UAH TLT has been posted for November with a global anomaly of +0.08ºC, down on October’s anomaly of +0.37ºC which is the highest-of-the-year. UAH TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range -0.05ºC to +0.37ºC with November the =5th warmest monthly anomaly of the year so far.
November 2021 was =10th warmest November on the UAH record, behind Novembers 2019 (+0.42ºC), 2020, 2016, 2017, 2015, 2009, 1990, 2018, 2014 and equal to November 2002.
November 2021 sits =122nd on the highest all-month monthly UAH TLT anomaly list.
The first eleven months of 2021 still comes in as the 7th warmest year-so-far on the UAH record. For 2021 to snatch 2010’s 6th place in the full-year rankings would now require UAH’s Dec 2021 to average a rather improbable +0.91ºC or more. (The highest UAH TLT monthly anomaly currently sits at +0.70ºC.)
Dropping down to 8th behind 2015 would require UAH’s Dec 2021 to average a more likely +0.22ºC or less, while to further drop below 8th place 2018, Dec 2021 would need to drop below -0.35ºC, something not seen in a December UAH TLT anomaly since 1992.
My impressions exactly, but more intense, and close-up.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Oh yeah! It’s all the media’s fault. Could not possibly be that humans like eating crops planted, fertilized, harvested, transported, processed, packaged, transported again and again with FFs. Could not possibly be that humans liked their electricity even if it was generated by FFs. Could not possible be that humans like their homes heated with FFs so they didn’t have to wear parkas indoors and melt ice for water over a wood fire – nah, could not possibly be that. Could not possibly be that humans liked getting in their toasty automobile sitting on that cushy foam seat, and turning up that heat or AC to MAX all the way to work RATHER than having to get on their bike and ride 15 miles to their job each day when it’s raining, snowing, cold, or hotter than the blue blazes of heII – nah, couldn’t be that. Could not possibly be that humans liked going on vacation and driving 3000 miles with the monster camper, or flying 12,000 miles round trip to their big vacation adventure. Could not possibly be because corporations had their employees flying everywhere on earth 3 times per month for meetings that could have been done over the phone or ZOOM – nah, that couldn’t be it. Could not possibly be that we liked all the plastic crap we buy from China, even if it is made with slave labor using coal fired electricity, then shipped across the big blue pond on FF burning ships, loaded on to FF burning trucks, taken to the store heated/cooled with FFs, then the consumer drives in their FF powered car to pick it up – nah, IT’S THE MEDIA’S FAULT.
:)
Don’t get me wrong – the leftist media are a bunch of lying ignorant communists, selling FAKE NEWS 24/7/365 and that goes double for PBS, etc, but they have almost nothing to do with our use of FFs. We use FFs because they work to do what needs to be done. Most folks think food on the table and a roof over the head are kind of important and FFs have been used to provide those things.
Dansays
A. You have absolutely no clue what the word “communism” means. You use it because others have used it and because it sounds so scary it affirms your ignorance and hate. Oh, excuse me, I should have written “IGNORANCE AND HATE” since your type seems to think all capital letters means more.
B. It is quite good to see how those of us who understand the scientific method “own” (another misused term by your ilk) you though! Witness your use of capital letters over and over again.
C. Keep flaunting your ignorance. You are doing a great job. Both with science and lack of critical thinking skills. But you are good are regurgitating what others tell you to think to give you affirmation.
KIA: the leftist media are a bunch of lying ignorant communists
BPL: Unless you mean “leftist” in its technical, political science sense, all you are doing here is revealing that you don’t know what “Communist” actually means.
Reality Checksays
I am pretty sure Monbiot was not thinking of PBS when he said what he said in the short clip.
But thanks awfully old chap for the self-expose of what great Troll you are, and how truly stupid and clueless you really are. Do keep trying to be clever ….
Ray Ladburysays
And Mr. KIA conclusively proves that he doesn’t have sufficient attention span even for a tweet, while at the same time that every thought in his tiny, little mind got there via Faux News.
nigeljsays
Youre an idiot KIA. Nothing you have said has falsified the statements in the video, and that the media is downplaying the climate problem and downplaying the use of fossil fuels . Here it is again:
Yes, and the worst parts of it are still doing it, the social media giants as well. The thing is though they are more or less one and the same – the fossil fuel industry and the corp media – they are tied at the hip – like Siamese twins or Kissing Cousins or members of the same Elite Club …
Mr. Know It Allsays
Climate scientists may want to increase their modeled GHG emissions from Australia.
KIA: They’ll probably come up with some virus variant and call it the OmiGAWD variant or something!
BPL: So KIA is a COVID denier as well as a climate denier. I’m sure we’re all shocked at this wholly unexpected turn of events.
Reality Checksays
Ha ha ha ho ho ho. OMG you’re on fire today, not!
prlsays
I can’t say that I was particularly surprised by that report of satellite measurements showing that Australia’s estimates of fugitive methane emissions from coal mining might be serious underestimates.
The main emission areas shown in the satellite data appear to be the Bowen Basin and the Hunter Valley coal mining regions.
Chucksays
What next!?!? They’ll probably come up with some virus variant and call it the OmiGAWD variant or something!
:)
You’d make a great lab rat. In fact, you should change your moniker to that since you’re anti science and knowledge.
Adam Leasays
For anyone sick of Mr Know it All’s right wing extremist rants, this is a good antidote:
It is not his rants per se if they had any basis for discussion. It is his blatant flaunting of his ignorance of science (he still has not learned the scientific method that he ought to have learned in grade school) , his intellectual laziness, his denial of facts, and his lazy regurgitation of blatant lies since he needs affirmation. Someone truly failed when bringing him up.
Chucksays
It’s more the fact that the moderators continue to allow him to post his drivel instead of shutting him down.
1. Piotr Nov28: “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.”
Reality C: “ Well, that is totally false…”
Prove it. The onus is of the proof is on the accuser: “ toxic poison from P.” “Comments like this turn the place into a sewer” [ (c) Reality C. Nov 29])
2. Piotr 28 Nov: “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.”
Reality C: “ this missive, Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy …or whatever it is” […] “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about what Killian said”. […]No where does Killian say engineering of entire ecosystems etc “.
Sheesh, I even capitalized for you the important word there: “the one REQUIRED by Killian’s argument”, not “the one spelled out by Killian”. In any discussion you can criticize opponents EITHER for what they wrote, OR, for what they failed to see. The latter points out the logical gaps in their argument, i.e. it is NOT a “lie” about that argument (“Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about t what Killian said” (c) Reality C.) Somebody patronizingly lecturing others: “ sharpen up your reading comprehension/memory ” should have known this.
3. Reality C: “ I was NOT defending Killian or his reply post/s – Wrong again!”
Sure, when you REPLY to my post by writing RC: “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)
then it has NOTHING to do with Killian’s “arguments” my post was …. replying to…
Piotr
====
^* a few gems of Killian’s points from the post I was replying to when attacked by Reality C.: “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 […] like this gem of dung”,” Your bigotry is way too clear”, [you are willing to say any stupid crap”
nigeljsays
If Piotr is talking about the ancient malawi people circa 85K he could be right. The related research paper does not seem to contradict what he’s saying. I’ve just found it and scanned through and it talks about anthropogenic (deliberate) use of fire but doesn’t really say anything more specific. Being so long ago it was probably just to flush out animals. Really quite an interesting read.
However peoples like Australia’s Aboriginees eventually used fire for wider purposes that better fit the definition of ecosystem modification. I think RC makes a fair point there.
Reality Checksays
Hi, You have likely missed this comment; and quotes – it included another link to the paper Killian was quoting from: Early human impacts and ecosystem reorganization in southern-central Africa https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
re “The related research paper does not seem to contradict what he’s saying.”
I think it does. check my comments above link. your interpretation may vary. no problem.
lets not forget this
@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
Killian’s comment made perfect sense in context with the paper he quoted and it’s take away conclusions. Piotr complete contradicts the findings of that research and of many others across all populated continents. imho. ymmv. that’s fine by me.
nigeljsays
Reality check. I agree the research paper on the milawi people does include a discussion section discussing the deliberate use of fire for various purposes, but it was a general discussion on a wide range of uses of fire through a wide range of hunter gatherer societies including relatively modern ones. It did not state that the milawi people per se used fire for deliberate, planned ecosystem modification. I think the problem is the paper wasn’t too clear what applied to what.
Reality Checksays
PS yes i think that’s right. i had another look nigel and can see it can be read differently, there’s some subtle wording there, it;s not totally clear, not as clear as I first thought it was. i also noticed P first response wasn’t that badly worded, it was his second one after k replied that I was responding to as over the top. so i got that wrong in haste. but i still fond Ks comments about the paper and what the quote etc indicated as being quite reasonable takeaways from the get go. but, as they say, ‘whatever’
Piotrsays
Nigel: “ If Piotr is talking about the ancient malawi people circa 85K he could be right. […] However peoples like Australia’s Aboriginees eventually used fire for wider purposes that better fit the definition of ecosystem modification. I think RC makes a fair point there.”
The point might have been fair, IF we had discussed Australia Aboriginees. But we didn’t – the discussion Reality C. joined was about Killian’s claims about the people around Lake Malawi 85 kya:
Killian Nov.8: “ This paper explores the anthropogenic effect on landscape especially beginning around 85k ya around Lake Malawi.”
In fact, it was the very fact of being “ that far back in time ” that was the Killian’s stated reason for bringing it up here:
“Killian Nov. 8”: 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 [here K. presents what he sees as implications of the imapcts around Malawi 85kya to the current and near future].
So when Reality C. joined the discussion about Malawi 85 kya, his insightful and meticulously documented claims about 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”
– “ this missive, Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
– “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about what Killian said”
were clearly NOT about Australia Aboriginees, but about Killian’s claims about the people
“around 85k ya around Lake Malawi”.
.
So in the discussion about Killian’s claims about people around Malawi 85ky, Reality C. does not have a point, and “fair” is … not the first adjective that comes to mind.
I also provided refs to other indigenous peoples in different times doing the same kind of things …. and what Killian was saying was pretty much reflected in all those papers, as well as Australian aborigines back 65K years not only in 1788, in the Malawi 85K paper especially and all the others.
His comment was fair and reasonable and logical (and I might add understandable given the context overall).
It was Piotr who first introduced the abusive ad hominem toxic vitriol commentary and has continued it a week later.
My key points in my first response stand as is:
– “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”
– “ this missive, Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
– “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about what Killian said”
My other comments further support these comments and that what Killian introduced here was valid and reasonable … even if everyone disagrees with that kind of conclusion or his projection of it into today’s world. But he was not being an ass hat nor abusive of anyone.
Killian made a fairly simple point. And that’s it.
Killiansays
Correct. Excellent rebuttals.
Unfortunately, this board is not dominated by sense and sensibility. Piotr is the worst troll on these boards being the only remaining true troll that commonly posts. Denialists aren’t actually trolls in the original sense of the word, they’re propagandists. Piotr typically is not only not called to account, but is encouraged and supported by others no matter how much an affront to logic and decency he presents.
It is good to see him called at least occasionally, and without getting into the muck!
And that makes you the second biggest, And a liar. He consistently only responds to troll. Just as you do here and consistently also *only* do. So, that’s tolling, gaslighting and lying all in one sentence.
At least you’re efficient.
Piotrsays
Reality Check: “Exhibit A
ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776. I rest my case”.
You won’t weasel out that easily, Before you pat yourself on the back and rest on Killian laurels, FIRST your have to put your money where your mouth is: by QUOTING from your source the passage that PROVES:
“ 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.”
And ONLY the unequivocal QUOTE proving that would make the necessary (but far from sufficient) condition for your character assassination:
– “ Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
– “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”
Reality C., earlier in this thread
Piotrsays
Killian; Dec 9. : “ Correct. Excellent rebuttals .
“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.
Reality C. joins in with the Excellent Rebuttals (c): – “ Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
-” 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”
– “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying”
And the only PROOF that Reality C. could came up was to …repeat after Nigel the link to … the very Science paper we have discussed here since November ;
“Exhibit A: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776. I rest my case.”
Reality C.: Dec . 7
And then on the (Dec). 7th day, still excited from discovering the wheel (here: “Exhibit A”), Reality C. rested from all the work of Excellent Rebuttals that He had accomplished. And He saw that it was good… ;-)
Carbomontanussays
Not very academic, I must say
There is a rule aqbout “ad hominem” that may be well appliciable here.
It often shows up when people lack methodic aquaintance with the subject or with reality as such
To my opinion, Homo Sapiens has set fire to the terrain as long as they walked on earth, and this is known and disgussed in other connections. On finding charcoal and burnt “horizons” in holocene sediments, humans are allways suspected, thus it is really nothing new either. I once discussed it with an experienced German archaeologist, In fact, it is a rather “sure” mark of human presence in the terrain.
But, If I could only be introduced to the further purpose of that Lake Malavi argument, then even I might be able to participate on the matter, and help you make it less than a sewer also.
Reality Checksays
re – Carbo mont anus says 12 Dec 2021 at 3:29 PM
I think I’ll throw a party the first time I manage to understand anything you say.
re – Piotr says 12 Dec 2021 at 1:25 PM
Whatever! The first step is admitting you need help.
“re – Carbo mont anus says 12 Dec 2021 at 3:29 PM”
Whau, isolating “anus” in the opponent’s Internet name. That will put him in his place! Powerful stuff! And yet – still full of class… ;-)
Then again. not surprising. Earlier in the very same thread:
Piotr: “Except, the early [85 kya around L. Malawi] people didn’t use the fire to effect long-term [the discussed paper looks at changes over the scale of “thousands of year”]
intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem”
Killian: “you are still steeped in the pile of dung”, “unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science”, “this gem of dung” ,
Reality Check joins in, characterizing
– Killian’s response as “a sensible comment”, “Killian’s comment made perfect sense”
– my (falsifiable) argument as: “ The bigotry and ignorant anti-science position of Piotr shows up here” “That extremely biased ignorant fact-free comment”
And lectures … me, on “ turning the place into a sewer ;-)
Ladies and Gentlemen – Mr. Reality Check!
Carbomontanussays
@ R.Check m 13 Dec 221 at 540
Then we alol wilol have to wait for a while for that thrown party.
As John Herron , retired Royal Army mil. officer and artist once said to me: A big laughter and: “The will of understanding must also be there!”
It was about understanding what I had been writing if you rather are a humble obedient arshole and have a Mandate and an Agenda.
It was the same organized entitled and trained class warfare and struggle against all that enables us to orientate and to understand, that is so hated and feared and fought among the racketeers.
Just write some tense alian words to them such as “Nitric acid, Pi, Tangens Alpha, Pnevma and Theta epsilon,..” and you can be sure that they smash down the iron curtain. by socially tribal militant routine.
Reality Checksays
@Piotr 14 Dec 2021 at 9:13 AM
When floating above a sewer it’s natural to call out the dysfunctional trolls and name the smelly little turds like you and carbo floating by. Feel free to carry on with your multiple Tourretts outbursts. It suits you perfectly. Plus the moderators clearly like it and you personally. Which is why they keep publishing what you say. They apparently enjoy seeing you so bent out of shape. (shrug)
Killiansays
“***@Piotr 14 Dec 2021 at 9:13 AM
When floating above a sewer it’s natural to call out the dysfunctional trolls and name the smelly little turds like you and carbo floating by. Feel free to carry on with your multiple Tourretts outbursts. It suits you perfectly. Plus the moderators clearly like it and you personally. Which is why they keep publishing what you say. They apparently enjoy seeing you so bent out of shape. (shrug)***”
I approve this message.
Surprisingly sharp bite you took there. It will have zero impact. Rational discourse pretty much never does for what remains of the Peanut Gallery, which perhaps now should be renamed The Trollish Few as most have stepped away from this mode of argument on these boards.
Killiansays
No, he couldn’t. And neither are you. It’s quite specific even in the beginning of the paper:
Fire is known both ethnographically and archaeologically as an engineering tool for resource manipulation, including improvement of subsistence returns or modification of raw materials, with these activities often associated with communal planning and requiring substantial ecological knowledge (2, 12, 13). Landscape-scale fires allow hunter-gatherers to drive game, control pests, and enhance productivity of habitat (2). On-site fire facilitates cooking, warmth, predator defense, and social cohesion (14).
That’s a lot of systemic effects. From further down (which, despite your claim to have read, either you skimmed rather than read or did not understand what you read):
We use a climate anomaly approach (29) to analyze paleoecological and paleoclimatic data from the drill cores before and after 85 ka and test the hypothesis that the ecological relations among vegetation, species richness, and precipitation became decoupled from predictions derived from the presumably purely climate-driven baseline pattern of the preceding ~550 ka. This transformed ecological system was influenced by both lake infilling precipitation conditions and fire occurrence, as reflected in a species-poor and novel vegetation assemblage. Only some forest elements recovered after the last arid period, and these included fire-tolerant components of the Afromontane forest such as Olea, and hardy components of tropical seasonal forest such as Celtis (Supplementary Text and fig. S5)
Note the fire-resistant strains? Very unlikely to be an accidental outcome. They had seen what fire killed and did not kill for thousands of years. And there were long-term effects:
In contrast, samples dating to after 85 ka cluster away from the majority of pre-85-ka samples and have a different average value, showing that their composition is unusual for similar precipitation conditions. Their position in the PCoA reflects the influence of Olea and miombo, both of which are favored under more fire-prone conditions.
…We found that variation and covariation found in this data matrix are statistically significantly different before and after 85 ka
Ergo: These show that despite high lake levels, the landscape had transitioned to one dominated by open canopy woodland and wooded grassland, much as today (25).
Using a climate anomaly approach (29), we attribute human activity as a key driver in shaping the landscape of northern Malawi over the course of the Late Pleistocene.
And so on.
Try to remember two things:
1. That you do not understand does not mean something of significance has not been said, nor that it is not more momentous than you are capable of comprehending.
2. Knee-jerk defenses of Piotr, given he quite literally only responds to my posts in the posture of the classic definition of trolling, will only make you look like a Piotr simp, and a simpleton. It also makes you guilty of the same thing.
I’d think twice before speaking in both cases were I you.
3. The correct response from you would have been to call Piotr out for trolling. But, you never do that. Quite literally. Thus, your intentions are clearly suspect.
Cheers
Carbomontanussays
Something is insane here.
It seems that he is very convinced of his own clairvoyance, also when it comes to reading other peoples thoughts or look into their consciousness, allthough he is rather not.
There are certain rules and tricks in order to call upon peoples attension Genosse Killian, and to make them listen and read and look even against their will. But if you try and sell your nativistic biochar ideology this way, you should hardly have any success.
The kentucky “bread basked” and ukrainian cernosem has its geophysical and chemical premises. The Eiffel- vulcanism with europes best wine and fruit- gardens are not results of “Biochar” culture that only seems relevant under heavily Kaolinized tropic conditions.
The antroposophers recommend “Basaltmehl” in their biodynamic composts for that reason.. Here where I live it is irrelevant and would only destroy, disturb, and stupidify.
Your class struggle against what you seem to be lacking and missing, Baccalaureus 1 and Gay Lussacs Justus von Liebigs, Carl von Linnes and C. Darwins learnings must be turned off first. That is where you will have to begin in any case and that is where you can specify and adapt yourself in relation to.
nigeljsays
Killian, I’m not going to call Piotr out for “trolling” when he is not trolling. Criticising your point of view is not trolling. There was nothing abusive or wildly inflammatory in his comments. He was not claiming all ancient people didn’t do planned ecosystem modification.
You say the research paper shows the Milawi people deliberately used fire. I agree but its not clear what for. Piotrs point was ( I assume) this may have just been to flush out animals rather than engage in some sort of planned long term ecosystem modification. It wouldn’t be farming so long ago. It may have been to grow forage crops but we don’t know. The real problem is the paper was a bit unclear.
Killiansays
Killian, I’m not going to call Piotr out for “trolling” when he is not trolling.
So his lapdog thinks he’s a fair master.
Got it.
I.e,, you never have regardless how clear and egregious. You have no objectivity here.
nigeljsays
Killian. I have plenty of objectivity. You have still not proven Piotr was trolling. You can never or rarely substantiate your claims. He was sarcastic yes, but no more so than you.
Piotrsays
Nigel: “Criticising your point of view is not trolling. There was nothing abusive or wildly inflammatory in his comments. You say the research paper shows the Malawi people deliberately used fire. I agree but its not clear what for. Piotr’s point was this may have just been to flush out animals rather than engage in some sort of planned long term ecosystem modification. It wouldn’t be farming so long ago
Nigel, stop spreading “ toxic poison [that] turns the place into a sewer” (c) Reality C. Nov 29. Praised as “ Correct. Excellent rebuttals” by the very same guy who just responded to you with this gem:
Killian: “So his lapdog thinks he’s a fair master.
Speaking of which, I wonder what Reality Check makes of Killian’s reply to you. Another: “sensible comment […] Killian’s comment made perfect sense”?
[A muffled loudspeaker in the background:] “Reality check for a customer in lane 3, Reality check for lane 3”.]
Killiansays
Trolling is for children. Be better.
Do read from a link provided by RC: Modern humans act as powerful agents of ecosystem transformation. They have extensively and intentionally modified their environments for tens of millennia, leading to much debate about when and how the first human-dominated ecosystems arose (1). A growing body of archaeological and ethnographic evidence shows substantial, recursive interactions between foragers and their environments that suggest that these behaviors were fundamental to the evolution of our species (2–4).
Killiansays
1. Piotr Nov28: “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.”
Reality C: “ Well, that is totally false…”
Prove it. The onus is of the proof is on the accuser: “ toxic poison from P.” “Comments like this turn the place into a sewer” [ (c) Reality C. Nov 29])
BTW, you are the accuser. The fact was stated, you refuted. Rather, attempted to. And, yes, I state unabashedly, it is your bias causing this; the evidence linked above was already provided.
And to accomplish it, 85 ky ago, without the benefit of modern science and with hardly any technology.”
What a load of ignorance you have dumped here. “Modern” science. I love (hate) the arrogance that the concept of observing, hypothesizing, testing observing outcomes and analyzing those outcomes then repeating if necessary in the case of a failed hypothesis requires anything “modern.”
Ecosystem: I said they modified their ecosystems without breaking them. This is accurate. The degree of change over what area, etc., was not stated. Straw Man.
To Kevin re how do we know about Australia being co-created:
Professor Marcia Langton is an expert in the field always worth heeding: “For me, an audience of one, Bill Gammage’s book was a eulogy for a lost place albeit a eulogy studded with historical and scientific detail.”
for example for those who don;t go look or see the end of the article ….
“If you’ve ever stood in the path of a wild fire burning inexorably towards you, as I have, you’ll appreciate the sheer terror it engenders,” says Professor Langton.
“With climate change creating havoc in bushfire prone areas around the world, we would all do well to learn from the cold-fire burning and scrub clearing practices Aboriginal people have perfected over millions of years, and have been so beautifully and painstakingly explained by Bill Gammage in his great book, The Biggest Estate on Earth.”
Carbomontanussays
Ladies and Gentlemen
I forgot to mentionn that also Pyromania and Pyro- philia.
That may indeed explain recent wildfires also, and they blame it on the climate.
“Only about 1 per cent of the land burnt in NSW [New South Wales] this bushfire season can be officially attributed to arson, and it is even less in Victoria” (Those two states were the worst affected by the fires)
“None of SA’s [South Australia’s] deadliest or most destructive fires are being treated as suspicious.”
“The Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) said 3 per cent of the bushfires in the state this season were deliberately lit.”
“The DFES said 449 of the 1,537 bushfires across [Western Australia] between November 1 and January 14 were considered suspicious or were deliberately lit.”
“Tasmania is the only state where arson has allegedly been the overwhelming cause of fires.
Authorities attributed almost two-thirds of the blazes burning on the state’s east coast and in the south since late December to arson.”
From the Wikipedia entry about the fires season:
“[T]he fires burnt an estimated 18.6 million hectares (46 million acres; 186,000 square kilometres; 72,000 square miles), destroyed over 5,900 buildings (including 2,779 homes) and killed at least 34 people.” That’s a total area about the size of Syria; quite a bit more than the area of Greece.
Carbomontanussays
“Nobody cares what things seem like to you”
To all and everyone: Such it seems an l,ooks from that extra- solar and illusionary solar system s point of wiew, in ones own plans and mind and firm in virtual reality.
C: I forgot to mentionn that also Pyromania and Pyro- philia.
That may indeed explain recent wildfires also, and they blame it on the climate.
BPL: There has always been forest-fire arson. It doesn’t explain why gigantic forest fires are now so common. There is no reason to believe the number of arsonists has increased. Climate change has resulted in drier conditions over large areas of forest, making forest fires, when they do exist, last longer and burn more area. Climate change is very much involved. Please don’t spread denialist tropes here.
Carbomontanussays
I have not been spreading denialist tropes Doctor Levenson, just made aware of human relations and attitudes to fire that ought to be well known first if we shall dig into and discuss fossile firemarks in the terrain.
Todays Pyromania and philia may very well be as much as relict habits and instincts astray due to that well known archaic human praxis.
Militant agressive burning of other peoples possible houses, resources and vital natural premises is very well known history, Those who take to such methods may also be able to judge the right season and moment and weather and even climate,.. and tell afterwards that they did the right and the best thing. Deeply destructive human instincts and manners is also reality plus that ERRARE HVMANVM EST. To be especially remembered in todays situation.
As I have mentioned it here earlier, B.P=.Levendon does not seem to me to be the most realistic thinker and teacher.. As if he is living in his own and illusoric planetary system.
resources and
Reality Checksays
Please get rid of this denier troll from these pages. He’s an idiot!
C: As I have mentioned it here earlier, B.P=.Levendon does not seem to me to be the most realistic thinker and teacher.. As if he is living in his own and illusoric planetary system.
BPL: Nobody cares what things seem like to you.
Chucksays
MODERATORS!
Please get rid of Mr. Know It All.. For the love of God and everything holy! Just give us some relief., I beg you.
Thanks and Blessings.
Chucksays
I’m not religious, I’ve simply run out of options.
Carbomontanussays
Genosse Chuck
SYM-PASSIA!
Religious is something that we are, thus get order in your religions and reduce their numbers to the absolute minimum at least. That shows to be the clean way. Merry christmas, get cunningly through it and observe IN DULCI JUBILO. Look up for the real and true light and beware of immitations avoid any commercial “christmas” decorations.. And we whish you a happy new year.
Ludwig Wittgensten wrote:
If nothing silly and mad ridiculous is done or said or written, then nothing right and good an understood and healthy can be done either.
I interpreete and keep Dr. Knowitall that way. He is not the worst.
Carbomontanussays
There you can see, whenh you run out of options, you fall back on that.
It is the same here.
But what shall we do with those who know it all and thus hardly are adressible?
I believe that FISCVS, QVÆSTOR, CREDITOR, together with SATAN is sharply after them and will take them and stew them in any case.
Reality Checksays
“But what shall we do with those who know it all and thus hardly are adressible?”
Yes ok.
What are people to do with you Carbonontanus?
lol
Carbomontanussays
Hardly any problem Hr Check if you only resign on your instructions and mandate and rather let the people free to decide for themselves if they dare to. I am adressable as far as I can. I know a lot, which may be scary enough, but I do not know it all.
By the way, you discuss the bloody history of New England.
We were at a local lecture given by our former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland Labours, who were then Chairman of the Nobel price comittee and then emplyed at the Strassboug court of Human Rights, the European human rights convention.
He had a lot of things to remind us of in terms of the history of international law and conventions and how that has meant something in sub- sequent political and military history ever since the peace treaty of Westfalen.
Things are not learnt and remembered. How many victims during the D- day in Normandy?
But we never learn that Stalins red army had even more victims as they fought meter for meter after the crossing of the river Dnjepr in Ukraina.
And a word from Willy Brandt, former Bundeskansler and nobel peace price winner for his eastern negotiations. Spoken over 2 bottles of wine uphill Bonn Bad Godesberg looking down on the Rhine- bridge crossing:
“How many victims how much war cruelty all over this area….. but you see genosse Torbjørn ( as they both were social democrats) if the jews begin to vanish and disappear…… and if you just look in the opposite direction to feel safe….then it will also catch up you sooner or later!”
Which is what happened.
Wherefrore the UN declaration of Human Rights rules for anyone and everyone regardless of race religion and political oppinion and nationality. And so also with the frurther local and specified European convention of the same.
Discussion:
Theese things are maybe as important for Humaniora in the politics, as “science” physics and physical chemistery and oceanogra0phy and energetics and proper biology in the climate.
We went with Taxi and our driver was from Somalia, that has had disaster and civil war for all the years.
He said Somalia has no winter but night frost may occur. I do not like the winter he said, but the children seem to enjoy it. That must have been somalian children also.
I say exactly the same.
There must be political order also, else we cannot keep up with the climate. Therefore Fake science also in the politics, …. we hate it.
Chucksays
I have to ask, what nationality are you? I’m looking at your arrangement of words and it’s like a translation from another language. Absolutely no offense intended, just curious. Thanks.
Carbomontanussays
Is that about me?
You better try and guess,I think.
But you should quite easily find it out by what I write.
Killiansays
What’s really fun is when his posts are magically written like a normal person. Sadly, they are by far the minority.
prlsays
Chuck:
I have to ask, what nationality are you [Carbomontanus]?
My best guess is Danish (I think he(?) even hinted at it at some stage), but I wouldn’t rule out Norwegian, Swedish or possibly even German.
Carbomontanussays
Ht Killian
I can give you a rule or even a MANTRA in Danish along with the frameous pyhysicist and poet Piet Hein, who was a pupil of Niels Bohr paralell to Einstein in the grades:
“Den der laaner Aand og Sjel
forskriver sig til Fanden.
Thi, den der ikke er sig selv
er heller ingen anden,”
SANN!
Translation:
The one / anyone/ everyoene who borrows meaning and soul,….. sub- scribes him- self to SATAN!
Because, who is not him/ her- self… is further also no-one else,….
AMEN!
I repeat,….!
Discussion:
I may here and there relate to the Royal Frederics to Christiania and the Copenhagener school and style in geophysics and systematics. My University Patent is that of CAROLINVM IV in Praha of the four and only four faculties.
And we are hardly in the minority.
Gavin Schmidt and Rasmus Benestad seem to be faintly aquainted and thus tolerant to this,
Stefan Ramstorf is of a heavily bombed population next by, and Michael Mann is not any problem in that respect, he has learnt how to find firewood in the hills and in the mountains and to use it right so what more can we expect from him?.
.If this is not clear enough, you must try Google translate on the text.
I also use The Holy Wind / Pnevma and Logos on it.
I Phoned up https://Reidar/Finsrud/Perpetuum/Mobile on it, he lives here next by. He said that I am especially clever on physics and chemistery, but people who know less of that do teach that it is magics. Finsrud is also a professional magician.
So I find more and more that Genosse Killian, who I am responding to and telling about here, knows less about what we call REALIA.
Reality Checksays
Killian says 14 Dec 2021 at 10:40 PM What’s really fun is when his posts are magically written like a normal person. Sadly, they are by far the minority.
Yes this is clear and noticeable. Yet obviously most have totally missed it. He is is fraud, or rather they are frauds. And a drunkard. Another sicko climate denying troll. Another member of the narcissistic death cult.
But the site owners/moderators do not care. As I said to Nigelj …
clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
Not my problem. Not my fault. Not my responsibility, or yours Killian. It will never change. Like the endlessly repeating cycle of all those who suddenly sprang out of the darkness to respond to Victors latest contribution to Real Climate “discussions” the moderators chose to be published here.
It’s not worth thinking about, worrying about or caring about. (shrug)
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
Patrick Dec 2 AT 7:18PM
I watched the whole interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b8dllBNbRg) and my comment relates to the question at 18:50; “Do these companies need to be shut down and wound up?” That brings to mind the proverbial man who blows out the candle and then sits there and curses the dark.
Fossil fuels have lifted people in the industrialized countries out of misery, but human misery remains humanity’s most urgent problem.
Billions of people without access to:
0.70–2.10 Clean/secure water
1.80 Adequate sanitation
0.95 Electricity
2.60 Clean cooking
0.80–2.00 Sufficient/secure food
1.20 Safe and secure housing
0.26 Any education
4(+) Internet
Wally Broecker said it best…
Burning fossil fuels is not bad; what is bad is dumping the waste into the atmosphere. There is a direct analogy to eating food, which is also not a bad thing. When we burn food in our bodies, we create waste too, and for centuries we simply dumped it wherever we liked. But as our numbers increased, and cesspools and privies got too close to wells, cities in America and Europe regularly endured not just foul smells but epidemics of typhoid fever and cholera. Today billions of people in poor countries still drink contaminated water; the World Health Organization estimates that six hundred thousand die of typhoid fever every year. The rich countries, however, have nearly eliminated such diseases, in part by building sewers and sewage treatment plants.
If we are to avoid dangerously warming the planet, we need to figure out how to build the equivalent of a sewage system for carbon dioxide[.]
It sounds like a utopian scheme; it sounds like too big a job. But cleaning up sewage is a big job too. A lot of the infrastructure for doing so, which we now take for granted, is more recent than young people might realize. In America, most sewage still flowed raw into rivers and the sea as late as the 1960s. But since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, under President Nixon, the United States has invested more than $200 billion in sewage treatment. More than $100 billion of that came from the federal government. Even now, many of our waterways are not clean—but we have come a long way.
Killiansays
Show me a systemic way to use FFs so that
1. they don’t run out
2. they don’t pollute
3. the C gets permanently sequestered
4. can be used sustainably.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
“1. they don’t run out”
I did not say or imply that fossil fuels aren’t finite.
“2. they don’t pollute”
I did not say or imply that fossil fuels do not pollute.
“3. the C gets permanently sequestered”
What do you consider “permanent?” Your lifetime, your kids/grandkids lifetimes, how many generations into the future? All engineering undertakings have associated uncertainty and risk which is to say there are no guarantees; but with high confidence we can say that CCS in depleted oil/gas reservoirs is a workable strategy.
“4. can be used sustainably.”
The majority of fossil fuel’s consumption is for industrial uses. I would propose sector-wide CCS for managing these emissions.
For transportation and home use I would propose 100% electrification. I am not including diesel trucks in this category because there is no good substitute yet for fueling long haul trucks, but Hydrogen may be a good alternative in a [not too] distant future.
There is still the inconvenient truth that half a million products use fossil fuels as feedstocks. Walk into a Walmart or tour one of Amazon’s warehouses and try to identify a product that doesn’t include fossil fuels in its value chain. There are presently no good, at scale, substitutes for these feedstocks.
The age of fossil fuels is not even 200 years old. Because it is a finite resource a day will come when we’ll have to adapt to living without them; the question is, can we do it gracefully?
Killiansays
“3. the C gets permanently sequestered”
What do you consider “permanent?” Your lifetime, your kids/grandkids lifetimes, how many generations into the future? All engineering undertakings have associated uncertainty and risk which is to say there are no guarantees; but with high confidence we can say that CCS in depleted oil/gas reservoirs is a workable strategy.
Their systems are already full of leaks. Massive amounts of C. So…?
However, soils that are built up to 10~20% SOC can be kept that way indefinitely with no riks, only gains. Ergo….
nigeljsays
“However, soils that are built up to 10~20% SOC can be kept that way indefinitely with no riks, only gains. Ergo”
This is risk free only if the correct farming methods are scrupulously maintained long term to a high standard. This is very unlikely to happen in the real world, so there will be some losses of soil carbon. And as soils warm some of that carbon is lost. There are no problem free, risk free solutions. However sequestering carbon in soils looks like it would be much lower cost than trying to fit CCS technology to power plants and vehicle exhausts.
Killiansays
This is risk free only if the correct farming methods are scrupulously maintained long term to a high standard.
No shit? Because once we decide to do global-scale, healthy, more nutirtious, climate-managing agriculture I’m sure we’ll just say F that! and go back to committing suicide.
Try. Saying. Something. Not. Obvious. And. Of. Some. Use, Put another way, please stop responding just to respond.
nigeljsays
Killian, your response ignores the content of what I posted, and is a giant strawman.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote from the video: ““Do these companies need to be shut down and wound up?” ”
If warming caused by CO2 is going to kill most of us, then yes, the oil companies need to be shut down. That is what the world is in the process of doing but it will take decades at the current rate. Shutting of FFs to fast would not cause “misery” – it would cause mass death which is not our goal, right? Actually, for some, that is the goal – some want to get population down to ~1 billion, maybe less, so perhaps they’d be OK with shutting off FFs today?
It’s a tricky balancing act if you don’t want to kill a few billion people in a year or two. Reminds me of the 1970s computer game “Sumer”:
Oxford Languages: “Mc·Guf·fin /məˈɡəfin/, noun: ” an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot.”
With this cleared about the author, now to the plot – “fossil fuels are, for the lack of a better word – good” – Co2 emissions are nothing like sewage. If “seawage system” for Co2 was feasible – it would have been implemented a long time ago. But it hasn’t. And for a good reason: water contamination can be reduced easier and cheaper than removal of CO2 from our emissions, which is much more technically complicated, requires much energy to run, is expensive, is limited only to the major emitters (you can’t realistically capture carbon from the exhaust pipe of EVERY car, trucks, ship and airplane), and even among only the large emitters – only some of them would be a candidates for capture: those that point-emissions, and the sequestering capacity nearby.
Hence an ounce of prevention (here: reduction in productions of CO2) is usually better and cheaper than a pound of medicine (CO2 capture).
Reality Checksays
re (you can’t realistically capture carbon from the exhaust pipe of EVERY car, trucks, ship and airplane)
tsk tsk, i know some people who would label that extreme doomism and they’d block you forever for being a negative meanie doing what those bad fossil fuel companies want…. to sew fake news and to give up! :)
Remora has built a device that captures the carbon emissions from a semi-truck. They then sell the captured carbon dioxide to concrete producers and other end-users, helping companies earn new revenue while meeting their climate commitments. They’re working to turn America’s two million semi-trucks into a roving fleet of carbon removal devices. Remora’s carbon capture device mounts between the tractor and trailer, capturing 80 percent of CO2 emissions.
Reality Check (& others)
The technology of CCS in its various forms is not a climate thing so is off-topic here.
That said, the mention of concrete production will spark some topical interest here as concrete production (or more precisely the cement production that feeds it) is responsible for ~5% of global CO2 emissions. Concrete production is also responsible for a subsequent removal of atmospheric CO2 currently running at ~0.2% of global CO2 emissions. In an ideal world, the chemistry of concrete can be altered to make the whole thing CO2-neutral and one approach is the injection of CO2 into the mixing concrete to accelerate the carbonation process which otherwise takes millennia to achieve. (Thus the 5%>>0.2%.) So, I’m not convinced this use of truck exhaust in concrete is a serious proposal. I note another proposals in one of the links is greenhouses which is certainly not a serious way of achieving net zero emissions.
Piotrsays
As MAR said – this is much better suited to the Forced Responses, but since I am not sure how to move the discussion there, here it goes;
Reality C. “Of course the obvious questions are cost and scale …. and ?”
…. and whether it makes any chemical sense in the first place!
Production of concrete RELEASES CO2, not consumes it. It uses CaCO3 to produce CaO
CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2 eq (1)
so you have emissions from the reaction PLUS the CO2 emissions from mining CaCO3, transporting and generating the heat needed for this reaction. So why exactly the concrete producers would want to …. buy MORE CO2 from …transportation?
The only reduction in CO2 I can possibly see is the injection of CO2 into the wet cement to revert a small portion of the CaO produced in eg(1)) back to CaCO3,. But it will always small portion – because the large majority of the CaO produced in eq (1) – reacts with silica and metals:
“ Portland cement is made up of four main compounds: tricalcium silicate (3CaO · SiO2), dicalcium silicate (2CaO · SiO2), tricalcium aluminate (3CaO · Al2O3), and a tetra-calcium aluminoferrite (4CaO · Al2O3Fe2O3).
The free CaO available for the reaction with CO2 is only a very small fraction of the total CaO in the concrete – so the amount of CO2 you can trap in the wet cement by a chemical reaction (reverse of eq. (1) ) is tiny compared to CO2 produced in making CaO. There may be some physical trapping of CO2 as bubbles of gas in the cement – but how much bubbles you can inject compromising the strength of the cement?
To sum up:
1. production of cement generates orders of magnitude MORE CO2, via reaction (1) and via CO2 emissions from the energy needed to mine, transport and heat up CaCO3, than the injecting CO2 into the wet cement could possibly remove
2. for such injections, the concrete producers don’t need to buy it from outside – they produce
orders of magnitude more than they could possibly inject
3. Capturing their own CO2 from their point source (their factory) would be MUCH SIMPLER, CHEAPER and LESS ENERGY-INTENSIVE than collecting, concentrating and transporting the CO2 from the diffuse sources of millions of the tail-pipes of the trucks.
4. As a result of 2 and 3 – the ONLY way it would make “sense” financially for the cement producers would be if they got paid government for capturing somebody else’s CO2, while NOT paying for their own emissions of CO2.
And it is not even clear whether the emissions associated with building the tailpipe CO2 collectors for millions of trucks, running these, and transporting the collected CO2 to the concrete factories is NOT larger than the amount of CO2 that actually be captured in the cement.
So it is a shell game based on creative accounting (counting the removed CO2 but not the emitted in the process), in the same vein as the US subsidies to agrobusiness for growing corn for biofuels.
Carbomontanussays
Hr R. Check
Do not allways believe in such sales promosions. It is normally just another professional perpetuum mobile second order again.
The ease and efficiency by which that patented device sucks off and remooves CO2 from the air is quite direcly the costs and the troubble that you have with getting the CO2 off from the adeorber again, so that it can be re- cycled and run on further for eternity.
“Yes,…….. but could n`t one,…………. and russian scientista have found that,..”
No, that is Maxweels demon. And those “Russian scientists” may have claimed…. but it never stood peer rewiew in Nature. It only works under closures in the peoples republics.
The traditional way in the lab and in closed breathing devices where only oxygen is added and CO2 remooved is “Lime patrons or cartidges”. That are especially efficient. It is CaO . 4H2O + KOH on a substrate of porous- long- fibered asbestos. The cartridges get saturated and the content hardly re- cycled. For use in submarines, closed systemm divindtgv devices, and in space stations.
I thought out my own integrated machine just in order to understand the problem, and would burn pure cokes the controlled way at 8 bar air pressure and temperature not over 500 celsius.
Then take out the heat in a heat exchanger to make hot steam for a steam turbine generator. And bubble that cooled exhaust further through a saturated solution of cristal soda. Baking powder will fall out especially if I also cool it with an icy creek. Then let out the remaining pure Nitrogen and argon from this near equal high pressure system through a tripple epansion doubble action steam engine that can help the initial compressor a bit, but not fully. . The low pressure side of the steam turbine I would also cool by an icy creek, and pump back the condensed cool water by “a feeding pump”.
Then let the NaHCO3 dry in the sun and heat it by waste heat into Na2CO3 + CO2 + H2O.
It will take some of the produced electricity to compress CO2 +H2O into very strong selzer on steel bottles again, that I could sell on the free market. And that cool natural icy creek is also very valuable all the way as one can see..
That machine will deliver some electricity from pure cokes burnt in pure air without letting any CO2 out to the atmosphere.
But again, I was too late for a patent It showed to be then patented Siemens method.
For capturing CO2 from exhaust gases, it takes a very strong caustic dissolved in water and that strong caustic must be re- stored and re- cycled when saturated.
A natural method is by https:// Carbonic_anhydrase the first found and some of the strongest of all enzyms. That works both ways and goes by solar power in the plants and by combustion of carbohydrates with oxygen elsewhere.
Conclusion:
Wherefore I strongly advocate the green values and the photosynthesis as the best alternative.
See also https://Solvays_soda_process that uses NH3 in water under pressure for strong enough caqustic. A modern variety of Solvay is dimethyl or diethyl- amines, See Stoltenbergs fameous scandaleous “Moonlanding” at Mongstad. Stoltenberg got chairmann of NATO with furter successes in Afganistan after that.
That is being sold again and again and again to the blind believers. Whenever CCS has been solved, you can rather bet that it is Stoltenbergs moonlanding.
The EU would not buy that.
Moral:
It takes more than large yellow gas bottles with tubes and stopcocks on a rack, you see. Again it is the same secret varnishn with the patented LOGO and revolutionary prtoduction secret under all those shiny historical professional hi- tech cowers and surfaces..
Adam Leasays
“you can’t realistically capture carbon from the exhaust pipe of EVERY car, trucks, ship and airplane”
If land based motorised transport at least is electrified, you can, since this moves the emissions from millions of exhaust pipes to a few power plants, and once the emissions are concentrated at single points, it is much easier to reduce or maybe even eliminate those emissions (the latter by using renewables to generate electricity).
The issue is whether it is possible to generate enough electricity from renewables plus have enough padding to account for sub-optimal weather conditions (e.g. anticyclonic gloom), to be able to meet electricity demand for domestic properties, industry, and everyone driving 10,000+ miles per year every year in electric vehicles. If not, then lifestyle simplification is necessary and unavoidable.
Climate Impact of Decreasing Atmospheric Sulphate Aerosols and the Risk of a Termination Shock
Leon Simons presented our first findings during the Annual Aerosol Science Conference
nov-dec 2021 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1456615526952755200.html
Carbomontanussays
There is no doubt that SO2 into the atmosphere makes the sky more dirty white and less blue.. A mystery until you realize that it is rather rapidly turned into SO3 by eating ozone and by “NOx” catalysator and UV- light. The S 6+ is extreemly hygroswcopic due to sulphuric acid. It gives severely white smoke and “acid rain”
Sulphur in the atmosphere explains a lot of the varying global temperature curve for the last 120 years, and makes the extreemly thick and white clouds of Venus.
Sulphate in the form of Gypsum CaSO4 . 2H2O has been found and shown in large quantities also on the moon and on mars.
Gypsum that is burnt to yellow hot for specialo purposesw for making “Anstrichgips”, a mixture of CaO and CaSO4, that originally covered the pyramids shiny white now rained away,, where half of the sulphur goes into the air, has surely been a quite problematic and irritating polluting industry also in the antique.. Roman baths with very fine “stucca” and “Cement” did surely cost all their firewood.
There has been roman Villas with fashionable Terrazzo also in England, where the romans allready began to dig “sea coal” for it. So London smog is very traditional.
The Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for November with a global SAT anomaly of +0.35ºC, down from the October anomaly of +0.42ºC (the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date) with November the 3rd highest 2021 monthly anomaly. (The UAH TLT November anomaly was down at =5th.) The ERA5 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.06ºC to +0.42ºC.
November 2021 is the 5th warmest November on the ERA5 record behind Novembers 2020 (+0.54ºC), 2019 (+0.40ºC), 2016 (+0.40ºC), and 2015 (+0.39ºC) while ahead of Novembers 2017 (+0.25ºC) & 2018 (+0.24ºC).
November 2021 is the 42nd highest anomaly in the all-month EAR5 record.
The first eleven months of 2021 averages +0.26ºC and 2021 remains in 5th warmest year-so-far spot on the ERA5 record. For the full calendar year to climb into 4th spot above 2017 is now requiring a crazy December anomaly exceeding the highest-ever all-month anomaly by some way. A drop to 6th spot below 2018 wound require the 2021 December anomaly to drop below +0.21ºC and a further drop to 7th below 2015 require the 2021 December anomaly to drop below +0.11ºC.
A possibly interesting paper from Emanuel (which I haven’t read yet) claiming an increase in Atlantic tropical cyclone activity over the past 150 years based on downscaling from climate reanalyses. Up to now the consensus amongst the scientists who work on tropical cyclones has been the upward trend in Atlantic TC activity is due to better observational techniques and the increased ability to detect very short lived tropical cyclones which would have been missed pre satellite era. The paper states this increase is mostly due to regional, not global climate change, and there is no significant increase in TC activity in other ocean basins.
There is a strong upward trend in the increase of Absorbed Solar Radiation globally and even more pronounced over the N Pacific Ocean and N Atlantic Ocean, both areas of high shipping density, where sulfur emissions were reduced the last decade and more from 2020.
RSS has posted the TLT numbers for November 2021 with a global anomaly of +0.54ºC, well down on October’s anomaly of +0.81ºC which is the highest-of-the-year. RSS TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range +0.47ºC to +0.81ºC with November the 9th warmest monthly anomaly of the year so far.
As with the UAH numbers, the November RSS anomalies show a drop in all zonal bands.
November 2021 was the 7th warmest November on the RSS record (=10th in UAH TLT), behind Novembers 2020 (+0.82ºC), 2015 (+0.73ºC), 2019 (+0.73ºC), 2016 (+0.65ºC), 2017 (+0.59ºC) & 2018 (+0.56ºC).
November 2021 sits 98th on the highest all-month monthly RSS anomaly list, (=122nd in UAH TLT).
The first eleven months of 2021 still comes in as the 6th warmest RSS TLT Jan-Nov (7th on the UAH record). For 2021 to snatch 2010’s 5th place in the full-year rankings would now require RSS’s Dec 2021 to average above +0.69ºC or more.
Dropping down to 7th behind 2015 looks more likely and would require RSS’s Dec 2021 to average below +0.60ºC or less. A further drop into 8th place below good old 1998 would require a chilly Dec 2021 averaging below +0.20ºC, something not seen in a December RSS TLT anomaly since 2011.
MEI continues to indicate strong La Niña conditions, somewhat stronger than the 2007-09 values than lasted for a full 24 months (so 6 months longer than we’ve seen 2020-21 so far) although the global warming wobble that peaked in the 2010 El Niño had begun in mid-2008, perhaps what we have also been seeing since mid-2021. But then is that all a bit too neat and tidy?
Susan Andersonsays
Can you all please just stop the toxic back and forth. It simply is not enough to be right, which you are all convinced you are (with groupings that continue the distracting negative counterpoint), with a sprinking of out and out unskeptical fake skepticism, which we all could do without. I have mostly disappeared from this board because (a) I am not a scientist, and I remember in the early days describing myself as the “fool who steps in where angels fear to tread” and (b) I didn’t like the infighting. Most of us want to share and help, and many of us are not doing enough. However, what I really showed up to do was share an article from ProPublica:
The Climate Crisis Is Worse Than You Can Imagine. Here’s What Happens If You Try A climate scientist spent years trying to get people to pay attention to the disaster ahead. His wife is exhausted. His older son thinks there’s no future. And nobody but him will use the outdoor toilet he built to shrink his carbon footprint. [tbh, I’d use that thing, but I’m weird and agree the problem is serious, multidimensional and huge] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-crisis-is-worse-than-you-can-imagine-heres-what-happens-if-you-try It’s a great story. I will return and read it carefully from end to end, and share with friends and acquaintances.
For some reason this reminds me of the opening passage of Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future which imnsho is one of the great books and I wish it was required reading for everyone. I’m not sure I agree with the fictional “solution” but the problems are well stated and bigger than any of us can comprehend, systemic and difficult.
nigeljsays
SA. Its the male testosterone. Look on the bright side. At least we have progessed on from pistols at dawn. Thanx for the link.
Killiansays
Sure,. As soon as you stop with the False Equivalence and gaslighting.
You like to pretend this is two-way when it is not. You only make it worse with these little rants where you do not hold the trolls accountable.
Guess what kind of feedback is useless? Generalized, non-specific, non-actionable feedback based on a false premise.
I’m not clear on what you mean by “Their systems.” Do you mean the existing Oil and Gas infrastructure upon which the CCUS systems will be built? If yes, then you are not aware that the only parts of the system that will be used (in most cases) are the reservoirs. New wells will have to be drilled as well as new surface distribution lines and associated facilities. Storage in non-potable aquifers will require brand new infrastructure anyway.
Again, not clear what you mean by ” soils that are built up to 10~20% SOC”. Do you mean agricultural soils? If so, that’s not a feasible Carbon storage reservoir because it lacks containment and you might as well continue to dump the CO2 into the atmosphere. The UNECE’s CCUS protocols (https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/cleaner-electricity-systems/carbon-capture-use-and-storage-ccus )have advanced to the point where they provide a sensible template for assessing storage capacity as wells as verification and surveillance workflows.
Yes, this is going to be expensive, but as Wally Broecker wrote:
“”In the mid–nineteenth century, when the first municipal sewers were being
built in America, there were plenty of sewage skeptics. For a while the science
demonstrating the connection between sewage and disease remained uncertain;
Pasteur and Koch were just then establishing the microbial theory of infectious
disease. Even after the science was settled, however, and even after many
thousands of people had died, some people still argued vehemently that the good
old cesspools were good enough. But eventually the sewage skeptics faded
away, a few no doubt from cholera and typhoid fever. People in the United
States, as in other developed countries, came to accept that they had no
fundamental right to dump their waste where they pleased, and that they should
be willing to pay to dispose of it properly.”
Killiansays
Some good climate news echoing previous research: Forests grow back faster than if people plant a bunch of trees. This has implications for carbon sequestration, obviously.
Caveat: This would *not* be true of systems managed by indigenous groups that know how to mimic their ecosystem nor of a permaculturally managed reforestation which would be done in the same and/or similar manner. We can “speed up succession.” However, all this silly non-systemic tree planting is a massive waste of resources.
He does exel in psevdo- academic and psevdo scientific words such as “caveat” and “systemic”, even “permaculture”..
He must have had new lectures on this.
But he is lacking Middelskole Mittlere reife, Realskole Baccalaureus 1.
If he ever were too the boyscouts, I must ask which boyscouts?
Killian lacks the very linguistics- language of forest circumstances and awareness, trees flora and fauna and how to make up a smokeless fire and to lit fire in the snow and even in a bitty of water.
There, I am above him in the grades.
Killian is walking and performing like a doped , administrating, plastic troll in nature and in the climate.
Killiansays
Fool.
Carbomontanussays
Yes, as Putin said it so wisely: “It takes one to know one!”
nigeljsays
Ouch. Wince. Carbomontaus has thrown a big grenade at Killian. This will be interesting to watch.
However given Killian delights in accusing all and sundry on this website of being trolls and liars and fools (without much in the way of evidence), he must expect to come under scrutiny himself. And some of Killians own statements are very troll like, whether he intends that or not.
Killiansays
You’re showing you bias again, fool. Zero critical thinking, as per the last 6 years.
Killiansays
And some of Killians own statements are very troll like, whether he intends that or not.
How is defending ones’ self from trolls trolling? You are gaslighting. Nothing new. I ignore carbotrollus unless he attacks me, but I’m the problem? You’ve been consistently making such unethical, immoral, false claims for 6 years – ever since I gave up on six months of trying to get you to NOT lie, not Straw Man, not deny solutions, etc.
Man up. We really do not need immature, childish comments here.
These are serious times, we need serious people… and you are not one. Never have been.
nigeljsays
Killian. You troll on this website. An example was your accusations economists are fools and stupid (or words close to that). This is a perfect example of making a very inflammatory, derogatory and abusive statements, which is EXCACTLY how trolling is defined in almost any dictionary. I’m not interested in discussing it further.
Carbomontanussays
Killian performs as a professor of etics, maturity and behaviours also, not just of English.
My advice to him is that if he could become better aquainted to REALIA, that he seems to have shirked most of it, then he would have less political confessional problems with Humaniora also. They are not made aware in time that this is some of the same all the way.
Because, we allready got him on a routine spear here, for conventional frying in Hell
Reality Checksays
@nigel which is EXCACTLY how trolling is defined in almost any dictionary.
No, again you are quite patently wrong.
That is not how trolling is defined. Trolling is targeting actual people on the forum being posted to.
Sharing one;s opinions about economists and the like, along side other related commentary is not fricken trolling Nigel.
In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is typically for the troll’s amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a RIVAL’S online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion OR HARM to other USERS online, for no reason at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
such as Piotr’s toxic repetitive abusive insulting and lying behaviour of late.
and Carbomontanus also obviously so.
KIA, Victor, Swallow and every other denier in town.
Someone saying they hate republicans or democrats, or they believe that mainstream economics is flawed and not fit for purpose, or that COP26 is a joke, IS NOT TROLLING Nigel.
Off topic comments as well are not necessarily trolling either. They are just off topic. Then there is abusive insults, adhom and so on, and 90% of the time that is trolling unless it is a direct response in kind to someone else’s prior abusive insults / putdowns.
Simply being emotional does not equal Trolling either. It’s simply being emotional and/or passionate about one’s beliefs values etc. imho, ymmv, but that doesn’t change the truth of it.
Killiansays
Killian performs as a professor of et[h]ics, maturity and behaviours also,
This is accurate.
nigeljsays
Reality check.
Your dictionary definition of trolling is quite good and consistent with others Ive seen. However certain people calling economists idiots, stupid and fools is a perfect example of your dictionary definition of trolling as in making off topic, inflammatory and abusive statements. Just because its directed at economists in general rather than a specific economist does not make it less inflammatory or abusive or less hurtful. If its not trolling, it is certainly not acceptable website conduct. (not saying I’m perfect). Most websites delete those sorts of comments.
“Someone saying they hate republicans or democrats, or they believe that mainstream economics is flawed and not fit for purpose, or that COP26 is a joke, IS NOT TROLLING Nigel.”
I did not say it was. I said calling economists fools, liars and idiots is trolling. Not defending economists as such. They deserve plenty of criticism but theres a difference between blunt criticism and name calling. Nothing wrong with posting that one hates republicans or democrats.
Piotrs original criticisms of Killians statements were nothing more than criticism of something Killian wrote. I do not see how that is trolling, inflammatory, abusive or an insult or why it deserved an abusive response. Scientists are trained to be hyper critical. Ive been a victim. You dont provide any specific cut and paste of Piotr being abusive or dishonest at any stage. I do not see him engaging in abuse for example name calling.
Piotr was bitingly sarcastic and cynical, and but that is not a great sin that deserves deleting. However he does “go on” a bit. And didnt closely study all his replies to you.
I agree KIA and JDS perfectly fit the definition of trolling in the sense of being inflammatory and posting material designed to annoy people and Carbo is rather cutting and personal in some of his comments, but no more so than some others here. We mostly all get that way at times, due to frustration over various things I guess. Climate change, covid anxiety, etc
The problem is a lack of strong enough website moderation, something I think you mentioned yourself.
Piotrsays
Reality Check: “such as Piotr’s toxic repetitive abusive insulting and lying behaviour ”
I recently had the pleasure of hearing a remarkable lecture on “cosmic natural selection” by physicist Lawrence Krauss. It’s available on youtube (https://youtu.be/v6ef99T-IJE) and I urge everyone reading here to check it out. I was deeply impressed by Krauss’s knowledge of both cosmology and evolution and his ability to come up with a presentation that was both exciting and convincing. For me at least, Krauss comes across both as a brilliant scientist and insightful philosopher.
I recently also had the pleasure of reading Krauss’s equally impressive book, “The Physics of Climate Change.” And here again I was impressed not only by his grasp of scientific principles but the very thorough and open-minded presentation of his argument. Since I’m not a physicist I’m not qualified to evaluate his treatment of the technical aspects, but nevertheless I found his presentation of the physics behind the “climate change” paradigm convincing.
The physics, yes. But as he himself is well aware, the physics is only the beginning of the story. After citing three key “facts” derived from his analysis of the physics, he continues as follows:
“These facts led to the conclusion that the increasing CO2 concentration in our atmosphere should lead to further warming of the Earth’s surface. The key question is how much? Was Svante Arrhenius correct in estimating 3°C of warming if the CO2 concentration hits 450 ppm, which, at current rates, will occur by 2050? And even if this were true, what impact would a 3°C rise have on the globe?
These two questions have driven much of the internationally coordinated climate research program that has been carried out over the past sixty years. They have also led to a furor of debate among the public and governments about how to respond to this research since Keeling made his first measurements in 1960. They are not easy questions to give precise answers to. The general principles are clear and unambiguous, but like much of science, when you want to go beyond a rough understanding to get things right at the percent level, the devil is in the details.”
Indeed. Nevertheless, turning from physics to climatology, Krauss has no trouble uncritically accepting what has now become the standard interpretation of “climate change”:
“But what should be the most striking takeaway, beyond the fact that ever-more-detailed models generally fit the data better, is the fact that the basic physics captured in even the simplest models gives answers that are consistent with the data.”
As an example, Krauss refers us to the now familiar record of global temperatures over the last 120 years:
“We can compare the mean surface temperature of the Earth today versus that in 1900, given that the CO2 abundance in the atmosphere has changed from 300 ppm to about 415 ppm. Using the modern estimates above, the mean prediction for the temperature change over that period, ignoring other effects for the moment, is about 1.3°C. Figure 7.1 [see https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/dec/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202012.png%5D shows the data from climate.gov. As can be seen, the actual change, accounting for the year-to-year fluctuations is in the range 1.15–1.35°C. That is pretty good agreement with the prediction.”
After going into such excruciating detail over every nuance of the physics evidence, Krauss is content to assume, based on no analysis whatsoever, that CO2 levels and global mean temperatures are correlated simply because it is now significantly warmer than it was in 1900. As I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, no such correlation is evident. Yes, temperatures rose rather dramatically from 1910 through ca. 1940 – but CO2 levels were too low during that period to have had much effect. (“[Research] has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming (https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm ). From 1940 through ca. 1979 temperatures either declined or remained relatively steady (see above for a link to the graph presented by Krauss) while CO2 levels began to soar. Thus: NO correlation from 1910 through the late seventies. And during the first 15 years or so of the 21st century we find the notorious “hiatus” during which temperatures rose only minimally (for a very clear confirmation of the “hiatus” evidence see Fyfe et al — https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938).
A critical analysis of the data offered in the very graph he reproduces in Fig. 7.1 would have demonstrated to Krauss that the “basic physics captured in even the simplest models gives answers that are” NOT “consistent with the data.”
Krauss falls into a similar error with respect to sea level rise. A readily available graph of sea levels since 1880 shows a steady, very gradual, rise from then to now, beginning long before either global temperatures or CO2 levels could have made much of a difference. (For a paper reporting a decline in global sea levels since the satellite era, see Fasullo et al. — https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245.) Yet Krauss has no problem accepting the alarmist view that rising sea levels are driven mostly by rising CO2 emissions, which thereby makes an out of control and very dangerous rise all but inevitable — an unsubstantiated claim that reinforces the dire predictions of global disaster we now see all around us.
Sadly confirmation bias is alive and well in the domain of climate science, affecting the thinking of even the best among us. While theories suggested by “the physics” can indeed be impressive, the facts on the ground are what really matter, as Krauss himself acknowledges.
John Pollacksays
V “As I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, no correlation is evident.”
Victor Grauer,
Before you again start tapping out a lengthy pile of bullshit, as you do here, perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. Your message again rings hollow when you plainly do not even understand the meaning of the word ‘convincing’.
V: Krauss is content to assume, based on no analysis whatsoever, that CO2 levels and global mean temperatures are correlated simply because it is now significantly warmer than it was in 1900. As I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, no such correlation is evident
BPL: And as I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, you are grossly incompetent to say anything about correlation, as you simply do not understand what the word means and invariably substitute your own idiosyncratic definition of what you want it to mean.
In the CO2 vs. dT graph, it seemed that the Temp versus CO2 correlation was somewhat loose from 285 to 320 ppm, but maintained a good tight line as CO2 climbed up beyond 320 ppm.
V: Krauss has no problem accepting the alarmist view that rising sea levels are driven mostly by rising CO2 emissions, which thereby makes an out of control and very dangerous rise all but inevitable — an unsubstantiated claim that reinforces the dire predictions of global disaster we now see all around us.
BPL: It’s not unsubstantiated. Don’t spread lies.
Carbomontanussays
Dr. V. Grauer
do you really think that people read such things now up at christmas for serious?
CCHolleysays
For me at least, Krauss comes across both as a brilliant scientist and insightful philosopher.
Since I’m not a physicist I’m not qualified…..
Of course he’s not qualified. He has no formal training in the sciences or statistics. He readily admits it. But then in his total arrogance proclaims that this highly qualified brilliant scientist is wrong due to confirmation bias. So what in the world makes Victor think that he is qualified in any way to make such a judgement of the science when he clearly most certainly is not? Because he is just a deluded narcissistic old fool.
Victor just knows better–he is just so much more brilliant than any highly qualified scientist.
Rinse lather repeat. Ad nauseam. What a joke.
nigeljsays
You must remember Victor has a “secret weapon”. His alleged superlative understanding of logic and his superior “critical analysis skills”. ROFL. I think not. He couldnt analyse his way out of a wet paper bag.
As I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, no such correlation is evident.
No. You’ve asserted it more than enough, God knows, but never actually demonstrated any such thing.
In fact, when the opposite has been demonstrated you’ve resulted to simple denial that standard standard techniques are appropriate or competitive with your steely Mk. 1 eyeball. Very reminiscent of how you perceive Dr. Krauss as “a brilliant scientist and insightful philosopher” yet describe points of disagreement with you as resulting from mere “confirmation” bias–this despite having previously called Krauss’s presentation “very thorough and open-minded.”
Your confidence in your own highly erroneous judgment is quite as remarkable as it is tiresome.
nigeljsays
This commentary by Victor should be in the borehole. The websites definition of borehole is “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations”. Surely this repetitive and utterly ridiculous comment that has disrupted sensible conversations many times already is a prime candidate for the borehole?
Reality Checksays
It surely would be nigelj. As would many many more comments that get published here.
But, clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
One would likely call that “self-evident”. It’s always been so. It’s really unfortunate this is the case. But it is. It could be so much more than what it is. :(
Carbomontanussays
Maybe you just live on the wrong side of the globe, Dr. Check.
A minimumm of naval order and sphaerical navigation by the stars could clear that up for you..
Carbomontanussays
@ Victor
Now you are being punished and ridiculed and labeled for etnic rinsing, the borehole again.
Would N`t it be possible for you to adjust only a little bit? I have to do that anyway and most of the time so try and take a good example on your own , from me at least.
I thought first that you had repented and began a new and better life, but then your old mandate and missionary agenda came up again, the absolute no- correlation and no evidence and proof of CO2 in the atmosphere to the longtime temperature curve. I am able to find and to see that by many means and details in things that really interests me also for other reasons, but maybe first of all, I have no need and no duty to fight it and to deny it by any means. as for instance the worshipful congregasion of Big Coal and Big Oil had for a long while. I am none of them.
What is most irritating and disturbing is that you commit missionary and cultural violence and imperialism, severe and ugly pollution into other and peaceful peoples own land and civil domaines. You are consequently pissing in other peoples expensive and scarce drinkwater. So no wonder why you are both chased and hated.
Compare it to the discussion of stone age marks of wildfires and firemark horizons in lands where people had settled and were living.. What would you say if someone sometimes… and at any time… could just come into your house and systems and destgroy it by forceful terror actions such as fire for instance and at times that your things are on the most critical and vounerable?
Bad behaviours we call that. No wonder really that they hate you and chase you and suggest you for Hell.
Could n `t you try and live a better life than that? Could n`t you rather adapt a bit to social order at least
Big Coal and Big Oil seem to have deserted officially now at least and are selling the rumors of their beginning a new and better life in order to become more popular and secure further subventions, permissions, and national credit, Allthough they both dig and drill and plan further secretly under cower at night.
I am experienced and can tell you better how. If really necessary for you and you cannot live without it, then simply down- scale it to levels that can be shown and defended also at daylight. A drop of oil does it. Not a barrel of oil. And a tiny piece of coal, not a whole waggon. A tiny lit candle, not a fierceful bushfire.
nigeljsays
Carbo. You appear to be suggesting there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures long term. Its not clear what you mean by “long term”. If you mean millions of years the correlation is certainly weak at times due to confounding factors.
But Victor is arguing there is no correlation between CO2 and warming over the period 1900- 2021. And he is wrong. A statistical analysis shows a good, although not perfect level of correlation. The correlation is also obvious by eye to most of us but apparently not Victor. I am no expert in these things, but I know enough to be confident on this point. Surely you are not denying there is a correlation over this period?
Anyway the point is Victor has ranted on about this correlation issue about ten times on this website over the last five years, possibly before you arrived. I normally have no problem with denialists having their silly little say, in the name of free speech, but when it gets that repetitive, stubborn and irrational, the borehole beckons! Surely?
But I agree with the rest of what you said.
Carbomontanussays
Nigelj
I do not suggest that there is no correlation betweeen CO2 and atmospheric temperatures long term. There especially is not short term because the effect is small and it diffuseses and drowns in the noise of stronger signals. This is also Roger Revelles argument.
But it follows necessarily and guaranteed by what Tyndall found experimentally, and needs no other proof than that. You will have to fight the permanence of heat, and the Thermopile and the mirror galvanometer and tyhe analogue doubble beam meaqsuring method. .
I hav even seen that on Surrealists “scientific” level recently.
But it simply follows from some natural gases having dis- continous spectra in the electromagnetic spectrum. They understood that immediately by very pioneering scientifric methods of their time that have stood scrutiny.
Victor seems to be a type that was told that he could simply give a damn to empiricism and basic physical experiments in the lab and give a damn to answerig rather to that.
I call it The Blood Group P, P for Party. The Privileged. ” I am no scientist but….” and then proof is stated and we are to obey and to discuss.
It is Dia- lectic Materialism.
Chucksays
As for the recent tornados in Kentucky, it seems to me there is a connection to Climate Change in that the contrasting temperatures enabled such powerful storms to develop. We’ve been extremely warm throughout December with temperatures hitting the 80 degree mark in Northern Arkansas. We’re going to warm up again this week to near 75-80 degrees. Then another cold front arrives setting off more storms.
Carbomontanussays
Hr Chuck
I do not live there, but I have learnt in school of physical geography and the typical difference of north american and European weathers, that it is caused by the fact that in Europe, mountain ranges going west east stops the most dramatic stops the most sudden contacts between polar and equatorial weathers. But in America the mountainranges go north- south..
But I have once withnessed a very dramatic cold front falling from Novaya Zemlya to southern France. And another time red in the papers of a “Weather” that fell from The White sea all the way down to Kuwait where it ended.
The situation in New England where we have relatives is obviously more dramatic than here, with possible tropical hurricanes and polar blizzards..
And we can look at the major currents. The strong and warm gulf stream passing at the coast just south of the strong polar jet stream..
That system together spreads and dissolves a bit before it enters into The Bay of Biscaya, The North sea, and the Barents sea. And the winds stagnate in the East against the continental high pressure, the russian winter and The Ural mountains.
There is major weather and climate- shift from west to east of Ural and from north to south of the Alps.
Once in Bremen at Christmas there had been warm and rather sunny weather, then suddenly one day there came ice and hail- showers with thunder. “It is the winter!”, Mrs Scowroneck remarked. “No, it is the summer!” I replied. And Mr.Skowroneck gave me right because it was both of them at a dramatic meeting. That is rare in Europe but rather typical over there in the states.
nigeljsays
Chuck. I did read somewhere that the tornadoes were linked to climate change due to being caused in part by warm air drawn up from the gulf of mexico, itself warming due to climate change. I dont live in America so cant comment much on it.
Mr. Know It Allsays
No possibility of connecting tornados to climate change. They have been recorded since Whites came here to escape the fascists and totalitarians of Europe (the same types now in power in the US Govt):
Difference today is that nearly every tornado is recorded either visually or on radar, etc. Prior to about the 1950s many tornados occurred and no one was aware of them.
GISTEMP LOTI global anomaly has been posted for November with a global SAT anomaly of +0.94ºC, down from the October anomaly of +0.98ºC (the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date) with November now the 2nd highest 2021 monthly anomaly. (The ERA5 Reanalysis SAT saw November drop to 3rd highest anomaly of 2021-so-far. In UAH TLT it was down at =5th and in RSS TLT down at 9th.) The GISTEMP 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.54ºC to +0.98ºC.
November 2021 is the 4th warmest November in the GISTEMP record (5th in ERA5) behind Novembers 2020 (+1.11ºC), 2015 (+1.06ºC) and 2019 (+0.99ºC) while ahead of Novembers 2016 (+0.91ºC), 2017 (+0.88ºC), 2013 (+0.84ºC) & 2018 (+0.82ºC).
November 2021 is the =31st highest GISTEMP all-month anomaly (42nd in EAR5).
The first eleven months of 2021 average +0.85ºC and 2021 has climbed above 2018 into the 6th warmest year-so-far spot on the GISTEMP record. It is still reasonable that 2021 may drop down again to 7th spot below 2018, this requiring the 2021 December anomaly to drop below +0.88ºC.
I came over another quite ingenious and commerciallized invention, that looks more natural and healthy than Killians sales promotion of “Biochar” to the aborginean blind believers and flat earthers.
It is labeled
Liquid nano clay (LNC)
it is also called
LNC Desert control.
That you will find on the net.
Invented by 2 Norwegians from Stavanger of course. And seems to work along with known and healthy principles.
Common clay mostly and mainly monmorillonite is probably flotated down to particle sizes from 800 nanometer down to zero. And mixed with water. But then the trick, also air bubbles. Acidity and surface tension will decide how well it mixes and creeps. (some secret soap to it might do)
They claim that their product sinks quite much better into poor silicic desert sands and improoves the soil radically for further culture.
Using clay slurry on poor rather acidic sandy ackers is as old as can be.
Such clay minerals are very much better than brutally burnt and powdered organic material. Not for nothing, God first modeled the human body from clay and then blew life into its nose, according to early science from UR in Caldea.
The fungi and mushroms and bacteria and microfauna likes it very much better, and clay minerals adsorb both water and mineral nutrician fertillizers very much better, The carbon then simply sinks down from the heavens and deep into the ackers by devine forces.
Which is true. If only let in peace, Huge varied forest of Violoncello dimensions just shoot up from pure humus free ice- grinded glacio fluvial sediments in only a few years here where I live. But the bedrock substrate must be favourable for it.
If rubbish is burnt on the acker and all sterilized, it takes years for that piece of the acker to recover again. It must creep full of microbic life first. But wild seeds and sphores are plenty also in the deserts I can think.
Mephisto:
Im Trocknen, Feuchten, Warmen, Kalten
enwinden tausend Keime sich.
Hätt ich mirb nicht die Flamme vorbehalten,
Ich hätte nichts Aparts für mjich!
From Faust 1 im Studierzimmer.
Mr. Know It Allsays
What do they propose that we do with the liquid nano clay? Where can it be found?
Carbomontanussays
Hr Knowitall
I do not manage to give red https referennces here that do come up, so you have too google it..
I gave the keyewords
Liquid nano clay (LNC)
and
LNC desert control
That has got viral enough on the net.
Another central keye to it is Montmorrillonite. “Nano” is modern supersticion in the sales propmotion of patent products.
The further should follow from what everyone ought to know about clay and dirts and soils and tiles and terracotta Clay and mud and dust baths are general and good healthy chosmetic methods also among severalo wild animals, and I am using choisest local dirts muds and clays flotated and adjusted for firepro0of masonry and for “mould” and sand modeled metal casting. I choose to do it that way rather than buying from the firms and the experts, in order to learn more
about my local wild resources.
It protects myself and my soul from having to buy it from KIillian, from Dr.R.Check, or from Åstræiliæææææ
Nano = 10E-9
1.5 Ångstrøm = 0.15 Nanometer = one rather common natural atom. A gaseous etanol- molecule in the air will be near to a nanoparticle.
What shows up foggy and hazy has got particle sizes in the magnitude of wavelenght of light, that is fro 400 to 800 nanometer.
Barry E Finchsays
At 8:09 Jennifer states “clouds absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation and that actually causes the surface and the atmosphere to be warm”. Jennifer should explain why it is that the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond manufactures and emits ~78% of the LWR that’s headed to space but the water droplets in clouds, which is the professional expertise of Jennifer, manufacture and emit no LWR whatsoever, as she states at that time above. I for one would be fascinated to learn from Jennifer why she knows the correct “greenhouse effect” (re-emission of long-wave radiation totally overwhelming, she clearly states, any photon manufacture by liquid H2O in cloud droplets) and yet Andrew Dessler and I (and another bloke) both are sure that the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation does indeed apply equally to the water droplets in clouds and the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond in total contradiction to Jennifer’s bold assertion here. I’d be interested to learn what it is that Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf & the entire underlings of the RealClimate Web Log site, and Jennifer Kaye, know about that radiative physics that Andrew Dessler and I have never learned. After all, it’s only THE ENTIRE TOPIC (RAISON D’ETRE) of all of the millions of videos, documents, comments, political investigations and babbling everywhere. So it’s pretty unimportant then. Right ?
zebrasays
No idea what you are talking about. There’s a video by a Jennifer Kay, not Kaye, but you are making no sense with your claim that she contradicts any established physics.
I’m wondering if you actually read what you have written before posting it. Try it.
If you would actually ask a coherent question, I’m sure people would try to answer it.
zebra,
I would suggest that the comment by Barry E Finch is making two crazy assertions.
Firstly, there is some crazy belief that when a cloud is re-emitting absorbed LWR, it is not emitting its own LWR and thus there is no emitted LWR to satisfy that required by Stefan-Boltzmann. The LWR emissions from clouds are of course governed by temperature and thus by Stefan-Boltzmann, and not dependent on the absorbed LWR. With that thought in mind, I did have a short search for the Jennifer Kay video being referred-to to hear what was actually being said but only found this one which at 5 minutes in does tell us “But clouds also, like GHGs, absorb and emit LWR.” so no mention of “re-emission.”
The second craziness is the assertion that “the ocean/sea/lake/pond manufactures and emits ~78% of the LWR that’s headed to space.”. Wet bits of planet Earth constitute about 72% of the planet surface and oceans do emit on average a little more LWR than land (about 10% more than land being on average closer to the equator) but oceans have a lot more cloud so would “manufacture” far far less than ~78% of space-bound surface-emitted LWR. And with the surface emissions=to-space constituting only 17% of all space-bound emissions, quite what crazy logic is used to derive the ~78% comes from is anybody’s guess.
zebrasays
Yes, this is why I ask people like Barry to clarify their thinking rather than try to translate/interpret… I don’t want to follow them down their particular Rabbit Hole.
And I rarely find it useful to look at videos when it comes to physics, given the availability of written sources.
That said, I think the 78% thing is just referring to what radiates from the surface; “headed towards space” might make sense.
As I understand it, liquid water does absorb LWR. You might find this abstract interesting; it illustrates the complexity of determining the effect of clouds, which are obviously mixtures of water and water vapor.
zebra,
I would myself describe it less as “follow them down their particular Rabbit Hole” and more “follow the ball they drop down their chosen Rabbit Hole.” This I would suggest is better descriptively as the effort by such commenters to properly explain themselves is usually absent in such interchanges.
And I would pick up on one other point you make.
I got a value of 73.5% for the ‘wet’ LWR from the surface (using the land & ocean LWR numbers from Wild et al (2014)‘s fig 2 and the area of ‘wet’ land from lakescientist.com) which is a bit short to be given as being ~78%.
Barry E Finchsays
Victor 2021-12-13 “the mean prediction for the temperature change over that period, ignoring other effects for the moment”, Inform us whether “ignoring other effects” includes exclusion of human-caused “global dimming”, same question for Earth’s energy imbalance, so’s we don’t need to plough through what you already learned. “during the first 15 years or so of the 21st century we find the notorious “hiatus””. Tropical Pacific Ocean Trade Winds.
Reality Checksays
Peter Kalmus NASA
Wow, the sheer number of scientific results across basically every discipline pointing to “we are on a very, very, extremely bad track” at #AGU21. Step back and see the big picture everyone… and become scientist activists. Please get off the sidelines. #EmergencyMode
The annual meeting of Earth science (AGU21) is happening. 1000s of talks and posters on the latest science of ecosystems, ice, oceans, soils…. Signals of dangerous global change throughout. Hard for any single scientist to see whole picture. Would be good topic for reporters
8:28 AM · Dec 15, 2021
Matthew Jee
The lack of generalists/holistic thinkers is a problem that affects all sciences. We have to look for philosophers and those who have chosen multidisciplinary paths for answers: those who can see the trees and the woods.
Reality Checksays
Peter Kalmus
So, there are like ten thousand oral and poster presentations at the annual 5-day Earth-science meeting of the American Geophysical Union. I can try to add some of the presentation main points to this thread, later… I am low on bandwidth. would be good topic for climate journos
It’s not one brand new big dire warning, it’s like ten thousand paper cuts to the Earth system that together amount to a huge dire warning. so, so many. here are notes from one I just attended: “pyroCb, Australia megafire and the huge storm it caused. Cumulonimbus flammagenitus. ‘a new class of large smoke plumes in the stratosphere.’ potential for larger outbreaks to come”
Yawn.
Reality Checksays
Nah, musta bin da firebugs dat dun it!
Ask the Resident Know It All Expert on Everything – Shri Carbo Mount Anus!
Carbomontanussays
No, it is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Those pure snobbish and uniformed workers out there in the landscape and bushes in boots, smoking their Gauloises and Marlboroughs, and making “bonfires” and picque-niques with “bio- chars” in aluminium foils frying their “hot dogs” at any time, driving offroad also in Å-stræilææææ with their Nissans. You can with a Nissan. ,
And that catches fire.
Then they blame it all on the climate and the fireflies.
They treat their great barrier reef the same way, blaming their behavious on the climate and on the fire- fishes.
nigeljsays
Carbo. While you’re right humans start many of the forest fires, and lightening strikes start the remainder, climate change is making forest fires worse for example more intense and larger areas burned. I assume you accept this? Its supported by numerous studies.
Mr. Know It Allsays
“……..climate change is making forest fires worse for example more intense and larger areas burned……”
Possibly true, but here in the USA, poor forest management practices for the past 100 years or so are also making things worse. I assume you accept this?f
Reality Checksays
How rising groundwater caused by climate change could devastate coastal communities
Higher sea levels will push the water table up with them, causing flooding, contamination, and all manner of unseen chaos.
For something you’ve probably never heard about, rising groundwater presents a real, and potentially catastrophic, threat to our infrastructure. Roadways will be eroded from below; septic systems won’t drain; seawalls will keep the ocean out but trap the water seeping up, leading to more flooding. Home foundations will crack; sewers will backflow and potentially leak toxic gases into people’s homes.
[…] “She was asking me, is this something that comes from sea-level rise? And obviously, the answer is yes,” says Hill.
Hill is one of a number of researchers trying to get the public and policymakers to take the risks of rising groundwater seriously. Unlike rising seas, where the dangers are obvious, groundwater rise has remained under the radar. Hydrologists are aware of the problem and it’s all over the scholarly research, but it has yet to surface in a significant way outside of those bubbles. Groundwater rise is only briefly mentioned in the most recent edition of the National Climate Assessment, released in 2018; it’s absent from many state and regional climate adaptation plans, and even from flood maps.
A 2021 study in the journal Cities found that when coastal cities conduct a climate vulnerability assessment, they rarely factor in groundwater rise.
aka – How XYZ caused by climate change will devastate communities everywhere. ‘We’ need to get beyond the current simplistic discussions of climate change & SLR & ……. & ……..& …….. I don’t know why this even needs to be said – it’s all in the public domain.
But of course the public do not know what is in the Public Domain. :)
Reality Checksays
AGU21
The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world
An important climatic indicator has been misreported by a factor of two
It’s almost a mantra in climate science: The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. But that figure, found in scientific studies, advocacy reports, the popular press, and even the 2021 U.N. climate assessment, is incorrect, obscuring the true toll of global warming on the north, a team of climate scientists reports this week. In fact, the researchers say, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average.
one key and very telling point is this one: One is climate scientists’ tendency to chop each hemisphere into thirds and label the area above 60°N as the “Arctic”—an area that would include, for example, most of Scandinavia. But the true definition of the Arctic is defined by Earth’s tilt. And, as has been known for centuries, the Arctic Circle is a line starting at 66.6°N. When researchers lump in the lower latitudes, “you’re diluting the amount of Arctic warming you’re getting,” Jacobs says. “That is not a trivial thing.”
Peer-reviewed science explaining extreme events of 2020 from a climate perspective which the scientifically ignorant/resident anti-science/science deniers such as KIA and Victor will ignore and fail to understand since it would mean admitting that they are wrong (of course they can’t since their insecurity and cowardice won’t allow them to admit to being wrong, facts be damned):
KIA: Extreme weather occurs every day – always has, always will.
BPL: Which means precisely nothing, since the question is how extreme, and how frequent the extreme weather is becoming. KIA is, like so many deniers, in the grip of “Forest fires have occurred naturally for millions of years, so there’s no such thing as arson.”
I have tried to ignore it by skipping past posters comments, but the atmosphere here is consistently positively toxic. It is very unpleasant seeing the non-stop nastiness. It’s like swimming in a sewer at times. Lord of the Flies type pathological insanity. The nasty personally abusive stuff. The cheap putdowns. The dysfunctional (at times delusional) behavior of posters here. The disrespectful insults and lack of tolerance for others. The complete lack of responsible moderation is the worst of all. This constant toxic environment has caused a lot of harm and unhappiness over a long period of time, to myself and to many others. I find it completely unacceptable and intolerable.
Chucksays
Getting rid of a couple of obnoxious trolls would probably do wonders. (KIA comes to mind). Having to constantly address WRONG INFORMATION is wearing people down. Of course there’s one or two on here who never have anything nice to say that need to be disciplined by moderators (if they actually read any of this stuff). I know they’re busy with other things but every now and then it would be nice if some of the rules were enforced.
The thing that really makes reading difficult are the trolls who clog up the thread with constant bullshit. That really needs to stop but I don’t know who to appeal to to make it happen.
Piotrsays
Reality Check: Dec.16 “ the atmosphere here is consistently positively toxic.[…] t’s like swimming in a sewer
Hmm.
– Piotr Nov.28 that Killian’s source didn’t prove that Malawi people 85kya “used the fire to effect long-term [the source: “the thousand-year time scale”] intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem“.
– Reality C. joins in: “ 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”, “Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy” “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying ”
===
Reality C., Dec.16: … It is very unpleasant seeing the non-stop nastiness.
Unlike the pleasant tone of Killian and you?
===
– Killian: about Piotr:’s argument you are still steeped in the pile of dung”, “unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science”, “your self-inflicted ignorance”
– Reality C., about Killian’s response: “ fair and reasonable and logical. It was Piotr who first introduced the abusive ad hominem toxic vitriol commentary”
====
Reality C. Dec.16 : “The nasty personally abusive stuff. The cheap putdowns.”
You mean like:
– Nigel: “Criticising your point of view is not trolling.”
– Killian: “So [Piotr’s] lapdog thinks he’s a fair master.”
or Reality C., referring to Carbomontanus as … “ Carbo mont anus ”
these would be ….. classy putdowns ?
Reality C. Dec.16 : … The disrespectful insults and lack of tolerance for others. […]I find it completely unacceptable and intolerable.
Brought to you by Matthew 7:3?
Fredsays
No the moderators do not have to accept posts like this, but they consciously choose to publish them anyway. The websites definition of borehole is “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations”. Deleting them instead is much more intelligent. They choose not to do that.
Clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
The site owners are responsible for the toxic environment created on RC by a cacophony of climate science deniers, vacuous trolls, weirdos, liars, and insidious verbal abusers. It’s not my problem, will not be staying around but I do have an opinion about it.
Piotrsays
Fred, Dec. 20: “ It’s not my problem, will not be staying around ”
Reality Check, Dec. 19: “ It’s not my problem, will not be staying around ”
Gavin, have you changed something. in the Matrix^*, AGAIN?
Oh well, as they say in Zion: when going gets tough, the tough get going…
Mr. Know It Allsays
“……..The nasty personally abusive stuff. The cheap putdowns…..The disrespectful insults and lack of tolerance for others……”
Would you like me to link to a hundred or so of those exact same type of comments YOU have made? Look in the mirror.
Reality Checksays
‘This is not normal’: Extreme weather events stun CNN meteorologist
The Midwest is experiencing unprecedented weather with extreme heat and tornado force winds. CNN meteorologist Tom Sater said “this is not December weather.”
Come to papa baby! Let it blow let it snow let it roast!
Burn baby burn!
My fingers are crossed hoping Victor’s, Mr Know it All’s, and JD Swallow’s properties are right in the middle of it all. Which is no big deal because these everyday extreme weather events have been happening all the time for all time.
Mr. Know It Allsays
If you were born after about 1990-1995, your feelings can be explained by this excellent video:
The most irritating thing though is that the moderators don’t allow your posts to occupy ALL the space each month here on RC, instead of just 90% of it, right? :)
Over and over again, on these threads and elsewhere, whenever certain evidence leads me to question the mainstream view, I’m reminded that what really counts is “the physics.” If “the physics” is solid, as it’s presumed to be, then no other interpretation is possible, the generally accepted outcome is certain. I was therefore especially intrigued to find in Lawrence Krauss’s book (https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Change-Lawrence-Krauss-ebook/dp/B08P5DK7HB) that, after an especially thorough review of the physics, a lack of certainty remains when it comes to the most important issue in the climate change debate — the question of sensitivity. To draw on the passage I’ve already posted above:
“These facts led to the conclusion that the increasing CO2 concentration in our atmosphere should lead to further warming of the Earth’s surface. The key question is how much?” To my surprise, Krauss is unable to come up with a definitive answer based solely on the physics he’s so thoroughly expounded. The “how much” questions “have driven much of the internationally coordinated climate research program that has been carried out over the past sixty years,” leading to “a furor of debate . . . like much of science, when you want to go beyond a rough understanding to get things right at the percent level, the devil is in the details.”
What ultimately convinces Krauss is not the physics per se, but what he perceives as the remarkable fit of theories based on physics, as developed by scientists such as Tyndall, Arrhenius, etc., to actual real-world data, as gathered over the years by climate scientists. His thinking is succinctly encapsulated in this portion of his lecture on this topic, as broadcast via youtube: https://youtu.be/lApLD5g1Nrs?t=2690
Presenting a graph representing average global temperatures since 1880, Krauss claims the fit between theory and data is “exactly what you predict, essentially.” While he is willing to concede that correlation is not necessarily causation, the fit he sees between the graph and the predictions based on the physics he’s studied is so close as to settle the matter definitively. Significantly he sees no reason to apply any scientific methodology to his comparison between the data and theory because for him the correlation is all too obvious. As he says, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck.,” essentially the same reasoning that led so many to fear a coming ice age back in the 70’s.
So that’s, finally, what his argument comes down to: the old “quacks like a duck” bromide. Isn’t it obvious? And yes, it is now significantly warmer here on Earth than it was in 1900, as is “obvious” from eyeballing the graph. And yes, applying statistical methods uncritically one can come up with a result “confirming” the existence of a correlation. Only, as I have tirelessly demonstrated time after time, the supposed correlation is an artefact of a flawed methodology. I won’t get into the details once again here, but for a thorough analysis of the problem I refer you to the following blog post: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
While correlation might or might not indicate causation, lack of correlation all but rules it out. In other words, despite all the many experiments and theories behind the physics of climate change as expounded by Krauss and others, the LACK of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature raises some serious doubts.
The problem applies to the sea level question as well. While one might feel confident when assessing what looks like a clear correlation between CO2 emissions and sea levels, both of which rose steadily from 1880 to the present, CO2 in itself can affect sea level only indirectly. The missing third term is temperature and in this case there is not only no correlation but no evidence whatsoever of causation, as evident from a glance at the same graph so confidently displayed by Krauss. As is evident from the graph, temperatures declined rather precipitously from 1880 through, roughly, 1910. Yet sea levels had already begun their steady rise by 1880, making it awfully difficult to see global temperatures as the cause. Moreover, sea levels have risen steadily since then while temperatures have varied considerably. When I began reading Krauss’s book I was hoping he’d make some attempt to account for this discrepancy — but he simply ignored it.
As for the issue of sensitivity generally, our friends at NoTricksZone have discovered no fewer than 130 publications finding “extremely low CO2 climate sensitivity”: https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
TheWarOnEntropysays
You lost all credibility long ago. Stop wearing out the scroll wheel on my mouse.
Reality Checksays
No the moderators do not have to accept posts like this, but they consciously choose to publish them anyway. Clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
The site owners are responsible for the toxic environment created on RC by a cacophony of climate science deniers, vacuous trolls, weirdos, liars, and insidious verbal abusers. It’s not my problem, will not be staying around but I do have an opinion about it.
nigeljsays
Victor . You come across as obsessive, delusional and misinformed over this correlation issue. I did the basics of psychology at university. I was an A grade student. See a health professional.
nigelj: “Victor . You come across as obsessive, delusional and misinformed over this correlation issue. I did the basics of psychology at university. I was an A grade student. See a health professional.”
Nigel, for years you’ve regularly posted to this blog practically on a daily basis. You’ve already contributed 21 posts to this thread alone. I post only from time to time when I have something interesting to say. My grand total on this thread is precisely two. Yet I’M the one who’s obsessive?
nigeljsays
Victor. There is nothing obsessive about me participating regularly in a website and its discussions. I am largely retired and can do as I please. Some people watch sport all day or play golf, I like website discussions, running, reading and music and other things. Im a bit obsessive about food, and that is more of a problem for the waist line. I’m working on that one.
Youre looking obsessive over the CORRELATION issue because you just repeat the same things over and over, even although its been explained to you many times by different experts that you dont understand basic statistics. Its screaming out obsessiveness and delusion. Im not saying you are unintelligent or crazy. or have nothing to contribute. I’m saying take a deep breath and ponder things and maybe talk to someone.
Like someone else said you are wearing out the scroll wheel in my mouse. It gets tediously boring and it is spreading disinformation. I dont like disinformation.
Nigel, if you actually read through my posts rather than scrolling past them you’d see that my references to correlation were a necessary part of my evaluation of Krauss’s book (and video lecture). Of course I needed to repeat my contention that no correlation exists as Krauss’s assumption of a correlation simply by eyeballing a graph goes to the heart of his (questionable) argument. I don’t expect you to blindly accept my contention but I do expect you to seriously consider the evidence I’ve provided both on these threads and on my blog. NO ONE posting here has EVER responded to the reasoning behind that blog post by the way. It’s simply been dismissed. Determining a correlation is much more than simply a numbers game and you don’t need to be a statistician to see the obvious flaws revealed in my blog post. And if you disagree with that interpretation then by all means make some attempt to refute it — based on reasoning, NOT crude insults.
nigeljsays
Victor
I did read your comments on this particular page. Have scanned trough some other things.
“Of course I needed to repeat my contention that no correlation exists as Krauss’s assumption of a correlation simply by eyeballing a graph goes to the heart of his (questionable) argument…..Determining a correlation is much more than simply a numbers game and you…”
You dismiss Krauss eyeballing a graph and identifying a correlation and yet you eyeball graphs yourself and say there is a correlation or there is no correlation. Doesn’t this tell you that eyeballing will always lead to disagreements and is SUBJECTIVE, with no possible way of reliably determining whos eyeballs are best. So establishing a correlation IS INDEED a numbers game requiring proper analysis. (Like BPL does). Sigh. But have a good xmas.
V: Determining a correlation is much more than simply a numbers game
BPL: No, it is not. You are making up your own definition of “correlation” and substituting it for the real one. You’re still wrong.
John Pollacksays
Oh, what fun! We’re back to square one.
But rather than spewing insults or worse,
I’ll tackle the subject with a bit of light verse.
I’ll liken the subject Victor puts ‘fore us
To a debate on some trees composing a forest.
On this subject, everyone agrees,
That a forest must be composed of trees.
To correlate trees, we might choose mathematics
So to see the forest – but to Victor, that’s tactics.
“No other interpretation should be possible”, he said,
If based on solid physics. Instead…
I find your “forest” is lacking intensity,
Because its existence is sensitive to density.
Since the density varies, your argument is squalid.
For trees to be a “forest” I expect them to be solid!
They should correlate just to a density of one,
With no room for a breeze or a spare ray of sun.
Instead, I see spaces with bushes and berries.
I even had room to pick some nice cherries.
So begone with your “forest.” It’s a copse or oasis!
Since you’ll never explain why your forest has spaces,
Every space a hiatus, without explanation,
Never part of a forest, in my estimation.
There’s more to the subject than any analogy,
So, no matter the relevance, I see no finality!
You assume a forest but there’s no such thing
Just a small clump of trees arranged in a ring.
With nothing before and nothing after
To argue otherwise is cause for laughter.
Only twenty years worth as any fool can see.
Sorry if that bugs you, but take it from me.
Mikesays
your learning curve has flatlined, Victor. Fail better.
nigeljsays
This is intereresting from the SkS website (which aims to counter climate change denialism) : “From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations”
I’m so glad this was posted, because I run into this particular argument all the time. I have two basic responses when someone tells me “Oh, CO2 is only 400 parts per million, how can that do anything?”
1. Beer’s Law has no volume fraction term. It’s the absolute amount that matters.
2. 0.1 ppm of fluorine in the air can kill you.
TheWarOnEntropysays
There are also medical gases that have doses in the range 1-20 ppm, with a range of studies comparing those doses. For most of them, 400 would be a fatal dose.
@nigelj
Bob Loblaw – this somewhat aging idiot wants to enlighten us about the radiation attenuation of Co² – ???
What he says about the water cycle, clouds and albedo – is hair-raising and is only topped by MA Rodger, BPL and yourselve.
Macias shurley you abuse scientists by calling them idiots. Since you think you are so superior, what are your academic qualifications and publishing record? Have you ever patented any inventions? What are your achievements that have actually been recognised by anyone that matters?
Ray Ladburysays
Personally, I find it useful to think in terms of the number of CO2 molecules an IR photon will encounter (that is, pass within 1 wavelength of ) on its way out of the atmosphere. Avogadro’s number is your friend in arguments like these.
Bob Loblawsays
Yes, Ray, that’s the key – the number of molecules. The post at Skeptical Science that nigelj links to (written by me) basically states that, and does reference Avogadro’s number. The “concentration” that is important is the molar concentration times path length.
As for macias shurly, who has also posted here at RealClimate as Mathias Schurle, and who posted at Skeptical Science as coolmaster then cph, all I can say is that his ramblings on evaporation clouds, albedo, etc were sent to either the borehole or the crankshaft here at RC.
Mr. Schurle is – as you would say, Ray – someone who’s learning curve has a negative slope.
mikesays
Perhaps your learning curve on this matter has a negative slope? That might be the best observation and response to the trolls. I think it is pretty accurate. There are only a few folks who comment here who demonstrate this possibility. Most of us are learning, even if slowly.
BL – Yes, Ray, that’s the key – the number of molecules.
NO Bob – that`s NOT the key.
Avogadro – It’s just a very simple old hat and no one is surprised that no one replies to your boring SkSc-post that YOU are so proud of.
Perhaps one of your old club colleagues (nigelj, MAR, BPL …) will take pity on starting a small, supposedly interesting sham discussion?
A forum like Skeptical Science, which should save the world from the stupidities of the climate deniers, is bubbled over with further stupidities that are in no way inferior to those of the climate deniers. One of the last hair-raising statements from your cook-sucking colleague MA Rotger is for example:
MAR says: – I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature,…
— So in his opinion, it doesn’t matter whether our planet is coal-black or highly reflective white – the temperature stays the same – even if we loose all the clouds, sea ice, snow & glaciers.
??? interesting conception of physics, absorption and reflection ???
Ideally, you should address your own learning curve or that of your dumb club members – that is enough to keep you busy.
I appreciate you are not writing here in your mother tongue and I acknowledge you are convinced that you see flooding the planet’s land area with water will somehow reverse sea level rise and AGW both. And I consider this utterly crazy conviction of yours is born of your inability to understand the science of the situation you address.
Yet given such consideration, I fail to see how my statement at SkS
“You talk of a “correlation in figure 2(f) CERES 20 years 2 (aka Loeb et al 2021)” which I find most odd as I see no correlation there. The figure 2(f) simply presents an attribution of the increasing IEE 2005-20, the sum of the attributions presented in figs 2(d) & 2(e).”
could ever be interpreted as saying “I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature,”
Normally I would ask somebody making such an unexplained mental leap to properly explain themselves. However, I having engaged with you long enough at SkS to know such an inquiry of you would be entirely pointless.
Mind, that does not rule out you providing such an explanation and in so doing proving my assessment of you to be wrong.
MAR:
At least I wonder whether your spread of misinformation and horse manure is just stupidity – or is already due to your upcoming dementia.
In the SkepticalScience discussion about ALBEDO linked above, you claim …
@109 “I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature”
@98 “… so a rise of 39mm/yr over the 17-year period graphed = 2.3mm/yr/yr.”
@96 “albedo does NOT depend primarily on the wavelength of the light that hits the body/molecule. The reflected light is pretty-much independent of wavelength being no more than “bluish”
That is horse shit –
@96 – you seem to be colour blind and/or drunk
@98 – you stumble on, quickly inventing a new physical unit (mm / y / y)
– which may be is your new borehole number today
@109 – totally blindness combined with a total loss of mental albedo (reflectance)
To make you understand how the Earth’s climate system balances the energy budget, we have to consider processes occurring at the three levels:
– the surface of the Earth, where most solar heating takes place (and where we live).
– the edge of Earth’s atmosphere, where sunlight enters the system.
– and the atmosphere in between.
At each level, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy, or net flux, must be equal /
+-.imbalance.
Remember that about 29 percent of incoming sunlight is reflected back to space by bright particles in the atmosphere or bright ground surfaces.
THAT IS CALLED ALBEDO,
which leaves about 71 percent to be absorbed by the atmosphere (23 %) and the land (48 %).
For the energy budget at Earth’s surface to balance, processes on the ground must get rid of the 48 % of incoming solar energy that the ocean and land surfaces absorb.
Energy leaves the surface through three processes:
– evaporation 25%,
– convection 5%,
– and emission of thermal infrared energy 17%.
The water vapor transport is equivalent to energy transport. What I intend with my concept for lowering the slr and earth temperature is not a flooding of the land area of the planet – but an increase / simulation of + ~ 1% Evaporation (25% —> 25.25%.
The increased evaporation and precipitation rates mean that all the water in the atmosphere that is exchanged about once every ~10 days – will exchange a little bit faster.
The intensified water cycle will promote cloud cover and links the two parts of the radiation balance:
– the surface is heated by sunlight and cooled by water evaporation.
– but the atmosphere is heated by precipitation and cooled by terrestrial radiation to space.
TheWarOnEntropysays
V: “NO ONE posting here has EVER responded to the reasoning behind that blog post by the way. It’s simply been dismissed.”
You should wonder why. It’s not because folks here are unable to rebut your argument. It’s that you have consistently shown you lack the humility to consider the possibility you might be wrong, and you lack the conceptual tools to have a rational discussion. You have repeatedly misrepresented snippets of scientific papers – sometimes unintentionally, as you have clearly not understood them, but sometimes in a way that makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion you are a troll. When people call you stupid, as I have done, it is not because they think you have bad cognitive hardware, and have always been stupid. Instead, you are called stupid, and you defend stupid positions, because you have acquired fixed false beliefs and spend your energy shoring them up instead of questioning them. It’s a software issue. Some sort of reboot is in order.
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists and has been operating since Dec 2004. We aim to provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary on climate science.
As such I think it is important that the scientists here counter the clearly erroneous claims made by politicians (e.g. J Biden), MSM organisations (NYTimes), evangelists (M Mann) and general citizens (e.g. Chuck above)
In the most recent WG1 report there is low confidence that there is any detectable trend in tornado activity – either increasing or decreasing. If this site wants to be regarded as scientific, it needs to call out misinformation regardless of which side of the fence it comes from
Piotrsays
For those who don’t know, Keith Woollard, using his Christmas wishes as a jump off to discredit Chuck and M. Mann – that’s the same guy who among others: :
– ridiculed “ assuming tie between global warming and local rainfall,/i>” – by pointing to the lack of correlation between … local warming and local rainfall (in Perth and in Sydney).
– disproved overall continental reduction in the available moisture in the soil by pointing that …. in some town of Corrigin there is no clear trend in rain
And this is the same guy who told off BPL: “”Stick to religion BPL, obviously maths is not your strong suit ” ;-).
Keith Woollard – everyone!
“I disagree with something he said so nothing he says has any merit”
Somehow I don’t seem to recall you responding to the actual substance of the original complaint about the eastern states presenter who came to WA and showed half the available rainfall record. You just bang on and on about me using Perth, despite the fact that I pointed at the full SW coverage. Get over it
Keith Woollard,
A statement of ad hominem is not in all instances a logical fallacy. Thus if an uncorroborated statement is provided by a known liar, it is legitimate to make known that the statement is provided by a liar. There is perhaps a duty to attempt to obtain the missing corroboration but really the onus is on the liar to provide it.
As for your comment above which drew the ad hominem criticism from Piotr, the one assertion you make that would merit an attempt at corroboration is the tornado thing in AR6 WG1, and that is flawed (being a selective reading of the reference). So I would suggest the ad hominem statement is fully justified.
2050? FAKE NEWS! 3 years ago AOC told us in no uncertain terms that the world would end in 12 years if we didn’t address climate change. It appears we have failed to act as she thinks we should, thus, by her own math we only have 9 years left.
The point of interest is surely why the November Temperature Update from Hansen et al insists that “Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future. (by or before 2050)” and as this Nov Update is quite a length (14 pages), that point should be presented here.
My reading of it runs as follows.
The Nov Update describes the global temperature increase as now having reached +1.19°C and that the “the 1.5°C global warming ceiling will be breached this decade,” this because there will be +0.1°C warming in the late 2020s due to the solar cycle, this additional to the decadal AGW increase (presumably +0.2°C) which will be enhanced by a reduction in aerosols through the decade, so allowing a modest El Niño (“which will almost surely occur”) to boost temperatures past the +1.5°C global warming ceiling.
Further, it is shown that today’s continuing GHG emissions are significantly greater than those projected by RCP2.6, a scenario which would keep us below the +2.0°C global warming ceiling and, because of the increasing overshoot of emissions, the use of negative emissions required to make good the situation has now become too great while the development of renewable power at scale remains a fantasy.
Thus the Nov Update says “We conclude that the 1.5°C target certainly will be exceeded, and the world will almost certainly blow through the 2°C ceiling.”
However note this “almost certain” conclusion comes with the caviat “Of course, one can devise a scenario that stays under 2°C via a miraculous transition to zero emissions within a few decades, but the real world pays no attention to imaginary scenarios.”
This all suggest to me that there is indeed “a yawning, growing gap between reality and the 2°C scenario” but that it does not of itself equate to “Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future.” Perhaps there is a need to define “baked in”.
There certainly is a need to define the “1.5°C global warming ceiling” properly. Note the +1.19°C value for the current level of warming is a single month number relative to 1880-1920. Using the same GISS numbers, the running 12-month average is +1.11°C.
I feel the Nov Update is perhaps harking back too far with its use of RCP2.6 and mention of earlier carbon budgets from two decades ago. Surely it needs to use today’s scenarios if its message is to be taken seriously.
Of the scenarios in use today SSP1-1.9 is supposed to show that if its emissions path is followed [net cumulative carbon emissions are allowed to rise no more than an extra +110Gt(C) 2022-50 and that followed by at least 110Gt(C) of negative emissions in the following half century and a further 110Gt(C) negative before 2150AD]; if this SSP1-1.9 pathway is followed, the +1.5°C AGW ceiling will not be breached. And our political leaders are signed up to keeping below the +1.5°C AGW ceiling so presumably signed up to those carbon emission limits (positive & negative).
If there is a problem with SSP1-1.9 or its interpretation, then that needs to be highlighted.
If our political leaders are unable to deliver the required “miraculous transition to zero emissions,” that is a matter beyond climate science (which is the topic of this thread).
XRRCsays
That was a very boring verbose over the top commentary. For starters, I am not interested in such tedious pedantic word games or treatises by people of no importance about matters of no consequence on un-moderated social media venues.
Secondly I am not James Hansen’s lawyer or his secretary. If it’s important to you take up your concerns directly with him here E-mail: jeh1@columbia.edu or here https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen and leave me out of it.
Your long winded problems and belittling attitude about the article reference I shared here by Dr James Hansen ex-nasa-giss (your negative opinions about him personally and the content) are not my problem. Consider not wasting your time in future? I am not interested now or in the future. Life is too short to waste it on the arrogant and the disingenuous. Take a number.
XRRC,
You can wave your indignation at a comment that dares to criticise you hero James Hansen but it appears you cannot do this without also waving an amazingly poor grasp of the climate science.
Perhaps you do not appreciate that you yourself down-thread cut-&-paste a lengthy passage from a year-old CarbonBrief article which contradicts Hansen’s assertion that “Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future. (by or before 2050).” This CarbonBrief article by Zeke Hausfather is entitled“When might the world exceed 1.5C and 2C of global warming?” so does not hide the position it presents that global warming of +2°C is certainly not “now baked into Earth’s future.” (Note that the figure from the CarbonBrief article you enthusiastically link-to down thread plots model runs for SSP2-4.5 which considers a world where CO2 emissions double by 2100AD and CO2 concentrations have topped 550ppm.)
There is however agreement in climate science that to maintain the +1.5°C global warming ceiling rapid reductions in global emissions are required, including halving emissions over the next decade (as set out at COP26), followed by a transition to zero emissions and thence to net negative emissions for a century .
The position of James Hansen is that these reductions in emissions constitute a “miraculous transition to zero emissions” that exists solely in the “imaginary scenarios” created by climatologists.
It is fair to say that the decision reached at COP26 (to go away and think about it for another year) does reinforce the view that the political leaders of the world are still failing to take AGW seriously. But I do not see disagreement within the climate science. The differences concern the speed with which a reluctant world can actually achieve 50% emissions & zero emissions and how best to persuade it to act.
XRRCsays
Like I said – I am not interested in anything you have to say. Which is why I stopped reading at the 5th word of tripe you wrote. Find someone else to bore senseless with your insidious judgmental and painfully disturbing and insulting diatribes.
I pity your limited reading comprehension, the weakening thought processes, the imaginary faults and their magical conclusions. and your desperation to be seen as somehow relevant here and the other places you attend.
Thankfully I do not base my understanding of climate science and the many well known variations in the conclusions (and estimations of this and that data analysis) derived across thousands of papers and misc reports by individual scientists and groups on the meandering thought bubbles of a self-serving social media commentator like yourself.
I actually listen to and follow a broad range of credible reputable climate scientists (and institutions) instead. Their different takes and emphasis, different focus and approaches to analysis, their varying interpretations, their varying projections and conclusions about different aspects of the climate science doesn’t disturb me in the least.
But for small-minded people who believe they know it all already and think they can read other people’s mind on blog forums, …. well then, bitch and moan all you wish. It’s what arrogant intolerant trolls do best on social media and blogs. In that you’re an expert.
Killiansays
Agreed. It is important that as we move forward the conversations around action become more transparent, not less. Too often when people say “Can’t be done!” or “It’s baked in!” they actually mean they do not expect humanity to act in time rather than “The science proves 1.5C is impossible!” At the same time, there are legitimate people knowledgeable of these things think exactly that estimates of being able to achieve 1.5C are incorrect.
All of the above should be kept in mind because here’s a simple fact of science: It is not future fact, it is future educated guess. None of us know for certain what is to come and it is exactly that fact that has guided my determination that fighting over science details and averages is no longer germane. The science will eventually fall where it will along whatever spectrum.
Risk is the only reasonable guide for humanity.
Killiansays
Still incorrect. James needs to take a Permaculture course.
XRRCsays
How would that help make the article ‘correct’, or help him or anyone? I do not understand the point.
While Hansen traverses a lot of ground in the article it came across to me as coherent. Knowing nothing can capture everything. He addressed what he wanted to address well. Doesn’t mean he’s perfect or needs to be or that everyone agrees with him or needs to on every point he’s ever raised as an issue or part of the solutions he believes in. The data and reasoning on breaching 1.5C pre-2030 and 2C pre-2050 seems compelling enough to ignore the rest of the details and ideas. It’s not surprising he’s now considered an outlier and an extremist by so many who used to admire or respect him. Rejection is a universal quality of being human. I too reject who and what I have no interest in. But I prefer finding gold no matter how much quartz waste and rubble it’s found in. Most of Hansen’s monthly update was pure gold this time. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Can’t make horses drink as I said already, while selecting key points and quoting key texts gets tedious and time consuming at times I don’t have to waste. I believe smart people would follow Hansen and get his regular updates and read his published papers and his upcoming book. Each to their own of course. I have no time for time wasters or arrogant fools though. If people do not like Hansen specifically or anything else I share here (why would I or anyone else even bother seems to be the major question here) it’s not my problem, really it isn’t.
nigelj: You dismiss Krauss eyeballing a graph and identifying a correlation and yet you eyeball graphs yourself and say there is a correlation or there is no correlation. Doesn’t this tell you that eyeballing will always lead to disagreements and is SUBJECTIVE, with no possible way of reliably determining whos eyeballs are best. So establishing a correlation IS INDEED a numbers game requiring proper analysis.
V: Krauss draws his conclusion simply by eyeballing a graph. He offers no analysis whatsoever, nor any statistics, as though the graph speaks for itself. That is most certainly NOT what I’ve done. The critique provided on the blog post I’ve referenced is by no means based on eyeballing, but detailed, logical analysis of the evidence. That should be clear to anyone who takes the trouble to read it — http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
The scattergram offered by Grumbine (very similar to that provided by MA Rodger and implicitly endorsed by BPL) is misleading, as I’ve demonstrated very clearly. The statistics allegedly supporting it is based on what is known as a “methodological artefact.”
“A statistical artefact is an inference that results from bias in the collection or manipulation of data. The implication is that the findings do not reflect the real world but are, rather, an unintended consequence of measurement error. When the findings from a particular study are deemed to be—at least in part—a result of the particular research technique employed . . . rather than an accurate representation of the world, they are sometimes said to be a methodological artefact.” ( https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095426317 )
But don’t take my word for it. The nature of the artefact is clearly revealed by my analysis. The error is so blatant that no knowledge of statistics is necessary to see it. As I’ve stated in the past, statistics is a scientific tool, NOT a science in and of itself. Any statistical result must be evaluated through a rigorous process of critical thinking, as any real scientist will tell you.
nigeljsays
Victor, regarding the correlation between CO2 and warming over the last 100 years approximately. The critique on your mole in the ground website is wrong and is anything but logical. Firstly you choose graphs that aren’t over the same time periods (one ending at 2017 and one at 2010) and neither are up to date with this year. Secondly you persistently rely on eyeballing graphs with no maths analysis. Thirdly you persistently mistake a lack of a clear and perfect correlation for a lack of ANY correlation (for example early last century).
Correlations exist on a type of fractional scale from 0 – 1.0 which goes in plain language from zero correlation to low correlation, medium correlation, good correlation, very good correlation and perfect correlation. Any introduction to correlations related to scatterplots will show you that. Fourthly you cherrypick time periods (like 1998 – 2015).
Fifthly your comments on time distortions are simply nonsensical. They are not displaying the same information in different ways. A temperature chart is not the same as a scatterplot over time. Sixthly you also persistently mix up correlations between variables with cause and effect. You must keep those things as separate exercises. For example you cannot exclude the correlation early last century just because several things contributed to the warming trend. You cannot exclude el nino and la nina years. Correlation is purely a mathematical relationship between variables. It doesn’t matter at this stage what the variables are. You just use all the data and see what it says. You’re obviously intelligent, but you have gone off the rails on this issue.
This is what’s really going on, roughly speaking. The correlation between CO2 and warming over the period 1900 – 2021 is good, using a maths analysis. (From memory it is around 0.65 in numbers). You can do a simple approximation like this. The period 1900 – 1945 has an average towards good correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures. The period 1945 – 1975 has almost no correlation between CO2 and temperatures (over land, there is a correlation in the ocean temperatures). The period 1975 – 2021 has a very good correlation between temperatures and CO2 trends. To roughly determine the correlation for 1900 – 2021 as a whole, you can take an average of these three periods, and you get a good correlation between CO2 and warming.
Now we consider why the correlation isn’t perfect. You would expect a correlation between CO2 and warming so why the absence middle of last century? Compelling explanations abound but lets not go over that again. The pause after 1998 is in fact only a flat period in the land temperature record of about 6 years from about 2002 – 2008. Its not long enough to have much impact on the level of correlation of warming and CO2. We know that the system continued to gain energy during these years anyway. Its just that it didn’t show up in land temperatures .
This correlation issue is simple and doesn’t make me sceptical. I’m sceptical of crazy notions that climate change will cause extinction of the human race, and I have become rather pessimistic about our chances of getting emissions to zero or even close by 2050, but I think we will make some difference and its worth pushing for that.
At last, a meaningful response to my analysis of the Grumbine scattergram. Finally! And thank you, Nigel. Your argument does make some sense in a very general way, but fails to specifically address the misleading nature of Grumbine’s graph. If you examine his scattergram carefully you’ll see that the diagonal indicating correlation appears only during the period of (roughly) 1979 through 1998 (though these dates are never explicitly indicated, which is why the graph is so misleading). Prior to the late 70’s and subsequent to 1998 we see either a quasi-random jumble or a flat line. A similar picture emerges from the scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe ( https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg), only Wolfe provides us with the dates necessary to properly evaluate it.
While “doing the math” can be useful, it can also produce a very misleading artefact, as evidenced by the very different pictures provided by Grumbine and Wolfe. So yes, if we choose to ignore the very clear lack of correlation prior to and after the last 20 years of the previous century (as indicated not only by Wolfe but ALSO Grumbine, if we look carefully enough) then “doing the math” seems to make sense. Choosing to blindly follow a mathematical summary of a long time period without digging into the more complicated details is a formula for self-deception. Accepting whatever method reinforces your favored theory is a sure sign of confirmation bias.
As for what happened prior to the 1940’s, it’s generally accepted that CO2 levels were not high enough during that period to have a significant effect on global temperatures. So yes, CO2 levels did rise during this period, but that hardly amounts to a meaningful correlation. And as for what happened during the first 15 years of the 21st century, I’ll once again refer you to the paper by Fyffe et al, co-authored by no other than Michael Mann, Benjamin Santer and Ed Hawkins. And no, one can’t easily ignore a 40 year period of NO warming smack dab in the center of the 20th century.
nigeljsays
Victor
“If you examine his scattergram carefully you’ll see that the diagonal indicating correlation appears only during the period of (roughly) 1979 through 1998 (though these dates are never explicitly indicated, which is why the graph is so misleading). Prior to the late 70’s and subsequent to 1998 we see either a quasi-random jumble or a flat line. A similar picture emerges from the scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe ”
The quasi random jumble in the scattergram before 1970s is not completely random. It still has a correlation. Pick up a book on interpreting scatterplots and using those criteria it still a low to average correlation. The period after the 1970’s has a very good correlation. So its logical to conclude the correlation for the entire period 1900 – 2021 is good. This being the period that interests us because emissions were rising.
Of course if you look at a cherrypicked period of for example just one decade the correlation between warming and CO2 is virtually nothing or very low because of all the temperature wobbles due variation due to el nino / la nina set against a relatively smooth CO2 trend. But only a twit would look at short term periods like that in isolation. You always look a bit longer term. Its about pattern detection. Which is what you are doing anyway.
“As for what happened prior to the 1940’s, it’s generally accepted that CO2 levels were not high enough during that period to have a significant effect on global temperatures. So yes, CO2 levels did rise during this period, but that hardly amounts to a meaningful correlation. ”
CO2 before the 1940s still caused some of that warming estimated at about 20%. You cant really just ignore that. Its not like it was only 1% of the warming. And the data before the 1940s still has an average correlation. Thats not insignificant or meaningless. The slopes of the lines differ but not by 90 degrees and the direction is the same.
The following three global temperature datasets show how strong and consistent the warming has been from the mid seventies until this year. Plot CO2 over this and theres obviously a good overall correlation.
“And no, one can’t easily ignore a 40 year period of NO warming smack dab in the center of the 20th century.”
Nobody is ignoring this. Its only in the land based data. There is some warming in the oceans. It is the main reason why the correlation between warming and CO2 for the entire century is not perfect and can only be categorised as an average to good correlation. But it doesn’t matter, because the cause and effect of CO2 on warming is well established from other evidence and laboratory studies, and we have good explanations why there is a flat period and poor correlation mid last century that don’t invalidate the greenhouse effect.
Stop talking about correlation as if you knew what you were talking about. You don’t. You can’t say what “amounts to a meaningful correlation” or what doesn’t, because you resolutely refuse to use the proper definition of “correlation.”
Ray Ladburysays
Isn’t it fascinating that you are still stuck in 2015. Maybe take a minute and catch up to the rest of us. Only an utter moron would fail to notice that the past 6 years have been VERY hot.
John Pollacksays
V: If you examine his (Grumbine’s) scattergram carefully you’ll see that the diagonal indicating correlation appears only during the period of (roughly) 1979 through 1998 (though these dates are never explicitly indicated, which is why the graph is so misleading).
J: There’s nothing misleading about directly relating CO2 levels to annual temperatures in a plot. CO2 levels are nonlinear and escalating, so the same linear correlation plot cannot accommodate both CO2 levels and the passage of time evenly. The relationship you’re examining is between CO2 levels and temperature, NOT time and temperature unrelated to CO2.
V: A similar picture emerges from the scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe
J: Wolfe’s scattergram is rendered more fuzzy by using monthly, rather than annual, readings. The sub-annual cycle only serves to produce a noisier chart. He also doesn’t “do the math.” He prefers instead to introduce two flat segments and a sharp upslope, without analyzing what the real slope is, even between those selected breakpoints. The analysis cuts off at about 405 ppm, corresponding to about 2017, thus omitting 4 rather warm years at the end that would show a continuing upward warming trend at odds with his flat line.
V: …if we choose to ignore the very clear lack of correlation prior to and after the last 20 years of the previous century…
J: Even if the last 20 years were a flat line (they aren’t) positive correlation would still be present. We are correlating temperatures with carbon dioxide levels, not time passage. To demonstrate a lack of correlation between temperatures and CO2, you would need to show that temperatures drop substantially after 2000, returning toward their early 20th century levels. That is, show us that despite high CO2 levels, temperatures have returned to below the 125 year average. In the real world, high temperatures are still associated with high CO2 levels. You are, instead, looking at the relationship between temperature and elapsed time, and then assuming that a deviation from your preferred slope in the graph constitutes a “lack of correlation” with CO2.
You have demonstrated convincingly that the relationship between temperature and elapsed time is not unwavering, either on an annual or decadal basis. In fact, it’s nonlinear, has multiple causes, and its covariance (or perceived lack therof) with CO2 cannot be adequately evaluated by chopping a time/temperature graph into pleasing segments for sub-analysis.
Victor the troll,
It is cruel to allow a moronic idiot to prattle on about something he hasn’t the first understanding about. So maybe I should set you straight on this particular demented effort of yours.
The concept of a “methodological artifact” is seen applied within the social sciences (and seemingly applied in quite a precise way which bears no relation to your application of the term). However, that is not to say that a scientific finding could be in error with the result being an artifact (in the sense of “a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures.”) cannot occur in other sciences. As your objections do not extend to the validity of the CO2 & temperature data, when you acclaim to problems with “the statistics allegedly supporting it is based on”, you are presumably concerned with some use of these data.
So where is this problem?
You seem again to be complaining about the plotting of Global-Temperature against Atmospheric-CO2 but there is no statistics involved in such a presentation.
Or perhaps it is the application of OLS to determine a linear relationship between the two sets of data but if there are problems with such a method, you fail to explain what it is and the whole world is thus left in the dark.
I think the problem you have (yes it is your problem) is that the wobbles in the rising Global-Temperature are big enough for you to to see some other mechanism at work (which the wobbles undoubtedly result from) and thus to declare with no other supporting evidence that Atmospheric-CO2 therefore cannot correlated with Global-Temperature.
For folk who actually understand the concept of correlation, your position is bizarre. The wobbles which you find so troublesome within the 1850-2020 data (I use here BEST temperature data (sea ice using air temperature) & a GISS CO2 data set prior to the ESRL data 1959-to-date.) you usually describe as being those pre-1965 (if we ignore you ridiculous ‘hiatus’ bullshit concerning more recent times) but the correlation is pretty-much identical if this early 1850-1960 data is ignored. The correlation is even pretty-much identical just using the data for the period you have been prattling on here at RealClimate 2014-20.
What perhaps your cross-eyed analysis fails to address is that the correlation of Global-Temperature with Atmospheric-CO2 accounts for two-thirds of the variation in Global-Temperature at an annual level and five-sixth of the variation at a decadal level.
Of course, the physical basis for such a correlation is exceedingly simplistic but again you express no concern there.
So there continues to be zero basis whatever for all this bullshit you have been bombarding us with over the years. And for myself, I continue to be exceedingly charitable towards you in my responses to these arrant ramblings of a complete fuck-wit that you have presented here over the years.
John Pollacksays
I am in basic agreement with Nigel’s critique of 12/28, but the problem goes deeper. Your methodology is fundamentally flawed.
V: “While correlation might or might not indicate causation, lack of correlation all but rules it out.”
J: This is FALSE. Correlation is a measure of fit for a LINEAR relationship. If there is not a significant correlation, it can also mean that a causal relationship exists, but it is NONLINEAR, that your data is too “noisy” (other causes interfere with discerning the relationship) or that it is inappropriate to the case you are trying to make.
For example, if I take a long term average of the annual temperature cycle (the “normals”) for a site in the mid or high latitudes, and correlate it with the day of the year from 1 to 365, I would find that there is virtually no correlation! This is because the relationship is a nonlinear wave, and I am choosing an inappropriate way to look at it. However, I have to know something about the physics to know this is the case, or subject the day to alternative types of statistical analysis.
Correlation is a weak tool for establishing causality, or lack thereof.
In the case of finding the relationship between CO2 levels and surface temperatures, the appropriate time period to consider is annually averaged data or longer. This eliminates a “noisy” annual cycle that has nothing to do with the relevant relationship. It may also allow the longer-term fluctuations to be averaged through, such as variations in volcanic activity, human-released aerosols, and fluctuations in the rate of oceanic heat uptake and atmospheric exchange – e.g. El Nino.
There is no particular reason to expect a system with slow acting components, such as oceans and glaciers, to respond consistently on an annual basis. That’s an assumption on your part, and you haven’t justified it.
Your exclusive focus on correlation between measured surface temperature and CO2 levels as a measure of causality also makes you ignore other types of relevant evidence. These include paleoclimate data, oceanic heat storage, ice cores, radiation physics and satellite measurements, and modeling based on physical measurements. None of these is sufficient by itself, either, but to reject all of them suggests that your methodology includes throwing away as much good evidence as possible.
V: The scattergram offered by Grumbine (very similar to that provided by MA Rodger and implicitly endorsed by BPL) is misleading,
J: No, it’s a straightforward plot of the exact relationship you say you’re examining between CO2 levels and surface temperature. The points represent annual averages of each, which is appropriate. The correlation is a strong 0.76. The only thing possibly misleading is that the plot doesn’t continue to the present, which contains the six warmest years in the record (http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2020) and also have the highest CO2 levels. So, the correlation is understated, if anything!
You have noted the nonlinear relationship between time and CO2 levels. That’s an inherent weakness of running correlations. However, your hypothesis concerns temperature and CO2 levels, NOT elapsed time and temperature. Switching to the time/temperature plot, and using that to make inferences about CO2 is incorrect methodology. This is Nigel’s 5th objection, stated in my terms. And, yes, it’s a blatant error, but not the way you would have it.
James McDonaldsays
I recall reading a paper many years ago that indicated something like 40(?) well-placed weather stations would suffice to detect global warming over the past century. (I actually discussed it here, but no idea when.)
Now I can no longer locate it, and can’t even figure out a good way to search for it.
I think that was Nick Stokes on his blog https://moyhu.blogspot.com. I do not find the article right now and I do not remember it exactly, but he reduced the number of stations in steps down to 40. With 80 evenly distributed stations the result was almost the same at with all stations, but 40 was slightly too sparse?
siddsays
E. O. Wilson is dead.
Ray Ladburysays
So it goes.
He’ll be missed. That was a man who understood how science is done.
XRRCsays
Analysis: ( a year ago now) When might the world exceed 1.5C and 2C of global warming?
Zeke Hausfather – 04.12.2020 still publishing this data graphs etc today
Our analysis shows that:
– The world will likely exceed 1.5C between 2026 and 2042 in scenarios where emissions are not rapidly reduced, with a central estimate of between 2030 and 2032.
– The 2C threshold will likely be exceeded between 2034 and 2052 in the highest emissions scenario, with a median year of 2043.
– In a scenario of modest mitigation – where emissions remain close to current levels – the 2C threshold would be exceeded between 2038 and 2072, with a median of 2052.
plus: There are also notable differences between observational surface temperature records regarding how much global warming has occurred, both in the 1800s and in recent years. For example, the Berkeley Earth record shows that the world has already warmed by 1.25C since the pre-industrial (1850-1899) period, while the Met Office/UEA HadCRUT4 record only shows 1.06C warming over the same period.
of course everyone only half informed would already know that:
Global average surface temperatures in any given year are driven by a combination of long-term warming and short-term natural variability. The latter – driven by El Niño and La Niña events, or volcanic eruptions – can result in a year being up to 0.2C warmer or cooler than the trajectory of long-term human-caused warming. This means it is quite possible for humans to have only warmed the world by 1.3C – only slightly above where we are today – and see a single year that exceeds 1.5C. In fact, the World Meteorological Organization recently estimated that there is one-in-four chance that the world will exceed 1.5C for at least one year by 2025. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-when-might-the-world-exceed-1-5c-and-2c-of-global-warming
and plus the graphic illustration:
The figure below shows an example of this approach. It uses a smoothed average of observational temperature records up to 2020 and all of the different CMIP6 climate models running a particular scenario (SSP2-4.5; see below) after that point. Each climate model shows the warming from the year 2020.
and then there’s this shocking news:
When will global warming reach 1.5C?
To estimate when global temperatures are likely to exceed the 1.5C and 2C limits, both historical observations and the latest CMIP6 climate models are used – and then smoothed to remove year-to-year natural variability.
CMIP6 models are run for a wide range of future emission scenarios in different “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” (SSPs; see Carbon Brief’s explainer). Under more stringent mitigation scenarios, such as SSP1-1.9 and SSP2-2.6, global warming may never exceed 1.5C or 2C in some CMIP6 model runs.
and now the famous Dr. James Hansen is saying this:
23 December 2021
James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Pushker Kharecha
Understanding of short-term climate variability helps to illuminate long-term climate
trends and reveals that the 1.5°C global warming ceiling will be breached this decade. This
use of the word “short” is unrelated to the Big Climate Short that is being foisted on young
people by political leaders with the assistance of climate modelers.
The 2021 annual mean global temperature will fall almost smack on the 1970-2015 trend line.
So, can we continue to say that we are in a period of accelerated global warming? Yes, for sure,
based on knowledge of factors that cause most of the short-term global temperature variability.
Long-term change becomes more apparent, when we account for short-term variability.
and then says:
Taking account of these sources of short-term global temperature variability, and recognizing
that the growth rate of greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing has been relatively steady for the
past several decades, it’s clear that the 7-year period 2015-2021 is anomalously warm (Fig. 2).
As discussed in our July temperature update,4 the excessive warming can be traced to a reduction
of human-made aerosols; thus, the warming is the first payment in our Faustian aerosol bargain.
and then
In A Realistic Path to a Bright Future,10 one of us (JH) described UK Prime Minister Boris
Johnson’s claim that COP26 salvaged the chance to keep global warming below 1.5°C as “pure,
unadulterated bulls**t. There is now no chance whatever of keeping global warming below
1.5°C.” Johnson also said: “while there is still so much that needs to be done to save our planet,
we’ll look back at COP26 as the moment humanity finally got real about climate change.”11
Really? Where did he get that idea? Perhaps from COP26 President Alok Sharma, who, after
the summit, said12 “We can say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees within reach, but
its pulse is weak.” Where did Sharma derive his claim of credibility? From climate models?
Who was informing Sharma? It’s possible to get almost any answer from models by inserting
appropriate greenhouse gas scenarios, but models have a problem called GIGO: garbage in,
garbage out. Climate models are essential and valuable for understanding climate change, but
they form only one of the three legs of the tripod that climate knowledge stands firmly upon.
The other two are Earth’s paleoclimate history, which climate models must be consistent with,
and ongoing observations of climate forcing factors and climate system response.
plus he says:
Fig. 5. Annual growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing (red is trace gases, mainly CFCs).
RCP2.6 is a greenhouse gas scenario designed to keep global warming below 2°C.
All climate scenarios in early IPCC reports yielded global warming of well over 2C, which led
us to define an alternative scenario13 in 2000 with equal emphasis on air pollution and CO2. We
thought it would probably take more than half a century to phase off fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
By focusing on air pollutants methane, black carbon, and tropospheric ozone, as well as CO2, we
concluded that it was still possible to keep global warming from exceeding 2°C. The alternative
scenario had constant fossil fuel emissions in the first half of this century – which required an
increase of carbon-free energies such as renewables and nuclear power – and declining fossil fuel
emissions in the second half of the century. As described on page 13 of Bright Future,10 this
paper irritated the scientific community. A decade and a half later, the fifth IPCC Assessment
Report (AR5) defined four scenarios: RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) 2.6, 4.5, 6
and 8.5, where the number is the greenhouse gas forcing in 2100. RCP2.6 was defined so as to
keep global warming below 2°C; however, emissions growth after 2000 meant that the 2°C limit
could be met only by inserting a large dose of negative emissions.14
direct link to figure graph showing “estimate when global temperatures are likely to exceed the 1.5C and 2C limits, ”
Smoothed average of historical observations from NASA; NOAA; Met Office Hadley Centre/UEA; Berkeley Earth; Cowtan and Way from 1850-2020. Warming relative to 2020-2100 from smoothed versions of all currently available CMIP6 models running the SSP2-4.5 scenario
New science article report being promoted by Prof Michael E. Mann today says:
‘The Fuse Has Been Blown,’ and the Doomsday Glacier Is Coming for Us All
New data suggests a massive collapse of the ice shelf in as little as five years. “We are dealing with an event that no human has ever witnessed,” says one scientist. “We have no analog for this”
“One thing that’s hard to grasp about the climate crisis is that big changes can happen fast. In 2019, I was aboard the Nathaniel B. Palmer, a 308-foot-long scientific research vessel, cruising in front of the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica. One day, we were sailing in clear seas in front of the glacier. The next day, we were surrounded by icebergs the size of aircraft carriers.
As we later learned from satellite images, in a matter of 48 hours or so, a mélange of ice about 21 miles wide and 15 miles deep had cracked up and scattered into the sea. It was a spooky moment. ”
The long term (centuries) physical irreversible character of these processes is not yet widely known or understood by the public or politicians and so on. Are there technological options to preserve the ice sheets (WAIS/GIS)? No. I can’t imagine anyone seriously thinks there are. The heat gain of the ocean is too large already.
7. One critical aspect of the process of ice sheet melt is its irreversible character.
Irreversible means that it would take centuries to reverse the process and
restore the system back to its initial state. We are in a situation where the extra
heat from accumulated carbon dioxide (“CO2”) concentrations has created a
ticking time bomb for the planet’s ice sheets. Some of our ice sheets are
already in an unstoppable melt and disintegration. For example, two of
Greenland’s largest glaciers are in an irreversible melt. We are currently on a
pathway that will almost certainly lead to 3 m sea level rise from Greenland
if climate warming continues on its present path. The West Antarctic ice sheet
is already in a state of collapse, committing us to 1 m sea level rise from the
Amundsen Sea Embayment and possibly 3 m from the rest of the marine based
sector of West Antarctica. Thus, between the irreversible melting of portions
of Greenland’s and Antarctica’s ice sheets, humanity has already committed
itself to a 3-6 m rise in sea level.
8. Enormous irreparable damage has already been done, but there is even greater
damage that is still preventable if we act swiftly. The only way to prevent
additional ice sheet disintegration is to prevent further buildup of human-
caused CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and ultimately to
facilitate the drawdown through land-based sequestration of the
overaccumulation of CO2 that is heating the planet. There is only one effective
way to stop future planetary heating, and to do it quickly. It is to swiftly
transition away from burning fossil fuels and not invest in or continue to
support development of these energy sources that are melting our planet’s ice.
9. What we do today will influence the stability of ice sheets for the next 30-40
years with enormous consequences for the nation’s shorelines and marine
resources. Presently, we are on course to launch the ice sheets of Greenland
and Antarctica into multi-meter sea level rise. While we have passed the point
of return for some of these ice sheets, we cannot afford for others, like the
East Antarctic Ice Sheet, to follow the same fate. Every month of growing
CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere does more damage to the cryosphere and
leads to more sea level rise and more commitment to raise sea level rapidly in
decades to come. “
XRRCsays
K. von Schuckmann et al.: Sep. 2020
Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?
Abstract.
Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative imbalance at the top of the at-
mosphere which is driving global warming. This Earth energy imbalance (EEI) is the most critical number
defining the prospects for continued global warming and climate change. Understanding the heat gain of the
Earth system – and particularly how much and where the heat is distributed – is fundamental to understand-
ing how this affects warming ocean, atmosphere and land; rising surface temperature; sea level; and loss of
grounded and floating ice, which are fundamental concerns for society. This study is a Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) concerted international effort to update the Earth heat inventory and presents an updated assessment of ocean warming estimates as well as new and updated estimates of heat gain in the atmosphere, cryosphere and land over the period 1960–2018 …………
Our results also show that EEI is not only continuing, but also increasing: the EEI amounts to
0.87±0.12 W m−2 during 2010–2018. Stabilization of climate, the goal of the universally agreed United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and the Paris Agreement in 2015, requires that
EEI be reduced to approximately zero to achieve Earth’s system quasi-equilibrium. The amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere would need to be reduced from 410 to 353 ppm to increase heat radiation to space by 0.87 W m−2, bringing Earth back towards energy balance. This simple number, EEI, is the most fundamental metric that the scientific community and public must be aware of as the measure of how well the world is doing in the task of bringing climate change under control, and we call for an implementation of the EEI into the global stocktake based on best available science
Conclusions ……………………………………………………. The EEI is
the portion of the forcing that the Earth’s climate system has
not yet responded to (Hansen et al., 2005) and defines addi-
tional global warming that will occur without further change
in forcing (Hansen et al., 2017). Our results show that EEI
is not only continuing, but also increasing. Over the period
1971–2018 average EEI amounts to 0.47 ± 0.1 W m−2, but it
amounts to 0.87 ± 0.12 W m−2 during 2010–2018 (Fig. 8).
Concurrently, acceleration of sea-level rise (WCRP, 2018;
Legelais et al., 2020), accelerated surface warming, record
temperatures and sea ice loss in the Arctic (Richter-Menge
et al., 2019; WMO, 2020; Blunden and Arndt, 2020) and ice
loss from the Greenland ice sheet (King et al., 2020), and
intensification of atmospheric warming near the surface and
in the troposphere (Steiner et al., 2020) have been – for ex-
ample – recently reported. To what degree these changes are
intrinsically linked needs further evaluations.
Global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38 ±
0.1 ppm averaged over 2018 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019)
and 409.8 ± 0.1 ppm in 2019 (Blunden and Arndt, 2020).
WMO (2020) reports CO2 concentrations at the Mauna Loa
measurement platform of 411.75 ppm in February 2019 and
414.11 ppm in February 2020. Stabilization of climate, the
goal of the universally agreed UNFCCC (UN, 1992) and
the Paris Agreement (UN, 2015), requires that EEI be re-
duced to approximately zero to achieve Earth’s system quasi-
equilibrium. “
Roughly speaking, summarizing, The Earth’s Energy Imbalance was tracking ~0.4 W/m² before 2010 and now had increased during the past decade to about 0.9 W/m². This year it could reach above ~1.0 W/m², depending on the data from Sep-Dec. This relates to both Hansen and others commentaries about decreasing albedo likely due to reductions in shipping derived aerosols therefore increasing rates of global warming relative to actual emission increases (eg CERES data http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/July2021.pdf ); as well as the reports of increasing underwater melting of Antarctic and GIS ice shelves grounding lines etc etc etc.
Contributing authors/institutions:
Karina von Schuckmann1, Lijing Cheng2,28, Matthew D. Palmer3, James Hansen4, Caterina Tassone5,
Valentin Aich5, Susheel Adusumilli6, Hugo Beltrami7, Tim Boyer8, Francisco José Cuesta-Valero7,27,
Damien Desbruyères9, Catia Domingues10,11, Almudena García-García7, Pierre Gentine12,
John Gilson13, Maximilian Gorfer14, Leopold Haimberger15, Masayoshi Ishii16, Gregory C. Johnson17,
Rachel Killick3, Brian A. King10, Gottfried Kirchengast14, Nicolas Kolodziejczyk18, John Lyman17,
Ben Marzeion19, Michael Mayer15,29, Maeva Monier20, Didier Paolo Monselesan21, Sarah Purkey6,
Dean Roemmich6, Axel Schweiger22, Sonia I. Seneviratne23, Andrew Shepherd24, Donald A. Slater6,
Andrea K. Steiner14, Fiammetta Straneo6, Mary-Louise Timmermans25, and Susan E. Wijffels21,26
52 citations as recorded by crossref.
Cited by 65 recorded by Google
XRRCsays
Andrew Dessler
Pattern effect & committed warming remote seminar at CSU on Oct. 22, 2020
“….. you get a committed warming of 2.3 degrees. So what this says is that our best estimate of committed warming blows us through Paris. I mean not only do we not get anywhere close to 1.5 degrees C we don’t even stop at 2C, we’re well above two degrees. ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlolDdnSHCE&t=1340s
“…. it looks like most of the pattern effect is due to clouds… so we’re gonna take observations from 2000 to 2017 and this is what the cloud pattern of the cloud feedback looks like uh again this is a series and re-analysis and we’re going to look compare this to 26 cmip6 control runs …. most of the variability
in the climate over the 2000 to 2017 period is due to enso variations and an inner annual unforced
variability there’s not a huge climate trend, so that means that the the thing we should be comparing this to is unforced variability in the models and that’s the control runs … if we do that this is what it looks like and i would argue that these look quite similar so both of them show that there’s a positive cloud feedback region in the east pacific they both show this negative cloud feedback region kind of slicing spc into the indian ocean and both of them show below that you get this region of of high values.
so I as always the models amaze me i’m always impressed at how good the models do especially when you look at a model ensemble average, the models really do a fantastic job and so i think again this is another example the model is doing really a very nice job…. now but we’re interested in the pattern effect so how do we get the pattern effect out of the series data? what we’re going to do is we’re going to split the series data into two halves or split into two parts and we’re going to calculate the cloud feedback for period one and period two and then what i’m gonna do is move this dividing line around until i find a dividing line that gives me a big difference between the two periods and it turns out that the biggest one is if you split the data in July of 2010 and that gives you a cloud feedback from 2000 2010 of about zero and from 2010 to 2017 of about one that’s a big difference in cloud feedback ………………….” https://youtu.be/jlolDdnSHCE?t=1715
and then what ….. ?
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28
Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their predecessors. Do we trust them?
In this talk, I will discuss why climate sensitivities in the latest state-of-the-art models are substantially larger than in their predecessors. The primary culprit is clouds: Planetary warming causes low-level clouds to become less extensive and less reflective, inducing further warming – an amplifying feedback that has strengthened in the latest models. This stronger positive cloud feedback arises due to changes in model physics and may be related to improved representation of cloud ice and liquid water content. Given the prominence of low cloud feedback in driving uncertainty in climate sensitivity, I will then discuss our efforts to constrain the global marine low cloud feedback using satellite observations of how low cloud properties respond to meteorology. This work indicates that the observed sensitivity of low clouds to their environmental controls is incompatible with very high or very low values of climate sensitivity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8
Mark acknowledges Gavin S. with the Wolf Pack of “high ECS” ranges above 4.5K in CMIP6 models “…… really large sensitivities implying that maybe you know the world is in store for even greater warming than was
anticipated prior and so that’s really a motivation for looking at whether we believe these high sensitivity models but first i want to just establish what’s causing these higher climate sensitivities and of course based on my motivation you’ll you can imagine that it’s relevant to feedbacks …..” see here https://youtu.be/hv6nsvsGGr8?t=1257
and continuing at 24.40 mins https://youtu.be/hv6nsvsGGr8?t=1479
this is really the the main reason that the
the climate sensitivity has increased in cmip6
just to hammer this home in case it’s
not obvious what I’m talking about
this is what the planet looks like and
so if you compare that to a planet with
no clouds it’s much darker so obviously
climate models aren’t totally wiping
away clouds but they’re essentially
going in that direction where you have
a planet that’s highly reflective and
you’re moving towards one that’s
slightly less reflective so that is
occurring per unit of global warming
so with every degree of warming
you’re getting more absorbed short
wave radiation from the reduction in
cloud cover or reflectivity so the
warming essentially begets more
warming from the cloud changes
and this effect has strengthened in
the latest models (CMIP6) ……
[ …… of course there are other interactions going on as well all the time. such as ebb and flow of enso, the decrease in aerosols due to the changes made to shipping bunker oil being used, which also reduces cloud coverage slightly as well the last 5 years. meanwhile the world keeps on warming and wild fires are emitting more CO2 and other pollutants too while reducing albedo slightly more again for a period until regrowth, except that overall global rainforest destruction is still rapidly increasing to record levels which also decreases albedo permanently and changes the tropical cloud forming mechanisms. There is more of course, and everything adds up and everything is also connected in a way that is impossible to keep up with and take a snapshot and say “this is reality – this is what is happening exactly.” GCMs are great but they are still only hypothetical best practice estimates/delayed experiments (looking in a rear vision mirror most of the time) , that are unable to keep up to date with real world observations and the dynamic at times unexpected changes which are occurring in this destabilized real world climate scenario in real time. Meaning the target is always moving and no one is able to pin it down. Flexibility and fluidity of thinking is key here I believe while continually seeking credible observational updates and analyses for due consideration. I also think the knowledge updates are now far outpacing the IPCC system’s 5-6 year regular timelines making their reports more and more outdated every year and unsatisfactory. ]
UAH TLT has been posted for November with a global anomaly of +0.08ºC, down on October’s anomaly of +0.37ºC which is the highest-of-the-year. UAH TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range -0.05ºC to +0.37ºC with November the =5th warmest monthly anomaly of the year so far.
November 2021 was =10th warmest November on the UAH record, behind Novembers 2019 (+0.42ºC), 2020, 2016, 2017, 2015, 2009, 1990, 2018, 2014 and equal to November 2002.
November 2021 sits =122nd on the highest all-month monthly UAH TLT anomaly list.
The first eleven months of 2021 still comes in as the 7th warmest year-so-far on the UAH record. For 2021 to snatch 2010’s 6th place in the full-year rankings would now require UAH’s Dec 2021 to average a rather improbable +0.91ºC or more. (The highest UAH TLT monthly anomaly currently sits at +0.70ºC.)
Dropping down to 8th behind 2015 would require UAH’s Dec 2021 to average a more likely +0.22ºC or less, while to further drop below 8th place 2018, Dec 2021 would need to drop below -0.35ºC, something not seen in a December UAH TLT anomaly since 1992.
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
1998 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2019 .. +0.29ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2010 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2021 .. +0.13ºC
2015 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 9th
2018 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.04ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 13th
2014 .. +0.04ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 12th
Couple of recent scientific papers of possible interest:
Multi-decadal increase of forest burned area in Australia is linked to climate change
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27225-4
Observed increases in extreme fire weather driven by atmospheric humidity and temperature
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01224-1
Communications in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report cycle
Here’s the link: Communications in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report cycle
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-021-03233-7
https://twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1464260571344347141
My impressions exactly, but more intense, and close-up.
Oh yeah! It’s all the media’s fault. Could not possibly be that humans like eating crops planted, fertilized, harvested, transported, processed, packaged, transported again and again with FFs. Could not possibly be that humans liked their electricity even if it was generated by FFs. Could not possible be that humans like their homes heated with FFs so they didn’t have to wear parkas indoors and melt ice for water over a wood fire – nah, could not possibly be that. Could not possibly be that humans liked getting in their toasty automobile sitting on that cushy foam seat, and turning up that heat or AC to MAX all the way to work RATHER than having to get on their bike and ride 15 miles to their job each day when it’s raining, snowing, cold, or hotter than the blue blazes of heII – nah, couldn’t be that. Could not possibly be that humans liked going on vacation and driving 3000 miles with the monster camper, or flying 12,000 miles round trip to their big vacation adventure. Could not possibly be because corporations had their employees flying everywhere on earth 3 times per month for meetings that could have been done over the phone or ZOOM – nah, that couldn’t be it. Could not possibly be that we liked all the plastic crap we buy from China, even if it is made with slave labor using coal fired electricity, then shipped across the big blue pond on FF burning ships, loaded on to FF burning trucks, taken to the store heated/cooled with FFs, then the consumer drives in their FF powered car to pick it up – nah, IT’S THE MEDIA’S FAULT.
:)
Don’t get me wrong – the leftist media are a bunch of lying ignorant communists, selling FAKE NEWS 24/7/365 and that goes double for PBS, etc, but they have almost nothing to do with our use of FFs. We use FFs because they work to do what needs to be done. Most folks think food on the table and a roof over the head are kind of important and FFs have been used to provide those things.
A. You have absolutely no clue what the word “communism” means. You use it because others have used it and because it sounds so scary it affirms your ignorance and hate. Oh, excuse me, I should have written “IGNORANCE AND HATE” since your type seems to think all capital letters means more.
B. It is quite good to see how those of us who understand the scientific method “own” (another misused term by your ilk) you though! Witness your use of capital letters over and over again.
C. Keep flaunting your ignorance. You are doing a great job. Both with science and lack of critical thinking skills. But you are good are regurgitating what others tell you to think to give you affirmation.
KIA: the leftist media are a bunch of lying ignorant communists
BPL: Unless you mean “leftist” in its technical, political science sense, all you are doing here is revealing that you don’t know what “Communist” actually means.
I am pretty sure Monbiot was not thinking of PBS when he said what he said in the short clip.
But thanks awfully old chap for the self-expose of what great Troll you are, and how truly stupid and clueless you really are. Do keep trying to be clever ….
And Mr. KIA conclusively proves that he doesn’t have sufficient attention span even for a tweet, while at the same time that every thought in his tiny, little mind got there via Faux News.
Youre an idiot KIA. Nothing you have said has falsified the statements in the video, and that the media is downplaying the climate problem and downplaying the use of fossil fuels . Here it is again:
https://twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1464260571344347141
I keep hoping you’ll just go away.
Yes, and the worst parts of it are still doing it, the social media giants as well. The thing is though they are more or less one and the same – the fossil fuel industry and the corp media – they are tied at the hip – like Siamese twins or Kissing Cousins or members of the same Elite Club …
Climate scientists may want to increase their modeled GHG emissions from Australia.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-03/satellites-are-challenging-australias-coal-mining-industry/100663676
What next!?!? They’ll probably come up with some virus variant and call it the OmiGAWD variant or something!
:)
KIA: They’ll probably come up with some virus variant and call it the OmiGAWD variant or something!
BPL: So KIA is a COVID denier as well as a climate denier. I’m sure we’re all shocked at this wholly unexpected turn of events.
Ha ha ha ho ho ho. OMG you’re on fire today, not!
I can’t say that I was particularly surprised by that report of satellite measurements showing that Australia’s estimates of fugitive methane emissions from coal mining might be serious underestimates.
The main emission areas shown in the satellite data appear to be the Bowen Basin and the Hunter Valley coal mining regions.
What next!?!? They’ll probably come up with some virus variant and call it the OmiGAWD variant or something!
:)
You’d make a great lab rat. In fact, you should change your moniker to that since you’re anti science and knowledge.
For anyone sick of Mr Know it All’s right wing extremist rants, this is a good antidote:
https://www.thejuicemedia.com/
It is not his rants per se if they had any basis for discussion. It is his blatant flaunting of his ignorance of science (he still has not learned the scientific method that he ought to have learned in grade school) , his intellectual laziness, his denial of facts, and his lazy regurgitation of blatant lies since he needs affirmation. Someone truly failed when bringing him up.
It’s more the fact that the moderators continue to allow him to post his drivel instead of shutting him down.
^This x 1000! :-)
I put up a new version of my web page on how to estimate planet temperatures, if anyone’s interested:
https://bartonlevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps3.html
Re: post by Reality Check. .
1. Piotr Nov28: “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.”
Reality C: “ Well, that is totally false…”
Prove it. The onus is of the proof is on the accuser: “ toxic poison from P.” “Comments like this turn the place into a sewer” [ (c) Reality C. Nov 29])
2. Piotr 28 Nov: “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.”
Reality C: “ this missive, Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy …or whatever it is” […] “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about what Killian said”. […]No where does Killian say engineering of entire ecosystems etc “.
Sheesh, I even capitalized for you the important word there: “the one REQUIRED by Killian’s argument”, not “the one spelled out by Killian”. In any discussion you can criticize opponents EITHER for what they wrote, OR, for what they failed to see. The latter points out the logical gaps in their argument, i.e. it is NOT a “lie” about that argument (“Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about t what Killian said” (c) Reality C.) Somebody patronizingly lecturing others: “ sharpen up your reading comprehension/memory ” should have known this.
3. Reality C: “ I was NOT defending Killian or his reply post/s – Wrong again!”
Sure, when you REPLY to my post by writing RC: “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)
then it has NOTHING to do with Killian’s “arguments” my post was …. replying to…
And I could have gone through the rest of the Reality C.’s many pages of misunderstandings, willful misrepresentations, and baseless accusations,
but who has THAT kind of time,..
Piotr
====
^* a few gems of Killian’s points from the post I was replying to when attacked by Reality C.:
“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 […] like this gem of dung”,” Your bigotry is way too clear”, [you are willing to say any stupid crap”
If Piotr is talking about the ancient malawi people circa 85K he could be right. The related research paper does not seem to contradict what he’s saying. I’ve just found it and scanned through and it talks about anthropogenic (deliberate) use of fire but doesn’t really say anything more specific. Being so long ago it was probably just to flush out animals. Really quite an interesting read.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099189/
However peoples like Australia’s Aboriginees eventually used fire for wider purposes that better fit the definition of ecosystem modification. I think RC makes a fair point there.
Hi, You have likely missed this comment; and quotes – it included another link to the paper Killian was quoting from: Early human impacts and ecosystem reorganization in southern-central Africa
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
Reality Check says 30 Nov 2021 at 8:45 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798426
re “The related research paper does not seem to contradict what he’s saying.”
I think it does. check my comments above link. your interpretation may vary. no problem.
but a research paper and quotes in context is usually better than an off the cuff throw away line. there are other papers too as already posted here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/unforced-variations-nov-2021/#comment-798176 plus more on google scholar for anyone interested in the topic.
lets not forget this
@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
Killian’s comment made perfect sense in context with the paper he quoted and it’s take away conclusions. Piotr complete contradicts the findings of that research and of many others across all populated continents. imho. ymmv. that’s fine by me.
Reality check. I agree the research paper on the milawi people does include a discussion section discussing the deliberate use of fire for various purposes, but it was a general discussion on a wide range of uses of fire through a wide range of hunter gatherer societies including relatively modern ones. It did not state that the milawi people per se used fire for deliberate, planned ecosystem modification. I think the problem is the paper wasn’t too clear what applied to what.
PS yes i think that’s right. i had another look nigel and can see it can be read differently, there’s some subtle wording there, it;s not totally clear, not as clear as I first thought it was. i also noticed P first response wasn’t that badly worded, it was his second one after k replied that I was responding to as over the top. so i got that wrong in haste. but i still fond Ks comments about the paper and what the quote etc indicated as being quite reasonable takeaways from the get go. but, as they say, ‘whatever’
Nigel: “ If Piotr is talking about the ancient malawi people circa 85K he could be right. […] However peoples like Australia’s Aboriginees eventually used fire for wider purposes that better fit the definition of ecosystem modification. I think RC makes a fair point there.”
The point might have been fair, IF we had discussed Australia Aboriginees. But we didn’t – the discussion Reality C. joined was about Killian’s claims about the people around Lake Malawi 85 kya:
Killian Nov.8: “ This paper explores the anthropogenic effect on landscape especially beginning around 85k ya around Lake Malawi.”
In fact, it was the very fact of being “ that far back in time ” that was the Killian’s stated reason for bringing it up here:
“Killian Nov. 8”: 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 [here K. presents what he sees as implications of the imapcts around Malawi 85kya to the current and near future].
So when Reality C. joined the discussion about Malawi 85 kya, his insightful and meticulously documented claims about 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”
– “ this missive, Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
– “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about what Killian said”
were clearly NOT about Australia Aboriginees, but about Killian’s claims about the people
“around 85k ya around Lake Malawi”.
.
So in the discussion about Killian’s claims about people around Malawi 85ky, Reality C. does not have a point, and “fair” is … not the first adjective that comes to mind.
Exhibit A
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
I rest my case.
I also provided refs to other indigenous peoples in different times doing the same kind of things …. and what Killian was saying was pretty much reflected in all those papers, as well as Australian aborigines back 65K years not only in 1788, in the Malawi 85K paper especially and all the others.
His comment was fair and reasonable and logical (and I might add understandable given the context overall).
It was Piotr who first introduced the abusive ad hominem toxic vitriol commentary and has continued it a week later.
My key points in my first response stand as is:
– “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”
– “ this missive, Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
– “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying about what Killian said”
My other comments further support these comments and that what Killian introduced here was valid and reasonable … even if everyone disagrees with that kind of conclusion or his projection of it into today’s world. But he was not being an ass hat nor abusive of anyone.
Killian made a fairly simple point. And that’s it.
Correct. Excellent rebuttals.
Unfortunately, this board is not dominated by sense and sensibility. Piotr is the worst troll on these boards being the only remaining true troll that commonly posts. Denialists aren’t actually trolls in the original sense of the word, they’re propagandists. Piotr typically is not only not called to account, but is encouraged and supported by others no matter how much an affront to logic and decency he presents.
It is good to see him called at least occasionally, and without getting into the muck!
Great work.
K: Piotr is the worst troll on these boards
BPL: And you are the biggest paranoid.
K: Piotr is the worst troll on these boards
BPL: And you are the biggest paranoid.
And that makes you the second biggest, And a liar. He consistently only responds to troll. Just as you do here and consistently also *only* do. So, that’s tolling, gaslighting and lying all in one sentence.
At least you’re efficient.
Reality Check: “Exhibit A
ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776. I rest my case”.
You won’t weasel out that easily, Before you pat yourself on the back and rest on Killian laurels, FIRST your have to put your money where your mouth is: by QUOTING from your source the passage that PROVES:
“ 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.”
And ONLY the unequivocal QUOTE proving that would make the necessary (but far from sufficient) condition for your character assassination:
– “ Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
– “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”
Reality C., earlier in this thread
Killian; Dec 9. : “ Correct. Excellent rebuttals .
Let’s see:
– Piotr about Killian’s interpretation of the Science paper about people around Malawi 85kya: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
“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.
Reality C. joins in with the Excellent Rebuttals (c):
– “ Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy”
-” 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”
– “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying”
And the only PROOF that Reality C. could came up was to …repeat after Nigel the link to … the very Science paper we have discussed here since November ;
“Exhibit A: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776. I rest my case.”
Reality C.: Dec . 7
And then on the (Dec). 7th day, still excited from discovering the wheel (here: “Exhibit A”), Reality C. rested from all the work of Excellent Rebuttals that He had accomplished. And He saw that it was good… ;-)
Not very academic, I must say
There is a rule aqbout “ad hominem” that may be well appliciable here.
It often shows up when people lack methodic aquaintance with the subject or with reality as such
To my opinion, Homo Sapiens has set fire to the terrain as long as they walked on earth, and this is known and disgussed in other connections. On finding charcoal and burnt “horizons” in holocene sediments, humans are allways suspected, thus it is really nothing new either. I once discussed it with an experienced German archaeologist, In fact, it is a rather “sure” mark of human presence in the terrain.
But, If I could only be introduced to the further purpose of that Lake Malavi argument, then even I might be able to participate on the matter, and help you make it less than a sewer also.
re – Carbo mont anus says 12 Dec 2021 at 3:29 PM
I think I’ll throw a party the first time I manage to understand anything you say.
re – Piotr says 12 Dec 2021 at 1:25 PM
Whatever! The first step is admitting you need help.
Reality Check 13 DEC:
“re – Carbo mont anus says 12 Dec 2021 at 3:29 PM”
Whau, isolating “anus” in the opponent’s Internet name. That will put him in his place! Powerful stuff! And yet – still full of class… ;-)
Then again. not surprising. Earlier in the very same thread:
Piotr: “Except, the early [85 kya around L. Malawi] people didn’t use the fire to effect long-term [the discussed paper looks at changes over the scale of “thousands of year”]
intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem”
Killian: “you are still steeped in the pile of dung”, “unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science”, “this gem of dung” ,
Reality Check joins in, characterizing
– Killian’s response as “a sensible comment”, “Killian’s comment made perfect sense”
– my (falsifiable) argument as: “ The bigotry and ignorant anti-science position of Piotr shows up here” “That extremely biased ignorant fact-free comment”
And lectures … me, on “ turning the place into a sewer ;-)
Ladies and Gentlemen – Mr. Reality Check!
@ R.Check m 13 Dec 221 at 540
Then we alol wilol have to wait for a while for that thrown party.
As John Herron , retired Royal Army mil. officer and artist once said to me: A big laughter and: “The will of understanding must also be there!”
It was about understanding what I had been writing if you rather are a humble obedient arshole and have a Mandate and an Agenda.
It was the same organized entitled and trained class warfare and struggle against all that enables us to orientate and to understand, that is so hated and feared and fought among the racketeers.
Just write some tense alian words to them such as “Nitric acid, Pi, Tangens Alpha, Pnevma and Theta epsilon,..” and you can be sure that they smash down the iron curtain. by socially tribal militant routine.
@Piotr 14 Dec 2021 at 9:13 AM
When floating above a sewer it’s natural to call out the dysfunctional trolls and name the smelly little turds like you and carbo floating by. Feel free to carry on with your multiple Tourretts outbursts. It suits you perfectly. Plus the moderators clearly like it and you personally. Which is why they keep publishing what you say. They apparently enjoy seeing you so bent out of shape. (shrug)
“***@Piotr 14 Dec 2021 at 9:13 AM
When floating above a sewer it’s natural to call out the dysfunctional trolls and name the smelly little turds like you and carbo floating by. Feel free to carry on with your multiple Tourretts outbursts. It suits you perfectly. Plus the moderators clearly like it and you personally. Which is why they keep publishing what you say. They apparently enjoy seeing you so bent out of shape. (shrug)***”
I approve this message.
Surprisingly sharp bite you took there. It will have zero impact. Rational discourse pretty much never does for what remains of the Peanut Gallery, which perhaps now should be renamed The Trollish Few as most have stepped away from this mode of argument on these boards.
No, he couldn’t. And neither are you. It’s quite specific even in the beginning of the paper:
Fire is known both ethnographically and archaeologically as an engineering tool for resource manipulation, including improvement of subsistence returns or modification of raw materials, with these activities often associated with communal planning and requiring substantial ecological knowledge (2, 12, 13). Landscape-scale fires allow hunter-gatherers to drive game, control pests, and enhance productivity of habitat (2). On-site fire facilitates cooking, warmth, predator defense, and social cohesion (14).
That’s a lot of systemic effects. From further down (which, despite your claim to have read, either you skimmed rather than read or did not understand what you read):
We use a climate anomaly approach (29) to analyze paleoecological and paleoclimatic data from the drill cores before and after 85 ka and test the hypothesis that the ecological relations among vegetation, species richness, and precipitation became decoupled from predictions derived from the presumably purely climate-driven baseline pattern of the preceding ~550 ka. This transformed ecological system was influenced by both lake infilling precipitation conditions and fire occurrence, as reflected in a species-poor and novel vegetation assemblage. Only some forest elements recovered after the last arid period, and these included fire-tolerant components of the Afromontane forest such as Olea, and hardy components of tropical seasonal forest such as Celtis (Supplementary Text and fig. S5)
Note the fire-resistant strains? Very unlikely to be an accidental outcome. They had seen what fire killed and did not kill for thousands of years. And there were long-term effects:
In contrast, samples dating to after 85 ka cluster away from the majority of pre-85-ka samples and have a different average value, showing that their composition is unusual for similar precipitation conditions. Their position in the PCoA reflects the influence of Olea and miombo, both of which are favored under more fire-prone conditions.
…We found that variation and covariation found in this data matrix are statistically significantly different before and after 85 ka
Ergo: These show that despite high lake levels, the landscape had transitioned to one dominated by open canopy woodland and wooded grassland, much as today (25).
Using a climate anomaly approach (29), we attribute human activity as a key driver in shaping the landscape of northern Malawi over the course of the Late Pleistocene.
And so on.
Try to remember two things:
1. That you do not understand does not mean something of significance has not been said, nor that it is not more momentous than you are capable of comprehending.
2. Knee-jerk defenses of Piotr, given he quite literally only responds to my posts in the posture of the classic definition of trolling, will only make you look like a Piotr simp, and a simpleton. It also makes you guilty of the same thing.
I’d think twice before speaking in both cases were I you.
3. The correct response from you would have been to call Piotr out for trolling. But, you never do that. Quite literally. Thus, your intentions are clearly suspect.
Cheers
Something is insane here.
It seems that he is very convinced of his own clairvoyance, also when it comes to reading other peoples thoughts or look into their consciousness, allthough he is rather not.
There are certain rules and tricks in order to call upon peoples attension Genosse Killian, and to make them listen and read and look even against their will. But if you try and sell your nativistic biochar ideology this way, you should hardly have any success.
The kentucky “bread basked” and ukrainian cernosem has its geophysical and chemical premises. The Eiffel- vulcanism with europes best wine and fruit- gardens are not results of “Biochar” culture that only seems relevant under heavily Kaolinized tropic conditions.
The antroposophers recommend “Basaltmehl” in their biodynamic composts for that reason.. Here where I live it is irrelevant and would only destroy, disturb, and stupidify.
Your class struggle against what you seem to be lacking and missing, Baccalaureus 1 and Gay Lussacs Justus von Liebigs, Carl von Linnes and C. Darwins learnings must be turned off first. That is where you will have to begin in any case and that is where you can specify and adapt yourself in relation to.
Killian, I’m not going to call Piotr out for “trolling” when he is not trolling. Criticising your point of view is not trolling. There was nothing abusive or wildly inflammatory in his comments. He was not claiming all ancient people didn’t do planned ecosystem modification.
You say the research paper shows the Milawi people deliberately used fire. I agree but its not clear what for. Piotrs point was ( I assume) this may have just been to flush out animals rather than engage in some sort of planned long term ecosystem modification. It wouldn’t be farming so long ago. It may have been to grow forage crops but we don’t know. The real problem is the paper was a bit unclear.
Killian, I’m not going to call Piotr out for “trolling” when he is not trolling.
So his lapdog thinks he’s a fair master.
Got it.
I.e,, you never have regardless how clear and egregious. You have no objectivity here.
Killian. I have plenty of objectivity. You have still not proven Piotr was trolling. You can never or rarely substantiate your claims. He was sarcastic yes, but no more so than you.
Nigel: “Criticising your point of view is not trolling. There was nothing abusive or wildly inflammatory in his comments. You say the research paper shows the Malawi people deliberately used fire. I agree but its not clear what for. Piotr’s point was this may have just been to flush out animals rather than engage in some sort of planned long term ecosystem modification. It wouldn’t be farming so long ago
Nigel, stop spreading “ toxic poison [that] turns the place into a sewer” (c) Reality C. Nov 29. Praised as “ Correct. Excellent rebuttals” by the very same guy who just responded to you with this gem:
Killian: “So his lapdog thinks he’s a fair master.
Speaking of which, I wonder what Reality Check makes of Killian’s reply to you. Another: “sensible comment […] Killian’s comment made perfect sense”?
[A muffled loudspeaker in the background:] “Reality check for a customer in lane 3, Reality check for lane 3”.]
Trolling is for children. Be better.
Do read from a link provided by RC: Modern humans act as powerful agents of ecosystem transformation. They have extensively and intentionally modified their environments for tens of millennia, leading to much debate about when and how the first human-dominated ecosystems arose (1). A growing body of archaeological and ethnographic evidence shows substantial, recursive interactions between foragers and their environments that suggest that these behaviors were fundamental to the evolution of our species (2–4).
1. Piotr Nov28: “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.”
Reality C: “ Well, that is totally false…”
Prove it. The onus is of the proof is on the accuser: “ toxic poison from P.” “Comments like this turn the place into a sewer” [ (c) Reality C. Nov 29])
Already did. Why lie? The date for intentional manipulation of the environment by humans has now been pushed back beyond even the 65k years already established to 85k years and really kicking in at closer to 75k, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776?fbclid=IwAR0qrsDCy2Rz17y6iiX9laX7ogoOBPchfaSn7bSYRTIhsqqH9UltmlUNWCA
BTW, you are the accuser. The fact was stated, you refuted. Rather, attempted to. And, yes, I state unabashedly, it is your bias causing this; the evidence linked above was already provided.
And to accomplish it, 85 ky ago, without the benefit of modern science and with hardly any technology.”
What a load of ignorance you have dumped here. “Modern” science. I love (hate) the arrogance that the concept of observing, hypothesizing, testing observing outcomes and analyzing those outcomes then repeating if necessary in the case of a failed hypothesis requires anything “modern.”
Ecosystem: I said they modified their ecosystems without breaking them. This is accurate. The degree of change over what area, etc., was not stated. Straw Man.
To Kevin re how do we know about Australia being co-created:
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/pre-colonial-australia-natural-wilderness-or-gentleman-s-park
And do, please, bear in mind humans have been in Australia at least 50k years.
great ref and one of those early “parklands type” paintings i had in mind but could not find earlier. ty
“A further, and more problematic misconception, is that the country’s traditional owners were primitive hunters and gatherers who wandered the land relying on chance for survival. “
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/pre-colonial-australia-natural-wilderness-or-gentleman-s-park
Professor Marcia Langton is an expert in the field always worth heeding:
“For me, an audience of one, Bill Gammage’s book was a eulogy for a lost place albeit a eulogy studded with historical and scientific detail.”
for example for those who don;t go look or see the end of the article ….
“If you’ve ever stood in the path of a wild fire burning inexorably towards you, as I have, you’ll appreciate the sheer terror it engenders,” says Professor Langton.
“With climate change creating havoc in bushfire prone areas around the world, we would all do well to learn from the cold-fire burning and scrub clearing practices Aboriginal people have perfected over millions of years, and have been so beautifully and painstakingly explained by Bill Gammage in his great book, The Biggest Estate on Earth.”
Ladies and Gentlemen
I forgot to mentionn that also Pyromania and Pyro- philia.
That may indeed explain recent wildfires also, and they blame it on the climate.
I don’t know about the causes of the more recent US and European summer wildfires, but the overwhelming majority of the bushfires in Australia’s Black Summer (2019-2020) were not deliberately lit or suspected of being deliberately lit:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022
“Only about 1 per cent of the land burnt in NSW [New South Wales] this bushfire season can be officially attributed to arson, and it is even less in Victoria” (Those two states were the worst affected by the fires)
“None of SA’s [South Australia’s] deadliest or most destructive fires are being treated as suspicious.”
“The Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) said 3 per cent of the bushfires in the state this season were deliberately lit.”
“The DFES said 449 of the 1,537 bushfires across [Western Australia] between November 1 and January 14 were considered suspicious or were deliberately lit.”
“Tasmania is the only state where arson has allegedly been the overwhelming cause of fires.
Authorities attributed almost two-thirds of the blazes burning on the state’s east coast and in the south since late December to arson.”
From the Wikipedia entry about the fires season:
“[T]he fires burnt an estimated 18.6 million hectares (46 million acres; 186,000 square kilometres; 72,000 square miles), destroyed over 5,900 buildings (including 2,779 homes) and killed at least 34 people.” That’s a total area about the size of Syria; quite a bit more than the area of Greece.
“Nobody cares what things seem like to you”
To all and everyone: Such it seems an l,ooks from that extra- solar and illusionary solar system s point of wiew, in ones own plans and mind and firm in virtual reality.
with solid and safe error bars also.
C: I forgot to mentionn that also Pyromania and Pyro- philia.
That may indeed explain recent wildfires also, and they blame it on the climate.
BPL: There has always been forest-fire arson. It doesn’t explain why gigantic forest fires are now so common. There is no reason to believe the number of arsonists has increased. Climate change has resulted in drier conditions over large areas of forest, making forest fires, when they do exist, last longer and burn more area. Climate change is very much involved. Please don’t spread denialist tropes here.
I have not been spreading denialist tropes Doctor Levenson, just made aware of human relations and attitudes to fire that ought to be well known first if we shall dig into and discuss fossile firemarks in the terrain.
Todays Pyromania and philia may very well be as much as relict habits and instincts astray due to that well known archaic human praxis.
Militant agressive burning of other peoples possible houses, resources and vital natural premises is very well known history, Those who take to such methods may also be able to judge the right season and moment and weather and even climate,.. and tell afterwards that they did the right and the best thing. Deeply destructive human instincts and manners is also reality plus that ERRARE HVMANVM EST. To be especially remembered in todays situation.
As I have mentioned it here earlier, B.P=.Levendon does not seem to me to be the most realistic thinker and teacher.. As if he is living in his own and illusoric planetary system.
resources and
Please get rid of this denier troll from these pages. He’s an idiot!
C: As I have mentioned it here earlier, B.P=.Levendon does not seem to me to be the most realistic thinker and teacher.. As if he is living in his own and illusoric planetary system.
BPL: Nobody cares what things seem like to you.
MODERATORS!
Please get rid of Mr. Know It All.. For the love of God and everything holy! Just give us some relief., I beg you.
Thanks and Blessings.
I’m not religious, I’ve simply run out of options.
Genosse Chuck
SYM-PASSIA!
Religious is something that we are, thus get order in your religions and reduce their numbers to the absolute minimum at least. That shows to be the clean way. Merry christmas, get cunningly through it and observe IN DULCI JUBILO. Look up for the real and true light and beware of immitations avoid any commercial “christmas” decorations.. And we whish you a happy new year.
Ludwig Wittgensten wrote:
If nothing silly and mad ridiculous is done or said or written, then nothing right and good an understood and healthy can be done either.
I interpreete and keep Dr. Knowitall that way. He is not the worst.
There you can see, whenh you run out of options, you fall back on that.
It is the same here.
But what shall we do with those who know it all and thus hardly are adressible?
I believe that FISCVS, QVÆSTOR, CREDITOR, together with SATAN is sharply after them and will take them and stew them in any case.
“But what shall we do with those who know it all and thus hardly are adressible?”
Yes ok.
What are people to do with you Carbonontanus?
lol
Hardly any problem Hr Check if you only resign on your instructions and mandate and rather let the people free to decide for themselves if they dare to. I am adressable as far as I can. I know a lot, which may be scary enough, but I do not know it all.
By the way, you discuss the bloody history of New England.
We were at a local lecture given by our former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland Labours, who were then Chairman of the Nobel price comittee and then emplyed at the Strassboug court of Human Rights, the European human rights convention.
He had a lot of things to remind us of in terms of the history of international law and conventions and how that has meant something in sub- sequent political and military history ever since the peace treaty of Westfalen.
Things are not learnt and remembered. How many victims during the D- day in Normandy?
But we never learn that Stalins red army had even more victims as they fought meter for meter after the crossing of the river Dnjepr in Ukraina.
And a word from Willy Brandt, former Bundeskansler and nobel peace price winner for his eastern negotiations. Spoken over 2 bottles of wine uphill Bonn Bad Godesberg looking down on the Rhine- bridge crossing:
“How many victims how much war cruelty all over this area….. but you see genosse Torbjørn ( as they both were social democrats) if the jews begin to vanish and disappear…… and if you just look in the opposite direction to feel safe….then it will also catch up you sooner or later!”
Which is what happened.
Wherefrore the UN declaration of Human Rights rules for anyone and everyone regardless of race religion and political oppinion and nationality. And so also with the frurther local and specified European convention of the same.
Discussion:
Theese things are maybe as important for Humaniora in the politics, as “science” physics and physical chemistery and oceanogra0phy and energetics and proper biology in the climate.
We went with Taxi and our driver was from Somalia, that has had disaster and civil war for all the years.
He said Somalia has no winter but night frost may occur. I do not like the winter he said, but the children seem to enjoy it. That must have been somalian children also.
I say exactly the same.
There must be political order also, else we cannot keep up with the climate. Therefore Fake science also in the politics, …. we hate it.
I have to ask, what nationality are you? I’m looking at your arrangement of words and it’s like a translation from another language. Absolutely no offense intended, just curious. Thanks.
Is that about me?
You better try and guess,I think.
But you should quite easily find it out by what I write.
What’s really fun is when his posts are magically written like a normal person. Sadly, they are by far the minority.
Chuck:
My best guess is Danish (I think he(?) even hinted at it at some stage), but I wouldn’t rule out Norwegian, Swedish or possibly even German.
Ht Killian
I can give you a rule or even a MANTRA in Danish along with the frameous pyhysicist and poet Piet Hein, who was a pupil of Niels Bohr paralell to Einstein in the grades:
“Den der laaner Aand og Sjel
forskriver sig til Fanden.
Thi, den der ikke er sig selv
er heller ingen anden,”
SANN!
Translation:
The one / anyone/ everyoene who borrows meaning and soul,….. sub- scribes him- self to SATAN!
Because, who is not him/ her- self… is further also no-one else,….
AMEN!
I repeat,….!
Discussion:
I may here and there relate to the Royal Frederics to Christiania and the Copenhagener school and style in geophysics and systematics. My University Patent is that of CAROLINVM IV in Praha of the four and only four faculties.
And we are hardly in the minority.
Gavin Schmidt and Rasmus Benestad seem to be faintly aquainted and thus tolerant to this,
Stefan Ramstorf is of a heavily bombed population next by, and Michael Mann is not any problem in that respect, he has learnt how to find firewood in the hills and in the mountains and to use it right so what more can we expect from him?.
.If this is not clear enough, you must try Google translate on the text.
I also use The Holy Wind / Pnevma and Logos on it.
I Phoned up https://Reidar/Finsrud/Perpetuum/Mobile on it, he lives here next by. He said that I am especially clever on physics and chemistery, but people who know less of that do teach that it is magics. Finsrud is also a professional magician.
So I find more and more that Genosse Killian, who I am responding to and telling about here, knows less about what we call REALIA.
Killian says 14 Dec 2021 at 10:40 PM
What’s really fun is when his posts are magically written like a normal person. Sadly, they are by far the minority.
Yes this is clear and noticeable. Yet obviously most have totally missed it. He is is fraud, or rather they are frauds. And a drunkard. Another sicko climate denying troll. Another member of the narcissistic death cult.
But the site owners/moderators do not care. As I said to Nigelj …
clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
Not my problem. Not my fault. Not my responsibility, or yours Killian. It will never change. Like the endlessly repeating cycle of all those who suddenly sprang out of the darkness to respond to Victors latest contribution to Real Climate “discussions” the moderators chose to be published here.
It’s not worth thinking about, worrying about or caring about. (shrug)
Patrick Dec 2 AT 7:18PM
I watched the whole interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b8dllBNbRg) and my comment relates to the question at 18:50; “Do these companies need to be shut down and wound up?” That brings to mind the proverbial man who blows out the candle and then sits there and curses the dark.
Fossil fuels have lifted people in the industrialized countries out of misery, but human misery remains humanity’s most urgent problem.
Wally Broecker said it best…
Show me a systemic way to use FFs so that
1. they don’t run out
2. they don’t pollute
3. the C gets permanently sequestered
4. can be used sustainably.
“1. they don’t run out”
I did not say or imply that fossil fuels aren’t finite.
“2. they don’t pollute”
I did not say or imply that fossil fuels do not pollute.
“3. the C gets permanently sequestered”
What do you consider “permanent?” Your lifetime, your kids/grandkids lifetimes, how many generations into the future? All engineering undertakings have associated uncertainty and risk which is to say there are no guarantees; but with high confidence we can say that CCS in depleted oil/gas reservoirs is a workable strategy.
“4. can be used sustainably.”
The majority of fossil fuel’s consumption is for industrial uses. I would propose sector-wide CCS for managing these emissions.
For transportation and home use I would propose 100% electrification. I am not including diesel trucks in this category because there is no good substitute yet for fueling long haul trucks, but Hydrogen may be a good alternative in a [not too] distant future.
There is still the inconvenient truth that half a million products use fossil fuels as feedstocks. Walk into a Walmart or tour one of Amazon’s warehouses and try to identify a product that doesn’t include fossil fuels in its value chain. There are presently no good, at scale, substitutes for these feedstocks.
The age of fossil fuels is not even 200 years old. Because it is a finite resource a day will come when we’ll have to adapt to living without them; the question is, can we do it gracefully?
“3. the C gets permanently sequestered”
What do you consider “permanent?” Your lifetime, your kids/grandkids lifetimes, how many generations into the future? All engineering undertakings have associated uncertainty and risk which is to say there are no guarantees; but with high confidence we can say that CCS in depleted oil/gas reservoirs is a workable strategy.
Their systems are already full of leaks. Massive amounts of C. So…?
However, soils that are built up to 10~20% SOC can be kept that way indefinitely with no riks, only gains. Ergo….
“However, soils that are built up to 10~20% SOC can be kept that way indefinitely with no riks, only gains. Ergo”
This is risk free only if the correct farming methods are scrupulously maintained long term to a high standard. This is very unlikely to happen in the real world, so there will be some losses of soil carbon. And as soils warm some of that carbon is lost. There are no problem free, risk free solutions. However sequestering carbon in soils looks like it would be much lower cost than trying to fit CCS technology to power plants and vehicle exhausts.
This is risk free only if the correct farming methods are scrupulously maintained long term to a high standard.
No shit? Because once we decide to do global-scale, healthy, more nutirtious, climate-managing agriculture I’m sure we’ll just say F that! and go back to committing suicide.
Try. Saying. Something. Not. Obvious. And. Of. Some. Use, Put another way, please stop responding just to respond.
Killian, your response ignores the content of what I posted, and is a giant strawman.
Quote from the video: ““Do these companies need to be shut down and wound up?” ”
If warming caused by CO2 is going to kill most of us, then yes, the oil companies need to be shut down. That is what the world is in the process of doing but it will take decades at the current rate. Shutting of FFs to fast would not cause “misery” – it would cause mass death which is not our goal, right? Actually, for some, that is the goal – some want to get population down to ~1 billion, maybe less, so perhaps they’d be OK with shutting off FFs today?
It’s a tricky balancing act if you don’t want to kill a few billion people in a year or two. Reminds me of the 1970s computer game “Sumer”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamurabi_(video_game)
https://www.acriticalhit.com/sumerian-game-most-important-video-game-youve-never-heard/
Oxford Languages: “Mc·Guf·fin /məˈɡəfin/, noun: ” an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot.”
With this cleared about the author, now to the plot – “fossil fuels are, for the lack of a better word – good” – Co2 emissions are nothing like sewage. If “seawage system” for Co2 was feasible – it would have been implemented a long time ago. But it hasn’t. And for a good reason: water contamination can be reduced easier and cheaper than removal of CO2 from our emissions, which is much more technically complicated, requires much energy to run, is expensive, is limited only to the major emitters (you can’t realistically capture carbon from the exhaust pipe of EVERY car, trucks, ship and airplane), and even among only the large emitters – only some of them would be a candidates for capture: those that point-emissions, and the sequestering capacity nearby.
Hence an ounce of prevention (here: reduction in productions of CO2) is usually better and cheaper than a pound of medicine (CO2 capture).
re (you can’t realistically capture carbon from the exhaust pipe of EVERY car, trucks, ship and airplane)
tsk tsk, i know some people who would label that extreme doomism and they’d block you forever for being a negative meanie doing what those bad fossil fuel companies want…. to sew fake news and to give up! :)
Remora has built a device that captures the carbon emissions from a semi-truck. They then sell the captured carbon dioxide to concrete producers and other end-users, helping companies earn new revenue while meeting their climate commitments. They’re working to turn America’s two million semi-trucks into a roving fleet of carbon removal devices. Remora’s carbon capture device mounts between the tractor and trailer, capturing 80 percent of CO2 emissions.
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSrsmwrW-pQ
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/remora-ready-roll-carbon-capture-trucks
https://mimfg.org/Articles/ArticleId/857/how-mobile-carbon-capture-might-save-the-world
Hey it surprised me too. Of course the obvious questions are cost and scale …. and ?
Reality Check (& others)
The technology of CCS in its various forms is not a climate thing so is off-topic here.
That said, the mention of concrete production will spark some topical interest here as concrete production (or more precisely the cement production that feeds it) is responsible for ~5% of global CO2 emissions. Concrete production is also responsible for a subsequent removal of atmospheric CO2 currently running at ~0.2% of global CO2 emissions. In an ideal world, the chemistry of concrete can be altered to make the whole thing CO2-neutral and one approach is the injection of CO2 into the mixing concrete to accelerate the carbonation process which otherwise takes millennia to achieve. (Thus the 5%>>0.2%.) So, I’m not convinced this use of truck exhaust in concrete is a serious proposal. I note another proposals in one of the links is greenhouses which is certainly not a serious way of achieving net zero emissions.
As MAR said – this is much better suited to the Forced Responses, but since I am not sure how to move the discussion there, here it goes;
Reality C. “Of course the obvious questions are cost and scale …. and ?”
…. and whether it makes any chemical sense in the first place!
Production of concrete RELEASES CO2, not consumes it. It uses CaCO3 to produce CaO
CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2 eq (1)
so you have emissions from the reaction PLUS the CO2 emissions from mining CaCO3, transporting and generating the heat needed for this reaction. So why exactly the concrete producers would want to …. buy MORE CO2 from …transportation?
The only reduction in CO2 I can possibly see is the injection of CO2 into the wet cement to revert a small portion of the CaO produced in eg(1)) back to CaCO3,. But it will always small portion – because the large majority of the CaO produced in eq (1) – reacts with silica and metals:
“ Portland cement is made up of four main compounds: tricalcium silicate (3CaO · SiO2), dicalcium silicate (2CaO · SiO2), tricalcium aluminate (3CaO · Al2O3), and a tetra-calcium aluminoferrite (4CaO · Al2O3Fe2O3).
The free CaO available for the reaction with CO2 is only a very small fraction of the total CaO in the concrete – so the amount of CO2 you can trap in the wet cement by a chemical reaction (reverse of eq. (1) ) is tiny compared to CO2 produced in making CaO. There may be some physical trapping of CO2 as bubbles of gas in the cement – but how much bubbles you can inject compromising the strength of the cement?
To sum up:
1. production of cement generates orders of magnitude MORE CO2, via reaction (1) and via CO2 emissions from the energy needed to mine, transport and heat up CaCO3, than the injecting CO2 into the wet cement could possibly remove
2. for such injections, the concrete producers don’t need to buy it from outside – they produce
orders of magnitude more than they could possibly inject
3. Capturing their own CO2 from their point source (their factory) would be MUCH SIMPLER, CHEAPER and LESS ENERGY-INTENSIVE than collecting, concentrating and transporting the CO2 from the diffuse sources of millions of the tail-pipes of the trucks.
4. As a result of 2 and 3 – the ONLY way it would make “sense” financially for the cement producers would be if they got paid government for capturing somebody else’s CO2, while NOT paying for their own emissions of CO2.
And it is not even clear whether the emissions associated with building the tailpipe CO2 collectors for millions of trucks, running these, and transporting the collected CO2 to the concrete factories is NOT larger than the amount of CO2 that actually be captured in the cement.
So it is a shell game based on creative accounting (counting the removed CO2 but not the emitted in the process), in the same vein as the US subsidies to agrobusiness for growing corn for biofuels.
Hr R. Check
Do not allways believe in such sales promosions. It is normally just another professional perpetuum mobile second order again.
The ease and efficiency by which that patented device sucks off and remooves CO2 from the air is quite direcly the costs and the troubble that you have with getting the CO2 off from the adeorber again, so that it can be re- cycled and run on further for eternity.
“Yes,…….. but could n`t one,…………. and russian scientista have found that,..”
No, that is Maxweels demon. And those “Russian scientists” may have claimed…. but it never stood peer rewiew in Nature. It only works under closures in the peoples republics.
The traditional way in the lab and in closed breathing devices where only oxygen is added and CO2 remooved is “Lime patrons or cartidges”. That are especially efficient. It is CaO . 4H2O + KOH on a substrate of porous- long- fibered asbestos. The cartridges get saturated and the content hardly re- cycled. For use in submarines, closed systemm divindtgv devices, and in space stations.
I thought out my own integrated machine just in order to understand the problem, and would burn pure cokes the controlled way at 8 bar air pressure and temperature not over 500 celsius.
Then take out the heat in a heat exchanger to make hot steam for a steam turbine generator. And bubble that cooled exhaust further through a saturated solution of cristal soda. Baking powder will fall out especially if I also cool it with an icy creek. Then let out the remaining pure Nitrogen and argon from this near equal high pressure system through a tripple epansion doubble action steam engine that can help the initial compressor a bit, but not fully. . The low pressure side of the steam turbine I would also cool by an icy creek, and pump back the condensed cool water by “a feeding pump”.
Then let the NaHCO3 dry in the sun and heat it by waste heat into Na2CO3 + CO2 + H2O.
It will take some of the produced electricity to compress CO2 +H2O into very strong selzer on steel bottles again, that I could sell on the free market. And that cool natural icy creek is also very valuable all the way as one can see..
That machine will deliver some electricity from pure cokes burnt in pure air without letting any CO2 out to the atmosphere.
But again, I was too late for a patent It showed to be then patented Siemens method.
For capturing CO2 from exhaust gases, it takes a very strong caustic dissolved in water and that strong caustic must be re- stored and re- cycled when saturated.
A natural method is by https:// Carbonic_anhydrase the first found and some of the strongest of all enzyms. That works both ways and goes by solar power in the plants and by combustion of carbohydrates with oxygen elsewhere.
Conclusion:
Wherefore I strongly advocate the green values and the photosynthesis as the best alternative.
See also https://Solvays_soda_process that uses NH3 in water under pressure for strong enough caqustic. A modern variety of Solvay is dimethyl or diethyl- amines, See Stoltenbergs fameous scandaleous “Moonlanding” at Mongstad. Stoltenberg got chairmann of NATO with furter successes in Afganistan after that.
That is being sold again and again and again to the blind believers. Whenever CCS has been solved, you can rather bet that it is Stoltenbergs moonlanding.
The EU would not buy that.
Moral:
It takes more than large yellow gas bottles with tubes and stopcocks on a rack, you see. Again it is the same secret varnishn with the patented LOGO and revolutionary prtoduction secret under all those shiny historical professional hi- tech cowers and surfaces..
“you can’t realistically capture carbon from the exhaust pipe of EVERY car, trucks, ship and airplane”
If land based motorised transport at least is electrified, you can, since this moves the emissions from millions of exhaust pipes to a few power plants, and once the emissions are concentrated at single points, it is much easier to reduce or maybe even eliminate those emissions (the latter by using renewables to generate electricity).
The issue is whether it is possible to generate enough electricity from renewables plus have enough padding to account for sub-optimal weather conditions (e.g. anticyclonic gloom), to be able to meet electricity demand for domestic properties, industry, and everyone driving 10,000+ miles per year every year in electric vehicles. If not, then lifestyle simplification is necessary and unavoidable.
Here’s the revised version. Please let me know if you spot any mistakes.
https://bartonlevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps4.html
fwiw pre-pub findings
Climate Impact of Decreasing Atmospheric Sulphate Aerosols and the Risk of a Termination Shock
Leon Simons presented our first findings during the Annual Aerosol Science Conference
nov-dec 2021
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1456615526952755200.html
There is no doubt that SO2 into the atmosphere makes the sky more dirty white and less blue.. A mystery until you realize that it is rather rapidly turned into SO3 by eating ozone and by “NOx” catalysator and UV- light. The S 6+ is extreemly hygroswcopic due to sulphuric acid. It gives severely white smoke and “acid rain”
Sulphur in the atmosphere explains a lot of the varying global temperature curve for the last 120 years, and makes the extreemly thick and white clouds of Venus.
Sulphate in the form of Gypsum CaSO4 . 2H2O has been found and shown in large quantities also on the moon and on mars.
Gypsum that is burnt to yellow hot for specialo purposesw for making “Anstrichgips”, a mixture of CaO and CaSO4, that originally covered the pyramids shiny white now rained away,, where half of the sulphur goes into the air, has surely been a quite problematic and irritating polluting industry also in the antique.. Roman baths with very fine “stucca” and “Cement” did surely cost all their firewood.
There has been roman Villas with fashionable Terrazzo also in England, where the romans allready began to dig “sea coal” for it. So London smog is very traditional.
The Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for November with a global SAT anomaly of +0.35ºC, down from the October anomaly of +0.42ºC (the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date) with November the 3rd highest 2021 monthly anomaly. (The UAH TLT November anomaly was down at =5th.) The ERA5 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.06ºC to +0.42ºC.
November 2021 is the 5th warmest November on the ERA5 record behind Novembers 2020 (+0.54ºC), 2019 (+0.40ºC), 2016 (+0.40ºC), and 2015 (+0.39ºC) while ahead of Novembers 2017 (+0.25ºC) & 2018 (+0.24ºC).
November 2021 is the 42nd highest anomaly in the all-month EAR5 record.
The first eleven months of 2021 averages +0.26ºC and 2021 remains in 5th warmest year-so-far spot on the ERA5 record. For the full calendar year to climb into 4th spot above 2017 is now requiring a crazy December anomaly exceeding the highest-ever all-month anomaly by some way. A drop to 6th spot below 2018 wound require the 2021 December anomaly to drop below +0.21ºC and a further drop to 7th below 2015 require the 2021 December anomaly to drop below +0.11ºC.
…….. Jan-Nov 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
A possibly interesting paper from Emanuel (which I haven’t read yet) claiming an increase in Atlantic tropical cyclone activity over the past 150 years based on downscaling from climate reanalyses. Up to now the consensus amongst the scientists who work on tropical cyclones has been the upward trend in Atlantic TC activity is due to better observational techniques and the increased ability to detect very short lived tropical cyclones which would have been missed pre satellite era. The paper states this increase is mostly due to regional, not global climate change, and there is no significant increase in TC activity in other ocean basins.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27364-8
Sulfur or clouds or both?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1456615526952755200.html
There is a strong upward trend in the increase of Absorbed Solar Radiation globally and even more pronounced over the N Pacific Ocean and N Atlantic Ocean, both areas of high shipping density, where sulfur emissions were reduced the last decade and more from 2020.
Scientists?
RSS has posted the TLT numbers for November 2021 with a global anomaly of +0.54ºC, well down on October’s anomaly of +0.81ºC which is the highest-of-the-year. RSS TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range +0.47ºC to +0.81ºC with November the 9th warmest monthly anomaly of the year so far.
As with the UAH numbers, the November RSS anomalies show a drop in all zonal bands.
November 2021 was the 7th warmest November on the RSS record (=10th in UAH TLT), behind Novembers 2020 (+0.82ºC), 2015 (+0.73ºC), 2019 (+0.73ºC), 2016 (+0.65ºC), 2017 (+0.59ºC) & 2018 (+0.56ºC).
November 2021 sits 98th on the highest all-month monthly RSS anomaly list, (=122nd in UAH TLT).
The first eleven months of 2021 still comes in as the 6th warmest RSS TLT Jan-Nov (7th on the UAH record). For 2021 to snatch 2010’s 5th place in the full-year rankings would now require RSS’s Dec 2021 to average above +0.69ºC or more.
Dropping down to 7th behind 2015 looks more likely and would require RSS’s Dec 2021 to average below +0.60ºC or less. A further drop into 8th place below good old 1998 would require a chilly Dec 2021 averaging below +0.20ºC, something not seen in a December RSS TLT anomaly since 2011.
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.62ºC
1998 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 12th
2013 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 11th
MEI continues to indicate strong La Niña conditions, somewhat stronger than the 2007-09 values than lasted for a full 24 months (so 6 months longer than we’ve seen 2020-21 so far) although the global warming wobble that peaked in the 2010 El Niño had begun in mid-2008, perhaps what we have also been seeing since mid-2021. But then is that all a bit too neat and tidy?
Can you all please just stop the toxic back and forth. It simply is not enough to be right, which you are all convinced you are (with groupings that continue the distracting negative counterpoint), with a sprinking of out and out unskeptical fake skepticism, which we all could do without. I have mostly disappeared from this board because (a) I am not a scientist, and I remember in the early days describing myself as the “fool who steps in where angels fear to tread” and (b) I didn’t like the infighting. Most of us want to share and help, and many of us are not doing enough. However, what I really showed up to do was share an article from ProPublica:
The Climate Crisis Is Worse Than You Can Imagine. Here’s What Happens If You Try A climate scientist spent years trying to get people to pay attention to the disaster ahead. His wife is exhausted. His older son thinks there’s no future. And nobody but him will use the outdoor toilet he built to shrink his carbon footprint. [tbh, I’d use that thing, but I’m weird and agree the problem is serious, multidimensional and huge]
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-crisis-is-worse-than-you-can-imagine-heres-what-happens-if-you-try
It’s a great story. I will return and read it carefully from end to end, and share with friends and acquaintances.
For some reason this reminds me of the opening passage of Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future which imnsho is one of the great books and I wish it was required reading for everyone. I’m not sure I agree with the fictional “solution” but the problems are well stated and bigger than any of us can comprehend, systemic and difficult.
SA. Its the male testosterone. Look on the bright side. At least we have progessed on from pistols at dawn. Thanx for the link.
Sure,. As soon as you stop with the False Equivalence and gaslighting.
You like to pretend this is two-way when it is not. You only make it worse with these little rants where you do not hold the trolls accountable.
Guess what kind of feedback is useless? Generalized, non-specific, non-actionable feedback based on a false premise.
Killian Dec 10 AT 2:30AM
I’m not clear on what you mean by “Their systems.” Do you mean the existing Oil and Gas infrastructure upon which the CCUS systems will be built? If yes, then you are not aware that the only parts of the system that will be used (in most cases) are the reservoirs. New wells will have to be drilled as well as new surface distribution lines and associated facilities. Storage in non-potable aquifers will require brand new infrastructure anyway.
Again, not clear what you mean by ” soils that are built up to 10~20% SOC”. Do you mean agricultural soils? If so, that’s not a feasible Carbon storage reservoir because it lacks containment and you might as well continue to dump the CO2 into the atmosphere. The UNECE’s CCUS protocols (https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/cleaner-electricity-systems/carbon-capture-use-and-storage-ccus )have advanced to the point where they provide a sensible template for assessing storage capacity as wells as verification and surveillance workflows.
Yes, this is going to be expensive, but as Wally Broecker wrote:
“”In the mid–nineteenth century, when the first municipal sewers were being
built in America, there were plenty of sewage skeptics. For a while the science
demonstrating the connection between sewage and disease remained uncertain;
Pasteur and Koch were just then establishing the microbial theory of infectious
disease. Even after the science was settled, however, and even after many
thousands of people had died, some people still argued vehemently that the good
old cesspools were good enough. But eventually the sewage skeptics faded
away, a few no doubt from cholera and typhoid fever. People in the United
States, as in other developed countries, came to accept that they had no
fundamental right to dump their waste where they pleased, and that they should
be willing to pay to dispose of it properly.”
Some good climate news echoing previous research: Forests grow back faster than if people plant a bunch of trees. This has implications for carbon sequestration, obviously.
Caveat: This would *not* be true of systems managed by indigenous groups that know how to mimic their ecosystem nor of a permaculturally managed reforestation which would be done in the same and/or similar manner. We can “speed up succession.” However, all this silly non-systemic tree planting is a massive waste of resources.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/09/tropical-forests-can-regenerate-in-just-20-years-without-human-interference
He does exel in psevdo- academic and psevdo scientific words such as “caveat” and “systemic”, even “permaculture”..
He must have had new lectures on this.
But he is lacking Middelskole Mittlere reife, Realskole Baccalaureus 1.
If he ever were too the boyscouts, I must ask which boyscouts?
Killian lacks the very linguistics- language of forest circumstances and awareness, trees flora and fauna and how to make up a smokeless fire and to lit fire in the snow and even in a bitty of water.
There, I am above him in the grades.
Killian is walking and performing like a doped , administrating, plastic troll in nature and in the climate.
Fool.
Yes, as Putin said it so wisely: “It takes one to know one!”
Ouch. Wince. Carbomontaus has thrown a big grenade at Killian. This will be interesting to watch.
However given Killian delights in accusing all and sundry on this website of being trolls and liars and fools (without much in the way of evidence), he must expect to come under scrutiny himself. And some of Killians own statements are very troll like, whether he intends that or not.
You’re showing you bias again, fool. Zero critical thinking, as per the last 6 years.
And some of Killians own statements are very troll like, whether he intends that or not.
How is defending ones’ self from trolls trolling? You are gaslighting. Nothing new. I ignore carbotrollus unless he attacks me, but I’m the problem? You’ve been consistently making such unethical, immoral, false claims for 6 years – ever since I gave up on six months of trying to get you to NOT lie, not Straw Man, not deny solutions, etc.
Man up. We really do not need immature, childish comments here.
These are serious times, we need serious people… and you are not one. Never have been.
Killian. You troll on this website. An example was your accusations economists are fools and stupid (or words close to that). This is a perfect example of making a very inflammatory, derogatory and abusive statements, which is EXCACTLY how trolling is defined in almost any dictionary. I’m not interested in discussing it further.
Killian performs as a professor of etics, maturity and behaviours also, not just of English.
My advice to him is that if he could become better aquainted to REALIA, that he seems to have shirked most of it, then he would have less political confessional problems with Humaniora also. They are not made aware in time that this is some of the same all the way.
Because, we allready got him on a routine spear here, for conventional frying in Hell
@nigel which is EXCACTLY how trolling is defined in almost any dictionary.
No, again you are quite patently wrong.
That is not how trolling is defined. Trolling is targeting actual people on the forum being posted to.
Sharing one;s opinions about economists and the like, along side other related commentary is not fricken trolling Nigel.
In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is typically for the troll’s amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a RIVAL’S online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion OR HARM to other USERS online, for no reason at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
such as Piotr’s toxic repetitive abusive insulting and lying behaviour of late.
and Carbomontanus also obviously so.
KIA, Victor, Swallow and every other denier in town.
Someone saying they hate republicans or democrats, or they believe that mainstream economics is flawed and not fit for purpose, or that COP26 is a joke, IS NOT TROLLING Nigel.
Off topic comments as well are not necessarily trolling either. They are just off topic. Then there is abusive insults, adhom and so on, and 90% of the time that is trolling unless it is a direct response in kind to someone else’s prior abusive insults / putdowns.
Simply being emotional does not equal Trolling either. It’s simply being emotional and/or passionate about one’s beliefs values etc. imho, ymmv, but that doesn’t change the truth of it.
Killian performs as a professor of et[h]ics, maturity and behaviours also,
This is accurate.
Reality check.
Your dictionary definition of trolling is quite good and consistent with others Ive seen. However certain people calling economists idiots, stupid and fools is a perfect example of your dictionary definition of trolling as in making off topic, inflammatory and abusive statements. Just because its directed at economists in general rather than a specific economist does not make it less inflammatory or abusive or less hurtful. If its not trolling, it is certainly not acceptable website conduct. (not saying I’m perfect). Most websites delete those sorts of comments.
“Someone saying they hate republicans or democrats, or they believe that mainstream economics is flawed and not fit for purpose, or that COP26 is a joke, IS NOT TROLLING Nigel.”
I did not say it was. I said calling economists fools, liars and idiots is trolling. Not defending economists as such. They deserve plenty of criticism but theres a difference between blunt criticism and name calling. Nothing wrong with posting that one hates republicans or democrats.
Piotrs original criticisms of Killians statements were nothing more than criticism of something Killian wrote. I do not see how that is trolling, inflammatory, abusive or an insult or why it deserved an abusive response. Scientists are trained to be hyper critical. Ive been a victim. You dont provide any specific cut and paste of Piotr being abusive or dishonest at any stage. I do not see him engaging in abuse for example name calling.
Piotr was bitingly sarcastic and cynical, and but that is not a great sin that deserves deleting. However he does “go on” a bit. And didnt closely study all his replies to you.
I agree KIA and JDS perfectly fit the definition of trolling in the sense of being inflammatory and posting material designed to annoy people and Carbo is rather cutting and personal in some of his comments, but no more so than some others here. We mostly all get that way at times, due to frustration over various things I guess. Climate change, covid anxiety, etc
The problem is a lack of strong enough website moderation, something I think you mentioned yourself.
Reality Check: “such as Piotr’s toxic repetitive abusive insulting and lying behaviour ”
By their projections^* e.g. you shall know them.
===
^* Def. Defensive projection: “attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.”
Making a little ice up north this week:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute
Yup, everything is just fine in the Arctic. Yeah, right.
Arctic Report Card, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2021
I recently had the pleasure of hearing a remarkable lecture on “cosmic natural selection” by physicist Lawrence Krauss. It’s available on youtube (https://youtu.be/v6ef99T-IJE) and I urge everyone reading here to check it out. I was deeply impressed by Krauss’s knowledge of both cosmology and evolution and his ability to come up with a presentation that was both exciting and convincing. For me at least, Krauss comes across both as a brilliant scientist and insightful philosopher.
I recently also had the pleasure of reading Krauss’s equally impressive book, “The Physics of Climate Change.” And here again I was impressed not only by his grasp of scientific principles but the very thorough and open-minded presentation of his argument. Since I’m not a physicist I’m not qualified to evaluate his treatment of the technical aspects, but nevertheless I found his presentation of the physics behind the “climate change” paradigm convincing.
The physics, yes. But as he himself is well aware, the physics is only the beginning of the story. After citing three key “facts” derived from his analysis of the physics, he continues as follows:
“These facts led to the conclusion that the increasing CO2 concentration in our atmosphere should lead to further warming of the Earth’s surface. The key question is how much? Was Svante Arrhenius correct in estimating 3°C of warming if the CO2 concentration hits 450 ppm, which, at current rates, will occur by 2050? And even if this were true, what impact would a 3°C rise have on the globe?
These two questions have driven much of the internationally coordinated climate research program that has been carried out over the past sixty years. They have also led to a furor of debate among the public and governments about how to respond to this research since Keeling made his first measurements in 1960. They are not easy questions to give precise answers to. The general principles are clear and unambiguous, but like much of science, when you want to go beyond a rough understanding to get things right at the percent level, the devil is in the details.”
Indeed. Nevertheless, turning from physics to climatology, Krauss has no trouble uncritically accepting what has now become the standard interpretation of “climate change”:
“But what should be the most striking takeaway, beyond the fact that ever-more-detailed models generally fit the data better, is the fact that the basic physics captured in even the simplest models gives answers that are consistent with the data.”
As an example, Krauss refers us to the now familiar record of global temperatures over the last 120 years:
“We can compare the mean surface temperature of the Earth today versus that in 1900, given that the CO2 abundance in the atmosphere has changed from 300 ppm to about 415 ppm. Using the modern estimates above, the mean prediction for the temperature change over that period, ignoring other effects for the moment, is about 1.3°C. Figure 7.1 [see https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/dec/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202012.png%5D shows the data from climate.gov. As can be seen, the actual change, accounting for the year-to-year fluctuations is in the range 1.15–1.35°C. That is pretty good agreement with the prediction.”
After going into such excruciating detail over every nuance of the physics evidence, Krauss is content to assume, based on no analysis whatsoever, that CO2 levels and global mean temperatures are correlated simply because it is now significantly warmer than it was in 1900. As I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, no such correlation is evident. Yes, temperatures rose rather dramatically from 1910 through ca. 1940 – but CO2 levels were too low during that period to have had much effect. (“[Research] has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming (https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm ). From 1940 through ca. 1979 temperatures either declined or remained relatively steady (see above for a link to the graph presented by Krauss) while CO2 levels began to soar. Thus: NO correlation from 1910 through the late seventies. And during the first 15 years or so of the 21st century we find the notorious “hiatus” during which temperatures rose only minimally (for a very clear confirmation of the “hiatus” evidence see Fyfe et al — https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938).
A critical analysis of the data offered in the very graph he reproduces in Fig. 7.1 would have demonstrated to Krauss that the “basic physics captured in even the simplest models gives answers that are” NOT “consistent with the data.”
Krauss falls into a similar error with respect to sea level rise. A readily available graph of sea levels since 1880 shows a steady, very gradual, rise from then to now, beginning long before either global temperatures or CO2 levels could have made much of a difference. (For a paper reporting a decline in global sea levels since the satellite era, see Fasullo et al. — https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245.) Yet Krauss has no problem accepting the alarmist view that rising sea levels are driven mostly by rising CO2 emissions, which thereby makes an out of control and very dangerous rise all but inevitable — an unsubstantiated claim that reinforces the dire predictions of global disaster we now see all around us.
Sadly confirmation bias is alive and well in the domain of climate science, affecting the thinking of even the best among us. While theories suggested by “the physics” can indeed be impressive, the facts on the ground are what really matter, as Krauss himself acknowledges.
V “As I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, no correlation is evident.”
J Your dead parrot is still dead, Mr. Shopkeeper.
Victor Grauer,
Before you again start tapping out a lengthy pile of bullshit, as you do here, perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. Your message again rings hollow when you plainly do not even understand the meaning of the word ‘convincing’.
V: Krauss is content to assume, based on no analysis whatsoever, that CO2 levels and global mean temperatures are correlated simply because it is now significantly warmer than it was in 1900. As I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, no such correlation is evident
BPL: And as I’ve demonstrated many times in these threads, you are grossly incompetent to say anything about correlation, as you simply do not understand what the word means and invariably substitute your own idiosyncratic definition of what you want it to mean.
https://bartonlevenson.com/CO218502019.html
In the graphs, I noted the following just based on my eyeball analysis:
Trends in dT vs. Year graph:
1840-1860 dT slightly downward
1860-1900 dT flatish
1900-1940 upward gradually
1940-1980 flatish
1980-2021 upward more steeply
In the CO2 vs. dT graph, it seemed that the Temp versus CO2 correlation was somewhat loose from 285 to 320 ppm, but maintained a good tight line as CO2 climbed up beyond 320 ppm.
Does that sound about right?
V: Krauss has no problem accepting the alarmist view that rising sea levels are driven mostly by rising CO2 emissions, which thereby makes an out of control and very dangerous rise all but inevitable — an unsubstantiated claim that reinforces the dire predictions of global disaster we now see all around us.
BPL: It’s not unsubstantiated. Don’t spread lies.
Dr. V. Grauer
do you really think that people read such things now up at christmas for serious?
Of course he’s not qualified. He has no formal training in the sciences or statistics. He readily admits it. But then in his total arrogance proclaims that this highly qualified brilliant scientist is wrong due to confirmation bias. So what in the world makes Victor think that he is qualified in any way to make such a judgement of the science when he clearly most certainly is not? Because he is just a deluded narcissistic old fool.
Victor just knows better–he is just so much more brilliant than any highly qualified scientist.
Rinse lather repeat. Ad nauseam. What a joke.
You must remember Victor has a “secret weapon”. His alleged superlative understanding of logic and his superior “critical analysis skills”. ROFL. I think not. He couldnt analyse his way out of a wet paper bag.
No. You’ve asserted it more than enough, God knows, but never actually demonstrated any such thing.
In fact, when the opposite has been demonstrated you’ve resulted to simple denial that standard standard techniques are appropriate or competitive with your steely Mk. 1 eyeball. Very reminiscent of how you perceive Dr. Krauss as “a brilliant scientist and insightful philosopher” yet describe points of disagreement with you as resulting from mere “confirmation” bias–this despite having previously called Krauss’s presentation “very thorough and open-minded.”
Your confidence in your own highly erroneous judgment is quite as remarkable as it is tiresome.
This commentary by Victor should be in the borehole. The websites definition of borehole is “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations”. Surely this repetitive and utterly ridiculous comment that has disrupted sensible conversations many times already is a prime candidate for the borehole?
It surely would be nigelj. As would many many more comments that get published here.
But, clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
One would likely call that “self-evident”. It’s always been so. It’s really unfortunate this is the case. But it is. It could be so much more than what it is. :(
Maybe you just live on the wrong side of the globe, Dr. Check.
A minimumm of naval order and sphaerical navigation by the stars could clear that up for you..
@ Victor
Now you are being punished and ridiculed and labeled for etnic rinsing, the borehole again.
Would N`t it be possible for you to adjust only a little bit? I have to do that anyway and most of the time so try and take a good example on your own , from me at least.
I thought first that you had repented and began a new and better life, but then your old mandate and missionary agenda came up again, the absolute no- correlation and no evidence and proof of CO2 in the atmosphere to the longtime temperature curve. I am able to find and to see that by many means and details in things that really interests me also for other reasons, but maybe first of all, I have no need and no duty to fight it and to deny it by any means. as for instance the worshipful congregasion of Big Coal and Big Oil had for a long while. I am none of them.
What is most irritating and disturbing is that you commit missionary and cultural violence and imperialism, severe and ugly pollution into other and peaceful peoples own land and civil domaines. You are consequently pissing in other peoples expensive and scarce drinkwater. So no wonder why you are both chased and hated.
Compare it to the discussion of stone age marks of wildfires and firemark horizons in lands where people had settled and were living.. What would you say if someone sometimes… and at any time… could just come into your house and systems and destgroy it by forceful terror actions such as fire for instance and at times that your things are on the most critical and vounerable?
Bad behaviours we call that. No wonder really that they hate you and chase you and suggest you for Hell.
Could n `t you try and live a better life than that? Could n`t you rather adapt a bit to social order at least
Big Coal and Big Oil seem to have deserted officially now at least and are selling the rumors of their beginning a new and better life in order to become more popular and secure further subventions, permissions, and national credit, Allthough they both dig and drill and plan further secretly under cower at night.
I am experienced and can tell you better how. If really necessary for you and you cannot live without it, then simply down- scale it to levels that can be shown and defended also at daylight. A drop of oil does it. Not a barrel of oil. And a tiny piece of coal, not a whole waggon. A tiny lit candle, not a fierceful bushfire.
Carbo. You appear to be suggesting there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures long term. Its not clear what you mean by “long term”. If you mean millions of years the correlation is certainly weak at times due to confounding factors.
But Victor is arguing there is no correlation between CO2 and warming over the period 1900- 2021. And he is wrong. A statistical analysis shows a good, although not perfect level of correlation. The correlation is also obvious by eye to most of us but apparently not Victor. I am no expert in these things, but I know enough to be confident on this point. Surely you are not denying there is a correlation over this period?
Anyway the point is Victor has ranted on about this correlation issue about ten times on this website over the last five years, possibly before you arrived. I normally have no problem with denialists having their silly little say, in the name of free speech, but when it gets that repetitive, stubborn and irrational, the borehole beckons! Surely?
But I agree with the rest of what you said.
Nigelj
I do not suggest that there is no correlation betweeen CO2 and atmospheric temperatures long term. There especially is not short term because the effect is small and it diffuseses and drowns in the noise of stronger signals. This is also Roger Revelles argument.
But it follows necessarily and guaranteed by what Tyndall found experimentally, and needs no other proof than that. You will have to fight the permanence of heat, and the Thermopile and the mirror galvanometer and tyhe analogue doubble beam meaqsuring method. .
I hav even seen that on Surrealists “scientific” level recently.
But it simply follows from some natural gases having dis- continous spectra in the electromagnetic spectrum. They understood that immediately by very pioneering scientifric methods of their time that have stood scrutiny.
Victor seems to be a type that was told that he could simply give a damn to empiricism and basic physical experiments in the lab and give a damn to answerig rather to that.
I call it The Blood Group P, P for Party. The Privileged. ” I am no scientist but….” and then proof is stated and we are to obey and to discuss.
It is Dia- lectic Materialism.
As for the recent tornados in Kentucky, it seems to me there is a connection to Climate Change in that the contrasting temperatures enabled such powerful storms to develop. We’ve been extremely warm throughout December with temperatures hitting the 80 degree mark in Northern Arkansas. We’re going to warm up again this week to near 75-80 degrees. Then another cold front arrives setting off more storms.
Hr Chuck
I do not live there, but I have learnt in school of physical geography and the typical difference of north american and European weathers, that it is caused by the fact that in Europe, mountain ranges going west east stops the most dramatic stops the most sudden contacts between polar and equatorial weathers. But in America the mountainranges go north- south..
But I have once withnessed a very dramatic cold front falling from Novaya Zemlya to southern France. And another time red in the papers of a “Weather” that fell from The White sea all the way down to Kuwait where it ended.
The situation in New England where we have relatives is obviously more dramatic than here, with possible tropical hurricanes and polar blizzards..
And we can look at the major currents. The strong and warm gulf stream passing at the coast just south of the strong polar jet stream..
That system together spreads and dissolves a bit before it enters into The Bay of Biscaya, The North sea, and the Barents sea. And the winds stagnate in the East against the continental high pressure, the russian winter and The Ural mountains.
There is major weather and climate- shift from west to east of Ural and from north to south of the Alps.
Once in Bremen at Christmas there had been warm and rather sunny weather, then suddenly one day there came ice and hail- showers with thunder. “It is the winter!”, Mrs Scowroneck remarked. “No, it is the summer!” I replied. And Mr.Skowroneck gave me right because it was both of them at a dramatic meeting. That is rare in Europe but rather typical over there in the states.
Chuck. I did read somewhere that the tornadoes were linked to climate change due to being caused in part by warm air drawn up from the gulf of mexico, itself warming due to climate change. I dont live in America so cant comment much on it.
No possibility of connecting tornados to climate change. They have been recorded since Whites came here to escape the fascists and totalitarians of Europe (the same types now in power in the US Govt):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreak
Difference today is that nearly every tornado is recorded either visually or on radar, etc. Prior to about the 1950s many tornados occurred and no one was aware of them.
GISTEMP LOTI global anomaly has been posted for November with a global SAT anomaly of +0.94ºC, down from the October anomaly of +0.98ºC (the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date) with November now the 2nd highest 2021 monthly anomaly. (The ERA5 Reanalysis SAT saw November drop to 3rd highest anomaly of 2021-so-far. In UAH TLT it was down at =5th and in RSS TLT down at 9th.) The GISTEMP 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.54ºC to +0.98ºC.
November 2021 is the 4th warmest November in the GISTEMP record (5th in ERA5) behind Novembers 2020 (+1.11ºC), 2015 (+1.06ºC) and 2019 (+0.99ºC) while ahead of Novembers 2016 (+0.91ºC), 2017 (+0.88ºC), 2013 (+0.84ºC) & 2018 (+0.82ºC).
November 2021 is the =31st highest GISTEMP all-month anomaly (42nd in EAR5).
The first eleven months of 2021 average +0.85ºC and 2021 has climbed above 2018 into the 6th warmest year-so-far spot on the GISTEMP record. It is still reasonable that 2021 may drop down again to 7th spot below 2018, this requiring the 2021 December anomaly to drop below +0.88ºC.
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2020 .. +1.04ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2016 .. +1.03ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.97ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2015 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.85ºC
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 11th
2013 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 10th
2012 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 13th
Ladies and Gentlemen including Killian
I came over another quite ingenious and commerciallized invention, that looks more natural and healthy than Killians sales promotion of “Biochar” to the aborginean blind believers and flat earthers.
It is labeled
Liquid nano clay (LNC)
it is also called
LNC Desert control.
That you will find on the net.
Invented by 2 Norwegians from Stavanger of course. And seems to work along with known and healthy principles.
Common clay mostly and mainly monmorillonite is probably flotated down to particle sizes from 800 nanometer down to zero. And mixed with water. But then the trick, also air bubbles. Acidity and surface tension will decide how well it mixes and creeps. (some secret soap to it might do)
They claim that their product sinks quite much better into poor silicic desert sands and improoves the soil radically for further culture.
Using clay slurry on poor rather acidic sandy ackers is as old as can be.
Such clay minerals are very much better than brutally burnt and powdered organic material. Not for nothing, God first modeled the human body from clay and then blew life into its nose, according to early science from UR in Caldea.
The fungi and mushroms and bacteria and microfauna likes it very much better, and clay minerals adsorb both water and mineral nutrician fertillizers very much better, The carbon then simply sinks down from the heavens and deep into the ackers by devine forces.
Which is true. If only let in peace, Huge varied forest of Violoncello dimensions just shoot up from pure humus free ice- grinded glacio fluvial sediments in only a few years here where I live. But the bedrock substrate must be favourable for it.
If rubbish is burnt on the acker and all sterilized, it takes years for that piece of the acker to recover again. It must creep full of microbic life first. But wild seeds and sphores are plenty also in the deserts I can think.
Mephisto:
Im Trocknen, Feuchten, Warmen, Kalten
enwinden tausend Keime sich.
Hätt ich mirb nicht die Flamme vorbehalten,
Ich hätte nichts Aparts für mjich!
From Faust 1 im Studierzimmer.
What do they propose that we do with the liquid nano clay? Where can it be found?
Hr Knowitall
I do not manage to give red https referennces here that do come up, so you have too google it..
I gave the keyewords
Liquid nano clay (LNC)
and
LNC desert control
That has got viral enough on the net.
Another central keye to it is Montmorrillonite. “Nano” is modern supersticion in the sales propmotion of patent products.
The further should follow from what everyone ought to know about clay and dirts and soils and tiles and terracotta Clay and mud and dust baths are general and good healthy chosmetic methods also among severalo wild animals, and I am using choisest local dirts muds and clays flotated and adjusted for firepro0of masonry and for “mould” and sand modeled metal casting. I choose to do it that way rather than buying from the firms and the experts, in order to learn more
about my local wild resources.
It protects myself and my soul from having to buy it from KIillian, from Dr.R.Check, or from Åstræiliæææææ
Nano = 10E-9
1.5 Ångstrøm = 0.15 Nanometer = one rather common natural atom. A gaseous etanol- molecule in the air will be near to a nanoparticle.
What shows up foggy and hazy has got particle sizes in the magnitude of wavelenght of light, that is fro 400 to 800 nanometer.
At 8:09 Jennifer states “clouds absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation and that actually causes the surface and the atmosphere to be warm”. Jennifer should explain why it is that the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond manufactures and emits ~78% of the LWR that’s headed to space but the water droplets in clouds, which is the professional expertise of Jennifer, manufacture and emit no LWR whatsoever, as she states at that time above. I for one would be fascinated to learn from Jennifer why she knows the correct “greenhouse effect” (re-emission of long-wave radiation totally overwhelming, she clearly states, any photon manufacture by liquid H2O in cloud droplets) and yet Andrew Dessler and I (and another bloke) both are sure that the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation does indeed apply equally to the water droplets in clouds and the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond in total contradiction to Jennifer’s bold assertion here. I’d be interested to learn what it is that Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf & the entire underlings of the RealClimate Web Log site, and Jennifer Kaye, know about that radiative physics that Andrew Dessler and I have never learned. After all, it’s only THE ENTIRE TOPIC (RAISON D’ETRE) of all of the millions of videos, documents, comments, political investigations and babbling everywhere. So it’s pretty unimportant then. Right ?
No idea what you are talking about. There’s a video by a Jennifer Kay, not Kaye, but you are making no sense with your claim that she contradicts any established physics.
I’m wondering if you actually read what you have written before posting it. Try it.
If you would actually ask a coherent question, I’m sure people would try to answer it.
zebra,
I would suggest that the comment by Barry E Finch is making two crazy assertions.
Firstly, there is some crazy belief that when a cloud is re-emitting absorbed LWR, it is not emitting its own LWR and thus there is no emitted LWR to satisfy that required by Stefan-Boltzmann. The LWR emissions from clouds are of course governed by temperature and thus by Stefan-Boltzmann, and not dependent on the absorbed LWR. With that thought in mind, I did have a short search for the Jennifer Kay video being referred-to to hear what was actually being said but only found this one which at 5 minutes in does tell us “But clouds also, like GHGs, absorb and emit LWR.” so no mention of “re-emission.”
The second craziness is the assertion that “the ocean/sea/lake/pond manufactures and emits ~78% of the LWR that’s headed to space.”. Wet bits of planet Earth constitute about 72% of the planet surface and oceans do emit on average a little more LWR than land (about 10% more than land being on average closer to the equator) but oceans have a lot more cloud so would “manufacture” far far less than ~78% of space-bound surface-emitted LWR. And with the surface emissions=to-space constituting only 17% of all space-bound emissions, quite what crazy logic is used to derive the ~78% comes from is anybody’s guess.
Yes, this is why I ask people like Barry to clarify their thinking rather than try to translate/interpret… I don’t want to follow them down their particular Rabbit Hole.
And I rarely find it useful to look at videos when it comes to physics, given the availability of written sources.
That said, I think the 78% thing is just referring to what radiates from the surface; “headed towards space” might make sense.
As I understand it, liquid water does absorb LWR. You might find this abstract interesting; it illustrates the complexity of determining the effect of clouds, which are obviously mixtures of water and water vapor.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0636-8?proof=t
zebra,
I would myself describe it less as “follow them down their particular Rabbit Hole” and more “follow the ball they drop down their chosen Rabbit Hole.” This I would suggest is better descriptively as the effort by such commenters to properly explain themselves is usually absent in such interchanges.
And I would pick up on one other point you make.
I got a value of 73.5% for the ‘wet’ LWR from the surface (using the land & ocean LWR numbers from Wild et al (2014)‘s fig 2 and the area of ‘wet’ land from lakescientist.com) which is a bit short to be given as being ~78%.
Victor 2021-12-13 “the mean prediction for the temperature change over that period, ignoring other effects for the moment”, Inform us whether “ignoring other effects” includes exclusion of human-caused “global dimming”, same question for Earth’s energy imbalance, so’s we don’t need to plough through what you already learned. “during the first 15 years or so of the 21st century we find the notorious “hiatus””. Tropical Pacific Ocean Trade Winds.
Peter Kalmus NASA
Wow, the sheer number of scientific results across basically every discipline pointing to “we are on a very, very, extremely bad track” at #AGU21. Step back and see the big picture everyone… and become scientist activists. Please get off the sidelines. #EmergencyMode
The annual meeting of Earth science (AGU21) is happening. 1000s of talks and posters on the latest science of ecosystems, ice, oceans, soils…. Signals of dangerous global change throughout. Hard for any single scientist to see whole picture. Would be good topic for reporters
8:28 AM · Dec 15, 2021
Matthew Jee
The lack of generalists/holistic thinkers is a problem that affects all sciences. We have to look for philosophers and those who have chosen multidisciplinary paths for answers: those who can see the trees and the woods.
Peter Kalmus
So, there are like ten thousand oral and poster presentations at the annual 5-day Earth-science meeting of the American Geophysical Union. I can try to add some of the presentation main points to this thread, later… I am low on bandwidth. would be good topic for climate journos
It’s not one brand new big dire warning, it’s like ten thousand paper cuts to the Earth system that together amount to a huge dire warning. so, so many. here are notes from one I just attended:
“pyroCb, Australia megafire and the huge storm it caused. Cumulonimbus flammagenitus. ‘a new class of large smoke plumes in the stratosphere.’ potential for larger outbreaks to come”
Yawn.
Nah, musta bin da firebugs dat dun it!
Ask the Resident Know It All Expert on Everything – Shri Carbo Mount Anus!
No, it is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Those pure snobbish and uniformed workers out there in the landscape and bushes in boots, smoking their Gauloises and Marlboroughs, and making “bonfires” and picque-niques with “bio- chars” in aluminium foils frying their “hot dogs” at any time, driving offroad also in Å-stræilææææ with their Nissans. You can with a Nissan. ,
And that catches fire.
Then they blame it all on the climate and the fireflies.
They treat their great barrier reef the same way, blaming their behavious on the climate and on the fire- fishes.
Carbo. While you’re right humans start many of the forest fires, and lightening strikes start the remainder, climate change is making forest fires worse for example more intense and larger areas burned. I assume you accept this? Its supported by numerous studies.
“……..climate change is making forest fires worse for example more intense and larger areas burned……”
Possibly true, but here in the USA, poor forest management practices for the past 100 years or so are also making things worse. I assume you accept this?f
How rising groundwater caused by climate change could devastate coastal communities
Higher sea levels will push the water table up with them, causing flooding, contamination, and all manner of unseen chaos.
For something you’ve probably never heard about, rising groundwater presents a real, and potentially catastrophic, threat to our infrastructure. Roadways will be eroded from below; septic systems won’t drain; seawalls will keep the ocean out but trap the water seeping up, leading to more flooding. Home foundations will crack; sewers will backflow and potentially leak toxic gases into people’s homes.
[…] “She was asking me, is this something that comes from sea-level rise? And obviously, the answer is yes,” says Hill.
Hill is one of a number of researchers trying to get the public and policymakers to take the risks of rising groundwater seriously. Unlike rising seas, where the dangers are obvious, groundwater rise has remained under the radar. Hydrologists are aware of the problem and it’s all over the scholarly research, but it has yet to surface in a significant way outside of those bubbles. Groundwater rise is only briefly mentioned in the most recent edition of the National Climate Assessment, released in 2018; it’s absent from many state and regional climate adaptation plans, and even from flood maps.
A 2021 study in the journal Cities found that when coastal cities conduct a climate vulnerability assessment, they rarely factor in groundwater rise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/13/1041309/climate-change-rising-groundwater-flooding/
aka – How XYZ caused by climate change will devastate communities everywhere. ‘We’ need to get beyond the current simplistic discussions of climate change & SLR & ……. & ……..& …….. I don’t know why this even needs to be said – it’s all in the public domain.
But of course the public do not know what is in the Public Domain. :)
AGU21
The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world
An important climatic indicator has been misreported by a factor of two
It’s almost a mantra in climate science: The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. But that figure, found in scientific studies, advocacy reports, the popular press, and even the 2021 U.N. climate assessment, is incorrect, obscuring the true toll of global warming on the north, a team of climate scientists reports this week. In fact, the researchers say, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average.
In July, a team at the Finnish Meteorological Institute posted a preprint also arguing for the four times figure.
https://www.science.org/content/article/arctic-warming-four-times-faster-rest-world
one key and very telling point is this one:
One is climate scientists’ tendency to chop each hemisphere into thirds and label the area above 60°N as the “Arctic”—an area that would include, for example, most of Scandinavia. But the true definition of the Arctic is defined by Earth’s tilt. And, as has been known for centuries, the Arctic Circle is a line starting at 66.6°N. When researchers lump in the lower latitudes, “you’re diluting the amount of Arctic warming you’re getting,” Jacobs says. “That is not a trivial thing.”
Seriously? It truly boggles the mind.
thanks to RC for a useful post here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/12/unforced-variations-dec-2021/#comment-799153
14 Dec 2021 6:52 pm
Peer-reviewed science explaining extreme events of 2020 from a climate perspective which the scientifically ignorant/resident anti-science/science deniers such as KIA and Victor will ignore and fail to understand since it would mean admitting that they are wrong (of course they can’t since their insecurity and cowardice won’t allow them to admit to being wrong, facts be damned):
Explaining Extreme Events of 2020 from a Climate Perspective is now available. It features the research of 89 scientists from 9 countries, and presents 18 new peer-reviewed analyses of extreme weather during 2020:
https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/?fbclid=IwAR2XrxMkwkBILczFfkLG67icck9IAodhaNbf5XBtZaUOAeYu6ZvVuKq4rG4
Extreme weather occurs every day – always has, always will. Oh, did you get your tickets to NZ yet?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/wicked-prime-minister-announces-vaccinate-population-can-now-resume-orgies/
In other climate news, the Thwaites is about to take a dump. PBS story today, Dec 15 2021:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aogMKvzN2x4
If it does, it may clean up the environment in some blue cities along the coasts. Win-win?
That story apparently comes up annually to scare the Bejesus out of us. Here it is in 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ782Nz2VHs
Quite contemptible.
Otherwise, unworthy of comment.
“Extreme weather occurs every day – always has, always will. Oh, did you get your tickets to NZ yet?”
You’re obnoxious and you know it and you’re that way on purpose. Quit posting nonstop bullshit.
Well said.
Ty, Dan. I’ll check it out.
KIA: Extreme weather occurs every day – always has, always will.
BPL: Which means precisely nothing, since the question is how extreme, and how frequent the extreme weather is becoming. KIA is, like so many deniers, in the grip of “Forest fires have occurred naturally for millions of years, so there’s no such thing as arson.”
thanks for a useful post from Dan at https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/12/unforced-variations-dec-2021/#comment-799178
That deserves notice
15 Dec 2020 at 11:21 am
Nice summary I thought: “2021 was a remarkable year for Earth’s climate”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/12/2021-was-a-remarkable-year-for-earths-climate/
Yeah, that’s good. Ty.
I have tried to ignore it by skipping past posters comments, but the atmosphere here is consistently positively toxic. It is very unpleasant seeing the non-stop nastiness. It’s like swimming in a sewer at times. Lord of the Flies type pathological insanity. The nasty personally abusive stuff. The cheap putdowns. The dysfunctional (at times delusional) behavior of posters here. The disrespectful insults and lack of tolerance for others. The complete lack of responsible moderation is the worst of all. This constant toxic environment has caused a lot of harm and unhappiness over a long period of time, to myself and to many others. I find it completely unacceptable and intolerable.
Getting rid of a couple of obnoxious trolls would probably do wonders. (KIA comes to mind). Having to constantly address WRONG INFORMATION is wearing people down. Of course there’s one or two on here who never have anything nice to say that need to be disciplined by moderators (if they actually read any of this stuff). I know they’re busy with other things but every now and then it would be nice if some of the rules were enforced.
The thing that really makes reading difficult are the trolls who clog up the thread with constant bullshit. That really needs to stop but I don’t know who to appeal to to make it happen.
Reality Check: Dec.16 “ the atmosphere here is consistently positively toxic.[…] t’s like swimming in a sewer
Hmm.
– Piotr Nov.28 that Killian’s source didn’t prove that Malawi people 85kya “used the fire to effect long-term [the source: “the thousand-year time scale”] intricate changes wisely aimed to improve the ecosystem“.
– Reality C. joins in: “ 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”, “Lie, Misrepresentation, garbled falsehood, logical fallacy” “So, Piotr why did you make that up? Why are you lying ”
===
Reality C., Dec.16: … It is very unpleasant seeing the non-stop nastiness.
Unlike the pleasant tone of Killian and you?
===
– Killian: about Piotr:’s argument you are still steeped in the pile of dung”, “unintelligent denial of the most up-to-date science”, “your self-inflicted ignorance”
– Reality C., about Killian’s response: “ fair and reasonable and logical. It was Piotr who first introduced the abusive ad hominem toxic vitriol commentary”
====
Reality C. Dec.16 : “The nasty personally abusive stuff. The cheap putdowns.”
You mean like:
– Nigel: “Criticising your point of view is not trolling.”
– Killian: “So [Piotr’s] lapdog thinks he’s a fair master.”
or Reality C., referring to Carbomontanus as … “ Carbo mont anus ”
these would be ….. classy putdowns ?
Reality C. Dec.16 : … The disrespectful insults and lack of tolerance for others. […]I find it completely unacceptable and intolerable.
Brought to you by Matthew 7:3?
No the moderators do not have to accept posts like this, but they consciously choose to publish them anyway. The websites definition of borehole is “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations”. Deleting them instead is much more intelligent. They choose not to do that.
Clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
The site owners are responsible for the toxic environment created on RC by a cacophony of climate science deniers, vacuous trolls, weirdos, liars, and insidious verbal abusers. It’s not my problem, will not be staying around but I do have an opinion about it.
Fred, Dec. 20: “ It’s not my problem, will not be staying around ”
Reality Check, Dec. 19: “ It’s not my problem, will not be staying around ”
Gavin, have you changed something. in the Matrix^*, AGAIN?
Oh well, as they say in Zion: when going gets tough, the tough get going…
“……..The nasty personally abusive stuff. The cheap putdowns…..The disrespectful insults and lack of tolerance for others……”
Would you like me to link to a hundred or so of those exact same type of comments YOU have made? Look in the mirror.
‘This is not normal’: Extreme weather events stun CNN meteorologist
The Midwest is experiencing unprecedented weather with extreme heat and tornado force winds. CNN meteorologist Tom Sater said “this is not December weather.”
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/weather/2021/12/15/extreme-weather-threatens-midwest-vpx.cnn
Come to papa baby! Let it blow let it snow let it roast!
Burn baby burn!
My fingers are crossed hoping Victor’s, Mr Know it All’s, and JD Swallow’s properties are right in the middle of it all. Which is no big deal because these everyday extreme weather events have been happening all the time for all time.
If you were born after about 1990-1995, your feelings can be explained by this excellent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGTS9vZFV2o
The most irritating thing though is that the moderators don’t allow your posts to occupy ALL the space each month here on RC, instead of just 90% of it, right? :)
Over and over again, on these threads and elsewhere, whenever certain evidence leads me to question the mainstream view, I’m reminded that what really counts is “the physics.” If “the physics” is solid, as it’s presumed to be, then no other interpretation is possible, the generally accepted outcome is certain. I was therefore especially intrigued to find in Lawrence Krauss’s book (https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Change-Lawrence-Krauss-ebook/dp/B08P5DK7HB) that, after an especially thorough review of the physics, a lack of certainty remains when it comes to the most important issue in the climate change debate — the question of sensitivity. To draw on the passage I’ve already posted above:
“These facts led to the conclusion that the increasing CO2 concentration in our atmosphere should lead to further warming of the Earth’s surface. The key question is how much?” To my surprise, Krauss is unable to come up with a definitive answer based solely on the physics he’s so thoroughly expounded. The “how much” questions “have driven much of the internationally coordinated climate research program that has been carried out over the past sixty years,” leading to “a furor of debate . . . like much of science, when you want to go beyond a rough understanding to get things right at the percent level, the devil is in the details.”
What ultimately convinces Krauss is not the physics per se, but what he perceives as the remarkable fit of theories based on physics, as developed by scientists such as Tyndall, Arrhenius, etc., to actual real-world data, as gathered over the years by climate scientists. His thinking is succinctly encapsulated in this portion of his lecture on this topic, as broadcast via youtube: https://youtu.be/lApLD5g1Nrs?t=2690
Presenting a graph representing average global temperatures since 1880, Krauss claims the fit between theory and data is “exactly what you predict, essentially.” While he is willing to concede that correlation is not necessarily causation, the fit he sees between the graph and the predictions based on the physics he’s studied is so close as to settle the matter definitively. Significantly he sees no reason to apply any scientific methodology to his comparison between the data and theory because for him the correlation is all too obvious. As he says, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck.,” essentially the same reasoning that led so many to fear a coming ice age back in the 70’s.
So that’s, finally, what his argument comes down to: the old “quacks like a duck” bromide. Isn’t it obvious? And yes, it is now significantly warmer here on Earth than it was in 1900, as is “obvious” from eyeballing the graph. And yes, applying statistical methods uncritically one can come up with a result “confirming” the existence of a correlation. Only, as I have tirelessly demonstrated time after time, the supposed correlation is an artefact of a flawed methodology. I won’t get into the details once again here, but for a thorough analysis of the problem I refer you to the following blog post: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
While correlation might or might not indicate causation, lack of correlation all but rules it out. In other words, despite all the many experiments and theories behind the physics of climate change as expounded by Krauss and others, the LACK of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature raises some serious doubts.
The problem applies to the sea level question as well. While one might feel confident when assessing what looks like a clear correlation between CO2 emissions and sea levels, both of which rose steadily from 1880 to the present, CO2 in itself can affect sea level only indirectly. The missing third term is temperature and in this case there is not only no correlation but no evidence whatsoever of causation, as evident from a glance at the same graph so confidently displayed by Krauss. As is evident from the graph, temperatures declined rather precipitously from 1880 through, roughly, 1910. Yet sea levels had already begun their steady rise by 1880, making it awfully difficult to see global temperatures as the cause. Moreover, sea levels have risen steadily since then while temperatures have varied considerably. When I began reading Krauss’s book I was hoping he’d make some attempt to account for this discrepancy — but he simply ignored it.
As for the issue of sensitivity generally, our friends at NoTricksZone have discovered no fewer than 130 publications finding “extremely low CO2 climate sensitivity”: https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
You lost all credibility long ago. Stop wearing out the scroll wheel on my mouse.
No the moderators do not have to accept posts like this, but they consciously choose to publish them anyway. Clearly, this website moderators actually prefer “comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations” because they publish so many of them all the time.
The site owners are responsible for the toxic environment created on RC by a cacophony of climate science deniers, vacuous trolls, weirdos, liars, and insidious verbal abusers. It’s not my problem, will not be staying around but I do have an opinion about it.
Victor . You come across as obsessive, delusional and misinformed over this correlation issue. I did the basics of psychology at university. I was an A grade student. See a health professional.
nigelj: “Victor . You come across as obsessive, delusional and misinformed over this correlation issue. I did the basics of psychology at university. I was an A grade student. See a health professional.”
Nigel, for years you’ve regularly posted to this blog practically on a daily basis. You’ve already contributed 21 posts to this thread alone. I post only from time to time when I have something interesting to say. My grand total on this thread is precisely two. Yet I’M the one who’s obsessive?
Victor. There is nothing obsessive about me participating regularly in a website and its discussions. I am largely retired and can do as I please. Some people watch sport all day or play golf, I like website discussions, running, reading and music and other things. Im a bit obsessive about food, and that is more of a problem for the waist line. I’m working on that one.
Youre looking obsessive over the CORRELATION issue because you just repeat the same things over and over, even although its been explained to you many times by different experts that you dont understand basic statistics. Its screaming out obsessiveness and delusion. Im not saying you are unintelligent or crazy. or have nothing to contribute. I’m saying take a deep breath and ponder things and maybe talk to someone.
Like someone else said you are wearing out the scroll wheel in my mouse. It gets tediously boring and it is spreading disinformation. I dont like disinformation.
Nigel, if you actually read through my posts rather than scrolling past them you’d see that my references to correlation were a necessary part of my evaluation of Krauss’s book (and video lecture). Of course I needed to repeat my contention that no correlation exists as Krauss’s assumption of a correlation simply by eyeballing a graph goes to the heart of his (questionable) argument. I don’t expect you to blindly accept my contention but I do expect you to seriously consider the evidence I’ve provided both on these threads and on my blog. NO ONE posting here has EVER responded to the reasoning behind that blog post by the way. It’s simply been dismissed. Determining a correlation is much more than simply a numbers game and you don’t need to be a statistician to see the obvious flaws revealed in my blog post. And if you disagree with that interpretation then by all means make some attempt to refute it — based on reasoning, NOT crude insults.
Victor
I did read your comments on this particular page. Have scanned trough some other things.
“Of course I needed to repeat my contention that no correlation exists as Krauss’s assumption of a correlation simply by eyeballing a graph goes to the heart of his (questionable) argument…..Determining a correlation is much more than simply a numbers game and you…”
You dismiss Krauss eyeballing a graph and identifying a correlation and yet you eyeball graphs yourself and say there is a correlation or there is no correlation. Doesn’t this tell you that eyeballing will always lead to disagreements and is SUBJECTIVE, with no possible way of reliably determining whos eyeballs are best. So establishing a correlation IS INDEED a numbers game requiring proper analysis. (Like BPL does). Sigh. But have a good xmas.
V: Determining a correlation is much more than simply a numbers game
BPL: No, it is not. You are making up your own definition of “correlation” and substituting it for the real one. You’re still wrong.
Oh, what fun! We’re back to square one.
But rather than spewing insults or worse,
I’ll tackle the subject with a bit of light verse.
I’ll liken the subject Victor puts ‘fore us
To a debate on some trees composing a forest.
On this subject, everyone agrees,
That a forest must be composed of trees.
To correlate trees, we might choose mathematics
So to see the forest – but to Victor, that’s tactics.
“No other interpretation should be possible”, he said,
If based on solid physics. Instead…
I find your “forest” is lacking intensity,
Because its existence is sensitive to density.
Since the density varies, your argument is squalid.
For trees to be a “forest” I expect them to be solid!
They should correlate just to a density of one,
With no room for a breeze or a spare ray of sun.
Instead, I see spaces with bushes and berries.
I even had room to pick some nice cherries.
So begone with your “forest.” It’s a copse or oasis!
Since you’ll never explain why your forest has spaces,
Every space a hiatus, without explanation,
Never part of a forest, in my estimation.
There’s more to the subject than any analogy,
So, no matter the relevance, I see no finality!
Wow!!! I am impressed. Verse worthy of a Pope.
This guy is no dope.
Great, John, thanks!
You assume a forest but there’s no such thing
Just a small clump of trees arranged in a ring.
With nothing before and nothing after
To argue otherwise is cause for laughter.
Only twenty years worth as any fool can see.
Sorry if that bugs you, but take it from me.
your learning curve has flatlined, Victor. Fail better.
This is intereresting from the SkS website (which aims to counter climate change denialism) : “From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations”
https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-beer-lambert.html
I’m so glad this was posted, because I run into this particular argument all the time. I have two basic responses when someone tells me “Oh, CO2 is only 400 parts per million, how can that do anything?”
1. Beer’s Law has no volume fraction term. It’s the absolute amount that matters.
2. 0.1 ppm of fluorine in the air can kill you.
There are also medical gases that have doses in the range 1-20 ppm, with a range of studies comparing those doses. For most of them, 400 would be a fatal dose.
@nigelj
Bob Loblaw – this somewhat aging idiot wants to enlighten us about the radiation attenuation of Co² – ???
What he says about the water cycle, clouds and albedo – is hair-raising and is only topped by MA Rodger, BPL and yourselve.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=109&&a=141 @70-90
Macias shurley you abuse scientists by calling them idiots. Since you think you are so superior, what are your academic qualifications and publishing record? Have you ever patented any inventions? What are your achievements that have actually been recognised by anyone that matters?
Personally, I find it useful to think in terms of the number of CO2 molecules an IR photon will encounter (that is, pass within 1 wavelength of ) on its way out of the atmosphere. Avogadro’s number is your friend in arguments like these.
Yes, Ray, that’s the key – the number of molecules. The post at Skeptical Science that nigelj links to (written by me) basically states that, and does reference Avogadro’s number. The “concentration” that is important is the molar concentration times path length.
As for macias shurly, who has also posted here at RealClimate as Mathias Schurle, and who posted at Skeptical Science as coolmaster then cph, all I can say is that his ramblings on evaporation clouds, albedo, etc were sent to either the borehole or the crankshaft here at RC.
Mr. Schurle is – as you would say, Ray – someone who’s learning curve has a negative slope.
Perhaps your learning curve on this matter has a negative slope? That might be the best observation and response to the trolls. I think it is pretty accurate. There are only a few folks who comment here who demonstrate this possibility. Most of us are learning, even if slowly.
Cheers
Mike
BL – Yes, Ray, that’s the key – the number of molecules.
NO Bob – that`s NOT the key.
Avogadro – It’s just a very simple old hat and no one is surprised that no one replies to your boring SkSc-post that YOU are so proud of.
Perhaps one of your old club colleagues (nigelj, MAR, BPL …) will take pity on starting a small, supposedly interesting sham discussion?
A forum like Skeptical Science, which should save the world from the stupidities of the climate deniers, is bubbled over with further stupidities that are in no way inferior to those of the climate deniers. One of the last hair-raising statements from your cook-sucking colleague MA Rotger is for example:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=109&&a=141#137984
MAR says: – I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature,…
— So in his opinion, it doesn’t matter whether our planet is coal-black or highly reflective white – the temperature stays the same – even if we loose all the clouds, sea ice, snow & glaciers.
??? interesting conception of physics, absorption and reflection ???
Ideally, you should address your own learning curve or that of your dumb club members – that is enough to keep you busy.
macias shurly aka blaisct aka coolmaster aka Matthias Schuerle of Karlsruhe, Germany,
I appreciate you are not writing here in your mother tongue and I acknowledge you are convinced that you see flooding the planet’s land area with water will somehow reverse sea level rise and AGW both. And I consider this utterly crazy conviction of yours is born of your inability to understand the science of the situation you address.
Yet given such consideration, I fail to see how my statement at SkS
could ever be interpreted as saying “I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature,”
Normally I would ask somebody making such an unexplained mental leap to properly explain themselves. However, I having engaged with you long enough at SkS to know such an inquiry of you would be entirely pointless.
Mind, that does not rule out you providing such an explanation and in so doing proving my assessment of you to be wrong.
MAR:
At least I wonder whether your spread of misinformation and horse manure is just stupidity – or is already due to your upcoming dementia.
In the SkepticalScience discussion about ALBEDO linked above, you claim …
@109 “I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature”
@98 “… so a rise of 39mm/yr over the 17-year period graphed = 2.3mm/yr/yr.”
@96 “albedo does NOT depend primarily on the wavelength of the light that hits the body/molecule. The reflected light is pretty-much independent of wavelength being no more than “bluish”
That is horse shit –
@96 – you seem to be colour blind and/or drunk
@98 – you stumble on, quickly inventing a new physical unit (mm / y / y)
– which may be is your new borehole number today
@109 – totally blindness combined with a total loss of mental albedo (reflectance)
To make you understand how the Earth’s climate system balances the energy budget, we have to consider processes occurring at the three levels:
– the surface of the Earth, where most solar heating takes place (and where we live).
– the edge of Earth’s atmosphere, where sunlight enters the system.
– and the atmosphere in between.
At each level, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy, or net flux, must be equal /
+-.imbalance.
Remember that about 29 percent of incoming sunlight is reflected back to space by bright particles in the atmosphere or bright ground surfaces.
THAT IS CALLED ALBEDO,
which leaves about 71 percent to be absorbed by the atmosphere (23 %) and the land (48 %).
For the energy budget at Earth’s surface to balance, processes on the ground must get rid of the 48 % of incoming solar energy that the ocean and land surfaces absorb.
Energy leaves the surface through three processes:
– evaporation 25%,
– convection 5%,
– and emission of thermal infrared energy 17%.
The water vapor transport is equivalent to energy transport. What I intend with my concept for lowering the slr and earth temperature is not a flooding of the land area of the planet – but an increase / simulation of + ~ 1% Evaporation (25% —> 25.25%.
The increased evaporation and precipitation rates mean that all the water in the atmosphere that is exchanged about once every ~10 days – will exchange a little bit faster.
The intensified water cycle will promote cloud cover and links the two parts of the radiation balance:
– the surface is heated by sunlight and cooled by water evaporation.
– but the atmosphere is heated by precipitation and cooled by terrestrial radiation to space.
V: “NO ONE posting here has EVER responded to the reasoning behind that blog post by the way. It’s simply been dismissed.”
You should wonder why. It’s not because folks here are unable to rebut your argument. It’s that you have consistently shown you lack the humility to consider the possibility you might be wrong, and you lack the conceptual tools to have a rational discussion. You have repeatedly misrepresented snippets of scientific papers – sometimes unintentionally, as you have clearly not understood them, but sometimes in a way that makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion you are a troll. When people call you stupid, as I have done, it is not because they think you have bad cognitive hardware, and have always been stupid. Instead, you are called stupid, and you defend stupid positions, because you have acquired fixed false beliefs and spend your energy shoring them up instead of questioning them. It’s a software issue. Some sort of reboot is in order.
None of my posts are based on either beliefs or opinions, but solid evidence and logic supplemented by simple common sense. .
Bwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa! Oh, stop. Yerkillin’ me. Dude, you wouldn’t recognize evidence, logic OR common sense if they bit your pecker off.
Er, no.
Wishing all a great holiday season.
From RC’s “About” section
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists and has been operating since Dec 2004. We aim to provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary on climate science.
As such I think it is important that the scientists here counter the clearly erroneous claims made by politicians (e.g. J Biden), MSM organisations (NYTimes), evangelists (M Mann) and general citizens (e.g. Chuck above)
In the most recent WG1 report there is low confidence that there is any detectable trend in tornado activity – either increasing or decreasing. If this site wants to be regarded as scientific, it needs to call out misinformation regardless of which side of the fence it comes from
For those who don’t know, Keith Woollard, using his Christmas wishes as a jump off to discredit Chuck and M. Mann – that’s the same guy who among others: :
– ridiculed “ assuming tie between global warming and local rainfall,/i>” – by pointing to the lack of correlation between … local warming and local rainfall (in Perth and in Sydney).
– disproved overall continental reduction in the available moisture in the soil by pointing that …. in some town of Corrigin there is no clear trend in rain
And this is the same guy who told off BPL: “”Stick to religion BPL, obviously maths is not your strong suit ” ;-).
Keith Woollard – everyone!
A textbook ad hominem response thanks Piotr
“I disagree with something he said so nothing he says has any merit”
Somehow I don’t seem to recall you responding to the actual substance of the original complaint about the eastern states presenter who came to WA and showed half the available rainfall record. You just bang on and on about me using Perth, despite the fact that I pointed at the full SW coverage. Get over it
…… and a timely article in our local paper today showing just how big an effect global warming is having on that very same region the Dr Crimp was talking about
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/record-breaking-grain-harvest-in-wa-hits-20-million-tonnes-20211231-p59l32.html
Just keep repeating that AGW mantra “even though everything is improving, it’s just about to get worse”
Keith Woollard,
A statement of ad hominem is not in all instances a logical fallacy. Thus if an uncorroborated statement is provided by a known liar, it is legitimate to make known that the statement is provided by a liar. There is perhaps a duty to attempt to obtain the missing corroboration but really the onus is on the liar to provide it.
As for your comment above which drew the ad hominem criticism from Piotr, the one assertion you make that would merit an attempt at corroboration is the tornado thing in AR6 WG1, and that is flawed (being a selective reading of the reference). So I would suggest the ad hominem statement is fully justified.
Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future. (by or before 2050)
Dr James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/NovemberTUpdate+BigClimateShort.23December2021.pdf
2050? FAKE NEWS! 3 years ago AOC told us in no uncertain terms that the world would end in 12 years if we didn’t address climate change. It appears we have failed to act as she thinks we should, thus, by her own math we only have 9 years left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_ovC0N3qfE&t=11s
Eat, drink and be merry! Party like it’s 1999!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
:)
XRRC,
The point of interest is surely why the November Temperature Update from Hansen et al insists that “Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future. (by or before 2050)” and as this Nov Update is quite a length (14 pages), that point should be presented here.
My reading of it runs as follows.
The Nov Update describes the global temperature increase as now having reached +1.19°C and that the “the 1.5°C global warming ceiling will be breached this decade,” this because there will be +0.1°C warming in the late 2020s due to the solar cycle, this additional to the decadal AGW increase (presumably +0.2°C) which will be enhanced by a reduction in aerosols through the decade, so allowing a modest El Niño (“which will almost surely occur”) to boost temperatures past the +1.5°C global warming ceiling.
Further, it is shown that today’s continuing GHG emissions are significantly greater than those projected by RCP2.6, a scenario which would keep us below the +2.0°C global warming ceiling and, because of the increasing overshoot of emissions, the use of negative emissions required to make good the situation has now become too great while the development of renewable power at scale remains a fantasy.
Thus the Nov Update says “We conclude that the 1.5°C target certainly will be exceeded, and the world will almost certainly blow through the 2°C ceiling.”
However note this “almost certain” conclusion comes with the caviat “Of course, one can devise a scenario that stays under 2°C via a miraculous transition to zero emissions within a few decades, but the real world pays no attention to imaginary scenarios.”
This all suggest to me that there is indeed “a yawning, growing gap between reality and the 2°C scenario” but that it does not of itself equate to “Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future.” Perhaps there is a need to define “baked in”.
There certainly is a need to define the “1.5°C global warming ceiling” properly. Note the +1.19°C value for the current level of warming is a single month number relative to 1880-1920. Using the same GISS numbers, the running 12-month average is +1.11°C.
I feel the Nov Update is perhaps harking back too far with its use of RCP2.6 and mention of earlier carbon budgets from two decades ago. Surely it needs to use today’s scenarios if its message is to be taken seriously.
Of the scenarios in use today SSP1-1.9 is supposed to show that if its emissions path is followed [net cumulative carbon emissions are allowed to rise no more than an extra +110Gt(C) 2022-50 and that followed by at least 110Gt(C) of negative emissions in the following half century and a further 110Gt(C) negative before 2150AD]; if this SSP1-1.9 pathway is followed, the +1.5°C AGW ceiling will not be breached. And our political leaders are signed up to keeping below the +1.5°C AGW ceiling so presumably signed up to those carbon emission limits (positive & negative).
If there is a problem with SSP1-1.9 or its interpretation, then that needs to be highlighted.
If our political leaders are unable to deliver the required “miraculous transition to zero emissions,” that is a matter beyond climate science (which is the topic of this thread).
That was a very boring verbose over the top commentary. For starters, I am not interested in such tedious pedantic word games or treatises by people of no importance about matters of no consequence on un-moderated social media venues.
Secondly I am not James Hansen’s lawyer or his secretary. If it’s important to you take up your concerns directly with him here E-mail: jeh1@columbia.edu or here https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen and leave me out of it.
Your long winded problems and belittling attitude about the article reference I shared here by Dr James Hansen ex-nasa-giss (your negative opinions about him personally and the content) are not my problem. Consider not wasting your time in future? I am not interested now or in the future. Life is too short to waste it on the arrogant and the disingenuous. Take a number.
XRRC,
You can wave your indignation at a comment that dares to criticise you hero James Hansen but it appears you cannot do this without also waving an amazingly poor grasp of the climate science.
Perhaps you do not appreciate that you yourself down-thread cut-&-paste a lengthy passage from a year-old CarbonBrief article which contradicts Hansen’s assertion that “Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future. (by or before 2050).” This CarbonBrief article by Zeke Hausfather is entitled“When might the world exceed 1.5C and 2C of global warming?” so does not hide the position it presents that global warming of +2°C is certainly not “now baked into Earth’s future.” (Note that the figure from the CarbonBrief article you enthusiastically link-to down thread plots model runs for SSP2-4.5 which considers a world where CO2 emissions double by 2100AD and CO2 concentrations have topped 550ppm.)
There is however agreement in climate science that to maintain the +1.5°C global warming ceiling rapid reductions in global emissions are required, including halving emissions over the next decade (as set out at COP26), followed by a transition to zero emissions and thence to net negative emissions for a century .
The position of James Hansen is that these reductions in emissions constitute a “miraculous transition to zero emissions” that exists solely in the “imaginary scenarios” created by climatologists.
It is fair to say that the decision reached at COP26 (to go away and think about it for another year) does reinforce the view that the political leaders of the world are still failing to take AGW seriously. But I do not see disagreement within the climate science. The differences concern the speed with which a reluctant world can actually achieve 50% emissions & zero emissions and how best to persuade it to act.
Like I said – I am not interested in anything you have to say. Which is why I stopped reading at the 5th word of tripe you wrote. Find someone else to bore senseless with your insidious judgmental and painfully disturbing and insulting diatribes.
I pity your limited reading comprehension, the weakening thought processes, the imaginary faults and their magical conclusions. and your desperation to be seen as somehow relevant here and the other places you attend.
Thankfully I do not base my understanding of climate science and the many well known variations in the conclusions (and estimations of this and that data analysis) derived across thousands of papers and misc reports by individual scientists and groups on the meandering thought bubbles of a self-serving social media commentator like yourself.
I actually listen to and follow a broad range of credible reputable climate scientists (and institutions) instead. Their different takes and emphasis, different focus and approaches to analysis, their varying interpretations, their varying projections and conclusions about different aspects of the climate science doesn’t disturb me in the least.
But for small-minded people who believe they know it all already and think they can read other people’s mind on blog forums, …. well then, bitch and moan all you wish. It’s what arrogant intolerant trolls do best on social media and blogs. In that you’re an expert.
Agreed. It is important that as we move forward the conversations around action become more transparent, not less. Too often when people say “Can’t be done!” or “It’s baked in!” they actually mean they do not expect humanity to act in time rather than “The science proves 1.5C is impossible!” At the same time, there are legitimate people knowledgeable of these things think exactly that estimates of being able to achieve 1.5C are incorrect.
All of the above should be kept in mind because here’s a simple fact of science: It is not future fact, it is future educated guess. None of us know for certain what is to come and it is exactly that fact that has guided my determination that fighting over science details and averages is no longer germane. The science will eventually fall where it will along whatever spectrum.
Risk is the only reasonable guide for humanity.
Still incorrect. James needs to take a Permaculture course.
How would that help make the article ‘correct’, or help him or anyone? I do not understand the point.
While Hansen traverses a lot of ground in the article it came across to me as coherent. Knowing nothing can capture everything. He addressed what he wanted to address well. Doesn’t mean he’s perfect or needs to be or that everyone agrees with him or needs to on every point he’s ever raised as an issue or part of the solutions he believes in. The data and reasoning on breaching 1.5C pre-2030 and 2C pre-2050 seems compelling enough to ignore the rest of the details and ideas. It’s not surprising he’s now considered an outlier and an extremist by so many who used to admire or respect him. Rejection is a universal quality of being human. I too reject who and what I have no interest in. But I prefer finding gold no matter how much quartz waste and rubble it’s found in. Most of Hansen’s monthly update was pure gold this time. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Can’t make horses drink as I said already, while selecting key points and quoting key texts gets tedious and time consuming at times I don’t have to waste. I believe smart people would follow Hansen and get his regular updates and read his published papers and his upcoming book. Each to their own of course. I have no time for time wasters or arrogant fools though. If people do not like Hansen specifically or anything else I share here (why would I or anyone else even bother seems to be the major question here) it’s not my problem, really it isn’t.
nigelj: You dismiss Krauss eyeballing a graph and identifying a correlation and yet you eyeball graphs yourself and say there is a correlation or there is no correlation. Doesn’t this tell you that eyeballing will always lead to disagreements and is SUBJECTIVE, with no possible way of reliably determining whos eyeballs are best. So establishing a correlation IS INDEED a numbers game requiring proper analysis.
V: Krauss draws his conclusion simply by eyeballing a graph. He offers no analysis whatsoever, nor any statistics, as though the graph speaks for itself. That is most certainly NOT what I’ve done. The critique provided on the blog post I’ve referenced is by no means based on eyeballing, but detailed, logical analysis of the evidence. That should be clear to anyone who takes the trouble to read it — http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
The scattergram offered by Grumbine (very similar to that provided by MA Rodger and implicitly endorsed by BPL) is misleading, as I’ve demonstrated very clearly. The statistics allegedly supporting it is based on what is known as a “methodological artefact.”
“A statistical artefact is an inference that results from bias in the collection or manipulation of data. The implication is that the findings do not reflect the real world but are, rather, an unintended consequence of measurement error. When the findings from a particular study are deemed to be—at least in part—a result of the particular research technique employed . . . rather than an accurate representation of the world, they are sometimes said to be a methodological artefact.” ( https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095426317 )
But don’t take my word for it. The nature of the artefact is clearly revealed by my analysis. The error is so blatant that no knowledge of statistics is necessary to see it. As I’ve stated in the past, statistics is a scientific tool, NOT a science in and of itself. Any statistical result must be evaluated through a rigorous process of critical thinking, as any real scientist will tell you.
Victor, regarding the correlation between CO2 and warming over the last 100 years approximately. The critique on your mole in the ground website is wrong and is anything but logical. Firstly you choose graphs that aren’t over the same time periods (one ending at 2017 and one at 2010) and neither are up to date with this year. Secondly you persistently rely on eyeballing graphs with no maths analysis. Thirdly you persistently mistake a lack of a clear and perfect correlation for a lack of ANY correlation (for example early last century).
Correlations exist on a type of fractional scale from 0 – 1.0 which goes in plain language from zero correlation to low correlation, medium correlation, good correlation, very good correlation and perfect correlation. Any introduction to correlations related to scatterplots will show you that. Fourthly you cherrypick time periods (like 1998 – 2015).
Fifthly your comments on time distortions are simply nonsensical. They are not displaying the same information in different ways. A temperature chart is not the same as a scatterplot over time. Sixthly you also persistently mix up correlations between variables with cause and effect. You must keep those things as separate exercises. For example you cannot exclude the correlation early last century just because several things contributed to the warming trend. You cannot exclude el nino and la nina years. Correlation is purely a mathematical relationship between variables. It doesn’t matter at this stage what the variables are. You just use all the data and see what it says. You’re obviously intelligent, but you have gone off the rails on this issue.
This is what’s really going on, roughly speaking. The correlation between CO2 and warming over the period 1900 – 2021 is good, using a maths analysis. (From memory it is around 0.65 in numbers). You can do a simple approximation like this. The period 1900 – 1945 has an average towards good correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures. The period 1945 – 1975 has almost no correlation between CO2 and temperatures (over land, there is a correlation in the ocean temperatures). The period 1975 – 2021 has a very good correlation between temperatures and CO2 trends. To roughly determine the correlation for 1900 – 2021 as a whole, you can take an average of these three periods, and you get a good correlation between CO2 and warming.
Now we consider why the correlation isn’t perfect. You would expect a correlation between CO2 and warming so why the absence middle of last century? Compelling explanations abound but lets not go over that again. The pause after 1998 is in fact only a flat period in the land temperature record of about 6 years from about 2002 – 2008. Its not long enough to have much impact on the level of correlation of warming and CO2. We know that the system continued to gain energy during these years anyway. Its just that it didn’t show up in land temperatures .
This correlation issue is simple and doesn’t make me sceptical. I’m sceptical of crazy notions that climate change will cause extinction of the human race, and I have become rather pessimistic about our chances of getting emissions to zero or even close by 2050, but I think we will make some difference and its worth pushing for that.
At last, a meaningful response to my analysis of the Grumbine scattergram. Finally! And thank you, Nigel. Your argument does make some sense in a very general way, but fails to specifically address the misleading nature of Grumbine’s graph. If you examine his scattergram carefully you’ll see that the diagonal indicating correlation appears only during the period of (roughly) 1979 through 1998 (though these dates are never explicitly indicated, which is why the graph is so misleading). Prior to the late 70’s and subsequent to 1998 we see either a quasi-random jumble or a flat line. A similar picture emerges from the scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe ( https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg), only Wolfe provides us with the dates necessary to properly evaluate it.
While “doing the math” can be useful, it can also produce a very misleading artefact, as evidenced by the very different pictures provided by Grumbine and Wolfe. So yes, if we choose to ignore the very clear lack of correlation prior to and after the last 20 years of the previous century (as indicated not only by Wolfe but ALSO Grumbine, if we look carefully enough) then “doing the math” seems to make sense. Choosing to blindly follow a mathematical summary of a long time period without digging into the more complicated details is a formula for self-deception. Accepting whatever method reinforces your favored theory is a sure sign of confirmation bias.
As for what happened prior to the 1940’s, it’s generally accepted that CO2 levels were not high enough during that period to have a significant effect on global temperatures. So yes, CO2 levels did rise during this period, but that hardly amounts to a meaningful correlation. And as for what happened during the first 15 years of the 21st century, I’ll once again refer you to the paper by Fyffe et al, co-authored by no other than Michael Mann, Benjamin Santer and Ed Hawkins. And no, one can’t easily ignore a 40 year period of NO warming smack dab in the center of the 20th century.
Victor
“If you examine his scattergram carefully you’ll see that the diagonal indicating correlation appears only during the period of (roughly) 1979 through 1998 (though these dates are never explicitly indicated, which is why the graph is so misleading). Prior to the late 70’s and subsequent to 1998 we see either a quasi-random jumble or a flat line. A similar picture emerges from the scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe ”
The quasi random jumble in the scattergram before 1970s is not completely random. It still has a correlation. Pick up a book on interpreting scatterplots and using those criteria it still a low to average correlation. The period after the 1970’s has a very good correlation. So its logical to conclude the correlation for the entire period 1900 – 2021 is good. This being the period that interests us because emissions were rising.
Of course if you look at a cherrypicked period of for example just one decade the correlation between warming and CO2 is virtually nothing or very low because of all the temperature wobbles due variation due to el nino / la nina set against a relatively smooth CO2 trend. But only a twit would look at short term periods like that in isolation. You always look a bit longer term. Its about pattern detection. Which is what you are doing anyway.
“As for what happened prior to the 1940’s, it’s generally accepted that CO2 levels were not high enough during that period to have a significant effect on global temperatures. So yes, CO2 levels did rise during this period, but that hardly amounts to a meaningful correlation. ”
CO2 before the 1940s still caused some of that warming estimated at about 20%. You cant really just ignore that. Its not like it was only 1% of the warming. And the data before the 1940s still has an average correlation. Thats not insignificant or meaningless. The slopes of the lines differ but not by 90 degrees and the direction is the same.
The following three global temperature datasets show how strong and consistent the warming has been from the mid seventies until this year. Plot CO2 over this and theres obviously a good overall correlation.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_300.png
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
“And no, one can’t easily ignore a 40 year period of NO warming smack dab in the center of the 20th century.”
Nobody is ignoring this. Its only in the land based data. There is some warming in the oceans. It is the main reason why the correlation between warming and CO2 for the entire century is not perfect and can only be categorised as an average to good correlation. But it doesn’t matter, because the cause and effect of CO2 on warming is well established from other evidence and laboratory studies, and we have good explanations why there is a flat period and poor correlation mid last century that don’t invalidate the greenhouse effect.
Stop talking about correlation as if you knew what you were talking about. You don’t. You can’t say what “amounts to a meaningful correlation” or what doesn’t, because you resolutely refuse to use the proper definition of “correlation.”
Isn’t it fascinating that you are still stuck in 2015. Maybe take a minute and catch up to the rest of us. Only an utter moron would fail to notice that the past 6 years have been VERY hot.
V: If you examine his (Grumbine’s) scattergram carefully you’ll see that the diagonal indicating correlation appears only during the period of (roughly) 1979 through 1998 (though these dates are never explicitly indicated, which is why the graph is so misleading).
J: There’s nothing misleading about directly relating CO2 levels to annual temperatures in a plot. CO2 levels are nonlinear and escalating, so the same linear correlation plot cannot accommodate both CO2 levels and the passage of time evenly. The relationship you’re examining is between CO2 levels and temperature, NOT time and temperature unrelated to CO2.
V: A similar picture emerges from the scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe
J: Wolfe’s scattergram is rendered more fuzzy by using monthly, rather than annual, readings. The sub-annual cycle only serves to produce a noisier chart. He also doesn’t “do the math.” He prefers instead to introduce two flat segments and a sharp upslope, without analyzing what the real slope is, even between those selected breakpoints. The analysis cuts off at about 405 ppm, corresponding to about 2017, thus omitting 4 rather warm years at the end that would show a continuing upward warming trend at odds with his flat line.
V: …if we choose to ignore the very clear lack of correlation prior to and after the last 20 years of the previous century…
J: Even if the last 20 years were a flat line (they aren’t) positive correlation would still be present. We are correlating temperatures with carbon dioxide levels, not time passage. To demonstrate a lack of correlation between temperatures and CO2, you would need to show that temperatures drop substantially after 2000, returning toward their early 20th century levels. That is, show us that despite high CO2 levels, temperatures have returned to below the 125 year average. In the real world, high temperatures are still associated with high CO2 levels. You are, instead, looking at the relationship between temperature and elapsed time, and then assuming that a deviation from your preferred slope in the graph constitutes a “lack of correlation” with CO2.
You have demonstrated convincingly that the relationship between temperature and elapsed time is not unwavering, either on an annual or decadal basis. In fact, it’s nonlinear, has multiple causes, and its covariance (or perceived lack therof) with CO2 cannot be adequately evaluated by chopping a time/temperature graph into pleasing segments for sub-analysis.
Victor the troll,
It is cruel to allow a moronic idiot to prattle on about something he hasn’t the first understanding about. So maybe I should set you straight on this particular demented effort of yours.
The concept of a “methodological artifact” is seen applied within the social sciences (and seemingly applied in quite a precise way which bears no relation to your application of the term). However, that is not to say that a scientific finding could be in error with the result being an artifact (in the sense of “a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures.”) cannot occur in other sciences. As your objections do not extend to the validity of the CO2 & temperature data, when you acclaim to problems with “the statistics allegedly supporting it is based on”, you are presumably concerned with some use of these data.
So where is this problem?
You seem again to be complaining about the plotting of Global-Temperature against Atmospheric-CO2 but there is no statistics involved in such a presentation.
Or perhaps it is the application of OLS to determine a linear relationship between the two sets of data but if there are problems with such a method, you fail to explain what it is and the whole world is thus left in the dark.
I think the problem you have (yes it is your problem) is that the wobbles in the rising Global-Temperature are big enough for you to to see some other mechanism at work (which the wobbles undoubtedly result from) and thus to declare with no other supporting evidence that Atmospheric-CO2 therefore cannot correlated with Global-Temperature.
For folk who actually understand the concept of correlation, your position is bizarre. The wobbles which you find so troublesome within the 1850-2020 data (I use here BEST temperature data (sea ice using air temperature) & a GISS CO2 data set prior to the ESRL data 1959-to-date.) you usually describe as being those pre-1965 (if we ignore you ridiculous ‘hiatus’ bullshit concerning more recent times) but the correlation is pretty-much identical if this early 1850-1960 data is ignored. The correlation is even pretty-much identical just using the data for the period you have been prattling on here at RealClimate 2014-20.
What perhaps your cross-eyed analysis fails to address is that the correlation of Global-Temperature with Atmospheric-CO2 accounts for two-thirds of the variation in Global-Temperature at an annual level and five-sixth of the variation at a decadal level.
Of course, the physical basis for such a correlation is exceedingly simplistic but again you express no concern there.
So there continues to be zero basis whatever for all this bullshit you have been bombarding us with over the years. And for myself, I continue to be exceedingly charitable towards you in my responses to these arrant ramblings of a complete fuck-wit that you have presented here over the years.
I am in basic agreement with Nigel’s critique of 12/28, but the problem goes deeper. Your methodology is fundamentally flawed.
V: “While correlation might or might not indicate causation, lack of correlation all but rules it out.”
J: This is FALSE. Correlation is a measure of fit for a LINEAR relationship. If there is not a significant correlation, it can also mean that a causal relationship exists, but it is NONLINEAR, that your data is too “noisy” (other causes interfere with discerning the relationship) or that it is inappropriate to the case you are trying to make.
For example, if I take a long term average of the annual temperature cycle (the “normals”) for a site in the mid or high latitudes, and correlate it with the day of the year from 1 to 365, I would find that there is virtually no correlation! This is because the relationship is a nonlinear wave, and I am choosing an inappropriate way to look at it. However, I have to know something about the physics to know this is the case, or subject the day to alternative types of statistical analysis.
Correlation is a weak tool for establishing causality, or lack thereof.
In the case of finding the relationship between CO2 levels and surface temperatures, the appropriate time period to consider is annually averaged data or longer. This eliminates a “noisy” annual cycle that has nothing to do with the relevant relationship. It may also allow the longer-term fluctuations to be averaged through, such as variations in volcanic activity, human-released aerosols, and fluctuations in the rate of oceanic heat uptake and atmospheric exchange – e.g. El Nino.
There is no particular reason to expect a system with slow acting components, such as oceans and glaciers, to respond consistently on an annual basis. That’s an assumption on your part, and you haven’t justified it.
Your exclusive focus on correlation between measured surface temperature and CO2 levels as a measure of causality also makes you ignore other types of relevant evidence. These include paleoclimate data, oceanic heat storage, ice cores, radiation physics and satellite measurements, and modeling based on physical measurements. None of these is sufficient by itself, either, but to reject all of them suggests that your methodology includes throwing away as much good evidence as possible.
V: The scattergram offered by Grumbine (very similar to that provided by MA Rodger and implicitly endorsed by BPL) is misleading,
J: No, it’s a straightforward plot of the exact relationship you say you’re examining between CO2 levels and surface temperature. The points represent annual averages of each, which is appropriate. The correlation is a strong 0.76. The only thing possibly misleading is that the plot doesn’t continue to the present, which contains the six warmest years in the record (http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2020) and also have the highest CO2 levels. So, the correlation is understated, if anything!
You have noted the nonlinear relationship between time and CO2 levels. That’s an inherent weakness of running correlations. However, your hypothesis concerns temperature and CO2 levels, NOT elapsed time and temperature. Switching to the time/temperature plot, and using that to make inferences about CO2 is incorrect methodology. This is Nigel’s 5th objection, stated in my terms. And, yes, it’s a blatant error, but not the way you would have it.
I recall reading a paper many years ago that indicated something like 40(?) well-placed weather stations would suffice to detect global warming over the past century. (I actually discussed it here, but no idea when.)
Now I can no longer locate it, and can’t even figure out a good way to search for it.
Does that ring any bells?
Thanks in advance for any pointer.s…
may be “Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN)” is your point –
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/1491/2018/
I think that was Nick Stokes on his blog https://moyhu.blogspot.com. I do not find the article right now and I do not remember it exactly, but he reduced the number of stations in steps down to 40. With 80 evenly distributed stations the result was almost the same at with all stations, but 40 was slightly too sparse?
E. O. Wilson is dead.
So it goes.
He’ll be missed. That was a man who understood how science is done.
Analysis: ( a year ago now) When might the world exceed 1.5C and 2C of global warming?
Zeke Hausfather – 04.12.2020 still publishing this data graphs etc today
Our analysis shows that:
– The world will likely exceed 1.5C between 2026 and 2042 in scenarios where emissions are not rapidly reduced, with a central estimate of between 2030 and 2032.
– The 2C threshold will likely be exceeded between 2034 and 2052 in the highest emissions scenario, with a median year of 2043.
– In a scenario of modest mitigation – where emissions remain close to current levels – the 2C threshold would be exceeded between 2038 and 2072, with a median of 2052.
plus: There are also notable differences between observational surface temperature records regarding how much global warming has occurred, both in the 1800s and in recent years. For example, the Berkeley Earth record shows that the world has already warmed by 1.25C since the pre-industrial (1850-1899) period, while the Met Office/UEA HadCRUT4 record only shows 1.06C warming over the same period.
of course everyone only half informed would already know that:
Global average surface temperatures in any given year are driven by a combination of long-term warming and short-term natural variability. The latter – driven by El Niño and La Niña events, or volcanic eruptions – can result in a year being up to 0.2C warmer or cooler than the trajectory of long-term human-caused warming. This means it is quite possible for humans to have only warmed the world by 1.3C – only slightly above where we are today – and see a single year that exceeds 1.5C. In fact, the World Meteorological Organization recently estimated that there is one-in-four chance that the world will exceed 1.5C for at least one year by 2025.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-when-might-the-world-exceed-1-5c-and-2c-of-global-warming
and plus the graphic illustration:
The figure below shows an example of this approach. It uses a smoothed average of observational temperature records up to 2020 and all of the different CMIP6 climate models running a particular scenario (SSP2-4.5; see below) after that point. Each climate model shows the warming from the year 2020.
and then there’s this shocking news:
When will global warming reach 1.5C?
To estimate when global temperatures are likely to exceed the 1.5C and 2C limits, both historical observations and the latest CMIP6 climate models are used – and then smoothed to remove year-to-year natural variability.
CMIP6 models are run for a wide range of future emission scenarios in different “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” (SSPs; see Carbon Brief’s explainer). Under more stringent mitigation scenarios, such as SSP1-1.9 and SSP2-2.6, global warming may never exceed 1.5C or 2C in some CMIP6 model runs.
and now the famous Dr. James Hansen is saying this:
23 December 2021
James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Pushker Kharecha
Understanding of short-term climate variability helps to illuminate long-term climate
trends and reveals that the 1.5°C global warming ceiling will be breached this decade. This
use of the word “short” is unrelated to the Big Climate Short that is being foisted on young
people by political leaders with the assistance of climate modelers.
The 2021 annual mean global temperature will fall almost smack on the 1970-2015 trend line.
So, can we continue to say that we are in a period of accelerated global warming? Yes, for sure,
based on knowledge of factors that cause most of the short-term global temperature variability.
Long-term change becomes more apparent, when we account for short-term variability.
and then says:
Taking account of these sources of short-term global temperature variability, and recognizing
that the growth rate of greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing has been relatively steady for the
past several decades, it’s clear that the 7-year period 2015-2021 is anomalously warm (Fig. 2).
As discussed in our July temperature update,4 the excessive warming can be traced to a reduction
of human-made aerosols; thus, the warming is the first payment in our Faustian aerosol bargain.
and then
In A Realistic Path to a Bright Future,10 one of us (JH) described UK Prime Minister Boris
Johnson’s claim that COP26 salvaged the chance to keep global warming below 1.5°C as “pure,
unadulterated bulls**t. There is now no chance whatever of keeping global warming below
1.5°C.” Johnson also said: “while there is still so much that needs to be done to save our planet,
we’ll look back at COP26 as the moment humanity finally got real about climate change.”11
Really? Where did he get that idea? Perhaps from COP26 President Alok Sharma, who, after
the summit, said12 “We can say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees within reach, but
its pulse is weak.” Where did Sharma derive his claim of credibility? From climate models?
Who was informing Sharma? It’s possible to get almost any answer from models by inserting
appropriate greenhouse gas scenarios, but models have a problem called GIGO: garbage in,
garbage out. Climate models are essential and valuable for understanding climate change, but
they form only one of the three legs of the tripod that climate knowledge stands firmly upon.
The other two are Earth’s paleoclimate history, which climate models must be consistent with,
and ongoing observations of climate forcing factors and climate system response.
plus he says:
Fig. 5. Annual growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing (red is trace gases, mainly CFCs).
RCP2.6 is a greenhouse gas scenario designed to keep global warming below 2°C.
All climate scenarios in early IPCC reports yielded global warming of well over 2C, which led
us to define an alternative scenario13 in 2000 with equal emphasis on air pollution and CO2. We
thought it would probably take more than half a century to phase off fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
By focusing on air pollutants methane, black carbon, and tropospheric ozone, as well as CO2, we
concluded that it was still possible to keep global warming from exceeding 2°C. The alternative
scenario had constant fossil fuel emissions in the first half of this century – which required an
increase of carbon-free energies such as renewables and nuclear power – and declining fossil fuel
emissions in the second half of the century. As described on page 13 of Bright Future,10 this
paper irritated the scientific community. A decade and a half later, the fifth IPCC Assessment
Report (AR5) defined four scenarios: RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) 2.6, 4.5, 6
and 8.5, where the number is the greenhouse gas forcing in 2100. RCP2.6 was defined so as to
keep global warming below 2°C; however, emissions growth after 2000 meant that the 2°C limit
could be met only by inserting a large dose of negative emissions.14
Now let’s compare the real world with RCP2.6.
(and on and on he goes, check the refs if unsure)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/NovemberTUpdate+BigClimateShort.23December2021.pdf
Enjoy it or Ignore it.
direct link to figure graph showing “estimate when global temperatures are likely to exceed the 1.5C and 2C limits, ”
Smoothed average of historical observations from NASA; NOAA; Met Office Hadley Centre/UEA; Berkeley Earth; Cowtan and Way from 1850-2020. Warming relative to 2020-2100 from smoothed versions of all currently available CMIP6 models running the SSP2-4.5 scenario
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ew2uJkgXAAMyZyn?format=jpg&name=medium
New science article report being promoted by Prof Michael E. Mann today says:
‘The Fuse Has Been Blown,’ and the Doomsday Glacier Is Coming for Us All
New data suggests a massive collapse of the ice shelf in as little as five years. “We are dealing with an event that no human has ever witnessed,” says one scientist. “We have no analog for this”
“One thing that’s hard to grasp about the climate crisis is that big changes can happen fast. In 2019, I was aboard the Nathaniel B. Palmer, a 308-foot-long scientific research vessel, cruising in front of the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica. One day, we were sailing in clear seas in front of the glacier. The next day, we were surrounded by icebergs the size of aircraft carriers.
As we later learned from satellite images, in a matter of 48 hours or so, a mélange of ice about 21 miles wide and 15 miles deep had cracked up and scattered into the sea. It was a spooky moment. ”
“Depending on various emissions scenarios in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, we could have as little as one foot of sea level rise by the end of the century, or nearly six feet of sea level rise”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/doomsday-glacier-thwaites-antarctica-climate-crisis-1273841/
The long term (centuries) physical irreversible character of these processes is not yet widely known or understood by the public or politicians and so on. Are there technological options to preserve the ice sheets (WAIS/GIS)? No. I can’t imagine anyone seriously thinks there are. The heat gain of the ocean is too large already.
as per scientific points raised in Case: 18-36082, 02/07/2019, ID: 11183380, DktEntry: 21-13,
Page 1 of 96
Dr. ERIC RIGNOT, PH.D, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ URGENT MOTION
https://ourchildrenstrust.org/s/DktEntry-21-13-Rignot-Dec-ISO-Urgent-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf
see page 5-6, extract
K. von Schuckmann et al.: Sep. 2020
Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/
or
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
Roughly speaking, summarizing, The Earth’s Energy Imbalance was tracking ~0.4 W/m² before 2010 and now had increased during the past decade to about 0.9 W/m². This year it could reach above ~1.0 W/m², depending on the data from Sep-Dec. This relates to both Hansen and others commentaries about decreasing albedo likely due to reductions in shipping derived aerosols therefore increasing rates of global warming relative to actual emission increases (eg CERES data http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/July2021.pdf ); as well as the reports of increasing underwater melting of Antarctic and GIS ice shelves grounding lines etc etc etc.
Contributing authors/institutions:
Karina von Schuckmann1, Lijing Cheng2,28, Matthew D. Palmer3, James Hansen4, Caterina Tassone5,
Valentin Aich5, Susheel Adusumilli6, Hugo Beltrami7, Tim Boyer8, Francisco José Cuesta-Valero7,27,
Damien Desbruyères9, Catia Domingues10,11, Almudena García-García7, Pierre Gentine12,
John Gilson13, Maximilian Gorfer14, Leopold Haimberger15, Masayoshi Ishii16, Gregory C. Johnson17,
Rachel Killick3, Brian A. King10, Gottfried Kirchengast14, Nicolas Kolodziejczyk18, John Lyman17,
Ben Marzeion19, Michael Mayer15,29, Maeva Monier20, Didier Paolo Monselesan21, Sarah Purkey6,
Dean Roemmich6, Axel Schweiger22, Sonia I. Seneviratne23, Andrew Shepherd24, Donald A. Slater6,
Andrea K. Steiner14, Fiammetta Straneo6, Mary-Louise Timmermans25, and Susan E. Wijffels21,26
52 citations as recorded by crossref.
Cited by 65 recorded by Google
Andrew Dessler
Pattern effect & committed warming remote seminar at CSU on Oct. 22, 2020
“….. you get a committed warming of 2.3 degrees. So what this says is that our best estimate of committed warming blows us through Paris. I mean not only do we not get anywhere close to 1.5 degrees C we don’t even stop at 2C, we’re well above two degrees. ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlolDdnSHCE&t=1340s
“…. it looks like most of the pattern effect is due to clouds… so we’re gonna take observations from 2000 to 2017 and this is what the cloud pattern of the cloud feedback looks like uh again this is a series and re-analysis and we’re going to look compare this to 26 cmip6 control runs …. most of the variability
in the climate over the 2000 to 2017 period is due to enso variations and an inner annual unforced
variability there’s not a huge climate trend, so that means that the the thing we should be comparing this to is unforced variability in the models and that’s the control runs … if we do that this is what it looks like and i would argue that these look quite similar so both of them show that there’s a positive cloud feedback region in the east pacific they both show this negative cloud feedback region kind of slicing spc into the indian ocean and both of them show below that you get this region of of high values.
so I as always the models amaze me i’m always impressed at how good the models do especially when you look at a model ensemble average, the models really do a fantastic job and so i think again this is another example the model is doing really a very nice job…. now but we’re interested in the pattern effect so how do we get the pattern effect out of the series data? what we’re going to do is we’re going to split the series data into two halves or split into two parts and we’re going to calculate the cloud feedback for period one and period two and then what i’m gonna do is move this dividing line around until i find a dividing line that gives me a big difference between the two periods and it turns out that the biggest one is if you split the data in July of 2010 and that gives you a cloud feedback from 2000 2010 of about zero and from 2010 to 2017 of about one that’s a big difference in cloud feedback ………………….” https://youtu.be/jlolDdnSHCE?t=1715
and then what ….. ?
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28
Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their predecessors. Do we trust them?
In this talk, I will discuss why climate sensitivities in the latest state-of-the-art models are substantially larger than in their predecessors. The primary culprit is clouds: Planetary warming causes low-level clouds to become less extensive and less reflective, inducing further warming – an amplifying feedback that has strengthened in the latest models. This stronger positive cloud feedback arises due to changes in model physics and may be related to improved representation of cloud ice and liquid water content. Given the prominence of low cloud feedback in driving uncertainty in climate sensitivity, I will then discuss our efforts to constrain the global marine low cloud feedback using satellite observations of how low cloud properties respond to meteorology. This work indicates that the observed sensitivity of low clouds to their environmental controls is incompatible with very high or very low values of climate sensitivity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8
Mark acknowledges Gavin S. with the Wolf Pack of “high ECS” ranges above 4.5K in CMIP6 models “…… really large sensitivities implying that maybe you know the world is in store for even greater warming than was
anticipated prior and so that’s really a motivation for looking at whether we believe these high sensitivity models but first i want to just establish what’s causing these higher climate sensitivities and of course based on my motivation you’ll you can imagine that it’s relevant to feedbacks …..” see here https://youtu.be/hv6nsvsGGr8?t=1257
and continuing at 24.40 mins https://youtu.be/hv6nsvsGGr8?t=1479
this is really the the main reason that the
the climate sensitivity has increased in cmip6
just to hammer this home in case it’s
not obvious what I’m talking about
this is what the planet looks like and
so if you compare that to a planet with
no clouds it’s much darker so obviously
climate models aren’t totally wiping
away clouds but they’re essentially
going in that direction where you have
a planet that’s highly reflective and
you’re moving towards one that’s
slightly less reflective so that is
occurring per unit of global warming
so with every degree of warming
you’re getting more absorbed short
wave radiation from the reduction in
cloud cover or reflectivity so the
warming essentially begets more
warming from the cloud changes
and this effect has strengthened in
the latest models (CMIP6) ……
[ …… of course there are other interactions going on as well all the time. such as ebb and flow of enso, the decrease in aerosols due to the changes made to shipping bunker oil being used, which also reduces cloud coverage slightly as well the last 5 years. meanwhile the world keeps on warming and wild fires are emitting more CO2 and other pollutants too while reducing albedo slightly more again for a period until regrowth, except that overall global rainforest destruction is still rapidly increasing to record levels which also decreases albedo permanently and changes the tropical cloud forming mechanisms. There is more of course, and everything adds up and everything is also connected in a way that is impossible to keep up with and take a snapshot and say “this is reality – this is what is happening exactly.” GCMs are great but they are still only hypothetical best practice estimates/delayed experiments (looking in a rear vision mirror most of the time) , that are unable to keep up to date with real world observations and the dynamic at times unexpected changes which are occurring in this destabilized real world climate scenario in real time. Meaning the target is always moving and no one is able to pin it down. Flexibility and fluidity of thinking is key here I believe while continually seeking credible observational updates and analyses for due consideration. I also think the knowledge updates are now far outpacing the IPCC system’s 5-6 year regular timelines making their reports more and more outdated every year and unsatisfactory. ]