They are not set in stone. I acknowledge the situation regarding the foodstuffs in the article is not great, but a lot of that hinges on BAU, and it’s blaringly obvious BAU will not continue. Say what you want about my optimism, but I think Balan would agree with me that it doesn’t hurt. Where’s he been anyway?
Dog, I agree with you about being realistic, but a cautious sense of positivity doesn’t hurt. If a repub wins, then I will join you in having a dismal view of things. And you can hold me to that one. I think we should focus on substantive issues instead if optimism or pessimism. Anyway, I wanted to ask you a question. You live in Virginia. Are you near any battlefields?
I live on a corner of the south end of the Manassas Battlefield—-not where the actual fighting took place, because that’s all nicely contained within the park boundaries, but where they marched to-and-fro, camped, and set up a hospital at the manor house of the plantation that my subdivision now occupies. Didn’t have much interest in the Civil War beyond reading some books until I moved to VA from NJ in 1969, Living here, it’s hard to avoid the CW, so I’ve been to all of the VA battlefields, and have visited many others in other states—Gettysburg and Antietam are my favorites, Manassas is right behind them, also been to Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Fort Fisher, Sumter, others—-Shiloh and Vicksburg are on the bucket list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s awesome! I’ve been to Manassas before. Gettysburg and Antietam are my favorites as well. Been to each several times and it’s always great
Here’s an ominous piece. Much reason for “realistic pessimism” here.
It’s sort of vague on timescales.
True, but time scales are irrelevant. It’s the trend that’s important, and what the likely implications for the future are whether they’re “short term” or “long term”. This is nothing but bad news no matter how you look at it, but of course we’ll have to say “more study is needed”, and “no single event can be blamed on climate change”, and “time will tell”, etc. This may be one of the tipping points and “known unknowns” that worry so many folks. Failure of the AMOC is a very BIG deal.
Hmm, still not sure what to make if it.
You need to study up on the THC (and that’s not the active ingredient in marijuana I’m talking about). Here are some good links, and the last one even hooks back into the “Methane Bomb Doomers” for an added bonus.
I’m well aware of what the AMOC is, but the part about weakening contributing to the “methane bomb” does not concern me.
Unless you can demonstrate any reason why it should, such as Rahmstorf screaming about hydrates going boom in the night or any research showing an exponentially increasing amount of hydrates coming from the Arctic (hint: there isn’t), then I stand by my due diligence standard. That being such a release is highly unlikely, but SRM should be researched as a back-up plan.
You are ever the optimist, if not the realist. Taking breaks from cleaning up around the edges of the blizzard. Will address the optimism and “opinion” issues later. If you have ever seen any videos of Rahmstorf in action, he does not “scream about hydrates going boom in the night” or anything else, nor do any other scientists. They just report on their studies and comment on other people’s work. Sometimes I wish they would scream—-maybe people would pay better attention.
PS I know you know better and it’s just a minor brain fart, but it’s the methane coming from the hydrates in the Arctic that concerns us
Here’s one from someone who is heavily involved in arctic research. Listen to what he says, especially near the end. Is he a pessimist? Or a realist?
I actually agree with everything Box said, and it’s also worth noting that he’s backed off a bit on the methane bomb, which I can link to if you like.
You needn’t “link” me to anything Jason Box has said, because I have been following him for quite some time now and am quite familiar with his research and public statements. I have been one of the crowd-funders of the Dark Snow Project for the past three years, and my contributions add up to triple $$$ digits.
Box has no “backing off” to do on the methane bomb, because all he said back when the info was coming out was an IF-THEN remark—-that IF the methane was released as rapidly as some suggested it might be, and considering the GHG impact of methane we would THEN be “f**ked”. He did later say that he was referring mainly to the methane in permafrost rather the sub-sea clathrates, but that’s a clarification and amplification, not a “back off”. Anyone who understands the carbon budget and the quantity of methane sitting there in the “bomb” agreed with him 100%—-I did.
And regarding John’s comment that Box was “told to back off”, I’d like to see some documentation of that—who “told” him?. I do recall some folks not approving of his language or his bluntness because “scientists don’t talk that way”, but if they can’t handle the truth that’s just too fking bad. IMO, it’s time for more scientists to “get blunt” so that maybe we can wake up in time to deal with AGW and thereby avoid having to say one day “Yep, we are well and truly fked”.
If I recall correctly, he was referring to the clathrates. He saidvtgatbin reaction to the Swerus-C3 expedition in summer 2014.
Yep, Box’s exact tweet on July 29, 2014—“IF even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, (THEN) we’re f’d”. He WAS reacting to the news of the methane bubbling up from the sea floor, but was speaking in general terms of the dangers of methane release from all sources—-and remember that people HAD been talking about melting permafrost for a while. Here’s a good, if long, piece that tells the “Box story” pretty well. And it DOES imply, if not document fully, that Box may have gotten talked to by his bosses in Denmark as John said. It also discusses the optimism-pessimism-gloom-doom situation that climate scientists face, and is illuminating in that regard.
I could be wrong of course, but my sense wasd that Jason Box backed off because he was told too, after his “we’re f**ked” comment.
About Rahmstorf, honestly I got the impression he was quite calm but I’ve only listened to one of his lectures.
Bryant, I’m not taking sides, believe me, I want to feel just as optimistic as you. I don’t like being with dour people either. Who knows, maybe one day I’ll feel just like you do. I barbequed in the rain yesterday. How’s that for trying? Take care.
Examination of Earth’s Recent History Key to Predicting Global Temperatures
“Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide — or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change — has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7°C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.”
This one is interesting and something I’ve wondered about for a long time. Life in the universe is probably MUCH rarer than we’d like to believe. It could well be that among the possibly countless planets in the universe, our’s is the only one to harbor life. How ironic it would be if the ‘most intelligent’ species on that singular world deliberately wiped life from the universe in one of the countless ways we’ve developed for the sake of an ipad. Perhaps our definition of ‘intelligence’ is need of an overhaul.
The aliens are silent because they’re dead
Just one more thing,
I don’t buy into the idea that his bosses forced him to recant. The video statement he made about methane didn’t smack of that feeling to me.
What’s your opinion on this piece about microbes: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-climate-change-endangers-microbes-and-why-that-s-not-a-good-thing/
Do you think it poses a threat to oxidizing microbes in the permafrost, both land and marine?
I think that’s too broad a question, but I don’t know. All I can say is that permafrost thaw experiments are based on microbial activity.
So it would be reasonable to say the microbes will still be around in great abundance during and after permafrost that?
When I say “I don’t know”, that’s generally what I mean.
Sorry about that. I just thought you meant they would be around when you mentioned the thaw experiments. Was anything in that article new to you?
I know I’ve asked a few questions related to ECS, and I feel like I should know more about it by now, but this:
Really baffled me. Is this an argument that ECS is >3C now, an argument that sensitivity changes based on the global average temp, or is it an argument that ESS should get more consideration in planning climate policy? It seems a very confused abstract – but, I’m a very confused reader.
That strikes me as strange. The consensus is around 3C, so I think the guy’s off on that.
Huh, I didn’t realize Annual Reviews put out abstracts before papers.
That second sentence is quite confusing… I’m going to have to hold off on trying to figure out what’s going on until the paper is available. I do see two things there: an argument for weighting the ECS best estimate to above 3C, and an argument that ESS not be ignored. ECS does vary with background climate state (it’s not always exactly the same), but I’m not sure what the basis for the argument is here. Specifically, I’m not sure which paleo estimates are being referred to.
I mean… http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigTS_TFE.6-1.jpg
Edit: And http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/how-sensitive-is-the-climate-to-added-co2/
I’d imagine they’re referring to paleo estimates for “ice free” times, but I don’t know how that’s relevant to the near-to-mid term’s worth of warming.
Actually, on the subject of ECS variation – how quickly can it change, and to what degree (no pun intended)?
I thought I had just seen a paper relevant to this, and Google came through for me: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/11/3019/2015/cpd-11-3019-2015.pdf
(I haven’t had a chance to fully digest it, yet…)
A CO2 doubling would then lead to an equilibrium rise in global temperature of
on average 2.5 K (68 % probability range: 2.0–3.5 K) or to on average 3.7K (68% probability
range: 2.5–5.5 K) during Pleistocene full glacial climates (“cold”) or Pleistocene
“warm” climates (intermediate glaciated to interglacial conditions), respectively.
I think Hansen has suggested that the ECS may change as Scott mentioned. Not sure if it was in his “Storms” book or some later work.
It may change, but the main consensus is still 3C I think.
Do you think this info on lianas has sizeable implications for carbon storage and the pace of climate change in general?: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/vines-are-the-hipsters-of-tropical-forests-fast-increasing-and-pushing-out-neighbors
I don’t know—I can’t get a hold of the paper to see if they discuss spitballed numbers.
That one’s a bit difficult to figure out. How about this more relevant one?: http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/melting-arctic-sea-ice-increases-precipitation.html
I’m not sure of the time scales they’re talking about and what an equivalent of CO2 doubling would mean. Does it sound as heavy-impact to you as it does to me?
I think they’re trying to describe the local forcing in the Arctic, rather than a global forcing, so you’re talking about one of the feedbacks that cause Arctic amplification.
I couldn’t find it either. Maybe Researchgate?
Scott, a commenter on a contrarian website has managed to scrape up another dataset (besides UAH and RSS) which still manages to show a slowing (called a “pause” by contrarians) of warming over the last 18 years. It’s the ECMWF ERA-Interim data set, which seems to be a kind of hybrid of observations and model results. Do you know anything about it or why it is or is not a useful dataset for understanding global warming?
Well, you see something new every day… You’re right that it’s a hybrid—that’s a weather model that is forced to match all the observations you feed it. It allows you to fill in the gaps between observations.
If I understand correctly, it’s mainly fed satellite data, but surface data are also used. Is it a calculated surface temperature series that was shown, or upper air? I only turned up one chart in a quick google image search (I had never noticed anyone using the reanalysis in this way before), but it seems to be pretty close to the old version of NOAA’s dataset: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/extremes-2014-in-review/ (NOAA now shows a slightly greater 1998-present trend.)
But yeah, there’s no reason to be appealing to ECMWF reanalysis when you have the real datasets, themselves.
Thanks SJ. I sort of had an inkling the local forcing was what they were talking about, but I wanted to be sure. I just had one additional question on this article: http://www.mpg.de/9906511/co2-amplitude-vegetation-global-warming
This one I find to be pretty interesting since it covers the year-to-year variations within the CO2 Mauna Loa record. I’d like to know what your take-away from it is.
I had looked at that paper—that’s not a bad summary.
I tend to think it fits into the steady trend Natali et al. came out with in April 2015. Does that sound about right?
Anyway, I was perusing news for the Iowa caucus results when I came upon this: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/01/marco-rubio-climate-change-florida
It’s a really good piece, but one part caught my eye. It says the sea will rise anywhere between 6-30 feet. I’m not really sure where the 30 feet comes from. No one has ever come up with that figure, not even Hansen.
No one has ever come up with 30 feet by 2100? (“….not even Hansen”, whatever that means?). Not so. Listen to this:
Some folks have said that even if we stay below the 2C mark, 20 feet is a possibility by 2100–see Dutton among others. You and I and all other FP commenters will be long gone by 2100, and it matters little whether X feet of SLR occurs by year Y or it takes until year Z . Once again, we “need further study” etc. and can only be sure of one thing—there is little to no good news on the horizon, and AGW and all its impacts are likely to be worse than our worst-case scenarios.
I did find a couple of relevant links. This PDF talks about uncertainties and shows graphs for several datasets including ERA-Interim, HADCRUT4 and NOAA GlobalTemp. This one is just a description of the data set, as available internally at ESRL.
At what point in the conference do they say 30 feet is possible by 2100? I couldn’t find it. And you’re making a fundamental error when it comes to Dutton. She has never said 20-30 feet by 2100. What she actually said was that we’re getting to the point where 20 feet will be locked in over CENTURIES. And your take on extreme worst case scenarios is speculative to say the least.
Listen to it again without hearing only what you want to hear but instead what is there. Why do you think they titled the piece “30 feet of sea level rise”? You tend to oversimplify and “confirmation bias interpret” too much, and, no, if you’re looking for someone to say “Sea level will have risen by exactly 30 feet at midnight on the last day of 2099” you won’t find it. What Dutton really said was that the last time we had similar conditions, sea level was X amount higher and that’s where it looks like we’re headed. No error there.
Since you’re a “realistic optimist”, you interpret “reality” in the best possible light. That’s OK, Bryant, reality IS scary, and you’re young enough that you’ll likely be one of the ones to pay the bill when it comes due in mid-century. So I understand that you are a luke-warmist and find it hard to look at “worst case scenarios”. It’s just unfortunate that AGW is turning out to be worse than we thought and the worst cases are becoming BAU. And that’s not pessimism—-pessimism is NOT the flip side of the optimism coin.
Once again, you’re misinterpreting what Dutton actually SAID: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/124245/20160114/climate-change-effect-on-humans-we-may-evolve-to-have-webbed-feet-translucent-eyelids-to-adapt-to-sea-level-rise.htm
And I’m not going to listen to 30 minutes of audio just to find one particular point. Just tell me at what point they say that and I will go to it.
I tend to think that you look for the extreme negative in every situation, which is abundantly clear in everything you’ve written. If I have confirmation bias, which I don’t, then you have it in terms of the extreme worst-case in every study you cite.
An we’ll swe about the “bill coming due”. I tend to think I’ll be just fine.
You cite a single throwaway sentence in a BS “pop” article about humans evolving webbed feet as evidence of what Dutton “SAID”? LOL
You need to fine tune your “look up BS and cite it as truth” methods, because that doesn’t cut it—-not when you can find some real science about what Dutton and others have said. Like the “30 minutes of audio” that I cited that you are apparently too lazy to listen to, in spite of the fact that it contains much good info.
I understand that the young folks of today are into quick answers and instant gratification rather than in-depth knowledge, but I’m sorry to say that superficial understandings gleaned from internet “look-ups” do not lead to real knowledge or understanding.
Sometimes the only way to really understand a topic is to read several BOOKS about it—–hundreds of pages of intertwined and reasoned arguments supported by facts. I posted on FP a list of books I have read that provide that kind of in-depth understanding of many facets of the AGW problem. I asked if you or anyone had read even one of them and wanted to discuss their contents. Got no response.
I will ask again, Bryant, have you read ANY of them? One book that wasn’t on that list that you MUST read soon is “BRIGHT-SIDED: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America”, by Barbara Ehrenreich, 2009. Your adherance to the philosophy of what you call “realistic optimism” is certainly undermining your credibility here on FP.
And may I suggest two other things? One, that you rethink using the phrase “tend to think”? Two, saying “If I have confirmation bias, which I don’t” is really evidence that you DO have it?
Again, you do nothing to refute what I have said. Look up the Antarctica study in the link I gave. I would respond to your uncoordinated ad hominem attacks, but I don’t care anymore. If you want to wallow in your world of despair, be my guest. You’re not dragging me down with you.
I have a question for you on the wood pellet industry. There seems to be a lot of dispute over the carbon emissions from that. For instance, this article seems skeptical: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions/2840/
This one is more of a rounded perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomzeller/2015/02/01/wood-pellets-are-big-business-and-for-some-a-big-worry/#46c5a25c71f8
And this study purports that emissions are substantially less than coal: http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/12612/export-of-wood-pellets-more-environmentally-friendly-than-coal
I’m not sure what to make of all this. Do you see this trend as a good thing, a bad thing, or an enigma?
That’s a good question—I don’t know anything about them. I’d never really even seen people use them until I moved to the northeast. I would imagine it’s all in the details (sourcing, processing, transport, etc.).
It’s certainly not an enigma, because we know enough about wood pellets, biomass, and carbon emissions to decide fairly easily whether it’s a good or bad thing. (And this is yet another question for SJ that is outside his area of expertise, forcing him to waste the time to reply, telling Bryant that he doesn’t know anything about them beyond saying (quite correctly) that “sourcing, processing, and transport” are factors).
I knew about wood pellets and biomass burning in general years back, but became more interested when I visited my brother in the north woods of Wisconsin around Labor Day of 2013. Two stalls of his three car garage were stacked beyond head high with bags of pellets, and they were also stacked to the rafters in several areas of the basement. He told me that he had taken delivery of a flatbed 18-wheeler load in July when prices were near their yearly low, he and his sons had spent most of a day moving the bags, and that they should last through the winter. Natural gas was his primary heat source, but he did save considerable money by burning the wood pellets. This was because they were manufactured locally from the waste from trees cut for making paper and only had to be transported a few miles. From what I’ve read, that is the ONLY type of wood pellets that make much sense—-those made from waste wood and used locally.
I read the Yale 360 article when it came out (I subscribe) and signed the NRDC petition asking the Europeans to stop trying to turn U.S. woodlands into a sacrifice zone so that they could cut their coal use. This article is “skeptical”, and rightly so—-it outlines the main objections to wood pellets quite nicely.
The Forbes article has more of a “rounded” (?) perspective because Forbes is a business mag and calls itself The Capitalist Tool. They like the idea of someone making big bucks off exporting wood pellets to the UK, but it IS actually a fairly well balanced article and does mention negatives—-Forbes usually takes a much more “exploitative” approach to resources and is weak on AGW mitigation.
The actual study discussed in Biomass Magazine does NOT purport that pellet emissions are substantially less than coal except in certain limited circumstances. Look at it here, and focus on the last paragraphs.
Realize too that when you are looking at a Biomass Magazine article you are reading a trade publication that sees only good in wood pellets or biomass of any kind. Note too that the authors of this study are economists, not scientists.
IMO, except for situations like my brother’s in WI, wood pellets are not a “good” thing, at least not the way they’re being handled now, and would likely not be even if they were handled perfectly. There are lots of good links in your citations, Bryant—-read them and learn for yourself—-I’m sure you’ll agree with me.
Bryant, I believe, though I could be wrong, that I’ve heard the 30 foot SLR thing myself, from a few climate scientists, in lectures I’ve watched on youtube. I don’t remember which lectures though, I’ve seen so many. I did think Hansen was one though. Of course I know you won’t believe that unless I can come up with those specific quotes and you shouldn’t if you think I’m being dishonest but I have a feeling that even were I too find them, you would probably dismiss them on some other grounds. I honestly don’t really care who believes what, whether it’s worse case or best case, you name it. I’m just following the general trend.
John, The chance of SLR rising 30 feet is about as much as getting hit by lightning several times in a row.
Do you ever listen to anyone here but SJ? (Who actually disrespects, patronizes, dismisses, misleads, and “condescends” you more than all the rest of us combined, a fact that you don’t seem able to comprehend).
Do you ever comment here with anything much beyond ill-founded OPINIONS and “looked up” inanities and irrelevancies? Did you take probability and statistics as a history major at Bridgewater? If you had, you would never have made as foolish a comment as this. John understands the science and the mathematical “trends” of AGW—-why do you allow your motivated reasoning disorder to cause you to “condescend” and dismiss him so?
We older and wiser folks would like to help brash young folks like you to understand the world better—-why do you make it so hard for us to do so?
Buddy, if us younger folks listened to people like you, we’d be worse off. Let’s not forget it was YOUR generation who put us in this situation to begin with. And again, all I see is ad hominem from you again and again. You have done NOTHING TO REFUTE WHAT I HAVE SAID. You seem incapable of rational thought in making arguments and instead resort to name-calling to make your point. Reminds me a lot of Tea Party Republicans in a way.
You prove my point about offering little here beyond “ill-founded OPINIONS”, because that’s what your first two sentences are. MY generation put us in “this situation”? Which “situation” is it that you’re talking about and exactly how did MY generation put us there? And how could you younger folks possibly be worse off if you listened to those of us who are better educated and more experienced in matters of life and understanding AGW in all its facets?
Since you say little of substance regarding the science behind AGW, and you listen to constructive criticism almost not at all, there appears to be no point and little hope of ever “refuting” your maundering. You were doing better for a while, but you are now reverting to your old tactic of throwing childish tantrums—-whining about name-calling and using ad hominems yourself rather than addressing the topic at hand.
I will ask again—-which of those books I listed have you read? Do you want to discuss any of them? Will you seek out “Bright-sided” at your library? Will you listen to the whole audio clip I cited? Will you look up the Kubler-Ross model and try to understand that YOU are the one “wallowing in a world of despair” and dragging yourself down? Your “realistic optimism” is nothing more than denial and bargaining. Let John and Mike and I help you grow.
Lastly, It is NOT a rational argument for you to say that I am incapable of using rational thought in making arguments (although you did put the qualifier “seem” in there—-does that mean you “tend to think” that is so?—-did I not warn you about that?). Anyone who reads our exchanges can make their own judgments as to who is more rational, and your bringing up Tea Party Republicans in this context is a fine example of irrationality. Please!—-let’s try to talk AGW here—-or is the chance of you being able to do that “about as much as getting hit by lightning several times in a row”?
So what would that chance be, and how did you determine the equivalence?
Hansen will be making his revised paper on SLR available soon, so that should give us a clue about the chance of a 30 feet SLR by later this century. Always remember, though, that though sea level will rise a certain amount by such and such a time, doesn’t mean that nothing will happen until that time. If sea level rises a metre and a half (which is the IPCC AR5 best guess, when all the conditionals are added up), it will still rise by significant amounts up to that time (e.g. half a metre well before the end of the century).
The climate is continually surprising us beyond what was projected. I’m sure there are more surprises in store.
Thanks SJ, what’s your take on this study: http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-3/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Bryant, could you explain to us why you are constantly bombarding SJ with these kinds of requests? SJ has a wife, and perhaps kids and pets, and a job as a freelance writer, so his time is limited—-more importantly, he is a hydrogeologist by training, and many of the links like this one that you throw at him are not in his area of expertise.
May I suggest you instead spend your time studying enough science that you can figure out the significance of things like this for yourself? There are those things called “books” that I am always pushing—-read some—and there are a number of on-line courses you can take as well. Once you become better educated on the science, you can then tell us what YOUR “take” is.
This particular study is rather clear cut and simple—-a nice little piece of observational and modeling work that adds a small bit of knowledge about a particular set of feedback mechanisms. There have been a number of studies done and much talking about the northward movement of shrubs and trees in the arctic due to global warming, and the impacts on albedo, soil temperature, and permafrost. As usual, there is “need for further study” in all of them, but none of the findings give much reason for optimism, nor does this one.
I’ll let a guy who’s a hydrogeologist and covers climate change news give his feedback to me. Your reply is duly noted.
You can run, but you can’t hide from the truth, COBJOB. You are perfectly welcome to accept feedback from whoever you wish, but your personal issues are getting in the way of your education. I will continue to offer “feedback” to you and anyone else who cares to read my comments—-do what you want with it.
Do you even know what a hydrogeologist does and what courses one must take to become one? Do you understand that a hydrogeologist sits in one of those “silos” I mentioned in another comment? That he will have a deep understanding of a rather narrow portion of the science that bears on the vast problem of AGW? I don’t know what Scott studied as an undergraduate, but it’s likely that he took a lot of physical science but not much biology, which is the facet of AGW that concerns us as humans most. Some of his replies to your incessant attention-seeking would support that observation. At any rate, Scott is NOT a geohydrologist any more, nor is he a geoscience teacher—-he is now a “freelance writer” mainly for Ars Technica (and do you even know what audience Ars Technica serves?)
Scott is a smart guy and I have read a lot of his stuff from the archive here and on Ars Technica—-aside from a few vibrations of the crap detectors, he writes pretty good stuff and should have a successful career as a free-lance writer for the audiences he aims at as he “covers climate change news”. They are NOT scientists.
I will remind you that I have an undergraduate degree in the physical sciences (physics specialty) with a minor in biology, a graduate degree in biology, the equivalent of a second master’s degree in educational administration, supervision, and curriculum, a couple of dozen credits beyond all that, and 75 years of life experience, including involvement in environmental study and environmental issues since before you (and Scott) were born. I too could be a “freelance writer on climate change news” if I chose to be, but I don’t need the $$$—-why don’t you leave Scott alone so that he can pursue his career, and listen to the rest of us?
PS Your immaturity is duly noted. We can’t help you until you want our help.
You know, dumboldguy, you’re trying to bait me with your attacks again. I’m not going to dignify your long-winded hyperbole with a response. Instead, I’ll just let SJ ban you, because you’re certainly testing everyone’s patience.
It’s a sad commentary on what you think your place is on Fractal Planet and in the world when you accuse me of trying to “bait” you. I am doing no such thing—-I am trying to engage you in intelligent discussion and help educate you, something I spent my entire professional career doing and continue to do wherever I find misinformed and misguided souls. I will again point out that the content of your little “sound bites” of ill-founded opinion and “looked-up” AGW “stuff” are my target, not you personally, and it’s a symptom of your cognitive problems that you would call what I say “long-winded hyperbole” and refuse to address it..
In actuality, banning YOU would be the best move SJ could make to preserve the integrity of Fractal Planet, because if anyone is mucking up the site and testing anyone’s patience here, it’s you. Maybe you should just sit back and listen here—-see what responses you get to your incessant posting of links WITHOUT offering ill-founded opinions on their content up front and taking personal offense if someone points out your logic fails.
Whatever dude. It’s not as if I expect him to reply right away. If he wants me to stop asking him questions, then all he has to do is say so. I didn’t ask for your opinion, nor do I care for it. Just stop. I don’t have the patience for this crap anymore.
I assume you’re replying to this comment?—-“Bryant, could you explain to us why you are constantly bombarding SJ with these kinds of requests?”. You missed my point—-I was basically asking you why you asked him ANY questions AT ALL and suggesting a positive alternative to you. Whether you want my opinion or not is irrelevant.
And if you don’t have the patience for this crap anymore, just stop the crap—-YOU are in control of your own behavior. (And one thing you may learn as you get older is patience—-I was a bit more impatient when I was your age nearly 50 years ago—-my years in the schools helped me develop the patience of a rock, along with great crap detectors).
Again DOG, you’re attacking the sources. You don’t do yourself any favors with that. I will say that I too am skeptical about biomass reducing GHG emissions compared to coal, but to say it’s an open and shut case is premature. The US Forest Service is open to it, and I trust that agency to some degree. Be that as it may, I don’t see wood burning substantially exacerbating climate change, if at all. And Kem Caldeira backed me on that point, the correspondence of which I will upload later. And I don’t see how you are any more qualified to answer the question than SJ is. Indeed, your unwarranted ad hominem attacks on me over the past couple months have sapped any credibility you have in my mind.
“Again DOG, you’re attacking the sources. You don’t do yourself any favors with that”, you say? (Whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean). I did NOT “attack” anything, merely said that two sources were pretty good, and the third needed to be questioned some because it was likely biased (and I provided a link to the original paper to support that contention). Of course, no case is ever “open and shut” (?) until the fat lady sings, and what I said was based on rational analysis of the facts at this time re: wood pellets. Try rational analysis of facts, Bryant, rather than emotional response—-it will lend weight to your opinions. You say the USFS is “open” to it? Citation please, because that appears to be another “ill-founded opinion” on your part.
YOU do not do YOURSELF any favors with your incessant whining about supposed ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in solid discussion, and if you can’t see that I am “more qualified” to answer certain questions than SJ is (and vice-versa), you may be a hopeless case. It’s a shame that your personal issues have “sapped” my credibility in your mind, because I am your biggest (and perhaps only) friend on Fractal Planet.
PS Please DO provide us with your correspondence with Caldeira ASAP. I wish I had climate scientists “backing me up”—-but wait!—-I DO—-I form my opinions based on reading all those studies and books and visiting websites and listening to the entire 30 minutes of a very informative discussion about 30 feet of SLR by 2100. On a related note,I suspect that you are, as are most young folks today, enamored with “music” that comes in short (and noisy) bursts. If you can find the patience to listen to things like The 1812 Overture (~20 minutes) or Beethoven’s 9th (~30 minutes to an hour or more depending), you might find them rewarding.
Well said, but 30 feet by 2100is not going to happen, and I’d be willing to bet my life on it
It’s nice to be so certain but I wouldn’t be able to collect on that bet.
I currently think it’s unlikely, but I would never say it’s impossible. I understand Hansen thinks several metres is possible (not sure about how likely) by 2060. If that happens, a few more metres in a few further decades wouldn’t seem so incredible.
LMAO!!! Has COBJOB actually made a joke here? Or is it just self-deluded hyperbole? Since 2100 is 85 years away and COBJOB is ~27, he would be 112 years old in 2100. The chances of him living that long ARE lower than “getting hit by lightning several times in a row”.
Are you laughing, Mike? I’m not. You are likely young enough to still be here 45 years from now in 2060. I’ll be lucky if I see 2030 and that appears to be long enough to perhaps witness major disaster for the planet. You have my sympathies—-if we don’t make some rapid progress very soon, you may be part of the NTNHE (Near Term NEAR Human Extinction) that looms over the horizon.
PS I would argue that it’s NOT “nice to be so certain”, except for COBJOB himself. He is unable to face the scientific reality of AGW, so he adopts what he calls “realistic optimism” and goes into a state of self-delusional denial. That’s “nice” for him as he whistles past the graveyard, but there are too many like him on the planet, and that’s slowing the attack on AGW. Luke-warmists are little better than than deniers.
I’m not saying that I expect the sea level to rise by 30 feet by the end of the century. I’m not an expert, obviously I wouldn’t presume any such statement. But I think, with a roughly estimated volume of about 250 feet of potential sea level rise contained in all of the worlds ice, given the rush to warm the earth asap and our desire to fill the planet with more of us (there are more people alive today than have ever died), 30 feet doesn’t seem particularly difficult to believe. Here are some USGS estimates of the potential sea level rise in meters contained in various earth ice masses. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Location Potential Sea Level Rise
East Antarctic Ice Sheet 64.8
West Antarctic Ice Sheet 8.06
Antarctic Peninsula .46
All other ice .45
A chart to give us an idea of sea level rise in the past and corresponding C02 levels give us some idea of what we might reasonably expect with similiar C02 level’s today,
An interactive map from National Geographic showing what 216 feet of sea level rise might look like,
Given the amount of potential sea level rise in the worlds melting glaciers, 30 feet seems fairly doable. Just a thought.
I agree John, but it’s not likely.
DOG, you have a serious problem with ego and respect for others. I would urge you to seek help, but I can see you’re beyond that. Whatever, your loss. You don’t faze me anymore.
Bryant, why are you appending a comment about me to a reply to John? John has posted a good comment, and all you can say is “I agree but it’s not likely”? Another one of your OPINIONS. What do you “agree” with? And what’s “not likely”? And why? Those are six wasted words in the context of a “general climate discussion”, and you then wasted 30+ words on yet another childish attack on me?.
My ego is just fine, and people who have known me for decades consider me to be one of the most self-aware individuals they have ever met. I give respect where respect is due—-earn some and you’ll get it. Since I am far more expert in the field of psychology than you, I will suggest that YOU are the one with an “ego” problem and need to get some help (and your personality disorders ARE serious but NOT beyond help, so I won’t say you’re hopeless).
If I were the principal of Fractal Planet High School, your lack of respect for the institution and its mission would have already landed you in the hot seat, your parents would have been invited in for a chat and told to get you some help, and you would be on probation. I fired many a student and a few teachers and support service personnel during my 23 years in school administration, and you would have been on my “shape up or ship out” list.
(And do you not realize that attacking me and saying “You don’t faze me anymore” is actually proof positive that I am indeed “fazing” you? When will you accept that I am trying to help you and that YOU are totally incapable of fazing ME? You were doing well for a while, but you’ve regressed. You simply CANNOT keep interpreting every disagreement with what you say as a personal attack).
I am so glad that you are so yuuugely self-aware of your Utterly Amazing Self. Are you also aware that I think you might be the most self-important, condescending troll I’ve ever encountered? (And trolling is exactly what you’re doing.) And as the actual Principal of Fractal Planet High School, here’s your expulsion notice: Kindly fuck off. You are stubbornly toxic. Go be toxic somewhere else, and revel in your ability to constantly needle someone with your bizarre and disgusting I’m-just-trying-to-educate-you-you-brainless-dolt-you’re-welcome-you-should-thank-me routine where I don’t have to host it. Surely an adoring crowd somewhere misses you.
Is that oh-so-hilariously-har-har-clever enough for you to understand me? Don’t let your crap detectors buzz you too hard on the way out.
Farewell to you and Fractal Planet, SJ. It is no surprise that you have found me a threat and have banned me. I will go back to my “adoring crowds” on other sites, where I have been resident for years, and stop wasting time trying to help Bryant grow up or you make the FP discussion into something more than a therapy room for Bryant and something to put on your resume. FYI, I have been banned from WUWT by Anthony Watts, and from Personal Liberty Digest by Bob Livingston, as well as from some other right-wing sites, so you are not the first hypocrite I’ve encountered on the web.
As for self-importance, condescension, and smug self-satisfaction, you could give lessons there. You have done nothing for Bryant except enable him and support his dysfunction. I’m sorry you were never on any of my teaching staffs—-I would have enjoyed helping you grow up.
John, why are you apologizing for conclusion you have reached through rational analysis of data? You need not say “I’m not an expert, obviously I wouldn’t presume any such statement” or “Just a thought” when you have used your brain and common sense and reached a conclusion based on good evidence. Anyone who looks at the evidence KNOWS sea level is going to rise significantly, and the exact amount and by when is immaterial in the big picture. As I’ve said before in other comments, there is virtually NO good news, and all estimates of AGW impact have proven to be low because of the many positive feedback loops we see. Here’s some of the latest bad news:
PS I will ask anyone here to tell us about any negative feedbacks that are now occurring—-I can think of only one offhand, and it’s not a big one.
And look up the Forest Service link yourself. There’s a new tool called Google that’s very useful for searches. You might want to try it sometime.
More immaturity and attempted snarkiness from COBJOB rather than contributing to a constructive discussion. YOU are the one that tried to tell us that the USFS loved wood pellets, Bryant, NOT me. So it’s up to YOU to provide the link that proves that, NOT me. Otherwise, we will assume that it’s just another one of your “ill-founded opinions” based on your confirmation-biased interpretation, and it never happened.
Thank you for the lesson about Google, but I don’t need it. Or have you forgotten that I used it to search the internet and find out more about you and your family than your next-door neighbors know? Stop shooting off your toes trying to fight a battle of wits and talk science and AGW with us.
Bryant: No more bickering with people.
No more providing opinions and failing to provide your reasoning and supporting evidence.
Please be more selective about what you ask questions about here, and be open to discussion with others.
That’s it, now you’ve crossed the line. Don’t ever bring up my family again, you creep. You’re a disgusting pathetic excuse for a human being. I’m going to look into legal action against you.
Don’t know if you’ll see this Bryant, but good luck to you. You’ll need it. And I would suggest that you think again about what benefits you get from frequenting Fractal Planet. You ought to come back to Crock, but not get off on the wrong foot by running your mouth about “crap” studies and “garbage” papers as you did the last time. Listen and learn.
And on that lovely note, let’s move over to a new thread, please: General Climate Discussion #4
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.