This month’s open thread…. and let’s stay on climate topics this month. It’s not like there isn’t anything climate-y to talk about (sea ice minimums, extreme events, climate model tunings, past ‘hyperthermals’… etc.). Anything too far off-topic will get binned. Thanks!
60 MA Rodger, well when you learn to be ‘nice’ and ‘mature’ and drop the ‘poisonous attitude’ I may consider answering you with useful information. Until then remain ignorant – more likely that hell will freeze over before anything improves on any score. (shrug – pipe – smoke it) Next time, check the refs I keep providing – you clearly need edification and not only an attitude adjustment. Maybe this might help? – Slap!
63 BPL … hehehehe another chicken vs egg moment. Thanks again. :-)
67 CCHolley says: “I think you totally missed my point.” I thought the same. Nice confirmation, thx.
69 TPP85 says: “I am not from US but we should keep an eye on Irma…” Nothing can be done about Irma. Would be wiser to keep an eye on the US and what ‘it’s’ up to.
77 Mr. Know It All says: “I’ll ignore the insults from Thomas” Yeah sure ya do. Hehehehe. In your dreams maybe. The funniest thing is how arrogant stupid & deluded you are that you cannot even work out how accurate every ‘insult’ you believe you receive is actually 100% spot on the money, honey! Oh but please get real and honest for once in your life – notions of “good manners” is so very VERY important to you, right? More important than your own Money/Assets even? ROTFLMFAO for those poor downtrodden “insulted skeptics” poor widdle diddums – *sniffle*
80 James says: “In Australia it was reported as a 1 in 800 year event.” Ha that’s nothing mate. Seeing a climate science denier come to their senses is a 1 in a million year event! :-)
81 jgnfld says: “Climate (science) deniers are living in a fantasy world.” Yep. Utterly self-deluded! And by default in need of professional psychological assistance and/or some kind of intervention on mental health grounds. It is what it is.
84 Hank Roberts, yep. This type of quality science based info has been coming at us all for years now, and specifically in the AGW/CC context of “communication” and popular opinions/polling. It doesn’t matter who says it, how they say it, on which psychological/cognitive basis it is presented it’s all true and on the money.
AGW/CC is fundamentally a psychological BELIEF issue … not a scientific one and not an economic one either. Discussing causes and especially solutions when such a large portion of western “democratic/free” society are living in a mental fantasyland is a huge barrier to rational positive sustainable coordinated action and political change. My #1 wheel barrow here and elsewhere for some time (obviously). Gotta get that part right first folks ….. Killian and many many others face the same barriers to understanding, and there’s next to nothing they or I can do about it. A global group of scientists well funded, wise and switched onto the real issue/barrier might be able to the smash the mirror. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_am82sYFXU
79 -1=e^ipi, yes it’s eye opening on many levels. thx.
[repost] Cognitive Science Emeritus Prof George Lakoff – How Systemic Causation Affects Sustainability – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGgIDEAAG0
Context re “A global group of scientists well funded, wise and switched onto the real issue/barrier might be able to the smash the mirror.”
By those ‘scientists/academics’ hiring and properly briefing a high end global reach PR Marketing Firm to take the core message to the people via 21st century advertising know-how targeting The People and thus side stepping the politicians/policy makers/journalists/media and all the BS artists in the process.
#88 – “Seems to me, folks, that Harvey is really your best bet. If you really want to take a stand, you really need to take your stand there. And hope and pray for Irma as well. (C’mon folks, down on your knees.) Don’t listen to all those sober sides insisting that Harvey has nothing to do with climate change. Because without Harvey (and, hopefully, Irma) you have nothing.” ~ Weaktor
Weaktor, for some reason you remind me of this guy…
https://media.giphy.com/media/26BRNoQJ5bRcZS8Hm/giphy.gif
@John Pollack 4 Sep 2017 at 2:46 PM Harvey wasn’t responding to ” changes in the mean zonal (west to east)wind” but a “persistent jet-stream pattern(s)” predicted by Dr Francis, specifically a “weak steering environment… expected to remain in place for at least the next several days”.
If Harvey had developed more slowly in an environment in which less anthropogenic greenhouse gases hadn’t warmed the Gulf as much, decreased the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles less, and slowed the movement of the jetstream patterns, it would have come ashore at a time when the jetstream patterns wouldn’t have caused it to “remain in place” to dump record destructive rainfall on Texas.
Victor @88
Just to pick up on one line of your tedious reiteration of rehashed trolling
For some perspective on flooding worldwide, see the segment titled Dangerous Floods in History, from https://www.livescience.com/23913-flood-facts.html
I’m guessing that you were trying to suggest that as more people died in floods in the past, flooding isn’t a AGW issue. However you ignore one minor issue – progress! We are better at forecasting storms and floods, we are better at protecting populations, we are better at evacuations, so for a given flood fewer people, thankfully, die. This is true in both rich and poor countries. That tells us exactly zilch about whether AGW causes more floods. For that you need a bit of science, and guess what? Theory says AGW should increase rainfall intensity – observation says that rainfall intensity is increasing.
Some people have a curious take on ‘causality’ when it comes to climate and weather – insisting that specific events have an either/or relationship with ‘human causes’ or ‘natural causes’ – when really, they should be thinking about influences, which can have fractional effects on overall results. Bloomberg has a good article on this issue:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-31/future-hurricanes-will-be-worse-than-harvey
As far as hurricanes, the influences directly linked to fossil-fueled global warming include: warmer sea surface temperatures, increases in the sub-surface warm layer, and more water vapor in the atmosphere. In the absense of other influences, these factors should cause hurricanes to intensify and persist longer than in the pre-fossil fuel climate – but are not expected to affect overall frequency.
However, there’s also the wind shear factor, from the top to the base of the troposphere (which can disrupt a hurricane’s three-dimensional structure), and the tendency for warming to increase over land faster than over ocean (which can result in mass air movements that keep Atlantic hurricanes from landfalling). These issues are much more complex and hard to predict than the ocean warming and atmospheric moisture content, since it’s a circulation / fluid dynamics problem, with links to things like jet stream circulation. Hurricane frequency is also linked to the seeding rate, i.e. over the Sahara desert in summer, atmospheric disturbances are generated which pass out over the Atlantic, at a generally constant rate; conditions in the Atlantic determine whether they seed hurricanes or not. Hard to see how this would change much under warming:
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/what-does-sahara-desert-have-do-hurricanes.html
Regardless, given that warming trends are going to continue for the next 50-100 years, even with a rapid transition to renewables, a new mentality regarding preparedness for flooding and hurricanes along the Gulf and East coasts is required – as well as billions, if not trillions, in infrastructure upgrades.
K: Anyone claiming “100% renewable!” is a dunce.
BPL: So Mark Z. Jacobson is a dunce? I don’t think so.
V 88: without Harvey (and, hopefully, Irma) you have nothing.
BPL: Will you PLEASE take a course in statistics, or at least work through a stats textbook?
UAH has just posted for August with an anomaly of +0.41ºC, the second warmest UAH TLTv6.0 anomaly of the year so far (after May which was +0.44ºC). August 2017 is the third warmest August on the UAH record after August 1998 (+0.52ºC) and 2016 (+0.43ºC) and ahead of 4th-placed August 2010 (+0.34ºC) and 5th 1995 (+0.28ºC). So for a non-El Nino year, August 2017 is certainly “scorchyisimmo!!!”
It sits as the =27th warmest all-month anomaly.
The table is ranked by the average anomaly of the first eight months of the year. We can be quite definite that annually 2017 will end up in 3rd or 4th slot in UAH TLTv6.0 as it would now require some dramatic anomalies for anything else. (That is an ave for the final four months above +0.81ºC or below +0.16ºC.)
…….. Ave Jan-Aug … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
1998 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … …2nd
2016 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … …1st
2010 .. +0.40ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … …3rd
2017 .. +0.32ºC
2002 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … …5th
2015 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … …4th
2007 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … …9th
2005 .. +0.20ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … …6th
2003 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … …7th
2014 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.18ºC … … …8th
1991 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … …20th
Concerning Harvey in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial and Pielke op-ed, I thank MA Rodger (83) for reporting ways around the WSJ paywall to see them, for identifying important parts of them, and for providing links–as the editorial did not–to NOAA and IPCC materials.
Concerning those two organizations, here’s the passage from the editorial:
QUOTE
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently said that “it is premature to conclude that human activities—and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming—have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”
No less than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it lacks evidence to show that global warming is making storms and flooding worse. But climate scolds still blame Harvey on climate change because, well, this is what the climate models say *should* happen as the climate warms.
UNQUOTE
Rodger calls the NOAA statement cherry-picked and says it concurs with “part of the opinion set out in” the IPCC chapter “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional.”
Maybe there’ll be more comment in this forum about all of this.
(And yes, I get it about the WSJ–as my RC comments from as far back as 12 years ago show. It’s just that I think that what the WSJ opinion pages tell the world about climate change requires attention.)
Hank Roberts:
Thanks Hank, I always like see my own conclusions supported in the NYTimes 8^)! IMHO, the Koch club wouldn’t invest so much money (albeit a small fraction of its revenues) in developing the disinformation profession if it didn’t yield positive ROI. Some of the lies issuing therefrom are more specious than others, but the unceasing flood of undifferentiated BS must leave little room for truth in the heads of the confused. That supports the ‘knowledge deficit’ model, modified to account for ‘constant surplus of BS’.
jgnfld said “Climate deniers are living in a fantasy world.”
I fear not. It is we climate realists who are in a fantasy world believing that democratic governments will ever be able to take the action necessary to prevent catastrophe.
Re Peter Ward, #26:
There are indeed two Peter Wards, the famous paleontologist from UW and the one who you quoted- an ill informed denier who hides behind marginal scientific credential. The UW one’s middle name is Douglas, and he is not the one who made the earlier comments on this thread.
KIA 96: Don’t get too excited about foods in Bangladesh.
BPL: I agree. It’s pretty similar to Indian food, but blander.
KIA 97: Wow. List of 15 worst floods in history (title says 10, but they list 15) – most occur before AGW. How can this be?
BPL: Maybe because before AGW was a much longer period of time? I’m just guessing here.
The subsidence took place between 1900 and now. As of 1935, there was almost no flood control infrastructure in Houston. By 1935, some of the subsidence had already taken place. Over the next 60 years Harris County spent money on drainage: flood control. This construction happened while the majority of the subsidence was happening. That means a great deal of the subsidence has already been dealt with.
Which is one reason why the engineers at the Harris County Flood Control District do not think that subsidence is a significant cause of Houston flooding.
Subsidence will have a net effect. That net effect could make flooding somewhat worse, or, it could make flooding lass severe. In Houston’s case, the ground has been tilting downward toward the ship channel, which means it is possible subsidence has improved flood control in Harris County.
Of the Tax-Day Flood in 2016:
108: “As far as hurricanes, the influences directly linked to fossil-fueled global warming include: warmer sea surface temperatures, increases in the sub-surface warm layer, and more water vapor in the atmosphere. In the absense of other influences, these factors should cause hurricanes to intensify and persist longer than in the pre-fossil fuel climate – but are not expected to affect overall frequency.”
The key phrase there is “in the absence of other influences”. Yes I would expect if the ocean heat content increases that should provide more energy to a developing tropical cyclone. However it is not just about sea surface temperatures, the atmospheric conditions also have to be favourable. How is vertical wind shear over the tropical Atlantic expected to vary with warming? How is the frequency of blocked weather patterns that can lead to stagnation of storms expected to vary with warming? What does the data say about current trends in intense tropical cyclones during the roughly 1C of warming we’ve had so far? What if global warming actually acted to reduce the probability of storms stalling? Maybe a warmer climate makes storms like Harvey less likely. Lots of questions and uncertainty. We surely need to address these questions before we can make any reasonable estimate on whether storms like Harvey, or the most powerful storms in general are now more likely than, say, 100 years ago.
I prefer to remain skeptical about any significant climate change attribution to Harvey until someone (or several people) who is an authority in tropical meteorology can show me some good evidence that Harvey-like storms have likely become more probable. Questioning attribution between one particular weather event and climate change does not make me a troll or a denier, despite what someone on here wants to believe. I don’t think that trying to link climate change to any weather disaster that occurs is a good idea, it seems to happen regularly, and my concern is people will just say “yeah, whatever” and switch off, because it just becomes like a broken record to them. This is the opposite of what you want if you want people to sit up and take the anthropogenic climate change threat seriously.
As I have mentioned before I can believe there may have been some small amplification of the effects from Harvey due to increases in water vapour content of the atmosphere, and possibly a small rise in sea level, I just don’t yet think it is a large effect. I’m willing to be proved wrong.
#95 nigelj: “Killian @72 — You are off back ranting about sustainability, and your so called regenerative society…. You respond to any of the points I raise with wild assertions, a stream of constant and relentless personal abuse, and emotive content free rhetoric. This is the sign of someone out of their depth. If there are these fantastically successful independent, modern sustainable societies what are they? You cite no examples. Most modern alternative lifestyle groups groups are pretty reliant on the culture they despise. Go write a book or something. If you are capable of writing something, and I have my doubts.”
Here here!
There’s clearly not much point trying to reason with Sir Killian. He is so confused, doctrinaire, rude, and intellectually under-powered, that detailed replies are a waste of time. That’s why I don’t bother anymore.
Wacko alert:
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/rush-limbaugh-suggests-hurricane-irma-is-a-liberal-hoax/
Who’s his audience?
#109 Barton Paul Levenson said K: Anyone claiming “100% renewable!” is a dunce.
BPL: So Mark Z. Jacobson is a dunce? I don’t think so.
Brilliant. And, yes, he is, at least in this regard.
http://russgeorge.net/2015/02/02/renewable-energy-wont-save-us-say-google-engineers/
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/8/16/renewables-cant-save-the-planet-only-nuclear-can
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/8/16/renewables-cant-save-the-planet-only-nuclear-can
http://oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/5395/Energy_transitions,_renewables_and_rational_energy_use:_A_reality_check.html
Let’s say there is a magic available to make all production of stuff possible without FFs (even the stuff, itself, magically!), you won’t be doing it very long before running out of resources.
So, yes, dunce.
Alan and nigelj said Wah-wah-wah.
Gents, when you exist in a Buffoonery (your own non-reality-based non-reality) where Capitalism can be sustainable, lying about what others say is your MO, it really is better to stop talking.
Capitalism: Ten eternal (so long as there is food, water and stable temps) mice live on a cheese planet. It is so abundant, it is nothing but cheese. The temperature is perfect due to being perfectly distanced from its star and the cheese has a water content sufficient for supporting life.
Ah… wonderful!
One mouse is a bit bigger, much craftier than the others. Over time, he gains control of 90% of Cheesius. All the mice eat their cheese, transmogrifying it into poo. Eventually (we shall not deal with the size of Cheesius, nor the sizes of the mice, and so can ignore time), the nine mice eat up all their cheese. Big Mouse is unwilling to share. Remarkably, the nine others never team up to force Big Mouse to share. They cannot eat poo. Sadly, eternity is cut short. Big Mouse, however, goes on munching away.
Sadly, Cheesius is not growing and Big Mouse eventually finds himself facing his final mouthfuls of cheese amidst a planet of poo. He chooses to have one last cheese party, enjoying immersing himself in cheese down to the last speck of it. Then his eternity also ends.
Neo-economics: Cheese becomes PooCheese, then that PooCheese becomes PooCheesier which becomes PooCheesiest which becomes PooierCheese which becomes PooiestCheese which becomes PooCheezy which becomes…
Thus are the lives of Alan and nigelj likely to run. Vaclav Smil, Piketty, and others, and I, dunces all, it seems. But you won’t find us with you on Cheesius.
Note: When you reduce someones analysis to returning to mud huts and loin cloths, you are initiating the insults. Don’t insult if you want to be spoken to respectfully.
Alan and nigelj:
Sustainability: Anti-Cheesius, 10 eternal mice, stable temps, soil, corn.
On Anti-Cheesius, ten mice realize the corn grows only so quickly. They see their poo is not nice to eat nor to live among. They come very close to realizing this too late, but once they do, they realize cooperation is their only hope.
They talk. If they evenly divide Anti-Cheesius, none will have to work too hard, but all will have meaningful things to do. One of the mice realizes corn growing near his poo pile grows better, bigger. But only near the old portion of the pile. Hmmm….
Another notices old corn stalks and whatnot disappear if they fall onto his poo pile, and that the new poo becomes like old poo faster where this happens. Hmmmm…
Soon, all the mice are piling their poos and corn leavings together. They eventually can grow new corn on old piles and can plant corn on all the old poo, too, ensuring these lucky eternal mice will truly have eternity to munch corn on the green oasis of Anti-Cheesius.
According to Alan and nigelj, these mice are know-nothings and nincompoops.
119
Adam Lea says:
5 Sep 2017 at 5:27 PM
“Maybe a warmer climate makes storms like Harvey less likely. Lots of questions and uncertainty. We surely need to address these questions before we can make any reasonable estimate on whether storms like Harvey, or the most powerful storms in general are now more likely than, say, 100 years ago.
“As I have mentioned before I can believe there may have been some small amplification of the effects from Harvey due to increases in water vapour content of the atmosphere, and possibly a small rise in sea level, I just don’t yet think it is a large effect. I’m willing to be proved wrong.”
>>>>>>>>>
You’re a real piece of work. You don’t know what a trend line is.
And you’re not looking to “be proved wrong.” You’re hoping some passing reader will consider your tripe as legitimate.
97
“Mr. Know It All says:
5 Sep 2017 at 12:24 AM
Wow. List of 15 worst floods in history (title says 10, but they list 15) – most occur before AGW. How can this be?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaPGnNPYJvpJ0eVhXVebNcEBlLuluSF5Za-jxf5XtsCdXwK1oa
Astringent #107: “Theory says AGW should increase rainfall intensity – observation says that rainfall intensity is increasing.”
Yes, almost all the so-called “data” we hear from the usual quarters consists actually of “projections,” based on theory. Historical data, based on observation, says otherwise. As should be clear from the source I quoted, there have been several instances of heavy flooding, comparable to Harvey, in the past, and from the descriptions there was a lot more involved in these inundations than preventable fatalities. If this tells us nothing else, it tells us that recent instances of heavy downpours and flooding are hardly unprecedented, as so widely reported in the media.
Here also, for what it’s worth, is a relevant quote from Wikipedia: “Precipitation has generally increased over land north of 30°N from 1900 to 2005 but has declined over the tropics since the 1970s. Globally there has been no statistically significant overall trend in precipitation over the past century, although trends have varied widely by region and over time.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation
And this, from the IPCC itself:
“The increased atmospheric moisture content associated with warming might be expected to lead to increased global mean precipitation (Section 9.5.4.1). Global annual land mean precipitation showed a small, but uncertain, upward trend over the 20th century of approximately 1.1 mm per decade (Section 3.3.2.1 and Table 3.4). However, the record is characterised by large inter-decadal variability, and global annual land mean precipitation shows a non-significant decrease since 1950.” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-4-2.html
119 Adam Lea prognosticates from atop of his High Chair.
Adam, folks like you, imv, are endlessly entertaining, if nothing else. Adam you asked 4 basic questions. The answers are out there already. Hand feeding fish is for aquarium owners and parents with very young children, don’t you think? :)
re “I don’t think that trying to link climate change to any weather disaster that occurs is a good idea, it seems to happen regularly …” Yes. You just did it in your several comments. So, why don’t you stop doing that?
“This is the opposite of what you want if you want people to sit up and take the anthropogenic climate change threat seriously.” Adam no one ‘wants you’ nor ‘needs you’, and no one ‘expects you’ to take anything seriously apart from yourself. When you have no clue between skepticism and rank foolishness & ignorance which is the case given your comments, no one with a half a mind would take your ‘comments/beliefs’ seriously or care less about what you think or say. (that’s my best guess at least, I could be wrong.)
re: “I’m willing to be proved wrong.” Well bully for you Mr Know Nothing. How about at least attempting to prove yourself right first before laying out your ‘3 year old level’ hysterically funny demands?
So funny and yet so sad as well.
nigelj #93:
>You pick on any article that suits your perspective of no increase in extreme weather, ignoring any that show otherwise. You are suffering from massive confirmation bias and dont appear to have enough sense to be aware of it.
Such accusations cut both ways, nigel. We all tend to look for materials that support our position. The ones I found were from perfectly legitimate sources, and it didn’t take very long at all to find them. If that tells us nothing else it says we are dealing with an extremely complex issue, involving data that can be interpreted in very different, and often contradictory ways.
“The IPCC conclusions very briefly: There is high confidence that extreme rainfall events and heatwaves have already increased globally. . . ”
Yes, but for how long a span of time? Two years? Five years? Ten years? They don’t say. Here’s a more comprehensive statement, also from the IPCC:
“The increased atmospheric moisture content associated with warming might be expected to lead to increased global mean precipitation (Section 9.5.4.1). Global annual land mean precipitation showed a small, but uncertain, upward trend over the 20th century of approximately 1.1 mm per decade (Section 3.3.2.1 and Table 3.4). However, the record is characterised by large inter-decadal variability, and global annual land mean precipitation shows a non-significant decrease since 1950.” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-4-2.html
Cherry picking is indeed a two-way street, nigel, and by very selectively quoting an ambiguous passage from a vaguely worded IPCC report, you too are guilty.
Killian “Don’t insult if you want to be spoken to respectfully.” which is #1 on the Internet Usenet/Forum Rules:101
The trouble is, while often it’s intentional, so often it isn’t. Insults often arise out of a state of total ignorance about a subject while those in the know can feel egregiously offended for no good reason. Then round and round it goes. While beauty and insults are always in the eye of the beholder.
Victor @127
Precipitation has generally increased over land north of 30°N from 1900 to 2005 but has declined over the tropics since the 1970s. Globally there has been no statistically significant overall trend in precipitation over the past century, although trends have varied widely by region and over time.”
Typically you failed to quote the next sentence -“There has been an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events over many areas during the past century, as well as an increase since the 1970s in the prevalence of droughts—especially in the tropics and subtropics.”
I also find it ironic that you criticise attribution based on models, and wilfully ignore the observations! Tow clicks away from your IPCC quote is the statement “A prominent indication of a change in extremes is the observed evidence of increases in heavy precipitation events over the mid-latitudes in the last 50 years, even in places where mean precipitation amounts are not increasing (see also FAQ 3.2). For very heavy precipitation events, increasing trends are reported as well, but results are available for few areas.”
Detecting what one might describe as second order consequences of climate change i.e drought and flood is hard, because both depend on interactions between atmosphere, land, the built environment and human society. But just because it’s hard doesn’t make it impossible.
We could even do an experiment or two. Put a small flannel on a table top. Pour a shot glass of water onto the flannel each morning for a week. Note how much water is soaked up by the flannel and how much runs onto the table and makes a puddle. Now fill a mug with 6 shot glasses of water. Pour the mug over the flannel. Is the puddle bigger? How can that be? average precipitation measured in shot glasses/week has fallen?
BPL: So Mark Z. Jacobson is a dunce? I don’t think so.
K 122: Brilliant. And, yes, he is, at least in this regard.
BPL: Like you would know one way or the other.
#127, 129, Victor–
Rainfall *intensity* and the gross rainfall *amount* are not the same thing.
Hence, if “global annual land mean precipitation shows a non-significant decrease since 1950”, it really tells us very little about the mean intensity of the rain events making up the total. To illustrate, Regime A might have 200 inches of rain a year, delivered over 200 events, while Regime B has only 150 inches, but coming in just 100 events. The latter would clearly, on average, have more intense rainfall on average, even though the total for the former is higher.
It’d be great to have a visual of this.
All of which means that the conclusion you cite does not refute the one Nigel quotes: “There is high confidence that extreme rainfall events and heatwaves have already increased globally. . . ”
Gee, maybe that has something to do with why they are in the same report?
#130 Thomas said Insulting False Equivalence! Or Falsely Equivalent Insulting! Or something!
Well, except we’ve seen this dance before, and ain’t none of it accidental. Remember when nige was all, but I’m just not sure! So such to learn! Gosh,what could it am mean?! But is now all CAPITALISM! Growth is sustainable, and Killian wears loin cloths!
Yeah,me,too.
This is the “But we can’t risk the economy for the ecology” brand of soft denial. Seen it too many times.
@Killian, #75
Let’s just relax and lay back then. Mother Nature will kick ass more and more, until they are willing to learn or die, muhahaha 3:-)
@Killian, #77
” 7 generations ahead leadership, vision & responsibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_he-y6emlc
Not rocket science not economics and not bs but very human and very sane & ethical”
Thank you very much for that. THESE are the PEOPLE, who survived for 100s of thousands of years on planet Earth, while “modern civilization” will soon be gone like nothing.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017
Apparently a good year for surface mass budget on the Greenland ice sheet. If you read close, it appears that Hurricane Nicole may be a primary reason for good news on the SMB numbers. It still feels like a bit of good news. Any port in a storm looks good, right? We have ash from Eagle Creek fire falling on us here in Western Washington this week. http://www.opb.org/news/article/eagle-creek-fire-witness-teenagers-fireworks/
How are we doing with CO2 you ask?
Last Week
Aug. 27 – Sep. 2, 2017 404.19 ppm
Aug. 27 – Sep. 2, 2016 400.95 ppm
Aug. 27 – Sep. 2, 2005 381.53 ppm
Peachy, I guess. Read’m and weep.
don’t feed the trolls!
Mike
Mr. KIA: “Wow. List of 15 worst floods in history (title says 10, but they list 15) – most occur before AGW. How can this be?”
And we can add extreme-value theory to the long and growing list of things Mr. Know It All does not in fact know.
134 Killian says “Seen it too many times.”
Me too, and it is certainly frustrating beyond the point of composure sometimes. Point it out Anyway.
It ‘funny’ how so many find it easy to find a ‘quote’ to slap down a denialist meme here. These people are not ‘stupid’ and bereft of talent. Yet when it comes to the impacts of ‘economics/industry’ on a global scale going forward it suddenly becomes all about wearing loin cloths and living in caves like neanderthals. Google suddenly no longer works at such moments, apparently. :-)
People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.
The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.
People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.
Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.
http://www.paradoxicalcommandments.com
RSS has now posted for August with an anomaly of +0.71ºC, the warmest RSS anomaly of the year so far (UAH it was the second warmest of the year). August 2017 is the warmest August on the RSS record ahead of August 2010 (+0.63ºC), 2016 (+0.63ºC), 1998 (+0.61ºC) & 2015 (+0.56ºC). (On the UAH record it was 3rd warmest after August 1998 & 2016 and ahead of August 2010 and 1995.) So no questions that RSS shows August 2017 as “scorchyisimmo!!!”
Aug 2017 sits as the 10th warmest all-month RSS anomaly. (It was =27th warmest in UAH).
The table is ranked by the average anomaly of the first eight months of the year. The RSS final annual ranking of 2017 could be anywhere from 2nd to 5th, unless the last four months of the year somehow average above +1.02ºC or below +0.08ºC. (For UAH it will end up 3rd or 4th). Bar 2013, the list of years in the table are the same as those for UAH but with older years ranking significantly higher in UAH (& with 2013 being replaced by 1991).
…….. Ave Jan-Aug … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … …1st
1998 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … …2nd
2010 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … …3rd
2017 .. +0.60ºC
2015 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … …4th
2005 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … …5th
2002 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … …8th
2007 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … …9th
2014 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.41ºC … … …6th
2013 .. +0.36ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … …10th
2003 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … …7th
Victor @129
Your clause on rainfall does show pretty low confidence rainfall has increased, but it is from the old IPCC report 2008 so is out of date. I suggest you google the latest information from the 2013 report.
The 2013 report has more certainty on rainfall events and medium confidence of significantly higher global rainfall since the 1950s (2.5.1. if you want to wade through it).
However I think you are still cherry picking clauses that have only low confidence, and which suit your perspective. You are ignoring the full picture.
The IPCC also has medium and high confidence of all sorts of climate change phenomena in recent decades like increased temperatures, sea level rise, more heatwaves, etc, etc. They have also openly admitted upfront theres low confidence about pastt hurricane activity. So the point lost on you is the IPCC report has looked at everything, and is certainly not cherry picking, and neither am I.
137 mike says: Aug. 27 – Sep. 2, 2017 404.19 ppm
Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2
September 05: 403.47 ppm
September 04: 404.01 ppm
September 03: 404.03 ppm
September 02: 404.21 ppm
September 01: 404.28 ppm
Last Updated: September 6, 2017
Only a couple weeks left before those numbers start climbing again.
The Sept 2016 Mean Avg was 401 ppm – it climbed to ~410 ppm in May 2017
Is it possible or perhaps likely that ML.CO2 in 2018 peaks at +413ppm?
2019 at 416ppm
2020 at 420ppm
2025 at 440ppm
2030 at 460-465 ppm?
Then what?
Poor Victor and KIA …
Do they believe Donald Trump? Donald Trump: “Hurricane looks like largest ever recorded in the Atlantic!” he tweeted of Irma. “Even experts have said they’ve never seen one like this!” he posted of Harvey last week.
But for many scientists they are a worrying sign of a “new normal” in which extreme weather events become more intense as a result of manmade climate change.
Whether Irma will reach Florida at its current level of intensity is uncertain. Since records began in 1851, only three category five hurricanes have made landfall in the US.
Anders Levermann, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (says) “Unfortunately, the physics are very clear: hurricanes get their destructive energy from ocean heat, and currently water surface temperatures in this region are very high.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/06/twin-megastorms-irma-harvey-scientists-fear-new-normal
Of course, for KIA and the Victors of this world, it is ‘possible’ and as yet ‘unknown’ if there were several record setting Cat 5 Hurricanes hitting southern USA in the late summer of 500BC.
‘WE’ better do some more “research” do be sure before taking any action on the current AGW/CC realities as expounded by the professional expert skeptics that are employed as Climate Scientists all over the world today.
I’m not sure how many Seminoles were climate scientists around 500BC
fwiw – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot
@ Victor says: 6 Sep 2017 at 12:08 AM
“Astringent #107: ‘Theory says AGW should increase rainfall intensity – observation says that rainfall intensity is increasing.’
Yes, almost all the so-called “data” we hear from the usual quarters consists actually of “projections,” based on theory. Historical data, based on observation, says otherwise.”
Not really.
“A suite of climate change indices derived from daily temperature and precipitation data, with a primary focus on extreme events, were computed and analyzed.”
“Precipitation indices derived from a subset of stations with near-complete data between 1901 and 2003 and covering the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes and parts of Australia display a tendency toward wetter conditions with the distributions from the 1979–2003 period significantly different from the 1901–1950 period for every index.” http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/1477/Stephenson.pdf?sequence=1 (2000+ cites, so I wouldn’t call it a cherrypick or outlier)
“Despite uncertainties in total precipitation changes, extreme daily precipitation averaged over both dry and wet regimes shows robust increases in both observations and climate models over the past six decades. ” More extreme precipitation in the world’s dry and wet regions, Markus G. Donat, Andrew L. Lowry, Lisa V. Alexander, Paul A. O’Gorman & Nicola Maher http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n5/full/nclimate2941.html (10 years later, still happening)
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/precipitation-figure2-2016.png
Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
Aaaand Mr. IAT deploys the fallacious argumentum ad consequentiam conspiracist science deniers think is a ‘good’ one. Mr. IAT is unshakably convinced climate scientists are only in it for the soshulizm, so he presumably thinks “current economic systems” are relevant to whether tropical cyclones are more frequent or ‘only’ more intense. Or maybe he just doesn’t recognize a logical fallacy when he uses one.
What I’d like to know is, who told him having to pay a few dollars more for a tankful of gasoline would “disrupt current economic systems”? Legislation for a US revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment tariff would disrupt mostly the income streams of fossil fuel investors. Perhaps poor Mr. IAT’s virtual heart only bleeds for each member of the Koch club, and doesn’t realize or doesn’t care that the average US consumer would break even!
Does Mr. IAT really not see that with a nudge from the ‘visible hand’ of CF&D with BAT, the good ol’ ‘invisible hand’ of the market will build out the carbon-neutral global economy before his virtual eyes, until energy prices are about what they are currently but without the climate change costs? Well before 2100, the large-scale transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere won’t be cost-effective for anyone anymore. Once feedbacks to CO2 forcing work themselves out, GMST will level off, and we and everyone on Earth will forgo the costs of further warming. That’s the kind of disruption we should all hope for.
If Mr. IAT acknowledged the already large and rapidly mounting costs now being paid for anthropogenic climate change globally, it would matter to him that CF&D with BAT is revenue neutral. That’s how we know he’s not here to help write a less than globally tragic ending to the Drama of the Climate Commons, but solely to wage culture war.
[edit. Tone down the sniping and non-climate related political arguments. Lot’s of places to do that elsewhere on the net.]
Killian, post #122, quotes this:
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/8/16/renewables-cant-save-the-planet-only-nuclear-can — “To complete the transition, renewables would need to both supply the world’s electricity and replace fossil fuels used in transportation and in the manufacture of common materials, such as cement, plastics, and ammonia. Smil expresses his exasperation at “techno-optimists [who] see a future of unlimited energy, whether from superefficient [photovoltaic] cells or from nuclear fusion.” Such a vision, he says, is “nothing but a fairy tale.”
Note the title: Renewables can’t save the planet, BUT URANIUM CAN. And note the author: Michael Schellenberger of the Rockefeller-funded “Breakthrough” Institute — notorious nuclear shills.
Smil is “exasperated” about those who see a future of “unlimited” energy. Yeah? Who is that? Of course, NO ONE sees a future of unlimited energy, so Smil is playing a straw-man game. Smil ignores the fact that the high energy requirements for cement manufacture drop off precipitously as infrastructure that lasts for decades and centuries is completed. Smil ignores the fact that plastics represent a small fraction of oil produced; we have enough oil for plastics for centuries and probably millennia. And so on. Smil is full of shit, and I would not be surprised to learn that he is a shill for Big Nuke like his pal Schellenberger.
For a more extended critique of Smil, and the malign influence of his nonsense on many, notably Bill Gates, see here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lets-upgrade-bill-gates-climate-reading-list
I could demolish the other stuff in post #122, but why bother? Too much trouble. Just a bunch of anti-renewable claptrap, the kind of stuff that Big Nuke and Big Oil have pumped out for years (and are doing so now in increasing desperation, as renewables are obviously so advantageous and superior that oil/nuke’s lunch is being EATEN by them).
I offer these comments, Killian, to illustrate why I say that it is not worth replying to your posts in detail. It is because your posts are full of such rubbish, that it would take too much time to plow through every one and reply in proper detail. Your posts are full of rubbish because your own head is full of rubbish, which you are either unable or unwilling to clean out.
Some of your stuff is simply embarrassing drivel; e.g. “Cheese becomes PooCheese, then that PooCheese becomes PooCheesier which becomes PooChees…”. Do you expect anyone to read this bilge? Do you expect anyone to take you seriously after you post it?
And btw, Killian, it is the height of absurdity for YOU, of all people — the permaculturalist advocate of ultra-low-or-NO-tech ultra-sustainable everything — to be relying on the freaking nuclear industry for your arguments against renewables! You might as well get your arguments from the American Petroleum Institute, or from the Koch Brothers.
As for post #123, Killian, where you write: “Alan and nigelj … you exist in a [world in which] Capitalism can be sustainable”. You got the wrong guy, Killian. I never said word one about capitalism being sustainable, and in fact my belief is the opposite.
Killian @124
You describe sensible farming that doesn’t exhaust the environment, and which makes good use of waste products.
You say I think such things are rubbish. That’s a complete lie. You put words in peoples mouths. People like you give science a bad name.
You say such sensible farming systems cant happen under capitalism and we must get rid of capitalism. Just such unobservant nonsense. Plenty of people farm sensibly like that under capitalism. And plenty of susbsistence farmers under other economic systems have ruined the land.
Nobody forces anyone to waste things. If somethings going wrong environmentally theres only one real way to change it, responsible personal behaviour, education and law. This is true in any possible economic or social system. People wont play nice without education and law.
#131 & #133, Astringent and Kevin: “Rainfall *intensity* and the gross rainfall *amount* are not the same thing.”
As I said, Harvey is your best bet.
Sea Ice Extent anomalies 2012 – 2017 from zlabe
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1834.0;attach=51726;image
Sea Ice Thickness Sept 4 2012 vs 2017
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1834.0;attach=51753;image
An updated descent trajectory to the Minimum 2017’s path vs other years’ minima
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1834.0;attach=51723;image
The Arctic is not what it used to be – refreezing season about to commence.