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 - jai mitchell

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 20, 2017, 05:31:20 PM »
You can find consensus in the war against climate change — as long as you don’t call it “climate change.”"

Then let's just call it what it is:  Global Warming.

It does seem difficult to paint climate change/global warming as a wartime enemy that everyone can fight against, when all the different tribes/gangs know that first they need to protect their own turf with their own gang call-signs and colors against the 'others'.

It is not necessary to have a human enemy to catalyze a total-society mobilization against a collective national threat.  It takes a declaration of a climate emergency as a national threat and government action to streamline the production and adoption of fossil-free technologies as policies that work to rapidly shift our economy away from GHG producing activities.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 20, 2017, 03:43:36 AM »
You can find consensus in the war against climate change — as long as you don’t call it “climate change.”"

Then let's just call it what it is:  Global Warming.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:56:43 PM »
This may be the best article I have seen about the topic

The Planet Is Warming. And It's Okay to Be Afraid
Why being fearful can be part of a healthy, heroic response to the climate crisis

Affect tolerance—the ability to tolerate a wide range of feelings in oneself and others—is a critical psychological skill. On the other hand, affect phobia—the fear of certain feelings in oneself or others—is a major psychological problem, as it causes people to rely heavily on psychological defenses.

Much of the climate movement seems to suffer from affect phobia, which is probably not surprising given that scientific culture aspires to be purely rational, free of emotional influence. Further, the feelings involved in processing the climate crisis—fear, grief, anger, guilt, and helplessness—can be overwhelming. But that doesn’t mean we should try to avoid "making" people feel such things. Experiencing them is a normal, healthy, necessary part of coming to terms with the climate crisis.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 18, 2017, 02:17:11 AM »
oren said, "...continues contributing to the problem in his/her own tiny way"

Well, tiny compared to the whole entire effect perhaps. But  given that we are collectively unleashing the energy equivalent of about half a million Hiroshima-obliterating bombs onto the planet every day, and that the top 20% or so is responsible for some 80% of the problem...probably most of the people you talk to are responsible for something like one of those 'bombs' every decade or so (but others should check my maths, etc.).

the 400,000 hiroshima's per day was at a top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2.  This value was based on Leviticus ocean heat content (0-700 meter depth) and was an average value between 2002 and 2010 (I think, or something along those lines). 

Recent values indicate we are closer to 6-800,000 hiroshima bombs per day.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 17, 2017, 09:40:23 PM »
Personally, I'd prefer to take people at their word.  If someone says that they think the NY Mag article is realistic, I accept that they really do think that.  If someone else says the article is excessively alarmist and unrealistic, I likewise accept that they're telling the truth as they see it.

That is certainly true, with the exception that, upon further exploration of their reasoning/justification, if they use arguments that are perceived to be intentionally deceptive then you can clearly determine that they are either self-deceived, deceived by others or are intentionally misrepresenting their own position for (likely) personal gain.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 16, 2017, 07:23:55 PM »
Dr. Mann Posted in the Washington Post his critique.


he says:
The New York magazine article paints an overly bleak picture, arguing that climate change could render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century.

but the article he says:

Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.

Dr. Mann is grossly mischaracterizing the article, even saying that it 'argues' (in the body of the text) that the whole earth could be uninhabitable.  This is clearly, and intentionally, deceiving his audience about the NY Magazine article.


Next Mann says,

Its opening story about the “flooding” of a seed vault in Norway leaves out that one of the vault’s creators told NPR “there was really no flood.”

The article says,

This past winter, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole, melting the permafrost that encased Norway’s Svalbard seed vault — a global food bank nicknamed “Doomsday,” designed to ensure that our agriculture survives any catastrophe, and which appeared to have been flooded by climate change less than ten years after being built.

Just because someone, somewhere told someone that it 'wasn't really a flood' doesn't discount that the flooding was widely reported:
Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts
DON’T PANIC: Doomsday vault secured after seed bank flooded ‘thanks to global warming’

and Snopes:
Although melting permafrost did cause flooding in the access tunnel to the vault, the vault itself was not breached and the seeds were not threatened or harmed.

So flooding DID occur, it was caused by climate change and it was restricted to the entrance to the vault and not the actual vault itself.  A minor distinction, not worthy of Dr. Mann's critique.  This is an exercise on his part to use hyperbole to downplay the veracity of the NY Magazine article.


Dr Mann goes on to say,

It exaggerates the near-term threat of climate “feedbacks” involving the release of frozen methane.

The article says,

But Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful. In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over.

Again, Dr. Mann attributes a very minor mention of a 'partial' release of frozen carbon (in the form of methane) and at a date that 'keeps getting moved up' as an exaggeration of the 'near-term' impacts.  There is no mention of the actual timeline (near-term or far-term) only that the 'date' keeps getting moved up. 

Obviously, this is a mis-attribution of the statement.  In Dr. Mann's first facebook post, he attributed this statement in NY Magazine as promoting the idea of a "methane bomb" but, since there is no body of science that predicts this methane bomb, and therefore, there is no 'date' that could be 'moved up' then it doesn't speak to this theory.  In addition, the current 'methane bomb' hypothesis does not include ALL carbon in the permafrost, so again, the 'date' that moves up in the NY Mag article does not speak to the methane bomb idea. 

Finally, the NY Mag article says "All" the frozen carbon in the permafrost will be released.  There ARE studies that look at this and the timelines are on the order of 2-300 years.  Therefore since the reference is clear, this is the 'date' that keeps getting 'moved up'. 

Dr. Mann's reference in his new article, is following along the theme that he promoted (quite erroneously) in his facebook post that the NY Mag is talking about a 'methane bomb'.  He has walked this back in his new article, because he cannot defend it, and so is instead using a 'dog whistle' technique to reinforce his previous, faulty, assertion without explicitly stating the term 'methane bomb'.


Dr. Mann Says,

It mischaracterizes one recent study as demonstrating that the globe is warming “more than twice as fast as scientists had thought,” when in fact the study in question simply showed that one dataset that had tended to show less warming than other datasets has now been brought in line with the others after some problems were corrected for.

The NY Magazine article says,

there are alarming stories in the news every day, like those, last month, that seemed to suggest satellite data showed the globe warming since 1998 more than twice as fast as scientists had thought (in fact, the underlying story was considerably less alarming than the headlines)


Obviously this is reporting on the 'stories' of climate change - about a specific satellite series - not the entire body of temperature records, and to take this as an assertion that (all) scientists thought that the earth was warming half as much as actual, is a false assertion and an intentional mischaracterization.

In addition, in the Climate Feedback response to the article, Carl Mears, the author of the study in question says,

Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS):
This sentence is true for RSS data, but it’s somewhat misleading due to lack of context. If you look at the two most recent versions of the RSS data and compute linear trends Jan 1998-Dec 2016, you find that the new version has a trend value for this period of about 2.6 times larger than the previous version.


Final Judgement,

enough!  whether Dr. Mann is using the moment to raise his own visibility in the discussion or to make his arguments appear 'more reasonable than the extremists' so that he can reach a wider audience, IS IN NO WAY A JUSTIFICATION, for the use of obvious deception and false framing of the article that he is criticizing. 

Who made Dr. Mann the referee in how we frame the Climate Catastrophe that we are all facing?  Did he mention at all in his article that NONE of the permafrost carbon is included in the IPCC models???  Why is he intentionally downplaying the actual threat, except for personal gain and one-upmanship?  Why is he resorting to intentional deception and strawman arguments?  who the hell does he think he is?

I have no respect of persons based on what they have done or endured in the past.  I only look at who they are TODAY and what they are doing now, and why they are doing it.  I do respect the work and the trials that anyone has done in their past and, to the extent that their work continues to be of value, I support them.

If in a private conversation, I would thank Dr. Mann for his intense work and that I loved his book on the climate wars.  I would also like to ask him why he thinks it is his job to act as referee and 'gate keeper' by using intentional deceptions to downplay the climate emergency.  I would challenge him on his hubris and whether his premise (doomsday scenarios don't help) is actually buying into the denialist narrative, and even is a direct result of his indoctrination as a 'measured voice of science' so that he is actually part of the problem of inaction and furthering the hard press toward eventual societal collapse in a >+4C environment.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 16, 2017, 05:32:08 AM »
My opinion of the article doesn't count for much. It has 663,100 shares as of this moment.

Permafrost methane will be a problem as will permafrost CO2. The amount of carbon stored in the polar regions is stunning. I've seen calculations that Siberian permafrost may add 0.5 C to warming and that once we cross 1.5 C warming the Siberian permafrost will kick it up to 2 degrees.

There's also a large carbon store in the sediments of the Siberian shelf.

Joe Romm, physicist, has calculated that complete permafrost degradation may add 1 degree C to warming.

What is the timeline on Joe Romm's projection does warming end at 2100?  What if the arctic amplification occurs at a higher rate going forward than what we have seen so far (2X GMST) due to changes in Sea Ice albedo and global atmospheric circulations (as was witnessed last winter)?

What is the total Permafrost contribution to global warming under a +6C warmer world over the next 200 years?

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 15, 2017, 07:33:08 PM »
To the point,

here is the paragraph in the original piece that was first attacked by Michael Mann in his facebook post, in which he asserts that the article declared a 'methane bomb'

In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over.

here is David Wallace-Wells' lengthy response to the 'methane bomb' critique by Michael Mann and others.

There has been a fair amount of criticism of my use of this material. Michael Mann in particular has faulted me for it; in his initial Facebook post about the story, he wrote that “the science doesn’t support the notion of a game-changing, planet-melting methane bomb.” At Climate Feedback, several other scientists took issue with various aspects of my characterization as well. ¶ There is little doubt that this permafrost is melting quickly.

According to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment, by 2100, “it is virtually certain that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced as global mean surface temperature increases, with the area of permafrost near the surface (upper 3.5 m) projected to decrease by 37% (RCP2.6) to 81% (RCP8.5) for the multi-model average.” But there is some important context I did not include here: Few scientists believe there is a substantial risk of methane release from permafrost happening suddenly, or all at once.

Also, most of the carbon will likely escape as C02, not methane. In retrospect, I sympathize with those who find misleading the phrase “all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up.” The schedule I was referring to was the melting, which will take decades; the thawing is a process, not an event. ¶ I believe that my original description of the possibility of the methane release lacked some relevant (reassuring) context.

But I do not believe the science was fundamentally misrepresented here: There is that much carbon in the permafrost; the permafrost is melting at accelerating rates; some of the carbon will be released as methane; and methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. ¶ My intention in referencing the permafrost was to illustrate, for readers unfamiliar with the particulars of projection models, how many uncertain factors were at play — how many forces we don’t understand, and how possibly significant those forces could be in the warming of the planet. As Joseph Romm writes, “The thawing tundra or permafrost may well be the single most important amplifying carbon-cycle feedback. Yet, none of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate models include carbon dioxide or methane emissions from warming tundra as a feedback.” He also writes, “A 2011 study by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Snow and Ice Data Center found that thawing permafrost will turn the Arctic from a place that stores carbon (a sink) to a place that generates carbon (a source) in the 2020s—and release a hundred billion tons of carbon by 2100.” That study, he says, assumes none of the carbon will be released as methane, and yet still predicts a release “equivalent to half the amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age.” ¶ To be additionally clear, none of the warming scenarios described in the remainder of this article are built on the premise of a methane release from permafrost. They all extrapolate from the median and high-end IPCC projections for business-as-usual warming.

Even if you take issue with my characterization of the threat from permafrost melt, it does not affect my discussion of any of the risks that follow. The permafrost melt is a wild card which could add to those IPCC projections. (Romm calculates it could add a degree of warming by 2100 all on its own.) ¶ For those who are really interested in reading about methane, there are also the clathrates to consider — bubbles of methane at the bottom of the ocean, which many energy companies are now hoping to mine. Speaking about those with me, Lee Kump, a Penn State geoscientist, had this to say: “We haven’t really anticipated these positive feedbacks — for instance, these pockets of methane. That methane starts bubbling out, that’s a potent greenhouse gas. As that spreads throughout the globe, there’s a tremendous potential there for methane hydrates release.” He went on: “As you move towards the poles, we’re already seeing the consequences of warming there in terms of methane release"

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 15, 2017, 07:25:09 PM »
Eric Holthaus:  After critiques by climate scientists, @NYMag just added 149 footnotes to this week's climate cover story.
Good for them.

David Wallace-Wells:  It has been a sprint to put this together, but here is the fully annotated and footnoted version of my climate story   
The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition
The facts, research, and science behind the climate-change article that explored our planet’s worst-case scenarios.

I recommend that anyone who suggests this article is sloppy on science or, in any way, refers to a 'methane bomb' potential read the updated annotated piece with footnotes and references.  'Sloppy' on the science does not describe this work in any way, shape or form. 

If anything, 'sloppy' should be referred to Mann's and Holthause's critique of the piece where they attributed a false assertion to the article about 'methane bomb' when it clearly is talking about a long-term release from Arctic permafrost on a worst-case scenario.

The distinction is clear but the mischaracterization is either intentional and therefore deceiving, or unintentional and therefore sloppiness on the brink of dereliction.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: July 14, 2017, 07:23:59 PM »
I expect that the timeline for this is still (within the models and modeler's minds) extremely uncertain and is therefore not a priority (as the permafrost associated emissions were treated in the AR4 and AR5)

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: July 14, 2017, 06:00:17 PM »
Interesting, the mid-latitude impact is in the Southern Hemisphere.  I expect that this will be at least partially offset by the near-equable climate regime produced in the Northern Hemisphere under a June 21 Arctic Sea ice fee condition.

However, the associated LW feedback under this scenario, with much greater water vapor content allowed in the Norther Hemisphere is also a significant positive feedback, one that I have yet to see in the Peer Review.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 13, 2017, 06:49:48 PM »
Tweet your questions to David Wallace-Wells on his climate change cover story; he'll be tweeting answers here shortly #UninhabitableEarth  Starting at 1PM EST today.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 13, 2017, 04:56:17 AM »
My response to the Climate Feedback Article points:

Take Aways

“The Uninhabitable Earth”

While the title states that the Earth may be uninhabitable, the body of the text of the article assigns this to specific regions.  The comments in the article assert that, within these boundaries, the current body of climate science states this as unequivocal.  This is especially true in the context of the +6-8C warming scenario as outlined in the article.  Regions of the Sub-Sahara Africa, as well as much of the tropics, will achieve heat-humidity impacts that would make human habitation impossible.  In addition, long-term sea level rise would greatly impact South-East Asian low-level rice cultivar valleys and much of Bangladesh making it uninhabitable.  The combined impacts of sea level rise and increased hurricane intensity would also compound this impact making life extremely difficult, if not 'uninhabitable', in many coastal regions.

“there are alarming stories every day, like last month’s satellite data showing the globe warming, since 1998, more than twice as fast as scientists had thought”

As asserted in the comments of the article, this is very true, when taken in the context of the article that is only looking at the period of revision by RSS.  They stated a previously very low warming rate and 'doubled' that rate.  A doubling of a low rate is still fairly low, however the context and reference are accurate in the article.  See Carl Mears' statement.  He asserts it is 'misleading' for these reasons, though the statement is factually correct.

“and we will need to have invented technologies to extract, annually, twice as much carbon from the atmosphere as the entire planet’s plants now do”

Charles Koven asserts that only 2-3 PG of carbon per year would be necessary to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 'safe' values.  This is approximate to the total amount of additional Carbon Cycle emissions projected through 2050 in the Crowther et. al (Nov. 2016) at only 1C of globally averaged warming.  (see image below)

note: this graphic above does not include carbon cycle feedbacks from peat, tropical and boreal forest conflagration under this scenario.  It should be noted here that the total C emissions from Indonesian peat forests during the 1997/1998 El Nino were equal to the total U.S. emissions profile for that year.

In my estimation this is the crux of the entire problem.  An isolated viewpoint taken as an 'authority' who has been so heavily indoctrinated that (s)he lives in a false reality.  Taken in context of the article (+6-8C of warming) the Carbon Cycle and Anthropogenic Emissions of Carbon will require over 1,000 Pg of C removed from the Earth's atmosphere.

“This past winter, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole”

This is a factual statement and including a comment on it in the article is extreme hubris.  In addition, the comment attributed the warming to 'areas of open water' which, when we look back at the record, the areas of open water in the Kara and Bearing Seas were comparable with 2011.  We did not have such extreme heat in 2011, so attribution to 'open seas' is not confirmed by the available data.

“a constant swarm of out-of-control typhoons and tornadoes and floods and droughts”
“The strongest hurricanes will come more often”
“tornadoes will grow longer and wider”
“hail rocks will quadruple in size”

Comments on these statements are in general agreement, with the exception that they simply have no idea what the eventual result of a +6-8C world will look like.

“In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over.”

Charles Koven says, "It isn't releasing (much) methane from old permafrost now" - this is irrelevant to the context of the 6-8C scenario in the article.
Vasilii Petrenko says, This is incorrect" and then says, "older permafrost did not release 11,600 years ago (when the earth was at +1.8C above pre-industrial) - The article says, "Partially in the form of. . ."  Again, I cite Crowther et al (and there are many many others) that indicate a +6-8C warmer world will melt ALL permafrost completely (over a 2-300 year timeline).
Peter Neff says, "he author’s facts about methane are generally accurate."  (note this is in conflice with Dr. Petrenko's comment above) -- He then goes on to incorrectly apply the statement to Deep-Sea Hydrates which is not what the statement was referring to.  Either a Strawman or simply misunderstanding (certainly a mischaracterization).

The IPCC reports also don’t fully account for the albedo effect (less ice means less reflected and more absorbed sunlight, hence more warming); more cloud cover (which traps heat); or the dieback of forests and other flora (which extract carbon from the atmosphere). Each of these promises to accelerate warming”

The comments here assert that the IPCC models do account for the albedo impact, however, most models suggest an ice-free Sept. Arctic in the 2040-2060 range and this is severely understating the physical reality.  By 2065 under a RCP 6.0 emissions scenario, and in the absence of aerosols which work to cool the Arctic much more than mid-latitudes, we will see a June 21st ice free state with an additional +60-70 Watts/Meter-Squared albedo impact to the Arctic Ocean during that year. 

The models also do not include the recent developments that indicate Amazon and Indonesian forest loss as well as impacts to boreal and mid-latitude forests under changing precipitation and (for the tropic and boreal region) heat impacts.  So this statement is absolutely correct.   The commenters show that they have absolutely no idea what the current body of research is indicating with regard to these forest impacts.

Amazon impacts due to permanent +IPO:
Anthropogenic Emission impacts to PDO and their reduction leading to (permanent) +IPO:
+4C will lead to an Amazon 'tipping point" as will 40% loss of forest.  +6-8C will lead to 100% loss.
Temperature and Water stress on boreal forest already observed:
Thawing forest producing rapid changes in carbon flux already observed
Middle Pliocene (~400ppmvc) had boreal forest temperatures at +8C above today's values (note this scenario is looking at closer to +14-20C above today's values in this region - accounting for albedo impacts in addition to current observed 2X polar amplification)

“the basic rule for staple cereal crops grown at optimal temperature is that for every degree of warming, yields decline by 10 percent. Some estimates run as high as 15 or even 17 percent. Which means that if the planet is five degrees warmer at the end of the century, we may have as many as 50 percent more people to feed and 50 percent less grain to give them.”


“as the pathbreaking work by Rosamond Naylor and David Battisti has shown, the tropics are already too hot to efficiently grow grain, and those places where grain is produced today are already at optimal growing temperature — which means even a small warming will push them down the slope of declining productivity.”

Scientist comments here attributed this to a global pattern scenario using the RCP 8.5 mid-estimate values, again they did not consider the 6-8C potential warming scenario (are you starting to see a pattern here???)  They then looked at global impacts but did not look at the context of the article which clearly states, " those places where grain is produced today".

In essence the comments are taken out of context for whatever reason, possibly intentionally but likely, just in objection to the tone of the article.  Even the map presented in the comment clearly shows increased drought  and heat in grain belts all over the globe.

offhand comment that we 'won't have the 50% increase in population if we are going toward 50% reduction in crops' basically asserting the thesis of the article, while downplaying the 'tone', a very interesting mental pretzel that one. . .

Enough,  for whatever reason *some* of these comments are simply off base technically and should be retracted, others are in cautious support or are in contradiction with other commenters for the same topic and the objection to tone is the primary driver that is being done for either selfish reasons or (apparently) because of extreme indoctrination of a few scientists to overly patronize the public, protecting us from fear of the greatest existential threat that Humanity has faced (at least since Toba).

In my book the scientific response to the article is 10,000 times more devastating to my mental well being than the actual article itself.

In the shorter term I believe the only plausible way to force systemic change is through massive public uprising.

glad to see we agree on something!   ;D

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: July 12, 2017, 07:06:16 PM »
1.  kind of counter intuitive, absorption of shortwave forcing would (seem to) reduce incoming shortwave radiation?
2.  since the presence of CH4 in the atmosphere is short-lived, a 14% increase in the 100-year timeline would indicate a MUCH greater increase in the 20-year forcing timeline (135% of CO2 on 20-year scale?) 

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 12, 2017, 05:27:18 PM »
So I think your observation is correct. There has been a tendency to understate risk

Dr. Michael Mann, June 2017

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 12, 2017, 05:17:21 PM »
(like Michael Mann) are entitled to distance themselves from such poor spread and point out where there are discrepancies to what they know.

I have yet to see a valid critique of the science.  Even Mann panned it and was more on tone.  He mentioned permafrost but mischaracterized the article's statements. 

There is no substitution for reality.  Reality is much worse than the current science narrative, this has been true since the 1970s.  Reality will NEVER be an argument against strong action.  The more dire the reality, the stronger the necessary response.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 11, 2017, 05:01:43 PM »

I think that your understanding of the "misconceptions" in the article is similar to criticisms I have seen from others so far. 

They mostly rely on strawman arguments and an objection to tone.

for example:  the article clearly said it was 60 degrees warmer than normal not 60 degrees.  To assert the latter is a strawman argument, on its face, whether or not you misunderstood the statement or you simply didn't like what he was saying.

Your criticism on the seed vault episode is valid (I believe) that the permafrost melt did not cause the flooding.  However, it was widely reported that it was permafrost that caused the flooding and I cannot blame the author for this.  Indeed, it is impossible to assert that the surface permafrost did not melt (though your explanation is more correct I feel).  For example:  Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts

Whether or not the flooding was caused by permafrost or the warming that was not expected by the climate change models isn't really the issue here though.  The assertion that thing are changing much more rapidly than the current body of climate science expects is what is important.  The assertion that the emissions from permafrost are not included in these models is paramount.  We have already locked in much more than 2C warming and will likely see more than 3.5C in the absence of geoengineering.  This needs to be stated and restated with the likely impacts clearly explained.  Anything else is a disservice to the public interest.

It should be noted that within the IPCC AR4, the only mention of carbon cycle feedbacks from melting permafrost was the following statement. 

Changes in soil seasonal freeze-thaw processes have a strong influence on spatial patterns, seasonal to interannual variability, and long-term trends in terrestrial carbon budgets and surface-atmosphere trace gas exchange

And in 2010 a published study meant to update the IPCC AR4 said the following:

the amount of carbon stored in permafrost areas appears much (two times) larger than previously thought

Under RCP 8.5 and on a 200 year+ timeline, most, if not all, of the permafrost will melt.  This is not alarmist.  It is physical reality.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 11, 2017, 04:35:35 PM »

I agree that this is one of the better essays written. I really like his way of mixing global concerns with family trivialties.

However, I may have seen a way out of all this misery, so I will stick with his final summary:

we will also find a way to make it livable."

yes.  I have also seen it as well.  It won't be easy, it will be AMAZING.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 11, 2017, 09:26:21 AM »
This may be the best article on Climate Change in the public record.

I say this because it allows for a plausible scenario based on unrestricted fossil fuel burning (though the author caveats that it is likely that catastrophe would prevent that from happening if we continue BAU through the middle of next century).  I have also stated as much in this forum and it should be seen as pretty obvious.

but that isn't what makes it (potentially) the greatest piece on the reality of climate change.  What it does is synthesize the multiple impact points and integrates them with each other to produce a body of work.  Yes, a 4C world is very likely and under this massive areas of the middle east and southewestern desert states may become uninhabitable.  Food shortages and sea level rise will produce (hundreds of?) millions of refugees.  These shortages and pressures will drive global conflict

and the permafrost and soil carbon feedbacks are not included in the RCP emission pathways with some variance between those earth system models that are as large as the difference between RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 anthropogenic emissions.  In other words, under RCP 8.5 some models show a DOUBLING of total emissions (anthropogenic + carbon cycle) that was is CURRENTLY being projected under RCP 8.5 by the IPCC.

the pushback from the climate scientists who want to moderate the discussion is very telling.

Nominating someone appealing to the Democratic base, but unpalatable to the rest of the general electorate, does no Democrat any good. 

you mean like Hillary Clinton?  oh wait, you mean:

Nominating someone appealing to he Democratic Establishment, but unpalatable to the rest of the general electorate, does no Democrat any good

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 08, 2017, 10:49:15 PM »
 Brian Brettschneider‏ @Climatologist49 25m25 minutes ago

Melt stream running through ice at toe of Matanuska Glacier.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 07, 2017, 05:25:27 PM »
And here the comparison with 2012. In general terms it seems to agree with the volume differences of PIOMAS.
And last but not least: The Current TOPAZ4-guess for the volume decline for the first half of July
There is no general agreement between these images and the link you provided.  4-year old sea ice in 2012 is 5X the average thickness currently found north of Greenland.  I do not see only -500 km^3 delta between 2012 and now.  The Arctic Ocean is ~14 million km^2.

It looks closer to -2,000 km^3  I do not know if 2012 is now understated or if (likely) 2017 is overstated.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 05, 2017, 08:41:04 PM »
lots of clouds and snowfall in the CAB in the next 5-day forecast.

for those of you doing the Chef's Finger Kiss whilst plotting the demise of the corporate Democrats and the ascension of Multiple Home Owner and Primary Loser Bernie Sanders and his Bros to the throne of power.


Scott Pruitt's EPA just declared that COAL ASH is NOT a hazardous material!!!!!!    :o :o :o

oh crap! that was Obama!!!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 05, 2017, 03:33:10 AM »
The first animation simply flips back and forth between 10 July 2012 and 10 July 2017. As discussed earlier, the differences are not plausibly attributable to hycom thickness inaccuracy, model versioning or color palette transitions.


PIOMAS says the June Avg differential between 2017 and 2012 is only about -750 km^3

This Hycom gridded data looks closer to several thousand km^3 LESS. . .

what gives?

best Fourth of July news I've had in a long time!!!   8)  8)  8)

would post the vid but I don't know how. . .

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 03, 2017, 08:33:05 PM »

The rest / Re: Jason Group - Earth Turning to Mars?
« on: July 03, 2017, 01:52:34 AM »
mars lost its atmosphere because it cooled, lost its molten center and magnetic field and after hundreds of millions of years, the solar wind stripped it of its ATMOSPHERE

This 'theory' is not based in reality I would be surprised that Guy Mcphereson supports it, though I give him little credibility, I am sure that he has a stronger scientific background that that!

Edit: 'magnetic field' to 'ATMOSPHERE'


!Thanks Obama!
Slowly but surely methinks Dore is an agent of the Koch brothers...

that is because you have absolutely no idea what you talk about.  If he was an agent of the Kochs would he then discuss climate change as the most important issue of our time???  You obviously have not watched much of his stuff.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:37:44 PM »
China is about to bury Tesla in Batteries

Chinese companies have plans for additional factories with the capacity to pump out more than 120 gigawatt-hours a year by 2021, according to a report published this week by Bloomberg Intelligence. That’s enough to supply batteries for around 1.5 million Tesla Model S vehicles or 13.7 million Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrids per year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

By comparison, when completed in 2018, Tesla Inc.’s Gigafactory will crank out up to 35 gigawatt-hours of battery cells annually.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:23:18 PM »

NSIDC Daily Northern Hemisphere SIE Data

2017,    06,  22,     10.234,      Delta
2017,    06,  23,     10.124,      110,000
2017,    06,  24,     10.034,      90,000
2017,    06,  25,      9.941,      93,000
2017,    06,  26,      9.913,      28,000
2017,    06,  27,      9.764,     149,000
2017,    06,  28,      9.645,      119,000
2017,    06,  29,      9.531,      114,000

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: June 30, 2017, 06:21:20 AM »
Your comments about CNN and Russia being a diversion make you appear to parrot the Fox News and conservative media positions.  You are clearly in the corner of Fox News, and acting as an apologist for Donald Trump regarding Russia.

thats hilarious.   So you obviously didn't watch the video and have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

the fact is that for anyone in the U.S. to get their panties in a bunch about USSR 'interfering' in the election is in complete denial of the U.S. operations all over the globe.  How many elections have we worked to control in the world for our own domestic corporate interests?  Why did Obama try to negotiate away our domestic sovereignty through the TPP?  Why are we at war in Syria (hint: it involves a natural gas pipeline to Europe). . . 

I haven't ever blocked anyone on this forum but this level of sheer idiocy really galls me, time to get back to the main threads.  sorry I stopped by.

One of those was definitely because she was not considered trustworthy, a narrative that was amplified by the right and a complicit press, and by Comey, etc. But she also lost for a number of other reasons: because of fake news (Russian and otherwise), because of misogyny, because of election tampering. . .

She lost because she is a neoliberal who supported NAFTA and the TPP (which Barack Obama was pushing through and against the will of the democratic party during the entire election).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 30, 2017, 04:45:14 AM »
Big Fat wad of warm moist air penetrating deep through the CAB towards CAA and Greenland from Bering Strait region over next day. 850hpa at 6.2C and 22 kg/m^2 TPW over pole region:,92.05,850/loc=-147.303,83.711

Wow! 3.1C surface temperatures 5 days out!,92.69,850/loc=-144.929,77.669

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: June 30, 2017, 12:58:06 AM »
What I dislike most about this story, is that that ACORN fake news asshole scores with it. We should've never heard from that POS ever again.


however, as onerous as their history is, this is a real scoop and shows how the corporate media works to the detriment of the U.S. for $$$.  It also indicates that much of the Russia stuff is simply a diversion tactic and further limiting the actual resistance to the destructive trump agenda (reference the discussion about the CNN CEO guiding the network back to Russia and away from the exit from Paris Agreement.  There couldn't be a more clear example of institutional failure of the media to protect the public good.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: June 29, 2017, 09:15:20 PM »
this is absolutely telling.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 29, 2017, 08:15:41 PM »
Chartic continues to track SIE almost identical to 2011 with amazingly high coincidence (for the past 30 days!) now also aligns well with 2012.  Obviously everything is going to depend on pre-melt in July and late season melt impacts. 

Strong positive PNA index for the next 10 days is also reinforced by ECMWF 850 mb temp anomalies.  These are pretty extreme and am not sure how valid they are but the forecast is only 10 days out.  If this holds, and we reach additional heat pulses in mid August we will easily surpass both SIE and PIOMAS volume records by Sept 21st.

Sanders would have won against trump by over 15 points, easily.

If the GOP would have sat back after the Dem nominee was chosen and said, "Well, thank goodness Clinton is out of the race; let's just leave Sanders alone and see how well he does", then, yes, maybe. But that's a little far-fetched. The GOP would have turned its formidable power to bear on the "old, crazy, wild-eyed, wild-haired, dandruff-flecked, finger-wagging socialist". (Their words, not mine.)  Sanders would have been eviscerated. He would have been destroyed. And Russia, instead of going after Clinton, would have gone after him just as hard.

Those are the same tired arguments that the MSM used to say that Sanders wasn't a viable candidate early on in the primary.  I have very strong personal relationships with extremely conservative folk and they all believed that Sanders was authentic and against the Washington establishment.  In the end it was this position that ultimately defeated Clinton.  The problem with Clinton was that she was the ultimate establishment candidate and, just like all the establishment candidates in the Republican primary, Trump destroyed her.  That kryptonite would not have worked against Sanders who was running an ACTUAL populist campaign.

Trump was elected with a 60% unfavorable opinion.  The reason that Clinton was defeated was because she was not considered trustworthy at the outset and this was a 'change' election.

This is why Sanders is now THE most popular U.S. political figure and he would have CRUSHED the rust-belt states (which he won against clinton), as well as some rural Midwest states where he was polling well ahead of Trump and ESPECIALLY among independents, many of whom stayed home BECAUSE he was not in the general election.

All your arguments forgets to note that nearly 1/2 of all U.S. did not vote in the election and many blue-collar workers said that they voted for Trump because they felt betrayed by Obama.  Sanders spent his entire campaign rallying against the Billionaires and Oligarchs and he was growing in popularity through the entire primary (and afterwards now he continues to grow in popularity). 

Face it, this was a 'change' election and a rebellion against neo-liberal economic policy, similar to 'brexit' and the recent upending of UK by Jeremy Corbyn. 


those are reasonable images, I have not seen such clear maps of projected melt before!  Thinking about it, what does 5m/a of melt actually look like?  Knowing that most of the melt would occur during the austral summer.

The implications are that the long-term warming trend is pretty much locked in now,  however, please remember that the models should show a much greater arctic amplification going forward than they do, so the GMST value is slightly overestimating the Antarctic warming. 

Of course, a shift into a permanent/semi-permanent El Nino regime would easily compensate for this, especially on the West Antarctic Peninsula.


Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: June 28, 2017, 01:57:47 PM »
Meta Analysis of CO2 enrichment studies on plant growth shows that that published studies on the impacts of CO2 increases on plant growth are overestimated by 20-40%.  This indicates that projections of future crop production in a warming world are overestimated and that the projected land-based carbon sinks are assuming too much natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Has the Impact of Rising CO2 on Plants been Exaggerated by Meta-Analysis of Free Air CO2 Enrichment Studies?

Meta-analysis is extensively used to synthesize the results of free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) studies to produce an average effect size, which is then used to model likely plant response to rising [CO2]. The efficacy of meta-analysis is reliant upon the use of data that characterizes the range of responses to a given factor. Previous meta-analyses of the effect of FACE on plants have not incorporated the potential impact of reporting bias in skewing data. By replicating the methodology of these meta-analytic studies, we demonstrate that meta-analysis of FACE has likely exaggerated the effect size of elevated [CO2] on plants by 20 to 40%; having significant implications for predictions of food security and vegetation response to climate change. Incorporation of the impact of reporting bias did not affect the significance or the direction of the [CO2] effect.

Sanders would have won against trump by over 15 points, easily.


it takes a lot of smarts to respond with a stupid meme.

Just like climate science, the desire for something to be true, or not, doesn't mean it is (or isn't):

Our ruling

Schweizer said, "Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."

We're not checking Schweizer's suggestion that the increased speaking fees were part of a plan to curry favor in his wife's State Department. But on the specific numbers, Schweitzer is correct.

Hillary Clinton’s financial disclosure forms from 2001 through the end of 2012 confirm Schweizer’s claim. We rate it True.

Sanders currently has the most favorable rating of any politician in America.  He would have crushed trump and, had the DNC not made backroom media deals and aligned their insider corporate superdelegates to ALL vote AGAINST him, he would have prevailed in the primary.  Like it or not, the Corporate DNC has destroyed themselves as a viable party.

Sanders would have been eviscerated in the general election.  He would have been attacked relentlessly and comprehensively by the GOP operation and their media apparatus. 

Given factual evidence of Sanders' poor performance in the Dem primary, it is likely Dem turnout would have been depressed in the General with Sanders as the nominee. 

bleh,  the primary strategy of a red-state firewall and closed primaries destroyed the Democratic party.  Sanders won West Virginia handily and eastern Pennsylvania counties with the exact SAME demographics flipped to Clinton by 10 points.  This is because sanders polled +10 points BETTER than Clinton against trump. 

To claim dem turnout would have been depressed by Sanders, who was filling stadiums when the ACTUAL dem turnout was crap, with many former Obama voters voting FOR trump is revisionist nonesense and shows a complete lack of understanding of what happened and therefore you can assert more nonesense about what might happen in the future.

Sanders would have won against trump by over 15 points, easily. 

The cutting edge progressive/liberal thought I watched since last year made me a Hillary defender, for I always checked the stuff and the sources. But I'm fed up with that. The reason I refuse to donate my clicks and neurons to the Dore show is the volume of suspicious and occasionally even obviously false (even to me German!) stuff he tells. (Example: Hillary selling Plutonium to Russia. LOL or weep?)

I prefer straight-forward transparent news, where you don't constantly feel an urge to double check stuff. Like Rachel Maddow's excellent synopses and interviews. For polit entertainment I find Bill Maher superbly dwarfing Dore's echo chamber.


1. the english term is 'Liberal'
2.  Jimmy dore was not reporting on selling plutonium to russia, he was reporting on old reporting done by the New York times about how the clinton's made hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations by Russian Banks to the Clinton Foundation when they were selling U.S. URANIUM mining interests to the russian bankers.


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Sanders currently has the most favorable rating of any politician in America.  He would have crushed trump and, had the DNC not made backroom media deals and aligned their insider corporate superdelegates to ALL vote AGAINST him, he would have prevailed in the primary.  Like it or not, the Corporate DNC has destroyed themselves as a viable party.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: June 20, 2017, 12:05:02 AM »
The far side of Lake Champlain looks to get that ~250mm within a 24 hour period.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33