RealClimate logo

Forced Responses: Jan 2018

Filed under: — group @ 1 January 2018

This is a new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. As always, please be respectful of other commentators and try to avoid using repetition to make your points. Discussions related to the physical Earth System should be on the Unforced Variations threads.

601 Responses to “Forced Responses: Jan 2018”

  1. 401
    nigelj says:

    Killian @389

    A lot of university qualified scientists disagree with you. Instead of abusing people it might help your cause to just deal with specifics of what they say.

    I will suggest an article supportive of regenerative farming on another couple of websites where I know the people. This is far more than you deserve.

  2. 402
    Thomas says:

    391 Killian, remember the ‘don’t take anything personally’ tip? :-)

    “No. I understand exactly what the others are posting.”

    Not for me to judge. Do others here (no one in particular) understand exactly what you are posting and solid foundations on what that is based? Personally I believe that ‘style’ is over-rated in importance. Others do not see it that way Killian. Nothing I can do about that mate until I’m appointed as either the world dictator or RC moderator. Neither will happen before Antarctica melts (smile)

    Most days, imho, I am way too nice, both here and in the real world. But, whatever.

  3. 403
    nigelj says:

    By the way Killian, I did a lot of geography at university, which deals with basic soil science, and I also did some psychology, even trained rats in mazes, operant conditioning, and I studied many other subjects. So I have done a little more than just read a few words related to the issues at hand.

  4. 404
    Thomas says:

    390 Killian, that was a fun read. I’m keen on Keen. And Ioannis Georgiou “Yanis” Varoufakis … both spent some time at UNSW fwiw. Then there’s Mirowski (who visited UNSW) and Satyajit Das, the latter also an Aussie and a UNSW Graduate.

    (shit, is there a fractal pattern going on here? Trees are fractals too, but that’s another story very few here or anywhere are up to handling well, but I digress… there’s a damn good reason why gold and silver are/were standard means of exchange versus say Goats or Land even. Even Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria discovered to his dismay that Money/Cash has very serious draw backs, especially when buried in the ground. hehehe, but again I digress, sorry…. )

    Here’s a small gratuity for you K. Keep smiling.

  5. 405
    nigelj says:

    Killian cracks me up laughing. He criticises me for commenting on regenerative agriculture because he says I’m not a “trained expert,” but hes happy to comment on climate change, economics, and god no how many other subjects. Somehow I don’t think he has degrees in them all!

    Killian engages in the “arguments form expertise fallacy”: That experts views are right because they are experts, and non experts should shut up. But he doesn’t even practice his own philosophy.

  6. 406
    nigelj says:

    Killian @392, I predicted all those climate and economic things as well, and yes you are right Iceland had the right solution to its banking collapse etc.

    The difference is I also know I made some bad predictions, and I also know you get a lot of things wrong. Grow up and learn some humility, and be honest with yourself.You don’t have to prove you are clever, you have a university education or some sort of qualification so are obviously not stupid.

    The harder you try to prove you are clever, the more stupid and arrogant you seem and the more most people will ignore you.

  7. 407
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @387, thanks for the info, and yes 20 years if you look at it that way. I agree its certainly insanely risky.

    To be honest I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the details of various carbon budgets and precise time frames and so on. Its not that I struggle with precise figures or find them boring, its just not an area of climate change I’m interested in that much, and there are only so many hours in the day.

    I think its important just to have a basic goal like the Paris goal of 2050. If people want to float ideas about population etc, its best to relate them to that goal, or it gets totally confused.

  8. 408
    zebra says:

    Kevin M #387,

    Thanks, and good info. Unfortunately, it supports my less-than-desirable projections about time-frames.

    If we are relying on 66% this or that??…I don’t call it risky, I call it “time to plan for a bumpy ride, make it as ‘less painful’ as we can, and have where we come out on the other side worth the trouble.”

    Killian’s concept doesn’t do that, and luke-warmist equivocation doesn’t either. We do need a paradigm shift– that’s the only thing Killian has right– but my model is the only one with a chance of working to achieve that goal. Unless someone can suggest an alternative? Cold fusion, yadda yadda?

  9. 409
    Mr. Know It All says:

    385 – Killian
    “…….According to the USDA’s latest data, by 2010-11, no-till farming had grown to the point where roughly 40 percent of the corn, soybean, wheat, and cotton grown per year in the U.S. used either no-till or a half-step technique called strip-tilling. That works out to around 89 million acres per year.”

    How much did these agricultural practices reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Did the actual, measured, reduction agree with the calculated reduction? If not, why not?

  10. 410

    #407 (nigel) & #408 (zebra)–

    Glad the info was of some interest.

    Also relevant is this paper from a European group working on renewable energy:

    I was particularly struck by Figure ES-4 (p. 6). It shows a (modeled) decline from today’s (well, 2015’s) emissions, which they put at ~11,000 Mt CO2e, to well under 1,000 in 2035, and zeroing out completely between 2045 and 2050. Not too far off the 20-year scheme we’ve been talking about.

    I haven’t vetted the paper–indeed, I haven’t yet even finished reading it. So I’m not advocating this as a silver bullet, nor saying that zebra’s comment about a ‘bumpy ride’ isn’t right. (I rather expect the ride to be bumpy or worse, to be honest–just because the project is possible doesn’t mean we will choose optimally.)

    But here we have yet another proposed ‘roadmap’ to 100% renewable energy, demonstrating that conceptually at least, the project is possible. I’m sure that, as with the Stanford group’s work, there will be some criticisms. I look forward to reading them, and absorbing the lessons that they will afford. Quite a few folks have been at pains to say that ‘it can’t be done.’ Here are some who are saying that it certainly can.

  11. 411

    I should have highlighted in the previous comment that the energywatch paper does not consider all energy use, but just electric generation–an important caveat indeed!

  12. 412
    Thomas says:

    403 nigelj says: “even trained rats in mazes”

    Aha nigelj! Then you are clearly an hands-on experienced expert in the behavior of outrageous hand waving climate science deniers and lukewarmists too!


  13. 413
    Thomas says:

    409 Mr. KIA, there are great opportunities at your fingertips to answer your own questions … and in fact improve your ability to ask intelligent questions about AGW/CC and core scientific principles and rationality involved.

    Yes Mr Killed in Action, that opportunity has bee available to you since before 2013 …. try not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I did MOOC course run by Richard Alley and his team years ago … as valuable as ACTUALLY READING EVERY IPPC REPORT cover to cover (which I have also done, if that matters to anyone besides myself, not)

    My best tip is for you to try a MOOC on agw/cc/science/energy use one day, then maybe you can finally make the most of your Military Retirement to learn something real and actually useful to your Community and blood descendants rather than possibly being considered just another ignorant ill-informed Know it All DK NPD affected individual?

    My name is Thomas and I am here to help!

    What are you here for? ;-)

  14. 414
    nigelj says:

    Zebra @408 says “but my model is the only one with a chance of working to achieve that goal.” (His model is smaller population plus some non linear effect, over a 100 year time frame).

    I just totally disagree. You haven’t proven a non linear effect, and you also haven’t shown how it would be any easier to reduce population than promote renewable energy etc.

    I think we have three stand alone possible ways of dealing with climate change. Reduce emissions with renewable energy etc, radical population decline and Killians simple life philosophy. (of course they can be combined in some form)

    Radical reductions in population look like hard work and all the maths I have read suggested its a 100 year plus project. Remember western countries are not dictatorships.

    Killians plan is needed to some extent, its commonsense that we have to reduce consumption, but radical cuts look like hard work.

    It looks more feasible to reduce emissions than the other options, and its already started. Fossil fuel use has declined since 2014 and renewable energy use is growing. This year things have stalled but the trend has started. It will probably take more than 30 years of course but so will any population plan of substance.

    So we are stuck promoting reducing emissions as the priority, and adding on smaller population, and less energy consumption and less general materials consumption as helpful extra goals. We have to be careful that we don’t take the focus too much of reducing emissions, and some of you guys are doing that. Some of you people are so dogmatic.

  15. 415
    Thomas says:

    Alaska Arctic Tundra CH4 Flux Study – Impacts of AGW/CC
    Published 8-Jan 2018
    Estimating regional-scale methane flux and budgets using CARVE aircraft measurements over Alaska
    Analysis of CH4 column enhancements supplemented by
    simulated atmospheric transport allowed us to estimate the
    monthly-mean CH4 fluxes from our study domain (50–
    75 N, 130–170 W). We estimate that domain-averaged
    net CH4 flux from May to September ranged from 2.0
    to 36 mgm2 d1 and that 2.20.5 Tg, 1.9 0.4 Tg, and
    2.30.6 Tg CH4 were emitted from our domain for 2012,
    2013, and 2014, respectively. These estimates were consistent
    with more complex statistical methods, indicating that
    this relatively simple analytical technique, with only a subset
    of the data, is sufficient for determining regional-scale
    CH4 emissions. The methodology and analysis that followed
    are therefore useful guidelines for regional monitoring programs
    which suggest that short, regular profiling of different
    eco-regions supplemented by fine-scale meteorological modelling
    can be sufficient to characterize the regional dynamics
    of the carbon cycle.

    I note that this paper took a year to be reviewed before publication this January, and that the work likely took ~2 years to produce before that. This paper reviews a study period of 2012-2014.

    I would love to see this work replicated over 2015-2017 to see what the CH4 Flux was.

    I suspect that there might be a measurable connection with similar Tundra regions across Russia and NE Europe as well as a reasonable direct connection with whatever the CO2 Flux is from these very same regions – being just as important an emission as CH4 from Permafrost over time.

    Of course how orgs like NSDIC will be able to continue or expand such important research is beyond me, given the current political climate in the US.

    Anyway, it appears that the “extent” of emission flux of CH4 per m2 at present seems far below the capacity of increasing SOC using RegAg changes with farming practices and reafforestation and other rational LUC projects.
    That’s a wide bow to draw obviously, but it would be equally nice to see some Reviews Papers looking at these interrelated Fluxes and Sequestration potential as a Net gain or Loos being spelled out … and considering these matters into the future based on BAU FF cement & LU emissions.

    Merely thinking out loud – DISCLAIMER for the Record: Nothing I have said here or elsewhere should be construed as a AGW/CC related forecast nor a prediction nor rigorous scientific analysis. Experience has shown such an obvious disclaimer needs to be spelled out in text for some.

  16. 416
    Killian says:

    #401 nigelj said Killian @389

    A lot of university qualified scientists disagree with you.

    About what, pray tell? Or are you and they fond of “Uh-uh!” as a valid response?

    Instead of abusing people

    Oh, holy heck! Abuse? In 389? You are out of your mind.

    it might help your cause to just deal with specifics of what they say.

    Umm… I did, and here you are whining about being abused. Note to yourself: You feel abused because truth sometimes hurts. Ultimately, if you don’t run away from it, you can learn something from it. Stop flinching. Earn that respect you seem so desperate for.

    I will suggest an article supportive of regenerative farming on another couple of websites where I know the people. This is far more than you deserve.

  17. 417
    Killian says:

    #404 Thomas said 390 Killian, that was a fun read. I’m keen on Keen. And Ioannis Georgiou “Yanis” Varoufakis….

    Frankly, I’m kinda proud of it. Thanks. Yes, *real* economics is somewhat interesting, but just. I’ve continue to tweak Keen’s nose about profit. He still thinks you can give a hoarder an inch and they won’t take a mile because he can *model* it. It’s a truly impressive model, but, oh, Steve, dearie, you may one day be surprised…

    #402 Thomas said 391 Killian, remember the ‘don’t take anything personally’ tip? :-)

    I didn’t. Could you not tell from the pithiness?

    “No. I understand exactly what the others are posting.”

    Not for me to judge. Do others here (no one in particular) understand exactly what you are posting and solid foundations on what that is based?

    None en toto, no. One can tell by the disconnect in their responses, and, more in more, from the non-responses. Ah, actually, I think that shows they dare not admit I’ve made a good point or posted something useful.

    It’s interesting; look back over the last year at the times I’ve posted linked content, science, i.e., and the dearth of responses compared to my foreward-looking, outside the box stuff. the differences are night and day. It gets particularly hot and heavy if I critique or refute someone. I think they be a’skeered!

    Personally I believe that ‘style’ is over-rated in importance.

    Good, because that’s not a belief, it’s a fact of healthy dialogue. “Voice” is something to be respected, not ridiculed,yet should never be confused with actual content.

    Others do not see it that way Killian.

    True. Perhaps the best IQ test there is, in a sense. Great test for hypocrisy, too.

    Most days, imho, I am way too nice, both here and in the real world. But, whatever.

    Oh, me, too. Me, too…


    #403 nigelj said By the way Killian, I did a lot of geography at university, which deals with basic soil science…

    Oh, nigelj, please just stop. It’s just too sad… sigh… Look, if I am reading your comments on your age we are in the same ballpark. That means you studied soil science when soil scientists barely knew the difference between dirt and soil and sure as shark chum didn’t understand the role of mycelium, the true roles of microbes, etc.

    So I have done a little more than just read a few words related to issues at hand.

    E for effort, but you are still a very long way from having any clear view of the system. Not sure if you’re still as myopic as looking at a single branch, but if not, you’re not much further than a single tree yet. If you could figure 1. how to work from principles first and 2. which principles were germane, it would shift your understanding considerably. Certainly did mine. Wasn’t so very long ago (but well over a decade) I thought an ecotechnic future was the greatest thing since peanut butter. Oops. I had to take a road, too. Your problem is, you think you already have.

    Really, not insult, just creative response.

  18. 418
    Killian says:

    #405 nigelj said Killian cracks me up laughing.

    I think you mean cackling.

    He criticises me for commenting on regenerative agriculture because he says I’m not a “trained expert,”

    Did I say that? I do not believe I did. What I believe I said was you lecture to me in a field of my expertise, yet your comments and critiques and analyses show you clearly are not. So, you have missed the mark completely. Again. You see, I do not ever tell the scientists here HOW to do science, the value of their science, nor what the results of their science is. I do not presume to step into their roles. I DO have the temerity to work from the analysis and policy side because… that’s my role as a citizen.

    I do sometimes, well, often, disagree with their **conclusions**, but not their work. Again, that is my job as a citizen, to interpret their findings to establish viable policy. I bring modes of thinking, areas of knowledge, to the discussion many of them do not have. It is right for discussions to be multi-disciplinary.

    The difference twixt thee and me, nigelj, is I understand what I have just written, and you may never do so. The other difference is, I keep doing very accurate analysis, so I keep doing it. You do not, yet you keep doing it.

    but hes happy to comment on climate change

    No, I do research (not experimentation and modeling) and analysis about climate change. And I do it really, really well, so far. Analysis is my “thing.” I can analyze virtually anything. At least, so far.


    Please. A monkey could. Principles. Figure it out.

    and god no how many other subjects. Somehow I don’t think he has degrees in them all!

    No, but your complete misrepresentation here is both defensive and amusing. There are no sacred cows. Everybody fails. Everybody makes mistakes. I never said one should never question experts. I have never said I am infallible. I have always said there are many ways of knowing, and we need to use them all.

    Killian engages in the “arguments form expertise fallacy”: That experts views are right because they are experts, and non experts should shut up.

    I have never said that in my entire life. If I ever did, I was an idiot. Maybe when I was twelve? Meh…

    But he doesn’t even practice his own philosophy.

    Because it is not my philosophy and never has been. You are, sadly, conflating me telling YOU that YOU are not up to the task of challenging me on these issues with me making some absurd statement that experts should never be questioned.

    nigelj, some days you truly shake my faith in humanity’s ability to survive all this.

  19. 419
    Killian says:

    #406 nigelj said Killian @392, I predicted all those climate and economic things as well

    I simply do not believe you. Sorry, but true. I try not to lie, so…

    The difference is I also know I made some bad predictions, and I also know you get a lot of things wrong.

    Yet, you will be unable to list them. Honestly, I can’t think of any. I have been incorrect on degree of change on some events, but I cannot at this time think of anything in the last ten years that would qualify as wrong.

    Now, before you answer, make sure you are paying VERY close attention to the difference between scenarios and predictions because you have messed that up before.

    Grow up and learn some humility

    Son, an honest man has no need for humility. Truth is what it is. If I could monetize my ability to analyze, I’d be rich. I said buy bitcoin in May at 2500. It went up 6x. It would still be a profit. I didn’t do it myself. THAT is my great failing. I have known a great many things and not acted on them.

    I once told my colleagues to buy Microsoft. I didn’t. It split x3 and was soon back to the same price as before the split. And on and on. My student was holding stocks after a long drop off over time. Brexit came. I said don’t sell. The sell-off will be short-lived. He sold, compounding his losses. What can ya do? I’m an analyst, not a maverick.

    I know few as forthright about their faults as I am. Trust me, however, that is no succor. All it does is give your enemies places to stab you. Still, better full of holes than a liar or fool.

    and be honest with yourself.

    Always am. You not understanding me is on you, not me.

    You don’t have to prove you are clever

    You really, really are not paying attention. You think I am motivated by ego… LOL… wow… you’re a worst analyst than I thought.

    you have a university education or some sort of qualification so are obviously not stupid.

    The opposite, in fact. But I am isht with a saw, e.g. Not too pretty. Wish I could write better, but do a good job with haiku and poetry. There are those who are very complimentary of my prose. I doubt their analysis. 95% a good father.

    See? Things are just what they are. No more, no less. Try it, you’ll like it.

    The harder you try to prove you are clever, the more stupid and arrogant you seem and the more most people will ignore you.

    Good thing I don’t have to try, and good thing I am no arrogant. Most can’t handle the truth, is all. Like you.

    Look, nige, let me lay it out. There are real ^$$holes on this site, but they have chops of one form or another. A few have no real chops, but can BS their way through numbers really well. I.e., they know a lot, but can’t do much with it. You? Man, you’re the one guy that is really just not competent. You add nothing here but word length and distraction. Harsh, I know, but not ill-intended. It just is. Add in the loose association with truth and other factors… you’re exhausting.

    Unfortunately, you keep harping on issues that I think I should not leave unclarified, so I keep getting sucked back in.

  20. 420

    To be honest I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the details of various carbon budgets and precise time frames and so on…

    I think its important just to have a basic goal like the Paris goal of 2050. If people want to float ideas about population etc, its best to relate them to that goal, or it gets totally confused.

    I don’t obsess about the details, either, but I do think that it’s important to realize how challenging our timeline actually is… ‘sense of urgency’ and all that.

    While I’m curious about the science, the main point for me is action.

  21. 421
    Thomas says:

    Montana NETS & BECCS – Vast bioenergy plantations could stave off climate change.
    Worldwide, there is no shortage of farmland that’s been abandoned because of low productivity or fickle markets. A conservative estimate by Field and his colleagues suggests an area at least the size of India is available globally, and others suggest there is several times that—plenty to support a robust BECCS industry.
    BECCS would bring sweeping changes to the region, but then again, so will climate change. Indeed, among all the options the team will consider in its study, there is one it won’t include: allowing the Upper Missouri River Basin to stay the same.


  22. 422
    Thomas says:

    Researching & Analysis of AGW/CC Impacts
    MIT – Projecting the impacts of climate change
    Joint Program researchers advocate for improved modeling approach.
    Today’s gold standard for climate impact assessments — model intercomparison projects (MIPs) — fall short in many ways.

    To overcome these drawbacks, researchers at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change propose an alternative method that only a handful of other groups are now pursuing: a self-consistent modeling framework to assess climate impacts across multiple regions and sectors. They describe the Joint Program’s implementation of this method and provide illustrative examples in a new study published in Nature Communications.

    20 September 2016
    11 January 2018
    = 15 months + the time to do the work.

    Large internationally coordinated exercises cannot easily respond to new policy targets and the implementation of standard scenarios across models, institutions and research communities can yield inconsistent estimates. Here, we argue for a shift toward the use of a self-consistent integrated modeling framework to assess climate impacts, and discuss ways the integrated assessment modeling community can move in this direction.

    Estimating the impacts of climate change is challenging because they span a large number of economic sectors and ecosystems services, and can vary strongly by region.

    However, these exercises suffer from a rigid and complex framework, driven by the need for international coordination, so they must rely on a limited number of socio-economic scenarios, like the four representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios.

    Furthermore, the MIPs lack flexibility, and responsiveness to changes in economic and environmental policies (like the recent Paris Agreement), and thus they are of limited usefulness in analysis of policy choice. In addition, because of their single sector focus these exercises do not capture important inter-dependencies, linkages and feedbacks, and this lack of integration among sectors is likely to lead to misrepresentation of climate impacts.

    Basic Conclusion: While there is still a need to bridge the gap between physical impacts and the resulting monetary values for economic damages, ongoing research shows important progress in this direction, such as efforts on health impacts and agricultural impacts, and continued focus should be devoted on this aspect of climate impact research.

    In a way the above relates back to this post:
    I am curious if there is a ‘science’ repository for (or a series/collection of published papers that addresses ) these kinds of climate change impacts already happening all over the world?

    and this one
    Though I was more thinking along the lines of more tangible events, observations that are a bit more nuanced, real life scenarios, where the avg person is more likely to be able to gauge / understand the degree of impacts upon everyday people, or commercial activity — vs hard core numbers.

  23. 423
    Thomas says:

    MA Rodger says:
    19 Jan 2018 at 5:24 AM

    mike @119.
    You ask “The rate of increase is rising, right? Is that ok?”
    No it is not.
    “The rate of increase has been rising.”

    Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections.

    I look forward to the ‘**** Retentive Perfection Police’ tearing the authors of this scientific paper a new ‘******’ forthwith.

    Patience is one of my virtues. When X happens I know to sit back and wait a while until the Y gift finally drops into my lap. Of course it will make NO DIFFERENCE HERE but a little pointed humour greases the wheels of life making it just a little bit more worthwhile. It makes me smile, a lot!

    And sometimes there’s a bonus like this comment in that publoished science paper that reads: If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration,…………’

    So apparently there is the proof that it is quite valid scieitifically to say IF THIS THEN THAT …………. AMAZING, isn;t it?

    Oh the Joy of seeing Pedantism being mis-used by a Fundamentalist as a supposed fundamental core component of science and subsequently seeing it being trashed by real scientific rigour itself in print.

    It’s still Sad though!

  24. 424
    Thomas says:

    And, shock horror, newspapers do it too …..

    “The rate of global sea level rise is accelerating as ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland melt, an analysis of the first 25 years of satellite data confirms.”

    The sky is falling ……

  25. 425
    Thomas says:

    DISCLAIMER: Nothing I have said here or elsewhere should be construed as an AGW/CC related

    scientific forecast nor a scientific prediction nor a rigorous scientific analysis.
    Experience has shown such an obvious disclaimer needs to be spelled out in text for some

    readers. It should also be noted that I fully support, respect and continue to encourage the

    work of all Real Climate Scientists who provide this forum unpaid in their spare time. That

    does not extend to all other participants by default. Respect is earned and not a given.

  26. 426
    Thomas says:

    Some interesting CO2 ppm numbers in Feb 2018

    Week beginning 2017-02-12 the average was 405.91 ppm

    These daily avg numbers represent the equivalent wkly time period this year so far:

    February 16: 408.40 ppm +2.46
    February 15: 408.53 ppm +2.62
    February 14: 407.92 ppm +2.01
    February 13: 408.00 ppm +2.09
    February 12: 408.63 ppm +2.72

    Roughly that is +2.39 higher avg increase than last year.

    The same wkly period in 2017 above 2016 was +2.29 ppm. Slightly less but on top of two years of huge numbers.

    The years 2015 and 2016 were significant because the avg rate of increase was ~3.00 ppm. This is acknowledged and generally significantly boosted due to the (Super?) El Nino from May 2015 thru May 2016.

    This year there is no El Nino, and no possible “hangover” from an el nino which may have slightly affected 2017’s high PPM numbers. In fact, right now it’s a Weak La Nina that should be having the opposite effect upon daily, wkly and mthly CO2 ppm numbers relative to 2015, 2016 and 2017 right now. But it isn’t happening like that.

    Instead what I am seeing in February and January’s numbers is something quite anomalous, in a historical sense, going back to the 1990s and ’98 super el nino and what happened after that.

    As Yoda once said, “I sense a disturbance in the Force.”

    Pre-El Nino time, in wk 2014-02-9 the avg was 397.87 ppm.

    This year is looking like ~408.30 or +10.43 ppm in a short 4 years.

    That’s a big number jump from 2014 non-el nino to 2018 non-el nino – or +2.61 ppm per year on average. Which I believe is some kind of a Record since Scripps began in the 1950s.

    Whereas the jump from mid-Feb 2015 during non-el nino period to mid-Feb 2016 during a severe el nino was +3.69 ppm.

    2016 +3.69 versus 2017 +2.29 on top of that versus 2018 +2.39 on top again versus a 4 year avg of +2.61 2014 to 2018 – What do these numbers indicate?

    And IF this 2018 Jan/Feb pattern and trend continues throughout 2018 where might those numbers end up and what kind of AGW/CC Impacts could one reasonably expect from that in the short and medium term?

    (That being Rhetorical Hypothetical questions only – all things being equal and the ASI extent (and global SIE) at record breaking lows currently and FF energy use and trends not decreasing at all)

    Will have to wait and see in a year or so, or hopefully CO2 ppm readings will suddenly crash back down to 406 or 407 unexpectedly one month rather than crashing through the 410 ppm barrier and never ever dropping again.

    Either way most will have to wait a couple more years for a Paper on it or some other detailed analysis by NASA’s OCO etc. Just as well we have all the time in the world to wait.

    For once we know for certain (right?), then action will definitely be taken to avoid a crisis in positive climate feedbacks and the dangerous regional impacts that will undoubtedly follow.

    So, thanks for your patience and understanding. Please note my disclaimer and carry on regardless. :-)

  27. 427
    nigelj says:

    Killian @419

    I couldn’t care less what you believe. You fill entire pages with accusations everyone is lying, personal absuse against people, and useless completely pedantic nonsense, trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    Most of the time you just don’t know what you are talking about. Even your knowledge of the soil issue is flawed and non scientific.

    You have some sort of god complex, and are not as smart as you think you are. We all see mistakes by the dozen in everything your write.

  28. 428
    Killian says:

    I see using a long-tail risk basis as the same as applying the precautionary principle: It’s a risk that cannot be risked. What level of risk can be avoided? What level *must* be avoided.

    This is a good take on how risk is done for financial gain and self-serving reasons, and how some here have taken a “good enough” approach to rik and policy, failing to understand how risk must be applied in existential crises.

  29. 429
    Scott says:

    A couple posts referenced no till and BeCCS. I already posted examples of farming systems earlier. Please keep this in mind when reviewing papers like these. Abandoned land was abandoned for a reason, just farming it again in an I’ll conceived idea that as part of BeCCS it solves AGW is a fool’s errand. That form of agriculture is what ruined the land to begin with in the vast overwhelming number of cases it’s the primary reason the land was abandoned to beg8n with. This is no solution. Nothing more than the last desperate gasp from a dying industrial farming system frantically trying to justify itself. The writing is on the wall for that sort of thing. Only 60 years left without fundamentally changing the paradigm. No till alone is not enough.

    Not CCS, not BeCCS, the way you restore that land and mitigate AGE is BCCS. This means not just no till, not even just no till with cover crops, but instead at the very minimum no till with at least 4 way blends of multispecies covers. There is more too. BeCCS is a dead end. We must stop growing too much corn and soy for energy. Even if BeCCS did work, and it doesn’t, land and ecosystem degradation destroys those paradigms before they even hardly get started. But restore the vast grasslands and 5 to 20 tonnes CO2e / ha / year can be sequestered long term in the soil while producing actually more food for people. Further the extra carbon in the soil also fixes the hydrodynamic so the water cycle improves. Resistant to both flood and drought. All this at a savings of billions in misconceived wasteful subsidies, and a large net gain in profit. There are no losers when dumping antiquated inefficient systems.

    Don’t be fooled by the neoluddites.

  30. 430
    Killian says:

    #422 Thomas said we meed a, like, comprehensive model! With, likereal life stuff going on!

    You mean like my ?

  31. 431
    Killian says:

    Re: #410 Thomas

    Sorry, unless I missed something, it’s the same technostupidity as ever. Fungibility? Ignored. Resource constraints? Ignored.

    It’s a paperweight, mostly. People, if it ignores resources, it’s utility is limited to fanciful dreams of electrogadgets. Sustainability or bust.

  32. 432
    Thomas says:

    Scott, it’s a simple ref fwiw. Not a recommendation but news out there in the real world that’s relevant in this page. It’s being discussed promoted. Now you know. Feel free to do whatever you feel is best about that. The abandoned land was in regard poplar tree plantations etc, as the very long article said. It’s a complex issue with not many legs nor news reports about it.

    Killian, read it already, not bad though a bit dated (needs an update/rewrite?) Syria and hillary/trump pushed peak oil off the radar.

    I’m not that keen on “models” or AI Apps either. I;m am very unsure if that paper has the ability to provide the core info/knowledge needed to address the seriousness and speed of “impacts” … sounds quite limited and the typical time-delay in punching out various models then analyzing the outputs and getting all that through all the science review hoops sounds inherently problematic and not fit for purpose, well imho but what would I know? (hey).

    or to put it another, in agw/cc science impacts are spoken about as temps, sea ice loss and slr etc. These are generlaly understood in science circles to be proxies for a whole lot of real world imapcts …. the public do not and cannot make those kinds of leaps in connections or teleconnections.

    even the GBR here, when spoken of being seriously damaged by 2050 ( i think ti will be basically dead and gone by then) the avg Joe and the politicians only ever refer to 10,000 jobs lost in tourism, and business downturns … they really do not get it Killian. People cannot “imagine” what agw/cc impacts are or what they look like and the implications of that once they arrive.

    The Science sure does not inform them … and across most agw/cc circles from the UNFCCC / IPPC down they underplay them and basically ignore them except behind closed doors … eg like that survey you mentioned on your webpage.

    Careful not to scare the kiddies with the facts of reality. and fwiw I think I am pretty much done with it now … I’ve done my bit the last 3 decades decades and it’s time for some me time now. I was already over online people like DDS, KIA and MAR et al long before I first showed up here. Like I said, I;m way too patient. ;-D

    summary of what keeps staring me in the face 24/7?

    people from all fields of life either do not know, do not care, hope it’ll all be ok, someone else will fix it, and generally are unable to think about it properly …. and grasp the nettle … from workers in fast food joints to scientists.

    and imho the UNFCCC is an utter joke and the IPCC a complete waste or time and money and pixels and paper. I’ll get pilloried and shot for saying so, but hey, it’s the truth of it. I’ve never been a “hand waver” or an over-reactive greenie nor an emotional sook either. What’s going on now is as obvious as the GFC 2008 was in 2004, and in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and january 2008 but still the smartest people in the land as well as the crazies and those who don’t gives a shit anyway brigade, are out there denying the bleeding obvious pretending it does not exist…. the silence is deafening. I think they’re all mad and in denial.

    In 1992-1994 I thought ok, a problem lots of time to fix it, but hey it is really serious. There are people out there today, including on this site and other pro-agw/cc action sites who still think like that today …. judas priest man, that’s just nuts! As you know. Cheers …

  33. 433
    zebra says:

    Kevin M #410,

    Yeah, the Tonto Fallacy just won’t go away.

    There is no “we” to make the choice, and you have acknowledged that.

    Here’s a solution: All the sovereign States with gas, oil, and coal reserves, can use their sovereign power to simply clamp down on production, driving FF prices higher, and achieve the Nirvana New Energy Future as rapidly as is physically possible. We can model that, too, correct?

    But as you have said, even Canada The Good is not going to stop producing, and I have pointed out Norway The Noble as another example…before we even get to the Saudi Mafia, Putin’s Paradise, and other less savory actors. So, model away; it’s a nice distraction from the unpleasant reality.

    On the consumption side…consider the people who pontificate on here about giving up “our” addiction to FF and consumption in general, but can’t deal with their own addiction, which is polluting this “commons”.

    You can’t solve problems like this if you ignore human nature. You have to use it to achieve your goals. Witness the Russia trolling attack on the US…they very effectively exploited already existing biases and fears to move things in the desired direction. They nudged.

  34. 434
    Thomas says:

    Killian, you’d know of Bob carter (rip), one of his mentors was Dr John Nicol. a decade ago I was sparring with him on TheConversation site run by aussie universities. Why they never banned him is beyond me, beyond cowardice. These days he’s mentoring jennifer marohasy and her equally incompetent husband from the UK

    John retired to a farm close to the Peanut capital of the world! Fitting. He’s like Peter J Carson on steroids. He used to get so slapped around by me and made a fool of back then he had to take weeks of posting at time to calm down again. But it was fun for a couple of years, nevertheless. You know, like been there done that got the t-shirt and the scars to prove it. I’m too old for this shit now. Like, over it. imho the human species collectively is as dumb as dirt. And I am not even sure about that anymore. :-)

    If we’re lucky there will be some papers published in 2020 and later about what;s happening now in the arctic and why and what happened in 2016. eg For over a decade now I have placed 2025 +/-2yrs as a likely time for no summer sea ice followed by “shit hits fan” ongoing thereafter. Again, I am not even sure about that anymore.

    There’s no point in me or anyone raising their blood pressure over it, or arguing about it. RC has been my mini custer’s last stand after 25 years of keeping my eye on the ball (so to speak) .. gave up the rest years ago, and now permanent retirement looms. I’ve earned it and I’ll enjoy it too. I promised myself not to do an Ed Greish, and I always keep my promises.
    cheers one and all ;-)

  35. 435
    Thomas says:

    oops meant, “And I am not even sure we’re that smart!”

  36. 436
    nigelj says:


    I will give you just a few examples of the many mistakes have posted:

    1) You claimed some doom and gloom about only about 50 years of cobalt left, with no understanding a) this is only known reserves b) it omitted billions of tons of cobalt in sea water and c) the 50 years of reserves is at “todays prices”. Of course we have a resource scarcity problem, but it pays to actually understand the problem.

    2) You claimed metals degrade in quality after recycling just a few times. A simple google search shows they can be recycled indefinitely. And you are the person claiming to be an “expert” in sustainability.

    3) You claimed the high atmospheric CO2 recently must be due to human causes, with no understanding it was largely el nino. Yet you lecture climate scientists and claim to be an expert in “analysis”. I dont claim to be an environmental expert or climate scientist, but I have done at least some university science and plenty of geography. I still have one of the texts “atmosphere, weather and climate, Barry and Chorley”.

    4) You claimed you never accused me of lacking expertise in regenerative farming, then wrote a paragraph under this where you accused me of that exact thing.

    5) You have too much confirmation bias, in the way you look at research.

    6) You claimed hunter gatherers were an idyllic, peaceful, society. I posted links showing there’s no consensus over this.

    7) You claimed to to have predicted a vast range of trends accurately in science, economics and other areas, and to have never made a bad prediction. Nonsense, you may have a good intuition, but you don’t have enough information or processing power for that level of reliability.

    I could go on. Your community work is good, but learn some humility.

  37. 437
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @ 412, I do find the reasons for climate denialism fascinating. I’m sure I heard one of those rats muttering “climate change is a fraud”. Of course I have tons more to learn. has excellent articles on what drives climate denialism, and how to counter it.I think the guy that runs it is qualified in both physics and psychology, but don’t quote me on that.

  38. 438
    nigelj says:

    Anyone with half a brain could have predicted bitcoin would go well up in price, then crash. Its an obvious bubble like tulipmania, with limited underlying value. I don’t believe anyone could predict the gyrations with any remote level of accuracy, so Killian Im dubious of your predictions. You probably got lucky.

    I only have a vague knowledge of the bitcoin thing, and my computer programming is limited to a starting course in basic and c+, so figuring these things computer driven things out is not my natural forte.

    But having said that bitcoin looks like a pyramid scheme to me. It also apparently uses a lot of electricity, just what we don’t need.

  39. 439
    Thomas says:

    PS Killian (or anyone that’s interested) re loss of the GBR and People cannot “imagine” what agw/cc impacts are or what they look like and the implications of that once they arrive.

    Putting aside that Reefs are the nursery for over ~30% (can’t recall exact figure) of critical species that lead to catchable ocean fish species eaten by humans for a moment consider this.

    The QBR is in QLD Australia located on both sides of the Tropic of Capricorn. (iow there is a specific kind of regional climate/s there).

    The GBR is 2,300 kilometres long, and it’s +10,000 years existence means it has been a protective barrier to that 2,300 kilometres of coastline, basically “forever” as far as the Holocene is concerned.

    That whole region is subject to regular extreme weather events known as Cyclones. These are extremely destructive forces.

    When the Corals of the Barrier Reef die out in toto circa 2040-2050 then this 2,300 kilometres of coastline WILL DEFINITELY LOSE it protective barrier to Cyclones, and the predominant winds that forms SURF 24/7, and ocean swells, and storm swells from the Tasman Sea and the Coral Sea that operate pretty much 24/7/365 to varying degrees of Force along the entire QLD coast.

    The ignored IMPACT of this AGW/CC eventuality is the post-2050 severe Erosion of the land ocean front. People live there. Business work there., Farmers work there in very low lying flood plains … where the majority of the worlds Sugar Cane is grown and other food produce including Cattle Farms and so on.

    The multiple rivers that carry torrential tropical / sub-tropic rains to the coast will be immediately affected in the river mouths and that will get worse and WILL fundamentally CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF 2,300 kilometres OF Coastline,m river systems and farming land and cities and towns and villages and MINING OPERATIONS like open cut coal mines etc inland before one gets to the great dividing range which BTW supports a population of approximately 1 million people and contributes possibly 25% or more of QLD GDP and it’s massive Exports to the world including FOOD SUPPLY.

    So, this is but one single KNOWN Impact from the loss of the GRB caused by the death pof coprals caused by AGW?CC.

    The People, DO NOT UNDER STAND THIS ISSUE ONE BIT. The Scientists here and elsewhere basically IGNORE IT and/or stick their heads in the sand and speak untruths (aka lie/misrepresent/distort/misinform) about the FEAR FACTOR being like really important…. when in fact it is not valid at all… not one bit.

    The loss of the GBR WILL IMPACT and directly effect more than just QLDers where they live, but will have negative feedbacks downstream to the rest of this nation and many other nations as well as a result.

    Agai I say this will skipping over the primary IMPACT of the loss of Coral reefs worldwide on the OCEAN FOOD SUPPLY and ocean life in general. While this shit will hit the fan close to QLD coastlines first with fish sticks collapsing at the SAME TIME the world will also need to tackle the loss of micro species living underneatyh the ASI which by then will also be pretty an ice cube and the knock on effects across the Oceans ecosystmes and then ultimately the expansion of O2 depleted DEAD ZONES ….

    Nobody, not even Hansen or Kevin Anderson are spelling out these things that WILL happen if the CO2 tap and the destruction of land vegetation is not reversed NOW today, in 5 years or at most 10 years.

    WE are Toast. One does not need a scientific paper to work this out. Waiting for one to confirm it makes it already too late. UNFCCC Treaties are delusional clap trap all our “leaders” are blatantly LYING to – MISINFORMING the entire planet.

    Even those that “believe in AGW/CC and that action is urgent now.

  40. 440
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @410, yes there are viable pathways for renewable electricity in a technical and economic sense. I think it is also possible to solve industrial emissions. There are numerous negative emissions systems available, and even doing some of them reasonably well would probably be enough.

    The problem is scaling up, and that in turn is about politics, education, communication, and individual motivation, and organisation. The world is not designed for the level of coordination required.

    However I think its better to be optimistic, or it gets depressing. Being cynical is too easy.

  41. 441
    Thomas says:

    Please add ongoing RCP8.5 from now to 2040, then SLR and King Tides and higher avg temps in QLD to the above scenario 2050-2100.

    If Google Earth and Map makers are still around post-2050 then be prepared for your descendants seeing this Coastline Map of a Continent being revised almost yearly ….

    and no more Whitsunday Islands named by Captain Cook in 1770 – that’s reality and that’s the Truth of it.

  42. 442
    Thomas says:

    Peanut Capital of the World is Kingaroy, Queensland, Australia

    (a little light relief – smiling)

  43. 443
    Killian says:

    I am moving these here from Unforced Variations:

    Killian says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    18 Feb 2018 at 8:25 PM
    #129 mike said nigel at 121 says: “Fwiw I also find the term intersectionalilty annoying

    I find the term to be useful and more linguistically sound that other ideas like “woke”

    That sentence is nonsensical, linguistically-speaking. I suspect you meant grammatically-speaking.

    because this is a climate website, it may be useful to remind folks who are interested in solutions to the climate predicament, that it is important to craft solutions that benefit a wide swath of the global population

    My god, if they don’t understand that, you reminding them will do no good for they are almost certainly Authoritarian. Anybody else knows enough to think they have to not think only of themselves. Don’t you think it a bit rude to assume the people interested in climate are not woke, to coin a phrase?

    So, K does intersectionality, but does not like the word. Excellent.

    It is a bit petty to respond to my post to you via nigel. Just sayin’, so what you say below becomes rather hypocritical.

    I think the discussion about wide solutions (to avoid the I word) are useful in combating the identity politics

    It is the unavoidable nature of sustainability and solutions that make this unnecessary: The solution to “intersectional” issues *is* sustainability. You fix the ~isms and ~ologies by simply doing… simplicity. That’s how you get people out of their silos: Show them the problem is the solution: Get out of your silo, build systems together for everyone. Solve the problem of CO2, you solve the problems of society. It’s one of the reasons I dislike the term: It’s a distraction from the solutions, not a pathway to them. E.g., we have been working on race as an issue for centuries. You will not resolve it any time soon by 60’s era talk, talk, talk. However, get down to *surviving*, and solve real, physical problems with real, physical work that requires ***everyone cooperating***, and you suddenly have a functioning community that can suppress our darker angels.

    Pursue intersectionality, just don’t expect to arrive at sustainability. (I came to this conclusion because of the nature of ecological design, the nature of social activism, and my experiences doing both in Detroit. The two worlds do not mix well, but first can lead to fixing the other.)

    So, I think the discussion about how public policy on things like climate change should be crafted to also address broader or additional social ills

    Sure, but in my opinion you are having the wrong conversation. See above. Solve the problem, not the symptom. Inequality is a RESULT of the system, not the cause of the system. Change the system, solve the problem.

    The UV threads have been too much like most internet discussions, full of polarizing and demeaning language, peppered with baiting and personal attacks

    Like this one, by you?

    Ironically, this whole sub-thread is the result of YOU and NIGEL taking issue with me saying, “I don’t like that word.” I had a good reason for raising the point. I strongly believe jargon is a significant factor in our failure to move climate and sustainability issues along faster. It prevents the average person from effective engagement. They think only eggheads do this sort of thing, and they are right, because we do not use language that is accessible to non-eggheads. My comment was not idle and was not personal. But, here we are with you two STILL going on about it… and convincing yourselves it was all me. Foolish. And at every step you have both completely missed the point, misinterpreted and been childish and petty.

    There was never a reason for either of you to respond in any way, yet in both your minds, I created a problem. It was your inability to understand what you read. This is not an unusual situation with both of you… and others.

    Folks make themselves inconsequential if they never fail to see and seek provocation in every exchange

    No passive-aggressiveness in that statement. Nope.

    No. You are inconsequential when you have nothing to add, like this post rehashing your own mistake dressed up as someone else’s. Wrong is wrong. The person who is correct or has the solution yet is not listened to is not inconsequential, those who choose to die instead of listen to someone they don’t like are just suicidally stupid.

    but that’s not the end of the line. Folks who have made themselves inconsequential by over-personalizing the discussion can always just take a breath, cool off and remind themselves to pick their battles. A little civility can go a long ways.

    Yet, this entire post is a personal attack. Hypocrisy, perhaps, makes one inconsequential?

    You didn’t need to post this, but did. But, in your mind, my response to your rudeness is the problem, not your provocation. You should have written to me about my comments on intersectionality, but chose pettiness and passive-aggressive insults.


    But, hey what do I know?

    Indeed. Perhaps stick to your numbers…?

    Killian says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    18 Feb 2018 at 8:31 PM
    #129 PArt II:

    An alternative response from Mike:


    Saw your response on intersectionality. I understand your point and see you have experience actually *applying* intersectionality. I found your statement permaculture *is* intersectional very interesting. It would be interesting to explore that.

    Sorry for misunderstanding your position in the first place and creating an unnecessary negative feedback loop on this thread. I appreciate your light-hearted response, but in all honesty, it still felt a bit biting, (Just a bit of feedback!)

    I’m curious how you see intersectionality playing out in real time.



    Or, you could write the petulant rant you did above.

    But, you’re right… I’m the problem.


    Killian says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    18 Feb 2018 at 8:38 PM
    #138 nigelj said Mike @129

    I’m pretty polite most of the time I think

    Not here. You are defensive when told you are incorrect, you are rude in saying you disagree, you lie.

    Hypocrisy. Just stop already. Take feedback as intended and you wouldn’t have this problem. Dishonesty about what others say is rude. Not understanding what others have said, over and over, is maddening.

    Stop whining about how you are treated till you clean up your own messes.

    I only get angry when I’m seriously provoked.

    False. You have yet to have been seriously provoked. Or, put another way, if you think you have been, you really have no sense of what you actually deserve.

    I do have a bad habit of not walking away.

    No, you have a bad habit of being the problem and blaming others.

  44. 444
    Killian says:

    #429 Scott said Abandoned land was abandoned for a reason, just farming it again in an I’ll conceived idea that as part of BeCCS it solves AGW is a fool’s errand.

    You specified BeCCS, and I agree, but I don’t want to give people the impression that statement also applies to regenerative practices, so add this little clarification.

    the way you restore that land and mitigate AGE is BCCS. This means not just no till, not even just no till with cover crops, but instead at the very minimum no till with at least 4 way blends of multispecies covers. There is more too.


    Don’t be fooled by the neoluddites.

    What does this mean? BeCCS people would not be considered Luddites, neo or otherwise. Curious…

  45. 445
    Killian says:

    #427 nigelj said Phlegm and gastric juices and effluent, all basting a goodly helping of hypocrisy! And more lies!

    You are one hypocritical, rude, incompetent little bird.

    personal absuse against people

    What was that, pot?

    and useless

    You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You have no idea what is or is not, based on your contributions here. Your apologist stance on Capitalism, alone, invalidates much of what you say. We’ve covered this before, so…


    You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


    You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    trying to justify the unjustifiable.


    Most of the time you just don’t know what you are talking about.

    Said the blind man to the mirror.

    Even your knowledge of the soil issue is flawed and non scientific.


    That’s flat-out bizarre. Your panties, as they say here in their Konglish dialect, seem to be in a bunch over me stating your study of soil was the equivalent of the dinosaur era.

    You have some sort of god complex

    If that’s what more knowledgeable than you means, perhaps.

    and are not as smart as you think you are.

    I have a very good sense of how smart I are, in fact, from multiple forms of measurement. Next to you, I’m a flippin genius.

    We all see mistakes by the dozen in everything your write.

    1. All? You mean you. In fact, you are one of the very few who even attempt it, and that is not often. You are conflating all this personal crap you like to stir up with actual meaningful content, in which case, you can find nothing about which I am wrong. 2. By the dozen? Hell, I don’t make dozens of claims or predictions or scenarios by the dozen in any given year, let alone on a regular basis. 3. You can’t point to a single one. Well, there was the France vs. Gov thing. OK, two.

    Shush, peanut.

    You claim you have been asked to be part of a climate site. Pray tell, which one? I’d enjoy blowing your doors off there, too.

  46. 446
    Mr. Know It All says:

    413 – Thomas
    “My name is Thomas and I am here to help!”

    Well, you didn’t answer my question, so you failed in your mission. But, I think 429 – Scott put it to rest.

  47. 447
    Thomas says:

    February 17: 408.76 ppm

    niglej or whoever, I was living in a the #1 australian hot bed of greenies, hippies, alternative culture and leading edge world class permaculture implementation and educational research activity, and land/forest reclamation, and anti-forestry protests, in the early mid 1990s, at times living on solar power and spring fed creek water on a 300 acre ex-dairy farm come multiple-occupancy with 10 family/households of which +200 acres of pristine natural rain forest regrowth, 30 acres was devoted homesteads/private living spaces dirt roads and irreparable sections, and the rest was undergoing Regenerative Agriculture (before it even had a name) aka planting out fruiting trees and other organic produce and removing weed infestations brought to his country from hundreds of years from overseas and the effects of toxic poisoning of the landscapes (the kids living there) from pesticides and fertilisers.

    In the early 2000s, 50 miles from the MO I was helping my good mate (rip) install his self-sufficient solar power system w a battery pack unit which then was big as a car on a trailer, and helped out planting out his small plantation of Olive Trees into the ex-cow paddocks … he and his wife bought a 120 acre ex-cattle farm to regenerate that along the lines of New Age Healing Greenie Principles of Self-Sufficency and Self-Responsibility … they disconnected from the electricity grid as well.

    Prior to that I was doing business in Australian board rooms and with CEOs and Company Directors (including a major Oil Refining Company in AUs) and Govt Reps and wa sa senior executive in marketing and managemnt for a compmany wiht 10,000 employees australai wide, the same nbumebr of people now directly employed across the entire GBR region. LIke hello, I’;m Thamoas and I am here to help.

    I can help nigelj I think buy pointing out that when it comes to Killian that nig is totally missing the forest for the trees. I can authoritatively say that my unique direct personal experience and first hand as well as scientific and economic/business knowledge and expertise.

    Of course, nigelj has every right to reject that out of hand, and that’s fine by me if he does so, or if anyone does, no matter what the reason.

    But I say this bluntly, I was DOING what Killian speaks about BEFORE he even knew anything about what he does in fact speak expertly about today.

    To lose Killian form these pages, like the hundreds of others who have passed though here only to soon disappear forever soon after having packet of peanuts endlessly criticised and ridiculed them here relentlessly (as on other like websites) will be RCs, and readers, and niglej’s loss, not Killians.

    While MAR is attacking and ridiculing comments by Killian here about 2C in another place he is going gangbusters attacking agw/cc deniers/skeptics about THE FACT how dangerous 2C is, and the rising CO2ppm projections (and the IMPACTS of that) via scientific refs and so on. Go figure! :-)

    Everything is not always as it seems folks. Many talk the talk, here and elsewhere. Speaking for myself alone, I know for almost 30 years now I have been both talking the talk, walking the talk, and walking the walk….and have never stopped learning from those more knowledgeable, more experienced and more wise than I am from one day to the next. “Listen to others, they too have their story”, and I do that in spades. That’s only one of my Principles. I note Killian also has his Principles.

    I took my 6 yr old son along with me when we walked in the anti-Iraq War v1.0 protest marches that fronted up to the US Embassy of my home town, when still a corporate executive. I was right then and I am right now as well. Nothings has changed much, it’s only got far worse, that’s all.

    I realise that some people have a core principle that being “nice and polite” is of critical important to them. I think that is a ridiculous irrational Principle to stick to, so I do not, because it does not and will not work. Besides, some people simply do not deserve it and must be confronted head on to silence them and stop the evils that they promote and agitate for, especially about AGW/CC. This is no time to be nice. It’s a crisis which makes WW2 look like an unimportant bar brawl. The ship has already hit the iceberg.

    In 1994 I had to go to the local Library to find information about climate chnage science and land clearing and so on. No Internet then folks. At that time science had already shown that globally humanity was clearing 3000 aces of pristine forest every hour. Nothing has changed in that regard, in fact it’s getting worse 24 years later, in Borneo, all over Indonesia, Irian Jaya, New Guinea, QLD australia, sth america, africa, asia, russia,

    And now the lowlife narcissistic psychopaths (like the IPA and Dr John Nicol mentioned above) want to build the worlds largest coal mine ever in QLD while destroying the GBR and existing top grade farmlands and destroying the underground water supply permanently.

    The IPA claims they stand for Freedom. No they don’t they stand for Death. Anyone who supports their Principles and beliefs and values is dangerous to humanity and life on Earth. It’s that simple. Talking “nice” won;t cut it.

    The Vietnam War and the abuse of Civil Rights across ther western world at that ti8me was not ended by university students, their professors, and scientists being nice when marching on the streets, and being shot at Kent State or when speaking to their elected Reps in the US Congress and the Australian Parliament.

    No way, no sir. Rational Change happened for another reason entirely and it wasn’t based on niceness that’s for sure!

    I have many times recommended to RC (among other things) that something like a forced-responses thread, where AGW/CC IMPACTS along with discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation was needed here …. including when a few years ago Gavin specifically asked for suggestions of what to do with RC after a number of changes occurred in the arrangements and the interest level here. I think I was right then as I am right now.

    It’s ridiculous that Dan Da Silva, Titus (?) Victor and KIA and Peter J Carson and their ilk are still allowed to make their comments here, imho, and in my experience. The Borehole should be totally deleted of everything, lest some clown accidentally finds some old insane denier talking point to republish to WUWT or Reddit, or The Guardian again today. But these things are not my call to make. A pity.

    Some people might well consider Killian or me a “shit stirrer” or similar. Well think about this. If there wasn’t a heap of shit already present, then there would be nothing there to stir. Ponder that thought. (smile)

    YMMV but that will never mean I am a dumb idiot who knows nothing and has nothing useful to say on the subject. I repeat that I am and have always been here for the sole purpose of speaking to those who read and do not comment here. One day I won;t be …. but there’s a ton of excellent REFS left behind on Google search etc for the Millennials once they get the Protest Act Together and start taking to the streets and tearing a few walls down and tearing up some Laws and writing some new ones that are SANE and based on PRINCIPLES and not Vapid BS. ;-)

    [stepping off high and mighty soap box, exiting stage left]

  48. 448
    Thomas says:

    sorry must correct this, should have proof read – there will be other stuff ups, sorry.,

    …. now directly employed in Tourism across the entire GBR region. Like hello, I’m Thomas, and I am here to help. ;-)

  49. 449
    Thomas says:

    Ok, back to sciency things.

    There Bering Sea Ice is now as low at usually has been recently in early May. Interesting.

  50. 450
    Thomas says:

    btw When my health goes down my posting rate goes up and accelerates like current CO2 ppm growth rates. :-)