RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Sep 2019

Filed under: — group @ 1 September 2019

This month’s open thread for climate science topics. A new two-part community assessment of tropical storms and climate change is online at BAMS: Knutson et al. (2019a ; 2019b). And for those interested in Arctic Sea Ice, there is always the NSIDC.

References

  1. T. Knutson, S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, K. Emanuel, C. Ho, J. Kossin, M. Mohapatra, M. Satoh, M. Sugi, K. Walsh, and L. Wu, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I. Detection and Attribution", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0189.1
  2. T. Knutson, S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, K. Emanuel, C. Ho, J. Kossin, M. Mohapatra, M. Satoh, M. Sugi, K. Walsh, and L. Wu, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part II. Projected Response to Anthropogenic Warming", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0194.1

278 Responses to “Unforced variations: Sep 2019”

  1. 151
    MJHenry says:

    I am looking for an explanation on the relatively high ECS of CMIP6 models. Anyone have good references?

  2. 152

    #129, Chuck–

    Yes. The idea of limited resources (as in, “finite planet”) can chime with the zero-sum-game mentality of some xenophobic nationalists.

    But there is a fine line between being “cautious” and not being truthful. Guess folks need to be “cautious” in that respect, too.

  3. 153
    nigelj says:

    Mr KIA, regarding Hurricane Dorian and the many confusing statements that have been made on this. Humans are burning fossil fuels causing heat energy to accumulate in the system. My understanding from general reading is this is likely to effect Hurricanes in some way, because they get their energy and precipitation from warm oceans and we are warming the oceans. If you disagree you would need to explain why. It seems like its a point that is very hard to disagree with.

    This won’t cause a hurricane, or increase the total numbers of hurricanes, but it will make them more intense, all other things being equal, manifested in wind speeds, and quantity of precipitation, and possibly depth of pressure. Of course its hard comparing hurricane intensity historically, because the data isn’t always great and right now evidence is Pacific hurricanes have increased in intensity, but there’s no conclusive evidence on Atlantic hurricane trends. I think it would be just a matter of time before clear evidence emerges that Atlantic hurricanes are becoming more intense.

    If you wait for conclusive evidence on every aspect of climate change, it will be way too late to mitigate the problem, and the costs of adaptation or sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere will be horrendous. Its not reasonable to dump this problem on future generations especially when there are so many things that can be done to mitigate the problem.

  4. 154
    John Pollack says:

    #148 Zebra

    Thanks for your clarification. No, I am not suggesting that the weather systems would all turn out the same in a climate system that wasn’t warmed by greenhouse gases. But the fact that there is now more energy in the system doesn’t tell me very much about what changes to expect.

    “More energy in the climate system” is lacking as an all-purpose explanation, because there are a lot of things that affect the development of weather systems. I think that it is the proper job of climate science to distinguish between weather events that tend to be increased by that extra energy (e.g. heat waves), those that are affected only slightly (tornadoes) and those that are decreased (snowstorms at low latitudes.)

    I would have been ready to attribute the unusual intensity of Dorian to that extra energy if it had intensified over unusually warm water. Instead, the intensification appeared to be related to other factors, since water temperatures were fairly uniform along its path, and not especially warm for the time of year.

  5. 155
    John Pollack says:

    Kevin @150

    Adam Lea #112 has some excellent comments on the rise in observed cat 5 hurricanes in recent decades. It’s mainly an artifact of improved observations.

    The duration of cat 5 intensity tends to be brief, and occurs most often over open ocean.

    To be classified at a cat 5 in the early 20th century, a hurricane mostly had to be that strong at landfall, so that it could be classified by observed wind, storm surge,and central pressure. A vessel at sea was very unlikely to encounter a cat 5 at sea, or to survive the experience if it did. Even on land, the old cup anemometer was liable to get taken out by flying debris before the wind reached cat 5 strength.

    In modern times hurricane monitoring is thorough. It relies on both plane penetrations and satellite remote sensing to pin down the brief period of peak intensity. For example, all three cat 5 hurricanes in 2005 reached peak intensity offshore, and would not have been classified that high in the early decades.

  6. 156
    CCHolley says:

    RE. Victor @140

    Naturally I don’t expect much interest from most of those participating here, as God forbid they might learn something.

    God forbid they might learn something? If one is interested in learning something useful, the history of Victor’s posting would indicate that the time spent reading anything written by him would be a total waste of one’s time. Critical thinking just isn’t one of Victor’s strengths. However, Victor does write well so it just may provide entertainment value, but there are probably far better ways to be entertained. I’ll pass. Just like the science, I’m quite certain I know far more about the costs to society of mitigation versus doing nothing than he does.

  7. 157
    Nick O. says:

    #154 – John Pollack

    You say, “… water temperatures were fairly uniform along its path, and not especially warm for the time of year.”

    Are you sure on that point? I suppose the answer depends upon how one defines ‘…especially warm …’. I have looked back at some of the assessments of Dorian as it formed and was strengthening, and came across this, for example:

    “Dorian will be passing over very warm water, with sea surface temperatures of around 29.5 – 30.5°C (85 – 86°F)–about 1.0°C (1.8°F) warmer than average.”
    (posted 30th August, on https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Dangerous-Hurricane-Dorian-Slowly-Intensifying)

    At what point do you think the water is warm enough to be especially warm?

    I am not saying you are ‘wrong’ here, however I think you would help us all by explaining in more detail why an especially warmer temperature should be a more satisfactory or convincing observation, with respect to storms and their intensities, than what was observed in Dorian’s case.

  8. 158
    MA Rodger says:

    Both GISTEMP and BEST have posted for August.
    GISTEMP posted an anomaly of +0.90ºC, a tad down on Julys’s anomaly of +0.94ºC. It is the 2nd warmest August on the GISTEMP LOTI record, putting it behind August 2016 (+1.02ºC) while ahead of 2017 (+0.87ºC), 2015 (+0.83ºC), 2014 (+0.81ºC), 2018 (+0.77ºC) and 2011 (+0.73ºC). August 2019 was =35th in the GISTEMP all-month record.
    BEST is a tad up for August, +0.88ºC up from July’s +0.84ºC. Again, it is the 2nd wammest August in BEST is very similar to GISTEMP, behind AUgust 2016 and ahead of 2014. 2017, 2015, 2011, 2018, with Aug 2019 the 31st warmest anomaly on the full all-month record.

    The year is now two-thirds done and 2019 is looking a very likely candidate for 2nd-place in the full calendar year in both the GISTEMP ranking and the BEST ranking. To drop to 3rd would require the remainder of the year to average +0.85ºC in GISTEMP (+0.74ºC in BEST) which is an exceptional (unprecedented) cooling outside strong El Nino years.

    The table below shows GISTEMP averages. The equivalent BEST table jumbles some of the lower rankings but features all the same years.
    …….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
    2016 .. +1.08ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
    2019 .. +0.97ºC
    2017 .. +0.95ºC … … … +0.93ºC … … … 2nd
    2015 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 3rd
    2018 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 4th
    2010 .. +0.77ºC … … … +0.73ºC … … … 6th
    2014 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 5th
    2007 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 9th
    1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 15th
    2002 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 13th
    2005 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 8th

  9. 159

    z 148: On B, when carbon is fossilized as coal, oil, gas, and then burned, the CO2 molecule formed does not absorb radiant energy. . . So, everything would be the
    same.

    BPL: No it wouldn’t. Earth would be frozen over.

  10. 160
    MA Rodger says:

    MJHenry @151,
    There was a guest post at CarbonBrief back in the Spring by a trio of climatologists that addressed the emerging ECS in CMIP6 models.

  11. 161

    jgnfld, #124–

    @96 Re.” “half measures” won’t be nearly enough

    While I understand [Greta Thunberg’s] idea here, it is also true that to get to full measures on[e] must pass through the half measures point on the way at some moment in time.

    That’s only true if there is a single response ‘pathway’ that operates in a more-or-less linear fashion. There are, of course, no perfect analogies, but consider a Canadian football game (similar to, but not identical with, the American version, for those who don’t know): you can try for a field goal, worth 3 points, or a touchdown, worth 6. You can’t do both at the same time, though.

    Which you choose will depend upon the score and the time clock: if you are down by more than 3, and the clock is almost out, then you may have no choice but the proverbial ‘hail Mary’ pass. It’s a very low-percentage play, but like pulling the goalie in a hockey game, at least it gives you a chance to win. And sometimes, it works.

    I think the essence of Greta’s message–and that of many others, including some here–is that it’s getting awfully late in the ‘game.’ And I don’t think that’s a mistaken message at all.

    We probably aren’t quite so constrained in our responses as that: we have at least some capacity to multitask usefully in our mitigation approaches, and we have at least some ‘low regrets’ strategies available. But I think it does behoove us to think very carefully about which strategy is really low regrets–or not.

  12. 162
    MA Rodger says:

    And NOAA has posted for August with an anomaly of +0.92ºC, just below July’s anomaly of +0.93ºC. It is the =2nd warmest August on the NOAA record (2nd on GISTEMP & BEST), putting it behind August 2016 (+0.98ºC), equalling 2017 & 2015 while ahead of 2014 (+0.82ºC), 2018 (+0.80ºC) & 2009 (+0.73ºC). August 2019 was =29th in the NOAA all-month record (35th in GISTEMP, 31st in BEST).
    A ranking of the year-to-date puts 2019 in third place and for the full calendar year potentially could still climb up to 2nd ahead of 2017 or drop down to 4th behind 2015. (In both GISTEMP & BEST, 2nd place is looking the very likely outcome, this more definite-looking outcome because, relative to NOAA, in GISTEMP & particularly in BEST the top few annual anomalies are less tightly grouped.)

    …….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
    2016 .. +1.08ºC … … … +1.00ºC … … … 1st
    2017 .. +0.95ºC … … … +0.91ºC … … … 3rd
    2019 .. +0.94ºC
    2015 .. +0.88ºC … … … +0.94ºC … … … 2nd
    2018 .. +0.81ºC … … … +0.83ºC … … … 4th
    2010 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.73ºC … … … 6th
    2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 5th
    1998 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 9th
    2002 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 14th
    2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 8th
    2007 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 15th

  13. 163
    David B. Benson says:

    Barton Paul Levenson @159 — That is quite a subtle point. Assuming just ocean surface everywhere one can via pencil & paper with “Principles of Planetary Climate” at hand, work out that without atmospheric carbon dioxide, Terra freezes over north and south of the twin tropics. However, within the tropics is too difficult for me to determine.

    As I recall, a model run showed that the equatorial zone was still unfrozen some modeled weeks after the sudden removal of CO2. Unfortunately the model run ended there.

  14. 164
    John Pollack says:

    #157 – Nick O. No, I’m not sure that the SSTs along Dorian’s path were not significantly warmer than normal. I agree that it’s an important point, and needs to be straightened out.

    The data source that my statement was based upon is https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html, which is an animation of weekly SST anomalies. The 8/25-31 frame shows a white area (anomaly between -0.5C and +0.5C) along Dorian’s path through the islands of the Caribbean, including the Bahamas. The warmer anomalies lie east of Dorian’s path.

    It’s quite possible that Jeff Masters had a different and better data set for SSTs in the area, but I don’t know what it is, as it doesn’t seem to be referenced in the article. I’m certainly open to revising my opinion if I have better data, but I’d like to see a reference.

  15. 165
    zebra says:

    #154 John Pollack, also Kevin McKinney,

    Please review the August 9 “Just the Facts” post from Gavin, and also my #78 in response to Nick O, and my #148 to which John is responding.

    What we have with JP and KM are examples of people just reciting facts, as in Gavin’s post…(whether the “facts” are correct or not)… without having established “warrants”, or context, or just a starting point of agreement, as I call it, before getting to the disagreement.

    Kevin, KIA has still not stated whether he accepts that increasing CO2 increases the energy in the climate system. If he doesn’t accept what fundamental physics says, supported by direct measurement and irrefutable observation, how does it make any sense to offer up a list of cat5 hurricanes?

    What question are you answering? Are you saying that maybe quantum physics and thermo are wrong, but if you just had statistically significant data showing an increase in cat5 hurricanes, that would be proof enough to convince KIA?

    John, in your comment to me, you are not responding to what I said #148. Do you agree or disagree with my conclusion that Dorian… not ‘something like Dorian’, but that specific event with all its measurable characteristics, on that specific date… would have essentially zero probability of occurring on Earth B?

    I can’t respond further to #154 without knowing if you follow my reasoning in the first place… same “warrant”, context, whatever.

  16. 166
    zebra says:

    Al Bundy,

    I’ve got it! Your recent comments resulted in one of those “how could I not have seen something so obvious moments”.

    What we need are “terms and conditions” for making comments here. For example:

    By commenting here, you agree that…

    1. There is not a vast conspiracy of librul scientists making up fake data and models to promote socialism.

    2. An increase of CO2 in the atmosphere results in an increase of energy in the climate system.

    …and so on. Basic facts, logic and science rules and principles, whatever– some relatively short list that would cover the majority of the usual rhetorical nonsense.

    Then, if someone makes a comment that implicitly violates those principles, they get one chance to defend their position. Failing to do so results in some kind of time-out-penalty-box banishment.

    Your job is to write the software and sell it to the moderators (for free, of course.)

  17. 167
    FrancisMcN says:

    I understand that the really long term historical temperature records such as Central England Temperature are the result of a lot of data processing and interpretation as they will not have a consistent continuous record from any one site and some such as CET extend back before there was even any sort numerical temperature scale. Given this background what sort of caveats are there that should be kept in mind on how they can be used and what sort error might be expected for any one data point, especially the earlier ones?
    I am particularly thinking of the CET monthly mean temperature and for example August 2003 is rated 5th highest while August 1747 is rated 6th highest (both having the same mean temperature) and August 1736 is rated 11th highest with a mean temperature 0.5 degrees lower.

  18. 168
    mike says:

    another scientist getting worried and noting that things are happening faster and earlier than predicted:

    “I’m seeing things that I did not think would happen until 2050,” said Dr. Kristie Ebi, a professor in the Department of Global Health at the University of Washington. “Climate change is coming at us much faster, and the speed of change and how that’s going to affect extreme events is going to be very problematic.” Heat waves and floods are becoming more frequent and intense sooner than expected, she said.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/how-climate-change-threatens-our-health-in-the-pacific-northwest/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=mobile-app&utm_campaign=ios

    For years, I have been saying that the scientists have underestimated the speed and impact of AGW, that in that way, climate scientists have a conservative bias in their projections. I wish I had been wrong about that.

    Thanks to NickO at 157: yes, Dorian moved across ocean waters that had been warmed by climate change. Were they especially warm? I don’t know. How many folks in Dorian’s path were especially killed?

    Warm regards

    Mike

  19. 169
    theZeitgeist says:

    There is some extensive rationalization going on here trying to defend Michael Mann.

    In Mann vs. Ball case Mann was the plaintiff in the thing; he started it all. Eight years ago.

    The defense Ball tried was, in parlance of the court, a “Truth” defense.

    And Mann did nothing. In a case he started.

    There’s no way around that being a petty, wasteful, and incompetent use of the law.

    Not a good look at all.

  20. 170

    #155, JP–

    Thanks for reminding (or informing, as the case may individually be) us of the observational issues involved in Cat 5 trends. I was not unaware of the issue; as you say, Adam Lea had already discussed it way back in #44, and it’s hardly been a secret if you read on the topic at all.

    However, you’re quite a bit more dismissive than Adam was, and I think you’re over-interpreting those concerns about observational bias.

    There is, for example, the study that I previously linked, which demonstrates that in climate models suitably forced by historical data with, and without, anthropogenic warming, the “warmed” condition does indeed end up with increased wind speeds and decreased central pressures, among other things:

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0391.1

    So there are good reasons to think that the increase in Cat5s–and 4s, too, if I’m recalling correctly–is indeed partly a real physical effect, and not a mere ‘artifact.’

    Additionally, there is the fact that historical observations are supplemented in the data by use of reanalysis products:

    King as well as the 1948 and 1949 hurricanes were upgraded from a Category 3 to a Category 4 based upon the reanalysis. Having five major hurricanes making landfall in Florida is a record for a five year period, equaled only by the early 2000s. In addition, nine new tropical storms were discovered and added into the database for this five year period.

    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20140325_pa_reanalysis1946to1950.pdf

    And yes, reanalysis data is not without its issues and uncertainties. But it should help, nevertheless, to abate some of the observational bias.

    Finally, it would be worth looking at the *distribution* of storm strengths (in fact, I bet it’s been done, probably quite a bit.) After all, the observational bias could be argued the other way, too: maybe ships don’t sample the heart of a Cat 5 if they can possibly avoid it, but aren’t they also more likely to miss smaller and weaker storms completely? (Cf., those 9 tropical storms discovered and added into the database.)

    #157–I second Nick O’s comment about Dorian and warmer surface waters. My memory is not as clear on this point as Nick’s–or maybe Nick subsequently found that bit he quoted–but at the time, SSTs definitely showed a positive anomaly along Dorian’s track, as I recall it. To be sure, there is the definitional issue Nick raised–how much is ‘especially?’ But as I understand it, 1 C is a significant difference in this regard.

  21. 171

    Dorian and warm water: here’s what a Jacksonville meteorologist had to say:

    The solid colors are sea surface temps. [They] show plenty of warm water along Dorian’s projected path – 80s & even around 90 degrees near the Bahamas.

    The map he’s referring to shows SSTs of 29 & 30C.

    https://www.actionnewsjax.com/weather/talking-tropics/talking-the-tropics-with-mike-hurricane-dorian-over-warm-water-near-fl-late-in-weekend/980445955

    I’ve also taken a look at the Climate Reanalyzer data for August 28-Sept 1. It’s a little hard to correlate Dorian’s track on one map with the SSTs on another. At least some of the time they were close to normal. But they were definitely about 1C positive while Dorian was sitting on Abaco and Grand Bahama and pummeling them, and I *think* they were elevated during the time Dorian was Cat 5.

  22. 172
    Al Bundy says:

    BPL: No it wouldn’t. Earth would be frozen over.

    AB: Remember, this is a magical scenario. Only “natural” carbon counts.
    ______

    Nigel, you say? Hi, I’m Al. Pleased to meet you.

    Do you really think that I haven’t thought deeply and broadly about comment sections?

    You speak of complexity. Chaos is the epitome of complexity.

    Here’s one skeleton on which to hang a commenting system:

    There can be any number of moderators. Two works well. Seven reduces the load, but since the mods will naturally read most comments, load might not be an issue. Even one would be rational, especially if comments were batched, with batches released every two or three days or on designated days of the week. A backup moderator or two can handle various circumstances. It could go like:

    Commenter submits comment.

    Mod on duty adds said comment to whichever thread seems appropriate (the current system’s frequent whining, “Wrong thread!” is a waste of time for everyone, including the mod who has no good options for handling the issue). When a comment is transferred a link is posted in the original thread “So-and-so’s comment moved to ____”. What’s the point of having a Borehole if you don’t give unmedals to the contestants?,

    or sends said comment back, along with a note, for improvement (note that this allows for zebra’s conversational idea, with the whole conversation or part thereof or just the finished product posted at once),

    or sends the comment to the mod who would best handle the situation. Note that this last option will be extremely rare.

    A useful sticky thread would be “Easily Answered”, where comments are given canned responses, perhaps with a link to a Skeptical Science page. Commenters can’t post directly to Easily Answered.

    Commenters need a claw-back button. The system lists not-yet-moderated comments and the commenter chooses and edits or deletes.

    Eh, that’s enough to get folks’ creative juices going. Improve away.

  23. 173
    Al Bundy says:

    BPL: No it wouldn’t. Earth would be frozen over.

    AB: Remember, this is a magical scenario. Only “natural” carbon counts.
    ______

    Nigel, you say? Hi, I’m Al. Pleased to meet you.

    Do you really think that I haven’t thought deeply and broadly about comment sections?

    You speak of complexity. Chaos is the epitome of complexity.

    Here’s one skeleton on which to hang a commenting system:

    There can be any number of moderators. Two works well. Seven reduces the load, but since the mods will naturally read most comments, load might not be an issue. Even one would be rational, especially if comments were batched, with batches released every two or three days or on designated days of the week. A backup moderator or two can handle various circumstances. It could go like:

    Commenter submits comment.

    Mod on duty adds said comment to whichever thread seems appropriate (the current system’s frequent whining, “Wrong thread!” is a waste of time for everyone, including the mod who has no good options for handling the issue). When a comment is transferred a link is posted in the original thread “So-and-so’s comment moved to ____”. What’s the point of having a Borehole if you don’t give unmedals to the contestants?,

    or sends said comment back, along with a note, for improvement (note that this allows for zebra’s conversational idea, with the whole conversation or part thereof or just the finished product posted at once, and potentially with no delay in publishing),

    or sends the comment to the mod or scientist who would best handle the situation. Note that this last option will be rare.

    A useful sticky thread would be “Easily Answered”, where comments are given canned responses, perhaps with a link to a Skeptical Science page. Commenters can’t post directly to Easily Answered.

    Commenters need a claw-back button. The system lists not-yet-moderated comments and the commenter chooses and edits or deletes.

    Eh, that’s enough to get folks’ creative juices going. Improve away.

  24. 174
    Ignorant Guy says:

    #143 Mr. Know It All
    “change that 23.90 to 20.62? Could change your acceleration calculation.”
    No. And why?! It wouldn’t change by much. But the real reason not to change is because that would be to deliberately throw away data. When you throw away data you ignore things that you really know. You don’t get smarter that way. You get more stupid that way.

  25. 175
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy, I will try to clarify what I mean regarding the “climate denialism” issue. The point is argued by some that we can’t change the denialists minds, and facts dont convince people, and I totally get where that is coming from. Firstly can we define this denialism as particularly strident, rigid and loopy scepticism about climate science, often politically motivated, as opposed to mild scepticism where people are more cool headed and open to persuasion.

    Remember there have been many scientific issues and the related scepticism has decreased over time, as people learn and digest the full facts, although some people do remain sceptics for life. The point is some people are open to persuasion, yes?

    The issue is when someone posts climate scepticism on a website, its hard to be sure whether they are mildly sceptical and open to persuasion, or denialists who are very rigidly fixed in their view and they often won’t tell you which, or concede a point of agreement openly. So it may be worth responding and sharing some information, and other people will be reading comments anyway and may be open to persuasion.

    The question is how is it best to respond to climate denialists and sceptics, and persuade them? This is challenging, because in my experience different people respond best to different forms of persuasion and tone, with some responding best to bluntness, some requiring a lot of diplomacy, and its hard to know what category they are in. I personally think the best approach is often to take a generalist approach, and so stick to concise key facts and be polite but ‘firm’ but I’m open to other ideas.

    I’m under no illusions that many long term denialists would change their minds, but its a fact that a few have because they have admitted it, and sometimes these are important people that others follow.

    And yes feeding trolls is risky, and sometimes its best to terminate discussions if its obvious trolling that will go on ad infinitum.

  26. 176
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy, solid evidence that some climate denialists have changed their minds, including some long term high profile denialists:

    https://www.theinertia.com/environment/heres-how-the-evidence-changed-a-climate-change-skeptics-mind/

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

    This is after consideration of the facts, not because their girl friends had etcetera:)

  27. 177
    Al Bundy says:

    Kevin M: That’s only true if there is a single response ‘pathway’ that operates in a more-or-less linear fashion.

    AB: Yeah, and we know that in this particular case it is patently false. Using CH4 as a bridge to sustainable creates a lot of should-be-stranded assets and inevitably leads to a big fight. We’re fracked. How fracked depends on the next decade.

  28. 178
    Al Bundy says:

    On comments:

    People should log in. This allows for a “show me stuff I haven’t seen” function. It means folks don’t have to keep entering their ID on every comment.

    Stuff should be tracked (that borehole notice could read: CONGRATS! With 27 un-points, you’re the most boreholed commenter on RealClimate!) Actions and decisions can be modified based on the commenter’s history without resorting to thought and memory (and their inherent biases and inaccuracies, not to mention the time wasted on an easily automated function).

    Speaking of scores, commenters should accumulate an “accuracy level” that is displayed next to their handle. Unfortunately, this is fraught. Too much work? Too much dissent? But since it’s a “should” I’m going to let this one stew. Thoughts?

    edit:

    change “or sends the comment to the mod or scientist who would best handle the situation. Note that this last option will be rare.”

    to “or sends the comment to the mod or scientist who would best handle the situation. Note that sending to another mod will be rare.”

  29. 179
    Dan DaSilva says:

    25 Marco says:
    6 Sep 2019 at 10:59 AM
    DDS@18: could you please be so kind as to show us the court documents that supposedly state that “the Court found that Mann did not provide the information as required to continue the case”?

    Here is the link
    https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm

  30. 180
    Mal Adapted says:

    My next-to-last, regarding Mike’s query on whether the upward trend of GMST is accelerating or not:

    IMHO this is a job for someone with Tamino’s level of expertise. Still, I’m a little surprised no one’s done it yet.

    Heh. On further investigation, I find Tamino has done it, sort of, though only for the interval since 1850, nor did he actually say the trend was ‘accelerating’. It was in his Global Temperature 2018 post:

    Using [change-point analysis] to estimate the trend changes (apart from the noise), the early warming amounted to about 0.39°C, but later warming covered 0.83°C, more than twice as much.

    I, for one, have long assumed something of that magnitude was true. I’m more interested in what’s happened since Tamino’s last change point, in the mid-1970s. Perhaps that’s not long enough to show a trend in the trend? I’m still looking for a reference. TIA.

  31. 181
    Victor says:

    My book, “Existential Threat: Facing the Climate Change Abyss,” is now available for purchase at Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Threat-Facing-Climate-Change-ebook/dp/B07XZLQ1G4/

    Only 6 bucks (cheap!)

  32. 182
    Entropic man says:

    179 Dan DaSilva

    “the Court found that Mann did not provide the information as required to continue the case”?

    Interesting link.

    Unfortunately it does not mention any refusal to provide information. To thecontrary, the judge complains that too much information was given. Four binders from the plaintiff and one binder from the defendant.

  33. 183
    nigelj says:

    Zebra @165 says “John, in your comment to me, you are not responding to what I said #148. Do you agree or disagree with my conclusion that Dorian… not ‘something like Dorian’, but that specific event with all its measurable characteristics, on that specific date… would have essentially zero probability of occurring on Earth B?”

    In a climate warming situation it is probable that most hurricanes will change in some way, ie the “trend” will be towards greater intensity on average due to warming oceans. But if a specific hurricane forms in water of pre warming period temperature, how can you attribute it to a warming climate? You cannot. Only an attribution study can determine whether a specific hurricane has been influenced by climate change.

    Unless you are thinking that a warmed climate changes the patterns that allow hurricanes to form, and possibly they do, but it doesn’t look like there’s anything identified or likely to be significant. In fact its not even fully understood why hurricanes form:

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

  34. 184
    nigelj says:

    Zebra @166 suggests having definitions of what content should be allowed to be posted on this website. This looks arbitrary and over complicated, and too much like censorship. Instead do what other climate websites do like skepticalscience.com. They insist sceptics back their wild claims with references to the peer reviewed literature, and if they repeatedly fail to do this the comments get crossed out or deleted. This is simpler, and less of an imposition on free speech, minimises spamming, and aims for a quality discussion where published science is given some emphasis as a starting point for discussion.

  35. 185
    nigelj says:

    Zebra @165 says “John, in your comment to me, you are not responding to what I said #148. Do you agree or disagree with my conclusion that Dorian… not ‘something like Dorian’, but that specific event with all its measurable characteristics, on that specific date… would have essentially zero probability of occurring on Earth B?”

    John did agree to that as far as I can see. Zebra needs to STOP this obfustication, pedantry and repetition, and evasion of some good points made by John. More energy in the system must affect all weather events, but it doesn’t tell us how or whether its significant so its a bit of a vague generalisation. Hurricanes will mostly get more intense but some specific hurricanes will not be significantly affected.

  36. 186
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @172

    AB: “There can be any number of moderators. Two works well. Seven reduces the load, but since the mods will naturally read most comments, load might not be an issue. Even one would be rational, especially if comments were batched, with batches released every two or three days or on designated days of the week. A backup moderator or two can handle various circumstances. It could go like:”

    Nigelj: Yes ok, but I don’t see why the moderators would have to read most incoming comments. You would split the workload because that is obvious. Just speaking generally websites need as many moderators as it takes to get the job done in a timely fashion. This website is a bit slow to post comments, presumably because the mods are the scientists, and they are sometimes busy. For this reason your farming out idea makes some sense because it could speed it up.

    AB: “Commenter submits comment.Mod on duty adds said comment to whichever thread seems appropriate (the current system’s frequent whining, “Wrong thread!” is a waste of time for everyone…”

    Nigelj: Agreed. Moderators could put comments on correct thread with a little note that they have done this, at least when its really clear something is on the wrong thread.

    AB: “or sends said comment back, along with a note, for improvement (note that this allows for zebra’s conversational idea, with the whole conversation or part thereof or just the finished product posted at once)”

    Nigelj: I have this sneaking suspicion that nobody is going to want this time consuming job, but feel free to volunteer for moderation duties. Will you do that?

    In addition Zebras idea is crazy, and is like censorship. Read my comments on the issue.

    AB: “A useful sticky thread would be “Easily Answered”, where comments are given canned responses, perhaps with a link to a Skeptical Science page. Commenters can’t post directly to Easily Answered.”

    NigelJ: Interesting and nice idea, but is vastly expanding the moderators role. Instead we can all easily point people at appropriate websites with lists of facts and standard responses, without the moderators having to do it. Already happens. In a sense we are all moderators.

    Thing’s are ok as they are, as long as 1) this website actually enforces the moderation rules it already has and 2) its a bit tougher on the denialists, but the way to do this is to keep it simple, and just make it a rule that they back up their (absurd) claims with references to published science, and not WUWT, otherwise comments get deleted or boreholed.

    AB “Commenters need a claw-back button. The system lists not-yet-moderated comments and the commenter chooses and edits or deletes.”

    Nigelj: Couldn’t agree more. Seen it done where you get a minute or two to edit or delete your comments, with a count down timer, before the things are frozen in place.

    However its also up to us to proof read our own stuff. We are having a conversation, so obviously we want a good standard, but mistakes will happen: Don’t sweat the small stuff. Instead, clarify, and say whether you agree or disagree with the various points made, ie be specific and leave no room for doubt and assumptions.

    Bossy lecture over. You are now free to go:)

  37. 187

    Victor says: My book, “Existential Threat: … “

    “Victor” / Bill,
    I have an existential thought: Why wasn’t your book titled “Bore Hole” ?

  38. 188
    MA Rodger says:

    FrancisMcN @167,
    The works underlying the HadCET record are:-

    Manley (1974) ‘Central England temperatures: Monthly means 1659 to 1973’

    Parker et al (1994) ‘A new Central England temperature series, 1772 to 1993’

    Parker & Horton (2005) ‘Uncertainties in the Central England temperature 1878-2003 and some improvements to the maximum and minimum series’

    Additionally, Parker (2010) ‘Uncertainties in early Central England temperatures’ finds the standard error in monthly data for the period 1722-1877 to be “typically 0.3°C”. This gives reason to accept these monthly eighteenth century data as reasonably accurate for the purpose of ranking the various yearly months. However, I don’t think the existence of an individual month that was toasty warm in one location 250 years ago says much other than to demonstrate the size of the wobbles in local temperatures. Even at a seasonal level, these rankings show eighteenth century seasons appearing in the top 5 (autumn), top 10 (winter) and top 15 (spring & summer). Even annually 1733 appears in the top 20. What is perhaps more telling is that the top 20 years in the CET comprises ten years since 2000, five more since 1980, three more earlier in the twentieth century and just one in each of the previous two centuries. And all this is for but one location so should not be seen as immediately indicative of global temperatures.

  39. 189
    JCH says:

    I have a question. If an atmosphere like earth’s existed as it currently is, but miraculously no back radiation reached the surface of its planet, would there be a greenhouse effect?

  40. 190

    Victor, nobody wants your book.

  41. 191
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Weaktor: “Only 6 bucks (cheap!)”

    Way too cheap. You’d have to pay me much, much more to read it.

  42. 192
    zebra says:

    Al Bundy, BPL, David Benson,

    A-,F,F

    Al, the minus is because you called my carefully constructed thought experiment “magic”. It’s a carefully constructed thought experiment!

    Did my best to ceteris paribus… you get 400 ppm CO2 but only 280 (or whatever it used to be) is absorbing radiant energy. Cow farts, deforestation, urbanization, blah blah remains the same. The oceans are still acidified, and so on.

    And even with that, we would expect no Dorian on Earth B.

  43. 193
    mike says:

    Nothing skyrockety going on, just global heating accelerating according to the WMO.

    “The signs and impacts of global heating are speeding up, the latest science on climate change, published ahead of key UN talks in New York, says.

    The data, compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), says the five-year period from 2014 to 2019 is the warmest on record.

    Sea-level rise has accelerated significantly over the same period, as CO2 emissions have hit new highs.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49773869?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR2qUbMXmoavsLy333jrpONdUkLDyZO_A0MoeeDPEw0GHlBQqnsxvp-g_Q0

    same with CO2, no skyrockets, just steady increase and acceleration. No worries.

    September 8 – 14, 2019 408.59 ppm up 3.68 ppm over last year, noisy number
    September 8 – 14, 2018 405.31 ppm
    September 8 – 14, 2009 384.69 ppm up 23.90 ppm over same week in 2009

    Harvesting my grapes these days. The vines kept the house cool during the sunny weather and now we make grape jelly and apple grape cider. Life is good.

    Warm regards

    Mike

  44. 194
    nigelj says:

    Mike, regarding your question on whether climate change is accelerating. I just came across this, which has just been released by the WMO:

    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates

    “Global Climate in 2015-2019: Climate change accelerates.”

  45. 195
    nigelj says:

    “My book, “Existential Threat: Facing the Climate Change Abyss,” is now available for purchase at Amazon.com”

    Why is this website giving Victor a platform to spread his climate denialism and assorted nonsense? Talk about shooting yourselves in your own foot:)

  46. 196
    Marco says:

    Thank you Dan DaSilva.

    Now I need a little bit more help: where in the court decision does it state that Mann did not provide the requested information?

    It merely states Mann/his counsel did not push the case onward. Quite different.

  47. 197
    Killian says:

    I can say with complete confidence the massive expenditure of time and energy on the resident denialists, aka the complete and total domination of this site by the obsession with putting denialists in their place on the mistaken assumption it somehow corrects or protects the record, thus saving many an unsuspecting fence-sitter, has brought the overall usefulness, quality and level of germane content way, way down over the last three years.

    Refocus, eh?

    FWIW…

  48. 198
  49. 199
    Al Bundy says:

    zebra: What we need are “terms and conditions” for making comments here.

    AB: Yes, but imposed gradually. Agreeing to stuff before learning the system is like those terms of service monstrosities nobody reads (which in my mind allows for a “reasonable person” defense against said agreements – if nobody reads them then it is unreasonable to enforce them as if the person knew of the conditions). The newbie’s conditions would be a desire to learn. The Proud to be Stupid club would have the same condition. Everyone starts in Kindergarten but failing Kindergarten 10 times shows that keeping the denialist enrolled is unwise.

    One way would be to use a trial period, after which a couple of very basic non-controversial stipulations, which would set a very low bar.

    Accuracy Points can start at zero, so restrictions could be imposed based on how negative a commenter’s score is. Perhaps progressive bandwidth restrictions – the twits get “Twitterized”.

    Doesn’t it make you feel proud to get a positive inline response? Well, the world should forever remember that you spoke with a climate scientist four times (so far) via an “Inline Responses” medal that accompanies your handle. A “Good Questions” badge would be useful, too. It would encourage and elevate the art of questioning.

    zebra: Your job is to write the software and sell it to the moderators (for free, of course.)

    AB: Not me. I last programmed in a character-based language. No GUI. No O-O. I can design but somebody else needs to code.

  50. 200
    Al Bundy says:

    Victor: My book, “Existential Threat: Facing the Climate Change Abyss,”

    AB: How about posting three single-sentence excerpts that capture your book’s essence?