RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: June 2018

Filed under: — group @ 2 June 2018

This month’s open thread. We know people like to go off on tangents, but last month’s thread went too far. There aren’t many places to discuss climate science topics intelligently, so please stay focused on those.

297 Responses to “Unforced variations: June 2018”

  1. 251
    nigelj says:

    Killian @240

    Thank’s for your comments, however you are nit picking over who said what.

    The point is Dr Harold Wanless made an incorrect claim sea level rise is doubling every seven years. It simply isn’t, and this can be instantly seen if you google a graph of the jason topex sea level rise data.

    Please also note what Keven McKinney quoted: “Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. ” Which is a small acceleration although of course still serious enough over time.

    Please note that the accleration of ice melting in the antarctic is a “different issue”, and has indeed shown a tripling in the last five years. It is limited to the western antarctic area. If this trend continues, the maths shows it would add 200mm to sea level rise by 2100 so not much. There are physical reasons to believe the “rate of the rate” will accelerate and it could spread to eastern antarctica, but not near five metres by 2100 according to several science articles I have read.

    Yes exponential accleration is a frightening thing, and can never be ruled out entirely, however I think its absurd to extrapolate trends OR think they will increase in rate just because they “might”. We have to look at whether they will based on the underlying physical processes. Of course sea level rise is certainly not going to be slowing down.

    Wanless claimed 5 metres of sea level rise is possible by 2100. So has J Hansen. This is well beyond any predictions by the IPCC. It requires quite a lot of acceleration at near exponential at least. I think we need to pay attention to Hansen a lot, but he is at the outer limits here in most scientists opinions.

    This is my take on the situation fwiw. This is what we know because its allready happened. The last time sea levels rose 5 metres per century happened was during meltwater pulse 1a (look it up on wikipedia). At that time warming was around 5 degrees, but there was vastly more ice on the planet, including vast ice sheets over the Americas and Europe.

    Some of meltwater pulse a was attributed to the antarctic and some to other continents, so I could see that our current warming could lead to two metres sea level rise by 2100, or “possibly” more. I think thats a sensible “analysis” and of course 2 metres is pretty disastrous.

  2. 252
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @245, you have Killian worked out.

    I have enormous respect for J Hansen. He deserves a frigging medal for his work and persistence.

    However I also think for myself and Im entitled to my view. From what I have read I personally think his 5 metres prediction for sea level rise by 2100 would be unlikely, and my call is 2 metres by 2100.

    Look up meltwater pulse 1a on wikipedia. This event caused 5 metres of sea level rise per century for about 5 degrees of warming, but there were vast ice sheets then, so I think nearer 2 metres in our world. Theres a lot of other stuff to it of course, read the article.

  3. 253
    MA Rodger says:

    Keniv McKinney @247,
    The basis for the “currently doubling every seven years” which is “believed” by Harold Wanless is Hansen & Sato 2012. The GRACE data available at that time showed Greenland ice-loss accelerating strongly and Antarctic ice-loss likewise but with bigger wobbles evident. In their Fig 8, Hansen & Sato put three accelerations through the GRACE data equal to 5-, 7- & 10-year doublings. (This graphic shows the same data & the 5- & 10- yr doublings).
    As such acceleration (if it were maintained) would soon dominate global SLR from all other sources, this acceleration could be taken as a measure of SLR through the 21st century.
    Of course SLR isn’t today doubling every 7 years and the ice-loss from polar ice caps does not continue to show those alarming levels of accelerate. That makes comment reliant on such acceleration nonsensical. Unfortunately, the skyrocketeers who infect this RealClimate UV thread with their CO2 blather now appear to add SLR to their skyrocketing projections using this particular non-evidence.

    Of course there remain some accelerations of concern. The frequency of comments from Carrie (who does a very good impersonation of a Thomas sock-puppet) in this month’s UV thread has reached 28%, an impressive acceleration of 6½% per 50 comments (2%, 8%, 18%, 22%, 28%). And sadly he is not the only skyrocketeer recently shovelling copious nonsense into this thread.

  4. 254
    Carrie says:

    This is no big deal in itself, merely anecdotal in the moment – in relation to prior comments about unusual readings at MLO this year. Time may clear this up eventually.

    Week beginning on June 10, 2018: 411.16 ppm +1.67
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 409.49 ppm

    Week beginning on June 17, 2018: 410.36 ppm +2.04
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.32 ppm

    Week beginning on June 24 (4 days): 410.39 ppm +2.68
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 407.71 ppm

    That is an unusually large swing in Growth Rates in a couple of weeks. Things like this have been happening now and then throughout this year. I think it is exceptional but have not reviewed the past numbers in detail only an anecdotal view of recent history patterns.

  5. 255
    Carrie says:

    2) Economics – that was only a joke. There’s no need to get upset or anything. Though there is some truth in jokes too.

  6. 256
    Carrie says:

    245 AB: I think we are all naively in our own peculiar ways. I prefer not to sweat the small stuff.

    As to the wealthy I am all too happy to volunteer to extract the wealth from their “cold dead hands”. :-)

    Meaning, I am 100% behind Prof. Kevin Anderson who recently said in one of his lectures:

    “I’m not entirely against space travel. As long as the tickets are one way. Because we know who’ll be on them. It’ll be all the high emitters who will be flying out there. The wealthy high emitters. So I’ll buy their ticket for them!”

  7. 257
    Carrie says:

    244 Dan says:
    re: 232. “Do you hate Math and the truth that much? Appears so.”
    Once again, there you go with absurd assumptions …

    It was merely a flippant joke. Once again there you go focusing on the wrong things. How easily distracted art thou.

  8. 258
    MartinJB says:

    Killian, you are truly the Ted Cruz of these discussion boards. So, Teddy it is. Don’t feel bad. It’s the nw Peanut.

    1) I’m not gonna try to “figure out” what’s going on in your twisty litttle mind. Want to make a point? Try just spitting it out.

    2) Words can have more than one meaning. Your example of optics is a great example. Thanks for demonstrating the point that more than one person has been trying to drill into you.

    3) I know that because of your AMAZING analytical prowess (you can’t see just how far back my eyes rolled when I typed that. It was pretty painful.) you don’t need to actually know anything about different economic models to dismiss them as nonsense. If you say so, Teddy. I think you might be fooling yourself.

    4) To be clear, your position is that economics, the academic discipline, is incurably and irrevocably delusional? That’s kinda what it sounds like. But does that include Herman Daly? I think you need a more nuanced view of economics in its many variations.

    5) Actually, economies and ecosystems have a lot of common features. Figure it out. You’ll get there someday.

  9. 259
    MartinJB says:

    Carrie, your view of economics is even more of a simplistic caricature than Killian’s!

    No null hypothesis in economics? You sure about that? Do you really think that no economic study has ever used a null hypothesis?

    And accounting? Really? Have you ever actually done any accounting?

  10. 260

    #233 & #247–

    P.S. I went ahead and emailed Dr. Wanless about the 7-year doubling and SLR rates, and will share his response, if any. I’m really curious about the numbers he put forward. And yes, concerned.

  11. 261

    #248, Carrie–

    That’s a perfect example of why I normally don’t read your comments. Unsubstantiated insults, strewn freely, and not particularly coherent at that–other than that you don’t like, trust, or believe in Economists.

    Nothing in there to explain the grounds for your distrust, nor to persuade me to consider your point of view. Pure waste of time.

    And don’t bother replying, as it’s going to be a while before I waste my time with another one of your rants, so I’m highly unlikely to see the response.

  12. 262

    Another milestone for renewable energy in the US:

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/28/us-renewables-over-20-as-coal-falls-to-27-eia/

    That’s not capacity, either, folks; that’s actual generation. Solar is now over 2% and growing very rapidly; wind and hydro both were over 8%. So wind plus solar are now over the 10% mark in the US.

  13. 263
    Carrie says:

    the highest reading since June 12th
    June 28: 411.17 ppm

    It’s supposed to be going down not back up. But yes, one-off anecdotal day readings by themselves are meaningless.

  14. 264
    Hank Roberts says:

    I note that the Crackpot Index for physics has been adapted for other disciplines including mathematics and news story content.

    More relevant to content at RC, I recommend reference to the anti-crackpot scoring tool

    That is people who go to enormous trouble to try to debunk other people’s theories but instead of using solid arguments they produce a useless diatribe laced with rhetoric, sarcasm and irrelevant ridicule.

    I’d add off-topic diatribes and random Capitalization as further indicators thereof.

    There aren’t many places to discuss climate science topics intelligently, so please stay focused on those.

  15. 265
    Ric Merritt says:

    Sea level rise rate doubling every 7 years as a rule of thumb or prediction for the coming decades smells fishy to me.

    I’d want to see Tamino-style analysis (of a long enough period, of course) to be convinced.

  16. 266
    Mal Adapted says:

    MartinJB:

    As an aside, if you had to compare economics to a scientific discipline, I would suggest ecology (my area of education and previous experience). Both are of a similar order of complexity. Frankly, some aspects of economics should probably incorporate some ecology… Personally, I have found thinking about ecological models and flows to be pretty instructive when think about economic systems.

    Excellent! Thank you for pointing out the connections between Economics and Ecology. My own academic training extended to two years in a PhD program in Ecology and Evolution, following an MS degree in Environmental Science which was mostly Ecology and Economics*. I strongly recommend Nature’s Economy, by Donald Worster, a distinguished environmental historian. First published in 1977 with a revision in 1994, the book traces (with crystal clarity IMHO) the parallel development of the academic disciplines of Economics and Ecology since the 18th century, in their cultural contexts. It’s apparent that both disciplines have incorporated aspects of each other throughout their shared history. Historians might be the original deconstructionists, and I also recommend 1995’s Reinventing Nature?: Responses To Postmodern Deconstruction, edited by Michael Soulé, with contributions from Worster and other interdisciplinary thinkers.

    * WWND? He’d seek credit for being lazy and risk averse. I won’t. Nor will I claim more than ‘semi-doctoral’ competence in either subject. I was coauthor (I did the modeling) of exactly one refereed behavioral ecology paper before I decided I didn’t want to work that hard for a living, and got distracted by the computers the models ran on. As always, use your scientific meta-literacy to evaluate my UM (‘unredeemably mediocre‘) opinions.

  17. 267
    nigelj says:

    Economics is supposed to be about the best use of scare resources. Economics does not seem to understand just how scarce some of those resources will become. Economics needs to do a MUCH better job communicating resource constraints to the general public, and also the impossibility of exponential growth, and modelling the issues of resource limits, and so on.

    However I think economics has its strengths and weaknesses.

  18. 268
    John Pollack says:

    #264 Hank, thanks for the links to the various crackpot indicies. I like the mathematical one the best, because it gets deeper into the source of the problem. Science and mathematics are conversations that advance by the exchange of ideas and actual evidence (science) or proof (mathematics) of a particular idea. A crackpot cannot advance the conversation because he (usually a “he”) does not listen to what the others who have contributed to the subject have said, does not use their thought-out terminology, and doesn’t respond to evidence.
    The crackpot tends to see the issue as an in-group rejecting their brilliant idea. Acting out this frame of mind will add points to their crackpot score, but they only see it in terms of rejection. I think it is more insightful (and possibly helpful) to say that the crackpot is not contributing usefully to the understanding of whatever issue it is.

  19. 269
    Carrie says:

    241 MA Rodger on temps. Very nice numbers. I have an idea. Let’s all forget about the skyplummety and the skyrockety and drop it for now. Let’s come back to the issues like Temp anomaly increases, CO2 growth increases, fossil fuel use increases, energy demand growth increases, ocean acidity increases, Antarctic and ASI loss across the decadal scales including 2010-2020 in the February 2021 Unforced Variations thread and talk about it then.

    It’s an idea that might work.

    264 Hank Roberts, now now, no need to talk about Dan in such unflattering terms.

    #xxx and economics. Really, some mothers do have ’em. Loosen up, it’s Off-Topic. Besides look at and then think about what you’re ‘trying’ to defend here. One of the systemic causes of consumerism, mindless economic growth, and the entrenched government policies that produces global warming and climate change. Whether I used satirical humor or hard facts it would make no difference to you people. You have no morals, no intelligence, no awareness at all – or are you simply pretending to defend the psychopathology of the mega-wealthy and powerful so you can win an argument on the internet? Get a life seems to be the right instruction here.

    ‘You’ talk endlessly about the wrong things, are very easily distracted from the main game, and you defend the wrong things. Fools. You’re about to be drowned in the Titanic and you’re crowing about how beautiful the Iceberg looks in the sunrise. How ironic is that? Is what? That you do not understand the simplest of things staring you right in the face 24/7 then bitch and moan at anyone and everyone. And the Crackpot index? That’s just dumb Hank Roberts, just dumb. Not you, not anyone here (bar a couple) ever speak about real issues here. When the few that do they get ridiculed by the ignorant and the foolish. Wake up and get real.

  20. 270
    Carrie says:

    264 Hank Roberts – the whole thing but in particular this : “I’d add off-topic diatribes and random Capitalization as further indicators thereof.”

    Honestly, don’t you have anything better to do?

    I ask because Al Bundy says here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/comment-page-2/#comment-706391

    ———
    AND FOLKS, STOP POSTING FORCED RESPONSES STUFF ANYWHERE ELSE!!!!! If some twit says something off topic, don’t go nuclear here! Instead, RESPOND ON FORCED RESPONSES. Duh, eh?
    —-

    He has mentioned this off-topic business several times in recent weeks. So how unintelligent is the average poster here when CAPS are required to make a point and it still won’t make any difference? Get a life Hank – talk about something real for once and not kid stuff for wankers. Please!

    …to discuss climate science topics intelligently… oh please wake up!

  21. 271
    Carrie says:

    Despite barely anyone appearing to be interested in this scientific topic, please excuse me while report on the latest “Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa” graph https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png which is even more clearly showing the unusual nature of CO2 readings this year, imo.

    for example (in rough daily # estimates for context and perspective only):
    wk 2 to wk 3 april jumps from 409.5 to 411 – not too extreme
    wk 4 april to wk 1 may falls from 412.5 to 409 – 3.5 ppm
    wk 3 may in a few days falls from 412.5 to 410 – 2.5 ppm
    wk 2 june in a few days falls from 411.8 to 409.3 – 2.5 ppm

    June 01: 411.68 ppm falls to June 19: 409.32 ppm (-2.56) then back up to June 28: 411.17 ppm again (+1.85)

    Maybe there is some localized impact from the volcano erupting but these odd swings began occurring before that eruption. And iirc ESRL said the volcano was having no impact on their readings. Will be interesting to see if these readings stabilize back to the normal pattern in the coming months or if this continues through the northern summer season. I think it’s most unusual and am wondering why. Will have to wait and see.

  22. 272
    Nemesis says:

    Hehe, the economy and the ecosystem resp. Nature got a lot in common for sure:

    Eating and being eaten.

    I love the simplicity of Nature, no debate, no politics, no blah blah, just eating and being eaten, the simple laws of Nature, yum yum 8P

  23. 273
    Killian says:

    #251 nigelj said Killian @240

    Thank’s for your comments, however you are nit picking over who said what.

    The point is Dr Harold Wanless made an incorrect claim sea level rise is doubling every seven years. It simply isn’t

    This might be the single stupidest thing you’ve ever posted on these boards. Please ponder:

    If Antarctica is tripling, and it is a majority of melt, are we supposed to assume the rest of the world is not, or will not be soon? If only part of Antarctica is tripling, the same question holds.

    Given ten years ago the vast majority of climate-related science was saying that not only had Antarctica not started net melt, it wouldn’t for decades, likely not till the end of this century…

    Your analytical skills-absent mind might consider that *I* said at the time that was about as likely as Santa literally putting a present in my hands on Christmas morning. Why? One scientist, prior to the official publication of IPCC 2007 (IV?) was really unhappy it included **virtually nothing** on cryosphere dynamics, yet said with great confidence, hey, look, 28 cm this century. And people bought more land in Florida.

    The logic, however, is inescapable: There was no chance in hell it would be limited to 28 cm or anything near it. After reading a bit, doing a little analysis of my own, I decided the following was far more accurate: At least 1M by 2100, probably 2, and possibly 3. Three is quickly moving to the LOW END of predictions, but, hey, you who has never predicted or provided sound scenarios for *anything* WRT climate should be listened to and I should be soundly ignored.

    Neither you nor I were at that presentation so what was actually said is not known by either of us. But we do know there are multiple analyses of multiple areas of the cryosphere melting at doubling and tripling times of under a decade. To be sanguine about this is, frankly, stupid. Time and again the recent extreme soon becomes the new normal bc things are moving so fast. But, hey! Nigel knows!!!!! Except, Sherlock, the IPCC data is now a minimum of 6 years out of date.

    You don’t know enough about climate science to even realize that IPCC data is **already** years old at publication, but cannot resist spouting off about every damned issue posted on these boards. (If someone posted on hangnails and gall bladders, you’d have the first and last post on the subject. S. H. U. T. U. P. for a change.)

    You cannot possibly know if Antarctica has a net increase in melt rate tripling every 7 years. Cannot. Possibly. Know. Why? Because it takes time to gather data, time to process, time to analyze and time to publish. Whether it is tripling today will not be known for a minimum of one year, and likely at least two. But you point to 6 year old data and proclaim it absolutely is not.

    You are a damned fool.

    There is a lot more I want to say, but disgust is welling up pretty strongly and my son wants to watch a movie.

  24. 274

    C 269: You have no morals, no intelligence, no awareness at all

    BPL: What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you post something like this?

  25. 275

    My #260, and various comments about the 7-year doubling time–

    Dr. Wanless of UM (Coral Gables) very kindly replied to my email of inquiry, and wishes to clarify a couple of points.

    First, his comments in the Guardian were indeed misreported a bit by the author, Elizabeth Rush. In fact, the Guardian piece is an excerpt from her book on SLR, “Rising: Dispatches from the New American Shore.” There’s an interview with Ms. Rush about the book here (which, by the way, makes me want to read it, errors on Dr. Wanless’s technical detail or no):

    https://chireviewofbooks.com/2018/06/26/rising-elizabeth-rush-interview-climate-change/

    As already guessed by MAR, the source of the 7-year doubling idea was indeed the Hansen & Sato (2012) Antarctic/Greenlandic melt rate graphs, which Dr. Wanless showed to Ms. Rush by way of corroborating the suggestion that 10-year SLR doubling rates were not out of the question. Apparently, she didn’t clearly preserve the distinction between SLR and ice melt in this context, resulting in a misquote.

    Dr. Wanless further notes that: “Of course it has slowed down during the 2013-2016 period.”

    As to the 4.6 mm SLR number, that is an editorial issue in the other piece I linked to, from the “Invading Sea” series; it was meant to refer, not to *global* SLR, but to South Florida SLR, which makes sense in the context of the exacerbating factors for that region.

    I think it’s worth quoting Dr. Wanless in full on that issue, as it’s a research focus for him:

    SOUTH FLORIDA’S LOCAL RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE

    Historical global sea level rises were very, very slow until about 1930, about 0.6 mm per year. Miami has had about a foot (30 cm) of rise since. Between 1930 and 1990 rate of sea level rise for Miami and Key West was just over 2.35 mm per year (Global rate for that period is about 1.2), and then, because of ice melt, that increased to about 3.4 and is accelerating. After 2006 the rate in Miami and the southeast Atlantic increased dramatically (to about 9 mm per year in the Miami area) through 2015 (see Wdowinski et al., 2016; and Valle-Levinson et al., 2017). So:

    Period Rate Amount of sea level rise

    1930-1990 (60 years) at 2.35 mm/year = 14.1 cm (5.55 inches)

    1990-2005 (15 years) at 3.4 mm-year = 5.1 cm (2.0 inches)

    2006-2015 (10 years) at 9.0 mm/year = 9.0 cm (3.54 inches)

    2016-2017 (2 years) at 4.5 mm/year = 0.9 cm (0.35 inches)

    Total 1930-2017 = 29.1 cm (11.44 inches)

    So, although we used to think of Miami as having a sea level rise of about the global average, there has been some extra rise, certainly because of (temporary?) slowing of the Florida Current/Gulf Stream flow and probably some El Niño influences. A more permanent Gulf Stream slowdown is forecast for later in the century as Greenland melt releases more fresh water. And changing mass balance as polar ice sheets melt will be another significant contribution.

    Dr. Wanless closes with some kind words for the site:

    Real Climate is a great source for inspiration and information – and for picking up on errors. Thanks to all of you for your efforts.

    More generally on SLR acceleration, it would seem to me from all of this that the current ‘last word’ on the issue is Nerem et al., with the extrapolated estimate of increased SLR at century’s end being ~ 2 feet (ie., 65 cm). Of course, all the caveats about extrapolation still apply…

  26. 276
    Hank Roberts says:

    Denial, followed by more of the behavior being denied.
    That’s got to sting a bit.
    And the “let’s you and him fight, it ain’t me” attitude is peculiar at best.

    There aren’t many places to discuss climate science topics intelligently, so please stay focused on those.

  27. 277
    Al Bundy says:

    nigelj: The last time sea levels rose 5 metres per century happened was during meltwater pulse 1a

    AB: Yep, things are different today. The Big Issue today is that W Antarctica (and to a certain extent Greenland, I think) has receding grounding line problems. Melting in warm air (meltwater pulse 1a) is slow. Melting in warm water (Anthropocene) is fast. You and I have neither the data nor the expertise to do much more than ponder and speculate. Ultimately we’ve got to hitch our wagons to someone else’s horse. I have to go with Dr Hansen as the baseline from which I wander.

    And, of course, the future has quite a big spread depending on human actions (Imagine what Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Canada(!?!) and everyone with an inefficient fossil fueled house or SUV or holding stock that’s valued based on the carbon bubble will do when we tell them to go pound sand)

    and nature’s reactions. Clathrates, boreal beetles, the Amazon, permafrost, and fire, O my! What happens if Antarctica escapes from “solitary confinement”?

  28. 278
    nigelj says:

    Killian @273

    “If Antarctica is tripling, and it is a majority of melt, are we supposed to assume the rest of the world is not, or will not be soon? If only part of Antarctica is tripling, the same question holds.”

    There’s no reason to think it would spread globally in the way you say. The western tip of antarctica has shown a tripling over the last 5 years, and this process would add about 200mm to sea levels by 2100. This is because of warm oceans undercutting the floating ice shelf. Eastern antarctica is only warming quite slowly so this process would be slow to spread there. The same ice shelf conditions don’t exist in Greenland and other glaciers to the same extent.

    However there are reasons as I pointed out to believe sea level rise will certainly be well above IPCC predictions. They think about 600 mm by 2100, I think 2000mm is very possible. You cant rule out more but I think it would be low possibility.

    2 metres is consistent with paleo climate information as I pointed out. Why do you ignore past history?

    “Three is quickly moving to the LOW END of predictions,”

    Totally disagree. Very few climate scientists predict this to my knowledge. All the articles I have read beleive The next IPCC report will lift its worst case scenario to about 1m, maybe a little more. This is very serious in itself anyway.

    “but, hey, you who has never predicted or provided sound scenarios for *anything* WRT climate should be listened to”

    How would you possibly know what I have predicted? You have only read a few comments on this board and dont know me. I have long predicted sea level rise will be significantly above IPCC estimates.

    Im not suggesting take my comments as gospel truth. I did not realise I was that powerful!

    Like I said, read about past sea level rise, this seems informative to me.

    I’m very worried about sea level rise, because I have been involved in infrastructure design, and there are huge risks we are unleashing a serious problem, however 5 metres or more looks low possibility, and 2 metres seems to be the number that keeps standing out for me. In terms of global impacts this would be very serious, and wont stop at the end of this century.

  29. 279
    Carrie says:

    June 29: 411.57 ppm still increasing when it is supposed to be decreasing.

    I never brought up economics as an off-topic topic. I made a simple anecdotal unimportant ref to someone else’s Off-Topic comment about the 2016 elections only to be called a lying coward and more. Take some self-responsibility people. Now we have crackpot indices steam of consciousness by internet crackpots who cannot talk about anything climate sciency. Stop distracting yourselves with your own bs.

  30. 280
    nigelj says:

    Carrie tells us how we are all allegedly idiots, and how me miss the “big picture” while worrying about tiny short term fluctuations in CO2 levels. Shakes head in despair.

  31. 281
    Killian says:

    Hold on, because I’m about to make several people, well, a few anyway, look really stupid.

    Re SLR and melt rates that can’t possibly be, just are not happening, dammit, Jim, it’s impossible! Right? Weeeeelll, no.

    If you look to the quotes from Professor Wanless (See McKinney at #247), he states a 7-year doubling and an **acceleration** of 0.084 ± 0.025. Not a rise, an acceleration of rise. The wise risk analyzer having watched high end expectations be met and exceeded repeatedly over the last decade would be most interested in the high end of the range. That would be 0.084 + 0.025 = 0.109mm/yr. Now, Peanuts. et al., do your math. The numbers are huge.

    I’ll wait.

    Or not.

    * A monotonic increase in rate of melt of 0.109mm/yr. = @ 4.20 meters.

    * A 7-yr. simple doubling = 154 meters.

    * A 10%/yr. increase in melt rate = 269 meters.

    * A 5%/yr. increase in melt rate = 22 meters.

    The absolute rosiest picture available under recent findings is 4 meters by 2100, but what we get from the Peanut Gallery is, Uh-uh! Can’t happen! I just don’t think so! No justification!!

    What we do not get from the Peanut Gallery is, That’s a very serious problem if so. We really need to pin this down. Has anyone got any research that supports this even a little? Because the implications are truly massive.

    No, we don’t get that. We get personal attacks and utter goddamned stupidity. We get, I don’t like you, so who cares about the **issue**, I must get my hooks into your skin. I will oppose anything you post because…. my ego and…. I don’t like you!

    Shut. Up.

    Now, is there any support for this assertion made by Wanless? In a paper by Dangendorf, et al., 2017 they find a tripling of SLR in 19 years. More actually, because that seems to be the average over that time. But back to that 7-year doubling. Wellllllll, if you take 20 year tripling it roughly equates to a 7-year doubling. About 23 years, near as I can tell. The evidence:

    Their paper, just out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, isn’t the first to find that the rate of rising seas is itself increasing — but it finds a bigger rate of increase than in past studies.

    The new paper concludes that before 1990, oceans were rising at about 1.1 millimetres per year, or just 0.43 inches per decade. From 1993 through 2012, though, it finds that they rose at 3.1 millimetres per year, or 1.22 inches per decade.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sea-levels-rising-triple-1990-melting-ice-caps-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-global-warming-a7750926.html

    nigel, et al. shut. the. hell. up. Leave the people alone who are here doing sincere discussion. It is the peanut gallery, alone, that causes all the conflict here. SHUT. UP.

    You owe the posters here and Wanless an apology.

  32. 282
    Killian says:

    Re #269 Carrie said what needed saying.

    Seconded.

  33. 283
    MA Rodger says:

    Carrie @254,
    Your almost-3-week sequence of increasing weekly 12-month CO2-rise within the ESRL MLO record can now be presented properly as the latest week’s-worth of data is now complete. And we can even start a week earlier than you do, the latest 4-successive-weeks thus yielding +1.23ppm, +1.68ppm, +2.03ppm, +2.70ppm.
    You consider this “exceptional” but without the slightest piece of supporting exidence. You didn’t even bother looking.
    If you had been bothered to examine the weekly ESRL MLO CO2 record for previous years, you would have seen this sequence is not in any way “exceptional”.
    I happen to maintain a graph comparing 2018 & 2011 weekly CO2-rise, 2018 & 2011 both being La Nina years (although the 2011 La Nina was significantly stronger). And what do I espy for the identical weeks in 2011? Goodness!! It is a 4-week sequence of increasing 12-month-CO2-rise through successive weeks: +0.69ppm, +1.79ppm, +1.86ppm, +2.30ppm, these in-year-coincidental with the 4-weeks sequence of 2018 above. And in 2011 the sequence continued its upward progress for another two weeks +2.86ppm, +3.36ppm.
    So is there anything to be seen in the full record to be seen that is “exceptional”? Anything of passing interest even? I think not.

  34. 284
    Carrie says:

    Week beginning on June 24, 2018: 410.57 ppm +2.70
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 407.87 ppm

    While the daily reading crashes almost 2.0 ppm on June 30 with hourly readings spread across 5.5 ppm from 411.5 down to near 406. As weird as.

    eg
    Week beginning on June 3, 2018: 410.94 ppm +1.33
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 409.71 ppm

    and
    Week beginning on April 8, 2018: 409.47 ppm +0.87
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.60 ppm

  35. 285
    Victor says:

    “The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.” (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/)

    From the same source:
    “Even with a 25-year data record, detecting acceleration is challenging. Episodes like volcanic eruptions can create variability: the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 decreased global mean sea level just before the Topex/Poseidon satellite launch, for example. In addition, global sea level can fluctuate due to climate patterns such as El Ninos and La Ninos (the opposing phases of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation), which influence ocean temperature and global precipitation patterns.

    Nerem and his team used climate models to account for the volcanic effects and other datasets to determine the El Nino/La Nina effects, ultimately uncovering the underlying rate and acceleration of sea level rise over the last quarter century.”

    In other words, the conclusion that SLR was accelerating was based on models designed to detect “the underlying rate and acceleration of sea level rise.” It would be useful to learn what the actual rate was, prior to modeling, but no one seems interested anymore in raw data, only data that’s been cooked. Shades of Levi-Strauss!

    Assuming that all that NASA cooking produced an edible (i.e., meaningful) assessment, I find myself wondering whether the (inferred) acceleration might be a delayed response to the accelerated rise in global temperatures that alarmed so many during the last 20 years of the previous century. That acceleration began around 1979. If we assume a 20 to 30 year delay due to the ocean’s thermal inertia, that would place the beginning of the sea level acceleration at, roughly, anywhere from 1999 to 2009. And since the temperature acceleration leveled off after 1998, that would suggest the possibility that SLR might begin to level off anywhere from 2018 to 2028.

    Just a thought.

  36. 286
    Hank Roberts says:

    K: “we do know there are multiple analyses of multiple areas of the cryosphere melting at doubling and tripling times of under a decade. “

    Citation please? I looked and did not find your source.

    It’s possible to have a firm impression, when you saw something somewhere at some time, and yet be unable to find a reference. Some of RC’s hosts will know where to look, perhaps. There are, unfortunately, some truly wacko people out there makng unsourced claims about the rate of change, some of which Gavin has commented on in here in the past.

    There is a model: https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/1969/2018/tc-12-1969-2018.pdf

    PICO is a comparably simple alternative to full ocean models, but goes beyond local melt parameterizations, which do not account for the circulation below ice shelves. We find a set of possible parameters for present-day ocean conditions and ice geometries which yield PICO melt rates in agreement with average melt rate observations. PICO qualitatively reproduces the general pattern of ice-shelf melt, with high melting at the grounding line and low melting or refreezing towards the calving front. Its sensitivity to changes in input ocean temperatures and model parameters is comparable to earlier estimates (Holland and Jenkins, 1999; Olbers and Hellmer, 2010). The model accurately captures the large variety of observed Antarctic melt rates using only two calibrated parameters applied to all ice shelves.

  37. 287
    Hank Roberts says:

    P.S., here’s a rate change “more than double” for sea level rise:
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/sea-level-acceleration-2/

  38. 288
    Al Bundy says:

    nigelj: There’s no reason to think it would spread globally in the way you say.

    AB: Yep, W Antarctica is a unique beast, though by using Victoresque methods (eyeballs coupled with ignorance) I think southern E Antarctica might start having issues, too.
    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/cool-science/2011/bedrock-map-reveals-ice-free-antarctica

    nigelj: Im not suggesting take my comments as gospel truth. I did not realise I was that powerful!

    AB: Come on, you know that you can make it rain just by planning a picnic! (And there’s no such thing as gospel truth. The gospels are all mutually exclusive. Nobody who has actually read the gospels can defend them. I suggest reading Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason”)

    ————

    Killian: SHUT. UP. You owe the posters here and Wanless an apology.

    AB: Those orders are contradictory.

    ————–

    Victoresque: If we assume a 20 to 30 year delay due to the ocean’s thermal inertia, that would place the beginning of the sea level acceleration at, roughly, anywhere from 1999 to 2009. And since the temperature acceleration leveled off after 1998, that would suggest the possibility that SLR might begin to level off anywhere from 2018 to 2028.

    AB: With that kind of delay individual years are irrelevant. Here’s a graph with the five-year running mean:

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

    Thus your comment is illogical since the running mean is pretty linear. Up, up, and away (goes the ice)

    And, by the way, the temperature of the water is not the biggest issue. Today’s melt rate coupled with the negative slope of the bedrock is crucial to tomorrow’s melt rate. Once meltdown has started surface water freshness and depth of the “lever” are more important than a teensy increase in subsurface water temperature. (Or, at least that’s my current understanding)

  39. 289
    MA Rodger says:

    Killian @281.
    You have stated up-thread @239 that “every reference was clear” and @240 that those who struggle to understand the blather in your grand comments on SLR “need a reading comprehension class.” So let us have a bit of a class in Killian-SLR-blather.
    @281 you tell us of SLR “Professor Wanless … states a 7-year doubling and an **acceleration** of 0.084 ± 0.025.” Fine. We do have a sort-of-clear statement from Wanless that:-

    “The rate of sea level rise is currently doubling every seven years, and if it were to continue in this manner, Ponzi scheme style, we would have 205 feet of sea level rise by 2095. And while I don’t think we are going to get that much water by the end of the century, I do think we have to take seriously the possibility that we could have something like 15 feet by then.”

    Okay, Wanless pulls his punch on a 7-year doubling of SLR (mind, this is an acceleration you tell us @220 you have calculated as being a 5-year doubling) but Wanless is still dreaming of 15ft SLR by 2100, although note the lack of supporting evidence. But let us set this nonsense aside.
    Killian, where is this quote of Wanless setting out “an **acceleration** of 0.084 ± 0.025”? If you look you will see the quote @247 refers to Nerem et al (2018) yet for some reason your grand guru Wanless isn’t credited as being an author of that paper. Come up, Mr clever-clogs! There is no hiding it. Admit you are simply spouting nonsense with your ‘skyrockety’ SLR!!

    And by-the-by, come the end of the month I will be updating this graphic (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which quantifies the level of nonsense from Thomas & you since 2016, clogging the UV blog to a point where proper scientific debate is swamped by your ridiculous blather.

  40. 290
    al bundy says:

    Here’s an article that talks about volcanoes under the Pine Island glacier. I’ve long speculated about the possibility of increased volcanism due to unloading via ice melt. Yeah, probably over centuries at least but it’s fun to ponder.

    https://www.livescience.com/62924-volcanic-heat-under-antarctica-glacier.html

    PS I also wonder about how the desire to be there “when stuff happens” warps our opinions about the rate of change. If people lived a thousand years then would my thoughts be different?

  41. 291

    V 285: no one seems interested anymore in raw data, only data that’s been cooked.

    BPL: Your accusations of dishonesty are themselves dishonest.

  42. 292
    nigelj says:

    Killian @281.

    If anyone has got this sea level rise issue wrong you have. Refer Keven McKinneys helpful post at 275. Dr Wanless has confirmed by email that the guardian article was wrong and confused sea level rise with ice melt in the antarctic, and his other sea level rise information applied only to Florida. This is exactly what I suspected in my earlier post.

    I have explained elsewhere that it’s totally unsupportable to claim rates of ice melt in the western antarctic would become global at least this century. Dr Wanless is certainly not claiming they would.

    So all your maths is based on the wrong starting information.

    However I certainly share Dr Wanless view that the IPCC views on sea level rise are too conservative.

    Regarding your comment “Dangendorf, et al., 2017 they find a tripling of SLR in 19 years.” This is ONE paper and differes from everything else I have seen on sea level rise. However who knows, it up to the IPCC to decide if its more valid than other work.

    However lets assume they are correct. They say sea level rise was 1.1mm / year before 1990 (rather than 1.3 – 2.0mm) and 3.1mm / year after 1990, so a larger acceleration than others have found. They do NOT say its exponential. They do not for example say it has been tripling “every 19 years”. If it was sea level rise would be more than 1000 M by 2100! Looking at the numbers per 20 year period, it has to be a shallow quadratic sort of curve as other estimates have found.

  43. 293
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy, I think we see a lot of things the same way, however why do you think Hansen is right, and everyone else wrong? You do appreciate he is somewhat at the outer extreme on sea level rise?

    I come down in the middle between the IPCC and Hansen. And sure you and me are both speculating and not experts in any way.

    But I think you are wrong about meltwater pulse 1a. As far as I can tell it did involve warmer oceans undercutting the ice shelves the same as today.The problem is really that theres not as much ice today globally, so its hard for me to see 5 metres by 2100 in todays world.

  44. 294
    nigelj says:

    Carrie makes ‘some’ accurate criticisms of economists, but for the life of me calling them idiots and liars does not look accurate, or like it would get them to change their ideas. It certainly doesn’t work with me. So it’s just not very smart really.

  45. 295
    Carrie says:

    Apologies for recent OCD focus on CO2 at MLO. I will let it go for now and come back to it in 2021 and see where things are at then.

  46. 296

    Victor, #285–

    I was going to correct a couple of the sillier things in that comment, but what’s the point? (One, at least–the idea of a 20-to-30 year lag between warming and thermal expansion of seawater–has already been corrected at least once, to no apparent effect.)

  47. 297
    Carrie says:

    [new thread – new attitude. Please try and be more constructive and less ad hom]