July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    July 31, 2013

    Actually, I wonder if I might interest Gordy in investing in this overunity engine I’ve developed…

  2. #2 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ENSO ‘does not add energy to the climate system as a whole.’

    That’s not correct.

  3. #3 Craig Thomas
    July 31, 2013

    warm water created during La Niñas

    Variability *creates* energy…?

    results from an increase in sunlight

    What increase in sunlight?

    …(Tisdale)…

    Oh dear, *still* getting your mis-info from cranks…

    Why not actually learn some real facts about ENSO from people who – unlike Bob Tisdale – can demonstrate professional competence in the area:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml
    and maybe consider
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_002.gif
    See all that ENSO variation around its mean?
    No?
    So you see an underlying trend there, right?

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    More and more I’m going off poking at dead intellects with a stick, but the persistent post mortem spasms that pass for thought in the putrescent minds of the denialists here warrants the occasional prod.

    Fatso and Rue-Dolt the Red-nosed Denier are especially amusing with their dogged determination to not see what is otherwise simple, high-school level physics.

    I made this point a few days ago but it bears repeating…

    Consider the fact that the solstices occurred five and a half weeks ago. This means that since then the Northern Hemisphere has been receiving progressively less insolation and the Southern Hemisphere has been receiving progressively more insolation.

    Question 1 – how has the Northern Hemisphere’s mean temperature responded?
    Question 2 – across what span of time has this response occurred, and what will be the predictable response until the next solstice?

    Conversely…

    Question 3 – how has the Southern Hemisphere’s mean temperature responded?
    Question 4 – across what span of time has this response occurred, and what will be the predictable response until the next solstice?

    For brownie points and a gold star:

    Question 5 – from the change in insolation and the resultant temperature change over time, what can be inferred about the relationship between Δinsolation and Δtemperature?

    On the matter of El Niño/La Niña being the cause of global warming, proponents of this nonsense seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are positing something that contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. From where is all of this heat coming if not from solar heat retained by an enhanced greenhouse atmosphere? In other words, where is the heat-depleted body of matter that surrendered its thermal energy to warm the top two kilometers of the world’s ocean, to warm the atmosphere, and to melt the staggering amounts of glacial and polar ice, as has been documented for over a century?

    Finally, I note that there seems to be the modified meme of no warming since 2005. Proponents of this variation of the arrant nonsense about recent cooling should consider the questions that Betula was never able to answer, and also to take a hint from this graph.

  5. #5 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘I would say that the so-called missing heat problem is not yet solved. I have argued before that I don’t think it actually exists, since the “missing heat” argument assumes that feedbacks in the climate system are positive and that radiative energy is accumulating in the system faster than surface warming would seem to support.

    ‘For the reasons outlined above, Trenberth’s view of deep ocean storage of the missing heat is still theoretically possible since increased vertical ocean mixing doesn’t have to be wind-driven. But I remain unconvinced by arguments that depend upon global deep ocean temperature changes being measured to an accuracy of hundredths or even thousandths of a degree.

    Bob Tisdale / Post Normal Science

  6. #6 Craig Thomas
    July 31, 2013

    Actually, this graph is worth more comment:
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_002.gif

    You notice that every La Nina year has been warmer than the last since the 1976 La Nina?

    Where’s all this heat coming from? Apart from Tisdale’s magical mechanism (as yet to documented), can you think of anything that explains this trend?

    On another note, let’s remember what all that ice is doing, that is in contact with these warming oceans,
    http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg

    And on a related note, we can see that 2,000 Gt of ice is being turned to water ever year, then that would be:
    2×10^15 * 334,000 Joules being added to the Earth’s energy budget every year without causing any increase in temperature.
    6.7×10^20 Joules.
    Every year.
    And increasing.
    I don’t suppose Bob Tisdale can explain where this is coming from any better than he can explain his magical ENSO?

  7. #7 Craig Thomas
    July 31, 2013

    Stop quoting cranks, El Gordo, they can only mislead you.

    Consider the fact that the solstices occurred five and a half weeks ago. This means that since then the Northern Hemisphere has been receiving progressively less insolation and the Southern Hemisphere has been receiving progressively more insolation.

    Question 1 – how has the Northern Hemisphere’s mean temperature responded?

    In a similar vein, has anybody noticed the *lag* between maximum insolation at noon, and the burst of heat we get around midnight?
    Anybody?

  8. #8 Craig Thomas
    July 31, 2013

    Ah, here we go, “Inferno” at Denialdepot explains it the best:

    ENSO. Same way the Moon causes sea level rise.

    http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    Really Fatso? You’re quoting baffle-gab from Tisdale to avoid indicating where the heat has come from that’s warming the planet? Really?!

    Be intellectually honest… fromwhere is the heat coming that has warmed the top two kilometers of the world’s oceans, warmed the atmosphere, and that has melted the staggering amounts of glacial and polar ice, as has been documented for over a century? What has become colder – or are the laws of thermodynamics in suspension?

  10. #10 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘The oceans emit vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Just make sure not to mention how much they absorb.’

    More CO2 is released when oceans are warmer and cool oceans trap it.

  11. #11 Craig Thomas
    July 31, 2013

    I don’t think it actually exists, since the “missing heat” argument assumes that feedbacks in the climate system are positive and that radiative energy is accumulating in the system faster than surface warming would seem to support.

    Tisdale is simply a pig-ignorant denier. And El Gordo repeats his nonsense.

  12. #12 bill
    July 31, 2013

    Gordy, are you really such a hapless booby, or do you just play one on teh internets?

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    More CO2 is released when oceans are warmer and cool oceans trap it.

    So what you’re saying Fatso is that there is a positive feed-back that will heat the planet even more.

    Congratulations, you’re finally learning.

  14. #14 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    BJ its definitely our star, we can all agree on that, its a question of long or short waves.

    If atmospheric temperatures remain flat then the AGW models are flawed and we may be facing a global cooling tipping point.

    Do not be alarmed, humanity will survive.

  15. #15 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘that there is a positive feed-back’

    Its a negative feedback, like when the oceans warmed after the last glaciation… releasing an abundance of CO2 into the atmosphere from the oceans.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    July 31, 2013

    “BJ its definitely our star, we can all agree on that”

    Fatty are you drunk? Or merely completely deluded? “We’ve” made it clear here that, with few exceptions, NONE of us “agree on that”. Throw in the vast majority of climate scientists, and those plugging the ‘its the sun wot dunnit’ brigade shrinks even further.

    Your posts are bizarre to say the least. The reveal a mind that it locked into some kind of strange holding pattern where reality and hallucination become blurred.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    BJ its definitely our star, we can all agree on that, its a question of long or short waves.

    I’m sorry that your head injury has gravely compromised your intellectual abilities, but it is my duty to wipe the drool from your chin.

    The sun is the primary source of heat for the Earth. Physics and empirical data show however that it is not responsible for the pattern of global warming seen over the last century. And there is no question that there is a surfeit of longwave radiation being reradiated from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere back to the planet.

    Your nonsensical appeal to Phantasysics of the sort favoured by Tisdale does not change the fact that insolation is not responsible for global warming.

    If atmospheric temperatures remain flat then the AGW models are flawed and we may be facing a global cooling tipping point.

    The land temperatures are still increasing. The oceans are warming. Glaciers and polar ice are melting.

    There is no global cooling approaching, just as there is no Easter bunny.

    Do not be alarmed, humanity will survive.

    Jeff Harvey recently linked to Quintero and Wiens 2013:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23800223

    which clearly demonstrates that across many taxa the current rate of warming outstrips by an order of magnitude of between 10 ten thousand and one hundred thousand (if not more) the rate at which species can adapt to temperature change. The mammalian taxa included show no beneficial skew for mammals, and indeed basic thermal physiology dictates that mammals will suffer in a warmer world.

    There’s little point appealing to humanity’s use of complex technology because that is largely powered by the fossil fuels that are causing the problem in the first place, andat about the same time that we’ll have irrevocably FUBARed the climate for the biosphere we’ll run out of usable carbon fuels. This will have a HUGE effect on how humans can respond to the challenges of the near-future climate, and will be exacerbated by overpopulation and by the fact that much capacity for self-sufficiency has been lost. Combine all of these factors and there is no scientifically valid way of concluding that humans will be able to carry on without severe curtailing of numbers and life-style.

    If humans do not take serious measures now to address each and every one of these issues to the fullest extent possible then it will just be a big ugly decent into apocalyptic demise over the space of several generations, likely starting with generations that are now living. Perhaps there will be a fraction of humans left in 500 years, living with delicately-nurtured high tech and/or simply subsisting in societies no more sophisticated that those of the Iron Age.

    If this is in your opinion an acceptable trajectory for the human species then perhaps “humanity will survive”. Even then there’s a lot that could go wrong and little that could go right, and if we push the temperature over 3-4°C human survival becomes very much a gamble. Over 4°C we might as well break out the chisels and carve our suicide messages in granite for any future alien race to ponder in their wise bemusement.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    10 ten thousand…

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    July 31, 2013

    “Do not be alarmed, humanity will survive”

    See my last post. Here, Fatty is projecting again, without even a basic understanding of the consequences of a huge array of anthropogenic effects there are on complex adaptive systems.

    In contrast with what he is saying, which is entirely quantitative, there are also qualitative processes to consider. And even here, there’s no guarantee that humanity will survive’ exhibiting anything close to the bloated, over-consumptive lifestyles enjoyed by a comparative few. Sure, some of us may survive, but in conditions in which the threshold between existence and oblivion becomes finely delineated.

    On the current trajectory, humanity is certainly working towards increasing the chances of its own short-term extinction. No doubt that it will come eventually anyway, given that the shelf life for most species is between a few hundred thousand and 10 million years or so, but our species appears intent on speeding up that process. We are undermining our ecological life support systems at a profoundly alarming rate, and there is already an enormous body of literature showing that critical ecological services are declining and that food webs and ecological resilience are fraying. Every natural indicator is in decline (see the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2006) and, if this trend persists, we can certainly expect more widespread systemic collapse, along with, as I said, key ecological services that sustain human civilization and permit humans to exist and persist.

    Climate change might just be the final nail in the coffin. Certainly, we have greatly reduced the capacity of natural systems to support mankind through a suite of other stresses – from over harvesting to the outright elimination and destruction of natural ecosystems to the introduction of exotic species into non-native ecosystems to other forms of pollution. On top of that we are forcing climate at rates unseen in tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. We are expecting species to adaptively respond to this combined assault, and as the paper I posted last week published in Ecology Letters shows, many vertebrates will have to evolve at rates up to 1000 time or greater more rapidly to keep up with climate-change mediated alterations in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems alone in order to have any chance of survival.

    And, against a huge volume of empirical evidence to the contrary, we have Fatty here making a flippant ‘humanity will survive’ remark. I have encountered enough of these simpleton thinkers on Deltoid alone to keep me busy on this blog. If there are millions of people out there who think like Fatty, then its no small wonder that the future of humanity is far from secure.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    It’s frustrating isn’t it Jeff?

    You know, I wouldn’t mind so much if there was the usual direct faulty-adaptation-leading-to-extinction consequence operating for Teh Stupidity genes that are pervading the human gene pool, but the interconnectedness of human society is such that the first ones to suffer are almost always not the ones who cause the problem.

    Natural selection has been confounded in so many ways by technology, and some of the more perverse and disturbing ways are now only doing their stretching exercises and their warmings-up… so to speak…

    It’s ironic. Most of the Denialati are right-wing libertarians who don’t want to be offering advantage to others in their community, but they are happily oinking like pigs at the trough to grab the benefit of evolutionary fitness that is more deservedly the right of others.

    Evolutionary dole-bludgers, the lot of them.

  21. #21 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘Even then there’s a lot that could go wrong and little that could go right, and if we push the temperature over 3-4°C human survival becomes very much a gamble.’

    I was under the impression that they had backed away from those numbers… something to do with ‘sensitivity’.

  22. #22 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘It’s ironic. Most of the Denialati are right-wing libertarians’

    Not true, many of us are Labor refugees.

  23. #23 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘On the current trajectory, humanity is certainly working towards increasing the chances of its own short-term extinction.’

    Life on earth is precarious and it has always been so, humanity has faced extinction before and survived.

    We are much better prepared for cooling or warming than ever before, so there really is no reason to be concerned.

    Adaptation is the key to survival and I’m not referring to green energy.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    Fatso.

    I was under the impression that they had backed away from those numbers… something to do with ‘sensitivity’.

    The only “they” who have “backed away from those numbers” are you and your Denialati mates – the ones who are afraid of what mainstream science has to say.

    The sensitivity issue has been had countless times before, and never once has a Denialatus been able to put forward a convincing argument to counter the consensus. Even Brad Keyes was dragged kicking and screaming close to the consensus figure during the progress of the Brangelina thread. And no matter which end of the most likely range for sensitivity, it’s entirely possible to reach 4+ °C by burning just a portion of the remaining the fossil carbon reserves of the planet.

    ‘It’s ironic. Most of the Denialati are right-wing libertarians’

    Not true, many of us are Labor refugees.

    Reread my statement and parse it carefully. Your claim regarding “Labor refugees” does not render my statement “not true” – and there are studies that show that it is true.

    That head injury is really giving you gip, isn’t it?

    Life on earth is precarious and it has always been so, humanity has faced extinction before and survived.

    Life on Earth is generally not precarious, and it has rarely been so. The only times that have been precarious involve stonking great balls of rock slamming into the planet, or supervulcanism freezing the place.

    Humanity has, on the other hand, faced extinction and this during times when climate was not changing nearly as rapidly as it is now. Back then we didn’t have the benefit of technology of course, but we also didn’t have a biosphere that was already under enormous pressure from pollution, from overpopulation and from modification, and we didn’t have billions of people who were so specialised in a highly technological society that they could not feed, clothe, house and defend themselves should the lights go out and the oil run dry. And that’s without the addition of grave environmental and climatic damage.

    We are much better prepared for cooling or warming than ever before…

    How?

    Adaptation is the key to survival and I’m not referring to green energy.

    How would our society adapt to a world where:

    1) there is no effective supply of fossil fuel and quite possibly no effective replacement on a global scale given our society’s current imperative for cheap and widespread energy density
    2) there is a shortage of water, fisheries, forests, agricultural soil, and many easily-accessed minerals
    3) there is a huge disparity in privilege, and aggravated geopolitical tension, and an overabundance of state-owned seven-colours-of-snot weaponry
    4) the attitude to disease over he last 50 years has rendered many of our best treatments sitting close to the edge of ineffectiveness, and where there is in many places such a density of population that should the underlying social infrastructure fail (nine meals from anarchy…) the transmission of disease without the best medical technology would be a fruitless endeavour

    Adaptation as you imagine it is predicated on at least three things…

    In a biological context it requires a functioning ecosystem in which humans can be sustained, and this includes a climate that is not warming at a rate thousands of times faster than that to which we are currently adapted.

    In a technological context it requires the maintenance of each and every component of the complex system that underpins our modern society – system components that can and will fail in the future because they are finite in duration and we currently have no effective substitutions.

    In a cultural context it requires an awareness by humanity of what is required, and a preparedness to follow through and do it. To date we have shown an inability to exhibit a such functional awareness, and it is the phenotypic baggage of selfish denialism that is the biggest roadblock on that path.

    “Adaptation” is not the guaranteed saviour that you imagine, Fatso.

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    July 31, 2013

    Bernard, you aren’t kidding. With intellectual “luminaries” like El Gordo overpopulating the blogs, I tend to get quite pessimistic.

    Gordo writes, “Most of the Denialati are right-wing libertarians’ Not true, many of us are Labor refugees”.

    MOST, Fatso. There are always a few outliers You are one of them. Congratulations on your gullibility.

    Then he writes this utterly puerile balderdash:

    “Life on earth is precarious and it has always been so, humanity has faced extinction before and survived.
    We are much better prepared for cooling or warming than ever before, so there really is no reason to be concerned.
    Adaptation is the key to survival and I’m not referring to green energy”.

    Fatty, at no time in history has one species co-opted so much of net primary production and freshwater flows. When there were ecological bottlenecks in the past the human impacts on nature – our footprint – was almost non-existent. Now we are a global force.Unlike past extinction events, this time the culprit for generating it is one of the planet’s evolved inhabitants – us. And, if you bothered to read what I said above, I said that climate change is just one major anthropogenic threat – there are a number of others. In synergy, they are simplifying natural systems at an astonishing rate. We already know that nature has a reduced capacity to support man. And yet we continue with a slash-and-burn approach to the biosphere unabated, in what appears to be one long last rush headlong towards undermining our ecological life support systems for short-term profit to benefit the privileged few. Humans cannot ‘adapt’ if the ecological systems underpinning our social and economic systems are damaged beyond repair. We simply do not have the technology to effectively replicate most critical ecological services – water purification, nutrient cycling, maintenance of soil fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, pest control etc. Climate change on its own is a profound threat to all of these services as it is driving the extinction of species and genetically distinct populations. But when you throw all of the other human assaults into the mix, the prognosis becomes dire.

  26. #26 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    Life expectancy has increased markedly over last century, through disease control, more food and a warmer climate. The figures speak for themselves.

    Also modern communications technology has saved millions of lives with advanced warning of nasty weather.

    Humans are adapting well and will continue to do so.

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    July 31, 2013

    Gordo, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. My advice is to stop putting your large foot into your mouth. Your comments are so empirically empty that its hard to know where to begin deconstructing them. Essentially, your understanding of environmental science and ecology are so simple that I feel like I need to begin at elementary school level. Clearly the stuff Bernard and I are discussing is way, way over your head.

    This is the first generation in the United States in which the kids have it worse than their parents – a very ominous sign. The only reason that life expectancy in (in the developed world for the most part) has increased is two fold: first, natural systems are resilient enough to have largely withstood the human assault thus far, and although greatly simplified, the services that emerge from them are still mostly intact, but with very worrying signs that we are approaching critical thresholds beyond which many will collapse (see work by Martin Scheffer and colleagues on non-linear dynamics and alternate states).

    The second is that every developed country in the world maintains a massive ecological deficit that can only be maintained through what can colloquially be referred to as economic looting of resource-rich (but poor) countries to the south. This is a major topic all on its own, but the thrust of it is that no developed country can support its lifestyle – consumption and waste production – on the resources contained within its own borders. Hence why economically nationalist countries in the south are routinely vilified in the corporate media, and why a term such as the ‘resource curse’ is so appropriate. Michael Parenti’s outstanding 2011 book “Imperialism” would be a good starting point for you Gordo. Only I think you enjoy wallowing in your ignorance. I cannot do anything about that.

  28. #28 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    # 2 el fuckwit

    ENSO ‘does not add energy to the climate system as a whole.’

    That’s not correct.

    Yes it is. You don’t have the remotest clue what you are talking about.

    When are you going to admit that you were also hopelessly wrong about the sun?

    Come on. You’ve seen the data that prove that you are wrong. So have the moral fibre to admit your error.

    Or would you prefer to be viewed here as lying scum?

  29. #29 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    I was under the impression that they had backed away from those numbers… something to do with ‘sensitivity’.

    Another area of the science you have exactly zero clue about.

    No, nobody has “backed away” from anything. Attempts to estimate S from “observations” are *at best* of questionable validity. At best.

  30. #30 chek
    July 31, 2013

    living with delicately-nurtured high tech and/or simply subsisting in societies no more sophisticated that those of the Iron Age.

    On this theme, has anybody here read a book or lengthy essay which essentially posited that should we crash this civilisation, that there is no coming back?

    Unfortunately I can’t recall the title or the author after all this time and it’s not on my bookshelves so I must have borrowed it from a friend or the library.

    The basic premise was that theres unlikely to be another iron age re-run or industrial revolution take 2 because we’ve exhausted all near-surface deposits and deep mining/mountain top removal will be difficult-to-impossible for any future generations starting the climb to industrialisation (short of some heavy-duty terrain remodelling which humanity likely wouldn’t survive anyway).

    The don’t -worry-be-happy routine of El Fatso gets more irritating with each iteration and puts me in mind to re-read it, if I can find it

  31. #31 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    chek

    I’m familiar with this argument, which to me seems incontrovertible. There will be no second round. No abundant and easily exploitable fossil fuel deposits and no abundant easily exploitable metal/mineral resources. Don’t know where it originated though.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    Yes but different treatments and should be graphed separately not tagged one onto the other.

    Why?

    Most high school students can see and understand the three different treatments. If they want to look at only one of them for one purpose they simply disregard the other two for that purpose.

    I’m even more staggered at the claim that showing the different treatments on the same graph – as opposed to three separate graphs – is misleading. That’s one of the stupidest claims I’ve heard – and there have been some pretty stupid ones here.

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    …we can all agree on that

    Attempted opinion seeding, or just the desperate invocations of the True Believers? If they focus on saying it over and over again maybe they can prevent themselves noticing the evidence to the contrary.

  34. #34 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    Gordy is astonishing. The man is wrong about *everything*. I missed this on first pass:

    Its a negative feedback, like when the oceans warmed after the last glaciation… releasing an abundance of CO2 into the atmosphere from the oceans.

    No, you fatuous fuckhead. That is a positive feedback to orbital forcing.

    Positive feedbacks amplify the effect of a forcing change.

    Negative feedbacks suppress the effect of a forcing change.

    Un-bloody-believable. And these bone-headed tossers expect their grunting ignorance and politically motivated denial to be taken seriously.

    Why? How?

  35. #35 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    Craig Thomas nails the ENSO problem at #8.

    Thanks, Craig!

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    …since the “missing heat” argument assumes that feedbacks in the climate system are positive…

    Don’t think so. You get a “missing heat” argument from observing a radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere, calculating the rate of energy rise that corresponds to, calculating how much energy rise is accounted for by observed phenomena (warming atmosphere and surface, melting ice, evaporation, warming oceans in the parts you can measure) and noting that there’s more imbalance than there is observed energy rise.

    You don’t need to assume a single damn positive feedback to do that.

    But it’s fundamentally much worse that that: we know from basic physics that net feedback in the climate system is positive, otherwise the average temperature of the earth would be an awful lot colder than it is. Accordingly Tisdale is either an idiot or an abject denier – or a bare-faced liar. This blatantly obvious fatal flaw in his argument should alert anyone with half a brain and a modicum of scientific knowledge – or the ability to read rebuttals written by people who fit that description – that his opinions are completely untethered from physical reality.

    And if someone with half a brain figures that out, they would stop using him as a source of scientific opinion because it only needs half a brain to conclude that’s the smart course of action. El gordo obviously doesn’t meet that criterion.

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    I was under the impression that they had backed away from those numbers… something to do with ‘sensitivity’.

    No, that’s conflating two different things.

    Climate sensitivity in response to a double of CO2 equivalent has nothing to do with how much of a temperature rise the ecosystem can handle in a relatively short period of time without losing a whole lot of carrying capacity – in other words, without a whole lot of humans (and other life) either dying off, or not being born in the first place.

    If you’re going to talk about “backing away from numbers”, previously the scientific consensus was that somewhere roughly around 2C warming was where climate change would get dangerous. The consensus appears to be backing away from that number – and saying that somewhere roughly around 1C warming is getting dangerous (with some saying we’re already seeing evidence of danger at a mere 0.8C).

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    I’m impressed that someone who insists a positive feedback is a negative feedback thinks they have the inside knowledge of where all of those foolish scientists have got their understanding of climate science wrong.

    And is apparently a bit peeved when someone mentions Dunning and Kruger in their direction.

    Where can I buy Irony Meters in bulk?

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    We are much better prepared for cooling or warming than ever before, so there really is no reason to be concerned.

    This is abject illogical stupidity.

    It’s like saying that “we have airbags in cars now, so we’re much better prepared for driving off a cliff than they were in the 70’s”.

  40. #40 bill
    July 31, 2013

    The ‘negative feedback’ thing reminds me of Tim Curtin’s amazing topsy-turvy version of which are the Greenhouse gases.

    For many of us watching Teh Stupid unfold is actually an embarrassing and uncomfortable experience – most of us would be completely humiliated to be revealed as so mind-numbingly ignorant in a public venue, and performances like Gordy’s are genuinely cringe-worthy as a result.

    It’s a wonder Gordy or SpamKan don’t simply die of the shame. I’m reminded of Hitchhiker’s Guide –

    Grunthos was reported to have been “disappointed” by the poem’s reception, and was about to embark on a reading of his 12-book epic entitled “My Favourite Bathtime Gurgles” when his own major intestine–in a desperate attempt to save life itself-leapt straight up through his neck and throttled his brain.

    We should be so lucky…

  41. #41 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘Positive feedbacks amplify the effect of a forcing change.

    ‘Negative feedbacks suppress the effect of a forcing change.’

    ————–
    ‘Negative feedback — this is an impact which offsets the prevailing change in climate. Under global warming, this would create a cooling effect, balancing out the changes. If the climate was getting colder, it would create a heating effect.

    ‘Positive feedback — this is an impact which increases the change in the climate. It would add to global warming by creating further heating or, if our climate was cooling, would cool the climate further.’

    UK Met

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    Adaptation is the key to survival and I’m not referring to green energy.

    This is also abject illogical stupidity, probably fueled by utopian technological fallacies and outright denial of unpleasant consequences.

    The scientists who study the ecosystem are running around with their hair on fire – most recently in a link Jeff Harvey published – pointing out that we can expect much of the current ecosystem to fail to adapt to the changes we are throwing at it. If this happens, no-one – but no-one has proposed any solid “adaptation” measures that humanity can take (other than “let an awful lot of people die and hope the rest can hang on”).

    There are (for example) geoengineering proposals – but most of them turn out to be ill thought out, or to have obvious nasty consequences – and they almost always fail the very same tests that the deniers try to apply to mitigation measures, including (a) that one can’t be very very certain of the outcomes, and (b) they cost a metric shitload of money (and sometimes even (c) they require coordinated international action which is just a cover for introducing a world government and stealing all of our golfs).

    We also know from extensive experience that most large interventions in complex systems have unintentional consequences, and that the vast majority of the time these are detrimental.

    The entire meme is escapist fantasy.

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    ‘Negative feedback — this is an impact which offsets the prevailing change in climate. Under global warming, this would create a cooling effect, balancing out the changes. If the climate was getting colder, it would create a heating effect.

    Yes.

    Now go back to your scenario.

    Warming (in this case, of the oceans)…

    …causes more CO2 in the atmosphere…

    …which causes a warming radiation imbalance…

    …which causes more warming.

    In other words, warming…causes more warming. Positive or negative feedback?

  44. #44 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    et fatuous

    #41

    What is your point? The MO definitions are identical to those I gave you earlier.

    Please explain.

  45. #45 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    You don’t understand any of this, do you?

  46. #46 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    Testing, testing:

    BBD: Positive feedbacks amplify the effect of a forcing change.

    Met Office: Positive feedback — this is an impact which increases the change in the climate.

    BBD: Negative feedbacks suppress the effect of a forcing change.

    Met Office: Negative feedback — this is an impact which offsets the prevailing change in climate.

    Remember, climate changes in response to a change in forcing. Not in response to a change in the amount of caramelised onions in the stratosphere.

  47. #47 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    Do take your time, gordy…

  48. #48 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    There’s a horrible smell in here. Like something has died.

  49. #49 FrankD
    July 31, 2013

    Don’t tell me el Gordo is one of those ignoramuses (ignorami?) who think positive feedback = runaway warming?

    Here’s a clue fatboy:
    Loop Gain > 0 and +1

    Both positive feedbacks, but do you see a difference?

    Lotharsson: “stealing all of our golfs” = LOL.

  50. #50 FrankD
    July 31, 2013

    Stupid tag recognition. Let me try again:

    Here’s a clue fatboy:
    Loop Gain greater than zero and less than one.
    Loop Gain greater than one.

    Both positive feedbacks, but do you see a difference?

  51. #51 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    FrankD

    I don’t think el gordy has got that far. At present, he doesn’t understand the difference between positive and negative feedbacks.

    Baby steps! Don’t rush the poor chap. I can’t imagine what it would look like if he somehow became even more confused that he already is and I don’t want to know.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2013

    Re: stealing all our golfs, this is a real concern to some folks (and Google will find you many other very concerned folks).

    (One notes that fortunately for people like the Kochs and Moncktons of this world, lots of things are concerning to the kinds of folks who think that Agenda 21 is a UN plot to steal all their golfs, regardless of lack of evidence and implausibility.)

  53. #53 chek
    July 31, 2013

    ALL YOUR GOLFS ARE BELONG TO US.
    UN Agenda 21

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    Fatso:

    Life expectancy has increased markedly over last century, through disease control, more food and a warmer climate. The figures speak for themselves.

    Disease control is largely predicated on a functional petroleum industry. An integrated health system is entirely predicated on a functional petroleum industry. Do you see the flaw in your position?

    Food production is largely predicated on a functional petroleum industry, and on a phosphorus fertiliser industry. Do you see the flaw in your position?

    Also modern communications technology has saved millions of lives with advanced warning of nasty weather.

    Complex technology, especially space technology, is largely predicated on a functional petroleum industry and currently could not be supported by a renewable energy industry. Do you see the flaw in your position?

    Humans are adapting well and will continue to do so.

    Eh?! It happened in the past so it will continue to happen in the future? Really, that’s your argument?

    That’s an inductive fallacy. A koala stamp if you can figure out why.

  55. #55 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    Are the Denialati on this thread vying for the title of who is the most stupid?

    It certainly seems to be the case.

  56. #56 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    # 55

    They’re both winning!

  57. #57 adelady
    July 31, 2013

    I dunno really. Is it stupid or stubborn or pure cussedness.

    It’s easy enough for a survivalist mindset to come up with an agrarian, off-the-grid, self-sufficient utopian image for modern technology supplying the original equipment for facilities like solar and insulated triple glazing. They can grow their own fruit and veg, poultry, pigs, goats, recirculating fish system and the idealistic like. So they don’t care if the rest of the world succumbs to lack of grains from large scale agriculture. Their small scale farm can sustain them and they really don’t care that there isn’t enough arable land for everyone to live like that.

    But these guys seem unable to do even that. Far from not caring if the world at large can maintain broadacre farming, they’re sitting back and waiting for their technutopian fantasies to come to the rescue. Just in time. For no cost.

    Of course we’ll have magical GMO seed stocks for grains that will survive heat stress, drought, new pests and diseases and floods – all in one season. And of course these non-existent crops will grow with no artificial fertilisers. And of courseengineers can design self setting, self expanding sea walls and flood protections, and they won’t cost very much even if we do need them. So yah, sucks, boo to climate change. Can’t catch me.

    I just don’t get it.

  58. #58 Lionel A
    July 31, 2013

    Check @ page 16 #57

    Is that from a hill or a cab to somewhere?

    The view here is from the location marked by the red blob in the direction shown by red arrow which is pointing to the church in Cardinham.

    Sorry for the delay, been away again. Thanks for your comment.

    Having just sloughed through the recent posts here I am beginning to feel sorry for el gordo who clearly is too ignorant to realise how ignorant he is.

    Instead of bothering to study at the numerous places pointed too he continues to double down on the ignorant as these crackers make clear:

    You asked about a book which described the final and irrevocable collapse of civilisation, the scenario you describe sounds like something Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees may have covered in his book, ‘Our Final Century: Will the Human Race: Will The Human Race Survive the twenty-First Century’. I have a copy here I’ll look it out. Unless I have loaned it out and forgotten to whom (I am missing a few books like this, I am on my fourth, or is it fifth, copy of ‘The Selfish Gene’).

    el gordo @ #23

    Life on earth is precarious and it has always been so, humanity has faced extinction before and survived.

    Survived yes, but anthropologists know that this was by the skin of a small gene pool.

    Go do some reading, Jared Diamond is a good starter, ‘Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Survive’, ‘Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years’ and ‘The Rise and Fall of The Third Chimpanzee: How our Animal Heritage Affects the Way We Live’, not necessarily in that order. Dawkins’ ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’ will also be a revelation to you on many levels.

    We are much better prepared for cooling or warming than ever before, so there really is no reason to be concerned.
    Adaptation is the key to survival and I’m not referring to green energy.

    OK. ‘The Exxon CEO Tillerson strategy’, well there happens to be another ignoramus, or a liar confusing ignoramuses.
    Have you any idea how long it will take for our fellow travellers in the plant, animal and other kingdoms to adapt to changed conditions of temperature, and dislocation in time and space?

    Such a comment demonstrates clearly the shallowness of your knowledge and thinking strategies.

    Given the many faceted nature of the problems that will ensue because of a warming world which has lost its polar thermostats creating drastically changed weather patterns, I.e. climates, where winds no longer blow where they did before, atmospheric moisture precipitates out (rain, snow, hail, whatever) with much altered patterns in both temporal and geographical domains, sea levels have risen flooding MOST MAJOR cities in the world which happen to be on the coast and huge swathes of low lying land in many of the river deltas and with many islands vanishing beneath the waves.
    Biological diversity so impoverished that the food web collapses. The way in which we have impoverished the soils of the world, the sea floors by trawling especially for that unsustainable prawn habit which destroys the supporting web of life on the sea floor.

    Where plagues once under control roll out across the Earth, ‘Out of Africa’ may develop a new and terrible resonance. Are you aware that even today there are cases of the Black Death in California. Good luck combating these without medicine and vaccines, remember you are isolated by flooded sea ports and disrupted air travel. Ask yourself how many major airports are near sea level.

    There will be a world similar in some ways to the post KT extinction event, or maybe even that of the late Permian.

    Some species did well of course and seem to do well. For lack of predatory fish and the fish younger stages jelly fish seem to be on the increase. I hope you like once living jello.

    You really have not thought about this have you el gordo?

    And for all those who throw the CAGW label around, would not such events be catastrophic?

  59. #59 Lionel A
    July 31, 2013

    Grrr! A HTM SNAFU there (I composed in a WP and it must have changed a double quote into other mark-up invisibly ’till done!

    The view here is from the location marked by the red blob in the direction shown by red arrow which is pointing to the church in Cardinham.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    July 31, 2013

    A few items for our resident dim bulbs to ponder:

    Greenland And Antarctica ‘May Be Vulnerable To Rapid Ice Loss Through Catastrophic Disintegration’.

    You were saying Rednoise?

    New Mexico’s Elephant Butte Reservoir Dries Up

    You were saying Rednoise?

    A Nation On Fire: Climate Change And The Burning Of America.

    You were saying about adaptation elgordo, how are you going to put out the fires when there is no nearby water?

  61. #61 Lionel A
    July 31, 2013

    Having just found my copy of the Martin Rees book (see above) I discovered an old newspaper article folded within – a habit of mine so looked it up on the web here it is and note the date .

    Another article contained within was this one now at Rense, Why Bush Advisers Fight Evidence On Climate Change

    The deniers here are more than a little slow at catching on are they not.

  62. #62 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘What is your point? The MO definitions are identical to those I gave you earlier.’

    Yes, I was interested in fleshing it out for future reference.

    And I see and understand your concerns about positive feedbacks destroying the planet, but its just a theory.

    If atmospheric temperatures remain flat for another five years and OHC also becomes flat, then its an example of negative feedback.

  63. #63 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    Lionel I have Diamond’s book and found his argument fairly convincing.

  64. #64 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    And I see and understand your concerns about positive feedbacks destroying the planet, but its just a theory.

    So how did the climate system get out of the last glacial?

  65. #65 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘Have you any idea how long it will take for our fellow travellers in the plant, animal and other kingdoms to adapt to changed conditions of temperature, and dislocation in time and space?’

    Let’s assume temperatures eventually pick up by a couple of degrees over the coming decade, any species which can’t survive that modest improvement in climate conditions deserves to go extinct.

  66. #66 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    Gordy

    If the climate is dominated by net negative feedbacks, it would stay where it is. Every push would be damped away by negative feedbacks.

    So here we are, 21ka in the depths of the last “ice age”. Wobbles in the Earth’s spin and orbit line up every 100,000 years and the NH gets hotter summers (but colder winters). This seasonal/spatial reorganisation of solar forcing is not *increase* in global solar forcing, which barely changes. This is important.

    Yet this NH push from orbital dynamics terminates glacials and triggers a ~5C increase in global average temperature.

    Negative feedbacks would quash this before it even got started. But, as we can see, this is not what happened. Positive feedbacks are required. And there have been lots of orbitally-forced glacial terminations over the last ~2.75Ma. All of which require positive feedbacks to have happened at all.

    TLDR: Paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates that feedbacks net positive.

  67. #67 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    We discussed earlier the sensitivity issue and perhaps alarmism is out of date.

    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581979-peek-inside-next-ipcc-assessment-sensitive-information

  68. #68 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘So how did the climate system get out of the last glacial?’

    Orbital forcing?

    It still appears to be negative feedback?

    The climate was getting colder at the LGM and then quite sharply the world began to warm, liberating the CO2 that had been ‘drawn down’ into the cold depths of the oceans.

  69. #69 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    Bad journalism is always with us but physics doesn’t go out of date. And paleoclimate is what is.

    Sensitivity estimates constrained by paleoclimate behaviour *still* centre on a best-estimate range of ~2.5C – 3C per doubling of CO2.

    Even if it turns out to be ~2C – 2.5C per doubling, there is no practical difference.

    Remember the underpinning argument:

    Lotharsson #37:

    Climate sensitivity in response to a double of CO2 equivalent has nothing to do with how much of a temperature rise the ecosystem can handle in a relatively short period of time without losing a whole lot of carrying capacity – in other words, without a whole lot of humans (and other life) either dying off, or not being born in the first place.

    And #42:

    The scientists who study the ecosystem are running around with their hair on fire – most recently in a link Jeff Harvey published – pointing out that we can expect much of the current ecosystem to fail to adapt to the changes we are throwing at it. If this happens, no-one – but no-one has proposed any solid “adaptation” measures that humanity can take (other than “let an awful lot of people die and hope the rest can hang on”).

    Jeff Harvey drew attention to Quintero & Wiens (2013) which Bernard J. helpfully re-linked at #17.

    All the back-and-forth about climate sensitivity tends to obscure the real issue: ecological sensitivity to rapid warming. Every indication is that it will be far higher than climate sensitivity to CO2.

  70. #70 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘Each glacial period is subject to positive feedback which makes it more severe and negative feedback which mitigates and (in all cases so far) eventually ends it.’

    wiki

  71. #71 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    Positive feedback (mainly ice albedo and reduced GHGs) maintain glacials.

    Negative feedbacks do not and can not end glacials.

    Link please.

  72. #72 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    You need positive feedbacks to terminate a glacial with only spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TIS (aka orbital/Milankovitch forcing).

    Net negative feedbacks would suppress the global climate system response and we’d still be in an “ice age.”

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2013

    Fatso said:

    Let’s assume temperatures eventually pick up by a couple of degrees over the coming decade, any species which can’t survive that modest improvement in climate conditions deserves to go extinct.

    1) “A couple of degrees over the coming decade” is 20 degrees per century. Yhis is and order of magnitude again faster than Quintero & Wiens 2013 modelled in their paper. Nothing can adapt to that rate of warming, especially if it continues for more than a decade, and more especially if it occurs on top of current warming.

    2) The opinion “any species which can’t survive that modest improvement in climate conditions deserves to go extinct” is just that – an opinion of an uneducated and unintelligent numpty, predicated on the baseless assumption that warming is an “improvement”. And no species species “deserves to go extinct” just because a knuckle-dragging oik thinks so.

    Fatso, your argument on this thread has swung between “it’s not warming” to “it’s stopped warming” to “it’s natural, ENSO” to “warming is good” to “the weak deserve to die if they can’t take the most extreme warming”. Not a single one of your kettle (il)logic stances is actually defensible.

  74. #74 BBD
    August 1, 2013

    el fatuous #68

    [BBD:] So how did the climate system get out of the last glacial?’

    [el fatuous:] Orbital forcing?

    It still appears to be negative feedback?

    Read the words.

    You still have positive and negative feedbacks muddled up.

  75. #75 bill
    August 1, 2013

    any species which can’t survive that modest improvement in climate conditions deserves to go extinct.

    What an utterly contemptible fool you are!

    How about half-educated loud-mouthed maladapted humans who just refuse to accept reality, Numpty? What do they deserve?

  76. #76 Craig Thomas
    August 1, 2013

    any species which can’t survive that modest improvement in climate conditions deserves to go extinct.</blockquote

    If the set of species that "deserves to go extinct" includes species such as,
    Gossypium
    Oryza
    Anthophila
    ,
    then you will have been demonstrated beyond all doubt to have been an ignorant, stupid fool.

  77. #77 el gordo
    August 1, 2013

    Over the Holocene temperatures have gone up and down within a band of a few degrees. Even with AGW forcing its not expected to rise beyond a couple of degrees over this century.

    So if we can’t survive its too bad.

  78. #78 bill
    August 1, 2013

    If you’re here to demonstrate that Deniers are contemptible, selfish, scientific and biological ignoramuses whose arrogance is inversely proportional to their capability you are doing an outstanding job!

    Otherwise… plonker. Take note, dear Lurker.

  79. #79 Craig Thomas
    August 1, 2013

    Why limit yourself to the Holocene?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

    How would our GDP like a 96% extinction of marine species, as has happened in the past?

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    August 1, 2013

    Over the Holocene temperatures have gone up and down within a band of a few degrees. Even with AGW forcing its not expected to rise beyond a couple of degrees over this century.

    A) Bollocks to the claimed “facts” 1: the best estimate of the Holocene variation in global average temperature is under 1C since the preceding glacial was exited (although with significant uncertainty bands attached).

    B) Bollocks to the claimed “facts” 2: the current expectation is that there’s a significant chance of hitting 3, 4, or 5+ degrees rise by 2100 – and even more warming by 2200, and more beyond that. If we reach about 4C rise it’s going to be very hard to stop it rising at that point so we’ll probably proceed to 6C+.

    C) Bollocks to the “logic”: this time yesterday my car’s speedometer registered an increase in speed of 110km/h when I left my car park and drove on the freeway. This time today I’m on the freeway doing 110km/h, so by your logic since I increased my speed yesterday at this time by 110km/h with no problems, I can do the same today. (I’m sure that will convince the nice friendly policeman who pulls me over, right?)

    Worse still: now that we’ve established that 220km/h is no problem, I’m about to do that speed on this here winding dirt track. By your logic – “logic” that dismisses all the informed discussion upthread of how conditions have changed for the ecosystem since “most of the Holocene” – that won’t be any problem either, will it? I’m safe as long as my speed increase is no more than I safely did yesterday, right?

    You really don’t put the brain in gear before you type. What’s really impressive is that you haven’t figured that out yet, despite receiving copious free information to that effect.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    August 1, 2013

    First this: “Let’s assume temperatures eventually pick up by a couple of degrees over the coming decade, any species which can’t survive that modest improvement in climate conditions deserves to go extinct”

    The this: “”As I said, life on this planet is precarious”

    What do you know about life, fatty? And more importantly, why do you persist here with his kind of willful ignorance? To reiterate what I have said before, the planet evolved the highest biodiversity quire recently – under relatively low temperature regimes and low ambient C02 concentrations. High temperatures are NOT a pre-requisite for large adaptive radiation, unless the primary producers and soil systems follow suit. The key is stability to a large degree.

    A global increase averaging – that being the key word – 2 C in the time scale envisaged will wipe out a large number species, incurring huge social and economic costs on humanity. A 4 C rise and humans are teetering on the edge of extinction; a 6 C rise and its game, set and match for us. WE CANNOT SURVIVE ON THIS PLANET UNDER THESE LATTER CONDITIONS BECAUSE OUR ECOLOGICAL LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS WILL BE SO RAVAGED THAT THEY WILL BE LARGELY DIS-FUNCTIONAL – at least in terms of supporting a large, over-consumptive rapacious bipedal primate. Get this through your thick heat Fatty. Read and repeat until it sinks in.

    The current projected rises in temperature – in terms of temporal scale – are probably unprecedented in many, many millions of years. Against this background are landscapes and marine systems already hugely simplified by a range of anthropogenic stresses. And, importantly, idiots like fatty here constantly misconstrue temperature rises as being equal. Thus, 2 C or 4 C sound modes, but in the context of largely deterministic systems they are stupendously huge, and entail non-linear variation from one region to another. So, for instance, ecosystems at higher latitudes will experience huge increase and those at lower latitudes only small increases. There will be more extreme events: heat waves, floods, droughts, and other weather-related phenomena. And of course plants and animals are genetically armed to cope within certain ‘ windows’ pertaining to temperature and other abiotic factors, as well as biotic constraints. If one reads and understands Per Bak’s analogy (using sand piles as a metaphor) ecological systems are self-organized and living close to a threshold between existence and extinction. Self-organized criticality is his term (see discussion in Levin, 1999, “Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons”, a book I reviewed for Nature).

    What really irks me is when the idiot brigade in the denialati write all of this anthropocentric crap intimating how Homo sapiens has evolved beyond natural laws, that we are effectively exempt form them etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. These morons just do not get it: that as our species continues to simplify nature, it’s capacity to support man is diminished, but not necessarily in a linear fashion. The key words are critical thresholds: where a system is so stressed that it eventually collapses giving way to an alternate – and not necessarily stable – state. Humans are pushing natural systems towards this threshold; scientists know it (see my comment about the research of Martin Scheffer yesterday). I certainly do. Against this background we have an army of deniers, some of whom are well aware of the oncoming precipice but who like things as they are and just who don’t give a damn for the plight of future generations. These people are profiting handsomely fro the current system of selfish free market absolutism and desperately want to keep the present intact and damn the future. Then we have their brainless army of acolytes, represented well on Deltoid by a number of posters, including Gordo who, in spite of his profound ignorance, fancies himself as something of an expert on environmental and climate science.

    Numbskulls like fatso here wade into areas so far beyond their competence that they effectively are hard to argue with: their arguments being below benthic.

  82. #82 bill
    August 1, 2013

    The swaggering arrogance of this colossal poltroon almost surpasses belief!

    If any single phenomenon in the contemporary world truly merits a well-deserved extinction it’s the Stupidity of this clown and his ilk.

    And, by his own ‘logic’, he will have nothing to complain of.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    August 1, 2013

    One almost suspects el gordo is not here for the hunting, if you know what I mean (a trope discussed a while back with chameleon, IIRC).

  84. #84 Bernard J.
    August 1, 2013

    One suspects that one is correct.

    One hopes that one is correct. If not, the human gene pool requires some heavy duty chlorination.

  85. #85 Lionel A
    August 1, 2013

    gordo

    Lionel I have Diamond’s book and found his argument fairly convincing.

    Which argument did you find convincing and in which of the three books that I cited did you find it?

  86. #86 BBD
    August 1, 2013

    So what science crimes has el fatuous committed in the last 24 hours? He’s misrepresented Holocene climate variability, hasn’t read Marcott et al. (2013) and won’t so why do I bother linking? For others, of course.

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

    Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

    * * *

    Here’s a pretty picture. Holocene temperature reconstruction from M13 spliced with HadCRUT4 and the A1B SRES emissions scenario to 2100CE.

  87. #87 BBD
    August 1, 2013

    # 70 You are right, it’s in the wiki. And the statement that negative feedbacks terminate glacials is flat-out wrong. Which is why you should not use wiki as a reference.

    The process of the last deglaciation is described in detail by Shakun et al. (2012). It is one of entrained positive feedbacks to orbital forcing. Quick summary (but read the paper):

    – NH summer insolation increases from ~ 21.5ka

    – By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC

    – NH *cools* as equatorial -> poleward heat transport stops

    – With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

    – Deep water warming in SH causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming

    – NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

    – Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

    Just google the acronyms.

  88. #88 Stu
    August 1, 2013

    What do you know about life, fatty

    Jeff, nokken. Why are you talking about his weight? Do you really want to share the low road with the “AlGore fat har har LOL” morons?

  89. #89 BBD
    August 2, 2013

    Stu

    Horrible feeling I’m being thick and missing the beat here, but just in case: el gordo means “the big one/fat one”.

  90. #90 bill
    August 2, 2013

    Ah, that explains it! I mean, how would we know anything about him – and we can be pretty-damn-sure it’s a him – physically?

  91. #91 Stu
    August 2, 2013

    @bill, @BBD: OH DERP. Never mind. Sorry guys.

  92. #92 chek
    August 2, 2013

    Stu, purely on the moronic outgushings we unfortunately have to witness again (after a welcome break of a few years), my guess is that ‘El Gordo’ is ‘Gordon’ trying to sound ‘cool’.

    Which has obviously worked out just as well for him as all his other drivellings,

  93. #93 BBD
    August 2, 2013

    Yes, I wouldn’t bet much money that el fatuous knew what it meant either. And even if he did, it doesn’t excuse what followed. Stu isn’t here pretending to be an expert on the Spanish language.

  94. #94 el gordo
    August 4, 2013

    El Gordo is the Fat One

  95. #95 el gordo
    August 4, 2013

    And its ironic that you think me a man, elsewhere on the blogosphere I’ve been outed as a woman.

    Naturally, because of the confusion with my gender and adult autism (alluded to on the other thread), I’m banned at a few places.

    Thanks for your patience.

  96. #96 el gordo
    August 6, 2013
  97. #97 Craig Thomas
    August 6, 2013

    Unfortunately, El Gordo, you are still getting your information from blogs.

    Why don’t you try the science instead?

    http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg

    Antarctica is losing ice at a steady rate.

  98. #98 el gordo
    August 6, 2013
  99. #99 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    East Greenland and West Antarctica there is ice loss and I’m curious to know the cause.