This month’s open thread for climate science related topics. The climate policy open thread is here.
Reader Interactions
307 Responses to "Unforced Variations: July 2018"
Killiansays
Re# 146 Al Bundy said AB: Maybe not “we”, but I do. (Been there, done that) The only question is how burnt said toast is.
This explains much. Denialists of any stripe are not much use in conversations like this. In fact, I consider McPhersonists immoral and unethical in their efforts to deflate energy and thus undermine action.
It’s a kind of hate speech against humanity, imo. This is not hyperbole, nor is it intended as insult. We are on the knife’s edge, and, yes, possibly too late, but there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames. So long as that remains true, demotivating others is something to consider making a crime – if we could prove one way or another whether it was too late.
I am actually thankful to have read this. It will save energy and time in the future.
Karsten V. Johansen @127,
Ancient atmospheres generally become less CO2-rich over the last 50 million years, a finding the science can be certain about although the detail is still the subject of much research. Within that long-term trend, CO2 dropped below 400ppm about 15 million years ago. (Graph here)
A little before three million years ago the Panama Isthmus formed and the resulting climatic changes initially elevated CO2 levels due to the first incarnation of the AMOC. While others are quick to see CO2 3million years ago as above 400ppm, the evidence only suggests it was possibly back up to 400ppm. I consider the probabilities show it very unlikely that it actually reached 400ppm (a point your second link also makes). Subsequent to this rise in CO2, the new warmer 3 million-year-old climate resulted in increased rainfall in high northern latitudes, a freshening of the Arctic Ocean and and this prompted the appearance of extensive Arctic sea ice and in the cooling climate CO2 levels dipping down again well below 400ppm.
As for thhe 25 million years in your second link, I would assume this is providing a bit of a belt-&-braces answer when there is absolutely no doubt that CO2 was well above 400ppm.
CCHolleysays
re. D.r Harold Wanless on SLR
I’ve met Dr. Wanless and have listened to him talk about sea level rise. He was kind enough to give me copies of several of his presentations. He is extremely concerned.
Some of Dr. Wanless’s major points:
Hansen in 2007 made the prediction of 5 meters by 2100 because amplifying feedbacks make ice sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. Ice loss is running well ahead of Hansen’s predictions.
Significant sea level rise is already a given. Miller in a 2012 National Science Foundation report said: “The natural state of the Earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 70 feet higher than now.”
Sea level rise models projecting levels for 2100 do not take into account how sea levels rose in the past. Sea level change out of the last glacial period was a series of rapid pulses as the climate warmed and ice sheets rapidly disintegrated. Research shows that sea level rose in 6-10 meter steps that were 200-500 years apart. The resulting beach ridges from each pulse are preserved providing a record of these steps. “Pulses in the 1-10 meter range are a real possibility during this century leading to 10-30M sea level rise from multiple pulses of sea level rise.”
Carrie @149, This graph from Arctic Neven’s Forum of annual CO2-rise 2009 to-date that you linked-to doesn’t indicate a data source but assuming it is NOAA MLO (which appears very likely), the rolling 12-month ave CO2-rise has been above 2ppm/yr ‘after’ (rather than ‘“since”) May-2010-Apr-2011 with the exception of the period 2011-12 you mention but also the 12-months period Jul-14-Jun15 which also dipped below 2ppm.
And more than pedantic correction, unless the 12-month rise for Aug-17-Jul-18 is above 1.87ppm/yr, we will see another sub-2ppm/yr reading appearing on the 12-month rolling ave record. Such an outcome is far more likely than not as the rest of the month of July would have to average above 2ppm/yr for a 1.87ppm/yr July.
And even more likely is the prospect of seeing a sub-2ppm/yr for Sept-17-Aug-18. To prevent that happening would require an average 12-month CO2-rise to the two months Jul-Aug-18 of 2.35ppm/yr. (Or an average of 2.7ppm/yr for the remainder of July and August.)
And your prediction that “the Monthly growth rate will back above 3 ppm again within the next 12 months” – why do you say “That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though.”? Is there any reason for your comment? Or are you simply expressing an aversion to the IPCC because they aren’t ‘skyrockety’ enough for you?
My refrigerator looks grand with all those gold stars. I hope you’ve noted my several compliments directed at you.
Killian, inputs of excess water occur near the poles, which is where downwelling happens and also where CO2 absorption is greatest. Of course, fresh tends to float, which increases CO2 absorption, and coral reefs are far away from the freshening. So the fraction that doesn’t get dragged into the deep immediately will still have plenty of time to gather enough CO2 so that as it warms it will reach equilibrium via a lowering of solubility. Plus, it will mix with hundreds of feet of ocean with each loop back to the tropics (I’m thinking Gulf Stream here) Finally, we’re talking decades and centuries for meters, so it’s only millimeters and centimeters involved at a time and a portion of millimeters is nothing when compared to hundreds of feet.
Good thought, though. I had the same but went through the above and rejected it. Low rate of insertion, high solubility at the insertion points, and low solubility at the critical points conspire to swamp any antacid effect.
But then, a few meters of water will draw down atmospheric carbon a bit since it’s starting as CO2-phobic ice. I’m on my phone so I can’t open a window to get ocean depth and ocean CO2 but if it’s 200′ / 20000′ x 1000% then the potential drawdown is significant. Yep, we NEED to melt all the ice so as to allow us to burn more fossils!
You just demonstrated a large Truth. “Dumb” questions often lead to significant realizations, especially in science.
nigelj: which suggests they will be extinct in 30 – 40 years
AB: I’m surprised, nigel. You’re usually quite eagle-eyed. Your source supports my stance. Assuming no intervention, the start of a steep decline within 5-10 years (my timeframe, they gave none, or at least it wasn’t reported), leading to a residual population (as opposed to extinction) in 30-40 years from 4-6 years ago (their timeframe, I gave none).
Without human intervention, most polar bear populations will be extinct in 30-40 years (Castro de la Guardia 2013, Stirling 2012)).
The populations of polar bears living farthest to the north (in the Canadian Arctic Islands, northern Greenland, and farther to the north) have actually seen population increases in recent years (Peacock 2013) and may survive indefinitely (Stirling 2012).
———-
Killian: there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames.
AB: Yes, as long as one ignores human nature and the nature of power. My comment was about what will be, not what is possible. However, my hope is that the sheeple wake up and tell wealthy leeches to pound sand. Unfortunately, the wealthy transferred folks’ retirements from pensions to the stock market so crashing the market via the recognition that fossil fuel reserves and infrastructure are worthless in a non-baking world is a less probable solution than it would have been a few decades ago. Now folks have to choose between poverty in old age and planetary degradation. That’s a tough sell.
Personally, I like Carrie’s solution. Feed the wealthy to polar bears; and I’ll extend it by adding that we can then rebuild folks’ pensions with the cash left behind. Hmm, did I just advocate pulling a Hitler? (Killing a targeted group or three and using their wealth to advance one’s agenda)
On ice melt and atmospheric CO2. I looked up some figures:
Average sea depth: 12,000 ft
Ocean CO2 compared to atmospheric CO2: 5000%
So, 15ft / 12,000ft = 0.00125
0.00125 x 5000% = 6.25%
410ppm x 6.25% = 25ppm
So if Dr Wanless is correct atmospheric CO2 levels will decline at least 25ppm as compared to what would happen without said melt. I say “at least” because the drawdown will probably be larger at first since the entire water column takes about a thousand years to overturn. Hmm, perhaps the melt will provide a temporary hard brake on atmospheric CO2 levels. Or maybe it will seriously slow overturning and all heck will break loose.
—-
Victor,
Not sure which thread your music theory was on, but I read your paper. Squishy conclusion, it seems. However, congrats on getting it through peer review. Has it been cited by others?
One note: (LOL?) You might have wanted to touch on the subject of music’s inherent resistance to drift. Words can have slow changes but notes that drift are jarring. In order to change music, you’ve got to do it writ large and all at once. Does that seem correct to you? (I’m not proficient in the subject of music theory)
David B. Bensonsays
The polar bears survived the Eemian interglacial. So likely to survive for some time to come.
alan2102says
143 Carrie says: “you’re searching back 5 days to cherry pick 6 words”
Don’t flatter yourself, babe. I often read weeks worth of posts at a sitting… and I assure you I am not looking for your posts.
“The rapid rise of bedrock beneath one of the fastest melting regions of the West Antarctic ice sheet could help prevent it collapsing, new research suggests.”
But its not all good news:
“The findings suggest that “in only the case of future mild (to moderate) climate change, our finding is a good news for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet”, Barletta says. However, “in the case of extreme climate change, any help to the ice sheet [in preventing eventual collapse] will be useless”, she adds:
“I hope the message is clear. In terms of reducing our impact on climate change, what we do might make a big difference.”
The findings also raise concerns that, while land uplift may protect ice sheets from collapse, a decrease in land elevation elsewhere could have the opposite effect, says study author Prof Terry Wilson, emeritus professor of Earth sciences at Ohio State University. She says:
“The physical geography of Antarctica is very complex. We found some potentially positive feedbacks in this area, but other areas could be different and have negative feedbacks instead.”
Incidental update on the Quebec heatwave earlier this summer–now they are saying at least 70 people died. And here’s what some people are suggesting be done:
April 2018: 408.96 ppm
April 2017: 406.33 ppm
Last updated: July 5, 2018
+2.63ppm — still running ahead of 2017’s increase; and every year except for the 2015-2016 big El Nino period
2010 2.44 (+/-)0.06
2011 1.69 0.09 (strong La Nina)
2012 2.38 0.09
2013 2.42 0.09
2014 2.04 0.09
2015 2.93 0.09
2016 2.85 0.09
2017 2.21 0.09
Read ’em and weep you sky-plummeters you :-)
Recent Global CO2 Trend – steady as she goes
July 12: 407.73 ppm
July 11: 407.72 ppm
July 10: 407.71 ppm
July 09: 407.70 ppm
July 08: 407.69 ppm
Last Updated: July 13, 2018
Daily averaged CO2 from four GMD Baseline observatories; Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica.
Carriesays
NOAA ESRL released its preliminary global mean CH4 on June 5 2018, with an initial reading of 1859.1 ppb. This mean was 11.2 ppb over March 2017.
This month’s 11.2 ppb increase over March 2017, represents the highest rate of increase since December 2015 However, it is the longer trends that demonstrate the accelerating rate of increase of CH4 concentration in the atmosphere.
iirc higher concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere is a Climate Forcing that drives global temperatures higher and increases the acidity of the oceans. Is that right, or do I have it wrong?
The new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, projects atmospheric rivers will be significantly longer and wider than the ones we observe today, leading to more frequent atmospheric river conditions in affected areas.
“The results project that in a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, there will be about 10 percent fewer atmospheric rivers globally by the end of the 21st century,” said the study’s lead author, Duane Waliser, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “However, because the findings project that the atmospheric rivers will be, on average, about 25 percent wider and longer, the global frequency of atmospheric river conditions — like heavy rain and strong winds — will actually increase by about 50 percent.”
The results also show that the frequency of the most intense atmospheric river storms is projected to nearly double.
CCHolley @153, I made a previous comment that sea level rise was rapid coming out of the last ice age. Google meltwater pulse 1a which suggests 5 metres per century is possible. But there was a lot more ice to melt during this period, and temperatures were probably well established for many decades at 2-5 degrees before such rapid pulses happened.
It’s possible something like this could happen this century, but 2 metres looks the more likely possibility to me.
Either way multi metre sea level rise is possible within one century, and while the chances may be low, the costs for humanity would be horrendous, so it suggests cutting emissions is urgent. Its like building a huge multi floor building or a huge steel bridge. The risks of failure are very low, but the consequences would be grave, so you have to be very cautious with the design and construction, and not cut corners out of concerns about costs.
Victorsays
159 Al Bundy: “Victor,
Not sure which thread your music theory was on, but I read your paper. Squishy conclusion, it seems. However, congrats on getting it through peer review. Has it been cited by others?”
V: Well, first of all, thanks for reading it. Not sure what you mean by “squishy” exactly, but I do get the drift. The problem is that the paper was addressed to anthropologists, few of whom are music literate, so I was unable to present the full extent of the evidence linking Pygmy music with Bushmen music. In order to accept the premise offered in this paper, therefore, it’s necessary to accept that I know what I’m talking about, which many readers might well be reluctant to do. So I can understand if you remain skeptical regarding my conclusions. I don’t claim to have proven anything, however — I simply state that the evidence I’ve presented “would seem to support” my premise.
I have presented much more extensive and detailed musical evidence in other papers, published in (peer reviewed) musicology journals, and also a book.
As for citations to that particular article, I’m sorry but I have no idea as I’ve never looked into it. I HAVE received many request for copies. And most of my other papers on this and related topics do get cited from time to time in the musicological literature.
AB: One note: (LOL?) You might have wanted to touch on the subject of music’s inherent resistance to drift. Words can have slow changes but notes that drift are jarring. In order to change music, you’ve got to do it writ large and all at once. Does that seem correct to you? (I’m not proficient in the subject of music theory)
V: Actually I do deal with precisely that issue in the paper, on p. 4.
Carriesays
Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week From Europe to Africa, extreme and widespread heat raises climate concerns in hottest La Niña year to date on record
Words can have slow changes but notes that drift are jarring. In order to change music, you’ve got to do it writ large and all at once. Does that seem correct to you?
No, not really. The ‘jarringness’ of a changed note or tone is highly variable, and depends heavily on the structural importance of said tone, not to mention the nature of the change (in key, in chord, or not?) And in fact, the so-called “folk music process” includes (in addition to conscious changes and developments) a good deal of ‘drift’.
More or less random (except that that is my blog!) case in point:
The polar bears survived the Eemian interglacial. So likely to survive for some time to come.
I’m not so sure: I seem to recall that although the lineage has indeed been through the Eemian, polar bears have become significantly more specifically adapted to the sea-ice habitat since.
In addition, there’s the whole ‘rate of change’ thing to complicate prognosis.
Mike Roddysays
OT with the important SLR posts, but….
We need to talk about land use. I’m currently working on a long article about it for a major magazine. Few RC contributors are experts here, and I end up having to learn the data from sources like USFS and university Forestry departments, whose faculty have shown great courage here (those departments tend to have financial relationships with loggers).
Land use is the only category where IPCC emissions measurements are quite squishy, since broad ranges are cited. IPCC members are told
1. Use any methodology you want to give us your land use emissions data
2. Also, you don’t really have to report it if you don’t want to.
Land use is undervalued not only in the raw data, but also in opportunity capital. It’s not “planting trees”, which tends to devolve into ecologically barren plantations. Rather, it’s reducing deforestation, particularly in the US, which uses 25-27% of the earth’s wood products, an insane number. And allowing natural regeneration to occur, which results in more resilient and larger forests.
When it comes to lumber, only 15% of the carbon in the harvest is sequestered in wood, and that is only replacing wood that has decayed. Our own practice of 2 x 4 construction is a sickness, and the rest of the world knows it.
We need some good news these days. This won’t fix the world, but it’s low lying fruit. Anyone here with suggestions can email me, mike.greenframe@gmail.com
[1]Atlanta is a scorching heat island, but can green roofs help?
It’s midsummer, which means that perennial, suffocating,
climatological sauna has befallen Atlanta. Like most urban places,
Atlanta’s status as a heat island is hardly surprising, what with all
the heat-capturing concrete and carbon emissions, which spell hotter
summer temps intown (2.4 degrees in the daytime, about 4 degrees at
night) than surrounding rural areas. What’s more surprising: The
ATL’s heat-island problem is actually getting better.
That’s the word from Bill Lomel, Sentry Roof Services president,
whose company has worked with Hartsfield-Jackson International
Airport and other major clients to implement green-roof practices
that include reflective roof materials and energy-effecient
insulation. The result, per Lomel, is that Atlanta’s heat island
footprint has been dramatically reduced in the past decade, as
buildings implementing “cool roofs” throughout town are saving up to
20 percent in energy costs. Meanwhile, the tops of such buildings are
more than a third cooler than standard roofs, which can reach July
temperatures of a blazing 150 degrees.
159 Al Bundy said Killian: there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames.
AB: Yes, as long as one ignores human nature and the nature of power.
False. 1. human nature does not exist. 2. If it does, 290,000 years were lived as we must again live, less than ten thousand as what you assume is human nature.
And I ignore nothing. I know things you do not.
My comment was about what will be, not what is possible.
The climate reanalyzer isn’t showing that drastic an anomaly–globally, 0.5 C, NH at 0.4. But distributionally, the startling thing is that almost everyplace with much of a human population is showing warm (with a few minorish exceptions that I won’t list, since anyone who cares can click on the link).
The Arctic isn’t all that cold, either, with an anomly of 0.3 C (though that is indeed below recent norms).
The really cold place, anomaly-wise, is *Ant*arctica, with a comparatively whopping -1.3 C anomaly on the books for July 15.
NB.–link should update, so the numbers will be a bit different by the time this clears moderation, though the general picture shouldn’t be completely different.
And yes, it’s been a relatively slow melt year so far; we were (once again) at a record or near-record low early for the date early in the year, but weather has been relatively kind to the ice in 2018, so I think on the Charctic interactive graph linked there’s only one year of the last ten higher for this date than 2018. But I wouldn’t make too much of that; at this time of year the spread tends to be very small, and this year is no exception. So it’s still a horse race–to trivialize for a moment.
Carriesays
Latest MLO CO2 Readings
Week beginning on July 8, 2018: 409.16 ppm +2.18
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.98 ppm
July 14: 409.25 ppm
July 13: 409.48 ppm
July 12: 409.17 ppm
July 11: 409.36 ppm
g. commentersays
No one has taken up the mantle of H.E. Taylor, have they? It would be helpful right now, to be able to gulp up a dense weekly digest of climate news.
Carrie @172,
Regarding your IPCC comment @149, your reply “It’s a timing issue” still leaves the reason for your comment @149 utterly unexplained. Assuming by “the next IPCC reports” you mean AR6, I don’t see why data from 2019 would not be included in an April 2021 IPCC AR. (For AR5 the deadline for paper-submission was 14 months before publication.) There is more question as to why a month or two of 2019 having a +3ppm 12-month CO2-rise would be something of significance for IPCC AR6. The average for the year would be a more useful measure and your wisdom on that subject was given in the June UV thread – “Therefore I ‘suspect’ it is more likely than not the Annual CO2 Growth Rate will again rise above 2.00 ppm in 2019. ” (My bold) So I fail to see any reason for the IPCC to be accounting for a more-likely-than-not +2ppm/yr CO2-rise through 2019.
And the logic of your wise statement is that we may well be seeing sub-2ppm/yr CO2-rise in coming months, something your comment @149 “Apparently, since April 2010, the 12-month running mean for CO2 Growth YoY has been above 2 ppm (except during the 2011-2012 strong La Nina period.) “ was trying to relegate to history.
As for admitting your inability to understand the comment @154, it has been plain to many here that you do not grasp what is being said. And admitting it is the first step to a resolution.
Killiansays
#174 Mike Roddy said We need to talk about land use. I’m currently working on a long article about it for a major magazine. Few RC contributors are experts here, and I end up having to learn the data from sources like USFS and university Forestry departments, whose faculty have shown great courage here (those departments tend to have financial relationships with loggers).
No disrespect, but you’re talking to a very limited subset, and not the ones who know the deeper answers. For example, I saw an article in the last couple days where a researcher kinda breathlessly says something to the effect there’s a growing body of research that trees/forests create rain.
Really? Coulda asked a permaculturist all the way back in the 1970’s and learned that. There is a huge bias against work that is not considered strictly scientific, yet which is found time and again to be accurate once science catches up.
Tsunamis and great quakes in the Pacific Northwest? That was “discovered” due to indigenous knowledge. “Firehawks” in Australia, canoes, snowshoes, etc. And, yes, growing things. The problem with all modern techniques is they are techniques that stand largely alone. One cannot talk about “land use” intelligently, one must talk about bio-regions, regions, watersheds, communities in terms of what is or can and should be returned to “wild” states and what is or can or should be more directly modified. If you are not talking system, you are making grave errors that will haunt you later.
You are asking the impossible: How do we slice and dice the planet to do better? Nope. How do we make a home, a neighborhood, a community, a region, a bio-region sustainable? By doing it all as one network of interconnected circles/flows… and then also considering the impacts of bio-regions on other bio-regions. That is, you have to learn how to do regenerative design to even begin to answer the question.
It’s a bunch of different studies. It may have been a book. I point you to the first one:
Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary Science for a Sustainable Agriculture
The second is:
Measuring Agricultural Sustainability
Another:
Sustainable Bioenergy Production, Land
and Nitrogen Use
Etc.
Land use is undervalued not only in the raw data, but also in opportunity capital.
Indeed. It is the basis of all: Using the ecosystem to strengthen the ecosystem.
I realize I have not answered the question directly, because it cannot be. Land use has to be sustainable. That means consumption must fall dramatically. Some say as little as 50%. That’s absurd. 80-90% for developed nations and globally overall.
If you could ask a more specific question, it would help.
CCHolleysays
nigelj @169
Of course it would be presumptuous to assume that the current melting would follow the same course as the end of the last period of glaciation due to the difference in the amount of ice and perhaps the rate of warming. However, there is also evidence on the mainland of Florida of similar ancient beach ridges that would also indicate prior pulses of sea level rise when sea levels rose beyond that of the end of the last glaciation. This could mean that the pulse mechanism is not dependent on the amount of ice available for melt. Therefore, periods of rapid collapses of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets is a real possibility. I’m not in a position to judge the voracity of the claims of Dr. Wanless in any way; however, I respect him and find his opinions to be rather concerning although I do have another marine geologist friend who thinks he is alarmist. Just keep in mind that per both Hansen and Wanless, the sea level rise risk this century is likely greater than most are willing to admit. As you stated, it is urgent that mitigation efforts be ramped up NOW.
alan2102says
The Lancet, Feb 2018: “the world is transitioning to a low-carbon world… no single country or head of state can halt this progress, and… until 2030, the direction of travel is set.”
The authors stop short, however, of claiming that Nirvana is breaking out and that we can pop the cork on the champagne and celebrate our dazzling victory over all of our most urgent problems.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32464-9/fulltext
The Lancet, Volume 391, No. 10120, p581–630, 10 February 2018
Review
The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health
SNIP
“The Lancet Countdown is a collaboration between 24 academic institutions and intergovernmental organisations based in every continent and with representation from a wide range of disciplines. The collaboration includes climate scientists, ecologists, economists, engineers, experts in energy, food, and transport systems, geographers, mathematicians, social and political scientists, public health professionals, and doctors.
SNIP
Overall, the trends elucidated in this Report provide cause for deep concern, highlighting the immediate health threats from climate change and the relative inaction seen in all parts of the world in the past two decades. However, more recent trends in the past 5 years reveal a rapid increase in action, which was solidified in the Paris Agreement. These glimmers of progress are encouraging and reflect a growing political consensus and ambition, which was seen in full force in response to the USA’s departure from the 2015 climate change treaty. Although action needs to increase rapidly, taken together, these signs of progress provide the clearest signal to date that the world is transitioning to a low-carbon world, that no single country or head of state can halt this progress, and that until 2030, the direction of travel is set.”
Victorsays
173
Kevin McKinney says:
AB, #159–
(O/T)
Words can have slow changes but notes that drift are jarring. In order to change music, you’ve got to do it writ large and all at once. Does that seem correct to you?
KM: No, not really. The ‘jarringness’ of a changed note or tone is highly variable, and depends heavily on the structural importance of said tone, not to mention the nature of the change (in key, in chord, or not?) And in fact, the so-called “folk music process” includes (in addition to conscious changes and developments) a good deal of ‘drift’.
V: Thanks for the link to your very interesting blog post, Kevin. Nice to learn that I’m not the only musician posting here. And you’re right, of course. There is indeed considerable drift when we consider the tonal-rhythmic content of specific songs. Variants of almost any folk song abound for sure. My paper was not concerned with specific songs, however, but with stylistic features of sung performance, a very different matter. For example, a widely shared characteristic of traditional Western European, British and Anglo-American folk song style is the predominance of monophony, strophic form, regularly recurring duple or triple meter, relatively steady beat and (with the exception, for some reason, of Ireland) little to no embellishment. This can be contrasted with certain types of music characteristic of many Eastern European countries, where we also find many songs employing polyphony, complex meters (such as 7/8 or 11/8), and moderate to extreme embellishment.
As I argue in my paper, it’s stylistic features such as these that are so resistant to change, over many years, centuries or even millennia.
alan2102says
159 Al Bundy says: “Killian: there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames. AB: Yes, as long as one ignores human nature and the nature of power…. Personally, I like Carrie’s solution. Feed the wealthy to polar bears”
It surely does exist, but most statements about what it is are crude, prejudicial and stupid (and many of them are politically informed, used to justify evil). Much of what is called “human nature” is the result of environmental and cultural conditioning.
The pseudo-science of “evolutionary psychology” purported to describe “human nature”, but their errors were so egregious that the whole field can (roughly speaking) be considered discredited.
Gistemp has posted for June at with an anomaly of +0.77ºC, down on recent months and by a squeak the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far. It is =3rd warmest June in Gistemp record sitting just behind June 2016 (+0.80ºC) & 2015 (+0.79ºC), equalling 1998 and ahead of 5th placed June 2017 (+0.71ºC). June 2018 is =51st warmest anomaly in the full all-month Gistemp record. (The warmest June, 2016, is just =42nd, May having none of the big El-Nino-boosted months of the early/late year).
Now halfway though 2018, in the Gistemp year-to-date table below, 2018 currently sits in 3rd place.
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.10ºC … … … +1.00ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.83ºC
2015 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.87ºC … … … 3rd
2010 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 5th
2014 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 4th
2007 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.64ºC … … … 8th
1998 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 11th
2002 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 10th
2005 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 6th
2013 .. +0.61ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 7th
182 Killian says: “For example, I saw an article in the last couple days where a researcher kinda breathlessly says something to the effect there’s a growing body of research that trees/forests create rain.”
It’s beyond ludicrous what some people think and believe it could make one scream at the stupidity of it all. (and scientists are people too)
“and that until 2030, the direction of travel is set.”
The destination is not a pretty one.
Carriesays
181 MA Rodger says:
“That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though.”
“It’s a timing issue”
So that’s really all you got? That’s it. That’s your most meaningful contribution on current ghg emissions and their trajectories. Well you’ll need to wait for the AR6 to find out if you’re right or not. I might even be wrong. And if I am?
Carriesays
June 2018 continued the warming trend of the past 40 years.
According to the monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, the past month surpassed the 1951-1980 June mean by +0.77°C. It tied with June 1998 as the third warmest June in 138 years of modern record-keeping, with only June 2015 and 2016 (+0.80°C and +0.79°C) being warmer.
[ and both exceptionally strong El Nino years ].
The mean temperature anomalies of +0.77°C for both June 1998 and June 2018 cannot be distinguished from each other given the uncertainty of the measurement. However, June 1998 was exceptionally warm at the time due to the then prevailing strong El Niño conditions — about 0.33°C above the trend line of the late 1990s.
In contrast, the current El Niño phase is considered neutral. The temperature anomaly for June 2018 is similar to other recent monthly mean temperature anomalies, and lies within the expected range of +0.75±0.05°C.
Is all of Sweden really at +5 to +10C above the 1961-2000 average for July (summertime) this year? Sweden doesn’t seem to be a major exception to the rest of the Nth hemisphere either.
g. commentersays
Alastair #168, is there a consistent rule of thumb that sudden extra highs in one part of the globe will be balanced in the short run by lows on other parts of the planet? Or does the ‘transferability’ of ocean heat make that not a solid law?
I suppose one can question whether that’s really ‘news’, but whatever you call it, it’s continuing to happen, and continuing to be documented in even more remote places.
prokaryotessays
Noam Chomsky: Global Warming’s Worst Case Projections seem increasingly likely – One of the most cited scholars in history, Noam Chomsky speaks at St Olaff College May 2018, discussing the Epics, Anthropocene, the 6th Extinction and climate change actions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4PisLH8J2g&feature=youtu.be
Al Bundysays
176 Killian says: “human nature does not exist.”
Alan: It surely does exist, but most statements about what it is are crude, prejudicial and stupid (and many of them are politically informed, used to justify evil). Much of what is called “human nature” is the result of environmental and cultural conditioning.
AB: You said it better than I did. Once baked (or boiled), it is difficult to turn a bagel into a cupcake. Human nature depends on nurture, and nurture is resistant to change on the timescales that are relevant to the issues at hand. Yeah, twenty-somethings often have the “proper” nurture to “save the world”, but sixty and seventy-somethings control the show, and a seventy-something’s primary issues are often those which were issues half a century ago coupled with providing relative advantage to the humans that share his/her Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA.
——–
Kevin and Victor, thanks. I’ll read, ponder, and perhaps reply on Forced Responses.
BEST has posted for June at with an anomaly of +0.73ºC, down on recent months and (like GISTEMP) the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far. It is 3rd warmest June in BEST record sitting just behind June 2016 (+0.75ºC) & 2015 (+0.74ºC), and ahead of 4th placed June 1998 (+0.72ºC) and 5th place 2017 (+0.65ºC), thus all very similar to GISTEMP. June 2018 is the 62nd warmest anomaly in the full all-month record (GISTEMP was =51st). (The warmest June, 2016, is just =54th, May having none of the big El-Nino-boosted months of the early/late year).
Now halfway though 2018, in the Gistemp year-to-date table below, 2018 currently sits in 3rd place (as per GISTEMP).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.08ºC … … … +0.97ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.81ºC
2010 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 4th
2015 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.83ºC … … … 3rd
2007 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 6th
2014 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 12th
2002 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 11th
2006 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 8th
Carriesays
Is this heading to be Unprecedented climate change consequences in Sweden?
Carrie @190,
You ask “So that’s really all you got?”
Your comment demonstrates how poor your grasp is of the stuff of science. And you must know this is supposed to be a science thread. All error in science should be rattled out of the system. Every jot & every tittle. Yet you seem to be of the view that if you can blag a pack of nonsense to momentarily defend your personal view, then you win and your opponent loses.
Such a contrast (between your contribution here and what we should expect from a regular commenter) would be adequate for most folk. But for you, being out-of-control down these UV threads for over two years now (and by-the-way, I did up-date that graphic – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’), perhaps further explanation would be helpful.
Consider your last set of contributions #189-192. Is there anything in them providing a positive contribution to the thread? Or is “really all you got” wholly negative in nature.
@189 – Your comment, such as it is, is actually contradicting Killian @182 yet your comment shows no sign of being contradictory to #182.
@190 – You still fail to explain what you truly meant by saying “That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though,” and in dodging the request to explain, you also ignore the other substantive points made @181.
@191 – You cut&paste a GISTEMP summary, adding that 2015 & 2016 were “both exceptionally strong El Nino years.” In terms of impacting on the June 2015 & June 2016 temperatures, this is a poor addition. GISTEMP shows the 2015/16 El Nino (which was a very strong one) elevated global temperature no more than from October 2015 to May 2016. (Of course, the 1997/98 El Nino was boosting global temperature through to August 1998, thus the NASA comment on the elevated June 1998 anomaly.)
@192 – You don’t have to speak Swedish to see the errors that engulf your comment here. The anomaly base is 1961-1990 (not 2000) and the anomalies you are reporting are not “for July” but for July 17th. Indeed, ten days earlier the 7th July anomalies across all Sweden were below the anomaly range of “+5 to +10C” which you present as for July and encompassing all Sweden. And as for your statement “Sweden doesn’t seem to be a major exception to the rest of the Nth hemisphere either,” the source of your knowledge on this is at Neven’s Arctic Forum (where Thomas is Lurk) and that shows the exact opposite – Sweden is the major exception in the NH for July 17th.
Now we could choke up this thread correcting Thomas (or Carrie as you call yourself now), but it would be far better if you learned not to spew nonsense down this thread in the first place.
Killiansays
Re #189 Carrie said 182 Killian says: “For example, I saw an article in the last couple days where a researcher kinda breathlessly says something to the effect there’s a growing body of research that trees/forests create rain.”
It’s beyond ludicrous what some people think and believe
Not sure what you mean to say here. Trees do create rain. Rather, forests do.
Re# 146 Al Bundy said AB: Maybe not “we”, but I do. (Been there, done that) The only question is how burnt said toast is.
This explains much. Denialists of any stripe are not much use in conversations like this. In fact, I consider McPhersonists immoral and unethical in their efforts to deflate energy and thus undermine action.
It’s a kind of hate speech against humanity, imo. This is not hyperbole, nor is it intended as insult. We are on the knife’s edge, and, yes, possibly too late, but there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames. So long as that remains true, demotivating others is something to consider making a crime – if we could prove one way or another whether it was too late.
I am actually thankful to have read this. It will save energy and time in the future.
Karsten V. Johansen @127,
Ancient atmospheres generally become less CO2-rich over the last 50 million years, a finding the science can be certain about although the detail is still the subject of much research. Within that long-term trend, CO2 dropped below 400ppm about 15 million years ago. (Graph here)
A little before three million years ago the Panama Isthmus formed and the resulting climatic changes initially elevated CO2 levels due to the first incarnation of the AMOC. While others are quick to see CO2 3million years ago as above 400ppm, the evidence only suggests it was possibly back up to 400ppm. I consider the probabilities show it very unlikely that it actually reached 400ppm (a point your second link also makes). Subsequent to this rise in CO2, the new warmer 3 million-year-old climate resulted in increased rainfall in high northern latitudes, a freshening of the Arctic Ocean and and this prompted the appearance of extensive Arctic sea ice and in the cooling climate CO2 levels dipping down again well below 400ppm.
As for thhe 25 million years in your second link, I would assume this is providing a bit of a belt-&-braces answer when there is absolutely no doubt that CO2 was well above 400ppm.
re. D.r Harold Wanless on SLR
I’ve met Dr. Wanless and have listened to him talk about sea level rise. He was kind enough to give me copies of several of his presentations. He is extremely concerned.
Some of Dr. Wanless’s major points:
Hansen in 2007 made the prediction of 5 meters by 2100 because amplifying feedbacks make ice sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. Ice loss is running well ahead of Hansen’s predictions.
Significant sea level rise is already a given. Miller in a 2012 National Science Foundation report said: “The natural state of the Earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 70 feet higher than now.”
Sea level rise models projecting levels for 2100 do not take into account how sea levels rose in the past. Sea level change out of the last glacial period was a series of rapid pulses as the climate warmed and ice sheets rapidly disintegrated. Research shows that sea level rose in 6-10 meter steps that were 200-500 years apart. The resulting beach ridges from each pulse are preserved providing a record of these steps. “Pulses in the 1-10 meter range are a real possibility during this century leading to 10-30M sea level rise from multiple pulses of sea level rise.”
Carrie @149,
This graph from Arctic Neven’s Forum of annual CO2-rise 2009 to-date that you linked-to doesn’t indicate a data source but assuming it is NOAA MLO (which appears very likely), the rolling 12-month ave CO2-rise has been above 2ppm/yr ‘after’ (rather than ‘“since”) May-2010-Apr-2011 with the exception of the period 2011-12 you mention but also the 12-months period Jul-14-Jun15 which also dipped below 2ppm.
And more than pedantic correction, unless the 12-month rise for Aug-17-Jul-18 is above 1.87ppm/yr, we will see another sub-2ppm/yr reading appearing on the 12-month rolling ave record. Such an outcome is far more likely than not as the rest of the month of July would have to average above 2ppm/yr for a 1.87ppm/yr July.
And even more likely is the prospect of seeing a sub-2ppm/yr for Sept-17-Aug-18. To prevent that happening would require an average 12-month CO2-rise to the two months Jul-Aug-18 of 2.35ppm/yr. (Or an average of 2.7ppm/yr for the remainder of July and August.)
And your prediction that “the Monthly growth rate will back above 3 ppm again within the next 12 months” – why do you say “That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though.”? Is there any reason for your comment? Or are you simply expressing an aversion to the IPCC because they aren’t ‘skyrockety’ enough for you?
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/07/11/californias-fire-season-hotter-nights/
Carrie,
My refrigerator looks grand with all those gold stars. I hope you’ve noted my several compliments directed at you.
Killian, inputs of excess water occur near the poles, which is where downwelling happens and also where CO2 absorption is greatest. Of course, fresh tends to float, which increases CO2 absorption, and coral reefs are far away from the freshening. So the fraction that doesn’t get dragged into the deep immediately will still have plenty of time to gather enough CO2 so that as it warms it will reach equilibrium via a lowering of solubility. Plus, it will mix with hundreds of feet of ocean with each loop back to the tropics (I’m thinking Gulf Stream here) Finally, we’re talking decades and centuries for meters, so it’s only millimeters and centimeters involved at a time and a portion of millimeters is nothing when compared to hundreds of feet.
Good thought, though. I had the same but went through the above and rejected it. Low rate of insertion, high solubility at the insertion points, and low solubility at the critical points conspire to swamp any antacid effect.
But then, a few meters of water will draw down atmospheric carbon a bit since it’s starting as CO2-phobic ice. I’m on my phone so I can’t open a window to get ocean depth and ocean CO2 but if it’s 200′ / 20000′ x 1000% then the potential drawdown is significant. Yep, we NEED to melt all the ice so as to allow us to burn more fossils!
You just demonstrated a large Truth. “Dumb” questions often lead to significant realizations, especially in science.
Fun with phenology:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bike-race-footage-climate-change-1.4736912
Whaddaya know? The climate is warming…
Capturing Carbon with Soils with Pete Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0UGhW5o6Q
nigelj: which suggests they will be extinct in 30 – 40 years
AB: I’m surprised, nigel. You’re usually quite eagle-eyed. Your source supports my stance. Assuming no intervention, the start of a steep decline within 5-10 years (my timeframe, they gave none, or at least it wasn’t reported), leading to a residual population (as opposed to extinction) in 30-40 years from 4-6 years ago (their timeframe, I gave none).
Without human intervention, most polar bear populations will be extinct in 30-40 years (Castro de la Guardia 2013, Stirling 2012)).
The populations of polar bears living farthest to the north (in the Canadian Arctic Islands, northern Greenland, and farther to the north) have actually seen population increases in recent years (Peacock 2013) and may survive indefinitely (Stirling 2012).
———-
Killian: there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames.
AB: Yes, as long as one ignores human nature and the nature of power. My comment was about what will be, not what is possible. However, my hope is that the sheeple wake up and tell wealthy leeches to pound sand. Unfortunately, the wealthy transferred folks’ retirements from pensions to the stock market so crashing the market via the recognition that fossil fuel reserves and infrastructure are worthless in a non-baking world is a less probable solution than it would have been a few decades ago. Now folks have to choose between poverty in old age and planetary degradation. That’s a tough sell.
Personally, I like Carrie’s solution. Feed the wealthy to polar bears; and I’ll extend it by adding that we can then rebuild folks’ pensions with the cash left behind. Hmm, did I just advocate pulling a Hitler? (Killing a targeted group or three and using their wealth to advance one’s agenda)
On ice melt and atmospheric CO2. I looked up some figures:
Average sea depth: 12,000 ft
Ocean CO2 compared to atmospheric CO2: 5000%
So, 15ft / 12,000ft = 0.00125
0.00125 x 5000% = 6.25%
410ppm x 6.25% = 25ppm
So if Dr Wanless is correct atmospheric CO2 levels will decline at least 25ppm as compared to what would happen without said melt. I say “at least” because the drawdown will probably be larger at first since the entire water column takes about a thousand years to overturn. Hmm, perhaps the melt will provide a temporary hard brake on atmospheric CO2 levels. Or maybe it will seriously slow overturning and all heck will break loose.
—-
Victor,
Not sure which thread your music theory was on, but I read your paper. Squishy conclusion, it seems. However, congrats on getting it through peer review. Has it been cited by others?
One note: (LOL?) You might have wanted to touch on the subject of music’s inherent resistance to drift. Words can have slow changes but notes that drift are jarring. In order to change music, you’ve got to do it writ large and all at once. Does that seem correct to you? (I’m not proficient in the subject of music theory)
The polar bears survived the Eemian interglacial. So likely to survive for some time to come.
143 Carrie says: “you’re searching back 5 days to cherry pick 6 words”
Don’t flatter yourself, babe. I often read weeks worth of posts at a sitting… and I assure you I am not looking for your posts.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-uplift-could-prevent-collapse-west-antarctic-ice-sheet
“The rapid rise of bedrock beneath one of the fastest melting regions of the West Antarctic ice sheet could help prevent it collapsing, new research suggests.”
But its not all good news:
“The findings suggest that “in only the case of future mild (to moderate) climate change, our finding is a good news for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet”, Barletta says. However, “in the case of extreme climate change, any help to the ice sheet [in preventing eventual collapse] will be useless”, she adds:
“I hope the message is clear. In terms of reducing our impact on climate change, what we do might make a big difference.”
The findings also raise concerns that, while land uplift may protect ice sheets from collapse, a decrease in land elevation elsewhere could have the opposite effect, says study author Prof Terry Wilson, emeritus professor of Earth sciences at Ohio State University. She says:
“The physical geography of Antarctica is very complex. We found some potentially positive feedbacks in this area, but other areas could be different and have negative feedbacks instead.”
More phenology, probably, but not so fun this time:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/baobab-deaths-1.4745548
Incidental update on the Quebec heatwave earlier this summer–now they are saying at least 70 people died. And here’s what some people are suggesting be done:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-2018-1.4744453/how-cities-are-finding-solutions-to-combat-scorching-heat-waves-1.4744469
Recent Global CO2 https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
2018 being officially a Neutral ENSO year to date
April 2018: 408.96 ppm
April 2017: 406.33 ppm
Last updated: July 5, 2018
+2.63ppm — still running ahead of 2017’s increase; and every year except for the 2015-2016 big El Nino period
2010 2.44 (+/-)0.06
2011 1.69 0.09 (strong La Nina)
2012 2.38 0.09
2013 2.42 0.09
2014 2.04 0.09
2015 2.93 0.09
2016 2.85 0.09
2017 2.21 0.09
Read ’em and weep you sky-plummeters you :-)
Recent Global CO2 Trend – steady as she goes
July 12: 407.73 ppm
July 11: 407.72 ppm
July 10: 407.71 ppm
July 09: 407.70 ppm
July 08: 407.69 ppm
Last Updated: July 13, 2018
Daily averaged CO2 from four GMD Baseline observatories; Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica.
NOAA ESRL released its preliminary global mean CH4 on June 5 2018, with an initial reading of 1859.1 ppb. This mean was 11.2 ppb over March 2017.
This month’s 11.2 ppb increase over March 2017, represents the highest rate of increase since December 2015 However, it is the longer trends that demonstrate the accelerating rate of increase of CH4 concentration in the atmosphere.
SEE graphs in the link
http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com/2018/07/march-2018-global-mean-ch4-up-112-ppb.html
iirc higher concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere is a Climate Forcing that drives global temperatures higher and increases the acidity of the oceans. Is that right, or do I have it wrong?
https://news.agu.org/press-release/climate-change-may-lead-to-bigger-atmospheric-rivers
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2017GL076968
The Guardian is reporting that a Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week”. However that does not seem to have applied to the Arctic.
The sea ice extent is almost at a 10 year high for the time of year: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
The temperature north of 80 degress N is lower than average: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
And the Surface Mass Balance of the Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is unusually positive: https://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
For context on the GIS see: https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
CCHolley @153, I made a previous comment that sea level rise was rapid coming out of the last ice age. Google meltwater pulse 1a which suggests 5 metres per century is possible. But there was a lot more ice to melt during this period, and temperatures were probably well established for many decades at 2-5 degrees before such rapid pulses happened.
It’s possible something like this could happen this century, but 2 metres looks the more likely possibility to me.
Either way multi metre sea level rise is possible within one century, and while the chances may be low, the costs for humanity would be horrendous, so it suggests cutting emissions is urgent. Its like building a huge multi floor building or a huge steel bridge. The risks of failure are very low, but the consequences would be grave, so you have to be very cautious with the design and construction, and not cut corners out of concerns about costs.
159 Al Bundy: “Victor,
Not sure which thread your music theory was on, but I read your paper. Squishy conclusion, it seems. However, congrats on getting it through peer review. Has it been cited by others?”
V: Well, first of all, thanks for reading it. Not sure what you mean by “squishy” exactly, but I do get the drift. The problem is that the paper was addressed to anthropologists, few of whom are music literate, so I was unable to present the full extent of the evidence linking Pygmy music with Bushmen music. In order to accept the premise offered in this paper, therefore, it’s necessary to accept that I know what I’m talking about, which many readers might well be reluctant to do. So I can understand if you remain skeptical regarding my conclusions. I don’t claim to have proven anything, however — I simply state that the evidence I’ve presented “would seem to support” my premise.
I have presented much more extensive and detailed musical evidence in other papers, published in (peer reviewed) musicology journals, and also a book.
As for citations to that particular article, I’m sorry but I have no idea as I’ve never looked into it. I HAVE received many request for copies. And most of my other papers on this and related topics do get cited from time to time in the musicological literature.
AB: One note: (LOL?) You might have wanted to touch on the subject of music’s inherent resistance to drift. Words can have slow changes but notes that drift are jarring. In order to change music, you’ve got to do it writ large and all at once. Does that seem correct to you? (I’m not proficient in the subject of music theory)
V: Actually I do deal with precisely that issue in the paper, on p. 4.
Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week From Europe to Africa, extreme and widespread heat raises climate concerns in hottest La Niña year to date on record
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/13/heatwave-sees-record-high-temperatures-set-around-world-this-week
Yawn all this boring data showing up is such an inconvenient truth. :-)
Dear Mr Skyrocketty 154
“That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though.”?
It’s a timing issue. No conspiratorial accusations required, but thanks anyway. Says more about you than me.
The rest is fluff. I’m sorry you can’t follow what is written, especially in regard to the 12-month running Mean.
Admission of your error please insert here:->…………….
No apology needed as I accept other people’s limitations happily. No one’s perfect hey? :-)
AB, #159–
(O/T)
No, not really. The ‘jarringness’ of a changed note or tone is highly variable, and depends heavily on the structural importance of said tone, not to mention the nature of the change (in key, in chord, or not?) And in fact, the so-called “folk music process” includes (in addition to conscious changes and developments) a good deal of ‘drift’.
More or less random (except that that is my blog!) case in point:
https://snowonmusic.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/modes-of-misfortune-banished/
(/O/T)
DBB, #160:
I’m not so sure: I seem to recall that although the lineage has indeed been through the Eemian, polar bears have become significantly more specifically adapted to the sea-ice habitat since.
(skimpy, and ‘bloggish’, but most on point):
https://protectpolarbears.wordpress.com/evolutionary-history/
(scholarly)
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0026303.html
(more about bear taxonomy generally)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140611093447.htm
In addition, there’s the whole ‘rate of change’ thing to complicate prognosis.
OT with the important SLR posts, but….
We need to talk about land use. I’m currently working on a long article about it for a major magazine. Few RC contributors are experts here, and I end up having to learn the data from sources like USFS and university Forestry departments, whose faculty have shown great courage here (those departments tend to have financial relationships with loggers).
Land use is the only category where IPCC emissions measurements are quite squishy, since broad ranges are cited. IPCC members are told
1. Use any methodology you want to give us your land use emissions data
2. Also, you don’t really have to report it if you don’t want to.
Land use is undervalued not only in the raw data, but also in opportunity capital. It’s not “planting trees”, which tends to devolve into ecologically barren plantations. Rather, it’s reducing deforestation, particularly in the US, which uses 25-27% of the earth’s wood products, an insane number. And allowing natural regeneration to occur, which results in more resilient and larger forests.
When it comes to lumber, only 15% of the carbon in the harvest is sequestered in wood, and that is only replacing wood that has decayed. Our own practice of 2 x 4 construction is a sickness, and the rest of the world knows it.
We need some good news these days. This won’t fix the world, but it’s low lying fruit. Anyone here with suggestions can email me, mike.greenframe@gmail.com
Hat tip to Soylent News:
[1]Atlanta is a scorching heat island, but can green roofs help?
It’s midsummer, which means that perennial, suffocating,
climatological sauna has befallen Atlanta. Like most urban places,
Atlanta’s status as a heat island is hardly surprising, what with all
the heat-capturing concrete and carbon emissions, which spell hotter
summer temps intown (2.4 degrees in the daytime, about 4 degrees at
night) than surrounding rural areas. What’s more surprising: The
ATL’s heat-island problem is actually getting better.
That’s the word from Bill Lomel, Sentry Roof Services president,
whose company has worked with Hartsfield-Jackson International
Airport and other major clients to implement green-roof practices
that include reflective roof materials and energy-effecient
insulation. The result, per Lomel, is that Atlanta’s heat island
footprint has been dramatically reduced in the past decade, as
buildings implementing “cool roofs” throughout town are saving up to
20 percent in energy costs. Meanwhile, the tops of such buildings are
more than a third cooler than standard roofs, which can reach July
temperatures of a blazing 150 degrees.
————————————————————————
[2]Original Submission
Discuss this story at:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=18/07/14/1533222
159 Al Bundy said Killian: there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames.
AB: Yes, as long as one ignores human nature and the nature of power.
False. 1. human nature does not exist. 2. If it does, 290,000 years were lived as we must again live, less than ten thousand as what you assume is human nature.
And I ignore nothing. I know things you do not.
My comment was about what will be, not what is possible.
Called your psychic friend, I guess?
Alastair, #168–
The climate reanalyzer isn’t showing that drastic an anomaly–globally, 0.5 C, NH at 0.4. But distributionally, the startling thing is that almost everyplace with much of a human population is showing warm (with a few minorish exceptions that I won’t list, since anyone who cares can click on the link).
The Arctic isn’t all that cold, either, with an anomly of 0.3 C (though that is indeed below recent norms).
The really cold place, anomaly-wise, is *Ant*arctica, with a comparatively whopping -1.3 C anomaly on the books for July 15.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
NB.–link should update, so the numbers will be a bit different by the time this clears moderation, though the general picture shouldn’t be completely different.
And yes, it’s been a relatively slow melt year so far; we were (once again) at a record or near-record low early for the date early in the year, but weather has been relatively kind to the ice in 2018, so I think on the Charctic interactive graph linked there’s only one year of the last ten higher for this date than 2018. But I wouldn’t make too much of that; at this time of year the spread tends to be very small, and this year is no exception. So it’s still a horse race–to trivialize for a moment.
Latest MLO CO2 Readings
Week beginning on July 8, 2018: 409.16 ppm +2.18
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.98 ppm
July 14: 409.25 ppm
July 13: 409.48 ppm
July 12: 409.17 ppm
July 11: 409.36 ppm
No one has taken up the mantle of H.E. Taylor, have they? It would be helpful right now, to be able to gulp up a dense weekly digest of climate news.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/2018-SkS-Weekly-Digest_28.html
Carrie @172,
Regarding your IPCC comment @149, your reply “It’s a timing issue” still leaves the reason for your comment @149 utterly unexplained. Assuming by “the next IPCC reports” you mean AR6, I don’t see why data from 2019 would not be included in an April 2021 IPCC AR. (For AR5 the deadline for paper-submission was 14 months before publication.) There is more question as to why a month or two of 2019 having a +3ppm 12-month CO2-rise would be something of significance for IPCC AR6. The average for the year would be a more useful measure and your wisdom on that subject was given in the June UV thread – “Therefore I ‘suspect’ it is more likely than not the Annual CO2 Growth Rate will again rise above 2.00 ppm in 2019. ” (My bold) So I fail to see any reason for the IPCC to be accounting for a more-likely-than-not +2ppm/yr CO2-rise through 2019.
And the logic of your wise statement is that we may well be seeing sub-2ppm/yr CO2-rise in coming months, something your comment @149 “Apparently, since April 2010, the 12-month running mean for CO2 Growth YoY has been above 2 ppm (except during the 2011-2012 strong La Nina period.) “ was trying to relegate to history.
As for admitting your inability to understand the comment @154, it has been plain to many here that you do not grasp what is being said. And admitting it is the first step to a resolution.
#174 Mike Roddy said We need to talk about land use. I’m currently working on a long article about it for a major magazine. Few RC contributors are experts here, and I end up having to learn the data from sources like USFS and university Forestry departments, whose faculty have shown great courage here (those departments tend to have financial relationships with loggers).
No disrespect, but you’re talking to a very limited subset, and not the ones who know the deeper answers. For example, I saw an article in the last couple days where a researcher kinda breathlessly says something to the effect there’s a growing body of research that trees/forests create rain.
Really? Coulda asked a permaculturist all the way back in the 1970’s and learned that. There is a huge bias against work that is not considered strictly scientific, yet which is found time and again to be accurate once science catches up.
Tsunamis and great quakes in the Pacific Northwest? That was “discovered” due to indigenous knowledge. “Firehawks” in Australia, canoes, snowshoes, etc. And, yes, growing things. The problem with all modern techniques is they are techniques that stand largely alone. One cannot talk about “land use” intelligently, one must talk about bio-regions, regions, watersheds, communities in terms of what is or can and should be returned to “wild” states and what is or can or should be more directly modified. If you are not talking system, you are making grave errors that will haunt you later.
You are asking the impossible: How do we slice and dice the planet to do better? Nope. How do we make a home, a neighborhood, a community, a region, a bio-region sustainable? By doing it all as one network of interconnected circles/flows… and then also considering the impacts of bio-regions on other bio-regions. That is, you have to learn how to do regenerative design to even begin to answer the question.
You might find this interesting.
https://archive.org/stream/permaculture_Biodiversity_Biofuels_Agroforestry_and_Conservation_Agriculture/Biodiversity_Biofuels_Agroforestry_and_Conservation_Agriculture_djvu.txt
It’s a bunch of different studies. It may have been a book. I point you to the first one:
Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary Science for a Sustainable Agriculture
The second is:
Measuring Agricultural Sustainability
Another:
Sustainable Bioenergy Production, Land
and Nitrogen Use
Etc.
Land use is undervalued not only in the raw data, but also in opportunity capital.
Indeed. It is the basis of all: Using the ecosystem to strengthen the ecosystem.
I realize I have not answered the question directly, because it cannot be. Land use has to be sustainable. That means consumption must fall dramatically. Some say as little as 50%. That’s absurd. 80-90% for developed nations and globally overall.
If you could ask a more specific question, it would help.
nigelj @169
Of course it would be presumptuous to assume that the current melting would follow the same course as the end of the last period of glaciation due to the difference in the amount of ice and perhaps the rate of warming. However, there is also evidence on the mainland of Florida of similar ancient beach ridges that would also indicate prior pulses of sea level rise when sea levels rose beyond that of the end of the last glaciation. This could mean that the pulse mechanism is not dependent on the amount of ice available for melt. Therefore, periods of rapid collapses of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets is a real possibility. I’m not in a position to judge the voracity of the claims of Dr. Wanless in any way; however, I respect him and find his opinions to be rather concerning although I do have another marine geologist friend who thinks he is alarmist. Just keep in mind that per both Hansen and Wanless, the sea level rise risk this century is likely greater than most are willing to admit. As you stated, it is urgent that mitigation efforts be ramped up NOW.
The Lancet, Feb 2018: “the world is transitioning to a low-carbon world… no single country or head of state can halt this progress, and… until 2030, the direction of travel is set.”
The authors stop short, however, of claiming that Nirvana is breaking out and that we can pop the cork on the champagne and celebrate our dazzling victory over all of our most urgent problems.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32464-9/fulltext
The Lancet, Volume 391, No. 10120, p581–630, 10 February 2018
Review
The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health
SNIP
“The Lancet Countdown is a collaboration between 24 academic institutions and intergovernmental organisations based in every continent and with representation from a wide range of disciplines. The collaboration includes climate scientists, ecologists, economists, engineers, experts in energy, food, and transport systems, geographers, mathematicians, social and political scientists, public health professionals, and doctors.
SNIP
Overall, the trends elucidated in this Report provide cause for deep concern, highlighting the immediate health threats from climate change and the relative inaction seen in all parts of the world in the past two decades. However, more recent trends in the past 5 years reveal a rapid increase in action, which was solidified in the Paris Agreement. These glimmers of progress are encouraging and reflect a growing political consensus and ambition, which was seen in full force in response to the USA’s departure from the 2015 climate change treaty. Although action needs to increase rapidly, taken together, these signs of progress provide the clearest signal to date that the world is transitioning to a low-carbon world, that no single country or head of state can halt this progress, and that until 2030, the direction of travel is set.”
173
Kevin McKinney says:
AB, #159–
(O/T)
Words can have slow changes but notes that drift are jarring. In order to change music, you’ve got to do it writ large and all at once. Does that seem correct to you?
KM: No, not really. The ‘jarringness’ of a changed note or tone is highly variable, and depends heavily on the structural importance of said tone, not to mention the nature of the change (in key, in chord, or not?) And in fact, the so-called “folk music process” includes (in addition to conscious changes and developments) a good deal of ‘drift’.
V: Thanks for the link to your very interesting blog post, Kevin. Nice to learn that I’m not the only musician posting here. And you’re right, of course. There is indeed considerable drift when we consider the tonal-rhythmic content of specific songs. Variants of almost any folk song abound for sure. My paper was not concerned with specific songs, however, but with stylistic features of sung performance, a very different matter. For example, a widely shared characteristic of traditional Western European, British and Anglo-American folk song style is the predominance of monophony, strophic form, regularly recurring duple or triple meter, relatively steady beat and (with the exception, for some reason, of Ireland) little to no embellishment. This can be contrasted with certain types of music characteristic of many Eastern European countries, where we also find many songs employing polyphony, complex meters (such as 7/8 or 11/8), and moderate to extreme embellishment.
As I argue in my paper, it’s stylistic features such as these that are so resistant to change, over many years, centuries or even millennia.
159 Al Bundy says: “Killian: there are also ways to reverse this situation in surprisingly short time frames. AB: Yes, as long as one ignores human nature and the nature of power…. Personally, I like Carrie’s solution. Feed the wealthy to polar bears”
No, don’t feed the rich to polar bears. Why? Because: 1) it is cruel, and 2) it is not focused enough on the real source of problems. The solution, or at least a very big and probably indispensable part of the solution, is to quarantine the psychopaths:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/forced-responses-jul-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-708072
…………………..
176 Killian says: “human nature does not exist.”
It surely does exist, but most statements about what it is are crude, prejudicial and stupid (and many of them are politically informed, used to justify evil). Much of what is called “human nature” is the result of environmental and cultural conditioning.
The pseudo-science of “evolutionary psychology” purported to describe “human nature”, but their errors were so egregious that the whole field can (roughly speaking) be considered discredited.
Gistemp has posted for June at with an anomaly of +0.77ºC, down on recent months and by a squeak the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far. It is =3rd warmest June in Gistemp record sitting just behind June 2016 (+0.80ºC) & 2015 (+0.79ºC), equalling 1998 and ahead of 5th placed June 2017 (+0.71ºC). June 2018 is =51st warmest anomaly in the full all-month Gistemp record. (The warmest June, 2016, is just =42nd, May having none of the big El-Nino-boosted months of the early/late year).
Now halfway though 2018, in the Gistemp year-to-date table below, 2018 currently sits in 3rd place.
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.10ºC … … … +1.00ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.83ºC
2015 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.87ºC … … … 3rd
2010 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 5th
2014 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 4th
2007 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.64ºC … … … 8th
1998 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 11th
2002 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 10th
2005 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 6th
2013 .. +0.61ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 7th
Greenland the Largest Contributor to Global Sea Level Rise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqFdX9rb8I4 (Documentary style)
182 Killian says: “For example, I saw an article in the last couple days where a researcher kinda breathlessly says something to the effect there’s a growing body of research that trees/forests create rain.”
It’s beyond ludicrous what some people think and believe it could make one scream at the stupidity of it all. (and scientists are people too)
“and that until 2030, the direction of travel is set.”
The destination is not a pretty one.
181 MA Rodger says:
“That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though.”
“It’s a timing issue”
So that’s really all you got? That’s it. That’s your most meaningful contribution on current ghg emissions and their trajectories. Well you’ll need to wait for the AR6 to find out if you’re right or not. I might even be wrong. And if I am?
June 2018 continued the warming trend of the past 40 years.
According to the monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, the past month surpassed the 1951-1980 June mean by +0.77°C. It tied with June 1998 as the third warmest June in 138 years of modern record-keeping, with only June 2015 and 2016 (+0.80°C and +0.79°C) being warmer.
[ and both exceptionally strong El Nino years ].
The mean temperature anomalies of +0.77°C for both June 1998 and June 2018 cannot be distinguished from each other given the uncertainty of the measurement. However, June 1998 was exceptionally warm at the time due to the then prevailing strong El Niño conditions — about 0.33°C above the trend line of the late 1990s.
In contrast, the current El Niño phase is considered neutral. The temperature anomaly for June 2018 is similar to other recent monthly mean temperature anomalies, and lies within the expected range of +0.75±0.05°C.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/20180716/
Is all of Sweden really at +5 to +10C above the 1961-2000 average for July (summertime) this year? Sweden doesn’t seem to be a major exception to the rest of the Nth hemisphere either.
Alastair #168, is there a consistent rule of thumb that sudden extra highs in one part of the globe will be balanced in the short run by lows on other parts of the planet? Or does the ‘transferability’ of ocean heat make that not a solid law?
More melting glaciers:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canada-icebergs-shrinking-study-1.4749889
I suppose one can question whether that’s really ‘news’, but whatever you call it, it’s continuing to happen, and continuing to be documented in even more remote places.
Noam Chomsky: Global Warming’s Worst Case Projections seem increasingly likely – One of the most cited scholars in history, Noam Chomsky speaks at St Olaff College May 2018, discussing the Epics, Anthropocene, the 6th Extinction and climate change actions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4PisLH8J2g&feature=youtu.be
176 Killian says: “human nature does not exist.”
Alan: It surely does exist, but most statements about what it is are crude, prejudicial and stupid (and many of them are politically informed, used to justify evil). Much of what is called “human nature” is the result of environmental and cultural conditioning.
AB: You said it better than I did. Once baked (or boiled), it is difficult to turn a bagel into a cupcake. Human nature depends on nurture, and nurture is resistant to change on the timescales that are relevant to the issues at hand. Yeah, twenty-somethings often have the “proper” nurture to “save the world”, but sixty and seventy-somethings control the show, and a seventy-something’s primary issues are often those which were issues half a century ago coupled with providing relative advantage to the humans that share his/her Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA.
——–
Kevin and Victor, thanks. I’ll read, ponder, and perhaps reply on Forced Responses.
BEST has posted for June at with an anomaly of +0.73ºC, down on recent months and (like GISTEMP) the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far. It is 3rd warmest June in BEST record sitting just behind June 2016 (+0.75ºC) & 2015 (+0.74ºC), and ahead of 4th placed June 1998 (+0.72ºC) and 5th place 2017 (+0.65ºC), thus all very similar to GISTEMP. June 2018 is the 62nd warmest anomaly in the full all-month record (GISTEMP was =51st). (The warmest June, 2016, is just =54th, May having none of the big El-Nino-boosted months of the early/late year).
Now halfway though 2018, in the Gistemp year-to-date table below, 2018 currently sits in 3rd place (as per GISTEMP).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.08ºC … … … +0.97ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.81ºC
2010 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 4th
2015 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.83ºC … … … 3rd
2007 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 6th
2014 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 12th
2002 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 11th
2006 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 8th
Is this heading to be Unprecedented climate change consequences in Sweden?
Sweden experienced its hottest May on record, and several cities saw their hottest individual May days since records began 150 years ago.
https://www.thelocal.se/20180717/sweden-battles-most-serious-wildfire-situation-of-modern-times-heres-what-you-need-to-know
Wildfires ravage Sweden, Norwegian helicopters flown in for backup
16 July 2018
http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2018/07/16/wildfires-ravage-sweden-norwegian-helicopters-flown-in-for-backup/
Carrie @190,
You ask “So that’s really all you got?”
Your comment demonstrates how poor your grasp is of the stuff of science. And you must know this is supposed to be a science thread. All error in science should be rattled out of the system. Every jot & every tittle. Yet you seem to be of the view that if you can blag a pack of nonsense to momentarily defend your personal view, then you win and your opponent loses.
Such a contrast (between your contribution here and what we should expect from a regular commenter) would be adequate for most folk. But for you, being out-of-control down these UV threads for over two years now (and by-the-way, I did up-date that graphic – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’), perhaps further explanation would be helpful.
Consider your last set of contributions #189-192. Is there anything in them providing a positive contribution to the thread? Or is “really all you got” wholly negative in nature.
@189 – Your comment, such as it is, is actually contradicting Killian @182 yet your comment shows no sign of being contradictory to #182.
@190 – You still fail to explain what you truly meant by saying “That won’t make it into the next IPCC reports though,” and in dodging the request to explain, you also ignore the other substantive points made @181.
@191 – You cut&paste a GISTEMP summary, adding that 2015 & 2016 were “both exceptionally strong El Nino years.” In terms of impacting on the June 2015 & June 2016 temperatures, this is a poor addition. GISTEMP shows the 2015/16 El Nino (which was a very strong one) elevated global temperature no more than from October 2015 to May 2016. (Of course, the 1997/98 El Nino was boosting global temperature through to August 1998, thus the NASA comment on the elevated June 1998 anomaly.)
@192 – You don’t have to speak Swedish to see the errors that engulf your comment here. The anomaly base is 1961-1990 (not 2000) and the anomalies you are reporting are not “for July” but for July 17th. Indeed, ten days earlier the 7th July anomalies across all Sweden were below the anomaly range of “+5 to +10C” which you present as for July and encompassing all Sweden. And as for your statement “Sweden doesn’t seem to be a major exception to the rest of the Nth hemisphere either,” the source of your knowledge on this is at Neven’s Arctic Forum (where Thomas is Lurk) and that shows the exact opposite – Sweden is the major exception in the NH for July 17th.
Now we could choke up this thread correcting Thomas (or Carrie as you call yourself now), but it would be far better if you learned not to spew nonsense down this thread in the first place.
Re #189 Carrie said 182 Killian says: “For example, I saw an article in the last couple days where a researcher kinda breathlessly says something to the effect there’s a growing body of research that trees/forests create rain.”
It’s beyond ludicrous what some people think and believe
Not sure what you mean to say here. Trees do create rain. Rather, forests do.