Good read, thanks for the link.
(disclosure, I have a degree in economics and think this linkage is ludicrous)
Killiansays
The one person you never ask about climate-related economics, or Economics at all? Someone with a degree in Economics. It’s like asking a Right Wing Republican about the Dec. 6 insurrection.
You’re not going to get heterodox Econ from a university, as your rexponse clearly shows. I suggest you read everything by Keen and Kelton.
Ray Ladburysays
Cough, cough. Paul Krugman. Cough, cough.
I would suggest that rather than casting away an entire field of study, that one instead point to the problematic issues in the field and the analysis and discuss why they are problematic.
For example, I think that one of the more problematic issues with Nordhaus was his use of discounting–that is attaching higher cost to action taken today than to action deferred. This is highly problematic with a degenerative threat like climate change. We certainly cannot assume that we will all be richer and more able to deal with the issue in the future than we are in the present. Indeed, the opportunity cost of not taking action now may be incalculable.
Mr. Know it Allsays
Correct. The opportunity cost of not taking action now MAY be incalculable, but the real cost of taking action too fast (before renewables can do the job) WILL be incalculable and deadly.
nigeljsays
Ray Ladbury. Quite right. Nordhaus assumes high rates of economic growth in the future and he’s wrong. Not only is the latest science suggesting the climate problem will reduce those growth rates, which is intuitively obvious anyway, the real world data shows rates of gdp growth falling steadily in developed countries over about the least 40 years, apparently due to demographic factors, market saturation and possibly increased extraction costs for some materials. The forces mentioned driving slower growth are likely to intensify. And growth has slowed despite attempts to boost growth with very low interest rates and quantitative easing, – things that are not sustainable for long periods of time.
The world is clearly heading towards low economic growth or perhaps even zero growth and we will have to learn to live with it. Western civilisation, is getting old and slowing down just like people do. People won’t want to admit this. Falling growth rates will help the environment and have a positive side.
I’m not suggesting we deliberately try to engineer a huge and rapid degrowth agenda, because that would be painful and would probably cause our society to collapse disastrously. I’m just talking about the inevitability of the economy slowing, and this is not necessarily a bad thing and we shouldn’t fight against it, and it mystifies me that Nordhaus cant see the obvious. Perhaps its hubris about what humanity can achieve or ideologically driven in some form
Killiansays
I would suggest you pay attention and not use Straw Men: You said, “I would suggest that rather than casting away an entire field of study,”, but I said. “You’re not going to get heterodox Econ from a university, as your response clearly shows. I suggest you read everything by Keen and Kelton.”
When your response depends on a Straw Man fallacy, please don’t waste the bandwidth, I have spoken of the many problems with Economics many times. Start with it’s not a science, but rather is philosophy that only much later tried to layer mathematics over to give it legitimacy. When you start with absurd assumptions, there is little point in going any further as a false premise will lead to false conclusions.
Keen’s take-down of Nordhaus suffices for anything else, but you can also check out his websites, videos and books, including a new one last year.
You also know that Keen’s Minsky model was based on basic Economics, but was changed to an energy/thermodynamics basis because economics is absurd, as per my critiques to Steve in 2010.
You already know all this, so your criticism isn’t exactly honest.
nigeljsays
Killian. When you are so dismissive of “someone with a degree in economics” you will tend to get people like RL saying you are dismissive of economics and economists. I don’t know why this surprises you. Youre just being idiotic.
You then say “You’re not going to get heterodox Econ from a university, as your rexponse clearly shows. I suggest you read everything by Keen and Kelton.” Except that Steven Keen is very much a university trained economist with a commerce degree in economics and has served as an economics professor at various Australian universities (wikipedia profile). He does not follow the neo classical orthodoxy, but hes not alone.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. Know Fuck All: “…but the real cost of taking action too fast (before renewables can do the job) WILL be incalculable and deadly.”
Well, golly gee willikers, maybe if we’d spent the last 4 decades developing effective mitigations and responses rather than having half the politicians denying the problem, we’d be able to respond now rather than sit here with our collective thumbs up our collective arses, But then, at least your head has all those thumbs for company.
Killiansays
Let’s see what numbscullery lies within…
I’m not suggesting we deliberately try to engineer a huge and rapid degrowth agenda, because that would be painful and would probably cause our society to collapse disastrously.
And there you have it, folks. According to this genius, the only way to prevent an uncontrolled collapse will be the *cause* of collapse.
Too bad anything the genius proposes cannot come close to solving our problems ever, let alone this century. So, foks, do try to remember it takes zero time to simply stop doing something. It takes DECADES to build out entire systems to alter manufacturing and production globally, and we need to build out a number of systems to meet the technocopian’s bizarrely obtuse agenda which ignores how long buildouts take, ignore they are all unsustainable, ignores that the resources do not exist ti maintain them over generations, etc.
While technically we do need system collapse when you look at degrowth as a percentage of current consumption, in reality we are talking about localizing production, shaping consumption to needs, eliminating work/production that is meaningless (like shuffling papers for financial institutions that do no real work in any way, shape of form), etc.
Building a healthy world requires exactly zero economics in the sense of any common understanding of that term.
“…the real cost of taking action too fast (before renewables can do the job)…”
Category error. Building out renewables to “do the job” is in fact “taking action.” So KIA is in effect claiming that taking action before taking action is dangerous.
Clearly not–merely logically impossible.
nigeljsays
Regarding the Jag Bhalla link on its time we stopped listening to economists on climate change. Clearly Nordhaus’s climate costs model is extremely flawed and woefully underestimates costs, (nothing new there), but difficulties putting costs on the climate problem doesn’t seem a good reason to just give up on economic models. Who is Jag Bhalla anyone? His biography has no information on his education, qualifications or background beyond vague generalities and a list of books..
Killiansays
Please, stop posting till you have something to say and until you actually read the article and the links, which you did not do. Nowhere does it say to not use economic models; it says don’t use DICE and DICE-like models, specifically supports a revolution in economic modeling for climate and links to Keen and his comments, and by extension, his model for a thermodynamic/nature-based model of Economics specifically intended to reform Economics and climate economics. Keen has written an entire book on the subject that came out last year that you cannot be bothered with because it doesn’t match your milquetoast, do-as-little-as-possible-because-actual-solutions-are-scary bullshit perspective.
Headline writers really should read the article they’re headlining, too. That headline is an egregious example of why.
Killiansays
The headline was completely accurate. Headline readers should improve their reading skills.
nigeljsays
Jesus wept. . This is what the link you posted said, right at the beginning “Economic models of climate change are so riddled with flaws and fudge factors that we’d be better off without them.” Right at the beginning. FFS.
Killiansays
And that’s as far as you read. Context matters, but not to you. You are incompetent in that regard and demonstrate it on the regular.
When it says we’d be better off without them it refers to the econonomics that now dominates. It then not only calls for a revolution in modeling – making your simplistic reliance on a *beginning* statement, which in any article or essay may be intended to grab the attention of the reader, foolish – but also LINKS TO economic thinking and a modeler that is nature-based, That’s called “context.”
Jesus cries a river every time you post. Shush.
Killiansays
econonomics > economics
nigeljsays
Killian. I read the article but I missed the statement that he was referring just to just the dice like models. My bad. You obviously think you are perfect or close to it, but we all see how the reality is something very different. Judging by what many people have written in response to your posts over literally years.
Killiansays
I am far from perfect, but you are completely incompetent so I understand why I make you feel that way. Failing to consider the full context is not the outlier with you, it’s the norm.
nigeljsays
No Killian. You are totally incompetent and also routinely fail to consider full context. This is what me, Piotr, BPL and KM and others have been trying to tell you for years.
nigeljsays
Killian. Here’s a list of your incompetence just from this page:
1) You try to defend the link you posted, despite the fact it has an opening statement on modelling that totally contradicts the text on modelling.
2) You make contradictory statements about the article, as pointed out by Kevin.
3) You falsely accuse people of using strawman arguments. You make wild generalisations that we should ignore people with economics degrees then when RL suggest you are saying we should ignore economists (who are generally understood to have economics degrees) you falsely accuse him of using a strawman.
4) You say Steve Keen is not a university economist, when his biography clearly shows he is a university economist.
.
Do you want me to continue? With other pages?
My worst failing is I missed reading a line of text in a useless article by someone who hides his qualifications. I only scanned it briefly. I don’t waste time on long articles in depth where the writer hides their qualifications. But I own my mistakes. You go on defending the indefensible ad nauseum.
Piotrsays
KIllian Mar. 14: “ I am far from perfect ”
Really? I don’t recall ANY thread in which you honestly admitted that you were wrong and honestly apologized to the people whom you had wronged. Then again, I have not read the majority of your 1000s (?) of posts here. But you did – so you should have no problem with illustrating your general statement with several specific examples – threads in which you were NOT perfect, and admitted it at the time.
If you can – great, I’ll gladly admit that you are more than what I thought you were. If you can’t, then you would have supported what I thought you were – and your “ I am far from perfect ” wasn’t an expression of humbleness and introspection, but merely a disingenuous rhetorical figure telling the reader “look how humble I am” … and then using it as a jump-off point to …. attack your opponent:
“ I am far from perfect, but you are completely incompetent so I understand why I make you feel that way”
I can’t wait to see which of the two explanations will turn out to be true. I guess we will know from the examples you will provide. Or the absence thereof….
Killiansays
How weird is it that you routinely just take my criticisms of you and repeat them back at me verbatim, gaslighter?
What I said was accurate. You admit you did not understand the context then gaslight in response claiming I missed the context? You realize your admissions is **still there** for everyone to read?
Grow a pair. Take responsibility for yourself.
nigeljsays
Killian
“How weird is it that you routinely just take my criticisms of you and repeat them back at me verbatim, gaslighter?”
There is nothing weird about it. You criticise people for incompetence. I’m pointing out you are far more incompetent. I just gave you four examples above. Maybe read that for “context”.
“You admit you did not understand the context.”
I most certainly did NOT admit that. I posted at Match 11 ” I read the article but I missed the statement that he was referring just to just the dice like models. My bad.” Missing reading a statement is obviously not the same as not understanding context.”
“then gaslight in response claiming I missed the context? ”
Wrong. I said “you also routinely fail to consider full context.” So this is obviously not in response to the link you posted. It is obviously a general statement on other comments you have posted on this website.
“Grow a pair. Take responsibility for yourself.”
I already did take responsibility. I said “my bad” on March 11 in respect of missing the statement about the dice like modelling buried in the text.
You’re a complete idiot. Killian. That’s the only conclusion I can draw.
“2. The article absolutely did suggest heterodox economists should be listened to.”
Not at issue.
“3. I never said the article suggested listening to no economists. The first line of the original post was mine, which I have already made VERY clear.”
No, you said the headline–as a reminder: “its-time-we-stop-listening-to-economists-on-climate-change”–was “completely accurate.” Does transitivity not apply in Killian world?
“You bore me now.”
If so, I’m sure it’s utterly inadequate to balance the tedium you’ve inflicted on this community by the bucketful.
Killiansays
nigel2 said…
“1. The article absolutely called for current economics to be excluded.”
No, it didn’t. Just–to quote you–“DICE and DICE-like models.” That’s a small subset of “current economics.”
That’s absolutely ridiculous to claim models that are built solely from neoclassical econ represents only a subset of econ. It’s like saying a quarter of NFL football isn’t based on all of football. Nonsense.
Comment in full
“2. The article absolutely did suggest heterodox economists should be listened to.”
Not at issue.
Afraid it is. Read the fucking thread.
“3. I never said the article suggested listening to no economists. The first line of the original post was mine, which I have already made VERY clear.”
No, you said the headline–as a reminder: “its-time-we-stop-listening-to-economists-on-climate-change”–was “completely accurate.” Does transitivity not apply in Killian world?
And it was. Heterodox economists have no influence in climate circles, let alone in general. They are still fighting to be taken seriously. No nation I know of sets its policies based on heterodox economics. The headline has a socio-political context that you simply do not accept and/or do not understand and/or can’t stop yourself from trolling over.
“You bore me now.”
If so, I’m sure it’s utterly inadequate to balance the tedium you’ve inflicted on this community by the bucketful.
Given the long list of accurate projections I have made over the last 15 years vs. your zero, I’d say this community needs a shitload more of my “tedium” over your… what? What have you contributed, nigel2? What unique view or awareness or theory have you brought to the discussion, nigel2? Exactly zero. But, once again, my list of unique and accurate observation, projections and predictions has grown so long it takes effort to recall them all.
Sorry to see the fight-picking, ego-driven, cognitively distorted Bad Killian back with a vengeance. Clearly, it’s past time for a good dose of DNFTT.
Also sorry, everybody, to have prolonged this episode of nonsense. My bad.
nigeljsays
Killian @19.2
Killian is still trying to claim the headline of the Jag Bhalla article was completely accurate. Its not accurate. The headline says “Time We Stop Listening to Economists on Climate Change” but the fine print of the article is only critical of dice like climate models, and is clearly listening to some economists on climate change, because it discusses the work of Nicholas Stern and Steve Keen and portrays that work in a positive light. So the title contradicts the content. The title is deceptive, and looks like click bait. It absolutely mystifies why Killian would claim otherwise. Its like claiming that black is white.
The statement immediately following the title says “Economic models of climate change are so riddled with flaws and fudge factors that we’d be better off without them.” Yet the fine print is only dismissive of dice like models. So another contradiction. More clickbait nonsense.
Clearly once you get beyond the title and opening statement, the main point of the article is arguing about some deficiencies in dice like models. I personally believe there are some deficiencies in the DICE models as stated up the page in response to RL.
There are several schools of economics including neoclassical economics, socialism and keynsian economics. Hunter gatherers have their own basic economic system. Every society through history has an economy and economic system. They all have their plusses and minuses. I find it a bit hard to generalise and say that one is right or wrong. None seem ideal. Several assume infinite economic growth.
We could do with a new economic system or modification of neo classical economics. I believe the starting point is it has to accept the reality that low levels of economic growth or even zero economic growth is inevitable. Plug that assumption into neoclassical economics and see what it does to other aspects of that school of thought. It will force it to change.
Killian first said: “Nowhere does it say to not use economic models; it says don’t use DICE and DICE-like models, specifically supports a revolution in economic modeling for climate…”
Then said: “The headline was completely accurate,” where the headline was “It’s Time We Stopped Listening To Economists On Climate Change.”
If someone making or utilizing economic models (especially “revolutionary” ones) is by definition an economist–a proposition I’d accept–then both statements cannot be true.
Pick a lane, K.
Killiansays
Buy a clue, Kev: There’s what they said in the article, which is what I responded to brainless about, The article did not argue for no economic modeling within the IPCCC, it argued for improved economics while basically saying current economic thinking should be dismissed from climate discussions.
Then there’s the issue of economics vs economics as the BASIS of climate decisions which *I* argue, not the article, should cease now and forever.
The nigelization of Kevin marches on.
nigeljsays
Killian. Nobody cares what you “argue”. Most of your commentary on this website is idiotic, or contradictory like Kevin pointed out.
Killian, if I were looking to “buy a clue,” I certainly wouldn’t shop with you:
Even key economists resist such conclusions. “It is irresponsible to act as if the economic models currently dominating policy analysis represent a sensible central case,” wrote Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics and Political Science…
As economist Steve Keen has noted, the models can exclude…
Nowhere does Bhalla say we shouldn’t listen to economists, and when he himself quotes them… well, ’nuff said.
Killiansays
Kevin. i.e. nigel2, one more time.
1. The article absolutely called for current economics to be excluded.
2. The article absolutely did suggest heterodox economists should be listened to.
3. I never said the article suggested listening to no economists. The first line of the original post was mine, which I have already made VERY clear. – and it’s accurate: Even Keen and Kelton have little to say about the climate response. Economics as any part of the decision-making WRT climate is sheer stupidity.
Now, shush, nigel2. You bore me now.
Killiansays
Killian. Nobody cares what you “argue”. Most of your commentary on this website is idiotic, or contradictory like Kevin pointed out.
Your, and nigel2’s, lack of knowledge thus inability to understand what you read, is where the idiocy lies. You have had six years to educate yourself on these matters and have refused to do so. Rather, you blather on about how your idiocy is genius.
Dunning-Kruger in full effect.
Nigel2 is even worse now. He’s had well over a decade to learn about and fully integrate regenerative concepts into his thinking, but instead has chosen to bandaid his ego by throwing in with your idiocy rather than admit to himself, and everyone else, he’s still mired in neoeconomics as his frame of thinking and unwilling, despite his “progressive” rhetoric, to admit he likes the system as it is.
You’re both unable and unwilling to begin from the realities of the natural world and so continue to shit yourselves over this issues.
Neoeconomics is nonsense. That is what the article tells you. It should not be used in making decisions about climate. That is what the article tells you. There are some heterodox economists who do incorporate some elements of the natural world and who have accurately criticised Nordhaus/neoeconomics and shown they are maladaptive framings for climate. This is what the article tells you.
*I* told you **no** form of economics is appropriate for framing the climate response.
I have said nothing different from this throughout this thread, You blathering damned fools cannot admit your lack of knowledge and skills and so keep attempting to gaslight.
I suspect our readers are far more intelligent than you weak-egoed fools.
nigeljsays
Killian
“*I* told you **no** form of economics is appropriate for framing the climate response. “(March 16)
Maybe you mean no modern form of economics. Because for the the last five years you have used the economy of hunter gatherer peoples (or large parts of it) as a way of framing an appropriate response to the climate problem. All societies have an economy. Its just how they use and control and exchange resources.
Carbomontanussays
To all and everyone
Killian 16 Mars 2022 is ptrobably the one here that is displaying Dunning Kruger in its full and most blatant effect.
“It takes one to know one” Putin spoke, and i shall not repeat that of blind hens…
But Killian is another example exept for that he hardly finds many “corns”. He gets what he needs from thinktank, where it is thought for him. Thus can remain and perform as a drunken sailor.
Killiansays
The “economy” of H-G’s? LOL…. yeah, because they had/have a growth-based, wants’-based, GDP-based, philosophy-based way of thinking about exchanging stuff. Sorry, no, they didn’t and don’t. Try to understand which came first, living, or idiots trying to use philosophical underpinnings and psychology to make sense of the completely maladaptive systems they had set up. I.e., the concept of ‘economy”, and most certainly “economics,” came long after people were exchanging stuff.
The chicken did not come before the egg. Only a damned fool pretends the way H-G’s manage things is anything remotely like what the typical person considers “the economy” or “economics.” You people trying to legitimize your nonsense by misapplying that label to natural systems is sheer desperation. Worse, you trying to sound like you know something because you saw an economist, or some other fool, make the claim that “economy” and/or “economics” in the sense we are talking in this and other threads applies to natural societies is just sad barking of words. Stop spluttering about your Chicago School, backwards, anti-life, anti-Nature nonsense – that you don’t even understand.
nigeljsays
Killian
“The “economy” of H-G’s? LOL…. yeah, because they had/have a growth-based, wants’-based, GDP-based, philosophy-based way of thinking about exchanging stuff. Sorry, no, they didn’t and don’t.”
Nonsensical statements. An economy is not necessarily a growth based or wants based or gdp based thing. An economy is just how a society uses resources. Therefore clearly hunter gatherers have an economy. Its completely different from modern western economies.
You also have socialist economies and Keynsian economies. Economics is just the study of how economies work and could be improved.
Although hunter gatherers did produce gdp (as in economic output) although clearly much smaller than modern economies and they didn’t seek to hugely expand that output like modern economies generally do.
“the concept of ‘economy”, and most certainly “economics,” came long after people were exchanging stuff.”
So what? By analogy the concept of sociology came late in the development of human society, but it still describes and analyses early societies behaviour.
“Only a damned fool pretends the way H-G’s manage things is anything remotely like what the typical person considers “the economy” or “economics.”
Strawman. Nobody here has done that.
.
“Stop spluttering about your Chicago School, backwards, anti-life, anti-Nature nonsense – that you don’t even understand.”
Have barely even mentioned the Chicago School, and haven’t promoted it. We need something better than the Chicago School approach, but that doesn’t mean every single thing they teach or believe in is wrong. We cant copy hunter gatherer economy exactly even if we wanted. Far too many people on the planet. Nobody is suggesting we should but I say this just to make the point we need a new type of economy, that maybe borrows the best of all types of economies.
K: The “economy” of H-G’s? LOL…. yeah, because they had/have a growth-based, wants’-based, GDP-based, philosophy-based way of thinking about exchanging stuff.
BPL: Fallacy of bifurcation.
Economics is “who gets what how.” It is simply the study of how goods and services are produced and distributed. Hunter-gatherers most definitely have an economy, since they produce goods and services and those commodities get distributed. Your criticism of economics is like a creationist’s criticism of biology–you don’t know the first thing about the field you’re criticizing, so your objections sound asinine to anyone who does.
Killiansays
BPL, your Chicago School underpants are showing.
Economics:
1a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
First, why in the name of the gods would you need this in a Commons? You don’t. In a needs-based production system, what is there to analyze as to *why* something is being done? Economics only developed because of Capitalism. It has meaning only within that context. It is an abastraction which has zero usefulness in a regenerative system.
Second, let’s look at those last two terms, “goods” and “services.”
Goods: 3a : something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want
An economic *want.* This is irrelevant in a regenerative society. Meaningless.
b goods plural : personal property having intrinsic value but usually excluding money, securities, and negotiable instruments
Personal property has no meaning a regenerative society.
d goods plural : something manufactured or produced for sale : wares, merchandise
For sale. Again, irrelevant in a regenerative society.
So we have an abstraction from philosophy and psychology that has no meaning or usefulness in a fair, just, ecologically sound society, but YOU think it apples to H-G societies.
You have no idea what I’m talking about, so no idea what *you’re* talking about. You’re barking words. There is no concept more pointless than Economics. It’s voodoo on its best day, and you two are witch doctors prancing about spouting gibberish.
nigeljsays
Killian
“Economics:. 1a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.”
No link to where this definition comes from. Unprofessional. But it sounds reasonable enough. I summarised it previously as how you use resources.
“First, why in the name of the gods would you need this (Economics) in a Commons? You don’t. In a needs-based production system, what is there to analyze as to *why* something is being done? Economics only developed because of Capitalism. It has meaning only within that context. It is an abastraction which has zero usefulness in a regenerative system.”
A commons still produces goods and services, and they are still consumed and distributed whether its needs or wants based. The goods would include regenerative farming and your technology backbone. So 1) its still an economy, and 2)you might choose to study it and 3) work out how to make it function better within the parameters set (basically a shared ownership economy). Its not going to be possible to perfectly design such a thing at day one.
You would only not need economics if humans were to literally go back to living and thinking like stone age people but Killian has said he is not promoting we live like that.
Obviously the economics of a regenerative society is going to be very different to private ownership capitalist economy but its still economics. And what the hell would be WRONG with studying it? Thats what people do. They study things.
“Goods: 3a : something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want”
Where does this definition come from? What makes it so special? I found a different definition that makes more sense as follows:
“In economic terms, goods are tangible items that have monetary value and satisfy your needs and wants (such as cars and clothing). Services are intangible items (meaning you cannot physically touch them) that have monetary value and satisfy your needs and wants.”
Clearly this is relevant to a regenerative society because it includes economic needs.
“An economic *want.* This is irrelevant in a regenerative society. Meaningless.”
Killians regenerative society includes computers and smartphones (technology backbone) so these look more like wants than needs. We only need food, shelter and clothing to survive so anything beyond this is a want. Although its all very nebulous. You could argue computers have become a need. To me this is why this sort of needs v wants analysis generally goes nowehere. Its very hard to be precise about it all.
“Personal property has no meaning a regenerative society.”
People still have at least some personal property, so how the hell does it have no meaning?
“d goods plural : something manufactured or produced for sale : wares, merchandis”
“For sale. Again, irrelevant in a regenerative society.”
Arbitrary definition. Goods could be given away. And so we are left with the question of how that happens in detail, so who gets what and how is that decided, which is ultimately an economics question.
CONCLUSION: Regenerative societies or hunter gatherer societies still have an economy and it could be studied using something called economics. Obviously it operates mostly differently from modern market based economy. But no way will Killian admit this because he’s too stubborn.
IMHO Killian is really promoting that we adopt a hunter gatherer / subsistence farming style of economy, with some modernism added on in terms of modern consumer goods. Why not just say this? Then there is no confusion! Its not even a bad idea in theory.
Where I differ is that I believe such a transition if done deliberately will be be very harsh and painful, and could create mass unemployment all depending on how far it goes, and how quickly. Like Jospeh Tainter says deliberately simplifying modern society and deliberate degrowth agendas may not even be possible.
For anyone else who might be deceived by Killian’s misconception of hunter-gatherer peoples, let’s think about an actual hunter-gatherer tribe.
A hunt brings back an animal carcass. This gets divided, first among the hunters, according to set rules, and hunters might get very angry if they feel slighted in the division. Taking the meat home (we’ll ignore the hide for now), some goes to the spouse, some to children, some perhaps to parents living at home. In addition, the hunting party may give some meat to non-participants in the hunt, such as the group’s shaman, or those too old to hunt and not living with other family.
The gatherers bring home vegetables, which again get divided up by set rules. A group may chop down a tree to provide wood for homes, or pick grass, and if a group is doing it the wood or the grass may be divided. Someone in the tribe, perhaps a specialist and his/her apprentice, makes arrowheads out of stone, and they are exchanged for other objects.
At a feast held to celebrate a birth, coming of age, marriage, or a wake, food again has to be provided and divided up. The same may happen on religious holidays.
The tribe may trade objects or labor with other tribes when it meets them. They may go on joint hunts, or agree how to divided up who can pick vegetables and berries in which area.
So you tell me. Do they produce goods and services and distribute them, and therefore have an economy?
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite, Feb.26: “Piotr, Climate science is the study of climate in all its aspects”
Climate science – yes, this forum – not really: the opening line of the “ Start here” page of this blog: We’re often asked to provide a one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change ”
So this blog is about ONLY THOSE “ aspects climate science” that are important to climate change. Your interests – the oscillations around the mean that do not have appreciable impact on the climate TREND –
are not important to the climate change trend , so you probably are on a wrong forum and would have been more happy at …some other blog of, say, the enthusiasts of the oscillations around the mean.
“ Further, it appears that Piotr believes that anticipating El Nino & La Nina cycles have no value for humanity
Only the Piotr in your head. The real one has explained to you, when you tried the same accusations a few months back:
==== thread: “A Nobel pursuit” ======
– Paul Pukite Oct. 14: predictions of the next El Nino or La Nina [could have] therefore saved countless lives
– Piotr: Oct. 16 “ saved countless lives“? The next El Nino or La Nina ?
P.Pukite: Oct 17: “ I did say “countless lives”, yes.”
Piotr Oct. 19: “I don’t think we are losing “countless lives” every … couple of years (every El Nino of La Nina), [so with] your “countless lives” lost every El Nino of La Nina, you have massively overplayed your hand.
Furthermore – even if you are able to tell the governments that El Nino or La Nina will come precisely on June
15, then unlike climate change, there is not much the governments can do with your information: how are you going to defend the agriculture in Ethiopia, or stop the wildfires in California, against the drought? How are going to counter the reduced upwelling and therefore reduced primary production off Peru?
It is not uncommon to consider the field in which one has interest to be massively important. Sometimes it is, most of the time – it is not. And overstating one’s importance is not a victimless folly:
it causes inflation of words, so overused, the big words no longer carry the same weight:
after people heard that “ the loss of countless lives ” happens …. every 2-3 years, hearing that
long-term effects of the AGW may also cause “ the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye.
You heard what happened to the shepherd, who cried “Countless wolves!!! ” ? [ Except here – it is not the shepherd who pays the price.]
=== end Oct. quote =============
Since you obviously missed? ignored? my Oct. response, I have tried to explain to you again in this thread in Feb.:
====
[These two study areas – climate change vs. oscillations around the mean] have a very different societal weight:
– The climate CHANGE is both caused by the humans, and has massive implications to the future of the humans
– The oscillation are the opposite – NOT caused by the humans and have limited importance to humanity [since they will happen anyway and we can’t do much about their consequences if we know when they are coming or not)
Consequently, the former garners the substantial funding from the society, not the latter. To the unending ire of Paul Pukite, the latest iteration of which being:
P.Pukite Feb. 12: “ NASA JPL has decided to [invest in climate change and] not to invest in research proposals that study [effects of] lunar [oscillations] on climate “.
Carbomontanussays
Piotr
I would give another lecture on elementary systematics if I were you, and matter is not created by contra- diction.
As it turns out, the RC start page provides a first link for complete beginners to http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html, which has the description: “Here you’ll find the basics on climate science, key energy and emissions trends, extreme weather, and other climate impacts. Students, teachers: check out the Climate Classroom.”. Note the basics on climate science and extreme weather, which subsumes El Nino / La Nina cycles, with explanations available on the sidebar links (all obsolete Flash files however).
From my own research, it’s becoming increasingly evident that ENSO cycles are potentially predictable but full of structural uncertainty. Only the intrepid analyst would take a risk and evaluate what we’ve accomplished by solving Laplace’s Tidal Equations — see this set of slides I prepared today — https://geoenergymath.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/ensomodeling.pdf
Yes, I realize that Piotr will be upset by this. No skin off my nose.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: Note the basics on climate science and extreme weather, which subsumes El Nino / La Nina cycles, with explanations available on the sidebar links
Precisely – to identify and REMOVE the ENSO NOISE from the climate CHANGE signal.
And to inoculate the reader against denialists use of these oscillations to misinform the public :
– denialists try to divethe rt the discussion, and research resources, from the climate CHANGE, for which we are responsible, toward … oscillations around the mean, for which we are not responsible – thus taking fossil fuel industry, Russia and Saudi Arabia off the hook.
– denialist use OSCILLATIONS around the mean to seed doubt about climate CHANGE trend –
see all the denialists using the highest point of one of the strongest El Ninos in recent memory – 1997/98 – to count “how many years and months since the so-called Global warming ended”
Paul Pukite Yes, I realize that Piotr will be upset by this
Sure. Disproving your claims has been as challenging as taking a candy out of babe’s mouth
(see my points above and my Mar. 6 post. Must be very upsetting to me. ;-)
“Precisely – to identify and REMOVE the ENSO NOISE from the climate CHANGE signal.”
So you agree with me after all that understanding ENSO is a critical part of climate science. The better we are at characterizing the “NOISE”, the better we can discriminate the signal (in this case AGW) from the noise — see Kalman filtering etc. In other words, one man’s noise is another man’s signal. Case closed.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite,11 Mar: “ So you agree with me after all that understanding ENSO is a critical part of climate science.”
Hardly. A noise that can be easily removed with a simple moving average over climatological time scale is hardly “critical“. And certainly does not warrant shifting of funding and research focus to it from the climate change, which you angrily demanded.
.
As for the other use of the oscillations: climate change deniers using your oscillations to seed doubt about the climate CHANGE and human responsibility for it – what we already know about your short-term oscillations around the mean is more than enough. That, or showing them the moving average.
Paul Pukite: Case closed
If you have to proclaim it, then it is not. In fact, usually it is the opposite. The same way when somebody tells you: “Trust me .”
Piotr is one 0f those guys that would tell everyone to just use a moving average on tidal gauge readings, reasoning that all that matters is the average sea-level anyways … as sailors watch their boats drift off to sea ;)
Just a few critical tidal factors are required to map ENSO cycles, which are likely not noise or chaotically-driven after all. Don’t have to trust me, one can duplicate the results and perform additional cross-validation, just as science has been done for centuries. A few more tweaks and this will be as straightforward as tidal analysis, as easy as taking candy out of a baby’s mouth.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: ” Piotr is one 0f those guys that would tell everyone to just use a moving average on tidal gauge readings, reasoning that all that matters is the average sea-level ”
To detect climate change signal in the global sea-level – the height of individual tides is irrelevant – so yes – the moving average of global readings over the climate time -scale – that’s indeed “all that matters” to issue of AGW.
But I can see how this has earned scorn of “one of those guys” claimed that “AGW is largely understood”, and harps on how NASA/JPL didn’t fund some study of tides.
Piotr: –
” how are you going to defend the agriculture in Ethiopia, or stop the wildfires in California, against the drought? How are going to counter the reduced upwelling and therefore reduced primary production off Peru? ”
With water – you dumbhead !
Carbomontanussays
Waterstaat, you dumbhead. With waterstaat.
I have my own waterstaat history above you in the grades because we are not the flat earthers..
There had been draught fror years with summer water restrictions, and our community waters were not only undrinkable but scandaleous rusty and muddy, White collars were hardly possible anymore, and severely expensive.
So that is rather a community and political problem.
What only worked was the Solana tuberosa L, and Istrael can sustain it. It is some of the last crops that goes down for draught, as if it came from a semi- arid landscape. where they eat Cocaine in order to manage it.
I decided to dig up again an old 40 m. deep,water well that had been drilled in the baltic shield and later resigned on as the community moor- water came. The well was still quite in order, and I did the motorization with tubes and automatic switch regulation.
But as soon as the waters stood to the sky again, the rain came pouring down and it has been raining ever since thanks to AGW.
Clausius Clappeyrons law and Aristoteles princilple of what goes up must come down …. is rather correct, youn see.
Water has allways been a precarious military and political principle. On Karlstein in Böhmen they have a burnt pit in the rocks 40-60 meters deep. Here where I live there are several recent and national fortifications and castles, where we can go and see today what they have done first of all to secure their water. A castle cannot sustain a siege without water, and those military political resources however primitive have been top secrets until quite recently, full of frogs and salamandris..
Even when community water was there, I see also in Germany that autentic aborgineans, those who were not flat bombed, did think of and did secure their water first of all. “My home is my castle”.
Carbomontanussays
There is severe shortage of water in Etiopia and California, wherefore agricultures there must be defended against dumbheads first, and not with water.
Theese dumb- heads desert- walkers,…..with their bore- holes. are a threat to sustainable agriculture anywhere and quite especially in the mentally and physically arid lands.
Piotrsays
macias shurly, Mar 7:: “With water – you dumbhead!”
Please learn to read – you … macias shurly.
The discussion you have JOINED is NOT about you, but about Paul Pukite’s claim that the ability to better predict the timing of the next El Nino/ La Nina would save “countless lives”
Your rain-catching does NOT require the knowledge of the precise date of the next El Nino, hence
is irrelevant to the topic at hand. So either speak on topic, or start your own thread where you would be free to share whatever gets into your head.
“about Paul Pukite’s claim that the ability to better predict the timing of the next El Nino/ La Nina would save “countless lives””
After further thought, I stand by my claim that being able to predict the next El Nino/La Nina would save countless lives. One can’t predict the exact number because that would depend on the severity, but the number could be large, thus the adjective countless. For example, having a smoke or fire alarm in a building, someone could be correct in saying that “These alarms save countless lives every year, and every home should have them.” A perfectly acceptable English idiom.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: After further thought, I stand by my claim
“After further thought” suggests that for a while you considered the possibility that you were wrong. I fins such a proposition highly unlikely – personally I don’t recall even a single instance where you admitted to be wrong and your opponent to be right. Then again, I am not that much into you, so I may have missed it. Would you mind to tell us, the last time where you didn’t stand by your original claim, having being convinced by an opponent?
Paul Pukite: that being able to predict the next El Nino/La Nina would save countless lives. One can’t predict the exact number because that would depend on the severity, but the number could be large, thus the adjective countless.[…] A perfectly acceptable English idiom”
I don’t know where you get your English from, but Miriam-Webster defines “ countless: too numerous to be counted . Your: “can’t predict the exact number” is more like: “unknown” or “unknowable“. Very different things.
Second, I challenged your claim not on your inability to count the saved lives, but on your inability to show HOW exactly are you going to save those “countless lives“. How else have you understood my words:
Piotr Mar. 6. : “even if you are able to tell the governments that El Nino or La Nina will come precisely on June 15, then unlike climate change, there is not much the governments can do with your information: how are you going to defend the agriculture in Ethiopia against the drought, or stop the wildfires in California? How are going to counter the reduced upwelling and therefore reduced primary production off Peru?”
So your analogy with the smoke alarm is rather dishonest – if I hear a smoke alarm I will run out of the burning home thus saving my life; HOW EXACTLY are the governments supposed to save those “countless lives”, when you warn them that the next El Nino or La Nina will start on June 15?
… but on your inability to show HOW exactly are you going to save those “countless lives“.
Well, maybe if someone would pay attention to the ground-breaking research that I have been presenting and publishing on the mechanism behind El Nino/La Nina cycles perhaps we can find out if it would help society. Starting with an analytical solution to Laplace’s Tidal Equations (which are a simplification of Navier-Stokes in a shallow-water approximation) and then fitting the ENSO time-series assuming a long-period tidal forcing, it’s very impressive how well we can match a seemingly erratic cyclic pattern. My name is right there and all one has to do is search on it — should be easier to dig out than some dude with the name “Piotr”. BTW, I don’t have countless citations on the topic, 6 to be precise.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “Starting with an analytical solution to Laplace’s Tidal Equations (which are a simplification of Navier-Stokes in a shallow-water approximation) and then fitting the ENSO time-series assuming a long-period tidal forcing, it’s very impressive […] My name is right there and all one has to do is search on it — should be easier to dig out than some dude with the name “Piotr”
Well “some dude with the name “Piotr” didn’t question the impressiveness of the paper – but asked you how exactly your impressive research “ would SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES! You remember YOUR OWN words, right? You know – the same words which “ After further thought [you] stand by” ?
Paul Pukite: Mar.21 “ it is perfectly valid to use the term countless to innumerate a quantity that is unknowable but likely large.”
When you bitterly complained that the money and resources are not redirected to study your hobby horses like ENSO, you didn’t justify you outrage by saying that this money could save … “unknowable” nor even “likely large” number of people – no, you claimed that it would save “COUNTLESS lives”; countless i.e. certain to be so HUGE that impossible to even count! see Miriam-Webster: “ countless: too numerous to be counted“.
Extreme claims demand extreme proofs. “COUNTLESS LIVES” is as extreme as they come,
yet when asked for a plausible action that by determining the date of the next El Nino could have saved “COUNTLESS LIVES” – you didn’t come up with …. ANY.
Instead you offered …. cutting retorts (“some dude with the name “Piotr” brilliant!) and … alternative definitions of the word “COUNTLESS”.
Those AI programs^* finally learned how to beat the Turing test, eh? ;-)
=== *^ “My name is Paul Pukite and I am in no way, shape, or form a climate science insider. […] I received a response to a climate science paper that I submitted explaining that it was ejected because one of the reviewers said it looked like one of those “AI generated” research papers.” [RC, 2015]
@piotr – “alternative definitions of the word “COUNTLESS”.
— You’ve proven more than three times here on the forum that you can’t count to 3. So countless can mean pretty much anything – from 3 to infinity in your case.
p.: ” when asked for a plausible action that by determining the date of the next El Nino could have saved “COUNTLESS LIVES” – you didn’t come up with …. ANY. ”
— Of course, the forecast (up to 12-15 months) of El Nino – or La Nina is or would be important:
e.g. for regional farming, harvest and global food security, seed ordering, …etc.
– very interesting for many participants.
– It is also important for countless people in other sectors to know whether next year will be a dry and hot season or a wet and “cold” season. (BTW – You can see that for yourself with a bit of brain power and then don’t have to write snotty posts).
The ENSO forecast is one thing…
Even more urgent (@Gavin, Stefan,… RC-Group) would be research into which factors, teleconnections and causes in La Nina years lead to a temporary drop in global temperature and sea level.
I guess the same research will then show that my concept
for lowering sea level rise & earth temperature !!! functions.
Piotrsays
macias shurly: “You’ve proven more than three times here on the forum that you can’t count to 3 ” – put your money where your mouth is. So far, you’ve been all bark and no bite. e.g.
macias shurly: “Of course, the forecast (up to 12-15 months) of El Nino – or La Nina is or would be important: e.g. for regional farming, harvest and global food security, seed ordering”
How exactly “seed ordering” will “save COUNTLESS LIVES” of subsistence farmers who can’t afford “seed ordering” at ANY time, El Nino or no El Nino?
How exactly would “save the COUNTLESS LIVES” of poor fishermen who live from month to month to know that El Nino that weakens upwelling and reduces catches will have bigger chance to happen this fall and not in the next summer?
Or maybe it will SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES of the poor living in shacks on the hillsides of Brazil, who hearing Paul Pukite’s prediction of El Nino will be able to move to places that will be safe from mudslides? Oh wait – they can’t – they live there not because they like it there, but because that’s the only place, where they can afford to live, El Nino or no El Nino.
Or perhaps Paul Pukite will SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES of people in California by letting them know that the probability of the wildfires that can destroy their homes will be larger this fall than in the next spring?
So far the only people who might benefit from his predictions would be speculators trading pork or wheat futures. Then again, I wouldn’t call their zero-sum game, filling their pockets at the expense of others not having access to Pukite’s predictions – “SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES”.
But perhaps that’s where your Paul Pukite should look for money, instead wanting to divert money from studying the climate change on which, unlike the timing of El Nino, we do have influence.
And why such dishonest use of language has consequences – I have already written before. You might read it since it also applies to your schemes:
===
“Overstating one idea’s importance is not a victimless folly: it causes inflation of words, so overused, the big words no longer carry the same weight, the same ability to mobilize the effort: after people heard from P. Pukite that “the loss of countless lives ” happens …. … every 2-3 years, hearing that long-term effects of the AGW may cause “ the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye.
You heard what happened to the shepherd, who cried “Countless wolves!!! ” ?
Except here – it is not the shepherd who pays the price.
=================
The climate is one of the most important influencing factors for agriculture. The climate of a region determines which types of fruit can be grown outdoors, which animals can be kept and how, and thus which basic forms of farming are possible at all.
And of course it potencially increases crop productivity and food security if I, as a farmer, can prepare/decide for drought or higher rainfall 1 year in advance.
A Peruvian fisherman who knows that El Nino will come after Christmas can then plan to repair his boat during this time instead of wasting time and fuel pointlessly.
The best home remedies to prevent slopes from slipping are , for example, deep-rooted trees, but also terracing and adequate sewerage for drainage.
Smart people in California by letting them know that the probability of La Nina, droughts and the wildfires will increase during next winter – will probably be so clever to retain and store water during an actual El Nino phase.
Most parts of NOAA are in some way involved in El Niño research, monitoring and prediction.
So Paul Pukite’s research in ENSO predictions is not the only one –
The ENSO forecast is one thing… – but I asked for something else…
” Even more urgent would be more research into which factors, teleconnections and causes in La Nina years lead to a temporary drop in global temperature and sea level ??? ”
I guess the same research will then show that my concept
for lowering sea level rise & earth temperature !!! functions. (“SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES”.)
Countless $$$ has been invested in research pertaining to ENSO.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite, March 30: “Countless $$$ has been invested in research pertaining to ENSO”
So … why exactly did you start the current discussion with complaining that your another pet interest …. was denied funding:
P.Pukite Feb. 12: NASA JPL has decided to [invest in climate change and] not to invest in research proposals that study lunar [oscillations] on climate “.
Perhaps the ENSO people could have shared a tiny bit of their “ Countless $$$ with a fellow non-climate change project, INSTEAD of complaining that NASA JPL prefers to spend their research funding on, as you characterized it. “largely understood AGW“.
So … why exactly did you start the current discussion with complaining that your another pet interest …. was denied funding:
P.Pukite Feb. 12: NASA JPL has decided to [invest in climate change and] not to invest in research proposals that study lunar [oscillations] on climate “.
Plenty of funding for ENSO (countless $$$), but not on the lunar and orbital aspect. Another NASA JPL scientist who has spun-off from JPL is James H. Shirley. He may have retired (I don’t know) but he has incorporated as TORQUEFX and used that entity to publish interesting research on the possibility of orbital axial torque impacting the climate. This is extending from his past research on the Martian climate and he has applied that to the Earth with a preprint a few months ago. Don’t think he’s a loony as he was an editor of the Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences published years ago. So I count 3 NASA JPL scientists who have independently spun off recently looking at geophysical aspects of the Earth’s climate– Perigaud, Marcus, and Shirley. I’ve worked with JPL scientists in the past but have no special insight into what’s happening. I’m sorry that my curiosity into this has offended your sensibility.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite, Apr. 1: “Plenty of funding for ENSO (countless $$$), but not on the lunar and orbital aspect“.
So why don’t ask the ENSO people to share a sliver of those “countless $$$” with lunar people? After all, they study oscillations around the mean, and the lunar people study oscillations around the mean.
Particularly that despite getting those “countless $$$ ” – they still haven’t deliver on your promise of “saving countless lives” with better predictions of ENSO.
“they still haven’t deliver on your promise of “saving countless lives” with better predictions of ENSO.”
Some people are so heartless and lacking of compassion, not to mention genuinely intellectually curious about the possibilities of improved scientific understanding … what else can I say.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “ Some people are so heartless and lacking of compassion,,”
It is hard to have a compassion for somebody who cynically promises “saving countless lives”, yet when asked – he was unable to come up with any feasible mechanism in which
he could deliver on this promise: failed to explain how knowing more precisely the date of the next El Nino would have saved even a moderate number of lives, much less “too numerous to be counted” (which is a definition of his: “COUNTLESS”).
And as I heartlessly explained to him:
“Overstating one’s importance is not a victimless folly: it causes inflation of words, so overused, the big words no longer carry the same weight: after hearing that “the
loss of countless lives ” happens …. every 2-3 years (each ElNino or La Nina) hearing that long-term effects of AGW may also cause “the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye. You heard what happened to the shepherd, who cried “Countless wolves!!! ” ? Except here – it is not the shepherd who pays the price.”
Norsemansays
Yes. Let’s talk about the terrible AGW, threatening to kill us all for the time being…
nigeljsays
Norseman. Thanks for your very erudite comment packed full of information, insight and detail.
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for February showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.23ºC, down on January’s +0.28ºC anomaly, and the lowest monthly anomaly since June 2021.
February 2022 becomes the 6th warmest February on the ERA5 record (below 2016, 2020, 2017, 2019 & 2018 but above 2010, 2015 & our old favorite 1998) and the 74th highest all-month anomaly on record.
Jan 2022 was also 6th warmest Jan on record but the 2022 Jan+Feb average sneaks in as the 5th warmest start to the year.
“What the latest science says about Antarctica and sea-level rise. The southern polar ice cap is a wild card. by KRISTEN POPE FEBRUARY 23, 2022.” ( Has many useful links to the related research studies)
@nigelj
In the very first sentences of your link we can read:
“Scientists are working to understand how much and how quickly seas could RISE in coming decades”
— So is it the task of climate science to calculate the extent of our misfortune in this global catastrophe with % millimeter precision ???
NO – a large part of climate science and part of the ignorant readership here in the forum is fundamentally wrong.
!!! It would have long been the task of the IPCC to organize a scientific statement on
what strategies and measures science suggests in order to LOWER sea level rise. !!!
The part of the scientists* who specializes in ocean and atmosphere research could e.g. also think about why the La Nina effect tends to lower sea levels and global temperatures. (A fact that makes the inner alarm clock ring for all real climate understanders/experts)
La Nina temporarily shifts precipitation from ocean areas to land areas — much like my SLR & GW lowering concept does as a consistent strategy.
Those here in the forum who claim that there isn’t that much storage space on land (1000-2000km³)
– have actually already been refuted by the La Nina effect. (you belong too)
Another fundamental finding for climate science would then finally be to realize that AGW not only results from CO² or greenhouse gas emissions, but also from the fact that mankind continues to skin the rain forests, canalize rivers, seal millions of km² and km³ Aquifers pumped empty,… etc.
Global warming interventions in the global water cycles through the decreasing ability of the land surfaces to evaporate water and => to form clouds cause a radiative forcing, which is expressed as always in W/m² and as a cause is fundamentally different from CO²/GHG emissions.
nigeljsays
MS. Sorry, but I don’t respond to arrogant, incoherent, nonsensical garbage like yours..
ms: a large part of climate science and part of the ignorant readership here in the forum is fundamentally wrong.
BPL: Fortunately, Galileo here has arrived to tell us all the truth.
Carbomontanussays
Hr. Shürle
Qvasiwissenschaft, we call it. From qvasi and wissenschaft.
Have you ever heard of Rijkswaterstaat and what they can acheive and not acheive?
Carbomontanussays
Have you also ever conschidered cultivating shripms and flatfish on the flatlands instead of Tulips and disasters?
Ray Ladburysays
Sorry, but it is simply wrong to say that the task of “climate science” is to formulate a mitigation strategy. They are too busy trying to figure out the very complex climate of the planet. At most, climate scientists would be expected to provide expected and bounding estimates for precisely how fucked we might be–expected temperature increase, sea-level rise, polar and glacial melting.
Mitigation strategies should be coming from politicians, engineers, civil planners… Unfortunately, the politicians (half of them, anyway) have been too occupied with denial and general fuckery to do their actual jobs. That is not the responsibility of the climate scientist, nor are they equipped to step in and fill in.
Climate science, like almost every other science, is specialized. Like a doctor, pharmacologist or virologist, it should not only be able to recognize and describe a danger (e.g. global warming corresponds to a pandemic virus) – but also be able to research a therapy/strategy.
A virologist/climate scientist who asks you to keep a distance of 1.5m or 1.5°C 30 times a day is a useless fellow who will steal tax money from your pocket without any equivalent value as long as he does not present a vaccination/cure/improvement can.
Pharmacy and virologists have delivered their vaccine – but what about climate science?
Why do virologists succeed in supervising politics by bringing their knowledge and overview into pandemic laws / regulations…while the knowledge and overview of international climate science apparently has much less influence on political decisions and legislation ?
Ray Ladburysays
Uh, you do realize that the folks who developed the vaccine are in an entirely different field of study from those who study the viruses, right? Likewise, risk analysis and mitigation are entirely different fields from climate change studies. And those that are in charge of deciding on and implementing the mitigation are practicing yet another discipline.
In the case of climate change, the breakdown has occurred because politicians, journalists and the public have decided on denial rather than responsible action. We saw the same thing with the Corona virus epidemic–and probably close to 18 million people are dead because of it.
Chucksays
**”Why do virologists succeed in supervising politics by bringing their knowledge and overview into pandemic laws / regulations…while the knowledge and overview of international climate science apparently has much less influence on political decisions and legislation ??**
Covid is an immediate threat and Climate Change is more gradual? It makes a difference when you actually see people dying in real time. Also, the perceived costs of tackling Climate Change seem to be much higher when you tell people they have to quit reproducing and make serious cuts to their consumption etc.
That’s my guess.
Carbomontanussays
Hr Schurly
As long as the sky keeps clearing up and glaciers keep melting there is no way on earth or in heaven to stop sea level rising, but maybe in Hell by an atomic winter.
It will go on for a while if CO2 is not curbed immediately, but it will stagnate against the white cloud parasol- effect when the oceans have become warm enough. 4-5 deg warmer will really matter.
I found on the net that the ratio sea to land in the world is 70.8% sea to 29.2% land.
Thus if you will save for 1 meter sea level rising, that is a prediction, you must store 2 meters on land .
Then we open Scheffer & Schachtscabel and find conscepts like porenvolumen and erdluft.
But, I think we can use another and easier, general formula.
Given n cubic meters of rock and blast it up. How large wheel loader capacity will you need for bringing that away?
The rule says 1.6 or 1. 666666.. = small and large musical sext, 8/5 and 5/3, thus basically easy to0 remember and it is frappingly constant for all solid matters that are crushed and powdered, and for chemists, physicists, and engineers to know as a general thumb-rule., For instance the density of a material that is delivered in powdered frorm.
. This means that the groundwater level on land will have to rise 2 x 1.6= 3.2 meters on average everywhere to save 1 meter sea level rise.
Then what about the necessary Erdluft?
The weeds and plants vary greatly in regard to that. Rice and fameous water lilies can have roots permanently under water. But I have tried clones of Vitis vinifera in a jug. They do not shoot at all whereas most other trees and bushes shoot very well that way for Fasching. . And Populus , Salix and Alnus thrive very well on riverbeds and occasionally flooded land where other trees will drown, thus are cultivated and harvested there.
. But Very important crops like Potatoes and corn drown when partially flooded. But together with Vitis vinifera , they rather stand draught surprizingly well, which is valuable.
Theese are all quite basic and elementary things that Matthias Schürle hardly consciders and hardly learnt about. Because it gives the easier way rather to think of it and to discuss it scientifically.
Proportions I wrote, proportions
When shall Hr Schürle learn rather to think in terms of proportions and easy universal practical holistic, critical pythagoreanism?
@C.: –
A little girl named La Nina shows you how it works…
It naturally, without undue human effort, moves 1800km³ of ocean precipitation over land areas with ease, quickly dropping the Earth’s temperature by 0.32°F while simultaneously dropping sea levels by 5mm.
Even the thermosteric expansion of the oceans is reversed by the temporary, relatively strong cooling. This also means that your assumption that you would have to find storage space for a total of 3.2m of water column for centuries does not have to be correct.
If you ever want to stimulate glaciers and ice sheets to grow again, then you need global cooling and precipitation.
For geothermal energy and lithium extraction, 3 km deep holes are often drilled. Under 149 million km² of land area there are 447,000,000km³ of holey Swiss cheese – which apparently goes beyond your idea of proportions of air, solid & water.
Imagine you have a 1km² garden and a garden hose with a flow rate of 0.28L/sec. Now you run day and night in the square for 1 year and water every m² with 9L.
Is that a lot of water?
No – with e,g. 900mm annual precipitation just 1% additional, artificial irrigation.
nigeljsays
MS. Dropping sea levels by 5mm is of no use. Its insignificant. We have to deal with about 10 METRES of sea level rise which is probably what’s already locked in. You cannot store that quantity of water on land. Its not practical.. Anyone with a brain in their head can see its not practical.
Big degrowth fantasies are another brainless dead end where people don’t think through the implications.
Our only hope is stopping carbon emissions, so things don’t get worse, and maybe sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, where we have a number of methods that do at least look possible. If we don’t do that it will end up being geoengineering.
nigeljsays
MS. By stopping carbon emissions I mean renewable energy, a new transport system, and maybe nuclear power, etc, etc.
Carbomontanussays
Hmmm…
So miss Nina drops the earth temperature by0.32 F and sea levels by 5 millimeter in a year..
but, what about next year and next,… and next,..
also little Nina will have to recover and re- charge her batteries, and in the meantime little Nino comes and does the opposite
Only fools believe that they can breathe out all the time without also having to breathe in.
They call themself Holism, and try and sell unisex and perpetuum mobiles on the websites and on the free market.
Carbomontanussays
Hr Schürle
Can`t you se that you are selling just hopeless quasi- scientific bullshit here?
Being and artist as you say, does not permit anyone not to have elementary understanding and order in his / her thoughts and phantacies.
How much water can you fill up and “store” in a flower pot with common porous earth befrore it flows over and runs out? Not the very volume capacity of that pot and you seem stupidly fanatically forgetting the very material volumes that are in there from before.
And if you have a bitty full of settled and dry sand, how many bitties of water can you “store” into that before it flows over? I told you,.
How much faster and higher will the grounwater level rise on land than the sealevel at sea, if you store away the water rather on land?
You never conscidered.
That seems simply due to your elementary lackings of enlighted conscepts of proportions and stroechiometry.
And what happens to your very flowerpots if you “store” and fill up more in the earth than, rather just a little bit now and then when they look “thirsty”? thiat is just another of several, due enlighted ways of thinking rather scientifically about it.
Whereverv there are enough wild fanatic and stupid rootless people from befrore like in Las Vegas and southern California and the surrounding wild west, you may be able to sell your arts bullshit holism phantacies, but not here.
And in addition, your cheese is silly however swiss and not at all 3 Km deep, and all its “holes”, both natural and bored, are consequently filled upp with water allready in any case, below local groundwater level.
nigeljsays
Carbomontanus. 1.6666 is quite close to the golden rectangle proportion 1.618. Is there a linkage between the two issues, or is it just coincidence?
Quite right storing all that water on land isn’t feasible. Macias Shurley gets ideas in his head that sound nice, but he doesn’t think it through. The devil is in the detail and problems of scaling things up. He does lots of superficially impressive maths EXCEPT the maths that really matters.
Carbomontanussays
Nigelj
Quite a good question. I never thought of it.
“The smallest to the larger is the larger to the whole!”
I have seen Johannes 1,1 explained that way..
My Uncle said that the friction coefficient between sand grains give the slope of a dry sand hill of arbitrary and chaotic particle size. But that is not fully understood.
There ought to be a Scientific Ameican article about this. They have been clever.
@ Hr Schürle:
Do you get this? There were healthy Germans before you, above you in the grades. Nicolaus Cusanus, Johannes Keppler, Calvisius of Leipzig, Chladni (no he was bohemian) Friedrich Gauss. Helmholz Liebig. von Humbolt. Heinrich Herz. Max Planc . Albert Einstein. Heissenberg. von Weissäcker. Angela Merkel…. you name them….
Try and keep up to what we can take for serious.
Gerhard Schröder is performing again, earlier Bundeskanzler and personal friend with Putin. He is being excommunicated everywhere because of that.
Carbomontanussays
@ Nigelj
Yes, you are probably right.
3-5-8 are fibonacci- numbers, and I took the first of them. They converge onto the golden section.
But OK, then we have a fruitful “model” but we lack the natural and physical explaination for it.
@nigel junior
Why are you poking so far into the future with your cane when you can’t even see the present.
With the current rate of sea rise, 10m SLR means a period of ~3000 years.
The drainage of the continents currently contributes 8% (~0.3mm) to the SLR.
How stupid and blind does one have to be – to NOT realize that this fact is exacerbating water scarcity and putting additional pressure on sea levels.
If I were you, I’d be wary of using words like “brain” and “nonsensical garbage”.
You and all other dumb talkers here in the forum still have 15-25 years to implement this concept for lowering sea level and earth temperature.
And as always, you should have started the day before yesterday so that the rest of the global stupidity understood it, at least years later.
After that I`ll wash my hands in innocence – and today I already have no empathy for incorrigible stupidity.
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly .
:
“Why are you poking so far into the future with your cane when you can’t even see the present.”
Storing just one years or two years sea level rise on land is useless tokenism and probably impractical and storing more than that (up to 10 metres) is certainly impractical no matter what we do in the future. Your failure to grasp all this shows an astonishing lack of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom on your part. If anyone walks with a cane you do.
“With the current rate of sea rise, 10m SLR means a period of ~3000 years.”
You cannot assume the current rate will continue. Sea level rise is accelerating, and models suggest it will accelerate further! We could be looking at 10 metres of sea level rise in the next few centuries, worst case. You cannot store all that on land. We better cut emissions fast because that will reduce the probability of such an event..
Carbomontanussays
Hmmm…
So miss Nina drops the earth temperature by0.32 F and sea levels by 5 millimeter in a year..
but, what about next year and next,… and next,..
also little Nina will have to recover and re- charge her batteries, and in the meantime little Nino comes and does the opposite
Only fools believe that they can breathe out all the time without also having to breathe in.
They call themself Holism, and try and sell unisex and perpetuum mobiles on the websites and on the free market.
Carbomontanussays
Hr. Schürle
You are on very thin ice, if not plunged totally allready against Nigelj, so I must recommend you to save your swearwords and your racisms..
Quote from Herik Ibsen:
“Se det fikk Fanden fordi han var dum
og ikke beregnet sit Publicum!”
“…today I already have no empathy for incorrigible stupidity.”
Technically, you don’t need it.
nigeljsays
Carbomonatanus.
The natural and physical mechanism behind 1,618 is a bit of a mystery. I have only a couple of guesses at best.
Firstly the golden rectangle or ratio appears in art and buildings, geometry etc, etc, and is attractive proportion to the human eye and this is well established and agreed. Leonardo da Vinci established that the human body fits within the golden rectangle proportion. Maybe this is just by pure chance, Since humans seem to be attracted to humans in the sense we like to form social groups, that might explain why we like the appearance of the golden rectangle. So in a way the fact we find the golden rectangle pleasing to the eye may just essentially be a sort of accident, with no great inner meaning.
There is also a connection between the golden rectangle and sound waves. It’s generally advised to position audio speakers in your living room certain distances away from the back and side walls so that the speaker is on one corner of a golden rectangle. This apparently reduces room resonance and bass boom effects on the sound quality. This is a hint of a physical mechanism.
This is what happens when 2 fools fertilize each other:
The first and dumber of the two asks: Golden Ratio?
The second, a little more stupid, answers: Great question
– let’s cook a nice little soup.
You take:
/a little whisked from the Johannesevangelium as a reliable basis for soups, like for every meal.
/something chopped up from everything that’s German: von Humbolt. Henry Herz. Max Planc. Albert Einstein. Heissenberg. by Weissacker. Angela Merkel
(at least learn to spell the names correctly – otherwise nobody will believe you that you have reliably absorbed the contents of their books and knowledge //
!!!! von Humboldt, Heinrich Hertz, Planck, Weizsäcker)
/ quickly season with a little Putin and Schröder
and your golden-ratio soup is ready,
…which could then serve as a proof of something or nothing.
You are and will remain an arch-conservative, religiously blinded fool… unable to deviate even 1mm with your thoughts from what may be, what can be.
You want to tell an artist what the golden ratio is ???
There are countless examples in nature where the golden ratio has manifested itself in the course of evolution (morphology of many plants/arrangement of leaves and seeds…etc.)
BUT THE DENSITY OF BULK MATERIAL IS NOT ONE OF THEM !!!
If you 2 blind, spiritual low-flyers only knew what’s going on under the surface of the earth…
…before returning to the more important questions.
C.: “Hmmm…So miss Nina drops the earth temperature by 0.32 F and sea levels by 5 millimeters in a year..
but, what about next year and next,… and next,.. ”
— The reason for your superfluous question is that you still don’t seem to understand that a water butt has 2 important functions. It protects against drought AND flooding.
So if you’re a little Nino – I’ll just make a little Nina out of you…
So maybe you 2 superfluous heroes can simply answer the following one question:
What is/are the concrete cause/s of the temporary global cooling in La Nina years?
more – clouds ? – upwelling cold water ? with better CO² uptake ? less OLR ?
any suggestions ?
nigeljsays
M Shurly. You’re an idiot because 1) You falsely claim without evidence that I’m a religious conservative when Ive been a lifetime liberal and athiest. 2) The discussion is not about irrigation or protecting against drought or flooding. Its about your nonsensical ideas about storing water on land to stop sea level rise. 3)The golden rectangle is wider issue than just a shape in nature. Refer to my comments above in that respect. 4)You don’t understand what Carbomontanus is saying. Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is you’re an idiot. And remember, you started the name calling.
Carbomontanussays
To all and everyone exept Matthias Schürle
On dumbheads and besserwisserei:
“BUT THE DENSITY OF BULK MATERIAL IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!!” d/o
I heard it from a broken sailor, who had also worked on land. “If you measure up n cubic meters of bedrock lenth width and heighth of solid rock, drill preciesly down and blast it up the cunning way, How large wheel- loader volume must you order then to bring that away?”
My guess and his answer was 1.6 and a bit more to be sure. In any case, itb is how to judge and to interprete rubbish. That takes experience and science..
I thought further of it and came to a public competition on the street where the bank had a cylindric glass 1/3 full of Nkr. coins. Question: Guess how much money is that?
I took it serious and judged diameter and heighth, and the diameter and heighth of tighly stapeled 10 Nkr. and divided. Then divided through approximately 1.6 and maybe a bit more. Judging that tis was not common granite but rather chifer plates. but anyhow,….
And gave the answer.
Guess what, I scored 2nd price, where the 1.st price was a brand new car that they probably had reserved for themselves.
So that rule, 1.6 and maybe roughtly that also,…. is very practical and valuable.
But such practical and valuable rules ruin the authority of Schurlers.
“Also schloss er messderscharf dass, nicts sein kann, was nicht sein darf! ”
Not only snow in sucessive sedimentary layers, but also common sedimentary bedrock has allready sunk slowly and shurly together by time and by its own weight, and is no swiss cheese.
Weight is heavy, and Time is long enough.
Wherefore the planets are round and wherefore the earth is neither flat nor prismatic and hollow like a swiss cheese. You can read this with one eye from the open bedrocks and sediments and from rubbish everywhere.
Piotrsays
M.Shurly “A little girl named La Nina shows you how it works – moves 1800km³ of ocean precipitation over land areas with ease, quickly dropping the Earth’s sea levels by 5mm.”
1. As Nigel explained to you – one time 5mm solves nothing.
2. Even if it did -this drop does not represent permanent STORAGE – just a short delay in the release of that same” 1800km³” back into the ocean. So your “little girl called Little Girl” taught you nothing.
3. There are no technical ways from humans to store enough water in the ground to cancel SLR over the next decades: we are good in pumping stored water out of the aquifers, but we are not anywhere as good in putting the water back into them on large enough scale – not only because it is more difficult and expensive – but often no longer possible – the emptied reservoirs collapse – destroying the porosity that held the water – dropping the level of the ground often by many meters
4. Surface reservoirs are not a solution either – most of the technologically possible, and economically and socially acceptable surface reservoirs has been already built (and the top 50 largest of them hold together less than 2750 km^3)
5. Even there was more space to make them – it comes at the price of destroy existing ecosystems, food production capacity, displacing people and destroying the artifacts of human heritage.
6. Flooded land, part. in warm climates, emits massive amounts of CH4. Add to this the additional GHG emissions from the program of a massive build-up of water reservoirs and CO2 emission from necessary cement – both accelerating the warming and increasing the very SLR you want to counter.
7. To fill the artificial reservoirs and refill the aquifers – you would have to divert massive amounts of water – your removal of water from circulation would cause collapse of agriculture relying on irrigation, cause shortage of household water for the ever increasing population of Earth.
It would also reduce the most flexible source of energy – hydro, and reduce the largest existing energy storage needed for accommodating temporarily varying renewables, both of which would increase GHG emission. and increase, not decrease, the SLR
So the increased storage, where possible, would be nice as a cushion for the inevitable heat waves, dry spells, periods of high electricity demand- but is not a solution for the SLR. Not even close.
The numbers for RSS TLT have been posted for February showing a global TLT anomaly of +0.49ºC, down a bit on January’s +0.54ºC anomaly. (No sign of the usually-prompt UAH Feb update yet.) Feb was also down in ERA5 SAT re-analysis by a similar amount but SAT is usually less wobbly than TLT.
February becomes the 11h warmest Febuary on the RSS TLT record, this following from Jan 2022 being the 13th warmest RSS January with Feb 2022 the 119th highest all-month anomaly on record (January’s RSS anomaly was 102nd in the all-month rankings.)
That puts 2022 into 13th place in the RSS ‘warmest start to the year’ rankings, the coolest start since 2014. (ERA5 came in as the 5th warmest start-to-the-year and the coolest since 2018.) The major cooling in the RSS TLT numbers was in the southern mid-latitudes with the tropics showing a warming.
The sensitivity of systems is why Rapid Climate Change is so dangerous – and why adaptation and geoengineering should be non-options, or last resort at best.
“People who do not spend their days reading climate reports or scouring the archives of oil companies are often surprised to hear that *the fossil-fuel industry has been part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its inception. And it’s not just the IPCC. Oil companies have been involved in the entire international effort on climate change since it began in the late 1980s – and here’s a pro tip: they’re there for a reason, and it’s not decarbonisation*.
*The second part of the IPCC’s most recent report was published last week, and it finally acknowledged the oil industry’s biggest contribution to the climate space thus far: misinformation.* This was followed closely by another new-to-the-IPCC topic: maladaptation, which refers to measures ostensibly geared towards warding off climate change, but which “may lead to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes, including via increased greenhouse gas emissions, increased or shifted vulnerability to climate change, more inequitable outcomes, or diminished welfare”, according to the IPCC.”
Dude, I’d have A LOT more to tell, muhahaha, but maybe later ;))
” “The truth knocks on the door and you say, “Go away, I’m looking for the truth,” and so it goes away. Puzzling.”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
… bin as you please.
Carbomontanussays
Hr Schürle
Can`t you se that you are selling just hopeless quasi- scientific bullshit here?
Being and artist as you say, does not entitle anyone not to have elementary understanding and order in his / her thoughts and phantacies.
How much water can you fill up and “store” in a flower pot with common porous earth befrore it flows over and runs out? Not the very volume capacity of that pot and you seem stupidly fanatically forgetting the very material volumes that are in there from before. You do not have to guess here, simply take a liter cylinder, weigh it up and do it realistically with the intension of finding the truth.
Instead, you are rather badgering and act racistic against any enlitghted humanity wqho understand it that way, believing that you have an insight and an opinion. That is your tribal costs of rather being a quack.
And if you have a bitty full of settled and dry sand, how many bitties of water can you “store” into that before it flows over? I told you, that in a most elementary way, you seem to give a damn.
How much faster and higher will the grounwater level rise on land than the sealevel at sea, if you store away the water rather on land?
Will more humidity in the air give a cooler or a warmer earth? That is quite easy to answer. by many examples.
You never conscidered nsuch things for serious it seems..
Which seems simply due to your elementary lackings of enlighted conscepts of proportions and stroechiometry and material sense and recognition..
And what happens to your flowerpots if you “store” and fill up more in the earth than, rather just a little bit now and then when they look “thirsty”? thiat is just another of several, due enlighted ways of thinking rather scientifically about it.
Wherever there are enough wild fanatic and stupid rootless people from before like in Las Vegas and southern California and the surrounding wild west, you may be able to sell your garbage arts holism phantacies, but not here.
And in addition, your cheese is silly however swiss and not at all 3 Km deep, and all its “holes”, both natural and bored, are consequently filled upp with water allready in any case, below local groundwater level.
— To protect Nigel Jr.’s honor, I want to reiterate that religious idiots only mean you. However, there are also idiots who have nothing to do with religion.
So – now you invent flower pots to defend your cruel ignorance. Flower pots were never mentioned in my geoengineering concept for lowering sea level and earth temperature, but of course my concept also works with such small-scaled sizes – if your mental power is not sufficient for larger dimensions.
On my south-facing balcony at 49°NH there are 13 flowerpots with various flowerpot sizes, depths and types of plants. total ~ 1m² with ~200L soil.
REMEMBER !: My concept is to keep an additional 9L/m² over land every year.
Already in mid-March – here it is noticeably too dry and too warm anyway.
Between May and September, when daytime temperatures are around 30°C on sunny, cloudless days
I can water a 10L bucket both in the morning and in the evening without my plants drowning.
So in a summer season I use a good 500-1000L in addition to the natural precipitation(~800mm/y).
If I take this volume from a rain barrel instead of the tap (in my case expensively treated groundwater),
this volume remains in the groundwater and the rainwater from the rain barrel does not initially flow towards the sea, but first has to form a cloud again in order to reach the sea.
There is a certain probability that this cloud will rain down again over an area of land that will flow down streams and rivers or, if you are lucky, even rain down on a roof with a rain barrel, where it will again be available for tomatoes, kitchen herbs, washing machine etc.
If my m² of southern exposure were a field or forest with dozens or hundreds of m³ of soil volume under the surface, I would have even fewer problems hiding away my required 0.009m³/y.
Your biggest problem seems to be that you don’t know what a (water) circle is – and that some people are gifted choreographers, composers and conductors.
Would you please be able to grasp that within the next 20 years?
Carbomontanussays
That throws further light on your case, Genosse, and I had good reasons to suspect it allready.
1, you hardly learnt what a natural metabolism and especially the water- cyclus is about, neither in qualitative nor in quantitative categories.
2, You are also harly aware that there may be gifted choreographers, composers, and conductors shaking their heads at you.
@carbonito
So maybe you superfluous hero can simply answer the following one question:
What is/are the concrete cause/s of the temporary global cooling in La Nina years?
more – clouds ? – upwelling cold water ? with better CO² uptake ? less OLR ?
any suggestions ?
If you answer correctly, you can win a little, green cactus to add to your flowerpot collection.
Carbomontanussays
That I can say you for shurly. It is not more water evaporating from the ground.
@carbonito – ” It is not more water evaporating from the ground.”
In any case, it can’t be the cold sweat forming on your flat forehead in front of this seemingly unsolvable question.
Do you have evidence to back up your bold assertion?
With your dried up hydrocephalus, don’t you actually feel cooler in summer when you stay in a garden or park where trees and plants evaporate water???
Is it not visible to you in a global radiation balance that the earth’s surface cools down exclusively through evapotranspiration (water cooling), convection (air cooling), IR radiation & albedo. You will not be able to deny this God-given mixture of upward energy flows.
Carbomontanussays
What cools the globe and the situation is a relativistic and quantum- mechanical effect. The tropopause also called the isoterm- layer in combination with BIG BANG that keeps 3 K and measures 2 pi minus 30 seconds of arc as seen from here.
. What heats the same is another quantum mechanical and relativistic effect thatb measures 30 minutes of arch as seen from here and that keeps 5750 K.
The isoterm layer keeps -65 celsius all the way at 17-5 Km above Kilimanjaro with sun directly in zenith, and 8 Km over the poles. On Venus, the same layer keeps -40 Celsius in extreemly bright sunshine directly to it and all the way around.
At middle latitudes such as in the EU, the tropopause isoterm layer lays about 12 km up.
You can simply calculate from there and down to earth by moist and dry lapsrate, and you get the average ground temjperatures worldwide.
By more CO2 to it , that tropopause and isoterm layer creeps or mooves upwards to compensate for it, and with known and observed consequenses due to what I described here.
GISTEMP has been posted for February showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.90ºC, down a tad on January’s +0.91ºC anomaly, this despite some seriously high Feb anomalies over northern Eurasia. Feb was down in ERA5 SAT re-analysis by a larger amount and also in RSS TLT. (Still no sign of the usually-prompt UAH Feb update.)
February becomes the =5th warmest February in the GISTEMP record behind 2016, 2020, 2017 & 2019, equal with 2015 and ahead of 1998, with 2018 in 8th spot. 2021 managed 15th spot. (Feb 2022 was 6th in ERA5 & 11th in RSS TLT). Feb 2022 was =47th highest anomaly in GISTEMP.
That puts 2022 into 5th place in the GISTEMP ‘warmest start to the year’ rankings. ERA5 also came in as the 5th warmest start-to-the-year while it was 13th in RSS TLT.
Although I wasn’t monitoring the data file as conscientiously as Spencer’s UAH “latest global temps” page, I have noticed the UAH TLT data file had been updated but haven’t got round to reporting it here until now. The data file is usually updated about halfway through the month while the headline latest global TLT anomaly is usually posted by Spencer in the first couple of days of the month but this month no sign of that so far.
The UAH TLT Feb 2022 anomaly is down on January but a little less than the drop in RSS TLT. In UAH Feb 2022 is the lowest monthly anomaly since June last year but since March last year in RSS. And relative to the highest Feb TLT anomaly (Feb 2016), UAH is again showing a smaller difference.
But when the rankings are given, recent UAH anomalies appear lower down (thus suggesting a relatively cooler Feb 2022) because UAH has a significantly lower trend than RSS. Why there is such a difference in trend between RSS & TLT isn’t quite so clear when comparisons are made at less-than a global level.
So in UAH, Feb 2022 is only the =16th warmest February (11th in RSS) and the =192nd lowest anomaly in the all-month UAH rankings (119th in RSS).
Feb 2022 was the coolest Feb since 2014 in both UAH & RSS but by only 0.02ºC in UAH but by 0.41ºC in RSS. And as a start-of-the-year, UAH TLT sits as the 17th warmest, 0.55ºC below the top year 2016, while in RSS TLT it sits only 13th warmest start-to-the-year but 0.58ºC below 2016.
Carbomontanussays
To all and everyone
On idiots, trolls, cyclopes and brown iberian Arion vulgaris-slugs from Karlsruhe and how to keep them at distance.
Idiots according to description was probably dows syndrom in old Hellas. thus, try not to mis- use the term.
Trolls, I am an expert and could enlight Killian on that. But there is further a special class of trolls, the Kyklops, those who see it with one and only one eye. They are often quite extreemly engaged in politics. Never call them idiotic when they are rather Kyklopic. It actually comes from cyclic and optic, the large one- eyed and round eyed.
The quite general old rule is to find out the name of the troll and to call them by their true name, class and cathegory. . Then they perish and vanish and loose their power.
Pepper-spray in that one and onlyn one eye would do. But pepperspray in private hands is forbidden in the EU because it is so efficient. But easy to make, really from powdered chilipepper in alcoholic extraction. Then it can also be diluted and dosed. Think of it. It can surely also have an abstract meaning that is not forbidden.
But what against large brown invasive garden slugs from the Karlsruhe- district?
As everyone can see above, simply salt them thorrougthly and cunningly.
Then they react electrostatic osmotic spontaneously, excreet all their slime out from inside, shrink together and roll over on the side and perish pitifully in their own, excreted lump of slime.
It is quite a sadistic orgie against those large and invasive, brown slugs, Arion vulgaris from Karlsruhe and district. .
Great film – hunting slugs under the influence of LSD.
Maybe a tad too much horror trip for the delicate climate spirits here in the forum.
If I were a moderator here – I would call you an ambulance.
Carbomontanussays
To all and everyone
The ( namely the mentioned cyclops) are numb in their fore paws and can only think of it “scaled up” on industrial level with themselves as masters and führers and teachers.
In Detroyt or in Ruhrgebiet Rheinland Westfalen or in Backstage Donbas.
Carbomontanussays
Schürle
You betray yourself through your associations.
nigeljsays
Carbomontanus. All good, except this is the definition of idiot: “1 a foolish or stupid person”… Idiot that I am to wear my heart on my sleeve! …”— George Bernard Shaw “2 dated, now offensive, see usage paragraph below : a person affected with extreme intellectual disability”. (Mirriam Webster)
Carbomontanussays
Nigelj
I am aware of it, but it is an old word with a long history. Look The idiot Dostojevski on Wikipedia., that comes most close to it in recent time. The man who forgives everyone and takes all in its best meaning as a contrast to high burgeoise and upper class “noble” behaviours.
Interesting because Dostojevski had his eastern and greek orthodox slavonic cryllic linguistic backgrounds.
I am remotely able to follow also Dostojevskis thoughts.
According to my cousin brother , who learnt to know them on behalf of the world bank and Norwegian missionary and political interests, They are somehow lacking the western european renaissance. They are not individualists and protestants and never learnt money budgeting. Thus still live in a way in mideival time. Like we had it 1000 years ago, the worst and the biggest most successful warlord and robber- chief becomes Czar or “precident” and owns the very people and society for lifetime.
The best definition that I have learnt for practical use is “having no ideas..” Lack of mental ability for some abstractions. In old Athens they were supposed not to be able to take part in politics and intricate sophistic discussions.
And I suggest another greek word and conscept “Kyklopics….”.fot a certain class of incureable trolls.
@carbonito – ” I am remotely able to follow also Dostojevskis thoughts. ”
…and dogs can poop at every corner. That you even find time for Dostoyevsky is amazing enough, since your internal interviews are usually with Mickey Mouse and the Pope. If you ever meet an arrogant gossip – don’t be surprised that you’re standing in front of the mirror.
Carbomontanussays
Matthias Shürle is not even able to read and to hear of Dostojevski in translation.
nigeljsays
New paper: “Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s”
97 yeasrs ago on March 18, 1925, the deadliest Tornado to hit the USA, and the second deadliest Tornado on the planet killed around 700 people. Here is some information about it:
Clue for you: This is a climate science site, not a weather site. You still do not know the difference and are too lazy to learn. Busted, again! Like shooting fish in a barrel with you.
John Pollacksays
Rather horrifying how many people a strong, fast moving tornado can kill. It was a lot worse in the days before weather radar, warnings, sirens, and TV for dissemination. Even now, a severe weather outbreak is brewing in the Gulf Coast states, assisted by above-normal water temperatures in the Gulf. The warm humid air from those warm waters will boost CAPE (convectively available potential energy), resulting in stronger storms. Most likely, there are people living normal lives now, who will be dead by Wednesday March 23 as a result. If severe thunderstorms are expected in your area, pay attention!
nigelj,
There is quite a bit of news coverage of those lunatic temperatures being recorded in Antarctica. Of course, there was also the record daily low in Antarctic Sea Ice Extent this year (recorded 19th Feb both in JAXA and in NSIDC’s Charctic while this NSIDC plot shows the annual minimum daily Antarctic SIE from NSIDC). And although this years record-breaking minimum is not such a big deal of itself in that such low anomalous SIE is not that uncommon in the record (see GRAPH 3 on this page), except it hasn’t occurred at the minimum before, it isn’t impossible that the wibbly-wobbles in Antarctic SIE could be about to follow the Arctic’s lead over the last 40 years and begin registering some negative anomalies as lunatic as these recent temperatures.
James McDonaldsays
Are there any records for extremal temperature anomalies?
In particular, could this have been the largest anomaly against a monthly average ever recorded, anywhere on earth? If not, when/where were larger ones?
Where would one reasonably start to answer such questions?
This Antarctic weather is being described with anomalies of “between +46ºC & +47ºC”. So if the world record temperature is given as +56.7ºC (or perhaps a little lower if you want a more reliable measurement) and is measured in places with average daily temperatures that are already hot, none of them are going to be approaching anomalous values of +46ºC.
For instance, the Australian record temperature of set at Onslow in Jan this year was +50.7 °C during a month with an average temp of +29.7ºC yielding an anomaly of +21ºC. And that Furnace Creek +56.7ºC was a +17ºC anomaly.
So you ask “Where?” and I would suggest that would have to be somewhere cold, probably very cold.
Yes, well-observed. I believe in general variability tends to be greater in colder months, though a quick search didn’t turn up anything on point.
James McDonaldsays
I made the same point elsewhere.
There could also be negative anomalies, e.g. -20C when it’s normally 30C, but I agree that the opportunities for large excursions are greater in frigid regions.
My “where” question was about available databases. They seem to record maxima, minima, global monthly anomalies, etc., but not local daily anomalies in any easily manipulated format.
James McDonald,
The “where” being “about available databases” was indeed the implication of your initial question, (something like this only with data from more than just one met station and spanning a little longer than 2009-to-date).
I would suggest the only place where there could be such databases is within the analysis of Heat Waves although these occur in hot seasons (so only for high summer temperatures), over periods longer than a single day and measured over areas wider than a single met station. They can also be expressed in standard deviations rather than degrees centigrade of anomaly, or can be rated in the “one-in-X-year event” form. And their longevity becomes a factor of severity additional to any measure used for the abnormal temperature.
One difficulty of recording single-station all-time daily-high temperatures relative to an anomaly base rather than in degrees centigrade is whether the station has the data to provide a comparable anomaly base.
It “appears to have set a new World Record for the largest temperature excess above normal … ever measured at an established weather station,” Robert Rohde, the lead scientist at Berkeley Earth, tweeted Monday.
James McDonald,
That twitterage from Robert Rohde does get round to answering your question about records of extreme temp anomalies, saying “no organization maintains official records for temperatures above normal”
As for this particular heatwave, he says:-
“It has taken me some time to reach a reasonable level of confidence before saying this, but this heat wave in Antarctica appears to have set a new World Record for the largest temperature excess above normal ever observed.”
Thus it is not entirely declared a definitive record-breaker and mentions he has found Arctic anomalies that have not been so far away from this +38.5ºC daily max anomaly. He suggests
“After looking at the extreme value distribution, while still rare and unexpected, this heatwave might be as common as roughly a once-in-200-year event.”
The initial tweitterage thread runs:-
“The recent extraordinary heatwave in Antarctica appears to have set a new World Record for the largest temperature excess above normal (+38.5 °C / +69.3 °F) ever measured at an established weather station.
Unfortunately, no organization maintains official records for temperatures above normal.
However, after taking time to review past weather station data and consulting with colleagues, it appears that no other established weather station has ever reported an anomaly this extreme.
In terms of the temperature excess above normal, the Antarctic heatwave from ~10 days ago appears to have been the most extreme that humans have ever directly observed, anywhere.
Reviewing previous station data, one can find a handful of long-term weather stations (all at high northern latitudes) that have plausibly reported temperature excess events of +35 or +36 °C, but no prior events with an excess of +37 or +38 °C.
[Note: I can’t absolutely rule out that a higher record could have been seen somewhere.
But neither my systematic reviews of tens of thousands of stations, nor a search graciously conducted by @extremetemps, nor questions to colleagues have identified any known higher record.]
Dr. Robert Rohde
During the same heat wave, Vostok station (560 km from Dome C) also reported an excess of +37 °C (67 °F).
This also would have qualified as an apparent world record, if Dome C station hadn’t been even more extreme on the same day.”
@ James McDonald – ” Where would one reasonably start to answer such questions ? ”
I would start with ENSO and asked myself why the largest anomaly against a ! yearly ! average of increasing global temperatures is (mostly) always in El Niño events – and temporarly decreasing global temperatures and sea level are related to La Niña years.
In general, the warmest year of any decade will be an El Niño year, the coldest a La Niña one.
These natural climate patterns—through which the ocean alternately accumulates and releases heat—are the most important cause of short-term variations.
But is there a database that would allow one to sort on local daily anomalies?
That presumably would be gargantuan, so the next question would be if some site keeps a tractable list of the most extreme events, say the 1000 largest positive and negative daily anomalies ever recorded among all stations in the world?
Killiansays
Yes, it was. Read it within the last few hours.
nigeljsays
MAR yes that sounds plausible. Something more on the heatwave issue. “Antarctic ice shelf collapses after unprecedented heatwave” in case anyone misses it in the media.
David Spratt on existential risk, climate science, climate policy. Trigger warning: Sounds like things I’ve said for the last decade around here. If me being right and ahead of the curve bothers you, don’t watch. The key part is between the 3:40 and 10:00 minute marks.
Basically, stop talking about averages, dammit, and use appropriate long-trail risk framing.
I wrote- published on how to deal with cyclopes and invasive slugs from Karsruhe and elsewhere where the earth is flat.
There has been a chill in Ukraina first half of Mars. That is the european monsune and the continental high pressure. The westerly oceanic winds have in the meantime got into the Barents sea, with stormy cyclones.
If the southerners, the Australians and the New Zealanders read us, you have the similar roaring fourties and fierceful fifties.
It will soon be springtime also in Ukraina, but in the fameous “clear days of Mars” annual rainfall minimum and blue sky maximum they had frost enough to dammage and hurt even the russians, who were not dressed for it. If you prepare for the season and for quick “military” operations with opinions and vodka instead of proper gloves and socks, potates bread and ham / SPAM for field and sub-urban operation, you may get surprized in the climate. We use proper wool and even reindeer furs when it really matters.
We should be aware of the plausible consequenses in the climate.
Along with recent quite peaceful times, Russia and Ukraina have become a major exporter of Wheat, Rhye, Barley , Corn and even ukrainian sunflower oil to the worlds market. During Krustsjof and Brjesnjev they were consequently short of the same.
Then Russia is a major exporter of Potassium and of 1.st class Apatite- phosphate. Further of Methane gas that is necessary for the Haber Bosch synthesis of Ammonium nitrate fertillizer..
All in all, there are high reasons to expect very high world market prices both of fertillizer, food, and diesel, & gasoline and electiciy in the coming months and years.
Thus, plant your potatoes now!
I follow the Norwegian situation the best I can and will tell you.
The natives and aborgineans do their very best in the north both from russian and norwegian side now to secure and to save the codfish, Which is the worlds populations medicine at any time along with macrels and herrings. It saves the situation when everything else goes wrong in the climate. It saves our brightness and beliefs and hopes without wich we cannot perform.
– ” to deal with cyclopes and invasive slugs from Karsruhe… ”
– ” Thus, plant your potatoes now ! ”
– ” It saves our brightness and beliefs and hopes without wich we cannot perform. ”
— My ***** Concept Of Reducing Sea Level Rise And Global Temperature *****
gives that brightness (more reflective clouds) and hope to everyone that do not want to believe – but can calculate!
…and you have nothing better to do all day than drag it into the dirt under your hypocritical Christian cap with the most insane arguments. You suffer an unfortunate catholic roof damage and are a sick puppy with a penchant for psychedelic drugs.
To save the codfish you are 30 years too late – ape. Here in the south we recommend the soup of today –
Matthias Schürle hardly thinks and calculates better than a russian general in Ukraina. now. We seem to have got his grandious missionary plans off track.
The naming of real names on the Internet should be outlawed everywhere in the world. Certainly also in this forum. (Reiss dich am Riemen – Bursche !)
I am an artist – and NOT a missionary. With my paintings and self-developed machines and concepts, I can easily position myself next to my idols like Leonardo da Vinci without having to react to your foaming at the mouth. I don’t give a shit what happens in your panties – your self-centered monologues are just telling me how far along the general Babylonian language confusion has progressed and when we can expect first skin contact with the apocalypse.
If you’re really dying to fight missionaries, then grab the Pope or even your Norwegian NATO Defense Alliance Hero Stoltenberg. (He intelligently wanted to defend the West by “missioning” the Ukraine with western money and weapons)
Hang him in front of your house @ “oslofjörden” in a clearly visible place and stuff 2 vodka bottles in his side pockets – the Russians like that and out of sheer gratitude they shurly will leave your little panties unharmed for the sad & insecure rest of your time being.
ms: I can easily position myself next to my idols like Leonardo da Vinci
BPL: In fact, you’re very like Galileo, and just as persecuted!
Carbomontanussays
Putin spoke: It takes one to know one!
Foaming mouths is a symptom of Rabies.
Megalomania is induced caused by central- stimulating drugs at wartime such as cocaine and amfetamine for the performers and artists, knowitalls. It ngives that superbely sublime higher vision and bloody inauguration. .
nigeljsays
MS. There are still uncertainties about the behaviour of clouds. Some research suggests they are a mildly negative net feedback some research that they are a mildly positive net feedback. Trying to create more clouds like you suggest is thus a very high risk gamble, and betrays your lack of knowledge of the climate issues and massive arrogance and hubris.
For the 365th time I am explaining to you and others (@mar, piotr, bpl,…) that clouds reflect an average of 20% of the incoming short-wave radiation into space. This is called cloud radiative effects(CRE), which is not the same as cloud radiative feedback.
– The 6th work report of the IPCC / WG1 deals in chapter 7.2.1 with the strong cooling net effect of clouds on the global radiation balance ( ~ -19W / m²).
In chapter 7.4.2.4.3 the warming feedback from clouds to a 1 ° C increase in earth temperature is limited with + 0.42W m–2 °C–1
This warming feedback is mainly caused by a globally lower cloud cover (minus 2 – 2.5%) and higher temperature gradients (decrease in temperature with altitude).
Without clouds, 47 W/m² less solar radiation is reflected back to space globally (53 ± 2 W/m² instead of 100 ± 2 W/m²), while 28 W/m² more thermal radiation is emitted to space (267 ± 3 W/m² instead of 239± 3 W/m²).
As a result there is a 20 W/m² radiative imbalance at the TOA in the clear-sky energy budget suggesting that the Earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds.
nigelj: – ” to create more clouds like you suggest is thus a very high risk gamble,… ”
— Dangerous clouds ??? I think you have roof damage and you’re somewhere between stupid, crazy, and disabled. Explain that to a farmer hoping for rain in the summer.
ms: clouds reflect an average of 20% of the incoming short-wave radiation into space.
BPL: With mean global coverage of 53% and mean shortwave albedo of 47%, I get 25% of incoming radiation reflected back out to space by clouds, and most of the rest by Rayleigh scattering. What made you think you were the only person who knew that clouds were reflective? Where did you get that idea?
@bpl
According to the Global Energy Balance (GEB) by Prof. M. Wild 2019 (see also IPCC AR6 WG1), which I hope you are familiar with by now, the clear sky / all sky balance for reflected solar TOA without clouds shows 53 W/m² and 100W/ m² with clouds.
The Earth’s albedo without clouds would be 0.156 and with clouds it is ~0.294.
Clouds increase the albedo by 47W/m².
Ice, snow and lighter land areas 25W/m².
Rayleigh scattering ~ 15W/m² and aerosols ~13W/m².
Without clouds, 247W/m² solar down arrive at the earth’s surface.
47W/m² //247W/m² = 19% of solar down surface blocked by clouds — and not 25%.
Your babble of 53% cloud cover and 47% mean shortwave albedo (what’s that supposed to be?) clearly shows that you’re plagued by total blindness when it comes to albedo and global energy balances. – Just crawl back into your borehole.
MS: The Earth’s albedo without clouds would be 0.156
BPL: According to Batisti and Donohue (2010), the mean global annual surface albedo of the Earth is 0.123, not 0.156.
MS: Your babble of 53% cloud cover and 47% mean shortwave albedo (what’s that supposed to be?) clearly shows that you’re plagued by total blindness when it comes to albedo and global energy balances. – Just crawl back into your borehole.
BPL: Those figures are from my 2021 paper in Planetary and Space Sciences, where I model the evolution of Earth’s climate over geological time. The 53% figure is the random-overlap total from the CERES satellite data, and the 47% figure is chosen to give the actual planetary albedo for the Earth. Compare Hart’s (1978) figure of 50%, which is 6% higher than my figure. For a figure that isn’t very well known, that’s pretty good agreement.
For a self-described artist to be telling an actual scientist he got the science wrong is amusing, but I’d think it would be embarrassing for you to just keep doing it.
Carbomontanussays
Hr Schürle
“… suggesting that the earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds.”
We can check up on that very easily. We have a next example under the same sunshine but without clouds. What is the all in all mean ground temperature on the moon?
You are ignoring and forgetting the night darkness the clearly observeable BIG BANG under clear cloudless sky, and the arctic and antarctic winters, that all goes up in the global mean temperatures
As far as I can judge it here by longtime weather forecast temperature graphs, the night and day swinging is right proporto0nal to sinus to the suns angle at noon,… worldwide and at sea level. And the swing amplitude about halves in cloudy weather, but the mean temperature remains the same.
Moral:
Do not get confused by yourv sunstitch at noon, Because that is political Cherrypicking Rather take a siesta in a cool and shadowy place. That sunstich of yours in early afternoon in clear sunny weather does not rule for midninghts also.
Pope Francis has proclaimed that Air condition is sinful. It is not the conventional moral Italian, Argentinian Jesuit, and the orthodox autentic Arabian way, Probably because it confuses their due pauses with time prayers, their guaranteed human rights for such environments. The moslems even do it with a dash of holy water, not barrels and bitties of it.
So you’re claiming that the IPCC forgot the nights when they claim: “Clouds cool the Earth”?
? seriously ?
c.: – ” …the night and day swinging is right proporto0nal to sinus to the suns angle at noon,… worldwide…
—Bullshit – Anyone armed with some basic climatic instinct can tell you that the decreasing diurnal temperature range will also explain why the smaller the range, the more effective the greenhouse gases – and the larger the range the less effective the greenhouse gases.
So, in a world of rising GHG concentrations, smaller temperature ranges are no surprise at all.
Only about blind, wondering idiots – one can wonder.
Carbomontanussays
@ all and everyone exept for M. Schürle
The Shurlers are so sure. they even tend to believe in their own sales propagandas.
Let us make an end to that, and we will all do him a great fravour..
It is severely hot everywhere on the surface of Venus, It is the hottest large landscape in the solar system. At Mercur however, it is quite lower temperatures than on Venus directly in the sunstitch at noon, and recentbv radar DATA show ice in the craters at the poles even there.
Shurlers are so sure that they give a damn to such details and events. Venus is fameous in the inner solar system for being quite especially cloudy.
One can shurly wonder about blind idiots.
As a bathing benthusiast in a fameous bathing town, not Baden Baden but further north, I am shurly aware of what happens when a cloud comes and cowers the sun. It gets uncomfortably chill especially also because of the evapo- transpiration on our skins and furs..
But what about in the winter and at night? We do not bathe then, exept in especially cloudy weather and in the summer.
The Shurlers never thought the holistic way about such things. They just ridicule and deny such things. along with their “holistic” mandate and sale.
nigeljsays
MS. Please understand I haven’t read all your comments on clouds! I may have missed what you are getting at. Your english isn’t that great.
Yes clouds have an overall net cooling affect on climate. But high clouds tend to have a warming effect and low clouds tend to have a cooling effect as here in simple terms:
So given you want to create clouds to cool the climate by some sort of enhanced evaporation, how do you intend to create the right clouds in the right place? Just please be concise.
Clouds only form around aerosols. What is your plan to increase aerosols? Because with reduced use of coal burning aerosols in the atmosphere would actually be decreasing.
I did a google search and couldn’t find anything on plans or experiments to actually create clouds to cool the climate by enhanced evaporation or otherwise. I think it would have been considered by now if it was feasible. Do you have a link you could post?
Wouldn’t artificially brightened (existing) clouds have more potential? Here:
@nigel junior – ” I may have missed what you are getting at. Your english isn’t that great. ”
— You have missed, that clouds are our best sun protection. – You have my phone number and I can explain it to you at any time in German, Spanish, French and I guess also in English.
n.: – ” how do you intend to create the right clouds in the right place? ”
— I produce the right cloud at the right time in the right place when there is increased drought and a bright blue sky in my region. So at the moment I could start right now in mid-March after 2 weeks of high pressure, no rain and temperatures up to 23°C @ 50°NH.
In summer it needs 3-4 times the amount of artificial irrigation.
And artificial irrigation creates artificial clouds.
When irrigated in summer with drought and high pressure – in the morning at 5 a.m. is the best chance of cumulus clouds forming during the day, which may rain down with a thunderstorm in the evening.
n.: – ” What is your plan to increase aerosols?
— I have no plans to increase aerosols artificially. There are always natural aerosols, dust & dirt in the air.
– ” Wouldn’t artificially brightened (existing) clouds have more potential?
— Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) has no potential to affect sea level or ocean acidification. It does not work against water shortages, record temperatures or desertification. It does not increase photosynthesis and CO² absorption on land and is ineffective against declining agricultural food security.
…and I do not believe that bringing 10m³/sec of sea water into the air will lower global temps by 1,5°C.
Since in my cooling concept with 1335km³/y – I bring ~ 40000m³/sec into the air by evapotranspiration and estimate the associated global cooling at only -0.07°C.
Carbomontanussays
The Shurlers never learnt so much about basic REALIA, and of sulphur in its oxidation states and of water in the universe and in the inner solar system..
They also lack enlightment and observance and understandings of the Irons and the Calsiums. and of the aluminiums and potassiums and magnesiums and ammoniums and silicates..
Think of living in the Eiffel vulcanisms with all its catastrophic ashes, sulphurs carbonates and waters without being aware of that. It is rather the MECCA of classical geochemistery. With all its wineyards and apple and plumyards.
They fight and they are clasws enemies of Catrolus Magnus and the very long row of proper GURUS and Shamans and Prophets and pioneers on it, from the same area and sell the alternatives.
Carbomontanussays
Schürle
you seem to have poor ideas about weathers an meteorology also.
What rains down at your place did hardly evaporate there. By the way, have you ever wondered why coastal climates are mainly wetter with a clear monsune tendency also, that it evaporates mainly from sea and travels mainly long distances by the fameouis trade winds?
And why do tropical hurricanes relax and vanish dramatically when they enter over land areas?
Then, what makes it rain or not rain is quite dependent on chill at the top of the tropospheric clouds, hardly any rain anywhere without deep frost with possible snow- showers at the top of the weathers.
Wherefore the occurance of halos in the sun is such a shurly message of rain tomorrow. The sun cross in spring was admired and worshipped in heathen time where they had no other shurly weather forecast, as a symbol of wealth, fertility, a good year with rich harvest.
Im Märzen der Bauer den Acker bestellt. but Mai chill makes the peasants barn full.
Irrigation early in the morning at sunrise and veven before is for the water to sink instead of evaporating, Irrigation is to resemble the morning dew at daily temperature minimum.
A tiny bit of science and of reason and experience and understanding you see, could make even you more shurly.
nigeljsays
M Shurly. Your link discusses the effects of crop irrigation on causing evapotranspiration and its cooling effects and the creation of more clouds that have a cooling effect. None of that is in dispute by me. If you are just promoting that we need to improve crop irrigation in various places, and that it also has a cooling effect then you are on safe ground.
The problem is if you are promoting a plan of DELIBERATELY over irrigating the land to have a BIG cooling affect on climate would require massive levels of irrigation and could end up water logging the soil, and causing all kinds of other problems and costs.
I suggest talk it over with your local university who have a range of relevant experts. I suggested that RTW get some feedback from a local university on his engine design, and he followed through and it worked out quite well. they used his design as a study topic and also reviewed the design. Can’t say more because its a private matter.
nigeljsays
“The ‘whys’ beyond the ‘what’ of the severe western U.S. drought. New video opens window on understanding the explanations for the worst drought in 12 centuries, a ‘megadrought’ with no end in sight.” Nice explanation for the general public:
Thanks for that. Peter Sinclair is always on point. YCC, I sometimes forget, is host to a host of excellent material. Only Eye on the Storm (Masters/Henson) allows comments so those of us addicted to writing out what we opine for public consumption go there more often.
“A new study of lake sediments in Ghana suggests that severe droughts lasting several decades, even centuries, were the norm in West Africa over the past 3,000 years.
The earlier dry spells dwarfed the well-documented drought that plagued West Africa in the late-20th century, and as the planet warms, the study’s authors believe the region’s rainfall patterns will have an even greater impact.” https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/467506
Piotrsays
M shurly: “ The climate is one of the most important influencing factors for agriculture ”
I didn’t ask for a tautology, but for a SPECIFIC mechanism for the claim of “ saving countless lives” by a better prediction of the timing of the El Nino. The best you were able to come up was: “ordering more seed”
to which I answered: Piotr: How exactly “seed ordering” will “save COUNTLESS LIVES” of subsistence farmers who can’t afford “seed ordering” at ANY time, El Nino or no El Nino?”
Please let me know, when you have an answer.
Mshurly “ A Peruvian fisherman who knows that El Nino will come after Christmas can then plan to repair his boat during this time instead of wasting time and fuel pointlessly.
Wrong time scale. El Nino does not collapse fisheries in hours or days where Paul Pukite prediction would make a difference – it takes MANY WEEKS or MONTHS for the signal to filter through food web to reach the fish – giving more than enough lead time for the fisherman to make their decision whether to go out to sea or stay home, based on whether the actual El Nino arrived or not. And for that you don’t need Paul Pukite – it is enough to notice that the winds changed and/or the coastal waters have become unusually warm. Ergo – the value of Paul Pukite prediction that next El Nino will start in 3 months from now is ZERO, much less his claim of “SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES”.
Mshurly: “ The best home remedies to prevent slopes from slipping are, for example, deep-rooted trees, but also terracing and adequate sewerage for drainage”
Wrong time scale again – it would take several decades to grow the “deep-rooted trees” – hence having Paul Pukite predicting that the next ElNino will start on 15 Dec. of the CURRENT year – won’t change a thing about it. Ergo ZERO lives saved by him. Zero is _not_ “COUNTLESS”.
@piotr – ” The best you were able to come up was: “ordering more seed ”
NO – I did NOT wrote anything about HOW MUCH SEED A FARMER WILL ORDER:
m.s.: …if I, as a farmer, can prepare/decide for drought or higher rainfall 1 year in advance –
I can make a better decision WHICH SEED I will buy for the next season.
And of course this can potencially increase crop productivity and food security
AND THUS SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES.
The ENSO forecast is one thing… – but I asked for something else…
” Even more urgent would be more research into which factors, teleconnections and causes in La Nina years lead to a temporary drop in global temperature and sea level ???
Any smart answers ? – or only more dumb questions ?
Piotrsays
M.Shurly “ NO – I did NOT wrote anything about HOW MUCH SEED A FARMER WILL ORDER. [but] WHICH SEED to order.”
Since we are discussing “subsistence farmers who can’t afford “seed ordering” at ANY time, El Nino or no El Nino ” – your distinction between “how much” of zero vs. “which” zero, is rather moot.
So the only beneficiaries, other than speculators trading pork and wheat futures, would be large industrial farms and agricultural multinationals, who have the resources to act on the ENSO prediction. But then again – they are not dying by their “countless” numbers during El Ninos.
MShurly: The ENSO forecast is one thing… – but I asked for something else
Since you joined the existing discussion:
– Paul Pukite: good ENSO forecast “could save countless lives”
– me: “how?”
– M. Shurly, brilliantly: “With water – you dumbhead !“.
then if you have questions on things other than the subject of the discussion (“ENSO predictions”), perhaps you should have started a new thread and/or monologue.
With the end of March, the daily CO2 data from NOAA MLO shows there has been a downward wobble in the MLO CO2 record through March big enough to result in a negative increase Feb-into-March.
I don’t see a previous negative Feb-to-March increase on the NOAA MLO record, but there have been four low positive Feb-to-Mar increases on-record not so far from being zero increases (1959, 1972, 2008 & 2019, all La Niña years).
Yet these monthly numbers often don’t show wobbles in all their splendor as a trawl through the Scripps daily data demonstrates. Thus a wobble in 1999 (another La Niña year) was roughly the same size as this 2022 wobble, but it happened a couple of weeks earlier in the year so bridged Feb & Mar and didn’t appear as particularly odd within the monthly data.
These and other wobbles in the data from both MLO & elsewhere prevent us seeing even if there is a deceleration in the rise of CO2 levels.
The anthropogenic emissions data are another way of seeing how we are doing (or not doing).
The CO2 emissions numbers presented by the GCP 2021 Budget (data to 2020) do show a significant slowing of the annual rise in emissions which were rising at a little under +0.2Gt(C)/yr through the first decade of the century. But again the wobbles prevent any signs of a genuine peaking.of CO2 emissions. The numbers do suggest emissions have been flat since 2018 while the science says the peaking of emissions is required yesterday and to have been quickly replaced by a rapid fall in emissions.
The latest three-weeks-old numbers shown by the IEA estimates for FF emissions (so LUC figures missing) for 2021 show what they dramatically describe as the “largest ever annual rise in absolute terms” in 2021 but here “annual rise” really means ‘annual emissions’ And the rise on earlier years is just 0.05Gt(C) so essentially emission continue to remain flat emissions since 2018.
So another year’s-worth of our fast-depleting Carbon Budget gone.
UAH TLT has been posted for March with an anomaly of +0.15ºC, well up on Feb’s +0.00ºC and Jan’s +0.03ºC.
March 2022 sits as the =8th warmest March on the UAH TLT record, behind 2016, 2010, 2020, 1998, 2004, 2017 and equal to 2018. March 2021 sits down in 19th. March 2022 is =87th in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
The chilly Jan & Feb recorded by UAH TLT places Jan-Mar 2022 as the 16th warmest start to the year. Yet the influence of the ENSO cycle will be reduced through the remainder of the year, so in the trend-defying UAH TLT we can expect 2022 to soon be promoted into the top ten warmest as more months are added to the start-of-year rankings. And that will allow the comparison table to be a bit shorter.
Human extinction continues to be pretty unlikely, so we don’t have to worry about that. But a livable planet is at risk according to some. And I think the sixth great extinction event is underway at record-setting speed, so that might be a concern.
“U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change revealed “a litany of broken climate promises” by governments and corporations, accusing them of stoking global warming by clinging to harmful fossil fuels.
“It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track toward an unlivable world,” he said.”
Human extinction continues to be pretty unlikely, so we don’t have to worry about that.
0.000119% of Americans die in car accidents each year, so we don’t need to worry about that. It used to be around 0.00016666666 (50k/yr). So silly of us to worry about it even then! Or at all!!!
You’re doing risk analysis wrong, Mike.
Mikesays
read carefully, Killian. The question that I raise is whether we should be concerned with is the collapse of civilization rather than the question of human extinction. One is almost certainly going to occur before the other, so getting the “horse before the cart” is the point I am making which is that we should strenuously consider the possibility of civilization collapse. Sorry if that was unclear. I am poking a little at folks who often cite the evidence that suggests human extinction is unlikely because I think that bar is set too low.
Cheers
Mike
Killiansays
False premise, false conclusion. We don’t need to worry about extinction even though it is 1. already happening globally and 2. the causes of it are being put in place now. I.e., we avoid it now or we don’t avoid it is the correct risk assessment.
I do not respond willy-nilly with absurd, limited analyses. I read and responded as I intended and made the point that needed to be made.
ERA5 SAT reanalysis” has posted for March with an anomaly of +0.39ºC, up on both Jan (+0.28ºC) & Feb (+0.23ºC). It is the 5th warmest March on the ERA5 record, behind 2016, 2019, 2017 and 2020, with the rest of the top ten places running 2018, 2010, 2015, 2020 & 2021. March 2022 sits 28th in the all-month ERA5 rankings.
After the first 3 months, the start of 2022 now sits as the 5th warmest start to the year (behind those same years 2016, 2020, 2017 & 2019). While for the full calendar year, 2015, 2018 % 2021 effectively sit in =5th position, 2022 may be starting to show a warming that will put it perhaps into 4th place for the full year, above 2017 and perhaps even challenge for a top-three spot despite the on-going La Niña. Thinks, if ENSO is running this wobbly global SAT, looking back at similar La Niña in past years, the MEI data suggests we should see a boost on the previous year of perhaps +0.05ºC (as seen in ERA5 2008-09) or +0.13ºC (as seen 2011-12).
Thanks for yet another update on this! I always appreciate these.
nigeljsays
Another blow to the iris theory that changes in certain types of tropical zone clouds would cool the climate: “Process-level Assessment of the Iris Effect over Tropical Oceans”
In a discussion with a climate-savvy friend, he mentioned that early projections of the likely equilibrium surface temp increase under a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 were in the 4-6C range, but now, we’ve bent the curve downward, so projections are around 2-3C. He cited this as progress in decarbonizing the global economy.
I’ve been trying to square this claim with the observed carbon emissions, which haven’t declined significantly in recent years (in fact, they’ve increased). Similarly, total radiative forcing has increased at a nearly constant rate since the 1950s.
So, I assume this claim is accounting for avoided carbon emissions. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t the emissions and radiative forcing curves show some sort of downward deflection after, say, the year 2000? Or does the continued linearity mean that avoided emissions have knocked down what would have been higher slopes to values that are coincidentally the same as those in the pre-mitigation era?
Or does this claim simply reflect better understanding of Earth’s climate dynamics?
Please ignore the CO2-doubling part of the first para – I was confused and conflated sensitivity with the actual question, which boils down to this: have we really bent the curve downward? Because the emissions data don’t show it.
zebrasays
Jim, just guessing about whatever this other person was trying to say, but I think the question at hand is whether the rate of increase is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same.
Sad to say, if the rate of increase is indeed about the same for the last few decades, that would count as ‘good news’. Maybe that’s what they were saying?
Killiansays
Decarbonizing or not would not affect the math. If you double you get T temp, so if you *still* get to a doubling, it doesn’t matter how,
JG: he mentioned that early projections of the likely equilibrium surface temp increase under a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 were in the 4-6C range, but now, we’ve bent the curve downward, so projections are around 2-3C. He cited this as progress in decarbonizing the global economy.
BPL: The 5 K estimate is from Arrhenius’s 1896 paper. An estimate of 3.6 K is from as early as 1956. Estimates of ECS have absolutely nothing to do with progress in decarbonizing the economy. It’s a feature of the climate system. The number would be the same for a “drill, baby, drill” nightmare or for an ecological Utopia.
…early projections of the likely equilibrium surface temp increase under a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 were in the 4-6C range, but now, we’ve bent the curve downward, so projections are around 2-3C. He cited this as progress in decarbonizing the global economy.
I’m not understanding this. Increase in surface temp per doubling of CO2 is the definition of climate sensitivity; it doesn’t have anything directly to do with us bending the emissions curve. Bending the curve affects when we get to that doubling (or, more hopefully, don’t).
Thanks for the replies, Kevin, Barton, and Killian. It was my confusion about CO2 doubling and ECS, and that isn’t my friend’s argument. (The perils of no edit button for comments!)
I suspect the claim that we’ve bent the curve downward is false; we just have a better understanding of Earth’s climate now. As far as I can tell, all our efforts to decarbonize the economy so far have had no discernible effect on the chemistry of the atmosphere.
And RSS TLT has been posted for March (so far only in the data files) with an anomaly of +0.58ºC, up on both Jan (+0.54ºC) & Feb (+0.49ºC). It is the 7th warmest March on the RSS TLT record (=8th in UAH which saw a bigger rise Feb-Mar & 5th in ERA5 SAT). UAH’s March 2020 sits below 2016 (+1.13ºC), 2020 (+0.86ºC), 2010 (+0.76ºC), 2019 (+0.74ºC), 2017 (+0.65ºC) & 1998 (+0.60ºC), with the rest of the top ten places running 2018, 2004 &, 2015. March 2021 sits down in 12th place (+0.47ºC).
March 2022 sits 84th in the all-month RSS TLT rankings (28th in ERA5 SAT& =87nd in UAH TLT).
After the first 3 months, the start of 2022 now sits as the 11th warmest start-to-the-year in RSS TLT (16th in UAH & 5th in ERA5 SAT).
The first three months of 2022 have seen rising anomalies in the Tropics (usually more of a guide than other zones), drops in the southern extra-tropics & weak rises in the northern extra tropics.
A graphic of RSS TLT anomalies is posted as Graph 2a here.
The findings of Lopez et al (2022) ‘Projections of faster onset and slower decay of El Niño in the 21st century’ also include projections of mainly stronger remote impacts via teleconnections during both the developing phase of the El Niño (Fig 4) and during the decay phase (Fig 5) while El Niños are projected occurring 20% more often in the late 2000s relative to the late 1900s. Presumably the global SAT will become more wobbly as a result.
I note the latest MEI numbers show no sign of the La Niña slackening. Could we be in for the 3-year version as per 1998-2001?
Killiansays
And, if so, would that lead to a larger EN as stored energy/heat builds up?
Sorry to have to bring this up but this is a case of scientific “jumping the gun”. Anyone publishing on this topic first needs to get their ducks in a row and develop a solid foundational model for ENSO cycles. Suggesting that El Nino events will be stronger due to some extraneous factor is like asserting what an electrical circuit will do without first being able to model it with Kirchoff’s law. Not being able to add a perturbation to a predictive model is equivalent to shooting in the dark.
Isaac Held in a recent podcast interview said he is uncomfortable on the assertion that AGW will impact extremes in climate: “a lot of that science is not that sound” and following that with “people at the highest levels of gov’t have bought into it”
“”interesting problems arise .. you can go off for a couple of years & study them but you can’t that do when you’re developing a model with a bunch of other people .. these problems arise that you cant address so you end up not understanding things””
John Pollacksays
I think that you have illustrated Issac Held’s well-founded concern about being quoted out of context (1:11 in the interview). Your framing of his quotes around 1:19-1:20 suggests to me that you have him supporting a position that “the assertion that AGW will impact extremes in climate” (quote from you) is based on unsound science that has nevertheless been accepted at the highest levels of government.
What I found him saying was he was firmly convinced that AGW was real and a serious problem. Within that context, he preferred that policymakers consult the results of a scientific consensus such as IPCC rather than the viewpoints of individual scientists. He specifically thought some of the emphasis on particular types of extremes being tied into global warming was “not that sound.” His particular example was “these discussions about whether the retreat of arctic sea ice is affecting weather in the mid latitudes – in winter especially.” It was that example he referred to when he said “people at the highest levels of government have bought into it.” That’s not the same thing as saying that AGW isn’t causing extremes. It’s a discussion about framing and accurate attribution of weather events when the research is inconclusive or nuanced.
Thanks for the reply, Zebra. I believe that’s the claim: BAU would have produced an acceleration in growth or linear growth with a higher slope, but instead, we see near-linear growth at the same rate since the 1950s.
I looked around a bit in the peer-reviewed literature for estimates of avoided emissions due to the increase in renewables, but I didn’t find much. If there’s some research on that, we could address the claim directly.
Killiansays
Does it really matter much? A bit like hitting a brick wall at 110mph instead of 100.
Heh, indeed. My friend is quite certain that humans will fix climate change, because technology, and he cites this decline from 4-6C projections to 2-3C projections as evidence.
John Pollacksays
So far, technology is what has gotten us into a fix. As BPL noted above, the downward adjustment in climate sensitivity came between 1896 and 1956, and there hasn’t been much change since. Meanwhile, the projections of actual warming have risen since we’ve poured more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an exponentially increasing rate since then.
Actual warming depends heavily on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions, although there will probably be some feedbacks to make things even worse, such as melting icecaps and additional CO2 and methane emissions from thawing permafrost.
The projection of actual warming depends mostly on who is doing the projecting, and what assumptions they are making about future GHG releases. That’s why IPCC uses multiple emissions scenarios. Declining projections of warming are evidence of your choice in forecasters, not new discoveries of temperature GHG insensitivity in the climate system.
Killiansays
CO2-only people will never understand the problem. Climate is a symptom of resource abuse; it can’t be fixed by more consumption of resources.
In the not-too-distant future, I imagine we’ll see solar-powered logging and mining operations in the Amazon rainforest.
Killiansays
Indeed, Jim.
nigeljsays
Jim Galasyn, this website did an article a few years ago discussing that there has already been enough decline in use of coal and ultimate reserves of coal are not as large as previously thought all to suggest that warming rates of 5 or 6 degrees this century are effectively now extremely unlikely. I tried to find the article but couldn’t. I wonder if your friend heard that. Although he seems to be confusing the issue with climate sensitivity.
Regardless of all that I personally think 4 degrees would be horrendous, and we are still staring at a looming disaster and not nearly enough is being done to mitigate the disaster.
Killiansays
There are more than enough reserves of coal to blow apart the C budget. The only study I know of that claimed what you say was by David Ruttledge, and he was wrong.
nigelj,
You comment that “this website did an article a few years ago discussing that there has already been enough decline in use of coal and ultimate reserves of coal are not as large as previously thought”.
I don’t recall such an ‘article’ although there were 2-3 years back articles looking at the top-end projections under AGW, in particular the usefulness of seeing the RCP8.5 scenario as being the outcome of Business-As-Usual. The arguments that RCP8.5 was an exaggeration of BAU , initially made by denialists(?) but certainly given weight by Hausfather & Peters (2020), was based on the decline of coal in projected future energy mixes. The decline of coal was discussed within comment threads here at RC (thus here). But I don’t recall an RC‘article’.
Right, I have to believe this claim of “progress” is really an artifact of our improved understanding rather than any actual “bending down” of the emissions curve.
Also agree that humans are doing next to nothing to prevent the catastrophe. Very glad I don’t have children.
nigeljsays
MAR, I’m fairly sure this website wrote an article a few years ago essentially discussing that progess made reducing the use of coal means RCP 8.5 with 5 degrees or more warming is now very unlikely. It based this on various studies by other people. Perhaps Gavin or one of the other RC people remember and can post a link. It covered similar ground to Hausfather & Peters (2020) and may have referred to that paper. I do emphasise that personally I don’t believe we can rule out very extreme warming scenarios.
MAR and Nigel, thank you, it’s likely that the Hausfather and Peters paper from 2020 is the source of my friend’s claim. (I’ll ask him next time this comes up.) That BAU wow wow thread has a great discussion about it.
This is what I don’t get: H&P state, “Most users of climate scenarios care more about the world as it is now, rather than what might have been had global emissions not slowed over the past decade.”
But there’s zero evidence that global emissions have “slowed”.
With the exception of 2020, when the pandemic largely idled the global economy, the last four years have seen the highest annual carbon emissions ever. Check this NOAA story from 7 April 2022: Increase in atmospheric methane set another record during 2021 – Carbon dioxide levels also record a big jump – CO2 emissions growth is accelerating, decade by decade.
Instead of fading to zero, the price of thermal coal has skyrocketed since 2021.
The total radiative forcing from atmospheric greenhouse gases has risen at a rock-steady rate since the 1950s.
In a Washington Posteditorial on 4 April 2022, UN Secretary-General António Guterres wrote, “A report released Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a litany of broken climate promises.”
Jim Galasyn,
You ask “How is any claim of “progress” at all plausible?”
As you point out, the NOAA AGGI is showing no let-up in the rise in GHG forcings. And if the trends in the AGGI are examined, the annual AGGI increase dropped by about 30% in the early 1990s (due to the slowing of CH4 emissions) but has since been showing a convincing acceleration; certainly not a sign of any deceleration.
However, I would argue that there are enough wobbles in the year-on-year atmospheric CO2 increases (CO2 having provided the lion’s share of the forcing since the early 1990s) to cover up even a significant underlying deceleration in the forcing numbers.
And you also point to those important CO2 emissions (eg the Global Carbon Project budget) which are driving the forcing and which do indeed show a decade-on-decade acceleration and no signs of any deceleration (on that decadal timescale).
The one piece of good news is that on a sub-decadal timescale, there does appear to be a deceleration in those CO2 emissions numbers, as per shown below.
Mind, we do need to see that deceleration very very quickly reducing the CO2 emissions growth to zero and then see those emissions very very quickly begin the drop down to net-zero.
The numbers for GISTEMP LOTI has been posted for March with a SAT anomaly of +1.05ºC, up on both Jan (+0.91ºC) & Feb (+0.89ºC), and is the highest monthly anomaly since Nov 2020.
March 2022 is the 5th warmest March on the GSITEMP LOTI record (also 5th in ERA5 SAT, 7th in RSS TLT, =8th in UAH TLT). GISTEMP’s March 2022 sits below 2016 (+1.36ºC), 2020 & 2019 (both +1.17ºC) and 2017 (+1.16ºC), while above 2015 (+0.96ºC), 2010 (+0.92ºC) & 2002, 2018 & 2021 (all =8th at +0.88ºC)
March 2022 sits =16th in the all-month RSS TLT rankings (28th in ERA5 SAT. 84th in RSS TLT & =87nd in UAH TLT).
After the first 3 months, the start of 2022 now sits as the 5th warmest start-to-the-year in GISTEMP SAT (also 5th in ERA5 SAT,16th in UAH & 11th in RSS TLT).
This is the latest of more than a dozen studies over the last 3 years that have found that we’ve bent the curve of future warming down significantly. Here’s a summary of those papers, from @hausfath and @ClimateFran.
For context, when I started in climate around 2010, expectations were that we would see 4 – 6 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. That would be truly apocalyptic warming, with a severe chance of kicking off major feedback loops, and dramatic disruptions to civilization. …
So this new paper, and this wave of modeling studies, are extremely good news. Civilization will not end at 2 degrees C. There’s every reason to believe that median human welfare will be much higher in 2100, at this level of warming, than it is today. …
Jim Galasyn,
The source paper for this, Hausfather &. Moore (2022) ‘Net-zero commitments could limit warming to below 2 °C’ is hot-off-the-press so it will likely emerge from behind its paywall, or at least the coverage will become more definitive.
But the paper is apparently saying that a +2ºC limit is achievable but only if we knuckle down and knuckle down quickly.
Analysis of climate pledges by nations at the COP26 meeting indicates that such commitments could ensure that global warming does not exceed 2 ºC before 2100 — but only if backed up by short-term policies.[My bold]
Killiansays
I guess they missed that the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade.
Gavinsays
No it’s not. Not even close. – gavin
Killiansays
Depends how you count. When looking at a parbolic curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve, not the average of it. In that sense, the “current rate” would be accurate.
This video states the half a degree number from 4:42 – 4:51. It doesn’t explain the calculation, https://youtu.be/A9bFZ_rorg0
Killian,
The video does “explain the calculation.”
The video commentary says “And we’re advancing at a rate roughly, the slope on this plot, you can basically read off the chart, it’s basically half a degree per decade. That is our current trajectory in terms of our current level of emissions.”
The chart under discussion that “you can basically read off” is IPCC SR1.5 Fig 1.2 and if you do “basically read off” a value, you’ll find that it matches those presented within the text of IPCC SR1.5 Chapter 1., a text that runs:-
Drawing on these multiple lines of evidence, human-induced warming is assessed … increasing at 0.2°C per decade (with a likely range of 0.1°C to 0.3°C per decade: estimates of human-induced warming given to 0.1°C precision only).
So no “half a degree per decade.”
Carbomontanussays
“Parabolic” is not near to any good idea of what such weather- curves may be about , so as to find out further what causes them and what to do / what not to do with it it.
I tried to tell him of “patten recognition”,… on what is it about?… What could it be? What is going on here? but he gives a damn and knows very6n much better than tat.
K: Depends how you count. When looking at a parbolic curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve, not the average of it. In that sense, the “current rate” would be accurate.
BPL: Naturally, corrected by somebody who actually works in the field, Killian doubles down. Narcissists can never, ever admit they were wrong.
jgnfldsays
Re. “When looking at a parbolic (sic) curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve,”…
I suggest not applying that “logic” very far. For example, if you jump off a bench to the floor and use “the most recent part of that curve” to judge what to expect if you step off a 10th story balcony, well you’ll be seriously in error.
Carbomontanussays
Killian
I wrote you about pattern recognition in the Universe.
Where have you got parabolic functions in the climate from?
You see, in physical chemistery it is exponensial or logaritmic, even cyclic and sinoid and unlinear dis- continous assymptotic and then it may often blow up or fall down and go to Hell. But hardly parabolic in viscous systems.
It is af you did not learn the proper words about common and natural behaviours either..
“A.1.1
Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for
the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6
higher than the average over the 1850–1900
period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within
±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and
0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}”
Killiansays
Wasn’t this nonsense already debunked once?
So you have crystal ball and can predict where the trend will be in the future? What is nonsense is to assert noting the increase exists and may continue is nonsense, but that the increase exists and may not continue is sense.
Do you not listen to yourself? Do you need so badly to refute anything I post – even though it is not something *I* claimed, but is something stated by scientists! – that you ignore the most obvious of logic? Rhetorical question.
jgnfldsays
k…
Nope. Essentially you stated that extending the tangent is a proper inferential procedure when dealing with a time series. NO competent analyst would suggest that (barring the actual linear case, of course).
Killiansays
jgnfld,
No, I did not. Stating what the most recent part of a curve is does not equal proclaiming that is going to continue. Yes, you are intentionally misrepresnting what the paper and presentation are saying, and what I am sharing about that.
It’s a simple fact. And it absolutely is far more likely to continue to worsen than to improve given how little we are doing about it.
I do not know what everybody’s problem is here. Overly pedantic? Simply too rigid in your thinking? Afraid of the implications? What?
If you have a problem with the findings, take it up with the authors rather than claiming *I* made claims I did not make. It’s their claim. I am simply sharing it.
Get this through your damned heads, people. Your collective head-in-the-sand responses are just going in circles.
Do you not listen to yourself? Do you need so badly to refute anything I post…
It’s not nonsense because you posted it. (Not everything is about you.)
It’s nonsense because drawing conclusions from excessively short time frames is, well, stupid.
jgnfldsays
Well at least we know it’s everyone else.
Chucksays
Is there a way to install an “ignore” button/feature” on the blog so certain trolls can be less disruptive to the conversation? Thanks
Carbomontanussays
Chuck
That button you must have in your brains. It should not be mechanized or ROBOTified.
Chucksays
Carbomontanus says
18 APR 2022 AT 12:34 PM
Chuck
That button you must have in your brains. It should not be mechanized or ROBOTified.
Huh?
I want it where I can click on it.
Carbomontanussays
@ Chuck
I repeat: Certain things are mental and spiritual and cannot be made automatic, ROBOT-ified.
Example: My son had made a very sublime text- edition program on his Ti.99-4A computer. “And now we must make division of words!” he said
“No, I replied. Save your 16 Kilobytes against that!. Because it is a typical example of a non- data- compatible problem.!”
And had to0 explain. I had had it before in elementary phiilosophy and Harward logics.
Take the word “Beefcake”. How shall you divide that. Into Be-efcake ot into Beef- cake?
It is a matter of taste of good taste. The Ti 99-4A has got no good taste at all. It has got absolutely no idea of what beef and cakes is about.
And we have the same problem here. A button has got no idea at all of what certain trolls is about and who they are. That, you must have, and train on conscious level.
By the way, Norway is now publishing a new set of postal stamps with certain and fameous trolls of all values, as drawn and painted by fameous artists. I have offered my national expertise on it here many times, so maybe I shoud send you all that fameous series of postal stamps?
But, there are good old rules and regulations and descriptions indeed, also traditionally, on how to tackle the trolls. Maybe a textbook and catechism on that?
“…the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade”? I would echo the comment from our host.
If you use GISTEMP LOTI & 10-year OLS, it is possible to cherry-pick a 10-year period 2010-20 where the rate of warming is +0.47ºC/decade but half a decade earlier you can cherry-pick such a 10-year OLS and get the rate of warming as low as +0.0.45ºC/decade. So you need to take longer sets of data than 10 years.
Both 20-year OLS & 30-year OLS show pretty-much the same although there are still wobbles. Yet there is certainly an acceleration to be seen of late in that GISTEMP LOTI warming rate which was running at:-
+0.159ºC/d through the decades up to 1995,
+0.169ºC/d up to 2000,
+0.177ºC/d up to 2005,
+0.172ºC/d up to 2010,
+0.176ºC/d up to 2015 &
+0.225ºC/d up to 2020 with the latest 30-year OLS (to 3/2022) giving +0.233ºC/d.
And to take that acceleration and project it into the future (which is no more a realistic projection than projecting the latest linear rate); so assuming the strongest of that acceleration is something more than a short-term wobble, that +0.5ºC/decade only arrives in the late 2050s.
Killiansays
You confirmed it yourself, then say Gavin is correct.
That’s a strong conservative interpretation bias you’ve got there, MAR, when you even contradict yourself. But let’s look at just who is using inappropriate language, eh?
You say the info is cherry-picked. Let’s look at that definition.
intransitive verb
: to select the best or most desirable
transitive verb
: to select as being the best or most desirable also : to select the best or most desirable from
You are accusing the scientists of *wanting* to find a 0.5C increase. That seems to be a case of libel, imo, no? What scientist *wants* to find a 0.5C increase? But that is why people cherry-pick, to support what they *want* to show rather than showing what is.
I stated in my post that they *seemed to be* using the end of the *current* parabolic curve. You have shown this to be accurate. They said in the video the *current* rate of warming is 0.5/decade. Again, you show this to be accurate. (Please don’t be a pedantic twit and argue the difference between your .47 and their .5.) I said the logic is sound: The long-term trend is parabolic. This is accurate. I am sure they can see that for themselves, as can you and Gavin. I know of no study claiming that curve is going to stop being parabolic unless we make massive changes – which we are not current;y making.
So, what they said and what I repeated is absolutely accurate: The *current* rate of warming is sitting at 0.5C/decade and increasing. This may change, but has not changed yet.
The cherry-pick is actually by you and Gavin. The case was made for *current* data and you changed it to *long-term* data. You had to; it’s the only way you could argue those scientists are wrong. And this is worrying. Why would the two of you want to downplay warming rate of 0,5C/decade?
[Response: The problem with picking the ten-year period that happens to give you the largest trend is that it’s very unlikely to be predictive. The way you switch from ‘the trend from 2011-2020 was 0.47ºC/dec’ (+/-0.2ºC/dec) (which was true) to talking about the ‘warming rate’ which implicitly assumes it will continue is the issue. This is not likely. The longer term trends are more stable and half as large (20 yr trend is ~0.23ºC). My pushback is on your implicit predictions, not your ability to calculate a linear trend. Note too that 2012-2021 is 0.31ºC/dec – why are you not stressing that more recent result? – gavin ]
Killiansays
The problem with picking the ten-year period that happens to give you the largest trend is that it’s very unlikely to be predictive.
Yes. This was understood as underpinning your original response because it is obvious, yes? *Statistically*, you are correct. In terms of typical climate science – long term trends, not weather – you are correct. But that is irrelevant. You are ignoring the long-tail risk in doing this while they, and I, are clearly using long-term risk as the frame of reference, along with acknowledging we are not doing nearly enough to make a reversal of this acceleration happen.
Climate Change is accelerating. Warming is accelerating. A 30-year trend is absolutely inappropriate in a world of Rapid Climate Change. Or what we perhaps should start calling Super-Rapid Climate Change.
Why the two of you even bother arguing this point is perplexing.
Add to this that while the rapid, parabolic rise cannot be guaranteed to continue, it is completely wrong to say it is unlikely to do so when it’s a part of a long-term trend of well over a hundred years! What is very unlikely to happen is that curve bending down without a global change to what humans do, and we are showing convincingly we so far are unwilling to do that. But even if the rate of change slows to merely monotonic exponential increases, we *still* get to +5.2C by 2100.
I provided you both with a correction to your positions up-thread. I don’t understand your reluctance to acknowledge RCC when it has become so blindingly obvious.
We are currently at @ 0.5C/decade. Period. Nobody has claimed that is guaranteed to continue. It’s simply what currently is. Arguing, pointlessly, against this is fuel for denialists and minimalists. I don’t get it.
[Response: What you don’t get is that consistency counts for a lot in the long term. Picking something convenient this month only to have it be replaced and discarded the next year doesn’t help anyone. We know that 10 year trends are noisy, using one of them as a long term prediction is foolish. – gavin
Killiansays
My pushback is on your implicit predictions, not your ability to calculate a linear trend. Note too that 2012-2021 is 0.31ºC/dec – why are you not stressing that more recent result? – gavin ]
Because I don’t have an agenda and did not try to do your job for you. I merely reported what the paper and presentation said, If they update their paper and say, gee, *this* *year*, the trend is lower, which really would be cherry-picking along the lines of 1998 and the no warming denialist argument. The issue isn’t ten years vs 11 or 15, it’s looking at the end of the tail and noting there has been an acceleration. Why would you cherry=pick from within that acceleration rather than use the full term of the acceleration?
You are asking me why I am not cherry-picking at an even finer grain than what I have already been accused of doing! Frankly, I don’t know which years bookend their 0.5C claim. It’s not my claim. I am merely sharing it and noting the dangers of it *not* being an anomaly – which is the kind of risk analysis I have been begging climate scientists to use in cli sci messaging for a long time.
Cherry-picking? No, consistent. Same message for well over 10 years.
[Response: Now you have moved to argument from authority ‘they are scientists who said something in a video!’. Not convincing. I have spent literally decades pushing back on folks who pick on short term noise to either diminish the issues, and, occasionally, exaggerate them. What is abundantly clear over that time is that short term trends are not predictive – it doesn’t matter who highlights them. In general, people should be more critical of things that confirm their biases. – gavin]
Carbomontanussays
Killiasn
Those curves and functions, that you are talking of, are not parabolic.
They are exponensial. Their status at the moment in any point is equal to their rate of increasing or decaying times a constrant that is characteristric to the curve.
This is very common in the universe and in the climate.
And if that constant factor changes, then something else is happening such as for instance that Humanity or growth or ropt decay is changing its behaviours.
Or that we may get quite close to a cathastrophy or tipping point.
Parabolic it ain`t .
Examine your vocabulary and linguistics and grammars on this.
Parabolic, that is the fameous Y = aX^2 or if a stone fralls in vacuum from the leaning tower in Pisa, which it never did, The fallen distance S per microsecond increases by a constant plus delta S per micro or millisecond or second. That was Gallileis formula of it.
But exponesial , that is more Baroque. That is how Pascals spiral is developing or Snails and ammonites and other natural shells and moluscs shape up. Euler discussed the same and introduced the first Logaritms.
We usen it in the construction of organ nregisters and harpsichord strings also. In steps, by successive quints. Each step is multiplied and enlarged from the former by 3/2. That aint not parabolic , that is exponensial. And we use it in the discussion of agressive and chemical potensials and voltages.
Tyhe ” initial rise” of a bushfire or a pandemic or any auto- catalytic system of that kind is also exponential, not parabolic because the phaenomena is directly causing itself in any unlimited substrate- field.
The given quinte or octave accord on the keyeboard organ register causes the next. by a constant MVLTIPLICATOR, not a constand addition to STATVS per interval, like in the parabolic functions. .
If human mentality and behaviour that causes itself in the givenn substrate the climaten is kept constant,…. it will go to Hell. It is as easy as that. And not t9o Hell by the parabolic way but in the exponesial way.
People will never believe you if you confuse also such elementary things..
Mal Adaptedsays
Thanks MAR, you’re a numbers guy alright. When noodling with this kind of exploratory analysis, Kevin Cowtan’s GMST trend calculator is great for comparing warming rates over arbitrary time intervals. You can choose your favorite dataset as well as your time-series length. A similar analysis to yours, similarly demonstrates that warming is accelerating. As a non-expert, however, I’m wary of quick’n’dirty eyeball tests! Can it really be that easy to show acceleration conclusively?
You ask “Can it really be that easy to show acceleration conclusively?”
I think the answer is “Yes!!” but only if you are ‘eyeballing’ the right sort of graph.
On the subject of that Kevin C trend calculator, I think most would be more familiar with it at SkepticalScience and if you dig a bit there, you may note another rather interesting page from Kevin C that similarly shows global temperature series but when adjusted for Sol,Vol&ENSO (à la Foster & Rahmstorf 2011). Sadly the data provided in it is still 1979-2011, sad because the adjusted de-(natural)-wobbled data would show any acceleration far more clearly.
And on theme of useful graphical engines, let’s not forget WoodForTrees. Note that while the value of any plotted regression at WoodForTrees doesn’t appear on the graph, it is given within the rest of the plotted numbers via the Raw data button.
Of course, all that is a rather clunky way to examine trends in the temperature record, but then I consider OLS is rather clunky for such use. You need 20 years or more for the wobbles of a global SAT record to be smoothed away and reveal a useful trend value and 20-years-plus is rather a long time to assume linearity.
The top part of the ‘today-posted’ graphic down this link shows why you do need 20 years. The graphic shows that for single month the 10-year OLS stood at +0.47ºC/decade of warming (June 2010 to May 2020) if anybody was daft enough to want to cherry-pick it. And today, the latest 10-year period (Apr 2012 to March 2022) is dropped down to +0.26ºC/decade, that down from the +0.31ºC/decade at the end of last year.
So why would I answer “Yes!!” to your question “Can it really be that easy to show acceleration conclusively?”
I answer “Yes!!” because the rate of warming has been remarkably constant 1975-2013. This allows a simple plot of the 60-month rolling averages (as in the bottom part of the ‘today-posted’ graphic down this link to show the period since 2013 has diverged above the central trend and has done-so further than at any time since 1975.
Diverging above the previous trend onto a new trend means an acceleration has occurred.
If the divergence-away-from-the-old-trend keeps bending away (rather than diverging linearly), that would be a continuing acceleration.
But although the divergence since 2013 is big, that is not to say it couldn’t be a very big wobble which will drop back to the old trend.
Of course, the plan is for AGW mitigation to kick-in so we get divergence down below the trend. So “above” is not good..
Yes, Kevin, it does, and is blindingly obvious. Until it changes, it is the current state of things.
No surprise to see you join the chorus of risk minimization.
It’s not about me, and it’s not about risk minimization.
It’s about *not* doing stats in the stupidest possible manner.
Killiansays
We are at .47 now, but .50 is three decades away? How is that not cherry-picking? The context provided by the paper and the video is clear: They are taking the most recent ten years, not the 30-year average **as is appropriate**with a parabolic curve showing no signs of meaningful slowing.
The statement in the video is accurate. You confirmed that. It serves no purpose for you to belittle that and move the goal posts. Let me fix it for you:
Yes, if we take the short-term slope, then it’s fair to say warming is *currently* within @ 0.5/decade. However, the long-term trend is much lower and the short-term trend may not continue. Then again, the short-term treand could become more accute, and that seems by far the more likely outcome.
Carbomontanussays
Killian
You seem to be performing a very fameous, standard trolling and denial routine. Cherrypicking a short term noisy fast moovement in the curve and selling that as the main overall and future ” trend” or tendency.. A rather fameous magical trick of cheating also.
By the way, how does it feel to keep up with the worst journalisms that wee see now from Ukraina? That behaviour is not sustainable but it may be some special way of Permaculture as it has been withnessed in Ukraina before. But, does one have to take a bad example from it?
“They are taking the most recent ten years, not the 30-year average **as is appropriate**with a parabolic curve showing no signs of meaningful slowing.”
And they are COMPLETELY wrong to do that. Imagine if they had done that during the ten years of subdued warming from about 2002 – 2012 and projected it forwards. It would have proven to be utterly wrong.
You need at least twenty years of data to have useful data, due to natural cycles, before you can project anything forward, and it is still only a rough projection at best.
Killiansays
Yes, Kevin, it does, and is blindingly obvious. Until it changes, it is the current state of things.
No surprise to see you join the chorus of risk minimization.
Barry Finchsays
I’m going with 0.20 / decade + 0.06 / decade / decade because 2s & 6s are my favourite. You could go with 0.5 / decade if you’re a 5s person.
Carbomontanussays
Killian
You seem to be performing a very fameous, standard trolling and denial routine. Cherrypicking a short term noisy fast moovement in the curve and selling that as the main overall and future ” trend” or tendency.. A rather fameous magical trick of cheating also.
Well clog-the-comment-thread!!! The comment up-thread by Jim Galasyn has spawned a thread of 31 replies and 4,000 words which have been almost entirely pandering to the misguided ravings of a single commenter. I think that is a good illustration of the problems in these RC threads.
What Meinshausen et al are saying is that there are now national pledges which if implemented would restrict global CO2 emissions 2020-30 to 450 Gt(CO2) = 123Gt(C). That will not see any drop in emissions through the 2020s and so by 2030 blow the entire budget which would keep us below +1.5ºC AGW. Yet these ‘pledged’ emissions are somehow converted into emissions 2020-50 give roughly 1,000Gt(CO2) global emissions [=275Gt(C)] which the paper is saying does provide a budget for +2.0ºC AGW.
This 2021 RC item shows tese 2020-2050 cumulative CO2 emissions are still below the AR6 post-2020 CO2 budgets for +2.0ºC AGW [1,350Gt(CO2) or 370Gt(C)]. but not greatly so. These emissions are seemingly shown exceeding the emissions of the +2.0ºC AGW scenario SSP1-2.6 within Meinshausen et al’s Fig 3b with no grand plunge in level thro’ the 2020 but rather plunging in the 2030s before converging with SSP1-2.6 emissions by the 2040s (with differences above SSP1-2.6 again appearing 2060-on).
I don’t yet feel so easy with the flat emissions level running beyond 2030 alongside the whiff of a “job done” message which I’m sure is not intended by the authors as they say in their Q&A1:-
The NDC pledges up to 2030 only lead to approximately flat global emissions until then. This would exhaust nearly the complete remaining global carbon budget until 2030 alone. Thus, without steering away from burning fossil fuels even more swiftly this decade, we are destined to overshoot 1.5C by quite a margin.
Killiansays
MAR,
Your utter dishonesty here is… just too typical of you.
Indeed. We suffer the “misguided ravings of a single commenter.” But it’s never to late to learn.
Killian,
Here is a little puzzle for you.
If I measure up a screen-shot of an on-line graph and find it takes the path of a straight yellow line drawn onto that graph 166 horizontal pixels to to rise from one horizontal line to the one above, these horizontal lines marking vertically a scale of temperature in 0.5ºC increments, and if there are vertical lines marking time in 20 year increments that are found to be 109 horizontal pixels apart, at what rate is the straight yellow line rising?
You may give your answer in degrees Celsius per decade.
(HINT – The answer is obviously not +0.5ºC/decade. As a very rough guide of what it should come out as, using the SkS trend tool set for GISTEMPv4 and the period of data the straight yellow line is drawn through [1987.3-2017.8], OLS provides a trend of +0.19ºC/decade.)
Killiansays
So now you’re doing intentionally dense? None of those lines is keyed to any years, genius, they merely show the slope changing over time. Note the issue was DECADE time frame, but you think the yellow line covering about 20 years is supposed to indicate one should calculate… oh, ever mind. It’s not as if you are ever honest. You always twist the issues to the extreme conservative side, and here is the first time I’ve seen you behave intentionally stupidly.
Killian,
You appear to be well out of your depth here. Let me try to provide you with a bit of buoyancy by demonstrating that you are half right, roughly.
Firstly, you insist up-thread that the assertion that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” is “something stated by scientists”. This is not the case. It is a single quote given in one video by a single scientist who I would suggest is not of the sort of scientist you would consider to be a ‘go to’ scientist for such information.
The only other person I see making that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” claim is Killian.
Secondly, the “issue” was not and remains ‘not’ a “DECADE time frame.” The issue is “the current rate of warming” which is difficult to evaluate due to the wobbly nature of the global SAT data.
Ignoring the good old error bars, we are easily able to show the average “rate of warming” 2002-22 is +0.23ºC/decade using GISTEMP. This is of course an average centered on 2012, so a value which is a decade out-of-date. Now, if we can find a value for the acceleration, that would provide a measure for the increase in the “rate of warming” since 2012 and thus show the “the current rate of warming.”
This graphic from a 2019 Tamino post is based on the temperature data when corrected for SolVol&ENSO so is less wobble-ridden. It suggests an acceleration for GISTEMP(NASA) of +0.0004ºC/yr/yr or +0.04ºC/decade/decade.
So this would suggest that in the 10 years 2012 to 2022 the rate of warming would have risen from +0.23ºC/decade to perhaps +0.27ºC/decade.
And to give some level of confirmation, this graphic (from this more recent Tamino post dated Oct 2021) shows the “the current rate of warming” as being a little shy of that +0.27ºC/decade.
Killiansays
I am completely right. I drew the damned lines! Each line was drawn *only* to show the slope over time. They were not used to calculate anything, However, if you take the steepest two lines at the far right, each started from a different point to avoid claims of cherry-picking, you get the same answers as further up this thread, 4.7-ish to 5.0-ish.
Again, confirmed.
This is the sole argument. The *current* slope is in that range. Period.
Pull your head out.
Firstly, you insist up-thread that the assertion that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” is “something stated by scientists”. This is not the case. It is a single quote given in one video by a single scientist who I would suggest is not of the sort of scientist you would consider to be a ‘go to’ scientist for such information.
The only other person I see making that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” claim is Killian.
You’re being idiotic. The video is presenting a PAPER with multiple authors. Again, the first time I recall you being intentionally stupid on these pages. That is what arguing from an agenda does to one’s reasoning.
Secondly, the “issue” was not and remains ‘not’ a “DECADE time frame.” The issue is “the current rate of warming” which is difficult to evaluate due to the wobbly nature of the global SAT data.
Bullshit. I set the framing, not you. You get to move the goal posts set by me? Buy a freaking clue. Massive goddamned arrogance – and intellectual dishonesty.
Ignoring the good old error bars, we are easily able to show the average “rate of warming” 2002-22 is +0.23ºC/decade using GISTEMP.
Who gives a shit? You do not get to cherry-pick the context set by others. The video and I both stated the current warming at the decadal time frame. I have often been frustrated with your super-conservative sniping at forward-looking analysis, but I am thoroughly disgusted with this display of outright dishonesty.
It’s shameful.
And to give some level of confirmation, this graphic (from this more recent Tamino post dated Oct 2021) shows the “the current rate of warming” as being a little shy of that +0.27ºC/decade.
Huh. Two years into a massive economic downturn and two straight La Ninas? Talk about cherry-picking. Hypocritical much? You know perfectly well the next El Nino will reverse that “pause” in a quick damned hurry.
You are welcome to your extreme conservatism re climate, but you are being dishonest on every point you have made.
nigeljsays
Killian. I don’t believe that MAR is being arrogant. He is trying to explain to you why ten years is a very deceptive time period to use for the current rate of warming, and that you need at least 20 years. A look at the temperature record 1880 – 2021 makes it plain why ten year periods don’t mean much:
And if you do want to emphasis ten year periods, you didn’t answer this question upthread: “Note too that 2012-2021 is 0.31ºC/dec – why are you not stressing that more recent result? – gavin”
The warming trend since the 1970s is very worrying as it is, without any need to focus too much on very short periods and try to read too much into them..
nigelj,
That + 0.31ºC/decade for the period 2012-21 is a very wobbly measure. Move the time frame just 3 months to Apr2012-Mar2022 and OLS gives a trend of +0.26ºC/decade.
And we can even speculate how warm 2022 will turn out to be over the full year, and in doing so see how those speculative out-turns will do to the wibbly-wobbly 10-yr OLS trend.
Thus if 2022 turns out as =3rd warmest year on record equal to 2019, the 10-yr OLS trend will drop to +0.23ºC/decade. (Mind, =3rd looks unlikely.) If it manages =4th (=2017) it drops to +0.20ºC/decade and =5th (=2015) +0.19ºC/decade.
So the future is all a bit embarrassing for somebody intent on peddling AGW with a current trend +0.5ºC/decade.
And so the comment thread becomes dangled-down further as the “the misguided ravings of (the) single commenter” continue with his insistence that he is “completely right.”
Killian,
You are “completely wrong” and simply writing lunatic nonsense.
Take this IPCC graph you annotated with those “damned lines.” As you have been told before, none of them slope at anything like “4.7-ish to 5.0-ish” degrees Celsius per decade. Even the steepest of the lines “at the far right” only rises at +0.21ºC/decade.
How could any sane person claim it shows +0.5ºC/decade!! Look at it!!! It takes over 23 years to rise +0.5ºC and decades aren’t 23 years long!!!!!
You say there is “a PAPER with multiple authors.”
But there is no paper. It is a lecture by Julia Steinberger entitled “Living well within planetary limits: is it possible? And what will it take?”
So, as you have been told before, it is a single lecture (not a paper) by single author (not multiple authors) and a second version of that lecture here doesn’t even mention a rate of warming (other than saying that the warming of AGW is “coming at a high rate of speed”). So enumerating that “high rate of speed” and presenting the value as +0.5ºC/decade isn’t an actual part of the message of that lecture.
As for the “goal posts” you claim to have provided, you have argued up-thread that the rate-of-warming of concern is the most recent rate-of-warming. “When looking at a parbolic curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve.” Ignoring the assertion of the type of curve the warming rate is forming, you argue to use the most up-to-date available value.
Even in this latest comment of yours you describe it. (“This is the sole argument. The *current* slope is in that range. Period.”) Yet the trend value you appear to covet, the +0.47ºC/decade, is a 10-year OLS that is two years out-of-date (Jun2010-May2020). You are cherry-picking from an exceedingly wibbly-wobbly time series.
And both you and that one version of the lecture give a rate of warming in degrees Celsius per decade which (like any time-dependent unit of measurement, like miles-per-hour for instance, or weekly income) is not in any way defining any time frame of the measurement employed.
Finally, there is no pause shown in the Tamino graph, not one caused by ENSO or by economic downturn or by anything else. The current rate of warming shown is +0.26ºC/decade and has never been higher.
So, while you may have felt the urge to “dis” my ‘honesty’, in truth you are yourself entirely misguided in “every [single] point you have made.” Well done you!!!
Killiansays
Killian. I don’t believe that MAR is being arrogant.
What you think has never, will never, matter to me, for obvious reasons.
zebrasays
“31 replies, 4,000 words”
MAR, please tell me you have an efficient way to count replies and words on these threads. I don’t have the patience to do it by hand.
I’ve suggested, in various forms previously and on the recent “End of Comments?” thread that a simple first step in improving the situation would be to offer a listing, by name of individuals, of the number of comments and total column inches consumed.
No need for the moderators to do the work.
It would also help to have a list of “recent” comments beyond the 12 that appears so that questions from people like Jim would not get buried and missed completely… those are the comments I’m interested in seeing and perhaps responding to.
I’m not suggesting you do the work, (although I know you like to make lists), but I’m hoping for suggestions (from anyone) on how to set up software to do it.
jgnfldsays
If you think it not a waste of too much lifetime, many/most text editors will count words free/no-ads. Notepad++ is my preferred text editor. There may be html-based, direct methods, but I don’t know them.
Just copy/paste the text into it and click on View|Summary.
I wouldn’t bother, personally.
zebrasays
jgnfld,
Thanks, I do know the simple stuff…for example I could count the number of comments from an individual by using the “find” on the browser, but as you say, life is short.
My ideal would be a way to copy a thread into a spreadsheet and have it sort thing out by recognizing html markers, but I don’t know squat about html, and yes, life gets shorter all the time, so I’m not about to learn.
zebra,
You can cut-&-paste this comment thread into a spreadsheet just as easily as into a word processor and a few columns of logic can then tot up how many comments and words (or characters in those words) a particular commenter has contributed. I had such a set-up and was posting the findings five years back when we had a particularly prolific commenter who wished to share his voluminous wisdom with us all – at its peak that amounted to a third of the verbage/comments.
Knocking up a quick spreadsheet now (so there will be some minor bugs) shows this thread so far is 83%/75% the work (wordage/comments) of just seven commenters.
There can be reasons these elevated volumes of input; ♥ engaging in a long to-&-fro ♥ pasting long URLs direct into the thread ♥ posting big character-rich tables (like the smallish one below).
The problem is when the volume of tittle=tattle swamps all else.
For the second month in a row, temperatures in India and Pakistan are abnormally high because of a string of strong and prolonged heatwaves – and now another surge is building.
This week, an intensifying heatwave is pushing temperatures to dangerously high levels. Temperatures topped 43C in the Indian capital of Delhi on Thursday…………………..
.While India is often exposed to intense heat episodes, research shows the frequency, duration and intensity has increased as global temperatures rise.
A February study revealed that human activity played a larger role than natural causes, stating “anthropogenic factors have cause a twofold increase in the occurrence probability of severe heatwaves in central and mid-southern India during the 20th century”.
The risk of heatwaves is projected to increase tenfold during the 21st century under some future climate-change scenarios as well.
“The extreme heatwave hitting India this week comes on top of 1C warming that country has already experienced,” tweeted Zeke Hausfather, a climate researcher at Stripe, a global technology company. “On our current emissions trajectory (SSP2-4.5), India is headed for around 3.5C warming by the end of the century.”
Preben Borchsays
Doing some investigations. What was the reaction to Hansens 1981 article if any. Did it reach Scientific American or other popular scientific publications? Reference to articles appriciated.
Preben Borch,
You are presumably asking about Hansen et al (1981) which has seen quite a bit of the light of day through the decades since publication. Is there a particular part of that period you are interested in?
Preben Borchsays
Yes sure MA Rodger, sorry for not making an excact reference. Well I have basically read most of Hansens early publications and I was wondering if there was some immediate reactions to the 1981 publication in public media. Im kind of aware that he wasnt too much into public communication at the time, and handed that over to others. But was there references to the publication in public media at all around 1981? I believe I have a resonable good understanding of the scientific debate at the time, and that it took a few years to establish that Hansen et al was in the end the scientific consensus. But I have no clue how this was covered in public media, like say in Scientific American or other popular scientific publications.
Preben Borch,
The Scientific American does have an archive which can be searched for terms like “James Hansen” and that will give you a list of the articles mentioning Hansen through the 1980s The first couple of entries post-Hansen et al (1981) are from a couple of climatologists, pieces by Revelle (the bloke who got Al Gore interested in AGW back in the 1960s although very late in life Revelle was found publishing with denialist Fred Singer) & planet man Andrew Ingersoll.
For myself, I don’t remember the media gearing up to present AGW to the world until perhaps 1990. I was returned to academia in the later part of the 1980s and AGW was not a subject I encountered on campus back then (although I wasn’t on campus very much. Mind I did once break into the CRU at East Anglia but that was to find a room for my System’s Group at an OU Summer School).
While the interweb wasn’t working as it was today back in the early 1980s, the sole reporting of Hansen et al (1981) I can see on-line is this NYT item which presumably does qualify Hansen et al as being front page news.
UAH TLT has been posted for April with an anomaly of +0.26ºC, well up on March’s +0.15ºC, Feb’s -0.01ºC and Jan’s +0.03ºC.
April 2022 sits as the =4th warmest April on the UAH TLT record, behind 1998, 2016 & 2019 and equal to 2020. April 2022 is =50th in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
After the chilly early months of 2022, the first third of 2022 in UAH TLT rises to become the =9th warmest start to the year.
Why the IPCC reports have got to stop including economics – and politics:
https://undark.org/2021/11/11/its-time-we-stop-listening-to-economists-on-climate-change/
Good read, thanks for the link.
(disclosure, I have a degree in economics and think this linkage is ludicrous)
The one person you never ask about climate-related economics, or Economics at all? Someone with a degree in Economics. It’s like asking a Right Wing Republican about the Dec. 6 insurrection.
You’re not going to get heterodox Econ from a university, as your rexponse clearly shows. I suggest you read everything by Keen and Kelton.
Cough, cough. Paul Krugman. Cough, cough.
I would suggest that rather than casting away an entire field of study, that one instead point to the problematic issues in the field and the analysis and discuss why they are problematic.
For example, I think that one of the more problematic issues with Nordhaus was his use of discounting–that is attaching higher cost to action taken today than to action deferred. This is highly problematic with a degenerative threat like climate change. We certainly cannot assume that we will all be richer and more able to deal with the issue in the future than we are in the present. Indeed, the opportunity cost of not taking action now may be incalculable.
Correct. The opportunity cost of not taking action now MAY be incalculable, but the real cost of taking action too fast (before renewables can do the job) WILL be incalculable and deadly.
Ray Ladbury. Quite right. Nordhaus assumes high rates of economic growth in the future and he’s wrong. Not only is the latest science suggesting the climate problem will reduce those growth rates, which is intuitively obvious anyway, the real world data shows rates of gdp growth falling steadily in developed countries over about the least 40 years, apparently due to demographic factors, market saturation and possibly increased extraction costs for some materials. The forces mentioned driving slower growth are likely to intensify. And growth has slowed despite attempts to boost growth with very low interest rates and quantitative easing, – things that are not sustainable for long periods of time.
The world is clearly heading towards low economic growth or perhaps even zero growth and we will have to learn to live with it. Western civilisation, is getting old and slowing down just like people do. People won’t want to admit this. Falling growth rates will help the environment and have a positive side.
I’m not suggesting we deliberately try to engineer a huge and rapid degrowth agenda, because that would be painful and would probably cause our society to collapse disastrously. I’m just talking about the inevitability of the economy slowing, and this is not necessarily a bad thing and we shouldn’t fight against it, and it mystifies me that Nordhaus cant see the obvious. Perhaps its hubris about what humanity can achieve or ideologically driven in some form
I would suggest you pay attention and not use Straw Men: You said, “I would suggest that rather than casting away an entire field of study,”, but I said. “You’re not going to get heterodox Econ from a university, as your response clearly shows. I suggest you read everything by Keen and Kelton.”
When your response depends on a Straw Man fallacy, please don’t waste the bandwidth, I have spoken of the many problems with Economics many times. Start with it’s not a science, but rather is philosophy that only much later tried to layer mathematics over to give it legitimacy. When you start with absurd assumptions, there is little point in going any further as a false premise will lead to false conclusions.
Keen’s take-down of Nordhaus suffices for anything else, but you can also check out his websites, videos and books, including a new one last year.
You also know that Keen’s Minsky model was based on basic Economics, but was changed to an energy/thermodynamics basis because economics is absurd, as per my critiques to Steve in 2010.
You already know all this, so your criticism isn’t exactly honest.
Killian. When you are so dismissive of “someone with a degree in economics” you will tend to get people like RL saying you are dismissive of economics and economists. I don’t know why this surprises you. Youre just being idiotic.
You then say “You’re not going to get heterodox Econ from a university, as your rexponse clearly shows. I suggest you read everything by Keen and Kelton.” Except that Steven Keen is very much a university trained economist with a commerce degree in economics and has served as an economics professor at various Australian universities (wikipedia profile). He does not follow the neo classical orthodoxy, but hes not alone.
Mr. Know Fuck All: “…but the real cost of taking action too fast (before renewables can do the job) WILL be incalculable and deadly.”
Well, golly gee willikers, maybe if we’d spent the last 4 decades developing effective mitigations and responses rather than having half the politicians denying the problem, we’d be able to respond now rather than sit here with our collective thumbs up our collective arses, But then, at least your head has all those thumbs for company.
Let’s see what numbscullery lies within…
I’m not suggesting we deliberately try to engineer a huge and rapid degrowth agenda, because that would be painful and would probably cause our society to collapse disastrously.
And there you have it, folks. According to this genius, the only way to prevent an uncontrolled collapse will be the *cause* of collapse.
Too bad anything the genius proposes cannot come close to solving our problems ever, let alone this century. So, foks, do try to remember it takes zero time to simply stop doing something. It takes DECADES to build out entire systems to alter manufacturing and production globally, and we need to build out a number of systems to meet the technocopian’s bizarrely obtuse agenda which ignores how long buildouts take, ignore they are all unsustainable, ignores that the resources do not exist ti maintain them over generations, etc.
While technically we do need system collapse when you look at degrowth as a percentage of current consumption, in reality we are talking about localizing production, shaping consumption to needs, eliminating work/production that is meaningless (like shuffling papers for financial institutions that do no real work in any way, shape of form), etc.
Building a healthy world requires exactly zero economics in the sense of any common understanding of that term.
“…the real cost of taking action too fast (before renewables can do the job)…”
Category error. Building out renewables to “do the job” is in fact “taking action.” So KIA is in effect claiming that taking action before taking action is dangerous.
Clearly not–merely logically impossible.
Regarding the Jag Bhalla link on its time we stopped listening to economists on climate change. Clearly Nordhaus’s climate costs model is extremely flawed and woefully underestimates costs, (nothing new there), but difficulties putting costs on the climate problem doesn’t seem a good reason to just give up on economic models. Who is Jag Bhalla anyone? His biography has no information on his education, qualifications or background beyond vague generalities and a list of books..
Please, stop posting till you have something to say and until you actually read the article and the links, which you did not do. Nowhere does it say to not use economic models; it says don’t use DICE and DICE-like models, specifically supports a revolution in economic modeling for climate and links to Keen and his comments, and by extension, his model for a thermodynamic/nature-based model of Economics specifically intended to reform Economics and climate economics. Keen has written an entire book on the subject that came out last year that you cannot be bothered with because it doesn’t match your milquetoast, do-as-little-as-possible-because-actual-solutions-are-scary bullshit perspective.
Headline writers really should read the article they’re headlining, too. That headline is an egregious example of why.
The headline was completely accurate. Headline readers should improve their reading skills.
Jesus wept. . This is what the link you posted said, right at the beginning “Economic models of climate change are so riddled with flaws and fudge factors that we’d be better off without them.” Right at the beginning. FFS.
And that’s as far as you read. Context matters, but not to you. You are incompetent in that regard and demonstrate it on the regular.
When it says we’d be better off without them it refers to the econonomics that now dominates. It then not only calls for a revolution in modeling – making your simplistic reliance on a *beginning* statement, which in any article or essay may be intended to grab the attention of the reader, foolish – but also LINKS TO economic thinking and a modeler that is nature-based, That’s called “context.”
Jesus cries a river every time you post. Shush.
econonomics > economics
Killian. I read the article but I missed the statement that he was referring just to just the dice like models. My bad. You obviously think you are perfect or close to it, but we all see how the reality is something very different. Judging by what many people have written in response to your posts over literally years.
I am far from perfect, but you are completely incompetent so I understand why I make you feel that way. Failing to consider the full context is not the outlier with you, it’s the norm.
No Killian. You are totally incompetent and also routinely fail to consider full context. This is what me, Piotr, BPL and KM and others have been trying to tell you for years.
Killian. Here’s a list of your incompetence just from this page:
1) You try to defend the link you posted, despite the fact it has an opening statement on modelling that totally contradicts the text on modelling.
2) You make contradictory statements about the article, as pointed out by Kevin.
3) You falsely accuse people of using strawman arguments. You make wild generalisations that we should ignore people with economics degrees then when RL suggest you are saying we should ignore economists (who are generally understood to have economics degrees) you falsely accuse him of using a strawman.
4) You say Steve Keen is not a university economist, when his biography clearly shows he is a university economist.
.
Do you want me to continue? With other pages?
My worst failing is I missed reading a line of text in a useless article by someone who hides his qualifications. I only scanned it briefly. I don’t waste time on long articles in depth where the writer hides their qualifications. But I own my mistakes. You go on defending the indefensible ad nauseum.
KIllian Mar. 14: “ I am far from perfect ”
Really? I don’t recall ANY thread in which you honestly admitted that you were wrong and honestly apologized to the people whom you had wronged. Then again, I have not read the majority of your 1000s (?) of posts here. But you did – so you should have no problem with illustrating your general statement with several specific examples – threads in which you were NOT perfect, and admitted it at the time.
If you can – great, I’ll gladly admit that you are more than what I thought you were. If you can’t, then you would have supported what I thought you were – and your “ I am far from perfect ” wasn’t an expression of humbleness and introspection, but merely a disingenuous rhetorical figure telling the reader “look how humble I am” … and then using it as a jump-off point to …. attack your opponent:
“ I am far from perfect, but you are completely incompetent so I understand why I make you feel that way”
I can’t wait to see which of the two explanations will turn out to be true. I guess we will know from the examples you will provide. Or the absence thereof….
How weird is it that you routinely just take my criticisms of you and repeat them back at me verbatim, gaslighter?
What I said was accurate. You admit you did not understand the context then gaslight in response claiming I missed the context? You realize your admissions is **still there** for everyone to read?
Grow a pair. Take responsibility for yourself.
Killian
“How weird is it that you routinely just take my criticisms of you and repeat them back at me verbatim, gaslighter?”
There is nothing weird about it. You criticise people for incompetence. I’m pointing out you are far more incompetent. I just gave you four examples above. Maybe read that for “context”.
“You admit you did not understand the context.”
I most certainly did NOT admit that. I posted at Match 11 ” I read the article but I missed the statement that he was referring just to just the dice like models. My bad.” Missing reading a statement is obviously not the same as not understanding context.”
“then gaslight in response claiming I missed the context? ”
Wrong. I said “you also routinely fail to consider full context.” So this is obviously not in response to the link you posted. It is obviously a general statement on other comments you have posted on this website.
“Grow a pair. Take responsibility for yourself.”
I already did take responsibility. I said “my bad” on March 11 in respect of missing the statement about the dice like modelling buried in the text.
You’re a complete idiot. Killian. That’s the only conclusion I can draw.
“1. The article absolutely called for current economics to be excluded.”
No, it didn’t. Just–to quote you–“DICE and DICE-like models.” That’s a small subset of “current economics.”
Comment in full
“2. The article absolutely did suggest heterodox economists should be listened to.”
Not at issue.
“3. I never said the article suggested listening to no economists. The first line of the original post was mine, which I have already made VERY clear.”
No, you said the headline–as a reminder: “its-time-we-stop-listening-to-economists-on-climate-change”–was “completely accurate.” Does transitivity not apply in Killian world?
“You bore me now.”
If so, I’m sure it’s utterly inadequate to balance the tedium you’ve inflicted on this community by the bucketful.
nigel2 said…
“1. The article absolutely called for current economics to be excluded.”
No, it didn’t. Just–to quote you–“DICE and DICE-like models.” That’s a small subset of “current economics.”
That’s absolutely ridiculous to claim models that are built solely from neoclassical econ represents only a subset of econ. It’s like saying a quarter of NFL football isn’t based on all of football. Nonsense.
Comment in full
“2. The article absolutely did suggest heterodox economists should be listened to.”
Not at issue.
Afraid it is. Read the fucking thread.
“3. I never said the article suggested listening to no economists. The first line of the original post was mine, which I have already made VERY clear.”
No, you said the headline–as a reminder: “its-time-we-stop-listening-to-economists-on-climate-change”–was “completely accurate.” Does transitivity not apply in Killian world?
And it was. Heterodox economists have no influence in climate circles, let alone in general. They are still fighting to be taken seriously. No nation I know of sets its policies based on heterodox economics. The headline has a socio-political context that you simply do not accept and/or do not understand and/or can’t stop yourself from trolling over.
“You bore me now.”
If so, I’m sure it’s utterly inadequate to balance the tedium you’ve inflicted on this community by the bucketful.
Given the long list of accurate projections I have made over the last 15 years vs. your zero, I’d say this community needs a shitload more of my “tedium” over your… what? What have you contributed, nigel2? What unique view or awareness or theory have you brought to the discussion, nigel2? Exactly zero. But, once again, my list of unique and accurate observation, projections and predictions has grown so long it takes effort to recall them all.
Your gaslighting on this score is not surprising.
Speaking of “gaslighting”…
Sorry to see the fight-picking, ego-driven, cognitively distorted Bad Killian back with a vengeance. Clearly, it’s past time for a good dose of DNFTT.
Also sorry, everybody, to have prolonged this episode of nonsense. My bad.
Killian @19.2
Killian is still trying to claim the headline of the Jag Bhalla article was completely accurate. Its not accurate. The headline says “Time We Stop Listening to Economists on Climate Change” but the fine print of the article is only critical of dice like climate models, and is clearly listening to some economists on climate change, because it discusses the work of Nicholas Stern and Steve Keen and portrays that work in a positive light. So the title contradicts the content. The title is deceptive, and looks like click bait. It absolutely mystifies why Killian would claim otherwise. Its like claiming that black is white.
The statement immediately following the title says “Economic models of climate change are so riddled with flaws and fudge factors that we’d be better off without them.” Yet the fine print is only dismissive of dice like models. So another contradiction. More clickbait nonsense.
Clearly once you get beyond the title and opening statement, the main point of the article is arguing about some deficiencies in dice like models. I personally believe there are some deficiencies in the DICE models as stated up the page in response to RL.
There are several schools of economics including neoclassical economics, socialism and keynsian economics. Hunter gatherers have their own basic economic system. Every society through history has an economy and economic system. They all have their plusses and minuses. I find it a bit hard to generalise and say that one is right or wrong. None seem ideal. Several assume infinite economic growth.
We could do with a new economic system or modification of neo classical economics. I believe the starting point is it has to accept the reality that low levels of economic growth or even zero economic growth is inevitable. Plug that assumption into neoclassical economics and see what it does to other aspects of that school of thought. It will force it to change.
Killian first said: “Nowhere does it say to not use economic models; it says don’t use DICE and DICE-like models, specifically supports a revolution in economic modeling for climate…”
Then said: “The headline was completely accurate,” where the headline was “It’s Time We Stopped Listening To Economists On Climate Change.”
If someone making or utilizing economic models (especially “revolutionary” ones) is by definition an economist–a proposition I’d accept–then both statements cannot be true.
Pick a lane, K.
Buy a clue, Kev: There’s what they said in the article, which is what I responded to brainless about, The article did not argue for no economic modeling within the IPCCC, it argued for improved economics while basically saying current economic thinking should be dismissed from climate discussions.
Then there’s the issue of economics vs economics as the BASIS of climate decisions which *I* argue, not the article, should cease now and forever.
The nigelization of Kevin marches on.
Killian. Nobody cares what you “argue”. Most of your commentary on this website is idiotic, or contradictory like Kevin pointed out.
Killian, if I were looking to “buy a clue,” I certainly wouldn’t shop with you:
Nowhere does Bhalla say we shouldn’t listen to economists, and when he himself quotes them… well, ’nuff said.
Kevin. i.e. nigel2, one more time.
1. The article absolutely called for current economics to be excluded.
2. The article absolutely did suggest heterodox economists should be listened to.
3. I never said the article suggested listening to no economists. The first line of the original post was mine, which I have already made VERY clear. – and it’s accurate: Even Keen and Kelton have little to say about the climate response. Economics as any part of the decision-making WRT climate is sheer stupidity.
Now, shush, nigel2. You bore me now.
Killian. Nobody cares what you “argue”. Most of your commentary on this website is idiotic, or contradictory like Kevin pointed out.
Your, and nigel2’s, lack of knowledge thus inability to understand what you read, is where the idiocy lies. You have had six years to educate yourself on these matters and have refused to do so. Rather, you blather on about how your idiocy is genius.
Dunning-Kruger in full effect.
Nigel2 is even worse now. He’s had well over a decade to learn about and fully integrate regenerative concepts into his thinking, but instead has chosen to bandaid his ego by throwing in with your idiocy rather than admit to himself, and everyone else, he’s still mired in neoeconomics as his frame of thinking and unwilling, despite his “progressive” rhetoric, to admit he likes the system as it is.
You’re both unable and unwilling to begin from the realities of the natural world and so continue to shit yourselves over this issues.
Neoeconomics is nonsense. That is what the article tells you. It should not be used in making decisions about climate. That is what the article tells you. There are some heterodox economists who do incorporate some elements of the natural world and who have accurately criticised Nordhaus/neoeconomics and shown they are maladaptive framings for climate. This is what the article tells you.
*I* told you **no** form of economics is appropriate for framing the climate response.
I have said nothing different from this throughout this thread, You blathering damned fools cannot admit your lack of knowledge and skills and so keep attempting to gaslight.
I suspect our readers are far more intelligent than you weak-egoed fools.
Killian
“*I* told you **no** form of economics is appropriate for framing the climate response. “(March 16)
Maybe you mean no modern form of economics. Because for the the last five years you have used the economy of hunter gatherer peoples (or large parts of it) as a way of framing an appropriate response to the climate problem. All societies have an economy. Its just how they use and control and exchange resources.
To all and everyone
Killian 16 Mars 2022 is ptrobably the one here that is displaying Dunning Kruger in its full and most blatant effect.
“It takes one to know one” Putin spoke, and i shall not repeat that of blind hens…
But Killian is another example exept for that he hardly finds many “corns”. He gets what he needs from thinktank, where it is thought for him. Thus can remain and perform as a drunken sailor.
The “economy” of H-G’s? LOL…. yeah, because they had/have a growth-based, wants’-based, GDP-based, philosophy-based way of thinking about exchanging stuff. Sorry, no, they didn’t and don’t. Try to understand which came first, living, or idiots trying to use philosophical underpinnings and psychology to make sense of the completely maladaptive systems they had set up. I.e., the concept of ‘economy”, and most certainly “economics,” came long after people were exchanging stuff.
The chicken did not come before the egg. Only a damned fool pretends the way H-G’s manage things is anything remotely like what the typical person considers “the economy” or “economics.” You people trying to legitimize your nonsense by misapplying that label to natural systems is sheer desperation. Worse, you trying to sound like you know something because you saw an economist, or some other fool, make the claim that “economy” and/or “economics” in the sense we are talking in this and other threads applies to natural societies is just sad barking of words. Stop spluttering about your Chicago School, backwards, anti-life, anti-Nature nonsense – that you don’t even understand.
Killian
“The “economy” of H-G’s? LOL…. yeah, because they had/have a growth-based, wants’-based, GDP-based, philosophy-based way of thinking about exchanging stuff. Sorry, no, they didn’t and don’t.”
Nonsensical statements. An economy is not necessarily a growth based or wants based or gdp based thing. An economy is just how a society uses resources. Therefore clearly hunter gatherers have an economy. Its completely different from modern western economies.
You also have socialist economies and Keynsian economies. Economics is just the study of how economies work and could be improved.
Although hunter gatherers did produce gdp (as in economic output) although clearly much smaller than modern economies and they didn’t seek to hugely expand that output like modern economies generally do.
“the concept of ‘economy”, and most certainly “economics,” came long after people were exchanging stuff.”
So what? By analogy the concept of sociology came late in the development of human society, but it still describes and analyses early societies behaviour.
“Only a damned fool pretends the way H-G’s manage things is anything remotely like what the typical person considers “the economy” or “economics.”
Strawman. Nobody here has done that.
.
“Stop spluttering about your Chicago School, backwards, anti-life, anti-Nature nonsense – that you don’t even understand.”
Have barely even mentioned the Chicago School, and haven’t promoted it. We need something better than the Chicago School approach, but that doesn’t mean every single thing they teach or believe in is wrong. We cant copy hunter gatherer economy exactly even if we wanted. Far too many people on the planet. Nobody is suggesting we should but I say this just to make the point we need a new type of economy, that maybe borrows the best of all types of economies.
K: The “economy” of H-G’s? LOL…. yeah, because they had/have a growth-based, wants’-based, GDP-based, philosophy-based way of thinking about exchanging stuff.
BPL: Fallacy of bifurcation.
Economics is “who gets what how.” It is simply the study of how goods and services are produced and distributed. Hunter-gatherers most definitely have an economy, since they produce goods and services and those commodities get distributed. Your criticism of economics is like a creationist’s criticism of biology–you don’t know the first thing about the field you’re criticizing, so your objections sound asinine to anyone who does.
BPL, your Chicago School underpants are showing.
Economics:
1a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
First, why in the name of the gods would you need this in a Commons? You don’t. In a needs-based production system, what is there to analyze as to *why* something is being done? Economics only developed because of Capitalism. It has meaning only within that context. It is an abastraction which has zero usefulness in a regenerative system.
Second, let’s look at those last two terms, “goods” and “services.”
Goods:
3a : something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want
An economic *want.* This is irrelevant in a regenerative society. Meaningless.
b goods plural : personal property having intrinsic value but usually excluding money, securities, and negotiable instruments
Personal property has no meaning a regenerative society.
d goods plural : something manufactured or produced for sale : wares, merchandise
For sale. Again, irrelevant in a regenerative society.
So we have an abstraction from philosophy and psychology that has no meaning or usefulness in a fair, just, ecologically sound society, but YOU think it apples to H-G societies.
You have no idea what I’m talking about, so no idea what *you’re* talking about. You’re barking words. There is no concept more pointless than Economics. It’s voodoo on its best day, and you two are witch doctors prancing about spouting gibberish.
Killian
“Economics:. 1a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.”
No link to where this definition comes from. Unprofessional. But it sounds reasonable enough. I summarised it previously as how you use resources.
“First, why in the name of the gods would you need this (Economics) in a Commons? You don’t. In a needs-based production system, what is there to analyze as to *why* something is being done? Economics only developed because of Capitalism. It has meaning only within that context. It is an abastraction which has zero usefulness in a regenerative system.”
A commons still produces goods and services, and they are still consumed and distributed whether its needs or wants based. The goods would include regenerative farming and your technology backbone. So 1) its still an economy, and 2)you might choose to study it and 3) work out how to make it function better within the parameters set (basically a shared ownership economy). Its not going to be possible to perfectly design such a thing at day one.
You would only not need economics if humans were to literally go back to living and thinking like stone age people but Killian has said he is not promoting we live like that.
Obviously the economics of a regenerative society is going to be very different to private ownership capitalist economy but its still economics. And what the hell would be WRONG with studying it? Thats what people do. They study things.
“Goods: 3a : something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want”
Where does this definition come from? What makes it so special? I found a different definition that makes more sense as follows:
“In economic terms, goods are tangible items that have monetary value and satisfy your needs and wants (such as cars and clothing). Services are intangible items (meaning you cannot physically touch them) that have monetary value and satisfy your needs and wants.”
https://lisbdnet.com/what-do-people-consume-to-satisfy-their-economic-wants/#:~:text=In%20economic%20terms%2C%20goods%20are,satisfy%20your%20needs%20and%20wants.
Clearly this is relevant to a regenerative society because it includes economic needs.
“An economic *want.* This is irrelevant in a regenerative society. Meaningless.”
Killians regenerative society includes computers and smartphones (technology backbone) so these look more like wants than needs. We only need food, shelter and clothing to survive so anything beyond this is a want. Although its all very nebulous. You could argue computers have become a need. To me this is why this sort of needs v wants analysis generally goes nowehere. Its very hard to be precise about it all.
“Personal property has no meaning a regenerative society.”
People still have at least some personal property, so how the hell does it have no meaning?
“d goods plural : something manufactured or produced for sale : wares, merchandis”
“For sale. Again, irrelevant in a regenerative society.”
Arbitrary definition. Goods could be given away. And so we are left with the question of how that happens in detail, so who gets what and how is that decided, which is ultimately an economics question.
CONCLUSION: Regenerative societies or hunter gatherer societies still have an economy and it could be studied using something called economics. Obviously it operates mostly differently from modern market based economy. But no way will Killian admit this because he’s too stubborn.
IMHO Killian is really promoting that we adopt a hunter gatherer / subsistence farming style of economy, with some modernism added on in terms of modern consumer goods. Why not just say this? Then there is no confusion! Its not even a bad idea in theory.
Where I differ is that I believe such a transition if done deliberately will be be very harsh and painful, and could create mass unemployment all depending on how far it goes, and how quickly. Like Jospeh Tainter says deliberately simplifying modern society and deliberate degrowth agendas may not even be possible.
K: BPL, your Chicago School underpants are showing.
BPL: I don’t have any since I’m not Chicago School.
For anyone else who might be deceived by Killian’s misconception of hunter-gatherer peoples, let’s think about an actual hunter-gatherer tribe.
A hunt brings back an animal carcass. This gets divided, first among the hunters, according to set rules, and hunters might get very angry if they feel slighted in the division. Taking the meat home (we’ll ignore the hide for now), some goes to the spouse, some to children, some perhaps to parents living at home. In addition, the hunting party may give some meat to non-participants in the hunt, such as the group’s shaman, or those too old to hunt and not living with other family.
The gatherers bring home vegetables, which again get divided up by set rules. A group may chop down a tree to provide wood for homes, or pick grass, and if a group is doing it the wood or the grass may be divided. Someone in the tribe, perhaps a specialist and his/her apprentice, makes arrowheads out of stone, and they are exchanged for other objects.
At a feast held to celebrate a birth, coming of age, marriage, or a wake, food again has to be provided and divided up. The same may happen on religious holidays.
The tribe may trade objects or labor with other tribes when it meets them. They may go on joint hunts, or agree how to divided up who can pick vegetables and berries in which area.
So you tell me. Do they produce goods and services and distribute them, and therefore have an economy?
Paul Pukite, Feb.26: “Piotr, Climate science is the study of climate in all its aspects”
Climate science – yes, this forum – not really: the opening line of the “ Start here” page of this blog:
We’re often asked to provide a one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change ”
So this blog is about ONLY THOSE “ aspects climate science” that are important to climate change. Your interests – the oscillations around the mean that do not have appreciable impact on the climate TREND –
are not important to the climate change trend , so you probably are on a wrong forum and would have been more happy at …some other blog of, say, the enthusiasts of the oscillations around the mean.
“ Further, it appears that Piotr believes that anticipating El Nino & La Nina cycles have no value for humanity
Only the Piotr in your head. The real one has explained to you, when you tried the same accusations a few months back:
==== thread: “A Nobel pursuit” ======
– Paul Pukite Oct. 14: predictions of the next El Nino or La Nina [could have] therefore saved countless lives
– Piotr: Oct. 16 “ saved countless lives“? The next El Nino or La Nina ?
P.Pukite: Oct 17: “ I did say “countless lives”, yes.”
Piotr Oct. 19: “I don’t think we are losing “countless lives” every … couple of years (every El Nino of La Nina), [so with] your “countless lives” lost every El Nino of La Nina, you have massively overplayed your hand.
Furthermore – even if you are able to tell the governments that El Nino or La Nina will come precisely on June
15, then unlike climate change, there is not much the governments can do with your information: how are you going to defend the agriculture in Ethiopia, or stop the wildfires in California, against the drought? How are going to counter the reduced upwelling and therefore reduced primary production off Peru?
It is not uncommon to consider the field in which one has interest to be massively important. Sometimes it is, most of the time – it is not. And overstating one’s importance is not a victimless folly:
it causes inflation of words, so overused, the big words no longer carry the same weight:
after people heard that “ the loss of countless lives ” happens …. every 2-3 years, hearing that
long-term effects of the AGW may also cause “ the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye.
You heard what happened to the shepherd, who cried “Countless wolves!!! ” ? [ Except here – it is not the shepherd who pays the price.]
=== end Oct. quote =============
Since you obviously missed? ignored? my Oct. response, I have tried to explain to you again in this thread in Feb.:
====
[These two study areas – climate change vs. oscillations around the mean] have a very different societal weight:
– The climate CHANGE is both caused by the humans, and has massive implications to the future of the humans
– The oscillation are the opposite – NOT caused by the humans and have limited importance to humanity [since they will happen anyway and we can’t do much about their consequences if we know when they are coming or not)
Consequently, the former garners the substantial funding from the society, not the latter. To the unending ire of Paul Pukite, the latest iteration of which being:
P.Pukite Feb. 12: “ NASA JPL has decided to [invest in climate change and] not to invest in research proposals that study [effects of] lunar [oscillations] on climate “.
Piotr
I would give another lecture on elementary systematics if I were you, and matter is not created by contra- diction.
As it turns out, the RC start page provides a first link for complete beginners to http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html, which has the description: “Here you’ll find the basics on climate science, key energy and emissions trends, extreme weather, and other climate impacts. Students, teachers: check out the Climate Classroom.”. Note the basics on climate science and extreme weather, which subsumes El Nino / La Nina cycles, with explanations available on the sidebar links (all obsolete Flash files however).
From my own research, it’s becoming increasingly evident that ENSO cycles are potentially predictable but full of structural uncertainty. Only the intrepid analyst would take a risk and evaluate what we’ve accomplished by solving Laplace’s Tidal Equations — see this set of slides I prepared today — https://geoenergymath.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/ensomodeling.pdf
Yes, I realize that Piotr will be upset by this. No skin off my nose.
Paul Pukite: Note the basics on climate science and extreme weather, which subsumes El Nino / La Nina cycles, with explanations available on the sidebar links
Precisely – to identify and REMOVE the ENSO NOISE from the climate CHANGE signal.
And to inoculate the reader against denialists use of these oscillations to misinform the public :
– denialists try to divethe rt the discussion, and research resources, from the climate CHANGE, for which we are responsible, toward … oscillations around the mean, for which we are not responsible – thus taking fossil fuel industry, Russia and Saudi Arabia off the hook.
– denialist use OSCILLATIONS around the mean to seed doubt about climate CHANGE trend –
see all the denialists using the highest point of one of the strongest El Ninos in recent memory – 1997/98 – to count “how many years and months since the so-called Global warming ended”
Paul Pukite Yes, I realize that Piotr will be upset by this
Sure. Disproving your claims has been as challenging as taking a candy out of babe’s mouth
(see my points above and my Mar. 6 post. Must be very upsetting to me. ;-)
Piotr claims:
So you agree with me after all that understanding ENSO is a critical part of climate science. The better we are at characterizing the “NOISE”, the better we can discriminate the signal (in this case AGW) from the noise — see Kalman filtering etc. In other words, one man’s noise is another man’s signal. Case closed.
Paul Pukite,11 Mar: “ So you agree with me after all that understanding ENSO is a critical part of climate science.”
Hardly. A noise that can be easily removed with a simple moving average over climatological time scale is hardly “critical“. And certainly does not warrant shifting of funding and research focus to it from the climate change, which you angrily demanded.
.
As for the other use of the oscillations: climate change deniers using your oscillations to seed doubt about the climate CHANGE and human responsibility for it – what we already know about your short-term oscillations around the mean is more than enough. That, or showing them the moving average.
Paul Pukite: Case closed
If you have to proclaim it, then it is not. In fact, usually it is the opposite. The same way when somebody tells you: “Trust me .”
Piotr is one 0f those guys that would tell everyone to just use a moving average on tidal gauge readings, reasoning that all that matters is the average sea-level anyways … as sailors watch their boats drift off to sea ;)
Really should study this set of slides: https://geoenergymath.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/ensomodeling.pdf
Just a few critical tidal factors are required to map ENSO cycles, which are likely not noise or chaotically-driven after all. Don’t have to trust me, one can duplicate the results and perform additional cross-validation, just as science has been done for centuries. A few more tweaks and this will be as straightforward as tidal analysis, as easy as taking candy out of a baby’s mouth.
Paul Pukite: ” Piotr is one 0f those guys that would tell everyone to just use a moving average on tidal gauge readings, reasoning that all that matters is the average sea-level ”
To detect climate change signal in the global sea-level – the height of individual tides is irrelevant – so yes – the moving average of global readings over the climate time -scale – that’s indeed “all that matters” to issue of AGW.
But I can see how this has earned scorn of “one of those guys” claimed that “AGW is largely understood”, and harps on how NASA/JPL didn’t fund some study of tides.
Piotr: –
” how are you going to defend the agriculture in Ethiopia, or stop the wildfires in California, against the drought? How are going to counter the reduced upwelling and therefore reduced primary production off Peru? ”
With water – you dumbhead !
Waterstaat, you dumbhead. With waterstaat.
I have my own waterstaat history above you in the grades because we are not the flat earthers..
There had been draught fror years with summer water restrictions, and our community waters were not only undrinkable but scandaleous rusty and muddy, White collars were hardly possible anymore, and severely expensive.
So that is rather a community and political problem.
What only worked was the Solana tuberosa L, and Istrael can sustain it. It is some of the last crops that goes down for draught, as if it came from a semi- arid landscape. where they eat Cocaine in order to manage it.
I decided to dig up again an old 40 m. deep,water well that had been drilled in the baltic shield and later resigned on as the community moor- water came. The well was still quite in order, and I did the motorization with tubes and automatic switch regulation.
But as soon as the waters stood to the sky again, the rain came pouring down and it has been raining ever since thanks to AGW.
Clausius Clappeyrons law and Aristoteles princilple of what goes up must come down …. is rather correct, youn see.
Water has allways been a precarious military and political principle. On Karlstein in Böhmen they have a burnt pit in the rocks 40-60 meters deep. Here where I live there are several recent and national fortifications and castles, where we can go and see today what they have done first of all to secure their water. A castle cannot sustain a siege without water, and those military political resources however primitive have been top secrets until quite recently, full of frogs and salamandris..
Even when community water was there, I see also in Germany that autentic aborgineans, those who were not flat bombed, did think of and did secure their water first of all. “My home is my castle”.
There is severe shortage of water in Etiopia and California, wherefore agricultures there must be defended against dumbheads first, and not with water.
C.: – ” …must be defended against dumbheads first, and not with water.
??? Jump into your borehole – maybe that helps to destroy dumbheads
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-extra-surface-boosts-groundwater-droughts.html
Theese dumb- heads desert- walkers,…..with their bore- holes. are a threat to sustainable agriculture anywhere and quite especially in the mentally and physically arid lands.
macias shurly, Mar 7:: “With water – you dumbhead!”
Please learn to read – you … macias shurly.
The discussion you have JOINED is NOT about you, but about Paul Pukite’s claim that the ability to better predict the timing of the next El Nino/ La Nina would save “countless lives”
Your rain-catching does NOT require the knowledge of the precise date of the next El Nino, hence
is irrelevant to the topic at hand. So either speak on topic, or start your own thread where you would be free to share whatever gets into your head.
After further thought, I stand by my claim that being able to predict the next El Nino/La Nina would save countless lives. One can’t predict the exact number because that would depend on the severity, but the number could be large, thus the adjective countless. For example, having a smoke or fire alarm in a building, someone could be correct in saying that “These alarms save countless lives every year, and every home should have them.” A perfectly acceptable English idiom.
Paul Pukite: After further thought, I stand by my claim
“After further thought” suggests that for a while you considered the possibility that you were wrong. I fins such a proposition highly unlikely – personally I don’t recall even a single instance where you admitted to be wrong and your opponent to be right. Then again, I am not that much into you, so I may have missed it. Would you mind to tell us, the last time where you didn’t stand by your original claim, having being convinced by an opponent?
Paul Pukite: that being able to predict the next El Nino/La Nina would save countless lives. One can’t predict the exact number because that would depend on the severity, but the number could be large, thus the adjective countless.[…] A perfectly acceptable English idiom”
I don’t know where you get your English from, but Miriam-Webster defines “ countless: too numerous to be counted . Your: “can’t predict the exact number” is more like: “unknown” or “unknowable“. Very different things.
Second, I challenged your claim not on your inability to count the saved lives, but on your inability to show HOW exactly are you going to save those “countless lives“. How else have you understood my words:
Piotr Mar. 6. : “even if you are able to tell the governments that El Nino or La Nina will come precisely on June 15, then unlike climate change, there is not much the governments can do with your information: how are you going to defend the agriculture in Ethiopia against the drought, or stop the wildfires in California? How are going to counter the reduced upwelling and therefore reduced primary production off Peru?”
So your analogy with the smoke alarm is rather dishonest – if I hear a smoke alarm I will run out of the burning home thus saving my life; HOW EXACTLY are the governments supposed to save those “countless lives”, when you warn them that the next El Nino or La Nina will start on June 15?
Well, maybe if someone would pay attention to the ground-breaking research that I have been presenting and publishing on the mechanism behind El Nino/La Nina cycles perhaps we can find out if it would help society. Starting with an analytical solution to Laplace’s Tidal Equations (which are a simplification of Navier-Stokes in a shallow-water approximation) and then fitting the ENSO time-series assuming a long-period tidal forcing, it’s very impressive how well we can match a seemingly erratic cyclic pattern. My name is right there and all one has to do is search on it — should be easier to dig out than some dude with the name “Piotr”. BTW, I don’t have countless citations on the topic, 6 to be precise.
Paul Pukite: “Starting with an analytical solution to Laplace’s Tidal Equations (which are a simplification of Navier-Stokes in a shallow-water approximation) and then fitting the ENSO time-series assuming a long-period tidal forcing, it’s very impressive […] My name is right there and all one has to do is search on it — should be easier to dig out than some dude with the name “Piotr”
Well “some dude with the name “Piotr” didn’t question the impressiveness of the paper – but asked you how exactly your impressive research “ would SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES! You remember YOUR OWN words, right? You know – the same words which “ After further thought [you] stand by” ?
As I explained before, in a hypothetical situation it is perfectly valid to use the term countless to innumerate a quantity that is unknowable but likely large. Consider this NY Times article “Microsoft’s Rule Breaking Vision of a Future With Countless Devices”.
Paul Pukite: Mar.21 “ it is perfectly valid to use the term countless to innumerate a quantity that is unknowable but likely large.”
When you bitterly complained that the money and resources are not redirected to study your hobby horses like ENSO, you didn’t justify you outrage by saying that this money could save … “unknowable” nor even “likely large” number of people – no, you claimed that it would save “COUNTLESS lives”; countless i.e. certain to be so HUGE that impossible to even count! see Miriam-Webster: “ countless: too numerous to be counted“.
Extreme claims demand extreme proofs. “COUNTLESS LIVES” is as extreme as they come,
yet when asked for a plausible action that by determining the date of the next El Nino could have saved “COUNTLESS LIVES” – you didn’t come up with …. ANY.
Instead you offered …. cutting retorts (“some dude with the name “Piotr” brilliant!) and … alternative definitions of the word “COUNTLESS”.
Those AI programs^* finally learned how to beat the Turing test, eh? ;-)
===
*^ “My name is Paul Pukite and I am in no way, shape, or form a climate science insider. […] I received a response to a climate science paper that I submitted explaining that it was ejected because one of the reviewers said it looked like one of those “AI generated” research papers.” [RC, 2015]
@piotr – “alternative definitions of the word “COUNTLESS”.
— You’ve proven more than three times here on the forum that you can’t count to 3. So countless can mean pretty much anything – from 3 to infinity in your case.
p.: ” when asked for a plausible action that by determining the date of the next El Nino could have saved “COUNTLESS LIVES” – you didn’t come up with …. ANY. ”
— Of course, the forecast (up to 12-15 months) of El Nino – or La Nina is or would be important:
e.g. for regional farming, harvest and global food security, seed ordering, …etc.
– very interesting for many participants.
– It is also important for countless people in other sectors to know whether next year will be a dry and hot season or a wet and “cold” season. (BTW – You can see that for yourself with a bit of brain power and then don’t have to write snotty posts).
The ENSO forecast is one thing…
Even more urgent (@Gavin, Stefan,… RC-Group) would be research into which factors, teleconnections and causes in La Nina years lead to a temporary drop in global temperature and sea level.
I guess the same research will then show that my concept
for lowering sea level rise & earth temperature !!! functions.
macias shurly: “You’ve proven more than three times here on the forum that you can’t count to 3 ” – put your money where your mouth is. So far, you’ve been all bark and no bite. e.g.
macias shurly: “Of course, the forecast (up to 12-15 months) of El Nino – or La Nina is or would be important: e.g. for regional farming, harvest and global food security, seed ordering”
How exactly “seed ordering” will “save COUNTLESS LIVES” of subsistence farmers who can’t afford “seed ordering” at ANY time, El Nino or no El Nino?
How exactly would “save the COUNTLESS LIVES” of poor fishermen who live from month to month to know that El Nino that weakens upwelling and reduces catches will have bigger chance to happen this fall and not in the next summer?
Or maybe it will SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES of the poor living in shacks on the hillsides of Brazil, who hearing Paul Pukite’s prediction of El Nino will be able to move to places that will be safe from mudslides? Oh wait – they can’t – they live there not because they like it there, but because that’s the only place, where they can afford to live, El Nino or no El Nino.
Or perhaps Paul Pukite will SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES of people in California by letting them know that the probability of the wildfires that can destroy their homes will be larger this fall than in the next spring?
So far the only people who might benefit from his predictions would be speculators trading pork or wheat futures. Then again, I wouldn’t call their zero-sum game, filling their pockets at the expense of others not having access to Pukite’s predictions – “SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES”.
But perhaps that’s where your Paul Pukite should look for money, instead wanting to divert money from studying the climate change on which, unlike the timing of El Nino, we do have influence.
And why such dishonest use of language has consequences – I have already written before. You might read it since it also applies to your schemes:
===
“Overstating one idea’s importance is not a victimless folly: it causes inflation of words, so overused, the big words no longer carry the same weight, the same ability to mobilize the effort: after people heard from P. Pukite that “the loss of countless lives ” happens …. … every 2-3 years, hearing that long-term effects of the AGW may cause “ the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye.
You heard what happened to the shepherd, who cried “Countless wolves!!! ” ?
Except here – it is not the shepherd who pays the price.
=================
@piotr
The climate is one of the most important influencing factors for agriculture. The climate of a region determines which types of fruit can be grown outdoors, which animals can be kept and how, and thus which basic forms of farming are possible at all.
And of course it potencially increases crop productivity and food security if I, as a farmer, can prepare/decide for drought or higher rainfall 1 year in advance.
A Peruvian fisherman who knows that El Nino will come after Christmas can then plan to repair his boat during this time instead of wasting time and fuel pointlessly.
The best home remedies to prevent slopes from slipping are , for example, deep-rooted trees, but also terracing and adequate sewerage for drainage.
Smart people in California by letting them know that the probability of La Nina, droughts and the wildfires will increase during next winter – will probably be so clever to retain and store water during an actual El Nino phase.
Most parts of NOAA are in some way involved in El Niño research, monitoring and prediction.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140920220911/http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/document.html#predicting
So Paul Pukite’s research in ENSO predictions is not the only one –
The ENSO forecast is one thing… – but I asked for something else…
” Even more urgent would be more research into which factors, teleconnections and causes in La Nina years lead to a temporary drop in global temperature and sea level ??? ”
I guess the same research will then show that my concept
for lowering sea level rise & earth temperature !!! functions. (“SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES”.)
Piotr says:
Countless $$$ has been invested in research pertaining to ENSO.
Paul Pukite, March 30: “Countless $$$ has been invested in research pertaining to ENSO”
So … why exactly did you start the current discussion with complaining that your another pet interest …. was denied funding:
P.Pukite Feb. 12: NASA JPL has decided to [invest in climate change and] not to invest in research proposals that study lunar [oscillations] on climate “.
Perhaps the ENSO people could have shared a tiny bit of their “ Countless $$$ with a fellow non-climate change project, INSTEAD of complaining that NASA JPL prefers to spend their research funding on, as you characterized it. “largely understood AGW“.
Plenty of funding for ENSO (countless $$$), but not on the lunar and orbital aspect. Another NASA JPL scientist who has spun-off from JPL is James H. Shirley. He may have retired (I don’t know) but he has incorporated as TORQUEFX and used that entity to publish interesting research on the possibility of orbital axial torque impacting the climate. This is extending from his past research on the Martian climate and he has applied that to the Earth with a preprint a few months ago. Don’t think he’s a loony as he was an editor of the Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences published years ago. So I count 3 NASA JPL scientists who have independently spun off recently looking at geophysical aspects of the Earth’s climate– Perigaud, Marcus, and Shirley. I’ve worked with JPL scientists in the past but have no special insight into what’s happening. I’m sorry that my curiosity into this has offended your sensibility.
Paul Pukite, Apr. 1: “Plenty of funding for ENSO (countless $$$), but not on the lunar and orbital aspect“.
So why don’t ask the ENSO people to share a sliver of those “countless $$$” with lunar people? After all, they study oscillations around the mean, and the lunar people study oscillations around the mean.
Particularly that despite getting those “countless $$$ ” – they still haven’t deliver on your promise of “saving countless lives” with better predictions of ENSO.
Piotr said:
Some people are so heartless and lacking of compassion, not to mention genuinely intellectually curious about the possibilities of improved scientific understanding … what else can I say.
Paul Pukite: “ Some people are so heartless and lacking of compassion,,”
It is hard to have a compassion for somebody who cynically promises “saving countless lives”, yet when asked – he was unable to come up with any feasible mechanism in which
he could deliver on this promise: failed to explain how knowing more precisely the date of the next El Nino would have saved even a moderate number of lives, much less “too numerous to be counted” (which is a definition of his: “COUNTLESS”).
And as I heartlessly explained to him:
“Overstating one’s importance is not a victimless folly: it causes inflation of words, so overused, the big words no longer carry the same weight: after hearing that “the
loss of countless lives ” happens …. every 2-3 years (each ElNino or La Nina) hearing that long-term effects of AGW may also cause “the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye. You heard what happened to the shepherd, who cried “Countless wolves!!! ” ? Except here – it is not the shepherd who pays the price.”
Yes. Let’s talk about the terrible AGW, threatening to kill us all for the time being…
Norseman. Thanks for your very erudite comment packed full of information, insight and detail.
“…threatening to kill us all for the time being…”
Well, if you’ve got to get killed, getting killed ‘for the time being’ is definitely the way to go. (Pun intentional.)
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for February showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.23ºC, down on January’s +0.28ºC anomaly, and the lowest monthly anomaly since June 2021.
February 2022 becomes the 6th warmest February on the ERA5 record (below 2016, 2020, 2017, 2019 & 2018 but above 2010, 2015 & our old favorite 1998) and the 74th highest all-month anomaly on record.
Jan 2022 was also 6th warmest Jan on record but the 2022 Jan+Feb average sneaks in as the 5th warmest start to the year.
…….. Jan-Feb Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.30ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.25ºC
2018 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2007 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 14th
2010 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.20ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2013 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.07ºC … … … 11th
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
1998 .. +0.05ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 16th
“What the latest science says about Antarctica and sea-level rise. The southern polar ice cap is a wild card. by KRISTEN POPE FEBRUARY 23, 2022.” ( Has many useful links to the related research studies)
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/02/what-the-latest-science-says-about-antarctica-and-sea-level-rise/
@nigelj
In the very first sentences of your link we can read:
“Scientists are working to understand how much and how quickly seas could RISE in coming decades”
— So is it the task of climate science to calculate the extent of our misfortune in this global catastrophe with % millimeter precision ???
NO – a large part of climate science and part of the ignorant readership here in the forum is fundamentally wrong.
!!! It would have long been the task of the IPCC to organize a scientific statement on
what strategies and measures science suggests in order to LOWER sea level rise. !!!
The part of the scientists* who specializes in ocean and atmosphere research could e.g. also think about why the La Nina effect tends to lower sea levels and global temperatures. (A fact that makes the inner alarm clock ring for all real climate understanders/experts)
La Nina temporarily shifts precipitation from ocean areas to land areas — much like my SLR & GW lowering concept does as a consistent strategy.
Those here in the forum who claim that there isn’t that much storage space on land (1000-2000km³)
– have actually already been refuted by the La Nina effect. (you belong too)
Another fundamental finding for climate science would then finally be to realize that AGW not only results from CO² or greenhouse gas emissions, but also from the fact that mankind continues to skin the rain forests, canalize rivers, seal millions of km² and km³ Aquifers pumped empty,… etc.
Global warming interventions in the global water cycles through the decreasing ability of the land surfaces to evaporate water and => to form clouds cause a radiative forcing, which is expressed as always in W/m² and as a cause is fundamentally different from CO²/GHG emissions.
MS. Sorry, but I don’t respond to arrogant, incoherent, nonsensical garbage like yours..
ms: a large part of climate science and part of the ignorant readership here in the forum is fundamentally wrong.
BPL: Fortunately, Galileo here has arrived to tell us all the truth.
Hr. Shürle
Qvasiwissenschaft, we call it. From qvasi and wissenschaft.
Have you ever heard of Rijkswaterstaat and what they can acheive and not acheive?
Have you also ever conschidered cultivating shripms and flatfish on the flatlands instead of Tulips and disasters?
Sorry, but it is simply wrong to say that the task of “climate science” is to formulate a mitigation strategy. They are too busy trying to figure out the very complex climate of the planet. At most, climate scientists would be expected to provide expected and bounding estimates for precisely how fucked we might be–expected temperature increase, sea-level rise, polar and glacial melting.
Mitigation strategies should be coming from politicians, engineers, civil planners… Unfortunately, the politicians (half of them, anyway) have been too occupied with denial and general fuckery to do their actual jobs. That is not the responsibility of the climate scientist, nor are they equipped to step in and fill in.
Climate science, like almost every other science, is specialized. Like a doctor, pharmacologist or virologist, it should not only be able to recognize and describe a danger (e.g. global warming corresponds to a pandemic virus) – but also be able to research a therapy/strategy.
A virologist/climate scientist who asks you to keep a distance of 1.5m or 1.5°C 30 times a day is a useless fellow who will steal tax money from your pocket without any equivalent value as long as he does not present a vaccination/cure/improvement can.
Pharmacy and virologists have delivered their vaccine – but what about climate science?
Why do virologists succeed in supervising politics by bringing their knowledge and overview into pandemic laws / regulations…while the knowledge and overview of international climate science apparently has much less influence on political decisions and legislation ?
Uh, you do realize that the folks who developed the vaccine are in an entirely different field of study from those who study the viruses, right? Likewise, risk analysis and mitigation are entirely different fields from climate change studies. And those that are in charge of deciding on and implementing the mitigation are practicing yet another discipline.
In the case of climate change, the breakdown has occurred because politicians, journalists and the public have decided on denial rather than responsible action. We saw the same thing with the Corona virus epidemic–and probably close to 18 million people are dead because of it.
**”Why do virologists succeed in supervising politics by bringing their knowledge and overview into pandemic laws / regulations…while the knowledge and overview of international climate science apparently has much less influence on political decisions and legislation ??**
Covid is an immediate threat and Climate Change is more gradual? It makes a difference when you actually see people dying in real time. Also, the perceived costs of tackling Climate Change seem to be much higher when you tell people they have to quit reproducing and make serious cuts to their consumption etc.
That’s my guess.
Hr Schurly
As long as the sky keeps clearing up and glaciers keep melting there is no way on earth or in heaven to stop sea level rising, but maybe in Hell by an atomic winter.
It will go on for a while if CO2 is not curbed immediately, but it will stagnate against the white cloud parasol- effect when the oceans have become warm enough. 4-5 deg warmer will really matter.
I found on the net that the ratio sea to land in the world is 70.8% sea to 29.2% land.
Thus if you will save for 1 meter sea level rising, that is a prediction, you must store 2 meters on land .
Then we open Scheffer & Schachtscabel and find conscepts like porenvolumen and erdluft.
But, I think we can use another and easier, general formula.
Given n cubic meters of rock and blast it up. How large wheel loader capacity will you need for bringing that away?
The rule says 1.6 or 1. 666666.. = small and large musical sext, 8/5 and 5/3, thus basically easy to0 remember and it is frappingly constant for all solid matters that are crushed and powdered, and for chemists, physicists, and engineers to know as a general thumb-rule., For instance the density of a material that is delivered in powdered frorm.
. This means that the groundwater level on land will have to rise 2 x 1.6= 3.2 meters on average everywhere to save 1 meter sea level rise.
Then what about the necessary Erdluft?
The weeds and plants vary greatly in regard to that. Rice and fameous water lilies can have roots permanently under water. But I have tried clones of Vitis vinifera in a jug. They do not shoot at all whereas most other trees and bushes shoot very well that way for Fasching. . And Populus , Salix and Alnus thrive very well on riverbeds and occasionally flooded land where other trees will drown, thus are cultivated and harvested there.
. But Very important crops like Potatoes and corn drown when partially flooded. But together with Vitis vinifera , they rather stand draught surprizingly well, which is valuable.
Theese are all quite basic and elementary things that Matthias Schürle hardly consciders and hardly learnt about. Because it gives the easier way rather to think of it and to discuss it scientifically.
Proportions I wrote, proportions
When shall Hr Schürle learn rather to think in terms of proportions and easy universal practical holistic, critical pythagoreanism?
@C.: –
A little girl named La Nina shows you how it works…
It naturally, without undue human effort, moves 1800km³ of ocean precipitation over land areas with ease, quickly dropping the Earth’s temperature by 0.32°F while simultaneously dropping sea levels by 5mm.
Even the thermosteric expansion of the oceans is reversed by the temporary, relatively strong cooling. This also means that your assumption that you would have to find storage space for a total of 3.2m of water column for centuries does not have to be correct.
If you ever want to stimulate glaciers and ice sheets to grow again, then you need global cooling and precipitation.
For geothermal energy and lithium extraction, 3 km deep holes are often drilled. Under 149 million km² of land area there are 447,000,000km³ of holey Swiss cheese – which apparently goes beyond your idea of proportions of air, solid & water.
Imagine you have a 1km² garden and a garden hose with a flow rate of 0.28L/sec. Now you run day and night in the square for 1 year and water every m² with 9L.
Is that a lot of water?
No – with e,g. 900mm annual precipitation just 1% additional, artificial irrigation.
MS. Dropping sea levels by 5mm is of no use. Its insignificant. We have to deal with about 10 METRES of sea level rise which is probably what’s already locked in. You cannot store that quantity of water on land. Its not practical.. Anyone with a brain in their head can see its not practical.
Big degrowth fantasies are another brainless dead end where people don’t think through the implications.
Our only hope is stopping carbon emissions, so things don’t get worse, and maybe sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, where we have a number of methods that do at least look possible. If we don’t do that it will end up being geoengineering.
MS. By stopping carbon emissions I mean renewable energy, a new transport system, and maybe nuclear power, etc, etc.
Hmmm…
So miss Nina drops the earth temperature by0.32 F and sea levels by 5 millimeter in a year..
but, what about next year and next,… and next,..
also little Nina will have to recover and re- charge her batteries, and in the meantime little Nino comes and does the opposite
Only fools believe that they can breathe out all the time without also having to breathe in.
They call themself Holism, and try and sell unisex and perpetuum mobiles on the websites and on the free market.
Hr Schürle
Can`t you se that you are selling just hopeless quasi- scientific bullshit here?
Being and artist as you say, does not permit anyone not to have elementary understanding and order in his / her thoughts and phantacies.
How much water can you fill up and “store” in a flower pot with common porous earth befrore it flows over and runs out? Not the very volume capacity of that pot and you seem stupidly fanatically forgetting the very material volumes that are in there from before.
And if you have a bitty full of settled and dry sand, how many bitties of water can you “store” into that before it flows over? I told you,.
How much faster and higher will the grounwater level rise on land than the sealevel at sea, if you store away the water rather on land?
You never conscidered.
That seems simply due to your elementary lackings of enlighted conscepts of proportions and stroechiometry.
And what happens to your very flowerpots if you “store” and fill up more in the earth than, rather just a little bit now and then when they look “thirsty”? thiat is just another of several, due enlighted ways of thinking rather scientifically about it.
Whereverv there are enough wild fanatic and stupid rootless people from befrore like in Las Vegas and southern California and the surrounding wild west, you may be able to sell your arts bullshit holism phantacies, but not here.
And in addition, your cheese is silly however swiss and not at all 3 Km deep, and all its “holes”, both natural and bored, are consequently filled upp with water allready in any case, below local groundwater level.
Carbomontanus. 1.6666 is quite close to the golden rectangle proportion 1.618. Is there a linkage between the two issues, or is it just coincidence?
Quite right storing all that water on land isn’t feasible. Macias Shurley gets ideas in his head that sound nice, but he doesn’t think it through. The devil is in the detail and problems of scaling things up. He does lots of superficially impressive maths EXCEPT the maths that really matters.
Nigelj
Quite a good question. I never thought of it.
“The smallest to the larger is the larger to the whole!”
I have seen Johannes 1,1 explained that way..
My Uncle said that the friction coefficient between sand grains give the slope of a dry sand hill of arbitrary and chaotic particle size. But that is not fully understood.
There ought to be a Scientific Ameican article about this. They have been clever.
@ Hr Schürle:
Do you get this? There were healthy Germans before you, above you in the grades. Nicolaus Cusanus, Johannes Keppler, Calvisius of Leipzig, Chladni (no he was bohemian) Friedrich Gauss. Helmholz Liebig. von Humbolt. Heinrich Herz. Max Planc . Albert Einstein. Heissenberg. von Weissäcker. Angela Merkel…. you name them….
Try and keep up to what we can take for serious.
Gerhard Schröder is performing again, earlier Bundeskanzler and personal friend with Putin. He is being excommunicated everywhere because of that.
@ Nigelj
Yes, you are probably right.
3-5-8 are fibonacci- numbers, and I took the first of them. They converge onto the golden section.
But OK, then we have a fruitful “model” but we lack the natural and physical explaination for it.
@nigel junior
Why are you poking so far into the future with your cane when you can’t even see the present.
With the current rate of sea rise, 10m SLR means a period of ~3000 years.
The drainage of the continents currently contributes 8% (~0.3mm) to the SLR.
How stupid and blind does one have to be – to NOT realize that this fact is exacerbating water scarcity and putting additional pressure on sea levels.
If I were you, I’d be wary of using words like “brain” and “nonsensical garbage”.
You and all other dumb talkers here in the forum still have 15-25 years to implement this concept for lowering sea level and earth temperature.
And as always, you should have started the day before yesterday so that the rest of the global stupidity understood it, at least years later.
After that I`ll wash my hands in innocence – and today I already have no empathy for incorrigible stupidity.
Macias Shurly .
:
“Why are you poking so far into the future with your cane when you can’t even see the present.”
Storing just one years or two years sea level rise on land is useless tokenism and probably impractical and storing more than that (up to 10 metres) is certainly impractical no matter what we do in the future. Your failure to grasp all this shows an astonishing lack of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom on your part. If anyone walks with a cane you do.
“With the current rate of sea rise, 10m SLR means a period of ~3000 years.”
You cannot assume the current rate will continue. Sea level rise is accelerating, and models suggest it will accelerate further! We could be looking at 10 metres of sea level rise in the next few centuries, worst case. You cannot store all that on land. We better cut emissions fast because that will reduce the probability of such an event..
Hmmm…
So miss Nina drops the earth temperature by0.32 F and sea levels by 5 millimeter in a year..
but, what about next year and next,… and next,..
also little Nina will have to recover and re- charge her batteries, and in the meantime little Nino comes and does the opposite
Only fools believe that they can breathe out all the time without also having to breathe in.
They call themself Holism, and try and sell unisex and perpetuum mobiles on the websites and on the free market.
Hr. Schürle
You are on very thin ice, if not plunged totally allready against Nigelj, so I must recommend you to save your swearwords and your racisms..
Quote from Herik Ibsen:
“Se det fikk Fanden fordi han var dum
og ikke beregnet sit Publicum!”
SANN!
“…today I already have no empathy for incorrigible stupidity.”
Technically, you don’t need it.
Carbomonatanus.
The natural and physical mechanism behind 1,618 is a bit of a mystery. I have only a couple of guesses at best.
Firstly the golden rectangle or ratio appears in art and buildings, geometry etc, etc, and is attractive proportion to the human eye and this is well established and agreed. Leonardo da Vinci established that the human body fits within the golden rectangle proportion. Maybe this is just by pure chance, Since humans seem to be attracted to humans in the sense we like to form social groups, that might explain why we like the appearance of the golden rectangle. So in a way the fact we find the golden rectangle pleasing to the eye may just essentially be a sort of accident, with no great inner meaning.
There is also a connection between the golden rectangle and sound waves. It’s generally advised to position audio speakers in your living room certain distances away from the back and side walls so that the speaker is on one corner of a golden rectangle. This apparently reduces room resonance and bass boom effects on the sound quality. This is a hint of a physical mechanism.
@nigel junior / mrs. heap of carbon
This is what happens when 2 fools fertilize each other:
The first and dumber of the two asks: Golden Ratio?
The second, a little more stupid, answers: Great question
– let’s cook a nice little soup.
You take:
/a little whisked from the Johannesevangelium as a reliable basis for soups, like for every meal.
/something chopped up from everything that’s German: von Humbolt. Henry Herz. Max Planc. Albert Einstein. Heissenberg. by Weissacker. Angela Merkel
(at least learn to spell the names correctly – otherwise nobody will believe you that you have reliably absorbed the contents of their books and knowledge //
!!!! von Humboldt, Heinrich Hertz, Planck, Weizsäcker)
/ quickly season with a little Putin and Schröder
and your golden-ratio soup is ready,
…which could then serve as a proof of something or nothing.
You are and will remain an arch-conservative, religiously blinded fool… unable to deviate even 1mm with your thoughts from what may be, what can be.
You want to tell an artist what the golden ratio is ???
There are countless examples in nature where the golden ratio has manifested itself in the course of evolution (morphology of many plants/arrangement of leaves and seeds…etc.)
BUT THE DENSITY OF BULK MATERIAL IS NOT ONE OF THEM !!!
If you 2 blind, spiritual low-flyers only knew what’s going on under the surface of the earth…
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10040-020-02139-5#Abs1
…before returning to the more important questions.
C.: “Hmmm…So miss Nina drops the earth temperature by 0.32 F and sea levels by 5 millimeters in a year..
but, what about next year and next,… and next,.. ”
— The reason for your superfluous question is that you still don’t seem to understand that a water butt has 2 important functions. It protects against drought AND flooding.
So if you’re a little Nino – I’ll just make a little Nina out of you…
So maybe you 2 superfluous heroes can simply answer the following one question:
What is/are the concrete cause/s of the temporary global cooling in La Nina years?
more – clouds ? – upwelling cold water ? with better CO² uptake ? less OLR ?
any suggestions ?
M Shurly. You’re an idiot because 1) You falsely claim without evidence that I’m a religious conservative when Ive been a lifetime liberal and athiest. 2) The discussion is not about irrigation or protecting against drought or flooding. Its about your nonsensical ideas about storing water on land to stop sea level rise. 3)The golden rectangle is wider issue than just a shape in nature. Refer to my comments above in that respect. 4)You don’t understand what Carbomontanus is saying. Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is you’re an idiot. And remember, you started the name calling.
To all and everyone exept Matthias Schürle
On dumbheads and besserwisserei:
“BUT THE DENSITY OF BULK MATERIAL IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!!” d/o
I heard it from a broken sailor, who had also worked on land. “If you measure up n cubic meters of bedrock lenth width and heighth of solid rock, drill preciesly down and blast it up the cunning way, How large wheel- loader volume must you order then to bring that away?”
My guess and his answer was 1.6 and a bit more to be sure. In any case, itb is how to judge and to interprete rubbish. That takes experience and science..
I thought further of it and came to a public competition on the street where the bank had a cylindric glass 1/3 full of Nkr. coins. Question: Guess how much money is that?
I took it serious and judged diameter and heighth, and the diameter and heighth of tighly stapeled 10 Nkr. and divided. Then divided through approximately 1.6 and maybe a bit more. Judging that tis was not common granite but rather chifer plates. but anyhow,….
And gave the answer.
Guess what, I scored 2nd price, where the 1.st price was a brand new car that they probably had reserved for themselves.
So that rule, 1.6 and maybe roughtly that also,…. is very practical and valuable.
But such practical and valuable rules ruin the authority of Schurlers.
“Also schloss er messderscharf dass, nicts sein kann, was nicht sein darf! ”
Not only snow in sucessive sedimentary layers, but also common sedimentary bedrock has allready sunk slowly and shurly together by time and by its own weight, and is no swiss cheese.
Weight is heavy, and Time is long enough.
Wherefore the planets are round and wherefore the earth is neither flat nor prismatic and hollow like a swiss cheese. You can read this with one eye from the open bedrocks and sediments and from rubbish everywhere.
M.Shurly “A little girl named La Nina shows you how it works – moves 1800km³ of ocean precipitation over land areas with ease, quickly dropping the Earth’s sea levels by 5mm.”
1. As Nigel explained to you – one time 5mm solves nothing.
2. Even if it did -this drop does not represent permanent STORAGE – just a short delay in the release of that same” 1800km³” back into the ocean. So your “little girl called Little Girl” taught you nothing.
3. There are no technical ways from humans to store enough water in the ground to cancel SLR over the next decades: we are good in pumping stored water out of the aquifers, but we are not anywhere as good in putting the water back into them on large enough scale – not only because it is more difficult and expensive – but often no longer possible – the emptied reservoirs collapse – destroying the porosity that held the water – dropping the level of the ground often by many meters
4. Surface reservoirs are not a solution either – most of the technologically possible, and economically and socially acceptable surface reservoirs has been already built (and the top 50 largest of them hold together less than 2750 km^3)
5. Even there was more space to make them – it comes at the price of destroy existing ecosystems, food production capacity, displacing people and destroying the artifacts of human heritage.
6. Flooded land, part. in warm climates, emits massive amounts of CH4. Add to this the additional GHG emissions from the program of a massive build-up of water reservoirs and CO2 emission from necessary cement – both accelerating the warming and increasing the very SLR you want to counter.
7. To fill the artificial reservoirs and refill the aquifers – you would have to divert massive amounts of water – your removal of water from circulation would cause collapse of agriculture relying on irrigation, cause shortage of household water for the ever increasing population of Earth.
It would also reduce the most flexible source of energy – hydro, and reduce the largest existing energy storage needed for accommodating temporarily varying renewables, both of which would increase GHG emission. and increase, not decrease, the SLR
So the increased storage, where possible, would be nice as a cushion for the inevitable heat waves, dry spells, periods of high electricity demand- but is not a solution for the SLR. Not even close.
The numbers for RSS TLT have been posted for February showing a global TLT anomaly of +0.49ºC, down a bit on January’s +0.54ºC anomaly. (No sign of the usually-prompt UAH Feb update yet.) Feb was also down in ERA5 SAT re-analysis by a similar amount but SAT is usually less wobbly than TLT.
February becomes the 11h warmest Febuary on the RSS TLT record, this following from Jan 2022 being the 13th warmest RSS January with Feb 2022 the 119th highest all-month anomaly on record (January’s RSS anomaly was 102nd in the all-month rankings.)
That puts 2022 into 13th place in the RSS ‘warmest start to the year’ rankings, the coolest start since 2014. (ERA5 came in as the 5th warmest start-to-the-year and the coolest since 2018.) The major cooling in the RSS TLT numbers was in the southern mid-latitudes with the tropics showing a warming.
…….. Jan-Feb Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.09ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.97ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 1st
2010 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
2017 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
1998 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2007 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 13th
2015 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 11th
2013 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 12th
2022 .. +0.51ºC
2003 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.41ºC … … … 14th
2002 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 15th
2014 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 10th
The sensitivity of systems is why Rapid Climate Change is so dangerous – and why adaptation and geoengineering should be non-options, or last resort at best.
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-tiny-mite-triggers-domino-effect.html
“People who do not spend their days reading climate reports or scouring the archives of oil companies are often surprised to hear that *the fossil-fuel industry has been part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its inception. And it’s not just the IPCC. Oil companies have been involved in the entire international effort on climate change since it began in the late 1980s – and here’s a pro tip: they’re there for a reason, and it’s not decarbonisation*.
*The second part of the IPCC’s most recent report was published last week, and it finally acknowledged the oil industry’s biggest contribution to the climate space thus far: misinformation.* This was followed closely by another new-to-the-IPCC topic: maladaptation, which refers to measures ostensibly geared towards warding off climate change, but which “may lead to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes, including via increased greenhouse gas emissions, increased or shifted vulnerability to climate change, more inequitable outcomes, or diminished welfare”, according to the IPCC.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/07/climate-solutions-big-oil-ipcc-report
Yes, Jesus recommended being killed for ‘for the time being’. Nothing like a nice sauna vacation.
Dear Gavin,
we talked…,… no, I talked a lot about how science can be abused by politics, well then, as I know you love science:
” 9.3.2022 – Research suggests COVID-19 beliefs influenced by politicians, not scientists”
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-covid-beliefs-politicians-scientists.html
Dude, I’d have A LOT more to tell, muhahaha, but maybe later ;))
” “The truth knocks on the door and you say, “Go away, I’m looking for the truth,” and so it goes away. Puzzling.”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
… bin as you please.
Hr Schürle
Can`t you se that you are selling just hopeless quasi- scientific bullshit here?
Being and artist as you say, does not entitle anyone not to have elementary understanding and order in his / her thoughts and phantacies.
How much water can you fill up and “store” in a flower pot with common porous earth befrore it flows over and runs out? Not the very volume capacity of that pot and you seem stupidly fanatically forgetting the very material volumes that are in there from before. You do not have to guess here, simply take a liter cylinder, weigh it up and do it realistically with the intension of finding the truth.
Instead, you are rather badgering and act racistic against any enlitghted humanity wqho understand it that way, believing that you have an insight and an opinion. That is your tribal costs of rather being a quack.
And if you have a bitty full of settled and dry sand, how many bitties of water can you “store” into that before it flows over? I told you, that in a most elementary way, you seem to give a damn.
How much faster and higher will the grounwater level rise on land than the sealevel at sea, if you store away the water rather on land?
Will more humidity in the air give a cooler or a warmer earth? That is quite easy to answer. by many examples.
You never conscidered nsuch things for serious it seems..
Which seems simply due to your elementary lackings of enlighted conscepts of proportions and stroechiometry and material sense and recognition..
And what happens to your flowerpots if you “store” and fill up more in the earth than, rather just a little bit now and then when they look “thirsty”? thiat is just another of several, due enlighted ways of thinking rather scientifically about it.
Wherever there are enough wild fanatic and stupid rootless people from before like in Las Vegas and southern California and the surrounding wild west, you may be able to sell your garbage arts holism phantacies, but not here.
And in addition, your cheese is silly however swiss and not at all 3 Km deep, and all its “holes”, both natural and bored, are consequently filled upp with water allready in any case, below local groundwater level.
@carbonito
— To protect Nigel Jr.’s honor, I want to reiterate that religious idiots only mean you. However, there are also idiots who have nothing to do with religion.
So – now you invent flower pots to defend your cruel ignorance. Flower pots were never mentioned in my geoengineering concept for lowering sea level and earth temperature, but of course my concept also works with such small-scaled sizes – if your mental power is not sufficient for larger dimensions.
On my south-facing balcony at 49°NH there are 13 flowerpots with various flowerpot sizes, depths and types of plants. total ~ 1m² with ~200L soil.
REMEMBER !: My concept is to keep an additional 9L/m² over land every year.
Already in mid-March – here it is noticeably too dry and too warm anyway.
Between May and September, when daytime temperatures are around 30°C on sunny, cloudless days
I can water a 10L bucket both in the morning and in the evening without my plants drowning.
So in a summer season I use a good 500-1000L in addition to the natural precipitation(~800mm/y).
If I take this volume from a rain barrel instead of the tap (in my case expensively treated groundwater),
this volume remains in the groundwater and the rainwater from the rain barrel does not initially flow towards the sea, but first has to form a cloud again in order to reach the sea.
There is a certain probability that this cloud will rain down again over an area of land that will flow down streams and rivers or, if you are lucky, even rain down on a roof with a rain barrel, where it will again be available for tomatoes, kitchen herbs, washing machine etc.
If my m² of southern exposure were a field or forest with dozens or hundreds of m³ of soil volume under the surface, I would have even fewer problems hiding away my required 0.009m³/y.
Your biggest problem seems to be that you don’t know what a (water) circle is – and that some people are gifted choreographers, composers and conductors.
Would you please be able to grasp that within the next 20 years?
That throws further light on your case, Genosse, and I had good reasons to suspect it allready.
1, you hardly learnt what a natural metabolism and especially the water- cyclus is about, neither in qualitative nor in quantitative categories.
2, You are also harly aware that there may be gifted choreographers, composers, and conductors shaking their heads at you.
@carbonito
So maybe you superfluous hero can simply answer the following one question:
What is/are the concrete cause/s of the temporary global cooling in La Nina years?
more – clouds ? – upwelling cold water ? with better CO² uptake ? less OLR ?
any suggestions ?
If you answer correctly, you can win a little, green cactus to add to your flowerpot collection.
That I can say you for shurly. It is not more water evaporating from the ground.
@carbonito – ” It is not more water evaporating from the ground.”
In any case, it can’t be the cold sweat forming on your flat forehead in front of this seemingly unsolvable question.
Do you have evidence to back up your bold assertion?
With your dried up hydrocephalus, don’t you actually feel cooler in summer when you stay in a garden or park where trees and plants evaporate water???
Is it not visible to you in a global radiation balance that the earth’s surface cools down exclusively through evapotranspiration (water cooling), convection (air cooling), IR radiation & albedo. You will not be able to deny this God-given mixture of upward energy flows.
What cools the globe and the situation is a relativistic and quantum- mechanical effect. The tropopause also called the isoterm- layer in combination with BIG BANG that keeps 3 K and measures 2 pi minus 30 seconds of arc as seen from here.
. What heats the same is another quantum mechanical and relativistic effect thatb measures 30 minutes of arch as seen from here and that keeps 5750 K.
The isoterm layer keeps -65 celsius all the way at 17-5 Km above Kilimanjaro with sun directly in zenith, and 8 Km over the poles. On Venus, the same layer keeps -40 Celsius in extreemly bright sunshine directly to it and all the way around.
At middle latitudes such as in the EU, the tropopause isoterm layer lays about 12 km up.
You can simply calculate from there and down to earth by moist and dry lapsrate, and you get the average ground temjperatures worldwide.
By more CO2 to it , that tropopause and isoterm layer creeps or mooves upwards to compensate for it, and with known and observed consequenses due to what I described here.
GISTEMP has been posted for February showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.90ºC, down a tad on January’s +0.91ºC anomaly, this despite some seriously high Feb anomalies over northern Eurasia. Feb was down in ERA5 SAT re-analysis by a larger amount and also in RSS TLT. (Still no sign of the usually-prompt UAH Feb update.)
February becomes the =5th warmest February in the GISTEMP record behind 2016, 2020, 2017 & 2019, equal with 2015 and ahead of 1998, with 2018 in 8th spot. 2021 managed 15th spot. (Feb 2022 was 6th in ERA5 & 11th in RSS TLT). Feb 2022 was =47th highest anomaly in GISTEMP.
That puts 2022 into 5th place in the GISTEMP ‘warmest start to the year’ rankings. ERA5 also came in as the 5th warmest start-to-the-year while it was 13th in RSS TLT.
…….. Jan-Feb Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.27ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.20ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +1.08ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.94ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.91ºC
2015 .. +0.88ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2007 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2018 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.79ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2002 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 16th
2021 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
“(Still no sign of the usually-prompt UAH Feb update.)”
The files under this link are timestamped the 11th of March …
URL : https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Mark BLR,
Although I wasn’t monitoring the data file as conscientiously as Spencer’s UAH “latest global temps” page, I have noticed the UAH TLT data file had been updated but haven’t got round to reporting it here until now. The data file is usually updated about halfway through the month while the headline latest global TLT anomaly is usually posted by Spencer in the first couple of days of the month but this month no sign of that so far.
The UAH TLT Feb 2022 anomaly is down on January but a little less than the drop in RSS TLT. In UAH Feb 2022 is the lowest monthly anomaly since June last year but since March last year in RSS. And relative to the highest Feb TLT anomaly (Feb 2016), UAH is again showing a smaller difference.
But when the rankings are given, recent UAH anomalies appear lower down (thus suggesting a relatively cooler Feb 2022) because UAH has a significantly lower trend than RSS. Why there is such a difference in trend between RSS & TLT isn’t quite so clear when comparisons are made at less-than a global level.
So in UAH, Feb 2022 is only the =16th warmest February (11th in RSS) and the =192nd lowest anomaly in the all-month UAH rankings (119th in RSS).
Feb 2022 was the coolest Feb since 2014 in both UAH & RSS but by only 0.02ºC in UAH but by 0.41ºC in RSS. And as a start-of-the-year, UAH TLT sits as the 17th warmest, 0.55ºC below the top year 2016, while in RSS TLT it sits only 13th warmest start-to-the-year but 0.58ºC below 2016.
To all and everyone
On idiots, trolls, cyclopes and brown iberian Arion vulgaris-slugs from Karlsruhe and how to keep them at distance.
Idiots according to description was probably dows syndrom in old Hellas. thus, try not to mis- use the term.
Trolls, I am an expert and could enlight Killian on that. But there is further a special class of trolls, the Kyklops, those who see it with one and only one eye. They are often quite extreemly engaged in politics. Never call them idiotic when they are rather Kyklopic. It actually comes from cyclic and optic, the large one- eyed and round eyed.
The quite general old rule is to find out the name of the troll and to call them by their true name, class and cathegory. . Then they perish and vanish and loose their power.
Pepper-spray in that one and onlyn one eye would do. But pepperspray in private hands is forbidden in the EU because it is so efficient. But easy to make, really from powdered chilipepper in alcoholic extraction. Then it can also be diluted and dosed. Think of it. It can surely also have an abstract meaning that is not forbidden.
But what against large brown invasive garden slugs from the Karlsruhe- district?
As everyone can see above, simply salt them thorrougthly and cunningly.
Then they react electrostatic osmotic spontaneously, excreet all their slime out from inside, shrink together and roll over on the side and perish pitifully in their own, excreted lump of slime.
It is quite a sadistic orgie against those large and invasive, brown slugs, Arion vulgaris from Karlsruhe and district. .
@carbonito
Great film – hunting slugs under the influence of LSD.
Maybe a tad too much horror trip for the delicate climate spirits here in the forum.
If I were a moderator here – I would call you an ambulance.
To all and everyone
The ( namely the mentioned cyclops) are numb in their fore paws and can only think of it “scaled up” on industrial level with themselves as masters and führers and teachers.
In Detroyt or in Ruhrgebiet Rheinland Westfalen or in Backstage Donbas.
Schürle
You betray yourself through your associations.
Carbomontanus. All good, except this is the definition of idiot: “1 a foolish or stupid person”… Idiot that I am to wear my heart on my sleeve! …”— George Bernard Shaw “2 dated, now offensive, see usage paragraph below : a person affected with extreme intellectual disability”. (Mirriam Webster)
Nigelj
I am aware of it, but it is an old word with a long history. Look The idiot Dostojevski on Wikipedia., that comes most close to it in recent time. The man who forgives everyone and takes all in its best meaning as a contrast to high burgeoise and upper class “noble” behaviours.
Interesting because Dostojevski had his eastern and greek orthodox slavonic cryllic linguistic backgrounds.
I am remotely able to follow also Dostojevskis thoughts.
According to my cousin brother , who learnt to know them on behalf of the world bank and Norwegian missionary and political interests, They are somehow lacking the western european renaissance. They are not individualists and protestants and never learnt money budgeting. Thus still live in a way in mideival time. Like we had it 1000 years ago, the worst and the biggest most successful warlord and robber- chief becomes Czar or “precident” and owns the very people and society for lifetime.
The best definition that I have learnt for practical use is “having no ideas..” Lack of mental ability for some abstractions. In old Athens they were supposed not to be able to take part in politics and intricate sophistic discussions.
And I suggest another greek word and conscept “Kyklopics….”.fot a certain class of incureable trolls.
@carbonito – ” I am remotely able to follow also Dostojevskis thoughts. ”
…and dogs can poop at every corner. That you even find time for Dostoyevsky is amazing enough, since your internal interviews are usually with Mickey Mouse and the Pope. If you ever meet an arrogant gossip – don’t be surprised that you’re standing in front of the mirror.
Matthias Shürle is not even able to read and to hear of Dostojevski in translation.
New paper: “Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01287-8
97 yeasrs ago on March 18, 1925, the deadliest Tornado to hit the USA, and the second deadliest Tornado on the planet killed around 700 people. Here is some information about it:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Tri-State-Tornado-of-1925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_tornado_outbreak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornadoes_causing_100_or_more_deaths
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/12/12/tri-state-tornado-deadliest-midwest/
https://vlab.noaa.gov/web/nws-heritage/-/the-tri-state-tornado-of-1925
Clue for you: This is a climate science site, not a weather site. You still do not know the difference and are too lazy to learn. Busted, again! Like shooting fish in a barrel with you.
Rather horrifying how many people a strong, fast moving tornado can kill. It was a lot worse in the days before weather radar, warnings, sirens, and TV for dissemination. Even now, a severe weather outbreak is brewing in the Gulf Coast states, assisted by above-normal water temperatures in the Gulf. The warm humid air from those warm waters will boost CAPE (convectively available potential energy), resulting in stronger storms. Most likely, there are people living normal lives now, who will be dead by Wednesday March 23 as a result. If severe thunderstorms are expected in your area, pay attention!
Sadly, you’ve been proven correct in your concern.
“It’s 40 degrees Celsius warmer than normal in eastern Antarctica. Scientists are stunned.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300545440/its-40-degrees-celsius-warmer-than-normal-in-eastern-antarctica-scientists-are-stunned
nigelj,
There is quite a bit of news coverage of those lunatic temperatures being recorded in Antarctica. Of course, there was also the record daily low in Antarctic Sea Ice Extent this year (recorded 19th Feb both in JAXA and in NSIDC’s Charctic while this NSIDC plot shows the annual minimum daily Antarctic SIE from NSIDC). And although this years record-breaking minimum is not such a big deal of itself in that such low anomalous SIE is not that uncommon in the record (see GRAPH 3 on this page), except it hasn’t occurred at the minimum before, it isn’t impossible that the wibbly-wobbles in Antarctic SIE could be about to follow the Arctic’s lead over the last 40 years and begin registering some negative anomalies as lunatic as these recent temperatures.
Are there any records for extremal temperature anomalies?
In particular, could this have been the largest anomaly against a monthly average ever recorded, anywhere on earth? If not, when/where were larger ones?
Where would one reasonably start to answer such questions?
James McDonald,
This Antarctic weather is being described with anomalies of “between +46ºC & +47ºC”. So if the world record temperature is given as +56.7ºC (or perhaps a little lower if you want a more reliable measurement) and is measured in places with average daily temperatures that are already hot, none of them are going to be approaching anomalous values of +46ºC.
For instance, the Australian record temperature of set at Onslow in Jan this year was +50.7 °C during a month with an average temp of +29.7ºC yielding an anomaly of +21ºC. And that Furnace Creek +56.7ºC was a +17ºC anomaly.
So you ask “Where?” and I would suggest that would have to be somewhere cold, probably very cold.
Yes, well-observed. I believe in general variability tends to be greater in colder months, though a quick search didn’t turn up anything on point.
I made the same point elsewhere.
There could also be negative anomalies, e.g. -20C when it’s normally 30C, but I agree that the opportunities for large excursions are greater in frigid regions.
My “where” question was about available databases. They seem to record maxima, minima, global monthly anomalies, etc., but not local daily anomalies in any easily manipulated format.
I do appreciate the response.
James McDonald,
The “where” being “about available databases” was indeed the implication of your initial question, (something like this only with data from more than just one met station and spanning a little longer than 2009-to-date).
I would suggest the only place where there could be such databases is within the analysis of Heat Waves although these occur in hot seasons (so only for high summer temperatures), over periods longer than a single day and measured over areas wider than a single met station. They can also be expressed in standard deviations rather than degrees centigrade of anomaly, or can be rated in the “one-in-X-year event” form. And their longevity becomes a factor of severity additional to any measure used for the abnormal temperature.
One difficulty of recording single-station all-time daily-high temperatures relative to an anomaly base rather than in degrees centigrade is whether the station has the data to provide a comparable anomaly base.
So the only listings that I have seen for heat waves is the good old Wikithing’s Heat Wave list, which I note also does Cold Waves and Heat Bursts, this last given with the size of the ‘burst’ in °F.
Just saw this:
It “appears to have set a new World Record for the largest temperature excess above normal … ever measured at an established weather station,” Robert Rohde, the lead scientist at Berkeley Earth, tweeted Monday.
James McDonald,
That twitterage from Robert Rohde does get round to answering your question about records of extreme temp anomalies, saying “no organization maintains official records for temperatures above normal”
As for this particular heatwave, he says:-
Thus it is not entirely declared a definitive record-breaker and mentions he has found Arctic anomalies that have not been so far away from this +38.5ºC daily max anomaly. He suggests
The initial tweitterage thread runs:-
@ James McDonald – ” Where would one reasonably start to answer such questions ? ”
I would start with ENSO and asked myself why the largest anomaly against a ! yearly ! average of increasing global temperatures is (mostly) always in El Niño events – and temporarly decreasing global temperatures and sea level are related to La Niña years.
In general, the warmest year of any decade will be an El Niño year, the coldest a La Niña one.
These natural climate patterns—through which the ocean alternately accumulates and releases heat—are the most important cause of short-term variations.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/if-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high-every-year-why-isn%E2%80%99t-every-year-hotter-last
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/8/is-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-increasing/
That works for global anomalies.
But is there a database that would allow one to sort on local daily anomalies?
That presumably would be gargantuan, so the next question would be if some site keeps a tractable list of the most extreme events, say the 1000 largest positive and negative daily anomalies ever recorded among all stations in the world?
Yes, it was. Read it within the last few hours.
MAR yes that sounds plausible. Something more on the heatwave issue. “Antarctic ice shelf collapses after unprecedented heatwave” in case anyone misses it in the media.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300552395/antarctic-ice-shelf-collapses-after-unprecedented-heatwave
And now, in related news:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/east-antarctica-ice-shelf-collapse-1.6397863
Not a good development.
David Spratt on existential risk, climate science, climate policy. Trigger warning: Sounds like things I’ve said for the last decade around here. If me being right and ahead of the curve bothers you, don’t watch. The key part is between the 3:40 and 10:00 minute marks.
Basically, stop talking about averages, dammit, and use appropriate long-trail risk framing.
https://youtu.be/K9wB0P3Y5d0
A naive interpretation of Lawrence et al (2022) ;The Unseen Effects of Deforestation: Biophysical Effects on Climate’ Fig 5 is that if we chop all the trees down between 50°N and 90°N we would cool the planet by 1ºC which would be useful cooling. Mind, I’m not entirely sure of this interpretation as the links to ‘Supplementary Material’ are not working for me.
But, to all and everyone,
Now we must get onward with the climate here.
I wrote- published on how to deal with cyclopes and invasive slugs from Karsruhe and elsewhere where the earth is flat.
There has been a chill in Ukraina first half of Mars. That is the european monsune and the continental high pressure. The westerly oceanic winds have in the meantime got into the Barents sea, with stormy cyclones.
If the southerners, the Australians and the New Zealanders read us, you have the similar roaring fourties and fierceful fifties.
It will soon be springtime also in Ukraina, but in the fameous “clear days of Mars” annual rainfall minimum and blue sky maximum they had frost enough to dammage and hurt even the russians, who were not dressed for it. If you prepare for the season and for quick “military” operations with opinions and vodka instead of proper gloves and socks, potates bread and ham / SPAM for field and sub-urban operation, you may get surprized in the climate. We use proper wool and even reindeer furs when it really matters.
We should be aware of the plausible consequenses in the climate.
Along with recent quite peaceful times, Russia and Ukraina have become a major exporter of Wheat, Rhye, Barley , Corn and even ukrainian sunflower oil to the worlds market. During Krustsjof and Brjesnjev they were consequently short of the same.
Then Russia is a major exporter of Potassium and of 1.st class Apatite- phosphate. Further of Methane gas that is necessary for the Haber Bosch synthesis of Ammonium nitrate fertillizer..
All in all, there are high reasons to expect very high world market prices both of fertillizer, food, and diesel, & gasoline and electiciy in the coming months and years.
Thus, plant your potatoes now!
I follow the Norwegian situation the best I can and will tell you.
The natives and aborgineans do their very best in the north both from russian and norwegian side now to secure and to save the codfish, Which is the worlds populations medicine at any time along with macrels and herrings. It saves the situation when everything else goes wrong in the climate. It saves our brightness and beliefs and hopes without wich we cannot perform.
@carbonito –
– ” to deal with cyclopes and invasive slugs from Karsruhe… ”
– ” Thus, plant your potatoes now ! ”
– ” It saves our brightness and beliefs and hopes without wich we cannot perform. ”
— My ***** Concept Of Reducing Sea Level Rise And Global Temperature *****
gives that brightness (more reflective clouds) and hope to everyone that do not want to believe – but can calculate!
…and you have nothing better to do all day than drag it into the dirt under your hypocritical Christian cap with the most insane arguments. You suffer an unfortunate catholic roof damage and are a sick puppy with a penchant for psychedelic drugs.
To save the codfish you are 30 years too late – ape. Here in the south we recommend the soup of today –
https://photo-cms-giaoduc.zadn.vn/w700/Uploaded/2022/pcwvobzi/2012_07_19/giet_vooc_bandoc-giaoducvietnam-2.jpg
Matthias Schürle hardly thinks and calculates better than a russian general in Ukraina. now. We seem to have got his grandious missionary plans off track.
@carbonito
The naming of real names on the Internet should be outlawed everywhere in the world. Certainly also in this forum. (Reiss dich am Riemen – Bursche !)
I am an artist – and NOT a missionary. With my paintings and self-developed machines and concepts, I can easily position myself next to my idols like Leonardo da Vinci without having to react to your foaming at the mouth. I don’t give a shit what happens in your panties – your self-centered monologues are just telling me how far along the general Babylonian language confusion has progressed and when we can expect first skin contact with the apocalypse.
If you’re really dying to fight missionaries, then grab the Pope or even your Norwegian NATO Defense Alliance Hero Stoltenberg. (He intelligently wanted to defend the West by “missioning” the Ukraine with western money and weapons)
Hang him in front of your house @ “oslofjörden” in a clearly visible place and stuff 2 vodka bottles in his side pockets – the Russians like that and out of sheer gratitude they shurly will leave your little panties unharmed for the sad & insecure rest of your time being.
ms: I can easily position myself next to my idols like Leonardo da Vinci
BPL: In fact, you’re very like Galileo, and just as persecuted!
Putin spoke: It takes one to know one!
Foaming mouths is a symptom of Rabies.
Megalomania is induced caused by central- stimulating drugs at wartime such as cocaine and amfetamine for the performers and artists, knowitalls. It ngives that superbely sublime higher vision and bloody inauguration. .
MS. There are still uncertainties about the behaviour of clouds. Some research suggests they are a mildly negative net feedback some research that they are a mildly positive net feedback. Trying to create more clouds like you suggest is thus a very high risk gamble, and betrays your lack of knowledge of the climate issues and massive arrogance and hubris.
@nigel junior
For the 365th time I am explaining to you and others (@mar, piotr, bpl,…) that clouds reflect an average of 20% of the incoming short-wave radiation into space. This is called cloud radiative effects(CRE), which is not the same as cloud radiative feedback.
– The 6th work report of the IPCC / WG1 deals in chapter 7.2.1 with the strong cooling net effect of clouds on the global radiation balance ( ~ -19W / m²).
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf
In chapter 7.4.2.4.3 the warming feedback from clouds to a 1 ° C increase in earth temperature is limited with + 0.42W m–2 °C–1
This warming feedback is mainly caused by a globally lower cloud cover (minus 2 – 2.5%) and higher temperature gradients (decrease in temperature with altitude).
Without clouds, 47 W/m² less solar radiation is reflected back to space globally (53 ± 2 W/m² instead of 100 ± 2 W/m²), while 28 W/m² more thermal radiation is emitted to space (267 ± 3 W/m² instead of 239± 3 W/m²).
As a result there is a 20 W/m² radiative imbalance at the TOA in the clear-sky energy budget suggesting that the Earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds.
nigelj: – ” to create more clouds like you suggest is thus a very high risk gamble,… ”
— Dangerous clouds ??? I think you have roof damage and you’re somewhere between stupid, crazy, and disabled. Explain that to a farmer hoping for rain in the summer.
ms: clouds reflect an average of 20% of the incoming short-wave radiation into space.
BPL: With mean global coverage of 53% and mean shortwave albedo of 47%, I get 25% of incoming radiation reflected back out to space by clouds, and most of the rest by Rayleigh scattering. What made you think you were the only person who knew that clouds were reflective? Where did you get that idea?
@bpl
According to the Global Energy Balance (GEB) by Prof. M. Wild 2019 (see also IPCC AR6 WG1), which I hope you are familiar with by now, the clear sky / all sky balance for reflected solar TOA without clouds shows 53 W/m² and 100W/ m² with clouds.
The Earth’s albedo without clouds would be 0.156 and with clouds it is ~0.294.
Clouds increase the albedo by 47W/m².
Ice, snow and lighter land areas 25W/m².
Rayleigh scattering ~ 15W/m² and aerosols ~13W/m².
Without clouds, 247W/m² solar down arrive at the earth’s surface.
47W/m² //247W/m² = 19% of solar down surface blocked by clouds — and not 25%.
Your babble of 53% cloud cover and 47% mean shortwave albedo (what’s that supposed to be?) clearly shows that you’re plagued by total blindness when it comes to albedo and global energy balances. – Just crawl back into your borehole.
https://d6scj24zvfbbo.cloudfront.net/da475a79e4bc41c3b64b8d393a44d235/200000038-5d6635d665/a3.png?ph=02adf5ae1c
MS: The Earth’s albedo without clouds would be 0.156
BPL: According to Batisti and Donohue (2010), the mean global annual surface albedo of the Earth is 0.123, not 0.156.
MS: Your babble of 53% cloud cover and 47% mean shortwave albedo (what’s that supposed to be?) clearly shows that you’re plagued by total blindness when it comes to albedo and global energy balances. – Just crawl back into your borehole.
BPL: Those figures are from my 2021 paper in Planetary and Space Sciences, where I model the evolution of Earth’s climate over geological time. The 53% figure is the random-overlap total from the CERES satellite data, and the 47% figure is chosen to give the actual planetary albedo for the Earth. Compare Hart’s (1978) figure of 50%, which is 6% higher than my figure. For a figure that isn’t very well known, that’s pretty good agreement.
For a self-described artist to be telling an actual scientist he got the science wrong is amusing, but I’d think it would be embarrassing for you to just keep doing it.
Hr Schürle
“… suggesting that the earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds.”
We can check up on that very easily. We have a next example under the same sunshine but without clouds. What is the all in all mean ground temperature on the moon?
You are ignoring and forgetting the night darkness the clearly observeable BIG BANG under clear cloudless sky, and the arctic and antarctic winters, that all goes up in the global mean temperatures
As far as I can judge it here by longtime weather forecast temperature graphs, the night and day swinging is right proporto0nal to sinus to the suns angle at noon,… worldwide and at sea level. And the swing amplitude about halves in cloudy weather, but the mean temperature remains the same.
Moral:
Do not get confused by yourv sunstitch at noon, Because that is political Cherrypicking Rather take a siesta in a cool and shadowy place. That sunstich of yours in early afternoon in clear sunny weather does not rule for midninghts also.
Pope Francis has proclaimed that Air condition is sinful. It is not the conventional moral Italian, Argentinian Jesuit, and the orthodox autentic Arabian way, Probably because it confuses their due pauses with time prayers, their guaranteed human rights for such environments. The moslems even do it with a dash of holy water, not barrels and bitties of it.
@carbonito – ” M.S.: … suggesting that the earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds.
We can check up on that very easily… on the moon? ”
— You moon dancer can check up on that very easily here: IPCC AR6 WG1 chapter 7.2.1
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf
So you’re claiming that the IPCC forgot the nights when they claim: “Clouds cool the Earth”?
? seriously ?
c.: – ” …the night and day swinging is right proporto0nal to sinus to the suns angle at noon,… worldwide…
—Bullshit – Anyone armed with some basic climatic instinct can tell you that the decreasing diurnal temperature range will also explain why the smaller the range, the more effective the greenhouse gases – and the larger the range the less effective the greenhouse gases.
So, in a world of rising GHG concentrations, smaller temperature ranges are no surprise at all.
Only about blind, wondering idiots – one can wonder.
@ all and everyone exept for M. Schürle
The Shurlers are so sure. they even tend to believe in their own sales propagandas.
Let us make an end to that, and we will all do him a great fravour..
It is severely hot everywhere on the surface of Venus, It is the hottest large landscape in the solar system. At Mercur however, it is quite lower temperatures than on Venus directly in the sunstitch at noon, and recentbv radar DATA show ice in the craters at the poles even there.
Shurlers are so sure that they give a damn to such details and events. Venus is fameous in the inner solar system for being quite especially cloudy.
One can shurly wonder about blind idiots.
As a bathing benthusiast in a fameous bathing town, not Baden Baden but further north, I am shurly aware of what happens when a cloud comes and cowers the sun. It gets uncomfortably chill especially also because of the evapo- transpiration on our skins and furs..
But what about in the winter and at night? We do not bathe then, exept in especially cloudy weather and in the summer.
The Shurlers never thought the holistic way about such things. They just ridicule and deny such things. along with their “holistic” mandate and sale.
MS. Please understand I haven’t read all your comments on clouds! I may have missed what you are getting at. Your english isn’t that great.
Yes clouds have an overall net cooling affect on climate. But high clouds tend to have a warming effect and low clouds tend to have a cooling effect as here in simple terms:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/cloud-climate/#:~:text=These%20low%2C%20thicker%20clouds%20mostly,some%20of%20the%20Sun's%20heat.
So given you want to create clouds to cool the climate by some sort of enhanced evaporation, how do you intend to create the right clouds in the right place? Just please be concise.
Clouds only form around aerosols. What is your plan to increase aerosols? Because with reduced use of coal burning aerosols in the atmosphere would actually be decreasing.
I did a google search and couldn’t find anything on plans or experiments to actually create clouds to cool the climate by enhanced evaporation or otherwise. I think it would have been considered by now if it was feasible. Do you have a link you could post?
Wouldn’t artificially brightened (existing) clouds have more potential? Here:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190220-how-artificially-brightened-clouds-could-stop-climate-change
@nigel junior – ” I may have missed what you are getting at. Your english isn’t that great. ”
— You have missed, that clouds are our best sun protection. – You have my phone number and I can explain it to you at any time in German, Spanish, French and I guess also in English.
n.: – ” how do you intend to create the right clouds in the right place? ”
— I produce the right cloud at the right time in the right place when there is increased drought and a bright blue sky in my region. So at the moment I could start right now in mid-March after 2 weeks of high pressure, no rain and temperatures up to 23°C @ 50°NH.
In summer it needs 3-4 times the amount of artificial irrigation.
And artificial irrigation creates artificial clouds.
When irrigated in summer with drought and high pressure – in the morning at 5 a.m. is the best chance of cumulus clouds forming during the day, which may rain down with a thunderstorm in the evening.
n.: – ” What is your plan to increase aerosols?
— I have no plans to increase aerosols artificially. There are always natural aerosols, dust & dirt in the air.
– ” Do you have a link you could post?
— https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.00245/full
– ” Wouldn’t artificially brightened (existing) clouds have more potential?
— Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) has no potential to affect sea level or ocean acidification. It does not work against water shortages, record temperatures or desertification. It does not increase photosynthesis and CO² absorption on land and is ineffective against declining agricultural food security.
…and I do not believe that bringing 10m³/sec of sea water into the air will lower global temps by 1,5°C.
Since in my cooling concept with 1335km³/y – I bring ~ 40000m³/sec into the air by evapotranspiration and estimate the associated global cooling at only -0.07°C.
The Shurlers never learnt so much about basic REALIA, and of sulphur in its oxidation states and of water in the universe and in the inner solar system..
They also lack enlightment and observance and understandings of the Irons and the Calsiums. and of the aluminiums and potassiums and magnesiums and ammoniums and silicates..
Think of living in the Eiffel vulcanisms with all its catastrophic ashes, sulphurs carbonates and waters without being aware of that. It is rather the MECCA of classical geochemistery. With all its wineyards and apple and plumyards.
They fight and they are clasws enemies of Catrolus Magnus and the very long row of proper GURUS and Shamans and Prophets and pioneers on it, from the same area and sell the alternatives.
Schürle
you seem to have poor ideas about weathers an meteorology also.
What rains down at your place did hardly evaporate there. By the way, have you ever wondered why coastal climates are mainly wetter with a clear monsune tendency also, that it evaporates mainly from sea and travels mainly long distances by the fameouis trade winds?
And why do tropical hurricanes relax and vanish dramatically when they enter over land areas?
Then, what makes it rain or not rain is quite dependent on chill at the top of the tropospheric clouds, hardly any rain anywhere without deep frost with possible snow- showers at the top of the weathers.
Wherefore the occurance of halos in the sun is such a shurly message of rain tomorrow. The sun cross in spring was admired and worshipped in heathen time where they had no other shurly weather forecast, as a symbol of wealth, fertility, a good year with rich harvest.
Im Märzen der Bauer den Acker bestellt. but Mai chill makes the peasants barn full.
Irrigation early in the morning at sunrise and veven before is for the water to sink instead of evaporating, Irrigation is to resemble the morning dew at daily temperature minimum.
A tiny bit of science and of reason and experience and understanding you see, could make even you more shurly.
M Shurly. Your link discusses the effects of crop irrigation on causing evapotranspiration and its cooling effects and the creation of more clouds that have a cooling effect. None of that is in dispute by me. If you are just promoting that we need to improve crop irrigation in various places, and that it also has a cooling effect then you are on safe ground.
The problem is if you are promoting a plan of DELIBERATELY over irrigating the land to have a BIG cooling affect on climate would require massive levels of irrigation and could end up water logging the soil, and causing all kinds of other problems and costs.
I suggest talk it over with your local university who have a range of relevant experts. I suggested that RTW get some feedback from a local university on his engine design, and he followed through and it worked out quite well. they used his design as a study topic and also reviewed the design. Can’t say more because its a private matter.
“The ‘whys’ beyond the ‘what’ of the severe western U.S. drought. New video opens window on understanding the explanations for the worst drought in 12 centuries, a ‘megadrought’ with no end in sight.” Nice explanation for the general public:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/03/the-whys-beyond-the-what-of-the-severe-western-u-s-drought/
Thanks for that. Peter Sinclair is always on point. YCC, I sometimes forget, is host to a host of excellent material. Only Eye on the Storm (Masters/Henson) allows comments so those of us addicted to writing out what we opine for public consumption go there more often.
“A new study of lake sediments in Ghana suggests that severe droughts lasting several decades, even centuries, were the norm in West Africa over the past 3,000 years.
The earlier dry spells dwarfed the well-documented drought that plagued West Africa in the late-20th century, and as the planet warms, the study’s authors believe the region’s rainfall patterns will have an even greater impact.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/467506
M shurly: “ The climate is one of the most important influencing factors for agriculture ”
I didn’t ask for a tautology, but for a SPECIFIC mechanism for the claim of “ saving countless lives” by a better prediction of the timing of the El Nino. The best you were able to come up was: “ordering more seed”
to which I answered:
Piotr: How exactly “seed ordering” will “save COUNTLESS LIVES” of subsistence farmers who can’t afford “seed ordering” at ANY time, El Nino or no El Nino?”
Please let me know, when you have an answer.
Mshurly “ A Peruvian fisherman who knows that El Nino will come after Christmas can then plan to repair his boat during this time instead of wasting time and fuel pointlessly.
Wrong time scale. El Nino does not collapse fisheries in hours or days where Paul Pukite prediction would make a difference – it takes MANY WEEKS or MONTHS for the signal to filter through food web to reach the fish – giving more than enough lead time for the fisherman to make their decision whether to go out to sea or stay home, based on whether the actual El Nino arrived or not. And for that you don’t need Paul Pukite – it is enough to notice that the winds changed and/or the coastal waters have become unusually warm. Ergo – the value of Paul Pukite prediction that next El Nino will start in 3 months from now is ZERO, much less his claim of “SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES”.
Mshurly: “ The best home remedies to prevent slopes from slipping are, for example, deep-rooted trees, but also terracing and adequate sewerage for drainage”
Wrong time scale again – it would take several decades to grow the “deep-rooted trees” – hence having Paul Pukite predicting that the next ElNino will start on 15 Dec. of the CURRENT year – won’t change a thing about it. Ergo ZERO lives saved by him. Zero is _not_ “COUNTLESS”.
@piotr – ” The best you were able to come up was: “ordering more seed ”
NO – I did NOT wrote anything about HOW MUCH SEED A FARMER WILL ORDER:
m.s.: …if I, as a farmer, can prepare/decide for drought or higher rainfall 1 year in advance –
I can make a better decision WHICH SEED I will buy for the next season.
And of course this can potencially increase crop productivity and food security
AND THUS SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES.
The ENSO forecast is one thing… – but I asked for something else…
” Even more urgent would be more research into which factors, teleconnections and causes in La Nina years lead to a temporary drop in global temperature and sea level ???
Any smart answers ? – or only more dumb questions ?
M.Shurly “ NO – I did NOT wrote anything about HOW MUCH SEED A FARMER WILL ORDER. [but] WHICH SEED to order.”
Since we are discussing “subsistence farmers who can’t afford “seed ordering” at ANY time, El Nino or no El Nino ” – your distinction between “how much” of zero vs. “which” zero, is rather moot.
So the only beneficiaries, other than speculators trading pork and wheat futures, would be large industrial farms and agricultural multinationals, who have the resources to act on the ENSO prediction. But then again – they are not dying by their “countless” numbers during El Ninos.
MShurly: The ENSO forecast is one thing… – but I asked for something else
Since you joined the existing discussion:
– Paul Pukite: good ENSO forecast “could save countless lives”
– me: “how?”
– M. Shurly, brilliantly: “With water – you dumbhead !“.
then if you have questions on things other than the subject of the discussion (“ENSO predictions”), perhaps you should have started a new thread and/or monologue.
With the end of March, the daily CO2 data from NOAA MLO shows there has been a downward wobble in the MLO CO2 record through March big enough to result in a negative increase Feb-into-March.
I don’t see a previous negative Feb-to-March increase on the NOAA MLO record, but there have been four low positive Feb-to-Mar increases on-record not so far from being zero increases (1959, 1972, 2008 & 2019, all La Niña years).
Yet these monthly numbers often don’t show wobbles in all their splendor as a trawl through the Scripps daily data demonstrates. Thus a wobble in 1999 (another La Niña year) was roughly the same size as this 2022 wobble, but it happened a couple of weeks earlier in the year so bridged Feb & Mar and didn’t appear as particularly odd within the monthly data.
These and other wobbles in the data from both MLO & elsewhere prevent us seeing even if there is a deceleration in the rise of CO2 levels.
The anthropogenic emissions data are another way of seeing how we are doing (or not doing).
The CO2 emissions numbers presented by the GCP 2021 Budget (data to 2020) do show a significant slowing of the annual rise in emissions which were rising at a little under +0.2Gt(C)/yr through the first decade of the century. But again the wobbles prevent any signs of a genuine peaking.of CO2 emissions. The numbers do suggest emissions have been flat since 2018 while the science says the peaking of emissions is required yesterday and to have been quickly replaced by a rapid fall in emissions.
The latest three-weeks-old numbers shown by the IEA estimates for FF emissions (so LUC figures missing) for 2021 show what they dramatically describe as the “largest ever annual rise in absolute terms” in 2021 but here “annual rise” really means ‘annual emissions’ And the rise on earlier years is just 0.05Gt(C) so essentially emission continue to remain flat emissions since 2018.
So another year’s-worth of our fast-depleting Carbon Budget gone.
Annual CO2 Emissions – Gt(C) [1]) IEA FF, [2] GCP FF, [3] CGP FF+LUC+Cement
2010 … … … … 8.8 … … … … 9.1 … … … … 10.4
2011 … … … … 9.1 … … … … 9.4 … … … … 10.9
2012 … … … … 9.3 … … … … 9.5 … … … … 11.0
2013 … … … … 9.4 … … … … 9.6 … … … … 11.0
2014 … … … … 9.5 … … … … 9.7 … … … … 11.1
2015 … … … … 9.4 … … … … 9.7 … … … … 11.2
2016 … … … … 9.4 … … … … 9.7 … … … … 10.9
2017 … … … … 9.6 … … … … 9.8 … … … … 11.0
2018 … … … … 9.9 … … … … 10.0 … … … … 11.3
2019 … … … … 9.9 … … … … 10.0 … … … … 11.3
2020 … … … … 9.3 … … … … 9.5 … … … … 10.6
2021 … … … … 9.9
UAH TLT has been posted for March with an anomaly of +0.15ºC, well up on Feb’s +0.00ºC and Jan’s +0.03ºC.
March 2022 sits as the =8th warmest March on the UAH TLT record, behind 2016, 2010, 2020, 1998, 2004, 2017 and equal to 2018. March 2021 sits down in 19th. March 2022 is =87th in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
The chilly Jan & Feb recorded by UAH TLT places Jan-Mar 2022 as the 16th warmest start to the year. Yet the influence of the ENSO cycle will be reduced through the remainder of the year, so in the trend-defying UAH TLT we can expect 2022 to soon be promoted into the top ten warmest as more months are added to the start-of-year rankings. And that will allow the comparison table to be a bit shorter.
…….. Jan-Mar Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
1998 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2010 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2017 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2019 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2007 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 14th
2004 .. +0.13ºC … … … -0.05ºC … … … 19th
2018 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
2002 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 10th
2003 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.05ºC … … … 12th
2021 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2013 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.00ºC … … … 15th
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 11th
2022 .. +0.06ºC
2006 .. +0.02ºC … … … -0.02ºC … … … 17th
2014 .. +0.00ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 13th
1991 .. -0.03ºC … … … -0.12ºC … … … 24th
2009 .. -0.05ºC … … … -0.04ºC … … … 18th
Human extinction continues to be pretty unlikely, so we don’t have to worry about that. But a livable planet is at risk according to some. And I think the sixth great extinction event is underway at record-setting speed, so that might be a concern.
“U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change revealed “a litany of broken climate promises” by governments and corporations, accusing them of stoking global warming by clinging to harmful fossil fuels.
“It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track toward an unlivable world,” he said.”
https://apnews.com/article/climate-united-nations-paris-europe-berlin-802ae4475c9047fb6d82ac88b37a690e?user_email=41c09d9ba95e5ce77e15cc0ea980b96fdbe087a98aa4d98ab0a976127007c9ed&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=April05_MorningWire&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers
Gutteres sounds like an alarmist some days.
Cheers
Mike
Human extinction continues to be pretty unlikely, so we don’t have to worry about that.
0.000119% of Americans die in car accidents each year, so we don’t need to worry about that. It used to be around 0.00016666666 (50k/yr). So silly of us to worry about it even then! Or at all!!!
You’re doing risk analysis wrong, Mike.
read carefully, Killian. The question that I raise is whether we should be concerned with is the collapse of civilization rather than the question of human extinction. One is almost certainly going to occur before the other, so getting the “horse before the cart” is the point I am making which is that we should strenuously consider the possibility of civilization collapse. Sorry if that was unclear. I am poking a little at folks who often cite the evidence that suggests human extinction is unlikely because I think that bar is set too low.
Cheers
Mike
False premise, false conclusion. We don’t need to worry about extinction even though it is 1. already happening globally and 2. the causes of it are being put in place now. I.e., we avoid it now or we don’t avoid it is the correct risk assessment.
I do not respond willy-nilly with absurd, limited analyses. I read and responded as I intended and made the point that needed to be made.
Not quite sure what you’re trying to say there, Mike… To me that sounds a bit like the hypothetical statement:
“Outright starvation continues to be pretty unlikely, but don’t count on more than 200 calories a day.”
ERA5 SAT reanalysis” has posted for March with an anomaly of +0.39ºC, up on both Jan (+0.28ºC) & Feb (+0.23ºC). It is the 5th warmest March on the ERA5 record, behind 2016, 2019, 2017 and 2020, with the rest of the top ten places running 2018, 2010, 2015, 2020 & 2021. March 2022 sits 28th in the all-month ERA5 rankings.
After the first 3 months, the start of 2022 now sits as the 5th warmest start to the year (behind those same years 2016, 2020, 2017 & 2019). While for the full calendar year, 2015, 2018 % 2021 effectively sit in =5th position, 2022 may be starting to show a warming that will put it perhaps into 4th place for the full year, above 2017 and perhaps even challenge for a top-three spot despite the on-going La Niña. Thinks, if ENSO is running this wobbly global SAT, looking back at similar La Niña in past years, the MEI data suggests we should see a boost on the previous year of perhaps +0.05ºC (as seen in ERA5 2008-09) or +0.13ºC (as seen 2011-12).
…….. Jan-Mar Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.30ºC
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2007 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 14th
2002 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.00ºC … … … 17th
Thanks for yet another update on this! I always appreciate these.
Another blow to the iris theory that changes in certain types of tropical zone clouds would cool the climate: “Process-level Assessment of the Iris Effect over Tropical Oceans”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL097997
In a discussion with a climate-savvy friend, he mentioned that early projections of the likely equilibrium surface temp increase under a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 were in the 4-6C range, but now, we’ve bent the curve downward, so projections are around 2-3C. He cited this as progress in decarbonizing the global economy.
I’ve been trying to square this claim with the observed carbon emissions, which haven’t declined significantly in recent years (in fact, they’ve increased). Similarly, total radiative forcing has increased at a nearly constant rate since the 1950s.
So, I assume this claim is accounting for avoided carbon emissions. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t the emissions and radiative forcing curves show some sort of downward deflection after, say, the year 2000? Or does the continued linearity mean that avoided emissions have knocked down what would have been higher slopes to values that are coincidentally the same as those in the pre-mitigation era?
Or does this claim simply reflect better understanding of Earth’s climate dynamics?
Please ignore the CO2-doubling part of the first para – I was confused and conflated sensitivity with the actual question, which boils down to this: have we really bent the curve downward? Because the emissions data don’t show it.
Jim, just guessing about whatever this other person was trying to say, but I think the question at hand is whether the rate of increase is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same.
Sad to say, if the rate of increase is indeed about the same for the last few decades, that would count as ‘good news’. Maybe that’s what they were saying?
Decarbonizing or not would not affect the math. If you double you get T temp, so if you *still* get to a doubling, it doesn’t matter how,
Your friend is making a weird assumption.
JG: he mentioned that early projections of the likely equilibrium surface temp increase under a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 were in the 4-6C range, but now, we’ve bent the curve downward, so projections are around 2-3C. He cited this as progress in decarbonizing the global economy.
BPL: The 5 K estimate is from Arrhenius’s 1896 paper. An estimate of 3.6 K is from as early as 1956. Estimates of ECS have absolutely nothing to do with progress in decarbonizing the economy. It’s a feature of the climate system. The number would be the same for a “drill, baby, drill” nightmare or for an ecological Utopia.
I’m not understanding this. Increase in surface temp per doubling of CO2 is the definition of climate sensitivity; it doesn’t have anything directly to do with us bending the emissions curve. Bending the curve affects when we get to that doubling (or, more hopefully, don’t).
Thanks for the replies, Kevin, Barton, and Killian. It was my confusion about CO2 doubling and ECS, and that isn’t my friend’s argument. (The perils of no edit button for comments!)
I suspect the claim that we’ve bent the curve downward is false; we just have a better understanding of Earth’s climate now. As far as I can tell, all our efforts to decarbonize the economy so far have had no discernible effect on the chemistry of the atmosphere.
And RSS TLT has been posted for March (so far only in the data files) with an anomaly of +0.58ºC, up on both Jan (+0.54ºC) & Feb (+0.49ºC). It is the 7th warmest March on the RSS TLT record (=8th in UAH which saw a bigger rise Feb-Mar & 5th in ERA5 SAT). UAH’s March 2020 sits below 2016 (+1.13ºC), 2020 (+0.86ºC), 2010 (+0.76ºC), 2019 (+0.74ºC), 2017 (+0.65ºC) & 1998 (+0.60ºC), with the rest of the top ten places running 2018, 2004 &, 2015. March 2021 sits down in 12th place (+0.47ºC).
March 2022 sits 84th in the all-month RSS TLT rankings (28th in ERA5 SAT& =87nd in UAH TLT).
After the first 3 months, the start of 2022 now sits as the 11th warmest start-to-the-year in RSS TLT (16th in UAH & 5th in ERA5 SAT).
The first three months of 2022 have seen rising anomalies in the Tropics (usually more of a guide than other zones), drops in the southern extra-tropics & weak rises in the northern extra tropics.
A graphic of RSS TLT anomalies is posted as Graph 2a here.
…….. Jan-Mar Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.11ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.93ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 1st
2010 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
2019 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 4th
1998 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 13th
2021 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 7th
2022 .. +0.54ºC
2005 .. +0.50ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 11th
The findings of Lopez et al (2022) ‘Projections of faster onset and slower decay of El Niño in the 21st century’ also include projections of mainly stronger remote impacts via teleconnections during both the developing phase of the El Niño (Fig 4) and during the decay phase (Fig 5) while El Niños are projected occurring 20% more often in the late 2000s relative to the late 1900s. Presumably the global SAT will become more wobbly as a result.
I note the latest MEI numbers show no sign of the La Niña slackening. Could we be in for the 3-year version as per 1998-2001?
And, if so, would that lead to a larger EN as stored energy/heat builds up?
Sorry to have to bring this up but this is a case of scientific “jumping the gun”. Anyone publishing on this topic first needs to get their ducks in a row and develop a solid foundational model for ENSO cycles. Suggesting that El Nino events will be stronger due to some extraneous factor is like asserting what an electrical circuit will do without first being able to model it with Kirchoff’s law. Not being able to add a perturbation to a predictive model is equivalent to shooting in the dark.
Isaac Held in a recent podcast interview said he is uncomfortable on the assertion that AGW will impact extremes in climate: “a lot of that science is not that sound” and following that with “people at the highest levels of gov’t have bought into it”
Long interview (100 minutes) here: https://deep-convection.org/2022/04/12/episode-1-isaac-held/
another bit:
I think that you have illustrated Issac Held’s well-founded concern about being quoted out of context (1:11 in the interview). Your framing of his quotes around 1:19-1:20 suggests to me that you have him supporting a position that “the assertion that AGW will impact extremes in climate” (quote from you) is based on unsound science that has nevertheless been accepted at the highest levels of government.
What I found him saying was he was firmly convinced that AGW was real and a serious problem. Within that context, he preferred that policymakers consult the results of a scientific consensus such as IPCC rather than the viewpoints of individual scientists. He specifically thought some of the emphasis on particular types of extremes being tied into global warming was “not that sound.” His particular example was “these discussions about whether the retreat of arctic sea ice is affecting weather in the mid latitudes – in winter especially.” It was that example he referred to when he said “people at the highest levels of government have bought into it.” That’s not the same thing as saying that AGW isn’t causing extremes. It’s a discussion about framing and accurate attribution of weather events when the research is inconclusive or nuanced.
Thanks for the reply, Zebra. I believe that’s the claim: BAU would have produced an acceleration in growth or linear growth with a higher slope, but instead, we see near-linear growth at the same rate since the 1950s.
I looked around a bit in the peer-reviewed literature for estimates of avoided emissions due to the increase in renewables, but I didn’t find much. If there’s some research on that, we could address the claim directly.
Does it really matter much? A bit like hitting a brick wall at 110mph instead of 100.
Heh, indeed. My friend is quite certain that humans will fix climate change, because technology, and he cites this decline from 4-6C projections to 2-3C projections as evidence.
So far, technology is what has gotten us into a fix. As BPL noted above, the downward adjustment in climate sensitivity came between 1896 and 1956, and there hasn’t been much change since. Meanwhile, the projections of actual warming have risen since we’ve poured more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an exponentially increasing rate since then.
Actual warming depends heavily on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions, although there will probably be some feedbacks to make things even worse, such as melting icecaps and additional CO2 and methane emissions from thawing permafrost.
The projection of actual warming depends mostly on who is doing the projecting, and what assumptions they are making about future GHG releases. That’s why IPCC uses multiple emissions scenarios. Declining projections of warming are evidence of your choice in forecasters, not new discoveries of temperature GHG insensitivity in the climate system.
CO2-only people will never understand the problem. Climate is a symptom of resource abuse; it can’t be fixed by more consumption of resources.
In the not-too-distant future, I imagine we’ll see solar-powered logging and mining operations in the Amazon rainforest.
Indeed, Jim.
Jim Galasyn, this website did an article a few years ago discussing that there has already been enough decline in use of coal and ultimate reserves of coal are not as large as previously thought all to suggest that warming rates of 5 or 6 degrees this century are effectively now extremely unlikely. I tried to find the article but couldn’t. I wonder if your friend heard that. Although he seems to be confusing the issue with climate sensitivity.
Regardless of all that I personally think 4 degrees would be horrendous, and we are still staring at a looming disaster and not nearly enough is being done to mitigate the disaster.
There are more than enough reserves of coal to blow apart the C budget. The only study I know of that claimed what you say was by David Ruttledge, and he was wrong.
nigelj,
You comment that “this website did an article a few years ago discussing that there has already been enough decline in use of coal and ultimate reserves of coal are not as large as previously thought”.
I don’t recall such an ‘article’ although there were 2-3 years back articles looking at the top-end projections under AGW, in particular the usefulness of seeing the RCP8.5 scenario as being the outcome of Business-As-Usual. The arguments that RCP8.5 was an exaggeration of BAU , initially made by denialists(?) but certainly given weight by Hausfather & Peters (2020), was based on the decline of coal in projected future energy mixes. The decline of coal was discussed within comment threads here at RC (thus here). But I don’t recall an RC‘article’.
Right, I have to believe this claim of “progress” is really an artifact of our improved understanding rather than any actual “bending down” of the emissions curve.
Also agree that humans are doing next to nothing to prevent the catastrophe. Very glad I don’t have children.
MAR, I’m fairly sure this website wrote an article a few years ago essentially discussing that progess made reducing the use of coal means RCP 8.5 with 5 degrees or more warming is now very unlikely. It based this on various studies by other people. Perhaps Gavin or one of the other RC people remember and can post a link. It covered similar ground to Hausfather & Peters (2020) and may have referred to that paper. I do emphasise that personally I don’t believe we can rule out very extreme warming scenarios.
MAR and Nigel, thank you, it’s likely that the Hausfather and Peters paper from 2020 is the source of my friend’s claim. (I’ll ask him next time this comes up.) That BAU wow wow thread has a great discussion about it.
This is what I don’t get: H&P state, “Most users of climate scenarios care more about the world as it is now, rather than what might have been had global emissions not slowed over the past decade.”
But there’s zero evidence that global emissions have “slowed”.
With the exception of 2020, when the pandemic largely idled the global economy, the last four years have seen the highest annual carbon emissions ever. Check this NOAA story from 7 April 2022: Increase in atmospheric methane set another record during 2021 – Carbon dioxide levels also record a big jump – CO2 emissions growth is accelerating, decade by decade.
Instead of fading to zero, the price of thermal coal has skyrocketed since 2021.
The total radiative forcing from atmospheric greenhouse gases has risen at a rock-steady rate since the 1950s.
In a Washington Post editorial on 4 April 2022, UN Secretary-General António Guterres wrote, “A report released Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a litany of broken climate promises.”
How is any claim of “progress” at all plausible?
Jim Galasyn,
You ask “How is any claim of “progress” at all plausible?”
As you point out, the NOAA AGGI is showing no let-up in the rise in GHG forcings. And if the trends in the AGGI are examined, the annual AGGI increase dropped by about 30% in the early 1990s (due to the slowing of CH4 emissions) but has since been showing a convincing acceleration; certainly not a sign of any deceleration.
However, I would argue that there are enough wobbles in the year-on-year atmospheric CO2 increases (CO2 having provided the lion’s share of the forcing since the early 1990s) to cover up even a significant underlying deceleration in the forcing numbers.
And you also point to those important CO2 emissions (eg the Global Carbon Project budget) which are driving the forcing and which do indeed show a decade-on-decade acceleration and no signs of any deceleration (on that decadal timescale).
The one piece of good news is that on a sub-decadal timescale, there does appear to be a deceleration in those CO2 emissions numbers, as per shown below.
Mind, we do need to see that deceleration very very quickly reducing the CO2 emissions growth to zero and then see those emissions very very quickly begin the drop down to net-zero.
Average annual increase in CO2 emissions (GtCarbon)
(1) Over previous decade.
(2) over previous 5 years.
1969 … … … 0.08 … … … 0.11
1979 … … … 0.15 … … … 0.14
1989 … … … 0.08 … … … 0.11
1999 … … … 0.08 … … … 0.10
2009 … … … 0.18 … … … 0.17
2019 … … … 0.13 … … … 0.03
The numbers for GISTEMP LOTI has been posted for March with a SAT anomaly of +1.05ºC, up on both Jan (+0.91ºC) & Feb (+0.89ºC), and is the highest monthly anomaly since Nov 2020.
March 2022 is the 5th warmest March on the GSITEMP LOTI record (also 5th in ERA5 SAT, 7th in RSS TLT, =8th in UAH TLT). GISTEMP’s March 2022 sits below 2016 (+1.36ºC), 2020 & 2019 (both +1.17ºC) and 2017 (+1.16ºC), while above 2015 (+0.96ºC), 2010 (+0.92ºC) & 2002, 2018 & 2021 (all =8th at +0.88ºC)
March 2022 sits =16th in the all-month RSS TLT rankings (28th in ERA5 SAT. 84th in RSS TLT & =87nd in UAH TLT).
After the first 3 months, the start of 2022 now sits as the 5th warmest start-to-the-year in GISTEMP SAT (also 5th in ERA5 SAT,16th in UAH & 11th in RSS TLT).
…….. Jan-Mar Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.30ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.19ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +1.11ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +1.02ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.95ºC
2015 .. +0.90ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2002 .. +0.81ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 16th
2021 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
Good stuff, MAR, thanks for the reply upthread!
A new post by Ramez Naam: A thread on climate hope
Jim Galasyn,
The source paper for this, Hausfather &. Moore (2022) ‘Net-zero commitments could limit warming to below 2 °C’ is hot-off-the-press so it will likely emerge from behind its paywall, or at least the coverage will become more definitive.
But the paper is apparently saying that a +2ºC limit is achievable but only if we knuckle down and knuckle down quickly.
I guess they missed that the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade.
No it’s not. Not even close. – gavin
Depends how you count. When looking at a parbolic curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve, not the average of it. In that sense, the “current rate” would be accurate.
This video states the half a degree number from 4:42 – 4:51. It doesn’t explain the calculation,
https://youtu.be/A9bFZ_rorg0
Killian,
The video does “explain the calculation.”
The video commentary says “And we’re advancing at a rate roughly, the slope on this plot, you can basically read off the chart, it’s basically half a degree per decade. That is our current trajectory in terms of our current level of emissions.”
The chart under discussion that “you can basically read off” is IPCC SR1.5 Fig 1.2 and if you do “basically read off” a value, you’ll find that it matches those presented within the text of IPCC SR1.5 Chapter 1., a text that runs:-
So no “half a degree per decade.”
“Parabolic” is not near to any good idea of what such weather- curves may be about , so as to find out further what causes them and what to do / what not to do with it it.
I tried to tell him of “patten recognition”,… on what is it about?… What could it be? What is going on here? but he gives a damn and knows very6n much better than tat.
K: Depends how you count. When looking at a parbolic curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve, not the average of it. In that sense, the “current rate” would be accurate.
BPL: Naturally, corrected by somebody who actually works in the field, Killian doubles down. Narcissists can never, ever admit they were wrong.
Re. “When looking at a parbolic (sic) curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve,”…
I suggest not applying that “logic” very far. For example, if you jump off a bench to the floor and use “the most recent part of that curve” to judge what to expect if you step off a 10th story balcony, well you’ll be seriously in error.
Killian
I wrote you about pattern recognition in the Universe.
Where have you got parabolic functions in the climate from?
You see, in physical chemistery it is exponensial or logaritmic, even cyclic and sinoid and unlinear dis- continous assymptotic and then it may often blow up or fall down and go to Hell. But hardly parabolic in viscous systems.
It is af you did not learn the proper words about common and natural behaviours either..
Wasn’t this nonsense already debunked once?
jgnfeld, intentionally missing the point, imo.
See page 4/24 of the report she apparently was using in the video here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf
“A.1.1
Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for
the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6
higher than the average over the 1850–1900
period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within
±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and
0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}”
Wasn’t this nonsense already debunked once?
So you have crystal ball and can predict where the trend will be in the future? What is nonsense is to assert noting the increase exists and may continue is nonsense, but that the increase exists and may not continue is sense.
Do you not listen to yourself? Do you need so badly to refute anything I post – even though it is not something *I* claimed, but is something stated by scientists! – that you ignore the most obvious of logic? Rhetorical question.
k…
Nope. Essentially you stated that extending the tangent is a proper inferential procedure when dealing with a time series. NO competent analyst would suggest that (barring the actual linear case, of course).
jgnfld,
No, I did not. Stating what the most recent part of a curve is does not equal proclaiming that is going to continue. Yes, you are intentionally misrepresnting what the paper and presentation are saying, and what I am sharing about that.
It’s a simple fact. And it absolutely is far more likely to continue to worsen than to improve given how little we are doing about it.
I do not know what everybody’s problem is here. Overly pedantic? Simply too rigid in your thinking? Afraid of the implications? What?
If you have a problem with the findings, take it up with the authors rather than claiming *I* made claims I did not make. It’s their claim. I am simply sharing it.
Get this through your damned heads, people. Your collective head-in-the-sand responses are just going in circles.
It’s not nonsense because you posted it. (Not everything is about you.)
It’s nonsense because drawing conclusions from excessively short time frames is, well, stupid.
Well at least we know it’s everyone else.
Is there a way to install an “ignore” button/feature” on the blog so certain trolls can be less disruptive to the conversation? Thanks
Chuck
That button you must have in your brains. It should not be mechanized or ROBOTified.
Carbomontanus says
18 APR 2022 AT 12:34 PM
Chuck
That button you must have in your brains. It should not be mechanized or ROBOTified.
Huh?
I want it where I can click on it.
@ Chuck
I repeat: Certain things are mental and spiritual and cannot be made automatic, ROBOT-ified.
Example: My son had made a very sublime text- edition program on his Ti.99-4A computer. “And now we must make division of words!” he said
“No, I replied. Save your 16 Kilobytes against that!. Because it is a typical example of a non- data- compatible problem.!”
And had to0 explain. I had had it before in elementary phiilosophy and Harward logics.
Take the word “Beefcake”. How shall you divide that. Into Be-efcake ot into Beef- cake?
It is a matter of taste of good taste. The Ti 99-4A has got no good taste at all. It has got absolutely no idea of what beef and cakes is about.
And we have the same problem here. A button has got no idea at all of what certain trolls is about and who they are. That, you must have, and train on conscious level.
By the way, Norway is now publishing a new set of postal stamps with certain and fameous trolls of all values, as drawn and painted by fameous artists. I have offered my national expertise on it here many times, so maybe I shoud send you all that fameous series of postal stamps?
But, there are good old rules and regulations and descriptions indeed, also traditionally, on how to tackle the trolls. Maybe a textbook and catechism on that?
Hr Chuck
You must think of it, then it works.
“…the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade”? I would echo the comment from our host.
If you use GISTEMP LOTI & 10-year OLS, it is possible to cherry-pick a 10-year period 2010-20 where the rate of warming is +0.47ºC/decade but half a decade earlier you can cherry-pick such a 10-year OLS and get the rate of warming as low as +0.0.45ºC/decade. So you need to take longer sets of data than 10 years.
Both 20-year OLS & 30-year OLS show pretty-much the same although there are still wobbles. Yet there is certainly an acceleration to be seen of late in that GISTEMP LOTI warming rate which was running at:-
+0.159ºC/d through the decades up to 1995,
+0.169ºC/d up to 2000,
+0.177ºC/d up to 2005,
+0.172ºC/d up to 2010,
+0.176ºC/d up to 2015 &
+0.225ºC/d up to 2020 with the latest 30-year OLS (to 3/2022) giving +0.233ºC/d.
And to take that acceleration and project it into the future (which is no more a realistic projection than projecting the latest linear rate); so assuming the strongest of that acceleration is something more than a short-term wobble, that +0.5ºC/decade only arrives in the late 2050s.
You confirmed it yourself, then say Gavin is correct.
That’s a strong conservative interpretation bias you’ve got there, MAR, when you even contradict yourself. But let’s look at just who is using inappropriate language, eh?
You say the info is cherry-picked. Let’s look at that definition.
intransitive verb
: to select the best or most desirable
transitive verb
: to select as being the best or most desirable also : to select the best or most desirable from
You are accusing the scientists of *wanting* to find a 0.5C increase. That seems to be a case of libel, imo, no? What scientist *wants* to find a 0.5C increase? But that is why people cherry-pick, to support what they *want* to show rather than showing what is.
I stated in my post that they *seemed to be* using the end of the *current* parabolic curve. You have shown this to be accurate. They said in the video the *current* rate of warming is 0.5/decade. Again, you show this to be accurate. (Please don’t be a pedantic twit and argue the difference between your .47 and their .5.) I said the logic is sound: The long-term trend is parabolic. This is accurate. I am sure they can see that for themselves, as can you and Gavin. I know of no study claiming that curve is going to stop being parabolic unless we make massive changes – which we are not current;y making.
So, what they said and what I repeated is absolutely accurate: The *current* rate of warming is sitting at 0.5C/decade and increasing. This may change, but has not changed yet.
The cherry-pick is actually by you and Gavin. The case was made for *current* data and you changed it to *long-term* data. You had to; it’s the only way you could argue those scientists are wrong. And this is worrying. Why would the two of you want to downplay warming rate of 0,5C/decade?
[Response: The problem with picking the ten-year period that happens to give you the largest trend is that it’s very unlikely to be predictive. The way you switch from ‘the trend from 2011-2020 was 0.47ºC/dec’ (+/-0.2ºC/dec) (which was true) to talking about the ‘warming rate’ which implicitly assumes it will continue is the issue. This is not likely. The longer term trends are more stable and half as large (20 yr trend is ~0.23ºC). My pushback is on your implicit predictions, not your ability to calculate a linear trend. Note too that 2012-2021 is 0.31ºC/dec – why are you not stressing that more recent result? – gavin ]
The problem with picking the ten-year period that happens to give you the largest trend is that it’s very unlikely to be predictive.
Yes. This was understood as underpinning your original response because it is obvious, yes? *Statistically*, you are correct. In terms of typical climate science – long term trends, not weather – you are correct. But that is irrelevant. You are ignoring the long-tail risk in doing this while they, and I, are clearly using long-term risk as the frame of reference, along with acknowledging we are not doing nearly enough to make a reversal of this acceleration happen.
Climate Change is accelerating. Warming is accelerating. A 30-year trend is absolutely inappropriate in a world of Rapid Climate Change. Or what we perhaps should start calling Super-Rapid Climate Change.
Why the two of you even bother arguing this point is perplexing.
Add to this that while the rapid, parabolic rise cannot be guaranteed to continue, it is completely wrong to say it is unlikely to do so when it’s a part of a long-term trend of well over a hundred years! What is very unlikely to happen is that curve bending down without a global change to what humans do, and we are showing convincingly we so far are unwilling to do that. But even if the rate of change slows to merely monotonic exponential increases, we *still* get to +5.2C by 2100.
I provided you both with a correction to your positions up-thread. I don’t understand your reluctance to acknowledge RCC when it has become so blindingly obvious.
We are currently at @ 0.5C/decade. Period. Nobody has claimed that is guaranteed to continue. It’s simply what currently is. Arguing, pointlessly, against this is fuel for denialists and minimalists. I don’t get it.
[Response: What you don’t get is that consistency counts for a lot in the long term. Picking something convenient this month only to have it be replaced and discarded the next year doesn’t help anyone. We know that 10 year trends are noisy, using one of them as a long term prediction is foolish. – gavin
My pushback is on your implicit predictions, not your ability to calculate a linear trend. Note too that 2012-2021 is 0.31ºC/dec – why are you not stressing that more recent result? – gavin ]
Because I don’t have an agenda and did not try to do your job for you. I merely reported what the paper and presentation said, If they update their paper and say, gee, *this* *year*, the trend is lower, which really would be cherry-picking along the lines of 1998 and the no warming denialist argument. The issue isn’t ten years vs 11 or 15, it’s looking at the end of the tail and noting there has been an acceleration. Why would you cherry=pick from within that acceleration rather than use the full term of the acceleration?
You are asking me why I am not cherry-picking at an even finer grain than what I have already been accused of doing! Frankly, I don’t know which years bookend their 0.5C claim. It’s not my claim. I am merely sharing it and noting the dangers of it *not* being an anomaly – which is the kind of risk analysis I have been begging climate scientists to use in cli sci messaging for a long time.
Cherry-picking? No, consistent. Same message for well over 10 years.
[Response: Now you have moved to argument from authority ‘they are scientists who said something in a video!’. Not convincing. I have spent literally decades pushing back on folks who pick on short term noise to either diminish the issues, and, occasionally, exaggerate them. What is abundantly clear over that time is that short term trends are not predictive – it doesn’t matter who highlights them. In general, people should be more critical of things that confirm their biases. – gavin]
Killiasn
Those curves and functions, that you are talking of, are not parabolic.
They are exponensial. Their status at the moment in any point is equal to their rate of increasing or decaying times a constrant that is characteristric to the curve.
This is very common in the universe and in the climate.
And if that constant factor changes, then something else is happening such as for instance that Humanity or growth or ropt decay is changing its behaviours.
Or that we may get quite close to a cathastrophy or tipping point.
Parabolic it ain`t .
Examine your vocabulary and linguistics and grammars on this.
Parabolic, that is the fameous Y = aX^2 or if a stone fralls in vacuum from the leaning tower in Pisa, which it never did, The fallen distance S per microsecond increases by a constant plus delta S per micro or millisecond or second. That was Gallileis formula of it.
But exponesial , that is more Baroque. That is how Pascals spiral is developing or Snails and ammonites and other natural shells and moluscs shape up. Euler discussed the same and introduced the first Logaritms.
We usen it in the construction of organ nregisters and harpsichord strings also. In steps, by successive quints. Each step is multiplied and enlarged from the former by 3/2. That aint not parabolic , that is exponensial. And we use it in the discussion of agressive and chemical potensials and voltages.
Tyhe ” initial rise” of a bushfire or a pandemic or any auto- catalytic system of that kind is also exponential, not parabolic because the phaenomena is directly causing itself in any unlimited substrate- field.
The given quinte or octave accord on the keyeboard organ register causes the next. by a constant MVLTIPLICATOR, not a constand addition to STATVS per interval, like in the parabolic functions. .
If human mentality and behaviour that causes itself in the givenn substrate the climaten is kept constant,…. it will go to Hell. It is as easy as that. And not t9o Hell by the parabolic way but in the exponesial way.
People will never believe you if you confuse also such elementary things..
Thanks MAR, you’re a numbers guy alright. When noodling with this kind of exploratory analysis, Kevin Cowtan’s GMST trend calculator is great for comparing warming rates over arbitrary time intervals. You can choose your favorite dataset as well as your time-series length. A similar analysis to yours, similarly demonstrates that warming is accelerating. As a non-expert, however, I’m wary of quick’n’dirty eyeball tests! Can it really be that easy to show acceleration conclusively?
MalAdapted,
You ask “Can it really be that easy to show acceleration conclusively?”
I think the answer is “Yes!!” but only if you are ‘eyeballing’ the right sort of graph.
On the subject of that Kevin C trend calculator, I think most would be more familiar with it at SkepticalScience and if you dig a bit there, you may note another rather interesting page from Kevin C that similarly shows global temperature series but when adjusted for Sol,Vol&ENSO (à la Foster & Rahmstorf 2011). Sadly the data provided in it is still 1979-2011, sad because the adjusted de-(natural)-wobbled data would show any acceleration far more clearly.
And on theme of useful graphical engines, let’s not forget WoodForTrees. Note that while the value of any plotted regression at WoodForTrees doesn’t appear on the graph, it is given within the rest of the plotted numbers via the Raw data button.
Of course, all that is a rather clunky way to examine trends in the temperature record, but then I consider OLS is rather clunky for such use. You need 20 years or more for the wobbles of a global SAT record to be smoothed away and reveal a useful trend value and 20-years-plus is rather a long time to assume linearity.
The top part of the ‘today-posted’ graphic down this link shows why you do need 20 years. The graphic shows that for single month the 10-year OLS stood at +0.47ºC/decade of warming (June 2010 to May 2020) if anybody was daft enough to want to cherry-pick it. And today, the latest 10-year period (Apr 2012 to March 2022) is dropped down to +0.26ºC/decade, that down from the +0.31ºC/decade at the end of last year.
So why would I answer “Yes!!” to your question “Can it really be that easy to show acceleration conclusively?”
I answer “Yes!!” because the rate of warming has been remarkably constant 1975-2013. This allows a simple plot of the 60-month rolling averages (as in the bottom part of the ‘today-posted’ graphic down this link to show the period since 2013 has diverged above the central trend and has done-so further than at any time since 1975.
Diverging above the previous trend onto a new trend means an acceleration has occurred.
If the divergence-away-from-the-old-trend keeps bending away (rather than diverging linearly), that would be a continuing acceleration.
But although the divergence since 2013 is big, that is not to say it couldn’t be a very big wobble which will drop back to the old trend.
Of course, the plan is for AGW mitigation to kick-in so we get divergence down below the trend. So “above” is not good..
It’s not about me, and it’s not about risk minimization.
It’s about *not* doing stats in the stupidest possible manner.
We are at .47 now, but .50 is three decades away? How is that not cherry-picking? The context provided by the paper and the video is clear: They are taking the most recent ten years, not the 30-year average **as is appropriate**with a parabolic curve showing no signs of meaningful slowing.
The statement in the video is accurate. You confirmed that. It serves no purpose for you to belittle that and move the goal posts. Let me fix it for you:
Yes, if we take the short-term slope, then it’s fair to say warming is *currently* within @ 0.5/decade. However, the long-term trend is much lower and the short-term trend may not continue. Then again, the short-term treand could become more accute, and that seems by far the more likely outcome.
Killian
You seem to be performing a very fameous, standard trolling and denial routine. Cherrypicking a short term noisy fast moovement in the curve and selling that as the main overall and future ” trend” or tendency.. A rather fameous magical trick of cheating also.
By the way, how does it feel to keep up with the worst journalisms that wee see now from Ukraina? That behaviour is not sustainable but it may be some special way of Permaculture as it has been withnessed in Ukraina before. But, does one have to take a bad example from it?
No, it doesn’t “seem” far more likely.
Killian
“They are taking the most recent ten years, not the 30-year average **as is appropriate**with a parabolic curve showing no signs of meaningful slowing.”
And they are COMPLETELY wrong to do that. Imagine if they had done that during the ten years of subdued warming from about 2002 – 2012 and projected it forwards. It would have proven to be utterly wrong.
You need at least twenty years of data to have useful data, due to natural cycles, before you can project anything forward, and it is still only a rough projection at best.
Yes, Kevin, it does, and is blindingly obvious. Until it changes, it is the current state of things.
No surprise to see you join the chorus of risk minimization.
I’m going with 0.20 / decade + 0.06 / decade / decade because 2s & 6s are my favourite. You could go with 0.5 / decade if you’re a 5s person.
Killian
You seem to be performing a very fameous, standard trolling and denial routine. Cherrypicking a short term noisy fast moovement in the curve and selling that as the main overall and future ” trend” or tendency.. A rather fameous magical trick of cheating also.
Well clog-the-comment-thread!!!
The comment up-thread by Jim Galasyn has spawned a thread of 31 replies and 4,000 words which have been almost entirely pandering to the misguided ravings of a single commenter. I think that is a good illustration of the problems in these RC threads.
…
Getting back to the substance of the initial Jim Galasyn comment, the OpEd he raises from elsewhere was based on the source document Hausfather &. Moore (2022) ‘Net-zero commitments could limit warming to below 2 °C’ which remains hidden behind a paywall. But I also note that paper in turn was itself a commentary of the paper Meinshausen et al (2002) ‘Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2C’ which is also paywalled but which does allow the figures (complete with the data used) to be examined. There is also a 22 question Q&A from the authors here.
What Meinshausen et al are saying is that there are now national pledges which if implemented would restrict global CO2 emissions 2020-30 to 450 Gt(CO2) = 123Gt(C). That will not see any drop in emissions through the 2020s and so by 2030 blow the entire budget which would keep us below +1.5ºC AGW. Yet these ‘pledged’ emissions are somehow converted into emissions 2020-50 give roughly 1,000Gt(CO2) global emissions [=275Gt(C)] which the paper is saying does provide a budget for +2.0ºC AGW.
This 2021 RC item shows tese 2020-2050 cumulative CO2 emissions are still below the AR6 post-2020 CO2 budgets for +2.0ºC AGW [1,350Gt(CO2) or 370Gt(C)]. but not greatly so. These emissions are seemingly shown exceeding the emissions of the +2.0ºC AGW scenario SSP1-2.6 within Meinshausen et al’s Fig 3b with no grand plunge in level thro’ the 2020 but rather plunging in the 2030s before converging with SSP1-2.6 emissions by the 2040s (with differences above SSP1-2.6 again appearing 2060-on).
I don’t yet feel so easy with the flat emissions level running beyond 2030 alongside the whiff of a “job done” message which I’m sure is not intended by the authors as they say in their Q&A1:-
MAR,
Your utter dishonesty here is… just too typical of you.
misguided ravings of a single commenter.
Let’s see…. https://twitter.com/PermResInitDet/status/1517068726352617474
Indeed. We suffer the “misguided ravings of a single commenter.” But it’s never to late to learn.
Killian,
Here is a little puzzle for you.
If I measure up a screen-shot of an on-line graph and find it takes the path of a straight yellow line drawn onto that graph 166 horizontal pixels to to rise from one horizontal line to the one above, these horizontal lines marking vertically a scale of temperature in 0.5ºC increments, and if there are vertical lines marking time in 20 year increments that are found to be 109 horizontal pixels apart, at what rate is the straight yellow line rising?
You may give your answer in degrees Celsius per decade.
(HINT – The answer is obviously not +0.5ºC/decade. As a very rough guide of what it should come out as, using the SkS trend tool set for GISTEMPv4 and the period of data the straight yellow line is drawn through [1987.3-2017.8], OLS provides a trend of +0.19ºC/decade.)
So now you’re doing intentionally dense? None of those lines is keyed to any years, genius, they merely show the slope changing over time. Note the issue was DECADE time frame, but you think the yellow line covering about 20 years is supposed to indicate one should calculate… oh, ever mind. It’s not as if you are ever honest. You always twist the issues to the extreme conservative side, and here is the first time I’ve seen you behave intentionally stupidly.
Killian,
You appear to be well out of your depth here. Let me try to provide you with a bit of buoyancy by demonstrating that you are half right, roughly.
Firstly, you insist up-thread that the assertion that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” is “something stated by scientists”. This is not the case. It is a single quote given in one video by a single scientist who I would suggest is not of the sort of scientist you would consider to be a ‘go to’ scientist for such information.
The only other person I see making that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” claim is Killian.
Secondly, the “issue” was not and remains ‘not’ a “DECADE time frame.” The issue is “the current rate of warming” which is difficult to evaluate due to the wobbly nature of the global SAT data.
Ignoring the good old error bars, we are easily able to show the average “rate of warming” 2002-22 is +0.23ºC/decade using GISTEMP. This is of course an average centered on 2012, so a value which is a decade out-of-date. Now, if we can find a value for the acceleration, that would provide a measure for the increase in the “rate of warming” since 2012 and thus show the “the current rate of warming.”
This graphic from a 2019 Tamino post is based on the temperature data when corrected for SolVol&ENSO so is less wobble-ridden. It suggests an acceleration for GISTEMP(NASA) of +0.0004ºC/yr/yr or +0.04ºC/decade/decade.
So this would suggest that in the 10 years 2012 to 2022 the rate of warming would have risen from +0.23ºC/decade to perhaps +0.27ºC/decade.
And to give some level of confirmation, this graphic (from this more recent Tamino post dated Oct 2021) shows the “the current rate of warming” as being a little shy of that +0.27ºC/decade.
I am completely right. I drew the damned lines! Each line was drawn *only* to show the slope over time. They were not used to calculate anything, However, if you take the steepest two lines at the far right, each started from a different point to avoid claims of cherry-picking, you get the same answers as further up this thread, 4.7-ish to 5.0-ish.
Again, confirmed.
This is the sole argument. The *current* slope is in that range. Period.
Pull your head out.
Firstly, you insist up-thread that the assertion that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” is “something stated by scientists”. This is not the case. It is a single quote given in one video by a single scientist who I would suggest is not of the sort of scientist you would consider to be a ‘go to’ scientist for such information.
The only other person I see making that “the current rate of warming is 0.5C/decade” claim is Killian.
You’re being idiotic. The video is presenting a PAPER with multiple authors. Again, the first time I recall you being intentionally stupid on these pages. That is what arguing from an agenda does to one’s reasoning.
Secondly, the “issue” was not and remains ‘not’ a “DECADE time frame.” The issue is “the current rate of warming” which is difficult to evaluate due to the wobbly nature of the global SAT data.
Bullshit. I set the framing, not you. You get to move the goal posts set by me? Buy a freaking clue. Massive goddamned arrogance – and intellectual dishonesty.
Ignoring the good old error bars, we are easily able to show the average “rate of warming” 2002-22 is +0.23ºC/decade using GISTEMP.
Who gives a shit? You do not get to cherry-pick the context set by others. The video and I both stated the current warming at the decadal time frame. I have often been frustrated with your super-conservative sniping at forward-looking analysis, but I am thoroughly disgusted with this display of outright dishonesty.
It’s shameful.
And to give some level of confirmation, this graphic (from this more recent Tamino post dated Oct 2021) shows the “the current rate of warming” as being a little shy of that +0.27ºC/decade.
Huh. Two years into a massive economic downturn and two straight La Ninas? Talk about cherry-picking. Hypocritical much? You know perfectly well the next El Nino will reverse that “pause” in a quick damned hurry.
You are welcome to your extreme conservatism re climate, but you are being dishonest on every point you have made.
Killian. I don’t believe that MAR is being arrogant. He is trying to explain to you why ten years is a very deceptive time period to use for the current rate of warming, and that you need at least 20 years. A look at the temperature record 1880 – 2021 makes it plain why ten year periods don’t mean much:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
And if you do want to emphasis ten year periods, you didn’t answer this question upthread: “Note too that 2012-2021 is 0.31ºC/dec – why are you not stressing that more recent result? – gavin”
The warming trend since the 1970s is very worrying as it is, without any need to focus too much on very short periods and try to read too much into them..
nigelj,
That + 0.31ºC/decade for the period 2012-21 is a very wobbly measure. Move the time frame just 3 months to Apr2012-Mar2022 and OLS gives a trend of +0.26ºC/decade.
And we can even speculate how warm 2022 will turn out to be over the full year, and in doing so see how those speculative out-turns will do to the wibbly-wobbly 10-yr OLS trend.
Thus if 2022 turns out as =3rd warmest year on record equal to 2019, the 10-yr OLS trend will drop to +0.23ºC/decade. (Mind, =3rd looks unlikely.) If it manages =4th (=2017) it drops to +0.20ºC/decade and =5th (=2015) +0.19ºC/decade.
So the future is all a bit embarrassing for somebody intent on peddling AGW with a current trend +0.5ºC/decade.
And so the comment thread becomes dangled-down further as the “the misguided ravings of (the) single commenter” continue with his insistence that he is “completely right.”
Killian,
You are “completely wrong” and simply writing lunatic nonsense.
Take this IPCC graph you annotated with those “damned lines.” As you have been told before, none of them slope at anything like “4.7-ish to 5.0-ish” degrees Celsius per decade. Even the steepest of the lines “at the far right” only rises at +0.21ºC/decade.
How could any sane person claim it shows +0.5ºC/decade!! Look at it!!! It takes over 23 years to rise +0.5ºC and decades aren’t 23 years long!!!!!
You say there is “a PAPER with multiple authors.”
But there is no paper. It is a lecture by Julia Steinberger entitled “Living well within planetary limits: is it possible? And what will it take?”
So, as you have been told before, it is a single lecture (not a paper) by single author (not multiple authors) and a second version of that lecture here doesn’t even mention a rate of warming (other than saying that the warming of AGW is “coming at a high rate of speed”). So enumerating that “high rate of speed” and presenting the value as +0.5ºC/decade isn’t an actual part of the message of that lecture.
As for the “goal posts” you claim to have provided, you have argued up-thread that the rate-of-warming of concern is the most recent rate-of-warming. “When looking at a parbolic curve, best to judge the future on the most recent part of that curve.” Ignoring the assertion of the type of curve the warming rate is forming, you argue to use the most up-to-date available value.
Even in this latest comment of yours you describe it. (“This is the sole argument. The *current* slope is in that range. Period.”) Yet the trend value you appear to covet, the +0.47ºC/decade, is a 10-year OLS that is two years out-of-date (Jun2010-May2020). You are cherry-picking from an exceedingly wibbly-wobbly time series.
And both you and that one version of the lecture give a rate of warming in degrees Celsius per decade which (like any time-dependent unit of measurement, like miles-per-hour for instance, or weekly income) is not in any way defining any time frame of the measurement employed.
Finally, there is no pause shown in the Tamino graph, not one caused by ENSO or by economic downturn or by anything else. The current rate of warming shown is +0.26ºC/decade and has never been higher.
So, while you may have felt the urge to “dis” my ‘honesty’, in truth you are yourself entirely misguided in “every [single] point you have made.” Well done you!!!
Killian. I don’t believe that MAR is being arrogant.
What you think has never, will never, matter to me, for obvious reasons.
“31 replies, 4,000 words”
MAR, please tell me you have an efficient way to count replies and words on these threads. I don’t have the patience to do it by hand.
I’ve suggested, in various forms previously and on the recent “End of Comments?” thread that a simple first step in improving the situation would be to offer a listing, by name of individuals, of the number of comments and total column inches consumed.
No need for the moderators to do the work.
It would also help to have a list of “recent” comments beyond the 12 that appears so that questions from people like Jim would not get buried and missed completely… those are the comments I’m interested in seeing and perhaps responding to.
I’m not suggesting you do the work, (although I know you like to make lists), but I’m hoping for suggestions (from anyone) on how to set up software to do it.
If you think it not a waste of too much lifetime, many/most text editors will count words free/no-ads. Notepad++ is my preferred text editor. There may be html-based, direct methods, but I don’t know them.
Just copy/paste the text into it and click on View|Summary.
I wouldn’t bother, personally.
jgnfld,
Thanks, I do know the simple stuff…for example I could count the number of comments from an individual by using the “find” on the browser, but as you say, life is short.
My ideal would be a way to copy a thread into a spreadsheet and have it sort thing out by recognizing html markers, but I don’t know squat about html, and yes, life gets shorter all the time, so I’m not about to learn.
zebra,
You can cut-&-paste this comment thread into a spreadsheet just as easily as into a word processor and a few columns of logic can then tot up how many comments and words (or characters in those words) a particular commenter has contributed. I had such a set-up and was posting the findings five years back when we had a particularly prolific commenter who wished to share his voluminous wisdom with us all – at its peak that amounted to a third of the verbage/comments.
Knocking up a quick spreadsheet now (so there will be some minor bugs) shows this thread so far is 83%/75% the work (wordage/comments) of just seven commenters.
There can be reasons these elevated volumes of input; ♥ engaging in a long to-&-fro ♥ pasting long URLs direct into the thread ♥ posting big character-rich tables (like the smallish one below).
The problem is when the volume of tittle=tattle swamps all else.
Commenter Volumes ratings so far in this thread.
(1) Wordage volume (2) No of comments
Carbo … … … … 17% … … … … 16%
MA Ro … … … … 16% … … … … 9%
nigelj … … … … 13% … … … … 13%
macia … … … … 12% … … … … 9%
killian … … … … 12% … … … … 15%
Piotr … … … … 12% … … … … 6%
Kevin … … … … 3% … … … … 7%
MAR,
Thanks. I was hoping for some guidance on how to sort things into cells so they can be sorted and counted.
How do I distinguish the commenter’s name from the rest of the text, but keep the association with the comment itself?
Any hints would be appreciated.
“Temperatures top 45C in India and Pakistan – and it’s only spring”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/300576817/temperatures-top-45c-in-india-and-pakistan–and-its-only-spring
For the second month in a row, temperatures in India and Pakistan are abnormally high because of a string of strong and prolonged heatwaves – and now another surge is building.
This week, an intensifying heatwave is pushing temperatures to dangerously high levels. Temperatures topped 43C in the Indian capital of Delhi on Thursday…………………..
.While India is often exposed to intense heat episodes, research shows the frequency, duration and intensity has increased as global temperatures rise.
A February study revealed that human activity played a larger role than natural causes, stating “anthropogenic factors have cause a twofold increase in the occurrence probability of severe heatwaves in central and mid-southern India during the 20th century”.
The risk of heatwaves is projected to increase tenfold during the 21st century under some future climate-change scenarios as well.
“The extreme heatwave hitting India this week comes on top of 1C warming that country has already experienced,” tweeted Zeke Hausfather, a climate researcher at Stripe, a global technology company. “On our current emissions trajectory (SSP2-4.5), India is headed for around 3.5C warming by the end of the century.”
Doing some investigations. What was the reaction to Hansens 1981 article if any. Did it reach Scientific American or other popular scientific publications? Reference to articles appriciated.
Preben Borch,
You are presumably asking about Hansen et al (1981) which has seen quite a bit of the light of day through the decades since publication. Is there a particular part of that period you are interested in?
Yes sure MA Rodger, sorry for not making an excact reference. Well I have basically read most of Hansens early publications and I was wondering if there was some immediate reactions to the 1981 publication in public media. Im kind of aware that he wasnt too much into public communication at the time, and handed that over to others. But was there references to the publication in public media at all around 1981? I believe I have a resonable good understanding of the scientific debate at the time, and that it took a few years to establish that Hansen et al was in the end the scientific consensus. But I have no clue how this was covered in public media, like say in Scientific American or other popular scientific publications.
Preben Borch,
The Scientific American does have an archive which can be searched for terms like “James Hansen” and that will give you a list of the articles mentioning Hansen through the 1980s The first couple of entries post-Hansen et al (1981) are from a couple of climatologists, pieces by Revelle (the bloke who got Al Gore interested in AGW back in the 1960s although very late in life Revelle was found publishing with denialist Fred Singer) & planet man Andrew Ingersoll.
For myself, I don’t remember the media gearing up to present AGW to the world until perhaps 1990. I was returned to academia in the later part of the 1980s and AGW was not a subject I encountered on campus back then (although I wasn’t on campus very much. Mind I did once break into the CRU at East Anglia but that was to find a room for my System’s Group at an OU Summer School).
While the interweb wasn’t working as it was today back in the early 1980s, the sole reporting of Hansen et al (1981) I can see on-line is this NYT item which presumably does qualify Hansen et al as being front page news.
UAH TLT has been posted for April with an anomaly of +0.26ºC, well up on March’s +0.15ºC, Feb’s -0.01ºC and Jan’s +0.03ºC.
April 2022 sits as the =4th warmest April on the UAH TLT record, behind 1998, 2016 & 2019 and equal to 2020. April 2022 is =50th in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
After the chilly early months of 2022, the first third of 2022 in UAH TLT rises to become the =9th warmest start to the year.
…….. Jan-Apr Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.31ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2019 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 14th
2002 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 10th
2022 .. +0.11ºC
2005 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 11th
2004 .. +0.10ºC … … … -0.05ºC … … … 19th
2003 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.05ºC … … … 12th
2021 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th