You already know abut the North American Conveyor current. Briefly: The major ocean currents happen because the equatorial ocean is warmer, and since water (unlike land) can move (though not as fast as air) the dissipation of this heat across the surface of the Earth results in warm water moving, at the surface, north or south away from the Equator, where it loses its heat and finds it way back to the equatorial regions, usually as deeper, cooler water.
Conveniently, this process also involves increasing the salinity of the water far from the equator, as evaporating water becomes saltier. This saltier water is therefore both cold and dense, so it sinks, drawing the warm surface water into the evaporation regions. Something like this is happening at a small scale around all the oceans, but the density driven conveyor is the biggest driver of ocean currents, most significant with respect to weather, and most famous, in the North Atlantic.
With global warming, the fresh water budget and distribution in the northern latitudes, in the Atlantic, changes, with more fresh water coming out of the Arctic and off of Greenland. This freshens up the hypersaline engine of the Atlantic Conveyor, also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). When that engine slows or shuts down, the currents in the entire North Atlantic, and beyond, change.
Here is the number one reason this is important (though number two may be more important, I'll get to that in a moment). You know how England is warm and Maine is cold, though they are both really far north? London, Saskatoon, and Adak are all at about the same latitude. Paris, Quebec City, and Thunder Bay. Northern Europe is warmish, and habitable, even in Scandinavia, because of the heat that the AMOC transfers from ocean to land.
If the AMOC shuts down or moves really far south, Scandinavia, which is at the same latitude as Hudson Bay, will act more like Central Canada, which it does not do today.
Visiting London from Minneapolis in the Winter now means going to a warmer (if dreary and foggy) place. Without the AMOC, it will be more like going to central Canada.
The above strip maps make it look like there is an equivalence across different longitudes at a given latitude. This is not true. The ocean, even without the AMOC, will still warm Western Europe. But now, there is a gradient of warmth from eastern North America over to Europe, where a mostly non freezing winter shifts north to a degree that is nothing short of spectacular. Without the AMOC, that shift will be modest. And, interior areas in Eurasia, such as Moscow, will also cool down (though relatively not as much).
Newly published research tells us something new and troubling about AMOC deterioration. Current climate models suggest that this may happen, but it is unclear to what degree and when. Physical evidence shows the actual real life weakening of AMOC in recent years. So, reality seems to be outpacing the models. Some have suggested that this means that AMOC varies a lot, and will likely swing partly out and back in. Others are not so sure.
The recent research identifies a bias in the generally used climate models that causes AMOC to be more stable and long lasting, under global warming, than it might in real life. When the model is run with and without the bias corrected, you get very different results (see graph above).
This is a preliminary finding. The model has not been run enough times, and a few other things that are usually done have not yet been done. But the results are interesting enough that it is getting some serious attention.
One of the world's experts on this topic, Stefan Rahmstorf, has written this up on RealClimate: The underestimated danger of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream System. The original research is here, but you may need a subscription.
I should mention that the collapse of the AMOC that happens when this model is run occurs in the somewhat distant future. That makes it worse, of course, because even more people will be living in, and depending on, the affected region than today. But it also allows us to ignore the problem because, hey, who cares about what happens to our children anyway, right?
Oh, and on that other thing that could happen if AMOC shuts down. This is speculative, but we do know that in the past large areas of ancient versions of the Atlantic Ocean and other seas have essentially died, become anoxic over large areas, so they become sources of dead matter rather than edible fish and stuff. This is how many of the major oil supplies we exploit today formed. I would imagine that shutting off the relatively restricted North Atlantic basin from much of the global circulation would be a first step in killing the ocean. So, there goes that food supply, and possibly, that source of oxygen. You know, for eating and breathing and stuff.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Is this the same phenomena?:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-trigg…
This might be referring to the same event:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
So if this happened, it would get colder in the Northern hemisphere and warmer in the Southern Hemisphere.
The first link mentions a 1500 year period of alternating warmer and cooler swaps between the hemispheres.
I wonder if this happens naturally?
So, is your car tyre valve more than a square inch in area?
Either go out or just take a leap of faith and see if you can remember it being bigger or smaller than the pad of your thumb. That's a pretty easy thing to remember, and you've used that memory a hell of a lot to "remember" a lot of detail already.
Is your car tyre valve more than a square inch in area?
"So if this happened, it would get colder in the Northern hemisphere and warmer in the Southern Hemisphere."
Based on what reasoning?
And aren't you supposed to be interested in arguing from ignorance on first amendment issues?
You already know you haven't a clue what the science is.
"I wonder if this happens naturally?"
What else? Aliens keep coming around to fill their buckets and halting ocean currents to do so???
Dear Wow, anonymous, Would you please be so brave to publish your real name and expertise in science. I would like to read more about your findings in this field. Kind regards, Gerrit Bogaers, Laren NH, Netherlands, Saturday 7 January 2017, 0.12, Dutch time
Gerit, would you please be so courageous as to give us your full address? Thanks.
It would get colder in the northern part of Europe.
Yes, there is probably a natural cycle, sort of a cycle, in the AMOC. But the phenomenon discussed there is not the natural cycle.
Prior examples that we know about and have studied of complete collapse have been with CO2 well believe 359.
No, Gerit? Because you would prefer some privacy? Me too.
The science is out there and easily read. Compared to the total of thousands of others, some of whom are vastly more prolific, my works are a tiny figure.
Moreover my argument here should not depend on my education, only on the validity of the reasons and evidenced put within.
@Wow. My address is Kerklaan 31, 1251 JS Laren Netherlands, I'm a lawyer specializing in world's future. I would like to get this Blog out of the anonymity. That might lead us all to a better mutual understanding.
The topic Greg brings us under our attention has connections with other earthly developments. I would like to point at another phenomenon, connected to oceans and global warming. Antarctic. BBC news, section Science and Environment, published on January 6th. 2017 next article, 'Huge Antarctic iceberg poised to break away'
by Matt McGrath Environment correspondent.
The content shows us the enormity of the developing earthchange. The original publication has photo's from NASA. I give you the text: An iceberg expected to be one of the 10 largest ever recorded is ready to break away from Antarctica, scientists say.
A long-running rift in the Larsen C ice shelf grew suddenly in December and now just 20km of ice is keeping the 5,000 sq km piece from floating away.
Larsen C is the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica.
Researchers based in Swansea say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up.
Larsen C is about 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.
Researchers have been tracking the rift in Larsen C for many years, watching it with some trepidation after the collapse of Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden break-up of the Larsen B shelf in 2002.
Last year, researchers from the UK's Project Midas reported that the Larsen C rift was growing fast.
But in December the speed of the rift went into overdrive, growing by a further 18km in just a couple of weeks. What will become a massive iceberg now hangs on to the shelf by a thread just 20km long.
Researchers have been tracking the rift in Larsen C for many years, watching it with some trepidation after the collapse of Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden break-up of the Larsen B shelf in 2002.
Last year, researchers from the UK's Project Midas reported that the Larsen C rift was growing fast.
But in December the speed of the rift went into overdrive, growing by a further 18km in just a couple of weeks. What will become a massive iceberg now hangs on to the shelf by a thread just 20km long.
The rift is about 100m wide but is estimated to be half a kilometre deep.
Images taken in November last year show the length of the rift.
"If it doesn't go in the next few months, I'll be amazed," project leader Prof Adrian Luckman, from Swansea University, told BBC News.
"There hasn't been enough cloud-free Landsat images but we've managed to combine a pair of Esa Sentinel-1 radar images to notice this extension, and it's so close to calving that I think it's inevitable."
Prof Luckman says the area that will break off will be about 5,000 sq km, a size he says that would put the iceberg among the top 10 biggest that have been recorded.
The researchers say that this is a geographical and not a climate event. The rift has been present for decades, they say, but it has punched through at this particular time.
It is believed that climate warming has brought forward the likely separation of the iceberg but the scientists say they have no direct evidence to support this.
However, they are concerned about how any break-off will impact the rest of the ice shelf, given that its neighbour, Larsen B, disintegrated spectacularly in 2002 following a similar large calving event.
"We are convinced, although others are not, that the remaining ice shelf will be less stable than the present one," said Prof Luckman.
"We would expect in the ensuing months to years further calving events, and maybe an eventual collapse - but it's a very hard thing to predict, and our models say it will be less stable; not that it will immediately collapse or anything like that."
Although science is not yet sure, I can state that there is a correlating relation between all these events, climate change inter alia by changing ocean currents.
I wish to emphasize the part in the above cited article, which draws my attention in particular, quote: "As it floats on the sea, the resulting iceberg from the shelf will not raise sea levels. But if the shelf breaks up even more, it could result in glaciers that flow off the land behind it to speed up their passage towards the ocean. This non-floating ice would have an impact on sea levels."
In my studies, which are based upon psychic predictions made by Kees de Haar, medium in Alphen aan den Rijn Netherlands (during 1984-2005) this then future development (breaking away sea-ice and after that the break away of huge landglaciers and the plunging of massive continents of land-ice into the oceans, causing tsunamis, sea- and earthquakes, changing earth and earth-axis and the position of earth in the solar system’’ form the main cornerstone of the now developing dramatic earthchange. Climate change is the introduction of planetchange.
We call this one of the five stages of the apocalypse of earth. I made a scientific study about these predictions, which are published and commented in full detail and you might be surprised, but we experience today a very serious immediate threat of real life and earth in our time.
My (three) books will be available for scientists in the beginning of 2017. Its main content is in Dutch, but my evidence and rebuttal is mainly based upon English publications of earth-scientists of all parts of the world.
Laren NH, Saturday January 7, 2017, 1.14 PM
Excuse me, I mean 1.14 AM.
"I’m a lawyer specializing in world’s future."
That appears to be a self-made title.
" I would like to get this Blog out of the anonymity. "
No, bring yourself out. And not by posting your address. If you want to be scientific, then produce the effort of the scientific method and test your assertion, be skeptical of your theory, find out if there's another explanation that has less "amazing"-ness to it and find out if it can be falsified or not, because if an ordinary answer is possible, then it's most likely that one.
This blog isn't where to do that.
Do a full investigation yourself, and submit it to a field-appropriate journal AND NOT A PAY ONE, and listen to every single piece of advice about what may be wrong with your paper.
THEN TAKE THAT ON BOARD.
Change your theory, or modify your experiment to either redress the lack or prove one or the other explanation false.
But psychic predictions, and indeed the very existence of mediums is codswallop. If you think you have found one, go talk to the James Randi foundation:
http://web.randi.org/
Where if you found one, you can kickstart your experiments and tests with a million dollars of free funding.
And don't expect anyone to believe you just because you've been convinced. DOUBLY so if you haven't even tested the claims yourself skeptically.
Could someone please interpret what Wow and Gerrit Bogaers are on about? Very confusing.
I expect that deniers will latch on to Northern Europe getting cooler as a result of global warming to claim that it proves global warming is fraudulent or can be used to make any argument. And I'm sure somehow it will come up in a discussion on FB at some point.
Any suggestions on how to make this understandable to the audience? I am assuming that the denier is not interested in understanding it so I'd mostly be arguing for the sake of the unconvinced.
Walt, Gerit is pointing to ice sheet collapse as the result of the end of the world as predicted by a danish psychic.
He's using AGW as "proof" that the psychic is correct, and therefore their claims about why the world is ending must also be correct (begging the question AND affirming the consequent, along with probably a compositional error).
Gerit copypasta'd a report of ice sheet collapse evidence and then added after that VERY LONG and inappropriate snatch of anothers' work, picked out to tire you out and make you not understand what HE is saying because it's so long and poorly formatted you forget what is going on or stop early.
I propose that he goes and sees if there are simpler explanatins and do some real science, but while he is taking as true some extraordinary claim without testing if it's real, he will get, and deserve, the reaction dean gave.
In short, Gerit is using real scientists to promote woomancer psychic phenomena as being real.
And promoting a book he's writing on it. Mustn't forget that!
Gerrit Bogaers
"I would like to get this Blog out of the anonymity."
I'd like to have enough money to give all of my young relatives secure housing, ain't going to happen either. Though if the AMOC does get messed up their descendansts wouldn't thank me for having bought them places in the UK
We already have a problem. Warm water holds less O2. The better oxygenated upper surface water in the seas has become skinnier. Bad for fish.
Dear Mr. Dean, Mr. or Mrs. Wow? Hate cannot think straight. Anyway it is your own choice to be prejudiced against a scientific study of predicaments of a Dutch, not Danish medium. Screaming out loud, nor anonymity did not help you producing convincing statements. You haven´t even read my post carefully. For you my study is still unknown, nevertheless you already have a rejecting opinion about it. Your remarks were made without proof, so they can be set aside as easy as they were made. You cry, you laugh, you mock, you detest reality which you cannot explain. This brings me to the next question are you able to bear the possible truth of my findings? I think you already have made yourselves clear about this question. You can shut the door for yourselves, but climate change will not do that. Wait and observe. Saturday 7 January 2017, 22.43 PM Dutch time.
"Dear Mr. Dean, Mr. or Mrs. Wow? Hate cannot think straight."
You need to prove hate first.
THEN you have to prove it cannot think straight.
THEN you have to go and prove that we're wrong.
Stupidity can't think straight. And doesn't even try.
Yes, they can be set aside as you say.
However, you want something of others, so that is entirely irrelevant. You have to make a case that CAN'T be set aside.
And at that you have failed.
What about poles, ocean currents and climate change? Laren NH, Sunday 8 January 2017, 1.13 AM, Dutch time.
We already know why that's happening. Your explanation isn't it.
Since the notions of mediums and psychic predictions are, regardless of xiuntrynof origin, nothing but loads of bull excrement, worth even less as descriptions of reality, there is no need to give the rest of your "science" seriously.
It wasn't hatred you detected from my post. It was laughter and derision.
It's that tone argument again, dean. IOW if our response was emotional (hatred), then it wasn't rational, and since only rational responses require attention, his refusal to deal with the argument is "rational" and not because they've got nothing.
Shorter: it's flim-flam.
'What about poles, ocean currents and climate change?'
Wow and Dean don't give a substantive reply.
Yes we did. As substantive as yours, which you deem acceptable. Want a better result, do better yourself first, prove you know how to use substantive arguments.
This Science article is something of a messaging disaster. We of tribe science read it and see it as more evidence that fossil fuels are going to do ever more damage to the climate that our very survival depends upon. They of tribe grab ( grab the money, grab the fuel, grab the power, grab the ducks, grab the .. well you know... because you are a star.) see this kind of article as inconsistent blithering ….. Make up your mind, scientists! Is it going to get hot or get cold? So, your models were all wrong! They didn't account for AMOC! See ! We told you that your models were no good!
I think that it is time that climate scientists and their supporters in the science community begin to work together towards a unified position concerning awareness of climate change and of respect for the science that supports it. We had better start figuring out how to get organized, how to exert political power, because if we don't, we can expect to continue to be ruled by the grabbers of the world..
No, we need politicians to actually do what reality says is necessary, not whatever their financial backers want them to do.
This news is purely what has been said for decades about AGW, that the UK (for example) is kept warm by the gulf stream, and without that we'd be as cold as NYC, and that climate change can shut off the gulf stream, leaving the UK freezing in winter in a warming world.
Because those blabbing on "Bring it on! I'm freezing here!" aren't guaranteed to get warmer weather (and if they're so pissed off with the weather where they live, why not move?).
What we need to do is get politicians to LISTEN to the science and get (And act on) their advice.
What Steyn, et al think they need/can do is get politicians to disregard the science and distrust the scientists and NOT act on their advice.
And they'll do anything unethical, illegal, and immoral in order to achieve that.
If they succeed, millions of people will die, thousands of species go extinct, famines and droughts will lead to widespread starvation, wars will be fought, mass relocations of refugees will occur, and fortunes will be lost.
You'd think that last one would give them pause. That's a direct threat to their gods. Talk about self-destructive!
So I've called this meeting of science peeps together to help solve the problem of disregard for and disrespect of the valuable tool known as science. I see that turnout is a little dissapointing, (3?) but let's carry on. The chair recognizes Mr. Wow...... Okay to summarize, for those you in the back of the room who can't hear , Mr. Wow is recommending the following multi-point strategy. First, just say no. Second, make a habit of manifesting oppossitional defiant disorder at every possible opportunity. Third, make it our official strategy to beat up our friends so our enemies can see how tough we are. Fourth , de-railment.of all argument not brought forth by Mr. Wow.. Fifth, advance solutions that require other people to miraculously do exactly what they are supposed to do. Thank you Mr. Wow, along with whatever fucking Russian disruption agency is paying your billls. Российская срыв агентства? Thanks. Ha ha. Just joking! Have a nice day.
Ah, right, Mr P. Totally not beating up your friends so your enemies can see how tough you are, because, ummm... We're not friends?
I don't demand you follow my strategy, or even like it. Tolerate it.
Like I do yours.
"What Steyn, et al think they need/can do is get politicians to disregard the science and distrust the scientists and NOT act on their advice."
And they do this by creating enough static (especially in the "false balance" MSM) that there is plausible deniability to reject reality from scientists.
Which is why the deniers are so desperate to get this one seen as an attack on free speech and the quashing of "the righteous few" by "the ebil gubment". Indeed Trump winning may be a good thing because they're going to have to complain about a (R) government being "the ebil". And the denialerati foot-and-mouth brigades are all salivating at getting Mann to prove he's a fraud and AGW is nonexistent as a problem, even if they have to make shit up to do so.
“I don’t demand you follow my strategy, or even like it.” Followed by, in the imperative mood, “ Tolerate it.”
Am I to take that to mean that you are commanding me to tolerate your strategy, since you used the imperative mood? Har har! Good one! Perhaps I could if I could follow it.... ““we need politicians to actually do what reality says is necessary”. Reality is apparently not speaking clearly to the policians, who, in any event, are morphing into strong men who don't need any stinking politics, thank you very much. .
“What we need to do is get politicians to LISTEN to the science and get (And act on) their advice. “ Right. Get the politicians to LISTEN to the science. Which they won't do until it is too painful for them not too. Hence the need for science types to think about how they can, in the mean time, unite into something more than a hodge podge of disparate, disoriented little interest groups and bloggers wandering around in the dark going no where. Groups like the American Bar Association or the American Medical Association have great political clout in the USA.. Scientists have yet to get their shit together and create a similar institution or alliance with comparably powerful political and messaging capabilities.
I have to go to my day job now. Can't rant any more. Have a nice day.
"Am I to take that to mean that you are *telling* me to tolerate your strategy"
FTFY
"I have to go to my day job now."
Yeah, those fries won't salt themselves.
Adult behavior Childish behavior
RickA Wow
Gerit Dean #12
Greg
Walt
Jazzlet
dean #23
SteveP
Brainstorms
Oh well - my spaces got stripped out.
wow and Dean #12 were supposed to be under Childish.
Well, that was totally not adult, dick.
And how much benefit? None.
Missed rork.
Put him under Adult behaviour.
RickA
Maybe. If the hypothesis that AMOC fluctuations were the cause of Heinrich events *during* the last glacial - not at deglaciation or after. Heinrich events are a feature of glacial climate and have not been recorded during the Holocene.
No, that article is about Meltwater Pulse (MWP) events during *deglaciation*.
"wow and Dean #12 were supposed to be under Childish"
So rickA, what part of stating "psychic predictions" and "mediums" are pools of crap are childish?
Not that I expect anything resembling a reasoned, or honest, response from you.
dean #40:
That wasn't the childish part.
It was the next part which was childish (in my opinion of course).
RickA, you are tone-trolling again...
'course he is. And sucking up to others to double down on the tone argument.
But Gerit, you've got a new friend in Ricka, swap notes on your books.
As many of us realize- the only real unknowns are the [almost all] accelerated rates of the various feedback loops. Regardless- as the science is settled , the next question is what can/will Society do? A very well written essay is in today's Salon- http://www.salon.com/2017/01/08/donald-trump-and-the-hobbling-of-shame-…....
I take Wallace's warning a step further and would argue that, much like an addict, our society will not change its behavior until it faces the direst of consequences, And like an addict, that realization might not happen until its too late....
Dear fellow-speakers,
Before Greg Laden’s Blog can be of any significance we participants on his blog should make some rules of public writing, which must be centered on concentrating om the subject, (in this topic climate, poles and ocean currents) and staying within the rules of ethical reasoning.
We must enter into dialogue with open visor (not anonymous) and with very open minds.
That is not playing on the person, not distract the topic by screaming, giving each other names, etcetera, not putting statements in one others shoe, which the other-one had not made, let alone attacking the other-one on a statement, which the other-one had not made. Stop cursing each other.
Accept the fact that more roads lead to Rome.
Respect the fact that we all come from different backgrounds, educations, practices, and belief- and philosophy systems, and accept the fact that there are no claims on truth except the development of climate and earth itself.
For better and worse we have to row with all the expertise we have, \
Not one of us has the right to curse, mock, laugh, ridicule or use foul language. We have to respect each other and serve each other wilt respect. If we do that we can develop something like a fruitful ‘du choc des opinions jaillit la vérité’. Out of the shock of colliding opinions the truth comes forward.
There is one reservation however, formulated by our Dutch poet Nicolaas Beets
„DU CHOC DES OPINIONS JAILLIT LA VÉRITÉ”
„Het botsen der gevoelens: zegt men vaak,
Kan voeren tot het ware van de zaak”.
Maar waar vooroordeel met vooroordeel strijdt,
Wat is het — dan verlies van tijd!
Schrijver: Nicolaas Beets
Translation:
„DU CHOC DES OPINIONS JAILLIT LA VÉRITÉ”
„the collision of feelings: one often states,
can lead to the truth of the case”.
But where prejudice conflicts with prejudice,
What is it— than loss of time!
For the last line I would say: What is - than loss of preparedness.
In this forum I have the impression that this blog has turned into a pub with some people, who showed their explicit will to shut up others who bring in reasonable arguments. Through this the fair warning on what might occur in the Antarctic has been shut up by emotional preference and emotional grounds of criticasters.
Because of the need to think together as well behaving people about threats of climate change. I again ask for a polite discussion about the topic changing poles, ocean current, poles.
Hope we can find each other in the above and in the following rule of reasoning: we agree to disagree.
Respectfully yours.
Gerrit Bogaers,
Laren NH, 11:56 AM Dutch time.
Curtis Goodnight, thank you for your URL. I sent it through to other people. Laren NH, Monday 9 January 2017, 12.35 PM DT
Gerrit
By its very nature, respect is earned, not freely given.
Anonymity is a right available to anyone and nobody has a *right* to demand that actual identities must be used.
You are out of order.
"" We have to respect each other and serve each other wilt respect."
By its very nature, respect is earned, not freely given."
And disrespect is not in just refraining from saying "You stupid cunt". You can refrain from all swear words and still disrespect someone. You can disrespect a group without swearing ("climate science is a fraud!" is disrespecting all climate scientists and every national body of science in the world). And you can disrespect the social aspect (playing loud music at 2am is disrespecting your neighbours).
But morons like dick and gerit only want THEM to be respected. Respecting others, to them, is solely related to using swearwords against them. OF course, them calling someone a moron isn't disrespect, and if they're ever caught out in it, they'll just say "They started it!", as if it is somehow not the case.
Adult:
dean
BBD
curtis goodnight
Gerrit Bogaers
Childish (name calling):
Wow
Adult:
Not posting a list of who is adult and who is childish.
Complete fucking moron:
Ricka.
(you DO realise that name calling includes "you're childish", right?)
"In my studies, which are based upon psychic predictions made by Kees de Haar, medium in Alphen aan den Rijn Netherlands (during 1984-2005) this then future development (breaking away sea-ice and after that the break away of huge landglaciers and the plunging of massive continents of land-ice into the oceans, causing tsunamis, sea- and earthquakes, changing earth and earth-axis and the position of earth in the solar system form the main cornerstone of the now developing dramatic earthchange. Climate change is the introduction of
"planetchange."
And GB has the audacity to demand respect after THAT silly crap? It almost makes RickA's tireless stonewalling and lies respectable.
I gotta ask - is Teh Iron Sun gonna pull us closer because of shifts in the Earth's poles?
Respect in all civilized countries, wherever they are, is a basic attitude towards all people, whether they behave (relatively of extremely) bad or good. We learned that in the Netherlands, laying for a big part under oceanlevel with reclaimed land below sealevel, polders.
In order to survive the Dutch invented the so called Poldermodel, and ‘polderen’ (make it to polder, verb).
In our small country the ones who don’t follow these rules place themselves and others out of order.
We all have to cooperate voluntarily or drown in our polders.
Respect is not the same as applause, it is a way of approach. Respect can be followed by adequate reward, be it negative or positive. Respect for the criminal is (adequate) punishment, respect for a hard working person is reward, protection to pursuit happiness, and so forth.
On this platform the following teaching of Baruch Spinoza (17th. century Dutch philosopher of wordclass) might be very helpful, ´human behavior, don´t laugh, don´t cry, don´t detest but find out why and how human behavior occurs’. In Latin of Spinoza: 'humanas actiones, non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere'. Homo Politicus, IV.1.
Each behavior gets its own reward, whatever the behavior is.
I may ask a public forum like this, that basic forms of politeness are being obeyed by us all mutually, vice versa. If we in this platform wish to raise this platform to an influential level, this platform has to earn that. Read, we have to earn that in cooperation.
If our noses stay directed in all directions concerning our individual ways of approach of other fellow members on this platform, inter alia with reactions which are blatantly clothed in swearing and ridicule, this platform will be ‘flim flam’ or any other word I read in this discussion.
Not our background (whatever that may be) counts but our behavior, our choice of words and ethics.
Are we willing to learn from each other? And that we all enjoy room, in which we can convince others or can be convinced by others of the value of statements and or hypothesis?
I would ask all of us, inclusive myself, are we wishing to debate with open visor and with politeness towards each other, without shouting or screaming to each other, protected by a veil of anonymity?
Every gathering of good name and standard follow these rules. This is necessary in case we all want to promote this blog to a level with minimum standards of qualitative good debate. I didn´t invent these rules, I learned them in my practice thanks to a diverse public of clients and many others. If we on this overexploited planet wish to survive together, (and our discussions concern this topic) we have to change the way how we behave towards each other, starting on this platform.
It can only be a success if we decide unanimously voluntarily. I’m optimistic and curious.
Regards to all, have a great day, respectfully yours, Gerrit Bogaers, Laren NH, Monday 9 January 2017, 15.54 PM.
You, GB, are pushing BAU as much as RickA and the other poor-faith actors here. Goofy hypotheses can be fun and all, but you're attempting to detract from our scientific understanding, rather than add to it.
"Respect in all civilized countries, wherever they are, is a basic attitude towards all people"
But posting your nonsense is disrespecting our intelligence and a disruption of a discussion about science.
You are STILL cherry picking what you want to be respect, and refusing to see your disrespect of everyone here, including the blog owner.
So fuck off you retarded moron. Peddle your newage woomancer shit where they're dumb enough to like it.
The youngest posts on this patform clarify and emphasize what I wanted to say in 53. RickA shows us a mirror, what do we see? What do we do? Laren NH, Monday 9 January 2017, 16:12 PM DT.
Hey, boogers, what was "disrespectful" about my post at #13?
Did you listen to it or acknowledge it in ANY way?
No.
Because to YOU "respect" means "Listen to the shit that's coming out of my keyboard and accept it as real!".
Fuck off.
Boogers, when you proclaim:
“Dear Mr. Dean, Mr. or Mrs. Wow? Hate cannot think straight.”
You're disrespecting Dean and me.
We have a saying in Holland:
Gerrit
And:
Even in worst-case scenarios, the drainage of the WAIS and vulnerable sectors of the EAIS will take centuries. Consequent SLR will be on multicentennial timescales.
Yes, it will be a civilisation-straining disaster. Yes, it might be the final straw for a struggling future humanity.
No, it won't happen cataclysmically all at once as you suggest. That is unphysical and conflicts directly with the current scientific understanding of the Antarctic ice sheets.
Yes, a large transfer of mass from cryosphere to ocean will alter length of day. No, it won't be by all that much. No, it won't alter the Earth's orbit.
Are you prepared to learn from science?
That's not a mirror, Gerrit. It's a piece of cardboard.
What we see is that RickA has zero topic knowledge and an absolute commitment to reject information that would require him to revise his opinions. We see that RickA is sunk deep in denial.
"RickA shows us a mirror..."
RickA refuses to discuss AGW in good faith, here and elsewhere. That he clings to such nonsense as 20,000-year warming trends and mechanism-free climate change after YEARS of having been spoon-fed the appropriate citations and links discredits his feeble attempts at tone trolling.
What's YOUR excuse, GB?
(Thanks for the lucid response @ 60, BBD.)
We have a saying in the real world, boogers.
What we see is that RickA has zero topic knowledge and an absolute commitment to reject information that would require him to revise his lifestyle.
FTFY
We have a saying in Holland: 'Wat je zegt ben je zelf', meaning 'What you say are yourself´. Childish people get this in return when they start calling another names. Wow and Dean share a pattern trying to turn everything in the opposite direction and in doing trying to ruin a debate.. They really hate opponents. and they use all tactics to get this topic off track. it unfutting. My advice to both is stop throwing insults, sibbling and babycrying. Let´s get back to the topic. Laren NH, Monday January 9th. 2017, 7:50 PM DT.
#60.
‘What you say are yourself´
So you're speaking out of hate then.
But we have a saying: man who speak in fucked tongue is dumb as shit.
Uh...maybe this isn't the place to present psychic predictions for "debate."
Just sayin'.
"Childish people get this in return when they start calling another names"
Then you need to see who started, boogers.
And define what "calling names is". After all, when dick called you Gerit, that was calling you a name. when dick says mann is a fraud, that's calling him a name. When you claim this blog anonymous, you're calling both the blog (the work of the ower) and everyone on it names.
But you don't know what you're talking about, you only have pathetic rhetoric and self pity because your bullshit isn't being taken as the gospel truth you so truly believe it to be.
Get over yourself cupcake, you're working with adults now, not credulous children (well, dick and loco excepted), and we need more than pretty stories to make us feel safe.
And you also wish to avoid having to do any work yourself. You want people to believe your bullshit until they can prove it wrong *to you*. You don't see as having to do any work yourself.
You also avoided showing what was disrespectful in post 13, the ignoring of which proves that you don't care for respect, you're only using a tone argument and a phrasing of yourself as "the victim" to try and shame everyone else for "being mean".
Those are the techniques used in the playground, mostly abandoned by children when they reach 11.
"Childish people get this in return when they start calling another names."
Whether you are intentionally missing the point or truly are clueless I don't know.
Nobody here (except rickA) denies the serious issues climate change confronts us with, nobody here denies the tremendous struggle we face in communicating the issue to the public and our leaders, especially in the face of the overwhelming volume of pure noise from the deniers.
Those were not the subject of the reactions to your first post. As soon as you speak of "psychics" and "mediums" and their "predictions" as though they are anything to be seriously considered you are removed from consideration as having any serious point to make.
You were (deservedly) mocked for the non-science crap, Period.
BBD 60. Yes, I learn a lot of science. All signs in the field point at a possible collapse. You are talking about centuries. But don't be surprised if the generation of 1937 and younger experience a much earlier disaster on both poles. We already see many changes. The mass needed for a disaster we find in the landice of the Antarctic. And yes, it is possible that this demolitionprocess might take more time. For a part the demolitionprocess is being caused by humans, CO2 and other greenshouse gases etcetera. Another cause is the biological clock of earth. There might be a chance of temporizing the demolitionprocess.
My study is an examination of the messages De Haar received in 1984-2005 against the findings of science. We really have to stop the thought that the demolitionprocess is a process which can last for centuries to come. The tipping point is what it is: a tipping point. In the light of earth existence it can happen in a blink of an eye. My study is the result of analyzing séances, climate and earth developments and correspondence with science and state organs. When will the tipping point occur? Nobody knows. It will occur, only the time is uncertain. Tempus non certum est. I just wanted to emphasize that there are relations between inter alia ocean currents and the rapidity with which the deterioration process of both poles is developing. I described a possible explanation what causes the tipping points between interglacial and glacial and the sudden speed of continental plates. I have made this public on several occasions. Inter alia by sending my three manuscripts to several professors in the world of science in in April, May 2016.
The simple truth is, none of us has experience with former tipping points and no one is able to deny or exclude my theory and hypothesis. Fact is that in the last fifteen years many things of the predicaments Kees de Haar has received in the period 1984-2005 have come to surface in reality.
One can find it in three books, which have been written with scepsis. Scientists have to inquire everything in the reality inclusive the possibility of other sources than men.
My only objective is making people aware of possible developments of planet and humanity, to take the right measures, if possible, and as long as we still have time.
No more no less. What people do with it or not do with it, is all in their hands, inclusive rejection.
And yes, I know that I will meet a heap of emotional and intellectual resistance, see the curses I received, but that is what I can expect. It is part of the process. Laren NH, Monday 9 January 2017, 17:57 PM DT.
"Scientists have to inquire everything in the reality inclusive the possibility of other sources than men."
Aye, and there's the rub.
So you acknowledge that the psychic prediction contradicts scientific understanding of ice sheet dynamics?
Yes?
"BBD 60. Yes, I learn a lot of science. All signs in the field point at a possible collapse."
OK, so what is this collapse?
You see, we here in reality know that we're pumping out CO2 like a bitch and this is causing rapid warming of the earth and the climate change resulting will cause havoc with our civilisation.
You seem to be thinking this is some sort of Nibiru like galactic apocalypse.
And THAT is ridiculous.
"Scientists have to inquire everything in the reality inclusive the possibility of other sources than men."
THAT is ridiculous too.
No, scientists DON'T have to, and YOU haven't inquired into the possibility that you are wrong and the medium was running a con.
But you go ahead, investigate. Nobody is stopping you.
You're wrong and wrongheaded. And yes, I know that I will meet a heap of emotional and intellectual resistance, see the curses I received, but that is what I can expect.
Ain't it odd how dick isn't skeptical or calling boogers an alarmist and fraud for booger's apocalyptic and alarmist predictions.
It's like either he knows that is a load of hooey or his "skepticism" is reserved only for climate science.
The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.
The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.
(Zounds! My response at #74 misquoted AND misspelled the Bard.)
Take a look at Figure 3 from Ljungquist 2010:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x/pdf
Lets look at the natural temperature swings before 1700 and the potentially human caused temperature swing after 1700.
I see a -0.5C temperature swing from the roman warm period to the dark age cold period (200 ad to 350 ad).
I see a +0.7C temperature swing from the dark age cold period to the medieval warm period (550 - 950 ad).
I see a -0.9C temperature swing from the MWP to the bottom of the LIA (950 - 1700 ad).
Now lets say all the warming after 1700 is 100% caused by humans - that would be a +1.1C swing from about -.7 to +.4 - and that is using instrument temperature data not proxy data (which ends at +.2).
First, I see natural temperature swings which are very large (pre-1700).
I see a recent warm swing which is .2C larger than a natural temperature swing of -0.9C (1.1 - 0.9).
I also personally believe that not all of the warming from 1700 to present is attributable to humans - which also factors into my thinking.
So looking at this graph - and just looking at the proxy - we are up 0.2C over 2000 years.
Adding in temperature data (which I explained on the other thread isn't really an apples to apples comparison), we are up 0.4C over 2000 years.
Netting the -0.9C from the +1.1C swing (and using instrumental) - we are up 0.2C from the LIA to present.
So it is possible that the human contribution is as small as 0.2C to 0.4C, or as large as 1.1C - depending on how you look at the data.
1.1C from 1700 to 2000 is .03667 C per decade, and how much of that is natural?
0.4 C over 2000 years is .002 C per decade, and how much of that is natural?
0.2 C (either just the proxy increase or by netting 1.1 - 0.9) is 0.00667 C per decade from 1700.
The last is of course subtracting the largest natural swing from the largest positive swing (attributing it all to humans) over 300 years.
.2C over 2000 years is 0.001C per decade.
So that is what I see when I look at this 2000 year reconstruction.
Are humans contributing to warming?
Yes.
How much?
I don't know (but wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be 1/2).
I don't think saying humans have caused 1.1C of warming since 1700 is being fair to the data - but one could have that opinion.
Also, one could opine that humans have caused 0.2C of warming since 1700.
The large natural swings, even over the last 2000 years create a great deal of uncertainty (for me)(+0.7 over 400 years and -0.9 over 750 years are examples). This averages to potential 0.8C natural swing over 400 to 750 years.
And all of these temperature swings (prior to 1700) are NOT due to CO2, while some portion of the temperature rise since 1700 is due to CO2 (but I don't think we know how much is due to humans and how much to nature).
Now BBD will point out how this makes the climate more sensitive - but I disagree. CS is only looking at CO2 and I see large non-CO2 swings caused by nature, which I net out from the proposed human caused warming from CO2.
Personally I look at the data and I think CS will be less than 2.0C, which is the range of 1.5C to 4.5C that the IPCC says is the CS range. But that is just a layman guess from my reading, and is just an opinion.
If CS is 2.0C how large is the problem - really?
We have gone up 1C and I don't see any large problems. The world is 14% greener, we grow more crops, we feed more people and sea level was up 8 inches last century. In Minnesota, summers are not much warmer - but nights and winter has warmed. This is not a problem, to me.
Maybe we will go up another 1C if we hit 560 ppm (as we equilibrate)? Maybe 2C if the consensus is correct.
What is the cost to prevent this?
I don't know.
How much warming will be prevented at what cost, if we go balls to the walls to stop emitting CO2?
I don't know.
I suspect (because I think CS is on the low end) that we will spend a great deal and stop not very much warming. I suspect it will be very bad for poor people worldwide to make all energy, food, transportation, heating and cooling more expensive.
So personally, I am not sure the benefit is worth the cost - or said another way - I think the cost outweighs the benefit.
In the meantime - I personally would be in favor of generating as much nuclear power as possible - to switch as much as possible to a non-CO2 generating energy source.
Those are my thoughts on climate change (for what they are worth).
How unreasonable are my thoughts really?
"Take a look at Figure 3 from Ljungquist 2010:"
Why that one?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
Oh, because that's an extreme outlier. So why not take MBH98 or 99?
"Now lets say all the warming after 1700 is 100% caused by humans "
However, the overall trend is downward for the past 8000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:Holocene_T…
And the sun is quieter now, and been dropping since the 80s.
"First, I see natural temperature swings which are very large (pre-1700)."
But much lower than the current drift, which is very quick compared to those and shows no sign of stopping, nor has any reason to stop.
"We have gone up 1C and I don’t see any large problems. "
So what? Have you looked? Is any problem you've seen dismissed as "Weather" or "not due to climate change"? In which case you're merely editing out evidence to "support" your "don't see" which is merely willful blindness to reality.
".2C over 2000 years is 0.001C per decade."
And we're changing it by 0.15C/decade. 150 times faster. "You don't see" that, though.
"Personally I look at the data and I think CS will be less than 2.0C, "
So not 1.5C as claimed before.
And we have TCR at 2.2 already. Even with your cherry pick of the outlier in your favour, you admit it is 2C, and we're not at equilibrium. So it;'s already well above 2C,and now little different to the IPCC best estimate of 3C per doubling.
"How unreasonable are my thoughts really?"
Your "I don't know"s are irrelevant and completely lacking in reason.
Your suspicion is based on nothing, therefore also lacks any reason.
Your assumption that power will be more expensive is made up out of think air, and so lacks all reason.
Your personal assessment is based on nothing, even you admit "don't know", so to make your claim you have to ignore your ignorance, which is 100% unreasonable.
And your idea to move to nuclear would have been doable 20 years ago, but morons like you who "don't know" but didn't want to change anything kept insisting it wasn't proven yet and we HAD TO wait. Therefore it's based off a problem you made and is too late to bother with now.
Moreover, since you complained about making power more expensive would be bad for the poor, and given that nuclear power is the most expensive method of power production (or very close) whilst most of those poor areas have solar as the cheapest and wind as the second cheapest methods of producing power, BOTH claims are shown for the shallow and unreasoned crazy of the idiot in full swing.
So, "how unreasonable" are your thoughts? Entirely.
@ Dean and Wow, thanks for your lessons in swearing, etcetera.
@ As far as Kees de Haar and I are concerned we wish that the predictions fail. We wait and see.
@Rick A. Interesting calculation. What do scientists say? Non-CO2 generating energy sources, without earth pollution can be found in diverse forms. Nuclear power has the disadvantage of contributing to pollution and contamination of our earth for many generations. Nuclear and other pollution are contributing to the state our earth is in now. Laren NH, Monday January 9th. 2017, 19:12 PM DT.
OK, lets try this.
FORGET *everything* so far on this thread. You;ve not posted anything, I've not posted anything, dean's not posted anything, NOBODY has posted anything.
Just pretend that's the case, OK?
NOW:
What do you want to say to me? If you want to just point to one single earlier post, then do so, or make a new and shorter post that gets to what YOU want to say to ME.
Then I will respond once.
If you don't like my response, then talk to someone else.
And I will refrain from all swearing in that one post.
No, it isn't.
You don't understand the topic and you are spouting crap again.
Totally wrong and asserted with the usual utter confidence of deniers being wrong. CS is the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 or equivalent change in forcing.
So more natural variability is a powerful indicator that the climate system is indeed rather sensitive to radiative perturbation whether from changes in solar output or atmospheric concentration or both.
Will you for God's sake just read a bloody textbook?
Oh, I know, too lazy and too sunk in denial. Here's another link for you to ignore (emphasis in original):
* * *
Ljungqvist in the mouths of deniers... again. Yawn. Read the SkS link that Wow posted:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
Gerrit
And previously:
Nobody here bar RickA (as far as I am aware) seeks to deny that there may be tipping points. The unstoppable, gravity-driven drainage of the WAIS may well be subject to such an irreversible trigger. I personally believe not only that it is, but that we may already have passed the point of no return (Rignot et al. 2014; Joughin et al. 2014). This could ultimately destabilise sectors of the EAIS, notably the Wilkes Basin (Mengel & Levermann 2014).
See - it's terrifying and not a psychic in sight. Just science.
Staying within the limits of scientific knowledge *strengthens* your position when you try to broaden awareness of climate risks. Resorting to the pronouncements of psychics profoundly undermines your credibility. This is the exact opposite of your stated aim:
IMO you would do much better to stick to the science as the basis from which to push back against denialism and raise general awareness of the dangers ahead.
Also, please try to avoid completely inaccurate and highly alarmist claims. These further undermine your credibility and derail the very thing you are attempting to do.
This is confused. A tipping point is just a trigger for irreversible environmental change. In the case of WAIS drainage, that change will be measured on the multicentennial scale but we may already have passed the tipping point that makes centuries of relentless sea level rise inevitable. There is no contradiction at all between the concept of tipping points and the long-term consequences of passing them.
@ Corey
A pox on't, i' faith.
" Dean and Wow, thanks for your lessons in swearing, etcetera"
Thanks for the continued lesson in missing the point. By contaminating your message with the crap about some fake psychic you paint yourself as a kook.
BBD 76
Thank you for bringing under my attention a possible uncertainty concerning the word ´against´ I used in post 60.
I formulated in post 60, (quote:) "My study is an examination of the messages De Haar received in 1984-2005 against the findings of science."
´Against´ in that sentence means: 'in the light of later developments of our planet, established by science'.
I can answer you that many of the messages De Haar received in 1984-2005 have been confirmed by developments in the field as have been established by science. The nowadays known tremendous speed of ice melt worldwide, on all continents, the poles, the loss of Northpole sea-ice, the stronger drift of icebergs, the changing ocean currents, the causes and consequences, the acceleration of the number and fortitudes of earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, tsumami´s, draughts, fires, the shortage of water, heavy rainfall, hailstorms, the floods and floodings, the rising temperatures in Hollands summers, (in some cases 14 or more month's on forehand, which appeared to be dead right) ), etcetera, everything people would laugh at in 1984 till the first half of the nineteen nineties, is presenting itself more and more. Scientists establish more relations between all these phenomena. There is no contradiction between the main stream of nowadays science and the great lines of messages De Haar received. Inter alia the scientific understanding of ice sheet dynamics have been predicted by Kees de Haar. We warned our government and other organizations for this in the nineteen nineties, early twothousand zero´s . The proof is in my books. I haven't withheld anything. There are four other fields of remarkable developments in our planet under stress about which Kees received messages in séance. Many of them came true. Everything has been described, checked and commented by me. The hits, the misses and the messages of which the outcome is uncertain. Not everything came true, but many things did. I put everything in three books. Denying the spiritual part of reality is as strange as denying the orbit of earth around the sun. People spend billions of dollars each year looking for extra terrestrial life in universe, but are blind for the spiritual world around them on this planet. This not a plea for returning to middle-ages. On the contrary. We enjoy the good things of renaissance till now, but scientists may become more modest. Outside the reality understood by science there is a bigger field science has not yet understood. Scientists could benefit by a beginning of admission that spiritual life is part of us. I don't ask to loose scepsis, on the contrary. But i may hope for at least some agnostic acceptance of spiritual life. What are we more than spirits in a temporary body? Where are we going when we die? The statement of Epicurus and others that there is nothing left of us after life is a misconcept. We are more than our brain. At last I want to express my hope that climate scientists are not being stopped by president Trump c.s. and that science can do its quest for knowledge of our planet and life in the interest of us all. Laren NH, Monday 9 January 2017, 21.23 PM DT.
OK, lets try this.
FORGET *everything* so far on this thread. You;ve not posted anything, I’ve not posted anything, dean’s not posted anything, NOBODY has posted anything.
Just pretend that’s the case, OK?
NOW:
What do you want to say to me? If you want to just point to one single earlier post, then do so, or make a new and shorter post that gets to what YOU want to say to ME.
Then I will respond once.
If you don’t like my response, then talk to someone else.
And I will refrain from all swearing in that one post.
Wow #84:
What do you think should be done about climate change?
In other words, what is your idea for a plan to deal with the problem?
"What do you think should be done about climate change?"
Why the hell are you asking that about a problem you don't even accept is real?
And here's a thought.
When the problem is anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 from fossil fuel burning, maybe we should STOP FUCKING BURNING FUELS Where's the "OMG!" moment where you got that, moron?
Not burning fossil fuels isn't an option.
In 2015 the United States obtained 66% of its electricity just from coal and natural gas.
See here:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Your plan is no good.
God but I'm sick of your cant RickA.
It just repeats, over and over and over again. Now we are back to the 'what would you do' crap.
We know what to do. Decarbonise electricity supply by shifting away from coal-fired generation to gas to nuclear and renewables.
Phase out oil by electrification of personal transport. Yes, HGVs and container ships may still need diesel and bunker. Nothing's perfect.
Phase out self-indulgent air travel. There is no excuse.
Phase out self-indulgent energy wastage. Americans use *twice* the energy that Europeans and Brits do and there is no excuse.
Etc.
Oh, and a zero-tolerance policy on denialism needs to come into force. IMO it should be treated on a par with advocating race hate or similar toxic shit that no decent human being would tolerate.
"Not burning fossil fuels isn’t an option."
Yes it is.
It doesn't burn itself, and it doesn't hold a gun to our heads and force us to burn it, so we just stop doing the burning.
Then 0% of the energy in the USA will be from fossil fuels. That's what stopping means.
Argument from assertion is a logical fallacy.
And Rick, this is bollocks:
Don't just blank it. Let's have an admission out of you that you were wrong.
RickA writes: "Your plan is no good"
Is that your idea of a proof? Quoting a statistic? C'mon, I think you're a little brighter than that (though I could be wrong).
You would need to show that there is no way to significantly reduce our current consumption without effects more adverse than doing nothing (BAU).
It is quite feasible to reduce our consumption and dependence on FF dramatically - but it requires not just a national (USA), but an international desire to do so. Put the world on a WWIII footing to attack the problem and it's actually rather manageable. Today.
Every day/week/month/year we wait makes it more difficult.
Aye, it would be just as "valid" to claim it can be done because 34% of the USA's energy was from non-fossil fuel sources.
BBD #98:
According to the IPCC (2007):
8.6 Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks
8.6.1 Introduction
Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2). Spread in model climate sensitivity is a major factor contributing to the range in projections of future climate changes (see Chapter 10) along with uncertainties in future emission scenarios and rates of oceanic heat uptake. Consequently, differences in climate sensitivity between models have received close scrutiny in all four IPCC reports. Climate sensitivity is largely determined by internal feedback processes that amplify or dampen the influence of radiative forcing on climate. To assess the reliability of model estimates of climate sensitivity, the ability of climate models to reproduce different climate changes induced by specific forcings may be evaluated. These include the Last Glacial Maximum and the evolution of climate over the last millennium and the 20th century (see Section 9.6). The compilation and comparison of climate sensitivity estimates derived from models and from observations are presented in Box 10.2. An alternative approach, which is followed here, is to assess the reliability of key climate feedback processes known to play a critical role in the models’ estimate of climate sensitivity.
This section explains why the estimates of climate sensitivity and of climate feedbacks differ among current models (Section 8.6.2), summarises understanding of the role of key radiative feedback processes associated with water vapour and lapse rate, clouds, snow and sea ice in climate sensitivity, and assesses the treatment of these processes in the global climate models used to make projections of future climate change (Section 8.6.3). Finally we discuss how we can assess our relative confidence in the different climate sensitivity estimates derived from climate models (Section 8.6.4). Note that climate feedbacks associated with chemical or biochemical processes are not discussed in this section (they are addressed in Chapters 7 and 10), nor are local-scale feedbacks (e.g., between soil moisture and precipitation; see Section 8.2.3.2).
Let me pull out what makes me think CS is defined in term of CO2:
"It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2)."
A doubling of atmospheric CO2.
That is CO2 going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
That is why I said what I said - and I don't think I am wrong.
Argument from self-indulgence is a moral failing and logical fallacy.
You have not understood the text. First sentence:
The IPCC uses the forcing change from 2x CO2 but it could be any equivalent change in forcing.
You were - and still are - wrong.
This crap is still crap too:
So admit your errors please.
Look everybody.
Wow asked me to ask him what I wanted him to answer.
I did.
He said to stop burning fossil fuel.
I am simply pointing out that his plan is not workable.
The USA is currently obtaining 66% of its electricity from fossil fuels.
The EIA thinks we will be obtaining 80% of our electricity from natural gas by 2040.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel.
Renewables are wonderful - but they currently CANNOT replace fossil fuels.
Don't get mad at me.
Invent some other form of energy which is cheaper than natural gas, oil and coal, which doesn't burn fossil fuels.
Otherwise, you are just wishing - and wishing won't work.
Get realistic.
A plan of "stop burning fossil fuels" is dead on arrival.
JEsus christ, dick, you're a fucking moron.
"A doubling of atmospheric CO2.
That is CO2 going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm."
Dick, where did that definition say "280" had to be the starting point???
And remember, the pressure in your car tyre, which you admit having done yourself, so no worldwide scam to install a New World Order, is measured in Pounds Per Square Inch, yet measured WITHOUT HAVING A FULL SQUARE INCH TO MEASURE ACROSS.
"I am simply pointing out that his plan is not workable."
Look everybody! Rick thinks that claiming something is "pointing it out"! Well, given I've pointed out it is entirely workable...
Hey, don't get mad at me.
"Renewables are wonderful – but they currently CANNOT replace fossil fuels."
Yes they can. And they have to eventually anyway.
Just pointing it out. No need to get mad, bro.
BBD #103:
It is defined in terms of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nobody cares if the forcing doubles due to a doubling of output from the sun.
It is defined as CO2 going from 280 to 560 ppm in the atmosphere.
Point me to another definition please - because I gave you mine, and my support for it.
Repeating an argument from assertion does not stop it being a logical fallacy.
You're just doubling down on the denial, that is all.
"It is defined in terms of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere."
No it isn't.
"It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration"
Wrong again, dick.
"It is defined as CO2 going from 280 to 560 ppm in the atmosphere."
No it isn't. Only you've said that. Nowhere else does it claim that.
"Point me to another definition please"
Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2).
8.6 Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks - AR4 WGI Chapter 8: Climate ...
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html
BBD 86. The tipping points of sudden changes of interglacial into glacial periods as portrayed in graph's are very sharp. Those points are known but the professor scientist who showed her public a graph with these sharp turning points could not tell anything about the length of time involved in the tipping. Inspired by the messages De Haar received about the next coming tipping point I bound one and one together and arrived at my hypothesis that this point happens exactly in a tremendous short period as was foretold. It begins with the free coming of the incredibly huge mass, necessary to change earth, caused by plunging into the oceans of vast pieces of land (Land ice) of two till three kilometers thick (probably in the west of the Antarctic) and with surfaces of a big country like France (550.000 sq. kms) and or of Spain (500.000 sq. kms). The process later described by science till now and further on has been predicted by De Haar, exactly as it went in later scientific explorations till now. We wait and see what happens more. We hope the messages will not come true, but we must do something with them, we must not keep them under the carpet. Although, we have the same feeling as you have, we are too late. This has been foretold Kees de Haar c.s. by the guiding spirits coming to the 85 séances as of 1984 until 2005. No state listened to the outcome of the report of the club of Rome, 1972! But we still have to try to save what can be saved. Only people can make a start with that.
I understand your statement that it is more acceptable for public when spiritual sources are not mentioned by me, but you are overlooking one point. In 1984, (by that time I was a young 33 year young solicitor) I met De Haar. He told me several of his predictions. He appeared to be genuine and authentic. I witnessed his séances in small groups. I'm a solicitor and trained in registration, observing and analyzing. So it was not by coincidence that I got the séance news right from its receiver-medium. I followed the outcome, hits, failings, everything. I find it my duty to make these séances public, inclusive all aspects, turning the esotery into exotery, verifiable, and so on. Following the rules of Popper. I was not called to write about climate change. I was called to write about spiritual life, God, Christ, the forces of good, the forces of evil, the world denies. Writing and giving through the anger of the God and Christ how we abuse his creation, planet earth, life, the way we treat and abuse each other and ourselves. So it must not come as a surprise that scientists and I meet, quarrel, discuss. In this case about ocean currents, the poles and climate change, read earth change. The films of NASA and others proof exactly and in the order of appearance which was foretold to De Haar.
That comes as surprise for you and others out of a non-expected corner is no wonder. That this can come as a shock, is completely natural and understandable. But face it where two realities meet this happens. The energy on this blog, now, a kind of shockwave, heaps of laughter, mocking, condemning, cursing, etcetera. Did you see this before in a supposedly learned discussion? We have a saying, better be shy with it, than being shy for it. Only the truth can bear criticism. Hope to meet you once under mutual good circumstances. Good luck with everything you do for the safekeeping and preservation of earth. Kind regards, Laren NH, Monday 9 January 2017, 22.33 PM DT.
Here.
Read it properly. The 4W/m^2 from doubled CO2 could be from *anything*. It's just convention that people tend to talk about CS as though it *only* referred to CO2.
It doesn't.
You have misunderstood the text.
You don't know what you are talking about and frankly - I do. So stop fucking well pretending you know better. It is irritating, to put it mildly.
* * *
In addition to your apology for doubling down on the wrongness about CS definition, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that you were wrong about natural variability and high CS.
Come on.
BBD, if you want to stop booger pestering you, you can just repeat my query.
That seems to stop them ever talking to you again.
It's super effective.
Also here:
Why does nobody react on:
Kevin O'Neill, 99,
United States
January 9, 2017
"It is quite feasible to reduce our consumption and dependence on FF dramatically – but it requires not just a national (USA), but an international desire to do so. Put the world on a WWIII footing to attack the problem and it’s actually rather manageable. Today.
Every day/week/month/year we wait makes it more difficult."
Make our planet earth safe and sound again.
Good night folks. I take a nap. Till next time.
Laren NH, Monday 9th January 2017, 23.03 PM DT.
"Trump adviser Bob Walker, a former House Science Committee chair, has said he believed NASA should end its climate monitoring programs, which he calls "politically correct environmental monitoring.""
Well, there you go. That will save somebody some money.
What we need now is more people like Lamar Smith and Jimmy Inhofe in charge of various congressional and senate committees on Science. They can give us more of what we really deserve....politically incorrect environmental monitoring! And it won't cost hardly nothing!
The concept that the physical sciences are vitally important to our nation and to humanity is apparently lost on the legions of Duck Dynastry fans now swarming the bridge and about to take the helm. Christian dominionism anyone?
Well.
Have a nice day!
BBD #115:
Your very own source says this:
"As just mentioned, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (from the pre-Industrial value of 280 parts per million) in the global atmosphere causes a forcing of 4W/ m2. The central value of the climate sensitivity to this change is a global average temperature increase of 3°C (5.4°F), but with a range from 1.5°C to 4.5°C (2.7 to 8.1°F) (based on climate system models: see section 4). "
So there example is also a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560, causing a change of forcing of 4W/ m2.
Now I get that you can convert Methane to CO2 equivalent or land use changes - although I have never seen any calculations for this.
I have never seen anyone talk about CS in terms of changes in natural forcing.
I have never seen anyone talk about how CS dropped from the MWP to the LIA (the 0.9C drop in temperature from 950 ish to 1700 ish AD) - or a calculation of what CS dropped to to cause that centuries long cooling period.
But I admit - I am not a climate scientist.
From my reading - CS is always in terms of CO2 doubling.
That is the metric.
That is what "they" want us to stop emitting.
So I do feel that CS is measured in terms of CO2 - because that is what I read.
"Your very own source says this:
“As just mentioned, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide..."
Where does it say that the definition of climate sensitivity is the temperature change when CO2 doubles form 280ppm to 560ppm?
"From my reading – CS is always in terms of CO2 doubling."
That's because you haven't read what the definition is, which BBD gave you. And even that statement there, wrong as it is, doesn't define it as doubling from 280ppm.
"That is the metric."
No it isn't.
"So I do feel that CS is measured in terms of CO2 – because that is what I read."
Then read what BBD said. and you will no longer feel that CS is measured in terms of CO2.
And note that you STILL haven't realised you've just scuppered your claim it was "from 280ppm to 560ppm".
Gerrit #118:
From my standpoint - I didn't respond because it sounds like more wishful thinking to me.
It requires an international desire - sure.
If the desire was there we would have done it already.
The desire is not there - because the people in charge know that to just stop burning fossil fuels would kill to many people to be tolerated.
The only way to stop burning fossil fuels is to provide an alternative which is CHEAPER than fossil fuels.
Alternative energy is still more expensive.
Nuclear (my preference) is still more expensive.
Nobody has invented the solution yet.
Without a solution - it would be folly to just shut down all fossil fuel energy production.
"Nobody has invented the solution yet."
Yes they have.
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Tidal.
Without knowing it's safe, it would be folly to continue to burn fossil fuels.
Wow #121:
Please read #120 again.
Please read #101 again.
The 280 to 560 CO2 is not in question.
BBD isn't arguing about that - he is saying it can be any change in forcing - not just CO2.
I am saying all I have every seen is the change in forcing from doubling CO2.
That is what the IPCC used to define the 1.5C to 4.5C range we have been talking about for 25ish years - the change in forcing from doubling CO2 from 280 (pre-industrial level) to 560 ppm.
RickA
Wrong.
Here is an example from a carefully written paper where climate sensitivity is expressed *first* as a response to a radiative perturbation with no assigned cause (Kelvin per Watt per m^2) and *only then* quantified in terms of a doubling of CO2 (my emphasis):
All you have to do is admit that you were mistaken about the correct definition of CS and about the inseparability of natural variability and high CS.
Are you so dishonest that you refuse even this trivial demonstration of good faith?
"The only way to stop burning fossil fuels is to provide an alternative which is CHEAPER than fossil fuels."
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/05/04/1437207/new-record-set-for…
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, RickA.
Thank you for playing.
Wow #123:
Those all cost more than fossil fuels.
If they were cheaper and available in sufficient quantities, people would adopt from pure economics.
I said CHEAPER than fossil fuels.
That has not been invented yet.
That is what we need.
"Please read #120 again.
Please read #101 again.
The 280 to 560 CO2 is not in question."
About what?
"BBD isn’t arguing about that – he is saying it can be any change in forcing – not just CO2"
Yes. And he's right. You are wrong.
"I am saying all I have every seen is the change in forcing from doubling CO2."
And all we're saying is that you're wrong, it's ANY forcing to the earth's radiative forcing, notjust a doubling of CO2. Did you read that? Then it's no longer true that "all [you] have seen is the change in forcing from doubling CO2".
"That is what the IPCC used to define the 1.5C to 4.5C range we have been talking about for 25ish years "
No, they used all forcings. Go read what BBD passed on, or read the IPCC reports yourself.
"Those all cost more than fossil fuels."
No they don't.
And while fossil fuels are increasing in price, solar and wind are dropping quickly.
As usual, you dishonestly avoid the relevant text (my comments in square brackets are to help you understand what the words mean since you are clearly way out of your depth]:
You don't understand the topic.
"I said CHEAPER than fossil fuels."
Yes.
Solar.
Wind.
Tidal.
Geothermal.
"Please read #101 again."
Is that where you say
"That is CO2 going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm."
?
Because that's not in any of your definitions, it's entirely in your own head. We don't have to wait until 560ppm any more than you need a pressure gauge a square inch in area to measure pressure in PSI (nor one a square meter in area to measure in Pascals)
Dick, see if you can do the maths.
If Y increases by 3 when X doubles, when X goes from 10 to 20, Y increases by 3, yes?
What happens when it goes from 20 to 30?
BBD #126:
I will admit that the equation for CS uses delta F.
I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2.
What was the delta F from 1950 AD to 1700 AD (-0.9C temperature drop)?
I don't think we know - unless you derive it with circular reasoning - starting with CS of 3C.
I do not accept the assertion of inseparability of natural variability and high CS.
Why - because observationally constrained CS is 2.0 or less.
I don't think we know what CS is yet or will turn out to be.
I think that once we hit 560 ppm we will know a lot more about what we think CS is.
But feel free to take action now - if you can convince enough people to take action.
I am not voting for anything other than cranking up nuclear (I am willing to do that much). Put the peddle to the metal on nuclear - in my opinion.
"I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2."
You have several times here alone. And its in the IPCC report.
"What was the delta F from 1950 AD to 1700 AD (-0.9C temperature drop)?"
about 4*(-0.9)/3 = 1.2W/m^2.
Maths. Try it.
"I don’t think we know"
YOU don't. Read the IPCC reports. They have the papers referenced that do this calculation and the evidence.
"I do not accept the assertion of inseparability of natural variability and high CS."
Nobody cares, especially not reality. Just because creationists can't accept the assertion that the earth is over 4 billion years old does not matter one whit.
"Why – because observationally constrained CS is 2.0 or less."
No it isn't. Observationally it's well over 2.2C.
"I think that once we hit 560 ppm we will know a lot more about what we think CS is."
Nope, we know now.
"I am not voting for anything other than cranking up nuclear"
Why? According to you there's no AGW problem to worry about. So you vote for cranking up nuclear for no reason???
You've even said it's even more expensive than renewables. So it would be CHEAPER to put the pedal to the metal for renewables rather than nuclear.
RickA
You were *wrong* about the definition of climate sensitivity.
You were *wrong* about the relationship between natural variability and climate sensitivity and you still won't admit it.
That's bad faith.
You keep saying this and it is *wrong* and I have demonstrated why it is wrong which is more bad faith.
CO2 has increased by 120ppm from the reference pre-industrial value of 280ppm to 400ppm.
There's been AT LEAST 0.9C warming since pre-industrial period (> 1C is more likely).
So the transient response to 120ppm CO2 is AT LEAST 0.9C.
The transient response is estimated to be approximately 60% of the equilibrium response (ECS):
0.9 is 60% of 1.5
Calculating the delta T at equilibrium using the method in Knutti & Hegerl (2008) and assuming ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:
ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2
ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium
So observed transient warming is exactly what we'd expect if ECS = 3C, which is of course roughly what most climate scientists expect it to be based on multiple lines of evidence.
Stop making false claims.
After they have been debunked, repeating them is lying.
That's not circular reasoning, you muppet. The 3C value is the BEST FIT to observations.
You just don't understand any of this and it is so obvious.
Okay, we've ripped up the bullshit reasons you gave for not accepting this. So you tell me how climate can be both insensitive to radiative perturbation and at the same time exhibit a wide range of natural variability.
That. Is. Physically. Impossible.
RTFR at #85.
Use your brain. TRY to understand stuff that is obvious to those who grasp the basics.
I've had enough of this. It's like talking to the fucking cat.
From Tom Curtis' final comment in the SlS link:
"[E]verybody does foolish things, especially in areas where they are largely ignorant...What distinguishes the wise [from] the fools [is] that the fools persist in their mistakes in the face of contrary data."
The question, RickA, is this: Are you a fool or a liar?
"Nuclear energy is having an economic meltdown"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-breakingviews-idUSKBN14T2FZ
Talking to (at) RickA is like talking to a fucking cat turd.
RickA is a self-serving liar, but since he doesn't realize that he's only shooting himself in the foot, he's a fool ALSO.
So that's another setback for decarbonisation then. To replace Indian Point (2000MW) the current (actually plausible, as opposted to fantasy) options are:
So basically, gas. Another FF and emissions lock-in for decades to come. A backward step along the decarbonisation pathway and in no sense positive news about renewables. Actually, quite the opposite despite the empty words at the end of the quote.
The death of nuclear means more carbon.
"So that’s another setback for decarbonisation then."
Only because there are a lot of already overrun nuke power stations that have been signed up with penalty clauses, and that will drain money from renewables.
"The death of nuclear means more carbon."
Only if renewables are refused to be allowed. 100% possible to do 100% renewables, and it would be cheaper to replace nuclear power with renwables now, anyway.
Wow #146:
BBD is 100% correct, that "The death of nuclear means more carbon."
What a shame that we are taking this backwards step.
I don't believe it is 100% possible to do 100% renewables.
Where does the power come when it is dark and not windy?
Why don't you lead the way Wow.
Are you only using renewable power?
To run your household electricity, heat and cool your home, power your car, and so on.
If not - you are being hypocritical.
So why are the decommissioned US nukes being replaced by gas and coal?
I don't think this has anything to do with not 'being allowed' - what regulatory restraint are you referring to?
It's just not happening.
Why don’t you lead the way Wow.
Are you only using renewable power?
To run your household electricity, heat and cool your home, power your car, and so on.
If not – you are being hypocritical.
You cannot hold individuals responsible for failures of energy policy at state / national level, so stow the provocative and dishonest rhetoric please.
You, RickA, owe me a double admission of error and an apology.
Now, please.
"BBD is 100% correct, that “The death of nuclear means more carbon.”"
No he isn't.
It merely means that it's more carbon if we decide (and there's no imperative to do so) to continue with carbon based energy longer.
But given that building any significant level of extra nuclear power would take 30 years *just to start*, and, no, this isn't "NIMBY", it's that there aren't the businesses around any more, you'd have to train them up and start up a LOT of building companies to do the work before you can even START, this could much more likely be that going nuclear would mean more carbon.
Rollout of power by renewables is much much quicker than by nuke, even if you run roughshod over the people to build it wherever you damn well like, and each MW produced in partial completion is a MW not produced by fossil fuels.
"I don’t believe it is 100% possible to do 100% renewables."
Nobody cares. You believe in santa, as long as it comes with a denial of AGW. Your belief is as reliable as Ken Ham.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-greenest-american-cities-renewable-en…
"So why are the decommissioned US nukes being replaced by gas and coal?"
Uh whut
Sen Inholfe ring a bell?
Fracking?
There;s more money from the entrenched fossil fuel business than a startup new energy.
Look at how the senators in the USA treated the CEO of BP when they were upset about Deepwater Horizon:
Youtube:
/watch?v=Gv0siXm2cpc
"I don’t think this has anything to do with not ‘being allowed’ – what regulatory restraint are you referring to?"
Eg.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jan/16/floridians-sol…
merely the first link. Slashdot frequently has topics on this subject, hence a lot of RWNJ and AGW deniers call it "climatedot".
RickA writes:"If they were cheaper and available in sufficient quantities, people would adopt from pure economics."
Wrong. As has been shown many times, people are not rational agents. History abounds with market failures. You may have heard of a rather large one in just the past decade.
There's even an entire industry setup to persuade people to buy products that they probably shouldn't or wouldn't otherwise. Economics be damned.
I think what this shows is a mind-set where facts simply cannot penetrate. As Dr Robert Altmeyer wrote in The Authoritarians, facts really cannot make a dent in the RWA worldview. We see this in you inability to grok 'climate sensitivity' -- the Earth has a climate sensitivity. The change in forcing may or may not be the result of a change in CO2. It could be changing orbital parameters (Milankovitch cycles), it could be changes in albedo, it could be changes in GHGs other than CO2. All it means is that for a given change in these parameters we will see a corresponding change in climate.
Yes, we often use a doubling of CO2 as our reference point of interest - but that's merely to aid the discussion, not because climate sensitivity is wholly dependent on a doubling of CO2. The fact that it is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2) should be a pretty solid clue that it is not reliant upon CO2 even being in the discussion.
Thanks Kevin.
I'm waiting for RickA to acknowledge that he was wrong about this.
Then that he was wrong about the physically impossible claim that you can have low sensitivity and a wide range of natural variability in the same system.
"RickA writes:”If they were cheaper and available in sufficient quantities, people would adopt from pure economics.”
Wrong. As has been shown many times, people are not rational agents."
Not merely that. Regulatory capture and graft can ensure that the options just aren't available.
Look at Solyndra, given a loan, paid it back with interest ahead of schedule, slammed by RWNJ as "proof" that renewables need government handouts.
But GM? FMC? The banks? Well, the last one the "common man" doesn't like, but that doesn't stop the handounts THAT WERE NOT PAID (in several cases, IIRC GM paid back, eventually), and it's never brought forward as a proof banks don't work even in that case.
You see the same graft and corruption when it comes to community or municipal broadband. The companies who weren't interested start up a lawsuit at government interference (though using the police to move on protesters is interference they WANT) being unfair.
And upheld.
"Are you only using renewable power?"
Yes.
Are you using only nuclear power?
And, for the USA specifically, do you think midget hands will not take his spite out on renewables for this?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/734195/Donald-trump-Nigel-Farage…
Hell, the orangutan balancing a shredded wheat on his head tweets about how Meryl Streep is a "loser" because she criticised him for mocking a disabled journalist in a crowd of grunting idiots.
Wow
Re: Inhofe and Floridian solar - yes, good points; I wasn't thinking about this clearly.
BBD:
I am not going to apologize to you.
I provided quotes for why I believe what I said is correct.
You disagree with me and that is ok.
Even the IPCC acknowledges that CS can possibly be as low as 1.5C - that this is not physically impossible - and that is in the face of the natural variability science sees and acknowledges in the record.
So once again - we will have to agree to disagree.
It's not the sort of thing you'd think would go on, unless you'd been told about it.
No frigging sense to it.
And it's not like the USA has republican voters who run companies that started up to serve up new renewables, either, who are having to close down.
"I am not going to apologize to you."
Because dick thinks he has a right to ignore reality.
"You disagree with me and that is ok."
But you ARE wrong, and that is NOT OK. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
"Even the IPCC acknowledges that CS can possibly be as low as 1.5C "
No they don't. The models converge on 2-4.5, with >6C having as good a chance of happening than less than 2.
But the IPCC don't say it could be as low as 1.5. Just that model runs can return values as low as that.
"So once again – we will have to agree to disagree."
And once again you disagree with reality.
"we will have to agree to disagree.”
Oh, and by the way, no I don't agree to that.
Neither, I suspect, does BBD.
Then you are worthless and dishonest.
And I showed you in considerable detail why you were mistaken.
And yet you refuse to admit your errors.
Don't you ever dare show up here again claiming to be honest.
That's not what I asked you to admit you got wrong as you know perfectly well. You dishonest little shit.
It won't in AR6.
"And I showed you in considerable detail why you were mistaken."
Yes, and the various responses to this type of situation tend to be deflections or hiding in a briar patch of forced misreadings. But the one I like is throwing up the hands and stonewalling with: It's all opinions. In other words, at the point when the limit of RickA's knowledge and understanding is reached, so is everyone else's. He just can't believe someone could possibly exceed him on this who isn't one of the denialist gods (who he can't properly evaluate). It's one of the places we can see him being dishonest with himself (and with everyone else).
BTW, I just spotted this in a comment section over at RealClimate. It's from Mal Adapted who sometimes shows up here and is worth repeating:
"The epistemic authority of science depends not just on empiricism but equally on inter-subjective verification, which is why consensus is crucial to scientific progress. For anyone not himself a climate science specialist, it should be enough simply to point out that Curry’s lukewarmism (a species of AGW-denial, despite Mr. murphy’s contrary claim) is explicitly at odds with the lopsided consensus of her peers. Sure, it’s possible Curry is right and the vast majority of working climate scientists are wrong, but it’s much more likely she’s fooling herself. Mr. murphy’s failure to acknowledge that reveals his ignorance of the history, culture and practice of science."
Odd.Dick says he showed us in detail "why we were mistaken", a claim of truth or fact, but when WE show him in detail why HE was wrong, it's just we "disagree", a claim that it is opinion, not fact.
BBD #167 said "It won't in AR6".
We will see.
They had gotten rid of 1.5C in AR4 (the range was 2C to 4.5C), but brought back the range of 1.5C to 4.5C for doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 in AR5.
So they might get rid of it again - but maybe not (having already gotten rid of it and having to bring it back due to observations requiring it).
"We will see."
We;ve already seen. TCR >2.2C/doubling. FACT.
"They had gotten rid of 1.5C in AR4 "
Ah, so when you're wrong, they've "gotten rid of" the evidence you were right. Persecution complex.
"but brought back the range of 1.5C to 4.5C for doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 in AR5."
No they didn't.
Because of a few the late-breaking EBM studies that have since been shown to be biased low.
AR6 will be back to 2C again, for sure. If you had even a distant clue what you were talking about, you'd know this too.
You are still a dishonest little shit who won't admit his errors btw.
Speaking of renewables, the Dutch National Railway Company NS has announced that its electric trains are powered 100% by wind electricity.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dutch-trains-wind-power
F.Y.I. Google "Epic Antarctic Voyage Maps Seafloor" in Saturday's Guardian (Antarctic glacial melt).
Dear co-readers,
With reference to my earlier messages concwerning planet earth and the Antarctic.
That my messages are on course proves the following article in the Guardian.
"Epic Antarctic voyage maps seafloor to predict ocean rise as glacier the size of California melts
Global research group will trace Totten glacier’s history back to last ice age, in hope of predicting future melting patterns
The Totten glacier is under threat from warming ocean temperatures, scientists say, and a team has left for the Antarctic region on a research voyage. Photograph: Department of Environment/AAP
Calla Wahlquist
@callapilla
Saturday 14 January 2017 22.25 GMT
In East Antarctica, 3,000km south of the West Australian town of Albany, an ice shelf the size of California is melting from below.
The concerning trend was confirmed by Australian scientists in December, who reported that warming ocean temperatures were causing the rapid melt of the end of the Totten glacier, which is holding back enough ice to create a global sea rise of between 3.5 metres and six metres.
On Saturday, a team of international scientists left Hobart aboard the Australian research ship Investigator to map the seafloor ahead of the glacier to trace its history back to the last ice age, in the hopes of predicting its future melting patterns.
The 51-day mission is one of the longest ever voyages by Australian scientists to Antarctica and will involve mapping the unexplored Sabrina Coast seafloor and taking samples of piles of glacial sediment left behind by the retreating ice sheet.
It has been four years in the planning for the chief scientist Dr Leanne Armand, an associate professor with Sydney’s Macquarie University.
The focus will be the area around the base of the Totten glacier, which is usually surrounded by ice. Reports from researchers aboard the Aurora Australis, which was in the area in December, show that fast ice has melted back.
“If that goes, then we’ll be able to get in and provide the very first seafloor maps on the continental shelf itself and that will be really critical to a whole bunch of different sciences,” Armand said.
She will head a team of 22 researchers from Australia, Italy, Spain and the United States. They will be assisted by 12 support staff from the Marine National Facility, a subdivision of the CSIRO, which operates the Investigator; a Tasmanian high school science teacher; and 20 crew.
Also on board is Dr Tara Martin, a CSIRO scientist who helped design the Investigator and will act on this mission as the ship’s geophysicist, monitoring the sonar and seismic equipment used to map the seafloor.
Martin said the seismic equipment, borrowed from the Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia in Italy, would be used to examine the composition of the sediment layers to help researchers pinpoint the best locations for extracting rock cores, which will in turn be used to map past glacial melting patterns.
“One of the things we’re trying to understand here is, is this [glacial] retreat normal, has this kind of retreat happened before, and has this speed of retreat happened before,” Martin said. “If it’s not normal, how much of what we’re observing today can we isolate from what is normal, and therefore maybe see what could be an anthropogenic effect.”
Sea ice extent in Arctic and Antarctic reached record lows in November
‘Almost unprecedented’ event attributed to warm temperatures and winds, with some areas more than 20C (36F) warmer than usual
the worst scenario, Martin said, was that the ice tongue of the glacier could disappear.
“If you remove that ice tongue, in theory you’re releasing the break on the rate of flow of the glacier,” she said. “So the concern is ... if the whole ice tongue melts away, potentially the whole glacier could rush out to sea over a geological timescale, and we don’t know what that timescale is. Losing an ice tongue and having it break off – it’s already in the water, that doesn’t add to sea level rise very much. But losing a glacier the size of California that’s currently on land and dumping that in the water – that’s going to change sea level rise estimates.”
The expedition is authorised to take a maximum of 15 cores, measuring 10cm in diameter and up to 24 metres long.
The cores will be cut into one metre lengths in an area known as the “wet and dirty lab”, capped at both ends, and placed in cold storage until they can be transported to Geoscience Australia, where interested researchers will hold a party to divide up the samples."
California - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
California is the most populous state in the United States and the third most extensive by area. ... Folk dance · Square dance · Fossil · Sabre-toothed ..... California has a total of 290,821 acres (1,176.91 km2) of National Wildlife Refuges. As of ...
This is more than the total of France (Europe) 550.000 sq. kilometers and of Spain 500.000 sq. kilometers.
People have to read the article carefully. What can this imply?
Laren NH, Sunday 15 January 2017, 9.47 AM DT.
FYI Guardian Saturday 14 January 2017 22.25 GMT
In East Antarctica, 3,000km south of the West Australian town of Albany, an ice shelf the size of California
is melting from below. The concerning trend was confirmed by Australian scientists in December, who reported that warming ocean temperatures were causing the rapid melt of the end of the Totten glacier, which is holding back enough ice to create a global sea rise of between 3.5 metres and six metres.
California has approx. 423.000 sq. kilometers.
Gerrit
It implies that there will probably be a significant contribution to future sea level rise from the EAIS, specifically the Wilkes Basin via the Totten glacier.
See also Mengel & Levermann (2014).
It also implies that Boogers didn't read the article carefully, else he would have worked out a possible "why".
It implies that people haven't been paying attention yet.
While I disagree with Gerrit's vision of unphyisically-abrupt ice sheet collapse, it is fair to say that there are disquieting indications that ice sheet dynamics may allow more rapid disintegration of drainage glaciers that previously thought.
Pollard and DeConto's recent work provides no grounds for complacency.
When it reaches the deniers' armpits in Miami, they might start having doubts about their "doubts"...
Or they could just drown and pay for their part in undermining humanity.
Climate Mitigation Engineering: possibly new approach
Hello,
I would like to know if anyone is working on using ocean plankton to mitigate Climate Change using Emiliania huxleyi? It is the single biggest source of Oxygen on Earth. Eats Carbon like there is no tomorrow, and at the rate Methane is dissociating in the Artic there may not be one for kids under 12.
Is it feasible to select and drain appropriate swamps or lakes in the Artic areas and lay pipe or cannels to bring in sea/ocean water? The latitude would of course be important. The plankton may prove to be the most cost effective way to reduce atmospheric Carbon.
To paraphrase Bill Gates, we need to consider every option.
Windsor ON CA
Thanks,
Jeff