RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Mar 2018

Filed under: — group @ 28 February 2018

This month’s open thread for climate science related items. The open thread for responses to climate change is here.

408 Responses to “Unforced variations: Mar 2018”

  1. 101
    nigelj says:

    David Miller @91

    I notice that MA Rodger has posted some good links on what might happen over the next 30 years.

    My understanding is agriculture as a whole suffers from the heat and droughts, but mainly after 2050. This is because you get a short term boost to growth from additional CO2, but this effect saturates quite quickly. But I would say it all varies depending on types of crops and region so there could be plenty of problems even in the next 30 years.

    We are already seeing more intense storms and more heatwaves and higher extreme rainfall events, all at damaging levels so it can only get worse over the next 30 years imho.

    I think sea level rise over the next 30 years depends where you live. Florida is already having problems. Its generally expected that sea level rise will accelerate very significantly after about 2050, and this would of course have more widespread impacts.

    I agree the time for action is now and over the next 20 years.

    J Hansen is also predicting the possibility of quite rapid sea level rise and superstorms. This video is brilliant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8

  2. 102
    Thomas says:

    91 David Miller, fwiw

    “The first is that it’s my contention that we WILL see agricultural failures over that time span due to changing rainfall patterns.”

    That is already occurring now and has occurred in the past.

    “It’s been my understanding since I first came to understand climate change that its effect on agriculture would be the first real problem.”

    See above, already occurred. More serious real problems have and are already occurring in the marine food supplies/catches globally. Have been for 2 decades or more. Now accelerating faster than ‘science’ documentation and published papers can or ever could keep up with.

    “Sea level rise and heat waves WILL certainly cause severe problems, but I maintain that’ll be decades after agriculture has been badly interrupted.”

    Both heat waves and slr are and have already caused “severe problems” and have already caused tens of thousands of deaths.

    “The second reason is that the next couple of decades are truly critical, IMHO.”

    Make that one to tow decades ago it was truly critical and that point has passed. Now today, 2018 is critical and the next couple of years as well are far above “truly critical” tipping point of no return – that “battle/argument” has already been lost with the most likely outcome being inaction, denial and ongoing minimisation by those with the only institutional political power to engender change leaving nothing much more and a reliance on a forlorn unrealistic impractical hope” alone.

    “If things are not nearly so bad as I fear in the next 20-30 years then we have a much better chance of successfully flirting with disaster.”

    Humanity has been “flirting with disaster” since the Rio Summit in 92 and has achieve next to nothing capable of realistically addressing the problems or the causes of Agw/cc.

    Things are are already worse than you believe they are now. In the next 20-30 years things are going to be (all things being equal and already projected by “experts/science”) out to 2040 ongoing on energy use/ghg emissions/ global regional temperature increases / heat wave increases / permanent regional precipitation shifts / loss of ground water supply / slr increases / collapsing agri-pastoral-marine-river based food stocks / extreme weather events / vegetation loss / climate tipping points / positive (ie bad) climate system forcing feedbacks will all be far worse than you currently “fear” they might be David.

    How much spare time each week do you have to read all the relevant credible published science papers already available for years, and read existing reports by govt/science/economic/agri bodies on the subject matters, and read the state of current research/know how of existing anecdotal narrow focused regional/local analysis and the opinions of experts in their particular field … and then deeply think about all that and come to a rational and reasonable conclusion on it all?

    Some rhetorical questions might go like this: Are you doing all this simply to “advise” your friend better and win an argument about who is right or more right than the other? That’s what it looks like. I do not care one bit what SHE thinks and believes.

    How on earth are you expecting to help her out when you yourself (and that is not your fault btw) seem so utterly misinformed about the realities of AGW/CC right now, today?

    I can’t see how you could help her or win any debate on this subject of medium term “future impacts” of agw/cc. But you are not alone, and again, it is NOT your fault.

  3. 103
    Thomas says:

    Victor and KIA, if you ever wonder what happened to some of your posts, you only need to look here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-37/#comments on a regular basis.

    But a little tip, some submitted comments to RC do not even make it into the bore hole. Think about that.

    (Which is a pretty stupid thing for me to say, obviously, and therefore moot. But at least I don’t foolishly believe anything I might say would or could ever make a difference. Maybe others might be up to thinking logically about it a little more than presently is the case. I am not hopeful.)

    Still waiting on hearing what Victor’s “handlers/advisers” advise him on how to respond to MAR’s references re ‘#61 Victor’. It’s coming eventually, and I can’t wait, not! Rinse – Repeat.

  4. 104
    Thomas says:

    93 jb, do you by any chance believe you are above average intelligence. I;m curious that’s all.

    RE: “- but the monopolization of blog space”

    Definition:
    in business, to control something completely and to prevent other people having any effect on what happens:

    Monopolisation refers to attempts by a dominant firm or group of relatively large firms to maintain or increase market control through various anti-competitive practices …..

    OK jb, you have the floor – now prove that your “analogy” is in any way at all true – given the obvious definition of what Monopolize actually means in the Real World of intelligent Academia and Scientific Circles.

    Then I will reply to what you write in reply to this simple request to back up your assertions with hard evidence.

    Go for it jb, I am all ears.

  5. 105
    Thomas says:

    63 & 91 David Miller

    You could try this google search url https://goo.gl/3MK6RE

    Would you like me to teach you how to do that any where @ any time on any website?

    Then ask me. I will happily show you how.

    Cheers

    I am Thomas and I am here to help.

  6. 106
    Mel Reasoner says:

    Victor @ 87 “Plenty of evidence is provided in Booker’s essay.”

    Victor could you please provide a bit of clarification – is this the same Booker that published a piece in the Telegraph (May 6, 2017. Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet) that stated “the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years”?

  7. 107
    Thomas says:

    So Dr. Killian … how do you think people commenting here now today would have coped with 2009 on Real Climate?

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/comment-page-22/#comment-130131

    Any ideas on that mate?

    Besides the “teaching point” recently reported here on RC yet again by yours truly, in my refs/urls to the expert Professor Philip Mirowski irl teaching academic students and post-grads what the Neoliberal Thought Collective already KNOW and actually say and write and believe:

    “People will be stupid. It’s just the way it is.”

    Cheers Thomas

  8. 108
    Digby Scorgie says:

    David Miller @91

    I see you’ve been given a lot more help now, but just for the hell of it I thought I’d add another item from my notebook. This one is from an article on Peru, dated December 2017:

    Glaciers are the source of water for much of the Peruvian coast during the dry season from May to September. But the ice-cap of the Cordillera Blanca, long a supply of water for the Chavimochic irrigation project, has shrunk 40% since 1970 and is retreating at an ever-faster rate. It is currently receding by about 10 metres per year. This decline has been caused by an increase of between 0.5 and 0.8 degrees Celsius in local temperatures since 1970.

    The retreat of the ice-cap has exposed tracts of heavy metals, like lead and cadmium, which are now leaching into the ground water supply, turning entire streams red, killing livestock and crops, and rendering the water undrinkable.

    Water flow in the Santa River is falling and at current rates the river could lose 30% of its water during Peru’s dry season. The effect on agriculture in the area will be catastrophic in the future when the ice-cap disappears.

    And there’s a lot more where that came from.

  9. 109
    sidd says:

    Re: flooding risks

    doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaac65

    Wing et al. analyse flood risk in the US lower 48. Apparently 41 million are at risk rather than 13 million in current FEMA estimates.

    “Our data show that the total US population exposed to serious flooding is 2.6–3.1 times higher than previous estimates, and that nearly 41 million Americans live within the 1% annual exceedance probability floodplain (compared to only 13 million when calculated using FEMA flood maps).”

    “The analysis shows that 40.8 million people (13.3% of the population) are currently exposed to a 1 in 100 year (1% annual exceedance probability) fluvial or pluvial flood in the CONUS, which translates to a GDP exposure of $2.9 trillion (15.3% of total GDP).”

    “This analysis indicates that previous estimates capture roughly one-third of the exposure identified in our 1 in 100 year floodplain.”

    They have some projections.

    sidd

  10. 110
    Thomas says:

    95, 96, 97 etc by Hank Roberts.

    Interesting refs. Would you be able to put your ‘point’ into your words. What is your understanding which that material and ideas incl jb/zebra refs have led you to?

    Please be really clear, very short and to the point. If possible also try not to generalise, so be specific and exacting, and precise about how it relates to the Topic of agw/cc science at RC.

    Neither hint at vague notions that could easily be misinterpreted by any reader not already aware of the subject you matter you think is so important and valuable.

    Did I say be short?

    Oh yes. And in your own words please. Thanks.

  11. 111
    Mr. Know It All says:

    63, 91, and others – David and others

    The changes we’re seeing due to CC are scary. Since CC really got going, in just the last few decades, phenomenon never seen before in history are occurring. Such as:

    floods
    hurricanes
    heavy rains
    hot weather
    cold weather
    climate changes
    diseases
    wars
    famines
    refugees
    Al Gore
    tornados
    storm surges
    high tides
    heavy snows
    melting snows
    dying forests
    forest fires
    droughts
    civil unrest
    riots
    economic collapse
    asteroids
    earthquakes
    CO2 fluctuations
    total eclipses
    snowflakes
    avalanches

    Just imagine – none of those existed before CC. Things really are changing. Truly scary!

    Seriously, if you are concerned, put in a supply of emergency food. There are other reasons why food could be handy other than CC. On the west coast a large quake could slow food and fuel delivery to a city for weeks due to road/rail/pipeline failures. I’d recommend freeze dried food in #10 metal cans that will last at least 25 years on the shelf. Water filters and purifiers are available also as are water storage containers. Just two of many sources: DYODD

    https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/bulk_survival_food_s/189.htm

    https://www.mountainhouse.com/m/category/10cans.html

  12. 112
    Killian says:

    Multiple reports like this just in recent weeks… and not in Siberia.

    Permafrost? Permaswidscheese, maybe.

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

  13. 113
    Thomas says:

    101 nigelj, yes, that is a very good video by Hansen. The Paper is very detailed.

    Maybe you or others might find this related video presentation a nice book end: The Melting of Greenland: Prof Konrad Steffen (March 2017)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-0ynd1Vesk

    And this short one Greenland Ice Sheet: “Starting to Slip” 2013 – 40,498 views
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkpFNteryX8

    and this short one too Greenland: A Ring of Mountains 2013 – 6,587 views
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmC7-DrAuJU

    Blend them all together with Hansen’s most recent papers along with others in 2016-2018 and well one can eventually see a pattern unfolding over time, and more and more pices of the Jigsaw puzzle comes together.

    Then the question comes how to communicate all that to everyday people. Along with the implications of non-stop rising CO2 levels today still and continued FF use and vegetaion loss etc…. without them almost immediately shutting down and unable to cope with what it means.

    I inquired of one my sons recently, and barely touched on anything bar ASIE and CO2 ppm as I asked how aware he and his millennial generation were about these issues and fast things were now happening. He could not cope with what I showed him, and I was only asking a pretty basic question. I sure was not being over the top, simply asking what did he know – did he know this, or this?

    I calmed him down and asked what’s going on for you? “It’s just too much to handle dad.” Underneath was a deep anger and resentment of what has been done to the world, and he said most of his generation simply can’t face it with all the other problems they have on their plate, like so many locked out of the housing market for life, can;t find decent rental accommodation, and the very insecure jobs and all the BS on social media.

    Basically a large portion of 30s and under have no time or energy to pay attention to agw/cc issues. Plus it just scares the living bejeezus out of them. Why? Because the #1 thing they do know is that nothing is being done about it – nothing. As in they are not stupid. (others may have very different kinds of feedback where they live of course – not all are the same we all have different life experiences and lots in life)

    That being so, here’s my #1 favourite agw/cc glacier ice video with 54,479,670 views
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

    Some very hard times ahead for many people, imho.

    Cheers

  14. 114
    MA Rodger says:

    It was yesterday last year that saw the 2017 daily maximum for JAXA Sea Ice Extent (and today for NSIDC). This year the maximum-so-far JAXA daily value was on March 1st and that sits 120k sq km below the 2017 value. Since then the SIE has been shrinking back (graph of anomalies here – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) with yesterdays JAXA SIE sitting 270k sq km below the the 2017 daily maximum. While it appears very unlikely that 2018 will fail to set a new record for lowest maximum daily SIE, it is perhaps a little early to be calling the 1st March value as the 2018 maximum. The maximum has been appearing a few days later than it did at the start of the satellite record and during the last decade it has occurred more often after March 6th than before, in 2010 as late as the 25th March.
    With 150k sq km gap between today’s SIE & the maximum-so-far suggests the region that will decide when this year’s maximum appears will be the Bering Sea rather than the high Arctic that saw record temperature anomalies. Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Graphs shows which regions are frozen solid at this time of year and which are in play. NSIDC’s monthly ASI Analysis is titled A Warm Approach to the Equinox and while the page shows the late February temperature anomalies in the high Arctic were exceeding dramatic (hitting +21ºC), the decadal temperature trend up there for Jan/Feb is running at about +3ºC/decade, a tad below the trend for the end of the calendar year according to the DMI 80N data (plotted here (2 clicks) decadaly up to 2017).

  15. 115
    MA Rodger says:

    Thomas presents yet another serving of sky-rocketry @85. He tells us:-

    “Current readings Jan-March are indicative of the new Weekly Record in May 2018 breaking 413 ppmv (all other things being equal)
    That’s meaningful, iow it’s full of meaning about the Consequences.

    To see a +413ppm week in May (or in 2018), we would have to see an increase on last year’s maximum of +2.64ppm, not an unimaginable increase. But that is not based on “current readings Jan-March.”
    Alternatively, a +413ppm week would require a rise of +4.8ppm above the average CO2 level for the year-so-far, Thomas’s “current readings Jan-March.” In past years, such a large increase has only happened the once, to May 2016, a period when the El Nino had been raging since the end of the previous year. So not much chance of those circumstances in 2018. Yet in Thomas-speak (@86) that translates to “there’s is a strong possibility that another a new El Nino is forming as we speak, which might kick in by May 2018.”
    Now, it is true that the ENSO forecasts have been a little volatile through recent months and we shortly will be advised by the early-March forecast. However the mid-February forecast put the chance of a Thomas El Nino “which might kick in by May 2018” at not quite zero. I suggest this is a reasonably “strong” message.

    It would be petty to ask for nomiations for the most vaccuous comment from Thomas on this month’s UV thread to date (although I think #105 would be my front-runner). Perhaps a more productive exercise would be for folk to nominate which of his comments-so-far is the most useful/informative.
    Come on!! There surely must have been something he wrote in those 35 comments (totalling 6,361 words) that passes muster as a UV comment.

  16. 116
    Hank Roberts says:

    > Just imagine – none of those existed before CC

    Dear lord, your trolling has gotten boring.

  17. 117
    Ray Ladbury says:

    And @111, it is good to know that we can always rely on Mr. KIA to bring the stupid salad, with an extra scoop of cluelessness on top. Be that as it may, he does provide a cautionary tale for all of us who seek to avoid the fate of being utterly useless tools.

    First, the fact that we Earth has previously experienced floods, severe weather and droughts in the past does not negate the dangers these events pose, nor the increased damages that will result from increasing frequency of these events predicted by climate models. Earth has also experienced asteroid strikes, mass extinction events and the melting of the majority of the planet in the past. However, that doesn’t mean we should look forward to a repetition.

    Second, the suggestion that the solution to local and global catastrophes is laying in a supply of food and arms is a solution that could only come from a psychopathic dumbass. Good to know when judging future suggestions by Mr. KIA.

  18. 118
    Hank Roberts says:

    Thomas … Does anyone really know what they are doing in this Field and how to act Logically based on Evidence and reason?

    5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

  19. 119

    KIA needs to Google “straw man argument.” He has also committed the climate equivalent of Godwin’s Law by gratuitously bringing up Al Gore. Again.

    I’d tell him to grow up, but I have the sinking feeling he’s already technically an adult, and therefore not capable of any further maturing.

  20. 120
    jb says:

    Re: Thomas at 104

    I won’t engage this guy because I have a job, but I did notice this particular post, where he says that he is not monopolizing because the word “monopolization” does not fit his particular cherry picked definition of monopolize. He should know by now that most of the readers of this blog are on to cherry-picking as a rhetorical tool.

    He should note as well that I was not making an analogy. It was a statement of fact.

  21. 121
    Victor says:

    #100 nigelj says:

    “Victor @87

    All you do is post nonsense and sophistry. Your group think study is laughable, and just someones opinion, not a study in a reputable peer reviewed psychology publication.”

    No it’s not just someone’s opinion, as should be obvious to anyone taking the trouble to actually read it. It’s a very thoughtful, carefully reasoned argument,based on evidence and replete with very specific references, inspired by, though not limited to, Irving Janis’s notion of “groupthink.” That doesn’t mean he’s right, you need not agree, but dismissing it as “only an opinion” is nothing more than a crude ad hominem.

    The appeal to authority, reflected in your insistence that nothing short of a “peer-reviewed publication” can be taken seriously, is a well known fallacy, completely consistent with the groupthink mentality. If you are unable to judge an argument on its intrinsic merits, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously as a thinker, not to mention scientist. Feel free to dispute any of Booker’s arguments, but only if you are capable of pointing out the fallacies in his reasoning or the falsity of his evidence. Appeals to authority and ad hominem dismissals won’t cut it.

    “There’s no point in me wasting time with you. You have already shown a complete inability or unwillingness to grasp the incredibly obvious causes of warming early last century, so I’m not going to waste my time with someone like that.”

    Your group think is showing. Too bad, since you started out so well.

  22. 122
    Victor says:

    No one has yet responded with reference to the second essay I cited, the one titled CIRCULAR REASONING IN CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH. Here, once again, is the link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3130131

    Any thoughts?

  23. 123
    Thomas says:

    ” ‘Contrariwise’, continued Tweedledee, ‘If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.’ “
    — Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass, Ch. IV.
    http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

    It appears to me that things are building to another crisis tipping point. Maybe this time there could be a Break-Through. Though the confidence levels for this are extremely low given the historical data record, and so I am not at all *hopeful* …. but one can never exclude a miracle out of the blue.

    I believe that HANK HATES ALL CAPS. What can WE do to help him out with that really serious DISability and INability to COPE and not be FORCED into muddling Logical Fallacy territory again and again?

    Not picking on Hank of course, for he is not the only one with multiple DISabilities be it here or out there in the real world. Especially those who are not yet aware how serious the agw/cc situation actually is now.

    Can anyone help Hank and the others here comprehend what’s going on and why and what THEY can do about it on a permanent basis so they do not become so DISTRESSED by agw/cc deniers and trolls and others who merely default into holding them to account for their own behavior here for years and years?

    Because if WE can help Hank and others here, then maybe, just maybe others could be helped too. I am not hopeful. But I digress ….

    Maybe these links and content might help, have a peak, relax and wonder about the following and what it is saying (the last item is especially helpful for the aware and wise reader of RC, plus those who struggle daily with MEANING and INTENT, imho):

    The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why The Incompetent Don’t Know They’re Incompetent in a particular field outside their area of expertise.
    https://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php

    How to Make Friends … and a few words on Empathy by Professor George Lakoff
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCXxc_M9EmE&feature=youtu.be&t=28m6s

    Professor George Lakoff Part 1 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T46bSyh0xc0

    Idea Framing, Metaphors, and YOUR Brain – PROFESSOR George Lakoff
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_CWBjyIERY

    PROFESSOR George Lakoff: How Brains Think: (including YOUR Brain) The Embodiment Hypothesis
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ

    Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance, etc.
    https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

    Awareness is a relative concept. Awareness may be focused on an internal state, such as a visceral feeling, or on external events by way of sensory perception.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

    Reading comprehension is the ability to process text, understand its meaning, and to integrate it with what the reader already knows.

    Fundamental skills required in efficient reading comprehension are knowing meaning of words,
    ability to understand meaning of a word from discourse context,
    ability to follow organization of passage and to identify antecedents and references in it,
    ability to draw inferences from a passage about its contents,
    ability to identify the main thought of a passage,
    ability to answer questions answered in a passage,
    ability to recognize the literary devices used in a passage and
    to determine its tone and mood, and finally
    ability to determine writer’s purpose, intent, and point of view,
    and draw inferences about the writer.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

    The above, btw is SCIENCE, think about that point!

    Bonus Interview – PROFESSOR George Lakoff on Trump’s moral challenge to Liberals and to supporters of AGW/CC Science and Solutions
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OC-aS_QyHU

    Of course, if YOU *believe* YOU already Know It All …. about everyone and everything …. well.

    LOGICALLY there is no point in anyone saying a word to YOU…. and so you will be most likely IGNORED and will remain UNSUCCESSFUL in achieving anything of sustainable Value.

    What’s this got to do with agw/cc and the RC blog site?

    Pretty much everything!

    Have a great day y’all.

    (smiling patiently)

  24. 124
    Thomas says:

    1814 Mr. Know It All and your Bore Holed “Kill the climate deniers!” post.

    You even got that wrong KIA … it’s actually *Kill Climate Deniers*

    http://www.killclimatedeniers.com/2017/09/05/how-to-experience-the-kill-climate-deniers-walking-tour/

    How much does it piss you off that my post on that Play in Oz got through the Mods on March 1st, 4 days before yours was Boreholed?

    ROTFLMAO

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/forced-responses-mar-2018/#comment-695398

  25. 125
    Thomas says:

    I have a genuine question.

    “Mr KIA and Victor, would you please tell me/us what are you most proud of that you have done for other people, without any consideration for yourself?”

    You may mention from one to three things max, if you feel so inclined.

    Thanks

  26. 126
    Ken Fabian says:

    If we have had 1C of warming (giss) since pre-industrial and human made aerosols are masking between 0.5 and 1.1 (Samset et al) and there is warming “in the pipeline” as well – has the possibility of a 1.5C target already passed?

  27. 127
    Thomas says:

    RE: 118 Hank Roberts; Well let’s have a deeper look. Here’s another learning opportunity for readers. Your choice.

    THE AGW/CC DENIAL INDUSTRY COMPLEX:101

    HANK feels compelled, for some unknown reason bar the joy of engaging in collective Mobbing to, in a not too subtle manner, intimate that I am a crank. (sniffle, will I ever recover?) That is of course an unfounded insult.

    Poor HANK seems a little rattled and appears to again be defaulting to the pattern of haughty ad hom after his long sabbatical. Not to mention the usual litany of stooping ill-informed logical fallacies. Maybe the facts are too complex for him (and others) to grasp? I don’t know, because his statements make zero rational sense to me. The old can’t see the wood for the trees perhaps? Who knows and who really cares. Certainly not myself. But such trolling comments need to be exposed because of the underlying duplicity lest it lead others astray – much like agw/cc propaganda leads others astray 24/7. But I digress. :-)

    This isolated non-referenced cherry picked “quote” by HANK comes from UV and to assist others here is a link to it http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/02/unforced-variations-mar-2018/#comment-695575 … for full CONTEXT and PERSPECTIVE start there at #42 and keep scrolling down reading what was said until you get to HANK’s quote then continue to the last comment by myself.

    Can work out what HANKs issue is? Before thinking about too much let’s have a look at a very small snippet of the underlying evidences available, about various issues of the *faux issues* makers here on RC such as HANK, but the following supporting evidence tackles more than his obtuse insult. Are you up to the challenge? :-)

    And in no particular order and random selections from my Bookmarks (way too many to post even 10% of them here) – anyone want to discuss any of this I am up to it in regard agw/cc and the global denial networks, their funders, their political coordinators and/or the neoliberal thought collective.

    BUT FIRST …. Core Issues – What’s the Gestalt?
    Schneier on Security https://www.schneier.com/
    23 hours ago – DDoS vandals have long intensified their attacks by sending a small number of specially designed data packets to publicly available services. The services then unwittingly respond by sending a much larger number of unwanted packets to a target. ie Barely nothing is SECURE anywhere.

    September 4, 2012 Social Networks: the Force Is Strong with These Ones. By Eugene Kaspersky
    “Forming public opinion” via social networks has for several years already been practiced rather successfully by governments of many countries, no matter their political traditions or leanings. With so much open and free (no cost) information on the surface – no digging necessary – folks themselves tell all about their news, interesting information, whereabouts, lists of colleagues, friends and professional contacts. And the bizarre thing is that anyone who can access that data – private individuals, companies, criminals, members of a cross-stich embroidery group… (you get the point).
    The active interference of world military institutions, intelligence services and other government bodies in social networks and manipulation of public opinion is an inappropriate and clumsy step – one which fans the flames of cyberwar by provoking an escalation of the cyber-armament race.
    https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2012/09/04/social-networks-the-force-is-strong-with-these-ones/

    But before we do get too far down the Rabbit Hole of REAL COMPLEXITY and not the easy strasight forward stuff like Climate Science Models but the complexity of Humans in the Real World ….. how about a little Metaphor to whet the appetite? I saw a termite in my house and I killed it. Whew thank god for that. Last week I saw a fire ant on the patio about to bite my grandchild, luckily I saw it and squashed it with my boot. Now my home is free of both termites and fire ants, but if I see anymore, then I will kill then too. That’ll fix the problem right?

    Ha ha ha, not right. A waste of time and energy unless one locates the NEST and exposes it to light or floods it with killer poisons which kills the Queen while killing them all where they are hidden – out of sight in the nest. Or your damned house is going to be eaten alive form the inside out and collapse. Fire ants, well look it up if don’t know what they are.

    http://www.ra.ethz.ch/cdstore/www2011/companion/p277.pdf

    https://www.predictiveanalyticsworld.com/patimes/data-mining-for-predictive-social-network-analysis/6990/

    https://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/6/175163-the-power-of-social-media-analytics/abstract

    https://globaljournals.org/GJCST_Volume16/3-Social-Media-Analytics.pdf

    http://snap.stanford.edu/proj/socmedia-www/

    https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RsYr_iQUs6QC&oi=fnd&pg=PA144&dq=funding+denial+climate+change&ots=r6MA59k94J&sig=ZhlN65WKT6N52Y1jJk4zSelIwh8#v=onepage&q=funding%20denial%20climate%20change&f=false

    https://stephenstewart.ca/images/InstitutionalizingDelay.pdf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_mining

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7

    TIP OF THE ICEBERG ABOVE – BUT CAN’T GIVE ALL MY SECRETS AWAY FOR FREE

    Global Warming Disinformation Database [ one of several out there ]
    DeSmogBlog thoroughly investigates the academic and industry backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are confusing the public and stalling action on global warming.
    https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/08/exxonmobil-new-disclosures-show-oil-giant-still-funding-climate-science-denial-groups

    https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273

    http://www.ashergrey.info/uploads/1/4/8/3/14835916/secret_funding_helped_build_vast_network_of_climate_denial_think_tanks___grist.pdf

    onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x/full

    https://theconversation.com/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist-49855

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764213477096

    https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7ma9BwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=funding+denial+climate+change&ots=fJq1yKk36p&sig=o_rjryu-jowwL0c9cmnSVgDRIsw#v=onepage&q=funding%20denial%20climate%20change&f=false

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/92.short

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916511421196

    http://oxyromandie.ch/docs/oxypub/refs/20060919-guardian-monbiot-the-denial-industry.pdf

    Coal vs coral: plunging into Australia’s climate wars
    http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/conversations-anna-krien/8636582

    Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 — James Painter1 and Teresa Ashe2
    Published 4 October 2012 • 2012 IOP Publishing Ltd
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005

    ESPECIALLY FOR MAL ADAPTED (try not to get sick or embarrassed too much – at least I know what BLOG I am posting to from one moment to the next LOL, Mal does not~!!!)
    Scientific Meta-Literacy – Monday, February 11, 2013
    Climate Abyss — Weather and climate issues with John Nielsen-Gammon
    http://web.archive.org/web/20130516120733/http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy/

    John Nielsen-Gammon et al (sigh-sad)
    http://climatechangenationalforum.org/

    AUG 2015 (in hindsight, a day late, and a dollar short)
    Global Warming and Climate Change – What Australia knew and buried…then framed a new reality for the public by Maria Taylor 2014
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/unforced-variations-aug-2015/comment-page-2/#comment-634403

    “Psychology and global warming: what stops us from preventing the coming disaster”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnEO2ysnO6Q&feature=youtu.be&t=15m50s

    The Politics of Climate – Polarized views about climate issues stretch from the causes and cures for climate change to trust in climate scientists and their research. But most Americans support a role for scientists in climate policy, and there is bipartisan support for expanding solar, wind energy
    http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

    Malcolm Roberts: Breaking the laws of physics with each climate denying claim by Graham Readfearn 19 September 2016,
    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/malcolm-roberts-breaking-the-laws-of-physics-with-each-climate-denying-claim,9490

    https://ipa.org.au/author/jennifermarohasy
    http://climatelab.com.au/the-team/
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Change-Dr-John-Abbot-ebook/dp/B00S5L5Y0W
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/four-steps-needed-restore-confidence-bureaus-handling-temperature-data/
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/bureau-of-meteorologys-heated-argument-with-jennifer-marohasy-over-temperatures/news-story/6c7e0ade7b4eaf827b36e68e9f53cd7c
    FOIA, Government-Funded Climate Science and Hole-Digging
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/foia-government-funded-climate-science-and-hole-digging/

    http://www.stevebishop.net/ipa-risks-injury-in-climate-wars

    Topic: Climate change – Time to end the multigenerational Ponzi scheme
    https://web.archive.org/web/20090331133158/http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/climate_change/time-to-end-the-multigenerational-ponzi-scheme

    August 20, 2014 – Climate Change: the Slippery, Shape Shifting, Jelly Mould Threat
    George Marshall – Climate is not the perfect cognitive challenge but its amorphous nature

    creates the ideal conditions for human denial and cognitive bias to come to the fore
    https://climatedenial.org/2014/08/20/climate-change-the-slippery-problem/

    Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change
    http://www.ifees.org.uk/

    February 2014 – As Tony Abbott launches all-out war on climate action, what’s the plan?
    http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/as-tony-abbott-launches-all-out-war-on.html

    ex-PM John Howard Climate Change Speech: One Religion Is Enough @GWPF
    http://australianpolitics.com/2013/11/05/howard-one-religion-is-enough.html

    A Change in the Legal Climate By Kurt Eichenwald
    http://www.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/change-legal-climate-245148.html

    Hello – Chew on that! Prof Mirowski & what denialism is ABOUT ….. they aren’t STUPID~!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I&feature=youtu.be&t=38m18s

    Conspiracy
    Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
    -Benjamin Franklin
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080918041436/http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

    Climate Denier Crackpot Index – October 16, 2008 by greenfyre
    [ BUT DOUBTING THOMAS IS THE CRANK ???? LIKE WTF IS THAT ABOUT HANK ???? ]
    https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/climate-denier-crackpot-index/

    1 January 2009 Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
    Pascal Diethelm Martin McKee – European Journal of Public Health, Volume 19, Issue 1,
    https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780

    ExxonMobil and Climate Change: A Story of Denial, Delay, and Delusion, Told in Forms 10-K
    (2009-2015) – Posted on September 8, 2016 by Anne Polansky
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2016/09/08/exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-delay-and-delusion-told-in-forms-10-k-2009-2015/

    February 15, 2015 – Science deniers try to change the facts about climate
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/science-deniers-try-to-change-facts.html

    My Education in Climate-Denial Jujitsu
    The 10 minutes I spent at a Congressional committee hearing was something of an eye-opener
    By Maryam Zaringhalam on August 9, 2016
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/my-education-in-climate-denial-jujitsu/

    December 11, 2013 Climate Denial Crock of the Week with Peter Sinclair
    Case Studies in the Failure of Journalism: Iraq, and Climate Change
    https://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/11/case-studies-in-the-failure-of-journalism-iraq-and-climate-change/

    And a little bit of that 3 letter F word – Fun!

    [Mega alert for BPL – Warning Russian Today video – beware catching the disease Barton from

    Michael Mann’s he might be a traitor and a checkist – OMG, no!]
    2016 Dr. Michael Mann – Are We In Runaway Climate Change?
    Mann – while there are some quibbles about the details how fast is how fast, we climate scientists would be foolhardy to dismiss what Hansen given his prescient track record for predictions going back to 1988 which have all proven to be correct. (sic) re the Ice melt, Superstorms paper.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYztqmno6jw (worth the price of admission, this one)

    How do we tell stories about climate science that reach everyone?
    https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/1201-climate-change-expand-impacts-el-ninola-nina-extremes

    http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/10/11/north-dakota-conviction/

    https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/08/18/analysis/how-do-we-tell-stories-about-climate-science-reach-everyone

    https://theconversation.com/climate-gloom-and-doom-bring-it-on-but-we-need-stories-about-taking-action-too-79464

    IN MEMORY OF …
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/#comment-430789

    Facts AND FEELINGS matter when communicating climate science DR. JOHN COOK ET AL
    https://www.greenbiz.com/article/facts-and-feelings-matter-when-communicating-climate-science

    Screw consultation, let’s just ban stuff: how to really fight climate change
    https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/08/11/screw-consultation-lets-just-ban-stuff-how-to-really-fight-climate-change/

    Someone talks Dunning-Kruger on RC
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/03/what-drives-uncertainties-in-adapting-to-sea-level-rise/comment-page-3/#comment-649306

    The “Denial101x – Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) is now available as a self-paced course that anyone can take at any time.
    However you cannot INOCULATE YOURSELF AGAINST A FIRE ANT BITE -|- and it’ll DAMN NEAR KILL YOU (smiling broadly)
    https://skepticalscience.com/denial101x-videos-and-references.html

    And I never mentioned Trump once.

    So, what was Hank saying again?

    I’m the *crank*? Oh really, how nice!

    (smile)

  28. 128
  29. 129
    Thomas says:

    CACM July 2016 – The Rise of Social Bots for Dummies in 3:47 mins

    A social bot is a computer algorithm that automatically produces content and interacts with humans on social media, trying to emulate and possibly alter their behavior. These bots have become more prevalent on social networking sites in the past few years. In this video, Emilio Ferrara discusses “The Rise of Social Bots” (cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204021), a Review Article in the July 2016 Communications of the ACM.

    Category – Science & Technology

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLn0nrSd4xjjbIHhktZoVlZuj2MbrBBC_f&v=VkEB_-ODqLM

    Of course, the AGW/CC Denier network would never stoop so low as use Bots or “online search algorithms” because that would not be *nice*.

    Deniers are always so very *Polite* too, but that is only because they are *really nice* conservatives and church-goers. Nothing to do with Training and Skills Development run by highly paid Professionals using APPS. No one can *hide* their online activities, right?

    Nah, Hank et al must be right. They *Know It All* all the time, just ask them, they’ll set ya straight. (wink)

    118
    Hank Roberts says:
    7 Mar 2018 at 10:07 AM
    Thomas … Does anyone really know what they are doing in this Field and how to act Logically based on Evidence and Reason?

    What *field* was that again?

  30. 130
    Thomas says:

    120 jb says: “It was a statement of fact.”

    Like hell it was!

    But thanks for sharing your personal *opinion*.

    Now have you got a agw/cc related question or something useful to add?

    Nah, didn’t think so.

    While you’re thinking of something relevant, maybe use your *work computer* to research what Cherry-Picking is while you’re at it.

    (smile)

  31. 131
    David Miller says:

    Kevin, MAR, Thomas, Nigel, and anyone else I missed, thanks for the pointers.

    Unfortunately, these are not the droids I’m looking for.

    My friend will pay no attention to blog posts unless they’re written by active, publishing, climate scientists. Or, perhaps, summarized by professional and unbiased journalists – she won’t read ‘six degrees’ because the author, being an environmentalist, is biased.

    I know we’re seeing lots of effects already. She doesn’t deny climate change – she regards it as a problem that we absolutely have to address. What she doesn’t have a handle on, and where we differ, is how quickly the changes are coming.

    So, peer reviewed stuff? Summaries shorter than IPCC reports? Timetables of hydrologic changes from climate scientists? Those are the kinds of things I need :)

    TIA

  32. 132
    Thomas says:

    122 Victor asks: Any thoughts?

    Yes. I sense your profound disappointment Victor. Sounds like tough going. Hang in mate, you’ll make it through these difficult times. Think positive.

    Maybe a little prayer could help?

  33. 133

    V 122: No one has yet responded with reference to the second essay I cited, the one titled CIRCULAR REASONING IN CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH.

    BPL: Gee, I wonder why?

  34. 134
    jgnfld says:

    Can our resident deniers please provide an example of a single, generally accepted scientific inference that does NOT involve an “appeal to authority” somewhere in the inductive chain.

    The whole point of induction is that there is ALWAYS such an appeal. The only question-to-be-answered is concerning the strengths of the various authorities.

    BTW no, the values of physical constants do not exist outside of an appeal to authority. There is always what is considered to be a “best” value. And that value is based on how well the wider scientific community judges the worth of the various authorities measuring said constant.

    Such thining is not an example of “groupthink” which is more often found in short term, unchallenged, high stakes decision-making contexts or very cohesive, hierarchically organized groups.

    Anyone taking the time to study the scientific method, history of science, and Janis (noted early groupthink researcher) will note that the scientific method is expressly constructed to counter groupthink over time and across research groups. Groupthink can definitely occur within smaller scientific groups and even whole fields for a time. Consider behaviorism and experimental psychology for some 2 or 3 decades in the 20th century, for example. But the likelihood of it occurring across every research group around the world for a century or more is right up there with the likelihood of the worldwide conspiracy deniers also often invoke. Indeed this is just another way of implying such a conspiracy in softer, more technical language.

  35. 135
    MA Rodger says:

    Victor the Troll @122,
    It is good that you re-announce the second paper you cited, as up-thread it was lost within the robust commenting on the bonkers Booker Groupthink assertions. (You may have noted my request @74 for you to explain your mention of “two essays” @60. And note, of the first ‘essay’ – Booker doesn’t set out what you say he does.)
    I would suggest it is evident that this second apparently self-published essay is as poor as the first GWPF-published essay; that is, it is worthless. Its author is unknown to me, and ignoring its presence within the deranged madness of the planet Wattsupia and use of the royal ‘we’, I will “concentrate on the content” as requested @28 (although this is rather a case of tackling the liar who has a big head-start).

    The thesis in Munshi (2018) ‘Circular Reasoning in Climate Change Research’ (Self-published) sets out to “demonstrate the use of circular reasoning in three broad areas of climate change research.” It is asserted that the analysis will be extended to further areas of climate change research implying the perceived problem is wider than the three areas. The author appears to set out that this reliance on ‘circular reasoning’ is profound enough to be fundamental to the scientific understanding of AGW and its consequences. The abstract certainly says so by concluding “The validity of the anthropogenic nature of global warming and climate change and that of the effectiveness of proposed measures for climate action may therefore be questioned solely on this basis.” The author thus makes bold claims indeed.

    Addressing these three broad areas of climate change research in reverse order:-
    (3) The anthropogenic origin of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is questioned because the levels of uncertainty of the size of natural fluxes within the carbon cycle are seen as too large for such a conclusion to be made. It is a fatuous argument. Also no alternative source is suggested for the 1.0Tt(CO2) that has been so-quickly and uniquely added to the atmosphere in recent history. Nor is the additional evidence showing the anthropogenic origin of that CO2 mentioned. And even so, the alleged circularity is not demonstrated.
    (2) The anthropogenic causes of SLR (a very Victor-the-Troll subject) is questioned. Remarkably, a circularity of argument is achieved within Munshi (rather than being demonstrated within the subject of Munshi’s analysis) but detail of the Munshi analysis may be set out in a further Munshi self-published paper, although I will assume this is not the case.
    Further hand-waving concerning pre-20th-Century SLR rather muddies the argument, such SLR being a live area of research which is not set out in any proper way by Munshi. Munshi then ventures briefly into the issue of calibration of satellite data and in so doing, badly misrepresents Nerem et al (2018) and adds a little Victor-the-Trollishness by plotting 25-year SLR trends agains annual FF CO2 emissions.
    The confused SLR analysis set out by Munshi deserves no further description.
    (1) The impact of AGW on tropical cyclone intensity & frequency covers much trampled ground but Munshi’s analysis concentrates on a single paper of some age (Emanuel (2005), the one which first defined PDI and which, mathematically flawed or not, is immaterial to the subject as a whole. Munshi badly represents climatology by stating that with the findings of Emanuel (2005), “it remained for climate science only to tend to the details of presenting the data in the appropriate format.” It is simply untrue to suggest that the relationship between PDI and SST is immutably derived from and solely based on Emanuel (2005), as this GFDL web-page clearly demonstrates.

  36. 136
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Weaktor,
    Well, if you weren’t an utterly credulous tool, the following ought to set off alarm bells:
    1)It is not published in a peer-reviewed journal
    2)It is the product of a single author who has no expertise in cimate
    3)Said author has published a lot of denialist crap

    Is this really the best you can do?

  37. 137
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Also, Weaktor, Appeal to authority is a fallacy only if the authorities appealed to are not in fact experts–a case in point being the author of your little screed.

  38. 138
    CCHolley says:

    Victor @122

    No one has yet responded with reference to the second essay I cited, the one titled CIRCULAR REASONING IN CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH.

    I took a cursory look at this paper. Without even getting to the statistical analysis, I find the paper to be deceitful and not very credible. Keep in mind, the SSRN site is for papers that are in their early stages prior to peer review and actual publication in a journal. The site’s focus is on the social sciences and humanities.

    (1) Storm Intensity.

    The papers referenced on storm intensity are quite old when the signal was weaker. The one he uses as his prime example was Emanuel (2005)! None of the papers include the latest decade, so even if the methodologies are questioned, the results do not include the latest history where the increase in intensity and rainfall are clearly more evident. Consider the very recent Irma, Harvey, and Maria, not to mention Sandy and super storm Haiyan. His storm intensity point does nothing to discredit AGW or the overall science.

    (2) Sea level rise.

    He makes the following statement, which is misleading if not outright wrong: Paleo records shows that both temperature and sea level have been mostly rising since last glacial maximum and more recently, since the so called little ice age.

    Mostly maybe from the glacial maximum until 10,000 years ago. Marcott and others show temperatures rising to the Holocene maximum about 10,000 years ago. Temperatures then were mostly stable for about 4000 years and then were gradually falling until industrialization.
    See Gavin’s chart in the comments here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/2017-temperature-summary/

    Sea levels were fairly stable with variability from 500 AD until about 1,000 AD. From 1,000 AD until the 1800s, sea level was mostly falling.
    From chart in Stefan’s article here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/

    Temperatures and sea levels have NOT been mostly rising since the last glacial maximum, at least not in the last 10,000 years or so. The starting point of his argument is false, therefore his conclusions are wrong, regardless of the methodologies of the referenced studies.

    (3) CO2 in the atmosphere

    This one is just silly. We know approximately how much CO2 is being emitted. We know atmospheric levels are increasing. We know the level of CO2 in the oceans is increasing. Even if our knowledge of carbon cycles contain uncertainties, there is no other explanation for the atmospheric increase. Occam’s Razor, what other possible explanation is there for the atmospheric increase? There is none.

    Conclusion

    Seems to me this is a fallacy fallacy and it is the author who is using a circular argument to attempt to prove a circular argument. His argument does nothing to cast doubt on the physics behind global warming. Not a surprise, since the actual physics behind AGW is irrefutable, it appears to be a typical *denier* argument attempting to attack the fringes of the science.

  39. 139
    Hank Roberts says:

    Dave Miller …. the author, being an environmentalist, is biased.

    I trust she’s equally certain about refusing the dentist’s and doctor’s advice, since they’re educated (and so obviously biased).
    Sheesh.

    “One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”
    ― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

  40. 140
    Hank Roberts says:

    I have a suggestion, along the lines of the carbon tax approach.

    Find a way to charge commenters a reasonable fee, say a nickel a word, for posting here.

    Or even post a running count of words posted by each commenter in each thread.

    That would make attention the coin being taxed.

  41. 141
    Hank Roberts says:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article203842084.html

    This will be interesting. Alsup is really smart.

    Federal court will hold first-ever hearing on climate change science

    By Stuart Leavenworth

    sleavenworth@mcclatchydc.com

    LinkedIn
    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit
    Print
    Order Reprint of this Story

    March 07, 2018 05:00 AM

    Updated March 07, 2018 11:43 AM
    WASHINGTON

    A federal judge in San Francisco has ordered parties in a landmark global warming lawsuit to hold what could be the first-ever U.S. court hearing on the science of climate change….

    … Alsup, appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, has a reputation for immersing himself in the technicalities of legal cases. He famously taught himself the Java programming language in deciding a lawsuit that pitted Silicon Valley giants Oracle against Google. More recently, he asked lawyers for a tutorial on self-driving car technology in a lawsuit that pits Google’s Waymo against Uber.

    In the upcoming climate change tutorial, Alsup told lawyers he wants a two-part presentation from both sides over roughly five hours.

    “The first part will trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historical cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes, and global warming. Each side will have sixty minutes,” the judge wrote in his order.

    “The second part will set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding. Each side will again have another sixty minutes,” he added.

    Science has been on trial before, most famously in the “Scope’s Monkey Trial,” the 1925 legal case on the teaching of evolution. But it is unlikely the March 21 tutorial will be a pure debate on global climate change. Exxon and other oil companies have already stated that “the risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.” The oil industry has mostly accepted scientific findings that increasing carbon emissions are warming the atmosphere.

    Instead, the hearing and ongoing trial will focus more on who knew what, when, and what they did in response.

    “At the core of the plaintiff’s lawsuit is the idea that these companies have long known about risks of their products … yet they took a course of action that resisted regulation and sought to keep them on the market as long as possible,” said Burger, the Columbia climate law expert.

    By contrast, the fossil fuels companies will likely emphasize the uncertainty that existed as climate science evolved, and how they needed “to act in the best interests of their shareholders,” given the uncertainty, he added….

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article203842084.html#storylink=cpy

  42. 142
    Mr. Know It All says:

    66 – Hank R, 78 – Ray L, 90 – MAR.
    Thank you all for the answers to my questions in post 62. I have some reading to do. I’m legitimately trying to understand the science, but have limited time to do it, so it’s taking me a while. I’m not a denier, but I am a skeptic.

    79 – Ric M
    Each decade has not gotten warmer – that’s the point that skeptics use in their arguments. Couple example are the 1930s and that warm period back in the when was it – 1600s? Doesn’t mean AGW isn’t real though.

    124 – Thomas
    I don’t care if my posts are bore-holed or just deleted. I did not notice your March 1 post on the FV thread because you post so much verbiage that I just don’t have time to read most of it. Ditto Killian. I am surprised that 111 above made it thru though. :)

    125 – Thomas
    “Mr KIA and Victor, would you please tell me/us what are you most proud of that you have done for other people, without any consideration for yourself?”

    Pride goeth before a fall so pride isn’t how I’d describe my contributions, but I’ll list a couple. I will not benefit from these that much since I’ve only got a couple decades remaining most likely.

    1 – Voted for T to stop the destructive path started by O that would have continued under HRC. Believe it or not, there are things more important in the world than signing on to climate agreements. Liberals are destroying our country (ditto most developed nations), and the climate can wait a tad longer while we try to solve more immediate threats. Liberals control all major cities in our country and all of them are failing in various ways – their ideas don’t work – this has been proven beyond doubt by many decades of experience.

    2 – Soon I’ll renew my membership in the NRA, our oldest civil rights organization – renewing will help future generations to remain free. Nations without such rights many times end up with evil dictators doing evil things to people who can’t defend themselves. We want to avoid mistakes of the past.

    So, there’s a couple, what have you done?

  43. 143
    Thomas says:

    About CAPS LOCK

    I wasn’t going to go here because my personal business is mine. Unfortunately there is a very nasty crew here who seem to live their lives in a fictional know it all delusion 24/7/365 days a year for more than a decade.

    I certainly do have empathy for those who find the writing style and my crazy formatting tends to go off the rails now and then. I ahve been thoroughly disabused of my belief that given this is a blog site with highly intelligent and wise people that they would be smart enough to glean whatever useful content might be submitted here and to overlook the rest.

    Clearly I was very wrong on that score as the evidence was very clear as to the small-mindedness of many long term posters on this site in particular. I worked that out a long time ago and it hasn’t bothered me since. Other people’s personal issues and character flaws are not my responsibility to address let alone waste my time thinking about it. Life is hard enough. Knowledge is power as they say, it wise to use it in one’s personal life as much as in science.

    Fact is I only have one hand, lost the other, bugger. I do have issues with keyboards as a result of uncontrollable projectile vomiting without any warning due to the nausea caused by the high level of pain killers and drugs I have to take from time time to time. Thankfully one of my sons set me up with a system using external keyboards. Ruined about 8 keyboards the last few years, I am very grateful it weasn’t 8 laptops .. only one blew up. Anyway the fact is that I do have keyboard issues for multiple reasons it’s just not easy some days.

    But really pisses me off and is right pain is when I copy paste text fro some papers pdf files and it dumps the text onto RC forms one word per line! I do in fact spend a lot of time to re-format that but it can take me hours depending on how much text i copied. Drives me to distraction that.

    Luckily my son shows up regularly to say high when he has the time and he is incredibly generous because when possible I can dictate what I want to say and he writes up the posts. Other times I create posts in files first and he can quickly fix the formatting typos etc. It’s the best I can do unfortunately, and it is s crying shame that there are so many ignorant naive gullible people here who believe they are either profound Psychics or highly qualified Mind Readers when realy they are more like opinionated jack asses who don;t know shit about anyone else in their self-important small worlds.

    As to jb, well I am not lucky enough to have a JOB …. no one would have me in the present state and I sure don;t blame them for that. That’s a rational intelligent way to think about stuff imho.

    This is an explanation, it is not an attempt to seek sympathy nor is it a request to be given special privileges by the Mods …. if the “formatting” is too crap I have no problem with the Mods deleting my submissions. I keep copies of everything as I go, and if that happens and I deem the content important enough I have another go by tidying it up and having another go. I ahve all the time in the world so it’s no biggy. At last I have something reasonably useful to do and share which helps to keep me sane.

    So for the silent majority of readers, especially those who never ever post a comment or query here (too bloody dangerous that, who in their right mind wants to be ignored or abused for asking a simple question?) I’ll repeat a little tip from various recent posts as a reminder.

    Remember this:

    Really, do any of you ever once think about WTF you are doing both allowing such TROLLS to post here in the first place and then endlessly responding to them … and then talking GARBAGE utterly disconnected from the real world?
    NO, not only here but on every web-based forum online and that these highly funded TECH HEAD geniuses they employ are actually USING YOUR NAIVETY and GULLIBILITY and IGNORANCE of the REAL WORLD against yourselves.</i?

    and this:

    Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

    and of course this:

    46
    Thomas says:
    3 Mar 2018 at 8:27 PM

    Definition of Ignorant

    adjective: ignorant

    1.
    lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

    Ask any Dictionary.

    Should I name names too? I believe the majority of readers that “visited” here over the decade plus worked that out for themselves very quickly.

    K. is merely one person with moral strength of character to say it out loud with clarity. There’s been others, Ed Greisch for one. Remember him?

    I remember the two-faced disingenuous people here who expressed sympathy and kindness for him & his family when he died in 2016.

    A great Shame they could not do that while he was still alive.

    Character matters.

    But not to everyone obviously!

    (shrug)

  44. 144
    Thomas says:

    For the record: literally thousands of RC visitors abandoned this site long before I ever showed up here.

    That’s a fact and I have the evidence to back up that truth. Unfortunately I can count on one hand the number of people commenting here who have the wherewithal to comprehend and accept that evidence as credible and true.

    The rest are a total waste of cyber-space — no matter where they post comments about agw/cc and of their own self-importance. Names will not be named to minimize the Public Shame that goes with it.

    The Readers (and the Mods) can work this out for them self. Or simply continue to ignore it. Not my problem. Just sayin’

    (shrug)

  45. 145
    Ray Ladbury says:

    David Miller: ” Or, perhaps, summarized by professional and unbiased journalists – she won’t read ‘six degrees’ because the author, being an environmentalist, is biased.”

    Then your friend is simply too stupid to bother with. Get better friends.

  46. 146
    Thomas says:

    131 David Miller says: Those are the kinds of things I need :)

    Tough luck baby. You fictional “friend” is not my problem. “You” are not my problem, especially when you are given precisely what you asked for and are either too figgin’ lazy to see that, or you are totally disingenuous.

    So I will make a public announcement so save everyone any more wasted time and effort and time will prove this to be true:

    David Miller is a another Troll, a denialist shill who is yanking all your chains.

    More fresh meat for Hank, Ray, Mal and Rodger.

    Go in for the kill boys, do your stuff while you clog up RC with even more GARBAGE, LOL

  47. 147
    nigelj says:

    Victor @127 says the Brooker essay is not just an opinion, and I should be specific in my criticisms.

    Fine its not just an opinion, but its certainly still 90% nonsense with just enough solid facts to fool gullible people. Victor, just because an essay has a bibliography doesn’t make it correct.

    And I was specific. The essay is based around a key claim there has been no increase in temperatures since 1998. The implication being that scientists ignored this so called pause, and it disproved agw so they were engaging in group think by ignoring this issue. This is nonsense as totally credible reasons were given for the pause.

    They are also being deceitful still claiming temperatures have not increased. Their essay is dated 2018 so they know better.

    And you expect me to take this junk essay seriously? Please tell me you are joking.

    I could go through every detail in the essay and tear it apart line by line. I don’t have the time or need because its so obviously rubbish on the main claims they make.

    The circular reasoning essay is not in a published journal. Thanks anyway for the link, and I might read it if I have time.

    I see a great deal of circular reasoning in your own posts by the way. For example, you are unable to acknowledge you make mistakes and move on, and that’s your main problem. I was an absolute top student at my school in most subjects, but I always admit to myself I could be wrong about things, and I do admit when I do get things wrong – and I move on. You don’t know how to do this.

    Bye, have a nice day.

  48. 148
    Thomas says:

    126 Ken Fabian asks a straight question, my answer is (all things being equal at this point in time and moving forward in line with current analysis of GHG emissions and Land Use realities) …. Absolutely Yes!

    Guaranteed you can take that to the bank or nearest online Betting Agency.

    Timing? That’s a difficult unknown .. my ‘guesstimate’ based on my research of scientific papers/comments and energy use parameters is that +1.5C will be in the temp readings by 2050 +/- 5 yrs.

    By that time +2C will already be built into the system and not then showing up as temp readings and that will likely hit by 2075 guesstimate – again that is only if what is the reality of humans on planet earth from the UNFFCC, to govts to business to people living in First World nations in particular – regarding their ongoing delusional inaction on agw/cc issues remains similar as today.

    Can this be averted, according to the scientific literature and business / social realities today, yes it can. The window for that is ~5years +/-1yr.

    It all depends on what happens from today onward. And what the global reaction will be when the ASIE totally disappears in Sept/Oct … and the world’s reaction to the insane “weather” that will be the effect of that “state change”.

    YMMV … the above is my best call based on the evidence and LOGIC and know how about “people” and “psychology” and ……………………

  49. 149
    Killian says:

    #140 Hank Roberts said Find a way to charge commenters a reasonable fee, say a nickel a word, for posting here.

    More important and more useful, a month in the Borehole, no matter what you post, for being a jerk. Some of our long-timers would spend a huge amount of time there.

    If you catch my drift.

    Stop whining. The scroll function is there for a reason. Stop dumping on people and use it because it is all a matter of perspective: Your responses to denialists are massively negative in impact. Your constant stream of personal comments brings the level of the entire site down.

    You are not special; you’re a hypocrite. Just stop.

  50. 150
    Thomas says:

    RE #120 jb,

    No surprises there. It’s funny how even when someone throws a rope ladder down into a well to help someone climb up and out of it using their own effort, they outright refuse to help them self. (smiling at the ridiculousness of this)

    I was lucky enough to gain access to the draft manuscripts and notes by lewis Carrol’s book Through the Looking Glass.

    There was scene there where Tweedle Dee says to Tweedle Dumb: “Look man, it’s not an ‘effing COMPETITION!”

    Given I have already said that the available space resource of RC are essential INFINITE, I do not see the point of belaboring the there is no Competitive requirement in reality. What’s the Gestalt? Anyone can research for them self what that means and how to use that principle or any principle or human dynamic/interaction.

    Killian knows a fair bit about Foundation Principles. And Philosophy and Logic. What a wasted Resource he is.

    ROFLMAO

    Respect is earned, not a right. Chew on that.