Fall is here (in the northern hemisphere at least), along with articles about the impact of climate change on autumnal colors. LandSat9 successfully launched to continue an almost 50 year long series of remote sensing (since 1972!), and the World Economic Forum has proposed and Earth Operations Center to monitor greenhouse gases and climate change. Please stick to climate science topics, and remember that (most) other commenters are real people.
Re Kevin McKinney’s calculation In September Unforced Variations
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/09/unforced-variations-sep-2021/#comment-795889
0.01153% of 3688 meters is about 42.5 centimeters, not meters.
Also, the increase in precipitable water vapor for 1979-2014 is 0.11 mm per decade. So it would be a decline in sea level of 0.15 mm per decade, totaling about 0.53 mm between 1979 and 2014.
Looks like you’re right; good catch.
Of course, that just makes the initial conclusion 100x stronger. KIA’s notion was bogus.
South Pole records lowest average temperature (-78 F) for the winter season in recorded history, with sea-ice extent being the 5th highest ever recorded:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/01/south-pole-coldest-winter-record/
Lots of comments below the article.
You heard it here first, folks. One tiny bit of the planet had a record low season. Mrkia, who cares, and what does it matter? We all already know that some location on the planet just had the coldest whatever season ever. We don’t even need to look it up.
Please, stop crowing about the obvious. You’re about as newsworthy as, “Somebody won the lottery”.. And the sun “rose”, too. Big whup.
Yes, the South Pole is a tiny bit of the planet , but the Antarctic continent is a larger bit. The continent had the 2nd coldest season in all of its recorded temperature history. That’s a little more significant, particularly when we are told that the poles are warming WAY faster than the rest of the planet due to AGW.
https://www.fox5ny.com/weather/antarcticas-2021-winter-was-among-the-coldest-on-record
Hope this clarifies for you.
MKIA
It’s not “the poles”, though it’s sometimes carelessly put so. The Arctic is warming rapidly, and so is the Antarctic peninsula. But the strong SH circumpolar circulation and the largest mass of ice on the planet have dictated otherwise for most of the Antarctic ccontinent. So far.
If that were true we would not be having ice sheet instability well outside of the peninsula. The “Antarctic” does not stop at the land’s edge; what is happening in the oceans is part of that.
Brain KiA: “Yes, the South Pole is a tiny bit of the planet , but the Antarctic continent is a larger bit. ”
But you don’t have the data for that larger bit, do you ?
> The continent had the 2nd coldest season in all of its recorded temperature history.
No, not “the continent”, but … one point on that continent – the meteo station “at the National Science Foundation’s Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station”. Read your own sources, Genius!
Even if we assume the meteo station there it is representative to say, 100 km2 around it – that’s still 0.0002% of global.
Even if it were representative of 1 mln km2 – a -3.4C colder winter there would lower the climatological (30year) global average by the staggering 0.00057C.
And this of course assumes that there are no areas warmer than the average (West Antarctica, Arctic, the heat waves in Western Canada this summer), which might have cancelled the colder than usual winter in a part of Antarctica.
Good try Piotr.
It’s somewhat confusing: From the snow and ice data center article:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“At the National Science Foundation’s Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, temperatures for June, July, and August were 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than the 1981-to-2010 average at -62.9 degrees Celsius (-81.2 degrees Fahrenheit). This is the second coldest winter (June-July-August months) on record, behind only 2004 in the 60-year weather record at the South Pole Station. For the polar darkness period, from April through September, the average temperature was -60.9 degrees Celsius (-77.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a record for those months. The unusual cold was attributed to two extended periods of stronger-than-average encircling winds around the continent, which tend to isolate the ice sheet from warmer conditions.”
In summary, coldest EVER recorded April -September polar darkness period AND second coldest 3 months of winter at the Pole.
Also from the NSIDC article:
“As noted in our earlier posts, Antarctic sea ice extent has been above average for the past several months, culminating in late August when extent was the fifth highest in the satellite record (Figure 4a). ”
Thus it was so cold way out beyond the extent of the land that sea ice extent was the 5th highest ever recorded. That does not occur because it is cold only at the pole. In fact, because the sea water is warming, to produce the extreme sea-ice extent it had to be very cold way out to sea.
From the same article:
“The unusual cold was attributed to two extended periods of stronger-than-average encircling winds around the continent, which tend to isolate the ice sheet from warmer conditions. A strong upper-atmosphere polar vortex was observed as well, leading to a significant ozone hole.”
Thus the encircling winds around the continent made it colder than usual. Not just encircling the pole, but encircling the continent. The continent is the larger bit that you mentioned. ;)
So, maybe not the second coldest for the entire continent, but definitely colder than normal to produce the 5th largest sea-ice extent after one of the hottest summers ever. The fox5ny article included a confusing statement: “The National Snow and Ice Data Center said the continent’s temperatures in June, July and August were 6.1 degrees lower than the 1981 to 2010 average at -81.2 degrees.”
They said “continent”, but I could not find that in the NSIDC article.
Bottom line: it was a cold winter across the continent, and the coldest ever polar darkness period at the Pole.
mkia
Typical of Mr Knows Stuff All
it was a cold winter across the continent, and the coldest ever polar darkness period at the Pole.
…. more mythological / lying / ignorant bullshit being pushed by an idiot fool.
So no you idiot …. the coldest in the 60-year weather record at the South Pole Station.
It was colder in Antarctica during the ICE AGES you IDIOT!
You you are wrong, again.
besides, it always gets colder in Antarctica in winter …. golly who didn’t know it all ready?
And the south pole is not all of Antarctica.
Is not all of the southern hemisphere.
Is not all of the world.
Is not part of the Heatwaves or the wild fires in Siberia, Canada and California you IDIOT!
In all the science in the IPCC they have continuously stated that with climate change comes regional colder periods as well as warming, you Idiot!
So yet again, your factoid is frivolous cherry picked garbage out of the mind of a fruit cake looney as usual.
Give it up. You’re an ignorant ideological political arrogant shill – a cheap and nasty internet Troll – who doesn’t know stuff all about anything.
KIA: it was a cold winter across the continent, and the coldest ever polar darkness period at the Pole.
BPL: How many years do you need to tell a climate trend, KIA?
BPL: “How many years do you need to tell a climate trend, KIA?”
It gets better -KIA’s source – the article on a page of NY station of Fox, said:
“ The news is the complete opposite of February 2020, where the continent experienced its hottest temperatures on record when the temperature in northern Antarctica hit nearly 65 degrees. ”
So KIA cherry-picks facts even from Fox ;-). Talk about trying to be holier than the Pope ….
“BPL: How many years do you need to tell a climate trend, KIA?”
It used to be that it took ~30 years, but nowdays we can attribute every single weather event to climate change, right?
;)
KIA: It used to be that it took ~30 years, but nowdays we can attribute every single weather event to climate change, right?
BPL: No. It’s the frequency and intensity of weather events that have changed. One weather event can’t be attributed to climate change or other causes either way. Try to think statistically, and remember the concept of sample size.
Mr. KIA, you really are a broken toy, aren’t you? The amount of time it takes to establish a climatic fact or trend depends on the signal and the noise. When you have a signal that simply would not have ever occurred in a million years without climate change, but would occur 1 in a thousand years with climate change, guess what? You really suck in assessing probabilities.
On an unrelated note, do you play poker?
I think this should be repeated every time KIA posts something:
**”In all the science in the IPCC they have continuously stated that with climate change comes regional colder periods as well as warming, you Idiot!**
**So yet again, your factoid is frivolous cherry picked garbage out of the mind of a fruit cake looney as usual.**
**Give it up. You’re an ignorant ideological political arrogant shill – a cheap and nasty internet Troll – who doesn’t know stuff all about anything.**
The moderators should end this misery but I guess they keep KIA around for the entertainment value, except it’s not entertaining and we end up wasting time trying to rebut bullshit instead of discussing the science.
HELP!!!!
John Pollack,
The sub-thread we were on is cluttered and I clicked on the wrong reply button so things got out of order. Responding to
Your comment:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/unforced-variations-oct-2021/#comment-796831
My reply was:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/unforced-variations-oct-2021/#comment-796846
And the comment I referred to as “above”:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/unforced-variations-oct-2021/#comment-796815
Piotr
Replying to your comment:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/unforced-variations-oct-2021/#comment-796838
Much of what you write is incoherent. I will give it one more try:
You and MAR gave the analogy where there is 10K in a bank account, and deposits and withdrawals occurred at the rate of 1K per month. That would be an “equilibrium” condition.
But we are talking about “forcings” here. So say we increase the deposits to 2K/month. Then, after 10 months, we would have 20K in the account. And after the next 10 months, 30K, and so on. That’s because the amount of money in the account has no effect on the withdrawal rate. The amount just keeps increasing.
But in the climate system… and I assumed all the regulars here understood this very basic fact… the “withdrawal rate” (outgoing watts) is determined by the CS energy (joules). That’s how we arrive at a new equilibrium, which, in simplified terms, is a higher temperature, where watts in equals watts out. Or, “joules really do matter”.
So your analogy is, as they say, “dead wrong”.
Maybe if you would concentrate on one thing at a time instead of trying to “score points” by throwing together quotes and claims that may or may not be relevant or even real, you would be able to make more sense.
Regarding Zebras comment. The bank account analogy was sufficient to prove the point being made by Piotr and MAR. This was that watts in – watts out cannot = system energy.
I thought the withdrawal rate was primarily determined by the greenhouse effect.
What does he mean by “CS” abbreviation?
I don’t think Zebra knows what he’s talking about.
nigelj: “I don’t think Zebra knows what he’s talking about.”
You got the first 3 words right.
nigelj: “I don’t think Zebra knows what he’s talking about.”
KIA: “You got the first 3 words right.”
Whau, what a zinger. Take Nigel to the burn unit! ;-)
Zebra: You and MAR gave the analogy where there is 10K in a bank account, and deposits and withdrawals occurred at the rate of 1K per month. That would be an “equilibrium” condition. But we are talking about “forcings” here. So say we increase the deposits to 2K/month. Then, after 10 months, we would have 20K in the account. And after the next 10 months, 30K, and so on. That’s because the amount of money in the account has no effect on the withdrawal rate.
Except NOBODY discusses what has effect on the withdrawal rate or not. Several of us have tried to explain to you that the famous Zebra Equation: Ein-Eout= Es is wrong. And it is wrong REGARDLESS
– whether Ein=Eout, as in our original example,
1,ooo-1,000 is NOT = 10,000
or Ein > Eout as in your counterexample:
2,000-1,000 is NOT = 11,000 (=10,000 +1,000)
Either equation is wrong. “dead wrong”.
Zebra: But in the climate system, the “withdrawal rate” (outgoing watts) is determined by the CS energy (joules).
So what? NOBODY discuses that TAUTOLOGY – we are all critiquing your famously “correct” equation:
Ein-Eout= Es
And you, unable or unwilling to admit to being wrong (i.e. that 2-1 is NOT =11), sing praises of yourself:
“I was trying to play Socrates earlier with MA Rodger; I guess he doesn’t want to admit he was even a little wrong [namely, MAR refuses that 1-1 = 10 is “correct”]
– “this is a good illustration of my usual theme about clarity/precision of language, and dialogue”
and paternalistically lecture others:
-” MAR, I asked you to explain how my equation is wrong rather than just asserting it, but all you have done is assert it once again {in response to MAR showing, not asserting, that for Ein=Eout=1, and Es=10, Zebra’s “correct” equation becomes: 1-1=10]
– “I would expect better from someone with your actual physics background”
-” I will pause to see if MAR or anyone can now understand what my issue is with that construction, given my hint.”
-” Piotr perhaps doesn’t understand the difference between Joules and Watts.”
– “Piotr seems to think that the term “energy” has unit of watts” (in response to my pointing that zebra’s equation is wrong, PRECISELY because it equates NOAA radiative forcing (Watts if applied to entire planet) with “energy of the system” i.e. in Joules, on the right side].
– “I think I get that Piotr is having a conversation with himself inside his o
wn head.” [see above]
-“But perhaps you think you are being clever by using a one-second time interval? “Oooh, I’ll just fool zebra because I can slip in watts.” Sure, MAR, pure rhetorical genius.”
– ” Much of what you write is incoherent.”
– “MAR, this is extremely confusing.”
– “assumed all the regulars here understood this very basic fact…”
– “I was trying to play Socrates earlier with MA Rodger; I guess he doesn’t want to admit he was even a little wrong [MAR “doesn’t want to admit” that 1-1 = 10]
-“this is a good illustration of my usual theme about clarity/precision of language, and dialogue”
Zebra:
The first law of Internet discussions: “Your arrogance is proportional to your ignorance”
And the perfect icing on the perfect cake: after ALL THAT, zebra pontificates:
-“ you still can’t bring yourself to say “OK zebra, we were wrong to say that your equation [1-1=10, or now 2-1=11] is dead wrong.”
and
“ Maybe if you would concentrate on one thing at a time instead of trying to “score points” by throwing together quotes and claims […] you would be able to make more sense.”
Matthew 7:5, anyone?
V: Here’s a graph representing global drought evidence from 1982 through 2012… Can you see a trend? I can’t.
BPL: Here’s one representing global drought evidence from 1948 through 2010. Can you see a trend? I can.
http://www.ajournal.co.uk/pdfs/BSvolume13(1)/BSVol.13%20(1)%20Article%202.pdf
V: No surprise there. Different methods produce different results. Another reason to be wary of research depending too heavily on statistics.
No surprise with V’s response, either.
Science according to Victor:
1) Have an opinion, and find a factoid that seems to support it
2) Get exposed to a different dataset with more statistical power
3) Claim that confusion besets the whole field and advocate giving up
4) Avoid any consideration of why the preferred factoid and the different dataset don’t match, just claim that knowledge is impossible. (Call this being ‘wary’, though, to sound a little less like a complete loon, but wariness here merely means doing nothing until it is too late.)
All of science as we know it would be impossible if we took Victor’s approach. Note that the unwillingness to accept science or data only starts when that science or data supports the consensus or conflicts with his cherry-picked factoids. It is curiously absent when finding the original factoid or mining papers for isolated sentences that seem to support him. He’s happy to call anyone an expert or quote any paper if it is in support of a well-behaved factoid, but advocates extreme skepticism for badly behaved or unwelcome facts.
It’s tiresome how predictable and shallow it is. I think I could write a Victor-bot with about a thousand lines of code.
Come to think of it…
Andrew Lang was no doubt thinking of folks like Weaktor when he said: “Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination.”
Weaktor latches on to any paper that even remotely sounds skeptical like a remora. He is a study in motivated reasoning–with the motivation being cowardice.
nigelj: The reason we don’t see an increase in global deaths due to natural disasters in recent decades is OBVIOUSLY because things like flood protection, emergency services and health care is constantly improving. Surely this would have occurred to Victor? This masks any increase in deaths due to climate change.
V: Perhaps. But it also undermines all the hysteria continuously being stoked by alarmists like yourself, who see “climate change” as posing a deadly threat to all of humanity.
From BPL:
V: The notion that climate change skeptics can be compared to holocaust deniers is both absurd and deeply offensive, not only to skeptics, but the holocaust victims themselves and their families.
BPL: They are denying scientific reality, and doing so in a way such that, if people listen to them, vast numbers of innocent people will die. In that respect, they are very much like Holocaust deniers. People who deny are deniers. Get over it.
V: You’ve got it backward. MY concern is about all the innocent people who will die when they can no longer afford to heat their homes, when the supply chains that provide them with basic needs, such as food and medicine, break down, when hospitals routinely lose power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, and when the economy that provides basic services of all kinds ceases to function, after the growing legions of self-righteous true believers inevitably reach such a peak of hysteria that the most destructive and irrational acts become not only justified but necessary, regardless of the consequences. If you want to predict the future, ponder THAT. (No statistics necessary.)
Except that the climate solutions aren’t making and won’t make make electricity unaffordable. They typically increase prices modestly, and low income people are compensated where I live.. Of course you will find a few examples where some countries have made a mess of new electricity generation and there have been some sharp price spikes but these are temporary things.
Victor is acting like a headless chicken, in a state of panic! :)
One of these price spikes is happening in the UK at the moment, though it is difficult to tell how bad it really is with the tendency of the media here to blow things out of proportion. Global gas prices have gone up but the UK is currently burning more gas than normal which has made things worse. The reason for this is that the UK has just had one of the least windy summers on record (there have been frequent blocking episodes this year), which has knocked wind power generation down, so we are having to look elsewhere to make up the shortfall (i.e. gas power). It doesn’t help that SE England had a very dull summer (especially August), which means any solar power generation will have been below average as well. It seems for my densely populated part of the world, renewables are almost, but not quite ready to completely replace fossil fuels for electricity generation.
A Lea. Yes fair comments. I was just reading about that a few days ago. A clear analysis of why global gas prices have increased and other factors constricting gas supply in the UK here:
https://news.sky.com/story/why-is-a-rise-in-gas-prices-pushing-up-electricity-costs-energy-crisis-in-four-charts-12413052
Weaktor: “You’ve got it backward. MY concern is about all the innocent people who will die when they can no longer afford to heat their homes…” and blah, blah, blah.
Uh, Dude, NEWS FLASH: People are already dying due to the unfolding climate emergency. Do you think this is going to magically get better by ignoring the problem? How do you suppose folks are going to fare when the thermohaline conveyor in the Atlantic shuts down some winter?
The answer to the problems of the future is to embrace the technologies of the future. Fossil Fuels are so 19th century! Or do you think we should go back to burning whale oil in our lamps?
War on Entropy: I’ll start thinking about the detail of your posts when you address the many issues with what you’ve already posted, starting with your 1998 nonsense. Trying to converse with someone who has a proven track-record of embracing fallacy with florid DK-smugness is not worth my time or anyone’s time.
V: My “1998 nonsense” has been affirmed by a great many climate scientists over the years, including the authors of the Fyffe et al paper I’ve already quoted — co-authored by the likes of Michael Mann and Ben Santer among others. You should think a bit before flinging the insults you obviously prefer to reasoned scientific debate. As for the “factoids” I’m accused of embracing, by all means name some. I’m curious to see whether you can tell the difference between fact, fallacy and opinion.
Victor, I greatly prefer reasoned scientific debate, but I am quite confident you don’t have the slightest conception of how that’s conducted, or even what it would look like. You don’t even seem to have the conceptual tools that are a precursor to scientific discussion. I’ve not seen you engage in a single good-faith argument here, and I’ve seen you cite many papers that directly contradicted the claim you were making. I remain unsure whether that’s because of stupidity or cynicism on your part, but either way, it is a reliable sign of a troll. Or you try to claim an issue is unsettled and controversial as long as you can find any small scrap for your side of the argument. Your mischaracterisation of the attribution paper reveals you to be an idiot, and you tried to draw an ego-boost out of it by imagining you had stirred up a hornet’s nest, when all you had done is provoke the natural desire of logical people to address fallacy where they see it. Whenever you present something, and it is shown to be non-representative of reality at large, you turn around and say that methods differ, and you advocate wariness, as though you speak from a point of wisdom rather than abject ignorance. If you really think you have something worth saying about climate, do the maths, write the paper, and then come back here to brag about it when you are famous.
Your trolling isn’t clever; it is lame beyond belief.
I have as much desire to debate with you as I want to play chess with a pigeon. I just wish you would stop crapping on the board, that’s all.
Is the brainless troll Victor Grauer still holding court down this UV thread?
Victor, you cretin!!
Factoid – In the global temperature record, four of the six years 2008-2013 sit strongly below the trend of warming seen in the preceding 30 years, a point addressed by climate scientists.
The resulting fallacy explained, again – Yet it is only pie-eyed morons like, for instance, Victor Grauer who infers from this situation that CO2 is not driving AGW. The science (and given it and some of its authors have been cited above by the moron perhaps Fyfe, Meehl, England, Mann, Santer, Flato, Hawkins, Gillett, Xie, Kosaka, and Swart (2016) ‘Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown’ provides an interesting exemplar, although it helps if the entire a paper is examined and not just its title): the science never doubts CO2 is driving AGW because, in whatever manner it is described, the “early 2000s warming slowdown” does not in any way draw into question that relationship.
Now what this science website really needs is more hard hitting pseudoscience, denialist tropes, neoliberal psychobabble, logical fallacies, libertarian hogwash, and right wing nationalist/fascist propaganda on these pages….. aka to some as Why I wanna be just like Donald Trump – my hero and my inspiration!
To this end perhaps the owners could invite V, KIA, E-P and Shurly to pen a Featured Story for Readers enlightenment.
Followed up by a thorough philosophical psycho-spiritual analysis by the resident intellectual Carbo as a Part Two.
I’m sure they would all nail it!
It’s what Hammers do.
@rc – are you crazy – my friend ?
Just because you didn’t understand the climate-relevant difference between water cooling and air cooling – ! I’m not a climate denier or a right-wing national idiot like Trump !.
While your stupid chatter could well fit into the psychobabble category, because it reveals your loss of reality.
Ridiculous & not good prerequisite for your dreamed – reality check.
Hr Schurly
Putgin said recently “It takes one to know one”. In russian.
We say: “På seg selv kjenner man andre..”
That fameous formula is about psychic projection.
If anyone shoots “Skive- bom” ( Fail the very Target) on character , that is allways quite surprizing,
but better take it for what it is, a “projection” and rather utilize it, the way you seem to be trying.
I have learnt to reply , as if I were a huge tax officer , a QVESTOR! : “Thanks for your self- declaration, it wil be studied, conscidered well and made our basis for correct calculation of your due- appropriate fees and taxes!”
That formula scratches.
I can recommend it.
Psyco0logical projection is characteristic of youngsters and children and of children in adult size., Those with inhibited and inferiour mental, social, and intelligent development.
I add to the frormula: “It takesw one to know one… until you see and learn that you are not quite alone in this world!” It is a symptom of sole- ipsism.
You know yourself first when you have learnt to know and realize your next persons. And quite similar, you know your own language first when you can look at it also from outside, by having learnt to understand also your neighbouring languaqes. By being bi- and tri… linguistic.
And care to know and to learn also your supporting and similar neighbouring professions and arts. In fact, you really learn more and better there than to stay strictly in your own tribe and cell and closed society.
Just to tease him and correct him, , I believe the Australians also have their largest troubble with theit great barrier reef They fail to see similars and dis- similars to it elsewhere and worldwide, thus loose insight and control of what it really is..
Or one can simply take it for what it is, utilize it further, without telling him, and tell him that you are not telling him that.
It is handicapping , often quite proud, narrow- mindedness in any case.
I do not think that Australians for instance could administer this website better than they can administer their own great barrier rief, their lands, their people, and their deserts. .
In case you’ve been following the situation with Prof. Dorian Abbot:
EAPS department annual Carlson Lecture canceled over speaker Dorian Abbot’s comments on DEI
The Carlson Lecture is organized by the Lorenz Center and aims to “communicate exciting new results in climate science to the general public.”
Lorenz Center Directors, Professors Kerry Emanuel PhD ’78 and Daniel Rothman, wrote in an email to The Tech that they invited Abbot in January 2020 to give the talk “Climate and the Potential for Life on Other Planets” for the 2020 Carlson Lecture, which was not held due to coronavirus restrictions.
Since being invited, Abbot has been vocal in criticizing academic DEI efforts through op-eds, interviews, and now-deleted YouTube videos. …
Once Abbot’s statements and views on DEI became widely known within MIT’s EAPS department, in part due to circulation on social media by students, a push began in late September for EAPS to reconsider its invitation for Abbot to host the 2021 Carlson Lecture, culminating in the Sept. 30 decision to cancel the lecture.
Reality Check: Now what this science website really needs is more hard hitting pseudoscience, denialist tropes, neoliberal psychobabble, logical fallacies, libertarian hogwash, and right wing nationalist/fascist propaganda on these pages….. aka to some as Why I wanna be just like Donald Trump – my hero and my inspiration!
V: “Awake! The End is Near. It’s the End of the World As We Know It! The Sky is Falling — Literally! We’re all gonna starve. We’re all gonna drown. We’re all gonna freeze. We’re all gonna die. It’s happening now. The world is gonna be swallowed by hell fire – if it isn’t overwhelmed by “rain bombs.” Existential threat. Apocalypse Now! Damnation! Doomsday! Hell on Earth! Repent before it’s too late!”
Now THAT’s what I call psychobabble. For centuries that kind of talk was largely confined to frazzled street corner lunatics, demented religious fanatics or the denizens of mental institutions. And you expect me to take it seriously? So I’m the one whose nuts for attempting to inject some common sense into the universal rant?
The worst thing is that by now it’s morphed into a never-ending worldwide psychosis that’s all but incurable. We could have many years in a row of cooling temperatures and temperate weather but nevertheless our self-styled “experts” will find reasons to explain it all away and persist in the general insanity.
V says “I’m the one whose nuts”
You sure are. Off your damned rocker and a lying shill. When it comes to climate science and prognosis no one anywhere is saying the kind of garbage you laid out above … like We’re all gonna drown. We’re all gonna freeze. We’re all gonna die. to Apocalypse Now! Damnation! Doomsday! Hell on Earth! Repent before it’s too late!
It all proves you are “nuts” and a damned fool. YOU said that yourself. It’s YOU who talks like that all the time. Always have been always will be. Why they allow your and KIA’s et al delusional ravings, insipid lies, and intentional misrepresentations is incomprehensible. In most climate science and sane websites this kind of denialist trope comments and dysfunctional extremists and conspiracy theorist nutters are outright banned.
But whatever, each to their own. Me, I’m back to ignoring the garbage dumps. I never read your (and the others) crap V, or the replies to you. This recent exception proves that rule.
Victor loves creating big huge strawmen. It’s a way of avoiding confronting reality and it’s attention seeking. Of course its also dumb and dishonest as you say.
The garbage dumpers down there in Australia are the largest garbage dumpers there, but keep that in your own waters and do not spray it around. Your lands ande waters suffer and are accutely sick under your regime and manners, and you blame that on others.
You do not see your own waste and are not aware of your own perfumes, deodorants, and smell.
You were pardoned and shipped back and down there to begin a new and better life, then do it,
And do not teach and blame others for your situation.
@ Dr. R Check
Watch your grammar Genosse, and avoid stating Falseness.
That is one of the national and tribal inferiourities and defects of many proud Austalians, that makes us try and think in terms of bundled and condemned, inferiour bluddy brittish heritage that was shippet in that directionj. What else should we think of it?
“No one anywhere is saying the kind of garbhage you laid out above..”
How can it be that it is all to well known from the Internet, when no- one anywhere wrote or said it?
Have you ever heard of or noticed or listened to Moscows eccho- chamber in Berlin, the “Deutschlandsender” ?
They had inherited a distnct progressive political scientific grammar. not quite unsimilar to yours.
That was on Longwave, the strongest transmitter in Europe and probably in the world but as the earth is round and there is an ionosphere even at night to shield against that, perhaps you never got it in Australia, you only got your own simi9lar and local, proud, national socialistic and progressive propaganda.
The shortwave, 20 and 40 meters could eccho and pass even 1/2 way around the globe at night via the higher van Allen belts. even Australia was occasionally “On the air”.
No- one, some- one, any- ones… all-ones… are pro- nomens you see, that are further categorically taken into recent quantification theory and “methods of logic”. I was forced to learn also that. Killian is severely proud of having learnt some of that. He calls it primary principles.
But it is really not very appliciable and fruitful in daily life and in Nature , in the Lab, Underwater, on board, and in the scientific obaservatories.
But, common linguistic sense, responsibility, and politeness…. should forbid anyone to state “no- one anywhere”, when surely a lot ones everywhere is “saying” the garbage … laid out above”.
I am especially scilled and clever on sound and acoustics, and do not like that silly “saying” when people are writing and stating it rather noiseless. Why not “telling”?
“Gallilei wrote and he told, Sokrates hardly wrote but he said and told according to what Platon has written. Leonardo has written drawn and painted and shown.
The IPCC has published and stated.
Try and use the appropriate verbs also.
Victor,
Now you are improoving.
I gave you magic pills, you see, and did defend you.
Now you must try and take off and walk on your own but carefully.
Those pills of mine were composed by logical and natural, spiritual and highly potent remedies in free sale. You must learn to find that on your own and never pay any penny for it.
There’s an online article in IOPscience titled “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature” by Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton, and Simon Perry. The URL is https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
Before we knew better, 99% thought the world was flat. It would be easy to get to 99% consensus when .gov is paying thousands of scientists to write pro-AGW reports. I could write one. Pay me.
;)
99% thought the world was flat…. more mythological / lying / ignorant bullshit being pushed by an idiot fool. That was never the case.
.gov is paying thousands of scientists to write pro-AGW reports…. more mythological / lying / ignorant bullshit being pushed by an idiot fool. That was never the case either.
Ouch!
That 99% of the great unwashed might get something wrong. I mean, you belong to that group, and you’ve yet to be right about anything.
That’s why you should listen to the fricking experts.–the ones who actually know and understand the evidence.
87,100 environmental scientist jobs in 2020 per BLS:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/environmental-scientists-and-specialists.htm
Not all are .gov employees and not all are working on AGW, but “thousands” do meet both of those requirements. I’m right, and as usual you are full of shit and are an asshole.
However, I’ll bet you anything you like that you can’t find *one* job description that calls for writing “pro-AGW” reports.
That would be PR, not research. Very different skill sets… ;-)
Actually not true.
In about 500 BCE when the ancient Greek philosophers actually gave it some serious thought by using early scientific reasoning and actual evidence they concluded the Earth was round. Any learned person since that time would have agreed. In fact, around 240 BCE Eratosthenes fairly accurately determined the diameter of the Earth. There most certainly was NEVER a scientific 99% consensus that the world was flat. And since when does the government pay scientists to write pro-AGW reports? NEVER. They pay for accurate peer reviewed science.
More typical Mr. Know Nothing garbage.
Mr Know Shit All is actually waving what is a bit of propagandist nonsense that it is fair to say has become generally successful: the idea that pre-modern Europeans believed the world was flat, aka the flat Earth myth.
Beyond Europe, the world may have been depicted as flat with many associated tall stories woven around such a construct but, given the theoretical and/or religious nature of the subject, actual understanding of the world’s shape back then was pretty irrelevant.
Not technically true. GOP admins have actively altered or suppressed climate research, so it HAS been true, it just isn’t the norm, and has been in the anti-warming direction.
Based on your efforts here, no, you couldn’t.
I bet you $100 you could not produce a non-laughable report as determined by BPL and Ray.
You don’t have the chops.
“99% thought the world was flat”
Why do you make up blatant lies and flaunt your ignorance? Insecure much behind your keyboard? Obviously yes, smh
Great human interest commentary I thought: “Ben Santer on ‘separating’ and his ‘small part’ in understanding of climate science. A leading scientist’s first-person report on three decades of pioneering climate science research and communication. And tributes from seven of his peers.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/10/ben-santer-on-separating-and-his-small-part-in-understanding-of-climate-science/
Thanks for the link nigelj…well worth the read.
I happen to have had the pleasure of meeting Ben Santer a while back. A real gentleman that took his work very seriously and always showed true concern for the future of humankind. Too bad he had to take so much abuse for speaking the truth.
“I have one final “lesson learned” from the past 29 years. My time at LLNL taught me that scientific understanding is always under attack by powerful forces of unreason. Such attacks cause great harm. They must be opposed. Demonizing science and scientists is dangerous for our health and for the health of our planet.
Getting the science right was always my prime directive, and it was the prime directive of all my colleagues. At the end of days, that’s how we’ll be evaluated – on whether we got the science right. As the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report clearly shows, we did get the detection and attribution science right. Human influence on climate is now unequivocal.”
War On Entropy: Note that [Victor’s] unwillingness to accept science or data only starts when that science or data supports the consensus or conflicts with his cherry-picked factoids.
V: Some “cherry-picked factoids” I’ve referenced:
1. Comparison of sea-level data with global temperature data reveals that sea-level began to rise by at least 1870, while there was no significant rise in temperatures until around 1910, a difference of roughly 40 years.
Sea level data: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/hRxwnyWLNztf_ytmqoGoxMG_A-eW8EaOCHlDrQe_yEEVEkFuqgqeopwgfqIIFicdv8bKZGoj9lg5hxb8AbggJR6AYeCk3xWLbKBTJZCJmQygqA
Temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020_Global_Time_Series-1-1024×577.png
Ocean temperatures: http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/19418.jpeg
The same graphs show a steady rise in sea level from 1870 to present, while both land and ocean temperatures have both risen and fallen over the same period. Especially notable are the pauses in temperature rise from the 1940s through the 1970s and roughly the year 2000 through 2015 — while sea levels continued to climb. Another notable “factoid”: the significant rise in global temperatures over the last 20 years of the previous century doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect on sea-level rise, which continued to climb at roughly the same modest rate from then to now.
So: Is it really an “unwillingness to accept science or data” that impels me to wonder whether sea-level rise is in fact driven by temperature as generally assumed, especially since recent studies have revealed significant geothermal activity undermining the same regions of the western Antarctic that are known to be particularly unstable? Is it really all that “idiotic” to wonder whether sea level rise could be more driven by geothermal activity than climate? And by the way, I’ve never claimed that was actually the case, only suggested that it might.
2. I’ve written a blog post [ http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html ] demonstrating the misleading nature of a scattergram claimed to illustrate an “obvious” correlation between long-term temperature change and rising CO2 levels. My analysis reveals that the scattergram is misleading as it places far too much emphasis on the brief 20 year period at the end of the previous century, all but ignoring the very different picture we get when considering the entire period in question. While my analysis has been dismissed by several commenting here, no one has even attempted a systematic critique of my reasoning. No surprise since my reasoning is sound. If you think I’ve produced a “factoid,” I challenge you to prove me wrong.
3. The widely discussed and analyzed 21st century temperature “pause” has been consistently dismissed by many posting here — yet affirmed in no uncertain terms in a thoroughly researched paper [https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?sharing_token=IC9MQ4Tvz4nsp-nofvtEvdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OadxhZEUo4vJNdLHOkK-TWtWOFybkLDBARrVz-HFAfoQVavPz4gr37kAvPWEqSM5Mv5xhqU9AKiyaYZ8B5fSAWqfcvlUzt18F8EyEPvOkCKEUDUrK1pi0zsXd9_ejLHcKCVs4DNgL9yhmz1vtRTUu8XzJHFmdCUD-uHBcAN54dK83AiFFoJTfL77xJF-pb40c%3D&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org] signed by respected climate scientists known for their advocacy of the “climate change” paradigm. While it’s true that they attempt to explain the existence of such a pause by vague references to “internal variability,” there is nevertheless a significant difference between a fact and an attempt to explain that fact. The FACT is what concerns me. And if you want to dismiss that FACT as a “factoid” then I suggest you confront the authors of the paper in question and leave me out of it.
You live in the wrong land,
@ Victor. I would not take up such discussions.
Sea level is quite more accute here where I live and am aquainted. If we do not keep order in the sea- levels, we go aground.
It is as easy as that.
And at wrong temperatures we freeze.
But my wife says “Hochwasser” which is something different. That is water on land now and then where the earth is flat And the Dutch say “Dat Water” and “Waterstaat” about it.
I had extra to show them in winter how to heat up when everyone there were freezing.
King Donald Grozny promised that he would drain the swamps of Washington, and failed to do that.
Dat water and Waterstaat in Washington, you see., Afganistan is more lucky having it quite more steep.
A lot of people are also lacking water. You cannot help that by all your formulas.
@Hr. Kohlenstoffberg
“A lot of people are also lacking water. You cannot help that by all your formulas.”
Why don`t you take my formula ???
https://climate-protecion-hardware.webnode.com/english/ — Doütsch version !!!
Yes, and–pejorative term aside–yes.
Starting with the second question, the suggestion is implausible based on several grounds:
1) No evidence whatever suggesting a *change* in geothermal activity, which is what we’d need to account for a change in SLR.
2) Around half the observed SLR is due to thermal expansion, which wouldn’t be well-accounted for by localized geothermal activity, either quantitatively or spatially.
3) Although it would be laborious to demonstrate it quantitatively with rigorous specificity, the magnitudes of the geothermal and DSW energy fluxes make the suggestion implausible prime facie: measured geothermal fluxes are of the order of 0.1 W/m2, whereas TSI is ~3 orders higher and even typical GHE RF factors one order of magnitude higher. Moreover, terrestrial borehole measurements show that atmospheric warming is warming the ground, and not vice versa:
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/17/451/2021/
To the first suggestion, the quality of your data is impossible to assess (at least for me) because your link didn’t work. However, I note from Leuliette & Willis that:
https://www.tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/24-2_leuliette.pdf
So it would seem very unlikely that your approach of correlating SLR (per whatever metric you’ve found) with GMST is either robust or fruitful.
One last thing–this claim is obviously bogus:
In fact, there is a very clear acceleration of SLR over the last two decades. See, for example the figure here:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Kevin McKinney,
We are, of course, entirely wasting your time engaging with the moron troll Victor Grauer. This latest dollup of nonsense he has served up demonstrates this well as it is exactly what he served up seven years back on October 10th 2014 when the cretin Victor first appeared at RealClimate and directed folk to a now-deleted web-page in which he presented a graphic of ‘robust’ SLR happening since 1870 and a graph of global temperature since 1880. Here he saw a mismatch. If SLR was happening from 1870 why is it that “global warming didn’t really take off until somewhere around 1910”?
And the second “factoid”, Victor serves up here is another one back like a bad penny for the umpteenth time. It seems he hasn’t ever read what was written on the web-page where he sourced the CO2-SAT graph. Simply declaring that the graph “distorts history to emphasize the relatively brief 20 year period [from ca. 1980 to ca. 1998] when both CO2 levels and temperatures were increasing at the same time” never was anything more than a gobby git demonstrating how stupid he was.
And, golly, Victor trolls in a third factoid” that is yet again a vintage offering. Will he ever get round to reading the paper Fyfe et al (2016) ‘Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown’? And will he ever grasp the fact that this ‘temperature pause‘ he makes such a big big meal out-of comprised nothing more than a handful of years with temperature significantly below the trend, and it all happened years ago now. The warming he denies happening never stopped and has continued apace as the RealClimate Update 2021 page would show him, if he could be arsed to look.
Victor Grauer really does need to get a gip and stop making like a pathetlic child. Yet it seems demoting his wondrous “FACTS” to the insignificance they merit is just too painful for him to contenance.
Gavin et al.,
Is there any web site where you can log on and run a GCM online?
Reality Check: When it comes to climate science and prognosis no one anywhere is saying the kind of garbage you laid out above … like We’re all gonna drown. We’re all gonna freeze. We’re all gonna die. to Apocalypse Now! Damnation! Doomsday! Hell on Earth! Repent before it’s too late!
V: OMG! How literal minded can you get? Clearly no one’s literally saying “we’re all gonna drown” or “we’re all gonna freeze.” But that’s very much what so much of it sounds like. I exaggerated for effect, as should have been obvious. Nevertheless, hysterical utterances like that are perfectly consistent with what we actually are hearing these days. To illustrate let me share some actual quotes:
From The Guardian: “Earth is already becoming unlivable”; “an existential threat of unlivable heatwaves, floods and drought”; ““We are on a catastrophic path,” said António Guterres, secretary general of the UN. “We can either save our world or condemn humanity to a hellish future.”; “Extreme heatwaves could make parts of the Middle East too hot for humans to endure”; “A scenario approaching some sort of apocalypse would comfortably arrive should the world heat up by 4C or more”;
George Monbiot: “our only hope of avoiding catastrophic climate breakdown is some variety of net zero”; “To risk irreversible change by proceeding at such a leisurely pace, to rely on undelivered technologies and nonexistent capacities: this is a formula for catastrophe.”
James Hansen: “A large fraction of species will be committed to extinction. And increasing intensity of droughts and floods will severely impact breadbaskets of the world, causing massive famines and economic decline. Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth.”
Roy scranton, “Learning to Die in the Anthropocene”: “Unless we stop emitting greenhouse gases wholesale now, humans will within a couple hundred years be living in a climate the Earth hasn’t seen since the Pliocene, three million years ago, when oceans were 75 feet higher. Once the methane hydrates under the oceans and permafrost begin to melt, we may soon find ourselves living in a hothouse climate closer to that of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, approximately 56 million years ago, when the planet was ice-free and tropical at the poles. We face the imminent collapse of the agricultural, shipping, and energy networks upon which the global economy depends, a large-scale die-off in the biosphere that’s already well under way, and our own possible extinction as a species.”; “Climate scientist James Hansen, formerly with NASA, has argued that we face an “apocalyptic” future—a bleak view that is seconded by researchers worldwide.”
The IPCC: “For 1.5°C of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons. At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health, the report shows.”
David Wallace Wells, “The Uninhabitable Earth”: “It is worse, much worse, than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible—food shortages, refugee emergencies, climate wars and economic devastation.”
Need I continue?
No need to continue. Get back in your box.
All know you cannot understand the science and what it means already. And you can’t tell the difference between scientific rigor, its output conclusions and language vs opinionators and their language. Which is why you only provided two science sources above. :P
Repent before it’s too late or you’re going to hell Victor!
Victor picks a lot of cherries. The rest of us carefully consider the bigger picture and what the weight of peer reviewed studies shows . Well, most of us do that.
No need to continue Victor, I see what you mean. You think comments like the following :
“MY concern is about all the innocent people who will die when they can no longer afford to heat their homes, when the supply chains that provide them with basic needs, such as food and medicine, break down, when hospitals routinely lose power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, and when the economy that provides basic services of all kinds ceases to function, after the growing legions of self-righteous true believers inevitably reach such a peak of hysteria that the most destructive and irrational acts become not only justified but necessary, regardless of the consequences.” … are the typical hysterical utterances that are perfectly consistent with what we actually are hearing these days.
It’s so typical of all the hysteria continuously being stoked by alarmists like yourself, who see science based “climate change responses” as posing a deadly threat to all of humanity!!!!!
refs from Victor at ttps://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/unforced-variations-oct-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-796920
People understand you perfectly well Victor. And MR KIA. You’re both very predictable open books. I put it to you it is you who has it backwards. Happy Daze! :)
Ladiea and gentlemen
I found in Norwegian today that Rasmus Benestad is telling people that consensus among scienjtists of that todays global warming is caused by humans is 99.9%
The earlier number from 2014 was the fameous 97%
Unluckily I cannot give you any website because I am not that aquainted to the laptop. But I think that will be unnecessary because Benestad is responsible and reliable, and could argue well for it, and it will follow soon enough from several sources relating to the Glasgow conference.
But this information changes my personal ideas and mind a bit on what we discuss and how we discuss and with whoom.
Benestad says that it is as sure as the evolution theory and of earthly tectonic plate moovement. Where we hardly argue for it anymore, and do not fight it, but rather try and see how we can use it and think and plan according to it, and try and take our advantages from it.
It comes out after all like having got to do with common trivial things like gravitation, the sun and the moon, and the seven seas.
Personally, I am able to take my advantages of all those quite common and rather obvious and trivial things because it did allways interest me..
And that may perhaps become the way that we are taking it and how rather to discuss it, the art of livinjg with it every day and to make the best possible use out of such very obvious and everyday trivial things.
For instance how to change our minds and learn better to orientate so that we better get aquainted to such rather obvious and trivial everyday things and circumstances.
Darwin for instance, some people fight and deny him, but I am studying evolution and possible origin of species in my own garden, having also learnt a bit about bees and flowers, the banana flies, and Mendels beans in school. Try and find and see evolutionary divergence and convergence in quite comjmon living things.
What next should we or should people rather learn and be aware of in order to see and to interprete and to tackle that AGW better?
There I also have my ideas and suggestions. Do not buy and do not sell proteses for reality for instance. But rather try and be aware and conscious about your own weather and water levels and reliable signals of local temperatrures. And get practically aquainted to the basic laws of nature that you will need for proper understanding of climate phaenomenology. Do that rather than worshipping under the thinktanks and the high expertise that are only humans and can cheat you.
.
War On Entropy: I don’t think it’s just the Dunning-Kruger effect, though that’s a large part of it.
V: I keep seeing references to the “Dunning-Kruger effect,” as though those commenting here actually know what it means. Here’s a brief description of the tests Dunning and Kruger administered: “Across four studies, the research indicated that the study participants who scored in the bottom quartile on tests of their sense of humor, knowledge of grammar, and logical reasoning overestimated their test performance and their abilities; despite test scores that placed them in the 12th percentile, the participants estimated they ranked in the 62nd percentile. Moreover, competent students tended to underestimate their own competence, because they erroneously presumed that tasks easy for them to perform were also easy for other people to perform.” (Wikipedia — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I consistently earned A’s and A pluses throughout my student career, from high school to grad. school, and never paid a cent in tuition while studying in four different institutions of higher learning. I would thus have certainly been grouped with the “competent” students who “tended to underestimate their own competence” rather than the low scoring students who overestimated it and could thus be tagged with the “Dunning-Kruger” effect. And actually I do tend to underestimate my own competence, despite the many efforts among those posting here to accuse me of arrogantly blowing my own horn. I’ve never claimed any degree of expertise in the field of climate science and have consistently relied on evidence gleaned from the scientific literature for guidance. Feel free to disagree with my take on things — I may well be on the wrong track. But please don’t accuse me of being subject to a psychological effect you don’t understand.
WOE: I suspect he gets a dopamine hit every time he thinks he is one step ahead of someone else in understanding the issues, and it doesn’t take much at all for him to draw that conclusion (because of the DK effect), so he has developed an addiction for pointing out non-existent problems in papers he doesn’t understand. He also interprets all negative responses as proof that he has raised serious issues and caused consternation, reinforcing his belief in the importance of his mission.
If people tell him THAT he is stupid, he ticks one up on the ad hominem column, and takes it as proof that he is right, and he feels smug for being so thick-skinned. (Etc. etc., tiresomely reiterating accusations that have been leveled against me again and again for years.)
V: It doesn’t take much awareness of human psychology to assess the true meaning of this sort of assault, which says far more about the accuser than the accused. The accuser’s psyche is clearly unnerved by the evidence revealed in my posts, which he obviously finds threatening. Unable to marshal a convincing response he vents his anger and frustration by resorting to childish insults. I’m used to this sort of treatment by some of the more immature denizens of this blog, I understand it and refuse to be deterred by it. Sorry.
V. Your last post was masterfully self-referential. Almost every criticism levelled against you was followed by a demonstration of the very trait I accused you. You even managed to demonstrate a meta-DK effect – first I’ve seen.
But I’m done. You can blather to your hearts content and I won’t waste time reading it.
Good. Thank you.
https://twitter.com/mbouck/status/1451948279621558277/photo/1
Enough said.
Dunning Kruger- effect, how interesting.
We can now add the Dunning-Kruger effect to the areas for which Victor suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
He’s done the first DK^2 I’ve ever seen. Let’s see if he can pull off a DK^3.
Then I’ll be really impressed.
But victor
Quite important is ones whish to have an answer to the question and that the answers must also be true.
I sort the climate dispute and questions into 2 categories and faculties that I am aq1uainted to, and rather try and find it out and find the answ2wers for myself. If I cannot do that, I woulde not really believe any other peoples answers either.
As a consequense of that, then I also have to be responsible for my answers.. Then I can squeeze people and even be able to state proof if I am clever.
Else I will be squeezed myself and be proven wrong and only be dis- qualified
1, the faculty of science, there I have a training of solving complex problems of physical chemistery and of physical acoustics. And I further take meteorology glaciology oceanography and observational and experimental design, engineering, serious.
The other faculty is Humaniora. There I can examine it in terms of politics ideologies history of learning and history of stupidity cheating and quackery.
If you are so intelligent and have so many free highschools, maybe you should organize yourself better for the purpose first and get aware of and try and publish your real purpose and your whishes first..
PS.
Whisful tyhinking is also quite an art you se, that must be trained.
Victor, at every turn your posts have failed to reveal any evidence that stands up to informed scrutiny. The idea that anyone is unnerved by your self-proclaimed “evidence”.
I think this part of Santer’s article is fascinating
I don’t consider this background noise, but a real signal and a pattern that climate scientists should continue to understand and ultimately reveal. Consider that earlier in the article, Santer said:
The research will need to continue because the fingerprint of natural variability is not yet known
Re. “the fingerprint of natural variability is not yet known”
One thing is quite clearly known: The fluctuations from natural variability in various temp series are on the order of 10x the annual trend. Therefore, “natural variability” clouds the issue only over periods of a couple, or at most a few, decades before the underlying trend overwhelms any probable annual fluctuation.
Of course these short term fluctuations are seized upon by deniers as meaningful (see the nonexistent “hiatus” still being touted as somehow “meaningful” by our own resident denial crew). I have never yet seen a short term peak, trough, or plateau that denier blogs couldn’t turn into a “hiatus”, “recovery”, or even “decline”. Once the long term makes the mistake obvious, they merely go on to the next piece of short term noise. In any time series one pretty much always can find such short term noise. But that is just what it is: Noise.
And even if some additional variable or set of them (e.g. ENSO) explains some further portion of said noise, BY DEFINITION it will be mathematically independent of any linear trend and so simply cannot contribute to any long term trend inferences. (This assumes one understands partitioning which is rather central to regression analysis rather than “just knowing” things like some of our denier stats “experts” here.)
@ P.P (@whut)
“…because the fingerprint of natural variability is not yet known”
That opinion seems very strange to me, as I know a lot of such fingerprints. They are really common and trivial enough.
Obvious marks of land rising and sinking, of glacial history , glaciers coming and going, the erosion of earth rocks mountain and landscapes,..the moovement of sand dunes,… the very horizons of archaeology and its known methods,..occurance of fossiles in nature old and new,…
are you for instance one of those who believe and who propagate that todays AGW is not sure and certain because natural variability is not known or has been forgotten, ignored, or opressed in all that work?
I looked into your website and found a discussion of ENSO. That system was ffirst described by Jacob Bjerknes who migrated to California. And was son of his father and grandfrather who were pioneers of experimental hydrodynamics, radio waves, and meteorology.
The art is to state the questions on possibly solveable form and the choise of phaenomenologically congruent similarities, due plasible experimental archetyps, to study and examine it also in the lab.
I assert that ENSO is not random or chaotic but has a fingerprint of a deterministically forced system that should be predictable. One fingerprint to support this, known from signal processing, is that the time-series shows a double-sideband suppressed-carrier modulation (DSSC) characteristic. A random or chaotic signal can’t support this as the sidebands would get scrambled. In terms of information theory, the ENSO signal contains ordered information that only needs to be decoded to reveal the underlying pattern.
Yes, many posts on the topic. I use the website to post analysis before publishing. The most recent was an EGU presentation applying a nonlinear solution of the primitive equations to perform a decoding of the ENSO time series — https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-10515.html
Yet, until this is agreed upon by others, it still falls under the category of “not yet known”
ENSO’s contribution to rising (or lowering) temps is short term and sums to zero over the longer term (kinda’ by mathematical definition). It has precisely zero effect on the temperature trend over any time period over a decade or two.. Three at most.
“the ENSO signal contains ordered information that only needs to be decoded to reveal the underlying pattern. “
Probably so, though not a novel idea, e.g.
“Finding the relationship between ENSO and external forcings with known period and phase would contribute to the long-term forecast of ENSO. One of possible candidates for this is the 18.6-year period moon tidal cycle …. This 18.6-yr cycle causes the long-term modulation of oceanic tides ” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33526-4 (2018)
it also says: “ENSO impacts global climate through atmospheric teleconnection” Kind of the case for everything climate. Given everything is connected somehow(?). I suspect the reverse (climate impacting enso) is becoming more likely now the climate system is changing so ‘rapidly’ (in geological terms.) Seen a few papers along those lines.
Of course “not yet known” and “not quite certain” are almost standard disclaimers today applying to most things climate. It’s just the way it is. So blessed be “the decoders!”
And? Climate science is more than just finding an AGW signal.
referencing a 2018 article.
The novel idea is that the much stronger Mf fortnightly tide (13.66d) aliases against the strong annual impulse that provides the ENSO barrier. This generates a ragged 3.8 year cycle in line with the typical cycle. There’s more to it than that of course, but the point is that there are many aspects of signal processing that haven’t been put into practice. These all can help identify the fingerprints or patterns of the natural cycle.
Re. “And? Climate science is more than just finding an AGW signal.”
Sure. That’s true. But also irrelevant as to whether warming is occurring and how much warming will occur over periods of many decades. In the context of multiple decades, the AGW signal swamps out small modulations about the trend line.
jgnfld said
The context of these responses is Santer’s comment that I quoted: “… because science is ultimately about learning.
So learning the root causes of natural climate variability actually is relevant. I personally think the AGW behavior is largely understood, yet the challenging science remains.
You should look at my contention there is a correlation between EN’s and ASI extent.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2872.msg220874.html#msg220874
@ P P(@whut)
I looked into “doubble sideband supressede carrier modulation DSSC” and this comes closer to what I have been dealing with. Harmonical physical and phonetical analysis and regulation of standing soundwaves in wind instruments.
Unluckily, , most “experts” only think mechanically and monochromatically about it.. But the oscilloscope shows anything but clean groundtone sinus waves. I could rather find out of “The G-O-D-” system, Gro0undtone Octaqve Duodecima. that is 2 different basic types of soundcolours characterized by Octave and further pair- numbered partials, and Duodecima and further odd numbered partials, Which gives the basic physical and harmonical morphology of flute- waves and soundcolours
OOOOOO= pure sinus
ÅÅÅÅÅÅ= the octavial tone
ØØØØØØ= the duodecimal tone.
It is keye knowledge for being able to take it rather out of empty air by knowledge different from having to copy it minutely in ant- steps over all irrelevant surfaces.
An essencialo device for me is the RC- couppled oscilloscope, That isn Mic. signal to the Y terminal and through a condenser over a resistor to the x- terminal. that clearly shows the difference as it is also heard. OOOOOOO in the air is pure sinus and gives a clean round ring on the screen.
ÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ gives a ring with one extra- loop on the screen
ØØØØØØ gives a ring with 2 extra- loops on the screen.
Then there is no doubt about it, it is in the air and physical and not an effect inside of your head, chest, or stomack as often believed.
It is further what really takes,… and mooves the souls in the audience and make them buy and pay for it. It takes people deeply emosionally.
The elemenjtary wovels and consonants of wind music are as real, physical and harmonical as can be.
Then I have further mapped X,Y sevographically the all the partial waves in the air inside woodwind instruments and other strong experimental sound sources , by sond- microphone and frurther through a sharp monochromatic tuneable frequency filter, and find for sure that who states C= lambda. ny and counts on that in space inside of a strong sound source, writes, calculates, and argues false.
Never multiply lamda with ny and count on that inside and not even near to the orchestra.
Lambda times ny being constant in space is approached assymptotically far enough away from oscillators in molecular matter, or when the amplitude drops to zero,
C = lambda . ny is true for absolute silence only!
But both lambda and ny are as real as one can whish, and easily found in the air. but must be tacled separately. Soundspeed is totally rotten inside of pnevmatic oscillators. And that is rather a basic premise for the tone to be laminar, clean, dynamic, “Fat” strong and flexible.
Proper meaningful transmission of sound comes on the cost of any uniform soundspeed in space and time.
All this together is due to sound dispersion and unlinear acoustics, which is not the strange exeption but rather the main rule and reality.
They look and they look all over the visible shiny surfaces, but it is not there. It is in the air. The wind instruments are totally invisible, what we see is only their enclosures and “end- conditions” As with the Radio and the electromotor, The lectromagnetisms are as real as can be but totally invisible..
I have made a lo9o out of it: Leonardo wrote:
“La musica est figurazione delle cose invisibili”
auf Deutsc Gestaltung des Unsichtbaren.
That is exactly what it is about.
Burble- Rumble – Wolf im Ton- Krach, also shows quite obviously on RC- couppled oscilloscope,. It is partial- beat and CHAOS different from coherence and harmonical laminar fluent structurally stable dynamic CHOSMOS.
Also light is absolutely invisible. No-one has seen the light. We only see its material and molecular end- conditions, which is also so practical with the light. Light onto it, then we see it.
I have managed to receive and de- modulate SSB signals with traditional “Reaction receiver” variable frequency and positive feedeback for beat- tone.
That is also what I use for taking or “listening” out singular partials in experiental sound sources. , and suggested the same to all who think in terms of “Cycles” or “Cyclic effects” in climate data.
Nobody will believe it but it is rather the only way, proper fourier- analysis. of the signals. and due discrimination of Chosmos from Chaos, meaningful patterns and signals from random noise.
But that chosmos in the chaos, I tend to believe more ande more for sure, that it is a spiritual entity that takes consciousness different from automats and dead matter to find and to identify.
It is due to creation.
But ever since God is no well formed formula in science, it will take scilled and enlighted, conscious, creative and critical humans at least, and they seem to be real.
@ Paul Pukite(@whut)
And everybody else who cares to read it
This is rather my main interest for many years, made into an earning profession. I am a quite fameous and successful historical music instrument maker on the basis of pre and para- industrial craft and physical understanding.
A very central idea in it is the Chladni experiment, analyses and artistic design of sound frigures, standing soundwaves. That ENSO looks to me very much like it, and was first uncovered discovered by Jacob Bjerknes, who also was quite aquainted to his grandfather Carl Anton Bjerknes` `water- bath,
That took Gold in Paris 1881. and probably is what has further inspired Niels Bohrs, Louis de Broglies, and Erwin Schrödingers understanding of microchosmic nature.
We made up that Chladni experiment the modern way for the antroposopher, who rather believe in Theodor Schwenks “das sensible Chaos”….. Chladnis plate driven by an electromagnetic vibrator and a sinus tone- generator. That gives much more figures especially in the higher registers, than driving the vplate by Chladnis violin bow.
We found that some figures show unstability bi- stability and hysterese- phaenomena. The same sinus input groundtone “OOOOOOOO..” could give 2 quite different sound figures in the plate and by that obvious soundcolour contrast: ÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ or ØØØØØØØØØØ
“The round tone and the reedy tone”
And at some given input frequencies the plate could not decida Å or Ø , but “wobbled” slowly and dramatically between them. That is the Wolfr im Ton, also found further in strong radio transmitters and in certain violin strings. And in wind instruments. Where it can wobble and burble in empty air as if it was water.
A “wobbling” Pacific ocean, Can you believe it?
I can surely say, that the ENSO is a typical wobble or burble or Wolf im Ton. The material wave or sound frigure gets in conflict with its end- conditions.
The same shows clearly also on the RC- couppled oscilloscope d/o.
It is partial beat, and the laminar mooving wave actually breaks similar to partial superposed white brakers at sea. As when when the same tone wobbles between Soundcolour Å and soundcolour Ø.
Further, those Hysteresis phaenomena were also extreemly sensitive. To stabilize a soundfigure just put a slight damping finger at the site where a corresponding chladni figure node line ought to be,
And if the system is near enough to instability and chaos, just heat it slightly with a match from underneith and it goes …WhOMMMM! Showing the very sensitive tipping points
For stabilizing a strong radio transmitter, the same is done by tiny adjustments along with empirical tracing and insight into the node and antinode system.
To kill an ugly oscillatin or rattling noise in the engine, the same is done by the intelligent engineer. By tiny rubber damping at the potencial max antinode sites, the places of maximum oscillating velocity. Or loosening the mounts a bit where there is maximum oscillating tension.
Infra- sound is felt with fingers in the engine.
And it can hardly be modeled in virtual reality because:,
your beliefs or laws of physics, that are necessary for that, may be good for 1.st approximation, but hardly rules down to elementary musical accuracy of fine performance in complex systems.
Wherefore we also use the rather empirical ship- tank and the windtunnel for high refinement of design and wherefore there are tuning screws at critical sites on the violin and in the radio. And wherefore highest refinement and adjustment of it is done cunningly IN SITU
What does not help at all is the secret varnish, your fameous patent LOGO, and the production secret under all those holy and shiny surfaces.
Carbomontanus said:
When I first started to look at the ENSO problem, I fond that the earliest citations on modeling the sloshing of the Pacific ocean basin (and sloshing in general) used Mathieu equations, which were also used for modeling the standing waves of elliptically shaped drum heads (in 1868). Mathieu functions are cyclic but complex, and can be pushed into a chaotic regime. So I think the musical analog is relevant.
A relevant paper uploaded to arXiv just last year on the topic: “Pure Tone Modes
for a 5 : 3 Elliptic Drum” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.06936.pdf
Carbomontanus: “sinus input groundtone “OOOOOOOO..” could give 2 quite different sound figures in the plate and by that obvious soundcolour contrast: ÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ or ØØØØØØØØØØ”
I’m not sure why you’re trying to make a point using the pronunciation of letters whose pronunciation quite likely isn’t known by much of your audience. Nor why you think that any vowel sound is likely to be a pure sine form.
@ Prl
I am fully aware of course, that most bpeople here hardly know ÆØÅ. But, maybe the better, I definde it thorroughly tecnically and in terms opfv the initial prime- numbers 1,2,3 and further pair and odd numbers. Ø =Brötchen Bleu Bird., Å = Oben Austin Bordeaux.
O is falsely spoken in Norway. It is normally spoken Å in civilized languages
We tried and sing to the oscilloscope on na flutemaker course. By looking carefully to the scope I can sing near to a ring with one extraloop or a ring with 2 extraloops But no male of the company could sing something near to a pure sinus. A woman however from New Age with Yoga and meditation and Traverso flute could sing a pure OOOOOO- ring on the scope.
But if you whizzle… it shows that you are quite unable to whizzle anything but a pure sinus with white noise all around its edges.
I have wondered and examined further. How can it be that we are so clever at distinguishing talking and singing with so different singing and talking voices? I find that the irelative contrasts between the wovels rather than their “absolute” values is what we perceive as reliable and meaningful patterns. Allthough with some rather universal standards and patterns in it that are taken to be “Objective” and interlinguistic
The same is true of colour vision. Take and read Donald Duck in a white room with red green blue violet orange lamp in the ceiling. After a short while the colours of Donald look near to normal again and you hardly bother. Then go out in normal light, and normal colours in sunlight very silly. Retina adapts very efficiently and serves yo with your expected “colour universe” and stoneage conscept of colours.
They were singing also , joodeling..Africa is very clever and and advanced on harmonics and polyphony.
Pattern recognition rather takes consciousness and conscious conscepts.
It all comes comes because all through stoneage, that was especially long, we had to recognize and discriminate blue, red, orange yellow violet and green plums in nature and in the basket, even judge and sort finely their degree of ripeness. Allmost regardless of light conditions. Normjal Optical mind manages that. and further finely mixing and breaking of colours by careful comparishion much better than any colour photometer.
Audical musical linguistical mind is really very advanced also in a similar way
Another way of thinking of it is to think in terms of a REBUS.
I once learnt what that means in latin. It is hieroglyphic by no known rules and no dictionary. “By the things by means of the things..”
And a traditionjal idea is that there are deeper meanings and patterns in nature and in the things such as for instance natural pfrinciples and natural laws.
But do not set a stupid machine however virtually intelligent, it takes conscious phantacy and many times even ingeniousity to crack a given REBUS.
If you ask the stupid questions and program your “Intelligent” machine in a way that is foreighn to the very task and to possible categories in which you expect to find “patterns”, then you just end up in CHAOS. Or you may find your “patterns” indeed but they will be irrelevant and useless. That is called to be “misconsceived”. about it.
Thus be consceived first, you see.
Carbomontanus has been discussing the Chladni effect wrt standing waves in musical instruments, and I responded by suggesting the Mathieu equations as a first-order mathematical analysis.
Every research text about sloshing for hydrodynamics analysis features Mathieu equations — see Faltinson, “Sloshing”, Cambridge U Press (2009) for example. The question is how it relates to larger basins such as the equatorial Pacific. A recent review paper, “Computation and applications of Mathieu functions: A historical perspective” https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01812 places some context to it. In the attached pic below, I show how the Sturm-Liouville form of the Mathieu equation (excerpted from the link above) can be rearranged to match the simplification we presented in “Mathematical Geoenergy”, Wiley/AGU (2018) for analyzing the topological waveguide along the equator. A nice analytical form results.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/7243/UcUEpp.png
(nice if a mod could make it appear inline)
File under, well, duh! Those brilliant scientists are at it again, rediscovering the already-known. We’ll get them past their Atomist views, but will it be in time?
From The Conversation via Yahoo!:
Reconsider: What is the world?
Today, in a great convergence, ecological science, evolutionary theory, quantum theory, Indigenous wisdom and the religions of the world are all telling us that the story told by the mechanistic worldview is too small. On this expanded view, there is complexity in the cosmos, in rivers, plants, animals that can’t be explained by matter in motion.
The converging worldviews emphasize that new properties and entities evolve or emerge from the interdependencies and interactions of natural systems, not from their matter alone. Orchids or consciousness or beauty, for example, aren’t snapped together from particles of matter like Legos. Rather, they emerge over long expanses of time from the evolving organization of particular systems. As systems become more complex and interactive, they organize themselves into new patterns, new life forms, new realities.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ideas-ancient-greek-philosophy-may-124330616.html
Killian prancing around , tooting up his horn, with the scientists his favourite fall guys: “ Those brilliant scientists are at it again, rediscovering the already-known. . “File under, well, duh!” , eh?
Boringly predictable, including Killian’s misreading his own source: the simplified mechanistic world view is not limited to “scientists”, but does apply to the entire Western secular culture built on the reductionist approach of ancient Greeks. And Killians own source identifies: “ecological science, evolutionary theory, quantum theory” as those who along with ” Indigenous wisdom and religions” have challenged the reductionist approach.
The last time I checked – “ ecological science, evolutionary theory, quantum theory ” were done by … scientists, no? So you are using critique of reductionism by scientists to discredit …scientists for reductionism? I guess if you want to hit the nail, everything looks like a hammer…
Your silver-bullet solutions to the AGW may change (see the fate of your brilliant plan of reduction global emissions by 90% by targeting ONLY the consumption – which was shown. with a simple arithmetics, that it could not, ever, produce the promised reductions), but your seething contempt for scientists is unchanged. Who could forget the classic Killian:
“Jesus Christ, Rasmus! […] My god! The arrogance of scientists! When we step into your world, you get all uppity and upset. But you have an entire conference without me and my colleagues talking about a topic you have no expertise in?”
Killian, about scientists’ arrogance of not inviting him to a political conference … they didn’t organize…
Your distrust and contempt for scientist, and the unwavering conviction that you know better than them – are akin to those held by anti-vaxers and COVID conspiracy theorists. I guess – it should not be surprising, since other than those who in this for money, the motivation of the majority of them is the same as yours – massaging one’s ego: if you can see what the experts failed, then you must be smarter and better than them.
Y
So you are using “ecological science, evolutionary theory, quantum theory” are NOT scientists?
Your silver-bullet solutions to the AGW may change (see the fate of your brilliant plan of reduction global emissions by 90% by targeting ONLY the consumption
You’re so busy trying to score points for being an asshole, that you utterly succeed.
1. “…plan of reduction global emissions?”
Learn the language.
2. Never said we could reduce global emissions only targeting consumption, ever. When one speaks of such things systemically, then one understands reducing consumption to that degree would happen in myriad ways and systemically would bring about a large number of changes all of which, together, would have the desired effect.
But, then I don’t write to please pedantic assholes who troll this board in the truest sense of that word who don’t even attempt to think and have no clue what a regenerative approach to reducing consumption would be like.
3. Shown by simple arithmetic? LOL… right… By you? LOLOLOL You wouldn’t know how to measure a regenerative system no matter how much effort was put into training you because you can’t rise above your tolling and biases.
You’re the worst kind of foolish, arrogant, childish, puerile fool putting his stupid ego above everything else so that you can’t see a simple message for what it is, and that is that climate-focused scientists would understand thing a hell of a lot better if they weren’t so dismissive of those in other fields who have knowledge and experience that directly impacts one’s understanding of the Earth system and climate.
Stop barking words, you damned fool.
This is a fair observation (imho) “…if they weren’t so dismissive of those in other fields who have knowledge and experience that directly impacts one’s understanding of the Earth system and climate.” I’ve seen it happen so many times over a long time too I thought it would obvious by now.
I thought the article was pretty good … short and sweet … written by two environmental philosophers about Environmental Ethics and problem solving. “An environmental philosopher, Moore writes about moral, spiritual, and cultural relationships to the natural world.”
Ks intro didn’t undermine them or what they were saying in any way (imho), a nothing burger.
We can burn away the old mechanistic ways of thinking that are fueling the fires of planetary ruin and create space for a world where people live in respectful relation among other beings.
and
If all beings are worthy, then all count in the calculation of what is morally permissible – and what is not. (ie not only human beings but all beings)
original – https://theconversation.com/how-ideas-from-ancient-greek-philosophy-may-have-driven-civilization-toward-climate-change-169714
Such matters are (imho) far more critical now to understand and apply, than knowing what the variations of carbon budget might be, or which scenario is the best, whether BAU means RCP 8.5 or not, or for example in Mann’s repeated call to cut emissions in half by 2030…. without him knowing or understanding if it is even possible / can be done without the world ‘order’ (incl food, electricity, and water supply) spiraling out of control.
Everyone’s professional expertise has limits beyond which all personal opinions and advice are equally questionable.
Piotr]: “…plan of reduction global emissions”
Killian: “ Learn the language.”
Really? That’s your point? Text editing mistake? Interesting, coming from the mouth of a guy who has produced , this gem which I will discuss in this post:
Over the past ten years, more and more voices are saying my words: The consumption of the highest consumer class has been reduced by 90%, which is roughly equivalent to the highest consumer country on a global scale.
From _you_? (see below)
From the guy who never makes text-editing mistakes?
Killian : “ 2. . Never said we could reduce global emissions only targeting consumption, ever.
Sorry, it got twisted in edition (in the new format I can’t see the preview screen) – I was trying to say that your claims WERE MUCH MORE OUTLANDISH than that:. It should have read:
“[Killian’s] brilliant plan [to reduce] global emissions by targeting 90% of the consumption of ONLY “the highest consumer nations “”
And here are your words, from Jan, Forced Responses:
The Ghost of the Killian Past: Over the past ten years, more and more voices are saying my words: The consumption of the highest consumer class has been reduced by 90%, which is roughly equivalent to the highest consumer country on a global scale.
First – it has NOT been reduced, it “has to be reduced”, second: note the confused construction of the sentence, the “which” part does not go with 90% aftre which it follows, not even with
that’s from the guy how just was lecturing me
to which I replied:
Piotr: “It will be not enough, not even close. Here is why: To stabilize CO2 at current level we need to reduce CO2 emissions by 70-80%, MORE if we want to reduce CO2 to reasonable levels, AND EVEN MORE if your change does not happen immediately and we have to bring down CO2 from higher levels than today.
But you CAN’T possibly get there by targeting ONLY the rich countries – since Europe, North America and Oceania _combined_ emit only slightly above 1/3 (36%) of global GHG emissions. So the majority of the cuts would still have to come from the rest of the world.”
—
Killian , in response to the argument that 90% cut to consumption targeting ONLY the rich countries (responsible for 36% of global emissions) is not enough to meet even the modest 70-80% reductions in global CO2 emissions:
Killian:, Jan. 21: “ Excuse me? You are proposing smaller reductions [70-80% of emissions], but 90% [ cut to consumption only to the rich countries] is not enough?”
Yeah, that’ s our Killian, the same guy – who just had ridiculed others “ No shit, Sherlocks? LOL… Yeah” and “No. You are not getting what [somebody] said ”
Next, our Killian …. lectures me on the nonsense of using per …. country calculations:
Killian even thinking country by country is nonsense
EVEN THOUGH it was him who introduced the per country calculations:
Killian, Jan. 21,earlier post: “ which roughly also equates to the highest-consuming nations.”
And seeing my argument than with Europe, America, Oceania producing only 36% of current
GHG emissions, you CAN’T GET even to the modest 70-80% cuts in global emissions by targeting ONLY these 36% – our Killian responded that …. we need more ambitious target (90% global cut instead of 70-80% ):
KillianJan. 21: : So, again, I said 90, you said 70-80, but my number is inadequate?”
And after _that _ lectures me: “You do not know my argument, based on this post. ”
The Ghost of the Killian Present 3. Shown by simple arithmetic? LOL… right… By you? LOLOLOL
Yes:
Piotr Jan 21: “Europe, North America and Oceania _combined_ emit only 36% of global GHG emissions.” [A 90% cut ONLY to their consumption would create:]
0.9 * 36% = 32% cut in global emission. 32% < 70-80%.”
So yes: “As shown by simple arithmetic.”
The rest of Killians argument:
“You’re the worst kind of foolish, arrogant, childish, puerile fool putting his stupid ego above everything else so that you can’t see a simple message for what it is, and that is that climate-focused scientists would understand thing a hell of a lot better if they weren’t so dismissive of those in other fields who have knowledge and experience that directly impacts one’s understanding of the Earth system and climate. Stop barking words, you damned fool.”
is , ehem, self-explanatory. That’s the Great Killian we all know and admire:
All hail K.! All hail K.! All hail K.!
” with Europe, N.America and Oceania producing 36% of global emission
To the editor – if possible, please remove the earlier, accidentally sent working version. Here is the finished one:
================================
Piotr: “…plan of reduction global emissions”
Killian: “ Learn the language.”
Really? That’s your point? Text-editing mistake? Interesting, coming from the mouth of the guy who has produced this gem of the perfect English:
“ Over the past ten years, more and more voices are saying my words: The consumption of the highest consumer class has been reduced by 90%, which is roughly equivalent to the highest consumer country on a global scale.”
First, since it “has NOT been reduced by 90%” surely, you meant “HAS TO BE reduced”, right?
Second, your clause starting with “ which” does not fit – it does not fit where you put it – after “90%”, since the number 90% is NOT “ roughly equivalent to [a] COUNTRY“, nor does it fit after “the consumption of the highest consumer class ” since “CONSUMPTION” is NOT “roughly equivalent to [a] COUNTRY” either.
And _you_ have been lecturing _me_ to “ learn [my third] language” ? ;-)
“Teacher, teach thyself”?
Now, back to your other “arguments”:
Killian, Oct.24: “ 2. Never said we could reduce global emissions only targeting consumption, ever.”
Sorry, it got twisted in HTML editing (the new page format does not show preview) – I was trying to say that your claims WERE MUCH MORE OUTLANDISH than that … ;-) It should have read:
“[Killian’s] brilliant plan [to reduce] global emissions by targeting 90% of the consumption of ONLY “the highest consumer nations “”
And here are again your, now familiar, words:
Killian, Jan. 19 “ Over the past ten years, more and more voices are saying my words: The consumption of the highest consumer class has been reduced by 90%, which is roughly equivalent to the highest consumer country on a global scale
Piotr: Jan. 20 : “It will be not enough, not even close. Here is why: To stabilize CO2 at current level we need to reduce CO2 emissions by 70-80%, MORE if we want to reduce CO2 to reasonable levels, AND EVEN MORE if your change does not happen immediately and we have to bring down CO2 from higher levels than today.
But you CAN’T possibly get there by targeting ONLY the rich countries – since Europe, North America and Oceania _combined_ emit only slightly above 1/3 (36%) of global GHG emissions. So the majority of the cuts would still have to come from the rest of the world.”
Killian, in response to the above:
Killian:, Jan. 22: “ Excuse me? You are proposing smaller reductions [70-80% of emissions], but 90% [ cut to consumption only to the rich countries] is not enough?”
Yeah, that’ s our Killian, mixing percentages of different things; the same guy – who just had ridiculed others for their supposed inability to understand even simple arguments: “No shit, Sherlocks? LOL… Yeah” and “No. You are not getting what [somebody] said ”
Next, our Killian …. lectures me:
Killian, Jan 22.: “ even thinking country by country is nonsense
EVEN THOUGH it was … him who introduced the per country calculations, I quote:
Killian, Jan. 19: “ which roughly also equates to the highest-consuming nations.”
And seeing my argument that, with Europe, America, Oceania producing only 36% of current
GHG emissions, he CAN’T GET even to the modest 70-80% cuts in global emissions by targeting ONLY these 36% – our Killian responded that we need … more ambitious target (90% global cut instead of 70-80% ):
Killian Jan. 22: “ So, again, I said 90, you said 70-80, but my number is inadequate?”
And after _that_ he lectured me: “ You do not know my argument, based on this post. ”
Killian Oct.24: “ 3. Shown by simple arithmetic? LOL… right… By you? LOLOLOL”
Yes:
Piotr Jan 21: “Europe, North America and Oceania _combined_ emit only 36% of global GHG emissions.” [A 90% cut ONLY to their consumption would create:]
0.9 * 36% = 32% cut in global emission. 32% < 70-80%.”
So yes: “As shown by simple arithmetic.”
The rest of Killian’s argument:
“ You’re the worst kind of foolish, arrogant, childish, puerile fool putting his stupid ego above everything else so that you can’t see a simple message for what it is, and that is that climate-focused scientists would understand thing a hell of a lot better if they weren’t so dismissive of those in other fields who have knowledge and experience that directly impacts one’s understanding of the Earth system and climate. Stop barking words, you damned fool.”
is rather self-explanatory. That’s the Great Killian we all know and admire. And, everybody from 0:25: All hail K.! All hail K.! All hail K.!
There’s several minutes of my life wasted I will never get back reading the above comments. So in the same “spirit” of the day as pay back ………. may I point out ….
according to Ps quotes several times, from jan 19 K: actually said
… which is roughly equivalent to the highest consumer country….
Only to later (falsely/erroneously?) claim instead:
I quote:
Killian, Jan. 19: “ which roughly also equates to the highest-consuming nations.”
That’s problematic. Two different quotes Different words used, with different meanings. Almost everyone makes typos and jumbles their words at times but manually misrepresenting “Quotes” by changing the words? That is a whole other thing entirely. :)
———————–
But about this:
Piotr Jan 21: “Europe, North America and Oceania _combined_ emit only 36% of global GHG emissions.”
First I don’t see the point or the value in that comment, back then or now. For starters I do not think you have interpreted Ks comment and meaning correctly at all …. it’s irrelevant if his 90% is right or wrong, or supportable frankly. People have their opinions.
But throwing in 36% of anything is just an irrelevant meaningless unsupportable non-argument to me.
While K was discussing “The consumption of the highest consumer class“ you have switched the discussion to GHG emissions by country/region – two different unrelated things. Why? Totally unrelated data.
I’m also curious about the source for your comment though and the year it applies. Was it from here? https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions 2017 maybe here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions 2015 – if so that’s CO2 not GHG or CO2e.
So there is that possible error, but the world data ref adds up to 36.3% of global CO2 emissions. So that’s my guess for the source, am I right? :)
I’ll point out here “the highest consumer class“ lives in almost all countries of the world, including high levels in China, Japan, Sth Korea, India, the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia Kuwait UAE Qatar etc., Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, and the Philippines; plus in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Columbia, and South Africa,
So there’s that, all of whom do relate to the point K was making, and there is also Aviation and Shipping which equals 3.2% of global emissions but is not accounted for country data … obviously most of that high use aviation is generated by the highest consumer class, yes?
I am trying to emphasize here that K was addressing the (undefined) highest consumer class, and then used the “hypothetical” highest consuming country as an example comparison point .. OK so he did not convey his ideas clearly. So what? No big deal.
and just in case , what about China emissions ?
https://twitter.com/wild_biologist/status/1181860047195971584
Comparing any two countries or grouped regions that have large population differences and levels of economic development is not comparing apples with apples and therefore typically problematic and usually misrepresent of the Data and the truth of the situation – often intentionally.
These kinds of comparisons too often amount to gross fallacies and misrepresentations. Like saying any selected region / group of countries is “only 36% of global GHG emissions” – without a proper context is says nothing useful.
Context is everything. Conveying the truth about Data accurately is everything.
Whereas Opinions, including hypothetical solutions, estimates of efficacy, or future forecasts put out by anyone are simply that … opinions. Some are better than others sure. Almost everyone will disagree too. That’s not a big deal imho. One can still posit a better quality opinion …. (well in their opinion it will be better, but not necessarily so.)
So how did that rate as a total waste of time vs what went before? :)
and PS fwiw …. emissions data and the conclusions. The things that really matter.
e.g.
We know that Global North countries have contributed, you know, something like 70 plus percent of all historical emissions that are driving climate change right now. And the Global South of course is where the vast majority of the negative effects happen.[…]
And of course you’re going to say like, right, China is a major contributor to global emissions. And that’s definitely true. But on a per capita basis (still today) China actually contributes relatively little compared to say the US or Germany or the UK, which, you know, on a per capita basis are vastly worse offenders in terms of carbon emissions than any country in the South.
Context – https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-58-the-neoliberal-optimism-industry-and-development-shaming-the-global-south-cf399e88510e
National CO2 cumulative emissions impacting warming right now –
EUROPE 33% (EU-28 22%)
NTH AMERICA 29% (USA 25%)
CHINA 12.7%
INDIA 3%
AFRICA 3%
STH AMERICA 3%
Data and Context – https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Per Capita and Annual CO2 emissions now (2017)
Who emits the most CO2 each year?
Africa 3.7%
South America 3.2%
Oceania 1.3%
In many of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa – such as Chad, Niger and the Central African Republic – the average footprint is around 0.1 tonnes per year. That’s more than 160 times lower than the USA, Australia and Canada. In just 2.3 days the average American or Australian emits as much as the average Malian or Nigerien in a year.
More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions – are the United States 16.2 tonnes, Australia 17 tonnes, and Canada 15.6 tonnes. This is more than 3 times higher than the global average, which in 2017 was 4.8 tonnes per person. In 2019 China was 7.1 tonnes per capita.
The world’s largest per capita CO2 emitters are the major oil producing countries; Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Brunei, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia
Data and Context https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
The biggest driver of emissions is not a countries population or birth rates but Fossil Fuel exporting nations and the Per Capita Consumption of the wealthiest people on the planet no matter where they live. It’s not the teaming masses living in the global South and the developing nations.
There are good reason why the Paris agreement, and Kevin Anderson and hundreds of others keep on talking about this nebulous thing called Equity, and others talk about Reparations, and island nations talk about SLR happening already, not in 2100 maybe, but now!
and Capitalism aka Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, Creditors deciding Govt Policy, and Hegemony aka The North South ‘Neoliberal’ Operation
“But in 2012, developing countries received a total of $2 trillion US dollars in total inflows from the Global North, right? That includes aid, foreign investments, loans, remittances, everything, every bit of money, which is a lot, but in the same year, some $5 trillion flowed the other direction from South to North.”
“…the material footprints of people in Sub Saharan Africa is extremely low. It’s about two tons of material stuff per year. By contrast the average across high income nations in the West is 28 material tons of stuff per year, which is 14 times higher than the average in Sub Saharan Africa.”
“So instead of policy decisions being made by parliaments in the Global South they are effectively dictated from on high by creditors. “
“So if you look at the kind of capitalism that the Western countries used to consolidate their economic power during the industrial revolution, I mean it was highly protectionist, right? I mean the US and the UK were some of the most protected economies in the world and yet those are precisely the kinds of policies that they prevented Global South countries from using (after independence) in order to manage their own development. So there’s a real double standard at play here historically. And I think it’s really important to distinguish between countries that were structurally adjusted and China on the other hand. […] But the crucial difference between China and the rest of the South is that China has the power to direct investment within its country effectively. “
“Capitalism doesn’t exist in a zero growth economy and this is precisely what I argue is absolutely necessary for us to confront an errant ecological breakdown is we need to shift to a post growth economy. We need to change the rules of our economic system so that it no longer requires this exponential growth. “
“We know that Global North countries have contributed something like 70% plus of all historical emissions that are driving climate change right now. And the Global South of course is where the vast majority of the negative effects happen. Like we’re aware of the storms that hit the Eastern coast of the US and so on but the South loses in the region of $500 billion dollars per year in costs associated with climate change, which again, outstrips the aid budget. The aid budget, you know, is paltry in comparison and it’s just, it’s fundamentally unjust for poor countries to suffer those losses without some kind of reparations or compensation from the people who are, who are effectively from the countries that are effectively causing it. “
from – https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-58-the-neoliberal-optimism-industry-and-development-shaming-the-global-south-cf399e88510e
These are the things that really matter (imo) This is why the UNFCCC has been so ineffective and why GHG emissions have increased every year since the UNFCCC was formed. It’s a Pea and Shell Game. A Two Card Trick. Net Zero by 2050!
There might be technically 192 nations in the UNFCCC but those 192 nations do not make the decisions. A
So Appearances really are everything. Because they hide the Reality.
Or as Greta puts it “Blah Blah Blah! Blah Blah Blah!” :)
Reality check, yes its clear rich people and / or rich countries are contributing a disproportionate amount of emissions. However Piotr is right about this consumption issue. He’s referring to discussions where Killian was discussing countries, not global high income earners as such. I remember those discussions and the numbers discussed. And “higher consumer country” and “highest-consuming nations” sounds like the same thing to me.
@ Killian
Is this really yours?
I wrote about drunken sailors and what we shall do with them.
Shall I also have to mention central stimulants?
Ladies and gentlemen
Fact and truth is that I have sneeked into the climate- surrealists when they have open meetings and open doors, in order to study them and see who they are.
Thus it may well be that some surreaslists are sneeking into here to see and to find out who “we” are to the extent that we are not surrealists. They are spying on us and perhaps trying to change our minds. Perhaps even trying to take revenge for personal frustrations.
But it is normal in a presumably open society I think. And personally, perhaps due to my character, I thrive better among the gentiles, and seek up my own congregation and “folks” only now and then, and hardly in order to strengthen and to build up my faith..
Similar things may be true for a small series of peculiar participants here.
It is also my facultary interests and profession to study ideologies and deeper Paradigms and professional and political humaniora that way. We are instructed and learnt and even trained to do it, to learn about and to
travel, to work, and to perform among the gentiles and “the alians”.
That is even an old tradition and history.
Coding Suggestions/Help,
For visualizing the planet’s energy balance, I have been looking for simulations of this, perhaps simplified.
https://eleceng.dit.ie/gavin/Control/Modeling/Filling%20a%20Tank.htm
I have found this example with fancy graphics, but it doesn’t actually work for the purpose (unless I’m clicking wrong?). (run it to get the correct image)
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/under-pressure
But I would be happy with something more schematic, like:
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/HTML5/holeinmybucket.html
I know some mostly-lurkers have a background; could you look at the phet app and figure out how hard it would be to do continuous flow?
I’ve done a fair amount of searching but haven’t found an existing simulation so far.
@ Zebra
Your holeinmybucket.html was funny. The rest of it,I can ignore.
KIA: “Good try Piotr. It’s somewhat confusing:”
No confusion: – Your claim: The continent had the 2nd coldest season in all of its recorded temperature history”
– The reality: NSIDC “ said no such thing” – the “2nd coldest” refers ONLY about to the meteo station at the North Pole.
And no “confusion” that you DIDN’T KNOW the difference:
– RC: “One tiny bit of the planet had a record low season.”
– KIA: “Yes, the South Pole is a tiny bit of the planet , but the Antarctic continent is a larger bit. The continent had the 2nd coldest season in all of its recorded temperature history. That’s a little more significant particularly when we are told that the poles are warming WAY faster than the rest of the planet due to AGW. Hope this clarifies for you.”
So you based your denying the reality of AGW and your patronizing dismissal of an opponent on a DELIBERATELY FABRICATED fake-fact: the claim that according to NSIDC: The continent had the 2nd coldest season in all of its recorded temperature history.
So no confusion about what NSIDC said. And no confusion about your intellectual and ethical integrity.
Piotr: “– The reality: NSIDC “ said no such thing” – the “2nd coldest” refers ONLY about to the meteo station at the North Pole.”
South Pole, Piotr, not North Pole. The Antarctic is down south, the Arctic is up north. ;)
It’s been a week now, but I do remember that the bottom line is that the South Pole station had the coldest polar darkness period ever recorded by humans. May have been WAY colder before we started recording temps – nobody knows.
Quote from the NSIDC.ORG link:
“For the polar darkness period, from April through September, the average temperature was -60.9 degrees Celsius (-77.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a record for those months.”
Can you reada da engrish? It says ” a record for those months”, not second coldest, but THE coldest. ) Yes, at the pole only – the south pole, not the north!
Here’s the sentence that confused ME about “the continent” – it may be true, but like you say I don’t have the data, and it doesn’t say the continent had the coldest or second coldest winter. – it just says “one of the coldest”, and as I said previously I could not find this statement in the NSIDC article. Here’s the sentence:
“A new report shows Antarctica experienced one of its coldest winters on record during 2021.”
It is from this article with the same name:
https://www.fox5ny.com/weather/antarcticas-2021-winter-was-among-the-coldest-on-record
Looking at the near-record sea- ice extent after a very hot summer it was likely a very cold winter for much of the continent.
For correctness, Mr. Know Shit All does not quote from the NOAA as he insists but quotes from the September review post on the excellent NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News September review which these days also reviews the southern cryosphere. The full text he quotes from runs:-
So now all we need is some indication from Mr. Know Shit All as to the inflated relevance these Antarctic temperatures have to the price of cheese, and we will have the full measure of this particular subject of trolling he wishes to relate here.
New, added a video overview of past productions, checkout the highlights.
[b]Climate State Video Vault[/b]
https://climatestate.com/climate-state-video-vault
If you want your talk or climate related video uploaded to the CS Vimeo channel contact me.
War On Entropy:
Science according to Victor:
1) Have an opinion, and find a factoid that seems to support it
2) Get exposed to a different dataset with more statistical power
3) Claim that confusion besets the whole field and advocate giving up
4) Avoid any consideration of why the preferred factoid and the different dataset don’t match, just claim that knowledge is impossible. (Call this being ‘wary’, though, to sound a little less like a complete loon, but wariness here merely means doing nothing until it is too late.)
All of science as we know it would be impossible if we took Victor’s approach. Note that the unwillingness to accept science or data only starts when that science or data supports the consensus or conflicts with his cherry-picked factoids. It is curiously absent when finding the original factoid or mining papers for isolated sentences that seem to support him. He’s happy to call anyone an expert or quote any paper if it is in support of a well-behaved factoid, but advocates extreme skepticism for badly behaved or unwelcome facts.
V: 1. The drought study I referenced is hardly a factoid. The lead author holds a Ph.D,, is a professor in a leading university, and is a specialist in the study of drought, with a long list of published papers (http://cws.bnu.edu.cn/tabid/204/ArticleID/1332/frtid/203/Default.aspx ). BPL, on the other hand, is best known for his science fiction writings. While I have no way of knowing whether the graph he presented is meaningful, I have no problem favoring the work of a specialist in this field. My comment regarding the tendency of different methods to produce different results reflects a well known issue in scientific methodology and by no means implies that “all of science is impossible.”
2. See above.
.3. I never claimed “confusion besets the whole field,” only that certain claims appear to make little sense in the face of contradictory evidence.
4. See above. The paper I referenced is certainly NOT a factoid, but a serious study conducted by qualified climate scientists — which BPL is not. Your claim that my position makes science “impossible” is hopelessly biased, empty rhetoric, reflecting your unwillingness to accept any evidence that challenges your certainties.
“. . . mining papers for isolated sentences that seem to support him. He’s happy to call anyone an expert or quote any paper if it is in support of a well-behaved factoid, but advocates extreme skepticism for badly behaved or unwelcome facts.”
I don’t “advocate extreme skepticism,” I point out the existence of specific, well-documented evidence that challenges the prevailing view. And if you believe I “mine papers for isolated sentences,” please support your accusation with a single example — if you can.
Re. “specific, well-documented evidence that challenges the prevailing view”
Cherry-picked factoids presented without context and without reference to the entire globe over time do not constitute “specific, well-documented evidence that challenges the prevailing view”. They’re simply BS FUD.
One good example would be Fyfe, et. al. which you claim shows there was no warming. What they actually conclude is “This has led to widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more”. Modulating the time series over a period of a decade or even a bit more says nothing about AGW over the term climate variables are typically measured: 30 years minimum. But you “accidentally” forgot to mention that the last 1000 times you’ve brought that article up.
The sea level rise at a particular location or the temps at a single station are further such examples.
Can anyone here think of a single instance when V cited a scientific paper (from a non-crank source) and 1) it said exactly what he claimed; and 2) the claim he relayed was a true reflection of the overall thrust of the paper?
I would be interested to see such an example. I’m open to the possibility such examples exist, but I don’t think I’ve seen one yet.
Bwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaa! Oh, stop, yer killin me…
Victor the Sealion – while “taking things way too literally” (pot kettle black)
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1452307904451825679/photo/1
V: The paper I referenced is certainly NOT a factoid, but a serious study conducted by qualified climate scientists — which BPL is not.
BPL: Look again.
Levenson, B.P. 2021. Habitable Zones with an Earth Climate History Model. Planetary and Space Science 206, 105318.
Levenson, B.P. 2019. A Catalog of Smaller Planets. Earth, Moon, and Planets 122, 83-93.
Levenson, B.P. 2017. Theory of Habitable Planets. Seattle, WA: Kindle Direct Publishing.
Levenson, B.P. 2015. Why Hart Found Narrow Ecospheres–A Minor Science Mystery Solved.
Astrobiology 15, 327-330.
Levenson, B.P. 2011. Planet Temperatures with Surface Cooling Parameterized. Advances in Space Research 47, 2044–2048.
The troll Victor Grauer says he has faith in the researcher Zengchao Hao, the lead author of a paper Hao et al (2014) because he is a jolly clever fellow with a PhD and a professor’s chair and all. Of course, the cited paper doesn’t say anything in support of the troll’s stated view that global drought showing no signs of a trend although the paper does present a graphic the troll is eager to share with us.
If the troll actually has such faith in Zengchao Hao, perhaps he should consider this paper co-authored by Zengchao Hao. Dating from 2020, it thus has more authority than the 2014 paper and it does actually make statements about drought (or more correctly “compound dry and hot event CDHEs”) and the signs (or not) of associated trends. The papers major finding is presented as follows:-
This does rather confirms the troll was indeed waving a factoid rather than scientific evidence. But such stupidity is what we expect from a troll with such limited abilities.
Doctor
The Trolls,… we know them here in Norway.. They are very traditional. Sometimes small, sometimes huge and overwhelming, but they are often one- eyed and somewhat stupid.
Light over them, light onto them, when the sun goes up,… they vanish and resign like morning dews and fogs.
They are monsters of darkness and misunderstanding.
They are the old Jotuns from Jotunheimen.
They also occur at sea. Thus surely also in the Congress and at the websites.
They even aspire and are now and then able to enter the White House.
http//Trollet på Carl Johan, Theodor Kittelsen.
The etymology of “troll” as used to describe some Internet nuisances has absolutely nothing to do with Scandinavian folklore. It has to do with a method of fishing.
Genosse prl:
…Absolutely nothing to do with…
Where do you believe that trolling method of fishing origines and from what?
And who could you suggest invented it and named it so and because of what?
The original Troll- conscept of scandinavian folklore has floated and diffused directly over in Internet jargon and folklore. Where it does mean and entails rather the same as allways.
So you are teaching me and further partricipants mis- consceptions and falseness, and you are judging false here.
A ” fishing “lure” quite in general is called “juksa”, that means to cheat. Verbum Lure in English is old norse meaning to cheat or to betray.
Juksa, =Etym. Joke- Joker.
There are other and more original sources in your English than French and Kauderwelsh, you see.
Moral: Check over Danish and Frisean first befrore you teach Englist to “alians and foreighners”. We did fuck them over and told them proper Englisg as the oldest and first ones. Befrore that they spoke Kauderwelsh.
Moral 2: Also Take my very good advices first before you try and keep up with or to win overv the Trolls. We have the experience and the routines with them. .
Moral 3: Light over them, and picture them, and draw them first!
Proof: httpl:/ Troll at the Karl Johan street. And remember to keep Henrik Ibsen as the only one totally unaffected of it all down in the right corner of your picture or model theory of Trolls like you can see for yourself. Ibsen there had published on them.
Trolling as a fishing technique is to “Fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.” The bait is often an artificial lure meant to imitate a swimming fish.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/troll (meaning 2).
The original allusion was to making a provocative post (the “lure”) in order to get a “bite”, an angry response.
Lots more about the history of the usage here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Origin_and_etymology
And the same source gives the etymology of “troll” as a fishing technique as:
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘stroll, roll’): origin uncertain; compare with Old French troller ‘wander here and there (in search of game)’ and Middle High German trollen ‘stroll’.
It gives the Scandinavian folklore sense’s etymology as:
Early 17th century from Old Norse and Swedish troll, Danish trold. The first English use is from Shetland.
So practically nothing in common etymologically.
From “internet trolling” on wikipedia:
“There are competing theories of where and when “troll” was first used in Internet slang, with numerous unattested accounts of BBS and Usenet origins in the early 1980s or before.[24]”
“The English noun “troll” in the standard sense of ugly dwarf or giant dates to 1610 and comes from the Old Norse word “troll” meaning giant or demon.[25] The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children’s tales: antisocial, quarrelsome and slow-witted creatures which make life difficult for travellers.[26][27] Trolls have existed in folklore and fantasy literature for centuries, and online trolling [28] has been around for as long as the internet has existed.[citation needed]”
“In modern English usage, “trolling” may describe the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat,[29] whereas trawling describes the generally commercial act of dragging a fishing net. Early non-Internet slang use of “trolling” can be found in the military: by 1972 the term “trolling for MiGs” was documented in use by US Navy pilots in Vietnam. It referred to use of “…decoys, with the mission of drawing…fire away…”[30]”
Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct.
We have shown that climate change, specifically precipitation, directly drives the change in the vegetation – humans had no impact on them at all based on our models.
Climate did it. This is important in that it shows how the speed of change is important in extinctions. The climate warmed too quickly for megafauna to adapt to the new environment. And megafauna did not just disappear in NA, but globally in arctic and temperate zones. Certainly, these animals were hunted, but it’s fairly well known we weren’t killing at will, but succeeded only 30% of the time-ish. Also, multiple homo species existed over multiple glacial cycles.
Anyway, that mammoths were alive 4k ya across the Arctic and not just on Wrangel Island puts the humans as primary cause to bed.
Now that we are changing the climate 1,000x faster than ever before is clearly not sustainable.
We have evidence in the historical record that your comment is at least partially incorrect. Humans settled Madagascar a bit over a thousand years ago. Megafauna, which had thrived during several serious changes in the climate, immediately disappeared. Maybe they caught the first flight out?
The following is another case of megafauna extinction not related to climate change. The New Zealand Moa was a large flightless native bird considered to be megafauna due to its considerable size and weight. It’s now extinct.
The history: “Before the arrival of human settlers, the moa’s only predator was the massive Haast’s eagle. New Zealand had been isolated for 80 million years and had few predators before human arrival, meaning that not only were its ecosystems extremely vulnerable to perturbation by outside species, but also the native species were ill-equipped to cope with human predators.[49][50]”
“Polynesians arrived sometime before 1300 (These became the indigenous Maori population), and all moa genera were soon driven to extinction by hunting and, to a lesser extent, by habitat reduction due to forest clearance. By 1445, all moa had become extinct, along with Haast’s eagle, which had relied on them for food. Recent research using carbon-14 dating of middens strongly suggests that the events leading to extinction took less than a hundred years,[51] rather than a period of exploitation lasting several hundred years as previously hypothesised….” (Moa on wikipedia)”
Moa were around for millions of years and survived periods of significant climate before 1300. After 1300 the climate was reasonably stable in comparison, with some mildly cooler periods, until the modern global warming period from 1900 onwards.
I wasn’t aware the Maori were in New Zealand 4k to 10k years ago.
Stop trolling.
Killian.
“I wasn’t aware the Maori were in New Zealand 4k to 10k years ago.”
Nobody said they were.
“Stop trolling”
Not even remotely trolling. I stated the widely accepted evidence that Moa went extinct due to hunting. Not inflammatory, provocative, or questionable evidence, so its not trolling.
Killian is more likely trolling. He said “Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct. ” This can only be interpreted to mean all megafauna at all time periods. Killians statement is 100% wrong and is a massive exaggeration, and he must know its wrong, so it’s trolling. The drunken sailor is now trying to defend the indefensible, yet again.
1. An island is not a planet. 2. An exception does not invalidate the rule. The paper does not claim humans had no effect on megafauna at all, but that the NH extinctions of mammoths were not a result of human predation. By extension, it’s very unlikely that would be true only of mammoths. Further, it seems very unlikely saber-tooths and other predators were hunted into extinction, so what wiped them out? Changed climate = changed flora = reduced large herbivores = extinct saber=toothed tigers.
Two fallacies in one post? Alrighty, then.
Maybe read the new research.
Note: This would also put the bolide impact theory in doubt, though they may not be mutually exclusive. Further, what is almost certainly true, particularly in specific places and/or with specific species, is that climate was the key driver with hunting adding additional pressure, particularly as populations dwindled.
And, sorry folks, here’s the summary:
and paper: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211020135914.htm
Do moa count as megafauna?
Yes Moa do count as megafauna, according to wikipedia, and every other reference I could find with a quick google search:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megafauna#In_flightless_birds
Did they go extinct in the Northern Hemisphere 4k to 10k years ago? No?
Then you raise this point because…?
Killian. Because you claimed and I quote “Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct. ” This can only be interpreted to mean all megafauna at all places and time periods. The Moa is just one example that proves your claim wrong. Refer also to my other response above. I agree climate change is obviously a factor in many extinctions. But so is hunting and other factors.
Killian: “Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct. We have shown that climate change, specifically precipitation, directly drives the change in the vegetation – humans had no impact on them at all based on our models.”
Tell it to the Dodo. Or to Genyornis newtoni, moa, Stellar sea-cows, passenger pigeon, great auk. Tell it to the right whale teetering on the brink of the extinction – its not the collisions with ships and entanglement in the fishing gear – its the climate, stupid!
Tell it to the tigers, rhinos, elephants or big apes that they are being killed by the … climate. Tell it to the island fauna, decimated by hunting, egg picking, and by rats and snakes brought by the humans. Tell it to the albatrosses drowned in hundreds of thousands by the baited hooks of the long-liners, or by starving to death when their stomachs are full of pop-bottle cups and cigarette lighters. As my cold-water coral expert friend told me – the cold-water corals of Newfoundland will be destroyed by bottom draggers long before the ocean acidification will get to them. Amazon will get logged out much quicker than the climate will be able to do it.
I am far from saying that climate change does not cause extinctions, I am saying it is not only game in town. The same way a forest fire caused by lightnings does not prove that humans can’t start forest fires.
Cute claims like “Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct” , even if done to draw attention to a major effect of climate change (and if followed by “ I have been telling you that for ten years but you would not listen” – to the guy drawing it…) – come at the price –
the price of getting off the hook all other ways we humans can make species extinct or decimated – overhunting, bringing invasive species, spreading pathogens and pests, and, especially, destroying habitat.
Particularly when they work with climate changes – in the past: starting unintentionally or intentionally wildfires at the same time when climate change was already putting pressure on the vegetation, later – millions of sq. km of ecosystems converted into pastures or fields, roads, towns and cities, and now our development destroying, or blocking access to, climate change refugia.
I am far from saying that climate change does not cause extinctions, I am saying it is not only game in town.
Dear troll,
1. Your statement above is Straw Man. The article and paper was not about “extinctions,” it was about mammoths, specifically, and , by extrapolation, those following the last interglacial generally, In no way, shape or form is the subject all extinctions at all times in all places. You may as well have said, “Uh-uh! My mommy told me the dinosaurs died from an asteroid impact!” I clearly referenced the time frame, the animal involved and the region.
2. Current extinctions and extinctions on ISLANDS in the last few hundred years have no correlation to the megafauna extinctions following the end of the last interglacial over the entirety of the northern hemisphere four thousand to 10,000+ years before present.
What the hell is wrong with you?
2. The bolded point in the OP was from the researchers, not me. I offered logical arguments for why humans wouldn’t have caused the extinctions. That does not mean they had zero impact, as the quote states, but it was in no way a major factor, perhaps having the most impact as populations fell to untenable levels while humans still needed to eat.
The ecosystem is collapsing, but you can’t stop your trolling.
Your grammars, Killian, your grammars.
And your systematics. Your logical empiricism, your basic and primary principles and entities.
There are 2 comedies on it that I know.
1 Aristophanes Nephelai and
2 Ludvig Holberg Erasmus Montanus
Moliere and also Shakespeare may also have understood and published on it, and ask me if you think that you have found something there then I shall control.
.
The related research study relates just to the wooly mammoth, not all megafauna.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=58550
Think. Extrapolate. Precipitation was the cause of the extinction of woolly mammoths through the changes to plants. Apparently you think only mammoths are affected by changes in vegetation.
I guarantee you similar studies would find similar conclusions about other megafauna because… it’s an ecoSYSTEM.
I realize you have no idea what that means.
Killian. Jesus wept you are a frustrating sort of person. Remember your opening statement was “Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct. ” This can only be interpreted to mean “all megafauna in all places at all time periods”. Your statement is clearly wrong or at least exaggerated or misleading. Megafauna died out for numerous reasons including climate change, hunting and others. This is beyond debate.
I’m pointing out the study you quoted only referred to the wooly mammoth so cant extend to all megafauna in all time periods. Sure OBVIOULY climate change probably killed off SOME other megafauna. Not ALL megafauna. Megafauna has quite a wide definition.
You claim to be an expert. ROFL so damn hard its killing me.
That’s more than enough to drive extinction, for long-lived, slowly reproducing species particularly–I think, based on some scattered reading.
Simplified mathematical model study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274967067_On_the_roles_of_hunting_and_habitat_size_on_the_extinction_of_megafauna#pfb
Companion paper considering the anthropogenic/climatic controversy:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284282329_The_controversy_space_on_Quaternary_megafaunal_extinctions
If I read it aright, they are suggesting that the answer to “Climate or man?” is “Mu.”
I have said myself there are interacting issues, so this really adds nothing to what is said in this thread/these threads. However, it also brushes aside the very clear statement from an author of the paper, humans had very little, if any, effect on mammoth extinction. if true, your links above are moot. Bear in mind, that paper is the best-in-class for this issue being the latest research with the newest data. We should give it due consideration.
While it’s true and a fair critique of my comments is the paper *only* deals with mammoths. However, that extension was picked up from the USA Today article, so I am not the only one making that generalization. More importantly, nobody can show what is true fo the mammoths wasn’t also true for other megafauna. The extrapolation is fair and logical, if not proven. Until disproven, it is a fair and logical hypothesis that should be taken seriously.
What bothers me about all these comments are:
1. The dog piling. Not one of you has in any way considered the paper’s hypothesis seriously. it is all immediate, knee-jerk criticism. But what if it’s accurate? The implications are important in helping raise the alarm that climate change alone can cause our extinction. the lack of objectivity WRT to anything I post is dysfunctional.
2. IF the hypothesis is true and IF my extrapolating of it to other megafauna (not all megafauna as many fall out of the time lime of that paper – but that’s obvious despite ht various ridiculous responses about Dodos, etc. ) is accurate, then the danger of climate-caused extinctions is reinforced as a danger and must be taken more seriously.
Finally, I think all of you are failing to consider the ratio of animal biomass on Earth at the time to human biomass was massively different. Human population was a tiny fraction of today while animal biomass was orders of magnitude greater. The sheer number of huntable fauna – including fishes/marine mammals – alone makes it unlikely we drove them to extinction in most cases.
I have already pointed out comparing islands, or even Australia, to the huge landmasses of the Americas, Africa and Eurasia is apples and oranges.
finally, one thing I neglected to mention, I think, is that aboriginal peoples tend to be very tunes, very aware, and expert in their ecosystem management. This is strongly at odds with the idea they would wipe out their own food supplies. There is no reason to believe what is true now was not true then, and the evidence of the intelligence and creativity of humans being very high going back tens of thousands of years grows stronger all the time. Recent studies reinforce this.
They were, and remain, smarter than Homo sapiens sapiens tehcnicus.
Here’s a really good one ….
UK Conservative MP Philip Davies has said the UK’s net-zero climate targets will “make no difference at all” and claimed the ambitions are simply “virtue signalling gesture politics “.
Just days before global leaders gather in Glasgow for the COP26 climate conference, Mr Davies sent a letter to a constituent to suggest they are living “in cloud cuckoo land”.
He also said that becoming carbon neutral is “utterly futile”.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/tory-mp-claims-climate-targets-21967038
Read the last paragraph in particular in original letter put on twitter by the constituent…
https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/1452647911326629896
e.g. ” – anyone who thinks every country in the world is going to take these measures are in cloud cuckoo land.”
my comment:
I think he’s got that right and is honestly telling the truth as he knows it to be. He knows he isn’t alone in this thinking. In the UK and globally. Little impoverished powerless countries do not count.
I can’t help but agree. COP26 is all for show. While of course there are some, many even, who are sincere and genuine, I believe/opine that COP26 is one giant fraud, a fantasy land epic. Far bigger than Lord of the Rings.
With all due respect, how is humanity to act collectively on emissions without a cooperation at the national level? *Before*, that is, we crash civilization altogether?
That humanity has never eliminated crime or various types and degrees of nonconformity has not historically meant that we haven’t been reasonably successful at limiting the damages of criminality through a combination of sanctions and agreements. The analogy applies, I think: the UNFCCC framework is IMO helpful not because it has been adequate so far, but because it has lessened the damage compared with BAU as it existed in 1988. And there’s no obvious alternative to that agreement on the horizon–aside from varieties of collapse, ofc–no matter how much we may need increased ambition.
“how is humanity to act collectively on emissions without a cooperation at the national level?”
It can’t. National Cooperation is essential. We’re all in this together. (In theory)
there’s no obvious alternative to that agreement on the horizon
With all due respect, there is no alternative to the UNFCCC at present – the way things are structured today. OK, yes. Now that’s a fact obviously, but that does not mean it needs to remain so or had to be so nor that the structure of it had to be setup the way it is either. OK? Is that a fair observation of reality?
A thought comparison for perspective might be: Afghanistan. Fact the Taliban are now the Government. One could say it;s better having a Govt than no Govt, however, is it in all circumstances? Does this mean a Taliban Govt needs to be so or had to be so? I think not.
The current UNFCCC system we have is made up of movable players (national politicians, incl Dictatorships and Kingdoms) within it, however what’s happening now via COP26 and the IPCC are not immutable Laws of Physics. There are multiple workable alternatives to the current UNFCCC system. The most powerful block them out of self-interest. They prefer the current system for good reasons. imho.
Greta has said as much before, using different words, a different emphasis and framing. Millions might even agree with me.
I readily agree that having it the last 30 years has been better than not having anything at all. I do not agree that something better was not always a possibility and a much better option than what we got. Results could have then been better than we have now, imho. Just my opinion. YMMV. Fine.
imho, this UK MP just gave you a glimpse of what the puppeteers setting the current limits of the UNFCCC, really think about this climate business. It only takes one critically powerful nation or maybe 10% of them who have always believed what this MP believes (what Victor and KIA believe) to sink the current appearance of Cooperation you see at the UNFCCC and for the whole thing to collapse in a heap – leaving no process and no alternative.
Appearances are everything in this world.
Think Colin Powell at the UNSC, of PM Tony Blair in lock step with GW Bush and the Neocon Cabal of Cheney, Rumsfeld Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. et al.
Similarly, it’s the most powerful who decide what happens at the UNFCCC and at each COP.
+1.5C and net zero in 2050 was allowed to happen. The MP is reflecting what the powerful think and say behind closed doors.
And that is what triggered me to say ” I believe/opine that COP26 is one giant fraud, a fantasy land epic.”
None of it makes rational logical practical sense to me. Not +1.5C and not net zero by 2050, nor ambitions targets for 2030 and the real world. Not the SR15 report or the AR6 WGI either.
None of it adds up.
If it looks walks shits and smells like a duck …..
Climate scientists used to think tipping points were unlikely until we reached 4C of global warming. Now we see we are in the danger zone at just over 1C of global warming.
I am *so* glad to see this said out loud and with no caveats. It’s something reflected in the “…faster than expected…” phrase some bristle as being critical of the science and scientists rather than a mere statement of fact.
My first exposure to that dynamic was WRT the cryosphere. What got me focused on climate in 2005/2006/2007 were the 2005 low and the 2006 statements by a cryoscientist (?), who I have forgotten the name of, but might have been Prof. Jason Box, that the coming 2007 IPCC report’s statements on SLR were woefully inadequate because **they included no ice dynamics.** That seemed to me a bit like studying the speed of light but not measuring light speed and just guessing how fast it was. I don’t mean that critically, just descriptively as I am sure there must have been reasons they were not included that were technical. (At least I hope so!)
The following new ASIE low in ’07 confirmed “Houston we have a problem” so I went looking at many a chart. The chart of ASIE from @ 1900 to the present at that time showed a clear shift in the ice at almost exactly 1953. But…. this was 54 years later! As i looked at the graph it seemed to me there were observable downward shifts, are increases in ASI loss, that laid out like a series of small tipping points. Then came 2012.
I knew for certain then we were a minimum of 2, and more likely 3 or 4 bifurcations into the collapse process. 1. Industrial revolution. 2. Effects manifest in ASI @ 1953. 3. Several small stepwise drops after a few years of wobbles, 4. 2005. And ’07 and ’12? do they constitute a period of wobbles or are each of those a new tipping point?
Since 2016 there has been a significant increase in temps (you call can share the specifics… I forget details like that, but not that they occurred.) Another tipping point? We are seeing various doublings in rates of things around the globe such as Greenland melt, SLR, and some of these are getting down into the one or two decade range, which means the 5~10-year range is not far off. And if the whole system, or key parts of it get down to 5-year doublings, we’ll be in for a very rough ride with almost no options left. MY BE/gut feeling on that is we will be seeing them within the next 10 to 20 years, and just maybe in under 10.
Faster than expected. What we see today was once considered 4C-level stuff. We are well into cascading, interacting, mutually-reinforcing changes. The question is, can we quantify how far?
We have to get as real as we possibly can.
You may want to read the article: https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/cop26-why-climate-change-tipping-points-that-could-lead-to-runaway-global-warming-keep-me-awake-at-night-professor-tim-lenton-3427699
If you do read the Scotsman article linked by Killian and have that déjà vu feeling, it is because Exeter Uni’s Tim Lenton was much quoted in the CarbonBrief ‘tipping point’ explainer that you may remember had a fair volume of wordage tapped-in about it in September’s UV thread.
I’m a little puzzled by this, as IIRC one of the big ‘tipping points’ results was the modeled reversal of the Amazon carbon sink as a result of rainforest conversion with 2C warming. And–again, IIRC–that paper (the citation for which I do not recall OTOH, though it could be found if necessary) came out in 2004. It gave some meat, I think, to the whole notion of the 2 C ‘guardrail’ concept.
Not the most consequential question to answer; as you say, we’re clearly flirting with trouble much too seriously at the current 1+ C. But I haven’t been thinking that there was anything but catastrophe in store at 4 C since–well, ever, actually.
While sea ice has been declining since the 1970s due to AGW, the sharp drop in arctic sea ice starting in 1953 happened in the middle of the flat period of global temperatures mid last century, so its probably due to local natural climate variation. Makes me suspect the sharp drop starting in 2008 was also due to local natural variation.
Nigelj
you may be right there.
I also see that the east arctic the Russian waters have been thawing much more than the west arctic the Grønland and Canadian waters, in recent years.
State of the Cryosphere Report
Polar Changes Risk Unstoppable – and Permanent — Climate Breakdown
This new Report, reviewed and supported by nearly 50 leading cryosphere scientists, over half of them IPCC authors; details how a combination of melting polar ice sheets, vanishing glaciers, and thawing permafrost will have rapid, irreversible, and disastrous effects on the Earth’s population.
http://iccinet.org/statecryo21/
1994 UNFCCC ARTICLE 2
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1994/03/19940321%2004-56%20AM/Ch_XXVII_07p.pdf
jgnfld: One good example would be Fyfe, et. al. which you [i.e. Victor] claim shows there was no warming. What they actually conclude is “This has led to widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more”.
V: Yes, and I have no problem with the notion that natural variability is most likely at work in this case. What they most emphatically do NOT say is that the “hiatus” was due to a decrease in CO2 levels, as such levels continued to soar throughout this period.
In any case, their research did in fact demonstrate that the “hiatus” was a very real phenomenon and not the product of “denialist” disinformation. Which is precisely what I’ve been claiming all along, and you and so many others posting here have been denying. As for the reason why the “hiatus” occurred, that’s a different matter entirely — but natural variability does make the most sense as far as I’m concerned.
jgnfld: Modulating the time series over a period of a decade or even a bit more says nothing about AGW over the term climate variables are typically measured: 30 years minimum. But you “accidentally” forgot to mention that the last 1000 times you’ve brought that article up.
V: I never mentioned it because the reason for the hiatus was not the issue. What WAS at issue was whether or not it actually occurred. As far as my claim that there was no long-term correlation is concerned, that claim most certainly stands. A correlation is based on evidence — not reasons for its absence.
jgnfld: The sea level rise at a particular location or the temps at a single station are further such examples.
V: Examples of what? My comments on sea level were based on global data.
Again Mr.Victor
Your whish to have an answer to the question and also to have the right answer to the question may be quite decisive to whether you will get any good answer to the question.
Similarly, if your whish rather is that the question should not be answered alternatively if it can be answered, that answer should at leat be as wrong as possible,…. that whish will also tend strongly to be fulfilled.
Thus, whishful thinking is quite important in human life and it is not quite indifferent either, which kind of whishful thinking.
That is again one very good advice of mine.
Further, Peoples whishfulo thinking often shows more 0r less clearly in their behaviours. Be aware of that also. So i think you should rather think through your higher and highest whishes now and better publish them. Then many people will be able to help you get what you whish.
MARodger: The troll Victor Grauer says he has faith in the researcher Zengchao Hao, the lead author of a paper Hao et al (2014) because he is a jolly clever fellow with a PhD and a professor’s chair and all. Of course, the cited paper doesn’t say anything in support of the troll’s stated view that global drought showing no signs of a trend although the paper does present a graphic the troll is eager to share with us.
If the troll actually has such faith in Zengchao Hao, perhaps he should consider this paper co-authored by Zengchao Hao. Dating from 2020, it thus has more authority than the 2014 paper and it does actually make statements about drought (or more correctly “compound dry and hot event CDHEs”) and the signs (or not) of associated trends.
V: My oh my. Talk about cherry picking! Oh well . . , I’m touched to learn the clown has followed my posts so closely, seeking out whatever tidbits he can find that might cast doubt on any evidence I might present. The paper he’s managed to dig up (no doubt after spending a considerable amount of time sifting through a great many such works) is unusually complex, combining evidence reflecting two different phenomena, dryness and heat, over a wide variety of regions and time periods, focusing primarily on the hottest period of each year considered.
While this paper post-dates the one I cited, no attempt is made to correct the findings of the earlier paper, which focused exclusively on worldwide drought, nor is it cited among the many references. In any case, high levels of dryness plus heat do not necessarily amount to drought conditions, which are a different matter entirely.
I have no doubt, of course, that Mr. Rodgers will manage to dig up something, anything that might possibly weaken the effect of any evidence I’ve presented. As they say in the Geiko ad: “It’s what he does.” Good hunting, MAR.
One more “factoid” on drought, this time covering the contiguous 48 US states from 1890 through 2020. According to the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought
Here’s another, (https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_key_figures_display/public/key_figures_420?itok=bhjEJ3X8) covering global precipitation from 1980 through 2010, courtesy of the GLOBAL PRECIPITATION CLIMATOLOGY PROJECT: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/gpcp-monthly-global-precipitation-climatology-project
Anyone else noticed how widely varied Carbo’s style and clarity changes from post to post?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a sock puppet. Which one of you is it, eh?
Dr K
I am not in step with the Unions, you see, not even with the soviet and the united ones.
That may be a new and unaquainted experence of yours..
But, I am as clear as can be.
This new State of the Cryosphere Report is possibly the best designed, easy to follow & understand report of it’s kind I have seen. They break down the 5 main cryosphere zones into four separate emission pathways and likely degrees of climate change impacts. They plan to produce a yearly Report until 2030.
see http://iccinet.org/statecryo21/
http://iccinet.org/statecryo21/
Introduction: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
State of The Cryosphere: A Needed Decade of Urgent Action
http://iccinet.org/statecryo21/
(some summarized extracts)
Polar ocean acidification, warming and freshening:
Above 450ppm – which at current emissions, we will reach in about 14 years – current polar marine ecosystems (including valuable fisheries) may largely cease to exist.
Recovery from this is estimated to be 50,000–70,000 years.
Ice sheets and sea-level rise (SLR):
However, 2 meters could be reached by 2100 with current emissions, and an ultimate 15–20 meters would occur should temperatures peak between 2–3°C.
Recovery from this would be greater than 10,000 years and only with temperatures below pre-industrial:
Ice sheets cannot grow back except in ice age conditions.
Mountain glaciers:
Steep declines will continue even with low emissions, with no tropical glaciers and few mid-latitude glaciers outside the Himalayas by 2200 should temperatures reach 2°C;
Recovery from that is several hundred to over a thousand years, with glacier re-growth of only a few percent per decade/century.
Permafrost:
Thawed permafrost will continue emitting CO2 and/or methane for over 100 years after initial Thaw, even if temperatures stabilize.
Recovery is several thousand years for carbon drawdown into new permafrost soils.
Arctic sea ice:
Occasional ice-free Septembers even at 1.5°C, but ice-free summer periods lengthening to several months by 2°C, with massive global feedbacks;
Recovery time would be decades to centuries, depending on peak temperature and how quickly the ocean can cool.
—-
Cryosphere science increasingly points to ≈1.5°C and ≈450ppm as upper guard rails for
peak temperature and CO2 concentrations to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interfer-
ence” in the Earth’s cryosphere and therefore, the global climate system; with a need to
return to lower temperatures as soon as possible.
This first Report on the State of the Cryosphere summarizes the best scientific under-
standing of its reviewers – many of them IPCC authors, others leading and cutting-edge
researchers in their fields – of what the results will be if we instead choose to exceed 1.5°C
or more. Importantly, it does not take as its benchmark the next few years, or 2100, but the
ultimate cost of inaction to the planet and human communities.
[…] If the world community – from governments, to individuals – refuses to act in accordance
with the science of cryosphere, at least we cannot say that we didn’t know the disastrous
consequences of our inaction.
—-
While acknowledging, noting, recalling, recognizing, and conscious of the agreements to commit to the:
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE – UNFCCC Treaty 1992/1994
ARTICLE 2
OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1994/03/19940321%2004-56%20AM/Ch_XXVII_07p.pdf
https://www.yahoo.com/news/on-wall-street-there-will-be-water-how-cities-will-adapt-to-climate-change-090052551.html
Using proper existential risk analysis and knowing the massive rate of change, rather than assume the most likely scenario, one must assume the worst-case scenario. Assuming doubling and tripling periods of 5-to-10 years would very likely be occurring over this century because they were already being observed in some aspects of climate/effects (thermokarst lakes tripling in 7 years @ 2007, Walter, et al.) was simple logical reasoning.
Assessing risk is not, cannot be, based in data as the future has not yet happened. The assumptions based on existing data must match the risk. If the risk is mild, more hay fever, the analysis can focus on mild changes. When the risk is extinction, the analysis must be worst-case scenario.
Analysis of future risk is not like doing science. Science measures and announces what is known. Analyses of *future* changes requires logic and risk analysis with the data undergirding it, but not primary. Nobody can *prove* what SLR will be on Jan. 1, 2100. Choices on mitigation/adaptation cannot wait until science can measure and announce in 2101, yep, we hit 2.67 meteres on Jan 1. 2101!
We have lost a decade because this simple and obvious reasoning has been not only rejected, but derided, even laughed at. Let’s hope this is changing now, and hope that the next time non-scientists are ahead of the curve their analyses will not be rejected for no good reason whatsoever.
Yes, there are true alarmists running around yapping about the end being nigh, but alarmists aren’t doing solid analysis, they very much tend to cherry pick data and even twist the science to meet their *beliefs* and agendas. Analysts look at current data, trends, risk levels and extrapolate.
These two animals are not the same..
War on Entropy: Can anyone here think of a single instance when V cited a scientific paper (from a non-crank source) and 1) it said exactly what he claimed; and 2) the claim he relayed was a true reflection of the overall thrust of the paper?
I would be interested to see such an example. I’m open to the possibility such examples exist, but I don’t think I’ve seen one yet.
V: Every paper I’ve cited included evidence consistent with what I’d claimed. Whether or not the “overall thrust of the paper” supported the “climate change” paradigm is another issue entirely. There is an important difference between real evidence and the interpretation of that evidence. For example, Fyffe et al. prefer to interpret the “hiatus” evidence according to the prevailing AGW dogma, which, as we know very well, they support. However my claim had nothing to do with their interpretation, only with their conclusion that the “hiatus” was in fact real. Your misinterpretation of my intention is typical. We see what we want to see, unfortunately.
“Your misinterpretation of my intention is typical”.
I understand your intention perfectly well, and you have just admitted you like taking factoids out of context. Find a sentence in a paper that suits you? Quote it until your fingers bleed on the keyboard. Consider the paper it is embedded in and the overall context? Nah, that’s “dogma”.
Lame beyond belief, as usual.
Try calculating the rate of accumulation of planetary heat before, during, and after the so-called hiatus. Get back to us when you have those numbers.
And I’m still waiting for anyone to rise to the challenge of finding a single instance of a good-faith citation coming from you.
On the subject of arctic sea ice. “Increasing large wildfires over the western United States linked to diminishing sea ice in the Arctic.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26232-9
Interesting. One scientist has proposed putting tiny glass beads over the ice to make it reflect more.sunlight. Seems problematic to me due to animals ingesting it because it floats if the ice melts. Source:
https://polarjournal.ch/en/2020/09/25/saving-the-arctic-sea-ice-with-glass-beads/
Why not just paint as much of the planet “White” as possible on the land? White roads, roofs, buildings, – then start erecting “White” panels across large expanses of the Arctic. Yup, insane racist libs will shirt all over themselves thinking about living on a “White” planet, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do to survive, right? :)
If you did try it in the Arctic Ocean, I’d be leaning toward large rectangular panels thick enough to support the weight of a Polar Bear or snow-mobile. Perhaps polyiscyanurate or styrofoam panels 2- 3 feet thick, with a tough coating of some kind – fiberglass? plastic? The area of coverage needed might be something like the area of the “normal pre-industrial” minimum sea ice extent, minus the area of the recent “warmer planet” minimum sea ice extent. Probably even more than that to make up for less radiation to space from the remaining open water due to higher CO2 in the air. That would be a lot of foam! But, that’s why they make factories and engineers.
That’s the solution. AGW is an existential threat – let’s get started NOW.
The month of October was mostly quiet for the 2021 Atlantic Hurricane Season with storms Sam and Victor ended on Oct 5th and nothing until storm Wanda on the 30th, presently projected to run as at storm strength until 4th Nov..
The ACE for the year-to-date sits at ACE=140 which prior to 1990 was an exceptional level and the number of ‘named’ storms the third-highest on record (behind 2005 & 2020).
There were only 16 years recorded with annual ACE higher than ACE=140 in the 140 years 1850-1990, 11%,
But in the 27 years 1995-2021 we have now seen 12 which is 44%.
Indeed ACE>100 used to be the minority (25% of total) but we have had six years in a row with well over ACE=100 and ACE>100 for 19 of the last 27 years (70%).
Of course that won’t stop some folk finding some reason to excuse the numbers as being “normal”.
The same caveats apply as always. Prior to the satellite era, ACE will have been underestimated, and even over the last 50 years, better instrumentation has improved intensity estimates and detection of weak short lived tropical storms. Comparing now to 150 years ago without any accounting for data inhomogenity is flawed. Even comparing now to pre-1990 you have to take into account the multi-decadal AMO cycle which was in an unfavourable phase from 1970-1994, flipped to a favourable phase in 1995, and has been there since, that is why ACE has been higher than the long term average over the last 25 years. Unfortunately what you are doing here is cherrypicking on a Victor level.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/23/10/2009jcli3034.1.xml
ACE is a lot more sensitive to upward adjustments to the peak winds in strong storms than in the inclusion of weak ones. For example, raising the peak wind from 120kt to 125 kt gives as much boost to ACE as including a system with 35 kt winds as opposed to excluding a 30kt system. Better instrumentation allows better detection of small areas of peak winds in a strong storm, as well as upgrading of tropical depressions to tropical storms.
Adam Lea,
You may wish to apply “the same caveats … as always” but you do need to know what you are doing so as to apply what is applicable and not just pile-on-in with all “the same caveats.”
(I note you wave the AMO as an ‘Atlantic hurricane suppressant’ and there likely will have been suppression but note that the existence of an AMO has been recently questioned by one of our hosts. The potential existence of suppression of course means any trend today has to be a comparison with those older times.)
Your assertion that “ACE will have been underestimated” is unsupported. If you were talking storm-numbers such omission would be applicable as it is well-known that reassessment of storm-numbers is work-in-progress, as you demonstrate with a rather old paper from some of the usual suspects (although their latest paper Vecchi et al (2021) is making smaller adjustments).
But ACE isn’t storm-numbers. Today our ability to assess storm-numbers is dependent on whether or not we can see that a particular storm gained a particular hurricane category, even for a few hours. Back a century ago the very existence of a percentage of storms is today a matter of debate. But the contribution of those elusive storms to ACE is generally minor. The storms that provide the lion’s share of today’s ACE are very difficult to miss. Thus ACE (which may or may not be underestimated as it could perhaps just as well be over-estimated) provides a more robust assessment, something I have argued in UV threads in the past.
It is true that to take the 27-year period 1995-2021 and comparing it with the rest of the record 1851-1990 could be an exercise in cherry-picking. But if you insist it is cherry-picking, don’t just make the accusation – show the data that demonstrates a cherry-pick.
And as you appear to be struggling, let me assist.
If the period 1995-2021 is compare with other potential 27-year periods, we find two likely candidates sitting roughly 1880-1906 and 1943-69. For these periods to match the number of ACE>100 years of last 27 years, it would requite historical ACE estimates to be more than 20% low. And for ACE>140 the underestimation would need to be more than 25%.
I have also suggested in past months that the ACE>100 over the six consecutive years 2016-21 is unique in the record. For that not to be the case would require the underestimation of historical ACE greater than 40%.
So Adm Lea, does that help with your cherry-picking accusations?
Brain K.I.A. “Why not just paint as much of the planet “White” as possible on the land? White roads, roofs, buildings. ”
Unfortunately, all that constitutes only a tiny fraction of a per cent of Earth’s surface, so its global effect would be proportional to that…
Brain K.I.A: then start erecting “White” panels across large expanses of the Arctic [Ocean] I’d be leaning toward large […] polyiscyanurate or styrofoam panels 2- 3 feet thick, with a tough coating of some kind – fiberglass? plastic?
And are you going to nail your styrofoam to the water, genius? Ever heard of winds and ocean currents?
And why Arctic? How about you start closer home – say, California, Gulf of Mexico, US Atlantic coast, as there is much more solar flux per m2 entering than in the Arctic. I’d bet the locals and tourists will enchanted by your visions – no more going to the beach – not only it is hard to swim, coming up for air with a giant 2-3 foot thick reinforced styrofoam over your head. Heck, you probably don’t get even that far – as the access to the water would be blocked by the piles of KIAfoam, broken into pieces by storms and ships and washed ashore. Small pleasure crafts would not be a match for foaming KIA – so no more of those.
Of course by blocking light from entering the ocean you would kill the photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria – since they are the sources of food from practically everybody else -you would kill the life in the ocean. Mind you – not much will be left there anyway – since the only reason for KIAfoam is to AVOID reducing CO2 emissions, thus to allow increasing atm. conc. of CO2 and with that – increasing the other major effect of human CO2 emissions – acidification of the ocean. So no more fish-food and fishermen.
So no more beach, no more boats, no more diving and surfing, no more fishing, no more fishermen, no more seafood. I can see you winning in all the US coastal states on that platform.
But there might be one thing that could give you a pause – since your KIAfoam panel are large and sturdy enough to allow travel by snowmobiles – guess what major NEW illegal immigration route into the US has just opened, courtesy of Mr. KIA… Your redneck friends will be thrilled with you, I presume?
That little word “just” often covers quite a multitude of sins, doesn’t it?
The work it’s doing, it better be getting time and a half!
Now something like a far less extreme version might be a partial corrective to global overheating.
Clearly we have to look at the cost effectiveness of any cooling achieved, and even at its expected global distribution. Keeping surfaces white is not always easy. Dirt falls on all surfaces, and in many places, mold can darken surfaces. Roofs combat toxic mold formation in attics by a combination of heat and thermally induced airflow. Take too much of that away and you could end up with expensive problems down the road.
I think land albedo could be increased by selective changes to human managed landscape vegetation. Imagine if the albedo of a crop like corn was increased by say five percent. That would have a real impact upon the continental scale albedo. Various ideas have been touted for ocean albedo. One is to have floating platforms (powered by sun and/or wind) that spray fine salt mist into the air. The additional condensation nuclei should enhance the albedo of the marine stratus. So both land and sea albedo modification are both possible, but of course, cost-effectiveness and unintended environmental consequences must be investigated. So surface and/or near surface SRM (solar radiation management) is at least a possible counter to global heating. Most likely we wouldn’t try to eliminate the full global temperature rise this way, but any substantial reduction would at least be partial mitigation.
but of course, cost-effectiveness… must be investigated.
And upon this petard shall humanity hang itself.
UAH TLT has been posted for October with a global anomaly of +0.37ºC, up on September’s anomaly of +0.25ºC, the previous highest-of-the-year. UAH TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range -0.05ºC to +0.37ºC.
October 2021 was the 3rd warmest October on the UAH record, behind Octobers 2017 (+0.47ºC) and 2020 (+0.38ºC) while ahead of Octobers 2019, 2016 & 2015 (all +0.28ºC), 1998 (+0.24ºC) & 2003 (+0.12ºC).
October 2021 sits 24th on the highest all-month monthly anomaly list.
The first ten months of 2021 comes in as the 7th warmest Jan-Oct on the UAH record. For 2021 to snatch 2010’s 6th place in the full-year rankings would require UAH’s Nov-Dec 2021 to average a rather toasty +0.92ºC or more.
Dropping down to 8th behind 2015 would require UAH’s Nov-Dec 2021 to average a chilly +0.15ºC or less.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2021 .. +0.13ºC
2015 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 9th
2018 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.05ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 13th
2014 .. +0.03ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 12th