Hey barton paul, thanks for the completely irrelevant reference & out of context distraction to what I actually said and why and what it meant based on was written communicated by scientists in those articles about those Ocean Models.
XRRC: So…. you don’t read the links, but that equals Rocks not giving you context? That is, because you want to get in a personal attack, you gaslight?
BPL: So… you post something stupid, rely on the links to provide any context, and people take you at your word and respond? That is, because you want to get in a personal attack, you gaslight?
“Here we show that in the aftermath of the record-breaking marine heatwave on the Great Barrier Reef in 20162, corals began to die immediately on reefs where the accumulated heat exposure exceeded a critical threshold of degree heating weeks, which was 3–4 °C-weeks. After eight months, an exposure of 6 °C-weeks or more drove an unprecedented, regional-scale shift in the composition of coral assemblages, reflecting markedly divergent responses to heat stress by different taxa.”
Yes, true. Good ref. I’m well aware of Terry Hughes and others work on the GBR and what the state of play is on other reefs. The new finely tuned models are helpful. The prognosis was already a catastrophe in the making. Not much time left now.
When the most of the GBR disappears (and the others say in the Carribean, SE Asia and Africa disappear) and doesn’t recover maybe then the world will sit up and take notice?
The people might be shocked and rage and cancel vacations to exotic island resorts that have closed down but I doubt it will change anything even then.
Carbomontanussays
Hr.Rocks
This, I believe , is rather dependent on your own systematic underswtandings and your priorities of what you put together and call your own model understanding and “models” in plural.
And a question also of how precise, representative and accurate you expect it to be.
and also your very conscept of model and models and modeling.
You ideas about this tell more about yourself because, in our days, peoples very ideas of models and modelings since the introduction of IT are rather extreemly inflated, diverging and unprecise.
Having had a lot to do with models and modelings and especially in traditional contexts, I see this and hardly have such problems.
A working and practical “model” should also be adjustable and repairable in an easy and cheap way, else it is of less value for its purpose. That is mostly the case with “models”.
My comment: “The “models” and their “output” are always “changing”, ever moving. Be careful what you believed yesterday, you might be telling porkies today. “ … was simply some lighted humor about an increasingly dire situation.
And a little heads up about how fast things are changing in the post hoc world of data analysis.
The reality isn’t changing … only the latest climate models and the scientific reports and opinions about it are what is changing.
You are again barking up the wrong tree. Stick to wood chopping?
Carbomontanussays
”
Dr. Rocks
The reality isn`t changing…”
Which reality? I can show you and anyone both permanent and changing reality. Your personal choise in that spectrum for your argument tells us more about yourself, as I told everyone.
“Only the latest climate models and the scientific reports and opinions about it are what is changing.”
Again , which latest models and scientific reports and opinions,
I can easily find both very permanent and rigid, and models, scientific reports and opinions about it on moove. So here you also make personal choises and discriminations that tell us more about yourself and less about what there is in reality.
You better betray for us which tree you are barking up into. I could advice you further on that because there I have been very clever and could even teach and advice on it last sunday. To great success, we had to rescue a model up there, Where she rather had to climb up the other and next tree..
And woodchopping, what cracks and splits and why, and what rather keeps and never cracks. as with reality and models quite in general.
Avoid adminestering and teaching on things and subjects to which you are less aquainted.
Also avoid furthering and selling the same.
Killiansays
On just who is and is not toxic, that belongs on the other board. Let me briefly just say I posted the evidence and nobody even tried to disprove it and nigel actually conceded. Seems he’s forgotten this. (Hardly…)
nigeljsays
Killian. I conceded nothing. I suggest you go back to the last months UV page and read my clarification dated 1 FEB 2022 AT 4:37 PM directed at XRRC : To paraphrase this I mentioned that I believed the responses of various people to killian were just healthy criticism of his views, and none of them where trolling, abusive or dishonest. Please read it.
Ray Ladburysays
That’s because we don’t care. The back and forth is boring and unproductive.
Killiansays
Indeed. You’d think you’d/they’d all stop at some point.
As I showed in the past, it didn’t use to be this way and it wasn’t me who started all this.
Why don’t you call for the next reset? I’ve done it several times and it always fails after a short time. People’s habits die hard. Hell, even doing so just starts another flame thread.
Your turn.
(Please do note, until the long-term core starts holding each other accountable, nothing will change. Expecting the vicitims of the bullying to solve it clearly has not worked.)
Vendicar Decariansays
Correct. So the opposition will need to be steemrolled.
XR RC Rocks “29 JAN” “ 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.
At the same time, there were 65 matches for ‘Piotr’. Hmm…
S.B. Ripmansays
An informative article on the synthesis of heat and humidity:
S.B. Ripman,
The paper being described is Song et al (2022) ‘Trends in surface equivalent potential temperature: A more comprehensive metric for global warming and weather extremes>/i> which probably is more to the point than the APNews item.
The paper proposes that ‘temperature’ is less of a good physical measure of AGW because rising temperature brings with it additional humidity that, when combined with temperature, can be seen as showing a ‘tropical amplification’ while temperature alone shows solely ‘arctic amplification,’ this a more interesting aspect of their proposed new AGW metric than their global average values.
imho the metric should always have been atmosphere concentrations. The long goal should be sub 350 ppm of CO2. Today’s should be whatever you do do not breach 430 ppm CO2 (or 450 max in an emergency).
Everything else, all other Climate Forcings, flow from those atmos levels, including humidity. Just ask a climate modeller what drives everything else besides the incoming energy from the Sun. And volcanic activity of course.
Global Mean Average Temperature yardsticks are ridiculous, and nebulous. Quite unscientific when it comes to goal setting clear climate goals and yardsticks. They always have been in my view – like no ones cares, of course.
But the Politicians the elites the fossil energy companies and the financiers people who run this world thought this average temperature business is a winner. Plus 2, 3 or 4 degrees sounds like nothing. Especially goals of Net Zero CO2 emissions to get to sub 1.5C by 2050…. while CO2 goes to 500 ppm in the meantime.
Tails wagging the Dog.
Carbomontanussays
“Global Mean Average Temperature yardstickis are ridiculous and nebulous….”
Here you must learn quite a bit more..
There is no temperature in a point. Any taken or measured temperature is a mean temperature in some kind of a way. That is as much as the very nature of temperatures.
Moral: Therefore you must also learn about how to measure, to compute, and to discuss and even to make mean temperatures.
Temperatures may flatter and vary greatly locally and in minute detail and not be reliable or representative Data for the whole., Knowing the sum and mean of it over the whole system or calorimeter or time that is to be conscidered, is therefore often quite important.
XRRC: Global Mean Average Temperature yardsticks are ridiculous, and nebulous.
BPL: Thanks for the common denialist talking point. In reality, of course, mean global annual surface temperature is a well-defined quantity used in planetary astronomy as well as climatology.
BPL: Thanks for the common denialist talking point.
Gaslighting again.
In regards to GOAL SETTING, which is the context Dearly, the GMST have been ignored for 30 years already. They will be ignored, dissembled and manipulated for another 30 years as well.
That is what makes them ridiculous and nebulous in my view.
BPL: In reality, of course, mean global annual surface temperature is a well-defined quantity used in planetary astronomy as well as climatology.
Did I say or indicate that climate scientists et al should stop monitoring those GMST temperatures or stop using them in the models or any other scientific records and analysis?
No I did not.
Did I say GMST have no meaning or use?
No I did not.
But Barton Paul suggests I so intended and am pushing denialists tropes.
Again he is wrong.
Unfortunately Barton Paul misrepresents what was said and intended. Frankly he gets so many things wrong his commentary here cannot ever be trusted.
nigeljsays
XRRC
I did read his “Global Mean Average Temperature yardsticks are ridiculous” as relating to goal setting, but XRRCs writing style is awfully open to interpretation. By being so shouty to grab attention he just generates a certain lack of clarity. So I dont agree that anyone has misrepresented him. At worst they have misinterpreted him.
He should have said something like “while the global mean temperature is essential data, its the absolute wrong choice in terms of goal setting…..”
“Plus 2, 3 or 4 degrees sounds like nothing. ”
This is arguably true, but how does 250, 400, or 500 “”PARTS PER MILLION” ” of CO2 sound like something more? It feeds the denialists tiny little trace gas meme! And at least the average person can relate to temperatures.
IMHO the problem isnt really the science and how its expressed. I dont believe there is a different way of doing it that will have a big impact. The problem is peoples complacency, poor education, and the way our brains are fine tuned to register big immediate dangers like covid with hospitals overwhelmed, and not so much slowly unfolding serious train wrecks like the climate problem.
Of course sometimes individual scientists could write things better. like anyone, I can recall a few examples in our media.
Killiansays
Yeah, BPL takes a dislike to people or their positions, which become one and the same, and forever has biased, thus irrational, feedback where that poster is concerned.
Here, you state the stats are useless as “yardsticks” not useless as DATA or INFO. This is a point I have long made: As regards informing the public and motivating change, average temps have very limited utility. The framing for climate *should be* strongly focused on long-tail events and long-term outcomes. This is, even if one disagrees with it, a viable argument.
K: BPL takes a dislike to people or their positions, which become one and the same, and forever has biased, thus irrational, feedback where that poster is concerned.
BPL: Classic example of projection there, Killian. But ten out of ten for saying “one and the same” instead of “one in the same.” You’re a step above most internet nut cases.
Killiansays
Such an excellent example of your years-long trolling.
Keep it up. It’s not as if the ecosystem is collapsing or anything,
John Pollacksays
Thanks for the link! AP had to struggle with a concept mostly used by meteorologists. I found the breakout in thetae warming to be quite helpful. Most sobering was the rapid rise in thetae relative to surface air temperature, and the very strong increase in wet bulb surface temperature already being observed, and implied for the future.
In simpler terms, it’s the heat AND the (absolute) humidity. Both are rising, and faster than air temperature alone. They act together, and it matters in both heat waves and precipitation extremes, as well as thunderstorms and tropical cyclones.
Carbomontanussays
@ all and everyone
Shall we discuss plastics or anything else?
russellsays
No,
Carbomontanussays
Ok. So, we should neither discuss plastics nor anything else.
Well, that also seems to be the way it has become.
Piotrsays
Not, unless you can connect your plastics to SIGNIFICANT impact on the subject of this forum – “climate”.
nigeljsays
Piotr. True. There does seem to be a significant connection between plastics and climate change, as per my link at the top of the page:
Plastic production is the last gasp of the
fossil fuel industry.
Made from a combination of chemicals and
fossil fuels, plastic produces greenhouse gas
emissions at every stage of its life cycle. To
provide context, if plastic were a country, it
would be the world’s fifth largest greenhouse
gas emitter, beating out all but China, the
U.S., India and Russia1.
Although obviously this is well behind burning fossil fuels for energy, so they are the main culprit. I was just surprised by just how significant the contribution of plastics actually is.
And unlike coal burning for energy, plastic manufacture is growing. (Same source nigel already posted.)
Piotrsays
Nigel, Feb.7 “ There does seem to be a significant connection between plastics and climate change, as per my link at the top of the page […] Although obviously this is well behind burning fossil fuels for energy”
Which was my point – to warrant discussing it on _this_ forum – it should have comparable impact on the climate as fossil fuels. From your source – it has not: less than 5% of global GHG emissions.
Mikesays
Ocean temp article in Guardian, from study at PLOS
THnaks, I saw that and moved on as it seemed to “normal” and expected to me.
I did share some links here last month at the same time about how this rapid increase in heat was impacting coral reefs and what their imminent loss means for the world and oceans biosphere/life
The other looming record barrier to cross is +2C average on land surface globally. Been some chatter about that. There’s too many new records and plateaus being permanently broken to keep track of or share.
While few remember or care about what happened at COP26 or the AR6 WGI anymore … it’s old hat and boring.
But parties at #10 and the latest Trump news bring it on baby!!! :-)
If you take current warming, hit net zero tomorrow morning and wait a couple of weeks, we would global temps jump several tenths of a degree because the particulate pollution is functioning as solar radiation management and is artificially tamping global temps down.
I agree but more so. Coral reefs are not on Death Row, they are “Dead man walking”.
Their last night and there’s no governor to call it off.
Eh, if we (well, those who come after us) get things under controll aquariums can regenerate reefs.
Piotrsays
XR RC Rocks “29 JAN” “ 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.
At the same time, there were 65 matches for ‘Piotr’. Hmm…
In addition to Komsomolets Island, methane is emitted by an unknown source in the north of Alaska, a small source in the eastern Siberian Sea (not always noticeable). There is also a periodic source near the Laborador Sea in shallow water.
Also a noticeable source is permafrost in the north of Siberia and North America during the summer
I watched an interview with a Russian scientist who was engaged in the study of underwater methane. He said that this is only a couple of percent of the total emissions. But I think there are more
Great video with Igor Semiletov to see what he and others were talking about in papers several years ago live beside the ship is really good. this section here was particularly good and sensible.
Thank you.
WWW. A satelite finds massive methane leaks from gas pipelines
And it leads further to an article in “SCIENCE”, the magazine …Oil and gas methane ultra emitters.
ESA seems to have that satelite.
This seems now to be what really matters and acutely..
Gas pipeline sources seem often to be found quite open.
That must be the Poetic Engineers because, As I have come to know them in recent days, I can hardly believe that the nuclears behave much better on their side.
Because ERRARE HVMANVM EST and so on.
Someone mentioned housemaids having tiny gas leaks in their kitchens, last week.
Which is a so called “red herring” it seems, when we get to know this rather from “SCIENCE”
The News article is good. It’s not a new issue though. Leaking gas emissions has been a long term issue. Gas Fracking wells are particularly prone to leaking from the ground. Especially the under reporting and lack of evidence (poor efforts and denial by energy companies) it was happening. The satellites obviously help. They always do. Fossil fuel companies and the rest always lie or discombobulate obscure what is really happening since the East India Company was formed.
But what does any of that report or the science paper have to do with the arctic area and the source of the large Komsomolets Island plumes in particular, and Observers new info or anything I said?
maybe nothing and your simply sharing the news info which is good.
So once again the Peanut Gallery descends on an innocent, science-based observation and attempts to viscerate it – more accurately, me – and end up looking like the trolls they are.
This behavior of the Peanut Gallery trolling these boards trying to run people off who don’t agree with their very conservative scientific views and/or outright bullying for the hell of it, really must be reigned in by the hosts.
I’d agree to never be a poster here again if they’d turn over moderation to me to…
1. Bore Hole all denial.
2. Bore Hole all racism.
3. Bore Hole all bullying.
4. Ban/Delete the posts of repeat offenders.
As a teacher/counselor/activist/father/analyst/futurist, etc., I am used to shifting my own actions to fit contexts. This makes me an excellent moderator as I can adapt to any set of rules a given site may want enforced because of my own experiences with shifting modes, but more so because when I am moderating *for* others I take it very seriously that I am managing *their* space and have no right to impose my views on moderation on the hosts.
Will never happen, but would improve the site 1,000%.
Whereas Barton 2 and 3 and 4 would result in you being bore holed and banned.
Maybe quit while you’re ahead? Order up some humble pie.
Carbomontanussays
Hr. Levenson
Are you some of the fameous “square- heads” from the midwest, Dakota and Minesota, mostly swedes and norwegians and pioneers in the US order and prohibition moovement, white of course and “evangelicals” or at least forcefully drilled and brought up by them?
Russellsays
The prospect of Peak Bore is far scarier than Hubbert’s peak, for as the blogosphere expands , the supply of bores becomes infinite in all directions
Richard the Weaversays
I don’t see why that matters. Well, it does, but in the opposite way. As you suggest, Killian might be an abrasive poster, but doesn’t that just add to his offer’s appeal?
Killian might make a grand acting moderator, subject to the direction of the mods themselves
I think his offer bears pondering. Yeah, the mods would have to provide direction and correction at first, but there’s a lot of potential upside and the downside – uh, we’re near plug-pulling.
What say you, you all?
Me? I think the system needs a rewrite. But actual moderation by someone like Killian would greatly improve the site.
But I’d miss Killian’s take on things. Maybe let him post but have Nigel moderate Killian’s posts!
Carbomontanussays
I must confess that I agree 103% with Hr.Levenson here, and maybe Killian should stick to his own promise and emigrate to somewhere, to start a new and better life there
instead of applying for a position as SENSOR behind the iron curtain..
Who is traditionally known for his being mad and drunk regardless.
nigeljsays
Killian do website moderation? Ha ha ha. Goodbye to free speech. Killian should stay with talking about ‘permaculture’.
BRIAN C DODGEsays
I’ve often wondered if the bubbling of methane along the edge of the relict permafrost on the East Siberian Shelf could entrain warmer saltier “meltier” water and upwell it to the bottom of the sea ice, creating the thinner easily cracked streak in arctic ice visible in satellite images. (running east from the New Siberian islands to south of Wrangell island) https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=-2437557.01010101,1034496,173642.9898989899,2339072&p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_All(hidden),VIIRS_NOAA20_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_All(hidden),MODIS_Combined_Thermal_Anomalies_All,Reference_Labels_15m,Reference_Features_15m,Coastlines_15m,VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,VIIRS_NOAA20_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor&lg=true&t=2021-04-03-T07%3A35%3A56Z
B.C DODGE: “I’ve often wondered if the bubbling of methane along the edge of the relict permafrost on the East Siberian Shelf could entrain warmer saltier “meltier” water and upwell it to the bottom of the sea ice”
1. How exactly would this entrainment work? Wouldn’t the bubble of methane just rise through the water column leaving your warmer saltier water behind?
See the old-diver wives wisdom: “ don’t ascend faster than the smallest bubbles around you. That works out to roughly 1 foot per second, or 60 feet a minute“. Bubbles larger than that rise even faster, bubbles smaller than that are probably collapsed by the surface tension.
2. I doubt whether there is enough of it – CH4 in subsea permafrost makes up less than 0.25% of Arctic ocean CH4 hydrates.
3. Unlike the vulnerable upper slope CH4 hydrate, the relict permafrost is not very exposed to the overlying waters. If it were, then your “ warmer saltier “meltier” water would have melted it long time ago.
Carbomontanussays
Hr Piotr
I have a measure. The storegga tsunami, an underwater landslide at Stor- egga ( Great edge), edge of the continental shelf west of Norway, and the largest such underwater avalanche known in the world.
It was due to loosening of methanhydrat in the glacial silt sediments, and occured at max holocene, 8000 years ago 6000 BC.
The temperature went up and the grear glacier vanished 11000 BC so there we have a measure of how fast sea temperature rising creeps downwards in the sea sediments and eventual permafrosts ande icy things.. Rapid temperature rise like we have it today may take 2-3000 years.before the methanhydrates blow up.
nigeljsays
Would undersea volcanic/ geothermal activity effects on undersea permafrost or methane hydrates, explain these very localised methane out-gassings around these Islands ?
Piotrsays
Nigel: “Would undersea volcanic/ geothermal activity effects on undersea permafrost or methane hydrates, explain these very localised methane out-gassings
I doubt it – volcanic and geothermal activity are primarily associated with mid-ocean ridges
and the nearest one is quite the distance from these islands so no direct impact. If there were water plumes of water from Gakkel Ridge, which then were advected toward the continental slope where it could have warmed the water and destabilized the upper continental slope hydrates. But would require changes in the volcanic activity and the plumes moving in the just right directions. A change in the currents due to climate change sounds much more likely to me. That or something happens on the islands them selves – although these being a winter does not bode well for the argument that it is the island melting permafrost, So perhaps human activities, military or civilian, in those areas (they do mine gold in the southern part of the archipelago)
Piotrsays
Observer: “I found an old 2018 map of methane emissions. There were no leaks from Komsomolets Island on it. So this is a recent source.”
It seems to be extremely intermittent – it wasn’t there for MOST of January 2022 – so in your 2018 it could have been easily missed, if 2018 map was a snapshot, or diluted by averaging out – if the map was a longer term average.
There is also a periodic source near the Labrador Sea in shallow water
There are natural seepages of hydrocarbons in there – although I doubt yours would be related to climate change – the vulnerable to climate change methane hydrates are in the upper part of the continental slope – i.e. NOT in “shallow water”.
Observersays
You’re not right. Methane emissions from Komsomolets Island were throughout January. But on the 20th of January, a strong cyclone came to the Arctic from the Atlantic, which blew methane
Piotrsays
Observer: “ You’re not right. Methane emissions from Komsomolets Island were throughout January.”
Not really – I checked it several times after the first week of January, and most of the time they were not there. Nor they are now (Feb.4-Feb.7) although this may be a result of the data
that now are close to the end of scale in most of the map – so even if there were local emission they may not show up.
Observer: “But on the 20th of January, a strong cyclone came to the Arctic from the Atlantic, which blew methane”
Which only supports my earlier point – if a weather system was enough to erase any evidence of these emissions after Jan. 20, 2022 – then how do you know that another system didn’t do the same to the emissions from the time when your 2018 map was produced? If you can’t exclude this possibility – then your claim of a CHANGE (no emissions in 2018, emissions in 2022) is not proven.
The only way you could prove it would be if you controlled your data for the passage of weather systems, OR if you took (multi?) year averages and assuming that the number of weather systems was comparable, the average emissions in 2022 were higher than in 2018.
But to see the TREND IN the ( (multi?) year averages, the emissions in 2022 would have to be massive to punch through diluting effect of the weather systems. The early January 2022 emissions, although interesting – did not seem massive enough.
Observersays
The cyclone was blowing a plume of methane over the islands. But points of high concentration over Komsomolets Island remained. They could also be masked by a plume of methane from gas fields in northern Siberia, which were also blown in arctic by this cyclone.
Now in that part of the Arctic it is calm and we again see a plume of high concentrations of methane. But according to forecasts, a cyclone will come there again
Piotrsays
Observer Feb. 8 “The cyclone was blowing a plume of methane over the islands.
Huh? You had ALREADY said it in your Feb. 5 post. and I have ALREADY USED this information AGAINST your initial claim (in my post from Feb.7 to which you respond).
Since you missed it in my previous post – let me rephrase. The vulnerability of the CH4 signal to being FREQUENTLY obscured by the weather systems you speak off applies NOT ONLY to 2022 but also to 2018. Hence your cyclones make you original conjecture:
“I found an old 2018 map of methane emissions. There were no leaks from Komsomolets Island on it. So this is a recent source”
WEAKER, not stronger – since you unwittingly strengthened the possibility that you didn’t see these emissions on a map from 2018, because it could have been obscured by your very frequent “cyclones” and “plume of methane from gas fields in northern Siberia”. So much for your conclusion: “ So this is a recent source”. It may be or may not – you simply don’t know it, and, certainly, didn’t prove it. Getting ahead of the data.
Observersays
I don’t know where you got the data from, but the point with a high concentration of methane over Komsomolets Island has always been at least since January 15, even with wind. I didn’t watch before. In the link above there is a channel on YouTube where a woman has been streaming since the end of 2018 and Copernicus data is shown. I will review these videos in the coming days and see if there was anything there.
Here is youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWUv7ljACuMUxDFuReKdz1Q
Piotrsays
Observer 9 FEB: “I don’t know where you got the data from”
Since I am commenting YOUR claims – the answer is: “from Observer, Feb. 5 “.
Observer 9Feb:” high concentration of methane over Komsomolets Island has always been at least since January 15, even with wind”
And that’s why …. 4 days earlier you said that it …wasn’t there … because it was blown away by …the wind? I quote: “But on the 20th of January, a strong cyclone came to the Arctic from the Atlantic, which blew methane” Observer Feb 5
So which is it? What you said on Feb 5 or the opposite you are claiming on Feb 9 ? You can’t seriously expect a productive discussion, if you change your facts after your interpretation of them has been challenged.
To spare you discovering the wheel – we don’t discuss WHETHER there is a CH4 source near/on the Komsomolets in winter of 2022 – what I contest is your claim “ So this is a recent source”. you BASED on a … SINGLE-day and from a … different season (May of 2018). As I said in my previous post:
“It may be or may not – you simply don’t know it, and, certainly, didn’t prove it. Getting ahead of the data.”
UAH TLT has been posted for January with a global anomaly of +0.03ºC, down on December’s anomaly of +0.21ºC making Jan 2022 the lowest monthly anomaly in all-of seven months (since the -0.01ºC of June last year).
Jan 2022 becomes the 17th warmest January on the UAH TLT record and the coldest January on UAH TLT since the -0.34ºC of Jan 2012 (which was the =35th warmest January out of the 44 Januarys on record).
As the TLT temperature is waggled so much by ENSO, the comparison with 2012 is possibly not inappropriate given the similarity between the MEI values of recent months and those back in 2012 which was then also showing the previous 19 months with La Niña conditions. So the drop in TLT to =161st lowest monthly anomaly on the UAH TLT record is not anything exceptional.
Mind, up in the Arctic, the Sea Ice Extent has seen an exceptional month.
Average JAXA SIE levels for the month of January (NSIDC graphic for Jan 1979-2021) were showing a pretty tight linear rate of decline of 56k sq km/year for the period 1979-2018, the variation from that linear trend showing an s.d. of 200k sq km . The recent Januarys of 2019-21 were all much icier that decline at 1.7sd/2.2sd, enough to reduce the 1989-2021 linear rate of decline to 53k/y. But what is now exceptional is the Jan 2022 SIE which is the most icy January since 2009 and sitting 3.5sd icier than the 1989-2018 trend and the full not-so-linear trend is now 50k/y for 1979-2022.
nigeljsays
Realclimate.org says “Please be constructive, non-abusive and on-topic.” And then publishes comments like this for example: “Straw Man stupid….The world burns, you mewl like a an adult with an infant’s intellect…. Liar….What a tool…” (By Killian in various posts on lasts months UV thread. He is certainly not the only offender, but he is rather….extreme).
Isn’t that all just very inconsistent? How does it reflect on your websites reputation, ethics, and perceptions of your scientific consistency? Not suggesting we have to be painfully polite either. But there is something to be said for deleting the worst stuff.
Carbomontanussays
Nigelj
“Be constructive…. on topic..”
An old rule says that when the crib is empty, the horses begin to bite. And unemployment is the root of all evil
5 men who have to lift and moove a stone weighing 2 metric tons never discuss “cooperation”.
But when that huge stone weighing………. is not there, they may begin to quarrel.
Mr. Know It Allsays
I’m with Gavin and the moderators. There are too many comments to waste time reading all of them. If they followed the rules, there might only be a half dozen comments allowed each month! Everyone is breaking the rules.
Mr. Know It Allsays
The poor quality of comments is a reflection of the people typing them, not a reflection of this website.
RC provides the white board. Commenters are the ones filling it with crap.
Carbomontanussays
Mr.Knowitall
Here I have a comment.
I have been at several “social” websites with intense “Moderators”, obviously unqualified- quite stupid also. The “debate” went rotten and they soon sink and shrink together and vanish. At other websites there is hardly “moderation” at all, There it seems as if the participants must moderate themselves more or less. Often people begin to discuss things quite off topic, but that is normjal. They rather find their own and common social interests. They get in touch and get friends with each other due to common interests or experience of quite other kind. No “moderator” can possibly guess and administer that. Lets say they rather need to discuss their wives and their cats and apple trees, wolves and bears in their gardens, and fiddlers on their roof, ,that is off topic.
Wherefore I remind of the Krjemlin syndrom and that of an unhealthy, hardly sustainable society. That seems to develop simply due to strict “moderation” and SENSORship. The very society and its necessary “debate”, freedom of thought and of speech suffocates..
I cannot use anybodys deodorant or barber soap, wherefore there must be diversity and availability in society. Typical of Tyranny is that you can hardly get even quite trivial things that you actually need without stealing it or buying it on the secret and black market. There is lack of communication, distribution, and freedom first of all, that develops into kleptocracy and oligarchy.
Carbomontanussays
Yes!
So what shall we do with the drunken sailor…. early in the mornig?.
And there may be more of them.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Still makin’ ice in the far north. Let’s go camping. Who’s in?
Nornickel is the largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the Arctic. An average of 2 megatons of sulfur dioxide per year. In 2023 it is planned to reduce emissions by 50% in 2025 by 90%. The first trial smell of sulfuric acid production will take place in the summer and autumn of 2022. Sulfuric acid will be neutralized with limestone (calcium carbonate). Gypsum will be piled up in dumps
Rapid cuts in emissions could cause rapid Arctic warming and ice melt
In March 2021, emissions on the Kola Peninsula are reduced by 85%. About 100-200 kilotons
In June 2021, there was an abnormal heat wave in the north of European Russia. In Karelia it was about 32 degrees Celsius. In St. Petersburg, up to 38. This is hotter than in the south of the country due to midnight sun and anticyclone. Emission reduction could have played a role in this
Abnormal heat led to wildfire in Karelia
Nornickel is committed to environmentally responsible production of metals and for many years has invested substantial resources in a bid to cut hazardous emissions at its facilities. A big part of this effort is the Sulphur Programme — Nornickel’s largest and most significant environmental endeavor that will allow us to cut sulphur dioxide emissions in Norilsk by 90% in five years. We are fully committed to completing this project on time.
https://www.nornickel.com/sustainability/environment/sulphur/
Sulphur Programme (Polar division)
This is a large-scale environmental project designed to capture sulphur dioxide emissions at the Nadezhda Metallurgical Plant and the Copper Plant (both part of Nornickel’s Polar Division), dramatically reducing emissions.
Location: Norilsk Industrial District, Krasnoyarsk Region (Polar Division)
Project overview: The project will be phased in at Nornickel’s two core downstream facilities in the Norilsk Industrial District as follows:
Nadezhda Metallurgical Plant
Phase 1: The recovery of gases at Nadezhda and the establishment of acid neutralisation facilities (including gypsum storage and related infrastructure) —to be completed by 2023
Phase 2: The expansion of neutralisation infrastructure (for sulphuric acid from Cu stream) — to be completed by 2025
Copper Plant
Phase 1: Preparatory work and retrofitting of the gas-cleaning unit — to be completed by 2023
Phase 2: Recovery of sulphur dioxide from rich off-gases at sulphuric facilities, reduction of Copper Plant’s emissions to the maximum allowable limits, and the discontinuing of converter operations with sulphur-poor gases — to be completed by 2025
Sulphur Programme (Kola Division)
The Sulphur Programme at Kola MMC focuses on the closure of the obsolete production shop in Nickel town (near the Norwegian border) and downstream modernization in Monchegorsk. These activities will completely eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions in the Russia-Norway border area and significantly reduce adverse environment impact in Monchegorsk.
Location: Nickel settlement, Monchegorsk, Murmansk Region
Project overview: The project envisages the construction of a 200 kt dry concentrate loading point, the upgrade of the flotation circuit at the Zapolyarny Concentrator to allow for production of two types of copper nickel concentrate, and the complete shutdown of smelting operations in Nickel. The new facility will separate high-grade concentrate and low-grade concentrate, ready to be shipped to third-party consumers. After all smelting operations are shut down, the employees will be offered jobs at other Nornickel enterprises.
Progress:
December 2020 — Nornickel shuts down smelter in Nickel town
March 2021 — Nornickel cut emissions at Kola Peninsula by 85% in 2021
Carbomontanussays
Yes.
But this resembles planned economy and futurism of the late soviet union in the same landscape and under Stalin and further on, The fameous futural wiew of the party and its science and system in its fameous 5-year- plans.
Based on the current resource consumption rates and best estimate of technological rate growth our study shows that we have very low probability, less than 10% in most optimistic estimate, to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse.
…Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilisation
As I have said, we have no choice. Any solution that ignores this risk assessment is a poor solution pathway.
John Diehlsays
The paper you cite states, “Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million Km^2 of forests around the world were cut down (10) which amounts to 2 × 10^5 Km2 per year.” The authors estimate global forest cover will continue to decline in the next century.
The 2.3 million Km^2 loss comes from a NASA article in 2013: “During that period [2000 to 2012], 888,000 square miles (2.3 million square kilometers) of forest was lost, and 308,900 square miles (0.8 million square kilometers) regrew.” https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11393
In contrast, a 2018 paper in Nature says that forest cover has increased. “Here we analyze 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally (5)—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km^2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
It’s pay-walled so I haven’t read it.
I’m guessing that studies based on satellite images are more reliable than what the UN is reporting.
The UN’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 (FRA 2020) states that, “global forest area declined by about 178 million ha… in the 30 years from 1990 to 2020…” But they warn, “although reporting on forest area has generally improved, relatively few countries and territories have reliable data over the
period”, so “trends … should be treated with caution.” https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9825en
The UN defines “forest” as “Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ.” https://fra-data.fao.org/definitions/en/tad#1a
Killiansays
Denialist or thinking you are clarifying? Unclear. What is clear: Trees do not = forests.
Mr. Know It Allsays
In economics, the bubble is the problem, the collapse is the solution. Probably the same in ecosystems.
Mr, Thinks He Know Ecosystems: Feb.9: “In economics, the bubble is the problem, the collapse is the solution. Probably the same in ecosystems”
Be more specific – which ecosystems you know experience the “bubble” that would them make a good analogy to economics? Too many right whales? Too many orangutans? Too many great auks?
The only ecosystem to which you brilliant analogy applies seem to be the human civilization. So are you volunteering to forfeit the lives of you and your children to bring about the so-needed collapse?
Or do you expect children of other people to die as a part of your “solution”?
Richard the Weaversays
Ah, squabbling about squabbling. If only there was a “one week suspension for any negative post” policy.
Reminds me of a forest. Does a temper tantrum occur if it is sent to the bit bucket? Sounds like a good experiment to try.
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for January showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.28ºC, down a bit on December’s +0.32ºC anomaly and (as it also was in UAH TLT) the lowest monthly anomaly since June 2021.
January becomes the 6th warmest January on the ERA5 record (was 17th warmest in UAH) and the 56th highest all-month anomaly on record (=161st in UAH).
The Hollywood movie Moonfall is a more pure climate-science-fiction film than Don’t Look Up. Discuss.
Nemesissays
Lol, different plot, same ending, quote Roland Emmerich:
” Momentan gibt es noch viele Leute, die den Klimawandel leugnen. Aber in 10, 15, 20 Jahren wird alles so schlimm, dass das niemand mehr abstreiten kann. Die Menschen werden also erst aufwachen, wenn es zu spät ist, denn du kannst das Klima ja nicht einfach so umdrehen.“
Translation:
” At the moment, there are still many people who deny climate change. But in 10, 15, 20 years everything will be so bad that nobody will be able to deny it anymore. So people will only wake up when it’s too late, because you can’t just turn the climate around like that.”
Anyway, I give a fuck ultimately as TPTB are making funny money anyway until no more quickly. Hail the Corona narrative, hail corporate media, hail big pharma, hail the Great Reset, hail RC, hail Comet Dibiasky, HAIL THE FUCKIN BIN ! Thx gavin, I enjoy it like real HELL, walk on, walk on, see you in the Ultimate Bin.
Ich rufe Dich, Nemesis!
Höchste!
Göttlich waltende Königin!
Allsehende, Du überschaust
Der vielstämmigen Sterblichen Leben.
Ewige, Heilige, Deine Freude
Sind allein die Gerechten.
Aber Du hassest der Rede Glast,
Den bunt schillernden, immer wankenden,
Den die Menschen scheuen,
die dem drückenden Joch
Ihren Nacken gebeugt.
Aller Menschen Meinung kennst Du,
Und nimmer entzieht sich Dir die Seele
Hochmütig und stolz
Auf den verschwommenen Schwall der Worte.
In alles schaust Du hinein,
Allem lauschend, alles entscheidend.
Dein ist der Menschen Gericht.
The Moonfall movie gets some stuff right. As the Moon starts getting closer to the Earth, the increased gravitational pull starts creating huge tides (and extreme thermocline tilt, likely creating super El Ninos), while simultaneously sucking the oxygen at upper altitudes. Described in various articles found on the web that are fact-checking the physics
“The first thing you think about is in terms of the tides,” McKinnon explained. The moon’s gravity pulls on the Earth’s water, resulting in two high tides and two low tides per day. (The Sun contributes somewhat, too.) So, in Moonfall, as the moon spirals closer and closer to the Earth in a dance of death and destruction, the lunar gravitational pull on our planet increases, leading to massive floods. The movie features an epic flooding of Los Angeles, thanks to these tides.
We normally think of tides just in terms of water. “But the tides actually also impact the air, the atmosphere, and the rocks,” said McKinnon. “As the moon gets closer, those tides will get stronger and stronger. Suddenly, you’d have high tide and low tide for your air. Places that are higher elevation having low [air] tide means they don’t have enough air anymore.” And indeed, we see this in Moonfall when Tom Lopez (Michael Peña), Sonny Harper (Charlie Plummer), and their companions are forced to find oxygen masks to travel through the mountains in their quest for safety.”
Ok, but why don’t they talk real shit in the movies?:
Fossil fool induced climate heating.
I mean, Roland Emmerich is the man who created “The day after tomorrow”, Stefan Rahmstorf’s favorite movie about the “new ice age”. Now (chinese financed) Emmerich talks about the moon falling down on earth, lol. What about some movie showing little kids starving because of extreme drought caused by fossil fools? Or showing billion dollar real estate drowning in Florida because of extreme sea level rise? I always had the feeling that real reality gives way more thrill than most Hollywood movies could ever give.
They should show movies about real human beings and real life, not some ultra CGI shit, but real people, real facts. I haven’t seen any climate movie like that so far, it’s all ultra CGI Hollywood shit after all, a multimillion dollar Spectaculum, not real life. Hollywood is a multibillion dollar business and King Kong vs Godzilla or the moon falling on earth sells, real fossil fool induced climate heating obviously doesn’t. Cheers go out to the fossil fool industry, they do a clever job, always.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “The Hollywood movie Moonfall is a more pure climate-science-fiction film than Don’t Look Up. Discuss.”
Has anyobdy watched “Don’t Look Up” thinking – “ Oh golly, I finally get to learn some cool facts about climate!” ? Wasn’t it a satire about the perception of science by politicians, media and public? Because if it was – then looking whether it got the atmospheric science “right” misses the point of the movie.
Paul Pukite: “The Moonfall movie gets some stuff right. As the Moon starts getting closer to the Earth
you compliment the trees, but missed the forest – according to Wikipedia, the movie’s premise: is that the humans not only have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, but it was them who created the Moon!
Comparing to THAT – getting “right” a few details about the influence of Moon’s gravity on Earth , is really selling this movie short …. ;-)
Good point, the majority of people watching the movie will ignore everything about the science but there may be a few youngsters or others that gain some insight and perhaps apply that to a future climate model. It was Arthur C. Clarke that imagined the “Spaceguard” in one of his Sci-Fi novels that eventually become reality as an early-warning system for asteroids, see the Spaceguard Foundation. What will come out of Moonfall? Who knows? NASA has recently reminded us that the moon will exaggerate climate change sea rise through tidal surges every 18 years, see https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-projects-a-surge-in-coastal-flooding-starting-in-2030s
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite – “Arthur C. Clarke imagined the “Spaceguard” in one of his Sci-Fi novels that eventually become reality as an early-warning system for asteroids? What will come out of Moonfall? Who knows?”
You may be comparing apples and orangutans. I don’t think there will be a similar cross-fertilization here – Clarke started with science, while “Moonfall” starts with anti-science – a premise that humans … have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, and it was them who produced the Moon.
And the another premise of Moonfall – that AI can become our enemy is not particularly groundbreaking – “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that”, originating with the same Arthur C. Clarke – predates his “Spaceguards” by a quarter of a century.
I don’t particularly care about the (over-the-top) human aspect of Moonfall, only about the geophysics considerations that it brings up. This (RealClimate) is an appropriate forum to discuss the idea that the moon’s long-period orbit is already violently sloshing the Pacific ocean’s equatorial thermocline, creating cycles of El Nino and La Nina. It’s an overlooked feature of a thermocline that it exists within a reduced gravity environment, whereby there are small differences in density above and below the thermocline. Relating to Moonfall, a reduced gravity environment is equivalent to having the moon’s orbit swing much closer to the earth’s surface than it physically does. This doesn’t do anything special to surface (barotropic) tides since the interface is not a subtle density difference, but the subsurface thermocline can shift hundreds of meters vertically due to the gravitational forces. The analytical issue is that solving a sloshing problem in hydrodynamics takes some doing, and the fact that El Nino/La Nina cycles are erratic means that the connection to tidal cycles is difficult to extract. No humans in the loop on this problem, just pure geophysical fluid dynamics.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “I don’t particularly care about the (over-the-top) human aspect of Moonfall, only about the geophysics considerations that it brings up.”
Since you seem to value the movie because:
“ may be a few youngsters or others that gain some insight and perhaps apply that to a future climate model
don’t you think that the PREPOSTEROUS and flying into the face of science premise compromises any educational/inspirational potential – your “few youngsters”
would consider the effects of the Moon on the Earth to be AS REAL AS the movie’s main premise (that humans have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, and it was us who manufactured the Moon).
the ability to pass scientific insight into your “few youngster
that humans … have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, and it was them who PRODUCED the Moon –
Jeez, it’s just a movie. However, the geophysics is the geophysics and we can discuss that all day long. In the past NASA JPL has decided not to invest in research proposals that study lunar effects on climate. The site moonclimate.org has details on various failed proposals:
2006 Proposal Review
….
None of the peer-reviewers nor collaborators in 2006 had anticipated that the most remarkable large-scale process that we were going to find comes from ocean circulations fueled by LuniGeo-Solar gravitational energy. We found evidence of the existence of this energy in the data produced by satellites like QuikSCAT and ASCAT. Following the standard from the 1970’s of using these satellite data as winds in numerical modeling of oceans and climate has created and continues to create
significant errors in the simulated ocean temperature, salinity, and currents as well as in the atmosphere. Together with our co-workers, we chose not to publish the errors until a solution to appropriately use satellite data in numerical modeling was found. However, over the following years, proposed solutions were not considered because of various factors including economic and scientific pressure to publish and continue the standard agenda.”
Earth sciences rank among the most cautious scientific disciplines. Why not fund that kind of research? Seems like a no-brainer decision to give it some $$$. A few days ago I watched a NASA congressional accountability hearing. Administrator Zurbuchen said that they are interested in ML and AI data mining type of applications. Watch it or read the transcripts here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2022/2/nasa-accountability-and-oversight
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: Feb.12 Jeez, it’s just a movie.
… and yet you brought it to RealClimate, lauded for getting its science right, and suggested “ may be a few youngsters or others that gain some insight and perhaps apply that to a future climate model ”
And after major science oops has been pointed out to you – and with it – the credibility of the movie as the source of insgiht and scientific inspiration questioned – you go with … Jeez, it’s just a movie.. Shouldn’t you have thought of that BEFORE you started the discussion on that “just a movie”?
PP: “ In the past NASA JPL has decided not to invest in research proposals that study lunar effects on climate. ”
… and the movie that says that the Moon has been…. manufactured by humans billions years ago, is powered by a white dwarf in its middle, and this white wharf is tapped for energy by a vengeful AI trying to destroy humanity – would possibly make them NASA JPL to see the errors of their ways and start funding studies of lunar effects on climate that would bring …. nothing to the discussion of the current climate change (since the influence of the Moon is constant and will remain so in the foreseeable future.
Unless of course that evil EI won’t start draining the white dwarf for energy again.
Piotr, Unfortunate that you aren’t able to differentiate between a movie and scientific research. I will make it easy by stop mentioning the film from now on.
You just asserted that:
“studies of lunar effects on climate that would bring …. nothing to the discussion of the current climate change (since the influence of the Moon is constant and will remain so in the foreseeable future.”
Which is obviously false in that the moon’s orbit undergoes decadal changes in it’s complex path around the earth. So the situation as it stands is that agencies such as NASA JPL do present conservative findings such as predicting coastal surges due to the well-known 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle (for a link, see above my comment from 10 FEB 2022).
Yet NASA is apparently hesitant to pursue the impact of the lunar cycles on the subsurface thermocline motion described as ENSO. That’s OK since I have been working that angle, and a few other teams have been looking at that recently, such as a group at The Ohio State University, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49678-w. This is extremely challenging work in that the non-linear fluid dynamics at the reduced gravity thermocline can create even more complex cycles than the conventional tidal analysis reveals. I have published and presented this work and a review of this can be found at my blog via this post from a couple of months ago: https://geoenergymath.com/2021/12/15/the-harmonics-generator-of-the-ocean/
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “Unfortunate that you aren’t able to differentiate between a movie and scientific research. I will make it easy by stop mentioning the film from now on.
Spare me your paternalistic tone – I didn’t comment on “scientific research” for the simple reason that I was commenting your, Paul Pukite’s, claims about the MOVIE. You know the same movie that YOU BROUGHT UP in this thread.
Specifically, I commented on your praise for it for getting the science “right” , and on your EXPRESSED HOPE that “may be a few youngsters or others gain some insight [from that MOVIE] and perhaps apply that to a future climate model ”
After I challenged your claims about this MOVIE – you responded with …. rolling your eyes: “ Jeez, it’s just a movie” Perhaps you should have remembered THAT before YOU brought that movie up in this thread in the first place.
Particularly, when you did so as a pretext to hit at … NASA JPL for “not investing in research proposals that study lunar effects on climate ”
PP: “the moon’s orbit undergoes decadal changes in it’s complex path around the earth”
Which would be relevant to this forum ONLY if:
1. these Moon fluctuations CHANGED over time (otherwise they are merely a NOISE around the AGW) AND
2. the magnitude of these CHANGES was COMPARABLE to that of human GHG forcing. Tthe onus of proof is on you, not on me.
Without showing THAT, you could have as send to GPL proposals to research the number of angels dancing on a tip of a needle – may be fascinating to you, but for most of us DOES NOT have the same urgency as getting the climate change right.
Bizarre. Piotr doesn’t seem to comprehend that natural climate change (such as ENSO, AMO, NAO, PDO, IOD, ice ages, etc) is of tremendous interest to climate scientists. Hundreds of research papers a year are published on this aspect of climatology. Is that too paternalistic a tone?
I presume you think that climatology wouldn’t exist as a scientific discipline if it weren’t for AGW?
I agree with Professor Dessler that AGW is settled science, and that the intellectual challenges remaining in climate science have mainly to do with geophysical fluid dynamics. That’s a millennium problem and may in fact be solved through cross-disciplinary efforts.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “ Bizarre. Piotr doesn’t seem to comprehend that natural climate change (such as ENSO, AMO, NAO, PDO, IOD, ice ages, etc) is of tremendous interest to climate scientist
Bizarre. Paul Pukite doesn’t seem to comprehend the meaning of the word “change”.
Climate change is the long-term trend , while your “ ENSO, AMO, NAO, PDO, IOD” are short-term oscillations . SInce I have already tried in vain to explain to you the difference between the two, when we had the same discussion several weeks before, perhaps this time I’ll lead with definitions:
change: “the instance of making or becoming different”. See also trend> “a general direction in which something is developing or changing”.
vs.
“ oscillation regular variation in magnitude or position around a central point.”
Therefore, for the climate TREND – the oscillations are merely a “noise”, that can be mostly removed by smoothing them with a moving average over several decades.
In addition – both terms have different societal weight
The climate CHANGE is both: caused by the humans and has massive implications to the future of the humanity
The oscillation are the opposite – not caused by the humans and have limited importance to humanity (mainly to researchers interesting in solving an intellectual puzzle)
Consequently, the former garners the substantial funding from the society, not the latter. To the unending ire of Paul Pukite, the latest iteration of it being P.Pukite Feb. 12: NASA JPL has decided to [invest in climate change and] not to invest in research proposals that study lunar [oscillations] on climate “.
And I have explained the differences between the climate CHANGE and OSCILLATIONS already before, but apparently still to no avail. Maybe a glitch the AI code ^* ? ;-)
====
*^ “My name is Paul Pukite and I am in no way, shape, or form a climate science insider. […] I received a response to a climate science paper that I submitted explaining that it was ejected because one of the reviewers said it looked like one of those “AI generated” research papers.” [RC, 2015]
Piotr, Climate science is the study of climate in all its aspects.
The RC moderators are free to correct me if I am wrong on this interpretation.
Further, it appears that Piotr believes that anticipating El Nino & La Nina cycles have no value for humanity other than as a entertaining time-waster.
“The oscillation are the opposite – not caused by the humans and have limited importance to humanity (mainly to researchers interesting in solving an intellectual puzzle)”
mikesays
hard to decide if this belongs in variations or responses. Land depletion from misuse or overuse by a single species seems like something of a natural problem, so I will put it here.
The authors distilled knowledge on the science of land use into ten “hard truths”:
Land has multiple meanings and values
The dynamics of how we use land is complex, often with unforeseen consequences
There are distant global connections
There are many trade-offs
There are few “win-wins”
Claims on land are overlapping and contested
Benefits from land are unequally distributed
Changes to the way we use land can be irreversible and have impacts for decades or centuries
Relatively small changes can have large “spillover” effects.
They say keeping these facts in mind will help decision makers rise to the challenge of sustainable, just and effective land use across the world.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Who are the “they” saying those things? Who gets to define what is “sustainable, just and effective land use across the world”? Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble. Who are these “decision makers” you refer to and who selects them?
nigeljsays
KIA
“Who are the “they” saying those things? ”
Please read the report and the backgrounds of the authors!
“Who gets to define what is “sustainable, just and effective land use across the world”? Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble. Who are these “decision makers” you refer to and who selects them?”
Governments pass legislation affecting land use. They have the option of defining sustainable as they see it, and people have the option of voting for them or not. Right now the GOP are trying really hard not to understand the term.
Defining sustainablity precisely so everyone is agreed might not be possible, but that doesn’t even matter. Its quite easy to see how to improve sustainability in general terms and in ways from which future generations can benefit. The words sustainable, just and effective can be found in any dictionary. (Basic definitions).
Governmnets are decision makers. Corporations are decision makers. Individuals are decision makers. We know who selects such groups.
Isn’t all or most of this rather OBVIOUS? Why did you need to ask?
IMHO the link Mike posted makes a good point about land use. Too much is clearly being asked of the finite areas of land available. I would say prioritise preserving remaining biodiversity. Once its gone its gone. Climate schemes like BECCS are so obviously crazy they should be low priority. Regenerative farming has merit and viability as an enhanced carbon store, because it is just a change of use of the ‘existing’ land area.
KIA: Who gets to define what is “sustainable, just and effective land use across the world”?
BPL: I’d go with scientists.
KIA: Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble.
BPL: Speaking of not knowing how to use terms, “psychobabble” means “terms from psychiatry used wrongly.” I don’t think the original poster was talking about therapy.
Piotrsays
KIA: Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble.
BPL: psychobabble” means “terms from psychiatry used wrongly.” I don’t think the original poster was talking about therapy.
;-) yeah, they use language as a drunkard a street lamp: not for enlightenment, but for support .
Using: “psychobabble”, “Communists”, “woke”, “libtards”, “critical race theory”, “political correctness”, etc … ) is an admission of failure: those who can falsify opponents’ arguments – do, those who can’t – try to discredit the messenger.
As my favourite poet, Zbigniew Herbert, said (In transl):
“It didn’t require great character
our refusal disagreement and resistance
we had a shred of necessary courage
but fundamentally it was a matter of taste
Yes taste
in which there are fibers of soul and the cartilage of conscience
[…]
Verily their rhetoric was too cheap
(Marcus Tullius kept turning in his grave)
chains of tautologies a couple of concepts like flails
the dialectics of murderers no distinctions in reasoning
syntax deprived of beauty of the subjunctive
So aesthetics can be helpful in life
one should not neglect the study of beauty
Before we declare our consent we must carefully examine
the shape of the architecture the rhythm of the drums and pipes
official colors the despicable ritual of funerals
Our eyes and ears refused obedience
the princes of our senses proudly chose exile
It did not require great character
we had a shred of necessary courage
but fundamentally it was a matter of taste
Yes taste
that commands us to get out to make a wry face draw out a sneer
even if for this – the precious capital of the body the head
must fall”
Adam Leasays
“Sustainable” is easy to define, it is a system which can exist indefinitely given steady state background conditions. It is able to do this by consuming resources at a rate which they regenerate, and by emitting waste at a rate that can be incorporated back into the background state, to be used as a resource in another system. Someone who owns a smallholding, keeps animals and has enough land to grow enough veg for their needs, and is able to harness solar, wind and hydro for energy could come very close to sustainable living.
nigeljsays
This definition seems generally quite useful, especially in how we use the biosphere. It does run into one problem that we cant make wind and solar power last literally forever because sooner or later we will run sort of some of the materials, even with recycling (as Killian and others point out). And to use them sustainably forever within the rate the planet can produce new rich lodes of such minerals would probably be impractical.
However I think we could define the sustainable use of solar and wind farms as having different criteria to the sustainable use of biomass. For example it would require recycling of wind and solar components and prudent use of such power sources.
Killiansays
However I think we could define the sustainable use of solar and wind farms as having different criteria to the sustainable use of biomass.
No. You don’t get to claim there are fifteen definitions for “sustainable.” It is a threshhold. You get there or you don’t. What you have to do is make a knowledgeable choice to use resources unsustainably because you have a specific reason to do so. But you don’t call it sustainable; that is an important facet of what got us where we are: The delusional, non-reality-based thinking.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA, It has to be a conversation between experts and the indigenous population. Clearly you won’t like that as you respect neither expertise nor justice.
Killiansays
This is silly. Why focus on the anti-principles rather than the proactive principles? Simple: They have no idea what the latter are.
“Land has multiple meanings and values”
Well, duh. And that is the problem. Land can have these things in positive ways. Indigenous cultures understand the land/waters as part of a whole. They know you cannot change one thing without it affecting the rest. They know Earth is their mother, their food source, their library, their , hardware store, their butcher shop, etc. And that other living things are both their source of life and their family. (Vegans hav a very limited, broken, dominant view of this, yet view themselves as morally superior and above Nature. Bizarre.)
“The dynamics of how we use land is complex, often with unforeseen consequences”
See above, and, of course. Thus the 7 Generations ethic, e.g. Choices must be made carefully with long-term effects understood, so they should be made slowly after careful observation and deliberation then implemented carefully, in as small a scale as possible to be sure the design functions as expected.
“There are distant global connections”
The Kogi and their cousins, our cousins, all understand this, and always have. So why should we listening to a bunch of myopic, uneducated (in natural systems), wheel re-inventers when we have the knowledge from the source? Nobody needs to read that document. Everybody needs to read about the various forms of regenerative systems design, aka TEK and Permaculture.
“There are many trade-offs”
There are no trede-offs. Any “trade-offs” are ignorance implemented. There are best solutions and there are sub-optimal solutions – the kind “modern” people come up with. Sure, you can say there is an opportunity cost to any choice, but that is economic thinking, not sane decision-making. By definition, if you are making the best decision for all, you are not losing an opportunity, you are creating a better one.
‘There are few “win-wins”’
There are *only* win-wins in regenerative systems.
“Claims on land are overlapping and contested”
Again, an economic way of thinking, not a wholistic, holistic, or regenerative way of thinking. There is only the demand that meets the needs of Nature, inclusive of human needs. Again, by definition, the people working to agreement on use means there is no competing need. Those are worked out by all involved to the satisfaction of the whole.
“Benefits from land are unequally distributed”
Again, only in unhealthy, non-regenerative systems. In those, it is the opposite: Land use is equally distributed in one form or another.
“Changes to the way we use land can be irreversible and have impacts for decades or centuries”
See #1.
“Relatively small changes can have large “spillover” effects.”
Duh. See all of the above.
Rather than focus on what not to do, let’s focus on what *to* do:
Observe and discuss as carefully and for as long as necessary to find the decision that best enhances the present and the future.
Create as many connections as possible between elements matching inputs and outputs for as wide a variety of elements as possible.
Use and value diversity, edges and places where systems overlap, which are where the richest diversity is found.
Design from the largest patterns, energy flows and functions down to the smallest. Reverse the process when building out a design.
We seek resilience over efficiency, but efficiency enhances resilience when location and co-location of elements is carefully considered.
Design to needs first and meet wants only out of abundance. Abundance does not mean extra, it means that which is needed beyond meeting needs of the whole system. “Extra” food is compost first, additional eating for pleasure second, e.g.
Zero waste.
Natural before mechanical, mechanical before hi-tech.
XR Cambridge (reporting)
Testifying to a US House Committee today mainstream climate scientist Michael Mann said we’re on track for 3-4C of warming in 70-80 years (that is 2100) . Cities drowned at 3C include Shanghai, Osaka, Rio De Janeiro, Alexandria, Miami, most of London. Hong Kong gone. The Amazon is savannah.
Hundreds of millions of people. Entire countries having to reshape themselves. A quarter of all species dead. Ecosystems in full breakdown. Marine heatwaves sterilising ocean life. A climate out of human control. 4C? You don’t want to know
Concurrent crop failures. Food shortages, famines. Thousands dead in heatwaves every summer. This at the lower end. How will nuclear-armed countries respond? How will other countries respond? How will societies respond?
(which is very weak, and incongruous. has links to news reports not science, nothing about AR6 or COP26, has old graphs old out of data modelling and really does not say anything at all about his objective – “My objective today is to review the basic scientific framework for assessing and mitigating human-caused climate change and its impacts.”
But has his habitual impossible to achieve call to “reduce carbon emissions by 50% this decade” (8 years left) which is not going to happen, and the usual dig at Exxon. Why ask for things that are physically and politically impossible to get done? Then keep repeating it for over 5 years non-stop? Why not mention that his ambitious call for “net zero” by 2050 totally blows the sub-1.5C and 2C goals and therefore COP26 and US targets are a total crock of shit? )
The credibility gap keeps widening between reality and science, into fantasy worlds of fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony. At some point his verbal “testimony” it will be posted here on https://c-span.org
Better leadership, coherent honesty, and truth telling is needed.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote: “Better leadership, coherent honesty, and truth telling is needed.”
You don’t say. It’s clear that nothing good will come out of the US govt before Jan 2023, possibly nothing before Jan 2025, IF THEN. Y’all voted for it. Not me.
BUT, the doom and gloom collapse you describe may be the solution we need, eh? A self-correcting system as George Carlin has said:
Nationalist Narcissism. To some people the world is America. There is nothing else that matters.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Based on all the America-bashing over our FF emissions, I thought we WERE the only thing that matters.
Doesn’t seem to matter that other nations are spewing away – only the USA seems to be a problem.
KIA: Based on all the America-bashing over our FF emissions, I thought we WERE the only thing that matters.
Doesn’t seem to matter that other nations are spewing away – only the USA seems to be a problem.
BPL: Straw man. Nobody ever said only the US matters. Obviously other countries’ CO2 emissions are also a problem, especially China and India. A carbon tariff would be good incentive for them to restrain their fossil fuel use.
So we have a commenter here at RC telling us that one of our hosts is pedaling “fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony.”
We can therefore prevent surface warming from crossing key thresholds such as 1.5C/3F surface warming through aggressive efforts to decarbonize the global economy. We must reduce carbon emissions by 50% this decade and bring them to net zero (zero emissions of carbon into the atmosphere allowing for offsetting natural or artificial carbon capture) by mid-century. The 2018 special report on 1.5C warming of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see graphic below) demonstrates a pathway by which this can be accomplished.
The commenter XRRC finds this unacceptable because he considers the “reduc(tion of) carbon emissions by 50% this decade” to be “impossible to achieve.”
If the “reduc(tion of) carbon emissions by 50% this decade” is “impossible to achieve,” will branding those who think otherwise as dishonest and pedalers of lies be any help to man or beast? Surely a less combative approach would be the thing to do. Is waving the ridiculous idea that the science is the wrong side of a “credibility gap” a credible approach to the situation? Perhaps instead we should be asking the question – What Plan B should be put in place if our Plan A has become impossible?
(Mind, I’m not sure commenter XRRC actually means what he says.)
tsk tsk. Was what I said too confusing? (disjointed or something?)
nigeljsays
Yes it was.
Piotrsays
MAR: “I’m not sure commenter XRRC actually means what he says“.
In what sense? That he does not mean what he says, because his a denialist plant – a false flag operator pretending to be a “warmist” – to discredit them by portraying them as narrow-minded, full-of-themselves, petty ankle-biters?
Or that he does not mean what he says because he is a troll – who would say anything just to get a rise out of people?
What I mean by saying “I’m not sure commenter XRRC actually means what he says“ is that XRRC says the 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is “physically and politically impossible to get done” but I’m not sure he means it.
Okay, there is no sign so far that the required 50% reduction is happening and the outcome of COP26 (which was to come back a year later to discuss it all some more) suggests that it probably won’t happen. So you might conditionally say it is “politically impossible to get done” without the world political establishment being given a good kick up the backside.
In such circumstance a message insisting ‘it has to be achieved to so make it happen’ would not merit being called “fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony,” (this effectively repeating the main message in my comment above).
But if it were actually “physically impossible to get done,” then there surely should be some indication of what is considered physically impossible (and also why 50% is physically impossible, which it obviously isn’t). Instead we just get the troll-speak provided by XRRC up-thread which doesn’t match the “impossible” claim.
So I am inclined to conclude that the “impossible” claim is just rhetoric.
Russellsays
“So we have a commenter here at RC telling us that one of our hosts is pedaling
“fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony.’.
One of our hosts?
You give them too little credit, sir,
It is the way of the world, on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, and both sides of K Street,, and Madison Avenue.
nigeljsays
Russel. I don’t live in America, but I follow your politics. That gives me perhaps better objectivity than you have. While all politicians do wrong, there is no doubt a lot more fake news, marketing spin, and false testimony and general BS comes out of your crazy Republican Party than the Democrats, these days anyway. I believe you are indulging in false equivalence.
But top marks for your other work, the satire.
nigeljsays
M Mann is saying we have to “reduce carbon emissions by 50% this decade”. XRRC says this is impossible to achieve and implies it is ” fake news and false testimony” and says “Better leadership, coherent honesty, and truth telling is needed” thus implying people are dishonest. I don’t believe the 50% goal is fake news, false testimony or dishonest. It is an IDEAL answer to the climate problem. It mystifies me how that is false or dishonest.
Personally I think its incredibly unlikely we can meet such a 50% goal, but the problem is if you suggest a goal like cutting emissions 20% this decade you would probably be accused of being weak.
Its also rather interesting and ironic that XRRC also criticises the less ambitious net zero by 2050 goal as essentially being inadequate.
Mikesays
the impact of climate change will impact people of color disproportionately. This is an instance of structural racism.
If you don’t understand how that works and is racism at work, then you are quite similar to the folks who want to argue attribution of extreme weather events to climate change. The evidence is present and available. Some low income white folks will be impacted, but the impact is going to disproportionately impact people who are not white.
Cheers
Mike
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote from your own article: “The study notes that white and low-income communities are currently the most strongly impacted by flooding in the US.”
Floods happen where floods happen. They don’t care what the demographics are of the human inhabitants. By leftist logic (an oxymoron – I know) earthquakes are racist because many of them occur along the mostly White west coast of the US, compared to the rest of the country. Same with tornados – racist – they affect mostly the predominantly White midwest. And deadly snowstorms are racist because snow is White, and most of those storms occur in the predominantly White northern states and CANADA which is Super White and thus Super-Racissss!
Yes well, denial comes in many forms. Not only climate science denial or the typical rhetoric of “extreme weather events have always been happening” and “the climate has always been changing.”
Scientific news reports and references direct to research papers that discuss specific issues, including racism, institutional racism and the post-colonial geopolitical structural racism on a global scale still cannot move the needle.
People are emotionally invested in their long held beliefs and opinions. It’s a mindset. Psychology. Nothing can shift that. Well not using basic facts or even peer reviewed scientific analysis can help.
I had a vision of black and brown peoples in the Global South crying out “I can’t breathe” because of the knee of the Global North planted firmly upon their necks as they lay in the gutter of their collective poverty and lack of resources to respond to climate change.
nigeljsays
Research Study: “Global assessment of oil and gas methane ultra-emitters”
“Methane emissions from oil and gas production and transmission make a significant contribution to climate change. Lauvaux et al. used observations from the satellite platform TROPOMI to quantify very large releases of atmospheric methane by oil and gas industry ultra-emitters (see the Perspective by Vogel). They calculate that these sources represent as much as 12% of global methane emissions from oil and gas production and transmission and note that mitigation of their emissions can be done at low cost. This would be an effective strategy to economically reduce the contribution of this industry to climate change. —HJS”
I think this is related because 1) shades of Don’t Look Up! and 2) it’s about when Billionaires and Scientists go totally insane together…. and the rest of the world allows them to do it and get away with it.
If a non-US country, mmm think Russia, or China, or Iran or India or South Africa had been carrying out Starlink’s satelite work the folks on the Hill in Washington and at the Pentagon and Langley would have been hopping mad like their feet were on fire but because it’s a private US company – crickets!!!
Elon Musk has no more right to clutter the sky with 30,000 satellites than any other person on Earth.
NASA and Climate scientists need earth satellites to do their work without interference.
NASA raises concerns about SpaceX’s proposal for 30,000 new Starlink satellites
and says the megaconstellation could lead to a ‘significant increase’ in collisions
SpaceX requested authorisation for a second-generation Starlink constellation
‘Gen2’ constellation would be made up of around 30,000 satellites, SpaceX says
NASA has concerns Gen2 may ‘impact science and human spaceflight missions’ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10497433/NASA-concerns-SpaceXs-plans-30-000-Starlink-satellites.html
I consider Elon Musk a dangerous dysfunctional narcissistic sociopath who should be removed from all his executive positions by court order…. he should be sectioned and placed under psychiatric supervision as presenting a danger to society and the world.
nigeljsays
XRRC
“I consider Elon Musk a dangerous dysfunctional narcissistic sociopath who should be removed from all his executive positions by court order…”
Imo you’re exaggerating. All he is doing is launching a commercial fleet of satellites to improve internet access. If it is providing a genuinely serious risk, its for Americas federal government to put a limit on it.
You are also trolling, because you have made a inflammatory statement that you must know will annoy this group. The classic definition of trolling.
As to narcissistic, look in a mirror.
Killiansays
“Imo you’re exaggerating. All he is doing is launching a commercial fleet of satellites to improve internet access. ”
False. He is making a network he controls access to for his financial benefit. He is not making a network to generally improve access. Yes, yes, I know; that’s not what you meant. Per usual.
Say what you mean and you won’t have to attack others for telling you you’ve said something foolish.
“Imo you’re exaggerating. ”
Who cares about your opinion? What has that got to do with public policy debate? How is it an exaggeration when we are far past the carrying capacity of the planet and the “solutions” he proposes are absolutely unsustainable and depend on very limited resources? From that perspective, it absolutely is dangerous and dysfunctional. As for the sociopathic, I would dsiagree with that. I believe Musk is neurodivergent, which is something he should not be judged for.
nigeljsays
Killian. Musk is doing both. He’s trying to improve internet access and also make money. His alleged failing is he is not taking sufficient account of how his network could impact on other networks.
However to label him a sociopath who should be jailed for all of that is an obvious exaggeration on both counts. Many business people push things to the limits. Its the nature of our system. And at this stage he hasn’t caused anyones network any actual harm. If Musk actually built the system, and it caused damage to other satellites then there might be grounds for a civil case against him.
However normally to resolve such problems the government has rules setting limits on what they do. They are going to have to do something with all these satellites being launched by everyone.
Labelling Musk dangerous and dysfunctional for building electric cars etc, etc is also plainly hyperbole.
While a couple of commenters here try to make themself feel superior by lying about others and like the polluters they always get away with it.
nigeljsays
XRRC. Are you talking about yourself and Killian? I mean your claims fit perfectly.
Killiansays
You’ve spent six years making terrible arguments and advocating do-nothing-ish attitudes and have convinced yourself you are a victim of what is actually accurate and useful feedback to you. All of your responses to critique/criticism end up being gaslighting.
nigeljsays
Killian.
Wrong.
“advocating do-nothing-ish attitudes”
Wrong. This is what I have advocated consistently over the last several years on this website: Build out a new energy grid and transport system as fast as possible, make better use of things like regenerative farming to help sequester soil carbon, reduce our personal carbon footprints, have things like government subsidies and carbon taxes, This is clearly not advocating do nothing -ish, and you know this perfectly well because you have responded to my comments on this, so to label this “doing nothing” is either a big fat LIE or a complete delusion. You might not agree with it all but it is not under any circumstances “doing nothing”
You and XRRC are fond of accusing people of lying. Never do you provide evidence. I dont post lies and as far as I can see neither do Piotr or BPL. I plead guilty only to misinterpreting peoples badly written posts on about two occasions in 5 years. .
You constantly accuse people of being liars. You play dirty. In most cases you cannot possibly know. I only accuse people of lying or posting lies occasionally, when I have solid evidence that they are deliberately repeating falsehoods. You see this sometimes on other websites on issues like covid issue. You and XRRC over use the term .
Carbomontanussays
No, hr XRRC.
I just came to think of the old conscept and political cultural “Meme” Mindreverditghetskompleks.
In English Inferiority complex , that was coined by Alfred Adler, who also became quite popular and began to teach and to cure it in the USA.
Wikipedia gives a very good introduction and systematic description of it and its consequent syndroms both in English and in German, that really is worth reading and knowing better, for some of us here.
If I should guess, I would say that you are often strongly overcompensating for some inferiority complex here.
What`s also quite dangerous is that some people get tempted to ” self medicate ” it by popular central stimulants that can rapidly accelerate the syndrom.
It helps to know what one is dealing with and talking about and avoid the most popular, inflated slogans and conscepts and websites , however convincing grand and brilliant to your feelings at the moment.
Perhaps Australia needs a high dose of Adler also.
In response to Chairwoman Maloney’s question on how much time we have in order to prevent a climate catastrophe, Dr. Mann answered:
“We have zero time.”
In an exchange with Rep. Raskin, Dr. Mann emphasized:
“Dangerous climate change is here. If you’re Puerto Rico, if you’re California, if you’re Australia, if you’re my home state of Pennsylvania, with all that record flooding with Hurricane Ida. We are already seeing devastating consequences of climate change, and it will simply get worse and worse. The real danger is that we start to cross certain tipping points, where the damage that we do is irreversible on human time scales.”
We only have time to make it “less bad than otherwise.”
Killiansays
To a certain degree, yes. WRT SLR, definitely. However, I do we do still seem to have the potential to reverse all the way back to preindustrial temps. IF we do that before the permafrost/clathrates/AMOC go to shit, then we can get back a world that can be returned somewhat back to where we are now.
Saw this article of a Physicist saying how much he missed out on due to Covid19 …. missing out in get-togethers with his peers and lectures and meetings all over the world … he said he would travel anywhere between 150,000 klms to 500,000 klms every year!
He was so glad he could soon get to doing the same things again …. That’s one smart Physicist that. (the name doesn’t matter, all his friends peers did the same.)
As psychotherapist @RoRandall2 explains this is a type of psychological splitting known as disavowal…
Psychotherapist Rosemary Randall describes how many of us protect ourselves from the frightening truth of climate change by splitting off the facts and putting them in a box where they don’t trouble us. As the climate crisis moves higher up the public agenda many people are finding that this old defence is giving way and they are having to face the frightening truths that they have avoided. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMH3SgO4rKY
And things are no anywhere near out of control yet.
500,000 km/year?! Can’t imagine why anyone would feel the need to travel that much. Do his family keep a photo of him so they can remember what he looks like?
I have a grain of connection with his attitude though. COVID19 cut off most of my social life (and when you live alone and 240 miles from family that is significant), and I too am glad to get back to it. My social life only needs a modest amount of travelling which can be done by bicycle and occasionally a train.
XRRCsays
Yep. I guarantee that was true. Stunning how utterly self-centered and deserving this arrogant privileged asshole was in how he said it.
And people, some climate scientists included, consider Prof. Kevin Anderson an extremist on climate energy scenarios and proper action.
Trust the science and the scientists is the Myth. No. Only individual scientists can be trusted and even then one must remain skeptical at all times. Their politics their values always informs the work they do and what they say and do publicly.
Duplicity is everywhere: And it has been around for a very long time.
2014 – As of late, the North American climate action movement and outspoken climate scientists such as Michael Mann (Democrat Party, Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden activist /supporter!) have focused on counteracting the massive propaganda and obfuscation campaign that has delayed climate action. ….
While some of the defenders of the fossil fuel industries deny climate change, there are others like (Democrat) President Obama and those who support his energy policy, who simultaneously admit that climate change is a problem and continue encouraging the expansion of fossil fuel extraction and therefore its ongoing use. The MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz, known as a progressive, has voiced support for the expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline as does his frequent guest, the supposed progressive and would-be challenger to (Democrat) Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President in 2016, former (Democrat) Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. Schultz, to his credit, has been devoting considerable time on his air to the issue of the pipeline, and may be reconsidering his stance. As another MSNBC commentator, Chris Hayes, points out, the stance of (Democrat) Obama and other (Democrats), that they are against global warming but for the building of new pipelines, are the protestations of fossil fuel addicts, who haven’t yet confronted their addiction. https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/02/degrees-responsibility-climate-catastrophe-1.html
7 years later (Democrat) Biden issues the largest auction of oil/gas leases in US history
Hypocrisy and Lying are two other words to cover such two-faced manipulators. A sellout is another.
Looking like a “hero” blaming the fossil fuel companies, even writing books about it and then calling for impossible 50% reductions in Global GHG emissions by 2030 all the while supporting the expansion of US fossil fuels extraction and use by the Democrat Party and President Biden and 7 years earlier President Obama too – who oversaw the biggest production boost and profitability increase of Oil and Gas companies in US History .
It’s called having your cake and eating it too. :-)
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Article 2 OBJECTIVE The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the
Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of
the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. >b>Such a level
should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic
development to proceed in a sustainable manner. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
To see how devious this is, consider the agreement’s actual wording: The ultimate objective … is to achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas <concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. (Emphasis added)
versus what was changed later: … the ultimate goal [of the agreement] was to stabilize GHG emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous climate change. (Emphasis added)
see the 2015 Paris Agreement text here – go look or check the UNFCCC archives yourself.
(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and
foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that
does not threaten food production; and
(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. https://ecologicalsurvival.org/wp-content/uploads/2015-COP21-Paris-Agreement-English.pdf
There was never a UNFCCC Goal or an Objective exclusively designed around Temperature or GMSTs or “emissions” … until Paris. All of which are irrational, nebulous and unscientific inaccurate yardsticks to use.
The UNFCCC Treaty was always based from the very beginning on the Scientific basis of global atmospheric GHG concentrations!
Concentrations are much more easily and accurately measured yardsticks. With goals set for each of the different types of GHG concentration. They can be accurately measured and analyzed regionally and seasonally using Satellites.
and then there is this-
Article 3 PRINCIPLES
In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and to implement its
provisions, the Parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the following:
1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future
generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country
Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.
2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially
those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those
Parties, especially developing country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or
abnormal burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration.
3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. ………………….
It was the Democrat Obama administration that led the push of the Global North wealthy High-emitting developed country Parties for watering down of the COP15 goals and actions at Paris in 2015.
Published: 01 January 2022
Dismantling white supremacy in environmental studies and sciences: an argument for anti-racist and decolonizing pedagogies
Eve Z. Bratman & William P. DeLince https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13412-021-00739-5
‘Uncle Toms’ are as biased & racist as the KKK are.
It has become a global Con based on lies and propaganda driven by the USA including the Democrats supported by Michael Mann et al, and the global north aka The Davos Set
Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Vol. 46:653-689 (Volume publication date October 2021)
However, a common thread that emerges across the reviewed literature is the central role of power, manifest in many forms, from a dogmatic political-economic hegemony and influential vested interests to narrow techno-economic mindsets and ideologies of control.
XRRC posts an extract “The ultimate objective of this (1995) Convention ….is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol consolidated this approach by expunging the word “concentrations” and referring to emissions exclusively. In 2015 the Paris Agreement did the same. (Apparently these later two agreements are a terrible thing)”
Its thought provoking. But by concentrating on a goal of stabilising atmospheric levels at a certain level, this would perhaps in theory allow emissions to continue completely unabated, on the basis that at some point we could just suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere before things got too bad. This would be dangerous (XRRC himself has criticised some negative emissions scenarios).
So I wonder if reducing emissions is not in fact the right goal to emphasise. And even if you gave primacy to a numerical goal of stable atmospheric concentrations, you would still need an EMISSIONS REDUCTION goal to help achieve those levels. So its all just seems like stuff and nonsense.
Guest (O.)says
South Australia 2nd largest uptake of varied renewables:
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Article 2 OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the
Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of
the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level
should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic
development to proceed in a sustainable manner. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
To see how devious this is, consider the agreement’s actual wording: The ultimate objective … is to achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. (Emphasis added)
versus what was changed later: … the ultimate goal [of the agreement] was to stabilize GHG emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous climate change. (Emphasis added)
Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere includes by default all GHG emissions, and not only human driven energy use of fossil fuels and LUC….. but automatically any and all Forcings natural and anthropogenic including any and all unknown POSITIVE FEEDBACKs of increasing GHGs from everywhere in real time.
…………….. in this sense the ORIGINAL TREATY was focused GOALS / OBJECTIVES for the whole world, the real world, the entire planet’s CUMULATIVE FORCINGS in real time all the time that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
The more natural forced concentrations increased and positive feedbacks were activated by global heating then the bigger the critical nature of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system became.
Requiring an updated real world response from the UNFCCC nations everywhere to address any increased threats and RISKS from the higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere occurring in real time.
The climate system responds to the CUMMULATIVE GHG Concentrations in the atmosphere no matter what the primary source is. That Data can be recorded objectively and accurately.
The present disingenuous manipulative corrupt UNFCCC system of self-selected NDCs plans and the nebulous inaccurate (and corrupt dishonest) tracking of anthropogenic emissions does not.
On this point climate scientists are silent. Dead silent. They are enablers of the powerful elites who control not only Politics at “home” but also the UNFCCC/COP system today. They have been negligent in their responsibilities to speak out on behalf of all people of the world.
Instead overall these climate scientists and IPCC authors they choose to kowtow to politicians, governments, the media, bend to popular opinion, play hide and seek with the powerful corporations and big finance plus their own academic/science Institutions where they work or seek to work and have a career.
Instead what many climate scientists have done is to fall inline with the new “unfccc system of goals” by creating a number of for-profit companies and orgs along with the IEA/EIA etc that punch out new data analysis of all the Pseudo bullshit NDCs submitted and match that up with nefarious Carbon Budgets and fake future GMST guesstimates calculation that are not worth a dime!!!
Because they ignore real world data. They ignore the original scientific based reasoning of the UNFCCC Primary Objective! These climate scientists totally ignore present and near future GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and all the active and near future increasing Sources. They ignore Risk. They ignore reason and logic and plain common sense!
All this stuff at the UNFCCC system changed significantly in 2015 – see the 2015 Paris Agreement text here – or go look or check the UNFCCC archives yourself.
(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and
foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that
does not threaten food production; and
(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas
emissions and climate-resilient development. https://ecologicalsurvival.org/wp-content/uploads/2015-COP21-Paris-Agreement-English.pdf
There was no UNFCCC Goal or Objective designed around Temperature or GMSTs or “GHG emissions” or Carbon Budgets or NDCs …… until Paris. All of which are irrational, nebulous and unscientific inaccurate yardsticks to use.
The UNFCCC Treaty was always based from the very beginning on the Scientific basis of global GHG atmospheric concentrations!
Concentrations are much more easily and accurately measured yardsticks. With goals set for each of the different types of GHG concentration. They can be accurately measured and analyzed regionally and seasonally using Satellites.
and then there is this-
Article 3 PRINCIPLES
In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and to implement its
provisions, the Parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the following:
1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future
generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country
Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.
2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially
those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those
Parties, especially developing country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or
abnormal burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration.
3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. ………………….
The developed country Parties have not kept their obligations to this Convention Treaty …. ever. Climate scientists are typically silent on this point as well.
The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties have been properly accommodated and supported by the wealthy developed nations as originally AGREED. The climate scientists are silent on this point too.
Precautionary measures have NOT BEEN TAKEN to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. The climate scientists are collectively silent on these matters too.
It was the Democrat Obama administration that led the push of the Global North, the wealthy High-emitting developed country Parties for watering down of the COP15 goals and actions at Paris in 2015. All the way through to COP26 in 2021.
The climate scientists collectively remain silent on all these matters and their dangerous consequences! Climate scientists are not working for nor speaking up for the interests of the general public, the world’s population across the world.
Published: 01 January 2022
Dismantling white supremacy in environmental studies and sciences: an argument for anti-racist and decolonizing pedagogies
Eve Z. Bratman & William P. DeLince https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13412-021-00739-5
‘Uncle Toms’ (even Democrats) are as biased & racist as the KKK are. Climate scientists remain silent on these critically important issues of life and death.
2021 UNFCCC – Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement – Completely ignore the critically important PRIMARY FORCING issue of Global GHG Concentrations in the Atmosphere – short and long term. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_08_adv_1.pdf
It has become a coordinated global Con by the Elites and Technocrats of the world based on lies and propaganda driven, facilitated and enabled primarily by the USA including the US Democrats and other Liberal Progressive political parties along with the Right wing climate chnage denying parties world wide in the form of a Cabal of wealthy powerful developed Global North nations aka The OECD and the Davos Set dominated by traditional White European Colonial nations and their post-Colonial White relatives….. all with the highest HISTORICAL cumulative GHG Emissions and Per Capita rates today
And the climate scientists overall remain silent on these principled matters ethical and moral for decades.
Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Vol. 46:653-689 (Volume publication date October 2021)
“However, a common thread that emerges across the reviewed literature is the central role of power, manifest in many forms, from a dogmatic political-economic hegemony and influential vested interests to narrow techno-economic mindsets and ideologies of control.” https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104
God help us. Because no one else is going to lift a finger or take a stand and say a word by the look of it.
It is not really a matter of “Try opening your eyes and reading it!” It is more a matter of “Try keeping your eyes open while you reading it!” Perhaps a precis of this fourteen-hundred-word rant is in order.
The thesis presents perhaps two points:-
☻ (i) The 1992 Articles if the UNFCCC talk of their ” ultimate objective” being the ” stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” But the 1997 Kyoto Protocol only talks of “aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases.”
Shock! Horror!! The Protocol doesn’t even once mention the word “concentration”, let alone “atmospheric concentration. And it’s not as though they were short of space. It is a 8,700-word document!!!
Yet the Kyoto Protocol was preceded by the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 1995 COP 1 agreement, and they don’t mention the word “concentration” either.
The reason for the absence of mention of “concentrations” is because the issue is keeping these “concentrations” at acceptable levels by controlling “aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases.”
So we are not actually talking Shock! Horror!!” but talking naive pedantry.
☻ (ii) Climate scientists are “typically” a bunch of incompetent rotters who remain silent on our collective failure to address the requirements set out in Article 3 sections 1-3 of the UNFCCC. Thus we endanger future generations and those most vulnerable to AGW as well as ignore the precautionary principle in addressing AGW.
And this is all due to an international conspiracy of “Elites and Technocrats.”.
Luckily, the commenter XRRC managed not to mention the shape-shifting lizards because mentioning them always ends very very badl………
James McDonaldsays
This paper by some retired radiation physicists seems to be the latest “gotcha!” talking point among denialists.
It is published in a journal about radiation safety, which is curious but I guess not unexpected given their backgrounds. It examines C14 data to claim that all previous estimates of the percentage of atmospheric CO2 coming from fossil fuel sources been wildly overestimated.
From their abstract:
“Plots of values for the d13C and D14C statistics presented at the NOAA, Wikipedia, and other websites, likely have misled persons in the public, government, and scientific communities throughout the world to believe that elevated levels of anthropogenic-fossil CO2 have caused global warming. This false belief has severe potential societal implications and presses the need for very costly remedial actions that are misdirected, presently unnecessary, and completely ineffective in curbing global warming.”
Skrable, Kenneth, George Chabot, and Clayton French. “Anthropogenic fossil carbon dioxide and claims of its dominance and role in global warming.” (2020).
When I read it briefly they seemed to quote previous results, say those were wrong, then proceed in the detailed descriptions to never get to the point. But it’s way out of my field and I haven’t the time to critique it.
Can anyone here with relevant expertise clarify what they thought they were accomplishing and if they actually made any sense?
Should there perhaps be a site dedicated to detailed critiques of these sporadically appearing papers?
Sort of a stop-gap for when peer-review fails.
It’s trash. They can mathturbate (to use Tamino’s verb) all they want, but the fact that the system consistently sinks about half of human emissions is an insuperable logical objection to their claim.
which means that we can infer the net environmental flux Fi − Fe, given the observed/estimated
data for atmospheric concentrations and anthropogenic emissions, without needing to know the
absolute magnitudes of Fi or Fe.
(dC/dt is the growth rate of atmospheric CO2; Fa is anthropogenic emissions; Fi is environmental emissions; Fa is environmental uptake.)
Note that that equation is a straightforward rearrangement of the axiomatically true:
dC/dt = Fa + Fi − Fe
Quoting from the abstract of Skrable et al (2022):
We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
That’s a pure non sequitur, resulting from a failure to think clearly about stocks vs. fluxes.
Ray Ladburysays
The paper is a classic example of stupidity sent to college.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote: “(dC/dt is the growth rate of atmospheric CO2; Fa is anthropogenic emissions; Fi is environmental emissions; Fa is environmental uptake.)”
Nit pick: You defined Fa twice. I think you meant the second definition to be Fe, not Fa.
Climate calsays
What is the atmospheric lifetime of a slug of added CO2?
Omega Centaurisays
There is no simple answer, are there are different removal mechanisms with different time scale. The lumped parameter Bern has six different timescales. This is a few years old -it may have been updated since, but it has.
13.7% permanent
13.0% decay time 372 years
19.4% decay tine 55.7%
25% decay time 17years
20.9% decay time 4.16years
8.1% decay time 1.33 years
Carbomontanussays
I do not like that conscept of “decay time” however instructed learnt, and professional “scientific”
halving time is what rather should have been instructed.
Learn to discuss 1.st order chemical reactions and U238 and U 235 first and the age of the Universe.
If a foreighn lady or a Troll or a Skunk has been in your apartment, what is the “decay time” 0f that?
What is the Decay constant of your brand new car? Your brand new fiancee?
There are sprayboxes for sale on the free market to regulate the “decay times” of things. Both positive and negative.
The problems of the Dutch are extremely costly on just a few hundred km of 300.000 Km global coastline.
With a global effort (all land areas) to retain rainwater and running waters from flowing into the oceans to store it in soil moisture and groundwater would not only be an efficient measure against SLR, but also helpful in combating water scarcity (drought) & flooding.
Of course, the measures you have already suggested will also help, such as adding more humus (Terra Preta is also welcome) to the soil to increase its water AND carbon storage capacity.
! There is still a concept to lower the SLR & the earth temperature !
Killiansays
All well and good except those curves tracking changes are parabolic.
We need exceptionally rapid change to have a reasonable chance of not getting to irreversible bifurcations. After all, we may already be heading for +6C By 2100. That would make everything we are doing now irrelevant.
Carbomontanussays
Hr Schürle
The original Steward at sea was the traditional job of “stewing” things from Stauen. (Brandy and beers and canned & salted ham (SPAM)),
He was the “Kellner” from Cellar, Kjeller, who “stews” it away in all the rooms under deck, wherever there was a tiniest place left., And able to get it back again from there on demand or request.
So you should think it over one more time where you can possibly Stew- stauen- stoppfen- stue- store away more water in the world , in necessary Quanta to avoid sea level rise of 3 mm per year..
When will it all be soaking wet and floating over and cause even more troubble in any case?
You cannot stew it in the air, it will fallm down. Or in the ground, it will come up again, I) have seen it.
Would n`t it better to leave it back to where it comes from at least?
@Carbomontanus – “So you should think it over one more time where you can possibly Stew- stauen- stoppfen- stue- store away more water in the world …”
You can also find the following figures on my website:
– Global soil moisture (5500km³),
– renewable groundwater (625,000km³)
– and deeper aquifers (2,200,000km³)
are actually declining reservoirs that, due to their size, over decades could account for an annual inflow of 3.7mm sea level rise = 1335km³ = 9mm = 9L/m² over global land areas.
Rain barrels, cisterns or rainwater retention basins with an overflow onto unsealed urban terrain alone have a potential of approx. 1-2mm sea level rise calculated on a global scale.
Global agriculture, as the largest water consumer, currently uses ~2900km³ of water per year for irrigation on almost 50 million km² (one third of the global land area).
On only ~45% of these agricultural areas, the water management would have to be switched from groundwater use to running water and/or river filtrate in order to stop the sea level rise and to replenish soil moisture and groundwater reserves with a resulting decrease in discharge to the oceans.
There is also plenty of storage space above ground. Aral Sea, Lake Baikal, Lake Mead, Great Salt Lake,… and 10000s of other freshwater lakes are showing sharply declining levels – even if the word lack of water is certainly not an issue for you in Oslofjörden/Norway today. You certainly have drained bogs and wetlands too.
I am currently designing a drought and flood protection for the Ahr Valley, the German region that was affected by severe flooding in July 2021. It consists of many small-scale measures which can hold back ~ 300m³/sec in the relevant catchment area of the Ahr (~ 900km²): It starts with the above-mentioned rain barrels and rainwater retention basins (total ~30m³/sec)
and continues with a total of 300km drainage ditches( 1m³/sec each) in the upper regions of the tributaries.
Since there are many former ore mines in the catchment area, some of these will also be included in the new water management and will act as combined pumped storage/compressed air storage power plants in the future. They could also function as seasonal heat/cold/& water storage for periods of drought. If necessary, your steward can stew there in total ~2-3 million m³ of river water and many GWh of renewable electricity in depth.
So far so good the information on the storage space. But I also want to increase evaporation by 9L/m² and year over the land area, create clouds and cool the earth ?
— So I need to retain more water ! 1335km³/year is not enough.
Carbomontanussays
Welol, thisn is how the Germans think and plan and arrange until they are flat- bombed.
“Geopolitik” they call it.
To the rest of the world.
I know them. There are 2 sorts of them.
1 those who were flat bombed because they could not behave, and
2, the remaining rest of them, the best of them.
Heinrich Heine, Justus von Liebig, Alexander von Hubolt Max =Planc, A.Einstein Werner Heissenberg, Robert Koch, Heinrich Herz, Helmholz, von Weizäcker Angela Merkel Dr. Josef Ratzinger,…. you name them,…
They could behave and they did not loose in the wars.
Old Professor Ratzinger said it very cleverly: “There ain`t no natural iron curta8in between faith and thought. Both must behave. And by danger of collision , faith (credo) is due to withdraw and give way. ”
“Gott ist vernüftig” he also proclaimed.
Not everyone here have understood that. They keep Thinktank and the Party to be rational, reasonable, vernunftig and scientific even with the water managements.
Anyone who responds to a future-oriented strategy for protection against droughts and floods with strange quotes from a crazy, self-proclaimed representative of God =>
“Hat nicht mehr alle Tassen im Schrank”
What your quoted Professor Ratzinger said about thinking and believing is twirled, hypocritical nonsense, as long as everyone knows that he, as head of the Catholic communities of this world, is primarily responsible and famous for spreading and covering up “child abuse”.
Carbomontanussays
No Hr Schürle,
What Ratziunger said there is the healthy / sane recognition of the situation between the left and the right half brain with a tiny brige in between, and the consequent situation between the right and the left eye and the right and the left hand.
This is alian to the cyclopic seers and all those who are inferiour and lame in their fore- paws and hind legs, and who are not well incarnated and thus lack control over their musculatiure up and down and back and forwards at both ends of the Columna Vertebralis.
= A political and ideological and national nervous syndrom.
ms: What your quoted Professor Ratzinger said about thinking and believing is twirled, hypocritical nonsense, as long as everyone knows that he, as head of the Catholic communities of this world, is primarily responsible and famous for spreading and covering up “child abuse”.
BPL: Actually, he did a lot to crack down, but he did it quietly, without publicly throwing the church under the bus.
The GISTEMP SAT has been posted for January showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.93ºC, up a bit on December’s +0.86ºC anomaly. (It was down in ERA5 SAT re-analysis and also in UAH TLT & RSS TLT also now posted for Jan.)
January becomes the =5th warmest January on the GISTEMP record (6th in EAR5 & 17th in UAH, 13th in RSS) and the =34th highest all-month anomaly on record (56th in ERA5, =161st in UAH, 102nd in RSS).
Wow, there you go again, flaunting your ignorance about the difference between weather and climate. Someone really failed to teach you about critical thinking.
nigeljsays
Just recently published: “Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines, February, 2022.”
Lots of interesting and obviously concerning things which I don’t have time to copy and paste, but this stood out: “Relative sea level along the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) coastline is expected to rise on average as much over the next 30 years (0.25–0.30 m over 2020–2050) as it has over the last 100 years (1920–2020).”
Mr. Know It Allsays
That is only concerning IF sea level rose over the past 100 years and IF the same SLR today would cause a problem. In the Houston area, the land is sinking, so hard to say how much sea level rose.
John Pollacksays
Mr. KIA, I’m curious to know what you think “relative sea level” refers to, if not the total effect of sea level rise and changes in land height (subsidence or rebound) at any particular location. A blood relation who is keeping careful records of the ocean height?
J Doug Swallowsays
Don’t these people know that The United Arab Emirates has built sand islands in the Persian Gulf & that China is building sand islands in the South China Sea?
“Mean Sea Level Trends
605-041 Quinhon, Vietnam
The mean sea level trend is -1.25 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.60 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1977 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.41 feet in 100 years.” https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=605-041
Aren’t we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?
“Mean Sea Level Trends
999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica
The mean sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.” https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
nigeljsays
And the ever clueless JDS doesn’t realise those regions where sea levels aren’t rising have significant land uplift. This says nothing about the overall global sea level rise situation. Leave it to the actual experts who consider such things, and have determined that sea levels overall are rising globally, and that the trend is accelerating.
raymond.l.ladbury@nasa.govsays
You really have no concept of how large the ocean is, do you?
Ray Ladburysays
You know, it’s amazing how you post continually without a single thought as to what you are saying. I me, I’d think that you might even accidentally voice to yourself what you are about to post and hear just how stupid it sounds. But, no, no. You are nothing if not consistent, continually posting thoughts with the consistency of warm puppy shit.
Piotrsays
KIA(feb 18) “That is only concerning IF sea level rose
Time to live up to your name. it’s not that difficult go on Internet, click “sea lever rise” , and voila
“you know it all ” : SLR by NASA.
KIA: “In the Houston area, the land is sinking”
Duh – this makes it MORE, not less, vulnerable to global SLR: the global SLR rate is added ON TOP of the local component of SLR due to sinking of the land. . Which means that:
– every storm surge in the future will be added on top of the already higher sea level
– given the increase in the STRENGHT of the hurricanes – the storm surges are likely to be higher
so that HIGHER surges will be riding ON TOP of the sea level ALREADY increased not only due to SLR but also due to local land sinking
And since Houston is not in the area of an Isostatic rebound after the last glaciation – the most likely reason for the land subsidence is the removal of ground water for human uses.
So when drop in the water table AND rise in sea level (global + local) – then we invite the intrusion of salt water into aquifers – making this water useless/questionable for drinking, for industry and for irrigation,
since in the latter case, it greatly accelerates the destruction of the soil fertility by its saltification. All while the demand for fresh water increases (warmer climate => higher evaporation)
But you already “ knew it all” and wanted to share this information with others, right ? ;-)
– I am always touched when I see a paralyzed man taking a blind man by the hand to cross a busy street. But I’m afraid you two (KIA & you) can’t cross the street. SLR-Avenue is too wide and too dangerous for both of you.
But did you know that over periods of 2 to 8 years, after the general sea level rise trend of about 3 millimeters per year has been removed, the remaining change closely follows the waxing and waning of El Niño/La Niña?
The main reason for this close match is that El Niño shifts precipitation from land to sea and raises sea levels. Its antiphase, La Niña, shifts precipitation onto land, causing sea levels to drop.
However, La Niña not only lowers sea level rise, but also global temperatures. The warming trend and effects of El Niño/La Niña shows:
The dynamics behind SLH at this scale are due to ENSO cycles, associated with the inverted barometer effect. The SOI is essentially the pressure differential between Darwin and Tahiti, so the prevailing atmospheric pressure occurring during varying ENSO conditions follows the rising or lowering Sydney Harbor sea-level in a synchronized fashion. The change is 1 cm for a 1 mBar change in pressure, so that with the SOI extremes showing 14 mBar variation at the Darwin location, this accounts for a 14 cm change in sea-level, roughly matching that observed. Note that being a differential measurement, SOI does not suffer from long-term secular changes in trend.
Piotrsays
I have thought you were still smarting after after our last exchange:
m.shurly to me: Jan 20.: “ ??? Why do you talk about storing 1335km³ in the atmosphere ???”
To which I have quoted to mshurly his own words a week earlier:
“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,.
And to make it better – in the same Jan.12 post, mshurly was lecturing others on their lack of “attention, comprehension and intelligence” for …not knowing that he already for 6 months have been advocating … transformation of sea level rise into an “additional” volume of evaporation and clouds,
With posts like those, who needs enemies?
Carbomontanussays
Piotr
I know them. “Geopolitik” they call it
Vladimir Putin was employed several years in Dresden, SBZ (Sovjett besetzte Zone) and may have learnd his worst geo- political manners from there.
Nephelai is a basic comedy of Aristophanes. That seems re- written by Ludvig Holberg 1684-1754 as “Erasmus Montanus”/ Rasmus Bjerg.
Else Den politiske kandestøber /the political Tinker. The Knowitall von Bremen, who became Lord Major of Hamborg.
Hr Schürle should be made aware that there is a lot of learnt, Dichtung und Wahrheit also in Denmark.
And that all this can be found on Wikipedia today so we look them from above and down into their chards..
Carbomontanussays
Hr. Schürle
Again I must remind you of magnitudes and proportions. You state:
MY CONSCEPT – for lowering Sea Levels & The Earth`s temperature- WORKS!
Your proof for that is that ENSO works the same. The La nina is shown to lower the sea level by giving more rain on land.
Q1, are you planning a political and engineering entreprize as large and strong as the ENSO?
Q2, or are you suggesting the political rectification of the pacific ocean oscillation?
by cisterners and Regentonnen & cetera? and even filling water into 0ld mines and artificial pits…
“All contributions matter, the mouse said, he peed in the ocean!”
That ridiculous mouse did show a high moral and a good example, at least. He had proper conscepts of matter and knew source- sorting. And knew wich way water is running ( Heinrich Böll has published on the same in Katarina Blohms verlorene Ehre) And he did neither pee in his pants nor in his bed!
prlsays
The La nina is shown to lower the sea level by giving more rain on land.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology forecasts that the current period of La Niña will end in the coming southern hemisphere autumn. It’s not a permanent change in sea level.
@C. – “Q1, Q2”
I just wanted to flip the switch with you (and others).
But I didn’t find any switch with you.
This may be because you seem to be in constant dialogue with Mickey Mouse and the Pope. I’m probably already very late with my concept of saving the climate and humanity. Despite everything, you still have to dig the artificial pits on your doorstep. It’s best to dig on the south-east side of the house (in the direction of Russia) and hang your senior secretary Stoltenberg above the front door, … Putin is going to pick him up from you soon…
Carbomontanussays
Hr Schürle
Stoltenberg is allready picked up. He will be installed to rule over the Norwegian oil found as soon as he gets out of NATO / OTAN The Grand Old Party arranges it that way.
Piotrsays
macias shurly: “ my concept of saving the climate and humanity ”
… with rain barrels and pits, right.
ms: You still have to dig the artificial pits on your doorstep”
What says the Napoleon from the next bed over? Does not like the new medication either?
Carbomontanussays
No, Hr Schürle
Stoltenberg is allready headhunted and will be hanged again. He is taken from NATO /OTAN and made chief of the Norwegian oil and gas fund, 1 trillion Euro. Their shares in soviett- russian banks and industries will be sold away as soon as possible, but not immediately because the courses are too low now.
Moskva and Krjeml is also 60 deg north, so the direction to Moskva unless you are a flat earther or believe that the earth is cylindic, is east northeast from here.
But, what should rather bother you now is the electricity prices when Putin turns off the gas.
And next, the wheat, potatoe, and the Ammonium nitrate- prices. All is extreemly dependent on fossile fuels and world trade.
But worst of all, I fear, is accute danger that the very internet will fall down. It is just a matter of sho0oting down a geostationary satelite or two. And long distance oil and gas pipelines, High voltage cables and IT cables can be taken by just a dynamite or two from a submarine. The “West” has made itself totaly dependent of it whereas the russians lag behing and rely much more on paper communication if on anything at all.
nigeljsays
MS. Yes your concept of storing water on land to negate sea level rise works just fine, assuming you can find about a trillion trillion trillion dollars.
Carbomontanussays
There are poems on this also from German side, Dichtung und Wahrheit, you see. But it will take me some time to find convincing poetic adress also to this. There surely is any, if I know them right.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote: “assuming you can find about a trillion trillion trillion dollars.”
Democrats: “Hold my beer! Watch this!”
Bottom line is, it may go up about a foot by 2052. Maybe Brandon ought to get off his ass, stop wasting money on SJW crap and start building some walls. How ’bout them apples?
KIA: Does your house have walls? Why? Are you obsessed with walls?
BPL: No, KIA, it’s because it’s a house. A national border is not a house, and national borders typically do not have walls. Do I really have to explain this to you?
@Nigelj
! What a gifted project manager you are !
A rain barrel that lasts 30 years costs poor people
$20 and even poorer ones get them for free.
But the toilet paper, which you can certainly use every day for your unclean calculations, will cost you a small fortune.
nigeljsays
MS. I am a gifted project manager. I used to do that sort of work as part of my job, and I was paid big money.
How many rain barrels would be required to negate say just 1 mm of global sea level rise per year for the next 1000 years? I think it would be an absolutely massive number. Prove me wrong.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Nigel says: “How many rain barrels would be required to negate say just 1 mm of global sea level rise per year for the next 1000 years? I think it would be an absolutely massive number. Prove me wrong.”
Define “absolutely massive number”.
Here’s the calc FYI:
Ocean area: 139 EE6 sq. miles.x 5,280 ft/mile x 5,280 ft/mile =3.8751 EE15 square feet
1mm = 0.00328084 ft.
Volume of top 1mm of ocean surface = 3.8751 EE15 x 0.00328084 = 1.271357 EE13 cubic feet
Assume a barrel of water = 42 gallons
volume of barrel = 42 gal/7.48 gal/cu. ft. = 5.614973 cu. ft.
Number of barrels in top 1mm of ocean =1.271357 EE13 barrels/5.614973 cu. ft./barrel
=2.26 EE12 barrels = 2.26 trillion barrels.
That’s pretty massive.
@nigelj
Your skills as a project manager fail because you don’t know how to calculate the value of a water butt.
Of course, the roof area (e.g. 100m²) and the volume of the annual average precipitation (e.g. 1000L/m²) and the costs and service life of the rain barrel are decisive. After 30 years, my rain barrel has ideally diverted 3000m³ of runoff into gullies and rivers => into garden irrigation, washing machine, & evaporation and saved me ~ € 10,000 / 30 years on the water bill with , because I pay € 2.20/m³ for drinking water and € 1.70/m³ for sewage fees.
The global urban land area is ~ 1.5 million. km² (increasing trend). The proportion of roof areas is estimated at ~25% = ~375,000km².
With average annual precipitation of 1000mm/m², that’s 375km³ = ~ 1mm SLR.
25-30% of the annual SLR would thus be “defused” – a corresponding amount could remain in the groundwater – with a provisional, economic and global total gain / year of
€ 375,000,000,000 (at 1€/m³).
Now it’s best to buy a bottle of wine and lie down in a rain barrel for a week to think about your career as a manager of climate-protection-projects. There you can think about why the rain barrels don’t cost trillions & trillions – but bring in these trillions as a material & climate-protective gain.
Photosynthesis requires ~1000L of water to assimilate ~1-2 kg of carbon from the atmosphere.
375km³ for additional plant growth can thus absorb ~ 0.75Gt carbon or up to 2.75Gt CO².
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly.
There are gaps in your calc’s and the way you present information is a mess. Please tabulate for one house how much money you save by not buying water, and ALSO how much your rain barrel instillation costs including the barrels, the piping and irrigation systems and associated work. THEN show whether this saves money and how much. Then tabulate this for reducing sea level rise by 1mm.
Please advise exactly what proportion of the water collected would be permanently stored in aquifers and what would just be channeled away into the local river or storm water system, and evaporated away, and HOW you calculate this. THEN derive how much sea level that would ACTUALLY reduce and give us the numbers.
@Nigelj
What a gifted project manager you are !
A rain barrel that lasts 30 years costs poor people
$20 and even poorer ones get them for free.
But the toilet paper, which you can certainly use every day for your “unclean calculations”, will cost you a small fortune.
Killiansays
Do yourself a favor and calculate the water retention capacity of global arable land raising SOC from the current < 2% average to, say, 15% two meters deep and then deeply consider you are, as so many do, creating a solution without a problem that simply doing Regenerative Agriculture, which is understood to be necessary already, would accomplish.
Piotrsays
Killian 23 Feb: global arable land raising SOC from the current < 2% average to, say, 15% two meters deep _
Has anybody grown their soil to 2 meter deep-soil (the typical topsoil today is 10-25cm deep)?
How long did it take them ? US Dept.of Agriculture: “most soil scientists agree that it takes at least 100 years to grow soil by 1 inch“)
And how easily scalable it is to the “global arable land”?
“The details are not _your_ friend ” the Devil
Killiansays
You seem to think the USDA does permaculture. It doesn’t. Thus, not relevant. And it takes WHAT or WHO 100 years?
*** 4 per thousand initiative of UN Climate Change Conference 2015 ***
By increasing the soil carbon stocks in all soils of the world by 0.4% per year,
the total anthropogenic CO2-Emissions could largely be compensated.
The Water Retention Index (WRI) the potential of the soil to retain water is determined primarily by soil texture, bulk density and organic matter content. The finer the texture of a soil, the greater the surface area of the particles, cohesion and capillary rise, and thus the greater the potential to retain water.
Organic matter has a high affinity for water, so that as the percentage of organic matter in soil increases, so does its water-holding capacity.
The changes in organic carbon content over time are used to project the Rs parameter, assuming a soil with a higher organic carbon content to have a proportionally higher water retention capacity and I therefore apply the same percentage changes calculated for the organic carbon directly to the Rs value.
Again: The potential of the soil to retain water is determined primarily by soil texture, bulk density and organic matter content.
If you add 27L of humus / m² and year – WRI can increase by 10L/m²
Carbomontanussays
Killian
While fighting your class enemy and furthering your agenda- mission, I believe you are smashing in many open doors, and hurt your own program by not being qualified for it.
Worst of all, you are likely also to deny this or even give a damn to it.
Regenerative agriculture is what I learnt from my Father and Grandfathers and furter in public school abvove yours in the grades, and what we have done here in our garden now for most of my life.
I did examine them for 2 semesters. They also believe in that and teach that at the agricultural highschool.
A worst problem is the flat earthers and even flat heaveners.
Putin is flattening Ukraina now for his regenerative agriculture.
“Onset of modern sea level rise began in 1863, study finds”
“An international team of scientists including Rutgers researchers has found that modern rates of sea level rise began emerging in 1863 as the Industrial Age intensified, coinciding with evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.”
“The study, which used a global database of sea-level records spanning the last 2,000 years, will help local and regional planners prepare for future sea-level rise. The study appears in the journal Nature Communications…….’
“Onset of modern sea level rise began in 1863, study finds”
“An international team of scientists including Rutgers researchers has found that modern rates of sea level rise began emerging in 1863 as the Industrial Age intensified, coinciding with evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.”
Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?
nigeljsays
Thomas Fuller.
“Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?”
You tell me, and show your evidence. I think it’s very unlikely. The first commercial oil well in the world was drilled in the south caucasus region of Russia in 1846 and Americas first oil well was only drilled in 1859 in Pennsylvania. So there would clearly not have been enough oil wells by 1863 to be significant for land subsidence..
And its very unclear why sea level rise would have been most measured in those sorts of locations. Its far more likely sea level rise would be measured fairly evenly around the worlds coastlines. it should be noted the Caucasus region is inland. And if there WAS significant subsidence the people plotting sea level rise would have considered this factor.
I really struggle to believe you were being serious.
” really struggle to believe you were being serious.”
This guy Fuller wrote a book in the span of a couple of weeks to take advantage of the “Climategate” e-mail incident. His approach is obviously hit-and-run.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: This guy Fuller wrote a book in the span of a couple of weeks to take advantage of the “Climategate” e-mail incident.
Did the guy figure out who was BEHIND the attack? After all – in the original “gate” – everybody was after those who ORDERED the break-in, NOT after their intended victims…
John Pollacksays
“Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?”
No. The volume of oil extracted in the 1860s was tiny, and most of the places that it was extracted from were well inland. For example, the cited study said that for sites in the U.S., “modern rates emerged earliest in the mid-Atlantic region in the mid to late 19th century.” At that time, commercial oil extraction had begun in western Pennsylvania, hundreds of kilometers inland, on the west side of the Appalachian mountains. That wouldn’t trigger any subsidence on the coast.
The actual paper might help this interchange. Walker et al (2022) ‘Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863’Abstract:-Sea-level rise is a significant indicator of broader climate changes, and the time of emergence concept can be used to identify when modern rates of sea-level rise emerged above background variability. Yet a range of estimates of the timing persists both globally and regionally.
Here, we use a global database of proxy sea-level records of the Common Era (0–2000 CE) and show that globally, it is very likely that rates of sea-level rise emerged above preindustrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), which is similar in timing to evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt. The time of emergence in the North Atlantic reveals a distinct spatial pattern, appearing earliest in the mid-Atlantic region (1872–1894 CE) and later in Canada and Europe (1930–1964 CE). Regional and local sea-level changes occurring over different time periods drive the spatial pattern in emergence, suggesting regional processes underlie centennial-timescale sea-level variability over the Common Era.
zebrasays
Or……”it’s complicated”.
Tricky enough when you take away all the variables:
But anyway, water is like energy. It has to go somewhere. So melting ice will result in something changing, if one wants to reason parsimoniously, and it is reasonable to predict that the change will be disruptive.
J Doug Swallowsays
MA Rodger says something regarding sea level rise in Canada. Is this winter’s temperatures causing a huge rise in the sea level?
FEBRUARY 25, 2022 CAP ALLON
CANADA SETS A SLEW OF LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS, 17 IN B.C. ALONE
At least 17 low temperature records were broken in British Columbia alone on Wednesday, according to Environment Canada data, as Arctic air parked itself over the province, and indeed over much of the the country, too.
The majority of the fallen records date back decades, with the oldest being the city of Duncan’s -7.2C (18.1F) which, until Wednesday’s -7.7C (18.1F), had held for 105 years–since the year 1917 (the Centennial Minimum).
Other temperature records broken in B.C. (in degrees Celsius) include:
Campbell River: -9.5 bested the -6.6 from 1982; Hope Slide: -16.5 beat the -14.8 set in 1979; Malahat: -7 broke the -6.3 set 2011; Nanaimo: -7.5 vs -5.6 (sate set not indicated); Port Alberni: -9.5 vs -7.2 from way back in 1922; Port Hardy: -4.6 pipped the -4.3 set in 1982; Powell River: -5.5, vs -4.5 from 2017; Qualicum Beach: -6.9 vs -4.6 set in 2018; Sechelt: -4.7 vs -3.6 from 2018; Sparwood: -28.2 vs -26.7 set back in 1956; Squamish: -6.1 vs -5.5 from 2018; Tofino: -4 broke the old record of -3.3 set in 1982; Trail: -17.4 vs -17.1 from 2018; Victoria: -6 pipped the -5.9 set in 1993; West Vancouver: -5.7 usurped the -3.1 from 2018; White Rock: -5.5 bested the -4.4 set in 1957.
Why is the sea level not rising in Antarctica where I assume that you believe some of this water is coming from?
Relative Sea Level Trend
999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica
• EXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGE
The relative sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.45 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
nigeljsays
JDS. Your data on Bahia Esperanza is well out of date. The world didn’t stop in 1993. Sea levels are not rising in that particular part of Antarctica because the land is uplifting there due to techtonics and melting of glaciers. Obviously this is not indicative of the rest of the world. Obvious to everyone except JDS.
Just speculating here, but those who read a little know that ice sheets exert a horizontal gravitational pull–less ice sheet, less pull. And lower local sea levels. Bahia Esperanto is near the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, which is warming about as fast as the Arctic. I’m guessing JDS has probably scored yet another ‘own goal.’
Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?
Yes, even in that well-known oil-producer, Vanuatu. /sarc
Mr. Know It Allsays
Thomas Fuller quote above: “Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?”
Maybe not, as the comments from others have stated; then the question becomes when did groundwater extraction begin causing land subsidence? THAT could be a significant part of the measured “sea level rise” in 1863. In fact, it is a huge problem around the world today:
It will be important after news of flooding that we are not fooled by hysterical claims of SLR if, in fact, the biggest contriubutor to the problem is land subsidence due to groundwater extraction, etc. I suspect in many cases that has been hidden from the public by the dishonest media.
On land subsidence due to oil and gas, there is a lot of information available. The last sentence in this one is hilarious – says the oil and gas industry should pay for the damages. I guess he forgot WHO was using the oil and gas.
:)
3.4 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the USA? 2 million of them not capped properly? Maybe this is some low hanging climate change mitigation fruit that Brandon should spend some money to fix so they don’t spew chemicals into the air? Nah, Jan 6 is FAR more important than fixing CC.
KIA. The onset of modern sea level rise in 1863 was very unlikely to be due to land subsidence from ground water extraction, because ground water extraction wasn’t hugely extensive in the 1860s, and there is no evidence it accelerated dramatically around that point. Ground water use accelerated very dramatically after 1920’s and was huge in the later part of the 20th century. Graphs are easily googled. Same issue as drilling oil, which should have been literally obvious to you without even needing an explanation.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Graphs are trickery. Is the water rising or is the land sinking? Not easy to determine, but it is easy to say it’s one or the other to prop up your desired narrative.
Carbomontanussays
Mr.Knowitall:
Here, where I live, the land rising and evidence landmarks of the same and how to see it and find it for yourself is public school pensum for everyone, also for the closed society flat earth industrial slave manufactring worker kids from the slums.
Further south there is obvious landmarks of the opposite, old sinking lands that is being lost, and fameous inhabited islands that “were taken by the sea” and vanished in historical time.
There is absolutely no excuse for “american” knowitalls on this Because, the landmaps of North America coasts and inland lakes and pools tell us quite exactly the same and parallell post-glacial history of recent time.
We hardly mention coasts and lands seas and rivers, harbours and stone age archaeology, Mammuths, petroglyphs and all that without having that general and fameous map of landrising and sinking curves at hand and in mind.
Q: Do the Knowitall blood or race or people / nation come from the closed and isolated ghettos where mentionings of such elements were strictly forbidden in your time?
Because, you see, it conflicts and ruins both the rumors of earth being created 6000 years ago, and that state religion of matter and earth being created by the uneducated industrial workers ` ruling and “scientific” and “necessary” mandate. And through the contra- dictions of that class or blood of Knowitalls.
Physical geography is often strictly forbidden and secret science secret knowledge in the thinktanks and peoples republics you see. It reminds us on that.
Q2 Have you been subject to any such early social political and religious deprivation?
It may have an even uglier explaination.
Here where I live, we also have obvious megalitic documents and marks / proof of early settlements with agriculture, and stonehenge systems of large scale reindeer and annual seasonal moose- hunting terrestrial systems and festivals. & further obvious proof of 2-3-4-5 000 years organized and scilled, so0cial life and activities, and they are given and told of as “our people”
Q3, are such tellings of archaic activities and land history and geo- physics strictly forbidden on your side over there in the states because it entails that autentic native and earthly and national people did live there before you?
Here, we are even allowed to discuss the neanderthals and their evfentual habits and lands and how lands are sinking and rising. We are being told of that in public school allready.
And have no problem when the sea levels are changing speed.
I have my landmarks and eye marks and benchmarks on the traqditional stones and rocks and shores, even recent harbours, as I have been instructed not by alians, and can understand it and discuss it as easy as that.
Mr. Know It Allsays
nigelj,
SLR in 1863 may not have been caused by land subsidence, nobody knows because they had no way to accurately measure subsidence in 1863, but it isn’t likely that it was caused by CO2 either, as the level had not risen enough above pre-industrial to make a difference. They also had no way to measure SLR accurately either at that time. It’s all speculation.
It is also possible that the paper on 1863 SLR was a hoax. People have been writing fake bullshit “studies” in the soft sciences using the latest woke terminology and submitting them to academic journals to prove that academia is biased and corrupted. It could happen in the hard sciences as well.
True to his assumed name, Mr. Know Shit All is saying that he thinks Walker et al (2022) ‘Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863’ cannot properly establish by using “a global database of proxy sea-level records of the Common Era (0–2000 CE) … that globally, it is very likely that rates of sea-level rise emerged above preindustrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), which is similar in timing to evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.”
Mr. Know Shit All defends his bizarre view on this, firstly by asserting that “subsidence in 1863” cannot be assessed thus preventing any meaningful analysis and secondly that the study is possibly “fake bullshit” which apparently would employ “the latest woke terminology.”
Walker et al (2022) is an interesting paper in that it, if you consider the world’s oceans as a giant water-filled thermometer, Walker et al provide in their Fig 1a yet another analysis resulting in the good old Hockey Stick so loved by all those deluded denialists..
KIA: “…it isn’t likely that it was caused by CO2 either, as the level had not risen enough above pre-industrial to make a difference.”
So, this would imply that you, Mr. KIA, have some standard by which to evaluate how much CO2 would “make a difference.” As it happens, the difference between CO21750 and CO21863 is around 4%. So, would 5% “make a difference?” 10%? How about today’s ~50%?
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is not the sort of thing that gets much attention unless for some reason it allows certain folk to suggest AGW is a myth.
So surprise-surprise, bar a few dutiful items in the press (eg here or here) not a great deal of ink has been spilt over the new record low for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. In the JAXA data, the record was set on 19th February of at 2.128M sq km, braking the prevuious record low of 2.147M sq km set om 1st March 2017.
In the NSIDC record which averages SIE differently, the chArctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph shows the new low on 25th Feb at 1.924M sq km, the previous record sat at 2.110M sq km set on 3rd Mar 2017.
2017 retains the lowest Antarctic SIE monthly values and with the lowest January & lowest February obviously tops the league of meltiest Jan+Feb.
2022 which was fourth meltiest Jan (behind 2017, 2019 & 2006) & second meltiest Feb just squeaks in as 2nd for the combined Jan+Feb in the JAXA record.
The Antarctic SIE record had shown a slow increase in SIE levels from 1979 with a sudden increase in 2013-15 before an even-more-sudden drop to make 2017 the meltiest year on record. From 2020 the Antarctic SIE appeared to be back to average but since October last year, the SIE values have been dropping into the high-melty zone again.
Whether Antarctic SIE stays being melty for very long is anybody’s guess. The climatology down in the oceans around Antarctic is all rather tricky.
JAXA Antarctic Average SIE for Jan+Feb
1st … 2017 … 3.0M sq km 2nd … 2022 … 3.2M sq km
3rd … 2019 … 3.2M sq km
4th … 2006 … 3.3M sq km
5th … 2018 … 3.3M sq km
…
11th … 2020 … 3.7 M sq km
…
14th … 2016 … 3.8M sq km
…
17th … 2021 … 3.9M sq km
…
33rd … 2014 … 5.1M sq km
34th … 2015 … 5.4M sq km
There are 34 years 1989-2022 with full daily data, so 34th = last.
There was some comment on last months UV page on the plastics problem. I found this recently on the climate change aspect of the problem:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5eda91260bbb7e7a4bf528d8/t/616ef29221985319611a64e0/1634661022294/REPORT_The_New-Coal_Plastics_and_Climate-Change_10-21-2021.pdf
The “models” and their “output” are always “changing”, ever moving. Be careful what you believed yesterday, you might be telling porkies today.
https://theconversation.com/safe-havens-for-coral-reefs-will-be-almost-non-existent-at-1-5-c-of-global-warming-new-study-176084
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01022022/warming-ocean-coral-reef-refugia-study/
RCR: The “models” and their “output” are always “changing”, ever moving. Be careful what you believed yesterday, you might be telling porkies today.
BPL: They are extremely consistent.
https://bartonlevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
Hey barton paul, thanks for the completely irrelevant reference & out of context distraction to what I actually said and why and what it meant based on was written communicated by scientists in those articles about those Ocean Models.
At least you are extremely consistent!
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-3/#comment-801080
Thanks for not giving the context and then complaining because I missed the context. At least you are extremely consistent!
Barton Paul : “Thanks for not giving the context and then complaining because I missed the context. “
XRRC: The url links were the context!
Obviously!
So…. you don’t read the links, but that equals Rocks not giving you context? That is, because you want to get in a personal attack, you gaslight?
According to nigel, you never troll like this.
XRRC: So…. you don’t read the links, but that equals Rocks not giving you context? That is, because you want to get in a personal attack, you gaslight?
BPL: So… you post something stupid, rely on the links to provide any context, and people take you at your word and respond? That is, because you want to get in a personal attack, you gaslight?
@RC Rocks
https://theconversation.com/safe-havens-for-coral-reefs-will-be-almost-non-existent-at-1-5-c-of-global-warming-new-study-176084
“Almost non-existent”. So rare that they have only recently been discovered –
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01022022/warming-ocean-coral-reef-refugia-study/
Isn’t it great how Real Science works? For more Science and the complexities of AGW threats to coral ecosystems, see –
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0041-2
“Here we show that in the aftermath of the record-breaking marine heatwave on the Great Barrier Reef in 20162, corals began to die immediately on reefs where the accumulated heat exposure exceeded a critical threshold of degree heating weeks, which was 3–4 °C-weeks. After eight months, an exposure of 6 °C-weeks or more drove an unprecedented, regional-scale shift in the composition of coral assemblages, reflecting markedly divergent responses to heat stress by different taxa.”
Yes, true. Good ref. I’m well aware of Terry Hughes and others work on the GBR and what the state of play is on other reefs. The new finely tuned models are helpful. The prognosis was already a catastrophe in the making. Not much time left now.
When the most of the GBR disappears (and the others say in the Carribean, SE Asia and Africa disappear) and doesn’t recover maybe then the world will sit up and take notice?
The people might be shocked and rage and cancel vacations to exotic island resorts that have closed down but I doubt it will change anything even then.
Hr.Rocks
This, I believe , is rather dependent on your own systematic underswtandings and your priorities of what you put together and call your own model understanding and “models” in plural.
And a question also of how precise, representative and accurate you expect it to be.
and also your very conscept of model and models and modeling.
You ideas about this tell more about yourself because, in our days, peoples very ideas of models and modelings since the introduction of IT are rather extreemly inflated, diverging and unprecise.
Having had a lot to do with models and modelings and especially in traditional contexts, I see this and hardly have such problems.
A working and practical “model” should also be adjustable and repairable in an easy and cheap way, else it is of less value for its purpose. That is mostly the case with “models”.
It is not about me. Nothing is about me.
My comment: “The “models” and their “output” are always “changing”, ever moving. Be careful what you believed yesterday, you might be telling porkies today. “ … was simply some lighted humor about an increasingly dire situation.
And a little heads up about how fast things are changing in the post hoc world of data analysis.
The reality isn’t changing … only the latest climate models and the scientific reports and opinions about it are what is changing.
You are again barking up the wrong tree. Stick to wood chopping?
”
Dr. Rocks
The reality isn`t changing…”
Which reality? I can show you and anyone both permanent and changing reality. Your personal choise in that spectrum for your argument tells us more about yourself, as I told everyone.
“Only the latest climate models and the scientific reports and opinions about it are what is changing.”
Again , which latest models and scientific reports and opinions,
I can easily find both very permanent and rigid, and models, scientific reports and opinions about it on moove. So here you also make personal choises and discriminations that tell us more about yourself and less about what there is in reality.
You better betray for us which tree you are barking up into. I could advice you further on that because there I have been very clever and could even teach and advice on it last sunday. To great success, we had to rescue a model up there, Where she rather had to climb up the other and next tree..
And woodchopping, what cracks and splits and why, and what rather keeps and never cracks. as with reality and models quite in general.
Avoid adminestering and teaching on things and subjects to which you are less aquainted.
Also avoid furthering and selling the same.
On just who is and is not toxic, that belongs on the other board. Let me briefly just say I posted the evidence and nobody even tried to disprove it and nigel actually conceded. Seems he’s forgotten this. (Hardly…)
Killian. I conceded nothing. I suggest you go back to the last months UV page and read my clarification dated 1 FEB 2022 AT 4:37 PM directed at XRRC : To paraphrase this I mentioned that I believed the responses of various people to killian were just healthy criticism of his views, and none of them where trolling, abusive or dishonest. Please read it.
That’s because we don’t care. The back and forth is boring and unproductive.
Indeed. You’d think you’d/they’d all stop at some point.
As I showed in the past, it didn’t use to be this way and it wasn’t me who started all this.
Why don’t you call for the next reset? I’ve done it several times and it always fails after a short time. People’s habits die hard. Hell, even doing so just starts another flame thread.
Your turn.
(Please do note, until the long-term core starts holding each other accountable, nothing will change. Expecting the vicitims of the bullying to solve it clearly has not worked.)
Correct. So the opposition will need to be steemrolled.
What is the plan?
The plan is to have no plan. :-)
XR RC Rocks “29 JAN” “ 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.
At the same time, there were 65 matches for ‘Piotr’. Hmm…
An informative article on the synthesis of heat and humidity:
https://apnews.com/article/climate-floods-science-environment-and-nature-42655c2d26ebef9f76383a59bd1e6df0
S.B. Ripman,
The paper being described is Song et al (2022) ‘Trends in surface equivalent potential temperature: A more comprehensive metric for global warming and weather extremes>/i> which probably is more to the point than the APNews item.
The paper proposes that ‘temperature’ is less of a good physical measure of AGW because rising temperature brings with it additional humidity that, when combined with temperature, can be seen as showing a ‘tropical amplification’ while temperature alone shows solely ‘arctic amplification,’ this a more interesting aspect of their proposed new AGW metric than their global average values.
imho the metric should always have been atmosphere concentrations. The long goal should be sub 350 ppm of CO2. Today’s should be whatever you do do not breach 430 ppm CO2 (or 450 max in an emergency).
Everything else, all other Climate Forcings, flow from those atmos levels, including humidity. Just ask a climate modeller what drives everything else besides the incoming energy from the Sun. And volcanic activity of course.
Global Mean Average Temperature yardsticks are ridiculous, and nebulous. Quite unscientific when it comes to goal setting clear climate goals and yardsticks. They always have been in my view – like no ones cares, of course.
But the Politicians the elites the fossil energy companies and the financiers people who run this world thought this average temperature business is a winner. Plus 2, 3 or 4 degrees sounds like nothing. Especially goals of Net Zero CO2 emissions to get to sub 1.5C by 2050…. while CO2 goes to 500 ppm in the meantime.
Tails wagging the Dog.
“Global Mean Average Temperature yardstickis are ridiculous and nebulous….”
Here you must learn quite a bit more..
There is no temperature in a point. Any taken or measured temperature is a mean temperature in some kind of a way. That is as much as the very nature of temperatures.
Moral: Therefore you must also learn about how to measure, to compute, and to discuss and even to make mean temperatures.
Temperatures may flatter and vary greatly locally and in minute detail and not be reliable or representative Data for the whole., Knowing the sum and mean of it over the whole system or calorimeter or time that is to be conscidered, is therefore often quite important.
XRRC: Global Mean Average Temperature yardsticks are ridiculous, and nebulous.
BPL: Thanks for the common denialist talking point. In reality, of course, mean global annual surface temperature is a well-defined quantity used in planetary astronomy as well as climatology.
BPL: Thanks for the common denialist talking point.
Gaslighting again.
In regards to GOAL SETTING, which is the context Dearly, the GMST have been ignored for 30 years already. They will be ignored, dissembled and manipulated for another 30 years as well.
That is what makes them ridiculous and nebulous in my view.
BPL: In reality, of course, mean global annual surface temperature is a well-defined quantity used in planetary astronomy as well as climatology.
Did I say or indicate that climate scientists et al should stop monitoring those GMST temperatures or stop using them in the models or any other scientific records and analysis?
No I did not.
Did I say GMST have no meaning or use?
No I did not.
But Barton Paul suggests I so intended and am pushing denialists tropes.
Again he is wrong.
Unfortunately Barton Paul misrepresents what was said and intended. Frankly he gets so many things wrong his commentary here cannot ever be trusted.
XRRC
I did read his “Global Mean Average Temperature yardsticks are ridiculous” as relating to goal setting, but XRRCs writing style is awfully open to interpretation. By being so shouty to grab attention he just generates a certain lack of clarity. So I dont agree that anyone has misrepresented him. At worst they have misinterpreted him.
He should have said something like “while the global mean temperature is essential data, its the absolute wrong choice in terms of goal setting…..”
“Plus 2, 3 or 4 degrees sounds like nothing. ”
This is arguably true, but how does 250, 400, or 500 “”PARTS PER MILLION” ” of CO2 sound like something more? It feeds the denialists tiny little trace gas meme! And at least the average person can relate to temperatures.
IMHO the problem isnt really the science and how its expressed. I dont believe there is a different way of doing it that will have a big impact. The problem is peoples complacency, poor education, and the way our brains are fine tuned to register big immediate dangers like covid with hospitals overwhelmed, and not so much slowly unfolding serious train wrecks like the climate problem.
Of course sometimes individual scientists could write things better. like anyone, I can recall a few examples in our media.
Yeah, BPL takes a dislike to people or their positions, which become one and the same, and forever has biased, thus irrational, feedback where that poster is concerned.
Here, you state the stats are useless as “yardsticks” not useless as DATA or INFO. This is a point I have long made: As regards informing the public and motivating change, average temps have very limited utility. The framing for climate *should be* strongly focused on long-tail events and long-term outcomes. This is, even if one disagrees with it, a viable argument.
K: BPL takes a dislike to people or their positions, which become one and the same, and forever has biased, thus irrational, feedback where that poster is concerned.
BPL: Classic example of projection there, Killian. But ten out of ten for saying “one and the same” instead of “one in the same.” You’re a step above most internet nut cases.
Such an excellent example of your years-long trolling.
Keep it up. It’s not as if the ecosystem is collapsing or anything,
Thanks for the link! AP had to struggle with a concept mostly used by meteorologists. I found the breakout in thetae warming to be quite helpful. Most sobering was the rapid rise in thetae relative to surface air temperature, and the very strong increase in wet bulb surface temperature already being observed, and implied for the future.
In simpler terms, it’s the heat AND the (absolute) humidity. Both are rising, and faster than air temperature alone. They act together, and it matters in both heat waves and precipitation extremes, as well as thunderstorms and tropical cyclones.
@ all and everyone
Shall we discuss plastics or anything else?
No,
Ok. So, we should neither discuss plastics nor anything else.
Well, that also seems to be the way it has become.
Not, unless you can connect your plastics to SIGNIFICANT impact on the subject of this forum – “climate”.
Piotr. True. There does seem to be a significant connection between plastics and climate change, as per my link at the top of the page:
Plastic production is the last gasp of the
fossil fuel industry.
Made from a combination of chemicals and
fossil fuels, plastic produces greenhouse gas
emissions at every stage of its life cycle. To
provide context, if plastic were a country, it
would be the world’s fifth largest greenhouse
gas emitter, beating out all but China, the
U.S., India and Russia1.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5eda91260bbb7e7a4bf528d8/t/616ef29221985319611a64e0/1634661022294/REPORT_The_New-Coal_Plastics_and_Climate-Change_10-21-2021.pdf
Although obviously this is well behind burning fossil fuels for energy, so they are the main culprit. I was just surprised by just how significant the contribution of plastics actually is.
And unlike coal burning for energy, plastic manufacture is growing. (Same source nigel already posted.)
Nigel, Feb.7 “ There does seem to be a significant connection between plastics and climate change, as per my link at the top of the page […] Although obviously this is well behind burning fossil fuels for energy”
Which was my point – to warrant discussing it on _this_ forum – it should have comparable impact on the climate as fossil fuels. From your source – it has not: less than 5% of global GHG emissions.
Ocean temp article in Guardian, from study at PLOS
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000007
reported here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/01/extreme-heat-oceans-passed-point-of-no-return-high-temperatures-wildlife-seas?utm_term=61fa6b3b2a72395225310f8bc6acd7ae&utm_campaign=USMorningBriefing&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=usbriefing_email
Speaks for itself I think.
Cheers
Mike
THnaks, I saw that and moved on as it seemed to “normal” and expected to me.
I did share some links here last month at the same time about how this rapid increase in heat was impacting coral reefs and what their imminent loss means for the world and oceans biosphere/life
https://theconversation.com/safe-havens-for-coral-reefs-will-be-almost-non-existent-at-1-5-c-of-global-warming-new-study-176084
https://www.carbonbrief.org/last-refuges-for-coral-reefs-to-disappear-above-1-5c-of-global-warming-study-finds
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01022022/warming-ocean-coral-reef-refugia-study/
The other looming record barrier to cross is +2C average on land surface globally. Been some chatter about that. There’s too many new records and plateaus being permanently broken to keep track of or share.
While few remember or care about what happened at COP26 or the AR6 WGI anymore … it’s old hat and boring.
But parties at #10 and the latest Trump news bring it on baby!!! :-)
the coral reefs are in deep trouble: https://www.carbonbrief.org/last-refuges-for-coral-reefs-to-disappear-above-1-5c-of-global-warming-study-finds
If you take current warming, hit net zero tomorrow morning and wait a couple of weeks, we would global temps jump several tenths of a degree because the particulate pollution is functioning as solar radiation management and is artificially tamping global temps down.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming
I agree but more so. Coral reefs are not on Death Row, they are “Dead man walking”.
Their last night and there’s no governor to call it off.
Eh, if we (well, those who come after us) get things under controll aquariums can regenerate reefs.
XR RC Rocks “29 JAN” “ 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.
At the same time, there were 65 matches for ‘Piotr’. Hmm…
I found an old 2018 map of methane emissions. There were no leaks from Komsomolets Island on it. So this is a recent source.
https://twitter.com/chrislibertynow/status/1482412208420274177/photo/1
In addition to Komsomolets Island, methane is emitted by an unknown source in the north of Alaska, a small source in the eastern Siberian Sea (not always noticeable). There is also a periodic source near the Laborador Sea in shallow water.
Also a noticeable source is permafrost in the north of Siberia and North America during the summer
I watched an interview with a Russian scientist who was engaged in the study of underwater methane. He said that this is only a couple of percent of the total emissions. But I think there are more
https://youtu.be/lGgcUSJbAqE
Thanks for the info update. Much appreciated.
The last 2022 photo in the series showed CH4 above 10,000 ppb on the right.
about ” an unknown source in the north of Alaska”
that’s an area with a very high concentration of oil/gas wells.
https://databasin.org/datasets/8afce595a77d4f6fb28c8f47261801c5/
Great video with Igor Semiletov to see what he and others were talking about in papers several years ago live beside the ship is really good. this section here was particularly good and sensible.
Thank you.
ref https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_Q4Er58AAAAJ&hl=en
Hr. X R Rocks
I just found it on the net.
try
WWW. A satelite finds massive methane leaks from gas pipelines
And it leads further to an article in “SCIENCE”, the magazine …Oil and gas methane ultra emitters.
ESA seems to have that satelite.
This seems now to be what really matters and acutely..
Gas pipeline sources seem often to be found quite open.
That must be the Poetic Engineers because, As I have come to know them in recent days, I can hardly believe that the nuclears behave much better on their side.
Because ERRARE HVMANVM EST and so on.
Someone mentioned housemaids having tiny gas leaks in their kitchens, last week.
Which is a so called “red herring” it seems, when we get to know this rather from “SCIENCE”
I am confused.
The News article is good. It’s not a new issue though. Leaking gas emissions has been a long term issue. Gas Fracking wells are particularly prone to leaking from the ground. Especially the under reporting and lack of evidence (poor efforts and denial by energy companies) it was happening. The satellites obviously help. They always do. Fossil fuel companies and the rest always lie or discombobulate obscure what is really happening since the East India Company was formed.
But what does any of that report or the science paper have to do with the arctic area and the source of the large Komsomolets Island plumes in particular, and Observers new info or anything I said?
maybe nothing and your simply sharing the news info which is good.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/04/a-satellite-finds-massive-methane-leaks-from-gas-pipelines/
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj4351
So once again the Peanut Gallery descends on an innocent, science-based observation and attempts to viscerate it – more accurately, me – and end up looking like the trolls they are.
This behavior of the Peanut Gallery trolling these boards trying to run people off who don’t agree with their very conservative scientific views and/or outright bullying for the hell of it, really must be reigned in by the hosts.
I’d agree to never be a poster here again if they’d turn over moderation to me to…
1. Bore Hole all denial.
2. Bore Hole all racism.
3. Bore Hole all bullying.
4. Ban/Delete the posts of repeat offenders.
As a teacher/counselor/activist/father/analyst/futurist, etc., I am used to shifting my own actions to fit contexts. This makes me an excellent moderator as I can adapt to any set of rules a given site may want enforced because of my own experiences with shifting modes, but more so because when I am moderating *for* others I take it very seriously that I am managing *their* space and have no right to impose my views on moderation on the hosts.
Will never happen, but would improve the site 1,000%.
K: I’d agree to never be a poster here again if they’d turn over moderation to me to…
1. Bore Hole all denial.
2. Bore Hole all racism.
3. Bore Hole all bullying.
4. Ban/Delete the posts of repeat offenders.
BPL: 3 and 4 would result in you being bore holed and/or banned.
BPL: 3 and 4 would result in you being bore holed and/or banned.
Possibly. But then he is the moderator and not posting anymore.
But 2, 3 and 4 would definitively result in you being bore holed and banned Barton Paul. :-)
And if it was up to me the Bore Hole itself would be deleted and no longer used.
Hypotheticals can be fun.
Whereas Barton 2 and 3 and 4 would result in you being bore holed and banned.
Maybe quit while you’re ahead? Order up some humble pie.
Hr. Levenson
Are you some of the fameous “square- heads” from the midwest, Dakota and Minesota, mostly swedes and norwegians and pioneers in the US order and prohibition moovement, white of course and “evangelicals” or at least forcefully drilled and brought up by them?
The prospect of Peak Bore is far scarier than Hubbert’s peak, for as the blogosphere expands , the supply of bores becomes infinite in all directions
I don’t see why that matters. Well, it does, but in the opposite way. As you suggest, Killian might be an abrasive poster, but doesn’t that just add to his offer’s appeal?
Killian might make a grand acting moderator, subject to the direction of the mods themselves
I think his offer bears pondering. Yeah, the mods would have to provide direction and correction at first, but there’s a lot of potential upside and the downside – uh, we’re near plug-pulling.
What say you, you all?
Me? I think the system needs a rewrite. But actual moderation by someone like Killian would greatly improve the site.
But I’d miss Killian’s take on things. Maybe let him post but have Nigel moderate Killian’s posts!
I must confess that I agree 103% with Hr.Levenson here, and maybe Killian should stick to his own promise and emigrate to somewhere, to start a new and better life there
instead of applying for a position as SENSOR behind the iron curtain..
Who is traditionally known for his being mad and drunk regardless.
Killian do website moderation? Ha ha ha. Goodbye to free speech. Killian should stay with talking about ‘permaculture’.
I’ve often wondered if the bubbling of methane along the edge of the relict permafrost on the East Siberian Shelf could entrain warmer saltier “meltier” water and upwell it to the bottom of the sea ice, creating the thinner easily cracked streak in arctic ice visible in satellite images. (running east from the New Siberian islands to south of Wrangell island)
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=-2437557.01010101,1034496,173642.9898989899,2339072&p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_All(hidden),VIIRS_NOAA20_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_All(hidden),MODIS_Combined_Thermal_Anomalies_All,Reference_Labels_15m,Reference_Features_15m,Coastlines_15m,VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,VIIRS_NOAA20_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor&lg=true&t=2021-04-03-T07%3A35%3A56Z
34 meter depth isobath as proxy for the relict permafrost edge
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-the-East-Siberian-Arctic-Shelf-showing-the-location-of-the-sampling-site-station_fig1_319989747
If there is no clathrate gun, why are there bullet holes appearing in the Yamal Peninsula?
https://www.google.com/search?q=gas+emission+craters+gydan+peninsulas&sxsrf=APq-WBtLzm1ynvbEIZ6oKD2JCKR82zccFA:1643914180997&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8pLLGmeT1AhUxgnIEHQlQAw4Q_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1275&bih=637&dpr=1
B.C DODGE: “I’ve often wondered if the bubbling of methane along the edge of the relict permafrost on the East Siberian Shelf could entrain warmer saltier “meltier” water and upwell it to the bottom of the sea ice”
1. How exactly would this entrainment work? Wouldn’t the bubble of methane just rise through the water column leaving your warmer saltier water behind?
See the old-diver wives wisdom: “ don’t ascend faster than the smallest bubbles around you. That works out to roughly 1 foot per second, or 60 feet a minute“. Bubbles larger than that rise even faster, bubbles smaller than that are probably collapsed by the surface tension.
2. I doubt whether there is enough of it – CH4 in subsea permafrost makes up less than 0.25% of Arctic ocean CH4 hydrates.
3. Unlike the vulnerable upper slope CH4 hydrate, the relict permafrost is not very exposed to the overlying waters. If it were, then your “ warmer saltier “meltier” water would have melted it long time ago.
Hr Piotr
I have a measure. The storegga tsunami, an underwater landslide at Stor- egga ( Great edge), edge of the continental shelf west of Norway, and the largest such underwater avalanche known in the world.
It was due to loosening of methanhydrat in the glacial silt sediments, and occured at max holocene, 8000 years ago 6000 BC.
The temperature went up and the grear glacier vanished 11000 BC so there we have a measure of how fast sea temperature rising creeps downwards in the sea sediments and eventual permafrosts ande icy things.. Rapid temperature rise like we have it today may take 2-3000 years.before the methanhydrates blow up.
Would undersea volcanic/ geothermal activity effects on undersea permafrost or methane hydrates, explain these very localised methane out-gassings around these Islands ?
Nigel: “Would undersea volcanic/ geothermal activity effects on undersea permafrost or methane hydrates, explain these very localised methane out-gassings
I doubt it – volcanic and geothermal activity are primarily associated with mid-ocean ridges
and the nearest one is quite the distance from these islands so no direct impact. If there were water plumes of water from Gakkel Ridge, which then were advected toward the continental slope where it could have warmed the water and destabilized the upper continental slope hydrates. But would require changes in the volcanic activity and the plumes moving in the just right directions. A change in the currents due to climate change sounds much more likely to me. That or something happens on the islands them selves – although these being a winter does not bode well for the argument that it is the island melting permafrost, So perhaps human activities, military or civilian, in those areas (they do mine gold in the southern part of the archipelago)
Observer: “I found an old 2018 map of methane emissions. There were no leaks from Komsomolets Island on it. So this is a recent source.”
It seems to be extremely intermittent – it wasn’t there for MOST of January 2022 – so in your 2018 it could have been easily missed, if 2018 map was a snapshot, or diluted by averaging out – if the map was a longer term average.
There is also a periodic source near the Labrador Sea in shallow water
There are natural seepages of hydrocarbons in there – although I doubt yours would be related to climate change – the vulnerable to climate change methane hydrates are in the upper part of the continental slope – i.e. NOT in “shallow water”.
You’re not right. Methane emissions from Komsomolets Island were throughout January. But on the 20th of January, a strong cyclone came to the Arctic from the Atlantic, which blew methane
Observer: “ You’re not right. Methane emissions from Komsomolets Island were throughout January.”
Not really – I checked it several times after the first week of January, and most of the time they were not there. Nor they are now (Feb.4-Feb.7) although this may be a result of the data
that now are close to the end of scale in most of the map – so even if there were local emission they may not show up.
Observer: “But on the 20th of January, a strong cyclone came to the Arctic from the Atlantic, which blew methane”
Which only supports my earlier point – if a weather system was enough to erase any evidence of these emissions after Jan. 20, 2022 – then how do you know that another system didn’t do the same to the emissions from the time when your 2018 map was produced? If you can’t exclude this possibility – then your claim of a CHANGE (no emissions in 2018, emissions in 2022) is not proven.
The only way you could prove it would be if you controlled your data for the passage of weather systems, OR if you took (multi?) year averages and assuming that the number of weather systems was comparable, the average emissions in 2022 were higher than in 2018.
But to see the TREND IN the ( (multi?) year averages, the emissions in 2022 would have to be massive to punch through diluting effect of the weather systems. The early January 2022 emissions, although interesting – did not seem massive enough.
The cyclone was blowing a plume of methane over the islands. But points of high concentration over Komsomolets Island remained. They could also be masked by a plume of methane from gas fields in northern Siberia, which were also blown in arctic by this cyclone.
Now in that part of the Arctic it is calm and we again see a plume of high concentrations of methane. But according to forecasts, a cyclone will come there again
Observer Feb. 8 “The cyclone was blowing a plume of methane over the islands.
Huh? You had ALREADY said it in your Feb. 5 post. and I have ALREADY USED this information AGAINST your initial claim (in my post from Feb.7 to which you respond).
Since you missed it in my previous post – let me rephrase. The vulnerability of the CH4 signal to being FREQUENTLY obscured by the weather systems you speak off applies NOT ONLY to 2022 but also to 2018. Hence your cyclones make you original conjecture:
“I found an old 2018 map of methane emissions. There were no leaks from Komsomolets Island on it. So this is a recent source”
WEAKER, not stronger – since you unwittingly strengthened the possibility that you didn’t see these emissions on a map from 2018, because it could have been obscured by your very frequent “cyclones” and “plume of methane from gas fields in northern Siberia”. So much for your conclusion: “ So this is a recent source”. It may be or may not – you simply don’t know it, and, certainly, didn’t prove it. Getting ahead of the data.
I don’t know where you got the data from, but the point with a high concentration of methane over Komsomolets Island has always been at least since January 15, even with wind. I didn’t watch before. In the link above there is a channel on YouTube where a woman has been streaming since the end of 2018 and Copernicus data is shown. I will review these videos in the coming days and see if there was anything there.
Here is youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWUv7ljACuMUxDFuReKdz1Q
Observer 9 FEB: “I don’t know where you got the data from”
Since I am commenting YOUR claims – the answer is: “from Observer, Feb. 5 “.
Observer 9Feb:” high concentration of methane over Komsomolets Island has always been at least since January 15, even with wind”
And that’s why …. 4 days earlier you said that it …wasn’t there … because it was blown away by …the wind? I quote: “But on the 20th of January, a strong cyclone came to the Arctic from the Atlantic, which blew methane” Observer Feb 5
So which is it? What you said on Feb 5 or the opposite you are claiming on Feb 9 ? You can’t seriously expect a productive discussion, if you change your facts after your interpretation of them has been challenged.
To spare you discovering the wheel – we don’t discuss WHETHER there is a CH4 source near/on the Komsomolets in winter of 2022 – what I contest is your claim “ So this is a recent source”. you BASED on a … SINGLE-day and from a … different season (May of 2018). As I said in my previous post:
“It may be or may not – you simply don’t know it, and, certainly, didn’t prove it. Getting ahead of the data.”
UAH TLT has been posted for January with a global anomaly of +0.03ºC, down on December’s anomaly of +0.21ºC making Jan 2022 the lowest monthly anomaly in all-of seven months (since the -0.01ºC of June last year).
Jan 2022 becomes the 17th warmest January on the UAH TLT record and the coldest January on UAH TLT since the -0.34ºC of Jan 2012 (which was the =35th warmest January out of the 44 Januarys on record).
As the TLT temperature is waggled so much by ENSO, the comparison with 2012 is possibly not inappropriate given the similarity between the MEI values of recent months and those back in 2012 which was then also showing the previous 19 months with La Niña conditions. So the drop in TLT to =161st lowest monthly anomaly on the UAH TLT record is not anything exceptional.
Mind, up in the Arctic, the Sea Ice Extent has seen an exceptional month.
Average JAXA SIE levels for the month of January (NSIDC graphic for Jan 1979-2021) were showing a pretty tight linear rate of decline of 56k sq km/year for the period 1979-2018, the variation from that linear trend showing an s.d. of 200k sq km . The recent Januarys of 2019-21 were all much icier that decline at 1.7sd/2.2sd, enough to reduce the 1989-2021 linear rate of decline to 53k/y. But what is now exceptional is the Jan 2022 SIE which is the most icy January since 2009 and sitting 3.5sd icier than the 1989-2018 trend and the full not-so-linear trend is now 50k/y for 1979-2022.
Realclimate.org says “Please be constructive, non-abusive and on-topic.” And then publishes comments like this for example: “Straw Man stupid….The world burns, you mewl like a an adult with an infant’s intellect…. Liar….What a tool…” (By Killian in various posts on lasts months UV thread. He is certainly not the only offender, but he is rather….extreme).
Isn’t that all just very inconsistent? How does it reflect on your websites reputation, ethics, and perceptions of your scientific consistency? Not suggesting we have to be painfully polite either. But there is something to be said for deleting the worst stuff.
Nigelj
“Be constructive…. on topic..”
An old rule says that when the crib is empty, the horses begin to bite. And unemployment is the root of all evil
5 men who have to lift and moove a stone weighing 2 metric tons never discuss “cooperation”.
But when that huge stone weighing………. is not there, they may begin to quarrel.
I’m with Gavin and the moderators. There are too many comments to waste time reading all of them. If they followed the rules, there might only be a half dozen comments allowed each month! Everyone is breaking the rules.
The poor quality of comments is a reflection of the people typing them, not a reflection of this website.
RC provides the white board. Commenters are the ones filling it with crap.
Mr.Knowitall
Here I have a comment.
I have been at several “social” websites with intense “Moderators”, obviously unqualified- quite stupid also. The “debate” went rotten and they soon sink and shrink together and vanish. At other websites there is hardly “moderation” at all, There it seems as if the participants must moderate themselves more or less. Often people begin to discuss things quite off topic, but that is normjal. They rather find their own and common social interests. They get in touch and get friends with each other due to common interests or experience of quite other kind. No “moderator” can possibly guess and administer that. Lets say they rather need to discuss their wives and their cats and apple trees, wolves and bears in their gardens, and fiddlers on their roof, ,that is off topic.
Wherefore I remind of the Krjemlin syndrom and that of an unhealthy, hardly sustainable society. That seems to develop simply due to strict “moderation” and SENSORship. The very society and its necessary “debate”, freedom of thought and of speech suffocates..
I cannot use anybodys deodorant or barber soap, wherefore there must be diversity and availability in society. Typical of Tyranny is that you can hardly get even quite trivial things that you actually need without stealing it or buying it on the secret and black market. There is lack of communication, distribution, and freedom first of all, that develops into kleptocracy and oligarchy.
Yes!
So what shall we do with the drunken sailor…. early in the mornig?.
And there may be more of them.
Still makin’ ice in the far north. Let’s go camping. Who’s in?
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute
We can listen to music as we drive to the far north:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f6Y0vD0_Vg
Get your bunny boots and your 40 below bag and let’s go!
https://www.amazon.com/extreme-cold-weather-bunny-boots/dp/b00gmefrjw
You want the white boots, not the black ones for the far north:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_boots
Pick gear for Vinson or Everest for this campout:
https://www.alanarnette.com/climbing/gearlist.php
:)
Nornickel is the largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the Arctic. An average of 2 megatons of sulfur dioxide per year. In 2023 it is planned to reduce emissions by 50% in 2025 by 90%. The first trial smell of sulfuric acid production will take place in the summer and autumn of 2022. Sulfuric acid will be neutralized with limestone (calcium carbonate). Gypsum will be piled up in dumps
Rapid cuts in emissions could cause rapid Arctic warming and ice melt
In March 2021, emissions on the Kola Peninsula are reduced by 85%. About 100-200 kilotons
In June 2021, there was an abnormal heat wave in the north of European Russia. In Karelia it was about 32 degrees Celsius. In St. Petersburg, up to 38. This is hotter than in the south of the country due to midnight sun and anticyclone. Emission reduction could have played a role in this
Abnormal heat led to wildfire in Karelia
Nornickel is committed to environmentally responsible production of metals and for many years has invested substantial resources in a bid to cut hazardous emissions at its facilities. A big part of this effort is the Sulphur Programme — Nornickel’s largest and most significant environmental endeavor that will allow us to cut sulphur dioxide emissions in Norilsk by 90% in five years. We are fully committed to completing this project on time.
https://www.nornickel.com/sustainability/environment/sulphur/
Sulphur Programme (Polar division)
This is a large-scale environmental project designed to capture sulphur dioxide emissions at the Nadezhda Metallurgical Plant and the Copper Plant (both part of Nornickel’s Polar Division), dramatically reducing emissions.
Location: Norilsk Industrial District, Krasnoyarsk Region (Polar Division)
Project overview: The project will be phased in at Nornickel’s two core downstream facilities in the Norilsk Industrial District as follows:
Nadezhda Metallurgical Plant
Phase 1: The recovery of gases at Nadezhda and the establishment of acid neutralisation facilities (including gypsum storage and related infrastructure) —to be completed by 2023
Phase 2: The expansion of neutralisation infrastructure (for sulphuric acid from Cu stream) — to be completed by 2025
Copper Plant
Phase 1: Preparatory work and retrofitting of the gas-cleaning unit — to be completed by 2023
Phase 2: Recovery of sulphur dioxide from rich off-gases at sulphuric facilities, reduction of Copper Plant’s emissions to the maximum allowable limits, and the discontinuing of converter operations with sulphur-poor gases — to be completed by 2025
Sulphur Programme (Kola Division)
The Sulphur Programme at Kola MMC focuses on the closure of the obsolete production shop in Nickel town (near the Norwegian border) and downstream modernization in Monchegorsk. These activities will completely eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions in the Russia-Norway border area and significantly reduce adverse environment impact in Monchegorsk.
Location: Nickel settlement, Monchegorsk, Murmansk Region
Project overview: The project envisages the construction of a 200 kt dry concentrate loading point, the upgrade of the flotation circuit at the Zapolyarny Concentrator to allow for production of two types of copper nickel concentrate, and the complete shutdown of smelting operations in Nickel. The new facility will separate high-grade concentrate and low-grade concentrate, ready to be shipped to third-party consumers. After all smelting operations are shut down, the employees will be offered jobs at other Nornickel enterprises.
Progress:
December 2020 — Nornickel shuts down smelter in Nickel town
March 2021 — Nornickel cut emissions at Kola Peninsula by 85% in 2021
Yes.
But this resembles planned economy and futurism of the late soviet union in the same landscape and under Stalin and further on, The fameous futural wiew of the party and its science and system in its fameous 5-year- plans.
Theory and praxis,… that is 2 different things.
Arctic sinkholes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvKpnaXYUPU
The Great RealClimate Reset
Version: Umpteenth
Now back to our irregularly scheduled programming:
Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6
Based on the current resource consumption rates and best estimate of technological rate growth our study shows that we have very low probability, less than 10% in most optimistic estimate, to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse.
…Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilisation
As I have said, we have no choice. Any solution that ignores this risk assessment is a poor solution pathway.
The paper you cite states, “Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million Km^2 of forests around the world were cut down (10) which amounts to 2 × 10^5 Km2 per year.” The authors estimate global forest cover will continue to decline in the next century.
The 2.3 million Km^2 loss comes from a NASA article in 2013: “During that period [2000 to 2012], 888,000 square miles (2.3 million square kilometers) of forest was lost, and 308,900 square miles (0.8 million square kilometers) regrew.”
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11393
In contrast, a 2018 paper in Nature says that forest cover has increased. “Here we analyze 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally (5)—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km^2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
It’s pay-walled so I haven’t read it.
I’m guessing that studies based on satellite images are more reliable than what the UN is reporting.
The UN’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 (FRA 2020) states that, “global forest area declined by about 178 million ha… in the 30 years from 1990 to 2020…” But they warn, “although reporting on forest area has generally improved, relatively few countries and territories have reliable data over the
period”, so “trends … should be treated with caution.”
https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9825en
The UN defines “forest” as “Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ.”
https://fra-data.fao.org/definitions/en/tad#1a
Denialist or thinking you are clarifying? Unclear. What is clear: Trees do not = forests.
In economics, the bubble is the problem, the collapse is the solution. Probably the same in ecosystems.
One of the best videos on the internet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k
As is this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIfcjQfJKY
Mr, Thinks He Know Ecosystems: Feb.9: “In economics, the bubble is the problem, the collapse is the solution. Probably the same in ecosystems”
Be more specific – which ecosystems you know experience the “bubble” that would them make a good analogy to economics? Too many right whales? Too many orangutans? Too many great auks?
The only ecosystem to which you brilliant analogy applies seem to be the human civilization. So are you volunteering to forfeit the lives of you and your children to bring about the so-needed collapse?
Or do you expect children of other people to die as a part of your “solution”?
Ah, squabbling about squabbling. If only there was a “one week suspension for any negative post” policy.
Reminds me of a forest. Does a temper tantrum occur if it is sent to the bit bucket? Sounds like a good experiment to try.
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for January showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.28ºC, down a bit on December’s +0.32ºC anomaly and (as it also was in UAH TLT) the lowest monthly anomaly since June 2021.
January becomes the 6th warmest January on the ERA5 record (was 17th warmest in UAH) and the 56th highest all-month anomaly on record (=161st in UAH).
…….. January Aves … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2020 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 2nd
2016 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.40ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2007 .. +0.36ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 14th
2019 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.28ºC
2021 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2013 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.07ºC … … … 11th
2014 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 9th
The Hollywood movie Moonfall is a more pure climate-science-fiction film than Don’t Look Up. Discuss.
Lol, different plot, same ending, quote Roland Emmerich:
” Momentan gibt es noch viele Leute, die den Klimawandel leugnen. Aber in 10, 15, 20 Jahren wird alles so schlimm, dass das niemand mehr abstreiten kann. Die Menschen werden also erst aufwachen, wenn es zu spät ist, denn du kannst das Klima ja nicht einfach so umdrehen.“
Translation:
” At the moment, there are still many people who deny climate change. But in 10, 15, 20 years everything will be so bad that nobody will be able to deny it anymore. So people will only wake up when it’s too late, because you can’t just turn the climate around like that.”
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonfall_(Film)
Anyway, I give a fuck ultimately as TPTB are making funny money anyway until no more quickly. Hail the Corona narrative, hail corporate media, hail big pharma, hail the Great Reset, hail RC, hail Comet Dibiasky, HAIL THE FUCKIN BIN ! Thx gavin, I enjoy it like real HELL, walk on, walk on, see you in the Ultimate Bin.
Ich rufe Dich, Nemesis!
Höchste!
Göttlich waltende Königin!
Allsehende, Du überschaust
Der vielstämmigen Sterblichen Leben.
Ewige, Heilige, Deine Freude
Sind allein die Gerechten.
Aber Du hassest der Rede Glast,
Den bunt schillernden, immer wankenden,
Den die Menschen scheuen,
die dem drückenden Joch
Ihren Nacken gebeugt.
Aller Menschen Meinung kennst Du,
Und nimmer entzieht sich Dir die Seele
Hochmütig und stolz
Auf den verschwommenen Schwall der Worte.
In alles schaust Du hinein,
Allem lauschend, alles entscheidend.
Dein ist der Menschen Gericht.
The Moonfall movie gets some stuff right. As the Moon starts getting closer to the Earth, the increased gravitational pull starts creating huge tides (and extreme thermocline tilt, likely creating super El Ninos), while simultaneously sucking the oxygen at upper altitudes. Described in various articles found on the web that are fact-checking the physics
https://slate.com/technology/2022/02/fact-checking-moonfall-movie-science-astronomy.html
Ok, but why don’t they talk real shit in the movies?:
Fossil fool induced climate heating.
I mean, Roland Emmerich is the man who created “The day after tomorrow”, Stefan Rahmstorf’s favorite movie about the “new ice age”. Now (chinese financed) Emmerich talks about the moon falling down on earth, lol. What about some movie showing little kids starving because of extreme drought caused by fossil fools? Or showing billion dollar real estate drowning in Florida because of extreme sea level rise? I always had the feeling that real reality gives way more thrill than most Hollywood movies could ever give.
They should show movies about real human beings and real life, not some ultra CGI shit, but real people, real facts. I haven’t seen any climate movie like that so far, it’s all ultra CGI Hollywood shit after all, a multimillion dollar Spectaculum, not real life. Hollywood is a multibillion dollar business and King Kong vs Godzilla or the moon falling on earth sells, real fossil fool induced climate heating obviously doesn’t. Cheers go out to the fossil fool industry, they do a clever job, always.
Paul Pukite: “The Hollywood movie Moonfall is a more pure climate-science-fiction film than Don’t Look Up. Discuss.”
Has anyobdy watched “Don’t Look Up” thinking – “ Oh golly, I finally get to learn some cool facts about climate!” ? Wasn’t it a satire about the perception of science by politicians, media and public? Because if it was – then looking whether it got the atmospheric science “right” misses the point of the movie.
Paul Pukite: “The Moonfall movie gets some stuff right. As the Moon starts getting closer to the Earth
you compliment the trees, but missed the forest – according to Wikipedia, the movie’s premise: is that the humans not only have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, but it was them who created the Moon!
Comparing to THAT – getting “right” a few details about the influence of Moon’s gravity on Earth , is really selling this movie short …. ;-)
Good point, the majority of people watching the movie will ignore everything about the science but there may be a few youngsters or others that gain some insight and perhaps apply that to a future climate model. It was Arthur C. Clarke that imagined the “Spaceguard” in one of his Sci-Fi novels that eventually become reality as an early-warning system for asteroids, see the Spaceguard Foundation. What will come out of Moonfall? Who knows? NASA has recently reminded us that the moon will exaggerate climate change sea rise through tidal surges every 18 years, see
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-projects-a-surge-in-coastal-flooding-starting-in-2030s
Paul Pukite – “Arthur C. Clarke imagined the “Spaceguard” in one of his Sci-Fi novels that eventually become reality as an early-warning system for asteroids? What will come out of Moonfall? Who knows?”
You may be comparing apples and orangutans. I don’t think there will be a similar cross-fertilization here – Clarke started with science, while “Moonfall” starts with anti-science – a premise that humans … have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, and it was them who produced the Moon.
And the another premise of Moonfall – that AI can become our enemy is not particularly groundbreaking – “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that”, originating with the same Arthur C. Clarke – predates his “Spaceguards” by a quarter of a century.
I don’t particularly care about the (over-the-top) human aspect of Moonfall, only about the geophysics considerations that it brings up. This (RealClimate) is an appropriate forum to discuss the idea that the moon’s long-period orbit is already violently sloshing the Pacific ocean’s equatorial thermocline, creating cycles of El Nino and La Nina. It’s an overlooked feature of a thermocline that it exists within a reduced gravity environment, whereby there are small differences in density above and below the thermocline. Relating to Moonfall, a reduced gravity environment is equivalent to having the moon’s orbit swing much closer to the earth’s surface than it physically does. This doesn’t do anything special to surface (barotropic) tides since the interface is not a subtle density difference, but the subsurface thermocline can shift hundreds of meters vertically due to the gravitational forces. The analytical issue is that solving a sloshing problem in hydrodynamics takes some doing, and the fact that El Nino/La Nina cycles are erratic means that the connection to tidal cycles is difficult to extract. No humans in the loop on this problem, just pure geophysical fluid dynamics.
Paul Pukite: “I don’t particularly care about the (over-the-top) human aspect of Moonfall, only about the geophysics considerations that it brings up.”
Since you seem to value the movie because:
“ may be a few youngsters or others that gain some insight and perhaps apply that to a future climate model
don’t you think that the PREPOSTEROUS and flying into the face of science premise
compromises any educational/inspirational potential – your “few youngsters”
would consider the effects of the Moon on the Earth to be AS REAL AS the movie’s main premise (that humans have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, and it was us who manufactured the Moon).
the ability to pass scientific insight into your “few youngster
that humans … have been around for “BILLIONS of years”, and it was them who PRODUCED the Moon –
Jeez, it’s just a movie. However, the geophysics is the geophysics and we can discuss that all day long. In the past NASA JPL has decided not to invest in research proposals that study lunar effects on climate. The site moonclimate.org has details on various failed proposals:
Earth sciences rank among the most cautious scientific disciplines. Why not fund that kind of research? Seems like a no-brainer decision to give it some $$$. A few days ago I watched a NASA congressional accountability hearing. Administrator Zurbuchen said that they are interested in ML and AI data mining type of applications. Watch it or read the transcripts here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2022/2/nasa-accountability-and-oversight
Paul Pukite: Feb.12 Jeez, it’s just a movie.
… and yet you brought it to RealClimate, lauded for getting its science right, and suggested “ may be a few youngsters or others that gain some insight and perhaps apply that to a future climate model ”
And after major science oops has been pointed out to you – and with it – the credibility of the movie as the source of insgiht and scientific inspiration questioned – you go with … Jeez, it’s just a movie.. Shouldn’t you have thought of that BEFORE you started the discussion on that “just a movie”?
PP: “ In the past NASA JPL has decided not to invest in research proposals that study lunar effects on climate. ”
… and the movie that says that the Moon has been…. manufactured by humans billions years ago, is powered by a white dwarf in its middle, and this white wharf is tapped for energy by a vengeful AI trying to destroy humanity – would possibly make them NASA JPL to see the errors of their ways and start funding studies of lunar effects on climate that would bring …. nothing to the discussion of the current climate change (since the influence of the Moon is constant and will remain so in the foreseeable future.
Unless of course that evil EI won’t start draining the white dwarf for energy again.
Today the @NASA account tweets the study that “Sea Level to Rise up to a Foot by 2050” https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1493655996492881926. The accuracy of this is contingent on the variability due to ENSO and other natural factors, which may or may not have anything to do with lunar cycles https://geoenergymath.com/2022/01/14/sea-level-height-as-a-proxy-for-enso/ Important stuff!
Piotr, Unfortunate that you aren’t able to differentiate between a movie and scientific research. I will make it easy by stop mentioning the film from now on.
You just asserted that:
Which is obviously false in that the moon’s orbit undergoes decadal changes in it’s complex path around the earth. So the situation as it stands is that agencies such as NASA JPL do present conservative findings such as predicting coastal surges due to the well-known 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle (for a link, see above my comment from 10 FEB 2022).
Yet NASA is apparently hesitant to pursue the impact of the lunar cycles on the subsurface thermocline motion described as ENSO. That’s OK since I have been working that angle, and a few other teams have been looking at that recently, such as a group at The Ohio State University, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49678-w. This is extremely challenging work in that the non-linear fluid dynamics at the reduced gravity thermocline can create even more complex cycles than the conventional tidal analysis reveals. I have published and presented this work and a review of this can be found at my blog via this post from a couple of months ago: https://geoenergymath.com/2021/12/15/the-harmonics-generator-of-the-ocean/
Paul Pukite: “Unfortunate that you aren’t able to differentiate between a movie and scientific research. I will make it easy by stop mentioning the film from now on.
Spare me your paternalistic tone – I didn’t comment on “scientific research” for the simple reason that I was commenting your, Paul Pukite’s, claims about the MOVIE. You know the same movie that YOU BROUGHT UP in this thread.
Specifically, I commented on your praise for it for getting the science “right” , and on your EXPRESSED HOPE that “may be a few youngsters or others gain some insight [from that MOVIE] and perhaps apply that to a future climate model ”
After I challenged your claims about this MOVIE – you responded with …. rolling your eyes: “ Jeez, it’s just a movie” Perhaps you should have remembered THAT before YOU brought that movie up in this thread in the first place.
Particularly, when you did so as a pretext to hit at … NASA JPL for “not investing in research proposals that study lunar effects on climate ”
PP: “the moon’s orbit undergoes decadal changes in it’s complex path around the earth”
Which would be relevant to this forum ONLY if:
1. these Moon fluctuations CHANGED over time (otherwise they are merely a NOISE around the AGW) AND
2. the magnitude of these CHANGES was COMPARABLE to that of human GHG forcing. Tthe onus of proof is on you, not on me.
Without showing THAT, you could have as send to GPL proposals to research the number of angels dancing on a tip of a needle – may be fascinating to you, but for most of us DOES NOT have the same urgency as getting the climate change right.
Piotr says:
Bizarre. Piotr doesn’t seem to comprehend that natural climate change (such as ENSO, AMO, NAO, PDO, IOD, ice ages, etc) is of tremendous interest to climate scientists. Hundreds of research papers a year are published on this aspect of climatology. Is that too paternalistic a tone?
I presume you think that climatology wouldn’t exist as a scientific discipline if it weren’t for AGW?
I agree with Professor Dessler that AGW is settled science, and that the intellectual challenges remaining in climate science have mainly to do with geophysical fluid dynamics. That’s a millennium problem and may in fact be solved through cross-disciplinary efforts.
Paul Pukite: “ Bizarre. Piotr doesn’t seem to comprehend that natural climate change (such as ENSO, AMO, NAO, PDO, IOD, ice ages, etc) is of tremendous interest to climate scientist
Bizarre. Paul Pukite doesn’t seem to comprehend the meaning of the word “change”.
Climate change is the long-term trend , while your “ ENSO, AMO, NAO, PDO, IOD” are short-term oscillations . SInce I have already tried in vain to explain to you the difference between the two, when we had the same discussion several weeks before, perhaps this time I’ll lead with definitions:
change: “the instance of making or becoming different”. See also
trend> “a general direction in which something is developing or changing”.
vs.
“ oscillation regular variation in magnitude or position around a central point.”
Therefore, for the climate TREND – the oscillations are merely a “noise”, that can be mostly removed by smoothing them with a moving average over several decades.
In addition – both terms have different societal weight
The climate CHANGE is both: caused by the humans and has massive implications to the future of the humanity
The oscillation are the opposite – not caused by the humans and have limited importance to humanity (mainly to researchers interesting in solving an intellectual puzzle)
Consequently, the former garners the substantial funding from the society, not the latter. To the unending ire of Paul Pukite, the latest iteration of it being P.Pukite Feb. 12:
NASA JPL has decided to [invest in climate change and] not to invest in research proposals that study lunar [oscillations] on climate “.
And I have explained the differences between the climate CHANGE and OSCILLATIONS already before, but apparently still to no avail. Maybe a glitch the AI code ^* ? ;-)
====
*^ “My name is Paul Pukite and I am in no way, shape, or form a climate science insider. […] I received a response to a climate science paper that I submitted explaining that it was ejected because one of the reviewers said it looked like one of those “AI generated” research papers.” [RC, 2015]
Piotr, Climate science is the study of climate in all its aspects.
The RC moderators are free to correct me if I am wrong on this interpretation.
Further, it appears that Piotr believes that anticipating El Nino & La Nina cycles have no value for humanity other than as a entertaining time-waster.
hard to decide if this belongs in variations or responses. Land depletion from misuse or overuse by a single species seems like something of a natural problem, so I will put it here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60295788
The authors distilled knowledge on the science of land use into ten “hard truths”:
Land has multiple meanings and values
The dynamics of how we use land is complex, often with unforeseen consequences
There are distant global connections
There are many trade-offs
There are few “win-wins”
Claims on land are overlapping and contested
Benefits from land are unequally distributed
Changes to the way we use land can be irreversible and have impacts for decades or centuries
Relatively small changes can have large “spillover” effects.
They say keeping these facts in mind will help decision makers rise to the challenge of sustainable, just and effective land use across the world.
Who are the “they” saying those things? Who gets to define what is “sustainable, just and effective land use across the world”? Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble. Who are these “decision makers” you refer to and who selects them?
KIA
“Who are the “they” saying those things? ”
Please read the report and the backgrounds of the authors!
“Who gets to define what is “sustainable, just and effective land use across the world”? Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble. Who are these “decision makers” you refer to and who selects them?”
Governments pass legislation affecting land use. They have the option of defining sustainable as they see it, and people have the option of voting for them or not. Right now the GOP are trying really hard not to understand the term.
Defining sustainablity precisely so everyone is agreed might not be possible, but that doesn’t even matter. Its quite easy to see how to improve sustainability in general terms and in ways from which future generations can benefit. The words sustainable, just and effective can be found in any dictionary. (Basic definitions).
Governmnets are decision makers. Corporations are decision makers. Individuals are decision makers. We know who selects such groups.
Isn’t all or most of this rather OBVIOUS? Why did you need to ask?
IMHO the link Mike posted makes a good point about land use. Too much is clearly being asked of the finite areas of land available. I would say prioritise preserving remaining biodiversity. Once its gone its gone. Climate schemes like BECCS are so obviously crazy they should be low priority. Regenerative farming has merit and viability as an enhanced carbon store, because it is just a change of use of the ‘existing’ land area.
KIA: Who gets to define what is “sustainable, just and effective land use across the world”?
BPL: I’d go with scientists.
KIA: Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble.
BPL: Speaking of not knowing how to use terms, “psychobabble” means “terms from psychiatry used wrongly.” I don’t think the original poster was talking about therapy.
KIA: Those terms have no meaning. It’s psychobabble.
BPL: psychobabble” means “terms from psychiatry used wrongly.” I don’t think the original poster was talking about therapy.
;-) yeah, they use language as a drunkard a street lamp: not for enlightenment, but for support .
Using: “psychobabble”, “Communists”, “woke”, “libtards”, “critical race theory”, “political correctness”, etc … ) is an admission of failure: those who can falsify opponents’ arguments – do, those who can’t – try to discredit the messenger.
As my favourite poet, Zbigniew Herbert, said (In transl):
“It didn’t require great character
our refusal disagreement and resistance
we had a shred of necessary courage
but fundamentally it was a matter of taste
Yes taste
in which there are fibers of soul and the cartilage of conscience
[…]
Verily their rhetoric was too cheap
(Marcus Tullius kept turning in his grave)
chains of tautologies a couple of concepts like flails
the dialectics of murderers no distinctions in reasoning
syntax deprived of beauty of the subjunctive
So aesthetics can be helpful in life
one should not neglect the study of beauty
Before we declare our consent we must carefully examine
the shape of the architecture the rhythm of the drums and pipes
official colors the despicable ritual of funerals
Our eyes and ears refused obedience
the princes of our senses proudly chose exile
It did not require great character
we had a shred of necessary courage
but fundamentally it was a matter of taste
Yes taste
that commands us to get out to make a wry face draw out a sneer
even if for this – the precious capital of the body the head
must fall”
“Sustainable” is easy to define, it is a system which can exist indefinitely given steady state background conditions. It is able to do this by consuming resources at a rate which they regenerate, and by emitting waste at a rate that can be incorporated back into the background state, to be used as a resource in another system. Someone who owns a smallholding, keeps animals and has enough land to grow enough veg for their needs, and is able to harness solar, wind and hydro for energy could come very close to sustainable living.
This definition seems generally quite useful, especially in how we use the biosphere. It does run into one problem that we cant make wind and solar power last literally forever because sooner or later we will run sort of some of the materials, even with recycling (as Killian and others point out). And to use them sustainably forever within the rate the planet can produce new rich lodes of such minerals would probably be impractical.
However I think we could define the sustainable use of solar and wind farms as having different criteria to the sustainable use of biomass. For example it would require recycling of wind and solar components and prudent use of such power sources.
However I think we could define the sustainable use of solar and wind farms as having different criteria to the sustainable use of biomass.
No. You don’t get to claim there are fifteen definitions for “sustainable.” It is a threshhold. You get there or you don’t. What you have to do is make a knowledgeable choice to use resources unsustainably because you have a specific reason to do so. But you don’t call it sustainable; that is an important facet of what got us where we are: The delusional, non-reality-based thinking.
Mr. KIA, It has to be a conversation between experts and the indigenous population. Clearly you won’t like that as you respect neither expertise nor justice.
This is silly. Why focus on the anti-principles rather than the proactive principles? Simple: They have no idea what the latter are.
“Land has multiple meanings and values”
Well, duh. And that is the problem. Land can have these things in positive ways. Indigenous cultures understand the land/waters as part of a whole. They know you cannot change one thing without it affecting the rest. They know Earth is their mother, their food source, their library, their , hardware store, their butcher shop, etc. And that other living things are both their source of life and their family. (Vegans hav a very limited, broken, dominant view of this, yet view themselves as morally superior and above Nature. Bizarre.)
“The dynamics of how we use land is complex, often with unforeseen consequences”
See above, and, of course. Thus the 7 Generations ethic, e.g. Choices must be made carefully with long-term effects understood, so they should be made slowly after careful observation and deliberation then implemented carefully, in as small a scale as possible to be sure the design functions as expected.
“There are distant global connections”
The Kogi and their cousins, our cousins, all understand this, and always have. So why should we listening to a bunch of myopic, uneducated (in natural systems), wheel re-inventers when we have the knowledge from the source? Nobody needs to read that document. Everybody needs to read about the various forms of regenerative systems design, aka TEK and Permaculture.
“There are many trade-offs”
There are no trede-offs. Any “trade-offs” are ignorance implemented. There are best solutions and there are sub-optimal solutions – the kind “modern” people come up with. Sure, you can say there is an opportunity cost to any choice, but that is economic thinking, not sane decision-making. By definition, if you are making the best decision for all, you are not losing an opportunity, you are creating a better one.
‘There are few “win-wins”’
There are *only* win-wins in regenerative systems.
“Claims on land are overlapping and contested”
Again, an economic way of thinking, not a wholistic, holistic, or regenerative way of thinking. There is only the demand that meets the needs of Nature, inclusive of human needs. Again, by definition, the people working to agreement on use means there is no competing need. Those are worked out by all involved to the satisfaction of the whole.
“Benefits from land are unequally distributed”
Again, only in unhealthy, non-regenerative systems. In those, it is the opposite: Land use is equally distributed in one form or another.
“Changes to the way we use land can be irreversible and have impacts for decades or centuries”
See #1.
“Relatively small changes can have large “spillover” effects.”
Duh. See all of the above.
Rather than focus on what not to do, let’s focus on what *to* do:
Observe and discuss as carefully and for as long as necessary to find the decision that best enhances the present and the future.
Create as many connections as possible between elements matching inputs and outputs for as wide a variety of elements as possible.
Use and value diversity, edges and places where systems overlap, which are where the richest diversity is found.
Design from the largest patterns, energy flows and functions down to the smallest. Reverse the process when building out a design.
We seek resilience over efficiency, but efficiency enhances resilience when location and co-location of elements is carefully considered.
Design to needs first and meet wants only out of abundance. Abundance does not mean extra, it means that which is needed beyond meeting needs of the whole system. “Extra” food is compost first, additional eating for pleasure second, e.g.
Zero waste.
Natural before mechanical, mechanical before hi-tech.
Etc.
XR Cambridge (reporting)
Testifying to a US House Committee today mainstream climate scientist Michael Mann said we’re on track for 3-4C of warming in 70-80 years (that is 2100) . Cities drowned at 3C include Shanghai, Osaka, Rio De Janeiro, Alexandria, Miami, most of London. Hong Kong gone. The Amazon is savannah.
Hundreds of millions of people. Entire countries having to reshape themselves. A quarter of all species dead. Ecosystems in full breakdown. Marine heatwaves sterilising ocean life. A climate out of human control. 4C? You don’t want to know
Concurrent crop failures. Food shortages, famines. Thousands dead in heatwaves every summer. This at the lower end. How will nuclear-armed countries respond? How will other countries respond? How will societies respond?
Professor Mann was under oath so perhaps is why we saw such candour
https://twitter.com/xr_cambridge/status/1491142967247388672
And @MichaelEMann is definitely not “doomist”.
(/sarc)
Here is text of Dr. Mann’s opening remarks to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20220208/114392/HHRG-117-GO00-Wstate-MannM-20220208.pdf …. nothing like the commentary reported by XR above.
(which is very weak, and incongruous. has links to news reports not science, nothing about AR6 or COP26, has old graphs old out of data modelling and really does not say anything at all about his objective – “My objective today is to review the basic scientific framework for assessing and mitigating human-caused climate change and its impacts.”
But has his habitual impossible to achieve call to “reduce carbon emissions by 50% this decade” (8 years left) which is not going to happen, and the usual dig at Exxon. Why ask for things that are physically and politically impossible to get done? Then keep repeating it for over 5 years non-stop? Why not mention that his ambitious call for “net zero” by 2050 totally blows the sub-1.5C and 2C goals and therefore COP26 and US targets are a total crock of shit? )
The credibility gap keeps widening between reality and science, into fantasy worlds of fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony. At some point his verbal “testimony” it will be posted here on https://c-span.org
Better leadership, coherent honesty, and truth telling is needed.
Quote: “Better leadership, coherent honesty, and truth telling is needed.”
You don’t say. It’s clear that nothing good will come out of the US govt before Jan 2023, possibly nothing before Jan 2025, IF THEN. Y’all voted for it. Not me.
BUT, the doom and gloom collapse you describe may be the solution we need, eh? A self-correcting system as George Carlin has said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
:)
Nationalist Narcissism. To some people the world is America. There is nothing else that matters.
Based on all the America-bashing over our FF emissions, I thought we WERE the only thing that matters.
Doesn’t seem to matter that other nations are spewing away – only the USA seems to be a problem.
Er, no. That’s the whole point of having a Framework Convention, and going through all those tiresome rounds of negotiations at the successive COPs.
Spectacular fail, KIA.
KIA: Based on all the America-bashing over our FF emissions, I thought we WERE the only thing that matters.
Doesn’t seem to matter that other nations are spewing away – only the USA seems to be a problem.
BPL: Straw man. Nobody ever said only the US matters. Obviously other countries’ CO2 emissions are also a problem, especially China and India. A carbon tariff would be good incentive for them to restrain their fossil fuel use.
So we have a commenter here at RC telling us that one of our hosts is pedaling “fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony.”
The written testimony in question states:-
The commenter XRRC finds this unacceptable because he considers the “reduc(tion of) carbon emissions by 50% this decade” to be “impossible to achieve.”
If the “reduc(tion of) carbon emissions by 50% this decade” is “impossible to achieve,” will branding those who think otherwise as dishonest and pedalers of lies be any help to man or beast? Surely a less combative approach would be the thing to do. Is waving the ridiculous idea that the science is the wrong side of a “credibility gap” a credible approach to the situation? Perhaps instead we should be asking the question – What Plan B should be put in place if our Plan A has become impossible?
(Mind, I’m not sure commenter XRRC actually means what he says.)
tsk tsk. Was what I said too confusing? (disjointed or something?)
Yes it was.
MAR: “I’m not sure commenter XRRC actually means what he says“.
In what sense? That he does not mean what he says, because his a denialist plant – a false flag operator pretending to be a “warmist” – to discredit them by portraying them as narrow-minded, full-of-themselves, petty ankle-biters?
Or that he does not mean what he says because he is a troll – who would say anything just to get a rise out of people?
Piotr,
What I mean by saying “I’m not sure commenter XRRC actually means what he says“ is that XRRC says the 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is “physically and politically impossible to get done” but I’m not sure he means it.
Okay, there is no sign so far that the required 50% reduction is happening and the outcome of COP26 (which was to come back a year later to discuss it all some more) suggests that it probably won’t happen. So you might conditionally say it is “politically impossible to get done” without the world political establishment being given a good kick up the backside.
In such circumstance a message insisting ‘it has to be achieved to so make it happen’ would not merit being called “fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony,” (this effectively repeating the main message in my comment above).
But if it were actually “physically impossible to get done,” then there surely should be some indication of what is considered physically impossible (and also why 50% is physically impossible, which it obviously isn’t). Instead we just get the troll-speak provided by XRRC up-thread which doesn’t match the “impossible” claim.
So I am inclined to conclude that the “impossible” claim is just rhetoric.
“So we have a commenter here at RC telling us that one of our hosts is pedaling
“fake news, PR Marketing spin, social media hype and giving false testimony.’.
One of our hosts?
You give them too little credit, sir,
It is the way of the world, on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, and both sides of K Street,, and Madison Avenue.
Russel. I don’t live in America, but I follow your politics. That gives me perhaps better objectivity than you have. While all politicians do wrong, there is no doubt a lot more fake news, marketing spin, and false testimony and general BS comes out of your crazy Republican Party than the Democrats, these days anyway. I believe you are indulging in false equivalence.
But top marks for your other work, the satire.
M Mann is saying we have to “reduce carbon emissions by 50% this decade”. XRRC says this is impossible to achieve and implies it is ” fake news and false testimony” and says “Better leadership, coherent honesty, and truth telling is needed” thus implying people are dishonest. I don’t believe the 50% goal is fake news, false testimony or dishonest. It is an IDEAL answer to the climate problem. It mystifies me how that is false or dishonest.
Personally I think its incredibly unlikely we can meet such a 50% goal, but the problem is if you suggest a goal like cutting emissions 20% this decade you would probably be accused of being weak.
Its also rather interesting and ironic that XRRC also criticises the less ambitious net zero by 2050 goal as essentially being inadequate.
the impact of climate change will impact people of color disproportionately. This is an instance of structural racism.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/us-flooding-increase-will-disproportionately-impact-black-and-low-income-groups
If you don’t understand how that works and is racism at work, then you are quite similar to the folks who want to argue attribution of extreme weather events to climate change. The evidence is present and available. Some low income white folks will be impacted, but the impact is going to disproportionately impact people who are not white.
Cheers
Mike
Quote from your own article: “The study notes that white and low-income communities are currently the most strongly impacted by flooding in the US.”
Floods happen where floods happen. They don’t care what the demographics are of the human inhabitants. By leftist logic (an oxymoron – I know) earthquakes are racist because many of them occur along the mostly White west coast of the US, compared to the rest of the country. Same with tornados – racist – they affect mostly the predominantly White midwest. And deadly snowstorms are racist because snow is White, and most of those storms occur in the predominantly White northern states and CANADA which is Super White and thus Super-Racissss!
Yes well, denial comes in many forms. Not only climate science denial or the typical rhetoric of “extreme weather events have always been happening” and “the climate has always been changing.”
Scientific news reports and references direct to research papers that discuss specific issues, including racism, institutional racism and the post-colonial geopolitical structural racism on a global scale still cannot move the needle.
People are emotionally invested in their long held beliefs and opinions. It’s a mindset. Psychology. Nothing can shift that. Well not using basic facts or even peer reviewed scientific analysis can help.
I had a vision of black and brown peoples in the Global South crying out “I can’t breathe” because of the knee of the Global North planted firmly upon their necks as they lay in the gutter of their collective poverty and lack of resources to respond to climate change.
Research Study: “Global assessment of oil and gas methane ultra-emitters”
“Methane emissions from oil and gas production and transmission make a significant contribution to climate change. Lauvaux et al. used observations from the satellite platform TROPOMI to quantify very large releases of atmospheric methane by oil and gas industry ultra-emitters (see the Perspective by Vogel). They calculate that these sources represent as much as 12% of global methane emissions from oil and gas production and transmission and note that mitigation of their emissions can be done at low cost. This would be an effective strategy to economically reduce the contribution of this industry to climate change. —HJS”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj4351
I think this is related because 1) shades of Don’t Look Up! and 2) it’s about when Billionaires and Scientists go totally insane together…. and the rest of the world allows them to do it and get away with it.
If a non-US country, mmm think Russia, or China, or Iran or India or South Africa had been carrying out Starlink’s satelite work the folks on the Hill in Washington and at the Pentagon and Langley would have been hopping mad like their feet were on fire but because it’s a private US company – crickets!!!
Elon Musk has no more right to clutter the sky with 30,000 satellites than any other person on Earth.
NASA and Climate scientists need earth satellites to do their work without interference.
NASA raises concerns about SpaceX’s proposal for 30,000 new Starlink satellites
and says the megaconstellation could lead to a ‘significant increase’ in collisions
SpaceX requested authorisation for a second-generation Starlink constellation
‘Gen2’ constellation would be made up of around 30,000 satellites, SpaceX says
NASA has concerns Gen2 may ‘impact science and human spaceflight missions’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10497433/NASA-concerns-SpaceXs-plans-30-000-Starlink-satellites.html
I consider Elon Musk a dangerous dysfunctional narcissistic sociopath who should be removed from all his executive positions by court order…. he should be sectioned and placed under psychiatric supervision as presenting a danger to society and the world.
XRRC
“I consider Elon Musk a dangerous dysfunctional narcissistic sociopath who should be removed from all his executive positions by court order…”
Imo you’re exaggerating. All he is doing is launching a commercial fleet of satellites to improve internet access. If it is providing a genuinely serious risk, its for Americas federal government to put a limit on it.
You are also trolling, because you have made a inflammatory statement that you must know will annoy this group. The classic definition of trolling.
As to narcissistic, look in a mirror.
“Imo you’re exaggerating. All he is doing is launching a commercial fleet of satellites to improve internet access. ”
False. He is making a network he controls access to for his financial benefit. He is not making a network to generally improve access. Yes, yes, I know; that’s not what you meant. Per usual.
Say what you mean and you won’t have to attack others for telling you you’ve said something foolish.
“Imo you’re exaggerating. ”
Who cares about your opinion? What has that got to do with public policy debate? How is it an exaggeration when we are far past the carrying capacity of the planet and the “solutions” he proposes are absolutely unsustainable and depend on very limited resources? From that perspective, it absolutely is dangerous and dysfunctional. As for the sociopathic, I would dsiagree with that. I believe Musk is neurodivergent, which is something he should not be judged for.
Killian. Musk is doing both. He’s trying to improve internet access and also make money. His alleged failing is he is not taking sufficient account of how his network could impact on other networks.
However to label him a sociopath who should be jailed for all of that is an obvious exaggeration on both counts. Many business people push things to the limits. Its the nature of our system. And at this stage he hasn’t caused anyones network any actual harm. If Musk actually built the system, and it caused damage to other satellites then there might be grounds for a civil case against him.
However normally to resolve such problems the government has rules setting limits on what they do. They are going to have to do something with all these satellites being launched by everyone.
Labelling Musk dangerous and dysfunctional for building electric cars etc, etc is also plainly hyperbole.
Hey I can dream can’t I? :-)
Waves of Waste
https://twitter.com/i/status/1491844946281832454
While a couple of commenters here try to make themself feel superior by lying about others and like the polluters they always get away with it.
XRRC. Are you talking about yourself and Killian? I mean your claims fit perfectly.
You’ve spent six years making terrible arguments and advocating do-nothing-ish attitudes and have convinced yourself you are a victim of what is actually accurate and useful feedback to you. All of your responses to critique/criticism end up being gaslighting.
Killian.
Wrong.
“advocating do-nothing-ish attitudes”
Wrong. This is what I have advocated consistently over the last several years on this website: Build out a new energy grid and transport system as fast as possible, make better use of things like regenerative farming to help sequester soil carbon, reduce our personal carbon footprints, have things like government subsidies and carbon taxes, This is clearly not advocating do nothing -ish, and you know this perfectly well because you have responded to my comments on this, so to label this “doing nothing” is either a big fat LIE or a complete delusion. You might not agree with it all but it is not under any circumstances “doing nothing”
You and XRRC are fond of accusing people of lying. Never do you provide evidence. I dont post lies and as far as I can see neither do Piotr or BPL. I plead guilty only to misinterpreting peoples badly written posts on about two occasions in 5 years. .
You constantly accuse people of being liars. You play dirty. In most cases you cannot possibly know. I only accuse people of lying or posting lies occasionally, when I have solid evidence that they are deliberately repeating falsehoods. You see this sometimes on other websites on issues like covid issue. You and XRRC over use the term .
No, hr XRRC.
I just came to think of the old conscept and political cultural “Meme” Mindreverditghetskompleks.
In English Inferiority complex , that was coined by Alfred Adler, who also became quite popular and began to teach and to cure it in the USA.
Wikipedia gives a very good introduction and systematic description of it and its consequent syndroms both in English and in German, that really is worth reading and knowing better, for some of us here.
If I should guess, I would say that you are often strongly overcompensating for some inferiority complex here.
What`s also quite dangerous is that some people get tempted to ” self medicate ” it by popular central stimulants that can rapidly accelerate the syndrom.
It helps to know what one is dealing with and talking about and avoid the most popular, inflated slogans and conscepts and websites , however convincing grand and brilliant to your feelings at the moment.
Perhaps Australia needs a high dose of Adler also.
In response to Chairwoman Maloney’s question on how much time we have in order to prevent a climate catastrophe, Dr. Mann answered:
“We have zero time.”
In an exchange with Rep. Raskin, Dr. Mann emphasized:
“Dangerous climate change is here. If you’re Puerto Rico, if you’re California, if you’re Australia, if you’re my home state of Pennsylvania, with all that record flooding with Hurricane Ida. We are already seeing devastating consequences of climate change, and it will simply get worse and worse. The real danger is that we start to cross certain tipping points, where the damage that we do is irreversible on human time scales.”
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/at-hearing-climate-experts-expose-inadequacies-of-big-oil-s-climate-pledges
Yup.
We only have time to make it “less bad than otherwise.”
To a certain degree, yes. WRT SLR, definitely. However, I do we do still seem to have the potential to reverse all the way back to preindustrial temps. IF we do that before the permafrost/clathrates/AMOC go to shit, then we can get back a world that can be returned somewhat back to where we are now.
Saw this article of a Physicist saying how much he missed out on due to Covid19 …. missing out in get-togethers with his peers and lectures and meetings all over the world … he said he would travel anywhere between 150,000 klms to 500,000 klms every year!
He was so glad he could soon get to doing the same things again …. That’s one smart Physicist that. (the name doesn’t matter, all his friends peers did the same.)
As psychotherapist @RoRandall2 explains this is a type of psychological splitting known as disavowal…
Psychotherapist Rosemary Randall describes how many of us protect ourselves from the frightening truth of climate change by splitting off the facts and putting them in a box where they don’t trouble us. As the climate crisis moves higher up the public agenda many people are finding that this old defence is giving way and they are having to face the frightening truths that they have avoided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMH3SgO4rKY
And things are no anywhere near out of control yet.
Even the crazy antics of those Republicans at the oversight committee meeting are tame compared with what is coming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBoCCLDG2A
500,000 km/year?! Can’t imagine why anyone would feel the need to travel that much. Do his family keep a photo of him so they can remember what he looks like?
I have a grain of connection with his attitude though. COVID19 cut off most of my social life (and when you live alone and 240 miles from family that is significant), and I too am glad to get back to it. My social life only needs a modest amount of travelling which can be done by bicycle and occasionally a train.
Yep. I guarantee that was true. Stunning how utterly self-centered and deserving this arrogant privileged asshole was in how he said it.
And people, some climate scientists included, consider Prof. Kevin Anderson an extremist on climate energy scenarios and proper action.
Trust the science and the scientists is the Myth. No. Only individual scientists can be trusted and even then one must remain skeptical at all times. Their politics their values always informs the work they do and what they say and do publicly.
Duplicity is everywhere: And it has been around for a very long time.
2014 – As of late, the North American climate action movement and outspoken climate scientists such as Michael Mann (Democrat Party, Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden activist /supporter!) have focused on counteracting the massive propaganda and obfuscation campaign that has delayed climate action. ….
While some of the defenders of the fossil fuel industries deny climate change, there are others like (Democrat) President Obama and those who support his energy policy, who simultaneously admit that climate change is a problem and continue encouraging the expansion of fossil fuel extraction and therefore its ongoing use. The MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz, known as a progressive, has voiced support for the expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline as does his frequent guest, the supposed progressive and would-be challenger to (Democrat) Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President in 2016, former (Democrat) Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. Schultz, to his credit, has been devoting considerable time on his air to the issue of the pipeline, and may be reconsidering his stance. As another MSNBC commentator, Chris Hayes, points out, the stance of (Democrat) Obama and other (Democrats), that they are against global warming but for the building of new pipelines, are the protestations of fossil fuel addicts, who haven’t yet confronted their addiction.
https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/02/degrees-responsibility-climate-catastrophe-1.html
7 years later (Democrat) Biden issues the largest auction of oil/gas leases in US history
Hypocrisy and Lying are two other words to cover such two-faced manipulators. A sellout is another.
Looking like a “hero” blaming the fossil fuel companies, even writing books about it and then calling for impossible 50% reductions in Global GHG emissions by 2030 all the while supporting the expansion of US fossil fuels extraction and use by the Democrat Party and President Biden and 7 years earlier President Obama too – who oversaw the biggest production boost and profitability increase of Oil and Gas companies in US History .
It’s called having your cake and eating it too. :-)
Try opening your eyes and reading it!
XRRC posts an extract “The ultimate objective of this (1995) Convention ….is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol consolidated this approach by expunging the word “concentrations” and referring to emissions exclusively. In 2015 the Paris Agreement did the same. (Apparently these later two agreements are a terrible thing)”
Its thought provoking. But by concentrating on a goal of stabilising atmospheric levels at a certain level, this would perhaps in theory allow emissions to continue completely unabated, on the basis that at some point we could just suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere before things got too bad. This would be dangerous (XRRC himself has criticised some negative emissions scenarios).
So I wonder if reducing emissions is not in fact the right goal to emphasise. And even if you gave primacy to a numerical goal of stable atmospheric concentrations, you would still need an EMISSIONS REDUCTION goal to help achieve those levels. So its all just seems like stuff and nonsense.
South Australia 2nd largest uptake of varied renewables:
A clean energy solution embraced by both sides of politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vInH3MqiaC8
(Reformatted / edited – properly, hopefully)
Try opening your eyes and reading it!
In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol consolidated this approach by expunging the word “concentrations” and referring to emissions exclusively. In 2015 the Paris Agreement did the same.
read it https://ecologicalsurvival.org/black-is-white-climate-deception-becomes-orwellian/
To see how devious this is, consider the agreement’s actual wording:
The ultimate objective … is to achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. (Emphasis added)
versus what was changed later:
… the ultimate goal [of the agreement] was to stabilize GHG emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous climate change. (Emphasis added)
Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere includes by default all GHG emissions, and not only human driven energy use of fossil fuels and LUC….. but automatically any and all Forcings natural and anthropogenic including any and all unknown POSITIVE FEEDBACKs of increasing GHGs from everywhere in real time.
…………….. in this sense the ORIGINAL TREATY was focused GOALS / OBJECTIVES for the whole world, the real world, the entire planet’s CUMULATIVE FORCINGS in real time all the time that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
The more natural forced concentrations increased and positive feedbacks were activated by global heating then the bigger the critical nature of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system became.
Requiring an updated real world response from the UNFCCC nations everywhere to address any increased threats and RISKS from the higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere occurring in real time.
The climate system responds to the CUMMULATIVE GHG Concentrations in the atmosphere no matter what the primary source is. That Data can be recorded objectively and accurately.
The present disingenuous manipulative corrupt UNFCCC system of self-selected NDCs plans and the nebulous inaccurate (and corrupt dishonest) tracking of anthropogenic emissions does not.
On this point climate scientists are silent. Dead silent. They are enablers of the powerful elites who control not only Politics at “home” but also the UNFCCC/COP system today. They have been negligent in their responsibilities to speak out on behalf of all people of the world.
Instead overall these climate scientists and IPCC authors they choose to kowtow to politicians, governments, the media, bend to popular opinion, play hide and seek with the powerful corporations and big finance plus their own academic/science Institutions where they work or seek to work and have a career.
Instead what many climate scientists have done is to fall inline with the new “unfccc system of goals” by creating a number of for-profit companies and orgs along with the IEA/EIA etc that punch out new data analysis of all the Pseudo bullshit NDCs submitted and match that up with nefarious Carbon Budgets and fake future GMST guesstimates calculation that are not worth a dime!!!
Because they ignore real world data. They ignore the original scientific based reasoning of the UNFCCC Primary Objective! These climate scientists totally ignore present and near future GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and all the active and near future increasing Sources. They ignore Risk. They ignore reason and logic and plain common sense!
All this stuff at the UNFCCC system changed significantly in 2015 – see the 2015 Paris Agreement text here – or go look or check the UNFCCC archives yourself.
There was no UNFCCC Goal or Objective designed around Temperature or GMSTs or “GHG emissions” or Carbon Budgets or NDCs …… until Paris. All of which are irrational, nebulous and unscientific inaccurate yardsticks to use.
The UNFCCC Treaty was always based from the very beginning on the Scientific basis of global GHG atmospheric concentrations!
Concentrations are much more easily and accurately measured yardsticks. With goals set for each of the different types of GHG concentration. They can be accurately measured and analyzed regionally and seasonally using Satellites.
and then there is this-
The developed country Parties have not kept their obligations to this Convention Treaty …. ever. Climate scientists are typically silent on this point as well.
The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties have been properly accommodated and supported by the wealthy developed nations as originally AGREED. The climate scientists are silent on this point too.
Precautionary measures have NOT BEEN TAKEN to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. The climate scientists are collectively silent on these matters too.
It was the Democrat Obama administration that led the push of the Global North, the wealthy High-emitting developed country Parties for watering down of the COP15 goals and actions at Paris in 2015. All the way through to COP26 in 2021.
The climate scientists collectively remain silent on all these matters and their dangerous consequences! Climate scientists are not working for nor speaking up for the interests of the general public, the world’s population across the world.
‘Uncle Toms’ (even Democrats) are as biased & racist as the KKK are. Climate scientists remain silent on these critically important issues of life and death.
2021 UNFCCC – Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement – Completely ignore the critically important PRIMARY FORCING issue of Global GHG Concentrations in the Atmosphere – short and long term.
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_08_adv_1.pdf
It has become a coordinated global Con by the Elites and Technocrats of the world based on lies and propaganda driven, facilitated and enabled primarily by the USA including the US Democrats and other Liberal Progressive political parties along with the Right wing climate chnage denying parties world wide in the form of a Cabal of wealthy powerful developed Global North nations aka The OECD and the Davos Set dominated by traditional White European Colonial nations and their post-Colonial White relatives….. all with the highest HISTORICAL cumulative GHG Emissions and Per Capita rates today
And the climate scientists overall remain silent on these principled matters ethical and moral for decades.
God help us. Because no one else is going to lift a finger or take a stand and say a word by the look of it.
It is not really a matter of “Try opening your eyes and reading it!” It is more a matter of “Try keeping your eyes open while you reading it!” Perhaps a precis of this fourteen-hundred-word rant is in order.
The thesis presents perhaps two points:-
☻ (i) The 1992 Articles if the UNFCCC talk of their ” ultimate objective” being the ” stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” But the 1997 Kyoto Protocol only talks of “aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases.”
Shock! Horror!! The Protocol doesn’t even once mention the word “concentration”, let alone “atmospheric concentration. And it’s not as though they were short of space. It is a 8,700-word document!!!
Yet the Kyoto Protocol was preceded by the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 1995 COP 1 agreement, and they don’t mention the word “concentration” either.
The reason for the absence of mention of “concentrations” is because the issue is keeping these “concentrations” at acceptable levels by controlling “aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases.”
So we are not actually talking Shock! Horror!!” but talking naive pedantry.
☻ (ii) Climate scientists are “typically” a bunch of incompetent rotters who remain silent on our collective failure to address the requirements set out in Article 3 sections 1-3 of the UNFCCC. Thus we endanger future generations and those most vulnerable to AGW as well as ignore the precautionary principle in addressing AGW.
And this is all due to an international conspiracy of “Elites and Technocrats.”.
Luckily, the commenter XRRC managed not to mention the shape-shifting lizards because mentioning them always ends very very badl………
This paper by some retired radiation physicists seems to be the latest “gotcha!” talking point among denialists.
It is published in a journal about radiation safety, which is curious but I guess not unexpected given their backgrounds. It examines C14 data to claim that all previous estimates of the percentage of atmospheric CO2 coming from fossil fuel sources been wildly overestimated.
From their abstract:
“Plots of values for the d13C and D14C statistics presented at the NOAA, Wikipedia, and other websites, likely have misled persons in the public, government, and scientific communities throughout the world to believe that elevated levels of anthropogenic-fossil CO2 have caused global warming. This false belief has severe potential societal implications and presses the need for very costly remedial actions that are misdirected, presently unnecessary, and completely ineffective in curbing global warming.”
Skrable, Kenneth, George Chabot, and Clayton French. “Anthropogenic fossil carbon dioxide and claims of its dominance and role in global warming.” (2020).
https://www.radsafety.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Skrable-article.pdf
When I read it briefly they seemed to quote previous results, say those were wrong, then proceed in the detailed descriptions to never get to the point. But it’s way out of my field and I haven’t the time to critique it.
Can anyone here with relevant expertise clarify what they thought they were accomplishing and if they actually made any sense?
Should there perhaps be a site dedicated to detailed critiques of these sporadically appearing papers?
Sort of a stop-gap for when peer-review fails.
Thanks
James McDonald.
The thesis you link-to dates to July 2020 but there is now an actual published paper from this crowd here.. It has already attracted comment over at SkS. My take on it (set out at SkS) is that the paper makes zero reference to any “previous results” which are set out in clearly in IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 5 Section 5.2.1.2 and only an AGW-denialist would be so stupid not to see this as an unforgivable omission.
Thanks. Longer reply over at SkS
It’s trash. They can mathturbate (to use Tamino’s verb) all they want, but the fact that the system consistently sinks about half of human emissions is an insuperable logical objection to their claim.
See Cawley (2011):
(dC/dt is the growth rate of atmospheric CO2; Fa is anthropogenic emissions; Fi is environmental emissions; Fa is environmental uptake.)
Note that that equation is a straightforward rearrangement of the axiomatically true:
dC/dt = Fa + Fi − Fe
Quoting from the abstract of Skrable et al (2022):
That’s a pure non sequitur, resulting from a failure to think clearly about stocks vs. fluxes.
The paper is a classic example of stupidity sent to college.
Quote: “(dC/dt is the growth rate of atmospheric CO2; Fa is anthropogenic emissions; Fi is environmental emissions; Fa is environmental uptake.)”
Nit pick: You defined Fa twice. I think you meant the second definition to be Fe, not Fa.
What is the atmospheric lifetime of a slug of added CO2?
There is no simple answer, are there are different removal mechanisms with different time scale. The lumped parameter Bern has six different timescales. This is a few years old -it may have been updated since, but it has.
13.7% permanent
13.0% decay time 372 years
19.4% decay tine 55.7%
25% decay time 17years
20.9% decay time 4.16years
8.1% decay time 1.33 years
I do not like that conscept of “decay time” however instructed learnt, and professional “scientific”
halving time is what rather should have been instructed.
Learn to discuss 1.st order chemical reactions and U238 and U 235 first and the age of the Universe.
If a foreighn lady or a Troll or a Skunk has been in your apartment, what is the “decay time” 0f that?
What is the Decay constant of your brand new car? Your brand new fiancee?
There are sprayboxes for sale on the free market to regulate the “decay times” of things. Both positive and negative.
On average, 200 years, but a small percentage will last up to 100,000 years.
Not if, but when, much of the Netherlands disappears? Uncertainty is not our friend.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/12/as-sea-levels-rise-how-long-until-the-netherlands-is-under-water/
@Killian – ” Not if, but when… ”
The problems of the Dutch are extremely costly on just a few hundred km of 300.000 Km global coastline.
With a global effort (all land areas) to retain rainwater and running waters from flowing into the oceans to store it in soil moisture and groundwater would not only be an efficient measure against SLR, but also helpful in combating water scarcity (drought) & flooding.
Of course, the measures you have already suggested will also help, such as adding more humus (Terra Preta is also welcome) to the soil to increase its water AND carbon storage capacity.
! There is still a concept to lower the SLR & the earth temperature !
All well and good except those curves tracking changes are parabolic.
We need exceptionally rapid change to have a reasonable chance of not getting to irreversible bifurcations. After all, we may already be heading for +6C By 2100. That would make everything we are doing now irrelevant.
Hr Schürle
The original Steward at sea was the traditional job of “stewing” things from Stauen. (Brandy and beers and canned & salted ham (SPAM)),
He was the “Kellner” from Cellar, Kjeller, who “stews” it away in all the rooms under deck, wherever there was a tiniest place left., And able to get it back again from there on demand or request.
So you should think it over one more time where you can possibly Stew- stauen- stoppfen- stue- store away more water in the world , in necessary Quanta to avoid sea level rise of 3 mm per year..
When will it all be soaking wet and floating over and cause even more troubble in any case?
You cannot stew it in the air, it will fallm down. Or in the ground, it will come up again, I) have seen it.
Would n`t it better to leave it back to where it comes from at least?
@Carbomontanus – “So you should think it over one more time where you can possibly Stew- stauen- stoppfen- stue- store away more water in the world …”
You can also find the following figures on my website:
– Global soil moisture (5500km³),
– renewable groundwater (625,000km³)
– and deeper aquifers (2,200,000km³)
are actually declining reservoirs that, due to their size, over decades could account for an annual inflow of 3.7mm sea level rise = 1335km³ = 9mm = 9L/m² over global land areas.
https://d6scj24zvfbbo.cloudfront.net/da475a79e4bc41c3b64b8d393a44d235/200000029-d6fd6d6fd7/HumanIntegratedWaterCycle_(2)-2.jpg?ph=02adf5ae1c
Rain barrels, cisterns or rainwater retention basins with an overflow onto unsealed urban terrain alone have a potential of approx. 1-2mm sea level rise calculated on a global scale.
Global agriculture, as the largest water consumer, currently uses ~2900km³ of water per year for irrigation on almost 50 million km² (one third of the global land area).
On only ~45% of these agricultural areas, the water management would have to be switched from groundwater use to running water and/or river filtrate in order to stop the sea level rise and to replenish soil moisture and groundwater reserves with a resulting decrease in discharge to the oceans.
There is also plenty of storage space above ground. Aral Sea, Lake Baikal, Lake Mead, Great Salt Lake,… and 10000s of other freshwater lakes are showing sharply declining levels – even if the word lack of water is certainly not an issue for you in Oslofjörden/Norway today. You certainly have drained bogs and wetlands too.
I am currently designing a drought and flood protection for the Ahr Valley, the German region that was affected by severe flooding in July 2021. It consists of many small-scale measures which can hold back ~ 300m³/sec in the relevant catchment area of the Ahr (~ 900km²): It starts with the above-mentioned rain barrels and rainwater retention basins (total ~30m³/sec)
and continues with a total of 300km drainage ditches( 1m³/sec each) in the upper regions of the tributaries.
Since there are many former ore mines in the catchment area, some of these will also be included in the new water management and will act as combined pumped storage/compressed air storage power plants in the future. They could also function as seasonal heat/cold/& water storage for periods of drought. If necessary, your steward can stew there in total ~2-3 million m³ of river water and many GWh of renewable electricity in depth.
So far so good the information on the storage space. But I also want to increase evaporation by 9L/m² and year over the land area, create clouds and cool the earth ?
— So I need to retain more water ! 1335km³/year is not enough.
Welol, thisn is how the Germans think and plan and arrange until they are flat- bombed.
“Geopolitik” they call it.
To the rest of the world.
I know them. There are 2 sorts of them.
1 those who were flat bombed because they could not behave, and
2, the remaining rest of them, the best of them.
Heinrich Heine, Justus von Liebig, Alexander von Hubolt Max =Planc, A.Einstein Werner Heissenberg, Robert Koch, Heinrich Herz, Helmholz, von Weizäcker Angela Merkel Dr. Josef Ratzinger,…. you name them,…
They could behave and they did not loose in the wars.
Old Professor Ratzinger said it very cleverly: “There ain`t no natural iron curta8in between faith and thought. Both must behave. And by danger of collision , faith (credo) is due to withdraw and give way. ”
“Gott ist vernüftig” he also proclaimed.
Not everyone here have understood that. They keep Thinktank and the Party to be rational, reasonable, vernunftig and scientific even with the water managements.
@C.: “God is reasonable”
Anyone who responds to a future-oriented strategy for protection against droughts and floods with strange quotes from a crazy, self-proclaimed representative of God =>
“Hat nicht mehr alle Tassen im Schrank”
What your quoted Professor Ratzinger said about thinking and believing is twirled, hypocritical nonsense, as long as everyone knows that he, as head of the Catholic communities of this world, is primarily responsible and famous for spreading and covering up “child abuse”.
No Hr Schürle,
What Ratziunger said there is the healthy / sane recognition of the situation between the left and the right half brain with a tiny brige in between, and the consequent situation between the right and the left eye and the right and the left hand.
This is alian to the cyclopic seers and all those who are inferiour and lame in their fore- paws and hind legs, and who are not well incarnated and thus lack control over their musculatiure up and down and back and forwards at both ends of the Columna Vertebralis.
= A political and ideological and national nervous syndrom.
ms: What your quoted Professor Ratzinger said about thinking and believing is twirled, hypocritical nonsense, as long as everyone knows that he, as head of the Catholic communities of this world, is primarily responsible and famous for spreading and covering up “child abuse”.
BPL: Actually, he did a lot to crack down, but he did it quietly, without publicly throwing the church under the bus.
The GISTEMP SAT has been posted for January showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.93ºC, up a bit on December’s +0.86ºC anomaly. (It was down in ERA5 SAT re-analysis and also in UAH TLT & RSS TLT also now posted for Jan.)
January becomes the =5th warmest January on the GISTEMP record (6th in EAR5 & 17th in UAH, 13th in RSS) and the =34th highest all-month anomaly on record (56th in ERA5, =161st in UAH, 102nd in RSS).
GISTEMP WARMEST JANUARYs
…….. Jan Ave … . … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.17ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.16ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +1.02ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2007 .. +1.02ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2019 .. +0.93ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.93ºC
2015 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.81ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.77ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 16th
2014 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2003 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 17th
Snowmageddon!
https://www.wunderground.com/video/top-stories/heavy-snow-from-oklahoma-to-michigan
Be safe out there.
Wow, there you go again, flaunting your ignorance about the difference between weather and climate. Someone really failed to teach you about critical thinking.
Just recently published: “Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines, February, 2022.”
https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf
Lots of interesting and obviously concerning things which I don’t have time to copy and paste, but this stood out: “Relative sea level along the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) coastline is expected to rise on average as much over the next 30 years (0.25–0.30 m over 2020–2050) as it has over the last 100 years (1920–2020).”
That is only concerning IF sea level rose over the past 100 years and IF the same SLR today would cause a problem. In the Houston area, the land is sinking, so hard to say how much sea level rose.
Mr. KIA, I’m curious to know what you think “relative sea level” refers to, if not the total effect of sea level rise and changes in land height (subsidence or rebound) at any particular location. A blood relation who is keeping careful records of the ocean height?
Don’t these people know that The United Arab Emirates has built sand islands in the Persian Gulf & that China is building sand islands in the South China Sea?
“Mean Sea Level Trends
605-041 Quinhon, Vietnam
The mean sea level trend is -1.25 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.60 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1977 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.41 feet in 100 years.”
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=605-041
Aren’t we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?
“Mean Sea Level Trends
999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica
The mean sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.”
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
And the ever clueless JDS doesn’t realise those regions where sea levels aren’t rising have significant land uplift. This says nothing about the overall global sea level rise situation. Leave it to the actual experts who consider such things, and have determined that sea levels overall are rising globally, and that the trend is accelerating.
You really have no concept of how large the ocean is, do you?
You know, it’s amazing how you post continually without a single thought as to what you are saying. I me, I’d think that you might even accidentally voice to yourself what you are about to post and hear just how stupid it sounds. But, no, no. You are nothing if not consistent, continually posting thoughts with the consistency of warm puppy shit.
KIA(feb 18) “That is only concerning IF sea level rose
Time to live up to your name. it’s not that difficult go on Internet, click “sea lever rise” , and voila
“you know it all ” : SLR by NASA.
KIA: “In the Houston area, the land is sinking”
Duh – this makes it MORE, not less, vulnerable to global SLR: the global SLR rate is added ON TOP of the local component of SLR due to sinking of the land. . Which means that:
– every storm surge in the future will be added on top of the already higher sea level
– given the increase in the STRENGHT of the hurricanes – the storm surges are likely to be higher
so that HIGHER surges will be riding ON TOP of the sea level ALREADY increased not only due to SLR but also due to local land sinking
And since Houston is not in the area of an Isostatic rebound after the last glaciation – the most likely reason for the land subsidence is the removal of ground water for human uses.
So when drop in the water table AND rise in sea level (global + local) – then we invite the intrusion of salt water into aquifers – making this water useless/questionable for drinking, for industry and for irrigation,
since in the latter case, it greatly accelerates the destruction of the soil fertility by its saltification. All while the demand for fresh water increases (warmer climate => higher evaporation)
But you already “ knew it all” and wanted to share this information with others, right ? ;-)
@Piotr
– I am always touched when I see a paralyzed man taking a blind man by the hand to cross a busy street. But I’m afraid you two (KIA & you) can’t cross the street. SLR-Avenue is too wide and too dangerous for both of you.
But did you know that over periods of 2 to 8 years, after the general sea level rise trend of about 3 millimeters per year has been removed, the remaining change closely follows the waxing and waning of El Niño/La Niña?
The main reason for this close match is that El Niño shifts precipitation from land to sea and raises sea levels. Its antiphase, La Niña, shifts precipitation onto land, causing sea levels to drop.
However, La Niña not only lowers sea level rise, but also global temperatures. The warming trend and effects of El Niño/La Niña shows:
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/warming-trend-and-effects-el-ni%C3%B1ola-ni%C3%B1a
The average global temperature is 0.4ºF higher in El Niño years than in La Niña years.
This confirms once again that
MY CONCEPT — For Lowering Sea Levels & The Earth’s Temperature — WORKS !
El Nino/La Nina cycles correlated with regional sea-level-height (SLH) is well known, yet it is still interesting to note how well it works, see for Sydney Harbor https://geoenergymath.com/2022/01/14/sea-level-height-as-a-proxy-for-enso/
The dynamics behind SLH at this scale are due to ENSO cycles, associated with the inverted barometer effect. The SOI is essentially the pressure differential between Darwin and Tahiti, so the prevailing atmospheric pressure occurring during varying ENSO conditions follows the rising or lowering Sydney Harbor sea-level in a synchronized fashion. The change is 1 cm for a 1 mBar change in pressure, so that with the SOI extremes showing 14 mBar variation at the Darwin location, this accounts for a 14 cm change in sea-level, roughly matching that observed. Note that being a differential measurement, SOI does not suffer from long-term secular changes in trend.
I have thought you were still smarting after after our last exchange:
m.shurly to me: Jan 20.: “ ??? Why do you talk about storing 1335km³ in the atmosphere ???”
To which I have quoted to mshurly his own words a week earlier:
“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,.
And to make it better – in the same Jan.12 post, mshurly was lecturing others on their lack of “attention, comprehension and intelligence” for …not knowing that he already for 6 months have been advocating … transformation of sea level rise into an “additional” volume of evaporation and clouds,
With posts like those, who needs enemies?
Piotr
I know them. “Geopolitik” they call it
Vladimir Putin was employed several years in Dresden, SBZ (Sovjett besetzte Zone) and may have learnd his worst geo- political manners from there.
Nephelai is a basic comedy of Aristophanes. That seems re- written by Ludvig Holberg 1684-1754 as “Erasmus Montanus”/ Rasmus Bjerg.
Else Den politiske kandestøber /the political Tinker. The Knowitall von Bremen, who became Lord Major of Hamborg.
Hr Schürle should be made aware that there is a lot of learnt, Dichtung und Wahrheit also in Denmark.
And that all this can be found on Wikipedia today so we look them from above and down into their chards..
Hr. Schürle
Again I must remind you of magnitudes and proportions. You state:
MY CONSCEPT – for lowering Sea Levels & The Earth`s temperature- WORKS!
Your proof for that is that ENSO works the same. The La nina is shown to lower the sea level by giving more rain on land.
Q1, are you planning a political and engineering entreprize as large and strong as the ENSO?
Q2, or are you suggesting the political rectification of the pacific ocean oscillation?
by cisterners and Regentonnen & cetera? and even filling water into 0ld mines and artificial pits…
“All contributions matter, the mouse said, he peed in the ocean!”
That ridiculous mouse did show a high moral and a good example, at least. He had proper conscepts of matter and knew source- sorting. And knew wich way water is running ( Heinrich Böll has published on the same in Katarina Blohms verlorene Ehre) And he did neither pee in his pants nor in his bed!
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology forecasts that the current period of La Niña will end in the coming southern hemisphere autumn. It’s not a permanent change in sea level.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
@C. – “Q1, Q2”
I just wanted to flip the switch with you (and others).
But I didn’t find any switch with you.
This may be because you seem to be in constant dialogue with Mickey Mouse and the Pope. I’m probably already very late with my concept of saving the climate and humanity. Despite everything, you still have to dig the artificial pits on your doorstep. It’s best to dig on the south-east side of the house (in the direction of Russia) and hang your senior secretary Stoltenberg above the front door, … Putin is going to pick him up from you soon…
Hr Schürle
Stoltenberg is allready picked up. He will be installed to rule over the Norwegian oil found as soon as he gets out of NATO / OTAN The Grand Old Party arranges it that way.
macias shurly: “ my concept of saving the climate and humanity ”
… with rain barrels and pits, right.
ms: You still have to dig the artificial pits on your doorstep”
What says the Napoleon from the next bed over? Does not like the new medication either?
No, Hr Schürle
Stoltenberg is allready headhunted and will be hanged again. He is taken from NATO /OTAN and made chief of the Norwegian oil and gas fund, 1 trillion Euro. Their shares in soviett- russian banks and industries will be sold away as soon as possible, but not immediately because the courses are too low now.
Moskva and Krjeml is also 60 deg north, so the direction to Moskva unless you are a flat earther or believe that the earth is cylindic, is east northeast from here.
But, what should rather bother you now is the electricity prices when Putin turns off the gas.
And next, the wheat, potatoe, and the Ammonium nitrate- prices. All is extreemly dependent on fossile fuels and world trade.
But worst of all, I fear, is accute danger that the very internet will fall down. It is just a matter of sho0oting down a geostationary satelite or two. And long distance oil and gas pipelines, High voltage cables and IT cables can be taken by just a dynamite or two from a submarine. The “West” has made itself totaly dependent of it whereas the russians lag behing and rely much more on paper communication if on anything at all.
MS. Yes your concept of storing water on land to negate sea level rise works just fine, assuming you can find about a trillion trillion trillion dollars.
There are poems on this also from German side, Dichtung und Wahrheit, you see. But it will take me some time to find convincing poetic adress also to this. There surely is any, if I know them right.
Quote: “assuming you can find about a trillion trillion trillion dollars.”
Democrats: “Hold my beer! Watch this!”
Bottom line is, it may go up about a foot by 2052. Maybe Brandon ought to get off his ass, stop wasting money on SJW crap and start building some walls. How ’bout them apples?
KIA: Maybe Brandon ought to get off his ass, stop wasting money on SJW crap and start building some walls.
BPL: What is this obsession the MAGA crowd has with walls? Did they like the Berlin Wall?
BPL says: BPL: What is this obsession the MAGA crowd has with walls? Did they like the Berlin Wall?
Ask Nancy and Brandon:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-capitol-fence-state-of-the-union/
Does your house have walls? Why? Are you obsessed with walls?
KIA: Does your house have walls? Why? Are you obsessed with walls?
BPL: No, KIA, it’s because it’s a house. A national border is not a house, and national borders typically do not have walls. Do I really have to explain this to you?
@Nigelj
! What a gifted project manager you are !
A rain barrel that lasts 30 years costs poor people
$20 and even poorer ones get them for free.
But the toilet paper, which you can certainly use every day for your unclean calculations, will cost you a small fortune.
MS. I am a gifted project manager. I used to do that sort of work as part of my job, and I was paid big money.
How many rain barrels would be required to negate say just 1 mm of global sea level rise per year for the next 1000 years? I think it would be an absolutely massive number. Prove me wrong.
Nigel says: “How many rain barrels would be required to negate say just 1 mm of global sea level rise per year for the next 1000 years? I think it would be an absolutely massive number. Prove me wrong.”
Define “absolutely massive number”.
Here’s the calc FYI:
Ocean area: 139 EE6 sq. miles.x 5,280 ft/mile x 5,280 ft/mile =3.8751 EE15 square feet
1mm = 0.00328084 ft.
Volume of top 1mm of ocean surface = 3.8751 EE15 x 0.00328084 = 1.271357 EE13 cubic feet
Assume a barrel of water = 42 gallons
volume of barrel = 42 gal/7.48 gal/cu. ft. = 5.614973 cu. ft.
Number of barrels in top 1mm of ocean =1.271357 EE13 barrels/5.614973 cu. ft./barrel
=2.26 EE12 barrels = 2.26 trillion barrels.
That’s pretty massive.
@nigelj
Your skills as a project manager fail because you don’t know how to calculate the value of a water butt.
Of course, the roof area (e.g. 100m²) and the volume of the annual average precipitation (e.g. 1000L/m²) and the costs and service life of the rain barrel are decisive. After 30 years, my rain barrel has ideally diverted 3000m³ of runoff into gullies and rivers => into garden irrigation, washing machine, & evaporation and saved me ~ € 10,000 / 30 years on the water bill with , because I pay € 2.20/m³ for drinking water and € 1.70/m³ for sewage fees.
The global urban land area is ~ 1.5 million. km² (increasing trend). The proportion of roof areas is estimated at ~25% = ~375,000km².
With average annual precipitation of 1000mm/m², that’s 375km³ = ~ 1mm SLR.
25-30% of the annual SLR would thus be “defused” – a corresponding amount could remain in the groundwater – with a provisional, economic and global total gain / year of
€ 375,000,000,000 (at 1€/m³).
Now it’s best to buy a bottle of wine and lie down in a rain barrel for a week to think about your career as a manager of climate-protection-projects. There you can think about why the rain barrels don’t cost trillions & trillions – but bring in these trillions as a material & climate-protective gain.
Photosynthesis requires ~1000L of water to assimilate ~1-2 kg of carbon from the atmosphere.
375km³ for additional plant growth can thus absorb ~ 0.75Gt carbon or up to 2.75Gt CO².
Macias Shurly.
There are gaps in your calc’s and the way you present information is a mess. Please tabulate for one house how much money you save by not buying water, and ALSO how much your rain barrel instillation costs including the barrels, the piping and irrigation systems and associated work. THEN show whether this saves money and how much. Then tabulate this for reducing sea level rise by 1mm.
Please advise exactly what proportion of the water collected would be permanently stored in aquifers and what would just be channeled away into the local river or storm water system, and evaporated away, and HOW you calculate this. THEN derive how much sea level that would ACTUALLY reduce and give us the numbers.
@Nigelj
What a gifted project manager you are !
A rain barrel that lasts 30 years costs poor people
$20 and even poorer ones get them for free.
But the toilet paper, which you can certainly use every day for your “unclean calculations”, will cost you a small fortune.
Do yourself a favor and calculate the water retention capacity of global arable land raising SOC from the current < 2% average to, say, 15% two meters deep and then deeply consider you are, as so many do, creating a solution without a problem that simply doing Regenerative Agriculture, which is understood to be necessary already, would accomplish.
Killian 23 Feb: global arable land raising SOC from the current < 2% average to, say, 15% two meters deep _
Has anybody grown their soil to 2 meter deep-soil (the typical topsoil today is 10-25cm deep)?
How long did it take them ? US Dept.of Agriculture: “most soil scientists agree that it takes at least 100 years to grow soil by 1 inch“)
And how easily scalable it is to the “global arable land”?
“The details are not _your_ friend ” the Devil
You seem to think the USDA does permaculture. It doesn’t. Thus, not relevant. And it takes WHAT or WHO 100 years?
Shush. You have nothing to say, never do.
@Killian
*** 4 per thousand initiative of UN Climate Change Conference 2015 ***
By increasing the soil carbon stocks in all soils of the world by 0.4% per year,
the total anthropogenic CO2-Emissions could largely be compensated.
The Water Retention Index (WRI) the potential of the soil to retain water is determined primarily by soil texture, bulk density and organic matter content. The finer the texture of a soil, the greater the surface area of the particles, cohesion and capillary rise, and thus the greater the potential to retain water.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/9b2a3fbd-482f-4f74-9a17-737dabc42254/sd1723-fig-0001-m.png
Organic matter has a high affinity for water, so that as the percentage of organic matter in soil increases, so does its water-holding capacity.
The changes in organic carbon content over time are used to project the Rs parameter, assuming a soil with a higher organic carbon content to have a proportionally higher water retention capacity and I therefore apply the same percentage changes calculated for the organic carbon directly to the Rs value.
Why no math and no comparison?
Again: The potential of the soil to retain water is determined primarily by soil texture, bulk density and organic matter content.
If you add 27L of humus / m² and year – WRI can increase by 10L/m²
Killian
While fighting your class enemy and furthering your agenda- mission, I believe you are smashing in many open doors, and hurt your own program by not being qualified for it.
Worst of all, you are likely also to deny this or even give a damn to it.
Regenerative agriculture is what I learnt from my Father and Grandfathers and furter in public school abvove yours in the grades, and what we have done here in our garden now for most of my life.
I did examine them for 2 semesters. They also believe in that and teach that at the agricultural highschool.
A worst problem is the flat earthers and even flat heaveners.
Putin is flattening Ukraina now for his regenerative agriculture.
The numbers for subsidence in the worst-affected areas of Houston are apparently quite eye-popping.
https://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/10728
“Houston, *you* have a problem!”
“Onset of modern sea level rise began in 1863, study finds”
“An international team of scientists including Rutgers researchers has found that modern rates of sea level rise began emerging in 1863 as the Industrial Age intensified, coinciding with evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.”
“The study, which used a global database of sea-level records spanning the last 2,000 years, will help local and regional planners prepare for future sea-level rise. The study appears in the journal Nature Communications…….’
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-onset-modern-sea-began.html
“Onset of modern sea level rise began in 1863, study finds”
“An international team of scientists including Rutgers researchers has found that modern rates of sea level rise began emerging in 1863 as the Industrial Age intensified, coinciding with evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.”
Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?
Thomas Fuller.
“Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?”
You tell me, and show your evidence. I think it’s very unlikely. The first commercial oil well in the world was drilled in the south caucasus region of Russia in 1846 and Americas first oil well was only drilled in 1859 in Pennsylvania. So there would clearly not have been enough oil wells by 1863 to be significant for land subsidence..
And its very unclear why sea level rise would have been most measured in those sorts of locations. Its far more likely sea level rise would be measured fairly evenly around the worlds coastlines. it should be noted the Caucasus region is inland. And if there WAS significant subsidence the people plotting sea level rise would have considered this factor.
I really struggle to believe you were being serious.
nigelj says:
This guy Fuller wrote a book in the span of a couple of weeks to take advantage of the “Climategate” e-mail incident. His approach is obviously hit-and-run.
Paul Pukite: This guy Fuller wrote a book in the span of a couple of weeks to take advantage of the “Climategate” e-mail incident.
Did the guy figure out who was BEHIND the attack? After all – in the original “gate” – everybody was after those who ORDERED the break-in, NOT after their intended victims…
“Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?”
No. The volume of oil extracted in the 1860s was tiny, and most of the places that it was extracted from were well inland. For example, the cited study said that for sites in the U.S., “modern rates emerged earliest in the mid-Atlantic region in the mid to late 19th century.” At that time, commercial oil extraction had begun in western Pennsylvania, hundreds of kilometers inland, on the west side of the Appalachian mountains. That wouldn’t trigger any subsidence on the coast.
The actual paper might help this interchange.
Walker et al (2022) ‘Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863’Abstract:-Sea-level rise is a significant indicator of broader climate changes, and the time of emergence concept can be used to identify when modern rates of sea-level rise emerged above background variability. Yet a range of estimates of the timing persists both globally and regionally.
Here, we use a global database of proxy sea-level records of the Common Era (0–2000 CE) and show that globally, it is very likely that rates of sea-level rise emerged above preindustrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), which is similar in timing to evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt. The time of emergence in the North Atlantic reveals a distinct spatial pattern, appearing earliest in the mid-Atlantic region (1872–1894 CE) and later in Canada and Europe (1930–1964 CE). Regional and local sea-level changes occurring over different time periods drive the spatial pattern in emergence, suggesting regional processes underlie centennial-timescale sea-level variability over the Common Era.
Or……”it’s complicated”.
Tricky enough when you take away all the variables:
https://gistbok.ucgis.org/bok-topics/earths-shape-sea-level-and-geoid
But anyway, water is like energy. It has to go somewhere. So melting ice will result in something changing, if one wants to reason parsimoniously, and it is reasonable to predict that the change will be disruptive.
MA Rodger says something regarding sea level rise in Canada. Is this winter’s temperatures causing a huge rise in the sea level?
FEBRUARY 25, 2022 CAP ALLON
CANADA SETS A SLEW OF LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS, 17 IN B.C. ALONE
At least 17 low temperature records were broken in British Columbia alone on Wednesday, according to Environment Canada data, as Arctic air parked itself over the province, and indeed over much of the the country, too.
The majority of the fallen records date back decades, with the oldest being the city of Duncan’s -7.2C (18.1F) which, until Wednesday’s -7.7C (18.1F), had held for 105 years–since the year 1917 (the Centennial Minimum).
Other temperature records broken in B.C. (in degrees Celsius) include:
Campbell River: -9.5 bested the -6.6 from 1982; Hope Slide: -16.5 beat the -14.8 set in 1979; Malahat: -7 broke the -6.3 set 2011; Nanaimo: -7.5 vs -5.6 (sate set not indicated); Port Alberni: -9.5 vs -7.2 from way back in 1922; Port Hardy: -4.6 pipped the -4.3 set in 1982; Powell River: -5.5, vs -4.5 from 2017; Qualicum Beach: -6.9 vs -4.6 set in 2018; Sechelt: -4.7 vs -3.6 from 2018; Sparwood: -28.2 vs -26.7 set back in 1956; Squamish: -6.1 vs -5.5 from 2018; Tofino: -4 broke the old record of -3.3 set in 1982; Trail: -17.4 vs -17.1 from 2018; Victoria: -6 pipped the -5.9 set in 1993; West Vancouver: -5.7 usurped the -3.1 from 2018; White Rock: -5.5 bested the -4.4 set in 1957.
Feb. 25 does not equal “this winter.”
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/false-spring-century-old-temperature-records-broken-by-mild-weather-in-b-c-1.5773622#:~:text=Feb.%207%20was%20a%20warm%20day%20in%201918,highs%20reached%2012.9%20C%20and%209.6%20C%2C%20respectively.
Why is the sea level not rising in Antarctica where I assume that you believe some of this water is coming from?
Relative Sea Level Trend
999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica
• EXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGE
The relative sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.45 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
JDS. Your data on Bahia Esperanza is well out of date. The world didn’t stop in 1993. Sea levels are not rising in that particular part of Antarctica because the land is uplifting there due to techtonics and melting of glaciers. Obviously this is not indicative of the rest of the world. Obvious to everyone except JDS.
Just speculating here, but those who read a little know that ice sheets exert a horizontal gravitational pull–less ice sheet, less pull. And lower local sea levels. Bahia Esperanto is near the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, which is warming about as fast as the Arctic. I’m guessing JDS has probably scored yet another ‘own goal.’
Anyway, some actual info on ice & Antarctica:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/02/what-the-latest-science-says-about-antarctica-and-sea-level-rise/
Yes, even in that well-known oil-producer, Vanuatu. /sarc
Thomas Fuller quote above: “Is that also not the time during which extraction of oil triggered subsidence in regions where sea level rise was being most measured?”
Maybe not, as the comments from others have stated; then the question becomes when did groundwater extraction begin causing land subsidence? THAT could be a significant part of the measured “sea level rise” in 1863. In fact, it is a huge problem around the world today:
https://www.fodors.com/news/photos/these-11-cities-are-sinking-they-could-be-gone-by-2100
It will be important after news of flooding that we are not fooled by hysterical claims of SLR if, in fact, the biggest contriubutor to the problem is land subsidence due to groundwater extraction, etc. I suspect in many cases that has been hidden from the public by the dishonest media.
On land subsidence due to oil and gas, there is a lot of information available. The last sentence in this one is hilarious – says the oil and gas industry should pay for the damages. I guess he forgot WHO was using the oil and gas.
:)
https://www.sierraclub.org/texas/houston/blog/2020/06/oil-and-gas-production-causes-subsidence-wetlands-loss-and-flooding
More on land subsidence:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5989262-land-subsidence-caused-withdrawal-oil-gas-gulf-coastal-plain-houston-texas-case-history
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74696-4
FYI: In 2018 there were almost 300,000 active oil and gas wells in Texas? Map:
https://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/content/beg/research/starr/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Map%20of%20Texas%202018.pdf
3.4 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the USA? 2 million of them not capped properly? Maybe this is some low hanging climate change mitigation fruit that Brandon should spend some money to fix so they don’t spew chemicals into the air? Nah, Jan 6 is FAR more important than fixing CC.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-29/how-last-century-s-oil-wells-are-messing-with-texas
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2021/08/08/forgotten-wells-are-a-growing-problem-in-west-texas/
KIA. The onset of modern sea level rise in 1863 was very unlikely to be due to land subsidence from ground water extraction, because ground water extraction wasn’t hugely extensive in the 1860s, and there is no evidence it accelerated dramatically around that point. Ground water use accelerated very dramatically after 1920’s and was huge in the later part of the 20th century. Graphs are easily googled. Same issue as drilling oil, which should have been literally obvious to you without even needing an explanation.
Graphs are trickery. Is the water rising or is the land sinking? Not easy to determine, but it is easy to say it’s one or the other to prop up your desired narrative.
Mr.Knowitall:
Here, where I live, the land rising and evidence landmarks of the same and how to see it and find it for yourself is public school pensum for everyone, also for the closed society flat earth industrial slave manufactring worker kids from the slums.
Further south there is obvious landmarks of the opposite, old sinking lands that is being lost, and fameous inhabited islands that “were taken by the sea” and vanished in historical time.
There is absolutely no excuse for “american” knowitalls on this Because, the landmaps of North America coasts and inland lakes and pools tell us quite exactly the same and parallell post-glacial history of recent time.
We hardly mention coasts and lands seas and rivers, harbours and stone age archaeology, Mammuths, petroglyphs and all that without having that general and fameous map of landrising and sinking curves at hand and in mind.
Q: Do the Knowitall blood or race or people / nation come from the closed and isolated ghettos where mentionings of such elements were strictly forbidden in your time?
Because, you see, it conflicts and ruins both the rumors of earth being created 6000 years ago, and that state religion of matter and earth being created by the uneducated industrial workers ` ruling and “scientific” and “necessary” mandate. And through the contra- dictions of that class or blood of Knowitalls.
Physical geography is often strictly forbidden and secret science secret knowledge in the thinktanks and peoples republics you see. It reminds us on that.
Q2 Have you been subject to any such early social political and religious deprivation?
It may have an even uglier explaination.
Here where I live, we also have obvious megalitic documents and marks / proof of early settlements with agriculture, and stonehenge systems of large scale reindeer and annual seasonal moose- hunting terrestrial systems and festivals. & further obvious proof of 2-3-4-5 000 years organized and scilled, so0cial life and activities, and they are given and told of as “our people”
Q3, are such tellings of archaic activities and land history and geo- physics strictly forbidden on your side over there in the states because it entails that autentic native and earthly and national people did live there before you?
Here, we are even allowed to discuss the neanderthals and their evfentual habits and lands and how lands are sinking and rising. We are being told of that in public school allready.
And have no problem when the sea levels are changing speed.
I have my landmarks and eye marks and benchmarks on the traqditional stones and rocks and shores, even recent harbours, as I have been instructed not by alians, and can understand it and discuss it as easy as that.
nigelj,
SLR in 1863 may not have been caused by land subsidence, nobody knows because they had no way to accurately measure subsidence in 1863, but it isn’t likely that it was caused by CO2 either, as the level had not risen enough above pre-industrial to make a difference. They also had no way to measure SLR accurately either at that time. It’s all speculation.
It is also possible that the paper on 1863 SLR was a hoax. People have been writing fake bullshit “studies” in the soft sciences using the latest woke terminology and submitting them to academic journals to prove that academia is biased and corrupted. It could happen in the hard sciences as well.
https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
True to his assumed name, Mr. Know Shit All is saying that he thinks Walker et al (2022) ‘Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863’ cannot properly establish by using “a global database of proxy sea-level records of the Common Era (0–2000 CE) … that globally, it is very likely that rates of sea-level rise emerged above preindustrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), which is similar in timing to evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.”
Mr. Know Shit All defends his bizarre view on this, firstly by asserting that “subsidence in 1863” cannot be assessed thus preventing any meaningful analysis and secondly that the study is possibly “fake bullshit” which apparently would employ “the latest woke terminology.”
Walker et al (2022) is an interesting paper in that it, if you consider the world’s oceans as a giant water-filled thermometer, Walker et al provide in their Fig 1a yet another analysis resulting in the good old Hockey Stick so loved by all those deluded denialists..
KIA: “…it isn’t likely that it was caused by CO2 either, as the level had not risen enough above pre-industrial to make a difference.”
So, this would imply that you, Mr. KIA, have some standard by which to evaluate how much CO2 would “make a difference.” As it happens, the difference between CO21750 and CO21863 is around 4%. So, would 5% “make a difference?” 10%? How about today’s ~50%?
What say you?
Looks like the superscript tag doesn’t work here, so to facilitate reading the above, note that:
CO21750 = CO2 (1750), and
CO21863 = CO2 (1863)
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is not the sort of thing that gets much attention unless for some reason it allows certain folk to suggest AGW is a myth.
So surprise-surprise, bar a few dutiful items in the press (eg here or here) not a great deal of ink has been spilt over the new record low for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. In the JAXA data, the record was set on 19th February of at 2.128M sq km, braking the prevuious record low of 2.147M sq km set om 1st March 2017.
In the NSIDC record which averages SIE differently, the chArctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph shows the new low on 25th Feb at 1.924M sq km, the previous record sat at 2.110M sq km set on 3rd Mar 2017.
2017 retains the lowest Antarctic SIE monthly values and with the lowest January & lowest February obviously tops the league of meltiest Jan+Feb.
2022 which was fourth meltiest Jan (behind 2017, 2019 & 2006) & second meltiest Feb just squeaks in as 2nd for the combined Jan+Feb in the JAXA record.
The Antarctic SIE record had shown a slow increase in SIE levels from 1979 with a sudden increase in 2013-15 before an even-more-sudden drop to make 2017 the meltiest year on record. From 2020 the Antarctic SIE appeared to be back to average but since October last year, the SIE values have been dropping into the high-melty zone again.
Whether Antarctic SIE stays being melty for very long is anybody’s guess. The climatology down in the oceans around Antarctic is all rather tricky.
JAXA Antarctic Average SIE for Jan+Feb
1st … 2017 … 3.0M sq km
2nd … 2022 … 3.2M sq km
3rd … 2019 … 3.2M sq km
4th … 2006 … 3.3M sq km
5th … 2018 … 3.3M sq km
…
11th … 2020 … 3.7 M sq km
…
14th … 2016 … 3.8M sq km
…
17th … 2021 … 3.9M sq km
…
33rd … 2014 … 5.1M sq km
34th … 2015 … 5.4M sq km
There are 34 years 1989-2022 with full daily data, so 34th = last.
OT: would someone start the March “Forced Responses” thread?