RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Sep 2016

Filed under: — group @ 1 September 2016

To come this month: Arctic sea ice minimum, decisions from the IPCC scoping meeting on a report focused on the 1.5ºC target, interesting paleo-climate science at #ICP12 and a chance to stop arguing about politics perhaps.

Usual rules apply.

292 Responses to “Unforced variations: Sep 2016”

  1. 101
    Nemesis says:

    Another funny joke of Empire, the AGU is funded by whom? Erm, funded by ExxonMobil:

    “Stand with Scientists: Tell the AGU to Drop Exxon Sponsorship

    The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is the largest association of Earth scientists in the world, of which we are proud members. It is a well-respected institution that works to advance public understanding of science, and holds a strong position on the urgency of climate action. Yet, the AGU continues to accept funding from Exxon Mobil, one of the world’s leading funders of climate change denial. This, despite the fact that the AGU’s own policy expressly forbids accepting funding from any organization that spreads science misinformation. This policy was put in place for good reason, and the AGU must start abiding by it — starting with Exxon.

    Exxon has been deceiving the public on the science of climate change for decades — deception that continues to this day. That’s why we Earth scientists and 300 of our colleagues, including nearly 200 AGU members, have signed an open letter calling on the AGU to reject sponsorship from Exxon. Despite our pleas, the AGU Board decided at their last meeting to continue to accept money from Exxon…”

    http://act.climatetruth.org/sign/AGU?sp_ref=228195591.170.174966.o.1.2&referring_akid=.37223.DpNIaQ&source=sp_c2c

    Endless and ongoing conflicts of interest in our praised economy, that’s what will brake our necks :-)

  2. 102
    Nemesis says:

    Say goodbye to another lie, the funny “carbon budget” lie:

    ” 9.9.2016 – Unravelling the myth of a “carbon budget” for 1.5C


    “We have no carbon budget left for the 1.5°C target and the opportunity for holding to 2°C is rapidly fading unless the world starts cutting emissions hard right NOW,” says Prof Michael Mann. (If a proper “pre-industrial” starting point in the mid-18th century is used, rather than the conventional late-19th century baseline most commonly by scientists and policymakers, that 1.5°C figure is higher at 1.7°C.)

    Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany’s Potsdam University considers that we are NOW “in a kind of climate emergency” and that at least 1.5°C is “locked in”…

    So, no further emissions are allowable for the 1.5°C target. The budget is ZERO.
    From this understanding a further conclusion can be made: achieving 1.5°C means that we have to draw down every ton of carbon dioxide we emit from NOW on.”

    http://www.climatecodered.org/2016/09/unravelling-myth-of-carbon-budget-for.html

    See, that’s the number for funny carbon budget:

    ZERO.

    Well, and then there is that funny meme again:

    “NOW”.

    What exactly does “NOW” mean?! How long does NOW last? How big is that timespan called “NOW”?! You know, I, as a nobody, am just asking, because I hear that “NOW” meme for more than 30 years now^^…

    To make my point clear:

    The term “now” has been abused and is worn out completely, so I give a shit about that term. That “now” will never come, I don’t believe in decades old lies anymore.

  3. 103
    Chris O'Neill says:

    mike # 84:

    on headlines, I just think that the focus should be on CO2e levels in the atmosphere over and over.

    Well that’s a mistake because the regular unthinking headline-only reader will just say “who cares about CO2e levels in the atmosphere. I just want the government to ‘Axe the Tax'”.

    The headline needs to contain something that has the best chance of being something that the most people care about. If it’s something that most people don’t care about then it’s dead before the headline even finishes.

  4. 104
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    86:Thomas. Dr.James Hansen probably realises that he has done as much as he can do in the scientific circles. He has indeed alerted all of us over the many years to what the world climate is doing and predicted to do in the future. I believe he reasons that he is not getting any nearer to the critical mass of humanity needed to sustain global policy shifts in relation to CC. Therefore he has taken his ‘retirement’ as an opportunity to get out there amongst the people and protest/picket/march/lobby and just get in the face of politicians that he deems the most stubborn and intractable on the issue. I have come to respect Gavin’s standpoint as the scientist’s scientist and use his subtlety and persuadedness to present the cold-hard facts as they emerge. I have often argued why doesn’t he- in light of the highly influential office he is currently holding- be more assertive(dare I say..aggressive) in the way he handles interviews. That is not his way or indeed his task.
    Another change in the media I’m picking up is that’s it’s fine to blatantly argue with climate scientists even if you have no credentials on the topic. That pathetic farce on Australia’s Q&A brought that to light. Scientists have got to stop getting abused and belittled, or conversely, entities with usually ignorant and contrary vested interests, given far too much airtime by the media to further confuse their audience’s minds. Maybe a series of simultaneous strikes by climate scientists to get their message across?. It’s not like they are going to get replaced by stand-ins are they!
    I am really getting highly frustrated with this new state of affairs and it has got to stop one way or another.

  5. 105
    mike says:

    Interesting discussion on state of arctic sea slush here:
    http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1493.4700.html

    I think it’s way late to declare emergeny, but emergency is what it is.

    sea ice loss in winter?
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0466.1?af=R

    Warm regards

    Mike

  6. 106
    Alfred Jones says:

    Chris M: give incentives like subsidising electric vehicle transportation.

    AJ: Picking winners is stupid. There’s zero reason to believe that EVs are “better” than next generation bio and synfuel vehicles. (My belief is that EVs will prove best for trips under 5 minutes and eight cycle bio/synfuel vehicles are best for trips over ten minutes. EVs with more than perhaps a 50 mile range are counterproductive.)

    Subsidizing one particular solution over others just because you think it’s cool is dumb as dirt. Put a friggin’ escalating tax on carbon (as you suggested) and let those of us who are smart enough to figure things out figure things out. But that’s all stuff which is best suited for a different blog, eh? This one is about the science of climate change.

  7. 107
    Chuck Hughes says:

    Are A.J.(Alias: Alfred Jones, Ajax), Thomas and Weaktor (Victor) sockpuppet accounts? I’m no expert but it looks like pathological posting to me (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Persecution_complex).

    I don’t know what the motive would be other than annoyance and spamming or ‘concern trolling’ (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll). Thomas sounds like a first rate Crank. The other two are tied for 2nd place.

    Concern Troll Example:

    > 93 Thomas says:
    8 Sep 2016 at 9:10 PM

    “I would like to be the Moderator here for 3 months because I would fix this Blog’s comments forum space into one worth reading and posting to in under a month.

    Of course, that is not going to happen.

    So have at it and swim in your own creations.”

    (persecution complex, a.k.a. ‘Goodbye cold cruel world’) Of course he’ll be right back with more b.s. for the rest of us to scroll through.

  8. 108
    Chris Dudley says:

    Tony,

    Hansen’s strange love for nuclear power is partly my fault. I sent him a fellow who felt his father’s molten salt reactor experiment was treated unfairly, proposing a number of conspiracy theories to explain why an obviously unsuccessful technology had not been adopted. Since Hansen started from an irrational base for his support, he needs to backtrack quite a way now to achieve clarity on this issue. https://slashdot.org/journal/2623577/open-apology-to-james-hansen

  9. 109
    mike says:

    AJ at 98: I don’t know the particulars on how CO2 would drop as per ocean sequestration of atmospheric CO2 goes, but I would note that ocean acidification is already a big problem, so dropping atmospheric CO2 to a magical number like 350 involves also reducing ocean acidification over a lagging period of time. Getting to atmospheric 350 by cranking up ocean acidification further fuels death of ocean ecology. I think we have to go carbon negative, drop the atmospheric levels by a lot and let the atmosphere start sucking the carbon back out of the oceans rather than the other way around. But hey, what do I know?

    My take on all this is that our species is simply part of the natural carbon cycle on the planet, but we have gone nuts and blown up our contribution of CO2 and that is causing problems that drive the sixth great extinction. I don’t know if there is something that we can and will do about this situation, but if there is, it could be measured by actual CO2 and CO2e in the atmosphere. Those two numbers are hard to fudge, hard to ignore. We can’t trust falling emission reports from Exxon et al as evidence that we are turning things around. We are turning things around when the annual rate of increase is zero. I don’t see that happening.

    So far our species is talking the talk, but the carbon speed limit needle is still banging along way out in the red zone. CO2 is now increasing at 3 ppm per annum. CO2 is not flat at a terrible number like 403 where we might sit back and watch to see if the oceans and other parts of the natural carbon cycle can start reducing the problem. That current 403 number is probably the lowest annual number that we will see in our lifetimes and if that is true, it is truly disastrous.

    If you watch the sea slush images you see a significant global feature disappearing in real time. and tourists jump on a boat to go see it up close and personal. What can a person say about this stuff? That’s some stupid shit.

    warm regards to all,

    Mike

  10. 110
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/renewable-energy-news/

    Worth clicking and reading. Unexpectedly fast progress happening, well documented, in several areas.

    If you don’t know John Baez, you should. Seriously.

  11. 111
    Hank Roberts says:

    Mike, since you find the scientists’ public statements so unsatisfactory,
    perhaps you can point to some earlier issue on which you think it was done better by those at the time?

    Antibiotic resistance?
    Lead in gasoline and paint?
    Toxic chemicals sold over the counter like carbon tetrachloride as “spot remover”?
    Importing invasive species?
    Teaching reading as whole words rather than phonics?
    Cholera in shallow surface water wells?

    Were any of those publicized in a way that would have satisfied you?

    Just possibly, consider that the problem isn’t poor speech but poor comprehension.

    Then we can blame the teachers (sigh) …

  12. 112

    AJ: So enlighten me how you reconcile that with your glorification of the Offense Budget as opposed to the Peace Corps.

    BPL: Do we have an “Offense Budget?”

    AJ: Personally, I can’t fathom your Savior (and my hero) Jesus not throwing up at the ratio of funding.

    BPL: Of course you can’t. There are lots of things you can’t imagine, most of them policy positions you don’t agree with. It baffles you how anyone could come to different conclusions.

    AJ: Remember, I’ve committed to honoring you this month.

    BPL: Please, honor someone else. I can do without your honoring me.

  13. 113
    Andrew Clark says:

    Couple of questions:

    Has anyone considered the possibility that Climate Change can only be tackled through the use of physical force?

    At what point would the majority of scientists(It’s really odd the position Climate Scientists find themselves in) be inclined to dispense with our civilizations’ institutions protocols opt to use/or advise to use force?

    I realized these question seem a bit on the negative/dire side, however, I’ve come to realize that progress is not happening at nearly the pace that is required. I believe it’s going to much more difficult than is generally accepted to collide head on with the entrenched powers that be. I am of the opinion that it is akin to reasoning that the Japanese Imperial soldiers held up on a Pacific Island in early 1945 could be persuaded to the perfectly logical position that their resistance is a waste, as the war is already lost and dropping some leaflets on them will do the trick.

  14. 114
    Thomas says:

    97 Chuck Hughes says: “Half the voting population is dumber than Donald Trump. Mull that over for a bit…”

    tsk tsk, naughty naughty, because Politics is off-topic and you know it!

    Have you no self-control?

    Besides insulting half the population of the USA won’t win you any friends, nor create a mass movement to solve agw/cc, now will it Plucky Chucky? :-)

    Try reading a social sciences paper or look at a John Cook video, or sumptin’.

    (sorry, I had major break in self-control myself – lol, doh!)

  15. 115
    Thomas says:

    102 Nemesis says: “Say goodbye to another lie, the funny “carbon budget” lie”

    Good one Nemesis!

    … says Prof Michael Mann and Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf – and founders of RealClimate.org ???

    ROFL and yet it’s Nemesis et al who get ridiculed and laughed at and accused of unscientific hand waving by some in the peanut gallery of long term posters here.

    http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder

    http://www.askdoctork.com/the-word-is-used-frequently-but-what-does-being-delusional-really-mean-201306084949

    On Wealth and Wrongdoing: How Social Class Influences Unethical Behavior
    http://escholarship.org/uc/item/57x7n454

    Global Economic Symposium (GES) 2013 – interview with George Lakoff
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNwXx2DwcQ

  16. 116
    Thomas says:

    99 & 109 Hank Roberts, Mitigation and Policy is Off-Topic here and you know that. You should desist, yeah?

    98 Alfred Jones, thanks, appreciated. But had enough. Stupidity, bigotry, Dunning-Krugar and ignorance are like a contagious Virus.

    This space is poisonous to the mind. I thanked Gavin et al already via email but I’m done. Feel free to use my metaphorical baseball bat on BPL, I’ll leave it behind for you. :-)

  17. 117
    wili says:

    mike and aj, yes, the oceans are still ‘catching up’ and will continue absorbing CO2 for a while until equilibrium is reached (though that point also comes sooner the warmer the oceans are), unfortunately becoming more acidic in the process.

    But unfortunately, carbon feedbacks are also starting to kick in. Way back in 2013, McDougall and others tried to quantify one slice of one part of one of those carbon feedbacks (CO2 response of the top meter of permafrost) and found that adding just that sub-sub-sub-section of carbon feedback, a total and immediate (that is, back in 2013) cessation of all anthropogenic emissions would probably not result in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels for at least a couple hundred years. Others can perhaps help in finding updates on this line of research, but here’s the SkS coverage of that paper:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html (see especially the first graph in figure 3 and the paragraphs immediately under the heading: “Why even this bleak prospect may be optimistic”)

    And here’s the link to the abstract of the paper (the full paper is paywalled): http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html

    Here’s a related paper by Schaefer and others from 2014: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/085003 with full text available.

    Others please pitch in with related recent work on the subject (wouldn’t it be nice to have a scientific discussion on climate issues here for once?? ‘-) ).

  18. 118
    Digby Scorgie says:

    Thomas @93

    That’s better — one aspect at a time and short and to the point. Please carry on that way.

  19. 119

    Regenerating soil holds the key to tackling climate change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZIAZ-JrVV8

    For a text version follow the link under the video.

  20. 120
    David B. Benson says:

    US federal government subsidies in 2013:
    solar: $280/MWh
    Wind: $30/MWh
    Nuclear: $2.10/MWh
    according to Peter Lang from
    http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy
    Full paper:
    http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

  21. 121

    AJ: Picking winners is stupid.

    BPL: Any idea you disagree with is stupid.

  22. 122
  23. 123
    Chris Dudley says:

    Andrew,

    Trade sanctions are more effective.

  24. 124

    Th: This space is poisonous to the mind.

    BPL: Certain kinds of mind, anyway.

    Th: Feel free to use my metaphorical baseball bat on BPL, I’ll leave it behind for you. :-)

    BPL: Gosh, I was so beaten up by Thomas’s metaphorical baseball bat. See my metaphorical wounds?

  25. 125
    SecularAnimist says:

    Alfred Jones wrote: “Picking winners is stupid. There’s zero reason to believe that EVs are ‘better’ than next generation bio and synfuel vehicles.”

    Posting arrogant comments that flaunt your abject ignorance of the subject you are writing about is stupid.

  26. 126
    mike says:

    Last Week

    September 4 – 10, 2016 400.97 ppm
    September 4 – 10, 2015 397.91 ppm

    3.06 ppm

    Ugly number. Nuff said?

    https://www.co2.earth/weekly-co2

  27. 127
    MA Rodger says:

    GISTEMP has posted for August with an anomaly of +0.98ºC, the hottest August on record & the 11th month in a row to be hottest (or equal hottest) for its month. August was also the warmest month on record in absolute temperature (which is surely worth more than a drum-roll, Chris Dudley @89), pipping July in this as the anomaly rose July-to-August +1.3ºC, a jump larger than the +0.10851ºC absolute drop in anomaly base July-to-August. August’s anomaly stands as the 8th warmest month in the full record. The average anomaly for 2016-to-date is running at +1.05ºC. This compares with the average for the last 12-months of +1.03ºC and the average for the last calendar year (also presently the record calendar year) of +0.87ºC. The remainder of 2016 would have to average above +0.50ºC to gain the ‘warmest calendar year’ accolade. (The last 4 months’ average of all years since 2000 have all been above +0.50ºC.)
    The anomalies for 2015/16 and their rankings within the full record are as follows:-
    2015.. 1 … +0.82ºC … = 21th
    2015.. 2 … +0.87ºC . = 16th
    2015.. 3 … +0.91ºC . = 12th
    2015.. 4 … +0.74ºC . = 53rd
    2015.. 5 … +0.78ºC . = 30th
    2015.. 6 … +0.78ºC . = 30th
    2015.. 7 … +0.72ºC . = 60th
    2015.. 8 … +0.78ºC . = 30th
    2015.. 9 … +0.81ºC . = 23rd
    2015. 10 … +1.07ºC … 6th
    2015. 11 … +1.01ºC … 7th
    2015. 12 … +1.10ºC … 4th
    2016.. 1 … +1.15ºC … 3rd
    2016.. 2 … +1.32ºC … 1st
    2016.. 3 … +1.28ºC … 2nd
    2016.. 4 … +1.08ºC … 5th
    2016.. 5 … +0.93ºC … 10th
    2016.. 6 … +0.80ºC … 25th
    2016.. 7 … +0.85ºC … 20th
    2016.. 8 … +0.98ºC … 8th

  28. 128
    alan2102 says:

    #117 wili says:
    “here’s the link to the abstract of the paper (the full paper is paywalled): http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html

    A reminder: paywalls do not, effectively, exist anymore, through the magic of sci-hub.cc, formerly sci-hub.ru. They had to move to .cc from .ru because publishers were harassing them.

    here’s the link to the nature.com item:
    http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/ngeo1573

  29. 129
    Chris Dudley says:

    August had a GISTEMP anomaly of 0.98 C so it beats July (barely) and is thus ranked as the hottest recorded month, though Gavin would blur that into a statistical tie. I WIN ALL BETS!

  30. 130
    Chris Dudley says:

    David,

    You pick a year without a nuclear disaster.

  31. 131
    Chuck Hughes says:

    Thomas says:
    11 Sep 2016 at 3:54 PM

    “har, har, nawty nawty, on o’count o’ Politicken’ is oft-topic an’ yo’ knows it! Fry mah hide!

    Hain’t yo’ gots none uv that thar se’f-korntroll?

    U knows tat insultin’ ha’f th’ populashun of th’ US-o’A ain’t ah’gunna win yo’ enny friends, nor’ kreate one uv them thar massive movemints t’solve thangs frum a’ heatin’up, now will it thar Plucky Chucky? :)”

    Chuck: Not sure what happened to your post Thomas. Your vowels seem to be stuck on your keyboard. Kinda irregular. Maybe some of your keys are backed up. Of course it could be those hookworms Hank was talking about earlier. Do you wear shoes?

  32. 132
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index

    2016 115 132 128 108 93 80 85 98 <- Aug

    End of year should come in somewhere around +95 to +98.

  33. 133
    Thomas says:

    120 David B. Benson, this Peter Lang?
    http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=58903

    I reviewed the document, but did you check those numbers, just in case? No one can summarize a 69 page doc into 4 lines without cherry-picking. No one!

    “The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my true friend.” Anon (me).

    I support Hansen’s views on that unspeakable word, and I respect the expertise and advice of genuine unspeakable word scientists and researchers and tech heads of 2016. Especially in China, and the rational logic of unspeakable word energy in Iran which was totally supported by the US in the 60s and 70s who were building about four at once before 1979!

    Because Peter Lang says things like:
    “IPCC and the contributing authors are not conservative. They are alarmist. They are participating in group think and herd mentality.”

    “Furthermore, the planet is in a deep ice age – only the second in the past 540 million years – ”

    “.. even a 3C increase in global average temperature would get the planet up to only the middle of its temperature range over the past half billion years.”

    “This suggests even a 3C rise in global average temperatures means only a small (~1C) change in average temperature of the tropics and a huge benefit in warming of the mid and higher latitudes.”

    “Given this, I am not persuaded there is valid justification for the Alarmists’ scaremongering.”

    REF: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18450#327602

    Aug 6, 2013 – Peter Lang is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience …. Alan Moran of the IPA adds up the scandalous waste of taxpayers”
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang

    Abbott’s faceless men of the IPA
    There is one group to which Tony Abbott has kept his promises since becoming prime minister: the Institute of Public Affairs.
    https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/05/31/abbotts-faceless-men-the-ipa/1401458400

    So David B. Benson, why on Earth are you referencing this insane creep on RealClimate as having anything of value to add to AGW/CC science or mitigation policy?

    Where is that Super-Sleuth Hank Roberts when you need him? Must be having a day off or sumptin’.

    118 Digby Scorgie, I think you’re onto something. I think the next IPCC Reports should be published via Twitter in 104 word bits. After all, apparently people can only handle micro-info points much like a stand-up comic delivers.

    eg “Wham Bam thank you Maam!”

    Anyone who can hold large amounts of knowledge and comprehend complex interrelated meaning from an analysis of that all at once and then pass on the key ‘bits’ in URL links to others is obviously very dumb and doesn’t ‘get it’ – *it* being other people’s personal limitations.

    Clearly if he’s that daft he hasn’t anything worth saying ever, let alone reading or learning from the factual evidence, and those experts he references. Obviously a Luddite if he can’t deliver profound truths about the world and human nature in under 104 characters.

    I’m writing to the IPCC and John Cook at UQ straight away.

    How could they have missed this profound truth that must apply to everyone everywhere all the time?

    Too wordy? Redundant? Too many FACTS to handle at once? Dumb? Or a pimply faced teenager on ICE down in his mother’s dark basement keeping up with Alex Jones?

    You decide!

  34. 134
    patrick says:

    xkcd: A Timeline of Earth’s Average Temperature Since the Last Ice Age Glaciation:

    http://xkcd.com/1732/

    You gotta love this. [If not, check 9000 BC.] It’s right up there with “A Song for our Warming Planet,” for a piece of art where scientific consonance doesn’t cramp the style a bit.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t08CLczdK4

  35. 135
    Lon Willett says:

    For those of you that don’t follow the xkcd comic strip, I thought it would be worth sharing this one with you:

    http://xkcd.com/1732/

  36. 136
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    I was just revisiting an article by Scientific American. Apocalypse Soon. Has civilisation reached the environmental point of no return?.
    Based on M.I.T’s 1972 computer program called World3. They state that all possible scenarios to avoid environmental/social collapse are now well out of our reach. The also raised in interesting point that I would like some of you to clarify. They said that all our current GG emissions are being produced at twice the pace than the ocean can absorb them. Then I realised that due to the exceedingly long timeframe that CO2 stays in the atmosphere and that the absorption rate by the oceans is pretty much constant, therefore a larger and larger percentage remains in the air over time. That reminded me of the misleading claim that CH4 is 26x more potent than CO2…well over a hundred+ years it is. Who is dealing in 100 year increments when we have such a fast moving juggernaut engulfing us? The truer figure over 20 years is that CH4 is > 100x more potent a GG than CO2. That is a relevant timeframe. So the question is..what is the ocean’s reabsorption rate of CO2 over 20 years?. Thanks guys!

  37. 137
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Nemesis:

    ongoing conflicts of interest

    Exxon’s conflict of interest means it is against its interest to sponsor the AGU’s support for research into carbon-caused global warming. So if it is against Exxon’s interest to sponsor the AGU then why does it do it?

  38. 138
    Dan H. says:

    MA,
    Thanks. It is entire possible, even probably, that the temperatures will not drop as much in the coming months compared to the 1998 super El Nino. That can be attributed to the higher baseline on the recent El Nino; the temperatures from all the sources were higher prior to the most recent El Nino, such that a return to “normal” would be at a higher level. We shall see.

  39. 139
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Chris Dudley at 89:

    A GISTEMP anomaly for August 2016 of 0.96 C or greater would make it the hottest recorded month beating July 2016.

    The anomaly was 0.98 C so presumably that means we just had the record for hottest month on record broken two months in a row.

  40. 140
    Hank Roberts says:

    Another little tidbit that may be relevant following on changes in storm tracks and rainfall patterns (and pH change)

    http://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-learning/concrete-technology/durability/corrosion-of-embedded-materials

    Corrosion of reinforcing steel and other embedded metals is the leading cause of deterioration in concrete. When steel corrodes, the resulting rust occupies a greater volume than the steel. This expansion creates tensile stresses in the concrete, which can eventually cause cracking, delamination, and spalling.

    Steel corrodes because it is not a naturally occurring material. Rather, iron ore is smelted and refined to produce steel. The production steps that transform iron ore into steel add energy to the metal.

    Steel, like most metals except gold and platinum, is thermodynamically unstable under normal atmospheric conditions and will release energy and revert back to its natural state—iron oxide, or rust. This process is called corrosion….

    … In reinforced concrete, the rebar may have many separate areas at different energy levels. Concrete acts as the electrolyte, and the metallic connection is provided by wire ties, chair supports, or the rebar itself.

    Carbonation occurs when carbon dioxide from the air penetrates the concrete and reacts with hydroxides, such as calcium hydroxide, to form carbonates. In the reaction with calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate is formed:

    Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O

    This reaction reduces the pH of the pore solution to as low as 8.5, at which level the passive film on the steel is not stable.

    Carbonation-induced corrosion often occurs on areas of building facades that are exposed to rainfall, shaded from sunlight, and have low concrete cover over the reinforcing steel.

    Carbonation of concrete also lowers the amount of chloride ions needed to promote corrosion. In new concrete with a pH of 12 to 13, about 7,000 to 8,000 ppm of chlorides are required to start corrosion of embedded steel. If, however, the pH is lowered to a range of 10 to 11, the chloride threshold for corrosion is significantly lower—at or below 100 parts per million….

  41. 141
  42. 142
    Chris O'Neill says:

    #104:

    Maybe a series of simultaneous strikes by climate scientists to get their message across?. It’s not like they are going to get replaced by stand-ins are they!

    In Australia they’d just be retrenched.

  43. 143
    Chris O'Neill says:

    #106:

    Put a friggin’ escalating tax on carbon (as you suggested) and let those of us who are smart enough to figure things out figure things out.

    For what it’s worth, there is a transition taking place away from fuel-powered hand tools such as mowers to battery powered tools regardless of Carbon pricing. In my experience the electricity cost is far lower than the fuel cost which is nice but it’s not the only cost. A similar transition to battery powered cars will hopefully happen before long but Carbon pricing (including in the form of fuel tax) will make it happen sooner than otherwise.

  44. 144
    Alfred Jones says:

    Hank,

    You don’t like that I change clothes sometimes, even though I do it in an obvious way. Now, you could (and should) have simply asked me if I wanted to share my previous handles. Instead, you went after my IP addresses. That’s wrong. I’ve got many flaws, as do we all. This slight doesn’t surprise or shock me. Not a big deal. Life with Hank. He digs in data and searches. Lots good to be said about that.

    Piotr, you shocked me. I’ve got great respect for you, so when you piled on with an untruth, that Hank did in fact do the above and then repeated the accusation after I explained both the truth and my motivations, well I blew up. Sorry about that. Which leads to:

    BPL, I owe you a huge apology. I broke my vow with absolutely no provocation from you.

  45. 145
    Scott Strough says:

    @ 119 Chris Machens,

    Yes Chris,
    Soil is the key to AGW mitigation. That vid isn’t all that convincing unless you have confirmation bias, but I have done extensive research into many regenerative production model case studies. And yes it can be backed up with empirical evidence.

    However, in order to effect change in agriculture that is rapid enough to actually get the job done in time requires a restructuring of the domestic and international commodities markets’ buffer stock schemes.

    We are still subsidizing the damaging agricultural production models. Until that stops, there is little hope the regenerative production models will be adopted fast enough to mitigate AGW. In fact even if we didn’t have AGW they likely wouldn’t be adopted fast enough to even prevent world wide agricultural collapse in ~60 years +/-.

    So if you want to help, the two most important things you can do is to lobby for an end to overproduction of grains to be then used for animal feeds and biofuels. There are other ways to feed animals and make biofuels besides relying almost solely on commodity grains, but they won’t be adopted while policies are still preventing the change. And this problem has nothing to do with AGW, since those destructive policies were adopted before AGW was well known.

    The good news is that could potentially be changed by political activism and a single stroke of a pen. Do that and we could be negative CO2 net in a decade or less and potentially back to preindustrial levels of CO2 in 40 years +/- after that conservatively. Could be faster actually.

    That’s the potential. The reality? We are far more likely to be still arguing whether we should make the change right up to point agriculture worldwide starts collapsing. Sad but true. Many historical examples of regional collapse of agriculture and the civilizations they supported where nothing was done right till the bitter end.

  46. 146

    #145 Scott Strough “…and we could be negative CO2 net in a decade or less…”

    That is a very optimistic conclusion. The good news is that soil management offers another pathway in the struggle to reduce emissions, and to achieve negative emissions.

    Related: Kevin Anderson: Delivering on 2 degrees https://youtu.be/SO0ycZ1wJfI

  47. 147
    mike says:

    August CO2

    August 2016: 402.24 ppm

    August 2015: 399.00 ppm

    3.24 ppm increase on monthly average in yr to yr comparison. If we were serious about reducing the accumulation of ghg in the atmosphere

    September might get down around 401 for monthly average and that’s the bottom of the annual cycle, it’s up from there.

    Warm regards

    Mike

  48. 148

    AJ: BPL, I owe you a huge apology. I broke my vow with absolutely no provocation from you.

    BPL: Accepted. Thank you for behaving like a gentleman.

  49. 149
    Hank Roberts says:

    Soil erosion, mapped. Note a pattern?
    http://www.mdpi.com/sustainability/sustainability-07-02936/article_deploy/html/images/sustainability-07-02936-g003-1024.png

    I’ve managed to protect about 50 acres in my lifetime.
    Not nearly enough.

  50. 150
    Thomas says:

    137 Chris O’Neill asks ‘why?’

    “The public relations professional must know how to effectively address those concerns using the most powerful tool of the public relations trade, which is publicity.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations

    Hint: Search the 2014 Corporate Citizenship Report for ExxonMobil
    http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/corporate-citizenship-report/2014_ccr_full_digital_approved.pdf

    for example pg 5:
    “Contributing to progress: Energy provides comfort and security, enables personal mobility, powers commercial buildings, supports travel and trade, and fuels modern manufacturing. ExxonMobil plays a role in providing the energy crucial for continued economic prosperity and human progress.

    for example pg 51:
    “In 2014, 24 volunteers from ExxonMobil China affiliates conducted a “Let’s Go Green” workshop for 120 children of migrant workers at Shanghai’s Tangwan Primary School in Minhang district, located near ExxonMobil’s Shanghai Technology Center.”

    for example pg 54:
    “Responsible production in Papua New Guinea: Our work in Papua New Guinea (PNG) demonstrates our holistic approach to managing key sustainability issues across our operations. ”

    for example pg 64:
    “A commitment to ethics and integrity is a core aspect of our corporate culture. […] Everyone is expected to uphold the highest ethical standards of business integrity.”

    Search https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=corporate+corruption+examples

    Hypocrites Unite: AGU and ExxonMobil – 15 April 2016 by James Hansen
    “The fossil fuel industry is not making a serious effort to become an industry of clean energy, it is easier to fool the public. AGU pretends they do not understand the real issue. They are both hypocrites unwilling to be inconvenienced for the common good.”

    ““I am an energy voter” commercials are from skilled professionals and they are persuasive. They promise jobs, low prices at the pump, warm homes, and energy independence for our nation.

    “Benefits for all, or so it seems. In reality, in the end, benefits flow mainly to a handful of people, the fossil fuel magnates, who prefer to be anonymous.
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20160415_Hypocrites.pdf

    Why did you ask ‘why’ Chris?