Unforced variations: Mar 2018 28 Feb 2018 by group This month’s open thread for climate science related items. The open thread for responses to climate change is here.
408 Responses to "Unforced variations: Mar 2018"
39 MA Rodger – locates brick wall – bashes head upon it – cracks eye socket open – bleeds profusely – wife calls ambulance for medical attention (yet again)!
41 mike says: What do I think about increase levels of 2.0 and above? WGS.
Anyone here disagree with that Science based comment?
MAR? Mal A.? Ray L.? Gavin et al?
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
And does silence mean agreement?
On denialists and their trolling:
I am going to submit a paper to a journal on the efficacy and necessity of each repair being offered in two forms: How a well-trained, excellent mechanic would repair it and how your neighbor would. Inclusive of this will be a campaign against publishers of auto repair manuals that do not include opposing views of using professional mechanics and do not provide alternative repair methods garnered from random haters of auto repairs and the mechanics who do them.
Because the world needs balance.
#33 Thomas said Recent scientific observations of the Polar Vortex
And then there were Two
It’s especially fun when this happens in summer months, like, IIRC, 2007 and 2012.
Australian Climate Scientist Prof. Greg Larsen knows that global warming makes a winter-less Winter Olympics in 2030 a very real possibility.
Aussies always communicate better than most by cutting through all the bs with precision about the hard facts of the matter.
MA Rodger says
Victor the Troll @40.
Booker does not describe anywhere how climate science became allegedly infected with Groupthink. Or have I missed something?
His argument is solely to imply that because climatology has established findings which Booker disagrees with, it must have been the result of Groupthink. Such as it is, Booker’s ‘evidence’ for the establishment of Groupthink lies within two findings of the 1990 UN IPCC FAR concerning firstly projected temperature rises under BAU and secondly concerning the assessment of natural variation within global temperatures.
Booker describes it thus from the FAR SPM:-
So was a projected temperature rise of up to 0.5ºC/decade implausable? Remember this is at a time when CFCs were still being pumped into the atmposphere without a care in the world (abet the world of climatology). With such emissions, the FAR set the central value at 0.3ºC/decade which (simplistically), given climate forcing is today two-thirds the levels projected by FAR and the increase in global temperature since 1990 is also almost exactly in proportion, two-thirds the central value projected by FAR, in terms of the expected levels of temperature rise, the FAR was pretty-much spot-on.
And the projected temperature increase by 2100 under BAU was (best estimate) 4.25ºC above pre-industrial. Has there been such an increase over the past 10,000 years? Of course not!!
Booker, however, chooses to misinterpret this second point and meld it with a separate comparison and the levels of natural variation/AGW responsible for the 20th century warming. He talks of “hundreds of pages” but himself actually quotes from Chapter 7’s summary. The text within the chapter runs as follows:-
So the argument revolved around how “reliably” future temperatures resulting from AGW can be projected forward. There was also likely a big difference in opinion on whether “reliability” in any way reduced the urgency of the situation. But, essential for Booker’s brainless thesis – where is the Groupthink? (And before anybody takes up the role of a Little Ice Age Revivalist, do read FAR first!!)
(And Victor, I go to this trouble because I know you are hopelessly stupid and would flounder without such assistance.)
Re: Killian at 38.
The combined 11 posts that this guy complains about are a total of about 5 percent of ONE of his posts. Which brings us to the problem.
If I were the Koch Bros or maybe the VP of dirty tricks at Exxon and I wanted to undermine a valuable resource like Realclimate, would I send an army of KIAs to inundate RC with right-wing tropes? No way. They would be spotted immediately and shut down. Maybe I would be sneaky. Maybe I would send over a couple of massively capable typists to flood RC with leftist tropes that might contain just enough truth to keep them from being boreholed, yet would be so nasty and would so overwhelm the RC ecosystem that people would simply get bored and go away.
On that note, I would refer the moderators to the best post I’ve seen in quite a while, but which went largely unnoticed.
I would urge you guys to consider it closely. RC is a valuable commons, but you have a severe problem with effluent.
#42 BPL: “I have addressed what a “correlation” is at length. You know what a correlation is, or you should. How many times do I have to spoon-feed you the same damn information? If you haven’t got it by now, you never will. But to claim I didn’t address the point is a damned lie, and you know what that makes you, don’t you?”
I ignored your post because it was irrelevant. The correlation claim originated with Cook, not me. I provided a link to Cook’s little essay, so if you’re bothered by the correlation claimed therein I suggest you read it and respond to him if you feel the need for a precise mathematical analysis.
57 jb, it fine that you are incapable of understanding the full import and truth of what was said. But do you have advertise that fact?
You then try to defend your faulty pov by providing a ref to a flooding troll who is a broken record on population, and when asked specifically what “numbers” are contained his “theory” cannot even answer that question 24 hours after he was again bitching like a cry baby at another poster for not ever putting meat or numbers on their “opinion/theory”.
Wise people notice the hypocrisy of Zebra that he himself proved by his response to my intelligent wise question. Blew up his Trolling Ship of State.
So by means you may disagree with the science based credible information provided by me but do keep in mind I ahve been calling on RC to bar Deniers/Trolls here and lift the standard of moderation here for about half a decade. So don’t blame me pal. I actually know what I am talking about here and am an expert at it. You are not.
Including what and how the highly orchestrated global denialist system mindset works down to the nitty gritty. You do not. So by all means disagree with my opinions, and disagree with all the well known science and academic research and knowledge that actually backs me up (not you) and feel free to get your nose bent out of shape from pure ignorance but that isn’t going to prove me wrong one bit. Be as shrill and condescending as you wish, doesn’t bother me one bit either.
So Mr jb put a sock in it. God gave us two eyes and two ears so we could observe and listen 4 times more than we talk.
So multiply my words by at least 4 times to get an inkling of what and how much I have already studied learned understood and know on this subject of “public communication” and fora trolling and denial-ism from literally decades of hard work study and research and thinking deeply about it, and paying attention to others wiser thank I could ever be.
You sir do not have a clue. You are not worthy to tie up my shoelaces. So shut it. (smiling broadly)
–Victor states….”From Booker’s Groupthink essay:” “Because their belief is ultimately only subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational, dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it.”
From now on, nj stands for nigelj, V stands for Victory — oops: Victor. :-)
nj: Clearly AGW theory is not subjective. And Victor you say such silly things at times, even The Pope would get short tempered with you.
V: aw shucks.
nj: And what about this from the Guardian? “Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty”
Is this not group think from the climate denialist “group” by your own definition?
V: How are death threats, intimidation and abuse group think? Nut cases abound all over the Internet, and on all sides of just about every issue.
nj: What is group think really? Here we are from the originator of the idea :
“Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.”
As to reality testing. Climate models are tested all the time against reality and are tracking reality well on the whole.
V: The accusation of group think was not leveled at legitimate scientists doing legitimate research, but the many, both scientists and non-scientists, who have uncritically accepted one side of the issue and viciously attacked anyone who sees the same science in a different light.
nj: And consider climate change, where hundreds of research papers have been published on “alternative theories” for climate change. This is obviously not “ignoring alternatives”. Eventually the IPCC have decide on the most compelling theory.
V: Once again, it’s not the scientists who are the problem — at least as far as groupthink is concerned — but those who blindly see in the science what they want to see, and blissfully ignore all else.
nj: So theres not much group think when you get down to it.
V: You are kidding, of course. Do a Google search on Climate Change and check out all the hysteria-laced hype being forced down the public’s throat on a daily basis.
nj: Now compare this with the climate sceptics and their church of scepticism The Heartland Institute. What an echo chamber of talking heads who never admit that their denialist ideas could be wrong, and they never put any probability of correctness beside them. That is real group think.
V: Please don’t tar me with that brush. I have no interest in defending organizations such as the Heartland Institute, a hotbed of kneejerk conservatism for sure. But you are right, there is plenty of group think to go around, no question.
nj: You want to be rational about the group think issue? Any group can be susceptible, but the nature of scientific research and publishing creates a pretty good way of at least minimising it, where economic, political and social think tanks are entirely more susceptible, because they don’t have such rigorous scientific disciplines.
V: Neither does the army of powerful politicians worldwide, pushing the “climate change” meme so relentlessly (yet at the same time doing so little that could actually make a difference, assuming they are right).
nj: And you know what? At the end of the day after all the accusations of group think, you have to find specific evidence it has lead to the dismissal of alternative ideas, or bribing of individuals etc, and you provide none of this. Nobody has.
V: Bribing? No. Intimidation? Certainly. Hysteria? Oh yes, no question. Hypocrisy? All over the place. The evidence is provided in the essay I linked us to.
ng: Really group think is just psychobabble. Ultimately you have to look at the published science and what the weight of evidence says. Nothing more, nothing less.
V: The two essays in question complement one another very nicely. The first deals with the group think so prevalent among the scientifically naive power elite worldwide, not to mention the media and so much of the general public — and the second deals with the not at all uncommon presence of confirmation bias to be found in so much of the “science” being practiced today, so often based on circular reasoning, as demonstrated therein.
V: In any case, I want to thank you, nigel, for responding in a meaningful manner, with reasonable arguments, free of insults and ad hominems.
#56 MARodger: “(And Victor, I go to this trouble because I know you are hopelessly stupid and would flounder without such assistance.)”
Thanks. Much appreciated, MA.
Yes, there are two sides to every argument. And, much to my delight, Mr. MA has chosen to control himself (for the most part) and provide a surprisingly restrained and rational response — out of character but most welcome I must say. Well, good. I would never claim that every argument emanating from the skeptic camp is airtight, and MA has certainly presented us (me at least) with some food for thought. This was the sort of response I have always hoped for when posting on this blog and so rarely seen.
Mr. Know It All says
43 – Thomas
“Really, do any of you ever once think about WTF you are doing both allowing such TROLLS to post here in the first place and then endlessly responding to them …”
Well said sir, and I would like to thank you, and all the others who have so eloquently responded endlessly to my troll posts. I’ve seen chapters in books shorter than some of yours and K’s posts. :)
BUT, let’s stop all that endless tripe and get right to the meat of AGW which is what this website is supposed to be about.
Here’s a good video of Prof Brad Marston on the Quantum Physics of CC:
He uses the physics of blackbodies to show that doubling CO2 will increase the height where the atmosphere is essentially transparent for IR radiation escaping to space. He says, that height was around 5 km either pre-industrial revolution or now (don’t remember which is the case) and that if CO2 is doubled, the height will increase by 150 m (0.15 km) to 5.15 km, where it’s about 1 deg C cooler, so earth will heat up 1 deg C and this will cause more H2O to evaporate into the air, causing another ~1 – 2 deg C rise, for a total rise of 2 to 3 deg C. OK, maybe.
Is the method in the video how the AGW models calculate the temperature rise due to increased CO2? I always figured the models calculated the amount of energy released when a CO2 molecule was hit by a photon, calculated how many of those collisions would happen based on CO2 concentration and mean path length, etc, and came up with the answer that way. I got that impression from this video:
Have any climate scientists here read this article on the temperature increase calculation? Any obvious errors?
A month or so ago there was a discussion on whether the CO2 in the atmosphere was saturated or not, and he discusses that in the above article. Was there a final conclusion here on whether the CO2 is saturated or not?
David Miller says
I’m having some disagreements with a friend who doesn’t by any stretch deny AGW but who isn’t convinced it will be a significant problem within the next 20-30 years.
Does anyone have any handy references to:
A) expected impacts on global agriculture over the next 50 years
B) expected impacts in general on a degree by degree basis? She won’t read ‘six degrees’ because the author is “an environmentalist who has changed his mind on a number of things over the last few years, including nuclear power”. Summaries that are peer reviewed or written by climate researchers go to the top of the list.
My personal take is that sea level rise is delayed enough to not cause significant problems. The much more immediate problem is rainfall patterns that are altered spatially or temporally leading to diminished agricultural output, and that that is likely to happen over the next couple of decades. Peer reviewed studies regarding this sort of thing are very welcome indeed.
Thanks in advance!
#56 MA Rodger says: 4 Mar 2018 at 5:15 AM
RE Victor the Troll @40…..
Tail wags dog.
Or would a stick help? :-)
63 David Miller.
This will be interesting to observe the “responses”, again. I’ll go last, ok?
62 Mr. Know It All says:
“I’ve seen chapters in books shorter than some of yours and K’s posts. :) “
So, what you’re saying KIA is that Size matters to you? But let me guess. Was it Dick and Dora books perhaps? OK, but did you read those ‘shortish’ ‘limp’ chapters KIA and did you actually understand what was being said?
That’s the most important question. Because you sure do not appear understand what’s already been written in the last 30 years of AGW/CC science Papers (let alone a handful of hyperbolic posts) :-)
and “…. and get right to the meat of AGW which is what this website is supposed to be about.”
Let check that KIA to be sure we’re all on the same page: “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
Then you ask some fair questions. I look forward to hearing the answers and what you say about. This is captivating stuff indeed.
61 Victor. Another satisfied customer.
Good job MAR, maybe you had seriously misjudged Victor? He seems like a really nice and reasonable guy. Another two or three posts like that he might just turn into a pro-AGW/CC science activists for change. But let’s be wait a couple of days to see what his “handlers” have to say about it first, shall we?
60 Victor. Please stop it. Overly long verbose posts is “my job”. You trying to put me out of business? Sheesh, I have a reputation to uphold, please stop.
“V: In any case, I want to thank you, nigel, for responding in a meaningful manner, with reasonable arguments, free of insults and ad hominems.”
Awwww, I feel all warm and cuddly now. What a nice and reasonable guy this Victor is!
58 Victor. Raises a point about Dr John Cook. This is one of the things that what Cook thinks: Not only do I agree with the view that denialists are irrational and largely can’t be convinced, I’ve published research examining this very phenomenon: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12186/abstract — From http://evidencesquared.com/ep20/
And this is what Nigelj thinks:
53 Killian says: “On denialists and their trolling: […] Because the world needs balance.”
And Electrolytes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFD2ggNxR1g
42 Barton Paul Levenson asks Victor: “How many times do I have to spoon-feed you the same damn information?”
I read a book long ago and it said the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. What a coincidence.
Hank Roberts says
See? Progress to a more challenging topic achieved. Good on ya.
Now, if you can wean yourself away from the videos and _read_ you’ll make progress faster.
Spencer Weart’s History — first link under Science in the right sidebar on every page at RC.
And the relevant discussion here:
March 03: 409.61 ppmv
If only February had 31 days in it. Bugger!
During the northern Deep Winter 2018 thus far, ASIE (in satellite records since 1979) has been at record low levels for 56 of 62 days.
Probably only that ‘Natural Variation’ thingy getting in the way again. It’s such a pest!
You were complaining about being insulted, called names. I simply pointed out climate scientists like M Mann have received much worse insults and threats from the climate denialist crowd.
You claim the Brooker essay was not directed at climate scientists. The trouble is it was directed at climate scientists.
You claim the public uncritically accept agw theory. That’s pretty insulting to the public Victor, and you provide no shred of proof. Its a bit strange as well, given there are still significant numbers of sceptics out there. Victor you just make so many mistakes its hard to count them all.
“Bribing? No. Intimidation? Certainly. ” You make these defamatory claims Victor with no shred of hard evidence. Even if you found a couple of examples, you would need hundreds to have a case of so called “group think.”
You need to understand something. The public aren’t as stupid as you claim. They look at simple things like increasing CO2 levels and temperatures and solar trends and see the relationships and case in favour of agw. The conclusions are not group think. It’s like tobacco smoking, or vaccines, or the theory of evolution, the truth registers with most people eventually as the evidence builds up.
The hard core denialists are driven by a combination of an inability to think scientifically, (some people are just like this, even if they are reasonably intelligent), combined with ideological motives. Have a look in the mirror Victor.
#43 Thomas said 29 jb said Marco at 22. I think there is value to allowing Knucklehead in America (KIA) to remain. He is an accurate proxy for the views of a large number of misinformed/disinformed americans
REPLY not to jb personally but to the Group/Tribe in general.
Herew’s a few facts to think about or seek guidance about from others more expert and astute than current posters to this forum.
No trolling agw/cc denier posting here is required for supposedly high intelligence weapons grade scientists, PhDs & Academics to comprehend wtf “those views are.
… Have any of you ever heard of internet based Data Mining and the use of Algorithms to scour the web for key words, phrases and User IDs?
…of using Algorithms that advanced marketing tech heads use to PUSH beliefs and views and political MEMES across multiple web-based platforms?…
Learn something about the Tip of an Iceberg here, and THINK for a change, please?
Boy, I cut a lot, and really, it’s a rather nice overview of the futility/foolishness inherent in allowing denial trolls free reign, but didn’t I cover all that with my #38?
#57 jb said Re: Killian at 38.
The combined 11 posts that this guy complains about are a total of about 5 percent of ONE of his posts.
1. I didn’t complain about the 11 posts. But good way to show your ignorance of the language as you drop an Ad Hom attack, as small minds and trolls are wont to do.
2. I did point out the irony and counterproductivity of those 11 posts.
3. My post said nothing about word count, not was it about clutter, not any other thing than what I said in #2 above. Good job staying up with the meaning of sentences so well.
4. Excellent, little troll! Accuse a 10-year+ veteran of the site, who used to get banned here and theoildrum and other places for trouncing trolls, of being one! A truly effective tactic, but, dude, do a little research before putting your appendages in your own orifices.
5. How mant times have we seen the “I’m not a denier” denier? Who, pray tell, said keeping the denialist here was a good thing? Interestingly to th intelligent reader, not me.
6. I actually post science, solutions, analysis, etc., absolutely none of which could even remotely claimed to denial trollish.
7. You, on the other hand, are either a sock, or have been here not long at all. Shush, peanut.
8. Right wing troll!!!!!!!!
Yours may be as dumb as the worst I’ve seen here.
Thanks for the smile, though, peanut.
#59 Thomas said jb, put a sock in it!!
Um, he was posting against me, which is really weird since what he was complaining about was my suggestion we *not* collectively give denialists so much ink. He wants me gone, but a known denialists allowed free access. Hmmm…
Who in the name of god would someone suggest such a bizarre choice? Agent provocateur might, but pretty much nobody else.
Then, again, I did rather directly say his posts were isht. Touchy, maybe? Regardless, new peanut in the gallery who will post nothing original and deride those who do.
Thanks. And an interesting suggestion about the false flag possibility– very much old-school KGB, actually, when you think about it.
But I think that this is just a case of people with “issues” of some kind. Unfortunate, but certainly there are lots of individuals on some spectrum or other who would behave the way they do.
I have in fact lost interest; it’s only chance I came back and scanned the comments and your name was, you know, not one of their names, so I read your comment.
Someone suggested that the moderators enable a kill-file app; apparently there is one for Firefox. If nothing else, it would be a fascinating sociological/psychological experiment to carry out.
MA Rodger says
Victor the Troll @60.
You say “The two essays in question complement one another very nicely,” essays you then in turn give flabby description of. But, Victor, which “two essays” are these? Neither seems to match the one essay in question which is Booker’s bonkers tirade against climatology for what he sees as Groupthink and which was published by the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy.
Interestingly, you write “it’s not the scientists who are the problem” (although this after a more qualified statement “The accusation of group think was not leveled at legitimate scientists doing legitimate research, but the many, both scientists and non-scientists, who have uncritically accepted one side of the issue and viciously attacked anyone who sees the same science in a different light”). This does suggest that either you are attempting to ‘de-legitimise’ the bulk of climatology, or you are disagreeing with Booker.
MA Rodger says
Why do I object to your contributions here @RealClimate? Let me entirely frank with you.
There are three reasons for this.
(1) As a single commenter here, your contributions are unreasonably sized. So far in this month’s UV column you have posted 18 of the 63 posts-to-date, comprising 2,801 of the 10,784 words. That is 29% of the posts and 26% of the wordage. This is not a one-off event. Last month it was 24% and 30%. Even a valued contributor would be raising eyebrows with such input. And this is after you have been instrumental in our hosts’ decision to set up a thread specially for non-climatological blather.
(2) The value of your UV comments varies (in the main) from the banal to out-right flaming. Statements setting out that you don’t care what a fellow commenter thinks should never be followed by vaccuous insults, or additional unwarranted comments entirely-snide-in-nature further down-thread. And even accompanied by emoticons or the like, to tell a fellow commenter to “shut it” is (unless perhaps they are filling up a third of the thread) unacceptable.
(Yet do note – I personally don’t give a monkey’s about personal insults down these threads. Indeed, on occasion I provide them myself but importantly, always in measured doses.)
(3) Although mitigation is off-topic in the present UV threads, it has been quite marked that you do not set out your own position regarding AGW. We get a lot of hand-wringing and doom-mongering and the odd bit of skyrocketry, but no position on emissions pathways. (By the way, @52 the 12-month CO2 increase is currently running below 2ppm not above and there is no consequence of “the past year EN bump” at present depressing ΔCO2. See up-to-date graph here.) For myself, I am perhaps still a bit pre-COP21 seeing global emissions peaking by 2020 and zeroed (effectively) by 2050. Given I did stop reading your posts at the height of the Thomasification of these UV threads, I may have missed it, but I have no appreciation of your position. For one criticising others as you do, that is also unacceptable.
Was it Bill Clinton who said: “It’s the Weather Stupid!!!”
Weather Alert – How Australia’s warming climate is changing the way we live and work.
“This is very ‘now’. This isn’t a future problem which is 10 or 20 or 30 years (away).” Climate Risk Expert
Across Australia, farmers, small businesses, government planners and major corporations have stopped waiting for politicians to decide whether climate change is real. They’re acting now.
“That debate can rage around us. If I say to my customers, ‘Don’t worry, in 200 years it will all be okay.’ That’s not going to cut it.” CEO
Mounting evidence suggests our changing climate is having an impact on everything – from what we grow, eat and drink, to house prices and the cost of insurance.
“If you own a home in one of those areas and you try to sell it, you may find that the buyer is saying, ‘Well, I’m not going to be able to insure it.’… Or even, ‘I can’t even get a mortgage on this house because the bank is saying, ‘Well, we don’t want the high-risk properties on our books.'” Climate Risk Expert
Four Corners has travelled from coast to coast to chart how Australians are adapting to the new weather challenges.
“The temperatures are more erratic. We seem to get frosts in the middle of summer, we’ve had frosts nearly on Christmas day. We’re getting hot, dry weather in the middle of winter.” Cattle farmer
“We were probably sceptics… but when we saw those 10 years of drought and the impact it was having on our business… our board decided that we needed to make some significant changes.” Leading wine maker
From farm kitchens to the board rooms of our major cities, people are changing the way they do business.
“It is clear that directors do have duties to take climate risk into account as a foreseeable financial risk, and a failure to do so may expose them to liability for a breach of their duty of due care and diligence.” Corporate risk adviser
Emergency services and state health departments too, have had to significantly alter the way they operate in the face of increasing “extreme” weather.
“It is a significant hazard for us as emergency management agencies. We need to plan and prepare for it because we can get a significant number of people who will end up being very unwell.” Director of Emergency Management
This is a story that leaves the politics behind and shows what the challenges are for many people across Australia in the face of this ‘new normal’.
Weather Alert, reported by Michael Brissenden
Plus, I got a special segment inserted for Dr Killian on Regenerative Agriculture right now today and why it matters Downunder.
Please ask your nearest Climate Scientist, a RC Resident, or contact Dr John Cook – apparently he wrote a paper on something related to AGW/CC.
[Video blocked in your country? Then do work out how to use a VPN]
#60 V: “Bribing? No. Intimidation? Certainly. Hysteria? Oh yes, no question. Hypocrisy? All over the place. The evidence is provided in the essay I linked us to.”
Oops, sorry. That link was provided by Mr. KIA, to whom I apologize.
Ray Ladbury says
So, I suppose you would consider scientists to have “groupthink” about evolution, gravity and the heliocentric solar system model, as well? Because, the basic theory of Earth’s climate is about as well established as these other models.
As to how climate models estimate sensitivity, I am afraid you have grossly oversimplified it. The calculation Marston does is roughly akin to what you are suggesting, but it is ultimately the feedbacks that determine the degree of warming.
Without the feedbacks, Earth would be a snowball.
Ric Merritt says
V and KIA —
Sorry, I must have missed it amongst all the words. What predictions do your favorite sources make that are significant (in the ordinary English meaning), and different from mainstream climate science. Is there anything in there about each decade NOT being well warmer than the last, absent pretty intense volcanic eruptions?
David Miller @63, why is he only worried about the next 20 – 30 years? Climate change is a multi generational problem.
Hmmm… “intermediate” climate change scenarios give us up to 1M SLR this century according to a new study about to come out from NOAA. Anyone got some info on this?
I hear many people here default to relying on Math to assist their analysis and in forming their Opinions about Life and AGW/CC related subjects in particular, including even analysis of others “posting habits” AS IF that actually maters versus the CONTENT … but sorry, I digress already. I love to “teach” apparently. :-)
OK then, please allow me to throw some MATH at ya and a little Human Wisdom as a coincidental side-effect.
TITLE is 403 responses to “Consequences”
FROM February 18, 2018 to March 3, 2018 at 12:22 pm x 13 days
aka Responses to AKW/CC Deniers / aka Beating one’s head against a brick wall / aka examples
of the Tail wagging the Dog / aka The Definition of Insanity is repeating the same thing over
and over again and still expecting to get a different Result/Response / aka another example of
Self-Delusion and living in Fantasy Land / aka more examples of OCD in Action / aka Arguing
with a Drunk
For context and a rational perspective on this insidious counter-productive Anti-Scientific
Dynamic please see this one example Science Reference from communications / psychology expert
Dr. John Cook of Skeptical Science, UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, and
97% of Climate Scientists Agree fame – February 25, 2018 @
“Not only do I agree with the view that denialists are irrational and largely can’t be
convinced, I’ve published research examining this very phenomenon:
#Comments posted by the irrational delusional stupid egotistical Sheldon Walker aka The Tail = Too many to count – he broke my scientific equipment
Now here’s a quick summary of #Comments to various WAGGING TAILS by the ‘smartest people in
the RC Room’
#Comments by Tamino x 16 = 3.97%
Barton Paul Levenson x 16 = 3.97%
Mal Adaptedx 25 = 6.20%
Al Rodger (aka MAR) x 37 = 9.18%
Doc Snow (aka K.McK) x 38 = 9.43%
Sub-Total x132 = 32.8%
The Majority of Comments were by Sheldon Walker, a long term AGW/CC DENIER SHILL from WUWT – The Home of PAID FOR AGW/CC PROPAGANDA, Fools and the Mentally Unbalanced
[ Note: Doc Snow’s #Comments were either a little bit of humour, a thankyou, or an excellent comment wasted in that space. Therefore the GOLD MEDAL goes to MA Rodger Some people simply live to ARGUE and beat their heads against a Brick Wall and never learn anything. ]
THE LAST COMMENT and the most PERTINENT ONE BY FAR is by “tamino” | March 3, 2018
It’s time for this thread to come to an end. I don’t regret the attempt to communicate, but it was not successful.
BUT what was the Topic again? Oh yes that’s right: CONSEQUENCES
Therefore it follows that the Questions Remain:-
How many times does TAMINO need to be told again and again before he faces Reality using Logic, Reason, Sound Scientific Process & Knowledge already in existence and that Wisdom Gained?
Will TAMINO et al ever Wake Up before CO2 breaks the 500 PPMV barrier?
The Obvious Evidence Based Answer at this point in time is:
And Tamino calls his blog site OPEN MIND ….. like WTF?
Maybe someone with the basic skills of GRAPH Creation, such as MA Rodger would be motivated to covert this Data into Image Files and post them to RC – for those with difficulty in converting Numbers and Words into meaningful understanding? Just a thought. Apparently such graphs are supposed to mean something useful, but I am unsure about that.
We are in the process of expanding on this Study by using DATA of Real Climate Comments to Anal-yse the Profuse OCD Posting Habits from Negative Distracting Unhelpful *Human Forcings* similar to what the above DATA shows.
Human Forcings that repeatedly interrupt any and all sane, rational discussions on AGW/CC related Topics that for years have undermined the Original High Goals of the Founders of this site being:- “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is mostly restricted to scientific topics….”
PLUS their subsequent new Goal of:- The Forced Responses Open thread which is “on responses to climate change (politics, adaptation, mitigation etc.). Please stay focused on the overall topic. Digressions into the nature and history of communism/feudal societies/anarchistic utopias are off topic and won’t be posted.”
Feel free to contribute your own ideas of things that get in the way of these Goals, and reason and logic, and sound scientific endeavor and Communication of the Truth of Climate Science Knowledge and the overwhelming Evidence already produced for the BENEFIT of the GENERAL PUBLIC and all Humanity for the Good of All.
We believe this RESEARCH and ANALYSIS of DATA shows that there are far too many naive, gullible, ignorant people who are repeatedly getting in the way of these noble Goals of Real Climate Scientists.
Hi, My name is Thomas, and I really am here to Help!
Still sane, very entertaining, intelligent, wise, and a rationally based expert in the Field of combining LOGIC with EVIDENCE and CONSEQUENCES with a mature adult sense of humour.
75 MA Rodger, DNR and DNC.
That’s 4 times now. Clueless Peanut.
80 nigelj, why isn’t he one bit concerned about today already? The evidence is everywhere. He could tell his friend to go look out her window! :-)
And send her this link: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/weather-alert/9511070 or this one https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/forced-responses-mar-2018/#comments
ESRL March 04: @ 409.97 ppm
Current readings Jan-March are indicative of the new Weekly Record in May 2018 breaking 413 ppmv (all other things being equal)
That’s meaningful, iow it’s full of meaning about the Consequences.
A +413 ppm weekly record in May 2018 also means this:
Which is +3 ppm above the 2017 weekly record (non El Nino period/year)
Which was +2.05 above the 2016 wkly record. (late El Nino period/year)
Which was +4.56 above the 2015 wkly record. (strong El Nino period/April)
Which was +2.31 above the 2014 wkly record. (early El Nino period/April)
And current ENSO talk is that there’s is a strong possibility that another a new El Nino is forming as we speak, which might kick in by May 2018.
Atm Australia is suffering the partial effects of the weak La Nina which is now in Neutral Zone – iow is pouring down all over the place downunder = more flooding after a multi-week continental sized Heat Wave again.
Therefore do listen to the Bureau of Meteorology Executive/Scientist spokesperson for Climate Change Projects here: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/weather-alert/9511070
…. who clearly and simply points out that the Above Average “Spring Temperature Records” for 2013 and 2014 and 2015 are all clearly scientifically analyzed and defined by the BOM and other Australian Climate Science Experts as being Forced / Driven by Climate Change and nothing else!
nj: You were complaining about being insulted, called names. I simply pointed out climate scientists like M Mann have received much worse insults and threats from the climate denialist crowd.
V: I was referring to one of the points made in the “group think” essay, where it is argued that those prone to group think routinely resort to insults and ad hominems rather than rational counter-arguments. Especially strong evidence of that can be found on this blog — or haven’t you noticed? :-)
And yes, insults and the occasional threat can be found in the “denialist” camp as well. However, if you actually take the time to read what real skeptics, with real understanding of science and scientific principles have to say, you’ll find that the great majority of what’s being posted are rational arguments, backed up by legitimate scientific research. A site such as WUWT, for example, contains many ironic remarks, some rather humorous, but I’ve never seen vicious put-downs of the sort we see here on a regular basis. Almost all the content reflects careful analysis, based on either critical thinking or scientific research, usually both. You are, of course, free to disagree but as far as insults, threats, ad hominems, etc. there is no comparison between that blog and this one.
nj: You claim the Brooker essay was not directed at climate scientists. The trouble is it was directed at climate scientists.
V: No, it was directed at those who insist on interpreting the scientific evidence dogmatically, seeing what they want to see and either ignoring or downplaying all evidence to the contrary. That does include some climate scientists, yes — but certainly not all.
nj: You claim the public uncritically accept agw theory. That’s pretty insulting to the public Victor, and you provide no shred of proof.
V: As I said, the evidence has already been provided in Booker’s essay. There’s plenty of it.
nj: “Bribing? No. Intimidation? Certainly. ” You make these defamatory claims Victor with no shred of hard evidence. Even if you found a couple of examples, you would need hundreds to have a case of so called “group think.”’
V: Plenty of evidence is provided in Booker’s essay. Why don’t you read it? Mr. Rodger did, so can you.
nj: You need to understand something. The public aren’t as stupid as you claim.
V: They voted for Donald Trump. They also voted even more heavily for a solid majority of Republican representatives and senators, hell bent on trashing all their benefits, including Social Security. How stupid can you get?
nj: They look at simple things like increasing CO2 levels and temperatures and solar trends and see the relationships and case in favour of agw. The conclusions are not group think. It’s like tobacco smoking, or vaccines, or the theory of evolution, the truth registers with most people eventually as the evidence builds up.
V: The truth of evolution has certainly not registered with most people, at least most Americans. And in fact the truth of evolution is not at all obvious, just as the truth of climate change is not obvious. Even Darwin had his doubts. There are plenty of objections to Darwinian evolution that do in fact seem quite reasonable until you actually study the science in some depth and keep up with the most recent discoveries. My own studies of evolution have led me to accept it as the only reasonable explanation for the history of life on Earth and I’ve been able to defend it against criticisms that, to most people, would be extremely convincing. I’ve also studied the issues behind the climate change controversy, but in that case I am very far from being convinced.
nj: The hard core denialists are driven by a combination of an inability to think scientifically, (some people are just like this, even if they are reasonably intelligent), combined with ideological motives. Have a look in the mirror Victor.
V: Typical ad hominem remark. I’m ashamed of you, nj. While it’s true that many so-called “skeptics” are motivated primarily by ideology and have very little if any understanding of the scientific issues, even a cursory examination of the literature reveals the existence of many skeptics with very strong credentials, as scientists and/or critical thinkers. The science of climate change is very far from being settled.
Oh and by the way, my muted response to MA Rodger, should not be misunderstood. I appreciated his low key, relatively reasonable response and it did give me some food for thought. But as should be obvious, it is very far from being a definitive critique of Booker’s essay. Of course there is no such thing as a totally objective treatment of any controversial issue, and there will always be interpretations open to debate.
Digby Scorgie says
David Miller @63
You haven’t been given much help to date, so I thought I’d mention a couple of interesting snippets.
You think that sea-level rise is not much of a problem at the moment and won’t be for a while. Please think again. Here are a few notes I made from an article about Fiji, dated January 2018:
Sea levels have risen 25 cm on average since 1880. At Togoru the sea moved inland a few hundred metres over the past 20 years, effectively wiping the village off the map. A number of other villages have been similarly destroyed by the rising seas. About 60 more are threatened and will need to be moved or abandoned.
Fields have become unusable for agriculture as a result of salination. An increasing number of sugar-cane fields have been destroyed in this way. Also, it has become too hot to grow taro, a staple vegetable.
Weather patterns are changing. The rainy season used to start every year on the same day. Now the seasons are “broken”.
Perhaps the travails of Third-World Pacific Islanders leave your friend unmoved. So let me mention an interesting effect on a First-World country, namely, New Zealand where I live. Our Insurance Council is becoming annoyed. The number of extreme weather events in New Zealand has increased from 13 in the decade 1975 to 1984 to 52 in the decade 2005 to 2014. Needless to say the costs to the insurance industry have risen commensurately, which is what the industry is grumbling about. Climate change is costing us money.
Does that help? I have an A4 notebook in which I’ve been recording information like this since August 2016. So far I’ve filled 40 pages. Perhaps your friend needs to do some reading about the deleterious effects of climate change that are happening right now. Forget the future. We have a problem NOW.
MA Rodger says
David Miller @63,
I would suggest a first stop for future impacts of AGW would be the IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report, it being fully referenced to the literature and not a lengthy document. Yet it is not a wonderful piece of communitation.
Once you get away from such authority (and there are those who will say the IPCC is far too conservative in its projecttions citing for instance Arctic Sea Ice loss) it is open season for any flavour of AGW you want to find.
Your “degree by degree” comment brought this National Research Council publication to mind (although it’s perhaps getting a bit old these days) as my memory was that it gave a ‘per degree C warming’ evaluation (but that doesn’t spring out on me. However, it does have a useful level of description and some authority (although again some would say it is too conservative with its findings).
And the discussion of the relative merits of attempting to limit AGW to 1.5ºC or 2ºC also provide some useful analysis, like this from CarbonBrief. It should allow some appreciation of say 2.5ºC or 3ºC and so forth.
MA Rodger says
Mr. Know It All @62.
You write “Let’s stop all that endless tripe and get right to the meat of AGW which is what this website is supposed to be about.”
I’m not entirely sure all would agree with your interpretation of “meat” but you present a couple of videos (that I haven’t taken the trouble to watch) which address the basics of Climate Sensitivity.
You describe these videos as demonstrating the direct result of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to be a 1ºC global temperature rise (no controversy there) and further warming induced as feedback adding another 1ºC or 2ºC (perhaps the upper value is a little low).
So your videos are presenting evidence which is pretty close to the IPCC.
As for CO2 being “saturated” (Note I am unware of what you mean by that “month ago or so” discussion.), it is untrue to say CO2 is “saturated”. See this SkS post on the subject. (But note even that post doesn’t capture the entirety of the CO2 warming mechanism.)
The Clive Best post you link is somewhat confused in its coverage of CO2 forcing. The calculation of 3.7mm^-2 derives from radiative calculations and certainly not from attribution of historic temperature increases.
If you want to have a play with such radiative calculations, there is the excellent UoC MODTRAN model a sort-of little brother to the full HITRAN used by serious climatology.
David Miller says
Nigel asks at #80:
Good question Nigel;
I completely agree – and so does she – that climate change is long term and multi-generational.
There are two reasons for the concern over the next two to three decades. The first is that it’s my contention that we’ll see agricultural failures over that time span due to changing rainfall patterns. It’s been my understanding since I first came to understand climate change that its effect on agriculture would be the first real problem. Sea level rise and heat waves will certainly cause severe problems, but I maintain that’ll be decades after agriculture has been badly interrupted.
The second reason is that the next couple of decades are truly critical, IMHO. If we don’t deal with the problem – cut emissions to zero and ramp up some NET technologies – in that time span, well, I think we won’t have an opportunity to fix the problem at all. If we can’t cut emissions now when global civilization is working pretty well how will we be able to in the midst of climate forced migration, wars, and starvation?
If things are not nearly so bad as I fear in the next 20-30 years then we have a much better chance of successfully flirting with disaster.
Kevin McKinney says
David Miller, #63–
I agree with you somewhat about priorities and sea level rise–I think that hydrological changes are a much more serious threat. However, I think that, not because sea level rise isn’t a problem now, but because its consequences will in the short-to-medium term will not be lethal in large numbers. The hydrological changes, however, can and almost certainly be lethal on a very large scale due to impacts on agriculture, and indirectly, political and military security. The Syrian conflict is the current poster child; while many factors beside the drought played into the disaster that is still unfolding, the drought certainly did play a part. The drought was attributed probabilistically to climate change in one paper, and though that attribution cannot be considered definitive, it’s nevertheless true that the chain of events stands as an example of the expected effects of hydrological change.
All that said, people will die in storms exacerbated by SLR, and people will die indirectly via the knock-on effects of financial ruin as their homes become worthless. At some point–and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it turns out to be within the next decade–there will be a serious disruption to the real estate market here in the US southeast as awareness of SLR moves, tipping point fashion, from ‘climate hipsters’ to ‘everybody knows.’
You’ll note the “tidal flooding?” tab at the top right of the UU Norfolk webpage. But apparently it’s not so necessary anymore; the congregation has moved, having purchased a new building on March 31, 2017, and which they are renovating (apparently pretty massively).
So, facing the SLR problem honestly seems to have paid off handsomely for UU Norfolk, which makes them not just the ‘poster children for climate change,’ but also ‘poster children for successful climate change adaptation.’ Not least so, in that they acted early enough to be able to salvage value from the property that they already owned–something that is already problematic for unknown but not insignificant numbers of homeowners in Norfolk and elsewhere.
Turning to the question of impacts that you asked about, it’s unfortunate that your friend dismisses “Six Degrees” out of hand. Whatever one’s opinion of Mark Lynas, the effects he cites are all based on then-current research, and I don’t know of another book that pulls such a large body of published research together in such a systematic manner.
However, there are some other books very much worth citing.
On climate change and security, Gwyn Dyer’s “Climate Wars”:
On climate change and related issues threatening biodiversity, Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Sixth Extinction”:
On the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere and its warming effects, David Archer’s “The Long Thaw”:
(Dr. Archer is a sometime RC contributor.)
zebra at 73
They’re probably not Kochbots or deep cover Exxon plants (though I have no way to know) – but the monopolization of blog space has exactly the same effect even if they’re sincere.
Maybe Gavin should give them their own sub-blogs – Killian’s Korner or Thomas’ Tome – and put all their posts there. Then all the people who crave their input have an easy place to find ALL of it – and they can get the renown that they deserve.
Kevin McKinney says
And, coincidentally, yet more on current and future impacts of SLR, this time in the US northeast:
Kinda like “Well, I know the roof is bad and termites are in the walls, but hey, let’s take our $20 grand and remodel the kitchen!”
Hank Roberts says
Hank Roberts says
4 Mar 2018 at 11:25 AM
Hank Roberts says
On point, from the linked comment:
This is very sharply on point:
Kevin McKinney says
Are there still pathways to avoiding 1.5 C warming?
This research says yes:
Things To Avoid:
1) strong social and economic inequalities;
2) continued reliance on fossil fuels; and
3) unambitious short-term climate policies.
Not too many shocks there.
Hank Roberts says
What could be changing in the upper atmosphere, besides temperature and humidity?
Well, you change the temperature and humidity, you change what’s living in the area.
Bacteria (of some sorts) and fungi act as condensation nuclei:
It ain’t just physics that worries me, it’s biology too.
All you do is post nonsense and sophistry. Your group think study is laughable, and just someones opinion, not a study in a reputable peer reviewed psychology publication.
There’s no point in me wasting time with you. You have already shown a complete inability or unwillingness to grasp the incredibly obvious causes of warming early last century, so I’m not going to waste my time with someone like that.