RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Nov 2018

Filed under: — group @ 1 November 2018

This month’s open thread on climate science issues.

A lot of interest in the new Resplandy et al paper (WaPo), with some exploration of the implications on twitter i.e.

and

Meanwhile, the CMIP6 model output is starting to come out…

232 Responses to “Unforced variations: Nov 2018”

  1. 101

    K 92: I am against any and all utility-owned renewables.

    BPL: Because business is BAD! Capitalism is, like, the corporations control, like, everything! So we shouldn’t have any corporations! Just, you know, living the simple life, like the Indians. Got any peyote?

  2. 102

    #97, OC–

    Yes, that’s my understanding, too, based both on what I read and what I see every day that I drive into town–the patch of rural South Carolina in which I reside has as its main land-use industry logging (for paper-making, mostly). And yes, I see a whole lot of slash left, and a whole lot of new, weedy growth.

    We don’t have the fire problem the West has because drought here is pretty rare–the climate tends toward the moist. (Although to be fair, historically there was quite a bit of fire-adapted ecology–most notably the vast stretches of long-leaf pine forest.) In 2017, we had less than 12,000 acres burned in wildfires. Somewhat eyepoppingly, we had nearly a quarter of a million acres burned in prescribed fires. A quick scan of historical tables suggests that’s an increasing tendency in the Southeast at large–the same year, prescribed burns in Florida amounted to nearly 2 million acres, which surprised me!

    That said, in the first year we were living here full time, I spent quite a lot of time clearing quasi-parasitic vine growth which was strangling our trees–mostly species of galax (‘cat-briar’ or ‘greenbriar’) and, less noxiously, wild grape. And I was struck by the potential fuel load around–between pine needles and oak leaves, both of which are relatively persistent on the ground and highly flammable, and the vines in the trees, which have a tendency to die in place, leaving trees festooned with potential wicks, it would have been quite susceptible to ignition under the right (or wrong) conditions.

    But I’m rambling, aren’t I?

  3. 103
    mike says:

    Oct. 28 – Nov. 3, 2018 406.48 ppm
    Oct. 28 – Nov. 3, 2017 404.07 ppm 2.41 ppm increase
    Oct. 28 – Nov. 3, 2008 383.96 ppm 22.52 ppm increase

    I think we have seen the fall off in yoy comparison end as the EN bump is out of the picture now. I think the current week at is noisy, of course, but probably also close to the true background rate of increase at this moment.

    Looking at the ten year numbers, we get an annualized rate of 2.25, but that is an average, with the rate of increase ramping up during the ten year period, hence, my sense that we are currently living with a true background rate of increase of about 2.4 to 2.5 ppm.

    If you think this is ok, please grab your shovel and head for Paradise CA to help look for remains from the Camp Fire.

    Warm regards all,

    Mike

  4. 104
    Chris says:

    Could a meteorite be responsible for the NGRIP core?

    A Massive Geological Surprise Has Been Discovered Under Greenland’s Ice Sheet
    The age of the crater is difficult to estimate precisely. There’s solid evidence that it happened before Greenland was covered in ice, which is around 3 million years at the oldest, but it could have occurred as recently as 12,000 years ago, around the end of the last ice age. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-impact-crater-from-a-huge-iron-meteorite-has-been-found-under-greenland-s-ice-sheet

    The Bølling-Allerød interstadial was an abrupt warm and moist interstadial period that occurred during the final stages of the last glacial period. This warm period ran from c. 14,700 to c. 12,700 years before the present (BP).[1] It began with the end of the cold period known as the Oldest Dryas, and ended abruptly with the onset of the Younger Dryas, a cold period that reduced temperatures back to near-glacial levels within a decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bølling-Allerød_warming

    NGRIP .. a matter of one or two years… https://youtu.be/siWCXOypJh4?t=92

  5. 105
    nigelj says:

    MR KIA @98, A solar panel instillation for an average sized home is indeed about $7000, and if you add a heavy duty tesla battery packs these are also about $7000 as it happens. I was looking at solar rooftop costs a couple of days ago.

    You cannot expect to power your house with solar for free or a few hundred dollars. Weigh the environmental benefits, independence from power companies, and ultimately very low cost electricity and they make sense.

    People are prepared to spend thousands on large screen televisions and big expensive SUV’s to drive to the local shops or refurbishing the ensuite bathroom because its ten years old, so obviously positively ancient. They have the money but don’t stop to think about wider environmental concerns and longer term financial benefits of solar power.

  6. 106
    Chris says:

    To the northeast of and within the structure, this unit sits conformably below the Holocene unit, but within the structure, it does not contain any reflection-rich Bølling-Allerød ice (14.7 to 12.8 ka ago)…

    Regardless of its exact age, based on the size of the Hiawatha impact crater, this impact very likely had significant environmental consequences in the Northern Hemisphere and possibly globally http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaar8173

  7. 107
    Chris says:

    Made a video..

    Did a Greenland Asteroid Cause Abrupt Warming Last Ice Age? http://climatestate.com/2018/11/15/did-a-greenland-asteroid-cause-abrupt-warming-last-ice-age/

  8. 108
    David B. Benson says:

    Chris @106 — The Hiawatha structure might well be the result of the so-called Clovis Comet hypothesized to initiate the Younger Dryas cooling interval. A good dating should resolve the matter.

  9. 109
    Carrie says:

    Action plans need to be proportionate to the size of the problem – 12 Years left for serous success says the IPCC SRM1.5

    Ocasio-Cortez Joins Protest Inside Pelosi’s Office
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT8gW8o3Sxo

  10. 110
    Chris says:

    The main question is how did the impact caused the mentioned abrupt global warming?

    – Water vapor injection (calculate crater ice volume, and vaporized quantities from regional surface heating)
    – Sea ice melting, sea ice rifting through waves, also large scale penetration of upper sea ice surface layer, causing a thin layer of melt)
    – Methane incursion due to subglacial methane reservoir disintegration.

    It vaporized large amounts of water, creating water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas. The atmospheric heating in the polar region very likely melted sea ice too, and the shockwave created wave action on the Arctic Ocean, rifting remaining sea ice to some extent, subsequently less sunlight was reflected. It may released some methane (which is often found under ice sheets). It may released more methane through the impact of the traveling shockwave? Quote: While an object of 9,000 kg maintains about 6% of its original velocity, one of 900,000 kg already preserves about 70%. Extremely large bodies (about 100,000 tonnes) are not slowed by the atmosphere at all, and impact with their initial cosmic velocity if no prior disintegration occurs.

    Impacts at these high speeds produce shock waves in solid materials, and both impactor and the material impacted are rapidly compressed to high density. Following initial compression, the high-density, over-compressed region rapidly depressurizes, exploding violently, to set in train the sequence of events that produces the impact crater. Impact-crater formation is therefore more closely analogous to cratering by high explosives than by mechanical displacement. Indeed, the energy density of some material involved in the formation of impact craters is many times higher than that generated by high explosives. Since craters are caused by explosions, they are nearly always circular – only very low-angle impacts cause significantly elliptical craters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater

    Also usually,

    Large impacts such as Chicxulub can cause a range of effects that include dust and aerosols being ejected high into the atmosphere that prevent sunlight from getting through. These materials insulate the Earth from solar radiation and cause global temperatures to fall; the effects can last for a few years (Kring, 2007). https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

    Under the ice was not much dust or aerosols. Thus, it appears as if planetary snowball scenarios rather cause warming trends, see also Panspermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

  11. 111
  12. 112
    Chris says:

    David B. Benson @108 What about the Cape York meteorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_meteorite ?

    Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

    Related

    A 2013 study found a spike in platinum in Greenland ice. The authors of that study conclude that such a small impact of an iron meteorite is “unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis.”[49] But they write that the large Pt anomaly “hints for an extraterrestrial source of Pt,” showing that any disagreement with the proponents of the original YDIH is over the nature of the extraterrestrial object, not whether there was one, and it is much more likely that the Greenland Pt anomaly was caused by a small local iron meteorite fall without any widespread consequences. Boslough, M. (2013). “Greenland Pt anomaly may point to noncataclysmic Cape York meteorite entry”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (52): E5035–E5035. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320328111. ISSN 0027-8424 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis

  13. 113
    MA Rodger says:

    GISTEMP has posted for October with an anomaly of +0.99ºC, the highest anomaly fo the year-so-far and a quite spectacular* jump up from September’s +0.74ºC anomaly. Previously the monthly anomalies for 2018 have sat in the range +0.73ºC to +0.91ºC. The GISS anomaly map for Oct 2018 shows “moocho scorchio” anomalies stretching from the Urals eastward to the eastern border of Alaska.
    (*See graph here – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’.)

    It is 2nd warmest October on record, below top place Oct 2015 (1.08ºC) and above 2016 (+0.90ºC) and 2017 (+0.88ºC).
    October 2018 is 11th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month GISTEMP record.

    In the GISTEMP year-to-date table below, 2018 has now dropped into 4th pace which will be its final position by year’s-end (unless the remaining two months of the year can manage an average anomaly above +1.13ºC, which would be even more spectacular than October’s anomaly).

    …….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
    2016 .. +1.02ºC … … … +1.00ºC … … … 1st
    2017 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 2nd
    2015 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.87ºC … … … 3rd
    2018 .. +0.82ºC
    2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 4th
    2010 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.71ºC … … … 5th
    2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 6th
    2007 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 8th
    2002 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 10th
    1998 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 12th
    2013 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 7th

  14. 114
    Mr. Know It All says:

    105 – nigelj

    nigelj,

    I did not say the cost for off grid solar was $7K for an average home.
    I said that’s how much it costs for an off-grid cabin with a load of 0.3kW for 5 hours or 1.5 kWh/day. That’s nothing. The typical home uses 867 kWh per month, or ~ 28 kWh/day. Yes, with some efficiency measures I’d think many of them could pull that down considerably, but they would not get any where near 1.5 kWh/day. So the cost for an average home would be much higher than $7K – probably more like $20K or $30K, for OFF grid. Grid-tied would be cheaper but typically they depend on utility power at night.

    Many middle/upper class folks could borrow the $20K or $30K to install an off-grid system, but equally as many or more could not. A huge chunk of even developed nations are living paycheck to paycheck. They can barely afford daily living expenses.

  15. 115
    Killian says:

    Re #99 Fred Magyar said Killian @ 92
    You say potatoe, I say pohtato.
    To me BAU is a continuation of all systems on fossil fuels… As an example VW just plopped down 50 billion for battery procurement. Call that what you will. In my book that is called paradigm change!

    Nope. Just a technical innovation. There is no underlying social change to the system. They are, imo, a negative factor in paradigm shift for humanity as they enable continuance of the current paradigm of extreme hierarchical structures, private ownership, extreme injustice and wealth imbalance, etc. An elecgtric vehicle changes nothing within the base of the system, and only improves CO2 emissions 25% in a *best case* scenario.

    The term “paradigm shift” has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern—a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing

    It’s technology, not paradigm shift. Is the some nod to ecological considerations? Sure. And we have a name for non-solutions, #greenwashing.

  16. 116
    nigelj says:

    MR KIA @114, yes I should have said small home and not fully off grid. Your costs are correct so solar power is about $25,000 for an average home to go off grid, I just checked a local supplier.

    Sure not everyone could possibly afford this but so what? Its affordable for a large segment if they had their priorities right. If you are building a new home its the equivalent of about 15M2 floor area. This is nothing given the average size of new homes is pushing 150M2, for middle class homes anyway.

    The fact poor people can’t afford it doesn’t devalue the idea. Of course the government could subsidise instillations for people on low incomes and you wont find it hard to guess who I think should pay for this. We have a saying in my country “the polluter pays” so tax the fossil fuel companies. I know you just love taxes :)

    This should be on forced responses but its not open for comments last time I looked.

  17. 117
    Chris says:

    The plot thickens..

    The signatures identified by Dr McDonald are relatively close to those in iron meteorite fragments collected at Cape York not far from the Hiawatha site. It’s not inconceivable, the team argues, that the Cape York material represents pieces that came away from the main asteroid object as it moved towards its collision with Earth.

    What are the doubts?
    One concerns the absence of any trace of the impact in several cores that have been drilled through the ice sheet to the south. At the very least, these might have been expected to incorporate the dust that fell out of the sky after the event.

    The other head-scratcher is the absence in the vicinity of the Hiawatha site of any rocky material that would have been ejected outwards from the crater on impact.

    Prof Kjær says these missing signatures might be explained by a very shallow angle of impact that took most of the ejecta to the north. And if the fall-out area was covered in ice, it’s possible any debris was later transported away.

    “We know that at one time the Greenland Ice Sheet was joined to the Canadian Ice Sheet, and flowed out into the Nares Strait. If you wanted to find this material today, you’d have to do deep drilling in the ocean,” Prof Kjær explained.

    … without drilling through nearly 1km of ice to sample the bed directly, scientists can’t be more specific. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46181450

  18. 118
    Mr. Know It All says:

    116 – nigelj

    Even if those who could afford to go off-grid solar did so, in much of the USA, that would not mean they weren’t still using FFs to heat their home. Off-grid solar will power their refrigerator/lights/TV/computer/furnace fan/dishwasher/oven/maybe hot water/ but for many it would not provide enough power for heat. A new home could be designed for passive solar, but most homes are not new homes; and a FF powered furnace could be changed out to an electric heat pump in mild climates, but that’s another $10K or so added on top of the off-grid solar.

    No easy solutions. Corporations, including FF companies, do not pay taxes, those who buy their products do – that would be you and me. They don’t have an infinite amount of money and neither do governments – it all comes from we the people.

  19. 119
    nobodysknowledge says:

    Many people are working hard to undo failures:
    “It isn’t clear whether the authors agree with all of Lewis’s criticisms, but Keeling said “we agree there were problems along the lines he identified.”
    Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said promptly acknowledging the errors in the study “is the right approach in the interests of transparency.”
    But he added in an email, “This study, although there are additional questions that are arising now, confirms the long known result that the oceans have been warming over the observed record, and the rate of warming has been increasing,” he said.
    Gavin Schmidt, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, followed the growing debate over the study closely on Twitter and said that measurements about the uptake of heat in the oceans have been bedeviled with data problems for some time — and that debuting new research in this area is hard.
    “Obviously you rely on your co-authors and the reviewers to catch most problems, but things still sometimes slip through,” Schmidt wrote in an email.
    Schmidt and Keeling agreed that other studies also support a higher level of ocean heat content than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saw in a landmark 2013 report.
    Overall, Schmidt said, the episode can be seen as a positive one.
    “The key is not whether mistakes are made, but how they are dealt with — and the response from Laure and Ralph here is exemplary. No panic, but a careful reexamination of their working — despite a somewhat hostile environment,” he wrote.
    “So, plus one for some post-publication review, and plus one to the authors for reexamining the whole calculation in a constructive way. We will all end up wiser.””
    And some of the comments at RC do really show the prejudices against Nic Lewis and other scientists who cannot support the agenda of IPCC.

  20. 120
    Hank Roberts says:

    Something to factor into projections of future energy demand:

    [1]’Remarkable’ decline in fertility rates

    There has been a remarkable global decline in the number of children women are having, say researchers.

    Their report found fertility rate falls meant nearly half of countries were now facing a “baby bust” – meaning there are insufficient children to maintain their population size.

    The researchers said the findings were a “huge surprise”.

    And there would be profound consequences for societies with “more grandparents than grandchildren”.

    ————————————————————————

    [2]Original Submission

    Discuss this story at:
    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=18/11/15/1945245

    Links:
    0. https://soylentnews.org/~upstart/
    1. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103
    2. https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=30040

    hat tip to Soylent News

  21. 121
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    Hi to all, I’ve got a question which may have been answered somewhere before, but I’ve failed to find it:
    If Anthro CO2 emissions seem to be stabilising and thst’s provable through isotopic signatures and yet the atmospheric concentration of total CO2 is still accelerating upwards. To me that clearly indicates that a major tipping point has been breached at some stage not long ago and that now natural ( shocked and unbalanced) processes are in the drivers seat.
    That part I get. However where does the non directly anthro CO2 or CO2e emissions come from? Deforestation? Outgassing from the tundra? Methane outgassing from the arctic seas?….where?? Surely these other sources would have their own unique isotopic address.
    Does anyone know for sure?
    Cheers!

  22. 122
  23. 123
    zebra says:

    Requesting again that the moderators revive Forced Responses.

    There are a couple of comments to which I would like to respond, but am constrained by not wanting to turn UV into the mess it was before… there have been some worthwhile comments actually on climate science in this thread, but that is just going to get buried by mitigation/adaptation-associated topics.

    Those topics are appropriate to discuss on RC, I think, but compartmentalized, to avoid clutter.

  24. 124
    MA Rodger says:

    nobodysknowledge @119,
    You write “And some of the comments at RC do really show the prejudices against Nic Lewis and other scientists who cannot support the agenda of IPCC.”

    You may wish to name these “other scientists” you speak of, but concerning Lewis, I consider it evident that he takes a denialist path and has no time for the actual scientific process.
    Consider his performance at the UK Parliamentary Energy & Climate Change Committee of 28/1/14, Lewis states of the authors of AR5:-

    “I certainly think they had a major problem between the models and the observational evidence and I think they probably didn’t realise that to start with. By the time they did realise that, it was too late really to do anything about it because so much of the report is built around the model projections, model simulations, and they couldn’t really write conclusions which said basically ‘We think the models are wrong’.” [From 11:24:00]

    Challenged on this, Lewis softens the message but does not retract it. And later, when it is suggested that most scientist would disagree with Lewis’ assessment of ECS, he replies:-

    I wouldn’t say that. I don’t think there is the statistical expertise in Beysian Theory in climate science that there ought [to be].”

    [From 11:37:30]We are now almost five years on and has the basis for these (otherwise egregious) statements been established? Or is it that Lewis is non-scientific in his grand theorising?

  25. 125
    Piotr Trela says:

    Re: Lawrence Coleman: 121 – “If Anthro CO2 emissions seem to be stabilising and thst’s provable through isotopic signatures and yet the atmospheric concentration of total CO2 is still accelerating upwards. To me that clearly indicates that a major tipping point has been breached”

    no necessarily:
    – it may also mean that a smaller portion of the emitted CO2 is taken up by the sinks:
    * by the ocean (smaller solubility of CO2 in warmer water, reduction in the removal of anthropogenic CO2 by the possibly weaker AMOC, increase in the Revelle factor)
    * by the terrestrial sink – boreal forest sink may get weaker (particularly with releases of CO2 due to forest fires in Canada and Russia, and insect kills), as C sequestration by soil.

    – and/or may mean an increase in non fossil fuel emissions – deforestation in non-boreal forest, more wildfire there (e,g, California) and bigger release of CO2 from eroding soils (in the near future. Look closely what will happen in Brasil where the alt-right president opens the gates for the Amazon to farmers and ranchers – who will burn tropical rain forest (releasing C contained in living and recently dead biomass) and use the land for agriculture – releasing of C sequestered in the soils there)

  26. 126
    Al Bundy says:

    Not the right thread, but when the right one is inaccessible…

    Going off-grid is dumber than dirt for anyone with access to the grid. Seriously, you’d choose to use expensive and incredibly inefficient batteries when cheap and incredibly efficient power sharing is available through the grid?

    Talk about upgrading the grid, not avoiding it.

  27. 127
    Bill Henderson says:

    DESIGNING CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: A policy guide for low-carbon energy by Hal Harvey and team is a new book mostly for American audiences about how to maximize innovation in transitioning to a low carbon economy. Lots of good ideas here but also (unless I’m very much mistaken) maybe the most stunning example of new climate change denial. I’m posting to see what you think.

    There is a useful outline of the book online that you can read through and in the section Do the Math https://www.energypolicy.solutions/do-the-math/ the authors detail a carbon budget and mitigation timeline that is so different from the prevailing science as to be invented to fit the authors projection of what is possible using only demand side policies in BAU. Whereas Rockstroms carbon rule of 50% reduction each decade is a reasonable benchmark for mitigation to stay under 2C, this book is based upon reaching a 41% – 55% emission reduction by 2050????? Unless I’m missing something.

    Here’s a relevant quote from the online book:

    “The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that we must keep global warming below two degrees Celsius through 2100 to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Achieving that goal requires limiting emissions, and doing so quickly. Without additional action, greenhouse gases will continue to grow for the foreseeable future.

    Climate change is caused by the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, so thinking about emissions in terms of cumulative totals rather than annual totals provides an accurate picture of the challenge. This website and book focus on the cumulative reductions necessary by 2050, instead of all the way to 2100, because the further the horizon, the more uncertain the predictions. Although climate models vary, they generally agree that in order to stay below the two-degrees Celsius target, to the world must reduce total cumulative emissions by 25% to 55% below business as usual levels by 2050.

    This analysis relies on modeling completed in 2013 as part of the Low Climate Impact Scenarios and the Implications of Required Tight Emissions Control Strategies (LIMITS) exercise. In particular, it relies on modeling done by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Joint Global Change Research Institute using the Global Change Assessment Model, evaluating emissions between 2010 and 2050. The LIMITS study results suggest that for a 50% shot at staying under two degrees of warming, the world must reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by at least 41% between 2010 and 2050.
    …..

    There is broad consensus that preventing the worst impacts of climate change requires keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius through the end of the 21st century. To have at least a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to two degrees, we must limit concentrations of CO2e to 500 ppm by 2100, although some overshoot of this target in previous years is okay. Yet in 2015, CO2e concentrations measured 485 ppm, and they have been increasing at a rate of two to four parts per million per year. To achieve the 500 ppm target by 2100, immediate on-the-ground action is needed. But what does this mean in terms of emissions?

    Climate change and the warming that drives it are a function of the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere. In other words, it is a stock problem, not a flow problem, as discussed in the Introduction. Therefore, it is useful to think of emissions, and necessary emission reductions, in terms of cumulative totals rather than annual amounts. Significant action to reduce emissions will be needed throughout the 21st century, but for simplicity and given the growing uncertainty in years further out, we focus on the necessary reductions between now and 2050.

    Without additional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, just over two trillion tons of CO2e will be emitted between 2016 and 2050. Although climate models vary, they show that in order to meet the 500 ppm target, cumulative total emission reductions of 25% to 55% relative to a business-as-usual scenario are necessary between 2016 and 2050.

    …..
    The results of the LIMITS study suggest that to have a 50/50 shot at staying under two degrees of warming we need to reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by at least 41% between 2010 and 2050.

    This value is global; emission reductions needed from individual countries will vary, depending on their development status. For example, the most industrialized countries will need to achieve significantly deeper reductions than the 41% global number to compensate for other emerging economies with high rates of economic development.

    It’s also worth noting that a 41% reduction in cumulative emissions entails much greater annual emission reductions in later years as emission reductions are phased in. In 2050, global annual emission reductions of 65% relative to business-as-usual will be necessary, with the more economically developed regions needing to achieve reductions of 70% or more.”

    So are the authors right? Or is this an example of new climate denial? Combined with the latest IEA World Outlook, for example, which projects fossil fuel production and use continuing mostly unchanged past 2040, isn’t this just another example of conceptualizing the climate danger and mitigation paths so that we waste precious time and fail to mitigate because ideological blinders keep us trying to shoehorn effective mitigation into BAU where only a slow transition is allowed?

  28. 128
    Hank Roberts says:

    Lawrence Coleman says: “… Anthro CO2 emissions seem to be stabilising and thst’s provable …”

    Please cite your source for believing that.

    LMGTFY: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=environment_where_ghg_come_from

  29. 129

    KIA 118: Corporations, including FF companies, do not pay taxes,

    BPL: They have an income, therefore they pay taxes.

  30. 130
    Omega Centauri says:

    Al Bundy @126.
    I never had any doubts that going off grid when you already have it would be foolish. Usually people want to do it because they do distrust the utility, that they fear any grid connection will allow the utility to gouge them. Now I’m beginning to wonder if these fears might be realized. The issue in California is the the electric companies are liable for damages due to wildfires sparked by their equipment. These damages are far greater than the assets of these corps, so can’t be fully recouped from utility investors.
    Some combination of state government and ratepayers will have to make up the difference. Depending on how that plays out, the charge for connection to the grid may become substantial.

  31. 131
    Killian says:

    Sorry to post here, but FR seems to be being made extinct either via neglect or intention:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0205-y?WT.feed_name=subjects_evolution

    these millennial-scale polyculture agroforestry systems have an enduring legacy on the hyperdominance of edible plants in modern forests in the eastern Amazon. Together, our data provide a long-term example of past anthropogenic land use that can inform management and conservation efforts in modern Amazonian ecosystems.

  32. 132
    James Cross says:

    #117

    There is some modeling that suggests not much debris might be ejected in collision with ice because the ice would tend to compress the material.

  33. 133
    mike says:

    Last Week

    November 11 – 17, 2018 408.72 ppm
    November 11 – 17, 2017 404.89 ppm

    3.83 ppm increase over this time last year.

    Noisy number, but the trend for a few weeks has been upward.

    Maybe some wishful thinking going on with LC at 121. I will let others explain complexities or ask the obvious questions, as has been done at 125 and 128.

    The situation with CO2 in atmosphere and oceans is very bad and the needle continues to go in the wrong direction.

    Warm regards

    Mike

  34. 134
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/climate/climate-disasters.html

    Global warming is posing such wide-ranging risks to humanity, involving so many types of phenomena, that by the end of this century some parts of the world could face as many as six climate-related crises at the same time, researchers say.

    This chilling prospect is described in a paper published Monday in Nature Climate Change

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0315-6

  35. 135
    Hank Roberts says:

    further excerpt:In a scientific world marked by specialization and siloed research, this multidisciplinary effort by 23 authors reviewed more than 3,000 papers on various effects of climate change. The authors determined 467 ways in which those changes in climate affect human physical and mental health, food security, water availability, infrastructure and other facets of life on Earth.

  36. 136
    Hank Roberts says:

    “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

    (Gus Speth)

  37. 137
    Carrie says:

    Hi 121 Lawrence Coleman, you have to be lucky to spot things like this from NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/

    The info is out there drowned out by the noise that “we still have time, it’s all in our hands” blah blah blah propaganda hype and disinformation from climate scientists is now as bad as that from deniers.

    Then there is the 2018 nth hemisphere wildfires forced CO2 spike, and then there’s ………….. it never ends. The data is everywhere and yet no where. All you will get here is an argument and multiple putdowns (see above.)

    ————

    133 mike
    3.83 ppm increase over this time last year.

    incl November 16: 409.52 ppm
    already at March 2018 levels

    ROTFLMFAO

  38. 138

    #134–

    Thanks for that, Hank.

  39. 139
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://thenextsystem.org/gus-speth

    Gus Speth – Co-Chair, The Next System Project

    James Gustave “Gus” Speth is Senior Fellow and co-chair of the Next System Project at the Democracy Collaborative. In 2009 he completed his decade-long tenure as Dean, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and joined the Vermont Law School in 2010. From 1993 to 1999, Gus Speth was Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme and chair of the UN Development Group. Speth has served as a senior adviser on environmental issues to Presidents Carter and Clinton. His latest book, the 2014 memoir Angels by the River, traces his path from mainstream environmental insider to a champion of fundamental systemic change in our political and economic institutions.

    Publications
    September 4, 2018
    Introduction: The Green Transition and the Next System

    by Gus Speth

    December 29, 2017
    Stress Test: Democracy Confronts Climate Change

    by Gus Speth

    Episode 7: Why Climate Change Necessitates System Change w/Gus Speth

    by Adam Simpson, Gus Speth

    August 15, 2017
    Ep. 1: Gar Alperovitz & Gus Speth on the Next System

    by Adam Simpson, Gus Speth, Gar Alperovitz

    April 17, 2017
    The Joyful Economy

    by Gus Speth

    November 22, 2016
    Gus Speth delivers the 2016 David Sive Annual Memorial Lecture at Columbia Law School

    by Gus Speth

    September 29, 2016
    Framing the challenges of a next system after fossil fuels

    by Gar Alperovitz, Gus Speth, Ted Howard , Joe Guinan
    April 14, 2016
    A Radical Alliance of Black and Green Could Save the World

    by Gus Speth, J. Phillip Thompson III

    March 16, 2016
    “Counting Care In” with Riane Eisler and Gus Speth [Webinar]

    by Gus Speth, Riane Eisler

    October 14, 2015
    Getting to the Next System

    by Gus Speth

    July 22, 2015
    New Political-Economic Possibilities for the Twenty-First Century

    by Gar Alperovitz, Gus Speth, Joe Guinan

    June 5, 2015
    Systemic Problems Require Systemic Solutions: Time to Talk About the Next System

    by Gus Speth

    Systemic Problems Require Systemic Solutions: Time to Talk About the Next System

    by Gus Speth

    April 2, 2015
    It’s Time to Get Serious About Systemic Solutions to Systemic Problems

    by Gus Speth, Gar Alperovitz

    March 29, 2015
    The Next System Project: New Political-Economic Possibilities for the Twenty First Century

    by Gar Alperovitz, Gus Speth, Joe Guinan

    January 27, 2015
    Am I a ‘Radical’?

    by Gus Speth

    July 7, 2014
    Searching for Radicalism in a Corporate Age

    by Gus Speth

    October 8, 2013
    Growth Fetish: Five Reasons Why Prioritizing Growth Is Bad Policy

    by Gus Speth

    March 29, 2013
    Labor and Environmental Leaders Move Beyond Differences to a Common Vision

    by Gus Speth

    September 30, 2012
    Manifesto for a Post-Growth Economy

    by Gus Speth

    June 17, 2012
    For Rio+20: A Charter for a New Economy

    by Gus Speth

    March 1, 2012
    America the Possible: A Manifesto, Part I

    by Gus Speth

    September 12, 2011
    Beyond Growth: Creating a Unified Progressive Politics

    by Gus Speth

    July 7, 2011
    Toward a Post-Growth Society

    by Gus Speth

    May 31, 2011
    Off the Pedestal: Creating a New Vision of Economic Growth

    by Gus Speth

    September 18, 2008
    Global Warming and Modern Capitalism

    by Gus Speth

    Taking climate action to the next level

    by Gus Speth, Carla Skandier, Johanna Bozuwa

    Transformations: Systemic Challenges & Solutions in 21st Century America

    by Gus Speth

    I learned about him from a guy in Amsterdam.

    You know that line:

    A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

  40. 140
    mike says:

    Hank at 136, isn’t the truth bad enough? do we need to exaggerate the serious problems that we face by suggesting that we don’t have the answers to our problems? I think you should be more cautious and thoughtful about what you post here. Why are you being so negative and posting stuff that says that we don’t know how to deal with selfishness, greed and apathy.

    It’s kind of an old formula for throwing in the towel, is it not?
    http://www.foldvary.net/works/iag.html
    https://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Being-Selfish
    We have to talk about the dangers of selfishness, greed and apathy. Human evolution away from these dead-end behaviors is not written in stone.

  41. 141
    Hank Roberts says:

    I think you should be more cautious and thoughtful about what you post here.

    Well bless your heart.

  42. 142
    MA Rodger says:

    NOAA has posted for October with an anomaly of +0.86ºC, the highest anomaly fo the year-so-far and a jump up from September’s +0.77ºC anomal, (but not quite as spectacular as the jump in GISS). Previously the NOAA monthly anomalies for 2018 have sat in the range +0.69ºC to +0.85ºC. The NOAA data shows the rise was all NH Land (which rose by +0.29ºC) with the SH & NH Ocean all recording a drop in anomaly.

    It is 2nd warmest October on record (as it was in GISS & BEST), in NOAA below top place Oct 2015 (0.99ºC) and above 2014 (+0.78ºC), 2016 (+0.74ºC) and 2017 (+0.3ºC).
    October 2018 is 25th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month GISTEMP record (11th in GISS, 24th in BEST).

    In the NOAA year-to-date table below, 2018 sits firmly in 4th place (as per GISS & BEST) which to change rank by year’s-end will require the remaining two months of the year to average an anomaly above +1.21ºC or below +0.59ºC.

    …….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
    2016 .. +0.98ºC … … … +0.94ºC … … … 1st
    2015 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 2nd
    2017 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 3rd
    2018 .. +0.77ºC
    2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 4th
    2010 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 5th
    1998 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 9th
    2005 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 7th
    2013 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 6th
    2009 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 8th
    2007 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 13th

  43. 143
    Hautbois says:

    For info, I’ve started a blog that (currently) majors on climate bets. There’s a scoreboard of all the ones that I’m aware of where terms were agreed in public, and I’m writing an account of each, in chronological order.

    http://ohbwaa.blogspot.com/

    Just published: Evans, D. vs Schmidt, B. (2007). I’m looking forward to comments from the protagonists and anyone else wishing to make a constructive point!

  44. 144
    Nemesis says:

    Hank Roberts, #136

    ” I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that. (Gus Speth)”

    Best statement ever, imo. I judge any society by its dreams and visions. What are the dreams and visions of modern capitalism? Easy to answer:

    Profit, profit and more profit.

    Quiz for everyone:

    What are the most important things you got at home? There are two most important things at my home…

  45. 145
    Hank Roberts says:

    For Mike:

    A Reason to Be Thankful: We’re Not Necessarily Doomed.

    By John Schwartz and Kendra Pierre-Louis

    Nov. 21, 2018

    Welcome to the Climate Fwd: newsletter. The New York Times climate team emails readers once a week with stories and insights about climate change….

    John Schwartz

    By John Schwartz

    Hi, everybody, and welcome back to the Climate Fwd: newsletter, where we are asking, “Are we doomed?” (Spoiler: no.)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/climate/thanksgiving-leaves-turkey-tofurky.html

  46. 146
    Hank Roberts says:

    Call for Papers, Case Studies, Speakers, and Posters

    “Healthy Plants in a World with Phytophthora”

    The Seventh Sudden Oak Death Science and Management Symposium

    June 25-27, 2019

    The Golden Gate Club – The Presidio

    San Francisco, California

    We’re seeking abstracts (up to 1 page) for proposed papers or posters by December 15, 2018. Please see instructions, along with the format to follow, on the conference website at https://ucanr.edu/sites/sod7/. Clearly state your preference to present a paper or a poster. Abstracts should be sent to Janice Alexander at jalexander@ucanr.edu. Further information is available at the conference website – https://ucanr.edu/sites/sod7/.

    About the Conference

    “Healthy Plants in a World with Phytophthora” — The Seventh Sudden Oak Death Science and Management Symposium (SOD7) brings together the scientific and management communities working on Phytophthora ramorum/sudden oak death, Phytophthoras on California native plants, and related forest health concerns. Presentations, discussions, and posters will focus on many aspects of Phytophthoras as well as associated tree and plant diseases in wildland, urban, nursery, restoration, park, and landscape settings. The broad scope is intended to foster cooperation among individuals working in various disciplines and geographic areas and to provide current findings and management guidance for scientists, managers, regulators, volunteers, students, and environmentalists.

  47. 147
  48. 148
    mike says:

    MAR at 142: I think the global heat that you report is closely linked to the recent rise in CO2 increase in yoy comparison numbers. There are numerous trends to be considered with watching atmospheric CO2 numbers. One is the bumps and troughs that flow through the yoy numbers due to EN and LN events. Another would be the global temperature number. I think it’s generally settled science that global heat increases produce upticks in CO2 numbers because of heat-related changes in numerous large natural CO2 sink features of the planet. 2nd hottest October on record and that happens in what appears to have no El Nino bump. Hmmm…

    What is the background rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere at this moment? I continue to think it is in the 2.4 to 2.5 ppm range. This is a very bad number. Selfishness and greed are certainly causative factors in our plight. I am not so sure about apathy. I think lots of us are anything but apathetic, but I think an argument can be made that scientists and climate-concerned folks have been ineffective at helping our species change it’s CO2 trajectory, but that may be more a function of tragedy than apathy. How do we overcome a Cassandra-type failure? Gently, persistently? Maybe it can’t be overcome because of biological tropisms of our species? Maybe we burn fossil fuels in the way that moths fly to a flame? Hope not.

    I think we should talk about the dangers of selfishness and greed and their impact on the ecological habitat that humans need for survival. Give it a try. What do we have to lose?

    Cheers

    Mike

  49. 149
    Nemesis says:

    I invite you to take a vigilant look at the german drought monitor:

    http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=37937

    That’s the picture after only 8 months of drought^^… Com on, Germany used to be one of the wettest european countries, we are in the midst of november, the wettest month statistically, but this looks like Death Valley for real :’D

    Those, who feel themselves safe and wealthy, will be hit hardest in the mid- and longterm. Ignorance in the cooking pot of Nature comes with a high price:

    Extinction.

  50. 150
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/21/climate-change-report-released-friday-after-thanksgiving/2080298002/

    The federal government will release a major climate change report – Volume II of the National Climate Assessment – on Black Friday, typically one of the slowest news days of the year.

    “It’s an absolute disgrace to bury the truth about climate impacts in a year that saw hundreds of Americans die during devastating climate-fueled megafires, hurricanes, floods, and algal blooms,” said National Wildlife Federation president Collin O’Mara,” in a statement.

    Volume II is expected to detail a range of current and future climate change impacts and again warn that the Earth is warming, humans are the cause, and the already serious impacts – such as the current California wildfires – are only going to get worse, Climate Central said.

    The new report should also have more of a regional focus, as demand rises for more local information on risks and consequences, said Bernadette Woods Placky, chief meteorologist at Climate Central….

    Links at the original page to further content