This month’s open thread on climate science topics. Note that summaries of annual climate data from 2021 will start to appear in a couple of weeks, and updates to the model/observations comparisons will appear a week or so after that.
PS. New year, new moderation policy. Please be substantive – sniping, insults, and tedious repetition will just be culled. We want to maintain a civil and productive discourse here, but the comment threads may need to be re-evaluated if that doesn’t happen.
In the future, many regions around the world will be affected by increasing water scarcity caused by AGW.
But almost 50,000 km³ of fresh water still flows into the oceans via the rivers.
I have not the slightest doubt that mankind in a global effort is able to take an “additional” amount
of water (~ 1335km³ = 3.7mm annual sea level rise) out from the rivers of this world or to hold back corresponding amounts of global precipitation over urban land areas. The global soil moisture (5500km³), the renewable groundwater (625,000km³) and deeper aquifers (2,200,000km³) are decreasing reservoirs that are suitable for decades for an annual influx of 3.7mm SLR due to their size.
The first large-scale human interventions in the natural water balance of the regions took place long before industrialization (1750) ~ 8000 years ago. With settling down, the first wells, clearing of fire and the constant increase in surface sealing, canalization of rivers, drainage of moors, expansion of agricultural and forestry land, … etc., mankind is responsible for this water scarcity itself. Water pollution, waste, overexploitation of natural water reservoirs and the resulting desertification exacerbate this emergency.
Over the global land areas, the mainly CO²-induced average temperature increase since 1750 is already ~ 1.5 ° C, which should actually increase evapotranspiration there by ~ 10%.
Where water is becoming increasingly scarce also due to increased evaporation, less and less water can be evaporated and thus severely disrupt and worsen the transport of energy from the surface to the atmosphere.
Our crazy diamond heat engine uses approx. 28% (38W / m²) of the solar power arriving at the land surface for the latent, non-temperature-increasing energy transport into the atmosphere.
Above the oceans, this proportion is approx. 58% (100W / m²), as the amount of evaporated water per m² is roughly three times higher than on land.
This difference in energy transport from surface to atmosphere (also) explains the different rates of warming of ocean (+ 0.77 ° C) and land surfaces (+ 1.44 ° C). Oceans cool themselves due to the high rate of evaporation, similar to the ancient clay jugs of the Romans.
Since some insisting commentators (MAR, BL, BPL, RL, NIGELJ, …) still have ridiculous doubts about my climate-protection-strategy and the surface cooling effect of “aditional, artificial irrigation & evaporation” and also have doubts that evaporation is an essential prerequisite for cloud formation and a higher cloud albedo,
I wish a fact-based discussion for you and me in the future…
happy New Year
They may have enough water in Mid and Northern California for a while this year – they’ve gotten record amounts of the White stuff, which they needed. Yes, it’s just weather, not climate, so no snide remarks needed from the peanut gallery, but it is interesting to climate watchers:
https://www.sfgate.com/renotahoe/article/Pictures-Lake-Tahoe-set-record-snowiest-month-16734194.php
We’ve been running cold here in the PNW, but we’re looking forward to some normal, wet and warmer 40+ degree temps soon. Seattle had the wettest fall in recorded history per the National Weather Service and as reported by National Public Radio (not Breitbart or Fox for those of you in the peanut gallery):
https://www.kuow.org/stories/how-wet-is-it-historically-wet-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-pnw-weather-trends
Quote: “Tolerating the rain is a rite of passage in the Puget Sound region, but these last few months have been soaking wet. The National Weather Service confirmed this week that the region has experienced the wettest fall ever recorded in the Seattle area.”
Looks like Paradise in Mount Rainier NP has either 238″ snow or 83″. Can’t tell exactly what NOAA is saying here, but it appears to be about 94% of normal, so not bad:
https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/snow/snowplot.cgi?AFSW1
Winter is just getting started. LET IT SNOW across the entire western USA!
ms: some insisting commentators (MAR, BL, BPL, RL, NIGELJ, …) still have ridiculous doubts about my climate-protection-strategy
BPL: That’s largely because it wouldn’t work.
Thank god I found new supporters for my theory in the new year.
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/water-evaporated-trees-cools-global-climate
The old technique of 2021 of throwing dark matter at you in your borehole apparently didn’t work. This year I’m going to try it out with lighting and enlightenment, although I’m not very optimistic in your case:
As you may know, the problem of global warming is that the incoming light energy “delights” mankind with increasing energy absorption and warmth.
To find out how best to cool light, I built a lamp as a model a few years ago and cooled it with water.
https://lumen-laden-de3.webnode.com/_files/200006559-4f8604f864/coolmac300a.jpg
As a plant growth light, I use it at home as a heating system with negative emissions (CO²).
On an industrial scale (let’s say a cube with 100m) and vertical growing on many floors,
as a world champion in energy efficiency, the grow light can help assimilate up to ~ 20,000 times more CO² in such an agricultural factory than on one hectare of open land.
Here, CO² finally becomes a profit-increasing plant fertilizer and frees up ~ 200km² of arable land, which as forest area will store a further 10t CO² / hectare and year in the future. The farmer of such a factory needs 80-90% less water than his outdoor colleagues and can possibly feed a lot of heat into a district heating network in the middle of the city.
If you now ask what this has to do with evaporation and cooling of the earth’s temperature,
I can first of all only certify that my water cooling, at least in my analog model, is at least 3 times as efficient as air cooling. My greenhouse is the surface of the earth and my boiler with heat exchanger is the atmosphere – and then it rains in my bathroom when the heat comes back.
@Miles Aiken
You will find a website under construction if you click on my name.
https://climate-protecion-hardware.webnode.com/english/
M.A.: ? CAN U CONVINCE THE HUMAN SPECIES THE MERITS OF YOUR SUGGESTIONS?
M.S.: I AM AN ARTIST, ALSO NOT AN SCIENTIST, BUT MY BASIC OBSERVATIONS SUGGEST,
THAT THERE ARE 1001 DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO COOL THE PLANET.
ONE IS SURELY TO PROMOTE CLOUDS.
shurly: The problem of global warming is that the incoming light energy “delights” mankind with increasing energy absorption and warmth. To find out how best to cool light, I built a lamp as a model a few years ago and cooled it with water.
As a plant growth light, I use it at home as a heating system with negative emissions (CO²)”
Could you ask somebody to help you translate this into English?
1. what’s that “plant growth light” you speak of? Light from burning plant biomass?
Or are you using interchangeably “light” and “energy” (they are NOT the same).
2. how giant is your lamp that it provides an entire home with a” heating system”?
3. how burning biomass is “negative emissions (CO²)” unless your giant lamp has a working carbon sequestration system?
4. why did you “cool the lamp with water “? Obviously, it has nothing to do with the 2011 paper you invoked, as a proof of your “new supporters” – unless you formed … low-level clouds above your head (that’s the mechanism of the planet cooling by trees in the paper you claim supports you)
5. And wouldn’t this massive evaporation of water by trees in the paper – counter your earlier scheme? You wanted to stop water from land ending in the ocean, right? But the trees do the opposite – they pump huge amount of water from the ground into the air – forming clouds which then:
– either rain out over the ocean – adding directly to SL, or rain out over land – swelling the rivers which deliver this extra water to the ocean.
With such “new supporters” who needs “old enemies” ?
Piotr:
1. what’s that “plant growth light” you speak of? Light from burning plant biomass?
Or are you using interchangeably “light” and “energy” (they are NOT the same).
2. how giant is your lamp that it provides an entire home with a” heating system”?
3. how burning biomass is “negative emissions (CO²)” unless your giant lamp has a working carbon sequestration system?
4. why did you “cool the lamp with water “? Obviously, it has nothing to do with the 2011 paper you invoked, as a proof of your “new supporters” – unless you formed … low-level clouds above your head (that’s the mechanism of the planet cooling by trees in the paper you claim supports you)
— I thought the photo of the lamp (see link above) would be self-explanatory. You see a water-cooled LED light, the spectrum of which is suitable for plant growth. The heat from the LED chips is dissipated by a water circuit and stored in a boiler by means of a heat exchanger. This increases the energy efficiency of the LED lamp from 25% to ~ 80% because I can use the waste heat as hot water. I can operate them with mains power (300W) or directly with PV panels, which of course I prefer. I also water-cooled these PV modules with an inexpensive absorber and they deliver ~ 300W electrical and ~ 750W thermal. My 600W heating system consists of 2 PV modules, the lamp shown and a water boiler. This smallest version delivers around 2200KWh per year in my latitudes – twice as much in the subtropics. With material costs of $ 1000, every skilled craftsman can install the heating system himself. Larger dimensions, it should be equipped with an additional water storage tank in the basement and the right heat pump.
I make heat and electricity out of sunlight. I turn the electricity into light & warmth & strawberries and absorb CO² in the process.
The global radiation budget is also called the energy budget. They say: “light” and “energy” (they are NOT the same). Whether radiative forcing, light output, wind power or evaporation energy – the form of energy described is usually billed in the balance in watts or joules. Therefore I could just as well claim: light = energy
5. And wouldn’t this massive evaporation of water by trees in the paper – counter your earlier scheme? You wanted to stop water from land ending in the ocean, right? But the trees do the opposite – they pump huge amount of water from the ground into the air – forming clouds which then:
– either rain out over the ocean – adding directly to SL, or rain out over land – swelling the rivers which deliver this extra water to the ocean.
— If you understand the Earth’s radiation balance, you will know that evaporation is responsible for much of the energy carried from the surface to the atmosphere. The amount of energy transported is increased by an intensified water cycle. This in summer naturally also increases the amount of precipitation, the cloud cover and / or the optical density of the clouds.
Precipitation always turns proportionally into evaporation, soil moisture, groundwater and runoff.
The higher the precipitation, the more will get stored into the groundwater.
Apparently, you’ve never heard of global issues like water scarcity and spreading deserts.
If you want to look at our future, go to Egypt or Israel and look at their water management on the Nile. Without draining the water of the Nile in the rainy season, there would be no agriculture and the people would simply starve to death.
MS. How many led bulbs is in your array and what wattage are they? There must be quite a few to generate enough heat to be useful.
macias shurly Jan 4: “ I thought the photo of the lamp (see link above) would be self-explanatory.
No, your photo could not self-explain how you thought the LED lamp was related to your
opening statement (claiming that a 2011 paper on transpiration by trees supported your claims on capturing the rain water).
As for your lamp – you have re-invented the wheel – LED lamps with light spectrum optimal to growing plant have been used in commercial greenhouses for years, and their by-product heat wasn’t wasted, but used to keep the greenhouse warm.
And you still didn’t answer my question: what was the logical connection of your lamp to the 2011 paper about trees transpiration you invoked, as a proof of you having “supporters”, which was not about lamps, but about trees producing clouds.
ms: If you understand the Earth’s radiation balance, you will know that evaporation is responsible for much of the energy carried from the surface to the atmosphere.
and “2+2=4”. Neither of which explains how the 2011 paper on trees transpiration “supports” your idea of stopping SLR first by capturing rain in barrels, then somehow stopping ” 50,000 km³ of fresh water” from flowing into the ocean, and now with …. LED lamps?
The higher the precipitation, the more will get stored into the groundwater.”
Not if it rains over ocean, not if the water flows out to sea in swollen rivers, not if the rain water evaporates before it hits the ground or evaporates before sinking down to the ground water level, and not if the plants remove the water from the ground into the atmosphere, which was the subject of the 2011 paper whose authors you waved above your head as your “new supporters“.
Apparently, you’ve never heard of global issues like water scarcity and spreading deserts .
Arrogance proportional to own ignorance (see above)?
Hr. Shurly
I really cannot understand more of your “holistic climate protection strategy” than that it is commercialized or commerciallizing , para- science. Para und Quasiwissenschaft
And of less value to possible learnings and ori9entation about climate and thus hardly belongs on this or similar websites.
It is hardly abour real physics and geophysics that anyone would have any practical advantage of being able to learn it better, orientate better, follow it better, and judge it better.
Hr. Kohlenstoffberg
Science is needed to address critical questions, among them:
– How effective would various climate engineering proposals be at achieving their climate goals?
– What unintended outcomes might result?
– How might these unintended outcomes affect both human and natural systems?
Engineering is needed both to build deployable systems and to keep the science focused on what’s technically feasible.”
I advocate a university-based research effort involving scientists and engineers representing a range of disciplines. “A climate engineering research plan should be built around important questions rather than preconceived answers.
It should anticipate and embrace innovation and recognize that a portfolio of divergent but defensible paths is most likely to reveal a successful path forward; we should be wary of assuming that we’ve already thought of the most promising approaches or the most important unintended consequences.
C. says: I really cannot understand more of your “holistic climate protection strategy…
– so why not just formulate a fact based question to me ?
C. says: …thus hardly belongs on this or similar websites.
Fortunately, I choose what to say.
Anyone who has read more than 3 of your posts will be amazed what your spiritual excursions into your seemingly Scandinavian troll universe should actually mean … and what contribution to climate science should be associated with it.
MS.
“I advocate a university-based research effort involving scientists and engineers representing a range of disciplines. “A climate engineering research plan should be built around important questions rather than preconceived answers.”
Fair enough comment, but its already been happening for decades now. Multi disciplinary teams of people all around the world have looked at climate science and climate solutions and published studies on the issues. Jacobson has lead a team that has done many studies involving wind and solar power. Others have looked at geoengineering. They have all asked how can we best solve the problems.
I even previously suggested you approach a university and get them to assess your own ideas on cooling the planet and storing water on land to combat sea level rise. Have you done this?
I remain very sceptical about storing water on land on the grounds that it would obviously be very expensive way of achieving small reductions in sea level rise, and would cause havoc with river ecosystems, but I cannot be sure. Its just an intuitive reaction. It needs to be assessed by a multi disciplinary team. They might immediately reject it is impractical or they may not. The ball is in your court.
@nigelj – I am myself a multi disciplinary team.
Ken Caldeira, author of the post linked above:
“Water Evaporated From Trees Cools Global Climate”
worked for the Carnegie Institution, which is certainly multi-disciplinary. He was one of the lead authors in AR5 WG1 and was still unable to convince the IPCC that evaporation, water and clouds generally have a cooling effect on the earth’s temperature.
Although every gardener or town planner knows about the local cooling effect of evaporation through vegetation or fountains.
ms: He was one of the lead authors in AR5 WG1 and was still unable to convince the IPCC that evaporation, water and clouds generally have a cooling effect on the earth’s temperature.
BPL: Except that everybody in that field already knows that evaporation and clouds generally have a cooling effect on the Earth’s (surface) temperature, so he didn’t have to convince them of anything.
If you think Ken Caldeira would support your crackpot scheme, look again.
Your borehole neighbor, MA Rodger, has a completely different view.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=110&&a=141#137731
MA Rodger says:
We see from Fig 2 Wild (2014) an all-sky Land Cloud albedo of 64Wm^-2. If cloud albedo were increased 1% that would pro rata present a global climate forcing of -0.19 Wm^-2 cloud albedo but with a loss of +0.05 Wm^-2 surface albedo. There is also reduced OLR cooling of +0.08 Wm^-2 pro rata suggested in Wild (2019) Fig14 and a water vapour forcing from the 1% increased humidity over land of roughly +0.12 Wm^-2. This would suggest a net warming from a 1% increase in Land evaporation of +0.06 Wm^-2, this a warming climate forcing larger than AGW.
Hr Schurly
I am relating to my own facultary experience ddefinitions and systematic functional learnings further when it comes to geophysics land sea- ice- atmosphere functional metabolisms and radiation convection and conductance with energetics, ……
……. and cannot see that you are keeping material and strøchiometric holistic budget of any kind in your system. You are hardly discussingb any geophysical wholeness and physical integrity by adequate critical defrinitions and parameters- observeables.
Until such things are faintly taken serious understood, trained and built on from your side, , I cannot compare your project and system to possible weather and climate reality.
macias shurly, Jan 9 “I am myself a multi disciplinary team.” – you mean you know nothing about everything? Well, it shows:
e.g. MS Jan 3: “ Ken Caldeira was one of the lead authors in AR5 WG1 and was still unable to convince the IPCC that evaporation, water and clouds generally have a cooling effect on the earth’s temperature. Although every gardener or town planner knows about the local cooling effect of evaporation through vegetation or fountains.”
First, there was no need to “convince the IPCC”, since they … have known about the radiative effects of clouds for years (check the RC archives).
Second, your last line shows how much you understood from the paper. whose authors you enlisted as your “supporters“: the paper calculates radiative cooling (transpiration by trees forming low-level high-albedo clouds), while what your “ every gardener or town planner knows ” – is LOCAL cooling due to …. high heat of evaporation of liquid water. Unless, of course, you meant that your fountain cools the air by forming … low clouds above itself ;-)
Finally, transferring ground water into the air by trees, the very subject of the paper you brought up, does not support but COUNTERS to your schemes, in which you wantedt the opposite – you wanted to STORE the water in the ground, NOT to remove it from there.
Thank god I found new supporters for my theory in the new year.” eh?
With “new supporters” like these, who needs enemies?
I take it you haven’t visited what used to be the Colorado River delta. Building dams or otherwise reducing flow into rivers has consequences as well. Put another way, not all rivers can afford to give a dam.
R.L. says: “Building dams or otherwise reducing flow into rivers has consequences …”
Nowhere never ever in my concept I talked about dams – that`s your invention and btw misinformation. (If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a gallon of wine, you get sewage.)
Now you stand wailing like a Mexican farmer in Baja California and wonder where all that water has gone. It seems that your lack of creative physical thinking inhibits other solutions.
To help you get started, I’ll take you on a trip up the colorado river, which is certainly several 100,000 km long. Not only the Colorado river is meant but also all tributaries:
Gunnison River (left – Colorado)
Dolores River (left – Colorado, Utah)
Green River (right – Wyoming, Colorado, Utah)
Dirty Devil River (right – Utah)
Escalante River (right – Utah)
San Juan River (left – New Mexico, Utah)
Paria River (right – Utah, Arizona)
Little Colorado River (left – Arizona)
Kanab Creek (right – Utah, Arizona)
Virgin River (right – Utah, Arizona, Nevada)
Gila River (left – Arizona)
These rivers in turn have tributaries, etc.
We set off with a map of the entire river system, an elevation map and a map of the geological subsurface.
We start on the right bank of the Colorado in the delta and arrive (centuries) later at the same delta on the left bank. Since we NEVER cross the rivers, but always walk along the bank towards the source, we have seen all rivers in the catchment area twice on each side and searched for possibilities where a diversion of the flowing water into the area is desired or justifiable.
If we manage to wring out ~ 2.7% of the mean runoff (0.27L / sec = like a garden hose) from all millions of the smallest source rivers (e.g. ~ 10L / sec), which are usually located at the very top in rainy, clean mountain regions 2.7% less of the mean discharge also arrive in the Colorado Delta.
The water that was held back does not stay in the mountains but was only sent on a much longer detour. Part of it evaporates and cools the mountain region – the rest is stored in soil moisture and groundwater / aquifers before it reappears months later from deeper sources.
Learn from the ancient Incas how to sow water to harvest later. – Without electricity or water pumps, just cleaning it up once a year or after a floody rain.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210510-perus-urgent-search-for-slow-water.
Technically, the local diversion is designed in such a way that water is diverted all year round as soon as the river reaches a specified minimum level. Should heavy rain now occur in the region, much larger amounts of water are diverted and thus also protect against flooding in the valleys. The centralized and monitored water management does not only apply in the uppermost spring areas, but in principle river down as long as the water quality does not pollute the groundwater.
In the global cities, even simple rain barrels can do a huge part to reduce runoff into rivers.
On 1-1.5 million km² of urban area with an average rainfall of ~ 750mm / y and an estimated roof area share of 25%, an annual volume of up to 1125km³ (= 3.1mm SLR) arises.
In order to make ends meet even in very stubborn drought months, you install floating photovoltaics over the numerous reservoirs on the Colorado.
1 m² of lake area evaporates about 1-1.5 m³ of water per year.
Every km² of PV provides an additional amount of ~ 1 million m³ of water for the power plant + PV electricity and also keeps the water cooler.
For a functioning, successful water management it is of course also important to put well poisoners, water polluters, water thieves, water mafias and corrupt politicians in jail.
Greetings from Jack Nicholson / Chinatown …
Hr Ladbury
That is true, they lack elementary experience and ideas about material metabolisms and quantitative functional budgets of the same.
MACIAS SHURLY, I AM NOT AN SCIENTIST, BUT YOUR BASIC OBSERVATIONS SUGGESTED MY NEED FOR CLEARER INFORMATION. COULD U PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR COMMENTS IN MORE LAY TERMS AND FIGURES.? THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND IT’S USE HAS MERIT. FOR CONSIDERATION. ? CAN U CONVINCE THE HUMAN SPECIES THE MERITS OF YOUR SUGGESTIONS? THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE FOR OUR SALVATION. THANK U. MILES AIKEN
More weather news, not climate, but some is attributed to AGW:
We’ve all heard about the warm Christmas day in Kodiak, Alaska, but did you know that Kodiak had one of the coldest Novembers on record? Yep, the entire fall has been cold according to locals:
https://kmxt.org/2021/12/november-was-cold-on-kodiak-island-but-not-quite-record-breaking/
Ditto SE Alaska (the panhandle):
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59820999
Yellowknife has been running cool this fall/winter:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/yellowknife
Making a little ice up north, but still 10 F above “normal”:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute
“More weather news, not climate”
Then quit posting it.
The commentor XRRC has shown clearly within Dec UV thread that he is too stupid to bother engaging with any who object to his nonsense being plastered down these UV threads. While the rule-of-thumb “Don’t feed the troll!” would apply, when the troll badly misrepresents research some level of debunking is required.
Thus von Schuckmann et al (2020) ‘Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?’ does not show (even “roughly”) that the Earth 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” as XRRC tells us in the Dec UV thread. This statement from XRRC appears to be less from a reading of von Schuckmann et al (2020) and more a repeating of an assessment of reducing aerosol cooling by Hansen & Sato last July which cited von Schuckmann et al (2020) as well as Loeb et al (2021) to support the assertion that EEI “has approximately doubled to about 1 W/m2 since 2015” and attributes this doubling to reducing aerosols and thus reducing albedo. Certainly Loeb et al shows the absorbed solar ramped-up 2010-20 by about +1.0Wm^-2 while the OLR also ramped-up by with a net effect on EEI of about +0.5Wm^-2 (this seen among wobbly data). Yet it would be a brave researcher to insist that in the context of preceding decades of AGW, EEI has now doubled 2010-20.
von Schuckmann et al (2020) are using pre-CERES data (mainly OHC) to produce their EEI findings 1960-2018 and a quick bit of scaling of the data presented in their Fig 6 produces the following EEI numbers (this ignoring rather large confidence intervals in the OHC data):-
1970-75 … … … +0.44 Wm^-2
1975-80 … … … +0.42 Wm^-2
1980-85 … … … -0.18 Wm^-2
1985-90 … … … +0.08 Wm^-2
1990-95 … … … +0.32 Wm^-2
1995-00 … … … +0.69 Wm^-2
2000-05 … … … +0.85 Wm^-2
2005-10 … … … +0.58 Wm^-2
2010-15 … … … +0.87 Wm^-2
2015-18 … … … +1.04 Wm^-2
While this data does suggest EEI is on the rise, any crude assessment of variation in the EEI over recent decades really should take into account the wobbles shown in this and other data.
MAR: “The commentor XRRC has shown clearly within Dec UV thread that he is too stupid to bother engaging with any who object to his nonsense being plastered down these UV threads. While the rule-of-thumb “Don’t feed the troll!” would apply, when the troll badly misrepresents research some level of debunking is required.”
From the moderators: New year, new moderation policy. Please be substantive – sniping, insults, and tedious repetition will just be culled.
Oh really . . .
In response to the false and distorted inaccurate assertions raised by MA Rodger
1) I am not a troll
2) I misrepresented nothing.
3) I presented science papers extracts with refs
4) I pointed to related science papers findings
quoting accurately what was written in full —
Synonyms & Near Synonyms for relates (to)
appertains (to), applies (to), bears (on), pertains (to), refers (to)
affects, concerns, involves, touches, embroils, ensnares, entangles, implicates
Hansen also says in Dec “Global warming has accelerated in the past several years, Earth’s energy
imbalance has increased dramatically,….” http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/NovemberTUpdate+BigClimateShort.23December2021.pdf and see his Refs there.
In early Dec Hansen says: “The total energy imbalance during the past half century averaged about half a watt per square meter a decade ago, but in the past decade it has increased to almost 1 W/m2.” http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/BrightFuture.03December2021.pdf and see his Refs there.
Plus another ref shows quoting the Global Climate Observing System, co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission-UNESCO, International Science Council and United Nations Environment Programme. :
Which of course is reporting on Karina von Schuckmann et al. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/ w’ quotes previously provided.
The range of reports on climate science are extensive and people here and elsewhere will rightly draw their own conclusions what value / weight each published paper might mean to them, and what papers findings relate to other’s findings and data. Recently RC through Gavin indicated caution over the rainfall increase suggested in a paper using new CMIP6 models. But Gavin did not label readers here as trolls or misrepresent them because they had posted REFs to that very paper in the week before.
However, M A Rodger’s series of ‘complaints’ and false accusations began with this very simple reference posting of a new article by James Hansen
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/12/unforced-variations-dec-2021/#comment-799527
Which was a verbatim quote sub-heading from Hansen’s article
Hansen goes on to say: “Karina von Schuckmann was a post-doc when she first published the ocean data more than a decade ago. She’s now the leading expert in the world in analyzing Argo float data at Mercator Ocean International in France. I describe her as the sentinel for the home planet, because Earth’s energy imbalance is the crucial number telling us how much additional global warming is already in the pipeline.”
Last year Karina and other experts1 concluded that Earth’s energy imbalance had increased during the past decade to about 0.9 W/m2. That energy imbalance, by itself, will drive global temperature above 1.5°C, even if greenhouse gases (GHGs) suddenly stop increasing.
Hansen goes on to ref another “Leon Simons has shown that the temporal and spatial distributions of the perturbation to Earth’s energy balance coincide with the timing of tightened controls on the sulfur content of maritime fuels and with a satellite-measured decrease of solar radiation reflected from the heavily-trafficked regions of the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans. The chief mechanism is the effect of aerosols on cloud cover and cloud albedo.”
See also posts on Dessler and Zelinka https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/12/unforced-variations-dec-2021/#comment-799662
These are things and more have been said and reported on. Why shoot the messenger who is making no scientific claims or false assertions whatsoever about this information but simply providing short quotes and refs from such papers and reports?
Readers and/or moderators can decide for themselves who has been the ad hominem ‘troll’ and who has been ‘misrepresenting who and what’ was published in science journals & reports subsequently posted here on UV. I humbly submit it was not myself.
XRRC,
It is good that we make progress here, with you no longer telling me “I am not interested in anything you have to say.” That progress makes you much less troll-like. And luckily for you my “limited reading comprehension” is still capable of grasping these tangled and rambling arguments you present.
I have yet to see from you any support for your original bold assertion that “Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future other than that you were quoting James Hansen. This is especially ironic as you have also quoted from the Zeke Hausfather saying “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” which seems a pretty strong contradiction of Hansen’s ‘baked in’ assertion.
Instead of here defending your bold assertion properly, you simply question why I “shoot the messenger” who is thus but an innocent reporter. But steady on!! An Innocent Reporter? What are you saying down-thread here? Are you not there saying that an Innocent Reporter is ever a mythical invention?
Concerning your rejoiners in this UV thread, you are now making plain that your “roughly speaking summarizing” of the Dec UV thread was not intended as a summary solely of von Schuckmann et al. 2020 which indeed does not come close to saying “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.” The reference actually states “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” and I kindly tabulated up-thread a more detailed reading of the data presented by the paper showing an EEI of “~0.4 W/m² “ has not been “tracking” through any half-decade period since 1990-95.
Your rejoiners in this UV thread are attempting to say that your “summarizing” included a bunch of other references that you, what? forgot to mention? Strangely, I did reference these up-thread and still concluded “it would be a brave researcher to insist that in the context of preceding decades of AGW, EEI has now doubled 2010-20.”
Perhaps consider this analysis.
Instead of the EEI assessments, take the GISS LOTI annual global temperatures for 2010-18 and run an ordinary least squares through it. Wow!!! You get the eye-watering rate of AGW of +0.04ºC/decade, more than double the long-term average. Now it is correct to say that there are signs of acceleration in AGW as shown by GISS LOTI, but you’d have to be a crazy-man to insist it has doubled for 2010-18!!
I was directing my comments to everyone else. I have no interest in abusive trolls, liars and the unstable.
MAR cannot help himself; he has a very conservative view of science and will attempt to minimize any and all comments that speak of potential extremes, or even things at the higher end of the curve – let alone long-tail events/effects/processes/outcomes, etc.
One example was a couple years ago when I made a comment about some spikes in Mauna Loa CO2 readings in February that seemed unusual. To MAR, that was alarmism. He even came up with a stupidly pejorative term for it. The next year, the spikes came even earlier. Still not good enough.
So be it.
It’s just what he does. Extreme scientific reticence. He’s good with data, though, so you have to take the good with the bad.
Hi I am Mark J. Fiore, Harvard, 1982, Boston College Law School, 1987, member of Mass Bar since 1987, and sub teacher for public high schools here in San Francisco since 2002..Although I am not a scientist I have read about climate change in the news ,every day, for at least 2 hours, every day, since 1987..RealClimate is nice enough to let me post even tho you are all much smarter than I am on these topicsI have not posted in about 3 years..Let me say that California should have built at least 25 desalinization plants by now along ther coast.If one looks at the past geologic record there have been many megadroughts here in the desert southwest, some as long as 500 years long, many are decades long.This points to the growing conclusion that recent trends in decreasing snowpack may be indicative of the start of a major mega drought, recent snowfall not eliminating the mega drought possibility.Groundwater n the Central Valley is severely depleted, and the Colorado river and the big resevoir it feeds are super low.I do believe that a 2 C rise is already locked in, and my very amateur reading indicates that the 2 C rise will force a 4 C rise to be locked in due to the melting of the methal hydrates and peat moss, which has already begun.Therefore if CA does not build desalinaziation plants (albeit increasing water costs by a factor of 3 times more).we will have no water here in CA. Thanks for letting me post , and if moderators have to delete my post because I am not an expert scientist, then so be it.Have a good day, everyone.
Desalinization plants would likely be a good idea to build NOW before a YUUUUGE crisis hits due to lack of drinking water. Then again, the loss of millions of blue voters in CAL would be a plus for the USA, IMHO.
Don’t feel bad about not being a scientist and posting about climate change. Few who post here are climate scientists. Also, note that the biggest voice in America on CC is AOC, a former bartender, with no knowledge of science. The biggest voice in the World on CC for several years was a child named Greta. The CC game can be enjoyed by players of all ages and backgrounds, even Hollywood actors with no knowledge of anything – they are also significant players of the CC game.
:)
KIA: the biggest voice in America on CC is AOC, a former bartender, with no knowledge of science. The biggest voice in the World on CC for several years was a child named Greta.
BPL: [CITATION NEEDED]
That;s easy, here are two. Can you find Gavin in this list? He’s there.
https://apolitical.co/lists/most-influential-climate-100/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/unforced-variations-jan-2022/#comment-799729
:)
There is nothing sustainable about desalination. You know what is sustainable? Adding carbon to soils to hold the water that does fall. Another, if you add enough green, you start getting a self-reinforcing water cycle. You know what else? People not living where there’s not enough water.
How about we do the sane things before the insane things, eh?
You know, Dr Killian, that Nature excretes carbon to the atmosphere by biological means where there is too much of it. And absorbs and settles carbon from the atmosphere where there is too little, even into sheere and humus free mineral soil.. and this balances further in regard to other premises and parameters such as temperature and moisture and specific mineral content.
Thus your very theory and learnings about this is quite a bit primitive and dilettantic, seemingly secteric fanatic also, away and aside from necessary science and description of natural premises in detail in order to understand and discuss this..
It rather lookis like common, generally learnt and trained trolling and unqualified teaching and administration injto other peoples vital affairs.
UAH TLT has been posted for December with a global anomaly of +0.21ºC, up on November’s anomaly of +0.08ºC but below both October (+0.37ºC) and September (+0.25ºC) making the Dec 2021 anomaly the third highest-of-the-year. UAH TLT monthly anomalies for 2021 sit in the range -0.05ºC to +0.37ºC.
December 2021 was 6th warmest December on the UAH record, behind Decembers 2019 (+0.44ºC), 2015 (+0.35ºC), 2017 (+0.31ºC), 2003 (+0.26ºC) & 1987 (+0.25ºC) while warmer than Decembers, 2016 (+0.16ºC), 2020 (+0.15ºC) and 1997, 1998 & 2018 (all +0.13ºC),.
December 2021 sits =63rd on the highest all-month monthly UAH TLT anomaly list.
The full 2021 calendar year did drop down below 2015 in the rankings, (by +0.0008ºC so it was close). The warmest 20 years on the 43 year UAH TLT record runs as follows:-
1st … 2016 … … … +0.39ºC
2nd … 2020 … … … +0.36ºC
3rd … 1998 … … … +0.35ºC
4th … 2019 … … … +0.30ºC
5th … 2017 … … … +0.26ºC
6th … 2010 … … … +0.19ºC
7th … 2015 … … … +0.14ºC
8th … 2021 … … … +0.13ºC
9th … 2018 … … … +0.09ºC
10th . 2002 … … … +0.08ºC
11th . 2005 … … … +0.06ºC
12th . 2003 … … … +0.05ºC
13th . 2014 … … … +0.04ºC
14th . 2007 … … … +0.02ºC
15th . 2013 … … … +0.00ºC
16th. 2001 … … … -0.02ºC
17th . 2006 … … … -0.02ºC
18th . 2009 … … … -0.04ºC
19th . 2004 … … … -0.05ºC
20th . 1995 … … … -0.07ºC
Note also that, contrary to the “in a couple of weeks” in the ATL blurb, REMSS released their satellite datasets up to December 2021 today.
Top 10 annual average anomalies for the “TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0” file :
2020 … 0.813
2016 … 0.813
2019 … 0.749
2017 … 0.684
2010 … 0.622
2021 … 0.616
2015 … 0.615
1998 … 0.581
2018 … 0.543
2014 … 0.485
Mark BLR,
You source of the Dec 2021 RSS TLT anomaly is quicker than my usual source which has been quite tardy through the last year and which has shown signs of that tardiness with the ‘Download Data’ files being often updated a few days before the ‘Browse Tool’ updates.
Taking your annual average, the RSS TLT global December anomaly would be +0.62ºC, up on November’s anomaly of +0.54ºC but only the 6th highest monthly anomaly of the year (3rd highest in UAH), the RSS TLT monthly anomalies for 2021 sitting in the range +0.47ºC to +0.81ºC.
December 2021 was 4th warmest December on the RSS record (6th warmest UAH record) behind Decembers 2019 (+0.81ºC), 2015 (+0.81ºC) & 2017 (+0.63ºC) while above 2020 (+0.57ºC).
December 2021 sits 70th on the highest all-month monthly RSS TLT anomaly list (=63rd in UAH).
As for 2022, the MEI data shows continuing La Niña conditions with last month’s IRI ENSO Forecast showing ENSO-neutral conditions by the summer perhaps suggesting that the gentle warming into 2012 would be a better model for 2022 than the stronger warming into 2010..
“You[r] source of the Dec 2021 RSS TLT anomaly is quicker than my usual source …”
You need to “register for an FTP account” before clicking on the “FTP Air Temp Time Series” button, but the following website has been in my “Bookmarks file” for quite a while.
https://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/
“Taking your annual average, the RSS TLT global December anomaly would be +0.62ºC, up on November’s anomaly of +0.54ºC but only the 6th highest monthly anomaly of the year (3rd highest in UAH), the RSS TLT monthly anomalies for 2021 sitting in the range +0.47ºC to +0.81ºC.”
Sorry, my mouse slipped before I managed to copy the following.
The FTP files are to 3 decimal places.
The latest file ends as follows :
year mon -70.0/ -20.0/ 20.0/ -70.0/ 60.0/ -70.0/ Cont. 0.0/ -70.0/
82.5 20.0 82.5 -20.0 82.5 -60.0 USA 82.5 0.0
——————————————————————————————-
.
.
.
2021 1 0.598 0.291 1.113 0.398 1.210 -0.598 1.453 0.855 0.328
2021 2 0.649 0.203 1.109 0.667 0.795 0.013 -0.778 0.806 0.485
2021 3 0.469 0.080 1.046 0.297 0.142 0.104 1.454 0.725 0.202
2021 4 0.544 0.140 1.167 0.338 1.620 -0.014 0.595 0.827 0.247
2021 5 0.554 0.386 0.889 0.388 1.150 0.306 0.043 0.718 0.383
2021 6 0.526 0.231 1.209 0.134 1.400 -0.902 2.483 0.868 0.168
2021 7 0.676 0.529 1.121 0.370 1.042 -0.153 1.473 0.903 0.439
2021 8 0.646 0.440 1.157 0.333 1.756 0.019 1.116 0.893 0.387
2021 9 0.767 0.470 1.035 0.822 1.064 0.605 1.575 0.826 0.706
2021 10 0.809 0.622 1.155 0.654 1.955 0.806 1.431 0.970 0.640
2021 11 0.541 0.443 0.769 0.410 0.844 0.150 1.352 0.661 0.416
2021 12 0.617 0.339 0.965 0.565 1.142 -0.435 2.042 0.743 0.487
What about Loeb et al (2021) then?
Jun 15, 2021 – Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth’s Energy Imbalance Has Doubled
Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
extracts include:
The doubling of the energy imbalance is the topic of a recent study, the results of which were published June 15 in Geophysical Research Letters.
“Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth’s system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up. Since approximately 90 percent of the excess energy from an energy imbalance ends up in the ocean, the overall trends of incoming and outgoing radiation should broadly agree with changes in ocean heat content.”
AGU REF: Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
Norman G. Loeb et al (open access)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Extract:
We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%–95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures.
Considering both Loeb and von Schuckmann in light of what NASA/NOAA and others such as James Hansen are also saying one might reasonably believe reporting the above information for public consumption in words similar to :
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
… or thereabouts – it may be a fair indication to the broad range of readers here on RC whether or not the various papers being Referenced / Quoted are significant enough to bother reading in detail and then considering further what implications or relevance they may or may not represent in the bigger picture. Some might even wish to maturely discuss such matters. Others may not and may even think it’s boring or of no importance to their own climate science interests.
Each to their own.
A couple of related figures from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
Figure 7. Overview on EEI estimates as obtained from previous publications; references are listed in the figure legend.
For IPCC AR5, Rhein et al. (2013) is used. The color bars take into account the uncertainty ranges provided in each publication, respectively. For comparison, the estimates of our Earth heat inventory based on the results of Fig. 6 have been added (yellow lines) for the periods 1971–2018, 1993–2018 and 2010–2018, and the trends have been evaluated using a weighted least square fit (see von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, for details on the method)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FH2ClbYWQAUy79M?format=png&name=4096×4096
Figure 8. Schematic presentation on the Earth heat inventory for the current anthropogenically driven positive Earth energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FH2FfvIXMAQFv1_?format=png&name=small
and from the AGU Loeb paper
Comparison of overlapping one-year estimates at 6-month intervals of net top-of-the-atmosphere annual energy flux from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/71db3845-ea57-4a2a-90ed-d8cad4cc06c7/grl62546-fig-0001-m.jpg
Global mean top-of-atmosphere flux anomalies and trends.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/5e9f03c0-a2b8-436b-9fa7-3970bfe20a84/grl62546-fig-0002-m.jpg
XRRC:
“What about Loeb et al (2021) then?”
— The arrogant, somewhat loudmouthed commentator MAR tells a lot if his day is long enough,
but often reacts to specific questions about scientifically proven findings with silence, dementia or rather obvious misinformation.
Perhaps his post on Loeb et al 2021 in the SKS Forum will be instructive.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=141&p=3#137984
MAR says:
“…Loeb et al (2021) is saying that CERES shows an increasing trend in downward radiation of +0.65Wm^-2/decade, part balanced by an increasing trend of +0.24Wm^-2 upward radiation, yielding a net downward EEI trend of +0.41Wm^-2. And a ‘Partial Radiative Perturbation Analysis’ attributes this net EEI trend almost entlrely to factors directly or indirectly resulting from AGW, these factors being:-
+0.25Wm^-2/decade due to cloud albedo (which will comprise a reduction in cloud fraction and an indirect aerosol effect which presumably will be negative through this period).
+0.31Wm^-2/deacde due to increasing water vapour (this due to global warming).
+0.22Wm^-2/decade due to “other” effects (dominated by increased GH gases as well as a small solar variation which would have been negative through the period).
+0.18Wm^-2/decade due to secreasing surface albedo (this shown in polar and mountain ragions and thus again a product of global warming reducing ice/snow cover.
+0.01Wm^-2/decade due to a reduced direct aerosol effect.
-0.53Wm^-2/decade due to a warmer planet increasing outward radiation.
I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature, certainly not in Loeb et al (2021). Perhaps you could explain where you see it. …”
— Although Loeb et al 2021 extensively describes the clouds and SFC (surface albedo) components that contribute to the EEI – our brave commentator *** MAR *** claims that a decreasing cloud albedo and ice / snow albedo has no correlation with temperature. He courageously refutes himself within a few seconds.
Should you feel like some more humorous interludes from our star commentator – read a little backwards in the same discussion about albedo – and learn from him that albedo does NOT depend on the wavelength of the light that hits the body, but is more of a “bluish something dinggeling in the sky (which, by the way, makes the color vision considerable difficult).
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=110&&a=141#137731
At the latest when he explains to you that “mm / y” as a measure for evaporation actually has to be represented as “mm / y / y” you should fall off the sofa too.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=110&&a=141#137735
This last bit of this nonsense above from idiot Marcias Shurly (the same idiot as coolmaster & a few other user names at SKS) concerns a figure from the paywalled Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) ‘A 10 per cent increase in global land evapotranspiration from 2003 to 2019’ but which is presented in the CarbonBrief coverage of the paper. The figure (on-line here) plots global land time series for (a) rainfall, (b) evaporation, (c) river discharge and (d) ΔGround_water 2004-2020 in mm/year and then helpfully puts an OLS through each data set showing the linear trend. However there is a rather trivial error in that these linear trends are presented with the units mm/year rather than mm/year/year. Sadly this obvious error is yet another situation that is too complicated for the idiot Marcias Shurly to grasp.
@MAR:
Unfortunately, stupidity, amateurism and misinformation do not get any better if they are constantly reproduced.
Mrs. Pascolini-Campbell et al. says:
The black line shows the average trend
– and for this the specification of mm / y is completely sufficient.
An indication in mm / y / y does not exist in our solar system, but only behind your slightly too flat forehead.
Then you confuse a) evaporation with b) precipitation and c) with d) – as signs that you don’t know where up and down is.
XRRC and I would much rather have heard another (stupid) explanation from you,
– why in your opinion the albedo should have no correlation to the temperature and on top of that
– should not be dependent on the wavelength of the light.
So give yourself a little effort – my laughing muscles are ready anyway.
Message for grown-ups
I note the link to Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) no longer hits a paywall – some sort of magic RealClimate access appears to be at work.
Message to the idiot macias shurly in his acceleration-free solar system
You will note the reference to Jung et al (2010) in the ‘Extended Data Table 1 | ET long-term mean and trends’ of Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) and the use of the dimensions of “mm/year” for ‘Mean ET or Trend’ in that Pascolini-Campbell et al Table 1 (this being an evident error to anyone with half a brain).
Should you in your infinite extra-terrestrial wisdom insist this use of “mm/year” both for ‘Mean’ and for ‘Trend’ is not an error and that the use of mm/year/year for ‘Trend’ would be some form of physical nonsense that “does not exist in our solar system,” perhaps you can explain Jung et al (2010) Fig2b which plots the Trend dimensions in “mm per year per decade” and shows values 10x those presented by Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) which would thus be properly presented as “mm per year per year.”
The internationally acclaimed Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) paper deals with the TREND of global evaporation (a 10 per cent increase in global land evapotranspiration from 2003 to 2019).
Jung et al 2010, on the other hand, deals with a TREND-CHANGE (Recent Decline in the Global Land Evapotranspiration Trend Due to Limited Moisture Supply), which neither in the Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) paper nor in the graphic we discussed, has any meaning.
As a senile, demented idiot with a disturbed overview , you should refrain from improving or even insulting respected members of international climate science.
Also, you don’t answer the questions asked above:
I would much rather have heard another (stupid) explanation from you,
– why in your opinion the albedo should have no correlation to the temperature and on top of that
– is not dependent on the wavelength of the light.
macias shurly (more correctly ‘matthias schuerle’), deluded moron of this planet,
It is good to see that you managed to properly read the title of Jung et al (2010). Perhaps if you got round to reading the abstract as well, you would find explanation for that title. But given you appear to find such reading too difficult, may I make so bold as to explain for them.
They say they “provide a data-driven estimate of global land evapotranspiration from 1982 to 2008 … results suggest that global annual evapotranspiration increased on average by 7.1 (+/- 1.0) millimetres per year per decade from 1982 to1997. After that … the global evapotranspiration increase seems to have ceased until 2008.” This 1997-2008 ‘ceasation’ in evapotranspiration is the “Recent Decline” mentioned in the paper’s title but the whole thing is about evapotranspiration (which is measured in mm/year) and its “trend” which they measure in mm/year/decade = 10 x mm/year/year. Or it is in this solar system/galaxy/universe. You may think otherwise but that would be the musings of a deluded moron.
Your attention to a past interchanges at SkS (under various pseudomyms including coolmaster & blaisct) is similarly selective. You ask again for a return to these interchanges setting out two silly questions to be answered (or not answered as up-thread you describe the mere prospect of such answers “stupid”). Perhaps I should address the second of your silly questions, it being the more straightforward to address.
Consider the following:-
If a bright green planet is illuminated by green light and then changes to be a bright red planet when illuminated by red light, perhaps we could continue to investigate its albedo by somehow illuminating it with blue light, then yellow light, orange light, purple light, even that rather nice sky-coloured light seen in the rainbow between green and blue. Such an experiment would demonstrate a dependence of that planet’s albedo on the light wavelength, if such a dependence existed.
But there is another way. Simply put the planet in front of our own sun which radiates white light. If the planet shows up white (like Earth, although Earth does have a bit of a bluish tinge), the planet will reflect all wavelengths equally, and that, even to a blithering idiot, should illustrate that the albedo of such a planet i“is not dependent on the wavelength of the light.”
If you can cope with this response to your second silly question, matthias schuerle, I’d be happy to educate you further with a repeat performance on the first.
@mar:
You’re a clueless, incorrigible storyteller, maker of outrageous intellectual bullshit and misinformation.
As other commenters above on the subject of misinformation attest,
-!- this is highly subversive and, for a public forum, an actually intolerable behavior.
Your completely inappropriate criticism and suggestions for improvement regarding the Pascolini-Campbell graphic should be discussed directly with the author
<>
– maybe she finds it charming when an airhead like you insult her and want to hold a candle to her.
ALBEDO!!!
MAR foolishly still says and claims:
“The albedo of such a planet is not dependent on the wavelength of the light.”
You sit in your ***MA Rodger space center lab*** and explain albedo to us with a green earth on which green light falls. (???) – red earth / red light (????)
Fly with me to the rainbow and rave about sky blue…purple rain?
Whow – this expert works with monochrome light – highly revealing.
I think you’re on hallucinogenic drugs or have childish playful dementia.
As an artist and painter, my laughing muscle is of course happy…
but as a lighting manufactor familiar with light, it turns my toenails up and makes me want to shut your arrogant dumb bigmouth.
How do you actually want to understand that our planet earth is a colorful planet and the sun emits a full spectrum that contains all wavelengths (including those invisible to humans) if you don’t understand why a tomato is red – and a lettuce is green.
Their absorption or absorption line spectrum is an electromagnetic spectrum that arises when broadband (white) light shines on matter and light quanta (photons) of !!! certain wavelengths or wavelength ranges !!! are absorbed in the process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Optical_or_Visual_Albedo
“The albedos of planets, satellites and minor planets such as asteroids can be used to infer much about their properties. The study of albedos, their
!!! DEPENDENCE OF WAVELENGTH !!!,
lighting angle (“phase angle”), and variation in time composes a major part of the astronomical field of photometry.”…
On the same page it’s best to read the chapter “Albedo–temperature feedback” right away, and see why your 2nd false claim:
(MAR says:
I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature,…)
is at least as clueless and crazy as everything else you say about albedo.
So please spare us another puddle of manure and recognize your mistake.
BECAUSE:
Even small changes in the planetary albedo are enough to trigger noticeable changes in the global mean temperature.
macias shurly (more correctly ‘matthias schuerle’), deluded moron of this planet,
Do you truly wish that this albedo/temperature correlation thing to be explained to you yet again?
In the SkS comment thread you wish to re-live (you commenting at that point as blaisct), your first attempt to show a “correlation” did at least point to an actual “correlation” but that “correlation” is not what you described and perhaps this misunderstanding is what leads you on to all your “correlation” crazy-talk.
Loeb et al (2021) Figure 1 shows Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) as-measure-by-CERES plotted along side what the figure calls “Planetary Heat Uptake (In Situ),” this for the period 2002-20.
Your mistake is that you decide this “In Situ” data is “earth surface temperature” which it certainly is not. The “In Situ” data is described by Loeb et al as being “year-to-year variations in ocean heating rate” (so the 0-2000m ΔOHC) which is certainly not “earth surface temperature.”
Being the helpful sort that I am, @SkS I attempted to explain that Figure 1 shows the trend in EEI through this period 2002-20 which is attributed to more than one factor as set out in Loeb et al Fig 2f. And it is only one of these factors that is cloud albedo (“Cloud Radiative Effect” being the essential ingredient in your grand solution to AGW/SLR which spawned all this ridiculous blather from you).
However, you responded saying
Attempting to interpret this nonsense, your words are saying that EEI would not correlate with ΔOHC with increasing GHG forcing and that ΔOHC would exceed EEI in such circumstances which would be utter madness and leading me to respond in turn “I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature, certainly not in Loeb et al (2021). Perhaps you could explain where you see it.”
You have never offered such explanation. Perhaps you were prevented at SkS with your commenting rights again rescinded (due to your repeated infringement of commenting policy). Here at RealClimate you have a freer hand yet there is still no such explanation, although at last after your repeated playground taunts we have the merest hint that you may be considering explaining yourself as you make the bold statement:-
So please do set out why you would say such a thing. Or do you want me to explain to you why it is simple nonsense?
@MAR
Apparently the main thing for you is that you can bubble thin shit. You hallucinate about someone called “blaisct” – but I’m not.
Please answer your claims
( – why in your opinion the albedo should have no correlation to the temperature and on top of that
– is not dependent on the wavelength of the light. ) by simply presenting a link that corroborates what you’re saying.
matthias schuerle,
If you practise sock-puppetry and then start playing in a double-act, you should not be surprised if the latter is mistaken for the former.
Of your two absurd claims, your grand assertion made here is that the albedo of a planet (specifically planet Earth that happily reflects white light in all its spectrum) “depends primarily on the wavelength of the light that hits the body.” Yet sure as tomatoes are red and blueberries blue, this is entirely debunked here.
The other absurd claim was set out @SkS in a comment you deny writing which asserted there is “a correlation to albedo that fit the observed temperature rise over 20 years.” You have since here @RC repeatedly (initially here) challenged the refutation of this SkS comment, thus repeatedly implying there is some correlation between albedo and temperature. But, as you now distance yourself from the absurd claim made @SkS, you do need to set out the actual nature of the absurd claim you are trying so desperately to make.
It may be worth noting that the wobbles in global temperature over the last 20 years do not conform to any change in albedo. So perhaps, matthias schuerle, it is within some other temperature/albedo measurements that you see this correlation of yours.
About — PS. New year, new moderation policy. Please be substantive – sniping, insults, and tedious repetition will just be culled. We want to maintain a civil and productive discourse here, but the comment threads may need to be re-evaluated if that doesn’t happen.
Exhibit 1.
Dr. Tara C. Smith @aetiology
10h thread ….
I see some folks dismayed that Twitter banned MTG today, pushing the idea that the answer to bad speech isn’t removal from the platform, but instead more “good speech” to counter it. I wish that was true and that it worked that way. But it doesn’t.
– At the time, I had an anti-ban policy (& frankly, early on I don’t think we even had that option?) so I and others would counter their claims over and over and over.
– I wish I could say it worked, but it didn’t, and instead ended up exposing others to their arguments. I eventually started to ban, but we see this over & over with science denial. Even a short exposure to this misinformation, if coming from a trusted source, can sway people….and once that bell is rung, it’s really hard to un-ring. Instead, it’s easy for people to find additional misinformation that confirms what that * trusted * person claimed.
– This makes deplatforming one way to reduce/control exposure to misinformation in the first place. It certainly isn’t a perfect solution–…but it’s certainly a key option for sites that want to at least attempt to keep their platforms from being a haven for harmful misinformation. It’s definitely an ongoing game of whack-a-mole ….
– But that’s exactly the problem with mis/disinformation. It’s not a level playing field and never has been. Facts & rational discussion can help (I still do it!) but for many, it’s an emotion-driven reaction that misinformation proponents take advantage of.
– Make your place less hospitable to those spreading it, or risk those who thrive on misinformation making themselves comfy & taking over. /fin
with Exhibit 2.
Gavin Schmidt Replying to Dr. Tara C. Smith @aetiology
Yes. Every blog with comments had to make the same decision.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1477739720763445250
Exhibit 3.
Just twelve anti-vaxxers are responsible for almost two-thirds of anti-vaccine content circulating on social media platforms. This new analysis of content posted or shared to social media over 812,000 times between February and March uncovers how a tiny group of determined anti-vaxxers is responsible for a tidal wave of disinformation – and shows how platforms can fix it by enforcing their standards.
https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen
Exhibit 4.
“…the act of communication itself is an act of advocacy – people do it in order to create a change somewhere..” – Gavin Schmidt
I believe the situation with folks posting bullshit to blogs and social media can be likened to a statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I like:
If you add a teaspoon of wine to a gallon of sewage, you get sewage.
If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a gallon of wine, you get sewage.
Bullshit/disinformation/flak is not merely deceptive, it is extremely disruptive. And it is particularly so when it is posted by a Gish-Galloping dumbass whose sole goal is to keep substantive conversation from happening, and who will post the exact same bullshit as soon as the furore dies down.
RL. The problem is the cranks who cannot ever admit to themselves they are wrong and move on, and all because they are too proud, or have narcissistic or conspiratorial personalities. Instead they just go on inflicting their nonsense on everyone. And yes it is damn disruptive.
The internet has given them a huge platform. I wonder what the inventor of the WWW would have thought.
I read this and find myself agreeing sadly that this is truth. I then think, what does this say about the posts of Mr. Know It All who in a post above amongst his other nonsense postulated that the loss of millions of Democratic voters in California would be a good thing? I have advocated for removal of his nonsense but never his life!
KIA is a classic troll and your example proves this. At least half is stuff should be bore holed. That way he gets his precious freedom of speech, but doesn’t disrupt climate conversations.
Yes
Bore-Holing would be quite an educative method from Gavin Schmidts side together with crankshafting. It would teach and edeucate The People without violatinjg anyones ritghts.
So I begin to wonder why it is not bore- holed and crankshafted anymore.
MAR from UV Dec 2021 :-
“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.”
So by “known liar” do you mean something Piotr disagrees with? It is a large jump to go from something you disagree with, or even a genuine mistake to a “lie” The instance Piotr was referencing was neither and it was the scientist involved who decided to deliberately truncate the historical record for whatever reason that led him to link AGW to the reduction of rainfall in WA’s south west. Similarly I could call Michael Mann a liar because he said that the 19th century NA hurricane record was good quality because without satellites ships would wander around the ocean and run into hurricanes, but I wouldn’t call him a liar, I would just point out that that statement seems ludicrous. He isn’t lying, he is giving his opinion no matter how silly it may sound to us.
But let’s ignore that as it was in the past and our grain farmers are ecstatic now that they have had their best season EVER (not just the last 50 years) ….. we should instead look at my post that you choose to dismiss by name calling.
You say I am being selective by pointing out that the IPCC 6th AR has low confidence in any detectable trend in tornado activity. If I am being selective, can you point at ANY OTHER part of the 3949 page document that confirms there is a detectable trend and if so what is that trend? Read the whole of section 11.7.3 if you think the summary table is not a valid synopsis of the section
If we don’t know what the trend is, then there is no way you can attribute occurrences (or lack of occurrences) to AGW
Keith Woollard,
You ask me to “point at ANY OTHER part of the 3949 page document (IPCC AR6 WG1) that confirms there is a detectable trend” in tornado activity and indicate you are relying only on the synopsis table of Chapter 11 as your sole source. Given such a cursory reading of AR6, it is no surprise you fail to grasp what is being presented.
If you would consider reading the section thus referenced in Table 11.1 you will find the situation presented there in section 11.7 is itself a synopsis of other sections of the IPCC where all is explained. I would consider providing page numbers but if you cannot get further than the synopsis table on your own, I’m thinking with so many pages, the page numbering may be too much for your counting skills.
Read properly before sticking your foot in your mouth. I did NOT say my sole source was the summary table. I just said for you to show why you believe it is not a valid summary
My challenge remains open
Keith Woollard,
You presumably refer to your nonsense above when you enjoin me to “read properly” (although you may be referring again to your nonsense for December in which you insist that “in the most recent WG1 report there is low confidence that there is any detectable trend in tornado activity – either increasing or decreasing.”)
Your ‘nonsense above’ makes as plain as you appear to be able to manage that you have read (indeed seemingly mis-read) the “summary table” which I took to be the AR6 WG1 Table 11.1 ‘Synthesis table on observed changes in extremes and contribution by human influences’ as the SPM and TS of WG1 make no mention of “tornado” and you do say that I read “the whole of section 11.7.3 if you think the summary table is not a valid synopsis of the section” suggesting you either have not read Sec 11.7.3 or have not read it properly and are thus “relying only on the synopsis table of Chapter 11 (Table 11.1) as your sole source.”
Now you make clear that this is not your intended meaning and that presumably you have also read Sec 11.7.3 yet failed to note any description of trends found in tornadoes. So if I was suggesting you consider reading Section 11.7, perhaps I should have said that you read it properly.
You also talk of a “challenge” and this is why you continue to receive legitimate ad hominem criticism from commenters here at RC.
I doesn’t require an unsupported assertion from a known liar for an ad hominem criticism to be legitimate. Your “challenge” comes only after you have accused folk (including one of our hosts) of making “clearly erroneous claims” and insisting RC “needs to call out (such) misinformation.” So here we are now addressing the grand assertion on which you based these accusations of “clearly erroneous claims” and it seems things are not so clear and I would suggest not “erroneous.”
Keith Woollard (Dec.29) “ A textbook ad hominem response thanks Piotr”
Hmm. If criticizing an opponent by … quoting him and reminding him of his earlier arguments is “a textbook ad hominem”, then you must have some … interesting textbooks. Not to rely on your description here is this ” a textbook ad hominem response”:
====
Piotr Dec. 29: {K. Woolard in the past] ridiculed “assuming tie between global warming and local rainfall” – by pointing to the lack of correlation between … local warming and local rainfall [in two cities in Australia].
–disproved overall continental [Australia] reduction in the available moisture in the soil by pointing that …. “in [some town of] Corrigin there is no clear trend in rain”
[And based on _this_ mastery of climatological statistics] – he told BPL: ”Stick to religion BPL, obviously maths is not your strong suit “. Keith Woollard – everyone!”
“Textbook ad hominem” on my part, eh?
And I recalled Mr. Woollard’s past triumphs just to give the context to his latest one – in which after “ Wishing all a great holiday season.“) he, ho-ho-ho, … tears into Joe Biden, Michael Mann and others: Keith Woollard Dec. 23:
“ 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)”
Strong claims (“evangelist” about a scientists) demand unequivocal proofs. K. Woolard unequivocal proof is …his understanding of one synopsis table [in AR6.] as a sole source (he didn’t need to read the interpretation and caveats of the results summarized in that table, nor the discussion of the underlying research).
How does your textbook call _that_, and your earlier “advise” for BPL, Mr. Woollard?
“thoughtful”? “meticulously documented”? “based on one’s impressive knowledge of the subject”?
“humble”?, “gracious”?
“Recent works have shown that the low-lying islands of the Pacific and the Indian Ocean are expanding rather than shrinking. Here we explain why, by analyzing the long-term tide gauge records, corrected for subsidence by Global Positioning System monitoring. We find the absolute sea levels are rising much slower than in climate model predictions. The relative rate of rise is highly variable but on average is a modest + 0.46 mm/year, subject to an almost trivial acceleration of + 0.0091 mm/year.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08972-6
Published in a not very reliable journal. I’ll trust the satellite data that shows otherwise.
https://www.realclearscience.com/2021/11/06/publisher_retracts_44_papers_for_being_utter_nonsense_802408.html
https://news.knowledia.com/US/en/articles/the-mysterious-case-of-the-nonsense-papers-e49b58d66169ab308f68e36be0db1fcd294ed97b
https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-did-a-peer-reviewed-journal-publish-hundreds-of-nonsense-papers
Even more telling, it’s by a Saudi from a Saudi university, sole author. I’m smelling climate denial.
Oops, not Saudi, just the source behind. Denialist + Saudi publisher = #EcoNuremberg-worthy.
Victor, the author of that sea level rise study, Alberto Boretti is an engineer, and has been caught using two names and simply making things up here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/
Also, note the ‘tight focus’ of Boretti’s research interests:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-021-02996-5
“Iodine may be considered as one substance necessary to mitigate the adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines that could help also against COVID-19 infection.”
Well, anti-vax ‘lukewarmism’ has at least as much to do with his actual credentials as does climate research. Or ‘research.’
Kevin, I noticed the same paper about iodine and I thought the same. I also came across this list of all the papers Boretti has ever published or been involved in, that suggest a certain anti vax, pro natural remedies, lukewarmer, and anti covid restrictions world view:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3374-0238
Boretti/Parker is a very low-credibility source. Inter alia:
https://www.desmog.com/albert-parker/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/sea-smoke-and-mirrors/
OTOH, and speaking of Tamino, see his summary of Frederikse et al (2021):
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/12/10/big-change-in-sea-level-rise/
Regarding Macias Shurlys idea to reduce sea level rise by storing water on land by diverting it from rivers. Here is a serious proposal to store water on land using desalinisation. ” Here we propose that sea-level rise could be mitigated through the desalination of very large amounts of seawater in an international network of massive desalination plants. To efficiently mitigate sea-level rise, desalinized water could be stored on land in the form of crop, wetlands or new forests. Based on a US$ 500 million price to build an individual mega desalination plant with current technology, the cost of controlling current sea-level rise through water desalination approaches US$ 23 trillion in investment and US$ 4 trillion per year in operating costs. ”
https://f1000research.com/articles/5-889
Ouch!
Uh…. if we grow stuff, it will have water in it. We need no desal plants for that. We know how to grow stuff even in areas with as little as 6 inches of rain per year.
All you techno-loving goombahs need to pull your heads out and spend as much time trying to understand regenerative design as you do slobbering over thought-less tech.
Your collective willful ignorance is dangerous for us all.
Killian. I didn’t promote the desalinisation scheme. The fact that I said it would cost $23 trillion followed by the word “ouch” should tell you I was sceptical of it. I mean its insanely crazy. Some tech is insanely crazy. Even I admit that.
Killian “ Uh…. if we grow stuff, it will have water in it. .
Let’s see how much : All water contained in living things is 1120 km3. Total area of the ocean 361 mln km2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth)
Which means that EVEN IF the regenerative agriculture DOUBLED biomass on Earth, this would have negligible effect on the global ocean’s level (one-time reduction by …3mm).
But even this drop would be MORE than cancelled by the doubled … transpiration (=evaporation by plants). Plants are very effective pumps moving the groundwater into the air – and from there ADDING to the sea level – directly (rain over ocean) or indirectly (rain over land that is transported to the ocean via rivers). And the amount of transpired waters is ORDERS of magnitude larger than the amount of the water locked in the new biomass – hence Killian’s silver bullet of regenerative agriculture would REDUCE the groundwater and if, anything, cause a net increase in sea level.
But don’t let this ignorance of quantitative (here: how little water is in the new biomass when spread over the area of the oceans) or even qualitative here: that transpiration of water by plants dwarfs the sequestration of it in plant biomass) aspects of the very concept you have been promoting for years (?), stop you from lecturing others:
– “All you techno-loving goombahs need to pull your heads out and spend as much time trying to understand regenerative design as you do slobbering over thought-less tech.”
– “Your collective willful ignorance ”
Killian
Teacher, teach thyself first?
Maybe this verifies the old belief and principle of education civilizing the people. It follows further in theUN declaration of Human Rights articles 26 and 27.
But then I further come to thinki that it is not quite indifferent what kind ofr education and what kind of schools and teachers. From anxient on in civilized and democratic countries, they must also be authorized and qualified under facultary, Royal federal control, that also must have the ability to fire them and to ban them.
By the way , I tend to believe that there is more rot and perversion in the world on high teacher and youth instructor and leader level, than has been uncovered and shown under the cower of priesthood in the roman catolic church in recent years.
Wherefore there obviously has to be some federal and royal and facultary and imperial control and consensus with it also.
Oh, grow up. 1. More green = more water, period, and you offered nothing to state otherwise nor to otherwise go against what I said. 2. Gowing stuff = growing soils = huge water retention of many, many liters per added 1% of SOC per cubic meter.
Seriously, stop trolling. We have real problems. We need serious people, not trollish children.
N.:
The global soil moisture (5500km³), the renewable groundwater (625,000km³) and deeper aquifers (2,200,000km³) are decreasing reservoirs that are suitable for decades for an annual influx of 3.7mm SLR due to their size. (you find this sentence on top of the thread !)
Nevertheless, a whole bunch of dumbfooted people are discussing a concept,
which can be read in full at any time,
https://climate-protecion-hardware.webnode.com/english/
and everybody word turns the letters and numbers upside down. That can only result in garbage.
@nigelj – why do you still want to produce slightly salty fresh water for $ 3 / m³ when I have already explained to you 5 times how you can obtain much larger quantities of clean spring water without using energy?
@piotr – 1335km³ / y not 50000km³ (global river discharge / y)
BTW – to reach the aquifers – just dig your boreholes a bit deeper.
MS. I wasn’t promoting reducing sea level rise with that desalinisation / water storage on land scheme! The fact I mentioned its $33 billion construction cost followed by the word “ouch” should have told you that I was sceptical about the scheme. Although maybe I could have been clearer. I just though it was an interesting but crazy concept.
I was really pointing out how incredibly expensive it would be and their additional $6 trillion per year running costs would have to go on for centuries. Its really important to consider if its the best use of those sums of money. Its like an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Prevention by reducing emissions should be the primary focus.
They also propose to store the water through irrigating crops and its none too clear how much of that would actually stay on land. As piotr points out you get a lot of evapotranspiration from crops.
And the huge volume of material resources required to build so many desalinisation plants would need investigation.
All things considered, the desalinisation scheme looks crazy to me, but it was interesting so worth posting.
At least your water storage scheme has a simple pathway from river discharge to storing this water in man made lakes or old half empty aquifers. However at the risk of repeating myself this will require a potentially vast pumping system over significant distances. Its going to also cost probably trillions of dollars to make a significant difference plus theres the question of impact on rivers ecology. I know many of our own rivers where I live already have reduced flow rates, due to water extraction and hydro dams, and many are at the limits of what water can be sustainably extracted.
Nigelj:
” at the limits of what water can be sustainably extracted.”
— That just means that the people / politics where you live are too stupid to save water.
And again: a rain barrel or the aforementioned “amunas” of the old Incas do not need
any pump or electricity.
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-extra-surface-boosts-groundwater-droughts.html
http://www.artificialrecharge.co.za/coursenotes/AR_LecturePRESENTATION_Long.pdf
http://www.artificialrecharge.co.za/strategydocument/ARStrategySectB.pdf
Piotr:
“…“supporting” you in your schemes ,which require …restricting of the evaporation…
???— After 6 months here in the forum I have been promoting the transformation of sea level rise into an “additional” volume of evaporation and clouds, your last sentence, which I will read from you forever, gives a very deep insight into your attention, comprehension and intelligence
… when it comes to the survival of creation.
m. shurly: Jan. 12 “ After 6 months here in the forum I have been promoting the transformation of sea level rise into an “additional” volume of evaporation and clouds, your last sentence, gives a very deep insight into your attention, comprehension and intelligence
Let’s test your opinions with numbers:
– According to you, to counter SLR, we need the removal 1,335km³ of water per year
– Current total volume of water in the atmosphere: 12,700 km³. And there is not that much room to ADD – once you are over 100% relative humidity the water – it condenses into clouds and rains out the surplus on your head.
Globally, air over most of the Earth is not that far 100% relative humidity – 71% of Earth’s surface is the ocean – with unlimited amount of water available for evaporation, and even on the remaining 29%, land, many places will have very high humidity – if you have clouds over land it means that humidity next to them is close 100% (if it is less – the clouds evaporate).
But let say you are able to somehow permanently increase water vapour concentration by say, 10% – which would amount to … less than 1 year of SLR . And what about the next year, next decades, next centuries?
it gets better – you can’t just put it up in the air once and hope it stays there forever – during the night temperature drops and what was 100% relative humidity become say – 110%, with the surplus raining out and the next morning you having to pump the rain back into the atmosphere.
In fact – even though there is only 12,700 km³ in the air at any given time – during the year
it rains about 505,000 km³ !. Which means that you would have to pump your 1,335km³ up into the air AT LEAST 40 TIMES a year, most likely MORE – since by keeping air humidity closer to 100% you make it crossing to above 100% during the night much EASIER, which means that the surplus water would rain out MORE than today.
Not mentioning the logistics of costs of getting 10,000s of km3 of water to places with most room for water vapour – like … middle of Sahara, Saudi Arabia, Kalahari, central Asia, interior of Australia… Somehow, we were not able to afford to supply water to those places to allow for the much needed food production, but hey, NO PROBLEM to supply it for …. evaporation scheme that, at the costs of many billions? trillions ?, could perhaps stave off SLR for …. less than a year.
And Caldeira and others you claim as your “supporters” – were talking about climatic importance of the tree evaporation in the context of increasing albedo ,
NOT in the context of your storage the SLR in the air.
But please, do lecture me on my deficits of “ attention, comprehension and intelligence.
Hr. Schürle
That idea of yours of keeping water back on land and in the air to inhibit sea level rise is helpless, however ingenious in your own understanding.
Sea level rise is explained by consequent melting of land- ice, , of glaciers, and thermal expansion due to warming of the oceans.
In Germany you have “Flussbegradigung” that is understood to cause catastrophic events of “hochwasser” flooding. And then there are recent discussions about restoration of marshlands and peat- lands but for other reasons. Such projects may be necessary and healthy but you will ruin their reputation and credibility if you manage to sell your private ideas (Poetic engineerings?) into that.
The situation of draught in southern Caliofornia Colorado river and Las Vegas is another and hardly relating story to sea- level, that also needs another medicine and conscideration.
If you whish to make yourself interesting, then you should better discuss Sahara and its history during Holocene and also central Asia. There may be a tendency of the Sahel belt and central Asia getting more green again due to AGW. Whereas other areas such as southern California and the middle east seem to dry up.
ms: “The global soil moisture ” – how you are going to keep the sequestered water in the soil? Its moisture is decreasing because of the global warming and because of the crops that evaporate it. Both mechanisms would apply to your added water as well.
Not sure what you mean by “renewable groundwater” – If you mean shallow ground water then it would be within the reach of plants roots and when they have access to water – they increase their transpiration (it is in their interest to evaporate as much as they have access to).
So the more water you pump in, the more they’ll evaporate back in the air.
As for those “a bit deeper” aquifers -even if some of their water has been extracted in the past – it does not mean that the space is still there – the pores in the substrate of aquifers are known to collapse once you pump the water out – see here
And even if they didn’t collapse – those aquifers that are depleted are in the areas where the demand for water is already very high – and the rivers cannot withstand any more diversion of their waters. And even if they could, this water would go first to the cities and to the farmers, BEFORE it would go to you. At the same time in the aquifers in the areas where there is no much demand for water – aquifers are not depleted – so don’t have space for your extra water. Catch 22.
Not mentioning the fact that pumping water into the deep aquifers may not be as easy – if you have an artesian well – the water comes to the surface under its own ponsiderble rpessure – to put you water IN – you would have apply pressure high enough tnot only to counter it., but to reverse it.
Nigel already mentioned about the costs of the MASSIVE waterlines you would have to build to pump the 1335 km3 /yr from the rivers to the few suitable places where you can pump them into the aquifers. The Devil is in the details, you know.
And you still didn’t answer – how the 2011 paper that was saying that trees are important to the climate because other large evaporation of soil and ground water creates low albedo clouds – you presented as “supporting” you in your schemes ,which require …restricting of the evaporation.
Correction – in the last line is should read” : “[transpiration by trees creates] low-level, high-albedo clouds”.
@Piotr
“…But please, do lecture me on my deficits of “ attention, comprehension and intelligence.”
In this thread 3 times I wrote: – The global soil moisture (5500km³), the renewable groundwater (625,000km³) and deeper aquifers (2,200,000km³) are decreasing reservoirs that are suitable for decades for an annual influx of 3.7mm SLR due to their size.
??? Why do you talk about storing 1335km³ in the atmosphere ???
— I believe you took over this misinformation from some even more clueless borehole candidates like: MAR, BPL, BL,…etc.
The same concept you will find here if you could please have a 2nd look to the links above:
http://www.artificialrecharge.co.za/coursenotes/AR_LecturePRESENTATION_Long.pdf
– Store water underground when available and recover it when needed
Water is diverted to infiltration basins and recharge boreholes while
water is available and the aquiferis not pumped.
– Water is then abstracted when the aquifer is full. The recharge facilities are now rested.
The graphic of the global water cycle:
https://d6scj24zvfbbo.cloudfront.net/da475a79e4bc41c3b64b8d393a44d235/200000029-d6fd6d6fd7/HumanIntegratedWaterCycle_(2)-2.jpg?ph=02adf5ae1c
shows you all volumes of pools and fluxes that are required for my concept to reduce sea level rise.
Soil moisture, groundwater, aquifers, fresh lakes, larger artificial water reservoirs and even your rain barrel behind the house are all suitable for the additional storage of an annual volume of 1335km³ SLR.
By the way, I pay $2.50 for a m³ of drinking water. With a 100m² roof and local rainfall of 750mm/y, a rain barrel can save me ~$180/y – while @nigelj would be right back whining that 1billion rain barrels would cost at least $40billion.
No one knows exactly how many rain barrels, cisterns or rainwater retention basins could direct the average amounts of precipitation over urban areas or roof areas onto unsealed urban ground areas of 1.5 million km². But it can at least be estimated that the average amount of precipitation is of a similar size to the SLR.
This knowledge is actually enough to ensure that millions of mostly young people and rightly concerned about climate change do not worry TOO much about the SLR
– there are plenty of ways to defuse the SLR.
So much for your attention. –
My strategic approach (comprehension) is based on withholding precipitation – ! over land areas ! (~100000km³/y = ~734L/m² per year) and global river discharge to ocean (49500km³/y).
Land areas can be roughly divided into 50 million km² desert (also ice desert), 50 million agricultural area and another 50 million km² forest, meadow, moor, savannah, …,etc. including ~1.5 million km² of urban area.
There is still some storage space even in the atmosphere.
The relative humidity, which has dropped by about 1% during the last 40years corresponds to ~ 160km³, which I try to compensate precisely by turning the “saved” water reserves into evaporation and clouds at the right time and in the right place (local drought event).
If you use large amounts of water on larger agricultural areas for artificial irrigation 2-3 hours before sunrise on a hot, otherwise cloudless and dry summer day, you have a good chance to produce (cumulus)clouds that will rain down before sunset.
m.shurly Jan 20.: “??? Why do you talk about storing 1335km³ in the atmosphere ???”
because of:
m. shurly: Jan. 12^* “After 6 months here in the forum I have been promoting the transformation of sea level rise into an “additional” volume of evaporation and clouds,”
—
^* the same quote is also at the beginning of my Jan. 18 post to which you supposedly responded.
Hr Schürly
I shall try and show you how to discuss this more cunningly from facultary side.:
I once red of a situation in the Atlas mountains where darker colours and green forests did cause more rain. Which may be plausible We have many examples of species and økosystems that change and “improove” the environment to their own advantage, and it is an example of bio- related, positive feedback.
Perhaps also a reason why bio- life often and even mostly occurs as “agregations” , social groups, that even come and go, It “cycles” or oscillates..
“Holt” in Norwegian is a smaller natural, social group of trees of the same species. In Plattdeutsch it is rather a forest reserve, but rather originally the same perhaps.
The basic word is Wood-Weide-Vidur- Ved, that rather means birch and salix firewood. But “Holz “in German comes from that anxient Holt, “Hult” in swedish, such a smaller social group, maybe even under culture for having larger and uniform constructional dimensions.
A “Holt” of trees wherever it occurs, should be seen as possible evidence of an older culture- landscape. A Holt may be natural indeed, but when found in traditional landscapes it is most often evidence of longtime longrange human presence and planning and awareness political rules and regulations..
Holt Holz Hult is antropogene in most cases. .
Then in west coast Italia in july. The Salix and olive species were typically silvery grey greenish. It was severely dry, but every morning with morning dew from the sea.
I heard a German professor say, that “All the water that theese trees are getting is from the morning dew!”
It is what nature looks like, and if we look at Google Maps and Google Earth, we can easily convince ourselves that most of the worlds land areas are hardly natural anymore.
So if anything is wrong and needs to be settled, that is wrong and needs to be settled.
But, we cannot have spindoctors and trolls and dilettants on that project, especially not as our judges and teachers.
NON FINGENDVM AVT EXCOGITANDVM, SED INVENIENDVM QVOD NATVRA FACIAT AVT FERAT.
(Francis Bacon.)
Fingendum and excogitandum, try and translate and understand.
Then try not to excogitandum and fingendum.
Wow, the Arabian Journal of Geosciences. Now there’s a prestigious venue for publication. Then again, when you have a track record like Boretti, I guess you publish where they’ll have you.
Weaktor, did it ever occur to you that someone who had a convincing argument that mainstream science was wrong wouldn’t have to publish in backwater journals. Nature would give them a fricking cover!
Oh, wait. Sorry. It would never occur to you because of your blinkered ignorance and delusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EsVTSVOaJk&ab_channel=ToLiveisChrist
Know the enemy
I studied philosophy, or if you’re American, sorcery.
Philosophy is great so long as you try to turn it into Economics.
;-)
Hr Killian
Try not to teach and administer this either.
XRRC mentioned Sorcery.
That worde was unknown to me but it comes out as “Trolldom” on google translate, which means whitchcraft or black magics.
Economy being whitchcraft or black magics and all together “philosophy”,… what kind of severe cultural and educational mess is that?
Is it some kind of self- confessment in the situation and in the real climate?
It is probably more often called an inside cultural joke. To explain a joke no longer makes it funny.
You’d have to have viewed the video first and understood the larger picture involved.
Maybe this 30 minute summary by a professional academic might help connect the dots.
Richard Norgaard – “How Economism Became Our Religion” Excerpts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFECRV5tP3E
aka Living Life in the Econocene
XRRC, I mistyped. It should have read, “So long as you ****don’t***” turn it into Economics.” However, it actually lands the same either way, eh? A logical palindrome?
As for Carboflatulus, ignore him/them. (Yes, there are two users of that account – or one that is mostly very, very drunk.) He/it like others on this board will troll anything I say just because they are too weak-minded, weak-willed and delusional to deal with the realities I talk about.
All these years on RC and not one of them has ANY record of accurate predictions/scenario generation while mine grows longer year after year.
It seriously messes with their heads and egos.
It’s all good, i read it right, and thank you.
I was going ask to today if he was an online drunk or a computer bot. Both seemed possible.
But I decided to skip it because I do not want to get into trouble with the censors. :)
K: As for Carboflatulus, ignore him/them. (Yes, there are two users of that account – or one that is mostly very, very drunk.) He/it like others on this board will troll anything I say just because they are too weak-minded, weak-willed and delusional to deal with the realities I talk about.
BPL: Has anyone made a list of how many enemies Killian has accumulated on this board yet? Besides Killian, I mean? It seems like everybody is out to get him, poor soul.
So that may be central stimulants.
Their thoughts become so cristal clear to themselves however delusional, Obviously convincing to themselves and to nobody else.
That medication causes progressive loss of contact with reality.
Carbomontanus, given your direct personal experience with “progressive loss of contact with reality,” please don’t hold back getting the help of a good geriatric psychiatrist.
A drug and alcohol counselor couldn’t hurt either.
And an English Editor!!!
Norway’s Best English Editing and Proofreading Services
https://www.proofreadingservices.com/pages/geo-norway-proofreading-and-editing
BPL, do you really think it wise to highlight your own trolling? I post informational posts, analystical posts, direct links to papers and videos by scientists, etc. You never – literally – respond to any of those. You do jump in to toss out Ad Homs at a steady rate.
The very definition of trolling, faux.
Methane breaches 1900. Prof. Eliot Jacobson seems to think it matters. Nothing to see here…?
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1478841394730921985?t=JIbsgDOgRYylEFi3bB1LIg&s=19
Killian Jan 6: “ Methane breaches 1900. Prof. Eliot Jacobson seems to think it matters. Nothing to see here…?”
Yes, there is something to see, but you may not like it – no indication that _this_ record is a result of the massive methane release from the melting permafrost some envisioned. Here is the same Prof. Eliot Jacobson, slightly further down in the same thread:
“ Appears to be mostly mid-latitude and equatorial biological methane from rice farming, natural wetland decay and ruminant livestock. The Arctic/Siberian component is not (yet) substantial. ”
Hey, weren’t the ruminants an integral part of the carbon capture by that regenerative agriculture plan of yours?
Hr Pjotr
I am an expert on making and litinjg fire.
The Impetrial chineese Mandarins were known to carry small cast iron hot stoves in chains over their shoulder under their large and wide imperial coats in the winter, to keep warm. Burning charcoal.
We have similar remedies in the garden and in the boat, the easier the better.
We found very exellent chineese exellent cast iron furnaces that have worked all the years until corroded. But maybe very best of all, well designed 0.8 mm soft iron rolled plate in 2 layers and with iron rods and tongs., airy things at low temperature, meant for charcoal but for which we can further find choisest traditional combustables in the landscape and at the shores. For shellfish and codfish and eventual hotdogs and even tea and coffee avec and dishwashing on the rocks. where the crabs and the ants eat whatever is left over.
The imperial chinese or japanese tea ceremony with choisest fuel and candles could not be better
The trolls are teaching and instructing regeneratives and permaculture and “biochar” here, without even knowing what permaculture is and how to think and plan and design for the re- cycling of the materials in a proper Permaculture context..
1. Not “yet” substantial, as if time has suddenly stood still?
2. Straw Man: I said nothing at all about anything in that post about attribution, yet you call me out for not pleasing you?
3. All while the Arctic continues to thaw. You can pretend to yourself Arctic thaw does not include increased CH$, but I am not so self-deluding as to do so.
4. As a permaculturist, I have much to say about livestock emissions, and you know this. However, you are not honest and offer up to our Dear Readers the implication I care nothing about the horrible animal ag industry – via yet another logical fallacy. No permaculture practicioner supports any aspect of industrial animal farming. Again, you know this, but you are more intent to score trolling points.
Like nigel, you’ve nothing to say on these boards. You add nothing, you elucidate nothing while misleading readers with cherry-picked comments because of your personal animosity. Grow up.
Seems like an important study: “Unprecedented acceleration of winter discharge of Upper Yenisei River inferred from tree rings”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3e20/pdf
Due to the change in CAMS methane forecasts, it looks like large plumes of methane are erupting from the continental shelf in the Kara Sea near Franz Joseph Land and Komsomolets Island. (see particularly today’s, Jan 7, picture). Yellow levels of methane are reaching Barrow, but the methane measurement at Barrow has not been available since the beginning of the year. Some of us find this unsettling and, if true, significant . I am lay. Can a trained person who knows about these things explain to me whether my interpretation is correct and if there is anything to worry about.?
The Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) methane forecast is posted here currently showing graphics covering 3 Jan to 12 Jan. If the methane concentration contours shown (20ppb bands at 3hr or 6hr intervals) do identify surface sources of methane then they are not very well nailed down.
The NOAA ESRL methane data measured at Barrow is a weekly reading and could well provide some 7th January data (one week after last data measurements) in due course. Mind there could be some other more timely source of methane measurements other than ESRL that is being seen as stalled on “the beginning of the year.”.
The correct image/url to view as per Margaret Parrish comment is actually this one – at the surface level:
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/charts/cams/methane-forecasts?facets=undefined&time=2022010700,3,2022010703&projection=classical_arctic&layer_name=composition_ch4_surface
the two dark spots of +2320 ppb are near the islands mentioned to the right of the north pole.
with the yellow extending up to Utqiaġvik, (Inupiaq:) also known as Barrow, in the image
use drop down box to see different dates. Saturday has stronger readings near those islands.
it’s likely nothing to be concerned about.
Do note that the scaling & colours used in the CAMS charts will vary as the range of methane levels being modelled waxes & wanes, and waxes. Also the specific URL given for the “correct image” above will presumably revert to sending you to the default date when Jan 7th is no longer within the period being modelled.
Friday 7 Jan, 00 UTC T+3 Valid: Friday 7 Jan, 03 UTC
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/charts/cams/methane-forecasts?facets=undefined&time=2022010700,3,2022010703&projection=classical_arctic&layer_name=composition_ch4_surface
the link still works fine for me today. Dates available today, now, run from the 5th to the 9th in the drop down box.
“Do note that the scaling & colours used” changes. Good catch.
Sure yesterday the max was +2320 ppb, and today it is 10,000 ppb … but more importantly the “dark hot spots” at the island locations noted by Margaret Parrish are still showing the darkest colour, or highest possible reading, of 10,000 ppb now.
Meaning the “Methane at surface [ ppbv ]” is being rated the highest level possible on the CAMS reporting system, today, now.
Also very interesting to sample the vertical profiles–you can specify surface, 850-, 500-, 300-, & 50-hPa. 500 was a bit of a “Yikes!”
I’d like to see how distributions shift over the course of the year.
XRRC,
Now we have arrived at 13th Jan, try your wondrous link to that 7th Jan CAMS chart. Is it still showing “the correct image/url to view”?
The direct url was provided to assist others more easily get to the section mentioned by Margaret Parrish. I suspect everyone else saw that for what it was. A way to be helpful to others.
The link https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/charts/cams/methane-forecasts?facets=undefined&time=2022011300,3,2022011303&projection=classical_arctic&layer_name=composition_ch4_surface still goes to the same page showing the surface distribution for the arctic region but for today’s date.
The link still shows the excessive level of methane remains near those islands but is at a larger extent.
It was a very handy link to use and it still is. I’m sure someone out there in cyberspace really appreciated it and my comments.
Those islands are, of course at shallow seas given they are islands. It is concerning there are consistent emissions from those locations. If they are ongoing, it’s a sign it could be subsea permafrost. You’ll note there are also constant flows over the fracking fields in the Dakotas, etc.
Very not good potential we are seeing subsea problems in process.
It looks like the emissions are from the northern, unglaciated part of the Komsomolets island. (Or, nomen omen for this site – “Schmidt Island” … ) If it was methane from shallow seas released as a result of warmer seawater – I’d expect the source be much more widespread. Then again it is January, so maybe that’s where, say, a crack in the seaice is located, allowing to vent only there?
In fact it is so concentrated that it looks like a mine. Perhaps the company that has open-pit (gold) mines in the southern part of the archipelago are exploring the northern part?
But all that is still peanuts compared to CH4 emissions from : China and India
K: Those islands are, of course at shallow seas given they are islands.
BPL: Does the existence of Hawaii mean the Pacific Ocean is shallow?
BPL Jan.(10): “ Does the existence of Hawaii mean the Pacific Ocean is shallow?
While correctly questioning the Killian’s sweeping generalization (“ islands are, of course at shallow seas given they are islands“) in this case – the north end of Komsomolets Island seems still to be in relatively shallow water, although very close the continental slope.
From CH4 model it is hard to pinpoint whether emissions is from the land (northmost part of Komsomolets island), from the shallow water next to it, or from the nearby slope.
Given that it happens only there and not elsewhere on the extensive Siberian shelf with equal or better conditions for melting subsea permafrost, it seems to me the least likely explanation. The other two possibilities are :
a) either it in the glacier free northern part of the island – either release from the tundra or disturbing of the permafrost by, perhaps, the gold miners from Bolshevik Island are exploring new prospective areas?
or
b) from the nearby continental slope – i.e. not from CH4 from coastal subsea permafrost, but from slope deposits of methane hydrates – where they could be relatively easily destabilized.
BPL: Does saying stupid shit make you feel better?
The Siberian side is well known to be rather shallow. Didn’t even need to look. But I did just because you’re idiocy should not be reinforced by a careless comment. Gee, shallow seas. Who’d a thunk it? Well, pretty much everyone but you.
It is just utterly stupid to continue to troll as the world burns.
Shush, climate criminal.
Killian to BPL, Jan. 12 “ BPL: Does saying stupid shit make you feel better?
The Siberian side is well known to be rather shallow
Except that BPL did NOT question that, but rather your PATRONIZING GENERALIZATION:
“ islands are, of course at shallow seas given they are islands.”
To falsify such a patronizing GENERALIZATION it is ENOUGH to show ONE counter-example, the same way as to falsify a patronizing claim: “ swans are, of course white given they are swans ” all is needed is to show even one black swan.
And show he did:
“ Does the existence of Hawaii mean the Pacific Ocean is shallow?” (BPL)
Killian, Jan 12: “Didn’t even need to look. But I did just because you’re idiocy should not be reinforced by a careless comment”
If you did really look – you would have noticed that the source of the CH4 emissions, the northern tip of the Komsomolets Island (the northernmost part of northernmost island of the Severnaya Zemlya/Northern Land) is at the very edge of … the continental slope
– see for instance)
Which makes your claim that it may be a harbinger of a widespread CH4 release from the Siberian subsea permafrost the LEAST LIKELY explanation, as I argued here: , because the MORE LIKELY
alternatives are
– emissions from the possibly disturbed tundra in the unglaciated part of the Komsomolets Island
– destabilization of the methane hydrates that are known to be on the Arctic continental slope (i.e., unrelated to the subsea permafrost)
.
Killian’s response could have been:
a) to falsify my argument
b) to admit that mine is a better explanation than his
c) … or go after … BPL, for showing him a black swan.
Hmm, which option would Killian choose. Riiiight:
– “BPL:Does saying stupid shit make you feel better?”
– “Who’d a thunk it? Well, pretty much everyone but you.”
– ” you’re idiocy should not be reinforced”
– “It is just utterly stupid to continue to troll”.
– “Shush, climate criminal. ”
Classic, classic Killian!
If you know of other methane surface sources please let me know. Flask methane measurements at Barrow and 2 other ESRL statiions, Ny Alesund and Pallas-Sammaltunturi are still not available. Tiksi has been out since 2018. I don’t know why.
Here is data from Tiksi
https://d.radikal.ru/d04/2201/8c/51cdbfef259e.jpg
From here
http://cc.voeikovmgo.ru/images/dokumenty/2021/doklad_klimat2020.pdf
p. 85
Thank you.
I have looked at it.
What I find strange is that it bubbles up in winter north of Franz Josefs Land, but since it is winter, it is hardly global warming, and rather natural.
You must also conscider how the winds are blowing and it normally rotates east to west in the polar ocean.
What I find much uglier in that map is the situation in China.
Whereas the very large gas production on the Yamal peninsula seems to give less methane to the air than could be expected. Compare to the persian golf, where there is methane enough. The worlds largest gas field being tapped by the emirates.
And looking into the Atlantic, there seems to be bubbles of seismic origine.
But if we look further, there are verly wide and large concentrations over tempered Eurasia and Siberia, and over the similar north american continent. The same is obvously lacking in the southern hemisphere. Then we see large plumes at Eqvator with resources in the east india, central Africa and Brazil. All this may perhaps be explained by global warming and increased, natural decay of organic sediments, increased “marsh gas”.
. Decaying sediments of Metanhydrat in a warming world can also be kept in mind.
But the very picture as it is shown may most of all sustain the fameous effect of the northern hemisphere warming faster than the southern hemisphere..
The images shown on CAMS today have been looking like that since they started producing them.
the specific issue raised was only about the arctic islands region, which is less common in extent but does happen now and then around the arctic continental shelves. undersea methane plumes are known to occur from time to time.
Appreciate everybody’s comments.
XRRC,
You say “around the arctic continental shelves. undersea methane plumes are known to occur from time to time.” Can you point to relevant reports of this “known” phenomenon? How would such “undersea plumes” (or evidence thereof) be affected by natural gas exploration activities which are “known to occur from time to time.”
I was not referring to exploration activities so I don’t know the answer to that aspect,
Maybe my wording is incorrect but there are numerous science papers observing methane rising to the sea surface is common in the siberian arctic shelf / ESAS etc…. and is measurable. It’s nothing new. CAMS has shown such sea surface methane in the arctic region before.
Maybe as others said it does come from the islands themselves in this instance, I do not know, the CAMS data doesn’t say specifically what the source is, as it was sometimes showing over land other times not. I know nothing about mining on these islands.
I missed answering this great question:
Can you point to relevant reports of this “known” phenomenon?
Hey, sure I can. You can even look it up on Google scholar yourself Mr Rodger
Here are couple of handy search result links to start you off :
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=methane+plumes+arctic+shelf&btnG=
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=methane+arctic+shelf&oq=methane+arctic
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=6&q=siberian+shelf+seas+%22methane+fluxes%22&qst=br
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=4&q=%22methane+emissions%22+east+siberian+shelf&qst=br
Instead of the word plume/s [ eg … The methane plumes observed in the surface and subsurface water differed from each other … ] sometimes they also use words such as : release/s, fluxes, emission/s, venting, and others.
(I guess) It depends on the scientists doing the research and what kind of research they are focusing upon and maybe their culture, or what native language is,
So, now you know. Happy to be of service to you Mr Rodger.
Any other questions?
XRRC “around the arctic continental shelves. undersea methane plumes are known to occur from time to time.”
I don’t think the continental shelf is the source of the discussed here CH4 plumes seen early January emanating from the northernmost part of the Komsomolets Island – (the northernmost island of the Severnaia Zemlya archipelago).
Most of the methane in the Arctic ocean (95% vs. 0.25%? on the Killian’s “subsea permafrost”) is in methane hydrates on the continental SLOPE and these are stable below 300-500m – see a good review of the methane hydrates .
And the continental slope is VERY CLOSE (a only the couple dozen(?) kms) from the Komsomolets Isl. shoreline. So this is to me the most likely source of the methane emissions in the early January, followed by the possibility of the human caused emissions – on the northernmost unglaciated part of the island – either as MAR suggest – oil exploration, or possibly the disruption or the permafrost in case if the gold mine operating on the southern part of the archipelago was exploring on the Komsomolets Island.
BTW – in the week later Copernicus Methane projection there does not seem to be a local
emissions from that location.
Piotr, I nor anyone else here so far is able to determine the exact nature or source of the methane shown on CAMS. I was not trying to do anything other than provide some background information I believe is correct to assist Margaret Parrish initially.
Both island groups are presently surrounded by sea ice except occasionally to northern end of both groups which opened up now and then recently. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3648.0;attach=331824;image jan 1-13
On most occasions to me it looks like the “origination source” of the methane flows shown on CAMS is from water not the land, and more often towards the nth side of the islands. Prevailing winds and all makes it look different from day to day. Either way the CAMS images should not be relied upon to answer such questions definitively so I have avoided that myself.
There are ship based oil/gas exploration drilling rigs in the general area, which may be a possibility, but no hard location data. I do not know of any permanent oil/gas rigs near those islands or on land, but there are some sea exploration leases. I do not know what activities occur on land that might be methane sources which you mentioned, but as I said I believe the accumulated daily images suggest the source/s are over water, not land. With some uncertainty.
It would be good to see anyone else providing more definitive evidence of such land based activities with references, links and so on, or any other information of where this methane is coming from, such as oil/gas drilling.
As I have said in the beginning it is not uncommon an event in the arctic for emissions to break the surface from underwater methane hydrates etc from time to time. I have seen similar emissions shown before on CAMS images iirc, but I do not have a hard record of that.
The emissions have slowed to Sunday 16 https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/charts/cams/methane-forecasts?facets=undefined&time=2022011600,3,2022011603&projection=classical_arctic&layer_name=composition_ch4_surface
But were still significant on the 12/13th.
I will conclude by saying in my opinion these methane emissions do not seem significant nor unusual overall at this point. But I’ll happily defer to any expert on the matter.
To aqll and everyone
Those islands east of Franz Josefs Land are the last ones to come on the worlds maps.
Nordensciøld, Nansen and Amundsen sailed right beneith and never mentioned. But they seem first to be suggested as Czar Nicolai II land.
Umberto Nobile with his airship Italia tried his best from Svalbard on calibrating voyages for the north pole, but had to turn in the fogs. Stalin borrowed Graf Zeppelin to do more, and they have come on the maps at last under Stalin with typical progressive names.
I call them Severnaya zemlya, and recommend that name because it is official.
To our astonishment, it has been possible to sail all around them on open sea, in recent years and also all around Franz Josefs Land.
The Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for December with a global SAT anomaly of +0.32ºC, down from the November anomaly of +0.35ºC with December the 5th highest monthly anomaly of 2021. (The RSS & UAH TLT December anomalies both showed a rise Nov-Dec.) The ERA5 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.06ºC to +0.42ºC.
December 2021 is the 6th warmest December on the ERA5 record behind Decembers 2015 & 2019 (both +0.54ºC), 2017 (+0.37ºC), 2016 (+0.34ºC) and 2018 (+0.33ºC), and warmer than 7th placed December 2020 (+0.23ºC).
December 2021 is the 49th highest anomaly in the all-month EAR5 record. (The TLTs were 70th/63rd.)
The full 2021 calendar year averaged +0.27ºC and 2021 becomes the 5th warmest year on the ERA5 record with the top 10 in ERA5 now running:-
2020 … …+0.47ºC
2016 … … +0.44ºC
2019 … … +0.40ºC
2017 … … +0.34ºC
2021 … … +0.27ºC
2018 … … +0.26ºC
2015 … … +0.26ºC
2010 … … +0.13ºC
2014 … … +0.11ºC
2005 … … +0.09ºC
2013 … … +0.07ºC
So what you’re saying is that 2021 will likely turn out to be in the Top 10 Coldest years this century. That’s so cool.
XRCC: “So what you’re saying is that 2021 will likely turn out to be in the Top 10 Coldest years this century. That’s so cool.”
Spoken like a good denialist. But no, with 2021 being the 5th warmest on RECORD – it can’t be among “the Top 10 Coldest years” – of the 191 years of instrumental record global averages, nor even “this century“. 21-5 is NOT <= 10 – "not cool", I presume?
How about one of the Top 15 Coldest years this century? Top 20 even?
Some people simply do not possess a sense of humor at all. Someone once told me all they can see are enemies and competitive threats. Sad but true enough. Besides which everyone knows Extinction Rebellion is a mega hot house of disguised climate science deniers prone to strike without notice. They are that cunning people.
– Piotr [Jan 16]: “with 2021 the 5th warmest – it can’t be among “the Top 10 Coldest years this century”
XRRC. Jan 16: “ How about one of the Top 15 Coldest years this century?”
Piotr: better, but still no cigar (5th warmest STILL doesn’t make “the Top 15 Coldest” _either_)
XRRC:”Some people simply do not possess a sense of humor at all”
So, this was … humor? Riiiight, a joke that denialists sometimes, wait for it, … cherry-pick the data! Hi hi hi! Thank you, XRCC, for making this funny joke! It’s funny, because it subverts the expectations – nobody here would have seen it coming – a denialist …. cherry-picking their data??? Complete surprise! Out of nowhere. BOOOOOM!
Would be even funnier, if you didn’t kill it with your arithmetic. Twice … ^*
====
^* “Kill me once, shame on…shame on you. Kill me twice —you can’t get killed again.” Or something like that.
Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson (Marine biologist, policy nerd, Brooklyn native. Co-founder @UrbanOceanLab . Co-creator @how2saveaplanet . Co-editor @AllWeCanSave .)
says “Climate communication needs more jokes.”
https://twitter.com/ayanaeliza/status/1482009428647944195
Why our secret weapon against the climate crisis could be humour
Adam McKay and Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/13/director-dont-look-up-climate-crisis-ending
XRRC: Jan 20: “,i>Climate communication needs more jokes.” “Why our secret weapon against the climate crisis could be humour”
The diverging opinions were not whether “jokes” and “humor” are useful in communications,
but whether your “joke” qualifies as either:
=====
– XRRC Jan. 16” Some people simply do not possess a sense of humor at all”
– Piotr Jan. 19: “Thank you, XRCC, for making this funny joke! It’s funny, because it subverts the expectations – nobody here would have seen it coming – denialist somtimes, hi-hi-hi, …. cherry-picking their data! Complete surprise! Out of nowhere. BOOOOOM!”
=====
An interesting and potentially significant GHE story has come to my attention recently.
Back in 2015, Schmithhusen et al reported that:
Fascinating! One can see this in clear-sky emissions spectra, they point out:
This led to speculation that the weak cooling trend for East Antarctica observed by some might be accounted for by this mechanism (although Schmithusen et al did not make that claim.)
In 2018, Sejas et al verified the negative greenhouse effect, but attributed it predominantly to water vapor. More fundamentally, they also criticized the ‘conventional radiating layer concept’ with which many of us are familiar. (I have some ‘chewing’ to do on this paper, but IIUC, it’s somewhat analogous to Newtonian vs. Einsteinian mechanics: like Newtonian mechanics, the radiating layer concept is a special case but one which holds most of the time in practical applications.)
Their discussion brings up the point of potential practical significance:
So, another potential non-linearity (AKA “tipping point”).
Meanwhile, in Smith et al (2018) found with modeling work that the negative GHE was a transient effect, as stratospheric adjustment soon righted the radiative ship (if I may be a bit flippant).
Then, recently, Freese & Cronin (2021) weigh in to say, inter alia, that:
Unfortunately, their tantalizing “simple explanation” remains behind the AGU paywall–together, possibly, with the resolution of these fundamental questions of GHE interpretation and possible Antarctic tipping points.
Makes me wonder if any of these researchers would be interested in doing a guest post elaborating on all of this?
Oops, missed the Freese & Cronin link. It’s here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2021GL093676
An interesting video on climate change attribution by Sabine Hossenfelder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqNHdY90StU
I’m no expert on how extreme weather/climate change attribution is done, so cannot comment on the accuracy of the video, it was interesting the way she came round to the conclusion that the attribution that extreme E is P times more likely in the current climate compared to pre-industrial times could mean P is a lower bound on that probability, and the true probability could, for all we know, be many orders of magnitude greater, because climate models do not correctly model the extreme tails of the probability distributions (they tend to underestimate the magnitude of the extremes).
A couple of points:
1. Who exactly is the audience for this supposed to be?
2. Why do many scientifically knowledgeable people (including many at RC) think that “more words” is better, when it is well established that a motivated student/listener will respond better to fewer.
The plot at the end would have sufficed to make the point to anyone who could have understood all that went before.
And with respect to the point itself, it just reinforces the fallacious perception of many that is used by the Denialists that this is all about statistics rather than physics. (Yeah, I know, she’s selling something.)
I guarantee sensitivity is high. It must be or we would be seeing far less change. The logic has been obvious for a long time – as anyone reading my comments on this site knows. Getting what is obvious by observation quantified to some degree is very good progress; if people can’t get the logic, maybe they’ll get the math.
I think that she makes some good points about using exact ratios “P times more likely” especially in media accounts. Good attribution requires good meteorology, not just statistics, however. The models do better with large-scale phenomena such as heat waves than smaller scale, such as heavy rainfall events. She seems to take the stance that all events currently observed were possible pre-industrial, just very rare. But some things really were enabled by higher temperatures. For example, higher temperatures in tropical oceans allow stronger tropical cyclones to form under the same nearly ideal conditions.
I like the approach taken by the authors of this paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01092-9
John,
I obviously agree about “good meteorology” (aka physics) as opposed to just statistics. But we need for you and your compatriots to step up and provide some here.
I was very interested in the paper you referenced because it seemed to address a speculation of mine (completely intuitive based on generalized understanding of chaotic/complex-non-linear systems) that the in-between space as we transition to a new equilibrium might be worse (in some ways) than the destination.
The Nature article proposes that the probability of extremes is greater in periods of more rapid energy gain (“warming”), but it seems to offer no physical mechanism to explain that. So I am not convinced that their findings are more than an artifact of their methodology.
I can imagine the periods of slower “warming” they describe as a kind of quasi-equilibrium, in line with my speculation, but that is just ego-bias without the physics to justify it.
OK, your (and other meteorologists’) turn: Why would periods of faster warming following periods of slower warming result in greater excursions of weather phenomena??? Provide a causal narrative.
Zebra,
The physical mechanism for the increasing probability of record-shattering extremes is an underlying direct relationship between the overall amount of warming and the regional mean summer temperature, as long as variance about the mean is fairly constant. As long as that relationship is there, the statistics are fairly robust.
The way it works is that if the underlying warming is slow or zero, the more common extremes will probably be reached relatively soon, and then not exceeded by much. For example, absent an underlying trend, the 100-year extreme would probably not greatly exceed the 30-year extreme, with just a few rare exceptions.
On the other hand, if there is a strong upward trend in the regional mean related to global warming, the odds of a large jump in the previously observed extreme (say, from 2.5 sigma to 4 sigma) are greatly increased. This is because the underlying mean was trending strongly upward during an apparently quiescent period when observations happened to be holding within the previously observed range.
This doesn’t have to apply only to temperature, but any climate variable that is tied into global warming, provided it has a “concave tail” probability distribution. An example would be the huge decrease in arctic summer sea ice in 2012, which shattered previous records.
The same statistical reasoning does not apply to a multi-modal probability distribution, or one resulting from a tipping point to a different basin of attraction. Distinguishing these situations is where the meteorology comes in. For example, if I take the wind speed records and probability distribution in the central U.S., it would be multi-modal. There would be some records achieved during large-scale cyclonic storms during the cold season. These would be relatively low variance, but a relatively common phenomenon, and maximum wind gusts would probably be somewhere around 70 mph. Then, there would be somewhat less common but higher variance cases of thunderstorm winds. These records would tend to fall in the range of 70-120 mph, and would account for the maximum station record at most locations with, say, 100 years of wind records.
Finally, there would be very rare cases of a station taking a direct hit by a strong tornado (assuming that the instrument survived to record the wind speed.) These could range up to 250 mph. If I observe a 10 sigma increase in the wind record, it does not necessarily mean that there is a strong underlying trend in winds driven by global warming; it’s probably that rare direct hit from a tornado!
John,
Many thanks for your response. I’ve read the paper over a couple of times, including the supplemental, but I still find it difficult to follow and not particularly useful.
The reasoning behind Hossenfelder’s conclusion is at least understandable, although I also don’t see much utility in it.
My translation of the Nature paper is something like this, (and I am not at all confident that I have it right) :
1. If we get an increase of 4C over a period of 60 years, the probability of extremes in the subsequent 30 years exceeds the probability of extremes in the preceding 60 years by P1.
2. If we get an increase of 4C over a period of 30 years, the probability of extremes in the subsequent 30 years exceeds the probability of extremes in the preceding 60 years by P2.
They (and you) seem to be saying that P2 is greater than P1. But, if we assume all other variables to be identical, the 30-year warming period in (2) should have a higher incidence of extremes than occurs in (1).
So it seems to me that I have missed something in their explanation of methodology.
Zebra,
I’m sorry that the Fischer paper was unhelpful to you. I thought it was useful to point out that it isn’t merely setting a new extreme that’s important; the impact tends to be related more to setting a new extreme by a large margin. It was also important to me that there is a real value to avoiding a rapid runup in warming, even if we exceed 2C. I can see where others would disagree with this, but to me both the fast change and the ultimate level of warming are very bad, and not interchangable.
Regarding your example, the key to P2 being larger than P1 is that the temperature increase in the case of P2 was more rapid. Therefore, the new extremes made possible by the 4C rise were less likely to be sampled during the warming period – and thus more likely to occur in the form of a record-shattering event later on.
John,
Many thanks again. I take your point… the bigger the excursion, the more time the system must be observed in order for it to occur. (Smacks self in head.)
I certainly agree that slowing the rate of energy increase is critical; it should be a much bigger part of the “argument” for mitigation, rather than the (unrealistic) hope of low absolute limits.
My feeling about the utility of the paper and Hossenfelder’s similar conclusion is simply that it will have little impact on policy. If people ignore what we can already see happening, they will certainly be in denial about the hypothetical really really really bad stuff.
I intentionally did not read John’s response bc I want to test my own thinking here. Zebra, I think we have a strong case for the underlying mechanism from other papers that have talked about the magnitude and speed of the forcing matter. The faster we push, the more unstable. Importantly, the *more* we push, the more unstable. That is, there appear to be thresholds of, e.g., total GHGs that seem to have triggered past changes. (Of course, I reference myself here in saying there is no hysteresis to speak of this time around, so faster, worser is virtually guaranteed.) So the total load and the rate of loading currently both should lead to an assumption of faster, worser.
Perhaps this is why they didn’t feel the need to explicate that in the paper?
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/transformational-goldman-sachs-250m-backing-for-gigawatt-scale-compressed-air-energy-storage/2-1-1142135
Very interesting. Didn’t think compressed air was a very viable option for large scale energy storage due to its inefficiencies as compared to other potential systems. However, it is good to see that there is enough belief in this technology to drive further investment in development of a commercial scale facility with the expectation that there will be a nice financial return. I look forward to seeing how this project plays out and if it is successful.
The major disadvantage of this is that compression and expansion of air must be done adiabatic in order to avoid energy- leaks and loss to the environment. It is not like compressing an ideal elastic steal- spring like it is done in classical wind up watches, or lifting up and lowering again massive loads in the gravitational field, processes that can be made fairly near to adiabatic.
This should have been understood and mentioned by the presumably scientific participants from elementary practical physics.
I believe this commentary makes a good point: “The 1.5 degrees goal: Beware of unintended consequences. The 1.5 degrees goal can be a ‘useful spur to action,’ but it’s not a make or break point. Importantly, each 0.1-degree increase avoided is ’cause for celebration and hope.’” by RICHARD RICHELS, HENRY JACOBY, BENJAMIN SANTER and GARY YOHE JANUARY 5, 2022
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/01/the-1-5-degrees-goal-beware-of-unintended-consequences/
Correction – in the last line is should read” : “[transpiration by trees creates] low-level, high-albedo clouds”.
James McDonald 2021-12-27 I can inform you something that’ll likely not help you much but irks me so might as well irk you.
Canadian WG1 climate scientist Francis Zwiers “The Instrumental Temperature Record and What it Tells us About Climate Change”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQnt73zJ-S4 Simon Fraser University Mar 2, 2011 has been moved into the Private box by Simon Fraser University within the last year (when I tried to review something).
My sparse notes from 7-8 years ago when I 1st saw/heard it (I’ve seen/heard it all 3-4 times) are:
6:55 correlating accuracy with distance between stations. Turns out one every 2,800 km on land (Siberia) and one every 1,000 km in ocean (north Pacific) gives all the accuracy needed (provided they are read properly/accurately 3+ times per day and well sited of course) and shown on the plots for 1-year averages (if you want monthly averages then closer spacing is required). Surprised me how few are required but Phil Jones has said 100 temperature stations for all Earth would give the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) to the +/- 0.01 degrees accuracy you see provided that they are read properly/accurately and all are well sited). Of course, there are actually 7,411 temperature stations on land and thousands in the oceans plus continuous from ships and the roaming no-stop 3,800 Argo floats.
12:05 how the error because of sparse land instrumental 19th century is figured out from 1850 AD (very clever method). You see how the errors decrease hugely from 1850 AD to 1920 AD. It’s like +/- 0.25 degrees circa 1850 AD and drops to <+/- 0.10 degrees error by 1920 AD.
18:00 Amos, Quebec 1910-1995 AD 1927 AD & (mostly) 1963 AD re-siting "artifacts" (false non-existent temperature change) shown, explained and correction shown to greatly *reduce* (to *reduce* not increase) the warming indicated from the incorrect +2.4 degrees 1910-1995 AD to a corrected +0.2 degrees 1910-1995 AD.
20:52 "been done very carefully in Canada by the group at Environment Canada that's responsible for doing this work..".
21:26 Scatter chart of all thousands of adjustments (corrections) made to U.S. of America only records 1895-2007 AD showing very clearly that half were corrected upwards by 0.5 to 1.5 degrees and half were corrected downwards by 0.5 to 1.5 degrees, no the net change of thousands of adjustments 1895-2007 AD is definitely <0.01 degrees either way over 112 years. Summary at 23:33
25:06 Sea surface temperature (SST) global coverage pictorials 1830 AD to 2007 AD (177 years)
32:00 The bucket corrections (the only corrections ever made that amount to a global hill of beans, because they are in oceans).
——-
I see that my old notes were extended ~4 years ago into a comment on a GooglesTubes video by a French-Canadian Mister Socio-politico-only CanadaPoli The People's Party here who ran for President of Canada on the platform that Lester B. Pearson International Airport has been the exact same temperature in April since it was built a few hundred years ago. I don't recall anything other than airport April temperature analysis in his political vision for Canada (he's added that germs are good for you this year) and he's not our President (I recall thinking "Who could possibly be daft enough to elect a bloke like that for President") but I think I've cleaned all my unclean comments from that time from my Francis Zwiers notes above.
Thanks. Helpful.
PNAS has a nice article describing the contributions that last year’s Nobel Prize in Physics winners (Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann, and Georgio Parisi) made to the understanding of and ability to predict future details of complex systems – particularly climate.
Complex and yet predictable: The message of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics
A. R. Ravishankara, David A. Randall and James W. Hurrell
https://www.pnas.org/content/119/2/e2120669119#ref-14
I’m with Tim, Iain, and Bruce. I think they are essentially right. It’s a shame these 3 authors didn’t include more data points and provide a deeper political / sociology / psychology analysis discussion (Argument) in the Article of why things are like they are (1. 2.) and it is a shame that initial (knee jerk?) reactions by some scientists (3. 4. 5.) appear to be missing the point of the paper completely, being The evidence shows that the science-society contract is broken; and stopping work in the IPCC AR7 report specifically is an Ethical response worth considering.
Scientists call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments take real action
https://theconversation.com/scientists-call-for-a-moratorium-on-climate-change-research-until-governments-take-real-action-172690
The tragedy of climate change science
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855
1. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104
2. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-11-12/how-wealth-inequality-fuels-the-climate-emergency-george-monbiot-scientist-kevin-anderson-on-cop26/
3. https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1480938154748116992
4. https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1481152268128903170
5. https://twitter.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1480919877070245901
No additional amount of scientific output is going to address climate change or global heating because what is happening is not a Climate Science problem – it is an ethical, moral, social and political problem.
XRRC,
You profess support for a boycott of IPCC AR7. Glavovic et al say “the science is settled … but governments have failed to act at the scale and pace required. They thus ask “What should climate change scientists do?” and set out tree options, (1) Do the science again, (2) Get stuck in to“more intensive social science research and climate change advocacy.” (3) Boycott AR7.
But the IPCC ARs are more than climatology and indeed Glavovic et al do point this out.
WG1 & much of WG2 is climatology. But WG3 ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’ is fundamentally not climatology and should be saying clearly “(1) We had ten years left and now we have only nine years left in which to halve global CO2 emissions. These are the options remaining open to us. (2) We then have twenty-following-years to zero our CO2 emissions. These are the options open to us.” That is a message that needs publishing with the utmost urgency and emphasising this need should have been the third option in the Glavovic et al list. AR7 must not be the subject of a boycott.
And given the timescales, it is perhaps better seen now as being an engineering problem.
This long comment from The Con. captures the ‘no case’ of many respondents to the article/paper pretty well.
I get the frustration, and looking at the authors’ backgrounds, I understand why they want to focus on WG2 and WG3 rather than WG1. What I don’t understand is how hiding knowledge is meant to get governments to act.
The proposed action would punish the wrong people (climate change scientists, the messengers) at great loss to them and a much greater loss to the world.
Frankly, I don’t understand why anyone would want “a moratorium on climate change research”.
see the rest
https://theconversation.com/scientists-call-for-a-moratorium-on-climate-change-research-until-governments-take-real-action-172690#comment_2690542
( I still think the authors raise a compelling argument though. But maybe it would be more effective if every Scientist and every Academic went on Strike globally not just the climate scientists and the IPCC volunteers. Are the authors too climate science centric to judge a nuanced rational course of action? Maybe every Public Servant and Worker should go on strike too? A Global Moratorium that caused a Global Lock-down of the world’s economy? Maybe that might get the required attention from TPTB?
Mindful that no one listened to the scientists on Don’t Look Up either and look how that ended! )
Mr. Rodger, makes a good suggestion. AR6/7 WG3 telling the unvarnished rational evidence based truth instead of what they have done in the past. It couldn’t hurt.
quotes:
Given the urgency and criticality of climate change [ the irreversibly of impacts ], we argue the time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract.
We now need to stop research in those areas where we are simply documenting global warming and maladaptation, and focus instead on exposing and renegotiating the broken science-society contract.
Given the tragedy of climate change science outlined here, a moratorium offers the only real prospect for restoring the science-society contract.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855
Iain White – Probably the most difficult paper we’ve ever written, in part due to putting into words a growing dissatisfaction that has lasted our entire careers. It was also difficult for thinking through possible options of ‘so what do we do now?’ and coming up with no easy options.
https://twitter.com/iain_white/status/1480646994804707330
misc comments
I think you’re right. The time is for concrete action and a serious focus on mitigation/adaptation.
It’s pretty obvious that “follow the science” has passed its use-by date.
You’re absolutely right that climate science as is has been incorporated into BAU processes that endlessly kick the can down the road.
But the problem of climate inaction is systemic. We researchers are also part of the same system that demands our productivity. Our livelihoods depend on it. We are as trapped as everyone else.
Front. Conserv. Sci., 13 January 2021
Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Paul R. Ehrlich et al
Abstract We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts. Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action. Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
Thanks.
Yes, good quote.
Here’s another:
This difficulty seems to be proven again at COP26 recently. It’s going to take more than just a change of govt at the next election. For the ‘neanderthals’ to be reelected back into office at the next one.
Ho-hum.
Told ya so.
Let me know when you want to know the solutions.
The Russians, among whoom there are also a lot of drunken sailors, are driving up with a lot of solutions east of Donbas in Ukraina at the moment.
But, it is not at all given that everyone likes them and their manners.
Because, with their manners, they can only have it their way.
Given “the opposite is unfolding” it looks clear (?) “most of the world’s population has not truly understood and appreciated the magnitude of the crises we summarize here, and the inevitability of worsening conditions”.
Plus assuming the “gravity of the situation requires fundamental changes to global capitalism, education, and equality” it is clear (?) this is not about to occur anytime soon, in the next decade or even two. I believe the evidence available at present points to this ongoing inertia. Plus there is evidence of a distinct lack of credible leadership and statesmanship across all sectors of society and across all global cultures.
If that is the case the likelihood of burning past global constraints can only lead to one thing, an out of control worsening dystopian like climate into the future as far as the eye can see.
I don’t think anyone has or knows the solutions, but go ahead if you must.
Please no one tell me what the Russians near Donbass have to do with anything. I do not want to know.
XRRC, there are, indeed, solutions. Their simplicity confuses people, however. No solution is “likely” given any possible solution requires huge change – even the tech-based ones – so let’s not get hung up on likelihood as a factor: It’s moot.
Thus we are free to ask, what is the best solution? And that is simplicity.
The sociological imagination can help us answer “why climate change is happening, how we are being impacted, why we have failed to successfully respond so far, and how we might be able to effectively do so.” says Kari Norgaard
Despite increasing calls for the need for social science knowledge in the face of climate change, to date little extremely few sociologists have been engaged in the conversations about how we arrived and such dangerous climate scenarios or how society can change course.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116303265
Sociology and the Climate Crisis
This article reviews research on a selection of trends brought on by the climate crisis: (a) compounding and cumulative disasters, infrastructure breakdown, and adaptation; (b) intensifying migration and shifting patterns of settlement; and (c) transformations in consumption, labor, and energy. While climate change’s far-reaching implications remain peripheral to the discipline at large, sociologists studying these trends increasingly understand the crisis as a central problem for the study of social life. We show how sociologists can shed light on core problems emerging from and contributing to the crisis, and also reveal the conditions that make necessary social and cultural transformations more likely.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054750
Social science has a huge amount to teach us about the causes, impacts of & solutions to the climate crisis, yet is often badly neglected.
https://twitter.com/ThierryAaron/status/1480937620179980292
Does it? Let me know when they have something to say that hasn’t been said for a long while now.
Social sciences have little to say about solutions, and how people are reacting/have reacted/will react is all pretty obvious.
Thanks for the feedback, though I’d suggest what is obvious to one is not obvious to all. While knowing about social science knowledge, history or humanities (or even global economics) is not essential to act on solutions for climate crisis, for some it might just be the framing they need to understand everything else and how it is interconnected and related. I’m non-prescriptive in that sense. People are different, come from different places and spaces and mindsets. So I am all for sharing a broad range of ideas and discussions about the central topic/s.
Like while I like and appreciate XRs point of view and ideas, I can also relate to the fact that some people can’t even bring themselves to look up what they stand for and what they believe and what actions they recommend. I believe sharing other ideas, which might actually be the exact same approach and mindsets, is helpful. Blind spots are everywhere. Gosh you can’t even mention economics or capitalism in general without someone cracking off about the Soviets, Putin, PRC, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela or the Taliban as if just naming them is relevant in the slightest to what had been shared and the multiple references and resources along with it. Weird is weird. It is what it is.
The issue is, there is no “hearts and minds” approach that can possibly turn this ship in time, thus, it’s moot. Let individuals find their ways, but there is pretty much zero reason to discuss this at the policy level.
(maybe a repeat, website not acting normal)
fwiw https://youtu.be/3bxzo79SjpE?t=5441
I think we’re saying similar things. Nothing is going to turn the ship around. It’s going to run aground and be destroyed by the waves of the storm. That’s what individual have to work out for themselves. To get there they need knowledge and their intelligence. And a moment of clarity. Whatever. Every way is the right way when it comes to good people.
“The climate crisis reveals that our civilization has never really been organized around science, contrary to the usual Enlightenment narrative. It is organized around capital. Science is embraced when it serves the interests of capital, and is often ignored when it does not.”
-Jason Hickle
XRRC
I do not quite believe in this.
I think, a more fruitfulo theory is who owns and who rules over the market and the media. And especially over the history books for The People.
Who wrote and edited and printed and distributed the Cathechisms and were able to arrest and to ban and ridicule the alternatives in quite recent years?
“Das Kapital” is a modern popular and communist supersticion, that rather betrays todays flat earthers and vulgar, blind believers.
um, fwiw, this quote doesn’t talk about “rule over/ruling” anyone.
it’s an observation (right or wrong) about ‘how this civilization is organized.’
for more about his thinking / analysis try https://www.jasonhickel.org/academic-work
Jason is pointing out the obvious, though. What he doesn’t understand fully are the solutions, though he’s better than most.
Quote XRRC:
“The climate crisis reveals that our civilization has never really been organized around science, contrary to the usual Enlightenment narrative. It is organized around capital. Science is embraced when it serves the interests of capital, and is often ignored when it does not.”
-Jason Hickle
I subscribe to that 100%. BUT:
If scientists would ever rule global society you’d end up in a total dystopia. Remember, nazi Germany eg was influenced by scientists like Dr. Mengele et al to a large degree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
” The scientific exodus from Nazi Germany”
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20180926a/full/
” From Hitler to Stalin: The secret story how German scientists helped built the Soviet A-bomb”
https://www.rbth.com/history/328489-german-scientists-who-helped-to-create-soviet-bomb
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678003_What's_Nazi_about_Nazi_Science_Recent_Trends_in_the_History_of_Science_in_Nazi_Germany
” Why the U.S. Government Brought Nazi Scientists to America After World War II”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-us-government-brought-nazi-scientists-america-after-world-war-ii-180961110/
The problem is:
Science is very cool, very powerful, BUT human scientists are still just human beings with all their shortcomings, all their illusions, all their errata. There is no way around that:
The human mind is and will always be rooted in the incalculable, too often errouneous heart, NOT within the brain, not within cold, rational, scientific data. All science can and will be abused one way or another, history proved that over and over again. So imagine human, greedy, erroneous hearts combined with almost limitless science technology and you get total dystopia- we are allmost there, aren’t we?
“Nemesis:” If scientists would ever rule global society you’d end up in a total dystopia
You proofs of this thesis are lacking:
N: “ Remember, nazi Germany eg was influenced by scientists like Dr. Mengele et al to a large degree ”
Most of the Nazi never heard about Mengele, so they couldn’t be “influenced” by him, to a larger or to a tinier degree. The may have used a bastardized version of Darwin, with a sprinkling of cherry-pikced ideas from Nietzsche and Schopenhauer plus the fake-science of race – but even these they used
like a drunkard uses a streetlamp – not for enlightenment, but for support.
Your other “proofs” also prove nothing – Nazi scientists helping to create Soviet A-Bomb – was a matter of survival, as for Nazi scientists used by the US – a matter of safety / opportunism/ professional career, NOT their ideology. If they were ideological Nazis – why would they help the 2 countries that did most to destroy the Third Reich?
None of the above proves your assertion that the world ruled by scientists would unavoidably end up in a dystopia, worse than all the dystopia created in the past by the … non-scientists.
@Piotr
You don’t get it. What would the funny, criminal Powers That Be be without your precious science and technology?^^ Science is a knive, a razor blade. What would they control, exploit and destroy without science and technology? Shit would they control, exploit and destroy without science and technology. Communism/Stalinism and funny capitalism, both built their funny power on science and technology and both fail. Lol, end of story.
Just keep staring at the lovely scientific climate data ( 6th mass extinction included) and one fine day in the near term future you will painfully realize what I’m talking about 38) Try it, “save the planet, save the climate” or whatever you prefer to save^^ I will just lay back, relax and watch the show as I’m nothing but a nasty nobody who got nothing to lose, no power, no wealth whatsoever, what a joy, what a satisfaction^^ Yeah, all you powerful, clever saviours, you and I will achieve nothing, just like you and I achieved nothing since James Hansen talked to the UN back in the 80s, lol. Just like what I adressed at the powers that be in the “Don’t look up” thread:
” Many have died; you also will die. The drum of death is being beaten. The world has fallen in love with a dream. Only sayings of the wise will remain.”
– Kabir
tic toc tic toc tic toc… 38)
Nemesis
“You (Piotr) don’t get it. What would the funny, criminal Powers That Be be without your precious science and technology?^^ Science is a knive, a razor blade. What would they control, exploit and destroy without science and technology? Shit would they control, exploit and destroy without science and technology. Communism/Stalinism and funny capitalism, both built their funny power on science and technology and both fail. Lol, end of story.”
I largely disagree with your negativity about science and technology. Leaders have controlled, exploited and destroyed well before science and technology were ever thought of. This suggests the real problem is people who abuse science, technology and political systems. Science and technology just amplifies their power.
And you haven’t proven your original contention that scientists would make bad leaders. My admittedly anecdotal observation locally is politicians with science degrees usually make reasonably good leaders or members of parliament, regardless of political affiliation. Although science is perhaps not ideal training for politics.
Agreed. In the few cases we have had scientists as heads of states, they haven’t been total monsters. Their record is, I would say, mixed. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind–hardly my favorite leader, but she wasn’t a total disaster. Helped with the ozone treaty. Didn’t Angela Merkel also have a science background of some sort? Also, I think Israel asked Einstein to be their president (president in a parliamentary system, not what we could call a president), though he turned them down.
Yep, Merkel obtained a doctorate in quantum chemistry and studied physics.
And Thatcher was a neoliberal capitalist par excellence just like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Trump, Biden ect ect ect. ALL US senate members are funny multimillionaires:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
We are not reigned by politicians nor by parties, but by funny money, funny money makes the modern world go round until no more.
Nemesis. Both Merkel and Thatcher have chemistry degrees. They lean conservative / centre right but have arguably been better leaders than their conservative counterparts WITHOUT science degrees. Which might say something about the value of science. They are not really my preference ideologically but were both cool headed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Is not needed to observe clear signs of dystopia here and there especially via digital means. Robert Mercer comes to mind. Science and technology can certainly and will be abused one way or another sooner or later by someone. But so can ‘journalism’ and ‘economics’ and ‘politics’ do the same.
Also one can recognize fascism without mentioning Hitler.
@XRRCC
Sure. It’s not specifically about the nazis. I could have said “the abusal of fossil fool power commited by the US, Europe, Australia ect” (not possible without science/technology) instead of the “Nazi” or “Stalin” abusal of science” or the “US or european abusal of science”, extent ad lib. Doesn’t make much of a difference in the final outcome it looks like, does it?
It matters. look how easily the respondents distracted away from the issue you raised, the point you were trying make with an endless stream of irrelevant distractions. Like thatcher was a chemist. wow, big deal. Well Yeltsin was a drunk, again big deal (not) but so what if he was?
It’s all irrelevant.
What relevant is how many Chemists does Shell, Chevron and Exxon and Mobil and Total and Petronas have on staff? Is the CEO of Exxon a Chemist? A scientist? Did IT Computer Data Scientists work for Cambridge Analytics and AggregateIQ ? How many similar “scientists” and “IT Technologists” work at the NSA, the CIA, at Facebook and Amazon, and in China’s state-run digital system for monitoring, evaluating and sanctioning citizens? And where is it all heading.
Who is Robert Mercer and his wife funding now today to manipulate the political and media systems in the USA and in other countries around the world as they have already done?
Which scientists and technologists is Steve Bannon recommending today and tomorrow and why?
Scroll up a little and have another look at what is being discussed here instead. It’s delusional and ridiculous. Hitler, Stalin, Nazis, Soviets, PRC, Mao, and Merkel, Thatcher being Chemists and so on is all irrelevant codswallop.
That is the level of the “discussion” you are now having. So what was your point you wanted to make in the very beginning? I suspect it may have been more important than what is being said above.
Try again. Start over.
Hint: What no one is up to discussing or agreeing with because it is fundamentally true.
“Science is embraced when it serves the interests of capital, and is often ignored when it does not.”
One can also say generally speaking that scientists and tech heads are embraced when they serve the interests of Capital.
Thatcher definitely served the interests of Capital to a T …. but hey don’t say that. Heads will explode.
Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen are two good examples of scientists and tech heads who do not serve the interests of Capital. So in their minds those two are losers. Because the thing that counts most in this Capitalist run world is Money! That’s it. The beginning and end of it.
To be embraced is to have Millions$ thrown at you to come work for me and them.
XRRC. You’re right that users of capital embrace science but only when it suits them. But its not exactly a new revelation and Nemesis argument was that scientists make bad leaders. You may think that is true or the claim should be ignored, but I and others choose to (briefly) refute it. I don’t like seeing science incorrectly undermined. It feeds the denialists and others sceptical about science.
nigel that scientists make bad leaders, or a scientist makes a bad leader, is not how i read understood what nemesis was saying.
instead Nemesis was saying, If scientists would ever rule global society you’d end up in a total dystopia
The overpaid scientists driving social media technology are making a fist of that already.
I think Sagan was a good leader. They are few and far between.
Thatcher was not. She was a she-devil. Merkel was a good leader, but not because of science education but because of her family social upbringing, heart, and empathy and ability to listen and weigh the evidence/input and the Polls. A lifetime of supportive like minded friends close to her really helped keep her feet on the ground.
Unlike so many others she didn’t believe what the Party and the Press said about her.
Now let’s think about climate science for a moment. Who among all the climate scientists we know the last 20-30 years but especially now today are the Leaders?
I honestly cannot think of any who stand out. Can you?
I think Stephen Schneider was a good leader but he’s passed on now.
XRRC
“nigel that scientists make bad leaders, or a scientist makes a bad leader, is not how i read understood what nemesis was saying.instead Nemesis was saying, If scientists would ever rule global society you’d end up in a total dystopia”
It amounts to the same thing doesn’t it? I said bad leaders for brevity. We have some politicians in our parliament with science degrees and all politicians are in effect taking a leadership role. My admittedly anecdotal impression is they are not bad leaders, and would not create a dystopia any more than anyone else would. You would need to explain why they would create a dystopia.
Just for the record I’m not a big fan of Thatcher or her world view. I’m just saying that she did get SOME things right, and there have been worse leaders. And she was surprisingly good on the climate issue which might reflect her science background.
But I think your comments on it all are really good. I can see your point of view and have wondered some of the same things myself.
“It amounts to the same thing doesn’t it?”
No. In one only scientists rule the world.
No accountants lawyers engineers farmers CEOs are allowed in the ruling Politburo/Executive or ruling Party
In the other you’re talking about scientists being able to be good leaders… be they poltical or otherwise. Nemesis was not rlaking about that.
At least this is how I understood what they said. I could be wrong.
Only Nemesis would know what they intended.
“We have some politicians in our parliament with science degrees and all politicians are in effect taking a leadership role.”
Yes ok. But the Scientists do not Rule New Zealand, the Parliament as a whole does … correct?
As an officer in the US Navy, President Carter did graduate work in nuclear physics.
Yup, and thanks to Brandon, he’s no longer the worst President in US history.
Trump has that distinction sewed up for the forseeable future.
The worst president in US history was Donald Trump, followed by George W. Bush. Trump is the man who tried to overthrow US democracy and Bush is the man who legalized torture.
Actual historians, who have actually studied–you know…history…say otherwise. The only president who rivals Cheetolini is Buchanan–the last president to precipitate a civil war. However, in my opinion Cheetolini still wins the dishonor hands down by refusing to cede power peacefully.
I was a history minor. I still put Trump first, Bush II second.
Blaming Buchanan for the Civil War doesn’t make sense. It was coming whatever anybody did. And it was a good thing in the end since it preserved the Union and abolished slavery, at least technically.
@ Nemesis
“If scientists would ever rule global society, you`d end up in a total dystopia.”
I recommend another explaination. Let us assume that global society is allready in a state near total dystopia, Something that very many people would agree to,
then letting rather science and scientists take over much of the rulership,…. that could bring a change. Would n`t it?
and maybe you are so adapted and aquainted to near total dystopia that you fear possible changes that scientist could bring?
I actually find that a more plausible explaination for many reasons.
The December numbers for GISTEMP LOTI have been posted with a global SAT anomaly of +0.86ºC, down from the November anomaly of +0.93ºC with December the 6th highest monthly anomaly of 2021. (The ERA5 re-analysis also showed a drop for December while the RSS & UAH TLT December anomalies both showed a rise Nov-Dec.) The GISTEMP 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.64ºC to +1.00ºC.
December 2021 is the 5th warmest December on the GISTEMP record behind Decembers 2015 (+1.15ºC), 2019 (+1.10ºC), 2017 (+0.94ºC), 2018 (+0.92ºC) and 2016 (+0.33ºC), and warmer than 6th placed December 2020 (+0.82ºC).
December 2021 is the 61st highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record. (49th in ERA5 re-analysis & the TLTs were 70th/63rd.)
The full GISTEMP 2021 calendar year averaged +0.85ºC and 2021 becomes the =6th warmest year on record with the top 10 in GISTEMP now running:-
1st … … 2020 … … +1.02ºC
2nd … … 2016 … … +1.02ºC
3rd … … 2019 … … +0.98ºC
4th … … 2017 … … +0.92ºC
5th … … 2015 … … +0.90ºC
=6th … … 2018 … … +0.85ºC
=6th … … 2021 … … +0.85ºC
8th … … 2014 … … +0.75ºC
9th … … 2010 … … +0.72ºC
10th … … 2013 … … +0.68ºC
File under “faster than expected.”
“we detect a sustained pattern of retreat coincident with high melt rates of ungrounded ice, marked by episodes of more rapid retreat. In 2017, Pope Glacier retreated 3.5 km in 3.6 months, or 11.7 km yr–1. In 2016–2018, Smith West retreated at 2 km yr–1 and Kohler at 1.3 km yr–1. While the retreat slowed in 2018–2020, these retreat rates are faster than anticipated by numerical models on yearly timescales. We hypothesize that the rapid retreat is caused by unrepresented, vigorous ice–ocean interactions acting within newly formed cavities at the ice–ocean boundary.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00877-z?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20220114&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
Huh. What a surprise: Extremes.
Ignore. It’s all about averages.
/sarc
Dr Dan(i) Jones Jan 13
Me 13 years ago: “I’ll study science to help with climate change.”
Me, now: “Oh. It’s a cultural-economic-political problem. Oops.”
Science still matters a lot for climate change!
It’s just not the single-source solution I once naively thought it was.
Andrew Dessler comments on the New paper on climate inaction ‘The Tragedy of Climate Change Science’
“The social contract between the scientific community and policymakers/society is this: They pay us to do research and we provide them with the results. That’s it. That’s the contract.”
“There should be no expectation that policymakers take the results of our work and then implement policies that we agree with. In fact, policy decisions are never determined by just by science. Science can certainly be an input, but non-science factors can be more important.”
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1481658317797744644
XRRC
I think there never were any such contract. It must have been as much as a political illusion by some of the people together with some of the politicians..
I try and compare it to other areas or domaines where there seems to have been at least some kind of a political and social consensus. That varies from place to place and regime to regime, as one can clearly see it in the case of the Covid 19 pandemia.
I would also like to remark that there hardly is any consensus either on what is science and what is not and further, on who are the scientists and who are not. As we can clearly see it in the replies from Publicum on this website. And that seems to be where it can be pokered and tricked by traned influencers.
There also is large confusion and disagreement of who are the politicians.
To my standard and opinion, they are those that we adjust in the political elections.
For others and especially those more brought up0 to tyrannic and oligarcic, maybe Mafriotic systems, the politicians are the higher employed in civil and military service and who cannot be fired or taken to court, who are personally and legally immune.. But those are not the politicians, to my standards, and should never be “The policy makers”.. They are rather the privileged and immune Noblesse from anxient on.
Which also seems to be the real problem. Those mentioned have become the policy- makers, allthough they are mostly immune to science.
At the moment, it seems that Boris Johnson and his staff in Downing Street 10 have been immune to law and order, rules and regulation of Covid 19,
And the US citizens here can discuss frurther the situation in their White House and neighbourhood. Where there was an obvious attempt of even violent fighting and denial of the legal election result.
“I think there never were any such contract”
I lean that way too. Though I think his response is a cheap irrational excuse, an act of denial, and a false framing of the problems involved. But he is from Texas.
I believe instead it is not enough for Climate Scientists to see themselves as mere Messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the Policy Makers and key Actors in the Economic and Energy fields as well as the manifold Cultural Religious & Ideological Myths that surround them all and Direct their standard Responses of inaction and denial.
Scientists are expected to have at least a passing inclination towards ethics, morality and the promulgating truth. Aren’t they?
Were Dessler correct and the authors of ‘The Tragedy of Climate Change Science’ wrong, then #Don’tLookUp would have been a very short movie where after advising their superiors of the looming Comet, the astronomers returned silently to their Computer Labs and Telescopes never to be heard of again.
Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
@XRRC
A. Dessler says:
” For me, the cutting edge of climate science is the interface between physical and human systems and how humans will respond to a changing climate. ”
In order to break these relationships down to a concrete, practical example, I would like to discuss the example of “photovoltaics”.
In addition to wind and hydropower, it is certainly one of the most important, future, physical solutions and sources of renewable energy globally.
Integrated into the “human system”, it impresses in comparison to wind and water, particularly through its consumer proximity and now affordable prices ($/KWp).
On the other hand, their comparatively low energy efficiency (~20-25%), power loss (-0.4% / K) and degradation (>80-85°C) with increasing module temperatures are disadvantageous.
Every physicist, regardless of whether they are involved in electrical/semiconductor technology, renewable energy or climate science, should at least once in their life have considered the question of whether cooled PV modules offer a potential improvement in terms of efficiency, durability and… concrete measure in climate protection – or not.
As long as such obvious gaps in the perception of problems and solutions persist, we are far from driving anything like a common global strategy.
I do not know the pros and cons of cooled PV modules.
And I don’t know what Dessler means by “the cutting edge of climate science” because I cannot see any climate science meaningfully addressing human systems or humans responding to a changing climate at all.
Maybe I missed it, because what I’ve seen for decades is a gulf, no, a complete disconnect. overall climate science has been operating alone in a world of it’s own.
Dessler saying what he says about the so called “social contract” only requires passing on the results / information they decide to research – and that’s it – confirms that conclusion and an internalized isolationist / ivory tower worldview. One that does not in any way comprehend human systems and human needs or responses to the “research results” of climate scientists.
That’s the media’s job. The policy makers job. The UNFCCCs job at COPs apparently.
XRRC, yes most climate scientists just do the research and keep fairly quiet about anything else. You get a few that speak out on wider issues and Hansen and Mann come across well.
But the thing is scientists presumably have employment contracts, or have to abide by codes of practice and have to get research grants and all these things discourage speaking out. I can understand most scientists being cautious, and not wanting to loose jobs or get reprimanded etcetera. The situation probably isnt going to change very much. Way of the world. Its frustrating.
Sounds about right.
I do get muddled by what people (inc scientists) say from time to time.
Can we have some discussion of the short term climate impact of the Tonga volcano? Are we looking at another year without a summer? Or…?
Maybe not too much to it. Takes time for data to be assessed properly.
So far, the SO₂ columns do not appear to be extreme; generally 100 DU.
https://twitter.com/simoncarn/status/1482541762564481026
and now including yesterday’s eruption, it remains unclear–at this point–that the #TongaVolcano eruption will prove climatically-relevant.
But even if it does, the impact will be modest–and most importantly–fleeting.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1482749346500251653?cxt=HHwWisC4kZer5JMpAAAA
Nobody dares.
It seems to have been a large eruption but it is underwater and that will dissolve much of the sulphur.
Then it seems to have gone very high up in the stratosphere also, but it seems to have been a short explosion or eruption..
Quote nigelj:
” Nemesis. Both Merkel and Thatcher have chemistry degrees. They lean conservative / centre right but have arguably been better leaders than their conservative counterparts WITHOUT science degrees. Which might say something about the value of science. They are not really my preference ideologically but were both cool headed.”
I repeat over and over again:
I love science, the uncorruptable Laws Of Nature more than anything as it’s the only thing I trust in 100%. Understand?! I trust in science, the very Laws Of Nature, not in people, not in polliticians, not in the TPTB, not in the power and funny money folks, but in science, the uncorruptable Laws Of Nature, the Fire of Truth may burn hotter and hotter day by day^^
Nemesis. I accept that. Then why were you arguing scientists (or people with science degrees) would make bad leaders? Surely by your own criteria they would at least be reasonable leaders?
If you were arguing scientists are human and would still have human failings fair enough. But so does everyone. At least scientists have the virtue of being taught about biases and failings and how to avoid them. I think it would be very valuable to have at least a few people in government with science degrees.
.
Nigelj, any science, even the TOE is no guarantee for any good policy. You, as a scientist, might become the president, the king of the world and STILL you might build a dictatorshp, still you could mess up the planet like hell. It depends on your overall being, your overall style, it depends on your heart, your ethical behaviour. Sure, science can be a good adviser, but whoever might rule, it will always be a human being with all his human shortcomings. And, btw, “even” the US president got much less power than it seems at first sight, lol ;) Will Biden or Putin or Xi Jinping save the world? No. Will Olaf Scholz save the world ( the new german chancelor, rofl)? No. Will Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Dr. Randall Mindy, Gavin Schmidt, Jesus Christ save the world? NO I SAY. No, they won’t. With or without science, with or without technology, magic, visions or just delir phantasies, NO tf, they will not save the planet. But the planet, Mother Nature ( just call it “planet earth”, if you prefer) will kick ass like never before since humans entered the scene.
Nemesis. Good points. In fact you are echoing my second paragraph and probably saying it better. However it still doesn’t mean scientists would be particularly bad leaders and would create a nightmare dystopian future. If anything I would argue scientists with their training might make more ethical leaders than for example lawyers. Scientists also have a leaning towards rationality and evidence based analysis that would help leadership. Countering this is scientists might tend to get lost in the detail of politics, and would possibly get frustrated with politics and its dishonestly and compromise.
That makes good sense too.
AS to Nemesis’ many excellent (humorous) points I think Climate Change is going to save Planet Earth.
But neither prayer nor a lifetime of colonics will save Barton Paul Levenson.
XRRC: But neither prayer nor a lifetime of colonics will save Barton Paul Levenson.
BPL: Quite right. I am saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, and the fact that I’ve repented and believed. Please do think about trying it yourself.
OK then. You’d be right at home on Breitbart.com
BPL, get this through your head: Neither the rich nor the asshats will be going to heaven. Do the math. Consider asbestos for your next suit.
XRRC: You’d be right at home on Breitbart.com
BPL: Note what happened here. I maintained that I was a Christian. XRRC immediately jumped to the conclusion that I, a liberal Democrat who still has his Black Lives Matter button and poster on the door, who worked at a phone bank for Hillary Clinton, who hasn’t voted for a Republican candidate since the 1980s, must be a Trumper.
Prejudice is ugly.
K: BPL, get this through your head: Neither the rich nor the asshats will be going to heaven. Do the math. Consider asbestos for your next suit.
BPL: And Killian thinks that because he detests me, I must be going to Hell. Or maybe he thinks I’m rich. BTW, Jesus didn’t say the rich won’t be going to Heaven, he just said it was very difficult. Read the whole parable.
@Nemesis says:
“Will Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Dr. Randall Mindy, Gavin Schmidt, Jesus Christ save the world?” NO I SAY.
– OK. – I SAY …then I’ll do it.
If you would be so kind as to let everyone else know that tomorrow from 5 a.m. – everyone will listen to my command.
Addendum to my comment about science, the Laws Of Nature, the Fire Of Truth:
It has been said “knowledge” is power. It’s a kind of magic. It was a kind of magic when people in the old days discovered how to command the Fire through knowledge. The Indians call it “Agni”. This Fire burns within the stars, within the sun, within all live and all matter and within all living beings throughout the universe. The process ignited by this Fire is a digestive process, everything is being digested all the time, birth and death all the time, within the elementary particles in the micro cosm and throughout the macro cosm, the dance of Shiva, preserver and destroyer ( Shiva at the CERN https://cds.cern.ch/record/745737/files/na-2004-122_0406040_01.jpg ). All thoughts within our minds are part of that burning digestion process as well. From that Fire consciousness, knowledge, wisdom ( and also science) arises.
But to control the outside, matter, the shit that’s around you is just a tiny fraction of power compared to the power that comes from controling yourself. You can have control over 10 000 soldiers, if you don’t have control over yourself you will lose the battle. This is where the trouble starts:
TPTB have control over mountains of money and countless soldiers, they have all the brute force, guns, tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, a- bombs, scecret services and all that shit. But they don’t have real control over themselves and this is why they will lose the battle, the “war on climate change” (Quote Biden). The power of TPTB is completely built on sand, dust, dirt. You might not realize it now, but you will realize it soon.
The very Laws Of Nature follow the law of causality. Causality is in action everywhere all the time:
Fuck up the eco system you live in and you will be fucked. Fuck up the global climate and you will be fucked. Causality, or as Gavin Schmidt said ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/ ):
“We are reaping what we’ve sown.”
– Gavin Schmidt
I couldn’t have said it any better. That is causality in action, scientific data tells us that we are reaping what we’ve sown. Now, if we look carefully, we can learn from what Gavin Schmidt said:
Causality means ACTIONS do always cause RESULTS. And these results come back to us and bite our very own ass. But TPTB think they can fiddle the data, they think they can cheat and play with funny manouvre tactics all the time and they fool themselves as they think they will get away with all that, because they do not understand causality. But you can NEVER cheat causality, you can never cheat the beautiful, remorseless mechanics of reaping and sowing, not in life and not even in death, tic toc tic toc, the Laws Of Nature are your master outside of yourself, but even more so right within yourself. The power of thinking, the power of consciousness, the power of meditation is a razor blade, it might lead you to real heaven, or it might lead you to real hell. TPTB have no real power as they are trying to fight against- and to control the Laws Of Nature. They will fail, in fact, they are already failing.
But if you do not fight against the Laws Of Nature, the Agni Fire, Causality (the Indians call it “karma”), if you truly go with the flow, then you can NEVER lose any battle. I am with the sun and the moon and the stars, I am with the oceans, the mountains, the deserts, the skies, the clouds, the rain and storm and thunder and lightning and I am with Life and I am with Death, the heat and the cold, I am with the entire universe so how could I ever lose any battle. The true king of the universe owns nothing, is a true nobody, his home is everywhere and nowhere and beyond and with him are the Laws, the Forces Of Nature, the true burning Fire.
Hail the Laws, the Forces Of Nature!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgIB1OL09H0
Sounds about right.
We are reaping what we’ve sown and will continue doing so.
Tis good to go with the flow though,
N: The Indians call it “Agni”. This Fire burns within the stars, within the sun, within all live and all matter and within all living beings throughout the universe.
BPL: It relates to the quantum vibrations which are in tune with cosmic being. You can come into alignment with it through the practice of Mahayana colonic cleansing.
Or join the church of scientology and spend a fortune on their special progammes. LOL.
Well, determinism is not quite orthodox anymore, and not just because of Heissenbergs uncertainty principle.
Of causality, I have further learnings of Aristoteeles`4 different cathegories of causes, which widens my horizons and perspectives and show often quite fruitful.
A cause may be in the future and cause results today and have caused things already yesterday.
For instance what causes you to do this or that now? Yes, because you look foorward to this or that to come true and be real tomorrow or next week. That is called CAUSA FINALE, but it seems only to be appliciable in Humaniora or when consciousness is involved. It rules also for asnimals and other life that is able to “foresee” and look onwarde and forwward into the future, that is not yet actual reality.
Thus Causa may be ahead in time and lay in the future.
If you have a plan, that plan causes you to do this or that or to resign on this and that because of someting that seems possibly real in the future.
And Causa formale. What causes this and that to be a horse or a cow and not a cat or a dog? Yes, its forms, its typical way of being the way it is or the forms in which it exists.. And that cathegory is rather timeless, is n`t it?
Causa materiale,… is it water or is it gasoline?, namely its material.
Causa efficiens, that is when you kick a football, it will not pop off unless you kick it and if it pops off , someone or something must be the cause that kicked it. The motor causes the movens to moove. Then cause and consequence follows in time.
Causa efficiens is quite often understood and discussed as the one and only causal situation. But that is old and vulgar, recent modernism and supersticion. Allready Aristoteles & al knew better.
Thus we can discuss this and that in the climate. What causes this and that in the climate?
Laws of Nature are mentioned here, , that is rather in the category of Causa formale.
Those “Forces of nature” is quite often a primitive and misleading conscept. Force and forces need special definitions and discussion and should not be misa- used to explain anything . There are a vaste lot of natural laws that do not involve or descfribe any force. So why not forms of nature and formjs in nature, the way or the forms in which naturen exists and eventually mooves?
There is no force that pushes and causes the moon to moove around the way it does. It is the natural form in which it mooves around without any driving force or MOTOR at all.
This is necessary mideival scolastics and very efficient in real life.
Let me make it even more clear, here:
1 CAVSA MATERIALE
2 CAVSA FORMALE
3 CAVSA EFFICIENS &
4 CAVSA FINALE.
Then MOTOR & MOVENS, that is the horse and the waggon
Discussion: What causes this and that and how, what is the cause of this and that and why, what
forms and mooves , causes and gives this and that, how and why.
And as a proper exercise: What mooves the moon the way it goes round and round , it has no MOTOR., They did discuss the primary moover and some of them mentioned God. who, kicked it all off and then went to sleep. Today we discuss BigBang the same way and for serious…
But then we have the climate, the further CAVSA FORMALE and the way it goes by itself with or without human help.
NASA GISS discusses Causa formale in an apparently enlighted way.
But Why? What for? What is the purpose and reason?
ANIMUS / ANIMA, the soul and the ANIMALs aski and worry about such questions, the Causa finale.
Animals are real.
Litt: Aristoteles De Anima, on the soul.
@Carbomontaurus
” Those “Forces of nature” is quite often a primitive and misleading conscept. Force and forces need special definitions and discussion and should not be misa- used to explain anything.”
There are at least 4 Forces Of Nature derived from science ( quote “primitive and misleading”?) that explain quite a lot:
https://www.livescience.com/the-fundamental-forces-of-nature.html
” There is no force that pushes and causes the moon to moove around the way it does…”
Erm:
https://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics/Newtons-law-of-gravity
Hr.Nemesis
I say force and forces need special definition and discussion, not that they do not exist.
4 fundamental “forces” of nature is todays orthodoxy, and I am specialist on electromagnetism.
But there are a vaste lot of rules and laws of nature very reliable and practical, that do not state or relate to any of those 4 fundamental “forces” at all, and can work very well without it..
Why is the apple round but the banana is long? Why is the tomatoe red and the banana yellow? Why are the snowflakes however individually different allways hexagonal stars?
Why do some salts such as NaCl and KI cristallize sometimes cubic but under controlled conditions rather octaedrical?
I can give a paralell example to illustrate what I mean.
In order to explain why and how this and that happens, one can now and then hear: ” that is because the molecules… or the atoms… do this and that”. But why does the dropped stone fall and the shot bullet or kicked football fly?
When massive things become weightless, it is because no forces are acting on them anymore.
The curved way they moove when let loose is not due to the gravitational force but due to the gravitational field. Remark that difference, and you need not mention active forces that do not exist.
In the same way, those atoms and molecules involved are really very far- fetched and irrelevant theories for explaining it when large things. tumble down and fly in space
The same critics applies to all those popular “forces” of nature. It is often just popular psevdo- newtonianism that has come astray, that explains nothing.
If material increments are needed for physical explaination, I have often seen “the atoms… The molecules…” But, along with what I know, atoms and molecules are not that way. It is no LEGO- system. It is rather conjugated electromagnetic waves and wave- forms.
Experimental physics tell the same. Neutrons and neutrinos and light can go right through massive heavy matter without any practcal inhibition or reaction.
C: Neutrons and neutrinos and light can go right through massive heavy matter without any practcal inhibition or reaction.
BPL: Neutrinos can, maybe. The others, usually not. Where are you getting your physics?
Hr Levenson
That is first shown by the fameous experinent of Rutherford who “Shot” alfa particles through thinnes leaf- gold and could get on photographic plate to everyones great surprize, a very frew of the particles bouncede right back. (as if a shot cannon ball would bounche back from a tissus- paper..) From the statistics of that he could estimate the size of the gold atom nuclei in proportion to the very molecular volume.
Many “teachers” tell that normal matter is mostly emply space. But it is not. It is what you touch and see and eat and hammer nails into.
Moral: rather discuss the real material actions and reactions in real experimentaL situations, and avoid phantacizing postulating and teaching about things that you cannot further measure see, feel, and hear and smell. .
Neutron diffraction in cristalline matter is an example of neutrons going rather right through exept when it hits the nuclei. Then it normally reacts and absorbs. It is not like protons strongly repelled from the positive nuclei. And their paths are not bent in an electromagnetic field.
The nature of neutrons and neutrinos is that it does not react with common matter by electromagnetic forces, thus can mostly go right trough it. But it reacts with the nuclei by what is known as “weak nuclear frorces”. Neutrinos probably by “strong nuclear forces”
Pretty sure Barton knows all about Rutherford.
And the point you make with the famous Rutherford experiment seems completely supportive of what he said, which was “the others, usually not.”
Hallelujah, but have you order in this and are you on dope?
Remember, not everyone drinks the same liqueur and takes the same strong pills each time..
Lol, science and technology as we speak:
” 5G Aviation Crisis…Averted? Another 2 week Delay.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8J2j2PJi1o
Have you ever heard the funny little story about the “tower of Babylon”. Funny little story that is, especially these days, lol, walk on, scientists, engineers, tech CEOs, politicians ect, walk on, you’re almost there :P Digitalization, huh, green new deal, huh, metaverse, huh, Great Reset, huuuuh, saving the planet, huuuuh, but where tf is the popcorn?! I need more popcorn…
Hr Nemesis
You seem quite pessimistic.
But lett me remind you of the fact that a seriiies of philosophers and pioneers- system founders of pedagogics especiallly in the tradition of enlightment have planned and intended the moral healthy and physical and…. political improovement of mankind, the population,, society, and each individ..
That has been quite an ideal, and official ideal, for many many such philosophers of formation higher formation, and school systems.
And introduction to updated modern science for everyone has in many cases been official part of it and told to cause also moral social and political and individual improovement.
I can mention G.E Lessing, Rudolf Steiner NFS Grundtvig, Alexander Humboldt, and many more. Who seem to share and represent that common idea of “Balanced– Harmonic – Holistic – humaniistic….” upbringing traiining and formation where humaniora and science , ratiional emosional and artstic elements are integrated and this integraatioon furthered by practical learning and training.
It is ment to the iimprovement of both body and soul and thought and personal abiility and scill.
And as far as I can judge you from what you are telling us, you seem not to be very aquaiinted to any such formation or school system or pedagoogic formation aesoterics,
Whereas I am aquainted to and have been further made aware of many of them. It has been as much as a style of pedagogic planning and thinking. Surely also in the USA because it is so traditional and common..
Traditional university patents with integrated accademic and royal societies and ideas of science and learning for its own sake and value is rooted in it.
Whereas secterism and secteric activism seems to diverge from this rather academic and holistic and “harmonical” impulse in the history. of ideas and learnings.
Carbomantanus says “Hr Nemesis. You seem quite pessimistic.” I agree but I chukled at this. Such understatement.
But anyway I’ve read a couple of interesting books lately that argue, based on evidence, that things have generally improved in society over the last 100 years and even before this, and this includes moral and ethical issues, poverty, science, levels of crime etc. They argue things are not all going bad as is commonly thought. Both do acknowledge the climate problem.
The books are The Moral Arc, by Michael Shermer and Enlightenment now by Steven Pinker. Both these guys are psychologists (from memory I stand to be corrected), and very pro science and rational thought. Not saying I agree 100% with everything they say, and Pinkers book downplays a couple of problems, but most of it seemed very credible, they are critically acclaimed and well researched and I enjoyed them and got a lot out of them. They are not hopeless optimists or Polyannahs. Its very evidence based with a lot of data.
Was the fall over that funny tower a scientific or technological problem? No, it was deeply an ethical problem, just like today. This ethical problem nowadays will never be solved by science nor technology, just like in the old days the tower will fall once again, all their funny money and power will burn up in flames. Get over it, grow up.
No, Hr Nemesis.
I can teach you also on that because I thought it over and found it out.
The ERROR of that fameous tower was that it had no architecture.
Namely no rational proportion between its height an its ground area or side- lengths.
Unluckily, because the same Kaldeans have delivered a “kuneiform” tabulation of Tangens to the angle Alpha in minute rational proportions, documented in burnt terracotta., Most probably for solving 3rd deg equations that are needed for making such stepped towers and pyramids of limited resources of land, workers, aqnimals,, hey, food and beer for the masons, thimber and brickwork.
similar silly plans and projects that lack due architecture and rational responsible budgets are seen also elsewhere. There you are right.
It became an ethical problem but it was due to lack of proper thought and reason first of all.
What comes and can cure that babylonean confusion is Spiritus sanctus as also described later in the holy scriptures.
Addendum to what I said in my recent ( not yet published, please, Gavin) reply to Carbomontaurus:
In christian terms, in biblical terms, the Lord stopped the presumptuous venture of that funny fumbling of building that tower, because he did not want these fools to get too much power as he said:
” If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”
That means, they would be almighty, they’d have limitless power. But with whom, according to christianity, according to the bible, is all power, who is the only Almighty One? Right, The Lord is the only Almighty God. Isn’t it so? Yet, it is so. Therefore, no one should ever strive for too much power, no one should ever strive for heaven through funny technological ( or “architectural”) power as he will ultimately fail and might even end up in Hell instead of climbing to Heaven.
Why striving for worldly ( or political) power? Why striving for heaven by building a physical tower? Heaven, spiritual heaven according to the bible, is no physical place, but heaven is within. No physical power, no technological power, no political or scientific power could ever lead you to that place within.
” “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God’s eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
– Meister Eckhart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sonYFxHHvaM
Tell that the “powers that be”.
C.: – ” What comes and can cure that babylonean confusion is Spiritus sanctus as also described later in the holy scriptures.
— Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Ergo et filius vocabitur sanctus et filius Dei.
Mrs. Heaps of Carbon
before you give birth right here in the midst of us in the forum and present us with a new son of God – consider – that you don’t have enough milk to make him a decent architect.
Was Jesus actually an architect – or rather a shepherd – or both – or even an all-rounder?
I stick with the latter and can recommend and sell you multi-vitamin milk for his healthy development.
Another proven expert on development was certainly Charles Darwin, the founder of modern genetics. He claimed with his seemingly mathematical formula:
Evolution = ability to reproduction & variation & selection
a fundamental basic principle of creation for all living beings such as plants, animals, fungi and of course viruses as we know.
I say more precisely, this basic principle applies even to lifeless stones or matter (mass conservation law) and to energy (energy conservation law) incl. the big bang –
even ideas, thoughts and theories, i.e. spiritual matters, are designed according to this immortal primal principle, which nothing and nobody can escape.
Your friend Aristotle, I am sure, had this principle in mind when he defined God as an immovable mover.
So, in order to cure the Babylonian confusions, please do NOT read to us from dumb Roman Catholic scriptures. It would be completely sufficient if I assure you as an artist and prove that my paintings, sculptures and concepts (including those for lowering sea levels and earth temperatures) as well as my singing and comments here are always a –
selected variety of art production.
You must read those holy scriptures again with a more open mind, and maybe first acheive some experience also of how to read between the lines..
An open mind does not mean hole in your head..
And how can a moover be immoveable? but a cause can well ble immoveable. Study better what I wrote there.
I do not quote from dumb catolic scriptures.
Have you ever conscidered burning your creations or make them possibly combustiible at least? Because that may also become necessary.
C.: ” – Have you ever conscidered burning your creations or make them possibly combustiible at least? Because that may also become necessary. ”
My pictures and writings are sufficiently flammable to survive the coming pyres of the Nazis for books and paintings. They will take pride of place in the flames, because while paper and linen are combustible, the healing spirit that resides within them never turns to ashes.
Good avant-garde art has always offered a reliable glimpse into the future and destiny – into the coming zeitgeist and consciousness of the people.
Picasso and Cubism were working at the same time as Albert Einstein on the theory of relativity of space and time, a Salvador Dali and the Surrealists painted their meta-physical descent into the dream worlds of the subconscious in the same years as Sigmund Freud was using scientific methods to connect these psychological parallel worlds to his patient studied.
With my own creations, you can either for centuries
discuss “the end of art history” – or ignore this final warning for eternity.
They mark a point on the path of future human destiny. A fork in the road between a long, arduous march into paradise and a short, easy “walk” into hell.
You can be assured that the Catholic Tallars will also catch fire there and with them the millennia of false interpretations and hypocritical gaps in the Holy Catholic Scriptures.
Since it has been stinking of hypocrisy, child molestation, fear, sweat and human scum under these tallars for 1000 years – a self-chosen walk on the pyre of history would, in my opinion, be an extremely just punishment for Nazis and false prophets stuffed with arrogance. Maybe even the only way to wipe them off the face of the earth forever.
— So much for the stupidity of self-proclaimed representatives of God and their skills in building Babylonian turrets architecture.
ms: You can be assured that the Catholic Tallars will also catch fire there and with them the millennia of false interpretations and hypocritical gaps in the Holy Catholic Scriptures. . . . Since it has been stinking of hypocrisy, child molestation, fear, sweat and human scum under these tallars for 1000 years – a self-chosen walk on the pyre of history would, in my opinion, be an extremely just punishment for Nazis and false prophets stuffed with arrogance. Maybe even the only way to wipe them off the face of the earth forever. . . . — So much for the stupidity of self-proclaimed representatives of God and their skills in building Babylonian turrets architecture.
BPL: So ms wants to “wipe” Catholics “off the face of the earth [sic] forever.” One more good reason to ignore anything this crackpot says.
Well, we ALL love China, we ALL love funny communism ( no, I don’t love communism/capitalism, lol, I never did) and we ALL love science and technology and total surveillance brought to you by China, don’t we?^^ Embrace communist China:
” 20.01.2022 – Security scanners across Europe tied to China govt, military
At some of the world’s most sensitive spots, authorities have installed security screening devices made by a single Chinese company with deep ties to China’s military and the highest levels of the ruling Communist Party…”
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-01-scanners-europe-tied-china-govt.html
Europe is in cahoots with China. They must be evil too. All closet communists obviously!
I say Nuke them!
/sarc
@XRRC
I didn’t say anything about “evil” nor about “good”, you did.
” “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing, there is a field.
I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.
What you seek, is seeking you.”
– Rumi
The core of the earth is cooling more rapidly than previously thought:
https://scitechdaily.com/earths-interior-is-cooling-much-faster-than-expected/
Combine that with the “negative greenhouse effect” Kevin McKinney posted above, and we may be headed back into a YUUUUGE ice age.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
:)
Er, no.
KIA “The core of the earth is cooling more rapidly than previously thought”
– Current avg. heat flux coming out of the Earth crust = 0.09 W/m2,
– Current back-radiation i.e. greenhouse effect = 324 W/m2
So even if the core FROZE – this would be equal to 0.03% of greenhouse effect.
Quick, call some Very Stable Genius, you may be onto something!
Then heat from inside the earth can’t be causing global warming. Hint. Greenhouse gases.
Hr Knwitall
This seems to be desperate dilettantism from your side.,just to be able to hang on with your denialism.
You seem not qualified enough to see what must be changed and adjusted directly elsewhere in reality if your new findings and propaganda is to be true and valid. such as the age of the earth and the universe and the temperatures and heat of hot springs and molten lava.
KIA: we may be headed back into a YUUUUGE ice age.
BPL: Yes, we are–about 50,000 years from now.
It really is all about the LULZ to you, ain’t it? You have no idea to understand anything and not enough human decency to try and preserve a vestige of habitability on the planet for the next generation. I really hope your children understand what a despicable excuse for a human being you are.
Doomsday clock standing still:
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/doomsday-clock-101.html
Lmfao, why not turn it back to let’s say 8 o’clock or whatever time you like? I mean, TPTB are the masters over time, no?^^ No. They are the masters of lots of funny money, but they can’t rule time, they can’t rule the Forces of Nature. Listen:
TPTB consider themselves as the “sheperds”, but they are just what they truely are:
Sheep.
And they will go down, down, down as sheep.
N: Sheep.
BPL: Any time someone refers to their opposition as “sheep,” it’s a sure sign the speaker is a crackpot. Every Flat Earther refers to the “globers” or “ballers” as “sheep,” and every anti-vaxxer refers to believers in vaccines as “sheep.”
This one’s for you, dear BPL, enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfIRR2VeyEc
Not really. I refer to those with Authoritarian psychology/personality as “sheep” because that is an apt description. When they do it, it is a classic example of projection/denial of their own behavior. They are saying what they have been taught to say.
But I know that the concept of Authoritarian psychology, as well established scientifically as it might be, makes people uncomfortable.
Zebra: “ Not really. I refer to those with Authoritarian psychology/personality as “sheep”
And the difference between you and the antivaxers (who consider vaxers as those with Authoritarian psychology/personality and therefore call them “sheep”) – is ………….?
I’ve also observed people who use the term sheep are mostly conspiracy thinkers, most have probable low IQ, and seem to regard themselves as superior or enlightened. Its a definite personality type.
New Book “A Nation Of Sheep Will Believe A Trump” Analyzes Intelligence of American Voters
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210428006011/en/New-Book-%E2%80%9CA-Nation-Of-Sheep-Will-Believe-A-Trump%E2%80%9D-Analyzes-Intelligence-of-American-Voters
analyzes how and why a certain part of the country’s population has developed a sheep mentality and has lost its critical thinking ability, so that they live in an airtight sealed bubble of false information which is inviolable to the reality, which allows them to be misled by a leader like Trump.
the Dunning Kruger effect, outlining that people with a sheep mentality do not think independently and are generally, less educated, non-informed, lack critical thinking abilities but have a high opinion of themselves. There is no denying that, in general, Trump supporters follow a herd mentality. His supporters are full of people willing to deny what the rest of the country calls reality.
XRRC … respect, dignified communication and understanding within in the USA is not at it’s high point.
Just as a reminder, the terms “shepherds” and “sheep” initially had been set up by christianity resp TPTB in the old days, not by me, lol ( see John 10 eg: ” I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me…”, see also: https://sumerianshakespeare.com/70701/502901.html ).
( almighty Gavin, “bin” as you please if you don’t like historic/scientific facts, meh, lol)
About methane from Arctic. Kris Van repots that continuous methane emissions from Komsomolets Island were already at least at the end of 2020. There are also permanent springs in northern Alaska. Periodic methane emissions occur on Wiese Island. Data source CAMS
Сopernicus also reports that the increase in methane concentrations was a many year record in 2020 and 2021
Observation data in Tiksi from the some post above also shows that in 2018 an unknown source of methane appeared in August. In 2020 this source was active even in December
https://twitter.com/KrVaSt
https://twitter.com/KrVaSt/status/1387326280933289984
https://twitter.com/KrVaSt/status/1484467667851489285
– Methane leaks from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, from the Laptev Shelf & from the Kara Shelf (sea-bed methane near Komsomolets Island & Wiese Island)
Observatories in Norway and Alaska also show strong growth over the past year.
https://twitter.com/chriscartw83/status/1484717201500229635
https://twitter.com/chriscartw83/status/1484732553198252037
Hey thanks for the info/refs about the previous commentary. April 21 graphic was good comparison
At the link above, the data is for April, but on his twitter you can find the first mention of Komsomolets Island in December 2020 with screenshots. I don’t know if these are anthropogenic sources or not.
But I don’t think we should panic. The past Eemian period was warmer than it is now, but there was no extreme methane emission. The emission of the Arctic could be greater than it is now, of course. An unusual methane and small CO2 peaks was around 320,000 years ago, but nothing extreme. I don’t know how accurate it is to compare current conditions with past interglacials.
I don’t know if these are anthropogenic sources or not either, but they appear to be consistently sea based emissions on cams to me. I’m sure experts are on it. If not, it doesn’t matter much. A drop in the bucket of global methane.
I think Proxies and GCMs should all be taken with a large dose of salt. And past paleoclimate assumptions are a crap shoot too. I don’t know how accurate it is to compare current conditions with past interglacials either, except I doubt they are.
But all this kind of information and analysis can be “useful” up to a point, when it is not assumed to be reliable or accurate or reflecting reality of what really happened or might happen in the future. gigo rules.
I think human reasoning intelligence and logic of wiser souls mixed with actual real world observations of the present and recent past should be enough to draw so fairly reliable conclusions, enough to act upon. But unfortunately I seem to be an outlier in this line of thought. :)
This source of methane is not so small. It is larger than gas fields, oil wells and coal mines. Of course it is smaller than China. It’s very interesting to know when it appeared.
I would also like to know why in 2020 and 2021 there is such a sharp increase in the concentration of methane. In 2020, this may be due to a decrease in vehicle emissions. In 2021, I don’t know what happened.
Also, I don’t know what kind of source is observed in the observatory in Tiksi
Observer – “This source of methane is not so small. It is larger than gas fields, oil wells and coal mines”
Not necessarily – on the early January maps Killian noted significant emissions from the Dakotas, and most of the time there much larger clouds of methane advected by wind onto Siberia and Arctic Ocean – hence not the local emissions.
Furthermore – if those that seem like originating from the are North of Komsomolets Island – they are quite intermittent – since Jan 5 more often than not there do not seem to be local emissions from the area of the Komsomolets Island (merely advection from the South/West).
And as Jacobson said in the quoted above text:
“ Appears to be mostly mid-latitude and equatorial biological methane from rice farming, natural wetland decay and ruminant livestock. The Arctic/Siberian component is not (yet) substantial. ”
Observer: “ But I don’t think we should panic. The past Eemian period was warmer than it is now, but there was no extreme methane emission. ”
and a couple sentences further:”I don’t know how accurate it is to compare current conditions with past interglacials.”
Aren’t those two sentences rather contradictory? Either you don’t trust the extrapolation form the past, or you say that we have nothing to fear, because in the past it wasn’t that bad. You can’t have both .
I personally would err on the side of caution – the destabilization of methane hydrates from the continental slope may be vulnerable not only to the overall global temps (your Eemian), but also the rate of the change. Particularly given that the stability of methane hydrates in the upper reaches of the continental slope (3.5% of total CH4 hydrates in the Arctic) is vulnerable to even small changes in the oceanographic conditions:
“upper continental slopes are the most susceptible places on Earth for wholesale gas hydrate dissociation driven by warming of impinging intermediate ocean waters”
And this small change in oceanographic conditions may be different if the world creeps into warming over thousands of years than if does so in … decades – if you melt the glaciers slowly – the melt water has the time to be mixed away and does not weaken the deep water formation as much as sudden “undiluted” flux of meltwater would.
Thanks for the answer. I doubt how accurate it is to compare with past interglacials. But we don’t have anything else. Pliocene? But we know very little about the Pliocene
And how do you explain the rapid increase in the concentration of methane in 2020 and 2021. Such a rapid increase was only in 1960-1980.
In addition, methane after 2010 is becoming increasingly contains light carbon isotopes.
Your article says:
Climate scientists use isotopic signatures recorded in ice cores, deep ocean sediments, thick carbonate sequences, and other types of samples to reconstruct Earth’s climate history and the composition of the ocean/atmosphere. 13C isotopic signatures are commonly expressed as a δ13C value. Deviations from the baseline δ13C value are termed carbon isotopic excursions. Negative deviations in δ13C of even 1 part per mille (written as 1‰) are substantial for records constructed from benthic and planktonic foraminifera tests. Such deviations imply the emission of large amounts of isotopically-light carbon (strongly negative δ13C ratio) that likely originated through microbial methanogenesis. Large, climate-sensitive sources for isotopically-light methane carbon in the Earth system include wetlands and most natural gas hydrates.
Observer Jan .25 I doubt how accurate it is to compare with past interglacials. But we don’t have anything else”
So what’s the point of comparing at all? A bad analogy is worse than no analogy at all, because it suggests an insight where there is none, and in your case – offers false sense of security – (“But I don’t think we should panic. The past Eemian period was warmer than it is now, but there was no extreme methane emission. ” )
Observer: “And how do you explain the rapid increase in the concentration of methane in 2020 and 2021?”
Are we still discussing your original statement: “I don’t think we should panic.[because of Eemian]”? If yes – why would you ask me – this questions the value of _your_ Eemian analogy, not my criticism of it. If no, and you moved on to discussing the present day situation – I’d say given how borderline is the stability in the methane hydrates in the upper continental slope – even small change in the oceanographic conditions there may increase or decrease CH4 release.
Observer: “ Your article says: […].
Again, I am not sure what you are asking here. Is there something in this quote that …. counters my argument that we shouldn’t use Eemian to make claims about the methane emissions in the future?
I agreed with you that the Emsian interglacial is a bad analogue. I want to know from you with what is the best way to compare it in your opinion
Piotr there were significant emissions about week ago, but now a cyclone from the Atlantic came to the Komsomolets island area, which blows everything away with the wind
I think we talked about those islands and their leaks. I said it looked like ESS CH4. Of course the “smart” guys here who “know” all the “science” had to jump on that.
LOL…
They’re never gonna learn…
Killian: “ I think we talked about those islands and their leaks. Of course the “smart” guys here who “know” all the “science” had to jump on that. LOL… They’re never gonna learn… ”
Let’s LOL from those stupid “smart” guys who never gonna learn that Killian is the smartest. Here are two Killian lines of arguments of CH4 from the north of the Severanaya Zemlya archipelago from the current thread:
1. Killian Jan 6: “ Methane breaches 1900. Prof. Eliot Jacobson seems to think it matters. Nothing to see here…?”
Piotr [never gonna learn], Jan.9: ” Yes, there is something to see, but you may not like it – no indication that _this_ “breach” is a result of the massive methane release from the melting permafrost some envisioned. Here is the same Prof. Eliot Jacobson, slightly further down in the same thread: “ Appears to be mostly mid-latitude and equatorial biological methane from rice farming, natural wetland decay and ruminant livestock. The Arctic/Siberian component is not (yet) substantial. ”
Strangely – no response from the One Who Have Warned About Massive Releases of CH4 From the Permafrost in the Arctic for Years…
2. Killian Jan. 9: “Those islands are, of course at shallow seas given they are islands. If [CH4 emissions from these locations] are ongoing, it’s a sign it could be subsea permafrost. ”
Piotr (who never gonna learn): Jan. 13: “your claim that it may be a harbinger of a widespread CH4 release from the Siberian subsea permafrost is the LEAST LIKELY explanation, because the MORE LIKELY alternatives are:
– emissions from the possibly disturbed tundra in the unglaciated part of the Komsomolets Island
(i.e. i.e., not from the subsea permafrost)
– destabilization of the methane hydrates on the Arctic continental slope ( i.e., ALSO not from the subsea permafrost). […]The continental slope contains 99% of Arctic ocean’s CH4 (vs. … 0.25% contained by the subsea permafrost), with 3.5% in the “ upper continental slopes that are the most susceptible places on Earth for wholesale gas hydrate dissociation driven by warming of impinging intermediate ocean waters [ “Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change”]
Hence, if the CH4 emissions are not from land – it is MUCH more likely to have come
from the upper continental slope than subsea permafrost – and given orders (?) of magnitude larger amount of CH4 there and the greatly larger vulnerability to the release by global warming , than Killian’s melting of “subsurface permafrost”.
But don’t let it stop us from laughing at those stupid “smart” guys who “know” all the “science” and had to jump on” – by pointing that Killian got the most likely mechanism of the CH4 release , as well as what there has largest climate change potential – wrong.
“ LOL… They’re never gonna learn… ”
Killian
Hmmmmm
“What shall we do with the drunken sailors” I wrote.
It is the vulgar forms and typical blinkers of those who are lacking higher formation. They are so severely impressed by and fond of their own thoughts and visions.
Intoxicated Illusions and hallucinations, we call that.
Carbomontanus. Well said about drunken sailors. Its always the same small group of people, both warmists and denialists, some who have been around this website for years before you (and Piotr) arrived. I’ve largely given up trying to discuss anything with them except I sometimes correct the climate denialism.
They are cranks and with a bad grasp of quantification issues, thin skins and unrealistic ideas. They are stubborn and can’t be told they are wrong and so proud they cant admit it even to themselves. Human nature I guess.
Of course they are not entirely wrong about everything. There is a grain of truth in some of what they say, and they use that to claim legitimacy. .
“Intoxicated Illusions and hallucinations” ?
I call that pot kettle black.
While Nigel encourages these two drunk delusional cranks? Unbelievable.
Just what this site needs is more Trolls with no option to block them or report them.
Real Climate clearly invites it and deserves this. How embarrassing for everyone.
Nigel, Jan 25.” Of course they are not entirely wrong about everything. ”
even a broken clock is right twice a day …. ;-)
Particularly when they rediscover the wheel, or use a tautology to break down the door nobody locked, and then, as you said: “use that to claim legitimacy“.
XRRC:” I call that pot kettle black.
Hmm, wasn’t the kettle in that saying … black too? If so, then what you are saying is that Nigel was … right about people like you, and you merely point out that he is the same (as “black”) as … you? Well, that will show him! ;-)
XRRC: “While Nigel encourages these two drunk delusional cranks? Unbelievable. Just what this site needs is more Trolls with no option to block them or report them. Real Climate clearly invites it and deserves this. How embarrassing for everyone.”
Nothing stops you from moving on to the less … embarrassing websites. The way
the famous “Reality Check” did – that knight of the Regenerative Table, a fierce defender of the good King, Killian the 1st, a fiercely-independent mind, who dispatched his opponents by calling them names and demanding them to be locked in the dungeon (the notorious “Borehole”). And not getting his way (“ no option to report them“?) he finally had enough, lashed out at the site owners: “ The site owners are responsible for the toxic environment created on RC.” and burned the bridges: “ It’s not my problem, will not be staying around”
And true to his word, he did what he said – he proudly walked off from this “toxic sewer“, his head high, never to be seen here again. You may have just missed him – he disappeared a mere week before you appeared. But if you see him, on some less embarrassing website, say: “Hello” from us.
nigel and carbo pretending they’ve ever educated anyone on anything…
nigel, you are so dishonest. Go back and read the craptastic, hyper-conservative comments on climate from 2016/17. Maybe it will help you be honest about who has educated whom.
What have you predicted in your years on this site? Nothing. What have I predicted and been right about? I’ve lost track…
What a tool…
Piotr, you always have been, and always will be, a troll and a liar. These are important issues that you cheapen and distract from with your constant dishonesty. Disgusting behavior for any human, but far more so for one who claims to know the issues. As XRRC says below, RC allows and thus invites this regressive, infantile behavior. So be it.
1. Killian Jan 6: “ Methane breaches 1900. Prof. Eliot Jacobson seems to think it matters. Nothing to see here…?”
Appears to be mostly mid-latitude and equatorial biological methane from rice farming, natural wetland decay and ruminant livestock. The Arctic/Siberian component is not (yet) substantial. ”
Straw Man stupid. I made no statement of where it came from. I made one statement, that it was rising and, via the question form, implied people are not taking it seriously enough.
But you, attempt to Straw Man my comments into something they were not so you can grind your petty, infantile ax. The world burns, you mewl like a an adult with an infant’s intellect.
Strangely – no response from the One Who Have Warned About Massive Releases of CH4 From the Permafrost in the Arctic for Years…
Why respond to asinine bullshit stupidity? You’re a troll. You started all the ill will between us with exactly this kind of bullshit. It wasn’t me. it was you. Still is. Ever will be.
Additionally, the info all this is in response to clearly indicates exactly the emissions being warned about. Not to mention other data collecting over time. Truth hurts.
And I still hold Arctic CH4 is a dangerous issue. This is, always, about risk management. But you try to twist risk management into an implication, and lie, of predictions of MASSIVE CH4 releases. There is not even the slightet implication, let alone statement of that in my post. An, I have never made any prediction other than it is stupid to be sanguine about sub-sea and permafrost emissions and that they would be happening faster than had been anticipated. All of that is still on the table AND happening. It WILL be accelerating.
Truth hurts.
2. Killian Jan. 9: “Those islands are, of course at shallow seas given they are islands. If [CH4 emissions from these locations] are ongoing, it’s a sign it could be subsea permafrost. ”
ALL ACCURATE.
Piotr (who never gonna learn): Jan. 13: “your claim that it may be a harbinger of a widespread CH4 release from the Siberian subsea permafrost is the LEAST LIKELY explanation, because the MORE LIKELY alternatives are:
Again, the lies. Straw Men are a weak-minded person’s refuge. Facts cannot win for you, so you must lie. Nothing in that post made ANY claim at all. IF, learn the word. IF they are ongoing. How the hell is that any kind of prediction? Stupid of you.
“COULD be permafrost” This is called a modal verb. It is used to express possibilities, probabilities. COULD is one of the weakest. The total if/then + could is so far from a prediction so as to bring into question your general intellect. That is, calling that a prediction is fucking stupid.
– emissions from the possibly disturbed tundra in the unglaciated part of the Komsomolets Island
(i.e. i.e., not from the subsea permafrost)
– destabilization of the methane hydrates on the Arctic continental slope ( i.e., ALSO not from the subsea permafrost). […]The continental slope contains 99% of Arctic ocean’s CH4 (vs. … 0.25% contained by the subsea permafrost), with 3.5% in the “ upper continental slopes that are the most susceptible places on Earth for wholesale gas hydrate dissociation driven by warming of impinging intermediate ocean waters [ “Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change”]
Hence, if the CH4 emissions are not from land – it is MUCH more likely to have come
from the upper continental slope than subsea permafrost – and given orders (?) of magnitude larger amount of CH4 there and the greatly larger vulnerability to the release by global warming , than Killian’s melting of “subsurface permafrost”.
Except it didn’t. As per the info this thread is based on. Truth hurts.
But don’t let it stop us from laughing at those stupid “smart” guys who “know”
Hard to laugh when utterly disgusted. Gross.
Killian Jan 6: “ Methane breaches 1900. Prof. Eliot Jacobson seems to think it matters. Nothing to see here…?”
The same Prof. Jacobson slightly further down: “Appears to be mostly mid-latitude and equatorial biological methane from rice farming, natural wetland decay and ruminant livestock. The Arctic/Siberian component is not (yet) substantial. ”
Kilian Jan 28: Piotr, you always have been, and always will be, a troll and a liar. […]
I made no statement of where it came from.”
Aaaa, so when you have drawn the attention to the record levels of CH4, called upon the authority of Prof. Eliot Jacobson, and sarcastically asked your opponents: “ Nothing to see here… ” – what your have really meant was to draw attention to prof. Jacobson conclusions – that the record high CH4 comes from “mid-latitude and equatorial rice farming, natural wetland decay and ruminant livestock” and that “ there is no evidence yet“. for the massive, climate changing release of CH4 from the Arctic/Siberia. The massive release you have prophesized FOR YEARS, but Gavin and the rest of us “ would not listen” and small-mindedly have been pointing out that it might be in the future, but …. there is no evidence of that yet…
I guess it makes Prof. Jacobson just another “troll” who can’t see Killian’s greatness.
Piotr Jan. 24: ““your claim that it may be a harbinger of a widespread CH4 release from the Siberian subsea permafrost is the LEAST LIKELY explanation, because the MORE LIKELY alternatives are:[ the islands themselves or the nearby continental slope that contains 99% of Arctic CH4 vs. subsea’s permafrost containing … <0.25%)]
Killian Jan 28: "Again, the lies. Straw Men are a weak-minded person’s refuge. Facts cannot win for you, so you must lie. Nothing in that post made ANY claim at all. IF, learn the word. IF they are ongoing. Stupid of you. “COULD be permafrost” This is called a modal verb. It is used to express possibilities, probabilities ”
aaa- so you are saying “If [CH4 emissions from these locations] are ongoing, it’s a sign it could be subsea permafrost. ” did not “make ANY claim at all “, because you used “IF” and “COULD”
OK, let me try it now: How about:
“IF Killian wasn’t so sad a figure, as a guy whose entire ego is invested into seeing himself as a prophet whose warnings are not heeded by the smaller minds, perhaps he COULD have something interesting to say”?
See? I have implied “NOTHING” negative about you – I used IF and COULD, and even added “PERHAPS”, and a question mark! You can’t be more non-committal than that …
By the way – we may be getting closer to the root your problem – if a prophet hides behind technicalities, hedges with “if” and “could”, and implies “NOTHING” – the starkness of his prophecies … wears off a bit.
But there is no hedging when it comes to me:
– “Piotr, you always have been, and always will be, a troll and a liar.”
– ” you cheapen and distract from with your constant dishonesty”
– ” Disgusting behavior for any human”
– “this regressive, infantile behavior”
– “Straw Man stupid”
-“so you can grind your petty, infantile ax.”
-“you mewl like a an adult with an infant’s intellect”
-” asinine bullshit stupidity?”
-“You’re a troll. You started all the ill will between us with exactly this kind of bullshit.”
-“Again, the lies”
-” Straw Men are a weak-minded person’s refuge”
-“Facts cannot win for you, so you must lie”
-” Stupid of you”
-” bring into question your general intellect”
=”fucking stupid”
IF only we had some … “Reality Check ” which COULD have chimed in with:
“[Killian] made a sensible comment in line with the academic paper he cited“,.
and
-“Surely this level of toxic poison from [Piotr] has no place here or anywhere for that matter”. “Comments like [Piotr’s] turn the place into a sewer”
K: Piotr, you always have been, and always will be, a troll and a liar.
BPL: Substitute any name on the board for “Piotr,” and you have the sum total of Killian’s approach to rational argument.
Killian @28 JAN 2022 AT 5:15 AM
“Piotr, you always have been, and always will be, a troll and a liar. ”
Hmmm. I find it very hard to agree with that. I’ve read all Piotrs comments on this page and many of his other comments and I cant see evidence Piotr is a troll or a liar. Trolling is normally defined as 1) making inflammatory statements to annoy the group and 2) making very personally abusive statements. I cant see any of this in Piotrs commentary on this website. Killian provides NO EXAMPLES to back up his claim.
Piotr does criticise things. Criticism is not trolling. And he is sarcastic. Piotr: Bachelor of Sarcasm Degree. But sarcasm is amusing and is not trolling.
I do see evidence Killian is a troll because he is both inflammatory and personally abusive:. For example: “Straw Man stupid….The world burns, you mewl like a an adult with an infant’s intellect…. What a tool…” The list doesn’t stop there. And isn’t it ironic. Pot kettle very black indeed.
Piotr’s technical criticisms of peoples commentary also look largely accurate to me. If I thought he was wildly wrong on something significant I would say. I get quite picky at times.
Hr Nigelj
Thankis for that
I hope to come back to the climate- surrealists monthly assembly at Pelles Pizza, the “Climate-pizza” in Oslo, that was closed down because of Covid 19.
To tell them that in the meantime and as a substitute, I have exelled and performed at the frameous website Real Climate. Where there shows to be some obviously drunken sailors also. .
So said the drunk!
” I have exelled and performed at the frameous website Real Climate. “ ?
Get help.
Help for what?
Exactly!
You’re piling up data upon data for how long now? And while you’re piling up data upon data it is getting hotter and hotter, lol, no?^^ YES. Why is that ?! Is it because data, words on RC don’t cool the climate? Is it because TPTB give a shit about RC and data? Is there a glitch in the system? Pick any answer as you please, while I keep saying for decades now:
It will just go on getting hotter and hotter.
If you STILL haven’t realized it yet you will realize it soon enough. You can check out anytime, but you can never leave. Cheers from a hot and nasty nobody who has never seen any winter like the one happening right now here in good old Germany, NEVER, lmfao, this winter is just frickin HOT and it’s just getting hotter as we speak I tell you :P
To all my special friends on RC ( you know who you are, lol):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfIRR2VeyEc
Sure, Gavin, “bin” my climate related comment as you please while I enjoy the heat more and ever more. Full stop.
Ys, Hr Nemesis, it is hot also in southern Norway.
There is a very rare and special situation of an atmospheric “river”, that could be seen on the weather maps for weeks, ranging very stable from the caribeans onto mid.- norway with warm and moist air. Record percipitation and snow limit at 1000 moh. Frequent strong storms with hurricanes, snow and mud avalanches.
It comes from northwest over here to the Oslofjord as Föhnwind. All southern Swedeen is wityhout snow. But the Bottnian bay and the finnish lakes have frozen.
There is no heavy russian winter continental high pressure at the moment. But there is clear weather in mainland EU I can see.
It may be the warmest january that I can ever remember. But according to the normals, the AGW is responsible for only 1.2-3 deg of this worldwide so it still looks like weather more than climate.
My normal is -10 Now it is rather +4 and swinging. But there were wet snow and snowmen in January before. Skiing has hardly been possible here since 1983.
Richard Lindzen smiles and says that it is neglectible all the way. But Svalbard and the Barents sea and eastern ices seems to be a local regional “hotspot” in recent climatic sense, And so is also northern Scandinavia rather obviously.
I judge it all from the history of icefreight and ski jumping and gardening for the last 120 years, and that history is obvious allready. The summers are steady but 4 weeks longer than before, and the winters are obviously warmer.
Whereas the western ices northeastern Canada looks rather chill and frozen.
Here, it gives very plenty and lovely hydroelectric power if it comes down right, and the natural forests, the Taiga and the broadc leave tempered forests take it with elegance. Apples cherries and oaks have mooved clearly onwards in northeastern direction in recent decades.
Hi Carbomontaurus, thanks a lot for your detailed reply resp the information. I wasn’t aware of the situation up north yet, but after your reply I looked at the temperature anomaly on the northern hemisphere as of today, 25.1.2022, quite HOT indeed ( please also have a look at the western side of the arctic ocean resp Alaska and beyond):
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png
” It may be the warmest january that I can ever remember. But according to the normals, the AGW is responsible for only 1.2-3 deg of this worldwide so it still looks like weather more than climate.”
And it’s the warmest winter in total I’ve ever seen here in Germany so far ( it won’t get any colder at all this winter I’m sure). Lol, yeah, that’s what I hear again and again for decades “it’s just weather, there have always been warmer days/weeks/months/years/decades (extend ad lib, lol) in the past, no reason to ring the alarmist bell”. That’s the name of the game.
” My normal is -10 Now it is rather +4 and swinging. But there were wet snow and snowmen in January before. Skiing has hardly been possible here since 1983.”
We had a multibillion euro ski industry in Germany/Switzerland/Austria, it’s all gone now, it died off within roughly 1, 2 decades, there’s just not enough snow anymore now. The media have reported on this for a while, but in the last few years they don’t even report on this anymore at all, the ski industry just died off, end of story.
I have an eye on Svalbard for quite a long time now, it’s a ( methane-) hotspot indeed, 9.8.2021:
https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-226/
Again, thanks a lot for your reply!
( yes, Gavin, I’m brave, all climate related, no reason for binning :P)
I frickin love the bin and the police anyways, lol:
” German climate activists took unsold food from supermarkets to give away
The police then confiscated the food and put it back in the bin…”
https://twitter.com/derJamesJackson/status/1485205782979297283
Lol. Btw, what the heck happened to Greta Thunberg and the global climate movement?!^^ I mean, all I hear is “fill in ad lib :P” for more than two funny years in the media and in the streets, lmfao, climate heating already solved?^^ Anyway, praise the police and TPTB for saving the climate and for amusing me all my life more and ever more!
https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-4Frwka3zfIZcvUJB-n2rdZA-t500x500.jpg
Hi Nemi!
Hotter and hotter, but who cares? Billionaires are getting richer.
Sabine is way smart and a grand communicator. Here’s her take on extreme weather attribution and communication:
https://youtu.be/KqNHdY90StU
Hi Richard the Weaver,
thanks for that video about attribution research, great content straight to the point ( see also https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world ect).
As I replied to you in another comment above already, the deniers and lukewarmers will always say “it’s just weather, there have always been warmer days/weeks/months/years/decades (extend ad lib) in the past, no reason to ring the alarmist bell”, they can play that game forever. It’s the same with global mass extinction:
There have been global mass extinctions in the past, so what’s all the fuzz about it?^^
There is the analogy about the “loaded dice” used by climate scientists over and over again ( eg: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/ ). Welcome to the climate casino. Why not use a bloody revolver instead of a harmless dice? Let’s play russian roulette^^ I mean, what could ever go wrong? People have always been dying, right? :P
” Hotter and hotter, but who cares? Billionaires are getting richer.”
That’s the name of the game, billionaires get richer while the poor get poorer:
” Oxfam highlights Forbes billionaire’s list showing ultra-rich wealth rocketed during Covid-19″
https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/oxfam-highlights-forbes-billionaires-list-showing-ultrarich-wealth-rocketed-during-covid19/news-story/8abe31f85ff1ceff701f8f390663b37d
Uhm, there might be some kind of a pattern behind that richer/poorer gamez 8)
Correction:
I replied to Carbomontaurus about the loaded dice in another comment, not to Richard the Weaver.
( it’s a bit complicated for me to keep an overview over the new thread structure on RC)
Nemesis.
Some billionaires behave badly, and some just inherited wealth and live the high life and have never done an honest days work. And I do think we have a problem with financial inequality. However it may pay to understand that despite billionaires proliferating, global poverty has actually DECLINED over recent decades. It may pay to understand many billionaires have created wealth. It may pay to understand they generally invest their wealth in things where everyone does benefit. They don’t put it all in gold bars under the bed.
I just find it useful to keep an objective grip on reality, or one ends up doing horrible things that Joseph Stalin did and killing anyone he thought of as the enemy, which he believed to be scientists and intellectuals. Today its billionaires. Tomorrow it will be some other group. Its called envy and scapegoating.
So ignore Oxfam reports because Joseph Stalin.
That is not an objective grip on reality. It scares me there is much worse on these pages than that.
XRRC, I did acknowledge inequality is a problem, and obviously poverty is still a problem, but its a question of how to fix such problems. We could go full communist and make everyone equal, but no. This has failed many times already. Killian says everyone should leave the capitalist system and you undermine the billionaires means of support, effectively. Clever, but its probably just not going to happen.
IMHO the most plausible solution is a wealth / capital tax, and the proceeds go to help poor people and perhaps pay for climate projects. Clearly such a tax should be aimed at just high income people particularly billionaires. Even that tax is difficult because they hide their money in trusts as you probably know. But such taxes have worked to some extent.
@nigelj
” And I do think we have a problem with financial inequality”
No need to worry as we will all be totally equal through the burning Fire quickly. Hail the Fire I say!
What is your proposal to deal with the problem of financial inequality?
@Mike
Either share the massive material goods in a horizontal manner instead of a vertical one or burn it all down by climate heating and the 6th global mass extinction- equality one way or another, I fully trust in the Forces Of Nature no matter what :) They will chose the latter I guess ;)
What is massive wealth good for anyway? It’s like carrying a heavy burdon straight to the boneyard, lol. TPTB still haven’t grown up yet, they are like naughty kids playing with shiny toys, playing with Fire. They will grow up/wake up at the boneyard, I’ve seen a lot of folks grow up/wake up when they faced the boneyard. The boneyard is always a good starting point for meditation, in fact, it’s the best meditation place I know of. We should learn how to think from the end and let go of obsolete material shit, shouldn’t we? Everyone wants to be happy, everyone wants to find peace within, but there is nno way to buy happiness, no way to buy peace within, the best things in life are for free ;)
Observer: But I don’t think we should panic. The past Eemian period was warmer than it is now, but there was no extreme methane emission.
Richard: CO2 levels are a primary factor in determining the pole to equator temperature differential. Since equatorial temperatures are irrelevant to permafrost, I think the metric you’re using, planetary temperature, isn’t adequate.
I suspect the trajectory matters as well. The current warming is built on top of the Holocene. The permafrost has already absorbed an entire interglacial’s heat. And eyeballing the two, it seems like the Holocene added more heat to the permafrost than the Eemian even though the Eemian peaked a bit higher.
The interesting thing about abnormal melt is that water is heavier than CO2, CH4, and even ice. There is no hard and fast limit when it comes to warm water melting through ice-rich organics. Weird things happen. Lakes and explosions and all kinds of “it has to be aliens” stuff…
So I’m not nearly as sanguine as you.
I would welcome if Stefan Rahmstorf (and maybe and/or some of his fellow researchers) could comment here on this new paper https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020RG000725 regarding what is happening with the north atlantic deepwater formation/the gulf stream system/AMOC. To me it seems a bit strange that this paper does not refer at all to the hypothesis from Rahmstorf et al. about the weakening of the AMOC, but then I am of course no expert. On the website of the norwegian public service TV/radio NRK, one journalist yesterday wrote about the aformentioned paper by Smedsrud et al. under the headline: “New study: The Gulfstream has been strengthening a lot” (in norwegian https://www.nrk.no/nordland/golfstrommen-blir-sterkere-1.15815382 ), which seems to imply the opposite as the results earlier written about here by Stefan, see fx. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/09/new-studies-confirm-weakening-of-the-gulf-stream-circulation-amoc/ . From my fast reading of Smedsrud et al. this seems not quite to be the case, although some of their reasoning appear somewhat unclear. To me it seems that they don’t understand that a greater heat loss from the ocean surface can happen at the same time as the ocean water gets warmer because of greater influx of warmer Gulfstreamwater. And I don’t understand why they believe that greater heat loss along the eastern Greenland coast because of lesser sea ice there should cause a strengthening of the Gulfstream system.
Yes, I ask the same.
Smedsrud and Rahmstorfs works seem to be conflicting each other. And that relation, the atlantic to the north polar ocean is important.
An article I read on it talked about the *volume.* It may be the velocity is slowing while the volume increases. This kind of makes sense since the waters in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico should be getting warmer, maybe flowing normally there and getting pushed into slower-moving water further north leading to a fatter Gulf Stream/AMOC overall as it approaches Greenland and then Europe.
Just a supposition,
Hr Killian
It seems solidly in conflict to what Rahmstorf has been proceeding.
Smedsrud and The Bjerknes Center in Bergen are qualified and serious, They are especially good on the north Atlantic and the Barents sea.
Stefan Rahmstorf must hurry up now.
Hr Killian
The temperatures or warmth of caribean waters can be ignored I think. The difference is below one deg. But the stream from there across the atlantic and over the island- scotland ridge and into the fameous “Norwegian stream” is what has increased quite clearly, and that is contra many peoples warnings and predictions. Smedsrud & al say that stronger winds first of all makes it, the north atlantic antipassat.
Due to the permanence of matter, what goes in must go out,… ( =a primary principle) the very important question is how all that water returns, and it does not return through the Beering street, that is too narrow and too shallow.. Normally, it goes back mainly in a deep water current east of Grønland and west of Island, crosses back under the golf stream, and goes further into the deep atlantic.
As for the permanence of heat (= another primary principle) that is easier. Open sea and warmer water gives off quite much more heat to space in the arctic winter, than a frozen polar cap that can reach quite low temperatures in the arctic winter.
Exept for one thing Hr Killian
And MA rodger mentions it
Warmer tropics and caribian gives more evaporation and saltier water. That sinks better later on when it comes to the polar sea and get cooled.
Karsten V. Johansen,
The paper you enquire about doesn’t demonstrate a weakening of the AMOC because it is not actually looking at the AMOC. (Note that the paper never once mentions the AMOC.) The AMOC is fundamentally a volume-of-flow thing while Smedsrud et al (2022) Nordic Seas Heat Loss, Atlantic Inflow, and Arctic Sea Ice Cover Over the Last Century is only looking at the strength of ocean currents at one of the extremities of the AMOC and this in the context of Ocean Heat Transport. The one point of discussion within Smedsrud et al (2022) relevant to AMOC would be the volume of the in-out flows over the Greenland-Scotland Ridge (GSR).
And here’s a speculation: if Smedsrud et al are looking at one of the end-points of the AMOC mechanism, the impact of AGW could well be to move that AMOC end-point further north and thus increase the volumes being studied in the Nordic Sea. Do note this quote from Smedsrud et al (2022):-
Smedsrud et al do describe the volume of volume flow across the GSR. In Sec 4.2.2 they say the northward flow increased +1 Sv 1900-2000 and their Fig 12 shows post-1985 averages of these northward flows were higher than pre-1985 averages by roughly +1 Sv. Time series of the three components of southward (AW, PW & OW) are graphed for 1900-to-date in Fig 9 but this doesn’t show any obvious increased volume southward poking out post-1985 to balance the +1 Sv of northward AW.
The RealClimate item you linked-to was discussing AMOC studies which were looking at evidence of the AMOC flows far to the South, off Florida and in in the South Atlantic. Other studies (eg those discussed in this RealClimate piece of 2018) focus on the NE Atlantic and the general finding is a wobbly long-term decline in the AMOC’s strength.
Linking the findings of these AMOC papers with Smedsrud et al (2022) is thus an interesting exercise. You may find better luck with this 2021 piece by Chafik et al entitled ‘Rethinking Oceanic Overturning in the Nordic Seas’, the “overturning” in question happily being the good old AMOC.
M.a.d.n.e.s.s.:
Everyone in my area is talking about Covid, but no one is talking about +8°C – +11°C in high winter in my area:
https://wetter.tagesschau.de/import/wetter-cms/vorhersagen/img/de-vs-3t_webL.jpg
It’s like burning in the Fire alive while being in panic because of virii, germs, creepy crawlers. Greta Thunberg said:
” I want you to panic !”
She got what she wanted, the people are in panic since december 2019.
Yeah, she got what she wanted except the CO2 emissions just keep rising. Let’s keep on making loooooots of funny money:
” Private Equity Funds, Sensing Profit in Tumult, Are Propping Up Oil
These secretive investment companies have pumped billions of dollars into fossil fuel projects, buying up offshore platforms, building new pipelines and extending lifelines to coal power plants…”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/climate/private-equity-funds-oil-gas-fossil-fuels.html
Yeah, funny money gives a shit about “saving the climate”, lol.
Gavin, I’d say:
“shrug, shrug”
Nemesis, ok but Covid is a clear and present danger. Its killing thousands of people right now! Our brains are hardwired to respond to such things, fortunately, or we would all sit around twiddling our thumbs doing nothing, and we would all be dead. The climate problem is arguably far more serious than covid, but its more of a longer term issue, and a slow moving train wreck so it is not perceived as an urgent threat. Its all about psychology. Its like the story of the frog in a pot of water being slowly boiled alive, and not noticing (although apparenty that never actually happened, its just made up, but the point is quite good).
“Nemesis, ok but Covid is a clear and present danger. Its killing thousands of people right now! ”
So is Climate Change.
“Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually.”
Source: WHO, which means this a likely a gross underestimate – particularly since that number was estimated for California alone some years ago as stated by professionals in a documentary. (Blanking on the name of the organization that made it at the moment, but it is well-known and I know of no claims against their ethics.)
Once again you stare into the void and it eats your face.
Killian yes even 150,000 dead due to climate change is very concerning, but its not PERCEIVED that way by most people. Its not even visible. How many people read the WHOs reports? Its not perceived as a clear and present danger by most. That is my frigging point. I perceive it as a danger but most dont.
In comparison covid is killing millions of people each year and its very visible on our television screens each night with hospitals overflowing. Its perceived as a very clear and present danger and so our adrenal system kicks in. Its how most peoples brains work. You do have a psychology degree, right?
@nigelj
” Its like the story of the frog in a pot of water being slowly boiled alive…”
Yes, it’s like the story of the frog boiling slowly while being in panic because of virii. Face it:
Everyone’s in panic because of covid, while TPTB do BAU as usual, ever more fossil fuels, evermore heat, while making lots of funny money. Have you ever heard the saying “there is nothing new under the sun”? Fits quite well. Like I said:
Greta Thunberg got what she wanted, the people are in panic while BAU goes on as usual. The Great Reset serves the usual supects, no one else. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and I just get bored more and more.
Interesting article this morning on AP: https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-california-united-states-environment-5750b9cec67fb0ae3075d654eddad2f6
“Gas stoves are contributing more to global warming than previously thought because of constant tiny methane leaks while they’re off.”
I wonder whether findings like this (if substantiated) that suggest underestimated GHG emissions are generally balanced by findings that suggest overestimations. Or, pessimistic view, maybe we will find that RCP 8.5 is itself based on underestimates.
I hate media hype that uses this manipulative leading – “than previously thought”
Hey look over there … leaking gas stoves – omg that’s the problem right there. Forget about all the real destruction and the massive emissions going on 24/7/365 while world merrily destroys itself.
No, no, no. It’s Gas Stoves. That’s the ticket. Not airline flights for the mega wealthy self-important assholes of the world. Pffft!
The next distraction is going to be — “Whale farts are contributing more to global warming than previously thought because no one was interested in doing such a study until some half-wit PhD candidate with nothing better to do had a brain fart and his supervising Professor was a moron?
RE: XRRC Jan 27
“ whale farts ” – probably not. First, despite any insights you might have from a bathtub experimentation, most of CH4 animal emissions are burps, not farts. Second, although the whales evolved from artiodactyls, i.e. the group that contains today cows, they don’t eat grass, so unlike in cows – no need for anaerobic bacteria to digest cellulose – so no massive CH4 production.
“whale poop” – perhaps ( blue whale can gulp down 16 metric tons of krill a day), so assuming that they don’t make floaters – perhaps
(but see Smith and Whitehead, 2000, on the insights on sperm whale diets from their floaters – certainly beats the “scientific” whaling by Japan where you learn about whale diet by killing it. So not necessarily “ half-wit PhD candidate with nothing better to do had a brain fart and his supervising Professor was a moron – but a non-lethal research on an endangered species.
“Fish-poop” – even more so (16% of the carbon flux into the deeper ocean), so quite substantial in terms of carbon fluxes, however not to the scale that would bring us to netzero as the Fox News story once dreamed…
And then there are larvaceans and their “snot houses”:
-“The Vital Role Giant Larvaceans’ Mucus Plays in the Ocean Carbon Cycle”
Shush… ;)
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/natural-gas-industry-has-methane-problem
” Old oil and gas sites are a climate menace. Meet the company that owns more of America’s decaying wells than any other…”
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/diversified-energy-natural-gas-wells-methane-leaks-2021/
Don’t worry, Mr Biden is the chief in command leading the war on climate change:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/11/02/biden-targets-forest-protection-methane-emissions-day-2-cop-26/6239713001/
I think we have convinced ourselves gas is ok because its not as bad as burning coal. I think that story is slowly unravelling. Bit by bit.
@ Dougie
I tend to believe that this is a bit misconsceived.
Consumer gas is normally given a mercaptan or sinapis oil component so that people will smell leaks.
But leaks along the large and long distance pipelines are fameous, and even conscidered and calculated. There are flowmeters at both ends and all the way between.
And who are the largest consumers? I would guess the industries and the power stations. hardly all the small and private kitchen stoves.
The big brothers may also take their share and blame it on the housemaids.
There is also traditional cleptocracy and mania along with the pipelines. . I saw from Ukraina some years ago that gas meant for EU through Ukraina did not all end up at the paying customer. Some people drill up holes underway and have free gas. The russians even threatened with turning off the gas due to that among traditional brothers..
Oh wait:
” 6.1.2022 – Biden’s 2022 climate test
In 2021, President Biden took much-needed steps to tackle climate change and reverse four years of fossil fuel largesse from former President Trump.
Biden’s task for 2022: Prove to the country and the world that the United States can achieve his goal of cutting emissions in half this decade.
One key test of Biden’s climate resolve in 2022: liquified natural gas (LNG)…”
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/588581-bidens-2022-climate-test
Climate test failed:
” 27.1.2022 – Biden outpaces Trump in issuing drilling permits on public lands
– The widening gulf between the president’s policies on oil, gas and coal extraction and his initial promises has raised questions about his climate goals –
After years of federal lease sales to oil, gas and coal companies, environmentalists had hopes that President Biden would end the fossil fuel bonanza.
But one year after announcing a halt to any new federal oil and gas leasing, Biden has outpaced Donald Trump in issuing drilling permits on public lands. After setting a record for the largest offshore lease sale last year in the Gulf of Mexico, the Interior Department plans to auction off oil and gas drilling rights on more than 200,000 acres across Western states by the end of March, followed by 1 million acres in the Cook Inlet, off the coast of Alaska…”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/27/oil-gas-leasing-biden-climate/
Biden’s “war on climate change” appears to be fuel to the Fire :P
Quote Biden:
“Let’s go Brandon!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETmlD0l4T3Y
I mean, this about GAS, CH4 = up to 100 times higher climate impact than CO2. Obama and Trump already fueled that methane Fire and Biden is outpacing both, lmfao. And Germany made the Northstream 2 gas deal with Putin, lol, with Putin, lol, with Putin.
“facepalm, shrug”
Btw, have you ever seen this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HHqcr43qr0
Addendum:
” 29.01.2022 – Progressive Dems Distance Themselves As Biden Turns Radioactive
… According to a Pew Research Center survey released on Wednesady, Biden’s approval rating now stands at 41% – plummeting from 59% last April…
Whoever’s to blame, Democrats have a hard road ahead into this year’s midterm elections.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/progressive-dems-distance-themselves-biden-approval-goes-radioactive
Good luck, dems, tough times ahead.
There’s a lot of focus on the Dems–understandable, since they are the ruling party federally, albeit just barely.
However, the GOP is busily digging themselves a very, very deep hole. It’s not showing in the polls at present–but it will when they have to present actual candidates and policies.
@Kevin
Whatever, I don’t trust any politician, I’m a strict nonvoter resp I always vote for the Forces Of Nature, they never disappointed me, they never let me down.
You’re the eternal optimist Kevin.
Not only that the Dems can beat the GOP in 2022 but also that doing so would make things better or fix anything in need of fixing. Collapsing bridges aside. :-)
there’s nothing surprising here.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/31/florida-republicans-draconian-bills
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/31/republicans-redistricting-maps-are-motivated-entirely-by-race-not-politics
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/30/georgia-county-purges-democrats-from-election-board-and-cancels-sunday-voting
That the above is happening is far less surprising to me than things like that are allowed to occur within the democratic/judicial system in the first place. It’s the flawed system itself that is far more frightening I think. So more than bridges look like collapsing now.
Looks like a democracy in name only, more like autocratic Russia than real democracies elsewhere.
And still no one says a word about the 2020 election where turnout increased from 55% to a record 66% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
Obama held the record for most votes in 2008 of 69,498,516 …. in 2020 Donald Trump blew that out of the water gaining 74,216,154 votes. But Biden did even better with the biggest spike in votes ever recorded – 81,268,924.
When HRC ran in 2016 she topped the vote with 65,853,514 (second only to Obama) and yet still lost. Biden beat her numbers by 15,415,410 …… smashing all known records, reason, logic and expectations (including the Polls!)
In 4 years the combined presidential vote went from 128,838,342 to 155,485,078 in total. A growth of 20% or an extra 26,646,736 people who probably had never voted before.
A number that I suggest is unbelievable, unrealistic, and not credible. That extra 26.6 million is more than half the Votes that GW Bush and Al Gore each got in 2000. :-)
81,268,924 solid Democrat/Biden voters in 2020 with 155 million all up? I wonder how many will “turn out” or “be recorded” as votes in 2022 mid-terms? Might break a new record again. But we can always blame Russia or China of course! Because Americans will believe almost anything except the truth. :-)
Digging holes has always benefitted them, so…?
We all need some comfort every now and then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtsXjHk2ZsI
On this page there are 56 matches for ‘Killian’ indicating there are some extremely unstable obsessive compulsive people posting offensive abuse and insults at will and lying about others using slander and distortions. Typically known as Trolls they are Trolling for attention and hoping to start Flame Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)
On similar forums this would be totally unacceptable, but here it seems to be tolerated and actually encouraged. How embarrassing for everyone. Especially those using their real names.
XRRC. It is just people who disagree with Killians views. Thats how science is done. And people responding because they are tired of his personal abuse and misrepresentations. Maybe you stick up for the underdog and anti capitalist and good on you, but debating things is not trolling or flame wars.
I stick up for what’s true, accurate, ethical and decent.
Nigel,
It’s just Killian disagreeing with other people’s views. Yours included. So what is the big deal in that? That’s how ‘science’ is done. Is that what it is? Are we doing ‘science’ here are we? Really?
If you feel Killian is being abusive, misrepresenting others, or harassing/picking on you then why not complain to the Moderators?
Oh, r i g h t. That will not solve or change anything. :-)
But Killian debating things and pointing out others’ opinions are wrong or different / lacking in some way, in his opinion, is not trolling or flame wars. Right?
XRRC, I’m not too clear on what you are saying. I agree with that sarcastic quip at the end about complaining to the moderators not changing anything! And believe me I’ve tried recently, although as a general complaint rather than just against one person.
The point I was trying to make is you have effectively accused an enormous number of people on this page of being abusive, trolls and liars without providing one single iota of proof or even an example. That’s unfair to do that and I disagree with your assessment as well. In almost all cases they appear to me to be simply disagreeing with Killians views, and the worst I see is sarcasm. I’m saying that level of reasonably civil disagreement and criticism is how science is done and its largely healthy.
Now SOME of the scientists on this website get a bit blunt, and could maybe use a bit more diplomacy to smooth the waters, for example by finding a couple of points of agreement. And MAR sometimes overdoes the name calling. BUT by far the most really toxic comments on this website routinely come from Killian. I’ve quoted just a few examples in my other posts on this page. I cant see how you would argue against them, because you have complained when people use the same language directed at you! And by far the most complaints are against Killian.
I’m not claiming I’m perfect, but I do control my temper ok. For example I don’t run around calling every second person a liar or fool or their writings infantile idiocy, (although I might think it about a few people particularly the denialists).
And Killian’s constant claims of “strawmen” seem overdone and often inaccurate to me. I participate in several forums and I see far worse.
“XRRC. It is just people who disagree with Killians views.”
LOL… so many different kinds of lies inherent in that one sentence.
XR RC Rocks,
There are actually a few more instances of “Killian” down this thread as the total has now increased to 71 found associated with 45 comments posted by six commenters. (And this comment itself would make it 74 and 46.)
The idea that this level of “Killian” indicates “extremely unstable obsessive compulsive people posting offensive abuse and insults at will and lying about others using slander and distortions” is probably true as the majority of these 45 comments are from Killian who fits your description rather well. And of course, another of those six commenters is “XR RC Rocks” who may not be one-&-the-same with XRRC (which presumably derives from XR=eXtinction Rebellion RC=RealClimate) or it maybe a sock puppet for another.
It is what it is.
Killian @ 28 JAN 2022 AT 5:18 AM
“nigel, you are so dishonest. Go back and read the craptastic, hyper-conservative comments on climate from 2016/17. Maybe it will help you be honest about who has educated whom.”
Killian appears to be suggesting I made hyper conservative comments on the climate issue in 2016 and that I have since changed my mind due to his “education”.
Complete rubbish made without any evidence. I have always stated the climate change problem is serious and likely to be towards the upper range of predictions. I have not changed that view. Clearly that position is not conservative let alone “hyper conservative”. I have always stated on this website that sea level rise could be 2 metres per century. Does that sound “hyper conservative”?
Back around 2016 I did post some comments here suggesting that the most extreme fringe views on climate change lack credibility and I still hold to that. These include predictions sea level could rise 6 metres per century, and climate change could kill billions of people within ten years. In Killians strange little world he appears to think this makes me “hyper conservative”. Yawn. Sounds to me like hes become detached from reality.
The only “education” Ive got from killian is some of the material on permaculture and regenerative farming, that is easily googled anyway. I guess he makes some good points on that, but IMHO he posts a lot of other nonsense in between those things. And his tendency to falsely accuse people of being liars, made with no hard evidence, is just toxic.