RealClimate logo


Unforced Variations: Sep 2018

Filed under: — group @ 3 September 2018

This month’s open thread on climate science topics. We are well into Arctic melt season (so keep track of Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice blog for more info). Another link is the NY Times Daily podcast on the interesting-yet-flawed NYTimes Magazine “Losing Earth” piece (which is useful if you didn’t get around to finishing the written article yet). Remember to please stick to climate science topics on this thread.

213 Responses to “Unforced Variations: Sep 2018”

  1. 1
    Mal Adapted says:

    Adam Lea, in the previous UV thread:

    383: “How many deaths due to anthropogenic climate change do you feel are tolerable?”

    This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to emotion.

    Er – no, it’s a direct challenge to Walker’s oddly punctuated claim that Tamino said everybody would be dead by 2045:

    As you all know, Mr Tamino is an overly optimistic, sort of person.

    I can assure you, that he took no delight, in telling everybody that they would all be dead by the year 2045.

    when what Tamino actually said was (my italics):

    Bottom line: at the rate we’re going, we’ll hit extremely bad, possibly intolerable, probably between 2040 and 2045.

    IOW: in a clumsy lukewarmer’s straw-man attack on a genuine expert in climate statistics who publicly corrected Walker’s self-deceiving mathturbations, Walker is implying that only the death of everybody could fulfill his criteria for extremely bad, possibly intolerable. Jeez, did I really not make that clear? I presumed RC readers, many of whom also frequent Tamino’s blog, could fill in any gaps. Meh.

  2. 2

    Further to the conversation on the ‘heatwaves’ thread about early climate science history, and the fact that CO2 is also a natural forcing over geological timescales, one researcher less often remembered in this connection is Thomas Chamberlin:

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

    “In 1899 Chamberlin wrote An Attempt to Frame a Working Hypothesis of the Cause of Glacial Periods on an Atmospheric Basis. He developed at length the idea that changes in climate could result from changes in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and wrote about climate actions:

    When the temperature is rising after a glacial episode, dissociation is promoted, and the ocean gives forth its carbon dioxide at an increased rate, and thereby assists in accelerating the amelioration of climate.

    A study of the life of the geological periods seems to indicate that there were very notable fluctuations in the total mass of living matter. To be sure there was a reciprocal relation between the life of the land and that of the sea, so that when the latter was extended upon the continental platforms and greatly augmented, the former was contracted, but notwithstanding this it seems clear that the sum of life activity fluctuated notably during the ages. It is believed that on the whole it was greatest at the periods of sea extension and mild climates, and least at the times of disruption and climatic intensification. This factor then acted antithetically to the carbonic acid freeing previously noted, and, so far as it went, tended to offset its effects.

    It now becomes necessary to assign agencies capable of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a rate sufficiently above the normal rate of supply, at certain times, to produce glaciation; and on the other hand, capable of restoring it to the atmosphere at certain other times in sufficient amounts to produce mild climates.

    So, by 1899, we were well aware that CO2 varies naturally, and it had been proposed by several scientists that this could account for the comings and goings of the Ice Ages. As Chamberlin put it (op. cit.):

    The general doctrine that the glacial periods may have been due to a change in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is not new. It was urged by Tyndall a half century ago and has been urged by others since. Recently it has been very effectively advocated by Dr. Arrhenius…

  3. 3

    Mal Adapted,

    you said in:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-8/#comment-709951

    “I seldom call for RC commenters to be boreholed, but his is an exceptionally boring brand of denial.”

    One of the biggest mistakes that Alarmists and Warmists have made, is to try and silence, or ban, their opponents.

    Do you think that my website (https://agree-to-disagree.com) is annoying?

    The reason that I created it, was because Tamino would not let me post comments on his website.

    Now, I can say anything that I like. But I had to be careful about what I said, when I could post comments on Tamino’s website.

    In case you get the wrong impression, let me make it clear, that I don’t hate Tamino. Most of the time, I found him to be quite reasonable, and at times, even considerate. He is as entitled to his opinions, as I am to mine. If I was asked what his biggest fault is, I would say that he is intolerant of views, which are different to his own views (and there are many people like that).

    Even though I see Tamino as an “opponent”, I am prepared to admit that he is intelligent, and has good statistical skills. I would enjoy the chance to debate global warming with him. But he doesn’t seem to share my enthusiasm.

    I am normally a fairly laid-back person. If there is an easy way to do something, and a hard way, then I will normally take the easy way.

    But if you try to silence me, then I become highly motivated to spread my message. And I also become highly motivated to annoy the person who is trying to silence me.

    I have put a lot of effort into my website. I have enjoyed creating it. But it was a lot of work. I never would have bothered, if Tamino had let me post comments on his website.

    You don’t have to read my posts. It doesn’t bother me, if you don’t agree with my posts. But if you try to silence me, then don’t expect me just to sit in the corner, and cry.

    I named my website “agree-to-disagree”, for a reason. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my views. I am mature enough, to accept that some people will have views, which are different than mine. I don’t necessarily hate them for it. For me, hate takes too much effort. I would rather enjoy life, and try to get along with people.

    I enjoy a vigorous, stimulating discussion. I will sometimes deliberately take the opposite view to a person, just for the fun of the debate. I always try to keep the debate “friendly”, but I have no hesitation in telling the other person when I think that they are wrong.

    I just wish that global warming could be like that.

  4. 4

    jgnfld,

    you said in:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-8/#comment-709981

    “Which part of evidence needing to be peer reviewed, published, and further haggled over in the science literature before being accepted as “scientific evidence” don’t you understand? You may be very proud of your graphical programming. But I know of no reference to it in the scientific, peer reviewed literature.”

    At one time, Einstein worked as a clerk in a patents office. He was developing his theories of relativity, but had not published his results.

    Was Einstein doing science, while he was a clerk, in the patents office?

    I don’t care if my results are not published in the scientific, peer reviewed literature.

    Anybody with a brain, can check my results, and see that they are correct.

    To check my results, you only need to be able to do a linear regression.

    What is your excuse? Why haven’t YOU checked my results?

    Imagine how famous you would be, if you could tell people, that YOU had debunked Sheldon Walker.

  5. 5

    Mal Adapted,

    you said in:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-8/#comment-710001

    “2) How many deaths due to anthropogenic climate change do you feel are tolerable?”

    I have 2 questions for you.

    1) How many sick children and babies should be allowed to die, because of funding being diverted to fight global warming? How many do you feel are tolerable?

    2) Am I any more responsible for “any deaths due to anthropogenic climate change”, than YOU are?

    Unless YOU are a car-less vegan, who lives in a cave, and doesn’t have any children or pets, then YOU need to accept that YOU are killing people.

  6. 6

    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶

    On our menu this week, we have something for everyone.

    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①
    .

    Entree
    ======

    Global warming – how long do we have left?

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left
    .

    Main
    ====

    Solving Global Warming is easy. _ (a do it yourself guide)

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/solving-global-warming-is-easy
    .

    Dessert
    =======

    If the earth was an apple pie… _ (a delicious global warming dessert)

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/if-the-earth-was-an-apple-pie
    .

    Warning – all courses contain large amounts of mocking, and may contain traces of nuts.
    All 3 courses are gluten free.

  7. 7
    Carrie says:

    401 MA Rodger claims: It is a matter of whether the years 2007, 2008, 2011 & 2012 point the way to the future of Arctic ice, or whether it is 2009, 2010, 2013-18 that points the way. This is all more question-marks than doomy-gloom.

    No that’s all more anti-Climate Science Sophistry – subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation and a manipulation of the Data.

    And this So here the on-going blather @160 then @226 then @339 then @370 continues….. is Trolling and imo should be Bore Holed as personally directed abuse.

  8. 8
    Carrie says:

    409
    Adam Lea says:
    2 Sep 2018 at 2:44 PM

    393: “Why would you bother discussing anything rational, intelligent, empathetic or ethical with xenophobes and bigots?”

    Because it is the xenophobes and bigots that the population keep voting into positions of power. Having been voted into those positions of power, all you can do is try to engage with them, because not engaging with them is guarenteed to achieve nothing. I think it may be easier to engage with the few that hold the power to make significant changes, framing the issue along their morality, thatn it is to engage with the population of an entire country to the point where they will all pull in the right direction.

    …………………

    Thanks Mike. My comment at #393 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-8/#comment-710023 was actually the reverse of what you say above.

    The elected politicians are Representative of the population itself. The xenophobes and bigots should be treated as such wherever they are. imo Unrelenting and overwhelming collective power of the ethically sane should be applied to sideline them as Anti-Social Recalcitrants in and out of Congress. Because they are not going to change. Certainly they are not going to change significantly and definitely not fast enough.

    imo they should be marginalized from the ‘debate entirely’ as a matter of Principle and not ‘engaged’. We don’t discuss the potential pros of pedophilia in public so why should we discuss the delusions of entrenched climate science deniers, xenophobia and bigotry in polite society? When the latter is far more extensive and more dangerous to everyone everywhere.

    Exceptions prove the rule and one still needs to be practical in the moment so calling out Lamar Smith for what he is in front of his Science Committee has it’s advantages too.

  9. 9
    Carrie says:

    Stefan Rahmstorf on Twitter: “A phenomenal heat record: so hot were the past five months in Germany! The old record from 2003 was beaten by a full 1.6 °C! Scale on the left shows the temperature deviation from the first 30 years of the record, the color curve the data smoothed over 11 years.” (with graph)
    https://mobile.twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1035832078930247680

    and below that
    Stefan Rahmstorf @rahmstorf Sep 3
    Here is the same analysis for all of Europe, thanks to Etienne Kapikian
    @EKMeteo (with graph)
    Anyone interested in global mean temperature, for all 12 months of each year: I post a graph of that almost every month around the 15th when the
    @NASAGISS data come out.

    Kees van der Leun @Sustainable2050
    Sep 1 Replying to @rahmstorf
    Here in NL (main met station De Bilt), we beat the same 5-month record by 1.3°C!

    Europe’s freak weather, explained
    By Stefan Rahmstorf | 8/16/18

    BERLIN — We’ve all become increasingly used to reports of extreme weather over the past few years. But this summer’s raft of dramatic weather events is significant: Not only does it show what warming can do, it points to the potential large-scale trouble that lurks in the disruption of the planet’s winds and ocean currents.

    In the past few months alone, we’ve seen extreme heat in Western Europe, Canada, Alaska, the western United States, Texas, Japan and Algeria, which set a new temperature record for Africa. Greece, Scandinavia, California and Siberia all suffered through drought and wildfires, while Japan, the U.S., Europe and India were hit with devastating floods. The human toll and harvest losses are still being tallied.

    That global warming leads to more heat extremes is not rocket science and has been confirmed by global data analysis. We’re seeing five times more monthly heat records — such as “hottest July on record in California” — now than we would in a stable climate.

    As part of this pattern, we can expect more heat drying out soils and causing more drought and wildfires. We also expect to see more extreme rain, given that a warmer atmosphere can take up and then release more moisture. A global increase in rainfall records has also been documented in weather station data.

    But there is something more interesting going on here too.

    “2018 was a whopping 4.3 degrees above the average value of the first 30 years in which data was measured.”

    It’s not just that the weather is doing what it always does, except at a higher temperature level. Rather, there is growing evidence that the dynamics of weather itself are changing.

    read more https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-change-gobal-warming-freak-weather-explained/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    I’ll wait to hear MARs pointed criticisms of Stefan’s ‘doomsday-ness’ and ‘skyrockety’ opinions of the Scientific Data – and Hank’s complaints that I posted yet another comment here. They may like to ridicule me and argue the science data found here on 3rd August:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/#comment-708780

    and here 7th August including a quote from Jennifer Francis
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-708959

    11 August
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-3/#comment-709133

    and the Arctic Carbon Cycle is speeding up
    126 Carrie says: 11 Aug 2018 at 9:35 PM
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2776/arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up/
    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/7/eaao1167

    and 161 Carrie says: 14 Aug 2018 at 7:19 AM
    26 July 2018 a little dated
    This year’s northern-hemisphere summer has seen a succession of heatwaves take hold in Europe, Asia, North America and northern Africa.
    From heatwave deaths in Japan, Algeria and Canada, to wildfires in Sweden, Greece and California, the extended spells of hot, dry weather have become frontpage news around the world.
    Carbon Brief looks back at how the media has reported the extreme weather and how the coverage has – or has not – referenced climate change.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-2018-summer-heatwaves-and-climate-change

    and 162 Carrie says: 14 Aug 2018 at 7:42 AM
    Recent Global CO2
    May 2018: 408.97 ppm +2.60 ppm
    May 2017: 406.37 ppm
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

    and Carrie 14 August http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/08/unforced-variations-aug-2018/comment-page-4/#comment-709307
    Timothy Andrews et al. (30 July 2018), “Accounting for changing temperature patterns increases historical estimates of climate sensitivity; Geophysical Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078887
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL078887

    and 193 Carrie says: 15 Aug 2018 at 10:56 PM
    Every day another dozen or so papers are being published the far majority of which keep on indicating the exact same things no matter the climate domain they are addressing.
    Marine heatwaves will become more frequent & extreme with continued global warming Thomas L. Frölicher, Erich M. Fischer & Nicolas Gruber (2018), “Marine heatwaves under global warming”, Nature, volume 560, pages360–364, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0383-9
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0383-9

    “The largest changes are projected to occur in the western tropical Pacific and Arctic oceans. Today, 87 per cent of MHWs are attributable to human-induced warming, with this ratio increasing to nearly 100 per cent under any global warming scenario exceeding 2 degrees Celsius. Our results suggest that MHWs will become very frequent and extreme under global warming, probably pushing marine organisms and ecosystems to the limits of their resilience and even beyond, which could cause irreversible changes.”

    btw, Denial is not a river in Egypt – and it afflicts more people here than Victor.

  10. 10
    MA Rodger says:

    From assessing Arctic Sea Ice feedbacks @401 in Aug UV thread, here we turn the blather to NH snow cover.

    It can be said that proper effort to include accurate Snow Cover Extent within GCMs is lacking. IPCC AR5 Chapter 12 Section 12.4.6.2 tells us ”snow processes in global climate models are strongly simplified.” We do see that Fig 12.32 shows a GCM-projected 2018 reduction in March-April NH snow cover of some 4% relative to 1986-2005, March-April snowcover being the period assessed within Brutel-Vuilmet et al (2013) who establish a linear relationship between snow cover & regional temperature. Perhaps most telling in this paper is Fig8d. This shows the change in length of the snow season by latitude under RCP2.6 is but a handful of days (significant enough) while for stronger AGW scenarios the length is far greater; tens of days. Could it be that the levels of uncertainty are of a similar size to those RCP2.6 changes?
    Brown & Robinson (2011) ‘Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover variability and change over 1922–2010 including an assessment of uncertainty’ (who adopt the March-April season to allow their analysis to extend back to 1922) show a NH snowcover decline to 2010 and also establish a relationship with zonal temperature.
    But that decline becomes less convincing when 2011-18 data is added. The 4% snowcover decline of Fig12,32 since 2005 proved to be a 10% increase in snowcover. And with the 2011-18 data, the relationship between zonal April temperature & April NH snowcover becomes significantly less (perhaps a third less).

    Thus we can show the lost March-April NH snowcover post-2005 is a reversal of that projected by the GCMs up to 2018. Although the rate of loss May-June through to 2012 was certainly as spectacular as the summer minimum Sea Ice loss, over the full year the reduction in NH snowcover is today far less than what we know of GCM projections. Indeed (as graphed out here – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your atachment’), the last two years have seen heavy NH snowfall and increased snow cover pretty-much through all seasons, even reversing the May-June losses seen in earlier years. And this despite AGW delivering globally and at higher NH latitudes the warmest years on record. Taking the annual average figures, NH snow cover dropped by 1M sq km from the 1970s to 1990s. Since then the loss of May-June snowcover was matched by increases in winter snowcover, thus providing some level of balancing-out of any net snowcover feedback, and this prior to the snowiness of the last two years. And do note that the NH snowcover operates below the Arctic and so operates 12-months-a-year rather the 2½-months-a-year of Sea Ice up beyond the Arctic circle. It is difficult to see how this overestimation of NH snow cover does not represent a reduced feedback (relative to GCM projections) of the same scale as the apparent increased feedbacks from underestimated Arctic Sea Ice.

    Yet, as with Arctic Se Ice, the future cannot be projected with too much precision. The extra snowiness we are seeing in recent years could be a short-lived piece of natural variation. And we can be sure that with further increases in AGW, that extra snowiness will be melted-out. While such extra AGW will undoubtedly win out against snowcover, will the GCM projections begin to look more credible before or after +2ºC of AGW temperature rise?
    This then leaves black carbon to be addressed.
    To be continued…..

  11. 11

    OK, this appears to be somewhat worrisome:

    Here we use model data, supported by field observations, radiocarbon dating, and remote sensing, to show that methane and carbon dioxide emissions from abrupt thaw beneath thermokarst lakes will more than double radiative forcing from circumpolar permafrost-soil carbon fluxes this century. Abrupt thaw lake emissions are similar under moderate and high representative concentration pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5), but their relative contribution to the PCF is much larger under the moderate warming scenario. Abrupt thaw accelerates mobilization of deeply frozen, ancient carbon, increasing 14C-depleted permafrost soil carbon emissions by ~125–190% compared to gradual thaw alone. These findings demonstrate the need to incorporate abrupt thaw processes in earth system models for more comprehensive projection of the PCF this century.

    From this paper:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05738-9

    Press coverage here:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/permafrost-thawing-methane-1.4806284

  12. 12
    Jon Kirwan says:

    Looking forward to the fact that 11 EU science funders are banning publication in paywalled journals starting in 2020:

    European science funders ban grantees from publishing in paywalled journals; Science

    Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions; Nature

    Open Access Publishing Forges Ahead in Europe; PLoS

    I particularly agree with the emphasized part (my doing) of the following quote taken from one of the above articles:

    “Paywalls are not only hindering the scientific enterprise itself but also they are an obstacle [to] the uptake of research results by the wider public,” says Marc Schiltz, president of Science Europe, a Brussels-based advocacy group that represents European research agencies and which officially launched the policy.

    Also, this one expresses my hope as well:

    “We think this could create a tipping point,” says Marc Schiltz, president of Science Europe, the Brussels-based association of science organizations that helped coordinate the plan. “Really the idea was to make a big, decisive step—not to come up with another statement or an expression of intent.”

    Some key libraries in the US and some scientists have had their individual impacts, and SciHub has certainly helped me out these last few years, but this has been a very, very long time in coming. I’m glad to see this extra push being added. I hope it completely and permanently transforms public access to publicly funded science research.

    I still remember the days when publicly funded works were made available by a US (federal) publishing service I could write to. Yes, you had to know who to write to, in order to get a copy. But if you knew how, it was fairly easy to do and it worked for any publicly funded research paper that wasn’t otherwise classified material.

    (Classification of material in the US is a complex topic and some papers were public but also ‘restricted’ in a way that required individual approvals each time it was requested. In those cases, I had to write out my reasoning that justified the request.)

    That changed under the Reagan administration. I think in some part because of a few key papers on cryptography that put the US intelligence services into a kind of crisis mode. There’s a long story here (I was a tiny part of it) with many elements making it far too complex to discuss here.

    Obviously, I’m looking forward to this.

  13. 13
    Victor says:

    9 Carrie sez: “Denial is not a river in Egypt – and it afflicts more people here than Victor.”

    V: Strictly speaking, Du mußt es dreimal sagen.

    But for you, Carrie, I will make an exception, so here I am, at your bidding. All I ask from you is to explain in simple straightforward English how a temperature increase of less than 1 degree centigrade, over a period of more than 120 years, could produce such a dramatic series of extreme heat waves, fires, rainstorms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, sea ice melt, etc. That’s a might powerful 1 degree, I must say.

  14. 14
    jgnfld says:

    @4

    Sheldon…Perhaps you didn’t know it but Einstein was VERY interested in getting his results published and worked extremely hard at doing so. See, for example, Einstein’s publications in 1906. So yes, he was “doing science”. He also consistently engaged with and attracted the interest of many of the active, publishing professionals of his day.

    Why is it nonscientists are so interested in claiming to be just like Einstein/Galileo/Semmelweis etc. all the time? Why is it when they fail to engage the interest of any actual scientific authorities do they blame the professionals and not themselves? To me, such attitudes carry the seeds of crankdom. Your reality may vary.

  15. 15
    jgnfld says:

    @13

    vic “science”: If something makes vic incredulous, then it must be scientifically invalid.

  16. 16
    Marco says:

    Victor #13: it is indeed a powerful 1 degree, but that’s mainly because you are just incapable of understanding what it means and where it comes from. Let’s start with pointing out that the difference between a glacial and interglacial period is about 5 degrees globally. That is, 5 degrees is enough to get most of North America and Europe under kilometers of ice during a glacial, and largely free of ice in an interglacial. 1 degree is 20% of that difference, and yet you believe that will have little impact.

    Second, a global change of 1 degree includes the moderating effect of the oceans (70% of the earth’s surface) on that value – the temperature increase over land is larger. It also includes the moderating effect of being a global average: there are several regions that warm MUCH faster than others. For example, the Arctic has likely already had a 3-4 degree warming over the past 100 years or so.

    And to end: 1 degree increase in atmospheric temperature is IIRC 7% (absolute) more water vapor. That’s a lot of extra water…

  17. 17
    Carrie says:

    12 Jon Kirwan, that’s very good news.

    13 Victor, “simple straightforward english” doesn’t cut the mustard as an alternative to scientific rigor and analysis. The onus is not on me to explain complexity simply to your personal satisfaction. Not my job or responsibility.

    It’s abundantly clear from your own words and behavior over many years that you are a climate science denier. It’s your human right to believe whatever you wish. It’s not my ‘right’ nor ‘obligation’ to disabuse you of your beliefs.

    But please, don’t deny your own denial – unless you want to appear like the hypocrite St Peter when the cock crowed three times.

    I’ll add that extremely biased (and somewhat disordered) climate science deniers like MAR are far more dangerous barriers to understandings and actions to battle AGW and climate change than you are. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn’t automatically make them really smart, or ethical, or well balanced human beings…. or good people doing good.

  18. 18
    zebra says:

    #13 Victor,

    “explain in simple straightforward English how a temperature increase of less than 1 degree centigrade, over a period of more than 120 years, could produce such a dramatic series”

    A perfect demonstration of profoundly misunderstanding basic physics/science.

    The one degree increase in GMST does not “produce” anything. It is the result of increased energy in the system– just like the melting ice, increases in characteristics of heat waves, drought, downpours, and so on.

    You actually think we calculate the local temperature using the global average temperature???

    If you don’t even understand this much, why aren’t you embarrassed that you have taken up so much bandwidth, without even bothering to get the simple stuff correct?

  19. 19
    Astringent says:

    Victor @13, who today is arguing from ‘personal incredulity’

    If you measure temperatures in degrees Kelvin then a 1 degree increase seems quite small. But think about it in terms of Centigrade, which is quite logical given the phase transition at 0 degrees. Against the global 20th century average of 12.7° you could think of a 1 degree rise as an 8% rise in ‘effective’ temperature.

    Maybe it would help you visualise the effect if you compared current rises to historical fluctuations? The deniers favourite, the Little Ice Age, had localised cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of less than 1 degree – and brought us frost fairs on the rivers and sea ice round Iceland. The MWP might have been 0.5 degrees warmer than a millennial average, and brought us a colonised Greenland. Reconstructions of Atlantic hurricane activity over the MWP and LIA shows a consistent picture of increased storminess coincident with the warming. Why would you think the physical processes would be different now?

  20. 20
    MA Rodger says:

    RSS is reporting August 2018 TLT with an anomaly of +0.50ºC, down on July’s +0.63ºC which was the highest of the year-so-far. (Previous to July, months of 2018 sit +0.56ºC to +0.42ºC.) An anomaly drop relative to July is seen in all latitude bands.

    It is the 6th warmest August in RSS TLT (9th in UAH TLT) below first-placed August 2017 (+0.73ºC) & then 2010, 2016, 2010, 1998, & 2015. August 2018 is 67th warmest anomaly on the full all-month RSS TLT record (=115th in UAH).

    In the UAH TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 5th (UAH sits 6th).
    …….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
    2016 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.77ºC … … … 1st
    1998 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
    2010 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 3rd
    2017 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 2nd
    2018 .. +0.51ºC
    2015 .. +0.50ºC … … … +0.57ºC … … … 5th
    2005 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 7th
    2007 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 10th
    2014 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 6th
    2002 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 11th
    2013 .. +0.40ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 9th

  21. 21
    MA Rodger says:

    Carrie-aka-Thomas @7, (100 words)
    Even though it has proved a pointelss exercise in the past, I should ask you to explain your comment where you write “anti-Climate Science Sophistry – subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation and a manipulation of the Data.” If this is too taxing for you, note that you appended your comment to comment of mine concerning the future of Arctic Sea Ice Extent in a world coping with +2ºC of AGW. So you may want to describe where it is you consider Arctic SIE will be in such circumstances. (90 words)

    Carrie-aka-Thomas @9. (833 words)
    You seem to be adopting falacious argumentation similar to that adopted by many climate deniers. A part of one of your grand pronouncements being correct, this doesn’t make everything else you spout on AGW correct.
    Yes AGW is happening. There was extreme weather seen in the NH this year, as in every year of late. Potsdam did have an exceptionally warm Summer but not an exceptionally warm Spring (it was =4th). The description by one of our hosts of this warmth being the product of AGW & “weather” attempts to describe the monster-that-is-AGW. For much of land-dwelling humanity, that means +2ºC has already arrived. Add on the +/-4ºC “weather” into the monthly records and, voila, +6ºC extreme weather events appear. Thus:-

    “We’ve all become increasingly used to reports of extreme weather over the past few years. But this summer’s raft of dramatic weather events is significant: Not only does it show what warming can do, it points to the potential large-scale trouble that lurks in the disruption of the planet’s winds and ocean currents.”

    Yet do not get carried away. The “weather” is changing. The dynamics driving the “weather” is changing. There is “growing evidence” for this. But, gob-smacking extreme events considered, that is all. “Growing evidence.”
    Our host, 2017 Climate Communication Prize winner, concluded

    “The reality of global warming is catching up with us fast, and no longer an issue for future generations. We will need to prepare for more unpleasant surprises in the coming years, and we need to urgently cut down emissions to prevent further destabilizing our climate system.”

    Of course, that is a message for those who are not taking AGW seriously. It isn’t intended for ‘skyrockety’ lunatics who think the IPCC is wrong, who think we’re already off to hell in a hand cart.
    And congratulations on your contribution to last month’s UV thread. Those occasional comments that did pass muster in last month’s thread – you don’t need to parade them again in this month’s thread. Enough is enough. (338 words)

  22. 22
    Carrie says:

    Let’s review the topic of exceptional warming and heatwaves in the nth hemisphere this summer, first mentioned on this site by yours truly: which followed a period of reports about GHG emissions in particular MLO CO2 readings growth.

    191 Carrie says: 17 Jul 2018 at 12:53 AM
    June 2018 continued the warming trend of the past 40 years. (with quotes & links to Nasa)
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/unforced-variations-july-2018/comment-page-4/#comment-708152

    192 Carrie says: 17 Jul 2018 at 1:08 AM
    Is all of Sweden really at +5 to +10C above the 1961-2000 average for July (summertime) this year? Sweden doesn’t seem to be a major exception to the rest of the Nth hemisphere either.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/unforced-variations-july-2018/comment-page-4/#comment-708153

    198 Carrie says: 18 Jul 2018 at 12:51 AM
    Is this heading to be Unprecedented climate change consequences in Sweden?
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/unforced-variations-july-2018/comment-page-4/#comment-708196

    201 Carrie says: 18 Jul 2018 at 9:18 AM
    At least 11 wildfires are raging inside the Arctic Circle as the hot, dry summer turns an abnormally wide area of Europe into a tinderbox.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/unforced-variations-july-2018/comment-page-5/#comment-708219

    Please consider this response by MAR in the context of what I said above, and what most people know now – including Stefan R. in his tweets above in this thread and CO2 / CH4 levels still increasing.
    199 MA Rodger http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/unforced-variations-july-2018/comment-page-4/#comment-708207
    and every response he’s made since then to early September. Draw your own conclusions.

  23. 23
    Russell says:

    Victor should note that phenomena that stand a full Kelvin tall and are 120 years long qualify as large, fierce creatures.

    He should therefore take care not to trip over this one’s thick statistical tail.

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2018/09/certainty-monster-haunts-swamp.html

  24. 24
    CCHolley says:

    Victor @13

    All I ask from you is to explain in simple straightforward English how a temperature increase of less than 1 degree centigrade, over a period of more than 120 years, could produce such a dramatic series of extreme heat waves, fires, rainstorms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, sea ice melt, etc. That’s a might powerful 1 degree, I must say.

    Argument from incredulity.

    So how much energy does this measly 1 degree represent?

    I believe it is about 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules give or take a few.

    That’s a might powerful, I must say.

    And that does not include the increased energy that has gone into warming the oceans.

  25. 25
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Weaktor,

    One degree…is the difference between a nice hot cup of tea and being scalded to death in a steam explosion.

    One degree is the difference between glaciers growing and disappearing.

    One degree is the difference between permafrost–with all the carbon it sequesters–melting or staying frozen.

    One degree is an average over the entire planet. It means that some areas will warm much more (e.g. polar regions, mountains) and some (e.g. the tropics) somewhat less. It means that some periods will be much warmer, and some only somewhat warmer. It means there will be more water vapor in the air, so storms will be heavier and more violent. And it means that sometimes, in some places, it will be much drier.

    YOu could look all this up, Weaktor. But then you would spoil your perfect state of ignorance.

  26. 26
    nigelj says:

    For Victor and his concerns that 1 degree appears trivial. Like people say its more about heat energy. From skepticalscience.coms home page heat energy counter, which updates every second: “Our climate has accumulated 2,653,962,870 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998”

  27. 27
    Mal Adapted says:

    Sheldon Walker:

    I named my website “agree-to-disagree”, for a reason.

    Then give us something we can live with. You threw down here, by lying about what Tamino said.

    OK, I agree that Tamino assigned subjective values from “dangerous” to “extremely bad, possibly intolerable” to a GMST range. I disagree with your deflection onto him of your own judgement that “extremely bad, possibly intolerable” must mean “everybody would all be dead”, i.e. the end of all judgement! Do you disagree that by lying about what he said, you’ve gone beyond ‘disagreement’?

    I agree with Tamino that your statistical arguments are incompetent. Do you agree that, when you publicly promote your transparent lukewarmist agenda ill-disguised as ‘science’, you should expect to be publicly belabored? I agree my responses to you here are uncivil. Do you agree that your rebunking of repeatedly-debunked nonsense in public is uncivil too? Do you agree there are genuine experts in climate statistics? Do you agree that you’re not one of them? Do you agree that it’s uncivil for a non-expert to publicly delude himself that he’s right and the genuine experts are all wrong? If not, well, civility is useless against the Dunning-Kruger effect!

    SW:

    How many sick children and babies should be allowed to die, because of funding being diverted to fight global warming? How many do you feel are tolerable?

    Why, no more than would be lost by failing to cap the warming as quickly as economically and politically feasible, when all costs in money and tragedy are counted. Do you agree that more than 0.0 human deaths are already due to anthropogenic climate change? If not, you mock all those that are. If so, OTOH, do you agree that collective (i.e. government, on one or more scopes) action is required to minimize the net number of deaths by 2045? If not, you plainly don’t understand the drama of the Commons, thus there’s no reason to take you seriously. If so, however, what specific collective actions do you support, and which do you oppose? Details matter, but if you give us an honest abstract here (or better, on the Forced Responses thread) I for one might be willing to engage with you substantively. Of course, no one is obliged to do so if we don’t see any worthwhile science from you first. IOW, don’t give us the same old pernicious nonsense!

    SW:

    Am I any more responsible for “any deaths due to anthropogenic climate change”, than YOU are?

    The difference between us, AFAICT, is that you appear to deny responsibility for any deaths due to AGW. Why else would you publicly expose your incompetence with statistics, in clumsy attempts to ‘prove’ that global warming slowed down significantly when actual experts have iteratively shown that it didn’t? Why is it so hard for you to accept correction by genuine experts? Why put your words in Tamino’s mouth, Sheldon? Are you that desperate to diminish the urgency of collective action to decarbonize the global economy?

    Sorry Sheldon, but whether you are ideologically motivated, or merely feel insulted at being firmly told your grasp of climate science is inadequate, you’re not helping your cause here. To be sure, GMST doesn’t care.

  28. 28

    jgnfld @ 14

    “Doing Science”, does NOT depend on publishing in professional scientific journals. It usually involves publishing, but it is not required. “Doing Science”, means following the scientific method.

    As I said on Tamino’s website, I have a good basic science education. I specialised in science from my 2nd year at high school. How good was I at science? I got a scholarship at the end of high school, based on exams in Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics. In my first year at university, I did stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to stage 2 Honours school, from high school). I also did stage 1 papers in Physics, and Biology. I get A+’s for every paper that I did. I won’t tell you about the rest of my education and experience now, but if you persist in attacking me, then I shall taunt you a second time.

    Why is it that Alarmists and Warmists, who usually have 1/10 of my education in science, feel the need to try and “put me down”, for the scientific work that I do? You must feel very threatened.

    I have a full time job as a computer programmer. I don’t have time to engage the interest of any actual scientific authorities. They are welcome to read, and criticize my work. You are welcome to criticize my work as well, but all you do is whinge. To me, your attitude carries the seeds of fanaticism. Your perception may vary.

  29. 29
    Victor says:

    24 CCHolley says:

    Victor @13

    Quoting yours truly: All I ask from you is to explain in simple straightforward English how a temperature increase of less than 1 degree centigrade, over a period of more than 120 years, could produce such a dramatic series of extreme heat waves, fires, rainstorms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, sea ice melt, etc. That’s a might powerful 1 degree, I must say.

    CC: Argument from incredulity.

    V: Oh my, that’s a good one. So if I’m incredulous I’m committing a fallacy? What about the “argument from credulity”? More your style it would seem.

    CC: So how much energy does this measly 1 degree represent?

    I believe it is about 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules give or take a few.

    That’s a might powerful, I must say.

    V: Very impressive number, I must say. But Earth’s atmosphere is vast, so that number gets watered down into many teensy weensy units, until you wind up with a temperature increase of: 1 degree Centigrade. Ta Dahhh! Now if Pittsburgh got hit with all 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules at once, I would definitely take cover. :-)

    CC: And that does not include the increased energy that has gone into warming the oceans.

    V: the oceans are also vast:

    “Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C).” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/

  30. 30
    Victor says:

    19Astringent says:

    Victor @13, who today is arguing from ‘personal incredulity’

    V: Sheesh. Someone else bothered by my ‘personal incredulity’ — as though I had no reason to be incredulous.

    A: If you measure temperatures in degrees Kelvin then a 1 degree increase seems quite small.

    V: Indeed. Extremely small.

    A: But think about it in terms of Centigrade, which is quite logical given the phase transition at 0 degrees. Against the global 20th century average of 12.7° you could think of a 1 degree rise as an 8% rise in ‘effective’ temperature.

    V: 0 degrees Centigrade is the freezing point of water. That’s ALL it is. So how does that become the magic number against which we determine percentages?

    A: Maybe it would help you visualise the effect if you compared current rises to historical fluctuations? The deniers favourite, the Little Ice Age, had localised cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of less than 1 degree – and brought us frost fairs on the rivers and sea ice round Iceland. The MWP might have been 0.5 degrees warmer than a millennial average, and brought us a colonised Greenland.

    V: Yes. And also a period of considerable prosperity, throughout Europe at least. As an added attraction, Europe managed to survive this period fairly well, at least as far as climate is concerned. The biggest disasters were produced by war, disease, assorted earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

    A: Reconstructions of Atlantic hurricane activity over the MWP and LIA shows a consistent picture of increased storminess coincident with the warming. Why would you think the physical processes would be different now?

    V: Because over the last 10 years or so we’ve experienced relatively few hurricanes not more.

  31. 31
    Carrie says:

    MLO CO2 for August came in at 406.99 ppm. +1.92 ppm yoy. The running 12-month growth rate is at its lowest level since 2012.

    August 2018: 406.99 ppm
    August 2017: 405.07 ppm
    Last updated: September 5, 2018
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

    Recent Global CO2
    June 2018: 407.80 ppm +2.19 ppm yoy.
    June 2017: 405.61 ppm
    Last updated: September 5, 2018

    Growth rates @ +1.9 to +2.2 are both too high and moving in the wrong direction.

  32. 32

    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    .

    Global Warming – Did we Pass or Fail?

    A detailed analysis of global warming, in the different regions of the Earth.

    – The Arctic region

    – the Antarctic region

    – the Land

    – the oceans

    This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming.

    Can we save the Earth, and the human race?

    Have the 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits, become irrelevant?

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail

  33. 33
    Killian says:

    #22 Carrie said Let’s review the topic of exceptional warming and heatwaves in the nth hemisphere this summer… Please consider this response by MAR in the context of what I said above, and what most people know now – including Stefan R. in his tweets above in this thread and CO2 / CH4 levels still increasing.

    199 MA Rodger … and every response he’s made since then to early September. Draw your own conclusions.

    MAR is not interested in science, he’s interested in pedantry and what he sees as correction. He doesn’t understand science is not only about what has been, but more importantly on what will be. He does not understand analysis is a good thing to do, that supposition and guessing and intuition are all vital to science.

    Dotted i’s and crossed t’s are the only thing he can deal with.

    This is why he spends his time diminishing the sincere efforts of others and why he is not a scientist himself. It is unfortunate he doesn’t see his role as supporting others with clarifying comments about the details of science, but as a nasty watchdog chasing others from the junkyard.

    He might, otherwise, be useful.

    This site would do well to tell people to not just be polite, but focus on being on the same team, and act like it. But we get pedants, dishonesty and general ass hattery even over such simple things as doing analysis of future events. We have the example of my prediction of the ASI after the EL in 2016. I made that prediction a full year ahead and it was accurate even though ASI is notorioulsy difficult to predict. Yet, rather than supportive comments all I got from the posters here was negativeity.

    It is, unfortunately, like everything these days, more about egos than the work.

  34. 34
    Victor says:

    25 Ray Ladbury says:

    One degree…is the difference between a nice hot cup of tea and being scalded to death in a steam explosion.

    V: Sorry but that makes no sense at all. For the record: “Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 Obviously a difference of 1 degree, either F or C isn’t going to make much difference.

    I have too much respect for you, Ray, to dismiss that statement as “boneheaded,” but I guess it’s too late, I already did. :-)

    RL: One degree is the difference between glaciers growing and disappearing.

    V: Come again? You sure of that? Maybe you can provide us with a proper “peer reviewed” source. Variations of 1 degree or more are common all over the world on a day to day basis.

    RL: One degree is the difference between permafrost–with all the carbon it sequesters–melting or staying frozen.

    V: You’re losing me, Ray. One degree? Really?

    RL: One degree is an average over the entire planet. It means that some areas will warm much more (e.g. polar regions, mountains) and some (e.g. the tropics) somewhat less.

    V: No. If some areas warm much more then others will cool much more.

    RL: It means that some periods will be much warmer, and some only somewhat warmer.

    V: C’mon Ray, you know better than that. If we’re talking “average” then any additional warming will be balanced out by an equivalent cooling.

    RL: It means there will be more water vapor in the air, so storms will be heavier and more violent. And it means that sometimes, in some places, it will be much drier.

    V: Once again, Ray, I find it difficult to follow your logic. On any given day, at any given place, we find temperature differentials of far more than 1 degree C. And temperatures vary by far more than that between the northernmost latitudes and the equator.

    RL: YOu could look all this up, Weaktor. But then you would spoil your perfect state of ignorance.

    V: I’d ask you to look it up for me, Ray, but that might spoil your perfect state of arrogance.

  35. 35

    Mal Adapted @ 27

    I never deliberately, or knowingly, lie.

    I do joke people.

    I am willing to admit, that sometimes there is a fine line between joking and lying.

    Usually I give people a lot of clues, that I am joking.

    The article that you keep complaining about, where you claim that I lied about what Tamino said, is a good example.

    You even quoted the clue, but you seem to have missed what it meant. I said, “As you all know, Mr Tamino is an overly optimistic, sort of person.”

    I am not sure if you actually believed that statement. But I think that most people would realise that I was being facetious, and saying the opposite of what is really true.

    The contrast between saying that Tamino was “overly optimistic”, and saying that he “took no delight, in telling everybody that they would all be dead by the year 2045”, should have made you realise that I was joking.

    ==========

    However, there is often a grain of truth, in my jokes.

    I have been fed a steady diet of doom and gloom from Alarmists, for over 9 years. Tamino said, “we’ll hit extremely bad, possibly intolerable, probably between 2040 and 2045”.

    More doom and gloom.

    So I exaggerated what Tamino had said, slightly. It is called “poetic license”, NOT lying. (A “poetic license” is like a dog license. You need one if you keep a poet, as a pet) [see, I just joked you again]

    ==========

    I said, in another post, “I would rather enjoy life, and try to get along with people”.

    I think that we got off to a bad start. I am willing to “start again”, if you are.

    I need a term to refer to people who believe in global warming, which is not an insult. Normally I use “Warmist”, for this. If I want to be insulting, I use “Alarmist”.

    Tell me if you object to the term, “Warmist”. I will use it until you object. There is no insult, intended.

    I have been developing my graph, for over 2 years.

    Often when Warmists have looked at it for 5 minutes, they believe that they know more about it, than I do.

    They refuse to listen to anything that I say about my graph, because they KNOW that it is evil.

    It has happened to me dozens of times. Can you imagine how frustrating that is? They insult my graph, and me, because of their stupidity.

    You obviously don’t understand the graph that I developed. If you want me to, I will explain it to you.

    My graph is based on very simple principles. Saying that my graph is invalid, is like saying that multiplication is invalid.

    My graphs show that global warming is happening.
    – they show it VERY CLEARLY
    – they show when the warming started
    – they show how fast the warming is happening
    – they show where the warming is occurring
    – they show a lot more, as well

    People who believe that global warming is happening, seem to have the wrong impression about my graphs. It is a pity, because they could use them as evidence, to help convince doubters that global warming is real.

    I think that the wrong impression about my graphs, was caused by the recent slowdown. The people who believe in global warming, felt threatened, because they believed that my graphs were saying that global warming was not happening.

    If you learn how to read my graphs, then you will see that the recent slowdown is real. I can show you the slowdown in GISTEMP, UAH, RATPAC, and CLIMDIV. Why would the slowdown be in all of these temperature series, if it was not real? But the slowdown does NOT mean that global warming is not happening. The slowdown was temporary. My personal belief (and there are climate scientists who say the same thing), is that the slowdown was caused by ocean cycles, like the PDO and AMO. This would mean that the slowdown has NO long term implications for global warming.

    There is no need to denounce my graphs. They simply show the truth.

    My graphs show similar warming patterns in:
    – Land and Ocean temperature series, like GISTEMP
    – Satellite temperature series, like UAH
    – Weather balloon temperature series, like RATPAC
    – Land only temperature series, like CLIMDIV (contiguous USA)

    You can see the difference between the Northern Hemisphere, and the Southern Hemiphere.

    You can see the difference between the Stratosphere, the Upper Troposphere, and the Lower Troposphere.

    You are missing out on a lot of evidence about global warming.

  36. 36
    MA Rodger says:

    Kevin McKinney @11,
    You say Anthony et al (2018) ’21st-century modeled permafrost carbon emissions accelerated by abrupt thaw beneath lakes’ appears to be somewhat worrisome. The numbers they are presenting for the permafrost carbon feedback (to 2100) amounts to 20Gt(C)CO2e and 40Gt(C)CO2e for RCP4.5 & RCP8.5 respectively, with a substantial part of this (a half under RCP4.5 & a third under RCP8.5) due to a mechanism of abrupt sub-lakeland thaw which they assess as being significant.
    I think this is a lot less worrisome than Comyn-Platt et al (2018)‘Carbon budgets for 1.5 and 2°C targets lowered by natural wetland and permafrost feedbacks’ that models the permafrost carbon feedback as being 13Gt(C) for AGW of +2°C, and a result not greatly affected if AGW is restricted to +1.5°C. Ignoring the lack of difference found between +1.5°C and +2°C (and that the paper also looks at CH4 wetland emissions), Comyn-Platt et al doesn’t immediately seem more worrisome. 13Gt(C) for ~RCP2.6 doesn’t seem out of step with Anthony et al’s 20Gt(C)CO2e for RCP4.5. But Comyn-Platt et al are treating the permafrost carbon feedback as entirely CO2 rather than a combination of CO2 & CH4 which must increase the impact. Now add the Anthony et al abrupt sub-lakeland thaw and the assessment of the +1.5°C permafrost feedback (to 2100) would be more like 40Gt(C)CO2e. In £sd, that would be something like four years-worth of today’s GHG emissions.

  37. 37
    jgnfld says:

    @28

    Sheldon…

    1. Already have seen that list of your degrees when you gave them at tamino’s place. I will note that on the science-to-crank continuum, listing irrelevant degrees is far more toward the crank end than the science end. Crank engineers are so famous for this it has received its own label: Salem hypothesis. In my opinion you are trending that way too.

    2. I didn’t and haven’t “put down” your work here and on tamino’s blog. I’ve certainly agreed with and given my own elaborations on tamino’s criticisms. Part of “doing science” is to listen to the criticisms–i.e., the “put downs”–of scientific peers/betters and work to overcome them not simply to assert and reassert the same old, same old without change for years. EVERY professional here–and there are many–has been “put down” weekly if not daily. It’s part of “doing science”. It’s not an issue for a professional. Or perhaps I should say professionals see the issue far differently than cranks. Your response here is more toward crank than toward professional in my opinion.

    3. Another part of “doing science” that you appear not to understand is doing work that engages other professionals. Your work does not. Even the parts which are strictly “true”. You see, there is quite literally an astronomical number of “true” things which are utterly uninteresting to science at any particular time. “Doing science” involves _using_ “true” things to come to a larger understanding. This is one major difference between you and Einstein.

    4. It can happen that sometimes someone is “doing science” by working in the boonies for decades. McClintock comes to mind here. But she never didn’t listen to her peers, took their criticisms to heart, and always did solid work. And, in the end (as was true for Wegener’s “continental drift” as well) the import of her observations was only finally understood when an underlying mechanism was discovered that fit nicely with her pioneering work.

  38. 38
    Carrie says:

    Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2 shows the smallest July to Aug ppm reading decrease of the last 5 years
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

  39. 39
    CCHolley says:

    Victor @29

    V: Oh my, that’s a good one. So if I’m incredulous I’m committing a fallacy? What about the “argument from credulity”? More your style it would seem.

    Absolutely. The logical fallacy of personal incredulity. Something you are very good at. Because you implied that since 1 degree to you is an insignificant amount that it cannot possibly have much of an influence and result in changes to our weather. That is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. Which covers just about every argument you’ve ever made. Of course as usual what scientists actually have to say about the subject isn’t of interest to you. Ignorance is bliss.

    V: Very impressive number, I must say. But Earth’s atmosphere is vast, so that number gets watered down into many teensy weensy units, until you wind up with a temperature increase of: 1 degree Centigrade. Ta Dahhh! Now if Pittsburgh got hit with all 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules at once, I would definitely take cover. :-)

    Right, whatever makes you feel good I suppose, but it IS a LOT of energy no matter how much you try to minimize it. About 1.4 million nukes of one megaton on top of you. So taking cover wouldn’t help you much. And actually, all that energy isn’t evenly distributed… not to mention that weather is more heavily influenced by the energy of the oceans.

    So that leads us to ….

    V: the oceans are also vast:

    “Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C).”

    So let’s look at this. The heat capacity of the oceans per unit mass is four times that of the atmosphere and the mass of the oceans is about 270 times that of the atmosphere. Soooooo, for the atmosphere the equivalent temperature increase to represent the same amount of energy that went into the oceans assuming a rise of 0.1 degree would be a measly 108 degrees.

    As for energy: That’s 2,624,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules

    And it’s not evenly distributed, mostly near the surface and mostly in the tropics, which by gosh is where cyclonic storms form.

    But it’s sooooo vast!

    It’s science Victor, something you seem not to care about.

  40. 40
    Hank Roberts says:

    … not interested in science, he’s interested in pedantry and what he sees as correction.

    Seems to be a lot of that going around here lately.

    More science please.

  41. 41
    Killian says:

    Re #40 Hank Roberts said ys:
    7 Sep 2018 at 2:36 PM

    … not interested in science, he’s interested in pedantry and what he sees as correction.

    Seems to be a lot of that going around here lately.

    More science please.

    As if you are immune. Watch the hypocrisy. I can count on 1 finger the number of responses any substantive links or comments I make usually gets from any of you. Let me slap some one upside the head for dishonesty and/orignorance and the threads can go on and on, but actual science? Hardly any response.

    There needs to be greater openness and less gotcha bull$#!+. There are many ways of knowing, and those who think hard science has *all* the answers are sadly mistaken.

  42. 42

    jgnfld @ 37

    I have NEVER listed my degrees anywhere on the internet.

    I have listed a number of papers that I have done, which are relevant to Science.

    When I went to school, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Mathematics, were the foundation of Science.

    I know that you “left wing” types, think that the foundation of Science, is Sociology, Creative Writing, and Flower Arranging. Perhaps that is why you don’t recognise my Science skills.

    You need to tell me why my education in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Mathematics, is not relevant to Science, and global warming.

    Us “cranks”, are under the impression that we have Science skills. Please tell us why we are wrong.

    Us “cranks”, are under the impression that getting into a Science based, University “Honours” course, means that the people who run Universities, think that we might be good at Science. Please send them a memo, telling them that they are wrong.

    Us cranks, are also under the impression, that doing well in other subjects, might mean that we have other skills, in addition to Science skills.

    For example, one of my degrees, is a Bachelor of commerce, majoring in Finance and Economics. It is made up of 21 papers. I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.

    Here are my results.

    First year:
    – stage 1 – Financial Accounting ……………….. A
    – stage 1 – Management Accounting ………………. A
    – stage 1 – Introduction to Law ………………… A-
    – stage 1 – Microeconomics …………………….. A+
    – stage 1 – Macroeconomics …………………….. A+
    – stage 1 – Algebra & Calculus for Commerce ……… A+
    – stage 1 – Business Computing …………………. A

    Second year:
    – stage 2 – Financial Management ……………….. A
    – stage 2 – Introduction to Investments …………. A+
    – stage 2 – Microeconomics …………………….. A+
    – stage 2 – Macroeconomics …………………….. A
    – stage 2 – Introduction to Econometrics ………… A+
    – stage 2 – Mathematics for Commerce ……………. A+
    – stage 1 – Organisation and Management …………. A-

    Third year:
    – stage 3 – Advanced Financial Management ……….. A+
    – stage 3 – Modern Investment Theory and Management . A+
    – stage 3 – Risk and Insurance …………………. A+
    – stage 3 – Applied Econometrics ……………….. A+
    – stage 3 – Financial Economics ………………… A-
    – stage 3 – International Finance ………………. A-
    – stage 3 – Optimisation in Operations Research ….. A+

    ====================

    Note the Mathematics based papers:
    – stage 1 – Algebra & Calculus for Commerce ……… A+
    – stage 2 – Mathematics for Commerce ……………. A+
    – stage 3 – Optimisation in Operations Research ….. A+

    Note the Statistics based papers:
    – stage 2 – Introduction to Econometrics ………… A+
    – stage 3 – Applied Econometrics ……………….. A+

    ====================

    Us “cranks”, also got 2 Finance Scholarships, from private companies.
    Us “cranks”, also won the Stock Exchange Prize.
    Us “cranks”, also won the Senior Prize in Accounting and Finance
    Us “cranks”, also won the Senior Prize in Economics

    ====================

    You might be interested to know, that I first developed my Contour Maps, as a way of measuring the profit from buying and selling shares. A “Share” Contour Map, shows you the profit from buying a share on any date, and then selling it on any other date.

    A global Warming Contour Map works in a very similar way.

    But us “cranks” don’t really know anything, and we shouldn’t be listened to.

    ====================

    Us “cranks”, also have over 30 years experience in the computer industry.

    I have held many different positions in the computer industry. Including programmer, analyst, systems programmer, and Tester (or Test analyst). The job of Tester, is a bit like hypothesis testing. There are a million possible tests, which would take 6 to 12 months to complete. But you only have 5 days to do the testing.

    I am an expert at using Excel. I use Excel to produce Global Warming Contour Maps, because I can use it as a database, to do calculations, and to plot graphs.

    I can use Excel to do 343,206 linear regressions, colour code the results, and plot them on a Contour Map. It takes about 15 minutes, once I have the data ready.

    About 5 minutes to do the 343,206 linear regressions, then about 5 minutes to arrange the data for plotting, and then about 5 minutes to actually do the plotting.

    Then it takes about 5 minutes for a stupid Alarmist to say that my graph is worthless.

    ====================

    jgnfld, I will offer you the same deal that I offered “Mal Adjusted”.

    I said, in another post, “I would rather enjoy life, and try to get along with people”.

    I think that we got off to a bad start. I am willing to “start again”, if you are.

    You obviously don’t understand the graph that I developed. If you want me to, I will explain it to you.

  43. 43
    nigelj says:

    Pedantry, nit picking and precise details are important in science. If you don’t like criticism of your views its simple. There’s an old saying “if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”.

  44. 44
    Victor says:

    39 CCHolley says:

    Victor @29

    V: Oh my, that’s a good one. So if I’m incredulous I’m committing a fallacy? What about the “argument from credulity”? More your style it would seem.

    CC: Absolutely. The logical fallacy of personal incredulity. Something you are very good at. Because you implied that since 1 degree to you is an insignificant amount that it cannot possibly have much of an influence and result in changes to our weather.

    V: I said nothing of the sort. I asked YOU to explain it. Which of course you were not able to do. Perhaps someone else here can.

    CC: So that leads us to ….

    V: the oceans are also vast:

    “Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C).”

    CC: So let’s look at this. The heat capacity of the oceans per unit mass is four times that of the atmosphere and the mass of the oceans is about 270 times that of the atmosphere. Soooooo, for the atmosphere the equivalent temperature increase to represent the same amount of energy that went into the oceans assuming a rise of 0.1 degree would be a measly 108 degrees.

    V: If you say so. For the oceans it would still be a measly .1 degree.

    As for energy: That’s 2,624,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules

    V: Oh my. That’s a MIGHTY big number.

    “Oh the high sheriff, he shot ol’ Lazarus, well he shot him with a mighty big number
    Oh the high sheriff, he shot ol’ Lazarus, well he shot him with a mighty big number
    With a forty-five, Lord Lord, with a forty-five.”
    https://youtu.be/16bl609lNx4?t=1m41s

    CC: And it’s not evenly distributed, mostly near the surface and mostly in the tropics, which by gosh is where cyclonic storms form.

    V: Such storms are fueled by differences in temperature in specific regions, NOT the sum total of energy in all the oceans on Earth.

    CC: It’s science Victor, something you seem not to care about.

    V: No CC, it’s poetry. :-)

  45. 45
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Fine, Weaktor. If phase changes are two complicated for you, don’t think of it as 1 degree over 100 years. Think of it, rather as adding 1.45 exajoules of energy to the climate system every fricking day! 1.45 exajoules with which the climate can work whatever mischief it chooses.

    The adverse consequences of warming vs. temperature are well documented. They get exponentially worse as temperature rises. If you choose to dance the obtusi and pretend you don’t know this, that is your own, silly-assed prerogative. Just don’t expect to be viewed as anything other than a clown–but then, you’re used to that.

  46. 46
    jgnfld says:

    @35

    As I said. “… to assert and reassert the same old, same old without change for years.”

    @35 is very much trending into crank territory. Cranks always lament that experts just won’t take the time to look at their stellar work.

    Martin Gardner once posted on the signs cranks display. Among them:”Cranks tend to learn early on that their work is pretty unique. For some reason they often fail to consider the possibility that this uniqueness is for any reason other than its utter brilliance. …”

  47. 47
    Paul Segal says:

    Victor, @34 you show either your state of mind or your purpose so exquisitely;

    V: Sorry but that makes no sense at all.

    V: Come again? You sure of that? Maybe you can provide us with a proper “peer reviewed” source.

    V: I’d ask you to look it up for me, Ray, but that might spoil your perfect state of arrogance.

  48. 48
    Fred Magyar says:

    Victor @ 34 says:

    25 Ray Ladbury says:

    One degree…is the difference between a nice hot cup of tea and being scalded to death in a steam explosion.

    V: Sorry but that makes no sense at all.

    Um, not to butt in on your amicable discussion with Ray, but it actually makes perfect sense from the perspective of the basic physics of tea making and the temperatures at which phase changes occur in H2O.

    When one wishes to enjoy a nice cup of tea, one generally places a kettel of water on the stove and allows it come to a slow boil, which happens at exactly 100 °C at a pressure of 1 atm. As we know from high school physics, as long as there is liquid water in the kettle the temperature will not rise above 100 °C. However if the temperature should reach 101 °C, that means all the water has evaporated and has now turned to steam! Should you attempt to lift the lid off the kettle at this point, in an attempt to look inside it, you will be hit in the face by a blast of scalding steam. Perhaps it would not be fatal and might just leave one with a rather ruddy complexion… ;-)

  49. 49
    nigelj says:

    Victor

    Regarding your original question of how to explain in plain english how only 1 degree can cause significant sea level rise and more extreme weather etc.

    1 degree represents a lot of heat energy even if spread out, and if applied over a century it causes significant sea level rise and more extreme weather to become the established pattern. Time and heat energy are the factors here. A 1 degree change during the diurnal cycle wont melt much ice and seems small, this fools us into thinking 1 degree is insignificant.

  50. 50
    jgnfld says:

    @42 Thank you for making my point so clearly.