RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: May 2018

Filed under: — group @ 4 May 2018

This month’s (slightly delayed) open thread on climate science topics.

238 Responses to “Unforced variations: May 2018”

  1. 201
    Solar Jim says:

    So is petroleum a form of energy or a form of matter? Chose one.

  2. 202
    Killian says:

    Prediction: CO2 concentrations have peaked for 2018. We had our twin peaks in April and May like the last few years (which to me signals a shift in the yearly seasonal cycle) and it should be downhill from here.

  3. 203
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/scientist-schools-congressmen-on-climate/

    The Wire
    Scientist Schools Congressmen on Climate

    By Vanessa Schipani

    Posted on May 25, 2018

    During a recent hearing on the role of innovation in addressing climate change, several Republicans made faulty claims about the climate, past and present

  4. 204

    #201–

    E=MCe2

  5. 205
  6. 206
  7. 207
    Nemesis says:

    We had the hottest april on record in Germany, it was 5°C above 1961 – 1990 baseline and we have constant heat in may. And we will get the hottest may I bet, up to 33°C for a couple of days next week. And we are in a serious drought, in springtime. As a reminder: Summer starts on the 21. of june 8)

    It’s getting hotter and hotter. Go for it, capitalism, hurry up, hurry up, Mother Nature is in a hurry too, so you better run, run, run :)

  8. 208
    JRClark says:

    200 MA Rodger says: “I would suggest that your ‘peanut stomping’ is probably far more imprecise than you make out.”

    How ‘precise’ are you precisely claiming it was Mr Rodger? Please provide your ‘yardstick’ and Data for that suggestion.

    See, this is how pedantry operates. Show your ‘work’!

    Meanwhile Killian is on the record in one url ref you provided as clearly maybe even precisely stating, but at least pointedly: “All ain’t so simple as some would have us believe.”

    I do emphatically suggest, with high certainty, that comment was an intelligently formed observation backed up with evidence. It may even have Universal application beyond mere ‘peanut stomping’. (giggle)

    But enough of all these philosophical musings. Got any real climate science?

    Maybe something that is meaningful and useful (backed up with actual facts, logic, evidence and real life contexts) that even one of Ray’s ‘stupid people’, ‘ignorant food tubes’ and ‘imbeciles’ might be able to parse with a gentle push from your obviously compelling talents.

  9. 209
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @197, exactly. That Glen Peters comment is just what I have been saying.

  10. 210
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @198

    “I believe that anyone with a PhD should be required to take the Hippocratic Oath like an MD.”

    Eh? I’m not sure scientists are in the business of saving lives as such. But perhaps you are driving at the right issue in a sense, in that there should be an expectation of high standards.

    But this is expected anyway, and codes of ethics often promote high standards, and people can be held accountable for negligence. But set the standard too high, or penalise people too harshly, and nobody will take on the job other than the desperate and untalented.

    “We will need to be staring death in the face before we react and it will be too late.” by A Shared Humanity”

    I think if we see another increase in temperatures on the scale of 2015 – 2016 the panic may set in, and meaningful change will start. Thats my skyrockety prediction for today. It’s the same as the way people respond to the symptoms of illness, death does not have to be quite staring us the face, but it needs time to register things and take action in case it’s a false alarm. Its like a mental gestation period, and influenced by the denialists of course.

  11. 211
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @197 “Surely Uncertainty in Climate science is a real issue which extends across all aspects of the science.”

    It just doesn’t. Some things are known with good certainty, and some aren’t. You are playing right into the hands of climate denialists, because you are reinforcing their claims.

    Some things will probably never be 100% certain because we can’t put the entire planet inside a laboratory. Yet you beat scientists over the head demanding perfection. I don’t think you have thought hard enough about climate change.

    Even if the science was all 100% certain, do a mental thought experiment and ask yourself would that convince the denialists?

    The evidence for evolution is monumental, and very certain, yet nearly 50% of Americans still have some level of scepticism, according to Pew research.

  12. 212
    nigelj says:

    JR Clark @208, those are empty and obnoxious comments. And please note any fool can make a reasonable short term prediction on atmospheric CO2 emissions of a few months, or a year or two, just by projecting recent trends and knowing seasonal cycles. Nobody gets points for that.

  13. 213
    nigelj says:

    I read about Scott Pruits history, and wonder how on earth someone like this can end up running the EPA. You Americans sure have a strange selection process!

  14. 214
    Solar Jim says:

    Kevin M @ #204. Einstein’s equivalency is indeed a brilliant mathematical formula. Of course, it describes what happens in the center of stars (except for man’s atomic escapades). Here on Earth, not being in a star we perceive two physical phenomena, not one. Regards, SJ.

  15. 215
    Carrie says:

    211 nigelj – Carrie @197 “Surely Uncertainty in Climate science is a real issue which extends across all aspects of the science.”

    “It just doesn’t.

    Glad we got that sorted so quickly. :-)

    “Some things are known with good certainty,”

    I see my meaning has been lost on you and likely others given this comment. Maybe you believed I didn’t already know that? But is this matter of me not being clear with my meaning or is it another case of stupid imbeciles in the public not getting basic logic and scientific evidence? Hard to tell from the top of my mountain.

    Despite my obvious low grade writing talent it did not even once occur to you (or others) that my position is one driven by the profound belief that Climate Scientists need to get very clear as individuals in their chosen expert fields and as a collective institutional group about what IS Certain in their own minds and then repeatedly shout that to the world from defensive Parapets …. not repeatedly so much as incessantly.

    “You are playing right into the hands of climate denialists, because you are reinforcing their claims.”

    Oh really? How nice. And your evidence for this grandiose claim is what exactly? My pointing out the obvious already known and admitted to by claimate scientists and what is already known by “deniers” as you call them and me a total noby on some obscure little used web forum mentioning this patently proven fact is THE problem? I;m too stupid and am only “Playing into their dastardly hands”

    AS if any of them give a shit about my comments here or that my words makes any difference to the world or this space here? Oh dear me. I am certain it is you who is missing something valid about my commentary here and decided to go chasing rainbows and butterflies instead. I think I should too. :-)

    “Yet you beat scientists over the head demanding perfection. I don’t think you have thought hard enough about climate change.”

    Really? You write fabrications like but I’m the problem? Let me send you on wild goose chase Nigel. Go find a direct ref with url where I have demanded perfection or beat anyone over the head. This isn’t Sunday school. Poor widdle climate scientists being picked on and bullied by big bad Carrie – oh how they suffer!

    “Even if the science was all 100% certain, do a mental thought experiment and ask yourself would that convince the denialists?”

    Again totally missing the point and the meaning of my accumulated comments recently. You got marriage equality in NZ yeah? How many of those who didn’t want and still don’t want and hate it have been convinced gay marriage is a winner for NZ.

    Who gives a penny what would convince climate science deniers and why in God;s name would anyone with half a brain care or believe it mattered one little bit to the patently obvious solutions needing to be rolled out now yesterday?

    What a bunch of losers all those who think deniers are the big bad problem needing to be attacked 24/7 and ultimately driven in the volcano’s burning pit of fire never to be heard of again.

    Stupid is stupid does. Stupidity keeps on truckin’

    Recommending climate scientists step up and stop being stupid lazy or whatever excuses they are making for their silence and abdications as human beings with enormous privilege and clout in the public domain PLUS the massive threat they already are to pernicious politicians all over the world and calling on them to scream their lungs out about what they already know they are certain about … is not being stupid dumb gullible nor foolish. It sure is not playing into the deniers hands as if I am some dumb paper machete puppet too stupid for my own good. Does saying such insultingly daft things come naturally to you or did you take a life time to develop these skills?

    (smiling – see how this works? as per forced responses? )

    It’s telling like it really is. aka Cut the crap and get real about climate change solutions. Speak with authority, confidence and certainty about what you know you already know! It is simple. Enough people will get it, already get but they need grow some kahunas and speak truth to power instead of cowering under the table like frightened kittens

    And if they do not lift their game and do that I will curse them and their decedents until my dying breath. So there! :-)

    Admitting they do not have a clue about 25-75% of climate science might be a good step to regaining some credibility. Admitting publicly they DO NOT NEED to know all that anyway, that most of it is actually rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic whgile doing another study to determine which Rooms will be flooded first after they hit the iceberg dead ahead – AS IF TI MATTERS NOT. That they are already certain the shit is already hitting the fan and with certainty they know why that is so is all they need to do.

    REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT

    If the IPCC AR6 ends up being the same vapid crap that AR5 was which has led to nothing then what’s the point of being a climate scientist in the first place?

    That leaked IPCC report recently has all the hallmarks of another AR5 – not worth the pixels let alone the ink to print it. So there! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. (smiling heartedly)

  16. 216
    Nemesis says:

    Last post from me for a while:

    ” 17.5.2018 – Climate change on track to cause major insect wipeout, scientists warn”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/17/climate-change-on-track-to-cause-major-insect-wipeout-scientists-warn

    The only insect mass die off of insects because of climate heating I know of was during the permian mass extinction.

    Kind regards,
    Nemesis

  17. 217

    C 215: But is this matter of me not being clear with my meaning or is it another case of stupid imbeciles in the public not getting basic logic and scientific evidence?

    BPL: If people repeatedly don’t get your point, chances are it’s your obscurity that is the problem. Blaming the audience for not getting your brilliance is a tactic of artistic dilettantes.

  18. 218
    MA Rodger says:

    JRClark @208.
    I put a different slant on your comment than set out @212. In the grand scheme of things, I would ajudge your comment ‘acerbic’ rather than “obnoxious” and the predictions you praise I also see as unworthy of praise but because they are very poorly contrived.

    The ‘yardstick’ is plain to see if you could be bothered to look. It is entirely evident that the grand predictions of peak MLO CO2 for 2018 made by Killian in previous months were poorly contrived, one being poorly defined (being either flat wrong or silly) and the other being flat wrong. But you quote only a half-sentence from me, the other half mentioning reason for holding back on such judgement until the 2018 peak CO2 is better defined.

    As for your praise of the Killian comment from February, you evidently have an unusual take on “intelligently formed observation” and on “evidence.” For myself, the “all” that apparently “ain’t so simple” is undefined, a situation which diminishes the ‘precision’ of the quote you make to the point of uselessness.

    And you ask for climate science simple enough that a ‘stupid person’ could understand? If that is what you want, perhaps news from the CO2 launch-pad (usually two-clicks to ‘download your attachment’) will be sciency enough for you. Note that the last week’s 12-month-rise for MLO CO2 (+1.46ppm) mirrors both the month-to-date value and the rolling 9-week average value. Still no sign of any skyrocketry in operation.
    Yet with all its wobbles that persist even at a decadal level (see graph here of CO2 accelerations), atmospheric CO2 measurements are hard pressed to show acceleration except over multi-decadal periods.
    (We even had an acerbic commenter @197 cutting-&-pasting half of Peters et al (2017) ‘Towards real-time verification of CO2 emissions’ into the comment thread. Peters et al are basically saying the same thing although perhaps not in simple enough terms for a ‘stupid person’ to understand.)
    An alternative measure is to use the assessments of anthropogenic CO2 emissions which of course are the driver of the atmospheric CO2 rises. Emissions show an encouraging drop in the long-term acceleration of CO2 emissions over rcent years, with the latest Global Carbon Project data (2014-16) even showing zero acceleration.

  19. 219
    MA Rodger says:

    Carrie @215,
    If your considered opinion is that IPCC AR5 is “vapid crap,” perhaps you could expand on that critique a lttle so other commenters can understand where you are coming from with this opinion. What is it within AR5 that is amiss?

  20. 220
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @215

    Ha ha. Entertaining and a good read mainly, and some very good points. People do probably need reminding to stand up stong and tell things like they are, and state them clearly and simply and without too much prevarication. But perhaps you should stop repeating your message every five minutes or it may start to have the opposite effect that you intend, like nagging.

    Now for the bad points and analytical dissection….

    “But is this matter of me not being clear with my meaning or is it another case of stupid imbeciles in the public not getting basic logic and scientific evidence? “Hard to tell from the top of my mountain.”

    It’s lack of clarity on your part, and you are standing on a little hill! Don’t slip off :)

    “Despite my obvious low grade writing talent it did not even once occur to you (or others) that my position is one driven by the profound belief that Climate Scientists need to get very clear as individuals in their chosen expert fields and as a collective institutional group about what IS Certain in their own minds and then repeatedly shout that to the world from defensive Parapets …. not repeatedly so much as incessantly.”

    Climate science is already clear on where the areas of certainty and uncertainty are. Just read the IPCC report on extreme weather for example. Every climate scientists I have heard speaking in the media has been adamant we are altering the climate and theres little or no doubt. Or we are 95% sure which is the state of the science, so they have to say that.

    How much louder can they say all this? I suppose your experience has been different, and some prevaricate too much, and your message is directed at them and ok, but I suggest dont repeat it every five minutes because its spamming, even if well intended and will start to have the opposte effect to what is intended. Does nagging a smoker make them give up smoking? Not so much :)

    “You are playing right into the hands of climate denialists, because you are reinforcing their claims.”

    “Oh really? How nice. And your evidence for this grandiose claim is what exactly?

    Your claims that climate science is a huge mess of uncertainties, which you have posted on public forums like this. It makes you sound exactly like a climate denialist (which I know you aren’t). And all sorts of people read this website. All I’m saying is tread carefully.

    “Yet you beat scientists over the head demanding perfection. I don’t think you have thought hard enough about climate change.”

    “Really? You write fabrications like but I’m the problem? Let me send you on wild goose chase Nigel. Go find a direct ref with url where I have demanded perfection or beat anyone over the head. This isn’t Sunday school. Poor widdle climate scientists being picked on and bullied by big bad Carrie – oh how they suffer!”

    You are cherrypicking my commentary out of context. Firstly you certainly come across as expecting perfection, whether you intend this or not, so… think about that.

    I also said its not possible to put the planet in a laboratory so 100% certainty is elusive, so perhaps think about that as well. If I’m wrong, can someone expert please explain why I’m wrong.

    “Even if the science was all 100% certain, do a mental thought experiment and ask yourself would that convince the denialists?”

    “Again totally missing the point and the meaning of my accumulated comments recently.

    Ok fair enough. It will convince a few people in the middle of the debate but not the denialists.

    “What a bunch of losers all those who think deniers are the big bad problem needing to be attacked 24/7 and ultimately driven in the volcano’s burning pit of fire never to be heard of again.”

    Yes nothing will change their minds, but rebuttals are important to show everyone their views are nonsense, and they often give some real insight for general readers like me. Remember if evil and wrongdoing go unchallenged they tend to prevail.

    “Recommending climate scientists step up … calling on them to scream their lungs out about what they already know they are certain about … is not being stupid dumb gullible nor foolish. It sure is not playing into the deniers hands as if I am some dumb paper machete puppet too stupid for my own good. Does saying such insultingly daft things come naturally to you or did you take a life time to develop these skills?”

    “(smiling – see how this works? as per forced responses? )”

    Well I agree scientists talking in public forums and the media etc need to be very clear climate change is SERIOUS and tell it like it is and with confidence and emphasise certainties. However its not possible to omit all discussion of uncertainty, because that rapidly becomes lies by omission. They will get exposed if they try.

    Your strident criticisms of scientists will get a reaction, and people will post responses to you like I have, but it may not do much to actually convince the scientists. It seems a bit blunt to me like scolding a stupid child! Having said that, I have seen a couple of scientists give public lectures where they dither and stutter and confuse, and it needs to be pointed out, but they are in a minority.

    “It is simple. Enough people will get it, already get but they need grow some kahunas and speak truth to power instead of cowering under the table like frightened kittens”

    Ouch. Maybe some are like this, but many do a fine job.

    I have left some stuff out. Time and space.

  21. 221
    Carrie says:

    219 MA Rodger has me confused with someone else who might care what “other commenters can understand”. Like yourself anyone and his dog can post comments to RC. It’s of no great achievement or importance.

    209 nigelj says: “Carrie @197, exactly. That Glen Peters comment is just what I have been saying.”

    Really? Peters is a one-off example of what I have been saying too. Seems to me despite all your argumentativeness you really deep down agree with me. But don’t know what to do about and lack the kahunas to say so publicly even though no one knows who you are.

    217 Barton Paul Levenson, my audience of one (nigelj) has been capable of speaking for himself. Unless you have done a private survey of all readers you can only be speaking for yourself. Too late as that ship has sailed.

    220 nigelj concludes: “a good read mainly, and some very good points. People do probably need reminding to stand up strong and tell things like they are, and state them clearly and simply and without too much prevarication. But perhaps you should stop repeating your message every five minutes ….”

    Perhaps if you had not kept arguing with me every five minutes and making false claims about what I had said and what it meant and then coming back again and again saying the same thing over and over and making broad adhom disparaging remarks about me personally then maybe my first and second comment on this topic would have been more than enough.

    Had you simply seen the broader truth of what I was saying from the get go and acknowledged that as you have above the no repetition would have been required at all. Maybe it could have encouraged a genuine objective mature engaging discussion about the issues I was raising among others and I would have needed to say another word.

    Instead you get what you got ….. see how this works? Maybe. Maybe not. I am still very uncertain about that.

  22. 222
    Al Bundy says:

    Climate science is a fast-moving field. Thus, it distresses me that folks continually quote the hopelessly obsolete “97%” consensus.

    Now, I’ve got no current data, but it is incredibly unlikely that so few climate scientists see the light. Surely at least 99.9% of climate scientists (as evidenced by peer reviewed papers published AFTER the previous study) have a clue.

    This is a far more important data point than mere physical stuff. After all, it’s easy to reject such a low number as 97%. Ya gotta get close to the “5 9s” standard that’s used for acceptable results for computer system up time.
    1

  23. 223
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigelj wondered how an intelligent person can evolve into a crank.

    It’s easy. Most people think from belief to evidence. Most people think their group is holy and other groups are evil. Most folks will therefore reject any and all evidence that their original hypothesis is slightly erroneous.

  24. 224
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigelj claims that leaving denialist claims unananswered increases the probability that denislists and fence sitters will believe them.

    LOLOL.
    Dude, crawl out from under that rock

    Responding to garbage ensures that the human defense instinct will be employed. Climate science theory is laughably weak as compared to primate group defense theory.

  25. 225
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @221

    “Seems to me despite all your argumentativeness you really deep down agree with me…”

    I think we are on the same team over the climate issue and the need for scientists to ensure the seriousness is ‘clearly’ communicated. But beyond this I disagree about quite a few things, and details are important.

    I like people to agree with me, yet I would be horrified if someone agreed with absolutely everything I said. I had a girlfriend like that once, and it drove me nuts. If odd, you get what you think you want and oops…

    “Perhaps if you had not kept arguing with me every five minutes and making false claims about what I had said and what it meant and then coming back again and again saying the same thing over and over and making broad adhom disparaging remarks about me personally…”

    I repeat things Im sure about, especially when you are not getting it. I havent being making ad hominem remarks, like accusing you of being an idiot or liar. I also poke holes in ideas and claims to stress test them, before I accept them. Don’t take it personally.

    The broad truth does not excuse the mistakes in the details, and they can sometimes be rather important. Don’t develop some god complex about yourself:)

  26. 226
    JRClark says:

    About CO2 ppmv variations, increases, growth rates past present and future as the climate system continues to warm

    Is this paper valid in it’s conclusions?

    Reduced air–sea CO2 exchange in the Atlantic Ocean due to biological surfactants
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0136-2

    Or is it ‘premature’ like this Paper was according to Rasmus
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-claim-of-reduced-uncertainty-for-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-is-premature/

    “Large areas of reduced CO2 uptake resulted, notably around 20° N, and the magnitude of the Atlantic Ocean CO2 sink for 2014 was decreased by 9%. “

    Anyone have access to nature; the detailed data evidence and analysis in this paper to put some light on the validity of the quote.

    If this is correct then the global implications based on total ocean uptake must logically be very significant and render the MLO readings less a reliable guide until adjustments are made across models etc. ECS guesses, estimates and modelling to date would also need to go out the window and revised accordingly, wouldn’t they?

    I am completely in the dark and very uncertain, which is why I am asking. Is there another website or twitter account I would get a better answer than here? If so please suggest one.

  27. 227
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @224, not true for me. I used to be a climate sceptic for a couple of years (please excuse this insanity). It was good rebuttals to denialist arguments on websites like this that changed my mind, and I doubt I’m alone.

    Nothing will change hard core denialists minds, because of politics, the allure of “beliefs” and tribalism, but not everyone is in that camp. Many people are just in the middle of the bell curve and just not sure either way.

    Acceptance of climate science has improved in America over the last decade so opinions do change, and there has to be a reason.

    If nobody refutes the denialists, politicians will certainly start to believe them, because that is easiest for them.

  28. 228
    JRClark says:

    A follow up on a few comments made this month about CO2 levels
    See this One year graph of daily and weekly means at Mauna Loa
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png
    Preliminary weekly (red line), monthly (blue line) and daily (black points) averages at Mauna Loa for the last year.
    Cast your eye over the spread of readings from March thru May 2018

    Is that the usual pattern seen in previous years or is it unusual?

    For comparison here is the chart in early May 2013
    https://feww.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dwaco2mlo.jpg

    Here is one for up to the Week of May 27, 2012: 396.46 ppm
    https://feww.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/co2_weekly_mlo.png

    What could this mean, or could be the cause of this unusual spread this year? There are other years, feel free to cherrypick your own.

    All meaningful reasonable science based responses are welcome.

  29. 229
    JRClark says:

    #50 Alf says:
    10 May 2018 at 4:25 AM
    2018 May 09 – The state of the northpole after 7 weeks of the melting season….

    I didn’t notice any comments made about that posted link.

    The current image is for the 29th May 2018 (this url is automatically updated daily)
    https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

    What I immediately notice, relative to previous pre-summer years going back over a decade, is the Bering straight, the western Hudson, Svalbard region, the ESS land side, the Canadian ‘garlic press’, the east coast of Greenland and some other minor shifts to the predominant norms at this time.

    While nsidc has it as the second lowest SIE ever after 2016 at this time. What do you see?

    (sorry for so many posts at once finally had enough spare time to comment on my backlog – done – and good luck)

  30. 230
    nigelj says:

    JR Clark @228 asks what causes differences in CO2 wobbles? Forest fires vary year to year, el ninos.

  31. 231
    MA Rodger says:

    JRClark @226.
    You evidently have your own conclusion on the relevance of Pereira et al (2018) ‘Reduced air–sea CO2 exchange in the Atlantic Ocean due to biological surfactants’ or you wouldn’t have raised it here. However it is not clear to me that you interpret the paper properly.
    You quote a rather ambiguous sentence from the paper’s abstract. The quote from the paper itself may be a little better understood.

    “The resulting range in kw suppression for individual grid-squares (1° × 1°) was 2–24% and the corresponding net effect on the 2014 Atlantic Ocean CO2 sink was to reduce it by 9% (131 Tg C), from 1,433 Tg C (derived using wind parameterization-based estimates alone) to 1,302 Tg C, with monthly values of % suppression ranging from 2.6 to 11.2%, peaking in November.”
    (NOTE – kw is the CO2 ‘gas transfer velocity’.)

    You describe this result as “very significant” and go on tho describe what appear to be root-&-branch adjustments to climatology – “render the MLO readings less a reliable guide until adjustments are made across models etc. ECS guesses, estimates and modelling to date would also need to go out the window and revised accordingly.”
    Perhaps you feel the paper is describing yet another mechanism that could bring us ‘skyrocketry’ and with the 9% 2014 decrease perhaps you are seeing it as a mechanism already in operation. Yet all the paper is saying is that they calculate the impact of biological surfactants on CO2 uptake in the Atlantic in 2014 to be a net decrease of 9% relative to calculations for a surfactant-free 2014 Atlantic. The paper develops our understanding of how the oceans are gobbling up a third of our CO2 emissions.
    Of course, in a warming world there is an expectation that surfactant levels will increase but so too will the winds which work the other way by increasing CO2 absorption.

  32. 232
    Carrie says:

    230 nigelj says:
    31 May 2018 at 4:01 AM
    JR Clark @228 asks what causes differences in CO2 wobbles? Forest fires vary year to year, el ninos.
    Carrie: I feel for your limitations and the overinflated ‘dunning-krugar’ opinion you keep writing about here about your own strengths. Good luck.

    …………………….

    231 MA Rodger says a whole lot about his own conspiratorial idealization based solely on his fictions, his mis-takes, and his internalized beliefs and biases – certainly (with high confidence) looks that way given what JR actually wrote and asked at 226. Some call them straw men. I think it must be “doesn’t have a clue so he makes it all up as he goes then presumes he must be right anyway?” What a waste of time. Cannot understand basic questions.

    ……………………..

    225 nigelj, I don’t agree with JR who compared you to a disrespectful alley cat. You’re comments and tenor align more closely with that of a rattle snake type. Sorry but I do feel sorry for you.

  33. 233
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @233

    “Carrie: I feel for your limitations and the overinflated ‘dunning-krugar’ opinion you keep writing about here about your own strengths. Good luck.”

    I was polite if brief in my response on the yearly CO2 comparison. You provide no explanation of why these would not be factors. Looks obvious to me, you have two years of data on CO2 trends that show a slightly different distribution through the year. This could be easily explained by differences in year to year forest fires, or el nino or some combination or some other change in ocean cycles.

    Instead of asking for more information, you make silly, insulting remarks. You play points scoring games like Victor. I’m afraid you just take everything way too personally, and respond with insults. I have bent over backwards to be polite to you and positive about at least some points you have made.

    You also edited my response to make it look briefer than it was,so so engaged in lies by omission.

    I have to agree with all the others now, like MAR for example. Carrie and JR who appear to have a remarkably similar style, are not adding anything coherent, and are spamming the website with copy and paste information, and endless snarky ad hominem attacks. Of course we can all be guilty of this, but you two are way over the top.

    Whats worse your rhetoric and JR’s actually casts doubt on climate science like the denialists do because you raise doubts and criticise scientists so relentlessly. You may not be aware of this, but thats the picture.

    I bet you respond with more insults.

  34. 234
    nigelj says:

    Carrie says that “MA Rodger says a whole lot about his own conspiratorial idealization based solely on his fictions, his mis-takes, and his internalized beliefs and biases – certainly (with high confidence) looks that way given what JR actually wrote and asked at 226. Some call them straw men. I think it must be “doesn’t have a clue so he makes it all up as he goes then presumes he must be right anyway?” What a waste of time. Cannot understand basic questions.”

    This sort of utter nonsense is a totally inaccurate unfair response, and is personalised, nonsense that offers nothing on the issues at hand, and is just about crude points scoring. I dont normally defend others, and MAR needs no help on that score, but the sort of stuff you write is a depressing downer, and I don’t frigging need that.

    I don’t always agree with MAR, but he knows his stuff on the whole, (and so do I by the way) and doesn’t fit your depiction. Your trouble is you cannot take criticism, and mistakingly think anyone that doesn’t agree with everything you post, is totally against you personally.

    However Carrie and JR are not so much skyrocketry, as skydoomery.

    Then you accuse me of being a rattlesnake for god knows what reason. A total ad hominem, but I’m not going to respond and play that game. Right now I’m just disgusted in you.

  35. 235
    JR says:

    234 Alf and #50 Alf 10 May 2018

    Says a lot about where the focus is. If you were a denier you would have been flooded with hyperbolic responses all month.

  36. 236
    MA Rodger says:

    Killian @194,
    Further to my comment @200 about your allegedly “peanut stomping” CO2 predictions, we can draw a conclusion over the best-defined of those predictions:-

    “Based on last year, we should see at least 412 as an average for May.”

    NOAA have reported to 31st May so their “average for May” can be seen to be something near to 411.1ppm, which is a far-from-skyrocketing +1.5ppm rise on 2017. And with a couple of days still to report, Scripps “average for May” should be very similar. Neither of these monthly averages fit your bold <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/02/unforced-variations-feb-2018/#comment-690554&quot;February prediction thus presenting a very poor start for your jolly “peanut stomping”.
    And for the rest of it, a definite “peak” for 2018 has yet to show itself (Scripps recorded the highest weekly value for week ending 29/5/18) so it remains premature to draw conclusions about the “peak”.

  37. 237
    MA Rodger says:

    Alf @234,
    Your ‘melt at the North Pole’ comment @50 (repeated @234 with a permanent link to the May 9th UB Arctic Sea Ice concentration graphic) was similarly set out in a comment (just as @50 linked to the ‘today’ graphic) at Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Forum. It did get a couple of responses from the Arctic watchers (1) & (2). The upshot; if it was an actual low ice concentration, it wasn’t of great concern. Note the link to the inter-year comparison page for UB ice consentrations set up at Neven’s Arctic Graphs. Unfortunately, the 2018 image is that ‘current’ image, but it does show the 75% concentrations close to the pole for early May have few precedents (be they real or artifacts of the data-gathering).

  38. 238
    Al Bundy says:

    NigelJ,

    Congrats on your conversion from the Dark Side. Refutation isn’t the only way to inform folks who have open minds. Informing without refuting takes finesse (something I lack, but I’m trying to improve)

    My guess is that you’re probably not giving yourself enough credit. Would you mind telling of the specific incidents or general happenings that helped you see the light?