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. 151
    jgnfld says:

    @135 “…What’s being demanded is drastic cutbacks and eventual elimination of all CO2 emissions, measures that would certainly destroy at least three quarters of the world economy,…”

    Well now…It appears that vic has joined the ALARMIST community. And using only common sense rather than evidence too!

  2. 152
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Mr. KIA,
    A serious question: How in the hell can anyone with a greater than room temperature IQ and a vestigial shred of human decency support Donald Trump. The man was a joke way back in the 1980s and has only gotten worse.

    He is not just ignorant, but proud of his ignorance. Hell, he had never heard of the countries Bhutan and Nepal–referring to them as “Button” and “Nipple”.

    He is not only dishonest–he’s lied egregiously thousands of times since taking office–he doesn’t even seem to think the truth matters.

    He is anti-science, anti-humanitarian and anti-reason.

    He’s not even a good business man. Had he taken the money ol’ Fred gave him back in the ’70s and just indexed it to the S&P 500, he’d be much richer than he is now. Hell, the dude managed to nearly go bankrupt buying casinos–quite a feat.

    His comments after Charlottesville show him to be–literally–a Nazi sympathizer. He has separated thousands of traumatized children from their families. He has cozied up not just to dictators, but to murderous thugs.

    He is barely functionally literate, communicating alternately with misspelled tweets and rambling, disjoint, stream of consciousness diatribes where meaning gets lost in the wilderness of unconnected words and digressions and dies of starvation.

    You claim he has “wit” and “common sense”. I would be curious which dictionary you are using for your definitions. To me, “wit” requires a degree of creativity and brevity, while if he had common sense, I would think he would occasionally get something right just by accident.

    So seriously, dude, WTF.

  3. 153

    “Viewed a few pages on Jo nova/wuwt and read about 25% of his PhD thesis…”

    *Her* thesis. (Us guys already have enough tyrants, sadists, thugs, villains, denialists, creeps, liars and assorted all-around evil-doers to be embarrassed about.)

  4. 154

    #143, KIA–

    Keep clinging to those illusions as long as you can.

  5. 155
    nigelj says:

    Victor, #135 says “What’s being demanded is drastic cutbacks and eventual elimination of all CO2 emissions, measures that would certainly destroy at least three quarters of the world economy,”

    At the risk of feeding the troll, it’s a ridiculous unsubstantiated statement. Kevin, it’s beyond hand waving its a brain explosion, every thing is flapping around.

    I see no reason why changing infrastructure from coal fired power plants etc to wind and solar would even be particularly economically destructive or even disruptive. Look at how renewable electricity generation is now one of the lowest cost options, and phase it in over 10 – 20 years and its a non issue. Look at the massive economic changes made during WW2 in America, or during the “New Deal” and the economy actually came out well ahead in every respect. The problem we really have now is a lack of motivation and sense of urgency: frog being slowly boiled alive syndrome.

    Changing to a low meat diet would significantly help the climate issue and a whole lot of other issues. It would be disruptive, but certainly not destructive. Crop farmers make plenty of money, and farms often change products quite quickly as personal preferences and market conditions change. The issue is not so much economic disruption as motivational.

    The real issue is that a concerted effort to build renewable electricity generation, electric cars, and so on will require labour. We could use all the useless parasitical finance people, lawyers and consultants that infest our economy and do nothing of real substance. Most people would notice no economic difference.

    And its ridiculous to think that individual initiative alone would be enough to fix the climate problem. Mr KIA seems to think this. Only governments can really push the system towards renewable electricity generation and the general major changes required in enough time to be useful. Free markets and personal initiative might work given a thousand years, but by then we will all be cooked. The reality is you need governments giving things a push with electricity generation and a carbon tax and dividend, or subsidies, that could vary a bit from country to country. Just have a strong plan of some sort.

    Killian says give up completely on the present socio economic system, and just cut energy use very substantially ( he quotes 90%). I dont know how realistic this really is, but at the very least a good case can be made to reduce energy consumption at least 25% and a carbon tax of substance would I think help push people to consider alternative life styles and reductions in per capita energy consumption. I think we should use every available device to point the system in the right direction. That is the main thing.

  6. 156
  7. 157
    Hank Roberts says:

    More Tornadoes are Popping up East of the Mississippi |
    | posted by martyb on Friday October 19, @07:58 (Science) |
    | https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/10/19/005233 |
    +———————————————————————————————-+

    [0]Phoenix666 writes:

    [1]ScienceNews:

    Twisters are twirling away from Tornado Alley.

    From 1979 to 2017, annual tornado frequency slightly decreased over the region, which stretches across the central and southern Great Plains of the United States, a study finds. Conversely, a higher number of storms [2]touched down in areas east of the Mississippi River over the same period, researchers report October 17 in npj Climate and Atmospheric Science.

    “The great Tornado Alley is still No. 1 in terms of [overall] frequency,” says coauthor Victor Gensini, an applied climatologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. But more tornadoes in communities ill-prepared to face the relatively unfamiliar storms, such as in the southeastern United States, could mean more infrastructure damage and loss of life.

    The Deep South should get to work on its tornado shelters?

    ————————————————————————

    [3]Original Submission

    Discuss this story at:
    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=18/10/19/005233

    Links:
    0. https://soylentnews.org/~Phoenix666/
    1. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/more-tornadoes-are-popping-east-mississippi
    2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0048-2
    3. https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=29636

  8. 158
    scott nudds says:

    Re: 134 “You can choose to listen to the babble o the denialists and all the wasted type strokes if you wish, I scroll past them:

    You are not the audience you should be concerned with.

    Once you leave the stage, it remains open to your opponents as a platform to spread their denialist propaganda.

  9. 159
    scott nudds says:

    Re: 135 “What’s being demanded is drastic cutbacks and eventual elimination of all CO2 emissions, measures that would certainly destroy at least three quarters of the world economy, if it could be implemented at all, which it cannot, for reasons that should be obvious.”

    If true then the human race will be extinct within 150 years or so.

    Fortunately, reductions are being seen at the national level, which proves your comment to be a convenient lie.

    We see many lies coming from you.

  10. 160
    scott nudds says:

    Re: 148 “NOAA has posted also for September with an anomaly of +0.78ºC”

    2018 will end up being the 4th warmest year ever recorded.

  11. 161
    Hank Roberts says:

    Victor has given up making up science fables and moved on to making up political fables.

    Did anyone ever review his eyeball statistics method as published for the Lomax work? It seems he has aquired a vast quantity of self-esteem somehow. But who has found him credible, has anyone else applied his methods to musical history studies?

  12. 162
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078969

    Climatic Responses to Future Trans‐Arctic Shipping
    https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078969

    We find that trans‐Arctic shipping will reduce Arctic warming by nearly 1 °C by 2099, due to sulfate‐driven liquid water cloud formation. Cloud fraction and liquid water path exhibit significant positive trends, cooling the lower atmosphere and surface. Positive feedbacks from sea ice growth‐induced albedo increases and decreased downwelling longwave radiation due to reduced water vapor content amplify the cooling relative to the shipping‐free Arctic. Our findings thus point to the complexity in Arctic climate responses to increased shipping traffic, justifying further study and policy considerations as trade routes open.

  13. 163
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change?WT.mc_id=10_17_2018_06_EnergyClimateChangePlan_BG-EM_&WT.tsrc=BGEM

    Making electricity is responsible for only 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions each year. So even if we could generate all the electricity we need without emitting a single molecule of greenhouse gases (which we’re a long way from doing), we would cut total emissions by just a quarter.

    To prevent the worst effects of climate change, we need to get to zero net greenhouse gas emissions in every sector of the economy within 50 years—and as the IPCC recently found, we need to be on a path to doing it in the next 10 years. That means dealing with electricity, and the other 75% too….

  14. 164

    nigel, #155–

    I see no reason why changing infrastructure from coal fired power plants etc to wind and solar would even be particularly economically destructive or even disruptive. Look at how renewable electricity generation is now one of the lowest cost options, and phase it in over 10 – 20 years and its a non issue. Look at the massive economic changes made during WW2 in America, or during the “New Deal” and the economy actually came out well ahead in every respect.

    Exactly. There *is* no reason; Victor was simply making unsupported assertions. Call it hand-waving, or brain spasm, or whatever; it BS all the way down, for the reasons you specify.

    Renewables are already in many instances a better deal on purely economic terms *before* considering environmental costs that are still largely held external. That’s why they are winning market share all over the world; why coal is in deep, deep trouble as an industry; why, for that matter, developing nations were willing to sign on to Paris–they saw a viable alternative.

    The reason that Victor can’t see it is that he has bought wholesale into propaganda that finds its ultimate origin with the fossil fuel barons. They’ve spent the last 4 decades or so creating institutes like the Heritage Institute, Cato, and others too numerous to mention, in order precisely to defend their short-to-medium-term interests. (They appear willing to let the long term go, or perhaps they’re drinking their own Koolaid.)

    I don’t know exactly why Victor has made that choice, though ego is surely implicated in the process. But it’s quite evident that true critical thought has flown.

    But it only matters as case study. His initiative to save the world from renewables is a fool’s errand at this point–though, given that current RE deployment rates need to ramp up by a factor of something like 5-6, still potentially obstructionist and therefore unwelcome.

  15. 165
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/15/idea-that-action-against-climate-change-will-destroy-economy-couldnt-be-more-wrong/

    Washington Post
    Monday, October 15, 2018

    PERSPECTIVE
    The idea that action against climate change will ‘destroy the economy’ couldn’t be more wrong

    By Jared Bernstein

    Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden, is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and author of ‘The Reconnection Agenda: Reuniting Growth and Prosperity’.
    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) admitted Sunday that human activity is leading to increased global temperatures and that steps should be taken to mitigate the impact of climate change. But, when pushed for concrete policies, he argued that he’s “not going to destroy our economy.”

    This betrays a consequential misunderstanding of not just how economies work but of what economies are. The idea that economies are somehow inherently unable to repel existential threats belies logic and common sense: There is absolutely nothing in the construct of this creature we call an economy that precludes mechanisms to fight global warming. To the contrary, such mechanisms abound, as I explain below.

    Rubio is making two big mistakes here. First, he’s defining “our economy” in a way that has little to do with “us” and a lot to do with pay-to-play politics. Second, he’s claiming there is no trade-off that improves social welfare (not gross domestic product, but people’s broader well-being) while enhancing environmental sustainability….
    ========================

  16. 166
    nigelj says:

    Ray Ladbury @162, agreed about Trump. A pathetic excuse for a leader who is either a moron or really determined to act like one, perhaps his real vocation if life should have been a clown. Not that Hilary inspired, which was half the problem.

    However to see what motivates Trumps followers, I suggest google “moral foundations theory”. It’s about people attracted to authoritarian leaders and bullies, and political tribalism. However if you think the theory is wrong, I would be interested.

  17. 167
    Killian says:

    Looks like the 2018 CO2 low was nearly 3ppm higher than 2017…

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BpLdQcJHfkr/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=3imwpds1kaxt

  18. 168
    Killian says:

    Re #158 scott nudds said Re: 134 “You can choose to listen to the babble o the denialists and all the wasted type strokes if you wish, I scroll past them:

    You are not the audience you should be concerned with.

    Really? How’d you figure that out? or rather, what in the world made you think I am?

    Once you leave the stage, it remains open to your opponents as a platform to spread their denialist propaganda.

    This is 1. not what I have suggested, yet, completely wrong.

    What is suggested is to not engage them, but to shut them down. Post a minimal message telling like it is: This is a logical fallacy. That is a lie. Your behavior is immoral, unethical and a crime against humanity, etc., and leave it at that. Do not discuss it, do not repeat their lies, fallacies, etc.

    Clear?

  19. 169
    Carrie says:

    What is a PhD worth when the supervising climate science denying Professor get the sack from James Cook University soon after you gte your piece of paper?

    More facts about 144 Carrie; and 124 MA Rodger, and John McLean @113/114

    MEDIA WATCH Broadcast: Mon 15 Oct 2018, Climate coverage
    News Corp’s contempt for climate science revealed in its coverage of last week’s IPCC report — instead focusing on an unsubstantiated ‘passive aggressive’ thesis by a nobody denier named John McLean
    https://iview.abc.net.au/show/media-watch OR
    https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/climate-coverage/10377090

    Ridicule is too good for these people.

  20. 170
    Marco says:

    Kevin @153: he is referring to John McLean’s PhD ‘thesis’ – I am using thesis rather loosely here. As Nick Stokes noted at ATTP, on page 4 there already is a disclaimer that he largely didn’t even try to quantify what the impact of the supposed issues is.

  21. 171
    Carrie says:

    Piomass update
    Whether the 2018/2019 freezing season can follow in the footsteps of 2016/2017, or whether it will move towards 2017/2018, is difficult to tell right now. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this winter follows the recent trend of warm winters resulting in low maximums.
    https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/piomas-october-2018.html

  22. 172
    Killian says:

    Re #150 Kevin McKinney said You do realize, don’t you, that this is pure hand-waving? The task is certainly formidable, as SR 1.5 recognizes, but there are many technically possible scenarios that do, in fact, provide adequate emissions reductions to give a reasonable probability of limiting warming to 1.5 C.

    And no, none of them involve “destroying at least three quarters of the world economy.

    Please stop making stuff up.

    Sadly, horrifyingly, I have to side with the immoral, criminal denier. You are incorrect, Kevin. There are technologies that are claimed to be able to sequester CO2, but there are exactly zero that are proven, imo. Those that claim to work are not at any degree of scale. And where is the analysis of EROEI, resources consumption, etc., for the one or two techs that claim they can do this?

    He’s not wrong. The handwaving is the too-soon clapping for success for technology that has not proven itself. The scale of build out needed is massive. And, of course, it’s stupid to do since it will never approach sustainability and we have other safer, ecologically sound pathways.

  23. 173
    nigelj says:

    Killian @172 says “There are technologies that are claimed to be able to sequester CO2, but there are exactly zero that are proven, imo. ”

    I’m trying to avoid responding to Killian, but I think its important to answer this. He doesn’t substantiate his ‘opinion’. In fact there appears to be solid proof that direct air capture works, and that there are several different versions, and that affordable systems are possible ( so therefore scaling up is at least possible) as in the links below. If anyone disagrees, provide proof by way of references to the peer reviewed literature, or chemistry analysis from first principles.

    http://carbonengineering.com/about-dac/

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611369/maybe-we-can-afford-to-suck-cosub2sub-out-of-the-sky-after-all/

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air

    https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/direct-air-capture-DAC

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Chemical_processes

    However its ambitious technology and is clearly not ideal (for several reasons), and I agree with Killian there are more sustainable alternatives such as soil sequestration of carbon and planting trees. The problem is they are likely to be slow to scale up (try convincing tens of millions of farmers to fundamentally change how they do things).

    All Im saying is at this stage we better develop all possible technologies, and explore all possible options.

  24. 174
    scott nudds says:

    Re 172 -> “The scale of build out needed is massive.”

    To solve the issue through sequestration something on the order of 20 cubic kilometers of CO2 containing material will need to be produced and somehow hidden every year.

    Good luck with that.

  25. 175
    Scott Nudds says:

    One thing that should be remembered regarding this problem is that America simply won’t exist as a nation for very much longer.

    America’s implosion will have to be managed by the Rational states.

    In particular, the southern U.S. states may need to be invaded and occupied so that their economies are brought in line with continued existence.

  26. 176
    Scott Nudds says:

    An open question….

    90 percent of Republicans support a president who just said…

    “A lot of people in California don’t want” sanctuary cities, Trump said. “They’re rioting now; they wanna get out of their sanctuary cities … They’re demanding they be released from sanctuary cities.” – Donald Trump

    75% of Republicans believe either the globe is not warming or that CO2 is not responsible.

    What is your plan?

  27. 177
    MA Rodger says:

    With the Autumn solstice arrived, JAXA have 2018 yet-again time-of-year record-breaking.

    The big melt years of 2007 & 2012 were quickly freezing up by this time but 2016 froze far more slowly and after the solstice period 2016 Sea Ice Extent was trailing many hundreds of thousands sq kms behind all other years. At one point it managed to run 1,100,000 sq km behind all other years. Crazy stuff! (A year-on-year graph of JAXA SIE anomalies is being kept up-to-date here – usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’.)
    2018’s freeze-up is looking like it might be set for a repeat of 2016 with 2018 SIE presently just below that of 2016 (17,000 sq km, an insignificant amount). And for what its worth, DMI’s 80N modeling has 2018 looking warmer than ever through this freeze season so far.

  28. 178

    #172, Killian–

    No. The pathways exist, as detailed in section C of the SPM:

    http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

    That is not to say that they are easy, nor that implementation is a sure thing (or even politically probable). However, they are all adjudged to be technically possible and hence exist in the same way that any plan or blueprint exists. That appears to me to be what Victor denied–he apparently believes that it is simply and flatly impossible to mitigate emissions.

    And in that belief he is plainly incorrect. The task can be done. What is needed is the will to do it.

    My advice to anyone who believes that the will to do it does not exist is to STFU on bemoaning that fact, and get busy building that will instead. It’s harder, but a hell of a lot more satisfying, even when it doesn’t appear to be working.

    14 days and change to midterms, as of writing.

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

  29. 179
    zebra says:

    #177 MA Rodger,

    Sorry to have to keep pointing it out but this breathless stuff about the Arctic ice is at the “scientific” level of Victor and others like him. Weather isn’t climate, short term readings are not a trend, and I know you know this very well. (Unlike V and company.)

    Yes, 2016 froze slowly, but it achieved a maximum higher than 2017 and 2018.

    As I’ve suggested before, you should look at the 3 decadal averages now supplied on the graph. Then, if you click the last eight years, you can see where the average minimum and maximum are going to come out. Not all that dramatic.

    Because of the nature of the Arctic, the primary controlling factors are atmospheric and ocean energy transport into the system. Given the complex geography, this means you are going to get a lot of noise.

    The amount of ice is diminishing, and BAU will result in an “ice-free September” as defined by the pros, but it will happen according to the laws of physics and the chaotic dynamics of the entire climate system.

  30. 180

    #175, Scott Nudds–

    In particular, the southern U.S. states may need to be invaded and occupied so that their economies are brought in line with continued existence.

    In the realm of really terrible ideas, that one is sure a standout.

    –America needs to remake its energy economy. How is she to do that in the midst of another civil war?

    –The existing military is disproportionately Southern, and the demographic and economic balance has shifted very significantly toward the South. Are you sure the North would win a rematch? I personally doubt it.

    –The south, while ‘red’, is also the region with the strongest renewable energy infrastructure. Texas, for instance, is far and away the leading wind energy producer, with Oklahoma well in the mix. Georgia and North Carolina are top 10 solar energy states, and Arizona is a standout in that regard.

    –The south is already–and has long been–being ‘invaded’ by civilians like, well, me. The stereotype is that everyone here is a redneck GOP-er; the reality is that there is a large and vibrant progressive community across the South. In electoral terms, the split is perceived to be overwhelmingly pro-Republican, but the reality is that that is an artifact of our binary system, and in actual quantitative terms typically sits about 60-40. In considerable degree, it’s an urban-rural split, with the Dems winning most cities across the South in 2016.

  31. 181
    Killian says:

    Re #173 anklebiter gets it wrong again, saying Killian @172 says “There are technologies that are claimed to be able to sequester CO2, but there are exactly zero that are proven, imo. ”

    He doesn’t substantiate his ‘opinion’.

    It’s not actually an opinion. I was trying to avoid idiotic responses like yours.

    In fact there appears to be solid proof that direct air capture works

    I didn’t say it didn’t work, I said it wasn’t proven. Many things “work” but fail to scale up, fail to work as well as advertised, are too expensive, are too resource intensive, etc.

    But, again, you say something stupid just to get your teeth in my ankle.

    affordable systems are possible

    1. Affordable to whom?

    2. See that “possible” you wrote? That’s not proven. Get it?

    so therefore scaling up is at least possible

    Because it’s only dependent on price… right…

    references to the peer reviewed literature

    Literature… as in not proven, only studied and proofs of concepts made. Not scaled, not being sold to the public… Not proven.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610296/the-carbon-capture-era-may-finally-be-starting/

    first principles.

    You do not understand this term.

    http://carbonengineering.com/about-dac/

    Not proven.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611369/maybe-we-can-afford-to-suck-cosub2sub-out-of-the-sky-after-all/

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air

    But such technology is expensive—about $600 per ton of CO2, by one recent estimate. Now, in a new study, scientists say future chemical plants could drop that cost below $100 per ton

    Not proven. Not scalable at current price. Not proven. And…

    pilot facility

    Not proven.

    https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/direct-air-capture-DAC

    This says nothing of it being proven.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Chemical_processes

    They have also been researched for carbon capture.

    Not proven. Again, you embarrass yourself.

    The problem is they are likely to be slow to scale up (try convincing tens of millions of farmers to fundamentally change how they do things).

    Stop saying this. It was stupid the first time and is still stupid. Farmers all over the world are already doing it and/or transitioning. It takes a farmer all of a moment to decide and all of a season to get it going. So your genius solution is to pretend something that takes no more than a season to establish can’t possibly be done quickly, while something that barely exists and is still unproven and will take many decades to scale up is a good option.

    Stop saying stupid shit.

  32. 182
    Alf says:

    The Slush(tm), formerly known as ASI, began to refreeze pretty slow and late this year (w/o ENSO), nearly identical to 2007, until now.
    We`re experiencing the lowest ASI Extent on the record for this time in year, very close to 2007, 2012 and 2016. – Looks like there`s a new pattern showing up.
    Do we have reached the tipping point of loss of albedo and the positive feedback loop is kickin´ in?

  33. 183
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2018/10/22/the-coming-storm-by-michael-lewis-is-a-must-listen/

    The Coming Storm by Michael Lewis is a Must Listen
    You really need to listen to The Coming Storm. This Audible short is about big data, deadly storms, and egregious greed, and I’d give it 5 stars even if I were not quoted in it. (The quote is accurate by the way and I stand by it 100%.) My friend Tim Schmidt (my go-to expert on satellite data) is also quoted and he (and many of my NOAA friends) are … The post The Coming Storm by Michael Lewis is a Must Listen (https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2018/10/22/the-coming-storm-by-michael-lewis-is-a-must-listen/) appeared first on Dan’s Wild Wild Science Journal (https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience) . Read More

    Is A Changing Climate Shifting Tornado Alley?
    An important paper by Harold Brooks and Victor Gensini is out today, and it looks at how the atmospheric conditions that produce tornadoes have changed since 1979. The data shows a clear shift toward the Southeast U.S. with a decrease in the Plains. This is not good since the increase is in an area of higher population, and in an area where a larger percentage of people live in tornado death traps. These traps are … The post Is A Changing Climate Shifting Tornado Alley? (https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2018/10/17/is-a-changing-climate-shifting-tornado-alley/) appeared first on Dan’s Wild Wild Science Journal (https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience) .

  34. 184
    Carrie says:

    The quote of the decade:

    The world is much bigger than that, but so is climate change. It is also very fast, with more than half the carbon humanity has ever emitted into the atmosphere having come in just the last 25 years, since Al Gore published his first book on climate change.

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html

    or since the RIO Summit in 1992 – how we doin’?

    Let’s talk about it some.

    Let’s wait and see what the latest science in the IPCC AR6 report says, and then talk about that too.

    Until the AR7 comes out …..

  35. 185
    Carrie says:

    Hurricane Walaka, which battered the remote French Frigate Shoals early October, has devoured one of the atoll’s islets, satellite images have revealed. It has been a nesting place for the Hawaiian sea turtle and the monk seal.

    The tiny island became submerged after Walaka, one of the strongest Pacific hurricanes in history, hit French Frigate Shoal, the largest atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 500 miles (800 kilometers) northwest of the capital, Honolulu, in early October. While the hurricane spared the most populated big islands, East Island and neighboring Tern Island took a beating.

    Chip Fletcher, a University of Hawaii scientist, wasn’t surprised a hurricane — made more intense due to #climatechange — had wiped out East Island in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, home to endangered seals and sea turtles. But he didn’t expect it this soon. #hinews@noaapic.twitter.com/ejcGuh0XMF
    — Nathan Eagle (@NathanEagle) October 22, 2018

    Satellite images released by US Fish and Wildlife Services show the devastation the hurricane brought to East Island, which has been practically erased from the map. As the hurricane was about to descend on the archipelago, seven researchers studying endangered green sea turtles and monk seals were evacuated.

    There was not a single person to witness how East Island disappeared, and researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) only discovered the scale of the destruction from satellite images.

  36. 186
    Mr. Know It All says:

    152 – Ray

    Nice meltdown. We’ll never agree on Trump. Let’s see if we can make a deal on Making America Great Again, AND on making progress on AGW. Would that be worth while? If we can make a deal, I’ll send it to Trump and see if he’ll go for it. This is only a rough start on a list of topics:

    Your side is to give our side basically what we want on: 2nd Amendment, school security, immigration, Israel, abortion, health insurance, voter ID and election integrity, trade, US sovereignty, education, taxes, etc.

    Our side will give your side basically what you want as far as carbon taxes on energy, and maybe some increased fuel efficiency requirements.

    You don’t like our crap; we don’t like your crap; but we make significant progress on AGW and on MAGA. Everyone wins.

    Deal or no deal?

  37. 187
    CCHolley says:

    Coincidently, speaking of mitigation and its economic impacts, I had the pleasure this week to meet Paul Hawken of Project Drawdown and sit in on his lecture of solutions with their impacts, costs, and payback.

    For those that are unaware, a summary of his organization’s work is covered in this book edited by Hawken:

    DRAWDOWN, The Most comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming

    https://www.amazon.com/Drawdown-Comprehensive-Proposed-Reverse-Warming/dp/0143130447/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540382812&sr=8-1&keywords=drawdown+paul+hawken

    The organization has reviewed hundreds of ways to help mitigate AGW and with experts ranking them for cost effectiveness. Dealing with AGW will ruin the world’s economies? Hardly. That is just a myth pushed by the fossil fuel industry and corrupt politicians.

  38. 188
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-10-24/whats-behind-the-seasons-sudden-storm-surge
    ========================
    … Warming ocean temperatures are driving what’s known as “rapid intensification,” the term that describes when a storm’s sustained winds accelerate by at least 25 knots – or about 29 mph – within 24 hours. It’s a shift that’s “notoriously very hard to predict,” says Gregory Foltz, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    This spring, however, Foltz and a team of researchers published a study that analyzed satellite data of hurricanes between 1986-2015. Over that 30-year-period, they found, there “was a significant increasing trend in the magnitude of hurricane rapid intensification,” Foltz says.

    Last-minute surges in storms’ strength, in other words, weren’t necessarily occurring more frequently – but when rapid intensification did happen, it was much more severe.

    The apparent main culprit – perhaps counterintuitively – isn’t so much climate change as it is a natural phenomenon known as “multi-decadal oscillation,” Foltz says. As the theory goes, over a period of 40-50 years, cold water in the North Atlantic sinks and flows southward toward the equator. As it warms, it rises back toward the surface and makes the trip north again.

    RELATED CONTENT

    The Forecast for Recovery

    “The mid-’80s was the bottom of the last cold period of the multi-decadal oscillation, and it’s been increasing since then,” Foltz says. “That period has coincided with an increase in hurricane activity, especially in the ’90s, and since the ’90s it’s been more active than normal.”

    Researchers expect that climate change, by driving up the temperature of ocean waters, will prolong the warming period – or perhaps put an end to the cooling phase of the cycle altogether. That could make rapid intensification, perhaps previously a multi-decade phenomenon, a permanent trend….
    =======================

  39. 189
    MA Rodger says:

    HadCRUT has posted for September with an anomaly of +0.595ºC, a very small rise on August’s +0.591ºC and nothing exceptional for the year-so-far which has monthly anomalies spanning from +0.53ºC to +0.63ºC.

    It is 4th warmest September on the HadCRUT record (NOAA was =4th, BEST was 5th & GISTEMP made it =6th), on HadCRUT Sept 2018bsits below 1st-placed 2015 (+0.86ºC), 2016 (+0.73ºC) and 2014 (+0.60ºC).
    September 2018 is 64th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month HadCRUT record. (NOAA =45th, BEST 84th, GISTEMP =63rd.)

    In the HadCRUT year-to-date table below, 2018 currently sits 6th. By year’s end 2018 will almost certainly have climbed higher than 6th, requiring the Oct-Dec anomalies to average above +0.49ºC to gain 5th and average above +0.57ºC to claim 4th place. (A 3rd place would require that average to manage a very toasty +0.96ºC.)
    …….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
    2016 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
    2015 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
    2017 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
    2010 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 5th
    1998 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 7th
    2018 .. +0.59ºC
    2014 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
    2005 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 6th
    2002 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 12th
    2007 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 13th
    2009 .. +0.50ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 11th

  40. 190
    Hank Roberts says:

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/trump-i-have-a-natural-instinct-for-science.html/

    … Asked by Lesley Stahl about the report, Trump accordingly dismissed it, “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda.”

    But you know who doesn’t have a big political agenda, according to Donald Trump? Donald Trump. The president of the United States styles himself as a man of science, willing to follow the facts wherever they go. In yet another of his current spate of lunatic ramblings he has decided to share with various media, this time the Associated Press, Trump was asked about the report again, and gave an even crazier response.

    Trump asserted that, contrary to the scientific conclusion that pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere has caused an upward ratcheting of temperatures, he sees it as random unexplainable variation: “I agree the climate changes, but it goes back and forth, back and forth.” When the interviewer noted that scientists have concluded otherwise, Trump asserted his own scientific credentials.

    “My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years. Dr. John Trump,” he said. “And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture.”

    So Trump’s claim to scientific competence rests on his belief that science is a matter of instinct, and this instinct is passed on genetically, as evidenced by his uncle. Those lucky few possessed of this gift can look at two competing hypotheses and know which one is correct, without needing to study the evidence, or even having a clear understanding of what “evidence” means. Trump has luckily inherited this instinct, along with some $400 million in untaxed gifts from his father….

  41. 191
  42. 192
    Scott Nudds says:

    Early voting stats for the U.S. midterms.

    Republicans lead Democrats by…

    6 points in Florida
    9 points in Georgia
    10 points in Texas
    11 points in Arizona
    12 points in Indiana
    17 points in Montana
    33 points in Tennessee
    and -7 points in Nevada

  43. 193
    Killian says:

    Re #178 Kevin McKinney said #172, Killian–

    No. The pathways exist

    Straw Man Fallacy. You and nigel must have had the same English teachers because I did not say they do not exist, I said, “there are exactly zero that are proven, imo.”

    …they are all adjudged to be technically possible

    Who cares? Adjudged by the people who do not understand sustainable and/regenerative systems? How does what they think matter? Give me a panel of regenerative designers signing off on this, I might sit up and listen. As it is, they should be listening to professionals who understand the system rather than expecting us to accept their flawed analyses.

    And, to adjudge that things that cannot succeed should be pursued at all costs is suicidally foolish. I have been saying here for years the huge elephant in the room of a massive tech-based build-out is that it becomes self-fulfilling. The bigger it gets the more people think it’s THE way and you end up creating your own coffin.

    and hence exist in the same way that any plan or blueprint exists.

    Pedantic and pointless. Pet Rocks exist, too. And?

    That appears to me to be what Victor denied–he apparently believes that it is simply and flatly impossible to mitigate emissions.

    The way Drawdown, 1.5, IPPC say? He’s correct. Any of their scenarios will fail to draw down enough, so are irrelevant.

    The task can be done. What is needed is the will to do it.

    False. It can be done, but not under any of those scenarios. Regenerative Governance is a fully do-able, not-dependent-on-any-new-tech pathway that has existed since 2011. All that is needed is the will to live intelligently with Nature.

    My advice to anyone who believes that the will to do it does not exist is to STFU on bemoaning that fact, and get busy building that will instead.

    And that is my advice to you, and has been for a long time. But you don’t listen. But, as you say, those who don’t want to do the work to get to simplicity because of their selfish wants need to STFU and get to work, lose their selfish perspectives and their egos and do the work.

    It’s harder, but a hell of a lot more satisfying, even when it doesn’t appear to be working.

    Indeed. When are you jumping in?

  44. 194
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Mr. KIA@186: Ah, I see you’re smarter than the average Republican–you’ve learned not to defend the indefensible. And Trump is indefensible. By backing him, you’ve lost any moral authority.

    You want us to believe you oppose a woman’s right to control her own body because you care about children so much? Fine, quit building jails for babies.

    You want us to believe you care about students getting shot up? Fine, close the loopholes for background checks and allowing certified nutjobs to buy guns.

    You want us to believe you care about the planet? Fine, quit holding the planet hostage to your political agenda.

  45. 195
    Mr. Know It All says:

    192 Scott
    “Early voting stats for the U.S. midterms.

    Republicans lead Democrats by…

    6 points in Florida
    9 points in Georgia
    10 points in Texas
    11 points in Arizona
    12 points in Indiana
    17 points in Montana
    33 points in Tennessee
    and -7 points in Nevada”

    That’s a shame – Republicans should be ahead by 20 in any of those states – hopefully by election day they will be. After the despicable display of dishonesty by the Ds in the Kavanaugh confirmation process, they do not deserve a single vote EVER AGAIN.

    194 Ray

    Dude, you’re still melting down? OK, if you don’t want to work together to find solutions to AGW, I’m OK with that.

  46. 196
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Mr. KIA,
    So good to know that now that you’ve abandoned any last glimmer of decency in the blackened husk that used to be your soul that the Republican party will welcome you with open arms.

  47. 197
    Carrie says:

    according to George Monbiot:

    Quote

    A people’s rebellion is the only way to fight climate breakdown

    In a letter to the Guardian on Friday Dr Rowan Williams, Professor Molly Scott Cato MEP and 92 others declared:

    Quote

    We the undersigned represent diverse academic disciplines, and the views expressed here are those of the signatories and not their organisations. While our academic perspectives and expertise may differ, we are united on one point: we will not tolerate the failure of this or any other government to take robust and emergency action in respect of the worsening ecological crisis. The science is clear, the facts are incontrovertible, and it is unconscionable to us that our children and grandchildren should have to bear the terrifying brunt of an unprecedented disaster of our own making…..

    We therefore declare our support for Extinction Rebellion, launching on 31 October 2018. We fully stand behind the demands for the government to tell the hard truth to its citizens. We call for a Citizens’ Assembly to work with scientists on the basis of the extant evidence and in accordance with the precautionary principle, to urgently develop a credible plan for rapid total decarbonisation of the economy.

  48. 198
    Dan says:

    re: 195.
    “After the despicable display of dishonesty by the Ds in the Kavanaugh confirmation…”

    ^That is precisely what is called “projecting”. On many levels. And a prime example of poor critical thinking. You just regurgitate what others have said because you want to believe it. Epic critical thinking failure.

  49. 199
    MA Rodger says:

    zebra @179,
    Your “pointing it out” stretches back to #2 up-thread but until now I have chosen to ignore it.

    You emphatically explain @2 that there is a large annual cycle in the value of Arctic SIE and that folk “breathlessly reporting every short-term variation, in particular the one summer minimum day, is not helpful.” Such comment I would hardily take as criticism. @1 I was also advocating the abandonment of that “one summer minimum day” as the headline measure for Arctic SIE decline. While you proposed the use of multi-year averages of minimums & maximums, I proposed a full-year average.

    I encounter futher criticism from you @44 where you accuse two of us of suggesting in some manner that the summer minimum would have reached zero by now. As a criticism, this is more mystifying than your objection @2.

    Then @68 you criticise me for using the phrase ““ice free summer”. (I actually used the phrase “overblown predictions of an ice-free Arctic summer.”) Would you have me make clear with every use of the phrase that I am meaning “nearly” ice free, or that by ‘summer’ I mean the average for September? Are you expecting every mention to include a full definition? Again, I find it hard to take the criticism seriously.

    This then brings me to #179.
    I assume your ‘clicking’ instruction concern the NSIDC chArctic interactive graph which plots year-on-year Arctic SIE. (You did reference this page up-thread @2.) Such graphs do manage to mitigate the visually “dramatic” decline in SIE because the big 9 million sq km annual melt/freeze cycle greatly exceeds any change from the 1981-2010 average cycle to today’s annual cycle. In your words “Not all that dramatic.” I think most would consider it to be otherwise.
    In terms of picking out the trend in SIE decline, @2 you quote a value of ~6% (actually 5.4%) for the reduction in winter maximums from the decadal 1979-90 average to the decadal 2001-10 average, that’s over a period of 21 years. Using JAXA data (as it is to hand), the decline in winter maximums from the 1980s average to the 2010s average is 10% in 28½ years. Over the same period, the annual average SIE drops 16% and the September minimum 40%, or (in 28½ years) 50% of the way towards the as-defined ““ice free summer.”
    You may see these figures as “not all that dramatic” and not requiring further analysis. Yet linearity of trend is not a done deal. And digging into the data that makes up these trends does show worrying values which exceed previous noise. See for instance the November averages from NSIDC (See Fig 3 here). Does the November 2016 value appear as a bit more than noise? Thus if 2018 freeze season were to follow the same course, (happily it looks to be having other ideas – see here – 2 clicks to ‘download’) it would suggest steeper more “dramatic” downward trend than seen previously.

  50. 200
    Hank Roberts says:

    Your side is to give our side basically what we want on: 2nd Amendment, school security, immigration, Israel, abortion, health insurance, voter ID and election integrity, trade, US sovereignty, education, taxes, etc.

    Our side will give your side basically what you want as far as carbon taxes on energy, and maybe some increased fuel efficiency requirements.

    You give us oligarchy, oligarchs give you healthy planet.

    Sounds like a hostage situation to me, comrade.