General Climate Discussion #3

1,416 thoughts on “General Climate Discussion #3

  1. Guys, if you could manage to comment without getting personal, that would be great and most helpful. Just stick to the salient points about climate change aspects. Ignore any personal personal attacks (perceived or real), please. Of course, this is just a suggestion; I can’t tell you how to live your life!

    Like

    1. Of course you can tell us how to live our lives, Mike. That’s what friends are for—-telling us when we’re full of shit and thereby (maybe) helping us NOT embarrass ourselves. I will reply by saying to you (as I have to SJ) that you need to get your head out of the dark place and STOP making false equivalencies between what I say and do and what certain “others” say and do. False Equivalence is a logical fallacy that is easy to avoid, unless you are so bound up in confirmation bias and motivated reasoning that you can’t see the forest for the trees. Please try to stop doing it—that would be great and most helpful. (And could you explain to us how to tell the difference between a “perceived” personal attack and a “real” one?)

      Like

      1. Nah, sorry, you’ll have to work all that out by yourself, as I’m too busy extracting my head from a dark place (sheesh, don’t you ever learn? – rhetorical, don’t answer).

        Like

      2. Sorry, Mike, but just saying it’s “rhetorical” doesn’t mean I won’t answer it. You were hoping, of course, that I wouldn’t take you to task for trying to make the point that I can’t “learn” (or agree with your inanities) without saying it outright. Nice try at deflection, but you have failed to respond to my comment about false equivalency and my question about the difference between perceived and real personal attacks. Perhaps when you are less busy doing that very important task you will find the time to respond with some intelligence? That would be great and most helpful.

        Like

  2. I forgot to mention another “dark ages” book on my reading list—–the Club of Rome’s LIMITS TO GROWTH, which has been updated and is as valid as ever. Another “thing” we should be discussing is how human activities are “hockeysticking” in so many ways beyond making GHG’s. Take a look at this—–http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2009/001686.html.

    One of the biggest hockey sticks around, and the one that drives those in the link, is human population growth. Let’s look at some population dynamics:
    1) Estimated world human population at the dawn of civilization 8-10,000 years ago was ~5,000,000 (5 million)
    2) Estimated human population in 1800 was 1,000,000,000 (1 billion)
    3) It took 130 years to add another billion and reach 2 billion (1930)
    4) It took 30 years to add the third billion (1959)
    5) It took 15 years to add the fourth billion (1974)
    6) It took 13 years to add the fifth billion (1987)
    7) It took 12 years to add the sixth billion (1999)
    8) It took 13 years to add the seventh billion (2011)
    9) Estimates are that it will take 13 years to add the eighth billion (2024)

    Google “human population growth” and view the graphs for yourself—you will see a huge and near-perfect hockey stick. The growth rate IS declining, and the UN projects that there will be 10 billion humans in 2062, not even 50 years from now. That’s adding humans at a rate of roughly one billion every 25 years. Then superimpose the many hockey sticks from the link—-“blog2009 The Graph: A Picture of the Present and Future”.

    Then realize that the hockey sticks of UNsustainability you see there result mainly from the activities of 20-25% of the human population in the developed world and that most of the remaining 75-80% want to achieve the same “standard of living” (read “consumption level”) as we in the West enjoy. Then do some extrapolation, and you will find that if that occurs, the carbon footprint of the human race 50 years from now could be equal to as many as 40-50 billion “2014 human equivalents”.

    BUT, you say—-“We we are converting to renewables….and wind power…and EV’s….and…(insert favorite bright-sidedness panacea)”. Then look at how Exxon Mobil intends to burn every last bit of fossil fuel they can find, and how much coal India and China (with 1/3 of the earth’s population) intend to burn over the next 50 years. Then tell us we’re not whistling past the graveyard as we head towards 500+ PPM of CO2 fifty years from now in spite of the good intentions of COP21 and the slow progress we see in countries like Germany. The story is not here in the U.S. or in Germany, folks, and Guy McPherson is not the extremist many would make him out to be—he is a realist, and the fact that some of his facts may be off and his timing is likely WAY off doesn’t change the truth of his basic premise.

    Like

    1. That’s assuming a lot, though. I have a very hard time imagining the people in Africa and South America will come anywhere near the level of lifestyle we enjoy in the West. If history is any indication, it’s highly unlikely Africa ever will. Out of all the developing countries (I consider China more of a developed country, and they have put a three year moratorium on new coal plants), India is the only one I see posing the kind of threat you’re referring to. And even that’s a question mark in my mind. They can’t even drink the water without shitting themselves over there.
      On another note, SJ, what did you think of that Climate Crocks Greenland firn link DOG linked to? I think it adds substantially to sea level rise over time, but I don’t see it fundamentally changing the centennial scale of melting.

      Like

      1. Population is often considered to not be the problem, with developed nations being the most “culpable” in causing the problem. 10% of the population cause 50% of the emissions. So population growth isn’t the issue, high energy use by some parts of the population is the issue. However, I don’t completely buy that (though we do bare the blame for most of the problem) in that populations everywhere seem to be trying to get to at least a European standard of living, so population growth is a problem. And the more that skeptics say that they don’t want controls on fossil fuels because the poor have to be dragged out of poverty (on the assumption it’s possible and on the assumption that economic growth will do the trick), so fossil fuels have to continue to be used, the more that the problem will get worse, which impacts the poor. Latest projections have over 10 billion by 2100 (though I think that is most unlikely, given the finite nature of this planet).

        This is a rather odd passage by DOG: “Guy McPherson … is a realist, and the fact that some of his facts may be off and his timing is likely WAY off doesn’t change the truth of his basic premise”. If a realist doesn’t rely on the facts and doesn’t project likely outcomes, what, exactly, is a realist?

        Like

      2. What’s really “odd” is that you would characterize what I say as “odd”. I have made it clear in a number of comments that GM’s basic premise as far as I’m concerned is that mankind has done great harm to the biosphere in many ways, particularly with AGW, and that we are in deep trouble re: mitigating it. That’s realism, and the denial of reality by those like you that don’t want to face it is what’s going to delay action until it MAY be too late. You talk out of both sides of your mouth when you admit we’re in deep st on the one hand but nit-pick GM on the other. GM thinks we’re totally fked, I think we probably are, but not on GM’s timescale and for the exact same reasons, and YOU straddle the fence and go “but, but, on the other hand, maybe, etc…”

        The first paragraph in this comment proves that—-it’s a neat trick to be able to be on both sides of a fence and on top straddling it all at the same time. It’s confused and even contradictory in places, and I’m sure it violates some corollary of Heisenbergs’s Uncertainty Principle. It’s certainly not going to help Bryant see things any more clearly, if that was your intent.

        Like

      3. DOG,

        I get the feeling that any words will not find favour with you unless they match exactly what you have decided is the state of the world and its timed trajectory. It is not “talkiing out of both sides of my mouth” to “nit-pick” GM’s egregious errors and yet acknowledge the dire state of the planet. The premise, you characterise GM as having, is sound but his takeawaymessage, which you apparently fail to grasp (that humans – and most other species – will go extinct within two or three decades, no matter what we do), is not. It is realism to acknowledge the state of the world and to acknowledge that it will only get worse, given our species’ characteristic behaviour. It is not realism to then form belief systems and stick to them religiously, no matter what the science says and no matter that no-one can see the future. I have also never called for delaying actions to mitigate our negative impacts, so I reject that claim utterly, even though I have no expectation that humans, collectively, will ever take positive mitigation actions. We definitely should take action now – right this minute – but humans are not rational beings (though there may be individual exceptions). The science even points us at immediate action – but science is usually ignored if it brings unwelcome news. It is being ignored by everyone, even those who superficially accept its findings.

        You should really stick to the doomer sites, if you want your preconceptions confirmed, and maybe the denier sites to engage in vitriolic conversations, as that appears to be what you want also.

        Like

      4. “I was waiting for Mike’s response, and I’m glad I did. My thoughts, exactly”.

        I’m only half-joking when I say that’s almost the same as you putting on a shirt with “I’m with stupid” and an arrow on it, standing next to Mike wearing his shirt with “I’m stupid” on it, grinning, and snapping a
        “selfie”. His comment is just more beating around the bush and cognitive dissonance, and your quicky comment in “support” is just more evasion.

        Like

  3. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/earths-recent-history-key-to-predicting-global-temperatures

    The Dec 18 piece at the top of the page was recently floated on the sea ice board as “proof” that “establishment” scientists like Gavin Schmidt were no longer erring on the side of least drama and were acknowledging that ECS was >3C. But aside from not seeing such a story reported anywhere else (and I think that would make some headlines on climate sites), this bit here:

    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).

    Makes it sound as if this new study dovetails with previous work. And this RC post by Gavin (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/marvel-et-al-2015-part-1-reconciling-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/) makes it sound as if this is a further repudiation of people like Curry.

    Is that all this is, or are there broader implications?

    Like

    1. I’m baffled by the last bit of that quote from the press release… The IPCC AR5 range for TCR was 1-2.5 C…

      Aside from that, you’ve got it right. The Lewis and Curry paper and, more seriously, the Otto et al. paper got low values of sensitivity when trying to estimate it from historical observations rather than models or paleo records. The other study mentioned in that press release quote must be this one. That and the new one basically show why those estimates came in too low, and instead give numbers smack in the middle of the IPCC range.

      Like

      1. It’s not actually saying the consensus is 4C, it’s saying their model’s estimate is 4C, with an uncertainty range of 3 to 6.3C.

        People who use those single-equation models for this kind of analysis seem to claim they avoid the uncertainty of climate models, but they’re really at least as uncertain… The Real Climate post that Will just asked about talks about this.

        The only thing about that story/press release I really don’t like is giving the land-only temperature change and comparing it to the 2C global target. The “2C is the safe limit” language is also a pet peeve…

        Like

      2. SJ,
        Isn’t the general consensus around 3C?
        By the way, what did you think of that email transcript I sent you?

        Like

      3. That study also makes the common mistake of assuming that emissions can continue to rise at the present rate for the rest of this century. I’m pretty certain that there aren’t enough fossil fuels for that to be the case.

        Like

    2. Will, the sea ice forum isn’t exactly the most reliable source of information outside of monitoring sea ice. Dosbat by Chris Reynolds is much better in my opinion.

      Like

  4. I thought so. Do any of those estimates account for permafrost/marine hydrate emissions? I would think a median contribution from those sources would be about .5C, meaning the ECS would still be around 3C. Does that sound reasonable?

    Like

    1. ECS is a specific description of the sensitivity of Earth’s temperature to a given change in greenhouse gases. It’s not a projection of the next century or something, so it’s not really including or excluding some amount of methane hydrate emission. When you estimate ECS from paleoclimate changes, for example, you’re integrating whatever is going on in the climate system. Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would produce around 1.2C of warming. The rest comes from albedo feedbacks, water vapor feedbacks, etc.

      Like

  5. Your first paragraph is just more evasion, and also shows that you need to consult your Logic For Dummies book. Look up “reductio ad absurdem” and “straw men” for a start.

    Your second paragraph is EXACTLY the kind of waffling and denial that I have been trying to get you and Mike to move away from. Why do your refuse to accept that if a little black-and-white-striped critter with a bushy tail and a strong smell waddles into your yard, it’s probably not a pussy cat? Do you actually believe that all the things we see happening on the planet and all the studies that point to AGW as the cause are not true, not very worrisome, and think that they don’t need to be discussed with “vigor” rather than minimized as you so often do here?

    Yes, my crap detectors are on a constant low buzz here on FP, and you and MIke keep them that way, to say nothing of what the simple fact of Bryant’s presence here does to them.

    Like

    1. Sorry, but this didn’t appear in the proper place in the thread. I was replying to this comment from SJ.

      “I get it. Your “crap detectors” don’t like it that I talk about science, or muddle about understanding or communicating details of how things work. I should simply replace everything I say or do with “EVERYTHING IS THE WORST”. Anything else is “dismissive”. If someone asks me whether a YouTube video stating that an asteroid is going to strike the Earth tomorrow, I shouldn’t explain to them how we know that specific statement is not true. I should just acknowledge the underlying truth- that we’re all going to die at some point. That would be “taking a stand”.

      “You can observe pine beetle destruction, but it’s going to take science (including some dirty models) to figure out that it’s because of anthropogenic warming, rather than some other human or natural factor. You can observe trees suffering the impacts of a drought, but it’s going to take science (including some dirty models) to figure out how much of that drought is the result of anthropogenic warming, rather than natural climate oscillations, and to figure out what kind of droughts we can expect in the future.

      Like

      1. You were “rudely insulted”? By whom? If there was any insult in my comment, it was a mere statement of fact and was “polite”. May I suggest that a look at the dates of submission and publication of this study are an indication of the “newness” of the study, and a look at the references shows that it does build upon many other studies, some of them fairly recent, but others doing back 50 years or more. You can figure that out for yourself and don’t have to ask SJ.

        Where did you come across this study anyway, Bryant? Did you just google “methane release in the arctic”? And why do you ask “what to make of the last paragraph in the discussion section”? Just reading the last half of the last sentence in the last paragraph should be all you need to “make” something of it.

        “This study not only implies the potential for significant gas hydrate storage and release capacity during past glacial/inter-glacial conditions but is also significant in its implication for current and future greenhouse gas release under the ongoing thinning and retreat of contemporary ice sheets and glaciers

        Like

      2. If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it. I didn’t, so I fail to see why you needed to reply to this. When I say SJ, I mean him only.
        My personal take on the study is that it provides an updated understanding of methane stored in the Svalbard region, which is not really much of a threat compared to the ESAS region, and even that threat is questionable.

        Like

      3. Bryant, in case you haven’t noticed, SJ seems to be too busy to answer you—cooking up all his bizarre comments about Donald Trump and otherwise trying to “score” on the “old dude”. If you want to talk to SJ ONLY, send him emails and ask him to reply via email—-as long as you post on FP, those of us who are your friends, know more science than you do, and want to help you will respond. Did you even read what I said? It’s good advice (that SJ hasn’t even gotten around to because he has been “busy”). You need to keep thinking, because your “personal take” is a start, but a long way from a full understanding—–zero in on this “…..significant in its implication for current and future greenhouse gas release under the ongoing thinning and retreat of contemporary ice sheets and glaciers”

        Like

      4. If there was any insult in my comment, it was a mere statement of fact and was “polite”.

        You are… bizarre.

        Like

      5. I am…………………….”bizarre”? Another snarky throwaway comment with no substance, again proving my point.

        Which meaning of “bizarre” did you intend? I most certainly must appear “unconventional, unorthodox, unusual”, and even “eccentric” to a “dude” as wet behind the ears and as “cool” as you.

        And tell me again why I can’t speak truth on FP without being admonished, but you can insult me at will and Bryant lives in his own little world within the larger fractal planet? Aren’t the rules here the same for everyone?

        Like

    2. Do you actually believe that all the things we see happening on the planet and all the studies that point to AGW as the cause are not true, not very worrisome, and think that they don’t need to be discussed with “vigor” rather than minimized as you so often do here?

      Honestly, I can’t even tell what you think I think (or say) anymore. I’m an evasive denier of… something.

      Like

      1. I haven’t seen much about hydrates forming in that situation before,so it’s interesting (to me) and seems to provide a good explanation for the pattern of bubbling off Svalbard, specifically. If you want to know how much of this kind hydrate is out there beneath immediately vulnerable portions of glaciers or how it would fit in with other sources during the last deglaciation, though, this isn’t the study that’s going to do it. The two Wadham papers referenced deal with some of that.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GB002951/abstract
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/full/nature11374.html

        Like

      2. Yes, you are “evasive and a deflector”, also “a denier….of something”, and thank you for proving my point once again. If you tried harder, maybe you COULD “tell what I think you think”. During my 30 years in education, my colleagues always thought that I thought clearly, and expressed myself and used the language well.

        Although many of them were more intelligent, older, better educated, and less hobbled by cognitive dissonance than you are, you have proven yourself in some of your writings that you are NOT a dummy and well able to engage me on a much higher level than this. You don’t, and that’s one of the things that has my crap detectors buzzing.

        Like

      3. You’re losing it, SJ. Try to picture this exchange we’ve been having taking place at an extended faculty meeting where “substantive” issues like the science of AGW were being discussed. I don’t know what your colleagues at MCC would think of it, but I know what the faculties I worked with would have been thinking all through it (those that weren’t asleep anyway).

        Your final piece of “Donald Trump” stupidity would likely have resulted in one or several of the near “emeritus” types who had little patience for childish bullshit telling you to sit down and shut up. I’ve seen it happen. One of my fondest memories is seeing one of the oldest and smartest members of the faculty (and one who slept through most meetings) bestir himself enough to chip in with “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard” as another faculty member was mindlessly babbling on, and promptly go back to sleep. The recipient of that comment was stunned, and sat down without another word, since it was almost like having God speak from on high. Everyone was silent, and after a few seconds. the conversation resumed on a much more intelligent track.

        So, I will ask….Is YOUR name Donald Duck? You share more traits with him than I do with Donald Trump. Just askin’

        Like

    3. DOG,

      Do you actually believe that all the things we see happening on the planet and all the studies that point to AGW as the cause are not true, not very worrisome, and think that they don’t need to be discussed with “vigor” rather than minimized as you so often do here?

      Whether this was directed at SJ or myself, it’s safe to say that the answer is “no”*. That you believe the answer may be “yes” suggests that you aren’t really reading our comments. I suggest you read comments before replying, otherwise, you’re likely to be ignored, since replying to unwritten words doesn’t make for a very satisfying conversation.

      One proviso, here. Not everything that is happening on the planet are caused by AGW. Not even every environmental predicament is caused by AGW but I assume you were referring only to climate and ocean acidification issues, since they are the subjects of this topic.

      Like

  6. SJ,
    I’m pretty sure the fluxes off Svalbard are a minor contributor to atmospheric CH4. There was a study that confirmed that back in mid-October. I don’t think the Portnov study necessarily contradicts that?
    As far as the Wadham papers go, wouldn’t it take hundreds of years for any of those hydrates to get out due to deglaciation?

    Like

    1. Well sure, that’s small. Svalbard is about the size of West Virginia. This study has nothing to do with the size of current fluxes.

      I don’t have any studies on rates of exposure and destabilization. But you know that major glaciers don’t fall apart over night.

      Like

  7. I thought I’d check out how things are going here and I got to say, I’m really surprised SJ hasn’t banned DumbOldGuy yet? I got to say, you are, to the best of my memory, the most abrasive, mean spirited blogger I’ve ever read on any website and I’ve read quite a few. You’ve ruined my experience here and I doubt you’re doing much to enhance anyone elses either. Man, what a jerk.

    Like

    1. Welcome back, John. You must have spent many hours catching up on what’s been going on with FP, and I’m sorry that all you seem to be able to do is “attack the messenger” and call me names rather than respond to any of my specific comments.

      Since you left, I have made a number of “substantive” comments about climate change and my perceptions of what is going on with this blog, particularly with regard to the application of logic, rational thinking skills, and some “deficits” I perceive there—-would you care to discuss any of them?

      I also posted a rather lengthy list of books I have read that I found helpful in understanding the complex issue of AGW, which is a very complicated interlocking “web” of causality and effects. Those books include titles about science, sociology, psychology, economics, politics, and history, and many of them bring in all those fields. Have you read any of them? Would you like to share impressions of what you took from them?

      SJ is perfectly welcome to ban me (or you) or anyone else from his blog and suffer the consequences of what that may say about his intelligence, motivations, and integrity. Maybe you’d like to ask him why he hasn’t banned me rather than express surprise that he hasn’t? I’d like to think that he sees some small value in my presence here. SJ?

      Like

      1. No, I suspect that you really haven’t “seen” any, although several of them were made in an attempt to help you. I will keep trying. By the way, my offer to John about the “book discussion” extends to you or anyone else that visits FP. There are many books with powerful messages and insights on that Reading List. Have you read any of them, COBJOB?

        Like

  8. SJ,
    Are you going to write anything on Ars Technica about 2015 being the hottest year?
    I read something by Tamino, who’s Grant Foster if I’m not mistaken. He said 1.5C is courting major disasters. I would disagree with him on that. Localized perhaps, but not global scale.

    Like

    1. I will when NOAA and NASA release their final numbers, which they’ll do soon. I think the Met Office usually releases theirs later. I haven’t seen an update from JMA yet, either.

      Like

    2. I too would love to hear SJ’s comments on 2015 being the hottest year.

      COBJOB, what is the “something” you read by tamino? Got a citation?

      Why would you disagree with tamino on his contention that an increase of 1.5C is “courting major disasters”?. That 1.5C he’s talking about IS “global”, and WILL have “global scale” impacts, with many places getting even “hotter” because of it and virtually no place getting “cooler”. (And he’s not alone in saying that 1.5C is a target that may prove to be too high and that we should shoot lower).

      Like

      1. Well, Snoopy, the consensus is mainly beyond 2C when things start getting bad. And until that changes, I stand by that assessment.

        Like

      2. The only way we’re keeping it at 1.5C or below is using SRM, so unless you want to advocate that, I suggest you look at a more reasonable target.

        Like

      3. I think it’s great that you “stand by that assessment”, but considering your lack of credentials to make that assessment, I think I’ll stand with Hansen and those actual climate scientists who think 2C will lead to “long term disaster” and that even 1.5C may be too much. You are in a state of denial.

        Like

      4. There is no safe level of warming, only safer/progressively more dangerous levels. The primary importance of the 2C number is that the UNFCC negotiations chose it as a target long ago. If not for that, I don’t really think we’d be talking about it.

        Like

      5. And I’ll stick with Michael Mann and the majority of scientists who go by the 2C standard.

        Like

      6. This Michael Mann?, the one who said:

        “Too often in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global warming in excess of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) represents a threat to humanity,” said Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University climate scientist…..”This new article makes a plausible case that even 2 degrees Celsius warming is extremely dangerous, too dangerous to allow.”

        The same Michael Mann that wrote these two articles?

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/how-close-are-we-to-dangerous-planetary-warming_b_8841534.html

        I will repeat, you are in a state of denial (or don’t understand the science).

        Like

      7. RE: “The only way we’re keeping it at 1.5C or below is using SRM, so unless you want to advocate that, I suggest you look at a more reasonable target”.

        First, the results of any SRM we might conduct in the future are at this point unknown and continuing to talk about it is wishful thinking. Because you are in denial of the seriousness of the situation, you hold SRM in the back of your mind as some sort of solution that will “save” the planet. Get real.

        Second, do you see the logic fail in “looking at a more reasonable target”? The “target” is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get it down to what you WANT it to be. Read the second of the Mann articles I linked. What’s NOT reasonable is refusing to accept the evidence.

        Like

      8. Tamino commented on the BEST data which now includes 2015 and shows it to be the hottest year, by a wide margin.

        As others have indicated, 2C is not a limit that scientists agree on (despite misleading press articles), it’s a limit agreed to by non-scientists. Michael Mann doesn’t think 1.5C is safe, nor does Hansen et al (2015) who showed that 1C is quite possibly very dangerous. Looks like we passed 1C more than a decade ago, as Michael Mann mentioned in a recent Huffington Post article. Note that, in that article, Mann doesn’t explicitly agree that 2C is the danger limit (and often quotes the word “dangerous” to emphasise that it’s subjective); he is merely using that limit in the article to show that we’ll soon pass the threshold at which 2C becomes inevitable.

        If we’re already at 1.2C and we’re seeing increasingly wild weather and acidifying and warming oceans, then it’s hard to imagine that anyone can support the notion that we’re currently at a “safe” level of warming, expecially as even this warming would continue to have long term consequences (like further sea level rises).

        Like

  9. I fully accept the evidence, and Mann still uses the 2C target as a reference. And none of what he’s written is anything new. And I know far more about SRM than you do thanks to my interactions with Caldeira. If anyone’s refusing to accept evidence, it’s you on the science of SRM. The theory behind it is solid, and the technology to use it is available now. Again, stop attacking me and email the man for God’s sake.
    Just stop with the ad hominem attacks already. John and I want you both banned, Mike’s getting fed up with you, and I suspect SJ is fast losing his patience.

    Like

    1. You are once again out of line and even out of control, COBJOB.

      You continue to state your unsupported opinions and make bald assertions as if they were fact:,
      “I fully accept the evidence….”
      “Mann still uses the 2C target as a reference…” (all the “targets” are “reference” for debate, as you would see if you actually read articles rather than cherry-picked them)
      “None of what’ he’s written is anything new….” (really?)
      “I know far more about SRM than you do thanks to my interactions with Caldeira….” (then show it)
      “The theory behind it is solid, and the technology to use it is available now” (May be partly true but has nothing to do with what I said. I was not discussing SRM, but rather your unreasoning love affair with it).

      And my pointing out to you that your arguments are fallacious, illogical, or unsupported is NOT an ad hominem. I’m not saying YOU are stupid, but that what you SAY is often way short of good logic or good argument. If you ever want to engage in fruitful discussions in the adult world, you will need to learn the difference.

      I will say again that I have read much of Caldeira’s work, papers and articles by many others on geoengineering, both SRM and CDR, and that I have the background to understand it. Also that I would not impose on the man and take up time that he could better spend communicating with other scientists and working on AGW mitigation. I’ll believe that you learned anything from him when you post your email exchanges with him for us to examine.

      Again regarding being out of line and out of control, saying “John and I want you (both) (Sic) banned , Mike’s getting fed up with you, and I suspect SJ is fast losing his patience” is uncalled for. You sound like the kid in the back seat of the car saying “Mommy, he’s looking at me”. I suspect that SJ, if he is truly an educator, an honest man, and one who cares for the integrity of his blog, is fast losing his patience with YOU rather than me. The difference between you and me is that I have enough good sense and good manners to not try to order him around—-his blog, his decision as to who stays. Grow up.

      Like

      1. Snappy comeback, COBJOB (and do you even know what “cob job” refers to?) Should I respond with something like “Your mother dresses you funny”?

        Thank you for proving my point(s) once again. I’m always here for you if and when you grow up and want to have an adult conversation. I am your friend.

        Like

    1. Funny how the guy mentioning “growing up” is the master of ad hominem attacks. I’m perfectly willing to have a conversation, just not with you. The others on here don’t resort to ad hominem and violating people’s privacy, so why do you?
      Mike, I never said 2C was safe, but it’s the consensus standard to base emissions reductions on. What I’m saying is that there’s a difference between danger at different temperature levels and existential risk. 2C is not an existential risk to civilization, and I haven’t heard any argument made to say that’s the case. I would even venture that 3C is not existential. Severe yes, but not quite a mortal threat to civilization. Anything beyond that is playing with fire.

      Like

      1. Bryant, I agree that 2C isn’t an existential threat – for humans generally; no doubt many will survive for a lot longer. But for civilisation? I don’t think it’s possible to make a case either way. The more disruption to the environment, caused by our behaviour, the more likely it is that the end of our civilisation is brought closer (it is inevitable, since our civilisation – not some other hoped for civilisation – is existing unsustainably and a change of energy alone won’t stop that). Will 2C do that? Who knows? Not me and not you. So you’ll have to keep your fingers crossed that some particular limit, if achieved, will somehow save our current civilisation. Not even 1.2C (where we are now) or 1.7C (where will be if all fossil fuel burning stopped) is guaranteed to keep current civilisation going.

        The consensus you refer to is an agreement by politicians and, as such, is rather meaningless. The earlier consensus was to keep warming from dangerously affecting the climate but you will not be able to find a scientific definition of what that is; it’s for humans to decide, hopefully taking in what research has to say about the impacts of different levels of warming. The “consensus” seems to be to give ourselves “a chance” of limiting warming to 2C. What is that chance? As far as I can tell it’s somewhere between 33% and 66%. Would you go outside if there was a 33% chance of a piano landing on your head? What we’re doing is keeping our fingers crossed that actions we take will limit warming to less than 2C and that whatever the limit is will not have profound consequences on our lives, even though we know that some nations will disappear at 1.5C (or less) and coastlines will be drastically altered at 2C, along with a myriad other problems.

        Like

  10. SHAGGY, you need to stop talking to me. I’m sick and tired of your ad hominem tactics. It’s tired and not effective at all. You think you’re smarter than everyone else and it’s your way or the highway. Well, the real world doesn’t work like that. You need to listen to others’ opinions, examine their arguments, and refute them with data. You’re just pissing people off and ruining a perfectly good forum with disrespectful banter.

    Like

    1. There have been a number of analyses about the pledges and they clearly won’t avoid the 2C agreed limit. If 2C is dangerous then what is wrong with the notion that the warming that COP 21 will bring on (about 3C) will be devastating? Only one point in the letter is speculation (methane releases from the Arctic) and it even mentions SRM which I think you support. So, these aren’t all top climate scientists but what they write is reasonable, I think. “Loons” is hardly the right word.

      Like

      1. 3C will be devastating to a degree, but I still maintain it’s not an existential threat. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. And why is it that in a ton of papers and articles, scientists reference the 2C marker? It’s a useful tool as a benchmark for emissions reduction and will continue to be so.
        And I do support the use of SRM if it becomes clear in the next decade or two that we are not doing enough, but equating that with runaway methane emissions (which is highly unlikely, not just speculative) as the main thrust of the letter is the wrong thing to do.

        Like

      2. Bryant, we’re not disagreeing on the existential threat, only on the notion that any amount of warming is safe or and that our current civilisation can survive X amount of warming. “3C will be devastating to a degree” I agree on that. But also 2C will be devastating to a degree and 1.5C will be devastating to a degree.

        Some scientists argue that 2C is a useful benchmark, others that it isn’t. Most use it because that’s what politicians talk about. Kevin Anderson often uses it (to do the maths on the number) but also often says that it isn’t a mark defined by science.

        Regarding that letter, it states: “Our backs are against the wall and we must now start the process of preparing for geo-engineering. We must do this in the knowledge that its chances of success are small and the risks of implementation are great.” To me, that is saying that we need to do more work on geo-engineering because we may need to implement it quickly. Although I disagree with them on geo-engineering, they aren’t equating SRM with runaway methane warming, they are saying that COP21 can’t meet the 2C target, so, currently, geo-engineering would be needed and must be prepared for. They do mention methane outpouring would just make it worse and I disagree (currently) but that doesn’t make them a bunch of “loons”, as many others have concerns in that area.

        Like

  11. SJ, I am losing patience with your inability to decide whether COBJOB/Bryant brings more to FP than I do. I am not going to waste time trying to provide some substantive and thoughtful commentary here if you are going to do a Fox News “fair and balanced” type [moderation] hatchet job on it. You are getting lazy also, since in the past you [moderated] single sentences, and now you’ve gone to wiping out whole comments because they may have contained a reference to that [moderated] that you have allowed to [moderated] your web site. My crap detectors are vibrating again. I have asked before and will ask again, what hold does Bryant have on you that you can’t seem to deal with him properly?

    To go back to the comment that seemed to have started all this, what should have been moderated is the use of the word “loons” by an [moderated] who has no business calling anyone loons, never mind saying that they are not “leadiing” scientists or making such a [moderated] comment as “John Nissen isn’t even a physical scientist”. All unsupported opinion from a [moderated] [moderated] [moderated] of the highest order.

    Mike said “So, these aren’t all top climate scientists but what they write is reasonable, I think. “Loons” is hardly the right word”. I see little difference between that and what I said, except that I understand “tough love” and you (particularly) and Mike don’t.

    Like

    1. I am so very, very tired of all this. I am so sick of seeing nothing but insult trading, argument baiting, complaining about each other, and complaining about why the other person hasn’t been banned. Do you seriously have nothing better to do with your time?

      Bryant has bickered with you and traded insults when he should have ignored petty stuff and brought more evidence to support his arguments. You have done absolutely nothing but condescend and bait him. You want him to fight with you. It appears to be your bloody hobby. And as soon as he does, you whine about “it’s not an insult if it’s true” and “but I am brilliant and am trying to help all of you with your stupidity”. (And if you complain again that I put quotation marks around things that aren’t quotes, so help me Spaghetti Monster…)

      Why am I moderating entire comments? Because I told you two weeks ago that’s what I would do. Tending this kindergarten is an irritating waste of my time, and I don’t like banning people, so here we are. Shut the hell up about it and post a comment I don’t have to moderate so I can get back to work.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You have my sympathy, Scott. I don’t understand such behaviour because all it does is entrench views. If someone attacks you, you feel obliged to attack back, but it achieves nothing.

        I hope you can get back to work.

        Like

  12. HI Bryant. Though I don’t necessarily agree with everything you’re saying, I do appreciate that, to the extent that I’ve read them, you’ve been polite about it. I have to admit, things have between you and DOG had gotten so tiresome, I just started skipping over any comments headed by either you or DOG. I figured they would consist of insults, I just don’t have the time to waste on that. It’s clear that DOG has issues, I hope you Bryant will rise above that. I wish you well.

    SJ, is the 2C number simply arbitrary, just pulled out of the air or is there anything substantively line crossing about that figure?

    Mike, thanks for your clear head. Your comments have always struck me as quite fair and balanced. That’s refreshing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. SJ may have a different take but, as I understand it (from a Kevin Anderson talk), the 2C figure comes from an assessment done a couple of decades ago (maybe a bit less), which tried to quantify the risks of various amounts of warming. Though there were significant risks (to some aspects of life) below 2C, Up to 2C appeared to be manageable (though this is subjective). However, later assessments gave higher risks at all levels of warming, which pulled the supposedly manageable risks back to about 1C. Again, all of this is subjective but, given the estimate by Michael Mann that we’re effectively at 1.2C (1.7C if aerosols are removed – which would be a result of a zero carbon economy), 2C is just about all that the world can hang onto. I think this is the risk matrix, showing the original (2001) and an updated one (2008) – click for a larger image (I hope this works, my first attempt at Markdown):

      Like

      1. Fixed it. Want to know the secret? Just dump in the link and don’t worry about it ;)
        Wordpress automatically shows linked images.

        Like

      2. I see SJ already posted an updated image of this, further up the thread. Not sure if it’s exactly the same. At least he managed to get an image to appear!

        Like

      3. Yep, that sounds right. I haven’t gone back to see what info was provided at the time, but there was some scientific basis for it. “2C is doable, it’s a round number, and we think 2->3 is scarier than 1->2, so how about that for a target?”

        I will say that Mann’s “we’re at 1.2C” argument seems semantic and squishy. The precise pre-industrial baseline is uncertain and therefore somewhat arbitrary. The 2C target is somewhat arbitrary. I’m not sure picking a different baseline tells us anything.

        Like

  13. A few weeks ago, I remember seeing a few stories saying something to the effect of: preliminary data shows CO2 emissions declined (by 1%) in 2015. It wasn’t very widespread, and I haven’t heard anything since. Was this something that later analysis showed to be false, or is the final data not in yet?

    Like

    1. Final data aren’t in on that, and I don’t know when complete (but subject to revision) data will come in. It takes some effort.
      (Sheesh, for a minute I was quite sure I hadn’t covered that one, but I did: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/early-look-at-2015-greenhouse-gas-emissions-is-good-news-if-true/)
      (Double sheesh! Somehow I left out the link to the paper in that story! Man… http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n1/full/nclimate2892.html)

      Like

    2. As SJ said, it takes a while before the final calculations are completed—-it doesn’t appear to be false, but it is perhaps misleading. Most of the emissions decline came from China, with the US and the EU showing a smaller drop and India and “the rest of the world” continuing to rise. The economic data coming out of China is always suspect, so whether or not the connection between rising GDP and lower emissions is there or not remains to be seen. It IS good that we are finally seeing evidence of that in some of the most developed countries.

      IMO, a drop of a small fraction of a GtCO2/yr is not very big considering how close we are to using up the whole carbon budget. Look back to what Michael Mann had to say in the articles linked earlier in this thread.

      SJ linked to the paper, but it’s behind a paywall. Here are a couple of links that discuss the study:

      http://insideclimatenews.org/news/07122015/global-carbon-emissions-rising-decades-decline-2015-study-climate-change-paris

      http://www.nature.com/news/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2015-1.18965

      Like

      1. I snuck back in and added the missing link at the end of the story. You should be able to access the full paper through that link, as Nature provides that perk…

        Like

    1. Mike, the letter states that there “will” be rapid release of hydrates. What is there evidence for this? There have been no new studies saying that. Indeed, considering some of the scientists involved, I would say their characterization as “leading climate scientists” is highly questionable. Wadhams predicted this year that the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer and was way off (and he probably will be for a while, not to mention he doesn’t work on CH4), Beckwith believes a rise of 4-6C will happen in the next decade or two (I would link to that, but I won’t do the honor citing something by the so-called journalist Dahr Jamail or Dahr Jaidiot as I call him) and has not published anything, and John Nissen is a technologist, not a scientist.
      SJ, I’d love to know your thoughts on that letter.

      Like

      1. Beckwith may be altering his stance on rapid heating, following the paper last year by Thomas and Pearson which cast doubt on an earlier paper that apparently showed such rapid heating in the past.

        Anyway, in reference just to the letter, it seems you are calling all the authors “loons” on the basis of one comment in the letter. That doesn’t seem justified to me.

        Like

      2. It’s a little weird. It certainly appears to have come from AMEG, but with a couple more people added on. Other than Beckwith (not sure why he’s listed with the title “Professor” there… then again, “Ottawa” is spelled wrong, too) and Wadhams, I count two climate scientists- Kennett and Gadian. I can obviously find no fault with applying pressure post-Paris, but the letter itself is a little over-the-top and features AMEG’s signature “we have to geoengineer the Arctic or the methane bomb will go off” argument. The notable thing is the new names—I wonder if they were familiar with AMEG beyond the letter. (Could be. I’m just curious.)

        Like

  14. Mike, yeah that was my thought too, about Beckwith. He’s been saying lately that the arctic might be ice free in the next several decades. I might have even heard the year 2070. Don’t really remember.

    Bryant, I think it might be an idea, of course it’s my idea, to look more at the info and less at the personalities. Though of course some people can by-passed depending on a pre-decided bias. Just a thought.

    Like

    1. John, I realize I’m new to FP, and don’t quite know what’s going on yet, but I have misplaced all my Secret Decoder Rings from the 1950’s and am having a bit of trouble deciphering this—“I think it might be an idea, of course it’s my idea, to look more at the info and less at the personalities. Though of course some people can (be?) by-passed depending on a pre-decided bias. Just a thought”.

      Especially that “by-passing people because of a pre-decided bias” part. Could you explain that more fully?

      Like

  15. SJ,
    Have you seen this piece? Brought to you by the same people who brought you climate change denial.

    Like

    1. I hadn’t. But although I don’t live in Wisconsin anymore, I am sadly all too familiar with what’s been going on…

      Like

      1. Maybe I’m confused, but I thought you taught at Madison Area Technical College, and isn’t MATC a part of the WI state system of higher education, in which case you would be vulnerable to all this crap?

        I left NJ in 1969 because the state of education there was going downhill—-came to Northern VA and was able to finish a 30 year career here in a good school system. Would not want to be starting out in education today.

        Like

      2. No, I’ve moved around the last few years as my wife works towards a full-time position somewhere. But I was there long enough to be affected by the union stuff, as well as changes in the Department of Natural Resources.

        Like

    1. Right. I’m about to start teaching for Colorado State’s online program, but I’ve been freelancing full time, mostly for Ars.

      Like

      1. I spent a month at Colorado State in the summer of 1966 taking a genetics course taught by a visiting prof from NMSU at Las Cruces. Great guy and a great course—-we worked our butts off for 6+ hours a day but learned a lot and had a lot of fun on the weekends. It was one of those NDEA fully paid “vacations” that they developed after Sputnik to “upgrade” science teaching—-those of us that didn’t need much “upgrading” took them because they were free and in “exotic places”, and they gave us travel money too. The wives were able to come with us and they got room and board and access to all campus amenities as well—-library, tennis, gym and pool, etc. I knew guys who took courses in Hawaii and Alaska, and I tried to take a limnology course through UMN in Bemidji but couldn’t get in—it was very popular because it was in the heart of muskie country. I didn’t catch my first muskie until two summers ago in the north woods of WI. IMO, CSU has a good rep and you should enjoy it, unlike some of the other schools who seem to just be cashing in on the online craze—-like the Biomimicry BS at Arizona State.

        PS One of the big things I learned that summer was that the mud flaps on my 1966 Volvo 122S were called “Kentucky Go Fasters” by the folks in Ohio, or at least they were according to an Ohioan in the course.

        Like

  16. Yeah, the methane argument is iffy at best. Still, I do agree with the premise that more research should be done on geoengineering.
    Am I correct in thinking the Portnov ice sheet methane study operates on centennial timescales of a few hundred years?

    Like

  17. DumbOldGuy, thanks for correcting my english in my post above. I have a tendency to type faster than I should and forget to reread what I’ve written to look for errors. My typos are well known here.

    About my comment, “Though of course some people can by-passed depending on a pre-decided bias”, I just meant that there are some people in every walk of life who were born with an opinion, so to speak, who look for information to support that opinion rather than letting their opinion be shaped by the information instead. Note, I say information rather than ‘facts’ or at least what we thinks are facts because those are always changing. Nothing is truly immutable because we’ll never be able to see the whole picture on any subject. Too, we’re all biased to some degree and that also colors our perception of reality.

    Like

  18. SJ, yeah, I also think Mann’s pushing back the date when AGW should start to be calculated is rather ‘squishy”. At best. And I’m going to say as well, I do think there is something to be said about those e-mails as well with his comment about the ‘trick’ of making warming appear worse than it really is. Call it what we will, it has a certain odor.

    When some in the scientific community realized that, hey, let’s face it, no one really gives a s**t about climate change unless it’s going to directly impact their own lives in the here and now,

    the date for catastrophe was abruptly moved forward from 2100 to 2050, than 2040, than 2030 and so on. I don’t mean to suggest that I don’t see an impending environmental catastrophe. I do and, for what it’s worth I think it’s closer than we think, but for different reasons. Obviously if someone continues to pour poison into a bucket of water, eventually it’s going to become unsafe to drink. That’s what we’re doing to the earth on so many more levels than a simple bucket analogy can possibly represent, call it what we will. But man being what he is, and I’m not going to whitewash this with a lot of baloney propaganda about our unselfish commitment to the betterment of all, he’s not going to quit for any ‘higher good’. Not in any substantive way. No heros are going to step up at the last moment to save us from ourselves. It’s going to be a slow and painful dive. Some see it coming, don’t know when it will arrive, pulling dates out of a hat. And when that’s realized one day, even what currency the scientific community has earned to date will be lost and we’ll all sail over the cliff together. Sorry guys, just an opinion.

    Like

    1. John,
      I’m not sure I agree with humanity going over the cliff just yet. If a Repugnant wins this year, then I will agree. But if a Dem wins here in the States, then Obama’s policies will be expanded on and set in stone to the point that Repugnants will be too late to roll them back. And if the U.S. continues on this current path with expansion of Obama policies, then the rest of the world will be inter intense pressure to follow. Now will this cause some hard times for humanity? Yes, but civilization will survive intact.

      Like

    2. Oi, the “Nature trick” quote mined from the “Climategate” emails isn’t something you should worry about. There’s a known issue with tree ring temperatures over the 2nd half of the 20th century—that could be the result of aerosol pollution: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/why-some-tree-ring-records-havent-tracked-recent-warming/ It wasn’t about making warming appear worse. Showing two datasets on one graph isn’t tricky. I mean, that’s why we put legends on them.

      I don’t think the argument about the pre-industrial baseline is untoward or something, I just don’t think it’s meaningful. (But I could be convinced, I guess.)

      Like

  19. SJ, well, I suppose the very best I can say, well, I don’t mean best… as close I can come to the AGW date thing, setting dates I mean, if I’m going to be honest and I will, is to say, Time will tell.

    Bryant, you’re one of the most optimistic people I ‘know’ and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately for me, you’re optimism sounds ‘pre-decided’ (is that a word? The red line underneath it says no) to me. I’m older than you are, I’ve seen a little too much in my life to be so optimistic. I’m not saying that I don’t believe that in a perfect world we couldn’t all come together like one big happy family, like a Hollywood movie, unselfishly pool our resources, unstintingly make the necessary changes, and do whatever else we need to do to set things to rights. If we had the time.

    That’s not our nature. We’ve all heard so often about what marvelous miracles we all are, the pinnacle of Evolution, made in the image of God, so an so forth, we believe it. We think ‘intelligence’ is the measure of any species. But I’d hasten to say, I don’t know how smart it is to deliberately bring life on the only planet in the known universe to harbor such, to it’s knees, to use our best minds to fashion weapons of mass destruction, to knock down our forests and poison our oceans for the sake of an ipad. I guess on this I’d have to agree with Guy, we’re clever, not particularly wise.

    I think until we face the reality of who and what we really are, not individually but as a whole, what we’ve really done and continue to do in a million different ways against this planet and the entirety of it’s other inhabitants, both flora and fauna (not to mention to ourselves), we’re never going fix any problem as monsterous as this is turning out to be. The first step in healing is admitting to ourselves that we are a singularly selfish, arrogant and destructive species. That includes me. Scratch all the humanist propaganda. If we can manage that, I’ll hope on board the happy wagon you’re pulling.

    Like

    1. John,
      I like to think I’m more of a realistic optimist. Believe me, I know we’re in for some hard times ahead, but I also think that Paris, if nothing else, signified that the time for debating the issue is over and the time for policy has come. You are right that we are a selfish species, but that also means we don’t want to bring harm to ourselves. Climate change brings harm to us, and we’re beginning to realize that it’s not in our best interest for that to happen. And the trends in emissions and policies are slowly gaining ground. The big question is whether we will be able to stabilize things and keep it from getting progressively worse. Your answer is as good as mine on that, time will tell.

      Like

  20. The CO2 concentration growth rate seems to be increasing, as per the data from Mauna Loa:

    This is despite the notion that emissions may not have grown last year. Although this decade’s growth rate looks like it is, so far, higher than last decade’s, is last year’s growth a symptom of El Nino? If so, should we expect this year’s level to increase by even more? I see that the last big El Nino only showed a big spike in CO2 in the second year (1998); with the current El Nino, that would be this year. If it’s related to El Nino, then this year’s growth could be very worrying.

    Any ideas on this, Scott?

    Like

    1. That’s a good question. You can see that the year-to-year variability is considerable. I couldn’t recall an explanation for the major factors in that variability. El Nino and La Nina both alter precipitation patterns and plankton growth/air-sea exchange in the tropical eastern Pacific, so I could come up with plausible connections… I decided to plot up: 1) the Mauna Loa CO2 year-to-year growth rates, normalized to the average of ~1.5 so you can see below/above average years and 2) the ENSO index (averaging the bimonthly numbers they give you, which I’m not sure is the best way to do this). High is El Nino, low is La Nina.

      This could all be done much more rigorously, but the eyeball test suggests a correlation.

      So then I went looking. There are some competing complications, but Ralph Keeling told Climate Central for a story a few months ago that CO2 does indeed grow more during El Nino years due to precipitation patterns over the tropical rainforests. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/el-nino-could-push-co2-above-milestone-19605
      I’m sure that’s not the only contributor to natural variability, but it appears to be pretty significant, I guess.

      I don’t think that’s worrying, though, because it shouldn’t affect the long-term CO2 trend. That is, it obviously shouldn’t matter if it rises 2 ppm this year and 3 ppm next year or vice versa. So keeping in mind that the annual variability is large, and human emissions will continue to drive CO2 upwards as long as they’re greater than zero, I don’t think we can discern global emissions growth/decline +/-2% from looking at the annual CO2 increase.

      Think that makes sense?

      Like

      1. Then again, I can already think of a good reason why my plot could be useless: it doesn’t account for the fact that the growth rate has, itself, increased. The eyeball could be suggesting a correlation that is significantly coincidental… Maybe I’ll try normalizing CO2 better (by de-trending first) if I get some time tonight. For shits.

        Like

      2. Interesting comments by Keeling, though your plot, to me, didn’t seem to suggest a correlation, though I guess it would be just one factor. I had forgotten about the Indonesian forest burn offs. But Keeling mentioned expecting a rise of 4.4 ppm, September to September. If that was the yearly growth, too, then it would show acceleration for two years running. It looks like the concentration could go over 405 ppm (the danger level according to Mann) near the middle of this year, though falling back a bit later. It’s really hard to see a 2C limit being achieved.

        Like

    1. Let’s see… don’t know where he pulls “0.7C in the pipeline” from, and “+2.1C from aeorosols” is a misunderstanding. Then the “mega-feedbacks” thing goes off the tracks.

      Like

      1. Have yet to encounter a good reason to read his blog. Have encountered more than a few good reasons not to.

        Like

      2. WHOA! SJ, you say you have “encountered FEW good reasons TO read his blog and MORE THAN A FEW good reasons NOT to”? Actually, IMO, Robert Scribbler’s blog is a serious climate change blog that provides far more good information and intelligent commentary on climate change than does FP’s “general climate discussions”.

        This comment really got my crap detectors vibrating, which happens all too often here on FP but has never happened with Scribbler’s blog—-why do you seem to have a hard-on for Scribbler? And could you cite some of those “good reasons NOT to read” his blog? Maybe the view from your “silo” is different than mine.

        Like

      3. I may regret this given all the vibrating going on over there, but you’re going to have to explain your definition of “hard-on”.
        “Was asked about x; gave opinion about x” seems like a pretty low standard for hard-ons, to me. (Wait, does this mean I have a hard-on for hard-ons now?? And if I answer your question about Scribbler, should I call my doctor???)

        I’ve been pointed to Scribbler posts about methane before, as he seems to buy into the Sam Carana- or Beckwith- nonsense, and I’ve seen him/her demonstrate a serious lack of understanding. (e.g. claiming that the latitudinal gradient of methane must be the handiwork of hydrates)

        Like

      4. Top Urban Dictionary Definition for “hard-on”:

        “To have an out-of-proportion vindictiveness toward someone or out-of-proportion desire to crush someone (metaphorically or literally). The person with the out-of-proportion feeling or the person on the receiving end of the feeling is usually male, but not necessarily so. Generally used with the preposition for”. Example (altered to be more relevant here)

        “God, SJ has a real hard-on for Robert Scribbler because Robert’s blog is superior to FP”, and yes, if you can’t up your game on FP and/or be more fair to Scribbler, AND your erection lasts more than four hours, you should definitely seek medical help.

        And having issues with ONE narrow facet of Scrobbler’s blog—-his treatment of the methane issue—hardly constitutes “more than a few” reasons to not go there. (If you end up going go to the doctor, ask about the hard-on you also have for GM, which seems to be methane-related also).

        Like

      5. I understand the concept of the thermal inertia of the ocean, thanks. I don’t know where that number—0.7C by 2080—comes from. I could be wrong, but that seems high. (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/08/would-warming-stop-after-greenhouse-gas-emissions-end-not-quite/)

        The size of the warming from aerosol cessation scales with the rate of emissions (i.e., the current aerosol burden), not with the total warming. Any warming in the past, or in the “ocean pipeline”, is utterly irrelevant. You don’t get to just take the total warming since pre-industrial and double it. (Note the difference between the aerosol scenarios in the infographic on that Mann article, since I’m sure you’ll detect that I’m full of crap.)

        (By the way, Cleverdon’s argument comes from those models you don’t trust.)

        Like

      6. WHAT are the models that you say I “don’t trust”, because I’m having trouble remembering any (?) I trust ALL models that are put together by legitimate climate scientists—-who then publish the results, interpreting them in light of all the “buts” and other caveats that they included in their model design and analyses. I do the same when I red the reports, and since the models are quite primitive and reflect that we don’t know much about many aspects of the climate, oceans, and biosphere, I always look forward to seeing new and better models appear. Maybe you’re confused and are really reacting to the fact that I have little confidence in what some folks on FP say about those models?

        Like

      7. Is the “We’re on track for a three and a half degrees C temperature rise by 2040” thing mentioned here the same (mis)understood IEA report that you covered in your first McPherson blog?

        Like

      8. Looks like it. I have no idea why people make this mistake. It’s pretty clear if you actually look at the source. I’m sure that’s Alex Smith’s misunderstanding there, not Kevin Anderson’s.

        Like

    2. Actually, what this “Lewis Cleverdon guy” says smacks mainly of the inconvenient truths about how serious the situation is (that some folks don’t want to face), not “hyperbole”. He is not alone, and he didn’t make any of it up, as you would know if you were doing a serious study of AGW rather than just looking things up at random and reading into them what you want.

      Like

  21. Yeah, he’s a master of hyperbole. Anyway, would it be fair to say that the outcome of the 2016 election will pretty much dictate the Paris agreement going forward?

    Like

    1. Well, there are still about 40 candidates making promises across the spectrum… It’s also true that whoever wins will have to contend with Congress, though. But Obama has accomplished a fair amount despite Congress, and someone so inclined could undo all that and more.

      But will whatever happens here significantly alter the path of the Chinese?

      Like

  22. Would it kill you to make comments without being condescending?
    And Cleverdon made up the 2C increase due to loss of aerosols. The real number is closer to .5C, as Mann has said.
    Also, it’s far from guaranteed the feedbacks will kick into overdrive.

    Like

  23. I can think of a few good reasons. 1. He writes with A LOT of hyperbole.
    2. His conclusions about the increase in atmospheric methane coming from the Arctic is at odds with actual data from Ed Dlugokencky showing that it’s actually due to increased tropical wetland emissions.
    Seriously, enough with the crap detectors. The disrespect gets old

    Like

  24. I can think of a few good reasons. 1. He writes with A LOT of hyperbole.
    2. His conclusions about the increase in atmospheric methane coming from the Arctic is at odds with actual data from Ed Dlugokencky showing that it’s actually due to increased tropical wetland emissions.
    Seriously, enough with the crap detectors. The disrespect gets old

    Like

    1. I heard you the first time. You DO like to repeat yourself, don’t you?
      Say Goodnight, COBJOB! (and that’s a reference to Laugh-In, one of the greatest TV shows of all time—-get your parents to explain it to you)

      Like

      1. That was a glitch. Do you have a pathological tendency to be condescending or something? It seems that way.

        Like

      2. Yes, I DO have a pathological tendency towards “or something”, that “something” being to try to engage in intelligent discussions with people. Why don’t you try to overcome your pathological tendency to whine about how you’re being “insulted” and “disrespected” and join John and Mike and I in those discussions.

        Like

  25. SJ,
    With the 2015 temperature data out now, I have a question about El Nino. When the temperature effects from it have died down after 2016, would it be fair to say the rate of warming will decrease and we’ll see less record years until the next El Nino?

    Like

    1. No, that would not be a “fair thing” to say, that there will be fewer record high temp years after this El Nino. Although we’ll perhaps see some natural variability over the short term once this El Nino winds down, the data shows that the long term trend is going nowhere but up. Have you stopped visiting Crock, Bryant? You should be going there often, because it’s a great site for “starter info” on many climate change topics, and Peter Sinclair is always posting the newest info he can find. I must caution you, the folks over there don’t take well to people voicing unsupported and ignorant opinions like “this is crap” and “this is a garbage study”, so you should perhaps keep your mouth shut and just listen. Here’s a good piece with some good graphics that should allow you to answer your own question.

      http://climatecrocks.com/2016/01/20/2015-smashes-global-temp-record/

      [Moderation: Bolded portion is condescending baiting. Please learn how to talk to people, and not at them. This is not just a space for you to impress yourself. -SJ]

      Like

      1. I wasn’t asking for your opinion, so perhaps you should keep your mouth shut and let the person who was asked the question answer it. And if your style of “discussion” is what passes for Climate Crocks, then I’ll pass. As far as the answer to my question is concerned, this post is counter to your opinion: http://dosbat.blogspot.com/2015/12/2015-record-temperature-smash.html

        [Moderation: Emphasis mine. Just stop. -SJ]

        Like

      2. LOL—-dosbat admits he is an amateur—-too bad you lack his level of self-awareness. And it’s too bad that anyone can put up a blog and offer up whatever math games they want to try to prove a point. May I suggest that you listen to the experts as I do, rather than just look up and post from whatever obscure source BS that you think supports YOUR “opinions”?

        Did you access the Crock piece, Bryant? If not, why? Did you learn anything if you did?

        [Moderation: Assholish bits bolded. -SJ]

        Like

    2. I don’t think we can infer anything about future record years. Remember that, in some data sets, we had 4 or 5 record years since 1998 (and before 2015), even though some statistically tied for the record. I can’t find a definitive link easily but I think at least one of those record years was during a La Nina and others were either with ENSO neutral or small El Ninos. There has also been some discussion about whether El Ninos, themselves, have changed characteristics due to climate change. Maybe El Ninos will last more than a year, maybe not. In any case, I don’t think we can say what the future holds. The new normal is change.

      Like

    3. ENSO is random-ish. It’s modulated by a longer-term oscillation in the Pacific, and it does seem like we’re flipping back to the phase where El Nino dominates, but we really don’t seem to understand this very well. Basically, I’m not betting a single dollar on ENSO state more than a year into the future. But yes, record-setting years are very likely to be El Nino years, and La Nina years are very likely to fall below the trend.

      Rather than thinking about very short periods of high rates and low rates, it’s better to just think about wobbles around the trend. (The your-dog’s-footprints-vs-your-footprints-when-you-go-for-a-walk-on-the-beach analogy is a good one.)

      Like

  26. How about you focus on the argument instead of ad hominem like usual. The guy is an engineer and all of the stuff he posts is pretty spot on. Not that I’d expect you to take the time to actually focus on facts instead of the tired name-calling tactics. I would value your opinion if I had a toilet to flush it with.

    [Moderation: Bolded for emphasis. What does the first sentence get you? More of the same. And then you throw your own insult. -SJ]

    Like

    1. Oh yeah, we should ALWAYS go to engineers who play with numbers and are amateur climate scientists when we want the best FACTS and information about climate science—they know SO much more about it than NOAA and the real climate scientists (just as history majors apparently do who speak in support of the engineer). [Moderation: Ridiculous straw man. -SJ] And I will ask again—-I gave you links to some real information with some real facts to actually focus on instead of your little ‘feud” you think you’re having with me.. Did you access the Crock piece? If not, why? What did you learn if you did?

      There is no “argument” going on here, beyond the one that has already been settled—-that YOU are the one who is into ad hominem and can’t seem to focus on facts, as is evidenced by the oh-so-adult “I would value your opinion if I had a toilet to flush it with”. Sorry to hear that you don’t have a toilet at your house to flush, Bryant. Must get pretty cold going to the outhouse up there. We’ve already had a little snow here in Northern VA and are waiting for the 18 to 24 inches+ on Friday-Saturday. It’ll be coming your way soon after—-be sure to visit the outhouse and “take care of business” before it gets there. [Moderation: Your own “oh-so-adult” response accomplishes what?]

      PS I haven’t called you a single name in any of these comments today, so knock off the “tactic” of accusing me of doing so—-your saying that is actually an ad hominem of sorts. Say Good Night, Bryant! [Moderation: You condescend and insult incessantly, and then claim you do no such thing. Grow up. -SJ]

      Like

  27. Oh really, well how’s Gabin Schmidt and James Hansen for experts: http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/01/19/global-temperature-in-2015/
    They clearly state that 2017 and probably 2018 will be quite cooler than 2015-16.
    I don’t see how you can delude yourself into thinking you’re the victim in all this when you constantly use ad hominem against me, many times unprovoked I might add.
    And we’re only getting hit with 1-3 inches up here, so enjoy digging yourself out while I don’t have to do a thing!

    Like

    1. Is this what you’re hanging your way too-tight hat on, Bryant? A dozen words about 2017-18 taken out of context from Schmidt and Hansen?

      “We can also say with confidence, because of Earth’s energy imbalance (energy absorbed from sunlight exceeding heat radiated to space), that the present decade will be warmer than last decade. Already the first half of the present decade is almost 0.1°C warmer than last decade (Fig. 4). Strong La Niñas commonly follow strong El Niños, so it is likely that 2017 and perhaps 2018 will be quite cool relative to 2015-2016, but the decade as a whole should be considerably warmer than the prior decade”.

      It actually supports what I said—“Although we’ll perhaps see some natural variability over the short term once this El Nino winds down, the data shows that the long term trend is going nowhere but up”. What part of “…the decade as a whole should be considerably warmer than the prior decade” don’t you understand?.

      PS The day when someone like you can “victimize” me will be many centuries after I take my last breath. And how many times must I tell you to look up the term “ad hominem” and truly understand it before you use it? You clearly don’t (and I love the fractured logic behind “unprovoked ad hominems”—you should do stand-up).

      Like

      1. I never said anything about the long-term trend being reversed, and I’m sick and tired of bickering with you. I’ve already spent enough dealing with your unsavory antics. I’m done. Talk to the hand

        Like

    2. I would agree that it’s likely that 2017 and 2018 will be cooler than 2016 but that’s assuming past climate behaviour is a good guide to future behaviour. I’m not sure that’s as valid an assumption as it used to be. Bottom line is that the future is uncertain. So, yes, I agree with Gavin and James but it wouldn’t surprise me if one of those years either didn’t see a strong La Nina or was still warmer than 2016 (or maybe 2015).

      Like

    1. The best analysis we’ve got puts natural sources of methane at 200-350 teragrams of CH4 per year. (Anthropogenic sources are roughly equivalent.) So, call it roughly 0.5-1 teragram per day from natural sources. It looks like they’re using short tons, so that’s 0.001 teragrams per day leaking out of that well?

      Like

  28. Thanks for making me spend my time babysitting your childish comments, y’all. The biblical phrase “as a dog returns to its vomit” comes to mind… Are you enjoying yourselves? Do you find this exchange interesting? What would you say you’ve gained in the last three weeks?

    How about a clarification of the rules for you… All comments that I judge to fall short of the standards of civility that I ask for here are getting deleted. Simple as that. If you’re unhappy with that fact, I have bad news for you.

    Like

  29. Thanks for the ENSO response, SJ. Do you think the overall trend is over 1C from now on, or will some years this decade go below that?
    [Moderated.]

    Like

      1. In your quest to make me into a monster, you seem to twist my comments as you read them. You seem to be implying here that I’m questioning whether the warming trend will continue or something. What I meant is that you’d want to look at the range of past variability about the trend, apply that to the trendline over the next few years, and see whether the range intersects with the +1C line or not. Then you’d have an educated guess at the odds of a year dipping below that line.

        The paper described in your Yale CC link is the one I’m currently working on writing up.

        Like

  30. Thanks SJ. Your opinion, do you think that 0.001 teragrams per day from that well is particularly significant?

    And thanks for moderating the feud. Sick of that.

    Like

    1. I mean, it’s massive as point sources go, but it’s not like it’s going to single-handedly raise the average global concentration a noticeable amount. So in terms of “what bad things are we doing that we could stop doing?”, that makes the list, but it’s not going to provide the plot of the next disaster movie.

      Like

    1. John, I wouldn’t worry too much about the ice sheet methane. That would take hundreds of years to get out, and would do gradually, I would think. I corresponded with Eric Rignot on that a while ago and that was his thought. Ed Dlugokencky said the same thing when I emailed him about the study. What do you think, SJ?

      Like

      1. Dlugokencky is certainly up to his ears and eyeballs in research on methane release, but he’s not the only one. The field is a relatively new one and virtually every paper, article, or study says things like “further study is needed on…, we don’t fully understand…, the models are incomplete…” etc. The methane question is only one part of a complicated web of AGW impacts, and anyone who wants to understand it has to read widely. Here’s an interesting link—http://1250now.org/near-future-arctic-methane/

        I don’t want to set you off, Bryant, but “I wouldn’t worry too much about the ice sheet methane” and “it would take hundreds of years to get out and would do so gradually, I would think” are merely unsupported opinions. If you would share your email exchanges with Ed D and Rignot, it would make it more clear to the rest of us how you arrived at them. I am particularly interested in what Rignot had to say, since he is primarily a glaciologist, and in all of his work that I have read I don’t recall much if any discussion of methane.

        Like

      2. Ask and you shall receive. Here is Ed’s opinion: On Monday, January 18, 2016, 11:36 AM, Ed Dlugokencky (NOAA Federal) ed.dlugokencky@noaa.gov wrote:
        Hi Bryant,

        You are right. Other studies have found evidence of CH4 release at the ocean bottom that has gone on for centuries and longer. It is happening in deep water, so the CH4 is oxidized before it reaches the atmosphere. Therefore, it can not affect climate.
        

        Cheers,
        Ed

        On 01/14/16 10:55, Bryant Morganelli wrote:
        Hi Ed,
        I’m pretty sure this study is just a quantification of things that aren’t necessarily new, and that it means gradual CH4 emissions over hundreds of years: http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-ice-sheets-vast-reservoirs-powerful.html
        Am I correct in thinking that?
        Regards, Bryant

        Here is Rignot’s:
        Bryant Morganelli spotsylvaniacourthouse@yahoo.com
        To Eric.J.Rignot@jpl.nasa.gov 08/31/15 at 3:59 PM

        Thank goodness. Thank you for putting my mind at ease. Here’s to hoping Paris goes well.
        Bryant M.

        Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

        On Aug 31, 2015, 3:57:29 PM, Eric Rignot wrote:
        A steady release.

        Eric

        On 8/31/15 12:30 PM, Bryant Morganelli wrote:
        Hello,
        Do you see this as a bomb type scenario or as more of a steady release?
        Regards,
        Bryant M.

        Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

        On Aug 31, 2015, 2:37:44 PM, Eric Rignot wrote:
        Hi, not so sure about the arctic, esp as the ocean warms up and may start to melt gas hydrates in the continental shelf. May be it already started
        Eric

        Sent from my iPhone

        On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:02, Bryant Morganelli spotsylvaniacourthouse@yahoo.com wrote:

        Thank you for your answer. This will be my last question and then I will leave you be:) So is it a fairly safe thing to say that hydrates, in general with the Arctic Ocean even if on land in Antarctica, are not much of a threat for a long time?
        Best Regards,
        Bryant Morganelli

        On Monday, August 31, 2015 12:16 PM, Eric Rignot Eric.J.Rignot@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:

        Hi Bryant,

        Not much of a concern for quite a long time because it will require a lot of deglaciation and deglaciated terrain will be covered by the ocean.
        Best,
        Eric-

        On 8/31/15 6:54 AM, Bryant Morganelli wrote:
        Dear Mr. Rignot,
        Hello, my name is Bryant Morganelli and I have been looking at the melting of the polar sea ice and ice sheets as of late, and I had a question for you. With the accelerated melting of West Antarctica, is there any possibility that there may be methane hydrates under the ice that could leak out as the ice melts?
        Best Regards,
        Bryant Morganelli

        Like

      3. I checked out the 1250 link. It provided some good information without a whole lot of hyperbole. I find myself agreeing with their message overall, although I still think rapid methane increase is unlikely. But a potential situation like that is certainly the main reason why I advocate increased research into techniques such as SRM.

        Like

    2. It’s uncertain. The colder-than-surrounding temperatures appear to be the result of slowing circulation there bringing warm water from the south. Whether that slowdown is being caused by fresh meltwater isn’t clear, yet.

      Like

    1. Hartmann’s piece does a bit more than sum up our situation “fairly well”. Hartmann writes more about politics, economics, and societal issues than about climate change, but he is a very sharp guy who knows how to look for answers and talks to people who know the science. Several of Hartmann’s books are on the reading list I posted here on FP, and you can see him on RT.

      Did you look at the links in this article? All support the thesis that we are on “the eve of”, but one in particular—-“these charts show”, which leads to a figure labelled TS-2 with four plots—-can be interpreted in no other way than that it will lead to global catastrophe and the very real prospect of human extinction on a much shorter scale than a millennial one. That’s what happens when things go exponential, as they do here. It is actually frightening.

      Like

      1. I did look at the links, and they’re all from a few years ago. Nothing updated as far as I can see. I tend to disagree with the “eve of extinction” argument. The reason for that is simple. We do not know how things will occur in the future. As of now, emissions have stalled and even dropped a bit. China’s trend is especially promising: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/falling-pollution-from-china-could-hasten-peak-carbon/
        http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/22/9-reasons-to-be-cheerful/
        Also, the U.S. and E.U. are taking substantive action on aviation emissions: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/22/europe-falls-behind-us-new-plans-tackle-co2-emissions-planes
        In sum, saying we are on the eve of extinction with continued BAU is true, but BAU is unlikely from here on out. So extinction is not so imminent.

        Like

      2. Just to state the obvious. The only “action” that matters is one that reduces GHG emissions. The notion that emissions may have declined seems at odds with the Keeling Curve apparently accelerating. It may be that it was “just” the Indonesian forest fires that caused that acceleration last year but, until we see that the rate of rise is not increasing, then we can’t be optimistic about the “actions” that are being taken to curb our damage to our only home.

        Like

      3. Mike, I think you’re looking at it in the wrong way. It takes time for reductions in CO2 emissions to reflect in the atmospheric record, considering the amount already in the pipeline and the long residence time. If you’re expecting a decline in emissions for 2015 to show up in the atmospheric concentration a short time after, then you need to remember how CO2 accumulation and residence time work. And it’s not as if the curve accelerating is anything new.

        Like

      4. Bryant, I don’t think that’s right. Emissions go into the atmosphere immediately and is fairly well mixed, quickly. Most end up in the oceans and elsewhere but 40%, roughly, stays in the atmosphere. I would expect to see an effect quite quickly. But what we seem to see is an acceleration of the increase (in principle, the same emissions would result in the same increase in atmospheric CO2). Of course, it takes some time for CO2 to spread around the globe, so there will be some delay, at any particular measuring station, but I doubt it would take too long (I seem to remember seeing some facts on this somewhere). Certainly, if 2014 emissions barely increased, I wouldn’t have expected to see concentrations at the end of 2015 to have accelerated compared with the end of 2014. If 2015 emissions didn’t increase, that should already be showing up as a steady increase in CO2 levels, not as a greater increase.

        Like

      5. Mike, I remember Caldeira saying somewhere that it takes a while for emissions reductions to show up in the atmospheric levels. Maybe SJ can shed some light on this

        Like

      6. No, Mike’s thinking is sound because he’s talking about the rate of year-to-year change, not the absolute concentration. I’ve already said that I think the impact of +/- 1% in emissions is too small compared to natural variability to draw conclusions about emissions estimates, but the point is certainly fair.

        Like

      7. Looking at the latest figures from NOAA, we find that the growth rate in 2015 was the highest in the record, going back to 1959. Remember that global averages are from measuring stations and satellites covering the globe and so, as far as I can tell, CO2 wouldn’t even need to be well mixed to pick up the overall growth in concentration. To me, this gives the lie to the notion that emissions didn’t increase in 2015, though those forest fires may account for a significant part of the increase. I guess there should also be a disclaimer that the uncertainty varies from year to year and the latest figure may be revised down (or up), in the future.

        Like

  31. I’m going to take a page out of John’s book here in regards to the kitten thing, except this is a bit more serious: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/revealed-10-favourite-foods-could-7093232
    What I have a problem with is that all these conclusions are based on studies that are several years old. I think I can reasonably conclude that not all of these foods will go extinct, perhaps most won’t. Given how farmers and agricultural companies consistently adapt to changing conditions, I think the foods listed have a fighting chance. Especially if the world can get on the RCP 4.5 path from the 6.0 one we’re starting on. Thoughts from the group here, Mike, SJ, John, Snoop Dogg? (I’m not making fun of you, just trying out different nicknames based on your initials.)

    Like

    1. First, “trying out new nicknames” for me actually IS “making fun of me”. I don’t give a rodent’s rear end what you or anyone else calls me as long as they stick to science and rational thinking in the discussion. Dumboldguy or the shorter DOG should be adequate, but feel free to knock yourself out experimenting if that’s what turns you on.

      Sorry I haven’t responded to your most recent posts, but The Blizzard of 2016 has been occupying my attention. Thank you for the response re: your correspondence with Ed D and Rignot—-I will get to that once I get the snow cleared a bit. I also want to go back and discuss the concept of “realistic optimism” with everyone, because that seems to be key to the way you approach climate change and AGW.

      Regarding this new link, John’s “kitten thing” was nothing but a joke—-this link you’ve posted may be a bit light in tone in spots, but it is dead serious in its science and underlying message. Your “realistic optimism” seems to have blinded you to that fact, and your saying “What I have a problem with is that all these conclusions are based on studies that are several years old. I think I can reasonably conclude that not all of these foods will go extinct, perhaps most won’t. Given how farmers and agricultural companies consistently adapt to changing conditions, I think the foods listed have a fighting chance” just bears that out.

      “Based on studies that are several years old” is a moot point, because no newer studies have done anything but show the situation to be getting worse in all the planetary factors involved, and a “realistic” analysis shows that it’s only going downhill faster. IMO, you cannot “reasonably conclude” what you have, particularly in that “farmers and agricultural companies consistently adapt to changing conditions”—they have been using stopgap measures that don’t work for long and actually often make things worse in the long run. The only “realistic conclusion” to be reached from this article is that we (of course) don’t know “for sure” (yet), but that things look grimmer every day—-the only real question, IMO, is the timeline, and unbridled “optimism” is unrealistic.

      Again, thanks for some good responses yesterday—-will be back later today if I survive the snow cleanup—-the snow is light and fluffy, so I’m going to try to use the leaf blower a lot rather than shovel it.

      Like

      1. Dog, thanks for the input. The only issue I have is the optimism thing. I base my optimism on facts, just as you do with pessimism. That’s fine.

        Like

      2. Taking first break from shoveling—-snow is heavier than I thought, so the leaf blower is not working too well—helps some on the cars, though. We’ll get back to the optimism-pessimism thing, because that’s not really “fine”—-and it has relevance to lots of things besides climate change.

        This storm is truly the storm that will be talked about for generations—unless of course AGW causes us to have storms like this several times each winter.

        Like

    2. Bryant, I’m not sure why studies several years old make the conclusions poor. The studies are from the last 10 years, several only in the last two or three years. I don’t know, but they may be the latest relevant studies available, so I’m interested in why you think you “can reasonably conclude that not all of these foods will go extinct”. Mind you, the article wasn’t about extinction of those foods but about lower yields and reduced spread.

      Regarding RCPs, I thought we were tracking 8.5, not 6. Do you have a link about this? Here’s a graph up to 2014, that I found:

      Like

      1. Mike, I didn’t say the studies were unreasonable, just that assuming extinction is going a bit too far. And with Paris and emissions stalling as of late, we’re not going to be on 8.5, but 6.0. SJ and I already talked about that.

        Like

      2. Bryant, as I said, the studies weren’t about extinction of those foods, so I’m not sure why you chose to “reasonably” conclude that those foods wouldn’t go extinct.

        Regarding the RCP path we’re on, I don’t think an agreement in Paris and a supposed stall of emissions for one year suddenly puts us on an RCP6 path; it will take a lot more than that (especially noting that CO2 concentration accelerated last year). As far as I can tell, we’re on the worst case path, so the notion that we can start from a less bad path is moot.

        Like

  32. I know I don’t post as much anymore, but I would throw out a vote for starting Thread #4 – this one’s getting just a tad long.

    Like

    1. You can’t be pessimistic all the time. There are reasons to be optimistic, and wallowing in negativity is ultimately counterintuitive. I ask that you respect my opinions.

      Like

      1. I intend no disrespect of your opinions or you when I say we need too talk about these things. Are your opinions set in stone and immutable? They shouldn’t be. I ask that you consider my opinions about optimism-pessimism when I get around to posting them.
        (And if I survive cleaning up after the Blizzard of 2016—now taking one last break before finishing up getting the two vehicles uncovered—the rest will have to wait until tomorrow).

        Like

  33. I have to agree with this comment from DOG, “The only “realistic conclusion” to be reached from this article is that we (of course) don’t know “for sure” (yet)…”

    And for Bryant, “Are your opinions set in stone and immutable?”

    I appreciate your optimism Bryant but I should say, I’ve wondered the same thing.

    Like

Leave a Comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.