Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AbruptSLR

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219
The linked article is entitled: “US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians”; and it elaborates on the FBI investigation that Comey confirmed on Monday is being conducted.

The linked article is entitled: “Judge orders Exxon to hand over documents related to climate change”.  Tillerson may have some explaining to do.

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: Today at 02:25:40 AM »
Per the attached plot issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has moved up to +2.4:

Science / Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« on: March 22, 2017, 06:23:30 PM »
The linked reference discusses model projected changes in extreme precipitation with global warming; and indicates that rainfall will likely increase through 2100; which to my mind will (among other things) accelerate degradation of permafrost.

Guiling Wang, Dagang Wang, Kevin E. Trenberth, Amir Erfanian, Miao Yu, Michael G. Bosilovich, & Dana T. Parr (2017), "The peak structure and future changes of the relationships between extreme precipitation and temperature", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3239

Abstract: "Theoretical models predict that, in the absence of moisture limitation, extreme precipitation intensity could exponentially increase with temperatures at a rate determined by the Clausius–Clapeyron (C–C) relationship.  Climate models project a continuous increase of precipitation extremes for the twenty-first century over most of the globe. However, some station observations suggest a negative scaling of extreme precipitation with very high temperatures, raising doubts about future increase of precipitation extremes. Here we show for the present-day climate over most of the globe, the curve relating daily precipitation extremes with local temperatures has a peak structure, increasing as expected at the low–medium range of temperature variations but decreasing at high temperatures. However, this peak-shaped relationship does not imply a potential upper limit for future precipitation extremes. Climate models project both the peak of extreme precipitation and the temperature at which it peaks (Tpeak) will increase with warming; the two increases generally conform to the C–C scaling rate in mid- and high-latitudes, and to a super C–C scaling in most of the tropics. Because projected increases of local mean temperature (Tmean) far exceed projected increases of Tpeak over land, the conventional approach of relating extreme precipitation to Tmean produces a misleading sub-C–C scaling rate."

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 22, 2017, 05:49:24 PM »

ASLR, not sure why you append this article to my post.  Orrin Pilkey, the author of the book is "Professor Emeritus of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, at Duke University, and Founder and Director Emeritus of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines (PSDS) which is currently based at Western Carolina University."

I certainly did not intend my post to be anti-science! I'm a PhD ecologist and will be at the march.  But that does not mean that numerical modeling has an outstanding record of success.  There is a lot more to science than just modeling and I'm not sure why you are conflating the two as somehow inseparable.  Here is some more content from his Wikipedia page:

Pilkey began his career with the study of abyssal plains on the deep sea floor. As a result of the destruction of his parents' house in Waveland, Mississippi in Hurricane Camille (1969), he switched to the study of coasts. Pilkey's research centers on both basic and applied coastal geology, focusing primarily on barrier island coasts and the effects of shoreline stabilization and development, and sea-level rise. The PSDS has analyzed the numerical models used by coastal geologists and engineers to predict the movement of beach sand, especially in beach replenishment. In general, Pilkey argues that mathematical models cannot be used to accurately predict the behavior of beaches, although they can be useful if directional or orders-of-magnitude answers are sought. In the book, Useless Arithmetic, written with his daughter, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, they argue that the outcome of natural processes in general cannot be accurately predicted by mathematical models.[1]


I apologize for any confusion that my post may have contributed to (I believe I posted too quickly); as indeed Orrin Pilkey does fight against anti-science efforts.

Here is a link to an article co-authored by Orrin Pilkey were he fights against anti-science efforts in North Carolina:

However, I do believe that this illustrates how complicated the challenge is of trying to motivate decision makers to follow the Precautionary Principle when denialist can just say that the model in question gives projections that are not sufficiently accurate, so they must use their own personal judgment to cancel funding to support such climate research as the current administration is doing.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 22, 2017, 05:29:58 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Former Trump Campaign Head Manafort Was Paid Millions By A Putin Ally, AP Says".  The plot thickens.

Extract: "A Russian billionaire paid former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort millions of dollars to boost the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Associated Press reports. The new allegations arise months after Manafort resigned from the Trump campaign amid concerns over his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine.

"According to documents that we've reviewed, Paul Manafort secretly worked for a Russian oligarch who wanted him to promote Russian interests," the AP's Chad Day tells NPR's Rachel Martin. "And in particular, he wrote a memo that outlined this kind of vast plan for him to promote Russian interests in the former Soviet republics — and also to specifically benefit the Putin government."

Many of the records that snarled Manafort in recent months emerged from Ukraine's new anti-corruption bureau. In this case, Day says his reporting "is not just based on anonymous sources ... the bedrock of this story is based on documents that we've authenticated, and documents that have been corroborated through sources.""

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 22, 2017, 04:33:38 PM »

What's the origin/copyright of those images



I find almost all of the cartoon images that I post using GOOGLE, & thus I do not know the original source.  Therefore, if you want to retro search for the origins of the images you can use one of the following tools:


Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 22, 2017, 04:18:57 PM »
Obviously Jim's position is rather doctrinaire on this topic.  I don't know that much about GCMs but I tend to agree with him that at the end of the day, their utility in helping to understand the climate crisis, and respond to it, will be very limited.  For example, and yes I understand that the time scales are wrong, but the very warm non el nino driven global temps of the past two months are surprising, alarming and suggest that our overall understanding of the climate system is dangerously limited.

Have you all seen Orrin Pilkey's take on this general matter?

Useless Arithmetic
Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future
Orrin H. Pilkey and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis
Columbia University Press

The linked article indicates that the Trump Administration considers climate research a 'waste'.

On April 22nd The March for Science will endeavor to teach the Trump Administration the errors of its thinking.

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: March 22, 2017, 04:10:12 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Ice cap in place for millions of years is on track to vanish"; & it states that the loss of small glaciers, like Barnes Ice Cap, will likely accelerate in the near future thus accelerating sea level rise.

Extract: "Global warming is causing significant melting throughout the region and will claim the last remnants of a massive ice sheet that once covered all of North America and that remained stable for 2,000 years, according to findings published yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The Barnes Ice Cap, which is about the size of Delaware and is located on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, is likely to disappear even if humanity curtails its combustion of fossil fuels at levels not currently expected, even under the most conservative estimations.

All of those suggest a much higher sea level in the near future. Sea-level rise is now coming from small glaciers, such as the Barnes Ice Cap, as well as the expansion of the sea as it gets warmer. But that could quickly change if the current level of warming is observed, Miller said."

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 22, 2017, 02:28:50 AM »
Per the attached plot issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has moved up to +1.8:

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 21, 2017, 07:55:11 PM »
Perhaps this thread should be renamed: "If Decision Makers Don't Care to Take Effective Action, Why Should Scientists Work to Refine Their Imperfect GCM Models?"

To bear witness. To leave a record.

As Neven pointed out, the ASIF is doing a good job of documenting the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice for the good of posterity.

Yes, and the need has never been greater with the prospect of climate science being cut off at the knees in the USA. But I am veering in the direction of policy, actions, solutions and can feel a moderator hovering over the delete button. So je suis fini.

At least we will be able to tell future generations that we were fully aware of what was happening as we carefully documented the slide down to the collapse.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: March 21, 2017, 06:18:03 PM »
The linked reference indicates that models indicate that rainfall will increase rapidly in the Arctic in coming years.  This should increase Arctic Amplification to higher levels than previously assumed in AR5 (if for no other reason than that rain will markedly increase methane emissions from Arctic permafrost).

R. Bintanja et al. Towards a rain-dominated Arctic, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3240

Climate models project a strong increase in Arctic precipitation over the coming century, which has been attributed primarily to enhanced surface evaporation associated with sea-ice retreat. Since the Arctic is still quite cold, especially in winter, it is often (implicitly) assumed that the additional precipitation will fall mostly as snow. However, little is known about future changes in the distributions of rainfall and snowfall in the Arctic. Here we use 37 state-of-the-art climate models in standardized twenty-first-century (2006–2100) simulations to show a decrease in average annual Arctic snowfall (70°–90° N), despite the strong precipitation increase. Rain is projected to become the dominant form of precipitation in the Arctic region (2091–2100), as atmospheric warming causes a greater fraction of snowfall to melt before it reaches the surface, in particular over the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea. The reduction in Arctic snowfall is most pronounced during summer and autumn when temperatures are close to the melting point, but also winter rainfall is found to intensify considerably. Projected (seasonal) trends in rainfall and snowfall will heavily impact Arctic hydrology (for example, river discharge, permafrost melt), climatology (for example, snow, sea-ice albedo and melt)8, 9 and ecology (for example, water and food availability).

The linked article is entitled: "Budget Proposal Would Hamper Climate Efforts Abroad", and it indicates that even if the Trump Administration does not pull out of the Paris Agreement, the Trump Administrations proposed budget (if approved) would make it harder for other countries to meet their pledges.

Extract: "The Trump administration’s budget proposal would hamper efforts abroad to slow global warming, especially by poor and fast-developing countries, compounding the hazards of America’s retreat from efforts to ease its own climate impacts.

A 54-page proposal released Thursday would end payments to global climate initiatives, such as a United Nations fund that helps poor countries deploy clean energy and adapt to climate change. It would also sharply reduce funding for the World Bank and other development programs."

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 21, 2017, 04:24:11 PM »
Maybe instead of measuring increases in GMSTA, we should be focused on monitoring biodiversity loss, as without sufficient biodiversity mankind's future is in doubt.

The linked article is entitled: “Ecological recession”: Researchers say biodiversity loss has hit critical threshold across the globe".  The article references both Newbold et. al. 2016 and Steffen et. al. (2015); both of which indicate that we are already exceeding some planetary boundaries, and will soon exceed others.

Extract: "An international team of researchers has concluded that biodiversity loss has become so severe and widespread that it could affect Earth’s ability to sustain human life.

- The researchers examined 2.38 million records of 39,123 terrestrial species collected at 18,659 sites around the world to model the impacts on biodiversity of land use and other pressures from human activities that cause habitat loss.

- They then estimated down to about the one-square-kilometer level the extent to which those pressures have caused changes in local biodiversity, as well as the spatial patterns of those changes.

- They found that, across nearly 60 percent of Earth’s land surface, biodiversity has declined beyond “safe” levels as defined by the planetary boundaries concept, which seeks to quantify the environmental limits within which human society can be considered sustainable.

See also:
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., … & Burton, V. J. (2016). Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science, 353(6296), 288-291. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2201

Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary (“safe limit”). We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness—the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems—beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world’s land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development.


Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., … & Folke, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). doi:10.1126/science.1259855

Science / Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
« on: March 21, 2017, 04:15:26 PM »
Here is a plot of the Mauna Loa Methane concentrations from 2015 to March 20 2017.  I do not see any reduction in the trend line.

Interesting the reduced variability of CO2 measurements at minimum when compared to the rest of the year. Does this happen consistently (farther back in the record)?

First, the March 20 plot and the attached March 21 2017 plot, are both for methane not CO2 at Mauna Loa,  while the attached plot beginning with 2010 data shows an acceleration in methane concentration after 2013 (you can plot your own graph at the link below).

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 21, 2017, 03:42:07 PM »
The link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:

While the entire video is worth watching I provide the first attached image/screen shot showing DeConto & Pollard's (2016 EGU) projections of Antarctic contributions to changes in global mean sea level, GMSL, by the 2C (blue line), 2.7C (green line) and 3.6C (red line) forcing scenarios.  I believe that DeConto & Pollard's 2C scenario is not achievable in the real world, and that by 2100 the 2.7C and the 3.6C forcing scenario produce essentially the same amount of increase in GMSL.  Taken together with the more "Realistic" MIT analysis the DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings indicate it likely that the WAIS collapse will begin about 2050 following the current Paris Pact pledges (and also ignoring the increase in carbon emissions associated with increasing agricultural growth).

Also I note that the indicated DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings do not include Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback and thus errs on the side of least drama (see the last two images).

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 21, 2017, 02:24:24 AM »
Per the following data, and attached plot, both issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has soared up to +1.1:


The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 21, 2017, 02:05:34 AM »
The linked article is entitled: “Could FBI investigation into Russia links ensnare Trump?”.  The investigation may prove that where there is smoke there is fire.

Extract: “On Saturday, Lawfare blog editor Benjamin Wittes wrote that the worst-case scenario for the Trump White House was if Mr Comey appeared before the congressional committee and was tight-lipped.

A loquacious Comey, he said, was evidence of an investigation that was near its end with little evidence of substantive wrongdoing in the higher levels of the Trump brain trust.

But what would happen, Wittes wondered, if Mr Comey's FBI investigation is turning up real evidence?

"In this situation, I would expect him to be minimally verbal. He may have to answer yes or no questions in certain instances, including about the truth of the wiretapping allegations, but he will refuse to answer a lot of questions. He will make as little news as humanly possible. He will be exceptionally spare with his opinions."

"I'm trying to be studiously vague to protect the integrity of the investigation," Mr Comey said at one point on Monday.

Wittes has since parsed the director's words and concluded that it was a bad day for Mr Trump.

"Really bad."

Mr Comey's relative silence could be deadly.”

Edit, see also:

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 21, 2017, 02:04:25 AM »
I have no words to describe this . . .

Try the word: "Extortion".

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 20, 2017, 11:30:12 PM »
Perhaps this thread should be renamed: "If Decision Makers Don't Care to Take Effective Action, Why Should Scientists Work to Refine Their Imperfect GCM Models?"

To bear witness. To leave a record.

As Neven pointed out, the ASIF is doing a good job of documenting the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice for the good of posterity.

The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: March 20, 2017, 09:51:54 PM »
It is not nice to mess with Mother Nature, and I believe that mankind will be saying Ouch!, soon enough:

Science / Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
« on: March 20, 2017, 09:35:54 PM »
Here is a plot of the Mauna Loa Methane concentrations from 2015 to March 20 2017.  I do not see any reduction in the trend line.

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 20, 2017, 09:26:09 PM »
Perhaps this thread should be renamed: "If Decision Makers Don't Care to Take Effective Action, Why Should Scientists Work to Refine Their Imperfect GCM Models?"

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 20, 2017, 06:59:10 PM »
The four attached plots were all issued today by the BoM showing weekly Nino data through the week ending March 19 2017, & show the Nino 1, 2, 3 & 4 indices, respectively.  They all show relatively little change from last week, and thus conditions remain ENSO neutral.

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 20, 2017, 06:57:03 PM »
Per the following weekly Nino data issued by NOAA, and per the first two images issued today by NOAA for the Eq Pac, SSTA and Upper Ocean Heat Anom, respectively; and the last two images issued by the BoM today for the Nino 3.4 and the IOD, respectively; the ENSO conditions are slightly more favorable for El Nino conditions, but remain ENSO neutral.

                     Nino1+2      Nino3         Nino34        Nino4
 Week           SST SSTA    SST SSTA   SST SSTA    SST SSTA

 15FEB2017     27.7 1.6     27.1 0.7     26.9 0.2     28.1 0.0
 22FEB2017     28.5 2.3     27.3 0.7     27.1 0.3     28.0-0.1
 01MAR2017     28.5 2.2     27.1 0.4     26.9 0.0     28.1-0.1
 08MAR2017     28.5 2.1     27.4 0.4     26.8-0.2     27.8-0.3
 15MAR2017     29.1 2.6     27.9 0.8     27.5 0.3     28.2 0.0

The linked reference provides more guidance on meeting the Paris Agreement, if policy makers have the determination to implement any of the measured evaluated in the study.

Aamaas, B., Berntsen, T. K., Fuglestvedt, J. S., and Peters, G. P.: Combining temperature rate and level perspectives in emission metrics, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2017-25, in review, 2017.

Abstract. The ultimate goal of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is reconfirmed by the Paris Agreement, is to stabilize the climate change at level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference, and it should be achieved within a time frame that allow the natural systems to adapt. Numerous emission metrics have been developed and applied in relation to the first target, while very few metrics have focused on the second target regarding rate of change. We present here a simple and analytical physical emission metric based on the rate of global temperature change and link that to a metric based on a target for the temperature level. The rate of change perspective either can supplement the level target or can be considered together in one commitment that needs one combined metric. Both emission metrics depend on assumptions on a temperature baseline scenario. We give some illustrations on how this framework can be used, such as different temperature rate and level constraints based on the Representative Concentration Pathways. The selection of the time horizon, for what time period and length the rate constraint is binding, and how to weight the rate and level metrics are discussed. For a combined metric, the values for short-lived climate forcers are larger in periods where the critical rate is binding, with larger temporal increases during the rate constraint period as the atmospheric perturbation timescale of the species becomes shorter. Global CO2 emissions remain the most important, or among the most important, drivers of temperature rates even during periods of binding rate constraints.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: March 20, 2017, 06:29:39 PM »
Due to the Peter Principle, I am not confident that the coming (circa 2045 to 2060) socioeconomic can be avoided.

assuming you mean "collapse" as the missing word i agree with the principle but think you are quite optimistic with the time frame, i have been eyeballing the years between 2025-2030 ;)

Thanks.  I added the word 'collapse', and only time will tell when and how bad the collapse will be/occur.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 20, 2017, 06:27:01 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "The climate change battle dividing Trump’s America", and it discusses how US scientists are planning to fight back against many of Team Trump's initiatives regarding evidence based climate science.

Extract: "Ever since Donald Trump became US president, certain sectors of American society have felt particularly embattled. His statements on Mexicans and Muslims are notorious, but there is another community, less heard about, that has also been sent reeling: scientists.

Trump should beware. The scientific revolution starts here."

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 20, 2017, 05:58:10 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Stephen Hawking has advice for Trump, and it starts with changing EPA leadership".

Extract: ""Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent," said Hawking, according to the Guardian. "It affects America badly, so tackling it should win votes for his [Trump's] second term. God forbid."

Hawking also suggested that Trump should, "replace Scott Pruitt at the Environment Protection Agency [EPA]." Pruitt, who has sued the organisation in the past over environmental issues, was a controversial choice to lead the EPA, with current and former staffers protesting his selection."

See also:

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 20, 2017, 02:25:21 AM »
Per the attached plot issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has soared up to -0.5:

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: March 20, 2017, 01:55:44 AM »
Due to the Peter Principle, I am not confident that the coming (circa 2045 to 2060) socioeconomic collapse can be avoided.

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 20, 2017, 01:16:39 AM »
At the moment, I'm not so interested in notions of verification, "the old guard" & etc but whether the quote posted by AbruptSLR has any credence...

"Scientists are now saying it might already be too late to avoid a temperature rise of up to 7.36 degrees Celsius (13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
That's way above the upper limit of 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014, and to make matters worse, a new study suggests that we're underestimating just how sensitive Earth is to greenhouse gases.


So that you can decide for your, I selected the following 28 references [not including either von der Heydt et. al. 2016 nor Friedrich et al (2016)] that either directly, or indirectly, indicate that climate sensitivity is most likely significantly higher than the range summarized by AR5:

1. The linked reference analyses the CMIP3&5 results to conclude the ECS is likely 3.9C +/- 0.45C:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang & Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

2. The linked reference provides findings from CMIP5 of the continued poleward expansion of the Hadley Cell with continued global warming; which in-turn supports the idea that ECS is greater than 3C:

Lijun Tao, Yongyun Hu & Jiping Liu (May 2016), "Anthropogenic forcing on the Hadley circulation in CMIP5 simulations", Climate Dynamics, Volume 46, Issue 9, pp 3337-3350 DOI: 10.1007/s00382-015-2772-1

3. The linked reference presents new paleo evidence about the Eocene.  While the authors emphasize that their findings support the IPCC interpretation for climate sensitivity, when looking at the attached Fig 4 panel f, it appears to me that this is only the case if one averages ECS over the entire Eocene; while if one focuses on the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (EECO) which CO₂ levels were higher than in current modern times, it appear that ECS was higher (around 4C) than the IPCC AR5 assumes (considering that we are increasing CO2 concentrations faster now that during the EECO this gives me concern rather than reassurance).

Eleni Anagnostou, Eleanor H. John, Kirsty M. Edgar, Gavin L. Foster, Andy Ridgwell, Gordon N. Inglis, Richard D. Pancost, Daniel J. Lunt & Paul N. Pearson (2016), "Changing atmospheric CO2 concentration was the primary driver of early Cenozoic climate", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature17423

4. Tan et al (2016) indicates that ECS may well be between 5.0 and 5.3C.

Ivy Tan, Trude Storelvmo & Mark D. Zelinka (08 Apr 2016), "Observational constraints on mixed-phase clouds imply higher climate sensitivity", Science, Vol. 352, Issue 6282, pp. 224-227, DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5300

5. According to the IPCC AR5 report: "The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C"; however, the linked reference uses only observed data to indicate that TCR is 2.0 +/- 0.8C.  Thus AR5 has once again erred on the side of least drama.

T. Storelvmo, T. Leirvik, U. Lohmann, P. C. B. Phillips & M. Wild (2016), "Disentangling greenhouse warming and aerosol cooling to reveal Earth’s climate sensitivity", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2670

6. The linked reference reassesses ECS from CMIP3 &5 and find an ensemble-mean of 3.9C, and I note that CMIP3&5 likely err on the side of least drama as they ignore several important non-linear slow feedbacks that could be accelerated by global warming:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang, Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

7. The linked reference could not make it more clear that paleo-evidence from inter-glacial periods indicates that ECS is meaningfully higher than 3C and that climate models are commonly under predicting the magnitude of coming climate change.

Dana L. Royer (2016), "Climate Sensitivity in the Geologic Past", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44

8. Thompson indicates that ECS has a 95%CL range of from 3C to 6.3C, with a best estimate of 4C, and Sherwood (2014) has a higher value still:

Climate sensitivity by Roy Thompson published by Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, DOI: 10.1017/S1755691015000213

9. Tian (2015) indicates that the double-ITCZ bias constrains ECS to its high end (around 4.0C):

Tian, B. (2015), "Spread of model climate sensitivity linked to double-Intertropical Convergence Zone bias", Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL064119.

10. Sherwood et al (2014), which found that ECS cannot be less than 3C, and is likely currently in the 4.1C range.  Also, everyone should remember that the effective ECS is not a constant, and models project that following a BAU pathway will result in the effective ECS increasing this century:

Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

11. The linked reference studies numerous climate models and finds that: "… those that simulate the present-day climate best even point to a best estimate of ECS in the range of 3–4.5°C."
Reto Knutti, Maria A. A. Rugenstein (2015), "Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0146

12.  The linked reference indicates that the cloud feedback from tropical land is robustly positive.  As AR5 did not know whether this contribution to climate sensitivity was positive or negative, this clearly indicates that AR5 errs on the side of least drama with regard to both TCR & ECS:

Youichi Kamae, Tomoo Ogura, Masahiro Watanabe, Shang-Ping Xie and Hiroaki Ueda (8 March 2016), "Robust cloud feedback over tropical land in a warming climate", Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024525

13.  Graeme L. Stephens, Brian H. Kahn and Mark Richardson (5 May, 2016), "The Super Greenhouse effect in a changing climate", Journal of Climate, DOI:

14. The linked reference assumes different degrees of nonlinearity for climate feedback mechanisms and concludes that such nonlinearity for positive feedback represents a Black Swan risk that linear climate models cannot recognize:

Jonah Bloch-Johnson, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert & Dorian S. Abbot (24 June 2015), "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064240

15.  While the linked (open access) reference has many appropriate qualifying statements and disclaimers, it notes that the AR5 paleo estimates of ECS were linear approximations that change when non-linear issues are considered.  In particular the find for the specific ECS, S[CO2,LI], during the Pleistocence (ie the most recent 2 million years) that:
"During Pleistocene intermediate glaciated climates and interglacial periods, S[CO2,LI] is on average ~ 45 % larger than during Pleistocene full glacial conditions."

Therefore, researchers such as James Hansen who relied on paleo findings that during recent full glacial periods ECS was about 3.0C, did not know that during interglacial periods this value would be 45% larger, or 4.35C.

Köhler, P., de Boer, B., von der Heydt, A. S., Stap, L. B., and van de Wal, R. S. W. (2015), "On the state dependency of the equilibrium climate sensitivity during the last 5 million years", Clim. Past, 11, 1801-1823, doi:10.5194/cp-11-1801-2015.

16.  The linked reference implies that climate sensitivity (ESS) could be much higher than previously assumed:

Jagniecki,Elliot A. et al. (2015), "Eocene atmospheric CO2from the nahcolite proxy", Geology,

17.  The linked open access reference identifies three constraints on low cloud formation that suggest that cloud feedback is more positive than previously thought.  If verified this would mean that both TCR and ECS (and ESS) are larger than previously thought:

Stephen A. Klein and Alex Hall (26 October 2015), "Emergent Constraints for Cloud Feedbacks", Climate Feedbacks (M Zelinka, Section Editor), Current Climate Change Reports, pp 1-12, DOI 10.1007/s40641-015-0027-1

18.  The linked article indicates that values of TCR based on observed climate change are likely underestimated:

J. M. Gregory, T. Andrews and P. Good (5 October 2015), "The inconstancy of the transient climate response parameter under increasing CO₂", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0417

19.  The linked reference indicates that most current climate models underestimate climate sensitivity:

J. T. Fasullo, B. M. Sanderson & K. E. Trenberth (2015), "Recent Progress in Constraining Climate Sensitivity With Model Ensembles", Current Climate Change Reports, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 268-275, DOI 10.1007/s40641-015-0021-7

20.  The linked reference indicates that studies that assuming linearity of climate sensitivity likely underestimate the risk of high warming.

Jonah Bloch-Johnson, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert and Dorian S. Abbot (June 2015), "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064240

21. The linked reference indicates that new research (from PlioMIP2) demonstrates that the climate sensitivity for the Pliocene was higher than previously believed (from PlioMIP1):

Kamae, Y., Yoshida, K., and Ueda, H.: Sensitivity of Pliocene climate simulations in MRI-CGCM2.3 to respective boundary conditions, Clim. Past, 12, 1619-1634, doi:10.5194/cp-12-1619-2016, 2016.

22. The linked reference indicates that corrected recent observations indicate that the most likely value of ECS may be as high as 4.6C (see attached plot of the time dependent curve):

Kyle C. Armour  (27 June 2016), "Projection and prediction: Climate sensitivity on the rise", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3079

23. The linked reference indicates that the climate responses (climate sensitivities) projected by advanced climate models generally match observations when apple to apple comparisons are made.  This is a useful finding as advanced climate models generally indicate that climate sensitivity values are towards the high end of the IPCC climate sensitivity range:

Mark Richardson, Kevin Cowtan, Ed Hawkins & Martin B. Stolpe (2016), "Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3066

24. The linked reference discusses paleodata to indicate that climate sensitivity increased from 3.3 - 5.6 (mean of 4.45k) at the beginning of the PETM up to 3.7 - 6.5 K (mean of 5.1K) near the peak of the PETM; and that if we burn only the easily accessible carbon reserves then GMST could increase by about 10C.  I note these climate sensitivity values are much higher than those inherent in the CMIP5 projections:

Gary Shaffer, Matthew Huber, Roberto Rondanelli & Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen (23 June 2016), "Deep-time evidence for climate sensitivity increase with warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069243

25. The linked Reuters article notes that NASA reported that a new satellite-based method have located 39 unreported sources of anthropogenic emissions that, when accounted for, increase our previously estimated amount of sulfur dioxide by about 12 percent of all such anthropogenic emissions from 2005 to 2014.  This indicates that the CMIP5 projections also underestimated the impact of this negative forcing source; which raises the prospect that climate sensitivity (ECS) is likely higher than the CMIP5 models indicate, and the linked Zhai et al (2015) reference analyses of the CMIP3&5 results conclude that the ECS is likely 3.9C +/- 0.45C:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang & Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

26. The linked reference uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C; which indicates that AR5 errs on the side of least drama:

Florent Brient & Tapio Schneider (2016), "Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection", Journal of Climate, DOI:

27. The linked article indicates that the contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic Amplification is regulated by the PDO and that in positive PDO phases (like we are in now) there should be less Arctic Amplification.  Thus the fact that we are currently experiencing high Arctic Amplification during a period of highly positive PDO values gives cause for concern that climate sensitivity may be higher than considered by AR5:

James A. Screen & Jennifer A. Francis (2016), "Contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic amplification is regulated by Pacific Ocean decadal variability", Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3011

28. The linked reference uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C.  As this satellite data is certainly biased by the recent acceleration of natural aerosol emissions associated with the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, the actually ECS is likely higher than 4.0C, as will become apparent if climate change reduces future plant activity.  Unfortunately, the envisioned upgrades to the Paris Pact do not have any contingency for addressing such high values (4 to 4.5C) of ECS (including accelerting NET):

Florent Brient & Tapio Schneider (2016), "Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection", Journal of Climate, DOI:

Best regards,

Edit: And for those who do not like to read, I provide the two attached images of high equilibrium climate sensitivity, with the first based on paleo data, and the second based on modern observations.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: March 19, 2017, 05:55:35 PM »
With the coming of the 4th Industrial Revolution together with climate change stress; the better that people and society learn to deal with change the less suffering will occur (and vice versa), therefore I provide the attached image related to human response to change from the following source:

Williams, D. (1999). Life Events and Career Change: Transition Psychology in Practice. British Psychological Society Occupational Psychology Conference. Leicester: British Psychological Society

As freedom is associated with change, the better we deal with change the more free we will be, both individually, and collectively.

The linked reference indicates that CMIP5 does not adequately characterize low frequency internal climate variability (ICV); which plays an important role in modulating GMSTA.  This indicates that CMIP6 (and/or ACME) should make efforts to better model ICV.

Anson H. Cheung, Michael E. Mann, Byron A. Steinman, Leela M. Frankcombe, Matthew H. England & Sonya K. Miller (2017), "Comparison of Low Frequency Internal Climate Variability in CMIP5 Models and Observations", Journal of Climate, DOI:

Abstract: "Low frequency internal climate variability (ICV) plays an important role in modulating global surface temperature, regional climate, and climate extremes. However, it has not been completely characterized in the instrumental record and in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) model ensemble. In this study, the surface temperature ICV of the North Pacific (NP), North Atlantic (NA), and Northern Hemisphere (NH) in the instrumental record and historical CMIP5 all-forcing simulations is isolated using a semi-empirical method wherein the CMIP5 ensemble mean is applied as the external forcing signal and removed from each time series. Comparison of ICV signals derived from this semi-empirical method as well as from analysis of ICV in CMIP5 pre-industrial control runs reveals disagreement in the spatial pattern and amplitude between models and instrumental data on multidecadal timescales (>20 years). Analysis of the amplitude of total variability and the ICV in the models and instrumental data indicates that the models underestimate ICV amplitude on low frequency timescales (>20 year in the NA, >40 year in the NP), while agreement is found in the NH variability. A multiple linear regression analysis of ICV in the instrumental record shows that variability in the NP drives decadal to interdecadal variability in the NH; whereas the NA drives multidecadal variability in the NH. Analysis of the CMIP5 historical simulations does not reveal such a relationship, indicating model limitations in simulating ICV. These findings demonstrate the need to better characterize low frequency ICV, which may help improve attribution and decadal prediction."

The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: March 19, 2017, 03:41:17 PM »
Earth Day is coming ...

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 19, 2017, 02:32:00 AM »
Per the attached plot issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has soared up to -2.6:

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 19, 2017, 12:57:36 AM »
In case some people didn't read the linked article entitled: “The feedback paradox”.  The increasing insurance losses associated with pronounced natural variations imply high climate sensitivity; which provides more motivation to take climate action now, even though our climate models are not perfect.

Extract: “Any feedback process based on temperature will act on both natural and forced changes in the temperature. If such feedbacks result in pronounced natural temperature variations, they also imply that the climate sensitivity is high.”
While I happen to be of the opinion it is much too late to bother, I will agree that taking action now would at least prepare the populace for the coastline changes which will be coming.

The one big worry I have is that people will try using these GCM to attempt some sort of "Engineering Fix" which I would expect to most likely make things worse in some unknown unknown way.

Disclaimer:  My guess is no better than the GCM guess -- and theirs is no better than mine.

So you think that a limited amount of adaptive engineering may be warranted (or maybe not); however, what type of measures do you think are warranted to promote a reduction in anthropogenic GHG emissions (a carbon fee and dividend program, regulations, government investment in sustainable energy, government promoting energy efficiency, etc.)?

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: March 18, 2017, 11:49:29 PM »
As we jointly approach the coming socio-economic collapse via systemic overshoot; the skill of discerning the truth will increasingly become an issue of critical importance.  In a world of uncertainties, one is separated from the truth in a Hegelian dialectic sense in that when one creates a thesis as an approximation of the truth one automatically creates an antithesis that sets the dialectic double helix spiral (of becoming) into motion.  In this sense, both ignorance of the truth, and/or denial of the truth, both have consequences (i.e. causes suffering), and the nature of those consequences (suffering) depends on which strand of the dialectic double helix one is considering.  This is truth for both active Cad vs Dad type interactions and for passive dialectic spirals like that discussed in the linked article entitled: "The ‘Spiral of Silence’ Theory Explains Why People Don’t Speak Up on Things That Matter".

Extract: "If you’re like most Americans, you’re probably at least a little worried about climate change — and you probably aren’t talking about it. Research has shown that two-thirds of people in the U.S. say they’re “moderately interested” or “very interested” in global warming; at the same time, around 70 percent say they rarely or never broach the subject with the people close to them. It’s a paradox that also doubles as an explanation: Climate scientists have suggested that the reason people don’t discuss climate change is simply because they don’t hear it being discussed, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “spiral of silence.”

The term was coined by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in her book The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion — Our Social Skin, in which she observed that silence can manifest itself in different ways: Both people who hold majority opinions and those in the minority will often keep quiet on issues that are important to them, but they’ll do it for different reasons. But both of those reasons, explains Elizabeth Suhay, a political scientist who studies conformity, stem from a misjudgment about the prevalence of their opinions. “The majority just assumes that everybody thinks like them,” she says, “and people in the minority think they’re the only ones.”"

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 18, 2017, 08:34:24 PM »
In case some people didn't read the linked article entitled: “The feedback paradox”.  The increasing insurance losses associated with pronounced natural variations imply high climate sensitivity; which provides more motivation to take climate action now, even though our climate models are not perfect.

Extract: “Any feedback process based on temperature will act on both natural and forced changes in the temperature. If such feedbacks result in pronounced natural temperature variations, they also imply that the climate sensitivity is high.”

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 18, 2017, 07:01:54 PM »
The linked article was written by a neuroscientist/psychologist and is entitled: "What Are You, A Sociopath? The Lack Of A Conscience In The GOP Agenda", and it raises the question of whether the GOP's agenda to take advantage of 'others' is sociopathic.

Extract: "F*cking each other over for a percentage should be the official theme of the first 50 days of the Trump administration with the enabling GOP-controlled Congress.

F*cking over for a percentage can also be described, in psychological terms, as an act of guiltlessness, sociopathy, anti-social personality, and/or the lack of a conscience. Not surprisingly, the lack of a conscience is associated with increasing degrees of power and wealth. Whether or not Trump, members of his Administration, or GOP Congressional members are actually sociopaths or playing sociopaths is difficult to determine as an observer who only has access to their public behaviors.

But the question continues to be asked, in light of everything that we have seen over the past 50 days and most notably this week with Trumpcare:

How do these individuals sleep at night/live with themselves/appear guilt-free as they seek to strip rights, personal safety, health, and human services from We the People?

The lies and deceit to which we have been exposed in 50 days may not necessarily be unique to this presidency. However, what appears to be unique and unsettling is the frequency of lies, the mean-spiritedness and tenacity with which the lies are repeated, and the apparent lack of a conscience that comes with telling millions of people that what they believe they are seeing, hearing, and feeling is not reality."

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 18, 2017, 06:26:33 PM »
When determining how accurate GCMs need to be for the judicial branch to hold the executive branch accountable for taking action to fight climate change, one only needs to look at the record of increasing insurance losses from the increasingly violent natural disasters.

In this regards, the linked article is entitled: "Climate change threatens ability of insurers to manage risk", and discusses how large the "protection gap" has already grown to, and indicates that the insurance industry's traditional approach to climate risk management are already ineffective:

Extract: "The ability of the global insurance industry to manage society’s risks is being threatened by climate change, according to a new report.

The report finds that more frequent extreme weather events are driving up uninsured losses and making some assets uninsurable.

The analysis, by a coalition of the world’s biggest insurers, concluded that the “protection gap” – the difference between the costs of natural disasters and the amount insured – has quadrupled to $100bn (£79bn) a year since the 1980s."

The ClimateWise report, published on Wednesday, also says the industry must also use its risk management expertise to convince policymakers in both the public and private sector of the urgent need for climate action.

The industry’s traditional response to rising insurance risks – raising premiums or withdrawing cover – would not help deal with the rising risks of global warming, it said.

“The insurance industry’s role as society’s risk manager is under threat,” said Maurice Tulloch, chairman of global general insurance at Aviva and chair of ClimateWise. “Our sector will struggle to reduce this protection gap if our response is limited to avoiding, rather than managing, society’s exposure to climate risk.”

See the following linked article entitled: "Climate protection gap widening, warns insurance report":

See also the following linked article that indicates that the insurance industry paid-out $50 billion for natural disasters in 2016 (uninsured losses were $125 billion), as compared to $27 billion in 2015.

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 18, 2017, 05:48:02 PM »
I want to make it clear that I do not deny climate change, quite the opposite.

So far the only "validation" I've seen of the GCM are the completely valid complaints of people on this forum that the models are way too conservative  i.e.  invalid.

Since I'm of the opinion that what we are seeing now is due to the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago and we ain't seen nothing yet, it pains me to see models which have 0 demonstrated skill quoted as fact.

Does anyone have any actual data at all which would tend to confirm the timelines and quantities these GCM predict?  (Or for that matter any actual data to deny other than the rumblings of some of us here on this forum?)

When first you cite an "... and Then There's Physics" article on how Judith Curry confuses lay people and then you quote a Judith Curry article as evidence that your position is correct; you raise a lot of doubts about what your motivation is to question the validity of GCMs.  If GCMs underestimate the coming climate impacts, then one should be motivated to more quickly reduce anthropogenic radiative forcing; rather than to repeat that "All models are wrong ..." and forget to indicate that "... but some models are useful", in order to take action now.

The world's most accurate GCM is the Accelerated Climate Model for Energy, ACME; for which Phase I is scheduled to be complete in 2017.  Using logic like that presented by Judith Curry, the Trump Administration could say that such an improved model is still not perfect and thus suppress the publications of findings from ACME; however, a citizen sitting on a civil lawsuit jury panel would only hold GCM projections to a burden of proof that the: "Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases..."

Soon the Trump Administration will find that the Judicial Branch of government will only hold GCM's to this standard of proof (see the following linked thread entitled: "Legal Approach to Climate Change Resolutions"),1207.100.html

Edit: See also the linked article entitled: "'Biggest Case on the Planet' Pits Kids vs. Climate Change".

Abstract: "A pioneering lawsuit against the U.S. government on global warming won the right to a trial. Now Trump wants an appeals court to cancel it."

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 18, 2017, 11:53:53 AM »
While I personally believe that the CMIP5 GMSTA projections err on the side of least drama, ESLD; nevertheless, the first attached image released by Gavin Schmidt comparing the observed GMSTA through the middle of 2016 to the radiative forcing adjusted CMIP5 projections, confirms at least that: (a) the faux pause is nothing more than a blip in the general warming trend and that (b) as indicated by relatively complex ESM projections, we are now entering a period of accelerating global warming (and reasonable people can argue about just how fast this acceleration will be with continued anthropogenic radiative forcing).

The second attached image compares GISTEMP to CMIP5 values and comes from the linked article entitled: "Messing about with model-obs comparisons".  While the graph comes with some disclaimers, it does give one pause for thought about where we are likely headed.

The third attached image comes from my Reply #1553 in the "Conservative Scientists & its Consequences" and compares how projections based on recent paleo-based data compares to those for CMIP5,1053.0.html

The linked article helps to clarify how higher the paleo-based climate sensitivity that Friedrich et al (2016) found vs CMIP5 (see attached image):

Extract: "Scientists are now saying it might already be too late to avoid a temperature rise of up to 7.36 degrees Celsius (13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
That's way above the upper limit of 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014, and to make matters worse, a new study suggests that we're underestimating just how sensitive Earth is to greenhouse gases.

From this data, they concluded that Earth becomes more sensitive to warming in interglacial warming phases (periods between ice ages), like the one we're now in.

The researchers also calculated there will be a "likely" temperature increase of between 4.78 and 7.36 degrees Celsius (8.6 and 13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels over the next 85 years if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate,.
That means it's absolutely vital that we get those emissions down as quickly as possible.
Because a 7.36-degree Celsius (13.25-degree Fahrenheit) rise would effectively be "game over" for the planet as we know it, climatologist Michael Mann from Penn State University, who wasn't involved in the research, told Ian Johnston at The Independent."

For other discussions on how conservative the CMIP5 projections are likely to be, you can also look at posts in the 'Human Stupidity' thread at the following link:,1548.0.html

Lastly, I provide the fourth attached image showing the timing of the various efforts to calibrate CMIP6.

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 18, 2017, 02:24:29 AM »
Per the following data and attached plot issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has soared up to -4.8:


Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 18, 2017, 02:20:06 AM »
The linked thread entitled: "Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME" compares observations to model predictions, with the goal of refining the models:,1478.0.html

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 17, 2017, 09:28:11 PM »
Thank you ASLR.
It's March, excessive rains have continued pouring in many regions after January, media keep calling it el Niño. Hoping it abates and does not merge with another real Niño.

The linked Scribbler article is entitled: "Signals of Climate Change Visible as Record Fires Give Way to Massive Floods in Peru".

Extract: "The climate extremes Peru has experienced — flipping from flash drought and wildfires to flash flood in just 5-6 months is exactly the kind wrenched weather we can expect more and more from climate change. For as the Earth warms, the amount of moisture evaporated from lands, oceans, lakes and rivers increases. As a result, the hydrological cycle gets kicked into higher gear. And what this means it that droughts and fires will tend to become more intense even as rains, when they do fall, will tend to be heavier."

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: March 17, 2017, 09:13:33 PM »
The linked reference demonstrates that the combined use of AI (i.e. machine learning), quantum computing and Bayesian inference can greatly assist in the effective modeling of 'wicked problems'.

Jianwei Wang, Stefano Paesani, Raffaele Santagati, Sebastian Knauer, Antonio A. Gentile, Nathan Wiebe, Maurangelo Petruzzella, Jeremy L. O’Brien, John G. Rarity, Anthony Laing, & Mark G. Thompson (2017), "Experimental quantum Hamiltonian learning", Nature Physics, doi:10.1038/nphys4074

Abstract: "The efficient characterization of quantum systems, the verification of the operations of quantum devices and the validation of underpinning physical models, are central challenges for quantum technologies and fundamental physics. The computational cost of such studies could be improved by machine learning enhanced by quantum simulators. Here we interface two different quantum systems through a classical channel—a silicon-photonics quantum simulator and an electron spin in a diamond nitrogen–vacancy centre—and use the former to learn the Hamiltonian of the latter via Bayesian inference. We learn the salient Hamiltonian parameter with an uncertainty of approximately 10−5. Furthermore, an observed saturation in the learning algorithm suggests deficiencies in the underlying Hamiltonian model, which we exploit to further improve the model. We implement an interactive version of the protocol and experimentally show its ability to characterize the operation of the quantum photonic device."

Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: March 17, 2017, 04:13:56 AM »
Robert Reich writes:

It’s important to see Trump's massive budget cut in federally funded research -- eliminating the Energy Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency; slashing the National Institutes of Health; eliminating or drastically cutting research by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – for what it really is.

It’s part of Trump’s war on truth.

Throughout modern history, demagogues and tyrants have attacked scientists, researchers, investigators, analysts, professors, and all other sources of truth, including journalists. Some have even burned books.

That’s because tyrants don’t want independent sources of truth. Truth threatens their power. They want a monopoly on information, in order to keep the public in the dark. The most revolutionary act in a democracy is speaking truth to power, and spreading the truth so that others may speak it as well.

Trump tells big lies, attacks the independent press, and slashes funding for research. Connect the dots.

Obviously, I concur with Robert Reich.  Hopefully, Trump will get caught in his web of deceits; but I am not holding my breath (given that we have a GOP controlled Congress).

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 17, 2017, 04:09:08 AM »
Per the attached plot issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has moved down to -6.4:

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 16, 2017, 09:11:44 PM »
I'm sure this one will be enjoyed:

DEVASTATING: TRUMP More Popular Than Democrats Says New Poll

The linked article is entitled: "WATCH: Baby boomers, it’s all your fault!"; which suggests that it's not just the Democrats but the entire "Me Generation" (not just in America but around the world) that we have to thank for our current situation.  However, as I doubt that any party or generation is going adequately address our current challenges; I am still of the opinion that it is worthwhile thinking about what we can do now to help the generation that will follow the coming socio-economic collapse (circa 2045-2060).

Extract: "… his new book, “A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America,” came out earlier this month. In his book, Gibney claims that much of the generation born between 1946 and 1964 is selfish, lacking in empathy and financially irresponsible. Known as the “Me Generation,” the baby boomers have long been described as self-interested, but never in such damning terms.

“70 million Americans did appear to be sociopaths a few months ago [during the election],” said Gibney.

“To summarize, it’s ‘Me first and damn the consequences,'” he said. Gibney says a hallmark of the boomer is an inability to plan for the future, financially and otherwise. “They really just don’t save, and all these personal behaviors translate into international policy. Climate is another indicator of improvidence and lack of empathy — they don’t care really care about the environment, just about themselves.”"

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219