RealClimate logo


Unforced Variations: March 2017

Filed under: — group @ 3 March 2017

This month’s open thread.

343 Responses to “Unforced Variations: March 2017”

  1. 101
    Thomas says:

    And at least she respects science and basic economic data etc.
    Doesn’t change that fats that she was and still is a lying warmongering insane narcissistic psychopath. Hillary doesn’t give a flying truck about agw/cc. She only cared about herself and being elected. All part of the Clinton’s life strategy of self-importance and being famous in the history books.

    iow no different than Trump and the Bush family since WW2.

    People are incredibly gullible, ignorant of history, and stupid – Life:101

  2. 102
    Mr. Know It All says:

    89 – nigelj

    Quote: “…. including many wealthy stable countries.”

    There are none. All nations today are living off of unsustainable debt. The US has been in a depression since at least the 2001 crash – our apparent prosperity nothing more than an illusion. The good news for AGW believers is that when the inevitable crash happens, CO2 spewing will slow dramatically.

    My point was that even if renewables were doubled it would do absolutely nothing significant to slow CO2 spewing.

  3. 103
    Thomas says:

    I reckon (with medium confidence!) the maximum is now behind us. So moving threads, here’s the first glimpse of the Fram Strait at visible frequencies in 2017:
    http://greatwhitecon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/winter-201617-images/#GreenlandSea
    See also our Arctic sea ice graphs overview page, our Arctic sea ice videos page and our Arctic ice mass balance buoys overview page.

    Constructive technical criticism is welcome on the introductory blog post.

    For discussions about interpreting the information please comment on the “About Our Arctic Sea Ice Resources” page.

    See the ASI MAXIMUM on March 3rd 2017
    http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1834.150.html#msg106098

    That’s for noses out of joint such as #58 MA Rodger “BUT there are still another three weeks available for 2017 to set its maximum”

    which was in reference to #23 Thomas says: 4 Mar 2017 at 10:29 PM and
    13 Scott Nudds says: 3 Mar 2017 at 11:00 PM Has Arctic ice extent already reached it’s peak?

    (broadly smiling) aka Winners are Grinners

    Of course one could also discuss why it is that ASIE used to always be in February and not in March …. and really nail down some AGW science facts about that.

    But who needs scientific facts to talk about when bruised egos are far more important?

  4. 104
    MA Rodger says:

    Thomas @94.
    You need to be aware that there is a very big difference between using this thread to ridicule another’s comment (which can be justified) and using the thread to fire off person insults. I note that @58 I came very close to crossing that line. I branded your comment @23 as being a ”vaccuous comment up-thread (from what has become a ubiquitous source for such gobshite).” The volume of your comment in this and other RealClimate threads surely justifies the descriptor ”ubiqitous source.” I would argue that your comment @23 was in its entirity ”vacuous” and thus also plainly ”gobshite.” (As I normally ignore any ”Thomas says” comments, it may be unfair branding all your comments as ”gobshite.” But from the sample I have read, it may yet be entirely fair.)

    So is #23 ”gobshite”?
    “13 Scott Nudds Has Arctic ice extent already reached it’s peak?” This Q from #13 may well be inviting speculation of the final maximum SIE for the year but it may also be inviting interest in the progress of that maximum SIE which is still on-going. (Note Killian @61 who correctly points to a trend of the maximum Arctic SIE occuring later in recent decades. The trend is actually about 3 days-later/decade.)(You will also note @61 that Killian @35 also answered #13, and did so properly, but then @61 reacts to mis-attributed insults from me.)

    “It’s looking that way at the moment.” At that ‘moment’, Arctic SIE was showing all the signs of exceeding the peak of earlier days, and did so the following day. “Not a good sign for the rest of the year.” The 2017 Arctic SIE maximum so far is very little different from 2015 & 2016. While 2016 was an extraordinary melt & freeze season, 2015 was not. “The Antarctic is looking well below the mean avg minimum as well.” Antarctic SIE had been ”below the mean avg minimum” for over a month. “CO2 ppm remains high.” CO2 has been ”high”, breaking million-year records, since the 1950s. “Global GHG emissions continue to rise.” That may not be true. “Native forest removal continues unabated.” Studies do indicate that the levels of deforestation of the late 1990s have abated. “Climate science & energy use fake news and disinformation is at an all time high across the media and from the mouths of national leaders and think tanks.” Unsubstantiated. “AGW/CC issues are not yet a priority for the world.” Probably better to say“… not yet a ‘high enough’ priority…”
    Overall, the answer provided to the Q @13 can fairly be described as “gobshite” having little to do with either the question or veracity. Do note my assessment is at odds with that provided by Thomas @94 which described the answer @23 as being “a true statement of fact being made that is based on actual scientific data and long term evidence?” I leave the reader to judge between these two opposing views.

  5. 105
    Charles Hughes says:

    Killian says:
    9 Mar 2017 at 3:43 AM
    Re #59 Kevin asked to be reminded why Hillary would not have been better.

    1. She was two-faced, by her own admission.

    2. She would have created a worse long-term problem because she would have done nothing of significance on climate, energy, simplicity, would also have expanded the gap between rich and poor (and all that is implied by that), and, since she would have very likely been in office for 8 years, holding the corporate middle, adored by ignorant dems/women/centrists of all stripes, thus virtually guaranteeing no meaningful action on regenerative systems whatsoever for eight years.

    3. Conversely, Trump is already triggering a backlash so hard the WH and Congress will almost certainly flip over the next four years, and flip hard, thus speeding up change in the long run, ironically.”

    killian – predicting what ‘would have happened if….” absolves you of any responsibility for being wrong doesn’t it.

    So Dr. killian walks out of the O.R. and tells a family, “I’m so sorry to have to tell you this but Jim died during the operation. But don’t feel so bad, had he live he would have been hit by a bus next week and died anyway.”

    Why are you fooling around with Science? You could have been a palm reader and made more money.

    I don’t remember but did you tell us back in October that Donald Trump was going to be President and that his Presidency would actually be GOOD for Climate Change??? I must have missed that prediction. Maybe you can go back and find it and repost it for us.

  6. 106
    zebra says:

    nigelj #85,

    Good luck with the swamp coolers. I have never lived in a dry enough climate where they would be useful. When I think about the increased atmospheric moisture due to climate change, areas like mine are likely going to be seeing the nasty hot/humid heatwaves more often.

    Of course, right now we are in single digits F with unusually high winds, and watching the track of what could be a serious Nor’Easter, with my house in the current snow jackpot projection. I think perhaps we are past the point of equivocating about attribution of extreme weather– more moisture, more energy…more rain, more snow, more wind, when they come.

    Getting back to the depressing off-topic topic: Humans are monkeys. Why would you expect that they would be rational, absent a lot of work to achieve such a state?

    I think the politics of the times and comments from many here show that our chimp-ness is difficult to shake even with some conventional education.

    The Hillary thing is a perfect example. Being on “the left” doesn’t mean one is immune to the Authoritarian paradigm. The desire for the comfortable hierarchies one is used to is extremely powerful: White males, males, women, and so on, each in the proper role.

    If that changes, our own position, whether male or female, is threatened. So we see the irrational vitriol towards someone who is otherwise an ordinary, if hard-working, politician.

    People don’t want to think about these things. They don’t want to ask themselves what the difference is between the Capitalist Koch brothers and Capitalist Elon Musk, which relates to what I said about natural resources.

    They don’t want to think about dealing with Russia and Saudi Arabia.

    What many of our more rant-prone commenters want is for Daddy (a fantasy government) to fix things, although they offer no practical way for that to happen.

  7. 107
    Hank Roberts says:

    Cthulhu is not going to be pleased.

    East Antarctic ice sheet most vulnerable to Weddell Sea warming

    First published: 7 March 2017
    DOI: 10.1002/2016GL072422

    Abstract

    Models predict considerable spatial variability in the magnitude of future climate change around Antarctica, suggesting that some sectors of the continent may be more affected by these changes than others. Furthermore, the geometry of the bedrock topography underlying the East and West Antarctic ice sheets, together with regional differences in ice thickness, mean that certain ice drainage basins may respond more or less sensitively to environmental forcings. Here we use an ensemble of idealized climates to drive ice-sheet simulations that explore regional and continental-scale thresholds, allowing us to identify a hierarchy of catchment vulnerabilities based on differences in long-term catchment-averaged ice loss. Considering this hierarchy in the context of recent observations and climate scenarios forecast for 2100 CE, we conclude that the majority of future ice loss from East Antarctica, both this century and over subsequent millennia, will likely come from the Recovery subglacial basin in the eastern Weddell Sea.

  8. 108

    #84, Russell:

    And I believe that you will find that Mr. Trump has been much more of a ‘stoner’ over time than Hillary.

  9. 109

    Mr. KIA–Just so we know, why are we supposed to care about more-or-less normal temperatures for this time of year in Vostok?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station#Climate

  10. 110

    #61, Killian–

    Ah. So, basically, Trump is good because he will make things so much worse so much faster that we may have a hope of achieving real change.

    Well, I’ve moved and have been on a bit of a wander for the last two months, but once we are settled, our intention is to do everything that we possibly can to make damn sure that the GOP is punished at the polls for their misgovernance and #RecklessEndangerment. Which means joining, organizing, petitioning, and demonstrating. (Been able to do some of that anyway, but not the more organizational side of it.)

    So basically, we will be busting ourselves to make your scenario come true.

    However, I really have trouble seeing this as the more desirable scenario. I think the damage that the administration could do in the next 4 years will be much, much harder to recover from than you think.

  11. 111
    Victor says:

    re #81 MARodger on the 97% consensus:

    from “The Unsettled Science of Climate Change”

    The 97% figure stems from a study by climate change activists John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli et al., Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, as published in Environmental Research Letters, May 2013. The study was based on the systematic rating of abstracts from 11,944 published papers “matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.” The authors found “that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”

    Yes, the quote is taken directly from their abstract. And yes, you read it right: the great majority (66.4%) “expressed no position on AGW.” Only 32.6% endorsed it. So how could that possibly “show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree,” as claimed by NASA, or that “Ninety seven percent of scientists agree,” as claimed by our president. This is not the result reported by Cook et al. Based on their methods, which focused exclusively on abstracts, there is no way of knowing how those 66.4% might have felt about anthropogenic global warming at the time their work was published. Those papers were conveniently discarded, however, in favor of those “expressing a position on AGW,” a completely different matter. If the survey had been conducted by objective investigators instead of committed activists, we would not be hearing that 97% of scientists agree, but 32.6%, with most of the remainder undecided.

    The problem goes deeper, however, because we need to understand what “endorsed AGW” actually meant as far as their rating system was concerned.
    Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations). . .

    More specifically,
    To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).
    What follows are the first three categories of table 2, defining the sort of statements rated as “endorsements” of AGW:

    (1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming

    (2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
    Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact

    (3) Implicit endorsement
    Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

    Only category 1 includes cases where AGW is claimed to be the primary cause of global warming. Abstracts falling into one of the other two categories would have to either state or imply that “humans are causing global warming” OR refer to warming “as a known fact.” Since even climate change skeptics agree that a certain amount of atmospheric warming is generated by greenhouse gas emissions –and no one has ever denied that warming and/or climate change is a known fact – the assertion that this study represents some sort of meaningful consensus supporting the orthodox view of climate change is clearly misleading, if not outright wrong. Moreover, none of the rating categories refer to how dangerous the warming might be, so Obama’s tweet is not only misleading, but seriously off the mark. Indeed the words “danger” or “dangerous” do not appear anywhere in this text.

  12. 112
    Killian says:

    nigelj said You appear opposed to Hilary Clinton on the basis her policies were rather timid.

    No. Surprised you got that from my post.She is/was embedded BAU, and deeply committed to that.

  13. 113
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Weaktor,
    Scientific consensus is much better expressed by what is being published and cited, rather than what scientists “believe”. Most scientists dismiss “belief” as irrelevant unless phrased in terms of Bayesian degree of belief.

    Virtually no one is publishing anything that casts doubt on the basic science of climate change–and those few papers that are pretty much sit there like a fresh dog turd on a hot New York sidewalk, because they have no explanatory strength.

    The weakness of the denialist position can be discerned by the fact that they seek to diminish the achievements of the consensus position rather than trying to explain the climate themselves. You guys have squat.

  14. 114
    Thomas says:

    Victor, “so Obama’s tweet is not only misleading, but seriously off the mark.” Yes, you could say that, if you take it literally. Same as people should not take every word out of Trump’s mouth ‘literally’ either – nor the Bible for that matter, but whatever.

    But Obama is no climate scientist and he does not, repeat not represent the body of scientific knowledge and evidence on the subject.

    Besides Cook’s paper is not the only paper that arrives at similar conclusions. Split hairs and cherry pick all you wish – that’s your problem. Get back to me and RC when you are so anal over the BS put out by denier activists and their blatant lies and distortions 24/7/365 with zero facts and zero scientific papers to back them up.

    Bleet all you wish about what Obama “said” and Cook’s paper but the facts the evidence the reality and the truth of it all remains the same.

    Meanwhile feel free to keep carrying on like a 13 year old new to debating at high school. It isn’t going to stop the world warming or the ice melting or the reefs and fish dying.

    New Record today … 90% of the land surface of the State of Queensland Australia in now officially declared in Drought. None of your comments nor your woolly thinking and gullibility will ever change reality.

  15. 115
    Thomas says:

    110 Kevin McKinney says: “#61, Killian– Ah. So, basically, Trump is good because he will make things so much worse so much faster that we may have a hope of achieving real change.”

    Well anecdotally Trump has sure got you riled up of late Kevin, and many others here since Nov 2016. Then look across the itnernet and newspapers – what do you see?

  16. 116
    Thomas says:

    104 MA Rodger: TL/dnr

    “Thomas @94. You need to be aware that there is a very big difference between using this thread to ridicule another’s comment (which can be justified) and using the thread to fire off person insults.

    PAINT THAT TEXT ON THE CEILING ABOVE YOUR BED – position a spot light on it and read it every night and every morning for the rest of your life and you still will not get it Wodger.

    BAH HUMBUG :-P””

  17. 117
    Thomas says:

    102 Mr. Know It All says:
    89 – nigelj Quote: “…. including many wealthy stable countries.”

    There are none.

    AGREED — The USA is toast.

    My point was that even if renewables were doubled it would do absolutely nothing significant to slow CO2 spewing.

    My point is that even if the USA increased renewables TEN FOLD THIS YEAR

  18. 118
    Thomas says:

    102 Mr. Know It All says:
    89 – nigelj Quote: “…. including many wealthy stable countries.”

    There are none.

    AGREED — The USA is toast.

    My point was that even if renewables were doubled it would do absolutely nothing significant to slow CO2 spewing.

    My point is that even if the USA increased renewables TEN FOLD THIS YEAR it would do absolutely nothing significant to slow CO2 spewing.

    Pro-AGW/CC action people and scientists are more delusional and living in greater denial than the everyday science deniers are who voted for Trump and want the EPA and NASA/GISS/NOAA shutdown.

  19. 119

    Th 101: Doesn’t change that fats that she was and still is a lying warmongering insane narcissistic psychopath.

    BPL: This from the guy who disapproves of psychoanalyzing people online.

  20. 120

    KIA 102: The US has been in a depression since at least the 2001 crash

    BPL: I’m not sure you’re clear on what a “depression” is.

  21. 121
    patrick says:

    Citizens Climate Lobby: Carbon Dividend Fee and Dividend Policy and FAQs

    http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

  22. 122

    The 97% figure stems from a study by climate change activists John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli et al…

    Actually, the figure comes up in several studies, not just Cook et al. (This was nicely summarized upthread a little bit.) As one would expect, the numbers vary a bit in other studies using different methods. But they all reveal very high levels of agreement with the mainstream position. So do the official statements of a couple of dozen of the world’s premier scientific societies.

    It is quite clear what the consensus is, thank you very much.

  23. 123
    Mr. Know It All says:

    120 BPL

    [leave it out]

  24. 124
    Charles Hughes says:

    Mr. Know It All says:
    10 Mar 2017 at 12:28 AM

    “She would not have made things “much” better. She may have reduced CO2 spewing by an infinitesimally small amount. Even if she had doubled renewables (unlikely), that would not be “much” better – it would be a tiny bit better as far as CO2 output is concerned. Obviously not worth the other negatives she would have brought along.”

    You Hillary Bashers need to pull your heads out of your @$$. Trump has effectively wiped out the State Department and is busy as a beaver destroying any and all government oversight INCLUDING THE EPA! And you’re still yapping about Hillary not being any better???? I’m getting really sick of this crap. You’re posting on a Scientific web site where FACTS MATTER and you’re pulling out the Kellyanne Con-job “Alternative Facts” b.s. I wish to he// the moderators of this webs site would start canning some of the absurd baloney coming from the usual suspects who are eating up the thread posting links that NOBODY is going to click on. Also unwelcome are the fact free, baseless “opinions” of what would have happened if only….

    Famine is beginning in earnest with 20 million people set to starve to death. We’re in it. Being politically inept isn’t going to accomplish anything. Stick to the facts. CO2 levels are rising. The WAIS is coming apart and the Arctic is all but gone. If you didn’t vote for Clinton you’re part of the problem. She wouldn’t have wiped out the EPA. Not in a million years. Get off your soapbox and get busy. I’m here to get valuable information, NOT scroll through miles and miles of bullsh*t.

  25. 125
    Mr. Know It All says:

    120 BPL

    Also, ask yourself this: What would the economy look like if we weren’t spending hundreds of billions that we don’t have? I think my personal economy would improve quite a bit if I could spend a few thousand each year that I don’t have, and never have to pay it back.
    3/13/2017 @ 2:48 PM Pacific

  26. 126
    Thomas says:

    111 Victor, a little more info.

    Cook’s paper is another example of “the tail wagging the dog”. His and others papers on the climate science consensus and validity of climate papers/science was just another response to a decade of lies by climate denial activists. I repeat LIES by climate denial activists, funded denier groups/websites and special interest groups in business and media and politics fighting for their own self-interests and flawed belief systems.

    Your posts here about cook’s paper, a consensus or not, valid science or not, is another example of “the tail wagging the dog” too. That the moderators let it through, given this subject has been addressed ad nauseum on this site and everywhere else online is insidious.

    If moderators are going to let this subject be raised by you again and again then the least they could do is add in their green notes and slap it down outright in the first instance plus include links to prior comments by the scientists who run this site. All it is is a waste of time of readers/commenters here to again address this issue for the 100th time.

    That Victor hasn’t been permanently banned here already says it all about allowing “the tail to keep wagging the dog” and the lack of reason behind the moderation of the site for it is self-defeating. They as well just post links to Fox News shows and guests trashing climate science and leave it at that.

    Like recently Nye went on Fox again .. like wtf is wrong with people like that? It’s not an example of high intelligence that’s for sure. Who needs like minded friends when Nye presents himself as cannon fodder on a news desk with an idiotic moron and biased paid shill? The same kind of self-defeating behaviour happens right here too.

    But I won’t be doing an Edward Greisch. I won’t allow myself to be hounded to my dying days by my inferiors.

    In the meantime, it should be self-evident by now that some people have no limits. And some people live in a fantasy world having no rational reality based idea how far some other people are prepared to go to win an argument. What happened to ex-Governor Spitzer and Gen Patreaus and the Charleston church massacre and MLK come to mind. So I hope NASA keeps paying for Gavin’s 24 hr armed protection detail.

    Surely he has one, right?

  27. 127
    Thomas says:

    As Killian says, Hillary Clinton is/was embedded BAU and deeply committed to that, and rightly so. It’s a fact not a belief.

    Meanwhile as people here continue to complain and ridicule Killian they keep ignoring and denying and facing up to what Dr James Hansen has been saying repeatedly about the Democrat Party, about ex-President Barack Obama, about John Kerry, his entire Government and the rest of the lying shills on that side of US politics.

    Dr James Hansen is not alone by a long shot. Intelligence, opportunity, privilege and hard work might get some a Science Degree to hang on the wall but that doesn’t prove they are not stupid, and incredibly gullible with lousy judgement and living in a world of make believe.

  28. 128
    Thomas says:

    Some push back against neoliberal liars and climate denial activists in the right wing Federal Government and Industry/Resource forces is beginning down under from the SA centerist State Government:

    “There needs to be national leadership, and in the absence of that national leadership South Australia will act to secure our own interests.” … the Energy Minister has been at pains to keep open the option of renationalising South Australia’s privatised electricity grid.

    “We can no longer be at the mercy of the market because the market serves its own interest, not ours,” Mr Koutsantonis said.

    “Australians fundamentally want to retake control of their power assets to suit their own needs because energy is not a commodity to be traded on a [corrupt manipulated] marketplace, it’s an essential utility. We cannot live without it. And putting it in the hands of shareholders and people who are interested in profit is unacceptable.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/sa-government-to-announce-power-intervention-strategy/8350878

    More later … this current situation harks back to the fraud is fraud history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

  29. 129
    Thomas says:

    Announcing the energy plan in the wake of blackouts and load-shedding, SA Premier Jay Weatherill said his government would take control by ensuring the energy minister was given powers to direct the market.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/sa-power-energy-minister-electricity-market-plan-jay-weatherill/8351450

    The LNP Federal Govt with a one seat majority is essentially toast. Not only regards energy, electricity and agw/cc but across the board it is an outlier of neoliberal fanatics versus a significant majority of the population. It’s LNP cousins in West Australia were just tossed out of govt on the weekend in a state election setting a new world record for a swing against a sitting govt in Oz.

    A 15.5% statewide swing – from 47.1 of the vote down to 31.6% — Aussies can be brutal.

    As opposed to the recent US elections where every sitting member and senator of Congress was re-elected. Where there no rational or valid choice presented for President. Americans have an unassailable talent of voting against their own self-interests election after election after election. Happy Daze. :-)

  30. 130
  31. 131
    Thomas says:

    Our Energy Plan – Premier Jay Weatherill
    https://youtu.be/5OUvQtz-FEM (1m27s)

    Government of the People, by the People, for the People?

  32. 132
    Thomas says:

    more for 111 Victor & Climate Consensus – the 97% vs the 3% …. The fossil fuel industry’s invisible colonization of academia – Corporate capture of academic research by the fossil fuel industry is an elephant in the room and a threat to tackling climate change.

    On February 16, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center hosted a film screening of the “Rational Middle Energy Series.” The university promoted the event as “Finding Energy’s Rational Middle” and described the film’s motivation as “a need and desire for a balanced discussion about today’s energy issues.”

    Who can argue with balance and rationality? And with Harvard’s stamp of approval, surely the information presented to students and the public would be credible and reliable. Right?

    Wrong.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/13/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-invisible-colonization-of-academia

  33. 133
    Thomas says:

    Busy busy times … I shared this event last year – here’s an update:

    One of the worst instances of mangrove forest dieback ever recorded globally struck Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria in the summer of 2015-16.

    A combination of extreme temperatures, drought and lowered sea levels likely caused this dieback, according to our investigation published in the journal Marine and Freshwater Research.

    The dieback, which coincided with the Great Barrier Reef’s worst-ever bleaching event, affected 1,000 kilometres of coastline between the Roper River in the Northern Territory and Karumba in Queensland.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/extreme-weather-explains-unprecedented-mangrove-deaths-in-nt/8352488

    Paper http://www.publish.csiro.au/MF/MF16322

    Aaaw who cares and why bother anyway.

  34. 134
    Thomas says:

    another mangrove summary http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/extreme-weather-explains-unprecedented-mangrove-deaths-in-nt/8352488

    The internet is over 20 years old now. html was supposed to be a game changer tech.

    So where does one go to view or research – by continent, country, state/region the last 20+ years of things like – unprecedented weather/climate events, new weather/temp records, droughts, floods, coral bleaching, coral reef destruction, mangrove die-offs, fish kills, blue/green algae blooms, water shortages, failed crops, insect infestations, ice loss, glacier losses, dam levels, storm cells, coastline destruction, bush fires, forest fires, ……

  35. 135
    Killian says:

    Thomas on March 10th said I, too, am Peanut Gallery! by continuing the ridiculous pedantry of MA Peanut.

    And, still, I was correct. The rise in additional sea ice was of zero consequence, and I expect it will continue to be. Might it rise again? Sure. Will it be significant? Almost cetainly not. Does it matter if it is? No. Why? Because… who cares? It was’t a paper written for submission to a journal, it was a comment tossed out in the moment. And, here’s your English lesson for the day, Gallereans:

    1. “Purdy much” is clearly colloquial, informal. It is anything but absolute. It implies, clearly, a margin of error. That margin of error is clearly small. So, rather than being wrong or being taught or shown anything by you goobers (get it?), I am, once again, and as always, correct. There has been no significant increase in sea ice. I seriously doubt there will be.

    2. “I was wrong once” is clearly tongue-in-cheek, yet also indicates an acknowledgment of the possibility of my assessment being wrong. And who cares if I end up being wrong – though the rarity of that being the case is rather astonishing even to me.

    To take issue with this post is the height of asshattery. It is shameful behavior.

    You address your better, Peanuts. Ten years of kicking your butts should have taught you something. That it hasn’t fits with the nature of your shrill, pointless dialogues here. You add nothing original, nor ultimately useful. Shush. Let the knowledgeable get on with the work you cannot do. I keep predicting sea ice levels accurately. You do not. I am able to provide a mechanism for my expected scenarios. You cannot.

    And, just to be clear, I have been **correct.**

    Quiet , Peanuts. You have no salt, yet are utterly roasted.

  36. 136
    Ray Ladbury says:

    People have a very odd idea of catastrophes. They view catastrophes as simply something to avoid, and if they cannot be avoided, then “the worst has already happened.” Not so.

    Catastrophes vary in their consequences. When they happen, people don’t just throw up their hands and die. We can ameliorate or exacerbate those consequences by our actions–either before the catastrophe occurs or as it unfolds, perhaps over a period of years or even centuries.

    Mr. KIA would do well to wonder just how the economic collapse will unfold–it might result in even worse emissions of CO2 and other GHG. Likewise, it isn’t a case of “hold temperature below 2 degrees C or game over.” There is a huge difference in the consequences of 2 or even 3 degrees C and 6 degrees warming.

  37. 137
    Killian says:

    Hmmm… I am reading comments here on a really poopytablet I should not have bought. I seem to have, but have not confirmed the case, mixed up authors and/or intended targets of comments. So it goes. I may owe apologies to three different posters, butdarned if I can get through this thread with enough clarity to sort it out without taking more time than it is worth.

    Blanket apologies to any deserving. Yet, my comments remain because, well, they’re still generally applicable: The Peanut Gallery here should have been reigned in years ago. However, such is the nature of web sites that they develop their Untouchables… even if peanuts.

    Kevin, as Thomas said, there is a very riled up leftish at present. Should it maintain the current momentu,m, we might actuallysee some real change twixt now and the next presidential election, inclusive. Two years from now you can stop Trump dead in his tracks. Heck, maybe even get some vetoproofing.

    Have at it!

    Charles Hughes says absolutely nothing, getting much wrong when he claims I make a claim after being wrong.

    Hmmm…. I was never wrong.

    I never said anywhere Oompa Loompa would be president. Surprised me, too. (Like I said, wrong once.) But I have said since around April or May Trump was a lesser evil than Clinton. Still holds. There are times when movement is more important than the nature of change. This is one of those times. Stasis kills when the planet is in the process of expunging a huge percentage of current life. ANY movement is better than stasis.

    If you disagree with this, good for you. I don’t remotely care because we are stating opinions on largely unverifiable points. If you simply don’t understand my analysis, well, again, don’t care. Trump’s butchery can be reversed. Stasis provides no motive element.

    Besides, this form of governance is a Dead Man Walking, so… it’s all irrelevant in the long run. Once Bernie was railroaded, it no longer mattered much who got the presidency. Disagree? Don’t care. This is not worth spending much more time on. There is melt and such to discuss.

  38. 138

    Th 118: Pro-AGW/CC action people and scientists are more delusional and living in greater denial than the everyday science deniers are who voted for Trump and want the EPA and NASA/GISS/NOAA shutdown.

    BPL: Because they don’t adhere to Thomas’s program.

  39. 139

    KIA 125: Also, ask yourself this: What would the economy look like if we weren’t spending hundreds of billions that we don’t have? I think my personal economy would improve quite a bit if I could spend a few thousand each year that I don’t have, and never have to pay it back.

    BPL: Gee, then it’s good that Obama cut the deficit from a trillion dollars a year to 400 billion a year, isn’t it? Or that Clinton balanced the budget, and so did Carter. You think your pal Trump is going to do that?

  40. 140

    Th 127: As Killian says, Hillary Clinton is/was embedded BAU and deeply committed to that . . . the Democrat [sic] Party, about ex-President Barack Obama, about John Kerry, his entire Government and the rest of the lying shills on that side of US politics . . . stupid, and incredibly gullible with lousy judgement and living in a world of make believe

    BPL: The master of not using personal insults strikes again.

    I know I said I’d try not to comment on Thomas’s posts again, but one gets sick of reading this crap.

  41. 141

    K 135: I am, once again, and as always, correct.

    BPL: You are, once again, and as always, delusional.

  42. 142

    K 138: Two years from now you can stop Trump dead in his tracks.

    BPL: Gerrymandering. Voter suppression. Do a Google search. The US became a one-party state on November 8th, 2016.

    K: Hmmm…. I was never wrong.

    BPL: No wonder K and Thomas are kindred spirits. They’re both clinical paranoids.

    K: I have said since around April or May Trump was a lesser evil than Clinton.

    BPL: Which means you’re either completely ignorant of both candidates’ stands, or insane.

  43. 143
    Jim Hunt says:

    Thomas @103 – “Snow White’s” ears were burning, and now we know why!

    Pleasing though it is to have her tongue in cheek Arctic words of wisdom plagiarised in such a haphazard fashion, what point are you endeavouring to make?

    Ms. White has an enormous ego with a kevlar outer shell. Bruising it is impossible. Alternatively the thought processes of Alice F. are exposed for all to see:

    https://twitter.com/AF_Wetware/status/841581266524864512

    Shock News! Finally, the GWPF Corrects a Mistake!!

  44. 144
    Charles Hughes says:

    Killian says: “Besides, this form of governance is a Dead Man Walking, so… it’s all irrelevant in the long run. Once Bernie was railroaded, it no longer mattered much who got the presidency. Disagree? Don’t care. This is not worth spending much more time on. There is melt and such to discuss.”

    You’re just one more scorched Bern Victim Killian. Spewing the same tripe as all the rest. You’re right as always and you don’t care because you have better things to do than try and back up your nonsense. Got it.

  45. 145
    zebra says:

    Mr Knowitall,

    “Spending hundreds of billions we don’t have.”

    You do realize that doesn’t make sense at all, right?

    If someone is willing to take 500 paper dollars printed by the government and in exchange give the government a toilet seat, by definition the government “has” that money.

    Do I have to go into my standard rant about how people yammer on about “advanced” economics without understanding even the most basic principles?

    Workers in the Soviet Union used to say something like “they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” But it isn’t as clever as it sounds, because that’s what we all do. The alternative is for people to kill and eat each other like our chimp cousins.

    What’s your solution?

  46. 146

    The saturation argument came up again recently, in this thread or another recent thread. Can’t remember. So here’s my take on it, in four (relatively) small posts.

    Saturation 1. A model.

    If the lower atmosphere is “saturated”–if it absorbs all the infrared from the ground it can–what does the upper atmosphere matter? If absorption increases higher up, can it warm the ground? Alastair maintains that it can’t. Let’s find out. We’ll use a model involving four levels:

    Space, including the sun
    Air Layer 1
    Air Layer 2
    The ground

    Assume the air layers are completely transparent to sunlight. Sunlight zips through them and warms the ground. The ground radiates infrared light upward. Air 2 (lower layer) absorbs ALL radiation from the ground–it is saturated. It radiates up and down. Radiation from Air 2 heats Air 1 (upper layer), which also radiates up and down. But the amount absorbed, and therefore radiated, by Air 1 varies–it only absorbs a fraction, a, of the radiation from Air 2. By Kirchhoff’s Law, this means its own radiation must be multiplied by a; the layer does not radiate as much as an equivalent black body would.

  47. 147

    Saturation 2. Notation.

    Let’s define the following terms:

    F is solar flux downward
    a is the absorptivity of the upper level, Air 1. a must fall between 0 and 1
    X is what would be Air 1’s flux in one direction if a were equal to 1
    Y is Air 2’s flux in one direction
    Z is ground flux upward

    The energy balance for each layer is then:

    Space…. a X + (1 – a) Y = F
    Air 1…. a Y = 2 a X
    Air 2…. a X + Z = 2 Y
    Ground… F + Y = Z

    Extra credit to anyone who can explain why. (Hint: no IR from the ground gets to space or to Air 1, no IR from Air 1 gets to the ground, etc.)

  48. 148

    Saturation 3. Algebra.

    From the energy balance equations, we find:

    X = F / (2 – a)
    Y = 2 X
    Z = F + Y

    Let’s set F = 238 W m-2, the Solar flux density absorbed by Earth’s climate system. And let’s assume a = 0.5. We then have

    Air 1…. X = 158.7 T = 230 K
    Air 2…. Y = 317.3 T = 274 K
    Ground… Z = 555.3 T = 315 K

  49. 149

    Saturation 4. More CO2 up high.

    Remember that “a” for Air 2 (lower layer) is 1.0–it is completely saturated, passes no infrared. Now, let’s step up a for Air 1 (upper layer) from 0.5 to 0.7. This gives us:

    Air 1…. X = 183.1 T = 238 K
    Air 2…. Y = 366.2 T = 284 K
    Ground… Z = 555.3 T = 321 K

    Wow. By raising absorptance in the upper atmosphere, the temperature of the ground increased by 6 K! I’ll be darned.

    How does that work? Air 2 may be absorbing all the IR from the ground it can, but IR doesn’t come only from the ground. It is still a perfect IR absorber, and if the layers above it warm up, they emit more IR, which Air 2 absorbs. It warms up more (10 K in this example). It radiates more. The ground gets more radiation from Air 2 and also warms up.

    EVERY LAYER AFFECTS EVERY OTHER LAYER. This is why the “saturation” argument fails.

  50. 150
    Mal Adapted says:

    Mr. Know It All:

    I think my personal economy would improve quite a bit if I could spend a few thousand each year that I don’t have, and never have to pay it back.

    Are you aware of the concept of externalities in Economics, KIA? Believe it or not, you’ve been adding to the costs of AGW in proportion to the fossil carbon you burn for energy. But even though you didn’t have to pay “a few thousand each year” at the pump for the privilege of emitting your car’s exhaust to the atmosphere, the price will be paid by someone, somewhere, whether or not they burn fossil carbon for energy themselves. Some people will pay more than others as the world warms, but everyone will pay one way or another.

    KIA, believe it or not, everyone’s personal economy would improve if they didn’t have to bear the cost of AGW. Why shouldn’t you pay the full price for your own choices?

    OTOH, you may be very well aware of your externalities. You may simply choose to keep buying as much gasoline as you need for your own purposes, and buying something else with the money you ‘save’ by externalizing the warming you’re causing. But you know admitting to that would have negative social consequences, thus the persistence of your AGW-denial despite ample exposure to genuine climate science expertise on RC. Or maybe not.