Whatever the cause, we’re now at ~640k km2 ahead of the nearest previous year. Guess we really need to watch this one…
Guest (O.)says
Question to the climate science experts/researchers:
Is there a publisher-/research institution-independent domain specific search engine for climate science(s)?
G**gl* and all the other non-specific search engines suck so much.
They don’t have science in mind, when setting up their indices.
I have something in mind like what LIVIVO is for life sciences. It’s driven by a library of that field and offers results easily and from a lot of domain specific scientific sources.
I note that it is the final days of the rogue planet Wattuspia in its present orbit. ( So sad. It is being forced to return to WordPress because it refuses to pay the orbit fees of its present location which have apparently increased enough to make the orbit untenable.) And as it shifts out of its present orbit, it has a message nailed up from denialist Willie Soon. Apparently, the BBC will be running a Radio 4 ‘Omnibus’ programme looking at how some have worked to weaponise doubt so as to undermine scientific findings on the likes of the smoking-cancer link & climate change and more. With the BBC giving Soon the right-to-reply to comment set out in this radio progreamme, Soon has decided to nail up his reply on Wattsupia.
(1) Asked about allegedly receiving shed-loads of money from fossil fuel interests to fund his crazy writing, Soon insists that making shed-loads of money and practising science are incompatible. Perhaps this is why Soon manages to ignore the science he disputes so vigorously.
(2) & (3) When told his work has been used to slow down climate research, Soon insists it is the likes of Greenpeace who slow down the science (which is all based on the 97% concensus claim which Soon insists is wrong) and Greenpeace spend/spent shed-loads on their Climate & Energy camapaigns, $521,202,000 since 1994 according to the writings of Willie Soon & Connellys various. (Golly!! What a coincidence that Soon is an expert on such matters.) And half-a-billion is far more money that, say Exxon allegedly spent/spend. So where would be the harm in Exxon putting its oar in?
(4) Asked to comment on accusations that he, Willie Soon, had been “downplaying the impact of human activities on climate change,” Soon responds that, unlike scientists, he didn’t downplay the effects of solar variability and, human-wise, didn’t downplay the effects of Urban Heat Islands.
Soon’s parting shot is to insist that “there are two sides to the climate question” which is of course entirely true; one side is based on the science and the other is based on deluded fantasy.
Of course, given Willie Soon has to provide such messages as this live and with a straight face, it is not so much of a surprise that he could thus be in receipt of payments similar to that of a Hollywood actor.
Al Bundysays
Ven de: What is your game plan now?
AB: Appeal to their base instincts by Weaving their myths(?) into current reality with enough skill and speed to get them to, well, take your fool’s advice about emptying their colon.
It ain’t just sufficiently advanced technology that’s indistinguishable from magic.
And yes, it’s always been a long shot, which is why I’m also working on that advanced tech.
nigeljsays
Killian @50
“43: We show that planting two native tree species (Betula pubescens and Pinus sylvestris ), of widespread Eurasian distribution, onto heather (Calluna vulgaris ) moorland with podzolic and peaty podzolic soils in Scotland, did not lead to an increase in net ecosystem”
“If you had bothered to learn any of what you’ve been told since you came to this site you’d know that research is *worthless*, because WHy. THE. #$%^. WOULD. ANYBODY. DO. THAT?”
Perhaps nobody would plant those species on Scotlands Moorland, but they could want to plant forests on other podzol soils: From podzol soils on wikipedia : “In soil science, podzols are the typical soils of coniferous or boreal forests. They are also the typical soils of eucalypt forests and heathlands in southern Australia. In Western Europe, podzols develop on heathland, which is often a construct of human interference through grazing and burning. In some British moorlands with podzolic soils, cambisols are preserved under Bronze Age barrows (Dimbleby, 1962).”
Mr. Know It Allsays
56 – MA Rodger
“…Apparently, the BBC will be running a Radio 4 ‘Omnibus’ programme looking at how some have worked to weaponise doubt so as to undermine scientific findings on the likes of the smoking-cancer link & climate change and more….”
Der Soziologe Harald Welzer ist der Ansicht, daß die Klimaziele ungeschickt kommuniziert wurden, ja sogar, daß man die falschen Ziele ausgewählt hat.
Statt 2-, dann 1,5-Grad Ziel hätte man Nullemissionen als Ziel festlegen sollen.
Das ist klarer und das Rumgeeiere mit schaffen-wir-es-oder-nicht etc. entfällt.
Er ist ausserdem der Ansicht, daß das 1,5 Grad-Ziel ohnehin nicht mehr schaffbar ist. (Der Meinung bin ich bereits seit mehreren Jahren, ich halte das für philosophisch-theoretische Träumereien. Welzer sieht’s ganz ähnlich.)
Mr. KIA@59 Oh, now come on. Zerohedge? Are you trying to destroy any vestigial trace of credibility you might have here? Because it won’t work. You did that years ago.
Dude, that website is an outlet for conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda. It will rot what little is left of your brain.
Erik Lindebergsays
I have been following the Greenland ice mass through the data I find on the GFZ ftp-site. Recently they suddenly changed their reference point by approximately 290 Gtonne, but it is not an exact superimposing. It seems to be an new interpretation because all data are slightly different.
I therefor compared these data with the corresponding data from the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab. These date are now quite different. The most significant difference is that they show a 900 Gtonne higher ice loss since the start of the project.
I find no explanation in the supplied technical notes. I thought these two labs were cooperating. Can anyone point in in the right direction to find out what is going on?
The first active leak of methane from the sea floor in Antarctica has been revealed by scientists.
The researchers also found microbes that normally consume the potent greenhouse gas before it reaches the atmosphere had only arrived in small numbers after five years, allowing the gas to escape.
Vast quantities of methane are thought to be stored under the sea floor around Antarctica. The gas could start to leak as the climate crisis warms the oceans, a prospect the researchers said was “incredibly concerning”.
The reason for the emergence of the new seep remains a mystery, but it is probably not global heating, as the Ross Sea where it was found has yet to warm significantly. The research also has significance for climate models, which currently do not account for a delay in the microbial consumption of escaping methane.
Dude, that website is an outlet for conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda. It will rot what little is left of your brain.
It’s always amazed me that self-described “skeptics” can be so suspicious of science, but willing to take comically unhinged, paranoid fantasy at face value. How can IAT trust anything anyone has ever said to him?
Doing a straight linear regression of Hadley CRU dT on CO2 for 1850-2019, I get
dT = -4.077 + 0.01253 CO2
which predicts temperature anomalies of -0.57 K for 280 ppmv and 2.94 K for 560 ppmv, for an equilibrium temperature sensitivity of 3.51 K per doubling. Of course this ignores all the confounders, but it is suggestive.
Predicted as being an above-average year for hurricane activity and with Hurricane Hanna making landfall on US soil, 2020 is looking an interesting Atlantic hurricane season.
The prime 2020 statistic presented on wikithing was the high number of storms (seven) that developed without one reaching hurricane force, apparently the highest number since 2013 and would have been 2011 if Hanna had stayed below hurricane strength.
Wikithing also tells us that, as the eighth storm of the season, Hanna sets the record as ‘the earliest 8th storm of the season’ beating Harvey of 2005 by ten days.
But this does rather miss an interesting stat, particularly as 2005 itself set an interesting start-of-season record stat which is now broken.
Looking back at past seasons since Atlantic the 1970s when satellite data allow a reliable comparison, the number of tropical storms developing prior to the start of August has been on the rise. 2005 emphatically topped that list, itself now topped by 2020. And as I write, NOAA’s National Huricane Center show there is yet with another storm likely to add to the 2020 eight-so-far before the end of July.
Note that the temperature plot has a red Loess smooth added. The red in the CO2 plots is the pure line graph. Always remember that the two plots have different scales – but that is irrelevant for correlation.
Do you think that this would convince Victor? (Okay, just kidding.)
Guest(O.) @72,
This isn’t the first time you post here in German. It is a bit lazy of you not at least making a small effort to cater for the non-Geman-speaking denizens of this English-speaking web site. “Die schwersten Waldschäden seit 200 Jahren” = “The worst forest damage in 200 years” and just a google-search away is this specific topic is covered in English (complete with colourful graphics), as is discussion of the broader climatalogical problem (complete with informative maps).
45: No, mike. Insolation in June is the single biggest year-on-year factor affecting ASI melt.
40: You could save a lot of time and trouble just pointing people to the ASI forums.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/board,3.0.html
#45 & 6:
Good thoughts!
Whatever the cause, we’re now at ~640k km2 ahead of the nearest previous year. Guess we really need to watch this one…
Question to the climate science experts/researchers:
Is there a publisher-/research institution-independent domain specific search engine for climate science(s)?
G**gl* and all the other non-specific search engines suck so much.
They don’t have science in mind, when setting up their indices.
I have something in mind like what LIVIVO is for life sciences. It’s driven by a library of that field and offers results easily and from a lot of domain specific scientific sources.
Plutonium aided reconstruction of caesium atmospheric fallout in European topsoils
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68736-2
I note that it is the final days of the rogue planet Wattuspia in its present orbit. ( So sad. It is being forced to return to WordPress because it refuses to pay the orbit fees of its present location which have apparently increased enough to make the orbit untenable.) And as it shifts out of its present orbit, it has a message nailed up from denialist Willie Soon. Apparently, the BBC will be running a Radio 4 ‘Omnibus’ programme looking at how some have worked to weaponise doubt so as to undermine scientific findings on the likes of the smoking-cancer link & climate change and more. With the BBC giving Soon the right-to-reply to comment set out in this radio progreamme, Soon has decided to nail up his reply on Wattsupia.
(1) Asked about allegedly receiving shed-loads of money from fossil fuel interests to fund his crazy writing, Soon insists that making shed-loads of money and practising science are incompatible. Perhaps this is why Soon manages to ignore the science he disputes so vigorously.
(2) & (3) When told his work has been used to slow down climate research, Soon insists it is the likes of Greenpeace who slow down the science (which is all based on the 97% concensus claim which Soon insists is wrong) and Greenpeace spend/spent shed-loads on their Climate & Energy camapaigns, $521,202,000 since 1994 according to the writings of Willie Soon & Connellys various. (Golly!! What a coincidence that Soon is an expert on such matters.) And half-a-billion is far more money that, say Exxon allegedly spent/spend. So where would be the harm in Exxon putting its oar in?
(4) Asked to comment on accusations that he, Willie Soon, had been “downplaying the impact of human activities on climate change,” Soon responds that, unlike scientists, he didn’t downplay the effects of solar variability and, human-wise, didn’t downplay the effects of Urban Heat Islands.
Soon’s parting shot is to insist that “there are two sides to the climate question” which is of course entirely true; one side is based on the science and the other is based on deluded fantasy.
Of course, given Willie Soon has to provide such messages as this live and with a straight face, it is not so much of a surprise that he could thus be in receipt of payments similar to that of a Hollywood actor.
Ven de: What is your game plan now?
AB: Appeal to their base instincts by Weaving their myths(?) into current reality with enough skill and speed to get them to, well, take your fool’s advice about emptying their colon.
It ain’t just sufficiently advanced technology that’s indistinguishable from magic.
And yes, it’s always been a long shot, which is why I’m also working on that advanced tech.
Killian @50
“43: We show that planting two native tree species (Betula pubescens and Pinus sylvestris ), of widespread Eurasian distribution, onto heather (Calluna vulgaris ) moorland with podzolic and peaty podzolic soils in Scotland, did not lead to an increase in net ecosystem”
“If you had bothered to learn any of what you’ve been told since you came to this site you’d know that research is *worthless*, because WHy. THE. #$%^. WOULD. ANYBODY. DO. THAT?”
Perhaps nobody would plant those species on Scotlands Moorland, but they could want to plant forests on other podzol soils: From podzol soils on wikipedia : “In soil science, podzols are the typical soils of coniferous or boreal forests. They are also the typical soils of eucalypt forests and heathlands in southern Australia. In Western Europe, podzols develop on heathland, which is often a construct of human interference through grazing and burning. In some British moorlands with podzolic soils, cambisols are preserved under Bronze Age barrows (Dimbleby, 1962).”
56 – MA Rodger
“…Apparently, the BBC will be running a Radio 4 ‘Omnibus’ programme looking at how some have worked to weaponise doubt so as to undermine scientific findings on the likes of the smoking-cancer link & climate change and more….”
Here’s more on “scam science”:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sordid-history-scam-science
G(O) 54: Is there a publisher-/research institution-independent domain specific search engine for climate science(s)?
BPL: No, but for scholarly works in general, try Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/
@Stefan Rahmstorf:
Der Soziologe Harald Welzer ist der Ansicht, daß die Klimaziele ungeschickt kommuniziert wurden, ja sogar, daß man die falschen Ziele ausgewählt hat.
Statt 2-, dann 1,5-Grad Ziel hätte man Nullemissionen als Ziel festlegen sollen.
Das ist klarer und das Rumgeeiere mit schaffen-wir-es-oder-nicht etc. entfällt.
Er ist ausserdem der Ansicht, daß das 1,5 Grad-Ziel ohnehin nicht mehr schaffbar ist. (Der Meinung bin ich bereits seit mehreren Jahren, ich halte das für philosophisch-theoretische Träumereien. Welzer sieht’s ganz ähnlich.)
Zwei interessante Videos:
Es geht auch anders! Welzer & Trojanow
Zukunftsforscher Harald Welzer – Jung & Naiv: Folge 419
Mr. KIA@59 Oh, now come on. Zerohedge? Are you trying to destroy any vestigial trace of credibility you might have here? Because it won’t work. You did that years ago.
Dude, that website is an outlet for conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda. It will rot what little is left of your brain.
I have been following the Greenland ice mass through the data I find on the GFZ ftp-site. Recently they suddenly changed their reference point by approximately 290 Gtonne, but it is not an exact superimposing. It seems to be an new interpretation because all data are slightly different.
I therefor compared these data with the corresponding data from the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab. These date are now quite different. The most significant difference is that they show a 900 Gtonne higher ice loss since the start of the project.
I find no explanation in the supplied technical notes. I thought these two labs were cooperating. Can anyone point in in the right direction to find out what is going on?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Viu08si0-MSt4KW8LCME8nfspy9cYY6/view?usp=sharing
58: Trees are not forests. Get it?
FYI:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/22/first-active-leak-of-sea-bed-methane-discovered-in-antarctica
Ray Ladbury, to IAT:
It’s always amazed me that self-described “skeptics” can be so suspicious of science, but willing to take comically unhinged, paranoid fantasy at face value. How can IAT trust anything anyone has ever said to him?
I finally got my act together and put all that time series data into a web page, complete with graphs:
http://bartonlevenson.com/CO218502019.html
Doing a straight linear regression of Hadley CRU dT on CO2 for 1850-2019, I get
dT = -4.077 + 0.01253 CO2
which predicts temperature anomalies of -0.57 K for 280 ppmv and 2.94 K for 560 ppmv, for an equilibrium temperature sensitivity of 3.51 K per doubling. Of course this ignores all the confounders, but it is suggestive.
Predicted as being an above-average year for hurricane activity and with Hurricane Hanna making landfall on US soil, 2020 is looking an interesting Atlantic hurricane season.
The prime 2020 statistic presented on wikithing was the high number of storms (seven) that developed without one reaching hurricane force, apparently the highest number since 2013 and would have been 2011 if Hanna had stayed below hurricane strength.
Wikithing also tells us that, as the eighth storm of the season, Hanna sets the record as ‘the earliest 8th storm of the season’ beating Harvey of 2005 by ten days.
But this does rather miss an interesting stat, particularly as 2005 itself set an interesting start-of-season record stat which is now broken.
Looking back at past seasons since Atlantic the 1970s when satellite data allow a reliable comparison, the number of tropical storms developing prior to the start of August has been on the rise. 2005 emphatically topped that list, itself now topped by 2020. And as I write, NOAA’s National Huricane Center show there is yet with another storm likely to add to the 2020 eight-so-far before the end of July.
Numbers of Atlantic Tropical Storms developed by end July by year:-
1970-79 – 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3 – ave=1.7
1980-89 – 0, 2, 2, 0, 0, 2, 2, 0, 0, 3 – ave=1.1
1990-99 – 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1 – ave=2.2
2000-09 – 0, 1, 1, 4, 0, 7, 3, 3, 4, 0 – ave=2.3
2010-19 – 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2 – ave=3.2
2020 – 8 (&counting)
BPL at 67. Nice job, BPL. Elegant and to the point.
To see correlation, I also like to look at the two time series together, side-by-side and above/below:
http://froginapot.org/posts/hadcrut_v_co2.html
Note that the temperature plot has a red Loess smooth added. The red in the CO2 plots is the pure line graph. Always remember that the two plots have different scales – but that is irrelevant for correlation.
Do you think that this would convince Victor? (Okay, just kidding.)
TCRE definition:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_climate_response_to_cumulative_carbon_emissions
New to me.
Die schwersten Waldschäden seit 200 Jahren
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/waldschaeden-103.html
Guest(O.) @72,
This isn’t the first time you post here in German. It is a bit lazy of you not at least making a small effort to cater for the non-Geman-speaking denizens of this English-speaking web site.
“Die schwersten Waldschäden seit 200 Jahren” = “The worst forest damage in 200 years” and just a google-search away is this specific topic is covered in English (complete with colourful graphics), as is discussion of the broader climatalogical problem (complete with informative maps).
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-texas-cave-sediment-upends-meteorite.html
No so-called Clovis Comet? Don’t buy it. Evidence is wide-spread. Sure, some volcanoes too…