in N. America.
We can even use this BEST by-location temperature source to show northern hemisphere land cooled through this period while southern hemisphere land warmed.
So it is strange that you crappy blog-page runs a similar analysis and reached the opposite conclusion. Why is that? Why are you setting out opinion that flies in the face of all the evidence? It doesn’t sound like you are questioning the science, does it?
V: Real evidence is always welcome, so thank you for that. And yes, there does seem to have been some warming in both Oceania and S. America during the period in question. Is that evidence for a warming trend supposedly masked by industrial aerosols in the north? Well, for one thing, I don’t see much of a trend in any of these graphs. In all three cases there’s a downturn followed by an upturn, not exactly a trend. More important, however, is the fact that we see NO evidence of any significant warming just about anywhere else during the entire 40 year period. None in the long list of remote locations I included in my blog post, none, as you report, in either Africa or Asia. If there were indeed a CO2 induced planetary warming during this period, why wouldn’t it have affected all these many, widespread regions? Unlike aerosols, the effects of CO2 quickly cover the entire globe. So no, the temperature rises you’ve found are most likely due to natural variation. A worldwide rise due to rising CO2 levels would be seen just about everywhere, not only in certain selected areas.
Victor the Troll,
The debunking of Wollfe’s seven-year-old nonsense? You don’t recall such a thing? Don’t you recall this interchange over at SKS? It too began by you trolling the pathetically-bogus nonsense of Darnley Wolfe into a comments’ thread.
(The graphic linked at that SKS comment isn’t linked any more thanks to Google Sites updating itself but is possibly still visible post-the-updating here)
As for the rest of it, Victor, you write a lot of crap, don’t you. There is warming that you admit exists but apparently no trend as it is all too wobbly for you. “There’s a downturn followed by an upturn, not exactly a trend.” Mind, it is not so wobbly that an OLS through the data provides a linear trend for the warming which you admit exists.
As for the “more important” comment that “we see NO evidence of any significant warming just about anywhere else” ; this is all very vague but I assume the basis for your assertion is that you couldn’t be arsed to bother looking. Well lookie here – warming 1940-70 in Kyrgyzstan that Victor the Troll managed not to see. Ditto Haiti. Indeed there is warming 1940-70 across many places of the planet but Victor can’t see it.
Thinks. Do GISTEMP do braille versions of that graphic?
Dude, giving you a chart to interpret is like giving Stevie Wonder a comic book.
CCHolley: ROFLMAO. And there you have it folks, Victor doesn’t care what the science says, his logic supersedes all scientific effort and evidence!!!
V: Ok CC, here’s the deal. If you are willing to include the following notice in your next comment, I will be happy to back off and leave you in peace:
“I, CCHolley, being of sound mind and body, readily declare my belief that industrial aerosols produced in certain locations of the USA or Europe have cooling effects in non-industrial regions such as the Arctic, Antarctica, Siberia, Madagascar, Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Kyrgistan, or New Caledonia, comparable to cooling effects in their locations of origin.”
(The list is drawn from the list presented in my blog post, demonstrating no sign of any warming trend from 1940 through 1979. in any of them) If that’s what you truly believe, you should have no problem with that statement.
Genosse Victor
I once saw a map of radioactive downfall after atomic tests in the atmosphere, and first wondered if it was soviet, anti western propaganda, because the soviet test- fields were mapped as rather “clean”.
Until I realized that it rather showed a plausible map of the precipitation in the world., where it hardly rains very much in Kasakhstan and Novaya Zemlya. and the Xinkiang province of China..
We also have that Cernobyl- event and maps of where that did spread.
To be kept in mind if you are to discuss “industrial aerosols”.
That has also soon become a rather global prfoblem, wherefore a minimum of meteorological knowledge and reason also comes to it, not just anybodys ideas of “logic” that reminds me all too much of missionary dialectic materialism and “scientific socialism”. , centrally stimulated fanaticm really, that calls itself Scepticism and Reaslismj and even “balanced”..
Then try also and grasp that “aerosols” is no uniform substansial matter. Neither a trademark uniform patent product. You may initially try and sort it into hygroscopic aerosols, Neutral, and hydrophobe aerosols. Theese will behave rather differently in the atmosphere.
And learn to see known marks of it even in the higher stratosphere. Thus have minimum of critical control to your thoughts from knowledge and elements of studies that can better be guaranteed free from popular ideological pollutions from recent, eager climate disputes..
Hr Victor
It may allways take me some time, but now I have thought it a bit over and checked up,
And if CCHolley does not dare to, then I am now willing to declare my belief that industrial and antropogene aerosols produced in certain locations (densely populated and industrialized areas) may indeed have wider regional and even global effects of cooling in non- industrial regions, due to known distribution by wind and weather, and due to the more or less known nature of different aerosols that may have theese effects..
The effect is commented on by Rajendra Pachauri , who spoke of possible permission for “Heavy bunkers oil” with well known high content of Sulphur, for the high sea ship traffic. And further known and discussed for possible climate geo- engineering, High sulphur jet fuel for the international and intercontinental jetliner traffic. An ugly idea that will give white, rather than blue sky.
By not having to fight hockeysticks and not having to argue against the Tyndall Arrhenius, Revelle Hansen Brundtland AlGore- effect, I become referred to other known effects and principles in 0rder to understand and to explain the climate and interprete the longtime regional and global temperature curves, so that also I can look down into the Experts chards from a more general position above them.
It seems to be given by a combination of the Revelle Hansen- effect d/o in combination with the 11 year sunspot cycle + Enso plus Wirtschaftswunder 1 that caused the fameous discussion of acid rain in the early seventies and was solved by Shrubbing and demand for more clean fuel. And Wirtschaftswunder 2, when the Chineese and the Indians began heating up with coal. Not yet quite shrubbed.
The fall of the soviet union with the further Jelzin- period gave a characteristic bump in the keeling curve, and the Pinatubo vulcanism a very clear dip in the temperature- graphs, all sustaining the CO2 and the SO2- hypothesis. of the IPCC.
And alltogether on a negative Milancevic transition line at the bottom.
Those seems to be the necessary effects for my personal understandings and explainations.
And I must give a further advice to it:
It is not indifferent from which Chateau and from which tank that you order your wine. Not from Chateau Heartland in Michigan and not from Thinktank there.
I do not even buy anything from dot com.
:/I repeat..!/:
I can recommend other sources for you indeed..
Okay, I will respond only because the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on global climate is interesting and mostly misunderstood—not that I’m an expert by any means.
So what Victor finds incredulous, is that since aerosols have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere how could they possibly have much of an effect beyond the region where they are emitted? How could they have comparable cooling in remote areas to their locations of origins?
Because it is far more complicated—the effect of aerosols go far beyond their direct radiative effects. (which BTW can be thousands of kilometers)
Aerosols have a huge effect on clouds. They promote their formation increasing cloud coverage, make clouds more reflective increasing the amount of sunlight reflected by them, and quite possibly, increase cloud lifetimes. These effects all increase cooling and extend the regional effect of the aerosols.
Furthermore, the reflection of sunlight by both the aerosols and enhanced clouds not only directly effect surface temperatures below them, they have an effect on the vertical temperature gradients—and temperature gradients are what drives atmospheric circulation. And, atmospheric circulation redistributes heat. Therefore, aerosols can and do effect temperatures well beyond their areas of coverage through changes in circulation patterns.
This is why general circulation models must be used to show how aerosols effect global temperatures.
So here we have another study of anthropogenic aerosols that gives similar results to the one cited earlier. However, the purpose of this study was to examine how the removal of aerosol emittance as we move away from fossil fuels would unfortunately add to the greenhouse warming. So note it speaks in terms of warming rather than cooling.
From the study: ”Surface warming is largest and most robust across models in response to SO2 emissions reductions, particularly SO2 from Europe and the US. Using a sign and significance approach to assessing robustness, we estimate that about 81 % of the global surface area has a robust surface temperature response to European SO2 reduction.
Reference: Local and remote mean and extreme temperature response to regional aerosol emissions reductions
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/3009/2020/
So can’t really say I’m of sound mind and body, but yes, although there is much uncertainty as to exactly how much, I surmise that it is reasonable to believe that based on the evidence anthropogenic SO2 emissions from certain locations in the United States and Western Europe combined could have significant cooling effects in non-industrial regions such as the Arctic, Antarctica, Siberia, Madagascar, Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, or New Caledonia, comparable to cooling effects in their locations of origin.
Peace? I doubt that’s possible. ;-)
C’est la vie.
New attribution study results on the recent European rain and floods
“These floods have shown us that even developed countries are not safe from the severe impacts of extreme weather that we have seen and that are known to get worse with climate change,” said Friederike Otto at Oxford University. “This is an urgent global challenge and we need to step up to it. The science is clear and has been for years.”
Heavy rainfall which led to severe flooding in Western Europe made more likely by climate change
23 August, 2021
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/heavy-rainfall-which-led-to-severe-flooding-in-western-europe-made-more-likely-by-climate-change/
Looks like they made some errors in their study. Those floods have been going on in Europe since at least 1342. That’s about as far back as you could expect any kind of surviving written record – but they no doubt have occurred for thousands of years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Europe
Record flood heights have been getting lower and lower since 1342 per marks made on the brick wall in this photo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood#/media/File:M%C3%BCnden_Hochwasserst%C3%A4nde_Packhof.jpg
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood
Review Article
Published: 17 August 2021
Changing El Niño–Southern Oscillation in a warming climate
ENSO SST variability and extreme ENSO events are projected to increase under greenhouse warming, with a stronger inter-model consensus in CMIP6 compared with CMIP5. However, the time of emergence for ENSO SST variability is later than that for ENSO rainfall variability, opposite to that for mean SST versus mean rainfall.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00199-z#Sec28
The Nature Reviews paper said the latest models indicate the frequency of El Niño events with extreme rainfall impacts to double from about one event per 20 years from 1890–1990 to one every decade during 1990–2090 even assuming global mean temperature rises stabilise at 1.5-2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
Reality Check,
You link to Cai et at (2021) ‘Changing El Niño–Southern Oscillation in a warming climate’ which suggests an increase in ENSO intensity under AGW.
And now we also have Wengel et at (2021) ‘Future high-resolution El Niño/Southern Oscillation dynamics’ [Abstract] which has a write-up at CarbonBrief and at Science Daily and which used a highly detailed model and found that under double “current CO2” ENSO is “suppressed” and under quadruple CO2 ENSO undergoes “robust weakening”.
Mind, beyond the useful learning of which factors make ENSO tick as it does, it is the talk of “current CO2” being doubled or quadrupled that makes me wonder what that “current CO2” level is that is being modelled at single, double and quadruple levels. Are we talking 400ppm, 800ppm & 1,600ppm? Even from a pre-industrial base of 275ppm, a doubling/quadrupling to 550ppm/1,100ppm are hopefully neither of them realistic future CO2 levels. So talk of ENSO being “suppressed” or its “robust weakening” would also be an unrealistic future.
Hr Victor
It may allways take me some time, but now I have thought it a bit over and checked up,
And if CCHolley does not dare to, then I am now willing to declare my belief that industrial and antropogene aerosols produced in certain locations (densely populated and industrialized areas) may indeed have wider regional and even global effects of cooling in non- industrial regions, due to known distribution by wind and weather, and due to the more or less known nature of different aerosols that may have theese effects..
The effect is commented on by Rajendra Pachauri , who spoke of possible permission for “Heavy bunkers oil” with well known high content of Sulphur, for the high sea ship traffic. And further known and discussed for possible climate geo- engineering, High sulphur jet fuel for the international and intercontinental jetliner traffic. An ugly idea that will give white, rather than blue sky.
By not having to fight hockeysticks and not having to argue against the Tyndall Arrhenius, Revelle Hansen Brundtland AlGore- effect, I become referred to other known effects and principles in 0rder to understand and to explain the climate and interprete the longtime regional and global temperature curves, so that also I can look down into the Experts chards from a more general position above them.
It seems to be given by a combination of the Revelle Hansen- effect d/o in combination with the 11 year sunspot cycle + Enso plus Wirtschaftswunder 1 that caused the fameous discussion of acid rain in the early seventies and was solved by Shrubbing and demand for more clean fuel. And Wirtschaftswunder 2, when the Chineese and the Indians began heating up with coal. Not yet quite shrubbed.
The fall of the soviet union with the further Jelzin- period gave a characteristic bump in the keeling curve, and the Pinatubo vulcanism a very clear dip in the temperature- graphs, all sustaining the CO2 and the SO2- hypothesis. of the IPCC.
And alltogether on a negative Milancevic transition line at the bottom.
Those seems to be the necessary effects for my personal understandings and explainations.
And I must give a further advice to it:
It is not indifferent from which Chateau and from which tank that you order your wine. Not from Chateau Heartland in Michigan and not from Thinktank there.
I do not even buy anything from dot com.
:/I repeat..!/:
I can recommend other sources for you indeed..
Victor: “Well, for one thing, I don’t see much of a trend in any of these graphs.”
No, I don’t expect you would. Doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Heavy rainfall which led to severe flooding in Western Europe made more likely by climate change
To all ye amateur weather prophets….
Jim Galasyns contribution and reference is important. Rather get aquainted to that jet- stream as soon as possible, it is a basic element for amateur weather prophecies from early on, and called Jørungandr in the Saga.
At the same time a bit further north, we have had no extreeme summer weather at all, only a few weak thunderstorms, and no really heavy rain. Rather very stable and steady changing and pleasant.
Not very hot really, but what seems to have changed a bit is the chill periods inbetween. no “nasty” summer weather at all.
Because the Met.Inst.No tells of record summer warmth in terms of number of days with above 20 celsius. That record of 77days will be beaten tomorrow 25 aug.
And I tend to see it in the garden. Record number of red tomatoes allready in the sunny wall. Tomatoes are extreemly termophile.
And edible (getting sweet) Vitis vinifera allready. Earlier record was 1 sept and normal, 21 sept.
The early ripening of apples also indicate the same.
Thus I recommend a conscept from the Botanical laboratory, known from the agricultural highschool.
Def: The heat- sum = the integral of temperature during time…. above a certain minimum that must be specified for each crop or each species.
Tomatoes hardly mooves at all below 12 celsius and do not become red below 17 celsius..
Thus you can judge your own “heat sum” by looking to nature and looking in the garden.
They need to look at the event in Waverly, TN, too. 22 reported dead, dozens still to be accounted for. 15-17 inches of rain in a few hours.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/2021/08/22/waverly-floods-middle-tennessee-death-toll/8235223002/
Ask them how climate change impacted the heavy rains that occurred in 1342 and which killed 6,000 people.
After they fail with the answer to that one, ask them how climate change impacted the heavy rains in 1738, 1777, 1789, 1821, 1824, 1829, 1852, 1859, 1865, 1878, 1910, 1934, 1944, 1947, etc, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Europe
Strawman–the question is, are these sorts of events becoming more frequent and/or extreme?
(AR6 “Physical Basis”, Ch. 8, p. 32.)
Link to underlying paper:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2bb2
So, yeah, there’s evidence that that is the case–we are indeed seeing an increase in rainfall events of greater that 50mm (2 inches).
Cherry-picking. Learn what a trend is. Also a mean and a standard deviation. BTW, casualty reports from 1342 aren’t likely to have very reliable numbers.
MAR: Well lookie here – warming 1940-70 in Kyrgyzstan that Victor the Troll managed not to see. Ditto Haiti. Indeed there is warming 1940-70 across many places of the planet but Victor can’t see it.
V: Interesting. Here’s the graph I consulted for Kyrgyzstan: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1EYr6Dj-etk/YEUNlPriB3I/AAAAAAAABiE/Lh5PHdj4v6E3y052My2kpXDNo5EqyYlkQCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png I can’t see any trend there during the period in question, just a lot of what you’d call “wobbles.”
Here’s the data I found for Haiti: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-K1qo_EH-aIQ/YEUNLf-jPlI/AAAAAAAABh8/rcCdyvuyWFUFQn1xClWvOVSOsrzZUueLQCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png I see a distinct downward trend in that one.
As for your third example, the link appears to be dead.
I guess all we’ve been able to determine is that different data sources give different results. I must admit that surprises me. Were you able to come up with any other places on my list that show an upward trend?
Victor the Troll,
I don’t think it is really about the data from different sources giving different results. It is in-the-main very similar data. The difference is due to your refusal to analyse the data properly.
And if you are incapable of breathing life into this link to GISTEMP that you pronounce as being “dead”, try going to GISTEMP’s global map page and create the image for yourself, a global map showing annual data (the Mean Period) for the years 1965-70 (the Time Interval) relative to the years 1935-40 (the Base Period) and then, the really difficult bit, you have to press Make Map. Simples!!!
This should show you a selection of “other places … that show an upward trend” in that the locations are shown that have warmed through the period 1940-70 are coloured yellow and orange, a period that you insist had nowhere with such warming.
And concerning being “able to come up with … other places,” there was one particular spot that I have attempted to suggest to you was highly relevant here and have even offered you the link to it up-thread. You may not have heard of this location as it is quite remote, but as I say, it is in my opinion a location of high relevance. Here again is the link to the BEST temperature analysis of that place.
The Arctic Sea Ice Extent is looking on its way for 2021 to become the iciest summer minimum for potentially the last decade or more. The JAXA SIE has been since mid-July showing less melt than usual with 2021 SIE sliding down the rankings of ‘Least Icy for Time-of-Year’ from a strong 2nd position back in July to 10th spot today.
That puts 2021 today as the iciest since 2014 and if the dramatic slide down the rankings continues at the same pace (see SIE anomalies Graph 1 here), 2021 would end up in 15th spot behind 2009 and become the iciest yearly minimum SIE since 2006.
JAXA Arctic SIE as of 24th August … … … … … … … … … … & JAXA Min daily SIE for each year with rankings.
1st ….. … … 2012 … … … 3.8M sq km … … … 3.2M sq km … … … 1st
2nd ….. … … 2020 … … … 4.2M sq km … … … 3.6M sq km … … … 2nd
3rd ….. … … 2019 … … … 4.4M sq km … … … 4.0M sq km … … … 3rd
4th ….. … … 2007 … … … 4.7M sq km … … … 4.1M sq km … … … 5th
5th ….. … … 2016 … … … 4.7M sq km … … … 4.0M sq km … … … 4th
6th ….. … … 2011 … … … 4.8M sq km … … … 4.3M sq km … … … 7th
7th ….. … … 2017 … … … 4.9M sq km … … … 4.5M sq km … … … 9th
8th ….. … … 2018 … … … 4.9M sq km … … … 4.5M sq km … … … 8th
9th ….. … … 2015 … … … 4.9M sq km … … … 4.3M sq km … … … 6th
10th… … … 2021 … … … 5.2M sq km
11th … … … 2008 … … … 5.2M sq km … … … 4.5M sq km … … … 10th
12th … … … 2014 … … … 5.3M sq km … … … 4.9M sq km … … … 13th
13th … … … 2010 … … … 5.3M sq km … … … 4.6M sq km … … … 11th
14th … … … 2013 … … … 5.4M sq km … … … 4.8M sq km … … … 12th
15th … … … 2009 … … … 5.5M sq km … … … 5.1M sq km … … … 14th
The NSIDC posted in their Arctic Sea Ice News on this situation August 18 (the site presently suffering “technical difficulties” so from memory…) and pointed to the large extent of low-concentration ice on the Pacific side of the Arctic as well as a record low in multi-year ice.
But their graphed-out projected minimums of the stalled melt season were already significant;y underestimating that stall. As the table above shows, bar 2015’s 3-place climb in a close race, the position in the annual minimum ranking has been set +/-2 places by this time (24 Aug) in the melt season. If the 2021 stall continues, 2021 dropping 5 places would be quite abnormal.
A new peer-reviewed State of the Climate report confirmed that 2020 was among the three warmest years in records dating to the mid-1800s, even with a cooling La Niña influence in the second half of the year.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/reporting-state-climate-2020?fbclid=IwAR1UF4VugrlJdZgPpGGvyXdvn3A0qQzJpcbjV9-34dGx4EKM85BU_lswbWg
Thanks, Dan!
MARodger: The debunking of Wollfe’s seven-year-old nonsense? You don’t recall such a thing? Don’t you recall this interchange over at SKS? It too began by you trolling the pathetically-bogus nonsense of Darnley Wolfe into a comments’ thread.
(The graphic linked at that SKS comment isn’t linked any more thanks to Google Sites updating itself but is possibly still visible post-the-updating here) [It isn’t — sorry VG]
V: Oh my. I’d forgotten about that long, drawn-out, debate, conducted at the Skeptical Science site, where it spilled out over two different threads and produced an avalanche of verbiage from both sides. Please spare me. I refuse to let myself get caught up again in that incredibly dense and convoluted “discussion.”
I still refuse to see any of this laborious argumentation as a debunking of Wolfe’s scattergram. And I stand by my response to the many objections posed on that site by one Tom Curtis:
“So, Tom, what you are saying is that the congruence I see between these two graphs [the scattergram offered by Curtis compared with that of Wolfe] is a meaningless optical illusion?
One other thing. Your correlation of 0.857 covers your entire scattergram, which was not the point. The claim is that three different scattergrams are represented, the first showing little to no correlation, the middle showing significant correlation and the last also showing no significant correlation. That’s what I see in both Wolfe’s graph and yours. And if there’s a problem assigning a statistically derived value to each of these because they’re too short, then as I see that’s a problem with the statistical methodology, not with our ability to evaluate the data per se.”
Bottom line: As I’ve pointed out so many times on this blog:
Significant warming from 1910 – 1940, during a period when CO2 emissions rose only slightly.* NO correlation.
Followed by a long period (1940-1979) when global temperatures either declined or remained steady while CO2 levels began to soar. NO correlation.
And then, yes, a relatively brief period (1979 to 1998) when CO2 levels and global temperatures rose more or less in tandem. Correlation.
Followed by the period (1998-2015) known as “the pause,” when global temperatures rose only slightly while CO2 levels continued to soar. NO correlation.#
(While it’s true that temperatures have once again risen significantly in the last few years, that’s far too short a period to count as anything other than “noise,” at least for now.)
So: no correlation between 1910 and 1979 (70 years). Correlation between 1979 and 1998 (20 years). No correlation between 1998 and 2015 (17 years). Add it up and we see 87 years of no correlation vs. 20 years of correlation. And I’m sorry, but no matter how you decide to present it or what sort of statistics you come up with, I find it impossible to add all this up and claim a long-term correlation of any kind over this entire period.
Since Wolfe’s scattergram presents a very clear and consistent representation of the analysis presented above, I see no reason to reject it, despite all the many “scientific” objections offered by you and others on that site.
*”The scientists who brushed aside Callendar’s claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming.
#”It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.” “Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown,” Fyffe et al — including Michael Mann, Benjamin Santer, Ed Hawkins. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938
“I still refuse to see…”
Could’ve stopped right there.
Genosse…
If you read your own reference better “Making sense of the early 2000s warming slowdown” and dare to conscider also what I told you of “CO2 & SO2..”, then your very argument construction collapses..
You will even find two obvious marks of SO2, Chichon and Pinjatubo, early 80ies and earlyn 90ies respectively.. Because SO2 + O3 + H2O-> H2SO4 +O2
Rumors from denialist side of vanishing clouds in that period, that rather shall have caused the rapid global warming of those days, may simply relate to the coming effect of that shrubbing, together with the investments in low- sulphur fuels..
This, I believe , is also the “mainstream” IPCC- theory, else they would hardly have extra mentioned “sulphate”.
The rest is easily explained by Wirtschaftswunder 1 and Wirtschaftswunder 2, and the rapid rise from 1980 to 2000 by investmjent in shrubbing and clean fuel, following the political campagn against photochemical smog and demand for clean air. Not yet taken all serious by the chineese and the indians.
The Tyndall- Arrhenius- Revelle- Hansen- Brundtland- Gore -Thunberg- effect or situation thus looks sustained by solid theory and empiricism and thus quite real., and thus hardly worth denial.
So the troll refuses to be convinced by anything which contradicts his own deluded position but would rather waste everybody’s time by making play of defending the indefensible.
But you “still refuse to see.”
Wolfe presents fakery and lies. You happily spread that fakery and lies by trolling it in here. What does that make you?
Doesn’t want to get caught up, but then Victor proceeds to post the same old nonsense.
V: Bottom line: As I’ve pointed out so many times on this blog:
J: Yes, your horse (or parrot, if you prefer) is still dead. We already covered this ground a few weeks ago over in AR6. There, you said
V: Regardless of how any of us might want to think about the evidence from this period, there is a deeper issue to be considered that is rarely discussed. After all, what we are really looking for is not primarily a “trend” or even a “correlation,” but evidence for a cause and effect relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
J: So, why are you still flogging your “lack of meaningful correlation” over here?
V: (While it’s true that temperatures have once again risen significantly in the last few years, that’s far too short a period to count as anything other than “noise,” at least for now.)
J: We’re in agreement that there is “noise” in the surface temperature time series.
V: So: no correlation between 1910 and 1979 (70 years). Correlation between 1979 and 1998 (20 years). No correlation between 1998 and 2015 (17 years). Add it up and we see 87 years of no correlation vs. 20 years of correlation. And I’m sorry, but no matter how you decide to present it or what sort of statistics you come up with, I find it impossible to add all this up and claim a long-term correlation of any kind over this entire period.
J: Your horse is still dead. Your technique is invalid. You can take any time series with noise, and subdivide it into smaller periods of your choosing such that the majority of those periods will not show the same correlation as the whole, even in the presence of a strong overall trend. It’s your apparent lack of correlation that is meaningless, because you can subject ANY time series with noise to the same subdividing treatment, and obfuscate a meaningful long-term correlation thereby.
For a simpler analogy with the same underlying logic, I’ll take the equation 1 + 2 = 3. You might as well say that this is meaningless, because neither the “1” nor the “2” is a “3” , nor are “+” or “=”. In fact, there are also 4 blank spaces in that equation that aren’t “3”. The only “3” is at the end. Have I disproven simple arithmetic? No, it’s my technique that is meaningless. I can use it to decompose any equation to gibberish, but all that I’m doing is obfuscating a relationship that is true when seen in its entirety.
Finally, getting back to the last few years, the fact that temperatures have risen once again is highly significant. You need an explanation for why they haven’t returned to 1880 levels if there isn’t a greenhouse effect keeping them up. What is it? Scientists have a physical explanation, as well as statistics. You don’t.
I think one of the key concepts V is lacking is the notion of statistical power.
Count the comments to and from Victor (and KIA). Is it 8 years they have been here now? This place would be a cemetery without them and a few others. The rest is still obvious. Or rather is to some. Others are clueless.
Who here also visits the ASIF and noticed the massive improvement in discussions there, the improved focus, cooperation, and decorum plus the absence of Trolling/Irritability among the Group once the Founder replaced himself as Moderator and several ( well equipped high quality more professional and consistent unbiased fair and rules based ) volunteers took up the role instead? You know who you are.
I do! They are still a bit too pedantic over there with everything too separated.
Ironically, given my supposed reputation here, I’m an excellent moderator precisely because I am INTP, have a severe hatred of lying and propaganda, and have both teaching and counseling experience. I like to phrase it as being a hat-wearer: My communicative style can shift dramatically depending on the context. I mean, I’ve been a TEACHER for 20 years, yet people think I have no self-control.
LOL.
Put me in charge of RC and every post and response to Victor and KIA would be in the Bore Hole. As would all the rudeness. I’d edit up to three times, then just start shit-canning any rudeness while literally moderating between what I see as misunderstandings.
This place would be heaven.
“This place would be heaven”
Thanks God, you are not there at the time. Neither in Heaven nor in charge of the Real Climate.
Reality Check,
” Is it 8 years they have been here now?”
No, it isn’t.
The troll Victor Grauer has been posting his nonsense here for 7 years come October. Mr Know Shit All has been posting for just 4 years. Of course, they were not the first of their kind to persistently clutter the comment threads of RealClimate with denialist nonsense.
As for moderation, the BoreHole, runs back to 2011 but it has become less employed through the years. It was averaging over four new additions a day when first set up but that has declined through the years, still averaging one-a-day through 2013 but now down to averaging one-a-week. And of the eleven bore-holed (& crank-shafted) commenters this year, there was just the one persistent one who was responsible for 70% of the fifty-five 2021-so-far additions. On occasions in the past both Victor & Know Shit All have in the past found their ‘contributions’ being ‘-shafted’ or ‘-holed’ but evidently not at the moment.
ASIF? Arctic sea ice forum?
Thanks
Mike
Yes, see – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/forced-responses-july-2021/comment-page-11/#comment-795310
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” – Elie Wiesel
It is a shame so few can work out or care who is the victim and who is the hostile tormentor. While timid non-hostile people seem to opt out of online debates.
If only everyone in the world read and understood this: “Why trying to prove yourself wrong is the key to being right….The difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable beliefs….”
https://thinkingispower.com/why-trying-to-prove-yourself-wrong-is-the-key-to-being-right/
Nigelj
The Popper doctrines are rather new to me, and I managed to learn a lot and do a lot in a rather sceptical way without trace of knowledge of Karl Popper.,
How can it be?
I come to thinki that we were told so many easily falsifiable beliefs, and were overwhelmintgly falsified and tried falsified so many times……
….. that something must have stood and seem to have remained after all,
and what is that?
My suggestion:
“Dei gamle fjell i syningom er alltid eins aa sjaa…”
Meaning that
the old rocks and mouthains in the wide horizons allways remain and look the same!
But , why is that so?
Yes, I can tell people after all, That is because they are resistant to acid rain, being silicates and aluminates.
But, if you look closer and comprehend maybe a quite much longer axis of time…..
………Then you will also see that it has not allways been so. And inn order to expain that,also, you must discuss geophysics and geochemistery in terms of 10^6 and 10^9 years. Consequently, , it boils down to Chosmology and orthodox chemistery!
Karl Popper, however popular, is hardly discussed and hardly needed on those levels.
Isn’t that what science is? Falsifiability? A shortcut: First Principles. If it violates FP’s, it’s likely not a good idea. Ipso facto, learn Permaculture Principles and live better on the planet.
It really is simple – not to be confused, necessarily, with easy.
Hr. Oberlehrer K:
Remember that story of an Indian GURU who sent 5 of his students into0 a com0pletely dark room where there wasw an elephant. And told them to explore scientifically and very carefully what was in that room.
They came out and could tell what they had found.
Scientist 1 had found the trunk
Scientist 2 had discovered the tusks
Scientist 3 had discovered and could describe the legs
Scientist 4 had discovered the belly and
Scientist 5 had found even the tail.
None of them even had an idea of what an elephant is.
Now, let us postulate that the very purpose of science and that examination was to find out what reaqlly was in that room, namely a whole elephant.
Does that take falsification? Could Karl Poppers philosophy have helped them? They all examined very critically and told the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth, of what they had found.
Were their individual findings contradicting in any kind of way?
No, hardly. They just lached the very idea and the personal expewrience and traning maybe, of how to put it all together..
Wat they obviously lacked further was the very idea of Elephant. That would have solved it and put it all together, which was also the very purpose of that investigation.
OK, so what ought we to be aware of and sceptical about in order to deliver true and proper science and state possible proof also about it?
For that, it also takes the higher and abstract idea of possible substansial form. To which we also set certain general and critical criteriæ.
I can mention several very fameous examples of this from science history and even from my own praxis. What is it after all on substansial level,
Such as what is that very thing provided that it is anything at all?
Take the copernican system or the milky way, or the Andromeda nebula, take the very universe, the Electron, the Atom, The Molecule….
And my special examples, the resonant radio transmitter and receiver, and the renaissance and baroque musical wind instruments. The professional books and lectures were severely wrong about the latter.
It mostly takes AD ÆQVAT PARA-METERS before you start measuring and mapping anything at all, and it takes Phaenomenologically congruent EXPERIMENTAL ARCHETYPS, like for the case of the elephant in the darkroom.
By having that in order, we can soon get to Climate also. “What is it really? What is it about? How should we rather approach it?”
“Professor Bohr, do you believe in the existance of the Electron?”
“….Hmmmm…. no!.. I do not believe that it exists in the same way as things that we see around us here in the room, doors, windowsw tables and chairs, blackboard chalk, the pointer…
…but the devices on the laboratory desks by which we can assume its existance… they do exist!”
So you see, it quite often takes the superior, abstract and holistric substancial idea, that is not yet PENSVM in peoples political catechisms and scolarly books,
like planetary system, galaxy, elementary particle with charge mass and spin,..showing a whole series of electromagnetic properties on experimental level,… to get onward and forward and onto higher recognition in science.
And hardly professionally provincial “first principles” meant only for one purpose and dicipline, hardly REALIA, hardly practical universal, timeless wisdom that can be relied on…
PLEASE HELP. I’M SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME FRETTING OVER THIS.
At any instant in time, Ocean heat content, melted ice & thawed tundra are not directly linked to global mean surface temperature (GMST) because they have been accumulated through Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) over previous years and decades.
A positive EEI is slated to increase these accumulated measures, long after GMST has been stabilized.
Of course, Earth’s surface temperature (measured at an instant) is an important measure and is linked to many aspects of the climate disaster.
BUT what focus should be put on the cumulative aspects of global warming that are not captured by instantaneous surface temperature? e.g. sea-level rise, intensification of storms(?), sea life extinction.
This does have policy implications – particularly about emissions of short lived gases, which warm the Earth but after a few decades seem to leave little effect on GMST – but leave these other effects causing possible feedbacks.
If it’s at all reassuring, I guess the energy imbalance/forcing is zero when GMST is truly stable. If surface temperature is stable but there’s net melting of glaciers (latent heat) then that implies energy imbalance is still positive – wouldn’t some of that energy gain also continue to warm land and air slightly? Stable GMST suggests stable outgoing radiation, while heat absorption may slowly increase with the albedo change. Probably an oversimplification. ‘ZEC’ commitment is said to be about zero.
So is subsequent ice melt and sea-level rise and deep ocean warming basically a redistribution of heat? I’ve confused myself now. Could look at the models that run until 2300. The multi-century scale is important for posterity, but AR6 suggests the short-lived climate forcings aren’t important in the long run. There’s some current discussion of methane here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/08/30/a-methane-emergency/
Let’s get to zero fossil CO₂, which is hard enough, and worry about getting back to 350 ppm later. I believe the long-term earth system sensitivity in Hansen (2008) ‘Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?’ is generally seen as too high, but the paper’s conclusion did inspire the name of 350.org. I hope action stops the fretting, for me too.
“the energy imbalance/forcing is zero when GMST is truly stable”
I don’t think that’s true, Cedric.
GMST can be stable (not increasing or decreasing) with the Earth’s Energy Imbalance still heating the Earth.
Got nothing for you on that, Geoff, but it seems like a great question. I’d love to see responses, if based in science and good analysis.
Geoff, I understand what you are asking about but take a step back and get cause and effect clear.
CO2 is causing the total system energy to increase.
1. That is manifested directly in phenomena like increasing GMST, ice becoming liquid water, water becoming water vapor, and so on.
2. It is also manifested as changes in the distribution of energy among all the parts of the system, which obviously affects #1.
But you have to be clear that GMST is an effect (a metric, or proxy), not a cause. So, when the energy stops increasing, there will be a new (different) equilibrium state, where GMST is higher, and all the other factors are different in some way from before.
There’s no reasonable mechanism for unidirectional energy transfer and/or change of form to occur within the system for any length of time after we observe the stabilization of GMST.
You may be confusing this with the idea of “tipping points” or positive feedbacks. But that would result in energy increasing again, and that would show up in GMST.
This link is a two-fer: A link to an NOAA site for calculating C equivalents and a discussion of the uselessness of mainstream Econ WRT assessing climate impacts.
https://twitter.com/_ppmv/status/1431621061070790656?s=19
“Nuclear fusion breakthrough: what do new results mean for the future of ‘infinite’ energy?”
https://theconversation.com/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-what-do-new-results-mean-for-the-future-of-infinite-energy-16645
This is still small steps, but Ive noticed when other technologies get serious like this, they do ultimately succeed.
Ladies and Gentlemen
I feel this iss more and more becoming the Verbal Chatter Faculty ruled by Genosse R. Check and Genosse Killian now, neither of whoom seem to have absolved proper BACCALAVREVS 1 with laboratory and field exercises; they would hardly know how to grow potatoes or chop wood / elementary forestery and woodcraft,……
………..and who are alians to possible ice and snow and water and salt and wapours in Nature and in the test- tubes?
They seem alians to both Keppler and Gallilei and to Darwin, Lavoisier, and to Ørsted & Faraday.
So how can they possibly represent and defrend the doctrinary learnings of Arrhenius, Hansen, Candellar, Revelle, Brundtland, Gore, and G. Thunberg?
Are we being misled by their quite especially authoritative and holy racial and bloody national, political and mentally social & historical and professionally provincial faculty?
How can even the Pope be more realistic and updated on science and systematics than that Neo- hegelian marxistic Franfurter school of systematics,….
……. , that migrated to the USA and went on instructing people to proper worshipful submission and obediece there?