RealClimate logo


Unforced Variations: June 2017

Filed under: — group @ 1 June 2017

Absolutely nothing of consequence happening today in climate news. Can’t think of what people could discuss…

236 Responses to “Unforced Variations: June 2017”

  1. 1
    NS Alito says:

    I voted for Crooked Hillary.

  2. 2
  3. 3
    Gordon Shephard says:

    Weeeelll… There is the continuing arctic “death spiral”…and there is the Trumpster’s soon to be announced decision on whether to stay in the Paris Agreement…and what about that ice sheet that is “very close” to breaking away from Antarctica… Oh, yeah, I guess those things aren’t really happening yet.

  4. 4
  5. 5
    mike says:

    Last Week

    May 21 – 27, 2017 409.96 ppm
    May 21 – 27, 2016 408.16 ppm

    Daily CO2

    May 30, 2017: 409.25 ppm
    May 30, 2016: 407.70 ppm

    April CO2

    April 2017: 409.01 ppm
    April 2016: 407.42 ppm

    Dr. Mann said keep it under 405 back in 2014.

    NO2 is getting some attention for permafrost thaw potential. Waves detected in Greenland’s Rink Glacier.

    what the covfefe?

    Mike

  6. 6
    mike says:

    Rep Tim Wahlberg says God will fix global warming if it becomes a real problem. maybe he’s been drinking too much covfefe

  7. 7
    Paul Donahue says:

    #1 yes! As the Bernie left always said last year, Never Hillary! She is as bad as Trump on climate policy!

  8. 8
    Mal Adapted says:

    NS Alito:

    I voted for Crooked Hillary.

    Come on, “allegedly Crooked”.

  9. 9
    Alastair McDonald says:

    Barton,

    CO2 is saturated in the boundary layer no matter what happens up aloft. Moreover, in the upper atmosphere where the lines are separated there is little absorption because of that.If you want the real story about the problem with Arrhenius’s model read this poster.
    BTW, John Koch was not a humble lab assistant. He was Karl Angstrom’s PhD student. I have translated his paper here.

    [Response: No, no and no. The “CO2 saturation” argument was wrong when Angstrom supported it, and it’s wrong now. This is an old, tired, denialist talking point that has been addressed over and over again. It’s wrong. For those interested in the facts, a good place to star is: here. Also, here, and more recently, here and here. –eric]

  10. 10
    Mr. Know It All says:

    I am pleased that the USA has withdrawn from the Climate Treaty. If, after further study by the Trump administration, it is determined that man-made climate change is a real problem, then the USA can take action to fight the problem. We can do that without any climate treaty and in the mean time, other nations can, if they are convinced they need to, go ahead and take actions to fight the problem. Let’s watch and see what they do in the next few years and see if it’s significant. The USA should never allow other nations to tell us how to run our nation.
    .
    If I were a climate scientist who believed in AGW, I’d try to get a group of skeptics from the T administration together with a group of believers, and see if the believers can convince the skeptics that AGW is a real problem. I’ll bet Mr. T would provide some funds to help with such an effort.
    .
    In the mean time, do what you can as an individual to fight AGW if you think it’s a problem.

  11. 11
    Arun says:

    All this was set in motion last year, with the November election results.

    The key questions are – will the rest of the world hold? Will economics (e.g., new solar power cheaper than coal power) and trade (most-of-the world international agreement on tariffs based on CO2 production) drive the US too to a lower-carbon future despite Trump?

    Or will it all fall apart?

  12. 12
    Russell says:

    I voted for the least crooked candidate I could find, her former colleague, Bill Weld.

    But Mal should not despair- there is already rumor of a White House compromise on the Paris Accord:

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/05/in-paris-agreement-concession-trump-to.html

  13. 13
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    As I said immediately after the Drumpf election.

    America is now the enemy of all thinking, moral people.

  14. 14

    ABM 9,

    Yes, the 14.99-micron line is saturated in the boundary layer. The point is that it doesn’t matter if it’s saturated in the boundary layer. More CO2 still increases absorption in higher layers, they heat up, and they in turn heat up the boundary layer and the surface. Inevitable, simple radiation physics.

  15. 15

    KIA 10: I am pleased that the USA has withdrawn from the Climate Treaty.

    BPL: Of course you are. Maybe you’d like us to withdraw from the 1949 Geneva Conventions as well?

  16. 16

    I voted for Hillary (after voting Bernie in the primary), and I would do it again. It would have made a tremendous difference. We would still be in Paris, the Clean Air Act would still be in place, the EPA would not be shredded and subverted, and she would be promoting her plan to put a billion (billion with a B, 10^9 in USA-math) solar panels in place her first term. That’s why I voted for her. Not to mention that she’s not a flaming traitor.

  17. 17
    Dan says:

    re: 10. That is some seriously poor trolling. Goodness what rubbish on so many levels. Anti-science, ignoring the strong, peer-reviewed science from decades of strong research (including the science by the hosts of this blog; talk about arrogance to post your comment here!), anti-science leadership and a complete failure to understand the scientific method (the foundation of science for centuries). Just for starters.

  18. 18
    jgnfld says:

    I’m fine enough with this. I hate to say it, but as we all know alcoholics and other addicts cannot be reasoned with, they have to hit rock bottom on their own. Trump is best suited to bring us there more quickly than about anyone.

  19. 19
    tegiri nenashi says:

    #4 Hank
    And what the reason for accelerated sea level rise might be?
    Is it thermal expansion? Debunked by
    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/nclimate2872.pdf
    fig 5
    Or “accelerated” ice shield melt? Debunked by the recorded temperature in the antarctic
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809512002256
    In general, if you want to measure some effect lost in the sea of noise, it is better to go after the primary causes if their measurements are more robust. And, anticipating the question about gravity based measurements of ice shields, their precision is less than stellar.

    [Response: Re your first poin, the Argo floats don’t support the idea there hasn’t been ocean warming (there has been) and nor does the paper you cite suggest what you seem to think it does. Re your second point, there is no such think as “ice shield”. And South Pole is not the same as Antarctica.–eric]

  20. 20

    KIA said: “I am pleased that the USA has withdrawn from the Climate Treaty.”

    Of course you are.

    Why do you think anyone cares?

  21. 21
    Erik Lindeberg says:

    It is bad, but expected, Trump today said US will withdraw of the Paris accord. I think it still unclear what he actually wants to do. Trump says: “..But begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or really entirely new transaction…so we’re getting out but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine”. Does this mean he wants to stay in UNFCCC and try to renegotiate the US terms in the deal and if he does not succeed, he will eventually (2020?) pull out of UNFCCC?

    It is unlikely that US will be able to renegotiate their commitments because the commitments in the deal is already to weak and has to be escalated. US is the second largest emitter in the word (next to China) and one of the countries with the largest emission per capita (US: 16.2 , China: 6.5, EU: 7.6 tonneCO2/capita).

    This may be even worse than if US pulled out of UNFCCC immediately because the Paris process is now entering the action phase and stronger pledges have to be negotiated. To have US inside trying to slow it down could be devastating. It is of course a setback to have such a big country outside the deal, but countries in Paris accord should put trade sanctioned on non-participants by imposing a CO2 tax on their export. The tax (custom) should corresponding to the CO2 emissions from producing the product, e.g. 50 $/tonne CO2, because this is approximately the cost of large-scale measures. Large-scale means large enough to meet the 2°C goal.

  22. 22

    The key questions are – will the rest of the world hold? Will economics (e.g., new solar power cheaper than coal power) and trade (most-of-the world international agreement on tariffs based on CO2 production) drive the US too to a lower-carbon future despite Trump?

    Or will it all fall apart?

    Early signs are good. And China will move heaven and earth to make it happen; for them, it is the best chance yet to take firm hold of the global leadership role which they see as the historic norm.

    We shall see, of course. Nothing like time for revealing just how screwed one is–or is not.

    By the way, if anyone cares, my take on it is here:

    https://soundcloud.com/doc-snow/reckless-endangerment

  23. 23
    Christopher Hogan says:

    Hey, Mr. Know-it-All. I’ll go under the assumption that wasn’t sarcasm. But it certainly was ill-informed. I found this sentence in particular to be astonishing, in this context.

    “The USA should never allow other nations to tell us how to run our nation.”

    My points being that a) we entered into this treaty voluntarily, in the expectation of mutual benefit, and b) we set our own target. As did the other nations who signed on. We agreed to it.

    Other nations didn’t tell us what to do. Instead, our enlightened previous President acted to address a clear threat to the long-term health and existence of the United States of America.

    And our current president, whom it is fair to say does not actually understand any details about the Paris Agreement, has now thrown that away.

    Here’s a good exercise for you, if American sovereignty is dear to you. First, sing America the Beautiful. Particularly the line about “amber waves of grain.” Then google up “dust bowlification”. Then think about where the hell the USA is going to be when virtually all of our currently arable land is dust-bowl dry in the typical year.

    And if you can put all that together, you’ll see why the Paris Agreement was very much in our own self-interest. Without it, a century from now, “amber waves of grain” will just be a quaint, antiquated phrase.

    And quite possibly, the USA with it. History has shown repeatedly that if you can’t feed your population, you can’t maintain civil order.

    I support the Paris Agreement because I love my country. How about you?

  24. 24
    Ray Ladbury says:

    KIA:”f I were a climate scientist who believed in AGW, I’d try to get a group of skeptics from the T administration together with a group of believers, and see if the believers can convince the skeptics that AGW is a real problem.”

    But what if they, like you, are too stupid to understand the evidence?

  25. 25
    ardavenport says:

    Ooooh, yeeeeaaaaah, nothing at all in climate news today.

    I voted for the candidate who has a decent grasp of reality and isn’t doing anything more or less than what all the other politicians are doing. Except for the one taking up space in the White House, which is now a reality-free zone.

  26. 26
    Thomas says:

    BPL, you are a scream as in funny as in LOL.

    Th: It’s a common error by narrow minded biased social media jockeys who lack the verbal intelligence to comprehend complex interconnected issues.

    BPL Cries foul …. “So is ad hominem.”

    Th: Yes it is so stop doing it along with YOUR stupid Strawman fantasies!

    Th: L. Ron Hubbard wrote mountains of science fiction too, yet he too had extremely limited verbal intelligence

    BPL: Write, writing science fiction is proof of lack of intelligence.

    Th: Bit wobbly possum, forgotten how to spell have we? LOL

    BPL: I guess that covers Fred Hoyle, Isaac Asimov, Vernor Vinge, and so on as well–all, like me, scientists that also write science fiction.

    TH: Not at all. There’s folks like BPL and Hubbard; and there’s people like Asimov and AC Clarke.

    Besides there’s a big difference between writing something and people reading it BPL.

    BPL: I note you say nothing whatsoever about the actual argument,

    TH: There was an “argument”? Where? When? By you? LOL nah, there’s that fiction Dunning-Kruger life of yours again BPL the great scientist! Verbal intelligence is of equal value to numeric intelligence and all the others.

    BPL: ….just attack me. Typical denier move.

    TH: ROTFLMFAO BPL ….. more strawmen more fiction more of the same. You need a translator or buy a box of peanuts and just watch from the balcony!

  27. 27
    Thomas says:

    Please do fwd that to BPLs email rather than post it Gavin. And please do moderate/block his posts when they only contain his fictional misinterpretations of what I have said and then REPACKAGES that into a STRAWMAN FALSEHOOD and then posts it to here representing that as if is a QUOTE by me.

    The man has verbal intelligence issues (no one’s perfect) plus he has a stone in his shoe he cannot shake which keeps turning him into a childish troll. Thank you Gavin.

    Of course you do not have to post this sensible moderation suggestion either. Fwd it to BPL too or delete. I really do not care. Not my problem. :-)

  28. 28
    Richard Simons says:

    KIA @10

    If, after further study by the Trump administration, it is determined that man-made climate change is a real problem, . . .

    Serious question from a non-American: Who in the Trump administration has sufficient expertise and the general honesty and competence to even assess studies that have already been done by climatologists?

  29. 29
    Thomas says:

    1, 7, 8 Mal Adapted Come on, “allegedly Crooked”.

    How about a proven liar and a professional incompetent at best?
    https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton many ‘data points’ in that 2016 FOI release.
    The US press are incompetent too. Everyone knows that surely? :)

  30. 30
    Thomas says:

    10 Mr. Know It All: “The USA should never allow other nations to tell us how to run our nation.”

    Definitely not, no never! That’s the USA’s job to tell the rest of the world’s nations how they are run and then to enforce it with standard abuse of power techniques, illegal coups, the threat of or the violent destruction of one’s nation.

    I love the smell of collective NPD & Egomania in the morning. Thanks for the laugh KIA.

    Back to the topic of Trump and Paris. Trump’s the #1 best advocate for AGW/CC action in the world. And so now he’s put the issue back on the front pages and the TV news everywhere. That’s a very good thing, obviously. Right?

    Now, given this was always a strong possibility since November, I am impatient to see the high quality pre-planned PR public info response by the collective pro-AGW science brigade in the news media and social media.

    The best time to educate and influence people is when they are paying attention. No doubt they would have all been really well prepared for this eventuality … yes, of course they would have.

    And they will not bother with a useless “reactive knee jerk response” by attacking the Trump camps lies and distortions but will instead be focusing on telling The People about the true facts and genuine Values using cutting edge cognitive science communication insights.

    eg Scientist Professor George Lakoff on Trump’s moral challenge to ‘Liberals’ and Climate Scientists
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OC-aS_QyHU&feature=youtu.be&t=7m1s

  31. 31
    Publicola says:

    Mr. Know It All:

    “If… it is determined that man-made climate change is a real problem…”

    Yawn.

    Been there, done that.

    Do try and keep up.

  32. 32

    Trump’s climate decision may reduce U.S. jobs in the future because other nations won’t buy U.S. alternative energy technologies. So there could be long-term economic disaster, on top of this moral failure and global embarrassment.

    After that big iceberg breaks off Antarctica there may not be a Republican President or Congress elected for the next 50 years.

  33. 33
    james says:

    Barton #9
    If you can do the math get your or your neighbours year 12 kids to do it for you: http://tigger.ws/Saturation.html

  34. 34
    Ron R. says:

    Mr. Know it all,

    That would never work. It would be a useless and distracting waste of time. You can’t convince people of things they don’t want to be convinced of.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/40587320?mag=the-backfire-effect

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” ~ Upton Sinclair

  35. 35
    james says:

    Mr Know it All (#10) says

    If, after further study by the Trump administration, it is determined that man-made climate change is a real problem, then the USA can take action to fight the problem.

    The tragedy is believing that you can stop the runaway train by standing on the tracks in front of it. (Maybe that was too subtle: NO YOU CAN’T)

  36. 36
    Ron R. says:

    Well this is what I’ve always feared. We can celebrate when a new environmental protection is crafted, but all those laws meant to save the earth, and thereby ourselves, are only ever as good as the next administration. That is sad.

  37. 37

    Killian, late last month:

    You want me to download to your brain 10 years of active learning…

    No I don’t, because that would be kind of creepy. However, I do appreciate the bibliography, and experiential suggestions.

  38. 38
    Ron R. says:

    Just shows how badly Trump wants to be a thorn in the side of most of the country when he’s willing to disregard the urgings of his daughter and son-in-law. The jerk.

  39. 39
    Thomas says:

    Ignore Trump, he’s just the current salesman and an intentional distraction for the hoi polloi …. who is given far too much attention for your own good. While everyone is hyperventilating over him and russia, behind the scenes the real damage is being done and the real story of the in-house manipulation US elections for decades is being covered up and ignored.

    So, the “climate issue” again – Prof. Philip Mirowski clearly explains the global Neoliberal thought collective’s strategy to fight Global Warming and Climate Change Science and any rational Political Action to reduce the harmful effects … and why they are winning hands down.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I&feature=youtu.be&t=33m40s

    The powerful wealthy Neoliberal Cult (who currently run the world) have a full spectrum response to AGW/CC … it includes carbon trading schemes and the Paris Climate Agreement and Geoengineering fictions.

    As well as side issues like special pleading for freedom of speech for any and ALL Ideas in the media and social media with special attacks on “political correctness” in social issues. It’s called a full spectrum response for a reason.

    What is Denialism really about? “Most people will be stupid. It’s just the way it is.” Prof Mirowski expounding on core Neoliberal Ideology and why they win all the time. Because on this point they are 100% correct!

    So, what is Denialism about??? (only 4 minutes needed to finally get that answer right!) https://youtu.be/I7ewn29w-9I?t=38m18s

    The day that the leading climate scientists (and some politicians) of the world are as knowledgeable, as expert and as skilled in linguistics as Lakoff and Mirowski are about the real issues, maybe then something might begin to change for the better.

    This will entail using real science to effectively promote scientific truths.

    Until then, the madness over Trump, and denialism, and the faux solutions being offered will continue as unabated as GHG emissions are. :-)

  40. 40
    kbsamurai says:

    The possible silver lining,
    ” producing what Mr. Bloomberg described as a “parallel” pledge would indicate that leadership in the fight against climate change in the United States had shifted from the federal government to lower levels of government, academia and industry. ”

    “The unnamed group — which, so far, includes 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 university presidents and more than 100 businesses — is negotiating with the United Nations to have its submission accepted alongside contributions to the Paris climate deal by other nations.

    “We’re going to do everything America would have done if it had stayed committed,” Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who is coordinating the effort, said in an interview.

    By redoubling their climate efforts, he said, cities, states and corporations could achieve, or even surpass, the pledge of the administration of former President Barack Obama to reduce America’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent by 2025, from their levels in 2005.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/american-cities-climate-standards.html

  41. 41
    Mr. Know It All says:

    15 – CH
    I did not vote for the climate treaty targets. Neither did you or any other American. On your scare tactic of a future dust bowl, please tell us all why we had a dust bowl in the 1930s when CO2 levels were almost 100 ppm lower than today. Our country will do fine with no climate agreement – we will do what we need to do – the Constitution does not have a provision for allowing other nations to run our country; the agreement was illegal at best.

    16 – RL
    I admit I do not understand all the evidence. I am sure there are people in the T administration who are scientists, perhaps working in Climate Science, who are skeptics, but who are open minded on it. If not in the administration, then get some skeptical climate scientists with the proper educational background to understand the evidence who are not in the administration. Let the believers show their evidence. What’s wrong with at least trying? Maybe the skeptics will convert the believers!

    18 – RS
    They’re there. I don’t know them, and if they aren’t then get skeptics from outside the administration.

    20 – LAA
    I do believe I heard similar sentiment expressed for about 18 months prior to November 8, 2016.

    22 – RR
    Nice sound bite. I heard Al Gore, say it in person – twice.

    23 – j
    From what I have read, the 2 degree goal is water under the bridge.

    For all of you above understand this: many times Trump will start a negotiotion asking for the moon, knowing that eventually he’ll settle for far less. Perhaps that’s what he’s thinking. Give him a chance. In the next year or so, nothing of significance will physically change because we pulled out of the agreement today. Did the agreement outlaw single occupancy vehicles starting tomorrow? NO!

    So much hysteria over nothing. This is just a continuation of the hysteria we’ve seen daily since the election. It’s embarassing to see this much immaturity by 1/2 of our population.

    10:06 pm pacific

  42. 42

    James 21: If you can do the math get your or your neighbours year 12 kids to do it for you

    BPL: I have done the math. Read and learn:

    http://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html

  43. 43
    Lauri says:

    #20 Lee Arnold wrote:
    “Trump’s climate decision may reduce U.S. jobs in the future because other nations won’t buy U.S. alternative energy technologies.”

    Here in the EU we have now started discussing a carbon tax on all US based products and services, not just energy technologies. We know it could lead to another trade war, but that might be less important for us.

  44. 44
    Tony Weddle says:

    Subsequent reporting of The Decision, mentioned that we don’t know whether Trump believes in human caused warming. Regardless of whether we know Trump’s position or not, this is bad reporting. “Believing” in human caused warming is unnecessary, since we have the scientific evidence. So it doesn’t require belief. “Belief” is required only when one wants to reject the scientific evidence.

    No serious reporting of climate change should imply that belief is necessary to accept the scientific evidence, but that it is necessary only to reject that evidence.

  45. 45
    Victor says:

    As some posting here have already noted, the Paris agreement was nothing more than an empty gesture to give various world leaders an opportunity to make themselves look good to their gullible constituents. As Trump correctly noted, even if all the provisions are carried out to the letter, the effect on global warming would be minimal at best — assuming it’s for real to begin with. I applaud Trump for his bravery in pointing out the obvious in the face of so much pressure from feel-good liberals brainwashed by media hype.

    I’ve been insisting for some time that the ordinary people of the world would not stand for the draconian measures demanded by climate change alarmists, and Trump’s decision to pull away from the Paris accord is one among many signs indicating that I was right. It would, of course, be a huge mistake to lay this decision on Trump alone, as though it were his own personal lack of understanding that was responsible for his action. The millions who voted for him did so because they supported his positions, and his opposition to the Paris agreement was probably the best known of all. What Trump did yesterday was based on a campaign promise he made last year that helped earn him the presidency in the first place, and I applaud him for being brave enough to follow through on that promise — a promise he made, NOT to oil industry bigwigs (most of whom approve the accord), but to the millions of vulnerable working people who voted him into office.

  46. 46
    Brent Smith says:

    @15, “Without it, a century from now, “amber waves of grain” will just be a quaint, antiquated phrase.”

    A century? Do you really think we have that long? Arctic Sea ice seems to be in a death spiral PIOMASS Ice Volume Anomaly.

  47. 47
    Cody says:

    In re: Ann @ #11 (6/1/17 @ 3:50 PM) – One of the Abiding, unending PROBLEMS W/”Real Climate,” its School-of-Fish, Worldview (“Chant”), & its self-prescribed, ‘Sized Sandbox Rules of Discourse,’ is that certain of the UV ‘Variations,’ are PERMITTED SPEECH, whilst others, not so much. RC relentlessly and All to the Greater Good, attacks all manner of Physical & Chemical strawmen, with relentless, LOGICAL, and a defense-in-detail, of What is Physically Known.

    And yet, Raw cant, such as Ann’s parenthetical … is published here, W/blithe indifference! She may as well have asserted: “Now that we’ve succeeded in teaching Elephants to fly by properly flapping their Ears …” THIS is WHY Judith Curry, correctly in my view, Rebels against our “Choir,” mentality, here! You can take the most ludicrous, of the thousands of “Counter-Factuals” dreampt up & propagated by the Physical Denial Complex, over the decades now, & you would be hard-pressed to match Ann’s for sheer Nonsense! We knew back in 1978, @ ERDA/DOE, as the Department was being organized by Big Jim Schlesinger, that a series of “Halfsies Issues” would FOREVER preclude Ann’s glib assertion becoming True. EVER! (Half of the time upon Earth, it is night. Half of the Electromagnetic Flux is, in principle, exploitable–but the orthagonal-to-propagation, Axis, is NOT! One can select materials to exploit the Hi End photons, in the UV spectrum say, but, should one do so, the great abundance of the Red, Orange, Yellows, & Greens, etc., fall uselessly upon the collector, unable to excite any given electron to the Valence relevance. Choose to exploit the abundant low-zip photons, & you reap the great multitude, but lose the energy of the high impact Violets, & Indigos, etc.) Un-fixable, This! Just as immutable as is the CO2 spectroscopy. True today, true tomorrow, & it will be so five centuries Down the Trail!

    Similarly, all you need to do to grasp immediately WHY that Football Field & 1/2 thick, Powder River coal deposit, will NEVER get expensive, is to jump upon Google Maps & spend a half hour gazing @ Gillette, Wyoming. The Brobdignagian Scale of the equipment. The tiny size of the Town, itself. In the day, that stuff was loaded @ < than a penny per pound, onto Warren Buffet's mile-long unit Trains. Two dudes drive them to where the coal is OXIDIZED! That is the problem! Not, as Dr. Archer points out in his excellent AGW course, up U. of Chicago–NOT!–the Earth's Reduced or fully hydrogenated carbon resources. The Prius Crowd may well Believe as their own powerfully Felt, Religion, that what they do matters, but … Dr. Archer corrects them: Not much. Both the fluid hydrocarbon endowments are circumscribed, & @ volumes far lower than would destabilize a Planet. They require ZERO political nickels to corral, precisely because they are so limited. Coal on the other hand, a Fixed carbon, is the PROBLEM!

    This RC habitual 'slight-of-hand' may have started as a quite well-intentioned set of restricted Topics–the GeoScience!–& all else; but all manner of Camels of the "Patho-Left" have since gotten their noses & More, way into the RC 'tent'. Hence, it is no great surprise that a Reaction from its Excluded & Scorned, has now set in: The election of King Donald The Crooked for one. I know from my own personal life and friends, that he is what I would call, a 'Thousand dollar an hour Lawyer gets what he Does to be Legal', but he's still as certainly a CROOK, as we may take certitudes. And now, he is coming for You (us) !

    There is certainly enough heft here @ RC's UV, to permit the disinfectant of open discussion to weed out inanitites such as Ann's. But, one would 1st have to formally Open the Discussion to the Full Menu of what RC's creators really WANT: They want the World to Organize, & to Choose TO IMPOSE, a particular measure of "AGW" upon all of Humanity. The 'Just the Science,' portion of the the Greater Agenda, would be OK, IF the tid bit droppins such as Ann'es were Truly Proscribed. But, they are NOT!

    From our newly minted Nobel Laureate: "Without Freedom of Speech …We would be in the Swamp!" [Motorcycle nightmare, from the Annis Mirabilis years, if memory serves, which it don't much, anymore].

  48. 48
    Mal Adapted says:

    citizen Know It All:

    I am pleased that the USA has withdrawn from the Climate Treaty.

    I, for one, would be astonished if you weren’t. Now you can keep on socializing your marginal climate-change costs, and avoid paying a few cents more for a gallon of gasoline at the pump.

    KIA:

    If, after further study by the Trump administration, it is determined that man-made climate change is a real problem, then the USA can take action to fight the problem.

    It’s too bad we couldn’t all see your face while you typed that. Hilarity would no doubt have ensued (all multi-entendres accidental).

    KIA:

    The USA should never allow other nations to tell us how to run our nation.

    Passing the irony here right by: if you can’t accept that AGW is a global problem, caused not solely but primarily by the freedom of US citizens to make other people pay for our private benefit, then you’ll never acknowledge that AGW has already caused billions of dollars in damage to the US economy alone.

    For any lurkers out there who are still confused, however, take it from Michael Bloomberg, in RISKY BUSINESS: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States:

    Damages from storms, flooding, and heat waves are already costing local economies billions of dollars—we saw that firsthand in New York City with Hurricane Sandy. With the oceans rising and the climate changing, the Risky Business report details the costs of inaction in ways that are easy to understand in dollars and cents—and impossible to ignore.

    The linked report’s Executive Summary enumerates the present and near-future costs to US citizens. For example:

    Coastal property and infrastructure. Within the next 15 years, higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms along the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico by $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Adding in potential changes in hurricane activity, the likely increase in average annual losses grows to up to $7.3 billion, bringing the total annual price tag for hurricanes and other coastal storms to $35 billion.

    Nor, as ought to go without saying, do they end at the new high-water line.

    I don’t know about y’all, but I plan to be around in 15 years. Even if I don’t live on the coast, I sure hope my country implements Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment by then, before the aggregate diseconomy of our individual externalized costs threatens to bring our economy to its knees!

    In the name of whatever’s holy to you, KIA: how is this a partisan issue?

  49. 49
    MA Rodger says:

    UAH have posted the v6.0 TLT anomaly for May with an anomaly of +0.45ºC and which stands as the =18th warmest anomaly on the full record and the warmest anomaly for the year so far (previous 2017 months [Jan to Apr] running at +0.30ºC (47th warmest monthly anomaly), +0.35ºC (34th), +0.19ºC (101st), +0.27ºC (53rd)). This is up on March (+0.19ºC) but a little below Jan & Feb (+0.30ºC & +0.35ºC).
    May 2017 is the 3rd warmest May on record (after 1998 +0.64ºC, 2016 +0.55ºC, both El Nino years). Of the monthly anomalies warmer than May 2017, eight are 1998 months (Jan to Aug), five are 2016 (Jan to May), three are another El Nino year 2010 (Jan to Mar) and it is only 17th-placed Jan 2013 that prevents May 2017 being declared “Scorchyissimo!!!!!!”

  50. 50
    Alastair B. McDonald says:

    [Response: No, no and no. The “CO2 saturation” argument was wrong when Angstrom supported it, and it’s wrong now. This is an old, tired, denialist talking point that has been addressed over and over again. It’s wrong. For those interested in the facts, a good place to start is: here. Also, here, and more recently, here and here. –eric]

    I am not a denialist. If anything, I am an alarmist! It is obvious to me that the Arctic sea ice is about to disappear, and that will cause an abrupt climate change similar to the one that happened at the end of the Younger Dryas when temperatures in Greenland jumped by 20 C in possibly as little as three years! [Alley, R. B. (2000) The two-mile time machine, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, Princeton University Press.]

    Why do you think it is that the models are not predicting the rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice?

    Why do you think that the radiosondes are not showing the warming in the upper troposphere predicted by the models?

    Why do you think it is that “The Younger Dryas Event … is the most extensively studied abrupt climate event of the last deglaciation, but its cause and internal structure are still debated” (Baldini et al., 2015)?

    Here, a reply of “No, no, and no” is not adequate :-)

Leave a Reply

Comment policy.


Switch to our mobile site