a sinkhole, have trees fall on them, before giving up one red cent they've earned. Well, not earned but acquired.

I still think people are capable of being frightened into action by the truth.

Americans largely didn't buy Mitt Romney's line of bullshit, and I think that Inhofe's may be passing it's "best before" date as well.

I dunno, gg, we still have people even here in ee that think nukes are safe and are our best option.

Teh stupid burns. I say let them go stand at the gates of Fukushima for a few days and see if teh stupid gets burned out of them. I bet it would. What do you think? Do you need to test the truth personally, or can you dig the truth?

...either for or against. It's an argument with no resolution, beset by stupid on both sides. I hate getting that goop all over me, so I steer clear of the mudhole. Thanks for the invitation, but I'll sit this one out.

Whatever floats your boat, dude.

I just don't discuss it on public internet forums any more. It's not worth the aggro.

I've got plenty of history on the issue, I don't need any more.

How many Americans even understand what +6C really means for the world?

In my opinion, people were "scared" by An Inconvenient Truth. Unfortunately the effect was relatively short-lived.

The most likely palatable action will be some patchwork system of carbon taxes and the occasional offset program, with business as usual subjected to it. Is that going to stem the tide if we face a worse-case scenario?

Any action, even if it results in a patchwork of mistakes, is better than nothing. At least it opens the possibility for interesting, positive change here and there.

Nothing is going to stem the tide of a worst case scenario. And I don't think the word "if" belongs in your sentence. My hope for shaking people awake isn't to prompt some sort of effective institutional response. I don't think our global institutions are capable of it. My hope on a much smaller scale - that more individuals will be moved to action, in the realization that it's now a "sauve qui peut" situation.

The cheapest solution will be what they go after.

There will never be a carbon tax.

It used to be that they were too optimistic about their models back in the old days.....although at least now their models tend to better reflect reality. Let's just hope they don't go in the other direction, too, or we're in trouble all over again.

It's no fun to get future predictions of all these models and feedbacks exactly right.

...that there will be a total collapse of civilization before we can fuck up the planet for all other forms of life."

Thank you for attending, the research donation jar is on your left as you exit the lecture hall.

Just read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

1981

Atmospheric models aren't that damn difficult, they just need basic physics to understand. The problem is scientists must interpret the models and the error bars are massive (2-6C, wtf?!?) so they have err'd on the lower end of estimations, not having any sense of the feedbacks (or negative feedbacks) that the system has.

It's turning out that there aren't many negative feedbacks at all. Cloud cover? Less. Plant sequestration? Less. Oceanic absorption? Decreasing rapidly.

Let us hope that they've learned from past mistakes re: interpretation, and hope that they won't just go off in the other direction because that wouldn't really help, either. That's really all I'm saying.

That is the hallmark of science.

They need to stress, absolutely stress, that the interpretations have to this point been wrong, and that the effects have been higher than their interpretations have been. That is a fact, a scientific fact, so they will not be "hurting" by pointing that out.

This is not to say that they should simply magically pick the higher end projections.

Merely make it clear that the interpretations to this point (likely because the scientists were afraid to tell the truth) have been on the low end and inaccurate.

IPCC AR4 where they left out the sea level rise from ice melt and only included glaciers and expansion.

They better do this shit right if the world has any hope of averting the catastrophe it has inflicted upon itself.

And if de Boer still feels justified in using that kind of language when the projections are guaranteed to be ultra-conservative, what does that say about the real state of play?

I look forward to the release, I'll devour the whole thing, if they don't have the state of the art in there (such as the fact that we've narrowed it down and recognized that cloud cover isn't a negative feedback) I will have to rant about that shit.

I reckon they'll play it conservative though, as you say.

At least as far as potential temperature rises are concerned. But as I said before, I only hope the IPCC will learn from their past misjudgements concerning intrepretation of said models and not just go in the opposite direction instead. Here's hoping for the best.

I expect that the state of the art won't make it into that report at all. And what does make it will be as GG said, ultra-conservative even with the "scary" projections.

Arctic sea ice melts 2 years later (max).

(Worse, it hits zero volume the Sept. before the report is published and they publish anyway, no bets on that though.)

Tell them the human race will certainly go extinct in ten years and they will assume it's just more hyperbole.

Tell them the polar ice caps will melt in 50 years and they yawn. What's the hurry? Let the next administration worry about it.

So, no matter what the report says, nothing will change. What the report says will either be dismissed as hysterical hyperbole, or be kicked down the road for some future generation to deal with. And that, my friends, is why the earth cannot be saved.

So, no matter what the report says, nothing will change.

A few fatalists only make a difference to you. What makes a difference to most people is being reassured of their non-negotiable lifestyle, the fact that teh scientisticists are all in cahoots for teh grantz, and how GW is a hoax perpetrated by teh gay libruls.

Compared to that onslaught of flaming stupidity, a few fatalists over in the corner mumbling about complex dynamical systems, melting ice caps, permanent global recession and the unfortunate tendency for herding behaviour that's enshrined in our limbic brains make absolutely no difference. None at all. No one even hears us except those few others like us - and you. To the people who are making the noise in society we are a complete non-issue. If we get noticed it's as just another part of the lunatic fringe like the IPCC.

You are hyperallergic to our viewpoint for some reason, but as far as I can tell you're virtually alone in this. To teh gay libruls of the general envirowhacko movement, we're similar to the crazy uncle who shows up somewhat drunk at Thanksgiving and Christmas, making slightly outrageous comments even when no one is listening. We're part of the scenery to be ignored, and nobody takes anything we say seriously. Maybe we should be flattered that you do?

What makes a difference to most people is being reassured of their non-negotiable lifestyle, the fact that teh scientisticists are all in cahoots for teh grantz, and how GW is a hoax perpetrated by teh gay libruls.

"You are hyperallergic to our viewpoint for some reason, but as far as I can tell you're virtually alone in this."

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure not about to let up.

Maybe you can get McPherson and Light to stop talking about stuff.

Not fun. I've actually been tempted to really get into some of the deniers I've come across out there, like some of those trolling the Skeptical Science boards for example. And I'm certainly gonna give Light a piece of my mind one of these days, unless he finally 'fesses up to that big-ass screw up of his.

We've had four solid years of gibbering droolfest paranoia from the Tea-Tards and their allies of convenience. They're gonna take away our gunz, they're gonna make us pray to Mecca, they're gonna teach our kids Teh Gay Sechs, they're gonna DESTROY 'MURCA!!!

Straight-up, flat-out, apocalyptic rabies, spreading fast among those unaccustomed to travel outside the Fox Bubble.

But when the real deal appears on the horizon, and year after year after year, just gets bigger and just gets worse, and even as the projections darken at ever-higher speeds, and as climate breakdown manifests itself IN REAL TIME, it becomes just a liberal plot, and you scientists hate 'Murca, because FREEDUMB!

I thought this was what they wanted? Oh, sorry, it doesn't involve Pro Wrestling Jesus (R) smiting evil Arabs and splitting the Mount of Olives, so who cares, right?

Given how "the usual suspects" have managed to water down the warning EVERY TIME
and consistently render any international conference totally impotent EVERY TIME,
I have no confidence that any of the people who *need* to be scared out of their wits
will give a single, solitary damn about it.

They are rich.

They are powerful.

They don't give a flying fuck about anyone (much less any thing) who isn't in their club.

They merely want to prolong profit as usual for as long as possible.

We've seen how little impact even a little bit of flooding in New York has changed
things - hell, one of the first "We can do it!" announcements was that the shitting
Stock Exchange had reopened! No, I think it will take much more than a bit of truth-telling
by scientists to penetrate that kind of wilful ignorance.

Look what happened right after Sandy passed thru. Even the M.S.M. couldn't pass up talking about climate change.

No, I think it will take much more than a bit of truth-telling
by scientists to penetrate that kind of wilful ignorance.

It seems possible the new IPCC report may vindicate Light and McPherson.

What they have stated is falsifiable, so its a matter of whether they are corroborated or debunked (and to what degree).

I think you may be jumping the gun in that respect, calling them fearmongers.

It seems possible the new IPCC report may vindicate Light and McPherson.

What they have stated is falsifiable, so its a matter of whether they are corroborated or debunked (and to what degree).

I think you may be jumping the gun in that respect, calling them fearmongers.

11C was already within the realm of possibility when established models did not take strong methane feedbacks into account.

And you do realize that the Permian extinction included severe ocean anoxia once the atmosphere hit about 900ppm of carbon? It caused the biochemistry of the oceans to change drastically resulting in toxic levels of hydrogen-sulfide gas both in the sea and on land. About 95% of all living things died in that event.

Current emission rates place us at 900ppm of carbon by 2100.

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

That's where the 16 degree number comes from. McPherson didn't just pull it out of his ass.

You can read the piece in Science in which Kiehl lays it out, but here are a couple of excerpts:

The atmospheric CO2 concentration currently is 390 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and continuing on a business-as-usual path of energy use based on fossil fuels will raise it to ?900 to 1100 ppmv by the end of this century (see the first figure) (1). When was the last time the atmosphere contained ?1000 ppmv of CO2? Recent reconstructions (2–4) of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through history indicate that it has been ?30 to 100 million years since this concentration existed in the atmosphere (the range in time is due to uncertainty in proxy values of CO2). The data also reveal that the reduction of CO2 from this high level to the lower levels of the recent past took tens of millions of years. Through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will return to this concentration in a matter of a century. Thus, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth's history.

What was Earth's climate like at the time of past elevated CO2? Consider one example when CO2 was ?1000 ppmv at ?35 million years ago (Ma) (2). Temperature data (5, 6) for this time period indicate that tropical to subtropical sea surface temperatures were in the range of 35° to 40°C (versus present-day temperatures of ?30°C) and that sea surface temperatures at polar latitudes in the South Pacific were 20° to 25°C (versus modern temperatures of ?5°C). The paleogeography of this time was not radically different from present-day geography, so it is difficult to argue that this difference could explain these large differences in temperature. Also, solar physics findings show that the Sun was less luminous by ?0.4% at that time (7). Thus, an increase of CO2 from ?300 ppmv to 1000 ppmv warmed the tropics by 5° to 10°C and the polar regions by even more (i.e., 15° to 20°C).

What can we learn from Earth's past concerning the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gas increases? Accounting for the increase in CO2 and the reduction in solar irradiance, the net radiative forcing—the change in the difference between the incoming and outgoing radiation energy–of the climate system at 30 to 40 Ma was 6.5 to 10 W m?2 with an average of ?8 W m?2 (see the second figure). A similar magnitude of forcing existed for other past warm climate periods, such as the warm mid-Cretaceous of 100 Ma (8). Using the proxy temperature data and assuming, to first order, that latitudinal temperature can be fit with a cosine function in latitude (9), the global annual mean temperature at this time can be estimated to be ?31°C, versus 15°C during pre-industrial times (around 1750) (10). Thus, Earth was ?16°C warmer at 30 to 40 Ma. The ratio of change in surface temperature to radiative forcing is called the climate feedback factor (11). The data for 30 to 40 Ma indicate that Earth's climate feedback factor was ?2°C W?1 m?2. Estimates (1, 11) of the climate feedback factor from climate model simulations for a doubling of CO2 from the present-day climate state are ?0.5 to 1°C W?1 m?2. The conclusion from this analysis—resting on data for CO2 levels, paleotemperatures, and radiative transfer knowledge—is that Earth's sensitivity to CO2 radiative forcing may be much greater than that obtained from climate models.

I don't know so much about the far future, but if Kiehl's trying to tell us that 16*C is likely, or even possible, by 2100, then he'd be dead wrong as well.

I'm not sure why you don't like the IPCC, the National Center for Atmospheric Research or Science magazine

Apparently that's not so far-fetched after all,

I think Guy is a model of probity compared to your rather hysterical rejection of what he says

and your inability to report it honestly.

Last edited Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Why do you not dig into the science any deeper than it takes to confirm your biases? It's all well and good to have opinions, but when that extends extend to rubbishing the conclusions of scientists doing real research for top national institutions like NCAR and NASA, who publish their results in reputable journals, you'd better have more than opinion to go on.

I get 3640 hits. Mostly DU

If I google "AverageJoe90 Malcolm Light":
I get 518 hits. Mostly DU

I don't get it. Did these guys date your mom or something?

I am not entirely familiar with Malcom P.R. Light....does he have a cool web blog like Guy McPherson and George Mobus?

All kidding aside, if there is even the remotest chance of devastating effects from climate change, is our best course of action a crusade against extreme climate alarmists? It just seems like you are putting a lot of effort in there, but maybe I am wrong. No offense intended.

All kidding aside, if there is even the remotest chance of devastating effects from climate change, is our best course of action a crusade against extreme climate alarmists? It just seems like you are putting a lot of effort in there, but maybe I am wrong. No offense intended.

It's still too early to tell what kind of impact Sandy has had/will have on the American psyche. There are still places without power, and the longer that drags on the greater the awakening will be. It also depends whether Sandy is seen as a "one-off" or whether people frame it in terms of the wider perturbations of the weather. The process of recognition will really accelerate when (not if) the next oddball superstorm hits. At some point the weirdness becomes unspinnable.

I know that doesn't sit well with most of your posts

> There are still places without power, and the longer that drags on the greater the awakening will be.

The Stock Exchange is back to normal.

Most of the rich & prosperous part of NYC is back to normal.

That means that there is no need to worry about anything else as it's all (*) back to normal.

(*) = "all of the bits that matter"


I give you the example of New Orleans et al a year or more after Katrina: devastation abounded
but "nothing that mattered". The same is happening with New York (but faster - exactly as expected!)

> The process of recognition will really accelerate when (not if) the next oddball superstorm hits.
> At some point the weirdness becomes unspinnable.

That's exactly why I want more of them - and all as soon as possible - in order to wake up the
wilfully ignorant, the deniers and the ostriches. Shit, enough of them and it might even wake up
the greedy fuckwits in the administration so that they'll get off their obscenely-paid arses and
stop blocking every attempt that is made to help the state of the planet.

(I know, I know, ... now *I'm* being optimistic ...)

A smashing triumph would be to scare the wits out of those who really matter.