RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Oct 2018

Filed under: — group @ 1 October 2018

This month’s open thread on climate science topics. Dominant theme this month will probably be the release of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC. The final report will be released later this week, and when it does we’ll give a brief summary. The hastag to follow on Twitter is #SR15.

221 Responses to “Unforced variations: Oct 2018”

  1. 51
    Mr. Know It All says:

    36, 37, 40, 42, 43 Carrie (Thomas), Lawrence, Kevin

    37 – Carrie (Thomas)
    ““Look I think Antarctic is going to melt.” Well he turned out to be right.”

    Nope. Believe it or not, it’s still there – didn’t melt.

    You might get more folks on your side if fewer people on your side acted like the ones in these embedded short videos demonstrating what unhinged looks like. This does not help your causes. This is just the latest in a loooong string of examples:

    https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson

    Lawrence, to demonstrate your seriousness about CC, please describe the steps you personally have taken to reduce your carbon footprint. In fact, why not have a perpetual thread dedicated for that one purpose on RC? We can show the world who means business and who is blowing smoke.

    43- Kevin
    One reason we need FFs:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gioIzxWXE4

  2. 52
    Nemesis says:

    Planes are spraying shit in Germany and all over the globe. Call me crazy, I call it SRM resp. SAI. See, this is criminal Empire, they give a shit if people like it or not. I tell you:

    I am so glad to have seen through Empire decades ago and therefore did not procreate, so one fine day I will die in peace, just letting go in complete peace. Over and out.

  3. 53
    Nemesis says:

    Dedicated to Empire from my heart 38=>

    https://youtu.be/l482T0yNkeo

  4. 54
    Killian says:

    Re #28 Geoff Beacon

    New ways to live. I honestly believe I brought together the elements for that, elements that address all aspects of The Perfect Storm, in Regenerative Governance. The design aspects are already covered in permaculture design and it’s various sub-disciplines (agroforestry, etc.)

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=430381783990976&set=t.1331124071&type=3&theater

    I posted earlier on a Proof of Concept regarding the feasibility of this.

  5. 55
    Hank Roberts says:

    More phenology — fall is late in the Appalachians this year.

    North Carolina’s Weather Authority is at Mount Mitchell State Park.
    October 4 at 5:18 PM · Burnsville, NC ·
    https://www.facebook.com/ncweatherauthority/photos/a.1706118889677050/2215204202101847/?type=3&eid=ARAMeuytTaA7XDGvdasY0byeZBB2z5MR0Hn7XdXGsPpC2p4ARhFOvpfPyYSJad_LYGdxTa0KI-itrmOa&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARA2azUe-RrRXO1D1SpikOpjp1EVSK5-GKwxxs-_tDqIIGYVqVS2QcU8DHg99N9vylL-ff1PorABI-6UME_3DtG04SaUFUYLeWVmtFXUG-kZGD0pyw_EuDJqL0KidsUeWhFK-cCLVHhH5lz7nw_hwHDbblIZKGbbkgZOML2J2uuue73_geqL&__tn__=EHH-R

    https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/43108265_2215204208768513_3429215186068701184_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&oh=ec0d804768e83248db45124eb5105e02&oe=5C167B35

    Exact spot, 5 years apart. This was taken by Mark File near Mt. Mitchell yesterday. Colors are a good 7-10 days behind schedule this year. Most years, Mt. Mitchell is already at peak. This year, it will be a good 10-15 days late. This goes for the rest of the mountains too I’ll have an official outlook later tonight. The change pace will likely pick up after a mid-month cool down toward the 20th and after!

  6. 56
    Victor says:

    Carrie: Yes they are talking to you Victor!
    Clinical Psychologist Dr Jane Morton in 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBGHTRx6xAU and here
    http://climateemergencydeclaration.org/janemorton/

    I suggest you be silent Victor and watch the entire talk. Then remain silent for as long as humanly possible for you.

    V: Sorry, Carrie, but I cannot remain silent. The Earth is burning up and we absolutely MUST do something drastic about it NOW or else. Even as long ago as 1990, Al Gore already understood the importance of acting NOW:

    “Q.: Do we know enough to act? Shouldn’t we study the problem until we eliminate the uncertainties?

    A.: That was the Administration’s excuse last year, when it asked a distinguished United Nations-sponsored group of scientists to answer that question. A draft of the scientists’ long-awaited report, leaked to the press this week, concludes that we must act now.”– https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/22/opinion/to-skeptics-on-global-warming.html

    The urgent need to act NOW — or else — has since been echoed time and again ever since. Some examples:

    From 2007: https://youtu.be/_KbJHdey5Qc

    From 2008: https://youtu.be/-kRP5x2MsAw

    From 2009: https://youtu.be/NIH_UomVwjU

    From 2010: https://youtu.be/UAXC4iaCH8Q

    From 2011: https://youtu.be/B2Q5pZ9kGdk; https://youtu.be/Srsw9XOOBcU; https://youtu.be/RAF0OWrdLU8

    From 2012: https://youtu.be/Fvl4o8L7Pxg

    From 2015: https://youtu.be/CufrH85ViL0; https://youtu.be/EtW2rrLHs08

    Even as recent as one year ago: https://youtu.be/ZKmiBMDLHeo

    I could cite many more examples, hundreds of them. People from all over the world, from every walk of life, over all the years since Al Gore and James Hansen first sounded the alarm, year after year, reminding us of how important it is to ACT NOW.

    And you are urging me to remain silent? Don’t you know the meaning of the word NOW, Carrie???? Don’t you care????

  7. 57
    Carrie says:

    50 Mr. Know It All … intelligence and reason is not universally distributed. Thank you for role in keeping it in ‘balance’ overall. High values are often measured against the absence in their opposite.

    In plain English? You’re not a clever person. Your benefit to humanity is in making those that are stand out above the crowd.

  8. 58
    Carrie says:

    mike seems your suspicions are confirmed atm

    Source: Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

    Week beginning on September 9, 2018: 405.39 ppm +1.81 – 2018 Minimum
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 403.58 ppm
    Weekly value from 10 years ago: 383.05 ppm
    Last updated: September 18, 2018

    Week beginning on September 16, 2018: 405.69 ppm +2.53
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 403.16 ppm

    Week beginning on September 23, 2018: 405.54 ppm +2.74
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 402.80 ppm
    Weekly value from 10 years ago: 383.02 ppm
    Last updated: September 30, 2018

    Week beginning on September 30, 2018: 405.50 ppm +2.59
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 402.91 ppm
    Weekly value from 10 years ago: 382.77 ppm

    and latest confirmed update for July
    Recent Global CO2
    July 2018: 406.39 ppm + 2.50 YoY
    July 2017: 403.89 ppm
    Last updated: October 5, 2018

    October 06: 408.26 ppm
    October 05: 408.25 ppm
    October 04: 408.24 ppm
    October 03: 408.24 ppm
    October 02: 408.23 ppm
    Last Updated: October 7, 2018

    Could easily hit 450 ppm a few years after 2030 given the current lack of concerted coordination action to rapidly reduce GHG emissions and the rising ‘feedbacks’ as regional and global avg temps keep increasing.

  9. 59
    Carrie says:

    56 Victor, I refer you to my comment #55 because it relates to yourself as much as to KIA. Everyone knows this here except for you two.

    “People from all over the world, from every walk of life, over all the years since Al Gore and James Hansen first sounded the alarm, year after year, reminding us of how important it is to ACT NOW.

    Yes Victor this is correct. The only time some one can ever act is in the present, now.

    In the now of 1988 that was the time to act and the only time possible to act. In the now of 2007 and every year you listed above ‘the present time’ was the time to act. It’s now Oct 2018 and now is the time to act.

    Why? Because you cannot act in the past. You cannot act in the future either. This is simple plain Logic Victor. Why do you have such a problem with it? I thought you were an expert in Logic, Reason and Reality as it is.

    The truth is Victor you’re not a clever person. So let me help you with an analogy, a parable even, that might help you by me dumbing it down to your level.

    Hypothetically, you get up one day have breakfast and looking out the window you see your lawn is getting untidy and long. You think to yourself damn, I should have mowed the grass yesterday, because I am running out of time today to it.

    Victor, you cannot mow the grass yesterday. That’s impossible. You are not a time-traveler. And grass being what it is, when the circumstances are right for it, grass keeps on growing. Longer and longer and higher.

    Grass is an analogy for CO2 and the other drivers of global warming Victor. Do nothing, fail to act, and it just keeps on growing. Amazing isn’t it?

    So now you have a choice, you can adjust your plans for today, now, or you can plan to act tomorrow instead. Logic tells you Victor that if you postpone acting now the grass will be even longer tomorrow. And you have no guarantee if it will rain and make mowing the grass again, impossible tomorrow and the grass will keep on growing longer and higher.

    The more you postpone acting the bigger harder the job will be tomorrow, and the next day and the next week and the next year. Leave it long enough and you’ll need to hire a local with a tractor thrasher to cut the grass down to a height your lawn mower can handle.

    So what will you do Victor? Will you ACT NOW, or will you put it off to tomorrow? Knowing that Tomorrow Never Comes. Tomorrow will become “the present, the now” only once you get there. And the issue repeats itself.

    Will you act and more the grass now, or postpone it again?

    The only time possible that you or anyone can do something Victor is Now, in the present. Your point of power is only ever in the present. What are you going to do now Victor?

    Whine like an uneducated ignorant child again? Default to your pathetic sophistry of lies again? You’re not a clever person Victor.

    Mind you there are many who accept the need to act now because they understand agw/cc issues and the science but most of them are not clever either. A few of them post here like you do. Which goes to show, being able to post to RC does not make one, deem one, clever by default.

    Is there anything else that’s simple logic that you need explaining to you Victor?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjvdZm-Tu8

  10. 60
    Victor says:

    #59 Carrie claims: “Yes Victor this is correct. The only time some one can ever act is in the present, now.”

    Ah Carrie, c’mon. I may not be very clever, but I’m obviously cleverer than you, assuming you actually buy into the nonsense you just spouted. If you view the videos I referenced you’ll see that by “now” they meant “now, before it’s too late.” In other words, ,”WE MUST DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED.” NOT right now tomorrow or right now next year or next decade. That should have gone without saying. That’s the message we’ve been getting since Jim Hansen’s notorious presentation back in the 80’s. Don’t feel too badly, however, since you’re not alone. It’s easy to assume someone smarter than you is stupid if you yourself are the stupid one. That goes for many posting here I’m afraid.

    Now I must say I’d be more willing to consider acting NOW if I had some idea of which NOW is meant: the “now” of 28 years ago, when Al Gore wrote that piece for the Times; or maybe the “now” of 2007, or 2008, or 2009, etc. or the “now” of last year or last month or last week.

    The tiresome litany of “NOW before it’s too late” has become, well, tiresome. Perhaps it had some meaning when Gore first urged us on, back in 1990. By now, however, it’s become an empty gesture, reflecting the failure of so many who should know better to grasp the absurdity of this impossible demand.

  11. 61
    MA Rodger says:

    Titus @34,
    You speak of a “problem that has been generated by scientists and the media over many years is that it (Arctic Sea Ice) was predicted to have totaaly disappeared at the minimum by now” and “suggest,to restore public confidence, that this failure is explained.”
    In terms of the science, the magnitude of this “failure” is surely insignificant. Or have I missed something?

    We had Maslowski whose researches were rather overshadowed by the big melt of 2007 and we didn’t see his grand prediction being published until 2012. When it did arrive, Maslowski et al (2012) The Future of Arctic Sea Ice didn’t come across as so convincing.
    There was plenty of other comment reacting to the big 2007 melt. Perhaps Zwally’s comment (“At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”) could be mistaken for being more than an off-the-cuff quote to the press. But really, that is all it was.
    All this rather isolates the predictions of Wadhams that have been described thus:-.

    “Wadhams has something of a reputation for making alarming climate predictions; he first predicted a 2015 or 2016 summer sea ice collapse back in 2012, advocating for drastic efforts to reduce carbon emissions. In 2014, he told the Arctic Circle Assembly that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2020, claiming that while his prediction flew in the face of climate models, his assertions were backed by data he has collected since 1979.”

    Of course, there is only a five-year gap between the Wadhams “by 2020” prediction and the parliamentary evidence given by Julia Slingo in 2012

    “Our own model would say between 2040 and 2060, … the earlier dates … associated with models that we believe are more credible. … Our expectation is certainly not in the next few years, as I think you have heard from some evidence*, but within, say, 2025 to 2030 would be the earliest date.” [*Testimony from Wadhams & the Arctic Methane Emergency Group.]

    Perhaps more mainstream is Jennifer Francis’s “sometime between 2030 and 2050.” which surely fits with the more stringent requirements set out in IPCC AR5 saying (TS5.4.6) “A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean (sea ice extent less than 10^6 km^2 for at least five consecutive years) in September is likely before mid-century under RCP8.5 (medium confidence).”

    So have I missed something? Was there a “failure” of the science? Or are we just seeing overblown predictions of an ice-free Arctic summer being over-amplified by the press looking for a sensational story?

    I should perhaps add – this is not to say that all is fine and rosy with the Arctic sea ice. My message @1 still stands: we should not obsess with the September minimum. As for the year-to-date average SIE, 2018 now sits squarely in 2nd place, the daily average y-t-d 35,000 sq km below 3rd-place 2017, a gap growing at 2,500 sqkm/per day. And the drop in average y-t-d SIE 2018 is catching up with 1st-place 2016 at 1,500 sqkm/day, the ave y-t-d gap being today 90,000 sqkm. (A bit of an ask to close a 90k gap fully but crazier things have happened. The state of play is being kept up-to-date here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).

  12. 62
    Dan says:

    re: 60.
    ” By now, however, it’s become an empty gesture, reflecting the failure of so many who should know better to grasp the absurdity of this impossible demand.”

    Tell that to the large power company who are installing gigawatts of solar and wind power generation. Or private citizens (me included) who have done the same and do not have an electric bill. You’ve been busted again for the umpteenth time.

  13. 63
    Carrie says:

    #60 Victor that’s ok, I understand the limitations involved.

    If you view the videos I referenced you’ll see that by “now” they meant “now, before it’s too late.”

    Yes that is correct. A little unnecessary detail, but sure that’s correct. IN 1988 it was correct. In 1992 it was correct. In 2000 it was correct. and now in 2018 it is still correct. Action needs to be taken now, before it’s too late.

    And like the growing grass analogy, if you keep putting off mowing your lawn the action required progressively increases in what’s need to be done and how much it might cost.

    If you are told by the County to clean up the jungle in your hypothetical suburban block, because you have refused for year to take any action, or do not admit the grass needs mowing, or you are too stupid to do it, eventually the County will take possession of your block and auction it off to highest bidder and they will clean it up mow the lawn and keep your property.

    It’s really simple consequences aka a risk assessment of inaction. I do not say these things because I don;t like or your politics or your values or totally disrespect you Victor. I say these things and totally reject your lack of logic and reason because you are wrong.

    If you live long enough the planet and reality will prove it to you in ways you can no longer deny without going quite mad. And if you’re already so old that you die before you get to admit that, then that’s one less not very clever denialist in the world or posting to RC. Which is a plus for everyone and the planet. Either way, you will lose, it’s guaranteed. You already have but refuse to admit it. C’est la via. In the meantime please understand you are not worth arguing with. So I do not.

  14. 64
    Astringent says:

    V @60.

    You are walking towards a cliff. I suggest that you change direction. You ignore me. I call out emphatically ‘Stop now or you will fall over a cliff’. You still ignore me. I shout ‘Stop or you will die’. Now you might argue that the first two ‘nows’ that suggested you stop represented a ‘tiresome litany’. They would however have been correct and appropriate. Carry on in the current direction and you will fall over a cliff. Many scientists believe that we have already fallen over the 1.5 degree cliff, if not the 2 degree cliff. Doesn’t mean we need to fall over a 3 degree cliff in despair.

    The real irony of your characterisation of a net-zero-2050 target as an ‘impossible demand’ is that will make us richer, not poorer. The costs of doing nothing exceed the costs of action.

  15. 65
    Hank Roberts says:

    Victor predictably jumps to the “too late to do anything” stage of climate denial.

  16. 66
    Victor says:

    #63 Carrie: quoting me: If you view the videos I referenced you’ll see that by “now” they meant “now, before it’s too late.”

    C: Yes that is correct. A little unnecessary detail, but sure that’s correct. IN 1988 it was correct. In 1992 it was correct. In 2000 it was correct. and now in 2018 it is still correct. Action needs to be taken now, before it’s too late.

    V: Oy Veh! (trans from Yiddish: “O woe is me!”) “Yoy and double yoy” (untranslatable Pittsburgh expression of frustration, thanks to the inimitable Myron Cope). What can I say, Carrie? “If a fool were to persist in his folly he would become wise” (Wm. Blake) — I’m still waiting for that moment, Carrie, when you wise up. Meanwhile . . .

    If it was correct in 1990, then by now, almost 30 years later, it would most definitely be too late. No point, then, in reiterating the same demand, over and over, in subsequent years. Unless you are willing to admit that all the many urging action NOW, year after year, had no idea what they were talking about, that, in fact, they were spouting nonsense.

    Still are, by the way: From today’s issue of The Guardian, reporting on the latest “landmark report” from the IPCC (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report):
    “It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts.”

    Isn’t it obvious that there is something very wrong here? “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” How about “fool me 20 times”? Or “fool me year after year for almost 30 years”? WHAT has been going on, lo these many years?

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: absurd claims leading to impossible demands are not only patently absurd, but signs of bad faith. The fact that individuals claiming to be scientists can make such demands year after year, knowing full well that they could never be realized, makes me doubt their credentials as real scientists rather than would-be high priests of yet another doomsday cult, dedicated to the manipulation of its members for either financial gain or political power. I’d like to believe most of them are nothing more than naive dupes. Perhaps all of them are. If so, they are deluding themselves, and in the process setting in motion a process whose consequences could be far worse than any of the climate effects they’ve been warning us of.

    65 Hank Roberts: “Victor predictably jumps to the “too late to do anything” stage of climate denial.”

    No, I’m not saying it’s too late to do anything. That’s what the alarmists are saying; that’s what the IPCC is saying — if you read between the lines. Because the completely unworkable “solutions” they’re proposing are not solutions at all, but cynical attempts to promote an agenda that, at root, has nothing to do with averting disaster and everything to do with enhancing personal power and influence.

    As for me, I’m not buying any of it. There are a great many things to be legitimately worried about, a great many potential disasters out there, both natural and man made. But the levels of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels are NOT correlated with global temperatures over the long term, so I have no worries on that score.

  17. 67
    Mal Adapted says:

    Hank Roberts:

    Victor predictably jumps to the “too late to do anything” stage of climate denial.

    Yep. As bad as climate change may get, it’s never too late to prevent it from getting even worse!

  18. 68
    zebra says:

    #61 MA Rodger,

    “Or are we [just] seeing overblown predictions of an ice-free Arctic summer being over-amplified by the press looking for a sensational story?”

    Of course. But we are also seeing on the blogosphere (coughRCcough) a terribly confusing use of language– by participants on both “sides”.

    This statement is scientific:

    “A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean (sea ice extent less than 10^6 km^2 for at least five consecutive years) in September is likely before mid-century under RCP8.5 (medium confidence).”

    But even as you are putting in a good effort to clarify, you can’t resist using the phrase “ice free summer”. And this is common; perhaps because both sides can keep talking past each other if they continue to use vague and hand-wavy terms, and posting comments is really the point for people.

    If the goal is to “educate the public”, however, my experience with that process tells me that you have to be more concrete and specific to illustrate the underlying principles. (Which, incidentally, are all on our side.)

    Note to Kevin M: speaking of hand-wavy,

    “but still active after the coming of the Arctic night) increases to both water-vapor feedback and energy flux from sea to atmosphere.”

    -Is that “energy flux from sea to atmosphere” good or bad?
    -What altitude does the increased water vapor hang out during the “Arctic night?”

    I make no claim to being able to write a model on this, and perhaps Francis has, and I’ve missed a synopsis of the elements, but just tossing out these phrases is an invitation to the Tituses et al to confuse things even more.

  19. 69
    Al Bundy says:

    Carrie: In the meantime please understand you are not worth arguing with. So I do not.

    AB: Saying that you don’t do what you always do and did in the same comment as your claim is silly at best. Perhaps, “I am far too weak to refrain from arguing with every turnip that comes along even though I desperately want to stop arguing with turnips” would be a better description than “I do not”.

    Hmmm, that’s a Killianesque characteristic. And the typos in your comments are unusual. They seem deliberate, a way to differentiate…. And you talked about Ed – “In memory of Ed Greish RIP” – but IIRC he died before you showed up on this site. Where did “you” meet Ed?

    ———-

    Victor, it isn’t like grass growing, its like flesh-eating bacteria. You go to a doctor because you have a sore on your finger. The doc says, “You have a flesh-eating bacterial infection. We MUST treat it RIGHT NOW!!” You note that its just a small sore and blow it off. After all, the doc wants to use a needle to inject antibiotics and needles aren’t fun.

    You go back to the doc a week later because the sore has become a green oozing divot. The doc gets way excited and says, “We MUST treat it RIGHT NOW!!”

    Geez, what an alarmist.

    Next visit the doc is talking about amputation. You roll your eyes.

    The next time the dweeb is talking about inducing a coma and multiple amputations. You scream at him, “YOU SAID WE HAD TO TREAT IT WEEKS AGO AND EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN’T I’M STILL ALIVE. YOU’RE A HOAX!”

    Vic, “Right now” can mean “or you’ll get a scar” or “or you’ll lose a finger” or “or you’ll lose your arm” or…. ya see, you’re right. We CAN put off doing what we know needs to be done

    as long as we don’t give a damn about this species or that biome or such and such percentage of humanity or….

    yes, you can keep putting off treating that infection and die. And really, given that in 100 years there will be no difference either way to you (or in 10 billion years to the Earth), why bother? After all, needles aren’t fun.

    By the way, natural systems are generally overbuilt. I’ve read that you have to knock out nearly 90% of your liver before you get significant symptoms. This means that patients are pretty much dead before they lose functionality. From then on it’s all about dying more slowly. Hmmm, sounds about like the current situation with the Arctic sea ice, eh? Closing in on 80% of the volume is gone…

  20. 70
    Titus says:

    To: zebra @44:

    Where have you been for the last couple of decades. A simple search of predictions gives mountains of media and scientist to reference. Here’s one from the top:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

    BTW: You’re heart must have gone out to all those articles about suffering cuddly polar bears. Or are you insensitive to their plight:(

  21. 71
    Adam Lea says:

    64: “The costs of doing nothing exceed the costs of action.”

    The fundamental problem being that the costs of doing nothing are externalised onto other people, whereas the costs of doing something are paid by the current perpetrators. This means the selfish rational thing for the perpetrators to do is do nothing and let the victims (those other people) sort it out. It is rather like the dangers of driving a motor vehicle are disproportionately externalised onto vulnerable road users, but the benefits of driving are gained by the drivers of those motor vehicles, which is probably why you don’t see mass demonstrations screaming for private cars to be banned.

  22. 72
  23. 73
    Carrie says:

    Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
    September 2018: 405.51 ppm +2.14 ppmv
    September 2017: 403.37 ppm

    Has anyone besides me noticed that since the IPCC TAR, AR4, AR5 and this weeks SR15 that nothing really has changed or been done by Governments or The People to make a sustainable structural long term difference, yet?

  24. 74
    Carrie says:

    Unless and until the vicious cycle of misery for wealth and power is broken and buried, everything is meaningless and a waste of time.
    “But anyone can understand these people if you can grasp one thing: When the money gets big enough, finance and economics and politics are all the same thing. They are ways to measure risk. When you run five or ten or a hundred billion dollars, your overriding concern in life is that pile of money—growing it, yes, but, more fundamentally, preserving it. Geopolitics therefore become just another business risk to be measured alongside interest rates and consumer trends, and judged based on the threat it poses to your money. Climate change? A risk. War in North Korea? A risk. Donald Trump’s insanity? A risk. What normal people think of in moral or ideological terms, those who control all the world’s wealth think of simply in terms of risk. Almost anything can be tolerated, if it allows them to make more money with less risk. This is the logic of capitalism. ”

    “you find a governing philosophy that cares nothing for humanity nor anything else. ”

    Hell Is Empty as All the Hedge Fund Managers Are At The Bellagio in Vegas!
    https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hell-is-empty-and-all-the-hedge-fund-managers-are-at-th-1795429824

    Now there’s a good place to start culling! Or at the very least sending them all off to a Siberian Gulag for the term of their natural lives. (smiling)

  25. 75

    Victor, #60–

    The tiresome litany of “NOW before it’s too late” has become, well, tiresome.

    Oh, the irony…

  26. 76
    MA Rodger says:

    With Hurricane Michael hitting Cat4 as it slams into the West Florida coast, the 2018 Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) for Atlantic tropical storms has quickly passed the 100 value. Such levels of ACE have become much more common in recent years. Over the last 30 years, 18 years saw Atlanitc ACE levels top the 100 mark, that’s 60% of years. Yet in the record prior to 1988 only 25% of years topped 100 ACE, an additional 36 within those earlier years in the record stretching back to 1850.

  27. 77
    zebra says:

    #66 Titus,

    I’m confused. You asked for an explanation, but then you provided one yourself.

    The article you cited explains everything pretty clearly– a couple of scientists in the past made inaccurate predictions, which contradicted the generally accepted view at the time. That generally accepted view (timeline) has been further validated by subsequent analysis.

    Hardly a remarkable event in science, and, as your article says, neither is reporters making every little thing a headline.

    ????…so what’s your question that your own cited article doesn’t answer?

  28. 78

    #66, Titus:

    Your linked article actually provides the correct answer:

    “For more than a decade, most scientists have accepted that the Arctic will be free ice-free by 2050, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates there is a 66 per cent chance of no ice by the middle of the century if emissions continue to increase annually.”

    In other words, the consensus view was never that we’d see an ice-free Arctic by now, Drs. Wadhams and Maslowski notwithstanding. (Though it is worth noting that the latter issued his projection with caveats, and with an error estimate of +-3 years, which means that he won’t be wrong unless and until next year’s minimum comes in above 1 million kme2–which, to be fair, I expect it will.)

  29. 79
    Dan says:

    re: 66
    “But the levels of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels are NOT correlated with global temperatures over the long term, so I have no worries on that score.”

    Your continual failure to want to learn is nothing short of vile. The gist of your comment has been addressed both here and in the scientific literature many times over. Repeating your lie just shows how intellectuall lazy you truly are. If you had an ounce of interest in learning and not lying you could do a simply search right here on this blog. For example, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

    But of course you will not. Even if you bother to read it, you won’t learn it. And we all know you will repeat your lie again in the not too distant future. As if somehow repeating a lie will magically make peer reviewed climate scientists and every professional climate science organization (yes, every) somehow think that you (with no climate science research knowledge, degree, or learning) somehow know something they do not.

    Stop flaunting your scientific ignorance, once and for all.

  30. 80
    CCHolley says:

    re. Victor @66

    As for me, I’m not buying any of it. There are a great many things to be legitimately worried about, a great many potential disasters out there, both natural and man made. But the levels of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels are NOT correlated with global temperatures over the long term, so I have no worries on that score.

    Such tiresome tripe. How many times does Victor have to be told that there is strong correlation between the long term temperature trend and CO2? Ad infinitum. Apparently he is incapable of learning or more likely isn’t really interested in truth. It shouldn’t take much effort or intelligence to understand the need for statistical methods to determine correlation versus eyeballing when a function is multivariate, which global temperatures clearly are. But Victor, one who has never had training in statistics or science, claims to know better, better than thousands of experts. Disingenuous much? You betcha. Plus Victor isn’t interested in the actual science and multiple lines of evidence that clearly show the role of greenhouse gases in determining the heat retained by the earth’s climate system. Let’s pretend there is no correlation and ignore the science, that’s all he’s got. Victor does not post in good faith. He does not care about understanding or truth. By his repetitiveness from thread to thread it is obvious he is only interested in disrupting legitimate discussion and to spread doubt among the uninformed. Victor is tiresome and a bore.

  31. 81

    V 66: WHAT has been going on, lo these many years?

    BPL: Things have been getting steadily worse, that’s what’s been going on.

    V: But the levels of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels are NOT correlated with global temperatures over the long term

    BPL: That’s a lie, and since this has been repeatedly pointed out and explained to you, that makes you a habitual liar.

  32. 82

    Greetings from the heart of Michael–or at least, somewhere in the viscera.

    Lashing trees, whitecaps, intense rain. We’re fine, barring the probability of losing power at some point. But friends in Tallahassee lost their roof, and two people are known dead at this point.

    Meanwhile, the so-called president earns another idiot point by claiming that somewhere in his imagination there’s a ‘report’ that the climate is “fabulous.” A tad ironic that “fabulous” comes from “fable,” but of course the Orange One doesn’t do irony. Well, not intentionally, anyway.

    If I may be forgiven an emotive comment on a science site, I’m pretty sick of this shit.

    Share this image if you like:

    http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h402/brassdoc/Vote%20Climate.png

  33. 83
    Dan H. says:

    #78 Kevin:

    So true. However, the media tends to grab onto the most extreme and sensational predictions and present them as imminent. Similar postings are done with sea level rise (3m by 2100) and hunger (billions by 2100). It becomes an easy target for those critical of climate change to point to these predictions as exaggerations, and by association, the rest of the modeled forecasts. Likewise guilty, are those who propagate these articles here and elsewhere. The best way to education the public about the real consequences of climate change is through accurate reporting. It may not be sexy, but the truth is always better than high-end possibilities, even though they may have a non-negligible probability of occurring.

  34. 84
    Mr. Know It All says:

    83 – Dan H

    You nailed it. Media needs to stop making $#!+ up; such as exagerating the severity of storms:

    https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/11/delingpole-hurricane-michael-was-not-the-third-strongest-anything/

    A mild hurricane is bad enough – no need to lie about it.

  35. 85
    Titus says:

    zebra @77 and Kevin McKinney @78

    My question has not changed. Why were the predictions so wrong and why should we now believe 2050?

    It would be a good start to get this info out to the main stream as folks need to know to get the full picture to make their own assessment.

    MA Rodger @61 summed it up for me: “Or are we just seeing overblown predictions of an ice-free Arctic summer being over-amplified by the press looking for a sensational story?”

    And that’s your biggest undermining problem IMO.

  36. 86
    Nemesis says:

    Still high summer in Germany (since the beginning of april^^), it will be up to 28°C on saturday, still extreme drought. But still not hot enough as still too many people ignore the facts at any cost. So it needs to get hotter still and it will get hotter 38) I LOVE the Laws of Nature, because at least they are absolutely uncorruptible 38)

  37. 87
    Victor says:

    re #82, etc.: “The situation for various long-term Atlantic hurricane records and related indices is summarized in Figure 4. While global mean temperature and tropical Atlantic SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends (green curves), the U.S. landfalling hurricane record (orange curve) shows no significant increase or decrease. The unadjusted hurricane count record (blue curve) shows a significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the early 1900s. However, when adjusted with an estimate of storms that stayed at sea and were likely “missed” in the pre-satellite era, there is no longer any significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the late 1800s (red curve). While there have been increases in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and basin-wide hurricane counts since the since the early 1970s, Figure 4 shows that these recent increases are not representative of the behavior seen in the century long records. In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”
    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
    “Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018”

  38. 88
    Dan says:

    re: 84.
    Breitbart?? Seriously? That is not even close to science.
    A. The barometric pressure of Michael was indeed among the lowest to hit the US.
    B. Breitbart lied. You believed them simply because they said so. Or you just want to lie too. 50/50.

    Epic, epic critical thinking failure, sport. Especially when you look the facts up in 10 seconds from NOAA.

    Learn to think.

  39. 89
    Al Bundy says:

    Mr KillingInaction,
    Breitbart is not a reliable source. If their story is valid I’m sure you can find independent verification. I’ll wait for your corroborating evidence or your retraction (that will never come).

    Well, at least your post explains your stance. “Given that global warming is a Chinese hoax (China has secretly paid off 97% of climate scientists and the scientists are hoarding the money, which is why scientists aren’t living in mansions yet)…and the space aliens did all that damage so far inland…”

    It’s a good thing that wind gauges never fail, eh?

    Dude, grab a National Enquirer. I hear their standards are even higher than Breitbart. (All the hip space aliens read the Enquirer)

  40. 90
    MA Rodger says:

    Mr Know It All @84.
    You say “no need to lie about it” but w.r.t. Hurricane Michael, you fail to make clear who you accuse of lying.

    We have a Breitbart report of NOAA ranking Michael as being ranked third on a list of storm-pressure-at-US-landfall, the full chronoligical list of such storms being here. And as reported, Michael would sit as the third lowest pressure on that list. Breitbart also reported the same NOAA source stating that Michael was the October land-fall hurricane with the lowest pressure (919hPa, previous record 938hPa) and the highest wind speeds at landfall (155mph, previous record 130mph). No lies yet evident here.
    Then we have Rot-for-brains Delingpole also at Breitbart who was emboldened by Tony Whatever-he-calls-himself-these-days who in turn uses met-station data and pictures of wooden building demolished by landfall hurricanes of the early 1900s as a case for NOAA mis-directing us over the relative strength of Michael.
    In his own posting, Rot-for-brains immediately leaves the land of righteousness by stating Michael was ” according to NOAA’s figures … the strongest to make landfall in the continental U.S. ranked by pressure” which is of course untrue. The fool then presents a table which disproves what he had just written.
    Rot-for-brains goes on to describe Michael as being “a minor hurricane.” Even the data provided by Tony Whatever-he-calls-himself-these-days shows Michael was no “minor hurricane,” it being if nothing else the record-breaking landfall October hurricane for landfall pressure.
    So, while we cannot know for certain the veracity of the sustained speeds at landfall quoted by NOAA, we have not yet been provided with reason to doubt the NOAA data.
    So we can show Rot-for-brains & Tony Whatever-he-calls-himself-these-days are the two who are misrepresenting the truth. You may call them liars if you will.

  41. 91
    Killian says:

    Re #79 Dan said re: 66
    “But the levels of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels are NOT correlated with global temperatures over the long term, so I have no worries on that score.”

    Your continual failure to want to learn is nothing short of vile.

    Dan, I think this is incredibly naive. Failure to learn? He is utterly intentional and playing you all like a fiddle.

  42. 92

    #84, KIA–

    That’s absolutely vile. Breitbart takes an apples-to-oranges comparison and pretends that because two different things aren’t the same, then those terrible ‘alarmists’ lied.

    Measurements made from planes are not going to be identical to weather station measurements, for reasons that will probably pretty evident to a couple of minutes of thought. Here’s a starting point:

    https://sciencing.com/tools-used-measure-hurricanes-6862094.html

    Let’s take the case of Camille for comparison.

    At Boothville, Louisiana, winds of 107 miles per hour were recorded before a power failure; at Pilottown, Louisiana, the S.S. Cristobal estimated winds at 160 miles per hour. Winds at Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi were measured at 81 miles per hour with gusts to 129 miles per hour. At Ingalls Shipyard, Pascagoula, Mississippi the highest sustained wind reached 81 miles per hour while a local radio station reported 104 miles per hour winds before power failure.

    Overall it is estimated that Camille (a Category 5 hurricane) had sustained winds of 180 – 190-mph and gusts of as much as 210 – 220 mph.

    http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Hurricane1969Camille.html

    That seems entirely consistent with the experience of Michael, in which 155-mph sustained winds at 10 meters (as estimated by plane) were reflected in lower gust figures measured closer to ground level (probably) and certainly after landfall had occurred.

    As usual, it’s Tony Heller and James Delinpole who are doing the lying.

  43. 93
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Weaktor,
    Seeing as you have zero understanding of what correlation is and that you wouldn’t recognize one if it bit your pecker off, you will perhaps forgive us if we don’t put much credence in your whistling-past-the-graveyard apologetics.

    Mr. KIA, Delingpole and Breitbart? Really? You’re not helping your case here. Nor your credibility.

  44. 94
    JCH says:

    With respect to nails, the only thing Dan H. did was to smash his thumb.

  45. 95
    Fred Magyar says:

    Dan H. @ 83 says:

    It may not be sexy, but the truth is always better than high-end possibilities, even though they may have a non-negligible probability of occurring.

    Actually understanding risk assesment is of utmost importance.
    Great talk by Prof. Richard Alley.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zko-8txYpw
    Richard Alley: Science works…science helps us!

  46. 96
    nigelj says:

    Mr. Know It All @84

    According to your linked article Dellingpole claims that “Hurricane Michael Was Not the Third-Strongest Anything”. He bases this on the following statement “The NOAA wind gauge at Panama City didn’t back up any of the claims. It showed a peak sustained wind speed of 62 knots before the eyewall arrived, and minimum pressure of 937.5 mb. Neither remotely close to the hype.”

    Dellingpole has the wrong data in the wrong location. The hurricane didn’t first make landfall at Panama city, and you would not expect this area to have the highest wind speeds given its geography. In addition, the wind gauge at Panama City self destructed so did not reliably measure peak wind speeds as below.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-michael-is-the-most-powerful-storm-to-hit-florida-panhandle-on-record/

    In fact Hurricane Michael first made landfall at Mexico Beach east of Pamana City. This is where wind speeds well in excess of 62 knots and a low pressure of 919 mb was recorded. The property destruction also indicates unusually high wind speeds.

    The following is the advisory from the National Hurricane Centre documenting the record setting low pressure and wind speeds.

    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2018/al14/al142018.public_a.016.shtml?

    “Satellite, aircraft, and radar data indicate that the eye of Michael is making landfall just northwest of Mexico Beach, Florida.” Recent data from NOAA and Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft indicate that maximum sustained winds have increased to near 155 mph (250 km/h) with higher gusts.

    “The latest minimum central pressure based on data from an Air Force. Reserve reconnaissance aircraft is 919 mb (27.14 inches).A minimum pressure of 920 mb was recently reported by a University of Florida/Weatherflow observing site near Tyndall Air Force Base.”

    The Hurricane Centre are not amateurs and clearly Hurricane Michael set records as they have documented.

  47. 97
    CCHolley says:

    re. Victor @87

    Victor posts that there is no evidence of an increase in the number of hurricanes. Of course no one that I know of has predicted that warming would cause an increase in the number of hurricanes or any cyclonic storms only that they would increase in intensity due to the warmer ocean temperatures that power the storms. This is occurring.

    Killian @91

    Failure to learn? He is utterly intentional and playing you all like a fiddle.

    Exactly.

  48. 98
  49. 99
  50. 100
    Killian says:

    This really should be causing more of a stir, though the news is a bit “old.”

    Antarctic Ice Loss Has Tripled Over the Past Decade

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/antarctic-ice-loss-has-tripled-over-past-decade-180969373/

    The money shot:

    Previous estimates said melting ice in Antarctica contributed to seven thousandths of an inch (0.2 millimeters) of annual rise, while the latest numbers are closer to two hundredths of an inch (0.6 millimeters) annually.

    Of course, the article talks about somebody saying, gosh, that’s like six inches over the next century if it stays like that! but, hey, it ain’t gonna stay like that. Things are progressing, which in this case means getting worse, of course, in a seemingly exponential fashion. Tripling in 10 years? At least it’s better than doubling every five as Hansen, et al., have worried over! Still, what do we get if it keeps tripling because, gosh, Beave, that’s how good risk assessment should be done! So let’s do it.

    I got about 4 meters from Antarctica alone with tripling every ten years. However, as I have said in previous posts, I suck at the mathematicalses. I used a spread sheet and averaged the tripling over 10 years and used a simple multiplication function: =SUM(0.6*1.11612321211). Actually, 0.6 is a cell designation, C1. I end up with 3934.8583 millimeters, or 3.9366 meters, in 2098 and 4.9039 in 2100.

    Yes?

    However, there must be a more accurate formula for use in a spread sheet. Someone suggested the rule of 72, but that finds doubling time. What I want is the numbers to plug in that I can show every year in the spread sheet.

    Now, to SLR. (Please don’t respond with IPCC drivel. That is, we all *should* know what the IPCC reports are supposed to be: A survey of climate science to help guide policy. What it is *treated like* is the Gold Standard of Climate Science, despite the fact it is always out of date before published and is affected by both scientific consensus and, the far worse aspect, political bullshit. Regardless, please understand what IPCC assessments are: Average. Baseline. They care not and cannot be cutting edge and should not be cited in up-to-date discussions except on issues of background science and what is considered consensus and what is still under discussion.)

    The above article states Antarctic melt is accelerating, having increased x3 in ten years. As I noted above, the math says continued steady triplings, something Hansen, et al., have noted is possible (doublings in 5 yrs in that case) and would be horrific while noting isolated instances of such. Now we have Antarctica doing the same according to a paper this year:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y.epdf

    I remember we discussed it some then. Along with that, Jeff Goodell recently interviewed Richard Alley and got this whopper: Can’t rule out 15-20 ft by 2100. Outlier, sure, but we are surrounded by outliers.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-sea-level-rise-737012/

    Yes, I did say 3 meters possible back in 2007-8. And those numbers have only grown over time. That Hansen, et al., found 10 and 5-year doublings **possible**, even if not probable, should have set everyone’s hair on fire. And here is Alley saying the new 1.5 is out to lunch on the issue and 6+ meters is possible!

    This is not a surprise to me, as you will expect, because I have discussed the possibility of the doublings before, and have often stated my opposition to typical framing of climate and suggest strongly we should be talking risk and simplification. Because those doublings become more likely every day. And now we have Antarctica tripling over ten years. Risk assessment says change radically, not incrementally. Good, the 1.5C reports says this… sort of. If you’re a Capitalist. It doesn’t in any way suggest we have to create a different sort of civilization. Sadly.

    Sure, things are non-linear. Slowing may occur. Likely will. But then speeding up will come again.

    Can we do something about this? Not really. Not in the short term. Even my understanding we can simplify and return to 260ppm within 20 years with a massive, coordinated global slow down likely would not affect the numbers much before 2100. All that energy in the oceans… whew. 20 years to draw down, 30 years or 50 years or who knows how long to cool the planet. Inertia is our enemy.

    In the absolute best case scenario, that study says to us get ready for up to 20 ft higher oceans. And if we get to 5 year doublings, even more…?