This month’s open thread. The first two weeks will be dominated by COP-26, and various science updates that will be announced there, including this year’s Global Carbon Project report. Curiously, there is some archival interest in the climategate affair possibly in connection to COP-26 (a BBC dramatization “The Trick“, a BBC radio series on the security aspects “The Hack that Changed the World”, and a couple of months ago, a podcast episode of “Cheat!”). Please stick to science-related topics on this thread.
Killian @ last months UV page. At no time did I criticise the paper on wooly mammoths or not take its hypothesis seriously. The paper on mammoths going extinct due to climate change looks fairly well researched and convincing to me, and by implication obviously other herbivores at the time may have gone extinct for the same reason. It would flow onto affect their predator species. I agree the paper has wider implications.
My response was entirely that your WORDING about “Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct ” suggested you might be referring to all megafauna everywhere in all time periods. At the very least its ambiguous what you meant. Its like when the media say “scientists say xyz123abc” and you find its only two scientists out of thousands. And clearly Piotr and Thomas Fuller thought something similar, given their responses.
Nigelj
The megafauna at any time, be it Dinosaurs or Mammuts and mastodonts, seem to have come up at extreemly warm ages with very high CO2 and consequent high moisture and heavy rainshowers. But Humans were not yet “Primates” that is the ruling species..
The mammuth is a closest relative to the indian elephant and has been able to adapt to sub- glacial forest steppe and river landscapes in Eurasia and north america.. It is drawn in the cro magnon caves together with the large woolen rhino and a mega- bison. And Auerochs and horses.. H.Neanderthalis did not take them but H.Sapiens seems to have much of its early success by being able to organize socially and tell the children how,, and to draw it and count it and write it up ,,m and make intelligent lures and traps. and organize the hunt, that may be necessary for very large prey..
As elephants have survived in India and Sumatra, I can hardly immagine that warmth following the ice ages has killed them, and there were a few even warmer periods between then ice ages. It seems that if only let in peace and allowed to migrate also, the animals manage and adapt very well, but H.Sapiens seem like the most efficient and dangerous predator.
You need a smaller elephant.
Please try on Elephas lewisi for size before speculating further.
I have found fossiles for myself on the roadside from Pisa over to Ravenna. 1 1/2″ thick fossile bone tissue in uprisen, flat riverside sediments, As weathered as the Mammuth fossiles from Gudbrandsdal Norway (shown to be 40 -50 000years old).
My conlusion on the spot was that the Hyenas of that time in Italia also must have been very
large, to chew it down to that size, provided that it was not rather a large Hippopatamus in Italia..
But trying to date it from the angle of riverside sediments uprising uphill in Italia and the levels of fossile bone weathering that were the same,…. I will have to suggest dozens of thousands of years. That is extreemly dubious and remarkable especially in Norway exept for Gudbrandsdal perhaps.
I looked further, and there are plenty of similar mammuth- fossiles in Denmark.
As the closest relationship is shown to be the Indian elephant by gene- technology, I cannot see what I would need smaller elephants for.
Mammuth material has been trawled up from Doggerbank in the North Sea togetherv with sure documents of human presence there during the last glaciation.,
An Indonesian immigrant got quite mad at me and began to teach, when I dared to mention that there are elephants also in Norway, a 3rd ande long- haired species different from both indian and african.
. “NO YOU ARE DAMMNED MISCONSCEIVED! ALL YOUR ELEPHANTS HERE ARE INDONESIAN!”
Thus people react when Time- horizons, Darwin, and paleontological museums with todays, and fossile examples is forbidden in public schools.
Personally, I hardly need better reference than todays Indian elephants together with the Cro Magnon drawings and the Siberian material, that is the youngest known. And there are several findings of very large and old teeth and tusks from Gudbrandsdal in our local paleontological museum ,
I hope H.Sapiens from Cro Magnon can settle that problem if there is any. .
Doctor
I cannot find Ele0phas lewisi
and I am unable to see why I shoulde need any smaller elephant. They are large enough.
Yep. I found:
“Trypanosoma lewisi,” which causes disease in elephants;
“Deilephila elpenor lewisii” and “Theretra lewisi”, which are moths (the former at least is the “large elephant hawkmoth”);
“Islandiana lewisi” (spelling questionable?), which is a spider receiving the ‘Galactic’ description of “probably harmless”.
All smallish, to be sure, but I’d have thought we’d be looking at mammals here.
My response was entirely that your WORDING about “Human-caused extinction of megafauna is pretty much… extinct ” suggested you might be referring to all megafauna everywhere in all time periods.
You lack intellect. The following cannot in any way shape or form be used to refer to the moa or any other extinction outside of the 10k – 4k ybp time frame: “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. “
And any comments I made HAD to be within the context of the article and paper because I quoted/referenced both. It is just stupid to try to twist that into all extinctions ever which is why I am certain is was intentional. And that most of you, maybe all of you, chose to not even read the goddamned sources until after you commented.
You in three different posts twisted the post-glacial extinction of megafauna into the extinction of megafauna 10k years later. It’s so obviously childishly argumentative to say, “But not ten thousand years later! So you’re wrong!” that I find it difficult to believe a handful of adult men made the same idiotic statements. There is nothing remotely intelligent, germane, or appropriate about doing that,
Worse, you and all the others never even addressed the point the goddamned article, and my comments, that this has terrible implications for our current situation.
You are all still more worried about opposing me than saving humanity and the remaining species. It sickens me.
You still don’t belong in any conversation about The Perfect Storm. Between the dishonesty and lack if intellect, you waste too much space on these boards.
No Killian. Your terminology was ambiguous, and there is no place for that on a science website. Take a lesson from that. Ambiguity really annoys me. I knew what you probably meant, but it may have been unclear to other people which is why I quoted an example of MOA – exactly like Thomas Fuller did and independently of me. Looks like he was thinking the same. It would have been very easy to have just stated the issue more clearly.
And you didn’t even provide a link to the study. I tried googling the words but nothing came up, until I came back later and tried another web browser. Shouldn’t have had to mess around like that.
I’m not opposing YOU. I’m opposing nonsense you post. I’m far from alone in doing that. I do it when people say things that are nonsensical regardless of who they are. Its just people like MAR and Piotr for example don’t get a whole lot wrong.
Here again, barking and biting down there at his own levels in order to get it all that way.. ..
To all and everyone
This is very typical of the national socialists, the corporatives and the intellectual left. They launche and sell their very clear and straight ideas and thoughts as such, without being able to define them..
Traditionally, that displays and betrays a special political party dope for performance and battle to keep up day and night, Der Übermensch.
They usede the trade mark “Pervitin” that was metamphetamine, They rushed out and overwon and conquered anything in their way.
Der Führer above all that also in the grades, perfrormed on Cocaine, that was officially called “Vitamin”.
And relaxed on Heroine.
Adolph went fror permaculture and vegetarianism.
Sniffdogs, I say, Sniffdogs. I repeat, Sniffdogs! And say no more, Sniffdogs.
And urine tests.
Greenland ice melt at RCP8.5 levels ( Is it ??)
What if you don’t need RCP8.5 coal burning to get RCP8.5 impacts?
Given impacts are already noted as being worse than expected for X temp increase @1.2C already.
Kevin Anderson Nov 3
Fascinating & deeply disturbing talk by @climate_ice (Jason Box) & @twilamoon (Twila Moon) detailing mechanisms of ice melt in Greenland, many important ones are not yet included in ice-melt (& hence sea level) models. Empirical ice melt for Greenland is now at or greater than was estimated for RCP8.5!
https://twitter.com/KevinClimate
“The removal of the aerosol masking effect is one of the very alarming effects of having cleaner energy” —@climate_ice (Jason Box) on Greenland & several feedbacks not included in current models
Twila Moon, PhD Nov 3
Sea level rise from ice sheets is tracking higher than paired for given emissions pathway projections. I.e., work urgently for low emissions, plan/build for SLR on high end of projections. Scientists continue work to narrow projections!
–
We already know there are permafrost processes not included in current climate models used for IPCC. Follow @queenofpeat (Dr. Merritt Turetsky) for excellent #permafrost content.
https://twitter.com/twilamoon
COP26 talk – Greenland’s Tipping Point/Thresholds
International Cryosphere Climate Initiative
with Jason Box & Twila Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAIzJd6qQKs
@57:00 mins- the projections of the future, brace yourselves they’re like this …
the paris scenario is the lower curve and the business as usual is the upper curve
this is what negotiators here need to make sense of what is at risk is basically a governable society
——————
Paul Maidowski
Agree, very clear and eye-opening (COP Greeland Ice Melt) presentations. Mind-boggling changes happening. Here is good ref to “models can’t predict Greenland ice melt as high as observed” @glacierandy
Andy Aschwanden
A roadmap towards credible projections of ice sheet contribution to sea-level June 2021
https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-175/
The inability of models to reproduce historical observations raises concerns about the models’ skill at projecting mass loss. Here we suggest that the future sea level contribution from Greenland may well be significantly higher than reported in that study.
Finally, we note that tremendous government investment and planning affecting 10s to 100s of millions of people is founded on the work of several tens of scientists involved in a significantly volunteer effort. To achieve the goal of credible projections of ice sheet contribution to sea-level, we strongly believe that investment in research must be commensurate with the scale of the challenge.
——
Find the live and recorded #cryosphere events on YouTube
– https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXpj1q59mrsT5cOuyagk97Q
State of the Cryosphere Report 2021
http://iccinet.org/statecryo21/
Empirical ice melt for Greenland is now at or greater than was estimated for RCP8.5!
There was a reason I considered all the dismissals of and scoffing at 8.5 braindead. Being so cavalier about long-tail risks is suicidal. Dismissing 8.5 is no different than refusing to wear a seatbelt or get vaccinated.
Monster page of AGW info:
https://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/warm–cool-/
Interesting earth temperature and CO2 graphs for last 500,000,000 years:
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
KIA said:
Why do these sites always resemble a dumpster dive?
PP. Because the writer has decided he / she doesn’t like :AGW for whatever reason, probably politically / ideologically motivated, so he /she runs around trying to find anything that contradicts the theory and vomits it all over the page regardless of whether its valid, relevant, correct or self contradictory. The trouble is it sounds quite scientific, and convincing, and morons take what they say at face value without thinking or checking. Its a nightmare countering that sort of thing.
Nobody cares what denier web sites have to say. Try getting your science from scientists and not from crackpots or political disinformation.
That’s what I thought it was based on the website name, BUT:
Quote from the monster page of AGW info
” Sea + Land surface warming rate over the past century was ~1.2°C. That compares with rates of 0.03 to 0.06°C warming highlighted above: for the PETM spike 55 million years ago, and coming out out the 2nd most recent and most recent ice ages ~130 and ~10 thousand years ago. Thus, current warming is 20 to 40 times as fast as the previous fastest warming episodes we can find.”
Doesn’t sound like deniers to me. Also, reading the titles of articles down the page – most appear to be pro-AGW articles.
Would be nice to have a similar monster page devoted only to the calculations of warming due to CO2, showing the theory of IR radiation, all calculations in detail, how the various levels of the atmosphere affect it, and omitting the hysteria like “Sea levels will rise and flood our cities, people will die in droughts, hurricane strength and frequency are increasing, equatorial locations are becoming too hot for human life, etc”. When I read the IPCC there is WAY too much of that type of non-science commentary. That stuff can be in another website, not on my proposed monster site. Just the physics and calcs – a website for people with math/science backgrounds who want to SEE the calcs.
His brain KIA (Oct. thread): “South Pole, Piotr, not North Pole. The Antarctic is down south, the Arctic is up north. ;)”
Ouch, take me to the burn unit. I typed a simple mistake which did not give me any rhetorical advantage and after the correction of that – may original argument (that KIA lied claiming that NSIDC to the Antarctic CONTINENT) stands.
In contrast to your claim, which would fall apart if the correct information was restored:
– Your source: “it was the second coldest winter after 2004 in the 60-year weather record at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.”
When RIchard the Weaver pointed to limited value of seasonal anomaly at a single point on Earth to the GLOBAL climatic trend: “ 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.
Our KIA “answered” it by claiming that his information referred not to one weather station on the pole but to THE ENTIRE CONTINENT:
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, […] Hope this clarifies for you.”
”
Without CHANGING “the 2nd coldest season at the South Pole ” to to the 2nd coldest season in the Antarctic continent – KIA argument falls apart because it would have read now:
KIA: “ Yes, the South Pole is a tiny bit of the planet , but the South Pole is a larger bit. “The South Pole had the 2nd coldest season in all of its recorded temperature history”. That’s a little more significant […] Hope this clarifies for you.”
But please don’t let it stop you continuing your famously glorious victories over the “libs”. You are a credit to your cause … ;-)
See also your most recent tantalizing idea of <a href="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/unforced-variations-oct-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-797414", covering the Arctic ocean with 2-3 feet thick panels of reinforced styrofoam as an alternative to the reductions in GHG emissions, a.k.a. ” “ That’s the solution – let’s get started NOW. ”
Unfortunately, you have not mentioned how you are going to make them stay in place against winds and ocean currents. Will you nail them to the seawater?
“Unfortunately, you have not mentioned how you are going to make them stay in place against winds and ocean currents. Will you nail them to the seawater?”
It makes no difference if they float around with currents – as long as they stay in the Arctic Ocean, and don’t drift down into the Pacific or Atlantic. As long as they are White and reflect sunlight they will help by doing what the ice used to do before it melted, right?
They’d have to be heavy enough that the wind would not lift them and blow them through the air. Add some weight if needed when they are made.
However, even if they did get blown onto the land they would still be White, and still reflect sunlight, right? Same if they floated into the Pacific or Atlantic – would still be reflecting sunlight, right? Although I think the lower angle of incidence of sun rays in the Arctic would be best. That makes me wonder – should we put them in ALL oceans and turn A LOT of our oceans White? Racist leftists will shirt their pants, but not much you can do about that, right?
On Antarctica, the entire continent had the second-coldest winter ever recorded. Al Gore’s internet doesn’t lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d590_0LUs28
Hope this helps.
:)
His brain went KIA: about his hare-brained idea of covering the Arctic ocean with 2-3 feet thick reinforced fiberglass? plastic? styrofoam panel big enough to allow travel by skidoos:
“It makes no difference if they float around with currents – as long as they stay in the Arctic Ocean“,
The point was that they won’t stay. Hence my original post (i.e. different that the one you replied to):
Piotr, Oct.31″ “And are you going to nail your styrofoam to the water, genius? Ever heard of winds and ocean currents?”
HIs Brian KIA: ” They’d have to be heavy enough that the wind would not lift them and blow them through the air. “
Nobody was saying it would, The point was that with the most of their volume above the water and being light – they will perfect target for the wind drag – and therefore they will sail out of the Arctic ocean much faster than if they relied only on the the currents would be able to do it. So another reason why they won’t stay there.
And as I said – the Artic is the WORST place to deploy them -precisely because of what you imagine to be the main …advantage:
His Brain KIA: “Although I think the lower angle of incidence of sun rays in the Arctic would be best ”
No, it would be the worst, genius – low angle means that there is much less solar radiation per m2, and low angle means much higher reflectance of the water surface – ocean water reflects
3-5% of incoming direct radiation at high angles (0-60 deg, incidence angle – i.e. degrees from zenith), then at low angles – quickly increases toward 100% as we approach 90 deg. incidence angle (i.e. the Sun on the horizon). So high latitudes with their Sun low over horizon are the WORST places to increase the albedo.
So you would have to start closer at home: say California, Gulf of Mexico, US Atlantic coast, which I am sure will make you hugely popular in America for the reasons I discussed in the original post – see below.
Piotr Oct. 31: :
” 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?
George Monbiot writes [¹] “For example, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which delivers heat from the tropics towards the poles, is being disrupted by the melting of Arctic ice, and has begun to weaken. Without it, the UK would have a climate similar to Siberia’s.”
Am I alone in thinking this is a huge exaggeration? My understanding is that without the AMOC the UK (and most of the rest of northern Europe) would still have a large mass of water upwind to moderate its climate and would “only” suffer a few degrees of cooling (which would be serious enough). I’m thinking that maybe the Alaska panhandle would be a better comparison than Siberia. I’m sure I’ve read some discussion of this on RealClimate but a quick search didn’t bring up anything specific.
[¹] https://www.monbiot.com/2021/11/02/surface-tension/
Ed Davies,
This CarbonBrief post from 2020 has a global map which suggests UK would cool by 4 to 6ºC which would suggest average annual UK temperature dropping to perhaps +5ºC post-AMOC collapse. So in terms of annual average temperature, Siberia would appear an exaggeration although, as an alternative comparator, the Alaska ‘panhandle’ appears a slight underestimate.
Thanks MA Rodger, that CarbonBrief link is useful. Your BerkeleyEarth links appear broken to me, though. Responds to pings but connections to port 80 refused. Dunno why, US IP addresses only? No route to host on port 443 so presumably being dropped by a firewall somewhere along the line.
The thing about Siberian climate, though, is not so much the average temperatures (chilly enough, as would be an average of +5°C in the UK) but the much wider temperature swings between summer and winter which is what I think most people would consider when comparing UK and Siberian climate.
The BEST website is berkeleyearth.org.
Ed Davies,
There is now a CarbonBrief article by Zeke Hausfather on the issue of the revised GCP emissions.
Sadly the Berkeley Earth ‘Results by Region’ utility (usually accessible from this webpage is presently off-line. (I did wonder if it was become a hot-linking issue but apparently not. The ‘broken’ direct links I provided give the same error as the link from that webpage.)
The large winter/summer temperature swings of continental climates does make the Alaska panhandle probably a far better comparator for the UK under a switched-off AMOC. I have hear talk of the end of UK arable agriculture in such circumstances and the Alaska situation would perhaps allow such claims to be better appreciated.
I think the problem with the Siberia comparison is that Siberia is a heck of a big place, and parts of it count as temperate, if a bit on the chilly side:
The Arctic desert bordering the Arctic Ocean is another story, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia#Climate
4-6C cooling? That seems a bit on the extreme side to me, but if that prediction was made by scientists who are authorities in that field, I am not going to argue. AIUI, the UK has a temperate climate largely because the mild ocean is upstream of the prevailing winds, so the islands are heavily influenced by maritime airmasses (hence why it is frequently cloudy and damp with moderate temperatures). The Gulf stream I thought was a second order effect boosting the temperature of maritime air masses and enhancing the mildness of the climate given its northerly location.
I had a quick glance at the CarbonBrief link and the map they present shows almost the entire northern hemisphere cooling significantly, with very little warming elsewhere (by comparison of magnitude). Given that ocean currents move heat rather than generate it, where is all that heat going when the thermohaline circulation shuts down that results in such a cooling of the northern hemisphere with much lower warming in the southern hemisphere?
3-6C cooling in the UK is enough for glaciers to form on the Cairngorm and Lochaber mountains (and probably other Scottish ranges) given enough time.
The disruption is primarily from Greenland ice.
Yes, not arctic sea ice as many would read that so that’s an additional minor misleading part of Monbiot’s statement, though, in his defence, quite a lot of the Greenland ice is north of the arctic circle.
Don`t we count actic or not by climate- zones? By Köppens definitions for instance. Because the arctic circle hardly defines it. Elsewhere in the world there may be a lot of forests north of the arctic circle, and we call it sub- arctic at least, Or “boreal” forests. If not even “tempered”
Whereas most of Grønland is surely arctic along with that.
If not “Siberia” then how about “Iceland”?
Piotr,
I think the Alaskan panhandle as suggested up-thread provides a better example. (The Berkeley Earth “Results by Location” was only off-line for a few days & is back now, so these links should be working.)
Perhaps the big drawback is that the Alaskan panhandle climate isn’t as well known as Iceland’s climate. But the Alaska climate shown in the link here probably does show most (but not all) of the sort of thing an AMOC shutdown would do to the UK climate.
Looking at the monthly average anomaly bases in these Berkeley Earth links (shown in linked ‘data tables’), the annual average drops -4ºC (from UK’s +8.6ºC to Alaska panhandle +4.75ºC) which is a bit of a small drop by a degree or two. Iceland’s annual average is +1.44ºC, a drop of -7ºC which is perhaps a tad too big a drop.
But what the big change would likely be is the size of the annual range of temperatures which would be presumably a little bigger than the Alaskan panhandle’s (or the bit of it showing in the Berkeley Earth link).
UK … … … … +3.7ºC to +14ºC = range of 10.3ºC
Iceland … -3.5ºC to +7.7ºC = range of 11.2ºC
Alaska … .. -3.2ºC to +13ºC = range of 16.2ºC
As you pointed out – to the British people climate of the Alaska panhandle means nothing.
Futhermore, since UK, Alaska panhandle and Iceland all have have quit a bit of spatial variability – then perhaps a better way would be to say would be compare a city to a city. E.g.:
“The climate of London (England) will become almost identical to that of Reykjavik (Iceland)”
Here is why, based on https://en.climate-data.org
Annual averages:
London: 9.7 °C. After 5-6C drop = 3.7-4,7C
Reykjavik = 4.3C.
Seasonal monthly averages:
London – 4.8C to 17.8C
if apply a 6C drop uniformly to the entire year this would be:
-1.2 C to 11.8C
the current Reykjavik
-1.3 °C to 11.6C
Hence on both scores: ” “The climate of London (England) will become almost identical to that of Reykjavik (Iceland)“
Data for use of explanation regards my question/questions:
Figure 1. Annual Wildfires and Acres Burned, 1991-2020
Source: NICC Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics annual reports.
Note: Data reflect wildland fires and acres burned nationwide,
including wildland fires on federal and nonfederal lands.
Also, more-data…
Destructive wildfires raged across the West Coast this summer, destroying towns and chewing up millions of acres in the process. As of September 15, 5.6 million acres — an area about the size of New Jersey — burned in wildfires, according to data compiled by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). Wildfires from the last 10 years burned more than twice as many acres on average as fires in the 80s.
Which leads me to my enquiry: Mr. Gavin Schmidt, is there an easy manner one can relate CO2 and other bi-products of these events (thinking mostly of loss of CO2/Oxygen plant breathing mechanism)?
Any other climate aficionados of climate science can jump in on this, if so inclined?
Wow! No comments yet?
We need a political push to help get the Build Back Better and Infrastructure bills through the Senate so we can get some Climate Change legislation passed here at home. I saw Bill Gates on the TV last night talking about what needs to happen with renewables etc. President Biden has been struggling with Senator Joe Manchin who refuses to help out. He’s in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry big shots and won’t move. I’m not sure how we get through this impasse but if it doesn’t happen we’ll be in even more trouble.
A more accurate name for the bill is Build Back Broke. There is little infrastructure in any of the bills. It’s mostly SJW pork programs. Senator Manchin has pointed out that the Dems are lying about how it will be paid for, and he wants to know how WILL it be paid for, how it will affect the debt, etc. Can you imagine the gall of that guy wanting a little transparency and accountability for trillions of taxpayers dollars? What’s got into him! Dems wanted to whittle the bill down so Senators Manchin and Sinema might sign it, so they reduced some of the SJW pork programs from 10 years to 1 to 2 years so the “total” cost would LOOK smaller. They realize that once people are hooked on these wasteful SJW programs that it will be almost impossible to shut off the spigot so they will just get extended by a future congress. Senator Manchin, to his credit, realized this and called them on it.
Bottom line for AGW: there is very little in any of it that is “infrastructure”. There is a lot of pre-K school, family-leave for months at a time, free college, amnesty, abortion, outlawing election security rules, blah, blah, blah.
Senator Manchin also realizes that by Jan 1, 2022 inflation for food and fuel will be roughly 30 to 50% since Biden took office, and he knows Americans can’t put up with much more of that.
Pulling your own facts out of your @$$ again are you? I can’t figure out who you’re trying to impress because everyone here thinks you’re a joke and you continue to prove it.
POA facts or not, at least I did provide some facts. What did you contribute?
As usual, you haven’t a clue.
KIA: the Dems are lying about how it will be paid for
BPL: No, they’re not, and if anyone is lying it’s Manchin. He wants to know how this $175 billion a year bill will affect the national debt, when it’s all paid for. He knows it’s paid for. He’s just enjoying the power of being able to hold up the entire Democratic agenda and being the center of attention. As for your comments about social programs; well, that’s typical Republican anti-human crap, isn’t it?
The inflation comments are nonsense, too. We’re coming out of the steepest recession since the Great Depression, people are buying much more than they were when they were mired in their homes, and the supply chain is badly fucked up. It’s a miracle that inflation is running at only 5%.
Price of gasoline week of 1/18/2021 when Brandon started the job was $2.464/gallon.
Price of gasoline week of 11/8/2021 is $3.505/gallon. That is a 42% increase SO FAR, according to Brandon’s EIA.gov. So, my 50% number by end of Brandon’s first year is likely to be quite low – may be closer to 100%. That’s good news according to rich enviros (right?), but bad for po’ folk.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W
Food would be a similar story – so far this year prices have increased minimum 25%, and far higher for many items. Climate scientist incomes probably don’t notice it much.
:)
Per Shadowstats, if the inflation rate is calculated using the 1980 method, the rate right now is running 13-14% based on eye-balling their 1980 method SGS alternate CPI chart and going up rapidly:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
Methodology:
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/cpi-measures
5%? Laughable.
How was Joe Biden able to orchestrate similar price rises at the pump in other countries? My God, the power that man must wield!
Oh–maybe the president doesn’t control the price of petroleum? Why… is that even thinkable?
Amazing that Biden was able to make gasoline prices rise, not only in the United States, but in 200 other countries he has no legal power over.
KIA, you need to look up “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” You will find it under “logical fallacies.”
Wow, flaunting your ignorance once again while showing you have no critical thinking skills at all to go along with your hatred of democracy. Congrats on the trifecta. Run along to your next anti-American rally. Still denying your brethren killed all those people at the synagogue in Pittsburgh? Of course you are.
BTW, the BBB has more climate change program initiatives than anything prior. Not even close. Facts, you know? Oops, you don’t know. You lie. Someone really failed when bringing you with regards to intellectual laziness and no critical thinking skills, let alone your inability to admit when you are wrong (insecure much?).
How ironic that we’ve waited so long to do what needed doing Build Back Better is maladaptive.
Moderators, Is there any way you could install an “edit button” somewhere in case someone needs to make changes to their post? Thanks
YES!
I would like that also
+1
That is a really good idea.
I’d suggest you re-post it in “Realclimate redesign” discussion thread as there it is more likely to be noticed.
Oops, I don’t think my suggestion to post on the “Realclimate redesign” thread – would work – I don’t think there is a way to post there anymore (No “Reply” option). So I guess we just have to hope that somebody notices our comments in the current thread (lack of the inline response to the above posts does not bode well for that …)
BTW – the lack of the Reply option under many posts in the currently opened threads would be another thing worth mentioning to the administrators ….
@ Realitycheck & al
I must write it here as ann unforced variation and to the opposite side of the globe.
I had lost my bank- chard and without that I am helpless in a cash- free society.
Luckily, I was phoned up by an “alian” OTHMANE, and just now he came on my door with his car, could drive me to the shops so I could give him a proper fee also, that he said was all too much.
He was from Marokko via France. And told he was working quite next by for helping people with uncommon diagnoses. like Tourettes syndrom and ADHD and all that. He offered me to help me further, I can just phone up.
I told him of my situation and that I am communicating on a fameous website on climate, the Real Climate to see what it is about and trying to help them there.
And said that my impression is that they struggle really hard for their “existance” and life over there in the states. We have obviously got it better here in Norway as long as it lasts, and as you can see, it is extreemly or abnormously warm at the moment. (We hardly had frost until 4 nov).
So I wonder about Australia.
They obviously fight and struggle also and are being banned for all that new coal in Queensland that should pay the very success of the Nation.
And we discussed Glasgow, where I said that I hope and believe that they will come to results that we can live further on.
But as it is here in Norway, it could not be better as if God was Norwegian and gives us all the advantages and nothing of the disadvantages.
He also said that it bis quite lively here.
The electricity prices are record high together with the EU and GB where we are connected with cables. The electric companies are earning quite sinful at the moment exept those who deliver from coal and gas where then prices are extreemly high.
But due to warmth, we can forget it here.
During an online (layman) discussion about the end-Permian, I was presented with a laundry list
of papers seeming to claim that the extinction event actually happened due to dramatic cooling
just prior to the heating event, as evidenced by a dramatic sea-level drop.
Most of those papers seem to be written by Chinese connected to SINOPEC, which raises serious
red flags, and few have any citations, another red flag.
But this paper seems to at least pass the few-red-flags test, although peer review at Scientific
Reports seems to be problematic at times::
Baresel, Björn, et al. “Timing of global regression and microbial bloom linked with the
Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction: implications for driving mechanisms.”
Scientific Reports 7.1 (2017): 1-8.
So my question to any experts here is whether global heating from CO2 released from Siberan
Traps is still the generally accepted reason for the extinction event, or whether some debate
about that is still going on.
And what can be said about the paper I cited? It was long on details and jargon that probably
endear it to a geologist but made it rather opaque for anyone else.
Bottom line, I’m just trying to stay abreast of the current thinking among experts about the cause of
the extinction event. I’d thought that question was largely settled a decade ago, but maybe not?
Thanks for any insights.
Yes, I’ve had denialati trumpeting cooling as a ‘kill mechanism’, and would like to see a good lit review, too. From what I could gather from searching, the question is still pretty open.
Dr. Zeke Hausfather – Big news: recent CO2 emissions have been revised notably downward in the just-released @gcarbonproject dataset. The revisions – due to a major reassessment of land-use – suggest emissions have likely been flat rather than increasing over past decade
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1456048962012471301
There’s a simple graph there showing CO2 emissions are essentially Flat from 2011 thru 2021. Sounds great.
Then how come the atmospheric Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates here https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html have continued to rise faster than ever at ~2.5ppm -y over that same period ??
Any ideas? It’s above my pay grade, so I am genuinely asking. Yes I know there’s a difference between “from fossil and land-use change” emissions and atmospheric concentrations. I can only assume at this point they are only estimating man-made / driven emissions.
Noting that physics drives global heating by the atmospheric levels of ghg / co2 etc. So if this only captures man-made emissions, and they are down or flat the last decade but atmospheric CO2 levels are actually still rapidly increasing then we have bigger problems on our hands already … don’t we?
Any ideas how a climate scientist like Hausfather wouldn’t automatically spot the gross inconsistency here? Then at least mention it, explain it, and possibly even seriously question those new results he is publishing on Twitter? Because I do not get it.
Get what? Pushing surface good news stories while ignoring the bottom line bad science based reality of ever increasing CO2 concentrations during the same time period.
Then how come the atmospheric Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates here https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html have continued to rise faster than ever at ~2.5ppm -y over that same period ??
I’m thinking feedbacks from permafrost and other sources are taking over. Just a guess.
Seems simple to me: you don’t need increasing emissions for concentrations to keep on rising. For decades, probably, about half of human emissions have been taken up by the biosphere and oceans. You can vary that by, say, 10% up or down, and the effect on concentrations is going to be lost in the statistical noise.
Think of a pot being filled from a tap: at first you run the faucet full out. As the water level nears the rim, you throttle back 90% (being a thrifty soul who doesn’t wish to waste water.) Does the water stop rising? Of course not; it merely slows to a more controllable pace.
Analogously, the flattening of the CO2 emissions curve would not be expected to lead to a flat growth curve for atmospheric CO2. At most, growth would slow. But going back to what I said my first paragraph, I suspect it might not be measurable amid the natural variability involved.
Hr R. Check
The only explaination that I can give, provided that Hausfathers data are true, is that CO2 in the atmosphere is an auto- catalytic process. There hardly is any other explaination also. Auto- catalytic means positive feedback and ” a runaway effect” in the phase of it where we are now.
This means that CO2 causes global warming that again causes increased rot of longtime settled humus causing even more CO2 to the atmosphere. .
Nature adapts to the situation that way. That rot sets mineral plant nutricians free, it grows up and may in a more remote future curve off and stabilize by larger trees and higher photosynthesis in an overall warmer and greener world. Phase- shift of that kind is common for many natural metabolic processes.
The greening is obvious and quite fast here where I live and some people hate and fear it and are at war with it.
Before the motorized lawn moovers, many people were burning their lawns and gardens each year with a very professional and moral mind. And that came when there were no more goats and sheps on the same land.
Dendrophobia is remaining deeply there in the population..
In recent years, People are paving their tiny gardens and lawns to get rid of those nasty berries, roses, and tulips. And get frustrated by seeing what we are doing instead.
The temperature effect on carbon sink is obvious in my terrain. ( Taiga withdrawing and tempered forests oaks and apples re- occupying) On the same mineral soil conditions uphill and downhilol, it rots much faster downhill because of higher temperature, and settles much more peat under cool moist and mountainous- conditions. In the Amazonas many places all the mosses are up in the treetops with frogs and all, and the soil under that is sheere and poor Kaolin.
Here the soils are so young that there is no Kaolin at all but there are podsol heathers
Burning and chopping down the forests has been the pioneering way how to do it in temperate clima- zones to acheive faster metabolisms and agricultural yield. Today, that seems not to be adequate everywhere.
Bring the carbon back over into the air seems to be how to warm it up again and nature goes with you on that at the moment it seems. .
Reality Check,
The rise in
The Global Carbon Project numbers show the changes between the 2020 assessment and the 2021 assessment.
Ignoring the pandemic year, the FF+LUC emissions are still rising in the 2021 numbers (at 0.3Gt(C)/decade) but this is 30% the rise seen in the 2020 GCP numbers. The atmospheric increase remains effectively unchanged as you would expect but note they are pretty flat 2012-19 (so with the 2011 La Niña year cut away).
The big adjustment in the GCP numbers that reflects in the emissions total is the LUC emissions which are shown reducing pretty-much from 2000 onwards, by 2020 down over 0.5Gt(C).
There are other significant adjustments with the ‘Land Sink’ numbers reduced and the ‘Ocean Sink’ numbers which are adjusted upwards through this last decade.
Who do I believe, self-reporting industries and gov’ts or the annual 2.5-ish ppm increase?
Regarding “The Trick”, I always assumed that the wingnut’s obsession over “Hiding the Decline” was more of psychological projection, as in deflecting from the reality of hiding the decline in fossil fuel reserves, or even of hiding the decline of white males from the voting pools. They somewhat succeeded in making this phrase poisonous and associating it with trickery. Nevertheless, the finite pool of FF reserves continues to dwindle and the demographics will continue to shift, and nothing they can do about it.
There is something they can do about it alright. They’ve been practicing for a LONG time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5OsDWYJmQ
“The difference between… 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees can hit the Arctic harder than the rest of the world, …climate scientist John Walsh… ‘We can save the Arctic, or at least preserve it in many ways, ***but… we’re going to lose that if we go above 1.5.'”***
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ice-edge-survival-warming-changing-072119727.html
#ClimateCrisis #Arctic #Climate
I am not specialist in that area so somebody more qualified should answer your question.
In the meantime I’ll mention another possible mechanism – a 2014 PNAS a paper argued that additional, if not the dominant, forcing – was that decomposition of large amounts of oceanic organic carbon
via conversion of acetate to methane by an archaean Methanosarcina, which apparently just acquired, via horizontal gene transfer, the DNA coding for the needed to do it enzymes.
This would have produced a lot of CH4 which in the air would have caused global warming from hell -which in turn would have reduced oxygen in the ocean – killing many marine organisms. Anaerobic oxidation of CH4 with sulfates in water would have produced toxic H2S..killing those the shortage of oxygen didn’t kill. More CO2 released from their methane fermentation + oxidation of CH4 released into the air would have produced a lot of CO2 which would in turn caused ocean acidification that would have killed those not killed by anoxia and H2S.
The magma burning through the coal deposits in Siberian traps may have added also some CO2, while the toxic substances released in the process may have killed those not killed by GW and ocean acidification. And that volcanism likely released nickel that Methanosarcina needed for the active centre of that enzyme….
A general description of that can be found in in Encyclopedia Britannica
while PNAS paper is is here
Interesting. Thanks.
RSS TLT has updated its ‘Download Data’ numbers to October with October showing a global anomaly of +0.81ºC, up on September’s anomaly of +0.77ºC, also just posted. Previously the highest-of-the-year had been July’s +0.67ºC. RSS TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range +0.47ºC to +0.81ºC.
October 2021 was the 4th warmest October on the (3rd in UAH) record, just behind Octobers 2017 (+0.85ºC), 2015 (+0.82ºC) and 2020 (+0.81ºC) while ahead of Octobers 2019 (+0.72ºC), 2016 (+0.68ºC) and 2014 & 2018 (both +0.57ºC).
October 2021 sits 21st in the RSS TLT all-month anomalym list (24th in UAH TLT).
As with UAH, the first ten months of 2021 comes in as the 7th warmest Jan-Oct on the RSS TLT record. For 2021 to snatch 2015’s 6th place in the full-year rankings would require RSS’s Nov-Dec 2021 to average above +0.57ºC and to snatch 2010’s 5th place would require RSS’s Nov-Dec 2021 to average just +0.62ºC or above. Given the recent monthly anomalies,, snatching 5th place appears entirely probable.
However, snatching 2017’s 4th place would require a rather-improbable +0.98ºC.
(By comparison, the trend-defying UAH record will almost certainly remain in 7th place at year’s end.)
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.62ºC
2015 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 12th
2013 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 11th
Q. Is James Anderson a crank?
In 2 minutes Harvard scientist James Anderson provides the best explanation you’ll hear of the delicate interconnectedness of the climate system and why losing Arctic ice “will be profoundly damaging to life on Earth.”
https://twitter.com/xr_cambridge/status/1455499725239640071
EPS/SEAS Climate Science Breakfast: “Coupled Feedbacks in the Climate Structure That Set the Time Scale for Irreversible Change: Arctic Isotopes to Stratospheric Radicals” with James Anderson, Philip S. Weld Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, Harvard University.
Climate structure changes far more dangerous than global warming in a complex system like the atmosphere. Anderson shows warming suggests graduality, whereas the structure could change quickly away from life-giving via feedback loops.
https://vimeo.com/126306925
Risk. We’ve known enough to frame the risk correctly for decades, and certainly a decade ago. I have made the same argument over and over on this site, right? What does it matter if Anderson says it or I say it if it doesn’t penetrate people’s heads?
:)
Real Estate:101 – Location location location.
Advertising:101 – Repeat repeat repeat.
Whales might be as or more important than forests when it comes to removing carbon. Their poop recycles iron for phytoplankton and krill, probably a bit like rain in the Amazon.
https://youtu.be/1jmeQcfpB0E
Would whale poop make a good model for ocean iron fertilization? Maybe pig and cattle manure can be turned whalepoopesque. Add fat to make buoyent (I maybe kinda remember that whale poop is fatty)?
Countries climate pledges built on flawed data.
by Chris Mooney
Our analysis of nearly 200 country UN reports finds a major gap b/w what greenhouse gas emissions countries say they emit & what they’re putting into the atmosphere.
analysis shows 200 nations are vastly under-reporting their greenhouse gas emissions to the UN.
Incredible @washingtonpost investigation found at least 8.5 billion tons a year of under-reported emissions, more than what comes from U.S. in a year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2021/greenhouse-gas-emissions-pledges-data/ (sub required to read)
I’ve not read the material, but what concerns me is if this is being done as a WP investigation instead of a thorough open-source scientific analysis by scientists and academics … and then being reported in the media.
Another example of flawed data published today
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/08/australias-emissions-from-land-clearing-likely-far-higher-than-claimed-analysis-indicates
This is the kind of ongoing analysis that needs to be by scientists and credible institutions ona consistent basis.
All national emissions data provided to the UNFCCC / COP system should scientifically Audited and verified.
Nations offering up flawed data should named and shamed. and somehow held to account (how I don;t know).
Instead of wasting time analyzing the hypothetical “pledges”countries are making for COP26 and subsequent events, scientists should be first analyzing their submissions .. of
A) what they claim their current emissions are, and then
B) what their policy frameworks are capable of producing in emissions reductions including a confidence level of them being achieved — this would depend on the QUALITY & DETAILS IN THEIR POLICY PLANS and then
C) calculating what the likely range of end goal achievement will be by say 2030, 2050 and potentially 2100 though imo the later two are hardly relevant to anything because it is far into the future … anything could happen. and so a political leader’s claims today should be totally ignored and seen as vacuous by default more than a decade ahead.
No politicians, no political party and no nations Government (democratic or otherwise) should be able to get away with bullshitting the other countries or the global public.
All Data submitted must be Verifiable by others. And scientists and academics etc must be funded to do this kind of work ongoing… be it via the IPCC, UNFCCC, UNEP or some other quasi semi-giovt body funded by Billionaires or all the UNFCCC nations.
How the system has been allowed to go so long without these kinds of things already set in place just shows another example of how utterly manipulated the his UNFCCC/COP system actually is … and why the morte powerful mega-high emitting wealthy nations have allowed it to be set up this way … in way doomed to failures and open to manipulation and cheating.
Lying Sociopath Shills:101
Pointing out such obvious long tern failings of the UNFCCC/COP should be left up to nobodies like me to point out in 2021 …. this has always been a problem and a failing. This should be news to anyone … in fact it isn’t. Despite any sudden shock-horror response about these two news reports above.
Like Doh .. go figure. What else did you expect was already going on people? Look up the meaning of the words gullible and naive. Hint. When the world needs someone like a nobody school girl in Greta to verbalize the obvious (school strike + leading marches – speaking truth to power) it proves the whole world has long been in deep ignorant shot!!! :)
There wasn’t a single scientist anywhere, activist or outspoken politician anywhere on earth capable of speaking truth to power before Greta arrived on the scene ? Seriously? Nobody? No one else knew what had to be said? Really?
Oh well, just sharing and saying … no biggie. I’m sure we are making real progress anyway, right? LOL
Honest Government Ad | Net Zero by 2050 (feat. Greta)
https://twitter.com/i/status/1457223112743739393
Pay attention to the Statistics of this … in about a day 651K views on Twitter, and 330K on Youtube = 981,000 views already.
Very soon over 1 million views! In the middle of the COP26!
Now, take away the swearing and the humor too, then just pay attention to the specific scientific facts and knowledge being communicated so effectively.
That is what people need to be hearing …. what they want to hear about — it does not matter necessarily whether it’s in a funny witty clever video or presented by the drollest of climate scientists …. it’s those hard scientific facts, political facts, historical facts PLUS the meaning of those facts and knowledge that people are responding to!!!
Things like the Australian Government is lying 24/7 about net zero 2050, their 2030 targets, their emissions reduction plans, and everything else.
Science has the power to prove these things and make them public. Grabbing every possibility to do this is what climate scientist must be doing all the time ….. or should be doing.
That’s what speaking Truth to Power actually means people!!! You do not need to be female nor under 20 years old nor have Asperger or any other personal issue to do this effectively and make a massive difference.
REF – https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hide-your-light-under-a-bushel
This paper explores the anthropogenic effect on landscape especially beginning around 85k ya around Lake Malawi. They find a very significant impact from anthropogenic actions, particularly the use of fire, to alter the ecosystem for their benefit.
WRT the extinction of megafauna after the last interglacial, the authors state:
This alteration of the ecosystem was to have better lives: More food and they clearly understood their ecosystem very well. It is unlikely they would do anything to diminish that food supply. I suggest this is also true of humans 75k years later.
Regarding climate, and why I am posting here, these are significan’t changes to an ecosystem. If this scale of change was common that far back in time, a time most perceived our ancestors to be “primitive”, if not kinda dumb, then it seems the climate impact should be traceable which might help to elucidate the changes we are seeing today, perhaps giving better parameters for assumptions about the rates and magnitudes of changes to come.
KIllian: “This alteration of the ecosystem was to have better lives: More food and they clearly understood their ecosystem very well”
Aaa, the old good myth of a noble native, living in harmony with Mother Nature, augmented here by ascribing to them long-term ecosystem alteration planning. The latter needed by Killian to make hi modest proposal of major rapid and total alteration of the current civilization – more doable.
Except, the early people didn’t use the fire to effect long-term intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem – it just happened – either when wildfires started to flush out the animals to be hunted, went out of control, or when ambers from bonfires, they kept all the time for cooking, comfort and protection – started unintended wildfires. The mass extinction of megafauna in North America was most likely caused by the changes to vegetation caused by the natural climate change AMPLIFIED by changes to the vegetations caused by the human wildfires. It was not a plan, it just happened – is the North America really better off WITHOUT mastodons, antelopes, dire wolves, lions, sabre-tooth tigers, scimitar cats, short-face bears, giant beavers , glyptodonts, cheetahs, camels and giant sloths? “They clearly understood their ecosystem very well“, eh?
Around the bonfires of the early inhabitants of N. America, bones of North American horses were found. Apparently, instead of domesticating them – they ate them. Great plan. Ironically, it was the horses the Spanish brought with them to America that helped the Spanish to conquer the land.
Poetic justice, anyone?
See also the many other extinctions of spectacular species in North and South America, Madagascar New Zealand, Australia long before the white civilization, population explosion, and modern technology. ” They clearly understood their ecosystem very well.“?
There is no noble native myth related to anything I post except the one in your muddled head. There is what is and what was. That you are still steeped in the pile of dung of the savage myth is unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science.
Except, the early people didn’t use the fire to effect long-term intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem – it just happened –
It’s Bore Hole material to not even read the article in favor of your self-inflicted ignorance.
Serious times for serious people. You are not one of them. You piddle all over the boards saying ignorant things because you think it makes you look cool to others.
It doesn’t. You just look silly. Like this gem of dung:
Around the bonfires of the early inhabitants of N. America, bones of North American horses were found. Apparently, instead of domesticating them – they ate them. Great plan.
The earliest inhabitants were a minimum of 18k yrs ago, and might have been as long as 30k – certainly, that was the case in Beringia. Yet, when were horses domesticated?
Your bigotry is way too clear, as is you arguing like a high school freshman who just joined the debate club; no interest in truth, just interested in scoring debate points, so willing to say any stupid crap that comes to mind.
Re: Killian: “There is no noble native myth related to anything I post except the one in your muddled head””
Let the reader decide:
Killian Nov. 8 about people who lived 85kya around Lake Malawi:
– “ a very significant impact from anthropogenic actions to alter the ecosystem for their benefit.
– This alteration of the ecosystem was to have better lives:
– they clearly understood their ecosystem very well.
– It is unlikely they would do anything to diminish that food supply.”
I.e. you ascribe to the people of Malawi 85 kya that they not only “understood their ecosystem very well”, but also had the ability to DELIBERATELY MANIPULATE their ecosystem, at large scale, to their benefit.
If it were sincere, I would have called it “wishful thinking”. But you do not really admire them – you merely use them, The Great Killianist Revolution demands that most of the 8bln people rapidly (over a few decades) abandon the current political system, consumerism, modern economy, existing ideologies and religions, and embrace simplification and moving en masse into regenerative agriculture.
Your opponents dared to question your vision, suggesting that the short timeline and the scale of the needed transformation makes them simply unrealistic.
And here where the 85 kya Malawi ecosystem engineers come handy: “ if that far back in time, a time most perceived our ancestors to be “primitive”, if not kinda dumb” and yet were able to deliberately manipulate their ecosystem at large scales for their own benefit – then perhaps the GKR is not as utopian, as his opponents think, and Killian, instead of being an ill-tempered crackpot, suddenly becomes a visionary before his time, the special one who saw the light, while the narrow-minded scientists didn’t pay him the respect he so much deserves.
BTW – those who can defend their ideas do, those who can’t – throw dung at their opponents: “this gem of dung”, “you are still steeped in the pile of dung”, “unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science”, “you piddle all over the boards saying ignorant things” [(c) Killian} E.g.:
Killian Nov. 26: “You just look silly. Like this gem of dung” and he quotes a cherry-picked part of my argument questioning the Killian’s claim of the early people having the foresight to manipulate ecosystem for their future benefit:
Piotr Nov.9 : “Around the bonfires of the early inhabitants of N. America, bones of North American horses were found. Apparently, instead of domesticating them – they ate them. Great plan [deleted by K. were the rest of the paragraph:” it was the horses the Spanish brought with them to America that helped the Spanish to conquer the land. Poetic justice, anyone?”
Killian Nov.26: “ The earliest inhabitants were a minimum of 18k yrs ago, and might have been as long as 30k – certainly, that was the case in Beringia. Yet, when were horses domesticated?” and confidently answers with the info on …. modern domesticated breeds…
And this disproves my statement that the early North Americans did not domesticate horses even though it would have been hugely beneficial to them – how? And this disproval would have to be beyond reasonable doubt to justify your derision: “this gem of dung”; “Your bigotry is way too clear, as is you arguing like a high school freshman who just joined the debate club; no interest in truth, just interested in scoring debate points, so willing to say any stupid crap that comes to mind”..
A gem of Killian, indeed.
Surely this level of toxic poison from P. has no place here or anywhere for that matter. Comments like this turn the place into a sewer.
K made a sensible comment in line with the academic paper he cited. K is correct in that there was “no noble native myth” in his comments. The bigotry and ignorant anti-science position of P shows up here: “the early people didn’t use the fire to effect long-term intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem”
That extremely biased ignorant fact-free comment is provably false across the globe. Particularly undeniable is that described by the early Europeans in Australia and maintained in indigenous people’s knowledge systems for over 60,000 years!!!
The landscapes around Sydney cove were described by the British as being like Landscaped Parks and Gardens back home in England.
But also examples of intentional long term land management in the US for centuries priuor to colonization – Legacies of Indigenous land use shaped past wildfire regimes in the Basin-Plateau Region, USA
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00137-3
and various locations in central and south American civilizations provide ample indigenous and academic historical evidence of land use regimes going back millennia.
Plants, People, and Places:
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JVjZDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA86&dq=aboriginal+land+use+and+cultivation+practices&ots=RWwMvvmve2&sig=e4hHwwdal0wQrfKhzOr4k9PTcOY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20land%20use%20and%20cultivation%20practices&f=false
Once were foragers: The archaeology of agrarian Australia and the fate of Aboriginal land management
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618216308850
Ancient Land Use and Management of Ebey’s Prairie, Whidbey Island, Washington
Within at least the last 2,300 years people began setting fires to create and maintain a “prairie” landscape.
https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology/volume-29/issue-2/0278-0771-29.2.184/Ancient-Land-Use-and-Management-of-Ebeys-Prairie-Whidbey-Island/10.2993/0278-0771-29.2.184.short
Land-use patches varied in their extent and persistence, and are broadly categorized as silvicultural (management of undomesticated woodland taxa) or agricultural (cultivation of domesticated taxa). Silvicultural patches persisted for centuries and extended kilometres to tens of kilometres around settlements and travel corridors. The dynamics of agricultural patches varied among groups, with persistence ranging from decades to centuries and extent ranging from less than a kilometre to tens of kilometres around settlements. Beyond patch boundaries, human impacts on ecosystems become indistinguishable from other drivers of environmental heterogeneity. These characteristics of patches are evident across scales and multiple lines of evidence.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jbi.12386 (full access)
Traditional Wisdom in Land Use and Resource Management Among the Lugbara of Uganda: A Historical Perspective
Abstract – Although a segmentary society, the Lugbara used indigenous wisdom and lived experience to develop traditional law to guide in the management of land, flora, fauna, and water for posterity. Cultural beliefs, values, norms, and practices that guided land use and resource management were handed down by word of mouth through generations. Clan elders were the custodians of clan resources, guiding the people in negotiating the pitfalls and contradictions of human life.
Rethinking traditional knowledge and wisdom could act as a strategy for sustainable development.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016664562 (full access)
Reality Check, you asserted this:
Uh, how do we know this? Not to be contentious here, nor to deny the worth of indigenous knowledge of environments, but how can we possibly know the provenance of that knowledge in any detail? There’s archeological evidence of human presence in Australia perhaps 65k years, but what evidence exists as to the culture at that time?
“Surely this level of toxic poison from P. has no place here or anywhere for that matter.” writes Reality Check (Nov. 26) in his defense of Killian’s 26 NOV post that contained …. just one, completely tangential to my claim it was supposed to disprove, argument, namely: [Killian’s citation on the origin of “modern domesticated breeds” does NOT prove that my claim that the early North Americans DID NOT domesticate the (North American) horse”). was “ a gem of dung” [(c) Killian].
Aside from this one “argument”, the rest of Killian’s Nov. 26 post is just a stream of his consciousness about me:
– ”in your muddled head. There is what is and what was. That you are still steeped in the pile of dung”
– ” unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science”
– “It’s Bore Hole material to not even read the article in favor of your self-inflicted ignorance. Serious times for serious people. You are not one of them. You piddle all over the boards saying ignorant things because you think it makes you look cool to others. It doesn’t. You just look silly. Like this gem of dung”
“- Your bigotry is way too clear, as is you arguing like a high school freshman who just joined the debate club; no interest in truth, just interested in scoring debate points, so willing to say any stupid crap that comes to mind”
Our Reality Check reads the above, and then …. characterizes it as:
“[Killian] made a sensible comment in line with the academic paper he cited“.
and lectures _me_:
Reality C. “Surely this level of toxic poison from [Piotr] has no place here or anywhere for that matter
I guess, we’ve just got a peak into the Reality you inhabit.
Unless, of course, it is all tongue-in-cheek, a mockery of Killian, by showing how out to lunch one would have to be to consider the above response – “sensible” and in line with the academic paper he cited“. In that case – well done, sir.
If it were sincere, I would have called it “wishful thinking”. But you do not really admire them – you merely use them,
You are a toxic pile of lying crap. You didn’t even discuss the assertion because you know it is accurate. But you didn’t bother reading the article or the paper, so all you can do is sling shit.
I didn’t even bother reading the rest. You’re a goddamned fool: The world burns and you remain locked into childish attempts at mind games.
One problem: You only prove yourself a toxic stew of self-loathing as that is where all bullying starts.
Shame on the mods for allowing such trash.
Piotr says “Aaa, the old good myth of a noble native….etc, etc, etc.
Sounds right to me. Have said much the same to K in the past. It’s not a put down of indiginous culture. Its just facing reality objectively. I’ve always stood up for injustices against indiginous peoples.
“Your opponents dared to question your vision, suggesting that the short timeline and the scale of the needed transformation makes them simply unrealistic.”
This is certainly my position. Would have thought the difficulties were obvious anyway.
Killians and RC’s responses miss the point.
K posts: You are a toxic pile of lying crap.
And later in the same post:
K: Shame on the mods for allowing such trash.
BPL: Truer words were never spoken.
Kevin to Reality C.“nor to deny the worth of indigenous knowledge of environments, but how can we possibly know the provenance of that knowledge in any detail?”
I don’t think ANYBODY questioned “indigenous knowledge of environments”
That indigenous people must have had some “knowledge of environments” is a logical tautology – otherwise they would have never survived. Yet Reality C. argues it as if it were what I denied. This suggests either poor comprehension (inability to understand the argument one patronizingly dismisses) or, if done deliberately, intellectual dishonesty: the straw-man argument.
What I DID question was much more specific type of knowledge – the one REQUIRED by Killian’s argument here, namely: the knowledge sophistication NEEDED to deliberately PLAN engineering of entire ecosystems to maximize the benefits to the humans! And to accomplish it, 85 ky ago, without the benefit of modern science and with hardly any technology. A documented proof of _that_ I’d like to see.
And Reality C.’s proof would have to be ironclad to justify the Reality C.’s character assassination of me (” Surely this level of toxic poison from [Piotr] has no place here or anywhere for that matter. Comments like this turn the place into a sewer.“)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, eh? Or, if you prefer – put your money where your mouth is.
Piotr, 26 NOV: “If it were sincere, I would have called it “wishful thinking”. But you do not really admire them – you merely use them,”
Killian, 27 NOV, cuts out my justification of that claim and responds with:
“ You are a toxic pile of lying crap. You didn’t even discuss the assertion because you know it is accurate.”
I did. In the very post you stopped reading after these 2 sentences.
Killian: But you didn’t bother reading the article or the paper, so all you can do is sling shit. I didn’t even bother reading the rest.
You see the irony? I guess not, since you went there anyway, so let me explain:
1. you accuse me of “ not bothering reading” your post
2. you imply this to be deliberate – apparently I didn’t want your valid arguments to get in the way of my “slinging shit ” at you
3. THEN, in very next sentence, you say that you …. “didn’t bother reading” the very arguments for which you called me “a toxic pile of lying crap”
4. But this time around – “not bothering to read” – instead discrediting the guy who does not bother to read opponent’s arguments before slinging shit at him, now is used to discredit … the target of that shit slinging (by implying that my arguments must be A PRIORI not worth reading).
Classic Killian!
And in case, if Killian wanted to claim that these words are not characteristic of him, that I took them out of the context, that his Nov. 27 post was not one long shit-slugging fest, but that he had valid, falsifiable, arguments that I removed to make him look like a raving lunatic – here are his words in their entirety:
Killian and his “arguments”:
“ You are a toxic pile of lying crap. You didn’t even discuss the assertion because you know it is accurate. But you didn’t bother reading the article or the paper, so all you can do is sling shit.
I didn’t even bother reading the rest. You’re a goddamned fool: The world burns and you remain locked into childish attempts at mind games.
One problem: You only prove yourself a toxic stew of self-loathing as that is where all bullying starts. Shame on the mods for allowing such trash. ”
Killian, Nov. 27, 2021
A first-look at October’s surface temperatures, the Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for October with a global SAT anomaly of +0.42ºC, the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date. The monthly anomalies have been on the rise since February, running Jan to Sept +0.24ºC, +0.06ºC, +0.19ºC, +0.19ºC, +0.26ºC, +0.21ºC, +0.33ºC, +0.31ºC and +0.40ºC.
Oct 2021 is the 3rd warmest October on the ERA5 record behind Octobers 2019 (+0.45ºC) and 2015 (+0.44ºC) ahead of Octobers 2020 (+0.38ºC), 2017 (+0.36ºC), 2018 (+0.35ºC), 2016 (+0.34ºC) & 2012 (+0.22ºC).
October 2021 is the 20th highest anomaly in the all-month EAR5 record.
The first ten months of 2021 averages +0.26ºC and is the 5th warmest Jan-Oct on the ERA5 record. For the full calendar year to climb into 4th spot above 2017 wound require the 2021 Nov-Dec monthly anomalies to average above a toasty +0.75ºC while to drop to 6th spot below 2018 wound require the 2021 Nov-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +0.28ºC and a further drop to 7th below 2015 require the 2021 Nov-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +0.23ºC. Given the most recent anomalies, 5th spot for the full calendar year appears the odds-on favourite.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2020 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2016 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2021 .. +0.26ºC
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2015 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 7th
2014 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
1998 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 15th
2007 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 13th
2013 .. +0.05ºC … … … +0.07ºC … … … 10th
We fail to get economics out of the climate discussion at our peril. Steve Keen asks climate scientists to stop letting them set the parameters of the discussion, call them on their poor analyses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6LkCt6si6k
K: We fail to get economics out of the climate discussion at our peril.
BPL: Yes, when discussing how to invest and how to allocate resources, the last thing we want to be thinking about is economics!
If you still think investing is a good idea you don’t understand the historical moment, risk, etc. What financial system will survive an 80~90% reduction? Economies fall into depression at just -20%.
Think, dude.
K: If you still think investing is a good idea you don’t understand the historical moment, risk, etc. What financial system will survive an 80~90% reduction? Economies fall into depression at just -20%.
BPL: Yes, we have a depression at -20% and you’re advocating taking it down 8-90%. But I’m the one who should “Think, dude.” Let the reader decide.
I’ve always said Killians cure is worse than the disease.
Recycling does not removing make. The whale feces only recycles the existing pool of iron. For removing carbon from the surface water only the organic matter that ESCAPED recycling matters. So iron in the whale poop would matter if it was decoupled from organic carbon. Pig and cattle manure would be such an external source of iron (and macronutrients), but given the low concentration the greenhouse emission to transport them to Antarctica. Much easier would deliver iron itself – but this has been tried in whole series of ocean iron fertilization experiments and as far as I can recall the results were mixed at best, with the carbon uptake small, temporary or even negative (if added iron helped heterotrophic bacteria more than it helped algae). And as Strong et al. 2009 indicated: “ models have consistently shown that at the limit, the approach could not substantially change the trajectory of global warming.” So Martin’s joke “Give me a half a tanker of iron and I’ll give you the next ice age” never really came even close to feasibility.
That said, baleen whales do affect carbon fluxes via their impact on krill, copepods, or small fish they feed on – who knows – perhaps without them there would be more grazing on diatoms, leading to some nutrients not utilized, and therefore some of the CO2 uptake potential – not realized. But how how big is this effect – who knows. Most likely orders of magnitude less than needed to make a dent in the AGW.
And in general – for the carbon removal – sinking poop is much better than the floating poop – as it removes carbon from the surface waters and if it recycled back to CO2 – it would happen in deeper ocean from which it takes much longer for the carbon to get back to the surface layer.
Reality Check says 5 Nov 2021 at 6:19 AM Dr. Zeke Hausfather – Big news: recent CO2 emissions
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-797569
Thanks to all who responded. ood to know. I saw a number of related/followup refs you may wish to review; and recalling that LUC is only estimated at 10% of total co2 emissions in that report
CB report
https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-co2-emissions-have-been-flat-for-a-decade-new-data-reveals
Zeke thread
“Rather than a 35% increase in LUC emissions since 2000 – as the data previously showed – the new version has a roughly 35% decrease instead”
[ I still find that hard to accept, given ramping up of Indonesia, amazon and other anecdotal LUC activities the last decade. ]
Despite these updates, large uncertainties remain. — (increased forest degradation, recent changes in deforestation rates in Brazil) might not be reflected well in the data.
The researchers at the GCP caution that “It is too early to infer robust trends. More regional analysis is needed and accurate, high-resolution monitoring of land-use dynamics.
Though note that constant emissions results in a roughly linear increase in concentrations (leaving aside year to year variability).
and
2021 CO2 ppms are increasing less than 2020 despite higher emissions, due to La Nina land sink effects.
[which says to me, maybe PPM responses are far more responsive to changes in both emissions rates and sinks than we think they are …. ??]
All from thread –> https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1456048962012471301
one 2021 paper showing LUC estimate decreases recently due to a more local methodology.
Therefore, it is concluded that local scale LUC emissions better represent local LUC dynamics, thereby improving the reliability of GHG footprint studies.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720368698
Global Carbon Budget 2020
Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics…
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3269/2020/
GISTEMP has been posted for October with a global SAT anomaly of +0.99ºC, the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date, the monthly anomalies running Jan to Sept +0.81ºC, +0.64ºC, +0.89ºC, +0.76ºC, +0.79ºC, +0.85ºC, +0.92ºC, +0.82ºC and +0.92ºC.
Oct 2021 is the 4th warmest October on the GISTEMP record behind Octobers 2015 (+1.09ºC), 2019 (+1.02ºC) and 2018 (+1.01ºC) ahead of Octobers 2017 (+0.90ºC), 2020 and 2016 (both +0.89ºC), 2014 (+0.80ºC) & 2012 (+0.79ºC).
October 2021 is =25th highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record.
The first ten months of 2021 averages +0.84ºC and is the 7th warmest Jan-Oct on the GISTEMP record.
For the full calendar year to climb into 6th spot above 2018 wound require the 2021 Nov-Dec monthly anomalies to average above+0.87ºC. 6th looks the likely annual outcome given the anomalies of recent months. Alternatives to 6th or 7th look decidedly unlikely. (To climb into 5th spot above 2015 wound require the 2021 Nov-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +1.17ºC with a drop down to 8th below 2014 requires the 2021 Nov-Dec monthly anomalies to average below +0.28ºC.)
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.04ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.03ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.97ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.93ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2015 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 6th
2021 .. +0.84ºC
2014 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 11th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 10th
2013 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 9th
2002 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 15th
Yet more breathless claims from various quarters that this paper definitely disproves AGW by attributing essentially all recently observed warming to changes in cloud cover:
Dübal, Hans-Rolf, and Fritz Vahrenholt. “Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020.” Atmosphere 12.10 (2021): 1297.
I’m not an expert here, and don’t have the time to refute (or often even read) every such paper that comes down the pike. And the paper is so recent there are no citations (good or bad) to it, so it’s hard to gauge how credible the authors are, etc.
Could someone who knows what’s actually going on put that paper into some kind of context?
Thanks.
A link to the paper Dübal & Vahrenholt (2021) Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 may be helpful.
Making a first-call, a very quick scan shows the authors using two decades of CERES data to argue, via some dubious leaps of logic, that the last century-and-a-half could be either the result of perhaps the AMO reducing planetary albedo or it could be AGW, but they are not sure about anything.
Ironically, the AMO which they brandish so strongly (and is now open to question as being an oscillation) originates from the same research which brought us the first sight of the hockeystick. The idea that their temporary “heating phases” A & B and potentially-temporary “heating phase” C could all be part of AGW seems to be beyond their understanding.
James McDonald,
With a slightly more proper read, I see the numpties who have written the paper set out their stall within the introduction which argues the following bold assertion:-
Yet the paper fails to manage even two paragraphs of this introduction before it unforgivably misrepresents major references. Thus von Schuckmann et al (2020) and Loeb et al (2021) are cited as supporting the paper’s assumed position that there is an “overwhelming” lead role for cloud albedo driving the Earth Energy Imbalance. Yet, for instance, Fig 2 of Loeb et al (2021) shows no such thing with the lead role over the period 2002-20 to be water vapour closely followed in turn by cloud albedo, GHGs & surface albedo with a small contribution from aerosols, and this accumulative warming part of the imbalance reduced by a half due to rising global temperatures.
Thus the whole paper is based entirely upon a nonsense. And so you may guess what the result is.
If you are interested in a more extensive debunking of this drivel, do say: I enjoy a good laugh and the nonsense set out by Dübal & Vahrenholt certainly has a high humour content.
I can across this paper because it has been cited by the online climate deniers as disproving AGW (or at least that its just human influence) and that it represents divided opnion amongst scientists.
Warning:
Contains explicit language, and words such as ‘Collapse,’ which may be perceived offensive to some readers!
David Goeßmann interviews Kevin Anderson at #Flop26
Qs from 9:48 mins https://youtu.be/cazfa3p-6yc?t=588
DG: You have been criticizing your colleagues for not speaking truth to power. Why is that?
KA: I’m particularly critical of some not all. Some of the senior academics (climate scientists) and other ones as well but mostly the senior academics.
DG: You don’t want to name them?
KA: Not yet no. I don’t want to name them, and often it’s because they’re doing this for well-meaning reasons. But to me it’s really misguided. So in private they’ll tell me things from their work about how bad the situation is, then in public they will say something that is much more hopeful, but that is not supported by their evidence. And sometimes the difference between those two is huge.
They will also promote technologies which they don’t think will work at the scale they have put in their (climate) models, but they still put them in the models because it gives them an output (a result) which means they won’t have to significantly question the current (accepted prevailing UNFCCC) political-economic framework or paradigm.
The reason (excuse) that some of them make is that we can’t change the paradigm!!! Therefore we have to change our assumptions or massage the language we use to make it look more appealing (and acceptable.)
Now that might be appropriate if you’re an NGO, if you’re a spin doctor of a political party, but to me that is completely inappropriate for academics (and climate scientists). Our job, and it’s quite a simple remit, is to do our job, carry out our work our research carefully, recognize when we get things wrong, (it’s wrong occasionally) and change them when we do.
And then to communicate iour work clearly and bluntly to whoever wants to listen. We should not be there to spin a cheery story. We should not be there to make it attractive to the NGOs or the policy makers (and Governments or special interest groups or industry bodies). It is only the content of our message as academics that really matters!
But I think we have been very dangerous, we have been spinning a tale which fits with the political (economic) dialogue for far too long on this issue. As time has passed and the challenges got harder and harder, we have spun an increasingly imaginary tale rather than saying what our science is telling us. And I hear this repeatedly! It is not just occasionally.
As an example of this I was at an event recently when the person when speaking was saying things are challenging but there are things that we can do, and she was explaining that. But then afterwards on the train she put her head in her hands and excuse the language she just said “We are absolutely Fucked!”
I don’t think she should have used that language in the seminar but I think she should have expressed that feeling through her research presentation in the seminar (and her professional expert conclusions of it). She shouldn’t wait and say that privately to me on the train.
If we misinform the policy makers, if we misinform the public, how can they develop policies that are in line with the (scientific) information?
@12:30 mins
DG: Where are we heading actually right now temperature wise and what impacts would that have on the world and on us?
KA: I think it’s hard to say exactly where we are heading but to my assessment somewhere between 3 to 4 degrees centigrade of warming across this century (to 2100) – I’ve used this language before: “It is like living on a different planet. “
If we look at the recent report that came out from the IPCC SR1.5 when they looked specifically at the climate
impacts for 1.5 degrees centigrade and compared them with the climate impacts for 2 degrees centigrade – at 1.5 as an example you wipe out, you kill about three quarters of the Great Barrier Reef and other tropical
corals – at two degrees you kill all of those (reefs worldwide).
So even at these lower temperatures (of heating), just small differences we will see huge impacts on major ecosystems. Now imagine that playing out now for our insect communities that pollinate our crops that help us produce the food – (at 2C at 3C and more) we’re going to severely impact that. We are already seeing that in some places.
So what we are going to have from that (heating) will be lots of issues to do with food production, but exacerbating that making that worse will be droughts and floods, plus military tension as we see in some parts of the world already now. I mean again there will be less stability to help people with their industries, (businesses, health services, their community) and with agriculture.
Basically what we’re seeing at 3 to 4 degrees centigrade warming is the collapse of many of our current ecosystems. They will eventually evolve (again) into new ones over very long periods (taking thousands of years to stabilize). But we will also see the collapse of many of our human (economic financial societal) systems because they will not be able to deal with that rate of change.
Three or four degrees centigrade over a million years doesn’t really matter. Three or four degrees centigrade across several thousand years is less of an issue (of climatic change to cope with.) But three or four centigrade in 100 years is a disaster! So I think we have to recognize that. Our (existing) systems, our human and our ecological systems will not be able to respond in a reasonable fashion at that rate of change.
The End
So, uh, yup. And a new paper last week saying 6C by 2100 is possible.
Is long-tail risk framing making sense to anyone yet? Hmmm? Do y’all need even more slaps upside the head?
A theory confirmed: I have posited reductions in animal/biota populations are being undercounted because of a receding horizons problem. Basically, the reductions we’ve been told have happened have been counted from short time frames, such as some insect populations down X% in 27 years.
This has always jumped out at me as misleading given what has happened since the Industrial Revolution. I have posited a BOE number closer to 90%, give or take (80 ~ 95% are numbers I have thrown around in the past), being likely.
New research shows the Sheldon spectrum (i.e. 1/3 of the biomass of a species is very small, 1/3 is medium and 1/2 is large, with obvious differences in body size, but not biomass for each tier) in the oceans has been disrupted by human activities. For the decline in the top 1/3, for at least some, 90% is accurate.
We are so close to the precipice. Every sign is pointing to being over the edge already. We’d better pull our heads out of our collective asses yesterday.
The article: https://www.wired.com/story/humans-broken-fundamental-law-ocean/
We are so close to the precipice. Yes. We are. And it is a very long way down to the bottom.
Reality Chaeck,
I’m not a fan of watching videos so base this solely on what you have transcribed.
It is difficult to address concerns/assertions on where AGW will end up if they are not put in context. So who are the “some not all” of Kevin Anderson’s colleagues who are not speaking truth to power? Is the one colleague saying “Things are challenging” at COP26 and then “We are absolutely Fucked!” really speaking about the same situation?And what are the circumstances that lead to Anderson’s assessment that we face “somewhere between 3 to 4 degrees centigrade of warming across this century.”
I would suggest a different Kevin Anderson interview dated 12th Nov sees him on the same page as most others in climatology. He is quoted saying “we have eight years at current emissions for a good chance at 1.5, and even for an outside chance at 1.5 degrees centigrade, we only 14 years.” Of course, it is again an interview so there are no references to back up this assertion and lay out properly where the temperature rise and emissions budgets come from.
One of the problems is the leeway for speaking at cross-purposes is large, especially as we close in on the +1.5ºC warming.
Perhaps the issue is best described by considering the SSP1-1.9 scenario which is reckoned to give us a 50% chance of keeping AGW below +1.5ºC. (although IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch4 shows the 50% SSP1-1.9 exceeding 1.5ºC for a period mid-century.) And to achieve that we have a remaining carbon emissions budget of 120Gt(C) which is 11 years-worth (at present emissions). And also in SSP1-1.9 is another budget which should not be ignored. That is the negative emissions required between 2050 and 2150 which total something like 200Gt(C).
Of course, given there is just 11 years-worth of remaining emissions budget, for our great and wise world leaders to bugger off home to do nothing (again) except promise to be back next year to discuss it some more, I would fully understand a climatologist expressing the view on the train home that We are absolutely Fucked!”
@MA
1) who are the “some not all” — ask KA directly. Only he knows. But it is an open secret. He is not the only one suggesting such things are common.
One explanation is that people on the inside of the climate science clique (not you, not me) do not want to be seen publicly “rocking the boat”. Feel free to thoroughly research such matters, or ignore it.
2) really speaking about the same situation? — apparently so. You could watch the video, but of course we all have our limitations. Or ask KA directly via email or twitter or phone his institution. No point asking me. I was not there. Do and believe what you wish.
3) the circumstances that lead to Anderson’s assessment that we face “somewhere between 3 to 4 degrees — I refer you to reading the published studies and articles written by KA and the body of climate science referenced by him in those studies/papers etc. It’s quite substantial, as are Hansen’s papers that underpin most of his public commentaries over the last decade which posit “numbers” over and above the accepted norms heard in good company.
4) Of course, it is again an interview so there are no references to back up this assertion and lay out properly where the temperature rise and emissions budgets come from. —- not so. He often mentions those points/framing recently — all come from the IPCC AR6 WG1 …. or look up the carbon budget article page on RC.
What he says, imv, is completely consistent here. Blowing the 1.5C carbon budget quote is inline with 3-4C temperatures by the end of the century — best not cherry pick two comments and ignore the thousand so of others and his data points that underpin the 3-4C scenario.
The problem I have with those time frames are they are based on low likelihood % – imho they should wipe out all except for the highest 83% to a 90% likelihood range. iow our 1.5C Budget is already gone. It’s already in the pipeline of the next 4 to 8 years. It’s blown. KA was being conservative and kind to the most optimistic of possible futures.
5) KAs 3-4C scenario by 2100 comment is perfectly inline with the best know climate science imv and is also in line with the science basics which underpin the AR6 and other credible published studies/papers I have seen. and sometimes shared here.
6) by considering the SSP1-1.9 scenario etc —- imv, from what I understand of these, the basis of the AR6, of the SR15 paper, of current NDCs and status of current near term energy use etc etc. once we cross the 1.5C carbon budget and NH land surfaces are stuck above +2C avg and increasing rapidly from there, and what that means scientifically to daily, weekly monthly maximum temps and the subsequent climatic implications … as per extreme weather events seen this year at only +1.1C global increase, social stability, agriculture and so on, followed by the next super el nino and/or Arctic BOE in sept/oct …. then those SSPs and RCPs will finally be acknowledged and seen as not fit for purpose and they hopefully will be discarded and never spoken about again.
This is my Hope, but I am not Optimistic about that either. :)
7) Finally, as has been scientifically acknowledged (see M. Mann as one well known source) the climatic impacts expected for +1.1C increase of global warming are far beyond / above / worse than what was expected, projected, estimated, predicted by the very best climate science of the recent past or 30-40 years ago.
I believe the meaning of this, the logical take away message of the best climate science known to mankind and of today’s clear and irrefutable Observations in the Real World should be patently obvious to everyone within shouting distance of the Data.
To me it is screaming at me (and many others in the real world, scientists and not) is to look out for when we cross +1.5C because then it’s dangerous climate change on steroids – at levels not yet spoken of in the climate literature.
Then, all bets will be off. Finally the best climate models and the rhetoric of the majority of climate science well known experts will be seen to have some very serious inbuilt overly conservative unrealistic unsupportable unrealistic assumptions that are not actually fit for purpose anymore.
Finally the mathematical hypotheticals, the assumptions, the conservative guesses and the many biased opinions of this paper is in but these papers are out for being too whacko / unrealistic / outside the In Group Consensus of what’s Great and what is Garbage – which we have heard for a very long time will be silenced and quickly abandoned.
It’s just unfortunate (imho) that by the time this occurs, and it definitely will, of that I am all but certain now (given the data, the facts of the science itself – vs the Pollyanna interpretations / the public misrepresentations of it by “some” as per Anderson’s quotes ) we will be in a situation where the 1.5C is totally gone, +1.5C has been broken to never to be seen again, that the +2C Carbon Budget is equally running out at speed with global FF use surpassing 40 Gt CO2 per year during the 2030s and increasing rapidly as the UNFCCC and the IPCC institutions are abandoned and it’s every man for himself with absolutely no serious deployment of CCS or any other type of NETs.
This to me will be the natural outcome of decades of arguing about and studying MINUTIA of no actual use or relevance whatsoever to solving the problem at hand.
A SCIENCE OWN GOAL – the realization of this is what the very near future holds.
A realization that will come far too late and of no use to anyone.
In the meantime – Please, Do Not Rock the Boat! :)
PS
I went through all that without even mentioning Feedbacks. :)
If there is one obvious example of collective celebrity in-group of climate scientists determining what is and what is not acceptable in public discourse by their peers and juniors it is their denial of the looming Climate Feedbacks about to kick in, becoming undeniable once we cross the Rubicon of blowing that 1.5C Carbon Budget …. then all will see how out of depth they and all their assumptions and hypothetical theories & estimates & equations underpinning their short-term Modelling and their shallow pre- and post-COP26 2050 and 2100 Temperature rise scenarios are.
Won’t be a pretty sight. :)
But that unknown female climate scientist, alluded to by KA “as a personal story” will be proven correct in her analysis: “We are absolutely Fucked!”
Of course, I could be wrong. But if I really believed I was, I’d be silent. :)
iirc this is known as a “positive feedback” – a change in the climate forcing additional changes in the climate – yes?
25 November 2021
According to new research, Melting Arctic sea ice linked to ‘worsening fire hazards’ in western US
https://www.carbonbrief.org/melting-arctic-sea-ice-linked-to-worsening-fire-hazards-in-western-us
One swallow doesn’t make a summer, but still is anyone that surprised?
Published: 26 October 2021
Increasing large wildfires over the western United States linked to diminishing sea ice in the Arctic
Yufei Zou et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26232-9 full access
“Our analysis (based on observations, climate model sensitivity experiments, and a multi-model ensemble of climate simulations) demonstrates and explains the Arctic-driven teleconnection through regional circulation changes with the poleward-shifted polar jet stream and enhanced fire-favorable surface weather conditions. “
Now my $64,000 Question is: How many climate models simulations sensitivity experiments or ensembles, especially all those recent post-cop26 future warming scenarios to 2100, have included this particular climate feedback and the hundreds of others just like it?
I’ll hazard a guess – None have.
Multi-decadal increase of forest burned area in Australia is linked to climate change
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27225-4
full access
“Fire, including cultural burns by indigenous people, has shaped the function and structure of most Australian ecosystems for millennia.”
Songlines: Solutions to Climate Change 30 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmjNBQ2pFpM
What can we learn from indigenous Australians’ 60,0000 year history of caring for the land as we face catastrophic climate change impacts? Travel to remote parts of the Northern Territory to see the effects first hand and listen to how the first Australians would like us to respond.
Jane Bardon, ABC News Channel – 7 & 8 March 2020
There’s a section in there with vision showing the massive mangrove die-back (2015?) in nth australia across 1000kms of coastline. It has not recovered/grown back. A good example of the IPBES below which says –
“climate change poses severe threats to many of these ecosystems (e.g., through permafrost thaw,
increasing risk of wildfire and insect outbreak, mangrove or kelp-forest dieback) that cannot be alleviated without halting warming.”
Reminds of the earlier IPCC reports saying an Arctic summer blue ocean event wouldn’t occur until circa 2090….. now that’s due when. There is the conservative IPCC prognosis and then there’s everyone else actively working in the Cryosphere science area. My bet is still on pre-2030 is a sure thing.
Remember people dissing future arctic methane increases in a warming world suggesting it’s a beat up. Well maybe some of it was …. but there’s more to permafrost thawing and loss of mangroves than only extreme sudden notions like methane bombs …. or increases in CO2 feedbacks …. there’s warming and what it causes and then there’s also rapidly increasing ecosystem damage and biodiversity loss as well, which is just as likely to lead to further warming too.
eg We’ve learned so much about permafrost feedbacks to climate in the past decade. It’s now considered by some climate models & by @IPCC_CH . But one type of permafrost thaw is a vexing, wicked problem for climate, & society. Welcome to my mini lesson on ABRUPT permafrost thaw.
https://twitter.com/queenofpeat/status/1461042950796824580
There is a large list of things that were being dissed as unrealistic emotive exaggerations of impacts and feedbacks a decade and two ago that are now turning up to be far worse far earlier than ever expected. This all leads into biodiversity loss and dynamic ecology problems over an above mere simplistic GHG forcings – today it’s scientific field all by itself …
Permafrost is being featured today at #COP26Glasgow. Here I will explain why this is SO important to our future climate and everything we know and love about the Arctic.
>200 individuals will discuss the latest on permafrost carbon science #permafrost #carbonand how to communicate it.
Had great conversation yesterday on how climate and permafrost storytelling is changing during the @PermafrostCN meeting.
The Boreal-Arctic Wetland and Lake Dataset is published
COP26 discuss how global climate change is affecting Arctic permafrost and impacting local communities
see https://twitter.com/PermafrostCN
Not mincing words. As a permafrost scientist & IPCC author, I say with confidence that the cryosphere is in DIRE shape. Climate policy NOW will dictate the fate of the Arctic. In turn, the Arctic will influence all of our climate for many generations. http://iccinet.org/statecryo21/ (site posted here before)
Scientists call for more ambition in climate negotiations (COP26)
The remaining CO2 budgets compatible with a stabilisation of global warming at 1.5°C are rapidly shrinking (500, 400, and 300 GtCO2 since early 2020, for probabilities of 50%, 67% and 83%, respectively, of limiting global warming to 1.5°C), and highlight the urgent need for a rapid and sustained decline of global emissions, under consideration of climate justice and equity. Given the current yearly emissions of ca. 40GtCO2/yr, these remaining budgets would be exhausted by ca. 2027 to 2033 in the absence of marked decreases in emissions. This highlights the need for immediate reductions of CO2 emissions to achieve both the temperature goal of the Paris agreement and to also contribute to increased climate resilience.
https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/11/scientists-call-for-more-ambition-in-climate-negotiations.html
Guest post: How COP26 finally recognised the latest IPCC climate science (AR6 WGI 2021)
Most importantly, the COP26 final text:
Rapidly depleting carbon budgets
As recognised in the text of the Glasgow Climate Pact, carbon budgets are being rapidly depleted.
Carbon budgets are a simplified way to measure the maximum emissions that can still enter the atmosphere if the world wishes to limit global warming to a specific level such as 1.5C. They are based on the fact that the amount of warming that will occur can be approximated by total – that is, cumulative – CO2 emissions.
As we highlighted in our letter, the WG1 IPCC AR6 report shows that “[t]he remaining CO2 budgets compatible with a stabilisation of global warming at 1.5C are rapidly shrinking…and highlight the urgent need for a rapid and sustained decline of global emissions, under consideration of climate justice and equity”.
As of the beginning of 2021, the remaining carbon budget for a […] 83% likelihood, this is reduced to 260GtCO2
This leads to a stark conclusion in our letter:
“Given the current global annual emissions of around 40GtCO2/yr, these remaining budgets would be exhausted sometime during the period of 2027 to 2033 in the absence of marked decreases in emissions.”
These numbers clearly show a substantial gap between stated ambitions to pursue efforts to 1.5C and the current state of emissions.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-cop26-finally-recognised-the-latest-ipcc-climate-science
Noting that 260GtCO2 divided by 40GtCO2/yr equals 6.5 Years circa July 2027
July 2027 there will be No Global Carbon Budget left for stabilizing of global warming at 1.5°C
The grim reality of COP26 is that we needed a 45% CO2 emissions cut in 9 years to avoid smashing the 1.5C guardrail, and instead we are on track for a 14% CO2 emissions rise. That’s 60% too much!
So read the writing on the wall – say goodbye to stabilizing global warming at 2 degrees C as well.
misc science based info reports
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
https://ipbes.net/global-assessment
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2020-02/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf
I found the IPBES report mentioned by (outspoken/radical/activist?) Roy Scranton in an article of September 2019 We Broke the World, Facing the fact of extinction; highlighting —
Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
Current global response insufficient; ‘Transformative changes’ needed to restore and protect nature; Opposition from vested interests can be overcome for public good;
Most comprehensive assessment of its kind; 1,000,000 species threatened with extinction
then adding:
“The next day it was back to Trump’s taxes, jittery markets, and another school shooting, but for a moment at least, the whirling kinetoscope of our collective acid trip into hell focused briefly on the fact that the planet we live on is dying.”
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/we-broke-the-world-scranton
AND this other report seemed interesting and really comprehensive:
Launch of IPBES-IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Climate Change
Date Thursday, 10 June, 2021
https://ipbes.net/events/launch-ipbes-ipcc-co-sponsored-workshop-report-biodiversity-and-climate-change
Scientific Outcome Report – https://zenodo.org/record/5101125#.YaLK5LpxVPY
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is the intergovernmental body which assesses the state of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services it provides to society, in response to requests from decision makers.
https://ipbes.net/
I did not know this body existed. Many professionals, UN/Govt officials, scientists, from across many nations, doing analysis summarizing Research papers, producing reports and attending workshops etc. …. but how much of the good/sustainable climate mitigation recommendations ends up being enacted?
I mean it all sounds like good work has been done, it’s really well presented information that makes perfectly good sense (to me) as it contains many great ideas. But what is being done and who is on charge of all this? Who is driving the changes required? Is anything happening at all?
( Some rhetorical questions while thinking out loud. No biggie. )
Kevin McKinney says 27 Nov 2021 at 9:00 AM
There’s archeological evidence of human presence in Australia perhaps 65k years, but what evidence exists as to the culture at that time?
Some archeological evidence plus carbon dating goes back to circa >90k btw. There is ample evidence of indigenous tribal culture circa 65k including cave drawings art tools diet hunting songlines oral history .. there’s gaps but it’s there.
QUOTE: “Some archeological evidence plus carbon dating goes back to circa >90k btw. There is ample evidence of indigenous tribal culture circa 65k including cave drawings art tools diet hunting songlines oral history .. there’s gaps but it’s there.”
Define “gaps”.
;)
Between your ears, there is a gap. There’s nothing there!
Ladies and Gentlemen
On peculiar regenerative and sustainable agricultural ghospels.
I( have had the great advantage of knowing a bit basic physical geography and meteoroogy plus physical chemistery before the climate dispute took off, thus I was prepared and inocculated against falling into denialism and fanatism alarmism of any kind. My very good personal advice to all and everyone. See that such basic horizons are seen and taken serious first.
Then it comes further to peculiar agricultural ghospels. There are many of them. Sustainable organic biodynamic regenerative and all that.
My youngest son showed us a photo of our grandparents house as it was quite recently built in 1920, in a landscape quite different from what it is today. It was obvious ackers and pasture lands with very few villas and houses and most remarkably, all trees and bushes were quite few and quite small The Little ice age can hardely explain that. The plausible reason is that it was heavily chopped down for constructional and firewood and the rest kept down and even regularly burnt to keep the possible pasture lands and potensial ackers “clean”.
What enabled the great later change then must have been shipping trade money and colonialism, hydroelectric power, imported cokes coal and oil, and industrial mineral fertillizer, imported Soya and Corn for the production animals.
Did the soil suffocate and loose its fossile humus carbon during tose last 100 years? and does it need Killians revolutionary methods to “regenerate” our soil again after we misunderstood and mistreated it so ugly?
Not to my knowledge. The least productive areas seen to have been sold away first and transformed into prvate potatoe and applegardens with poultry and swinery based on organic manure, later on NPK and motorized lawn moovers.
To discuss soil and earth without any recognition of pH and https://base-cation-saturation-ratio BCSR is very dilettantic, very fanatic and very irresponsible. Because it is the scientific formula possible regenerative and oekological and sustainable agriculture and biodiversity.
Do not let anyone fool you there.
Do not let anyone fool you there.
Yes indeed, do not.
An anecdote of one location 100 years ago and an analogy does not discount undermine the knowledge and know-how surrounding hundreds of years of land use changes at national and continental scale.
Everything matters. Soil pH and salinity sure. Erosion and humus levels and worms, sure. Pastoral landscapes or single cropping and upon pre-Civilised pre-Industrial and pre-Colonial landscapes of flora and fauna, before half the worlds SOC was depleted in them as well, sure. Include that too. And before deciding what if anything could be done then a thorough understanding of each particular location and it’s history is essential.
For that is surely the default in-situ formula of evaluation, planning and implementing any possible regenerative and ecological, permaculture, and/or sustainable agriculture and pro-biodiversity endeavor. Right? :)
There are no single rules to this issue. There is not one single best response. It’s a Process recommendation not a Religious decree being made. So easy with the false or inflated accusations of it being a mindless irrational religious cultic decree and/or very dilettantic, very fanatic and very irresponsible if one’s perception is it does not fit one single 100 year old anecdote covering several acres. :)
Enough of the putting words never spoken and demands never made into other people’s mouths. Please, if at all possible in an imperfect world such as it is. People have their opinions and all are sincerely held or they would never mention them in the first place. There are quite a few extreme ones but recommending regenerative agriculture or regen social systems and de-growth economics or simplicity are not the most extreme out there imv.
They are merely not considered “mainstream” nor “dominant paradigms”….. the dominant mainstream and accepted universal paradigms being what got us into this dangerous destructive crisis in the first place, right?
So yes indeed, do not let anyone fool you there either. :)
But, each to their own. It does not matter who says what here or over there, because nothing keeps changing for the better anyway. After-all, despite all fanciful claims to the contrary by Michael E Mann et al, when it comes to urgency and agency, we possess neither.
Stop bleating like a damned fool, “Killian’s…” Really? It’s an old, old fallacy and utter dishonesty.
We don’t need fools, we need people to grow things, make things, build communities, DO regenerative.
Stop bleating bullshit and bile.
One example of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services impacts is from the damage already done to Coral reefs
Global coral cover has fallen by half since 1950s, analysis finds
Overfishing, a heating planet, pollution and habitat destruction have devastated reefs, scientists warn
coral reefs and the diversity of fish species they support are in steep decline, a trend that is projected to continue as the planet continues to heat in the 21st century.
A review of 14,705 reef surveys in 87 countries found that the effort required to maintain fish catches had surged dramatically since the mid-1990s, reflecting their worsening health, with catches from reef species peaking in 2002 and declining ever since.
The study, published on Friday in the journal One Earth, found that the diversity of species on reefs has dropped by more than 60% and total reef cover had approximately halved, accompanied by a similar fall in services that the ecosystems provide for human populations.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/17/global-coral-cover-halves-since-1950s-analysis-finds-aoe
study – Coral reefs’ capacity to provide ecosystem services has declined by half since the 1950s
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00474-7
The point?
Typical climate science framing of rising temps climate feedbacks, impacts and tipping points in the science is about major changes in the distant future, eg SLR, AMOC, and ice sheet loss. When really it’s the multiple shorter term and existing damages that is going to be causing immediate grief, destabilizing societies and impacting norms long before those distant impacts might occur.
imv it’s these already existing biodiversity and social infrastructure and system destabilization which are far more critical, are already occurring and fast becoming worse (all reefs gone at 2C …. might be at 1.7C because hey really do not know for certain, right, and they have repeatedly understated projected impacts) — and rather that lay out these real world impacts and changes instead the scientists and ipcc only ever focuses on RCPs and SSP pathways wholly related to global average temperature increases per se and there selected major feedbacks/tipping point focus … and never lay out what the real world implications of the basic ever increasing temperatures on Biodiversity and everyday Human Systems Breakdowns or what it really means to people and society and the planet’s ecology now and the short term future.
Similarly there is much more to Permafrost thaw than whatever methane and co2 emissions might follow fro it. It’s extremely destructive to the existing environment ecology and biodiversity and eco-services to humans as well .. and much sooner, as in right now already.
These are the damages and the harms repeatedly ignored for decades now and still being ignored art COP26 too. Maybe I simply expect far too much? No. I really do not think I do.
No where has the UNFCCC processs or the IPCC ever quantified the real world impacts on biodiversity and human ecoservices and society / infrastructure damages of a ~75% loss of corals at 1.5C and then or a 100% global loss of corals at/near 2C.
No one has represented that as food insecurity, as fish stock losses, as fishing fleet losses, and as loss of employment, loss of GDP income for nations, especially island nations, Nor have they calculated and explained it to the world of the obvious logical (?) repercussions of open water seas and storms upon the land surface, beach fronts of islands, east coast of Australia, once the protective coral reefs are dead and gone.
The only thing that is mentioned by climate science is … “oh btw, we think 100% of coral reefs will be destroyed when temps hit +2C or there abouts. But we aren’t certain when exactly, or where exactly, or how fast that will occur.” And that’s it.
They never present the repercussions of that occurring and what it means to people and to biodiversity or to water front landscapes and housing and infrastructure all over the world. Not a word is spoken. Joe Public is expected to just know what all that means in the real world into the future as if by breathing in some Magical Fairy Dust?
I think of these matters as being both irresponsible and incompetent .. but at whose feet to lay such accusations? Clearly the UNFCCC/COP process, national govts, celebrity climate experts, and the IPCC do not see it as being their problem. I don’t think it is my fault either, but maybe it is?
( A few more rhetorical questions while thinking out loud. No biggie. )
Golly gosh, about the twisted sad sorry Piotr v Killian saga above and the facts and what the actual research happens to say instead.
1st comment by killian innocently quoting a research paper – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-797662
@Piotr reply QUOTE – 26 Nov 2021 at 6:09 PM
Except, the early people didn’t use the fire to effect long-term intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem – it just happened – either when wildfires started to flush out the animals to be hunted, went out of control, or when ambers from bonfires, they kept all the time for cooking, comfort and protection – started unintended wildfires.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-797700
Well, that is totally false… maybe what we need here is: “A documented proof of _that_ I’d like to see. “ which Piotr himself recommended, by way of a credible academic ref maybe? :)
VERSUS this missive, Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy …or whatever it is:-
Piotr says
28 Nov 2021 at 10:28 AM
“What I DID question was much more specific type of knowledge – the one REQUIRED by Killian’s argument here, namely: the knowledge sophistication NEEDED to deliberately PLAN engineering of entire ecosystems to maximize the benefits to the humans! And to accomplish it, 85 ky ago, without the benefit of modern science and with hardly any technology. A documented proof of _that_ I’d like to see. ”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798264
Funny, no where does Killian or that Paper say anything remotely close to saying: “namely: the knowledge sophistication NEEDED to deliberately PLAN engineering of entire ecosystems to maximize the benefits to the humans! And to accomplish it, 85 ky ago”!!!
So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about what Killian said when there was nothing like that contained in any of “Killian’s argument” – The TEXT is right there … he made no such argument!
On both aspects, the false claims about what Killian’s post and what the paper actually said, plus on the false claims of what you said I had said then what you also said here really fits the bill :-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, eh? Or, if you prefer – put your money where your mouth is. ref https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798264
Exhibit 1
Reality Check says
26 Nov 2021 at 8:11 PM
Using a Verbatim quote in italics from Piotr himself!
Exhibit 2
Yes well, it can still be read what Killian actually said here:
8 Nov 2021 at 7:23 AM
here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-797662
All quite sensible stuff. No where does Killian say engineering of entire ecosystems etc.
Exhibit 3
Piotr: “Our Reality Check reads the above, and then …. characterizes it as:,,,,,”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798205
Untrue I didn’t read ‘X above’ by Killian and then say what I said because of that …. nothing like it, you are making it up. I simply read what YOU WROTE and showed where some of that was totally wrong and distorted beyond recognition to the known facts of what was said, and the credible research versus what you said. You were wrong, and you are still wrong. Simple really. :)
Exhibit 4
Piotr says
27 Nov 2021 at 9:38 AM
…writes Reality Check (Nov. 26) in his defense of Killian’s 26 NOV post….
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798205
1- I was NOT defending Killian or his reply post/s – Wrong again!
2- I was outing/attacking your falsehoods and misrepresentations of the SCIENCE and KNOWLEDGE about indigenous archeology and cultures and know-how etc.
3- I even provided numerous references that expose your errors and what I see as a default pattern of unfounded bigotry/universal putdowns (previously displayed)
4- Using your ignorance and stupidity to attack Killian and the Science around indigenous know-how and wisdom is insidious and pernicious. It’s Ugly. It’s a pattern also previously displayed.
5- I do not like it. I do not appreciate it. You need to educate yourself much better, about Indigenous research and knowledge
And sharpen up your reading comprehension / memory which seriously flawed for some reason or another. You cannot even recall what you yourself had said in prior posts! Yet the comments are right there in the thread and still you do not check them? You misrepresent what was said instead. Everyone makes mistakes in textual forums, that is a given. But it is inexcusable when it’s a pattern. Which it is.
My tips:
1) Get YOUR Facts right before jumping on others. :)
2) Learn to read and understand exactly what was said by others BEFORE replying.
3) Do NOT put words not said into other people’s mouths. (see Pt 1)
4) Put more effort into realizing when you have already made a fool out of yourself, before doubling down and doing all over again, and again.
5) Fix your own attitude before judging others’ as wanting and engaging in “character assassination” which happens to be your default SOP mode of behavior here. ref:- https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798264 and the rest of the bile you have spewed here.
6) Get a grip and calm down, drop the shrill unfounded accusations, might be a good start?
Life becomes less embarrassing and there is much less need to waste your time defending yourself against the indefensible. End of uninvited sermon on the mount!!! :)
———————————————————
@Nigelj “RC’s responses miss the point.”
Not so. Read my first comment again and specifically what I was addressing. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798176
Review the references, and then go read what Killian actually said in the first post before being accused of saying things he never said or meant by what was said. No one likes patently false accusations and being lied about.
Piotr then proceeds to falsely accuse me all manner of things I never said. Or did, or meant. Piotr makes up lies/twists what was said, makes up stuff never said – and it is all right there – his accusations are wrong. We must be on two different forums or sumptin’? :)
I recommend reading / skimming the full access PAPER Killian was quoting from:
Early human impacts and ecosystem reorganization in southern-central Africa
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
Because things like this: “Aaa, the old good myth of a noble native….etc, etc, etc. … has nothing to do with the Paper, nor what Killian said. imv it is ridiculous comment to be making…. one of many daft comments I have ignored. .
I suspect I should have ignored the whole event. LOL What a waste of time and space!
Reality Check. I had another look. I concede you did “get the point” and were just disagreeing with Piotrs comment on early humans and why they cleared land with fire. I guess it all hinges around whether they did this with the aim of improving the ecosystem long term or just because it suited their immediate goals to create areas for forage and farming, and this is all a matter of opinion /interpretation and its not something I want to spend hours agonising over and debating and researching I wish I had ignored the whole thing as well. However I think Piotr is a straight shooter and is right more often than he is wrong.
Nigel,
I doubt it was done for farming – unless Wikipedia is terribly out of date – farming began 11.5 kya, not in Malawi 85 kya (see Killian’s posts)
So Reality C. would have to prove that 85kya THERE WAS agriculture in Malawi. And he would have to prove it beyond the shade of the doubt because only such a standard of proof would do for his earlier claims, namely
a) RC calling my argument ” toxic poison that has no place here or anywhere” and
b ) seeing “https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798141”> Killian’s response calling it “sensible comment in line with the academic paper [Killian] cited “
when this sensible comment contained just ONE falsifiable argument, and irrelevant at that (the origin of modern races of horse does NOT disprove the early Americans did NOT domesticating local N. American horse), while the REST of Killian’s post was filled with arguments like:
– ”in your muddled head”
– “you are still steeped in the pile of dung”
– ” unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science”
– “your self-inflicted ignorance”
-” You piddle all over the boards saying ignorant things because you think it makes you look cool to others. It doesn’t. You just look silly. Like this gem of dung”
“- Your bigotry is way too clear”
-” willing to say any stupid crap that comes to mind”
“Sensible comment in line with the academic paper [Killian] cited , eh?
Cry me a river.
Your lack of logical thought and inability to follow a simple this then that historical map, is only equaled by your lack of civility and stability.
I am not interested. Nor care what you think and believe.
Yes, It is getting more and more like garbagology, psychoanalysis and psycho- pharmacology that way. I have my theories ande my methods also for that.
But, why do they not get boreholed and crankshafted anymore? Maybe because the Real Climats staff also have the same enlightments and garbagological interests. But that could as well be done in the boreholes and on the crankshafts.
Yes, that’s good.
“and this is all a matter of opinion /interpretation and its not something I want to spend hours agonising over and debating and researching”… yes, exactly.
I added some misc urls on the topic raised by K. and given what is known about Australian aboriginal activity upon their landscapes consistently over millennia I figured was a great example to suggest keeping an open mind is a good thing ….. given no one research paper or series of analysis about ancient matters is or should be considered 100% reliable or certain.
But what was the lay of the land and what was observed in situ 250 years ago cannot be denied. And there’s no reason to dismiss out of hand their cultural history reports either without hard overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There are many innate similarities between geographically separated indigenous groups after all.
clearly P. has issues with K to a point where all reason is lost. Maybe his local priest could assist with some pastoral care? :)
PS that unsettling paper also said …
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
and as per Killians quoted text ( here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-797662 ) said: and his personal comment endorsed, the paper concludes with:
Data from northern Malawi show that periods of ecological transition can be prolonged, complex, and iterative. Transformations of this scale reflect complex ecological knowledge by early modern humans and illustrate their transition to the globally dominant species we are today.
Note: of course this is one research paper, looking at one isolated location, a small part of a whole body of work on the topic, none of which could be expected to be 100% perfect or certain in all things.
But imo, the more a person (expert in the field or not) knows of that body of work the better quality their personal opinions of the topic are likely to be. all other things being equal.
And of course there is nothing wrong in people not being interested or knowledgeable about the topic either.
Cheers :)
An actual climate science question:
If the entire world stopped all GHG emissions from FFs today, what would a graph of earth’s temperature look like over the next ~1,000 years? Please provide a graph showing the computer modeled earth temperature from 1800 to ~3000, OR alternatively, list the years and temperatures over that time period.
Example: (numbers shown are for illustrative purposes only)
1800 59 F
1850 59 F
1900 59 F
1950 60 F
2000 61 F
2050 63 F
2100 66 F
.
.
.
2950 64 F
3000 63F
Gavin said there would be many new papers coming out based on CMIP6. I have seen many already, here is another one. Here’s hoping their mathematical toys are accurate and useful.
More rain than snow will fall in the #Arctic and this transition will occur decades earlier than previously predicted, according to a new study led by @umanitoba & co-authored by NSIDC scientists
Published: 30 November 2021
New climate models reveal faster and larger increases in Arctic precipitation than previously projected
The transition from a snow- to rain-dominated Arctic in the summer and autumn is projected to occur decades earlier and at a lower level of global warming, potentially under 1.5 °C, with profound climatic, ecosystem and socio-economic impacts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27031-y
Conclusions of this work and the indicative Impacts on the world? There are quite a few apparently. :-/
Discussion
Our analysis points to larger increases in Arctic precipitation in the CMIP6 projections compared to CMIP5, with the shift to an annually rain-dominated precipitation regime occurring approximately one or two decades earlier, with the greatest changes expected in autumn. The earlier shift towards a rain-dominated regime in CMIP6 has implications for the stability of social-ecological systems in the Arctic and the rate at which system changes will occur.
This includes a further reduction in snow cover duration8, which influences seasonality34, ecosystem processes such as tundra greening36, wildlife populations and human livelihoods18,37. Reduced snow cover will further exacerbate Arctic and global warming through albedo feedbacks38, increased winter CO2 fluxes39 and methane releases40 from soil41 and thawing permafrost. These will additionally affect soil moisture and groundwater, influencing flood risk42.
The transition to more rainfall will also impact the frequency of rain-on-snow (ROS) events, which can be devastating to wild caribou, reindeer and muskoxen populations18,21,43, and result in a decline of fungal life44. Massive mortality following major ROS events has important social-ecological, cultural and economic implications.
Not all impacts will be negative, however. For example, the population of migratory birds has significantly increased due to a warmer and wetter Arctic45.
[ those lucky birds! :) ]
Increased precipitation may lead to increased river discharge11, hastening sea-ice loss46 and freshening of the ocean surface47,48,49. However, streamflow reductions have also been found following a transition to a rainfall-dominated precipitation regime due to greater evaporation from atmospheric warming19. Nevertheless, a change in either direction could negatively impact water availability downstream, resulting in flooding events that impact infrastructure such as roads and railways50,51, and thus has implications for local communities19.
Changes in precipitation over sea-ice areas will alter thermodynamic ice growth and snow depth; hence, the amount of light reaching the underside of the ice52,53,54, impacting ocean stratification, circulation and ocean primary productivity55. Changes in light transmission, altering phytoplankton and algae blooms, will have cascading impacts through the marine food web56.
The projected increased snowfall over Greenland in CMIP6 may mitigate mass loss from increased melting, potentially stabilizing the central part of the ice sheet. However, CMIP6 also projects greater rainfall around the southern and coastal edges of the ice sheet, which may destabilize these regions and accelerate Greenland’s contribution to sea-level rise. Greenland melt has already been shown to be at least twice the rate in CMIP6 than CMIP5 under the same radiative forcing. … [ a RF which is increasing markedly ]
We have shown that hydrological changes in the Arctic are amplified and the transition to a rain-dominated precipitation is expected to occur earlier and at a lower level of global warming in CMIP6 relative to CMIP5. This regime shift implies that more stringent mitigation policies are required as precipitation changes which were expected with 2 °C of global warming above pre-industrial, now appear possible under 1.5 °C of global warming.
Mmmmmmm. OK then.