256 thoughts on “More global warming, more hurricanes.

  1. It’s bizarre, but not surprising, that climate change deniers denied this basic physical relationship. That they used the variability inherent in global weather/climate to obfuscate is no excuse.

    I’m tempted to invoke climate Nuremberg just to see if that troll apparates.

    1. Bernard J, the facts do not bear out your
      nor GL, the author, that this “claim” has any
      realty in substance.

      Once again, the AGW “community” undermines its
      so called expertise and knowledge.

      Your Bloomburg is self inflicted.

  2. Eh?
    The idea, promoted by several studies over at least the last 10 years, is there will be a growing trend of fewer, but stronger cyclones.
    The idea always seemed odd to me, but I honestly never had a good look at the mechanisms that were predicted to do this.
    If someone can explain that here, it would be appreciated.
    Intuitively, one would think both more and stronger cyclones, but intuition don’t mean a whole lot.
    Sooo, what’s really going on with the science here?

    What an utter shite idea it is to have some weird arse music as a soundtrack behind people talking. I couldn’t watch it all.
    Let scientists articulate without being in a disco, FFS. What nong thought it was a good thing to do this?

    1. Ok. Did some reading. It seems that the system with more energy added should
      impact development of cyclones due to changes in the mid and upper atmosphere. But when they do develop,
      its nasty.

    2. The conditions that rip apart tropical cyclones when they are first forming would increase at the same time the conditions that make strong hurricanes that get past that initial formation stronger increase.

      This only applies to the N. Atlantic.

      This is a pretty good study, but has not been backed up by a lot of other work.

      So far, we are actually getting both more (a little) and stronger.

  3. Li: It could be that stronger storms mean more heat sucked out of the ocean to form each one, and thus it takes longer for the heat to build back to storm-formation level. But I have no ide whether that’s valid.

    1. Thanks for reply.
      Here’s a link to some research on the subject.

      http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2646?nid=137120&foxtrotcallback

      I wanna know why the idea touched on ( troposphere capped by high pressure anomally ) is no longer a valid idea. And there’s now gonna be more of the bloody things. Poor bloody Philippines get slammed enough at is, to name just one location.
      Is the idea refuted in the stupid musical video I didn’t watch fully?
      Is there some new science ? Greg?
      Fuck off with YouTube shit ( unless it’s funny, or Attenboroughish ) and back up your blog titles with good links.
      I betcha ya don’t lecture in your field with some crap music playing.
      Sorry I sound harsh, but for fucks sake, climate change is a serious subject.
      Isn’t it? Worthy of being real careful with claims and data and whatnot.
      It’s not a friggen game. That’s what them denier cockheads play at.
      Does the best science that you know about predict more or less cyclones?

  4. Li: It could be that stronger storms mean more heat sucked out of the ocean to form each one, and thus it takes longer for the heat to build back to storm-formation level. But I have no idea whether that’s valid.

  5. Righto. Watched the who bloody thing.
    Methinks Greg misunderstood what was being discussed. Not more cyclones.
    More extreme flood events. Like what happened in Penang last November, as an example. That was some crazy shit.
    If you did understand Greg, and I’ve got it wrong and the video explains clearly why there’s gonna be more cyclones, I apologise.
    But I must be fucking blind and deaf.

  6. Something to share. If readers wanna learn some shit and freak out too, check out what’s being discovered about the shape of the rock underneath some glaciers in Antarctica upstream from current grounding lines.
    The implications are not good. The implications have reasonable consilient verification by other fields.

  7. There is no prima facie to support this
    video nor the title, other than to support and advance
    previous false and specious arguments.

    1. I get the impression BillyR knows a lot about “false and specious arguments.” His comment makes me want to slap his prima facie.

  8. As we watch the global sea ice volume diminish year to year, as we watch more and more heat records being broken, as we watch sea levels rise, as we watch multiple local thousand year floods per decade, as we witness all these things, there is little incentive to believe otherwise than that the surface of the Earth is, in general, warming.

    And yet, viewing a different set of “information” prepackaged by those with a vested interest in transmitting false narratives, one reaches a different conclusion and tends to have a different set of responses.

    Interesting.

    1. SteveP:

      Yes that is interesting.

      What I find interesting is that your first paragraph could have also been said during the 1930’s or the 1890’s or really anytime over the last 20,000 years.

      The sea level has risen 120 meters over the last 20,000 years and therefore it has been warming during that entire time (by and large, not every day or year of course).

      So we know it is warming.

      The question is why is it warming.

      Is it warming for the same reasons that caused the 120 meters of sea level rise?

      Or has nature turned off and now only humans are causing the warming.

      One narrative is that yes, since 1950 only humans have caused warming and in fact humans have caused 105% of the warming since 1950 (aerosols suppressed some warming so greater than 100% due to humans).

      I reject that based on the evidence.

      I am sure humans have caused some warming since 1950 (or 1750 for that matter).

      The question is how much?

      Since observationally constrained ECS is about 1/2 of what the middle of the range is (1.7 ish or 1.8 ish for ECS) versus 3.0C for the middle of the range, I am going with slightly more than 1/2 the warming is caused by humans.

      The oceans and air temperature have backed off .2C over the last two years as the el nino of 2015-2016 is over. So we know .2C of the 1C rise since 1880 is caused by nature, just from the last el nino. That is 20% of the total warming over the last 140 ish years!

      The sun is less active than it has been for a long time and that could cool things off further (we will see).

      Once we have 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we can measure the effective transient climate response (not the model one but real life). In other words what is the instantaneous real-world temperature difference between when CO2 was 280 and the doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm. It will be interesting to see what that number turns out to be.

      But I do agree that there are lots of false narratives.

      One of those is that all the warming since 1950 is due to humans and there is no room left for naturally occurring warming.

    2. But I do agree that there are lots of false narratives.

      Your recurring narrative is one of the most consistently false.

      You seriously misinterpret and misrepresent the nature and significant of the science, whether from recalcitrant ignorance or from rigid ideological antipathy to the facts, and you show no awareness or remorse for your persistence in an inaccurate narrative.

    3. And off you go again, with the same old, debunked crap you always troll here with.

      Not only are you staggeringly intellectually dishonest, you are arse-numbingly boring with it.

    4. But I do agree that there are lots of false narratives.

      One of those is that all the warming since 1950 is due to humans and there is no room left for naturally occurring warming.

      That’s *your* false narrative.

      The evidence-based scientific position is that all warming since ~1950 is anthropogenic because there has been no increase in natural forcing sufficient to explain the observations.

      This is NOT the same as claiming that natural forcings have ceased to operate.

      Why can’t you understand the basics? They’ve been explained to you enough times? Perhaps you simply prefer to peddle false narratives for political motives?

  9. Or has nature turned off and now only humans are causing the warming.

    O am fairly certain that by now that answers to your zombie question have been put in front of you many times and in different ways. If you carried out due diligence by visiting RealClimate and Skeptical Science you would find the answers.

    But you are not interested in true facts just pushing more wishy washy obfuscation.

    But I do agree that there are lots of false narratives.

    There sure are and you have just presented a Gish Gallop of same.

    It is late here now no time to enlarge further but have already given you starters for ten.

    1. Cooling and warming the planet.

      No, only cooling in this case.

      Weird. Cause I thought any pause was due to humans reducing aerosols.

      No, reducing aerosol negative forcing would warm the climate system. Another absolutely basic failure in topic knowledge. Why can’t you learn this stuff?

      Hmmm – maybe not everything since 1950 is caused by humans after all.

      The evidence-based scientific position is that *warming* since the 1950s is entirely anthropogenic because there has been no increase in natural forcing. The misnomered ‘pause’ appears to have been multifactoral, with an increase in ocean heat uptake in the tropical Pacific as the major factor.

      Nobody is arguing that natural variability (ENSO, variability of Trade Winds, volcanism etc) has stopped. That’s *your* false narrative. Again.

    2. Oh that pesky nature:

      […]

      “A reduction in total incident solar radiation forcing played a significant cooling role over 2001–2010. ”

      Cooling and warming the planet.

      From your link to Folland et al. (2018):

      The relative contributions of the various forcing factors to GST changes vary in time, but most of the warming since 1891 is found to be attributable to the net influence of increasing greenhouse gases and anthropogenic aerosols. Separate statistically independent analyses are also carried out for three periods of GST slowdown (1896–1910, 1941–1975, and 1998–2013 and subperiods); two periods of strong warming (1911–1940 and 1976–1997) are also analyzed. A reduction in total incident solar radiation forcing played a significant cooling role over 2001–2010.

      Funny how you managed to clip out the part that flatly contradicts your false narrative. Misrepresentation by selective quotation is clear evidence of dishonesty.

    3. BBD says “Funny how you managed to clip out the part that flatly contradicts your false narrative. Misrepresentation by selective quotation is clear evidence of dishonesty.”

      It is funny that you think that quote flatly contradicts my narrative. It does not.

      My narrative is that not all of the warming since 1950 was caused by humans.

      The quote is “most of the warming”. That does not contradiction my point that not ALL of the warming is caused by humans.

      I don’t push back against the IPCC attribution statement – which I paraphrase as more than 50% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans. 51% of the warming caused by humans could fit into this attribution statement – which is what I think it will turn out to be (roughly 1/2). The other half is nature, in my opinion.

      I push back against the CAGW people who turned the IPCC attribution statement into more than 100% of the warming was caused by humans. I don’t agree with this statement and more importantly neither does the consensus.

    4. It is funny that you think that quote flatly contradicts my narrative. It does not.

      My narrative is that not all of the warming since 1950 was caused by humans.

      The quote is “most of the warming”. That does not contradiction my point that not ALL of the warming is caused by humans.

      Most since 1891, ALL since 1950. Folland18 *does* contradict your false narrative and pretending you were’t lying by omission is to double down on your dishonesty.

      And I want your scientific evidence for the mysterious natural forcings you claim are in play and which reduce the anthro contribution since 1950 to less than 100%

      I want some references and I want them now. Or you have to walk your crap right back the way it came.

    5. I push back against the CAGW people who turned the IPCC attribution statement into more than 100% of the warming was caused by humans. I don’t agree with this statement and more importantly neither does the consensus.

      Another lie.

      IPCC AR5 WG1:

      It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

      Read. The. Words.

      The consensus is that observed warming is anthropogenic.

      Neither you nor Curry understands the attribution statement.

    6. BBD:

      You are right. I do not understand the attribution statement. I was remembering the first part but not the second.

      Fine than – I disagree with the consensus. I disagree with the “best estimate” portion of the attribution statement. I cannot reconcile the cooling from the MWP to the LIA (almost 1C) and the warming from 1750 to 1940ish (almost .6C) with nature not having an impact in the last 70 years.

      So you can just right me off as a stubborn denier.

      I will keep reading and still wonder what would it mean if ECS does turn out to be 1.8C and not the best estimate of 3.0C – what would that do to the best estimate of the observed consensus warming from 1950 to 2010?

      So I an not convinced yet that the consensus is right.

      Maybe I will change my mind later, but not yet.

    7. Fine than – I disagree with the consensus. I disagree with the “best estimate” portion of the attribution statement. I cannot reconcile the cooling from the MWP to the LIA (almost 1C) and the warming from 1750 to 1940ish (almost .6C) with nature not having an impact in the last 70 years.

      So you can just right me off as a stubborn denier.

      That is exactly what you are, so stuff the tone-trolling.

      Where is the scientific evidence for ANY natural forcing change contributing ANYTHING to warming post-1950? Where is there ANY shred of evidence supporting your ‘opinion’? No evidence = NO ARGUMENT. Don’t you even understand this? It is how real science works. The evidence overwhelmingly supports >100% anthro contribution. Deny this and you are a denier. That’s what it means.

      I will keep reading and still wonder what would it mean if ECS does turn out to be 1.8C and not the best estimate of 3.0C – what would that do to the best estimate of the observed consensus warming from 1950 to 2010?

      What? You are taking a demonstrably incorrect estimate of S and using it to ‘challenge’ the wall of other evidence that points to ECS of ~3C?

      That’s not a argument either, just more denialism. Now either reason like an adult and admit you have no evidence and no scientific counter-argument to the consensus or piss off with your denialist nonsense.

      Enough is enough.

    8. BBD:

      The null hypothesis is still that any changes to climate are natural.

      So I am afraid it is you (and the consensus) who have the burden of proof – not me.

      It is you and the consensus who have no argument.

      The argument – I cannot think of anything else it could be so it must be humans is not an argument at all. That is basically saying we are still gathering data and will get back to you in 100 years.

      So yes there is evidence for sure, but it is not dispositive yet.

      The signal is barely above the noise – which is why we haven’t been able to narrow the range of ECS further from 1.5C – 4.5C over the last 28 years.

      Just because a group of advocate scientists get together and say the best evidence is x doesn’t mean x is the right answer.

      I will wait and see what the actual evidence shows, once the data are dispositive.

      The data still leaves open the possibility that ECS is anywhere between 1.5C and 4.5C, although it is less likely the further you move towards the ends of the probability distribution.

    9. The null hypothesis is still that any changes to climate are natural.

      And absent ANY evidence for natural forcing change sufficient to explain observed warming and A SHIT TON of evidence for aCO2 being the major forcing change the null is falsified.

      So I am afraid it is you (and the consensus) who have the burden of proof – not me.

      Done, and in the process, invalidated your ‘argument’. Something you have not yet conceded which is dishonest of you in the extreme.

      It is you and the consensus who have no argument.

      Wrong-o.

      So yes there is evidence for sure, but it is not dispositive yet.

      False claim, see above.

      Just because a group of advocate scientists get together and say the best evidence is x doesn’t mean x is the right answer.

      Conspiracist ideation and ad hominem.

      Where is your evidence to support your claim that modern warming is not 100% anthropogenic?

      No evidence = no argument. Persistence = intellectual dishonesty / denialist rhetoric.

      So back it up or admit that you have no argument.

      Dodging this = intellectual dishonesty.

    10. The data still leaves open the possibility that ECS is anywhere between 1.5C and 4.5C, although it is less likely the further you move towards the ends of the probability distribution.

      And multiple lines of evidence strongly suggest a most likely value of ~3C for ECS.

    11. BBD:

      How is my statement you quoted ad hominem?

      I am not trying to prove that “modern warming is not 100% anthropogenic?” That is just my opinion, based on my evaluation of the evidence. I could be wrong. I admit that. But nobody can PROVE I am wrong (yet).

    12. How is my statement you quoted ad hominem?

      Your use of the loaded term “advocate scientists” is ad hominem. Don’t you even know you are doing it?

      I am not trying to prove that “modern warming is not 100% anthropogenic?” That is just my opinion, based on my evaluation of the evidence. I could be wrong. I admit that. But nobody can PROVE I am wrong (yet).

      FFS Rick. Science doesn’t deal in proof but in probability. And the probability that modern warming is anthropogenic is so overwhelming at this point that it has resulted in a very strong scientific consensus. The validity of which you deny with no evidence of any kind whatsoever.

  10. RickA:

    “What I find interesting is that your first paragraph could have also been said during the 1930’s or the 1890’s or really anytime over the last 20,000 years.”

    Yes, RickA, that could have been said, but to have done so would have been blindingly stupid or purposefully deceitful.

    First of all, your first paragraph is wrong semantically ( “We”, meaning the writer and reader of the paragraph, weren’t around in the 1930’s or 1890’s, or 20,000 years ago, so how could we have been recording global sea ice, thousand year storms, etc.????)

    Also nobody was measuring global sea ice volume in the 1930’s or 1890’s. They didn’t have satellites yet, member?

    Also, there is very clear evidence that the Gaussian distribution of extreme temperatures is skewing toward more heat records, fewer cold record.I mentioned record heat waves. Can you show me any evidence that the trend of increasing numbers of record heat events and decreasing record cold events was happening in the 1930’s and 1890’s?

    It looks to me like global temperatures were declining in the 1890’s. Milankovitch cycle starting to kick in perhaps? Also, at this stage in the Milankovitch cycles of glaciation, shouldn’t we be in a cooling phase? How come we aren’t?

    Thousand year storms are clearly increasing. The term refers to the calculated probability of a particular storm being 0.1% or less in a given year. Since we don’t have a thousand years of instrument data, we have to rely on data that starts, in many cases, around the 1890’s, and often includes the 1930’s. How come the thousand year storms are happening now within time spans far shorter than a thousand years?

    Finally, your use of the 20,000 year time span is , well, it is just plain stupid arse talk.

    Have a nice day. And get your blood lead tested.

    1. Evidence the sea level has risen over the last 20000 years (just spot check a few papers):

      https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=evidence+sea+level+has+risen+in+last+20000+years&btnG=

      Evidence of unprecedented heat events in the 1930s:

      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2590-5

      As to 1000 year storms – could I have a cite on that please. This conflicts with my understanding of flooding (which I understand not to have increased much if at all). But if 1000 year storms have increased as compared to the 1930s, I would guess it is because there are always lots of 1000 year storms during drought conditions (just kidding – I was joking).

      As to the Milankovitch cooling cycle – we are in the middle of the inter-glacial. I think there is evidence that during the last inter-glacial temperatures were 3 to 6C higher at the peak. So we have a few degrees to go (probably). Why do you think we should be in a cooling phase – do you have a cite for that? It is not as if the temperature doesn’t fluctuate during the inter-glacial, it is not always going to go up in a straight line or down in a straight line. I guess I missed the memo that we knew we had hit the peak of the inter-glacial.

      As to your complaint about my 20000 year period, I used 20000 years because that is when the glaciers started melting and the ocean started rising (because it started getting warmer, which kind of defines the beginning of the inter-glacial). Feel free to use any period you want. My point is it has been warming for a lot longer than since 1950, and of the 120 meters (I think that is about 4724 inches) of sea level rise since natural warming started (the current inter-glacial) only 10 inches or so has happened since 1900. Even if all 10 inches were caused by humans (I guess only 5 or so inches personally), that is still only .21% of the naturally occurring sea level rise which has happened.

      You also have a nice day.

      Why would I get my BLL tested?

      Is BLL correlated with interest in climate?

      Perhaps you should get yours tested also.

    2. Evidence the sea level has risen over the last 20000 years (just spot check a few papers):

      How stupid is it possible to be?

      Milankovitch forcing triggers interglacial ~11.5ka and melts NH land ice sheets. ~120m Holocene SLR results.

      AGW begins a *new* non-natural phase of ice sheet melt and SLR in the modern period.

      Why can’t you understand the basics? You’ve had them explained to you enough times.

    3. BBD says “AGW begins a *new* non-natural phase of ice sheet melt and SLR in the modern period.”

      I think this might be the core of our disagreement.

      I don’t agree with this statement.

      I see evidence that we are still in the warming phase of the inter-glacial. Glaciers were melting in 1880 and they were melting in the Roman warm period and they have been melting off and on again for 20,000 years. There is no new AGW period. AGW may be adding warming to the already existing natural warming, but how much is still not clear (about 50% is my guess). But there is no evidence that warming had ceased until humans started emitting CO2 in large quantities (after 1950). I don’t agree with that. We don’t know what caused the LIA, but I don’t think many people are saying it was the start of the next glaciation period.

      Time will tell. So I will wait and see.

    4. I don’t agree with this statement.

      I see evidence that we are still in the warming phase of the inter-glacial. Glaciers were melting in 1880 and they were melting in the Roman warm period and they have been melting off and on again for 20,000 years. There is no new AGW period.

      Total bollocks, as usual. There’s been a gradual cooling trend for the last ~5ka as orbital forcing tailed off from peak at the beginning of the Holocene. We should be drifting back towards cooler, preglacial conditions, not warming up like fuck. See Marcott et al. (2013):

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

      Actual science based on actual scientific evidence, not your bollocky wrong ‘opionions’.

      Time has told, we have seen.

      Going to lie about this as well?

    5. AGW may be adding warming to the already existing natural warming, but how much is still not clear (about 50% is my guess). But there is no evidence that warming had ceased until humans started emitting CO2 in large quantities (after 1950). I don’t agree with that.

      We’ve established that you were flat-out wrong about this and that there was in fact a ~5ka cooling trend abruptly reversed by AGW in the modern period. So are you going to walk this back or keep on denying the scientific evidence?

      As for this bollocks about only 50% anthro contribution, what increased natural forcing accounts for the other 50%? Spell it out, and provide some scientific references. No opinions, no handwaving. Evidence of quantified forcing change.

      Fail to do that, and you have no argument whatsoever. You are simply denying the scientific evidence.

    6. As to the Milankovitch cooling cycle – we are in the middle of the inter-glacial. I think there is evidence that during the last inter-glacial temperatures were 3 to 6C higher at the peak. So we have a few degrees to go (probably). Why do you think we should be in a cooling phase – do you have a cite for that?

      Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      We are at the END of an interglacial, or would be were it not for the huge shove from anthro warming.

      The last interglacial (Eemian; MIS 5e) was 1 – 2C warmer on average than the Holocene, not 3 – 6C. And we are at the END of the current interglacial with orbital forcing now virtually at a minimum.

      Marcott et al. (2013) op cit.

      Stop your bullshitting nonsense and learn the basics.

  11. “I get the impression BillyR knows a lot about “false and specious arguments.” His comment makes me want to slap his prima facie.”

    Winter, please support the title with one or two facts. I know you
    can’t, unless it is a lie.

    This is why you make such a deceptive and irrelevant comment. You
    are an excellent representative of AGW and its klanmen.

    1. CO2 forcing = warming troposphere = less efficient loss of (solar) energy from the oceans = increasing OHC = more energy for hurricanes. Basic physics.

      As I understand it the scientific position is that there will be an increase in *intensity* of the strongest storms, not necessarily an increase in frequency.

  12. RickA is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. When he claims to reject the broad consensus position of the climate science community “based on the evidence” I am tempted to roll over and laugh my head off. RickA wouldn’t know about “the evidence” if it slapped him in the face. His “evidence” is his clearly obvious right wing political ideology. It has FA to do with science. Moreover, since RickA’s understanding of the empirical evidence would land him in Grade 2, it begs the question as to why such a ninny pops up all over the blogosphere. This is where D-K is relevant.

    BillyR is similarly challenged intellectually. It is quite possible that he and RickA are alter egos.

    1. “BillyR is similarly challenged intellectually”

      Add “morally” to that list of challenges, for both of them.

  13. RickA appears to be trying to convince a jury that the surface of the Earth is not warming due to combustion of fossil fuels. Or maybe he is trying to convince himself that it is not a significant event, or a human influenced proposition. Whatever. We actually don’t know not sure why RickA comes here to regale us with his little bang, flat Earth, you-are-all-assholes-and-I’m-a-genius-attorney attitude. RickA should take note of the concept that when a preponderance of people who are experts in a scientific field say that something significant is happening in their sphere of expertise, one would do well to put aside ones own untutored understanding of that sphere and do some serious listening. If a group of vulcanologist tells you to run away from a volcano, do you stand still? If a group of oncologist tells you that you need to remove a tumor, do you refuse surgery? If a number of meteorologists tell you to take cover, do you stand out in an open field or on a mountain top? If a collection of climatologists tell you that the global climate is warming, and that they clearest correlate is rising carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, do you go on record saying “No its not!”? You apparently do if you are a conservative denialist type.

    It is hard to tell what motivates people like RickA. I suspect a touch of cruelty, mixed with a form of ignorance induced by the desire to maintain comfort, but I really don’t know. I also suspect that RickA puts a lot of credence in what I consider crap info sources. Conservatives seem to resonate with breathless wonders like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones, and websites like Anthony Watt’s, American Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and every and any pseudo patriot idiocy wrapped in a flag.

    RickA can easily go through the rest of his life believing that his positions on things like guns, social cruelty, oppression, and climate are the correct ones. Odds are that he won’t accidentally shoot a loved one, be held accountable for any slum lordery, or suffer any significant inconvenience or difficulty easily attributable to fossil-fuel-combustion-induced global warming, so his positions on these things probably won’t be challenged by reality while he is alive. He will continue to come here to regale us with his lengthy weightless arguments and that is okay. He is an interesting specimen, a sticky trap of misinformation who resonates with Vladimir Putin and the Fossil Fuel Oligarchs of the world.

  14. RickA appears to be trying to convince a jury that the surface of the Earth is not warming due to combustion of fossil fuels.

    Maybe RickA belongs to the class of lawyers trying to claim that the speed of spread and severity of the Grenfell Tower fire over here in UK last year were not responsible for the devastation and loss of life.

    Lawyers for the US industrial giant Arconic told the public inquiry on Tuesday that its panels, which could be seen burning and emitting showers of molten plastic from their cores, were “at most, a contributing factor”.

    Grenfell cladding firm denies responsibility for fire spread

    Question, at what stage of legal training do these lawyers have their brains atrophied?

    1. Question, at what stage of legal training do these lawyers have their brains atrophied?

      That’s not evidence of brain atrophy, Lionel. The lawyers know exactly what they are doing as they lie on behalf of their corporate client to try and get it off the liability hook for peddling shitty products that ended up killing people.

  15. “A reduction in total incident solar radiation forcing played a significant cooling role over 2001–2010. ”

    Selective, mischievous quoting does not hide the fact that the warming trend was still positive.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.92/to:2015.92/every/plot/rss/from:1997.92/to:2015.92/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2015.92/every/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2015.92/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2015.92/trend

    Now read, learn and inwardly digest this three part report:

    The recent pause in warming

    Cooling and warming the planet.

    It works like this, an auto is accelerating downhill and without adjusting the throttle the brakes are applied, this slows the rate of acceleration but does not halt it. The engine is trying to increase the speed whilst the brakes are trying to hold the auto back which one wins depends upon the steepness of the slope for one. Now the slope of increase in GHGs in the atmosphere has continued to increase, rate of emissions is accelerating overriding other factors that may produce cooling.

    Weird. Cause I thought any pause was due to humans reducing aerosols.

    No you are weird, besides, in general, you have that @r$£ backwards.

  16. That’s not evidence of brain atrophy, Lionel. The lawyers know exactly what they are doing as they lie …

    I was looking at it like this, one day these lawyers may be unfortunate enough to be in a building which self destructs as Grenfell did because these same lawyers managed to prevent censure of these corporate delinquents and their products. Heck it could even be members of their own family.

    This is a similar scenario to the effects climate change is going to have on the younger and future generations – it is going to kill millions more than it has already. These lawyers, which includes RickA are too dim, or craven, to acknowledge this.

  17. dean, here is some reading assignments for you. May be harvey can take
    you under his wings.

    https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/Is-There-a-Link-to-Superstorms-and-Global-Warming-484364611.html

    More reading assignments for Messrs dean, harvey and Landen.

    http://wx.graphics/tropical/

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/major-us-hurricane-drought-ends-after-record-4323-days

    Those that do not pass their exam, will get a bucket of rock.

    1. the owner has censored my ability to post
      any and all links..

      Why to go bin landen!!

      Oh dear, the instilled paranoia of the truly paranoid.

    1. Chris Landsea is a marginal contrarian voice, Billy. Nobody really pays much attention to him these days.

      Let’s review the actual scientific evidence:

      Nevertheless, observational data support the expectation from models that the strongest storms are getting stronger. We focus here on the period from 1979, because this is the period covered by geostationary satellite data (thus no cyclones went unobserved) and also the period over which three quarters of global warming has occurred. These data show an increase in the strongest tropical storms in most ocean basins (Kossin et al. 2013). However, these data are not homogeneous but are estimated from a variety of satellite, and air- and ground-based instruments whose capabilities have improved over time. The homogenization of these data by Kossin et al. (2013), which is generally recognized as very careful, reduces the trends, but does not eliminate them. The strongest increase can be found in the North Atlantic (which is more than 99% significant) where the trend has likely been boosted by the decrease in sulfate aerosols over this period.

      One consequence of this increase is that in most major tropical cyclone regions, the storms with the highest wind speeds on record have been observed in recent years (see Fig. 1 based on reanalysis by Velden et al. 2017). The strongest globally was Patricia (2015), which topped the previous record holder Haiyan (2013).

      Other recent records are worth mentioning. Sandy (2012) was the largest hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic. Harvey (2017) dumped more rain than any hurricane in the United States. Ophelia (2017) formed further northeast than any other Category 3 Atlantic hurricane – fortunately it turned north before striking Portugal, against initial predictions, and then weakened over cool waters before it hit Ireland. September 2017 broke the record for cumulative hurricane energy in the Atlantic. Irma (2017) sustained wind speeds of 300 km/h longer than any storm on record (for 37 hours – the previous record was 24 hours by Haiyan in 2013). Cyclone Pam in March 2015 was already beaten again by Winston in February 2016 according to the Southwest Pacific Enhanced Archive for Tropical Cyclones (though not in Velden’s data analysis). Donna in 2017 was the strongest May cyclone ever observed in the Southern Hemisphere. All coincidence?

      One of us (Emanuel) performed an analysis of linear trends in historical tropical cyclone data from 1980 to 2016. These include some observations by aircraft, ships, buoys, and stations on land in addition to the satellite data, but these have not been treated for inhomogeneities.

      A significant global increase (95% significance level) can be found in all storms with maximum wind speeds from 175 km/h. Storms of 200 km/h and more have doubled in number, and those of 250 km/h and more have tripled. Although some of the trend may be owing to improved observation techniques, this provides some evidence that a global increase in the most intense tropical storms due to global warming is not just predicted by models but already happening.

    2. Right jackwad. Since you never cite any reliable sources there is no need.to follow your crap.

    1. No Billy and BillyR there is a two link limit.

      The true axis of AGW is delivered by fossil fuel and development corporations with nature bearing witness to the effects.

    2. Instead of posting links, address the actual issue:

      CO2 forcing = warming troposphere = less efficient loss of (solar) energy from the oceans = increasing OHC = more energy for hurricanes. Basic physics.

      As I understand it the scientific position is that there will be an increase in *intensity* of the strongest storms, not necessarily an increase in frequency.

  18. “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”

    nice filter and for what???

    Rapid fire content-less and thus probably vacuous posts are not a good thing. Usually the product of an ill informed mind, which judging by your earlier posts does include you.

  19. RickA

    I push back against the CAGW people who turned the IPCC attribution statement into more than 100% of the warming was caused by humans. I don’t agree with this statement and more importantly neither does the consensus.

    That is where you are wrong, so wrong, this in spite of the fact that you have doubtless been informed by commenters here many a time and sent to sources which provide the scientific fact based arguments to support the conclusion that humans now contribute >100% to the current warming trend. This is because human activities cause both warming and cooling. The relationships are complex with much being down to human emitted aerosols and types, altitude and geographical distribution of cloud formations.

    The figures above are supported by the papers that have specifically investigated the attribution of recent global warming. This isn’t just one study; it’s based on many studies that are all in strong agreement. As the IPCC report concluded,
    It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010.
    This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods.

    Source, note the title reflects the percentage of scientific agreement not the level of the warming effect of ANT activity:

    The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?

    Note that the latest figure is greater than 100% for reasons stated above.

    Now I refuse to spoon feed you counter arguments to the specific list seen in this thread. What I will do however is link to arguments debunking all the nonsense zombie arguments that the likes of you persist in raising.

    1. If I made a false claim and was shown evidence that it was false, but then went on to repeat that false claim over and over again in the face of serial corrections, that would make me a liar, wouldn’t it?

    2. BBD,

      “If… [then]…a liar, wouldn’t it?”

      Some food for thought:

      “…The insights offered by Shapiro are that denialists are not “lying” in the way that most anti-denialists portray them. The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality for sure, explaining why arguing or debating with a denialist gets you nowhere. But the denialist is not the evil plotter they are often portrayed as. Rather denialists are trapped in their denialism…”
      https://www.denialism.com/2009/06/08/the-psychology-of-crankery/

      I sometimes wonder if there isn’t an organic component that sticks some people in a defective loop. It almost seems as though there’s some deficit in a person’s Theory of Mind that hinders them in finding meaningful solutions to the basic errors in their constructs.

      Or maybe RickA is just another Russian disinformation specialist…

    3. Ah, so Rick isn’t mendacious, he’s a crank who believes his own crankery and lacks the cognitive apparatus to understand / perceive corrective explanation no matter how frequently and forcefully it is delivered.

      Or he knows that he’s probably wrong but won’t admit it because he’s pushing a political peanut of some sort.

    4. BBD:

      Don’t we all believe what we believe?

      Don’t we all refuse to agree we are wrong if we think we are not wrong?

      I don’t think I am alone in this.

      I am always willing to admit that I can be wrong.

      I am never willing to admit that I am a liar, because I do believe what I am saying.

      It is the accusation of lying (which can never be proven) which lengthens threads, usually to the boredom of others.

      You call me a liar and I feel the need to defend myself.

      I am guessing if you are called a liar, falsely in your opinion, that you would also feel the desire to defend yourself also. But I speculate.

      Far better to just say you think I am wrong and leave it at that (in my opinion).

    5. Don’t we all believe what we believe?

      Don’t we all refuse to agree we are wrong if we think we are not wrong?

      I don’t think I am alone in this.

      I am always willing to admit that I can be wrong.

      Based on many years of interacting with you, that is a fucking barefaced lie. You never modify your position no matter how often you are shown that it is wrong.

    6. ” I disagree with the consensus.”

      Indeed he does, since it doesn’t support what he believes. Evidence has nothing to do with it.

      But rickA’s asinine “advocate scientists” line gives another view to his feelings about consensus. It’s a fair guess that he believes the process was “scientists get together and decide their consensus view is that climate change is human driven, so they have to warp evidence to support it” and that ignorant belief is why he repeatedly lies about what the science says (yes, lies, since his errors have been pointed out numerous times).

    7. “…political peanut…”

      Basic cognitive dysfunction could affect political view point, no?

      Also note wording:
      “…denialists are not “lying” in the way that most anti-denialists portray them.”

      Sounds like maybe a sort of clueless dishonesty, which of course doesn’t mean it’s benign.

      Rick has already stated elsewhere that he thinks we’re trying to force him to change his mind and has said that we can’t make him do it (he’s oppressed but he is mighty).

      And the one time I’ve seen him cornered (that he didn’t opinion fluff or cry foul) he simply replied that he’d have to go see what Curry had to say on the matter. Yet he claims that he has the scientific and mathematical chops to evaluate the primary literature on it’s merits. This despite the fact that he couldn’t correctly remember the core science courses he took in college; those basic courses being the basis for his claim of expertise. One has to wonder what in his mind is left of the contents of those courses — not to mention that the material goes out of date over time.

      The fascinating thing is that Rick thinks (probably projecting) that no one can know if another person is lying. It is a telling piece of post-truth thinking.

      FWIW:
      https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-lying-perjury-false-statements-and-obstruction

      Now let’s see if Rick can come up with some new schtick…

    8. OA:

      I have never made a “claim of expertise”.

      I have said many times that I am a lay person – that I am not a climate scientist.

      I have said I was a lawyer and I have said I was an electrical engineer – but not to claim any expertise in climate science. I mentioned I was a lawyer in connection with offering my opinion about some legal issue – probably gun control. I mentioned I was an electrical engineer during some argument about baseload power – when someone questioned whether I even know what baseload power was.

      Anyway – you are putting words into my mouth which I deny I said.

    9. I mentioned I was a lawyer in connection with offering my opinion about some legal issue – probably gun control. .

      You lie about that as well, constantly claiming that the 2nd A would need to be repealed to institute a ban on assault rifles even though Scalia clearly states the opposite and case law since Heller demonstrates it. And I noticed that you declined to respond when I nailed you for that mendacity on this thread.

  20. Hi BBD: Pretty much a liar IMO. That or brain addled. Definitely a disperser of wrong information.

    Liars misrepresent information with intent. People with defective internal perception, analytical, memory or communication systems disperse wrong information unintentionally because they are wired wrong. People such as RA could be either. Since we don’t know RA’s intent for being here, or how defective his internals are, he could be anything from a member of a Russian troll farm, to simply someone who values and defends his lifestyle and his political views against what you or I would consider objective reality, and who subsequently deals with the resulting cognitive dissonance by trying to prove that the world is flat. Or maybe he is someone who is so lead poisoned that they can’t remember that his ideas have been disproven time and time again.

    Whatever it is, he annoys us and wastes our time, but he does allow us to exercise our minds and our typing fingers, plus he is a convenient in house specimen of the species denialista which we can observe.

    Instead of the continual Punch and Judy shows that we go through, though, it would be great if he could state, succinctly, just why he is here and what he intends to try to prove or disprove. Unfortunately, it may not even be clear to him what he is doing. And if it is clear to him , he probably won’t share it with us.

    And why do I write here? One, because I can. Two because I know that this is a place where I there will be people with similar viewpoints to converse with. Three because it pisses me off that the views of climatologists and other scientists are disparaged and treated like dirt by people who are both in power, and ignorant. Four, because I consider ignorance, superstition, and deceit to be loathsome things , and I want to fight them. Five, because I feel that science and the awareness of science and scientific principles are essential for the survival of our nation and our species, and we are living in a time when science and scientists are being misrepresented by ignorant and nefarious people, and that, IMO, is a really, really bad thing, which requires me to speak up about it.

    Peace

    1. SteveP:

      Thank you for admitting you cannot tell if I am a liar or just wrong (in your opinion).

      I get a lot of flake for not agreeing with the few people who post here regularly and so they get angry with me and call me names.

      So you ask – why do I come here and even post at all.

      I am happy to answer your question.

      I come here to read and write because Greg is from Minnesota and so am I. Greg writes about topics I am interested in, such as climate, gun control and politics. I also come here because this is a place where I will be with people with different viewpoints to converse with. That’s right – I come here because it is outside my bubble. I also enjoy arguing (hey I am a lawyer).

      I read lots of blogs, some in my bubble and some outside my bubble. I recommend to all that you read blogs outside my bubble, and this is one of mine.

      I am actually not trying to prove anything to you or anybody else. I am just offering my opinion on various topics and mostly explaining why I think the way I do. Just to give you and other people in this bubble something different to think about. I think of it as a public service to this bubble to inject just a bit of other bubble into this one.

      If I could prove anything or advocate anything it would be this:

      1. I don’t know how much of the warming we are surely seeing is caused by humans – but think it is about 1/2. Hey – I could be wrong, but nobody can prove I am wrong yet (in my opinion).

      2. My plan on dealing with this would be to go nuclear. We are probably going to run out of fossil fuels at some point anyway and since nuclear is very very low in CO2 emissions I see nuclear as the best option. To much renewable actually ends up emitting more CO2 because of the intermittent nature of current renewable technology (backup fossil fuel).

      3. I think the USA should generate 60 – 80% of its electricity with nuclear, which would require building 200 to 300 more nuclear power plants (100 now generate 20% of the USA electricity). The other 20 – 40% can be renewable. A lot of people don’t like nuclear so I don’t see this happening anytime – but since that is what I think we should do I like to chime in with my opinion on various blogs, such as this one and at least offer up that opinion occasionally. If we decided to build 200 to 300 nuclear power plants it could be done in 5 to 10 years (just 4 to 6 plants per state). It is totally doable from a technological standpoint.

      4. My reading of the 2nd amendment is that if we want to ban guns we have to amend the 2nd amendment. I wish school shooting didn’t happen – but they do. It will be very very hard to amend or revoke the 2nd amendment. I think of that as just a fact.

      5. I don’t like name calling and occasionally offer my opinion about that as well. It would be great if more people just said – I disagree with you – and left it at that. Rather than calling me stupid, a liar or mentally ill. But I cannot control what others say – so all I can do is offer my opinion on name calling and leave it at that.

      6. I thank Greg for hosting this blog and do enjoy reading it and occasionally writing to (or on) it.

      7. I plan to keep reading this blog and occasionally writing on it until Greg bans me (which only happened for a short while some years ago).

      I hope this answers your question.

      Peace.

    2. 1. I don’t know how much of the warming we are surely seeing is caused by humans – but think it is about 1/2. Hey – I could be wrong, but nobody can prove I am wrong yet (in my opinion).

      No evidence = no argument. Time you admitted this. Any further delay is rank intellectual dishonesty.

      2. My plan on dealing with this would be to go nuclear. We are probably going to run out of fossil fuels at some point anyway and since nuclear is very very low in CO2 emissions I see nuclear as the best option. To much renewable actually ends up emitting more CO2 because of the intermittent nature of current renewable technology (backup fossil fuel).

      3. I think the USA should generate 60 – 80% of its electricity with nuclear, which would require building 200 to 300 more nuclear power plants (100 now generate 20% of the USA electricity).

      The US isn’t the world so even if this were possible in the US (which it probably isn’t), nuclear still cannot scale to a global decarbonisation silver bullet because of geopolitical realities. So W&S will *have* to scale to a substantial fraction of the global energy supply over the next few decades or we are fucked. You’ve probably read some of my comments about the issues with W&S at scale, so you should know that I am anything but sanguine about how practical this is going to be.

      4. My reading of the 2nd amendment is that if we want to ban guns we have to amend the 2nd amendment.

      I don’t think most people are arguing for a blanket ban, just a ban on assault rifles. The claim that an assault rifle ban is unconstitutional is IMO merely rhetoric and no less an authority than Scalia himself supported this position. So your incessant claim that gun restrictions would require amendment of the 2nd A is false. So will you stop making it?

      Indeed, 60 percent of the judicial decisions in our data set quote, at least in part, the passage in Scalia’s opinion in which he explains that the Second Amendment, “[l]ike most rights, … is not unlimited.” Scalia went on to write:

      Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

      This language from Heller gives constitutional blessing to a potentially wide range of regulation. So it should be unsurprising that the vast majority of the cases citing it go on to reject the Second Amendment claim and uphold the challenged law.

      And finally, #5:

      5. I don’t like name calling and occasionally offer my opinion about that as well. It would be great if more people just said – I disagree with you – and left it at that. Rather than calling me stupid, a liar or mentally ill. But I cannot control what others say – so all I can do is offer my opinion on name calling and leave it at that.

      And I don’t like your incessant intellectual dishonesty, denialist rhetoric and misrepresentations of everything from palaeoclimate to the Constitution. Your behaviour here is frequently way beyond the pale and for you to whine about name calling when your behaviour is utterly unacceptable and provocative is just tactical victim playing. So you can fuck off with that.

    3. I meant you should read blogs outside your bubble (not mine).

      I’ve read denier rubbish on blogs from Bishop Hill to WUWT via CA and Dr Roy. And absolutely all of it ranged from not even wrong to subtly, cleverly misleading.

      So why should anyone bother with that anti-knowledge?

      Seriously, why? Disinformation is pernicious.

      Why not instead stick to the science and science-based blogs? Enough denialist cant ends up in comments there to keep people busy without going to the source.

    4. I disagree with you.

      That’s not an evidentially-supported argument.

      Reason in good faith, like an adult, please.

      Evidence needs to be provided. Opinion is weightless. At this point, you lose by default.

    5. BBD:

      You ask me to “Reason in good faith, like an adult, please.” Meanwhile you say:

      “Your behaviour here is frequently way beyond the pale and for you to whine about name calling when your behaviour is utterly unacceptable and provocative is just tactical victim playing. So you can fuck off with that.”

      Of course, I disagree with your opinion about my behaviour. My comments are on topic or responsive and very polite. Who is acting like a child? I will leave it to the other readers to decide.

    6. You ask me to “Reason in good faith, like an adult, please.” Meanwhile you say:

      “Your behaviour here is frequently way beyond the pale and for you to whine about name calling when your behaviour is utterly unacceptable and provocative is just tactical victim playing. So you can fuck off with that.”

      Of course, I disagree with your opinion about my behaviour. My comments are on topic or responsive and very polite. Who is acting like a child? I will leave it to the other readers to decide.

      Now we have a perfect example of your dishonesty and unacceptable behaviour. Right here.

      I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence to back up your argument or to admit that, since there is no evidence, that you do not have an argument. Instead of doing one or the other of those things, you replied as above, so demonstrating exactly the bad faith everybody loathes you for.

      I’m *still* waiting, Rick…

      Where is your evidence to support your claim that modern warming is not 100% anthropogenic?

      No evidence = no argument.

      Persistence = intellectual dishonesty / denialist rhetoric.

      So back it up or admit that you have no argument.

      Dodging this, refusing to answer = intellectual dishonesty.

      At this point, your refusal to respond is clearly evasive and dishonest. If you don’t like being called out for dishonesty, then don’t behave like this. Either back it up or walk it back.

      Now, please.

    7. BBD:

      Back from a grad party.

      My opinion is not an argument. It is an opinion.

      I am not trying to prove anything to you.

      I am just saying I disagree with you and the consensus.

      Important observations which inform my opinion are that the sea level has risen 120 meters in the last 20000 years.

      Also, the planet (or at least parts of the planet) warmed almost 1C to the peak of the MWP and then cooled almost 1C to the coldest point of the LIA and then warmed back to the 1940s about .6C. With all the natural warming and cooling I just find it incredible that nature didn’t contribute any warming to the warming we have seen since 1950. Saying it is all human is just too facile and makes my bullshit detector spike. In law school we learn that all and never are usually bad answers.

      If in fact ECS turns out to be a little over 1/2 of the consensus, which it could turn out to be, than I would argue that this means that about 1/2 of the observed warming must be caused by nature. So we will see if I am right about that or if I am wrong about that. It will depend on what ECS turns out to be (and what temperatures do over the next 80 years or so).

      But all of this is just an explanation of what my opinion is based on – not an attempt to convince you of anything. I literally don’t care if you agree with me or not, or want you to change your behavior in any way. I simply want to express my opinion and put it out there with other opinions.

      Nobody yet knows the answer and we are all just waiting to learn what it is.

      What is ECS and TCR. Are they a constant or do they change over time. If they change over time, what makes them change. How much of the warming is caused by humans and how much by nature. Of the warming caused by humans how much is from CO2 emissions and how much from land use changes (concrete, blacktop, cities, deforestation, air conditioning, waste heat and so forth). I know we have estimates for these, but what are they actually? I don’t know and neither does anybody else.

      As Rumsfeld said – “what are the things that we don’t know we don’t know” about the climate and how will those things change the models when they are incorporated? I highly doubt we have all the science embodied in the models and I know we don’t have clouds in their yet and use parameterizations for several variables.

      Given that this field is so young and we only have satellite data for 38 years, not even one full ocean cycle (of around 60 years) and we are still learning all the ways the sun is coupled to the Earth, magnetically, via solar flares, via the heliosphere and I am sure many other ways – I just have a hard time believing that we know enough to say that the best estimate is that humans have caused all the warming since 1950.

      I vaguely recall that this best estimate was not even based on anything other than expert judgment – which is another way to say it is just a few scientists opinion.

      Well – I disagree and we will see what we will see.

    8. Are you being deliberately evasive?

      I am asking you – very clearly – for evidence of modern natural forcing making a significant contribution to anthro forcing.

      Apart from demonstrating that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation the MCA and LIA are totally irrelevant here.

      Your claim requires evidential support. If there is none, then you have to admit that you don’t have a valid argument and are just bullshitting for rhetorical advantage.

      So – which is it?

    9. Also, the planet (or at least parts of the planet) warmed almost 1C to the peak of the MWP and then cooled almost 1C to the coldest point of the LIA and then warmed back to the 1940s about .6C. With all the natural warming and cooling I just find it incredible that nature didn’t contribute any warming to the warming we have seen since 1950. Saying it is all human is just too facile and makes my bullshit detector spike.

      Regional transient warming incorrectly conflated with global warming for rhetorical effect. More bullshittery. Then the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity of a fake fact. So. Much. Bollocks.

      Here’s the global picture, which flatly contradicts your hugely exaggerated and incorrect temp range for the MCA and LIA. Nor did the climate substantially warm up to the MCA, which was more of a bump on a generalised cooling trend. But of course if you misrepresent it by pretending that temps before the MCA were much cooler, then you can attempt – and fail – to fool people about the scale of global average temperature increase during the MCA.

      And of course since the MCA and LIA were forced by minor changes in solar output and volcanism, neither are directly comparable to the present.

      What you need to provide is evidence that natural forcings are responsible for a significant share of modern warming. Now, I know you can’t because all this has been investigated in exhaustive detail and no such evidence was found. Which brings us back to the problem of you constantly voicing your ‘opinion’ even though it is obviously wrong and you’ve been shown this repeatedly.

      Unless you can provide the necessary evidence, you are obliged to admit that you are bullshitting.

      I’m waiting.

  21. Once again, RickA reveals how much of an over-inflated opinion he has of himself and his utterly vacuous knowledge of science. He believes that only about 50% of the observed increase in surface temperatures that have occurred over the past three plus decades is anthropogenic. What does the climate science community believe? Close to 100%. Bear in mind that RickA knows jack shit about the field; he has absolutely no credentials whatsoever in any field of science. So what you have here is a guy with a right wing political ideology who probably has autographed photos of Scott Pruitt in his wallet telling anyone who will listen that 50% of the observed rise in temperature is in his myopic view due to natural forcings. The truth is that he is attempting to camouflage his clear political bias with science. And he is doing a piss poor job of it.

    There is one word to describe people like RickA who are severely afflicted with the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Laughingstocks. The science is in. Humans are responsible for close to 100% of the recent warming. Chapters 1 and 2 of the recent IPCC report conclude that. The scientific community by-and-large no longer debates process or causation. We are focused on Chapter 4. Responses and solutions. Because of the success of corporate PR, it is the public debate ONLY that is stuck on the first two chapters of the latest IPCC report. The scientific community has moved on.

    1. Jeff says “Once again, RickA reveals how much of an over-inflated opinion he has of himself and his utterly vacuous knowledge of science. ”

      That is the pot calling the kettle black.

      I do have a high opinion of myself.

      In my opinion, you have a pretty high opinion of yourself also. Nobody could go to a blog and say what you say, with your confidence, without having a pretty high opinion of themselves.

      You are no different than me (in my opinion).

      Unless you are a climate scientist you know no more about climate science than I do (again in my opinion).

    2. Still waiting Rick…

      Where is your evidence to support your claim that modern warming is not 100% anthropogenic?

      No evidence = no argument.

      Persistence = intellectual dishonesty / denialist rhetoric.

      So back it up or admit that you have no argument.

      Dodging this = intellectual dishonesty.

    3. “My opinion is not an argument. It is an opinion.”

      People who state the earth is flat are stating an opinion.
      People who state vaccines are not safe or effective are stating an opinion.
      People who state evolution is false are stating an opinion.

      The list could go on, but all of those people have several things in common with you.

      – You repeatedly state your opinion despite having had the relevant science, which contradicts your opinion, shown to you
      – You repeated argue that there is some conspiracy of scientists (or “advocate scientists”) pushing a position, and that you are simply pointing out that conspiracy
      – You believe your opinions, wrong as they are, should be given as much consideration as the results of the research

      You aren’t given any respect not because you are raising ideas that are contrary, but because you repeat contrary statements that have been shown to be false.

  22. I think of it as a public service to this bubble to inject just a bit of other bubble into this one.

    Problem for you is that your bubbles have been demonstrated as ill-founded supposition (the things slick lawyers get called out on by a half decent judge [1]), that is not based upon all the facts.

    [1] The scientific consensus, that is the consensus of facts from disparate field of scientific research which have an input to climate science, is the judge here and this is how you have been repeatedly called out. Consider yourself now in contempt.

  23. Up above BBD said “The US isn’t the world so even if this were possible in the US (which it probably isn’t), nuclear still cannot scale to a global decarbonisation silver bullet because of geopolitical realities. ”

    The reason I limit my opinion to the USA is that I vote here and therefore have some influence over the USA policy (not much admittedly).

    I would never presume to go to another country and offer my opinion of what they should do (or not do). That would be rude.

    1. The reason I limit my opinion to the USA is that I vote here and therefore have some influence over the USA policy (not much admittedly).

      I would never presume to go to another country and offer my opinion of what they should do (or not do). That would be rude.

      The issue is global therefore the policy response must also be global. That means nuclear is only going to be a part of the decarbonisation toolkit. The only known technologies capable of scaling (in theory) to the necessary level are wind and solar. Dodging this issue as you just did is just bad faith rhetoric.

      More of it.

    2. BBD:

      I said wind and solar (I called them renewable) would be 20 – 40% in my plan (which was only for the USA). The rest of the world can do what it wants – I only offer my plan for the USA (not that many will see it or even think it is a good idea).

      I didn’t dodge anything.

    3. BBD:

      In thinking more about this – I don’t understand why nuclear cannot proved 60-80% of the power for the entire world. Should the entire world decide to build enough reactors that is. We have not invented the technology we need yet to scale wind and solar to more than about 35% of the total (at least that is my understanding). But we know that nuclear can provide all the power we need, if we just build enough reactors.

      So I think there is no reason nuclear couldn’t scale to be the dominant solution to the problem. Other than politics that is. But if the problem gets bad enough (debatable in my opinion based on the climate I have seen in Minnesota over the last 38 years) than the politics will change in a damn hurry. Needs must and all that.

      But that is all for each country to decide.

      The Paris convention was just a big old wish and certainly not any type of imposed world wide solution. So “the world” isn’t taking this issue very seriously – giving China and India a pass until 2030ish. I think that is because a lot of people don’t really think all the CO2 we have emitted is the existential crisis it has been made out to be. Maybe it is or maybe it is not – we will have to wait and see.

      I would suggest nukes, nukes and more nukes. Modular small scale nukes and thorium reactors and 4th generator reactors and so on.

      But that is just my opinion. People can do what they want.

    4. They really seem to dislike me (and that is ok with me).

      Only because you are a denialist bullshitter and a tone troll. If it wasn’t for that, I’m sure we’d all be fine.

  24. The sea level has not risen 120 meters in the last 10,000 years.

    It rose about 13 meters between 18 and 8 thousand years ago.

    Then it rose a few more meters between 8 and 3.5 thousand years ago.

    Then it didn’t change much.

    Then, we entered a period where the sea level was expected to stay about the same, go up a few inches, or go down a few feet, depending, over a few thousand years.

    Then, because of human caused global warming, it started to go up fairly quickly. In just a century it went up a foot or so, but the rate at which it is rising has gone dramatically up.

    CO2 levels —> global surface temperature —> glacial ice mass and sea level

    Given lots of ancient data points, we can estimate that the CO2 levels we expect to see over the next century correspond to sea levels bout 8+ meters more than today. However, there are reasons to believe that is an underestimate, and that we could reach a surface temperature that indicates a much higher sea level.

    (There is lag between CO2 level, global surface temperature, and sea level, and it is hard to estimate when equilibrium would be reached.)

    1. Greg:

      I wonder if this is directed at me?

      I don’t think I said 120 meters of rise over 10,000 years (I hope not).

      I said 120 meters of rise over 20,000 years (which is the consensus estimate).

      The rate of rise has not changed very much at all – it is pretty much still a straight line back for hundreds of years. The so called acceleration is more of an artifact of changing between tide gauges and ARGO (I think). It was a foot ish in the 20th century – it was a foot ish in the 19th century, it was probably less than that in the 18th century because of the tail end of the LIA (I don’t have the actual numbers just going off recollection).

      The eight meters you are mentioning will take many thousands of years to achieve – the ice just cannot melt that fast.

      Thank you for chiming in.

      I really do enjoy your blog.

      But if you ask me to go away for the sake of the other readers I will do so. They really seem to dislike me (and that is ok with me).

    2. More mendacity from the master of logical fallacy and misrepresentation of data. Permit me to pick up the red pen…

      The rate of rise has not changed very much at all – it is pretty much still a straight line back for hundreds of years.

      Buried in this wrist-waving and inaccurate generalisation are several obfuscations and outright errors.

      Firstly, as Greg indicated, the Holocene was largely a period of stable temperature and sea level. Absent human impacts, the maximum sea level for the current (Holocene) interglacial was probably reached about 2,000 years ago and didn’t really move for 1,000 years. This reflects the Holocene temperature maximum which seems to have finished around 5,00 years ago, and was slowly declining thereafter but at a rate that the decline didn’t appear in the sea level record amidst the Holocene noise and thermal physics.

      As a consequence of Milankovi? factors it would be expected that the cooling following the post-Holocene optimum would (without the impact of human activity) have continued through to the present, but around 800-1,000 CE there was a bit of a hike in global temperature as a result of CO₂ emissions from anthropogenic deforestation. The ‘Little Ice Age’ might have been a little less ‘Little’ had it not been for this burst of CO₂ but regardless of this, after temperatures started to rise again at the end of the first millennium there was a ~200 year delay and then a rise in sea level at a rate of around 60 mm/century for 4-5 centuries.

      Basically, humans threw in ~0.2 °C warming into the mix and caused ~0.2 m sea level rise as a consequence. Then the LIA did its thing and the global average temperature (note, the LIA effect was no even across the globe…) was pretty much clipped back by ~0.2 °C, with a concomitant drop in SL of ~4-5 cm (due to thermal inertia and water’s heat capacity, but that’s a different sidetrack…).

      The fingerprint of the Industrial Revolution can be seen in temperatures rising again from the middle of the 18th century, this time at a rate that saw sea level rise within half a century or so after. And it’s been rising ever since.

      In the period 1880-1920 sea level rose at around 1 mm/year. In the period 1940-1980 the rate was doubled to 2 mm/year. Currently the rate is 3 mm/year, with an additional 0.8 mm/year being added to that rate every year. In other words, sea level rise is accelerating, and has been accelerating since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

      You blithley say that “[t]he rate of rise has not changed very much at all – it is pretty much still a straight line back for hundreds of years.” In doing so not only are you dismissing the complex interplay of natural and human influences over the last thousand years, you are mangling the underlying significance of the rate(s) of sea level rise in the last century or so. This shows either your ignorance of the principles of statistical analysis of rates, or your desire to ignore such in the construction of your very misleading narrative.

      Tamino at Open Mind has demonstrated the acceleration of contemporary sea level rise, and he has demonstrated that it is statistically significant: that the annual rate of rise has increased over the 20th century. To put it into context the rate of rise was zero 200 years ago; and one hundred years ago it was 1 mm/year. By just after the middle of 1900s the rate hand doubled to 2 mm/year, and today it’s halfway to doubling again.

      Your allusion to a “straight line” shows that you are either ignorant of – or deliberately choose to ignore – the fact that a line on a graph can appear relatively ‘straight’ to an untrained eye, when it in fact depicts a process that it not at all linear.

      Your hamfisted handling of fact in just this sentence alone shows that you’re either a very poor engineer, or a very unscrupulous lawyer who misrepresents facts to push a case that is not grounded on truth. And as I am occasionally wont to say, the two options are not mutually exclusive…

      http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/marcott-et-al-2013-2.jpg (or look for the PDF of the paper)

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/comment-page-3/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=0

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/

      https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-5/assessment

      There are further links from the links above.

    3. More lies:

      The rate of rise has not changed very much at all – it is pretty much still a straight line back for hundreds of years. The so called acceleration is more of an artifact of changing between tide gauges and ARGO (I think). It was a foot ish in the 20th century – it was a foot ish in the 19th century, it was probably less than that in the 18th century because of the tail end of the LIA (I don’t have the actual numbers just going off recollection).

      From the RC article you misrepresented later in this thread:

      How did sea level evolve?

      The graph shows how sea level changed over the past 2000 years. There are four phases:

      Stable sea level from 200 BC until 1000 AD
      A 400-year rise by about 6 cm per century up to 1400 AD
      Another stable period from 1400 AD up to the late 19th C
      A rapid rise by about 20 cm since.

      Massively increased modern SLR. Look at the fucking graph.

      You’ll just say anything won’t you. Complete disregard for the truth.

    4. Greg:

      If you review the graph from this IPCC link I think you will see that the sea level rose about 100 meters from 18,000 years ago to 8000 years ago:

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4-3-2.html

      Just eyeballing – but 18,000 years ago I see the sea level about -110 meters and 8000 years ago I see the sea level about -10 meters.

      I think it rose about 10 meters from 8000 to 3500 years ago – but I am just eyeballing it.

      Anyway I think there might be a scale problem on whatever graph you are looking at.

      120 meters of sea level rise and only about 10 inches of that is caused by humans (and I am allowing for all of the sea level rise in the last century as being caused by humans).

  25. I said 120 meters of rise over 20,000 years (which is the consensus estimate).

    Source? Else supposition.

    The rate of rise has not changed very much at all – it is pretty much still a straight line back for hundreds of years. The so called acceleration is more of an artifact of changing between tide gauges and ARGO (I think).

    Once again your source is? Whatever it is it is misinformation.

    Now watch and learn: The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change. OK about six years old but if anything any discrepancies have been further sorted out. I will be out of links if I provide back up for that statement in this post because I wish to put something else under your nose.

    Whatever, you should due diligence (I have pointed you at two websites which can help in a multitude of areas) on what is happening on Greenland (Dark Snow etc and James Balog’s ‘Extreme Ice Survey’) and the Antarctic.

    Large slabs of ice could suddenly slide of the terrain from being undercut from below by tongues of intruding warmer ocean water and increasing melt from the surface via moulins. It has been established that the Greenland ice cap has been lifted by an increase in pressure of the water at its base, this has caused a measured increase in ice sheet flow. The paper byJay Zwally et. al. ‘Surface Me;t-Induced Acceleration of Grenland Ice-Sheet Flow’ (2002, and the situation have not improved since) can be found in ‘The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast’ edited by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert.

    Now that other issue where you are confused, the scale and rate of warming at various periods during the geological history of the Cenozoic Era scientist William F Ruddiman has carried out studies, published books on this topic and also given presentations of which this is one:

    The Tyndall History of Global Warming Lecture GC43B

    Now books by Ruddiman worth studying are:

    ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate’

    ‘Earth’s Climate, Past and Future’

    ‘Earth Transformed’

    Now just stop with your unsubstantiated opinion.

    1. Heh, I too replied to RickA’s ill-informed posts about sea level, although my effort was caught by the moderation pixie. It’ll appear above soon enough. Unlike BillyR though I’m not going to don the tin-foil sombrero and scream about censorship and conspiracy…

    2. My “many thousands of years” might be overstating it a bit.

      I did the math (8000 / 3) and get about 2666 years.

      If you use 3.3 mm/year you get (8000 / 3.3) = 2424 years.

      So many is a little more than 2.

    3. Oh stop bullshitting will you.

      Deglacial SLR has fuck-all to do with modern SLR which IS accelerating according to the scientific evidence – whatever lies you peddle.

    4. Realclimate – first paragraph:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/

      And yet more misrepresentation.

      Here’s the actual text:

      Good data on past sea levels is hard to come by. Reconstructing the huge rise at the end of the last glacial (120 meters) is not too bad, because a few meters uncertainty in sea level or a few centuries in dating don’t matter all that much. But to trace the subtle variations of the last millennia requires more precise methods.

      Blatant. More fucking dishonesty from you. Or maybe you just don’t give a shit about the facts – you are a bullshitter in the Frankfurtian sense – someone who will say anything for rhetorical advantage.

    5. BBD:

      If all the cyclic stuff cancels how do you explain the warming during the MWP?

      Or the cooling of the LIA?

      How do you explain the warming from the LIA to 1940?

      Natural processes do not always cancel out over a year, decade, century or millennium.

      I think you are hand waving just as much as I.

      If only we knew how much of the warming was caused by nature and how much by human, we could judge who was doing the greater hand waving!

      By the way – it is not lying if you believe what you are saying.

      I do not believe that “cyclical phenomena” always self-cancel over time.

      Otherwise, we would hit the same high everyday.
      Otherwise, we would not have warmer summers than others or colder winters than others.

      I won’t call you a liar – I will just say I disagree with you and think you are wrong.

    6. If all the cyclic stuff cancels how do you explain the warming during the MWP?

      Or the cooling of the LIA?

      How do you explain the warming from the LIA to 1940?

      Neither are cyclic phenomenon. Both were forced by volcanic aerosols and solar, neither of which forcings are capable of causing modern warming.

      I’m not interested in your evasive handwaving one little bit. I asked you for EVIDENCE to support your claim and you haven’t provided a shred of it.

      Now, I know – because I have been bothered to do the reading – that the role of natural forcing in modern warming has be exhaustively researched and no evidence has been found of any significant natural forcing – including GCRs and cloud nucleation effects – driving modern warming.

      What I want you to do is admit this fact and admit that therefore your claim is bullshitting and nothing more than that.

      Why won’t you do this? Because you are a dishonest little shit.

    7. I do not believe that “cyclical phenomena” always self-cancel over time.

      You have no idea what you are talking about most of the time, so I don’t give a fuck. You’re clueless as a pig’s arse. If you weren’t just a lazy, ignorant, denialist bullshitter I might care about what you thought, but as things stand, I don’t.

  26. Realclimate – first paragraph:

    Did you not understand that paragraph?

    A group of colleagues have succeeded in producing the first continuous proxy record of sea level for the past 2000 years. According to this reconstruction, 20th-Century sea-level rise on the U.S. Atlantic coast is faster than at any time in the past two millennia.

    And the IPCC AR4 is not mentioned anywhere in that article.

    However, elsewhere at RealClimate we find this:

    A trigger action from sea-level rise?

    which pretty much covers some of the theory I was propounding. Note the mention of ‘Chasing Ice’ which is the product of James Balog’s Extreme Ice Survey – A program of Earth Vision Institute which you should watch.

    1. Quick thanks for the trigger link which explains what I was on about in a comment near top of this thread, but I didn’t link to anything.
      Li D
      Australia.

    2. Lionel A:

      The paragraph after the bold heading is what I meant by the first paragraph. If you find the 120 meters link in what you are calling the second paragraph and click on it you will see it takes you to my IPCC link.

      Both sources show 120 meters of sea level rise over the period I am talking about.

      That is my source for the 120 meter number.

      I think it is pretty uncontroversial.

      120 meters of sea level rise and all but 10 inches of it (at most) are caused naturally. I find that very significant.

    3. 120 meters of sea level rise and all but 10 inches of it (at most) are caused naturally. I find that very significant.

      Why? Orbital forcing melted the NH land ice sheets and produced a vast, natural flux to the oceans.

      Now, the 100% of anthro forced warming since the 1950s is causing a new melting regime with the potential for multimetre SLR over the next several centuries which would be a global catastrophe of pretty much unimaginable proportions.

      But you are either too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge the difference between natural meltwater pulses during deglaciation and human-caused melting in the present and future.

      Or you are just a fucking troll, deliberately stirring the pot and pissing everybody off.

    4. BBD:

      Note the “I” in “I find that very significant”.

      You don’t have to.

      At least you don’t question the 120 meter number.

    5. At least you don’t question the 120 meter number.

      That’s right, troll. Dodge the point.

      And when are we going to see either evidence for your claim that there’s a significant natural forcing component to modern warming or your admission that you are bullshitting?

    6. BBD:

      I didn’t make a claim – I offered my opinion.

      But whatever – here is some evidence for your consideration:

      1. The sun has risen and set everyday between 1950 and the present.
      2. There has been a winter and a summer every year since 1950.
      3. There have been volcanic eruptions occasionally since 1950.
      4. El ninos and la ninas have happened since 1950.
      5. The amount of radiation we get from the sun has fluctuated over time since 1950.
      6. The Earth’s magnetic field has fluctuated over time since 1950, which impacts the amount of charged particles we receive from the sun.
      7. The sun’s heliosphere has fluctuated over time since 1950, which impacts the amount of charged particles we receive from outside the solar system.
      8. The amount of sunspot activity has fluctuated over time since 1950, which impacts the amount of radiation we get from the sun.
      9. The Earth’s clouds have changed over time since 1950, which impacts how much radiation is reflected and/or retained.

      Who knows whether these meet your definition of “significant” – not me. But until we can actually measure how much warming was provided by nature and how much caused by humans, any or all of these natural sources of warming could cause warming over many different timescales. It is my opinion that we cannot rule out natural warming over the 1950 to 2010 timescale until we can quantify how much warming was caused by humans (which we cannot do yet in my opinion).

      I hope that helps.

    7. Handwaving to a bunch of cyclical phenomena that self-cancel over time isn’t helping. You have come up empty.

      And you can fuck off with your childish ‘opinion isn’t a claim’ evasion as well.

      You now stand utterly exposed in your true intellectual dishonesty, peddling a demonstrably false claim in the face of the facts.

      In other words, lying.

    8. 120 meters of sea level rise and all but 10 inches of it (at most) are caused naturally. I find that very significant.

      My earlier response to you is still in moderation, but this recalls a point that I didn’t make then.

      The rise in sea level from glacial maximum to the current interglacial represents about the highest that sea level could be expected to rise given natural parameters that currently influence sea level on Earth. There’s simply not that much wiggle room left in the pot to cause it to increase further. Any recourse to reference of 120 metres of rise from a glacial maximum is a red herring, pure and simple.

      Moreover, there’s no natural parameter that could cause sea level to rise from its current ~maximum setting at a rate that is greater than even that of the height of sea level rise rate, coming out of the glacial maximum.

      BBD has repeated held you to account for your ignorance of attribution studies of temperature and sea level rise. You can waffle as much as you want about your “opinion”, but the fact is that you have to deliberately and consciously eschew parsimony, objectivity, and logic in order to hold the opinions that you do.

      In other words, you are intellectually dishonest, and willfully so.

    9. Yes, it’s an insult to everybody’s intelligence the way RickA argues false equivalence between naturally forced deglacial SLR and anthro forced SLR.

      His unfailing contempt for the truth and sustained willingness to piss in the face of decency and reason for rhetorical advantage has become intolerable.

      Enough is enough.

  27. RickA should watch this video:

    Trouble at Totten Glacier

    Given that was as at three years ago nothing to ease concerns has been discovered.

    RickA watch the video carefully and note the ‘basin’ shape of Greenland, a basin with channels through the rim.

    Informative transects of Greenland and Antarctica can be created using the neat utility GeoMapApp , transects being only the tip of the iceberg of the features of this app.

  28. Li D

    WRT Pine Island Glacier I watched a video yesterday and would have linked had I another slot available in the post I made.

    What Scientists Are Seeing Over Antarctica (aside, that nail analogy strikes home here as I lost the nail from my left big toe about 4 years back – sympathy with Pine Island I guess)

    which is about six years old but still informative for somebody at the level of understanding of a RickA.

    But then this has happened since:

    Large iceberg breaks off Pine Island Glacier

    1. Sorry, the bloody music put me right off watching beyond 30 secs of that ” What scientists are seeing ” vid. I’m sure there’s good stuff in it though.
      Dunno if ya read my rant at early in comments about music. It’s a real peeve. I’d love an explanation from a video maker why it’s seemingly required and how it aids science communication.

  29. orry, the bloody music put me right off watching beyond 30 secs of that ” What scientists are seeing ” vid

    Quite bearable if you turn the volume down so that the speech is audible and the music fades into the background.

    1. I was quoting for “120 meters”.

      It is Lionel A who was selectively quoting.

      He had to go pretty far out of his way to miss the “120 meters” I pointed to and also not to see the link to the IPCC which he says isn’t in the article (but is).

      Lionel A now ignores the fact that I was right about the 120 meters of SLR since 20,000 years ago and pretends I denied that the sea rises (I do not).

  30. The paragraph after the bold heading is what I meant by the first paragraph. If you find the 120 meters link in what you are calling the second paragraph and click on it you will see it takes you to my IPCC link.

    But that para’ is not the first is it you clot, the first being more relevant to what is happening now.

    Whatever, ’20th-Century sea-level rise on the U.S. Atlantic coast is faster than at any time in the past two millennia.’ is pretty clear.

    And

    There has been another AR since that one, still short of what ifs with faster ice sheet and glacier loss from Greenland and Antarctica. An introduction to the relevant sections of that can be found her:

    What the new IPCC report says about sea level rise

    Now take that as a whole, no sly selective quoting on your part I am sick of those tactics.

    Watch the videos that have been cited over the last 48 hours or so.

    1. Now take that as a whole, no sly selective quoting on your part I am sick of those tactics.

      He’s a troll. It’s a thing they do. Along with dishonesty, misrepresentation, and incessantly provocative posting.

  31. BBD:

    If all the cyclic stuff cancels how do you explain the warming during the MWP?

    Or the cooling of the LIA?

    How do you explain the warming from the LIA to 1940?

    Natural processes do not always cancel out over a year, decade, century or millennium.

    I think you are hand waving just as much as I.

    You have ignored my exhortation to look at the works of William Ruddiman for one thing.

    Besides MWP and LIA were not coherent geophysically and chronologically. Baliunas et. al. has been deprecated.

    Due diligence again RickA.

  32. Lionel A now ignores the fact that I was right about the 120 meters of SLR since 20,000 years ago and pretends I denied that the sea rises (I do not).

    My not mentioning any figure 120m of SLR is not evidence of ignoring it, it is more the result of appreciating that others have put you in your place WRT your, repeated, misrepresentation of this whole issue, misrepresentation from selective quoting.

    Heck many of us have forgotten more about the ins and outs of this issue than you ever knew, that is abundantly clear.

    RickA, some problems for you:

    Define the so called MWP (more correctly the MCA, Bradley et. al) in spatial and temporal terms.

    likewise

    Define the so called LIA in spatial and temporal terms.

    Provide citations for any sources used to answer those.

    Provide citations for any sources arguing that the warming since mid 20th century is no more than during the MCA.

    1. Lionel:

      If you know so much about sea level rise than why did you challenge my figure of 120 meters in the first place? Why not just agree?

      In response to my 120 meter number you said “Source? Else supposition.” It doesn’t sound like you know what you are talking about to me.

      I give you two sources and you pretend they do not exist and move on to something else without ever admitting I was right about the 120 meter number.

      Why don’t you just admit that the ocean has risen 120 meters over the last 20,000 years?

      Why don’t you admit that the peak rate during the last 20,000 years was 12 to 14 mm per year (12 to 14 meters per 1000 years)?

      Why don’t you admit that a completely natural SLR rate can be four times higher than our current rate of 3.3 mm/year and much higher than the 20th century rate of 1.8 mm/year?

      Why did the sea level start rising about 1810? I think we can all agree that was naturally forced – but what caused it? I am sure BBD will say solar forcings – but denies that solar forcings have anything to do with 1950 to 2010. Odd because the solar forcing peaked again during that period (and has now dropped off). See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7194.pdf (Fig. 15).

      It is foolish to argue that none of the sea level rise since 1950 can be caused by nature. It is foolish to argue that none of the warming since 1950 can be caused by nature. Natural variables fluctuate and have fluctuated in the interval 1950 to 2010 (and through to today) and they will fluctuate in the future. Why you don’t think those naturally occurring fluctuations have no impact on our climate is beyond me – but all I can do is simply disagree (which I do).

      But everybody is entitled to their opinion (in my opinion).

      As to your questions – here is a citation which discusses both the LIA and the MWP:

      https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Matthews_05.pdf

      If you look at the temperature graph in that paper (Fig. 2) you can see the .6 C rise from the depth of the LIA to 1950 (thin line). Obviously you have to ignore the decline from the tree-ring density post 1950. But using the instrument data you can see another .2C rise and we know from current data that it is really about .4C (for a total of above 1C rise from pre-industrial).

      Hope this helps you.

    2. I should clarify that the solar forcing article doesn’t show the dropping off – that is just based on my reading of the quiet sun and the last solar cycle. It only really shows the solar forcing to 2000.

    3. Also please excuse my double negative problem (a typo):

      Why you don’t think those naturally occurring fluctuations have no impact on our climate is beyond me – but all I can do is simply disagree (which I do).

      should read

      Why you don’t think those naturally occurring fluctuations have any impact on our climate is beyond me – but all I can do is simply disagree (which I do).

    4. Why don’t you admit that a completely natural SLR rate can be four times higher than our current rate of 3.3 mm/year and much higher than the 20th century rate of 1.8 mm/year?

      Why don’t *you* admit that the vast meltwater pulses during deglaciation have nothing at all to do with the cause and future evolution of modern SLR?

      Instead of hammering away comment after comment with an irrelevance that’s been pointed out REPEATEDLY.

      Because you are a fucking troll, perhaps?

      Science, not that you give a shit about the facts, but others might:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millennia-of-sea-level-change/

    5. BBD:

      Why don’t you admit that all the natural forcings, known and unknown, didn’t just stop at 1950, but continue to play their role in our climate today (along with human influence).

      We don’t know how much of the warming since 1950 has been caused by nature.

      That is my opinion and I stand by it.

    6. It is foolish to argue that none of the warming since 1950 can be caused by nature.

      Then show us some scientific evidence – quantified – of the forcings involved and their effect on temperature.

      I’ve asked you over and over again for EVIDENCE so where is it? Why have you still come up with nothing at all?

      Look, this isn’t hard. Here is a forcing history from 1750. Notice that the natural forcing influence post-1950 is dominated by cooling from volcanic aerosols.

      Your turn.

      Or admit that you are just bullshitting.

      * * *

      Your false cite from Matthews & Briffa misrepresents their fig 2. It is NH temperature only not global temperature as you claim.

      Please stop doing this.

      An informative comparison of the relative scale of the MCA and LIA has already been provided on this thread (you ignored it because you are a troll). Here it is again. Please also stop making your false claim about the scale of these events.

    7. We don’t know how much of the warming since 1950 has been caused by nature.

      But we do know. It has been exhaustively studied and the scientific evidence is clear – pretty much none of the warming post-1950 was natural. It’s all anthropogenic.

      Only deniers of the scientific evidence available claim otherwise. Which is why they are called ‘deniers’.

    8. We don’t know how much of the warming since 1950 has been caused by nature.

      That is my opinion and I stand by it.

      But actual scientists disagree, for example Ribes et al. (2017), emphasis added:

      Lastly, the method is applied to the linear trend in global mean temperature over the period 1951–2010. Consistent with the last IPCC assessment report, we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ± 0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (?0.01 ± 0.02 K).

      So basically zilch contribution from natural forcing change post-1950. It’s all us.

  33. RickA

    First you miss-cited which was the significant para’ in that Real Climate article and implied that the IPCC AR4 was mentioned within the article, it was not, there was a link behind a 120 meter number on another paragraph but that is not quite how you described it is it.

    Whatever, as others had put you in your place WRT the relevance of that 120 number so I passed by it as already being done and dusted whilst I considered other important issues that inform on where SLR could be headed. More on that shortly but do watch those videos already linked.

    What is abundantly clear is that you still fail to acknowledge the nature of the warming trends and the effect on SLR, this in spite of sources being indicated. Go back and look. Consider where the imbalance of heat is largely being stored and the effect that could soon have on ice sheet and glacier dynamics.

    You have clearly been influenced, whether you know it or not, by the type of misinformation propounded by the likes of Lindzen and Michaels and the Idsos, Balliunas and Soons of the contrarian clan making a denier of you.

    Scafetta is a known contrarian and any suggestion that an ice age is imminent should be treated with caution, especially as that paper has slipped into scientific obscurity. Which journal published it?

    As for the Mathews and Briffa paper, aside from the problem BBD indicated did you read and understand that paper? One only has to read the conclusion to see that the LIA as a concept only survives from changing the manner in which it is delimited.

  34. > It has been exhaustively studied and the scientific evidence is clear – pretty much none of the warming post-1950 was natural. It’s all anthropogenic.

    Then how come when Bart Verheggen polled climate scientists three years ago he got results of 1/6 thought human induced increases were 51-75% of warming, and another 1/8 found even less? About 1/3 were in the 76-100%, and 1/6> 100%, while the rest were unknown-10% or don’t know.

    1. Evidence, MikeN.

      Show it.

      Not unlinked stuff about polls 3 years ago.

      Show me quantified scientific evidence for the influence – if any – of natural forcings on warming post-1950.

      Or fuck off.

      I’m out of patience with the denialist bullshitting on this topic.

    2. Seems to me if the scientific evidence were as clear as you say about how there is no substantial natural factor, then the poll results of climate scientists would be quite different. Perhaps the evidence is not as clear as you state.
      It doesn’t mean there is a natural influence of course.

  35. What MikeN is on about, note he phrased it to cause trouble, or more likely used words from some contrarian source:

    Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming

    NB, selected section emboldened:

    The phrasing of the IPCC attribution statement in its fourth assessment report (AR4) – providing a lower limit for the isolated GHG contribution – may have led to an underestimation of the GHG influence on recent warming. The phrasing was improved in AR5. We also report on the respondents’ views on other factors contributing to global warming; of these Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC) was considered the most important. Respondents who characterized human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having had the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change.

  36. RickaA in one of his Gish Gallops up-thread wrote the following

    One narrative is that yes, since 1950 only humans have caused warming and in fact humans have caused 105% of the warming since 1950 (aerosols suppressed some warming so greater than 100% due to humans).
    I reject that based on the evidence.

    One big problem with replying to your posts is answering your Gish Gallops of ‘not even wrong’ statements with a constriction on number of links per post.

    I could offer much more than the following in answer to your above:

    A real-time Global Warming Index

    The take away:

    Essentially all the observed warming since 1850–79 is anthropogenic.

    1. I’m afraid I don’t know, Lionel. But it’s always on the cards, these days.

      Just harking back to the misrepresentation of Verheggen et al. (2014), there’s a bit more I’d like to quote:

      Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming.

      The difference between expert knowledge and bullshit.

    2. It is one thing to agree that GHG’s are the dominant driver of recent global warming (I even agree that it is about 1/2 and maybe even a little more than 1/2). If I were surveyed (I don’t meet the criteria of course) I would agree with this statement also.

      It is quite another to insist that ALL of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans.

      It is quite another to insist that ALL of the warming since 1850 is caused by humans (as Lionel suggests above – at least all warming from 1850-1979).

      It would be quite interesting to see another survey with the same participants and see how many agree that ALL warming since 1950 is caused by humans. I would be interested in the results of that survey.

    3. Nobody is saying that there’s no natural cycle in effect, just that anthropogenic warming swamps other forcings.

      Look at the radiative forcing components chart here:
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/the-climate-has-always-changed-what-do-you-conclude/

      You’ve been shown this before. You have yet to raise a logical objection. Just your personal incredulity based on what the words impressionistically sort of sound like (so long as you don’t think about them too much).

    4. It is quite another to insist that ALL of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans.

      It’s what the scientific evidence supports.

      (I even agree that it is about 1/2 and maybe even a little more than 1/2).

      This is NOT what the scientific evidence supports.

      Which leaves you still peddling a false narrative.

      WHY will you not admit that there is no scientific evidence for your claim? WHY are you committed to this endless loop of intellectual dishonesty?

    5. It would be quite interesting to see another survey with the same participants and see how many agree that ALL warming since 1950 is caused by humans. I would be interested in the results of that survey.

      More TROLLING.

      The immediately preceding comment repeated:

      Just harking back to the misrepresentation of Verheggen et al. (2014), there’s a bit more I’d like to quote:

      Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming.

      The difference between expert knowledge and bullshit.

      So you just BLANK this comment and carry on trolling.

  37. It is quite another to insist that ALL of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans.

    There are detailed attribution studies of all the identified forcings, both natural and anthropogenic. On what evidence do you conclude that the best estimate (~110%) is incorrect?

    No, not your “opinion”, because that’s just you dreaming about what you wish was true – on what understanding of the huge corpus of empirical evidence do you claim counter to the professional opinions of experts in the field?

    1. Here is one piece of evidence:

      https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2355

      If the link doesn’t work here is the MLA cite:

      Watanabe, Masahiro, et al. “Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus.” Nature Climate Change 4.10 (2014): 893.

      My reading of this paper is that nature has caused some of the warming in several decades since 1950.

      Another piece of evidence is that several climate scientists agree with my position. For example Roy Spencer and Judith Curry. I am sure there are more. I note that in the consensus surveys, that at least 6% said they couldn’t tell how much of the warming was nature vs. human. That was just whether humans caused most of the warming and not ALL of the warming. Nobody has asked that question in a survey yet. Still the 6% of climate scientists who have published at least 10 papers who cannot tell how much of the warming is caused by nature vs. humans is evidence supporting my position.

      Another piece of evidence is the Lewis and Curry observational constrained energy balance studies, which support a lower ECS (below 2C). A lower ECS is not consistent with all the warming since 1950 being caused by humans.

    2. My reading of this paper is that nature has caused some of the warming in several decades since 1950.

      Oh stop bullshitting. As if you’ve actually read the thing.

      Everybody else’s READING of the study is that variability in wind-driven ocean heat uptake is self-cancelling on multidecadal timescales and DOES NOT DRIVE THE TREND MERELY MODULATES IT.

      How many times have I pointed this out to you… ?

      I am so, so tired of correcting your partisan bullshit I can barely type any more.

    3. Another piece of evidence is the Lewis and Curry observational constrained energy balance studies, which support a lower ECS (below 2C). A lower ECS is not consistent with all the warming since 1950 being caused by humans.

      I have personally linked you to several studies that show how and why L&Cs EBM approach is methodologically compromised and produces underestimates of S.

      You have ignored this information and all the rest which points to ECS being ~3C, and instead continue to peddle a false narrative based on nothing more than an outlier.

      And you have the gall to whine when you get called out for intellectually dishonest denialist rhetoric.

  38. RickA

    It is quite another to insist that ALL of the warming since 1850 is caused by humans (as Lionel suggests above – at least all warming from 1850-1979).

    Not my suggestion was it you clot.

  39. RickaA

    I find these significant words, especially those in bold:

    Results indicate that inherent decadal climate variability contributes considerably to the observed global-mean SAT time series, but that its influence on decadal-mean SAT has gradually decreased relative to the rising anthropogenic warming signal.

    Of even greater significance is what it has not measured — increase in ocean heat content.

    For example Roy Spencer and Judith Curry…

    You have hit on another pair of contrarians who have done much to destroy their own scientific standing by making silly posts in blogs you will find plenty here, learn from it:

    https://blog.hotwhopper.com/

  40. RickA

    Another piece of evidence is the Lewis and Curry observational constrained energy balance studies, which support a lower ECS (below 2C). A lower ECS is not consistent with all the warming since 1950 being caused by humans.

    That pair have ‘history’ on this theme having been criticised each time they come to the surface, but as you don’t provide citation details I’ll assume that it is a recent repeat of Lewis & Curry hashery.

    So:

    In a sense, Lewis & Curry are taking one realisation of reality and assuming that it is an exact representation of the typical response of the system. It probably isn’t. This doesn’t mean that climate sensitivity can’t be low (even mainstream estimates do not rule this out). It simply means that we should be cautious of assuming that it is low based on an estimate that can’t fully account for how internal variability may have influenced the path that we’ve actually followed.

    Lewis and Curry, again

    1. Lionel:

      You asked for evidence and I gave it to you.

      You certainly do not have to be persuaded by it, as you are entitled to your own opinion.

      Remember, I am not trying to prove anything to you and even change your mind.

      I am merely explaining (because you asked) what supports my position (in my opinion of course).

      More data and time will make it clear what the actual answer is.

      All we have to do is wait and in 50 or 100 years it should be much more clear how much of the warming from 1950 (or 1850) is caused by humans and how much by nature.

      Until then, I say go nuclear!

      That is my preferred solution to emitting less CO2.

    2. All we have to do is wait and in 50 or 100 years it should be much more clear how much of the warming from 1950 (or 1850) is caused by humans and how much by nature.

      It’s clear now.

      You obviously do not understand the concept of the tendency toward the mean, and also that the current identified skewing biases lead to conservative estimations. You also obviously do not understand parsimony.

      We’ve ploughed this ground before. A crude back-of-the-envelope calculation can be used from the fact of a 1.2 °C increase in temperature with a 120 ppm increase in CO₂. From this an equillibrium climate sensitivity can be approximated, without compounding factors involved. You’re an engineer – you should be able to work out the implied ECS.

      When one considers the various confounding forcings and other physical modifiers the net result is likely to be conservative, but it’s interesting to see what you think the weightings of these variables would be.

      Please, tell us what you understand would be the result of this exercise? And with this result in mind, why do you select the extreme lower limit of the variance of different estimations, rather than the scientific weighting usually given to the mean?

    3. All we have to do is wait and in 50 or 100 years…

      We don’t have 50 or 100 years, or anything in between. We don’t even have 20 years, or 10. ECS is 3.0 °C or more, and cohesive global human society will not survive a doubling of atmospheric CO₂.

      You’ve been told this repeatedly, and you repeat your ignorance without justification. We should not send the planet’s ecology to hell in a handbasket on the opinion of a conservative with shares in fossil fuel comnpanies.

    4. Bernard:

      Depending on what time period you pick it could be way worse than your 1.2C and 120 ppm example.

      For example from 1900 to 1940 there was a .5C temperature increase and only 10 ppm increase in CO2. Wow – way worse than your example.

      Of course, it wasn’t the 10 ppm that caused the .5C temperature increase.

      Just as it wasn’t the 120 ppm that caused the 1.2C temperature increase (which I think is less than that because the el nino .2C dropped back .2C lately – I would say we are back to 1C increase from pre-industrial, not 1.2C).

      If it were really true that we didn’t even have 20 years and if things are so bad and so clear, than why are we not building nuclear power plants right now. That is the only thing we absolutely know can generate baseload power which will not increase CO2 and which we could technologically do right now. But it is not happening. You know why? Because the majority of people are not worried enough to overcome their irrational fear of nuclear power. When we start building nuclear power plants than I will believe “we” are worried about CO2 emissions.

    5. Depending on what time period you pick it could be way worse than your 1.2C and 120 ppm example.

      I took the increase in atmospheric CO₂ over the Holocene background (280 ppm), a surge that is well recognised as marking the commencement of the Industrial Revolution in the mid 18th century, and I took the increase in temperature that has occurred over the same period of time. That is the best interval to “pick”, because it covers pretty much the entire industrial impact of humans on climate. Taking any subset of that without specific scientific justifications/rationales is to engage in statistical malfeasance, and what you are suggesting is exactly that – improper data manipulation.

      I don’t want to make the human caused warming to date look “way worse” than it is; nor do I want to make it look less than what it is, which is exactly your underlying intent and strategy. All I want to do is to get a rough, empirical determination of the best estimation using the longest appropriate period of data.

      This estimate can be improved by taking into account temporal changes in the CO₂ profile over that period, or by accounting for CO₂ equivalents, or cooling forcings such as human-emitted aerosols or planetary orbital changes, or any and every of a range of other natural and anthropogenic forcings. The essential figure that is derived though – as is demonstrated by the fact that more than 50% of scientific estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity are greater than 3.0 °C.

      The only way that anyone can arrive at the 1.5 °C that you favour is to ignore not only the best science, but the empirical data. This is why I draw your attention (again) to the 1.2 °C temperature increase realised with a 120 ppm CO₂ increase. And note, this assumption does not account for ‘inertia’ in the warming trajectory resulting from CO₂ emitted to date. In a seminar by Eelco Rohling that I attended last year he not only repeated the 1.2 °C increase in contemporary temperature, but he pointed out that even if we ceased emitting today there’s enough interia and feedings-back in the planetary climate system to warm the planet to 1.7 °C above pre-Industrial.

      So, the question remains – what does a 1.2 °C temperature increase realised with a 120 ppm CO₂ increase imply for equilibrium climate sensitivity? And for bonus points, what does it imply for your favoured figure of 1.5°C for ECS? Reference to some basic physical principles is necessary to answer properly…

      It might be instinctive for you as a lawyer to ignore objective truth and fact, and instead to manupilate and twist and misrepresent these in order to promote your desired but false view of the situation. You might think that this is acceptable behaviour in order to get your (fossil fuel shares) client off the hook, but all that any success on your part does is to fatten your own pocket at the expense of a survivable future climate.

      Physics doesn’t give a shit about your “opinion” – it’s going to keep on warming the planet, and the more than we sit on our hands and assist it by emitting further fossil carbon, the more it’s going to warm and the less chance we’ll have to retain even a proportion of what biodiversity, climate, and oceanography we need for a functional global human society.

      It’s that simple. That you refuse to understand this merely points as it always does to a stupidity, or a greedy sociopathy, or both.

    6. Bernard asks “So, the question remains – what does a 1.2 °C temperature increase realised with a 120 ppm CO? increase imply for equilibrium climate sensitivity?”

      It implies that you are counting all the warming from pre-industrial as being caused by humans – which I think is incorrect.

      It warmed .5C from 1900 to 1940 on 10 ppm CO2 increase in atmospheric concentration and most people thing that CO2 did not cause that entire temperature increase. Most people think it was caused by increased TSI.

      So my answer to your question is once again that we do not know how much of the warming over the 120 ppm increase was caused by humans and how much was caused by the 120 ppm CO2 increase.

      The higher ECS turns out to be, the more of the 1.2C warming (or 1.0C in my opinion) would be caused by the CO2 increase. Conversely, the lower ECS turns out to be, than more of the warming would be due to nature and not CO2. Of course we do not know what ECS is yet – it is still range bound between 1.5C and 4.5C.

      There is some evidence it is lower than 2C, which I happen to find more plausible than you.

      However, when we realize that the warming to 1940 is caused by nature (at least part of it), and therefore it should be subtracted from 1.2 C (or 1.0 if you subtract the el nino .2C, you can see that it is harder to make your argument with only .7C of warming from pre-industrial (or .5C cause the temperature dropped .2C after the last el nino).

      Personally, I give .6 C to nature and .6C to humans (or .5C and .5C if you use 1.0C for warming since pre-industrial) – but I will have to wait for more data to see if we can get a better handle on ECS to refine that.

      In the meantime, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

      I find it odd that you and BBD address the warming from 1900 to 1940 with the explanation that nature did it – but then refuse to allow nature to have operated from 1950 to the present. But it is obvious we are looking at the data differently. And that is ok. People are allowed to do that.

    7. It warmed .5C from 1900 to 1940 on 10 ppm CO2 increase in atmospheric concentration and most people thing that CO2 did not cause that entire temperature increase. Most people think it was caused by increased TSI.

      You’ve had this explained many times. Why am I having to do it again?

      The solar component would have to be maintained at 1940 levels right up to the present if it is responsible for the same proportion of modern warming as it was for warming in 1940. But it wasn’t was it? Solar output has been falling since ~1980 and is now at the lowest in over a century – and temperatures are shooting up.

      You seem to think that warming caused by natural variability 80 years ago is magically preserved in modern warming – like a fly in amber – which is just flat-out wrong. Modern warming is being actively forced by something else, and there is ample scientific evidence as to what it is.

      I find it odd that you and BBD address the warming from 1900 to 1940 with the explanation that nature did it – but then refuse to allow nature to have operated from 1950 to the present. But it is obvious we are looking at the data differently. And that is ok. People are allowed to do that.

      Interesting. What data are you looking at, RickA?

      Please link.

      I’ve been asking you for quantified evidence of the role of natural forcing in modern warming and you’ve been unable to find any since this thread started. Yet you now claim to have it, so why aren’t you showing it?

      Mystifying, unless of course you are lying about this mystery data, in which case you are now going to have to admit it. Or try and wriggle out of doing so, which will of course constitute an admission of dishonesty *and* a doubling-down on the original lie.

    8. BBD:

      Here is my link:

      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

      See section 8.4.1.2 and pg. 689 with a graph (8.11) of solar irradiance.

      You can see solar irradiance peaked in about 1950 and then maintained at a level higher than from 1900 to 1950 until 2000, when it really dropped off.

      So it did maintain at a level higher than from 1900 to 1940 ish for 50 years or more.

      I never said the same amount of natural component was present from 1950 to the present, just that not ALL of the warming was human caused.

      Lets say .4C of warming prior to 1950 was caused by nature.

      I only need .1 or .2C of the warming since 1950 to be caused by nature to meet my 1/2 human 1/2 natural (depending on whether you insist on 1.2C of warming or the 1.0C of warming I think is more correct).

      I think you will have a tough time proving that not even .1C of warming from 1950 could have been caused by nature. I really don’t think my position is that far out of bounds.

      I have always maintained that in my opinion 1/2 of the warming from preindustrial is natural and 1/2 is human caused. I have always maintained that not ALL of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans. I have been pretty consistent on this and frankly I think I have a lot of company in this opinion.

      As usual, we will see.

    9. I never said the same amount of natural component was present from 1950 to the present, just that not ALL of the warming was human caused.

      […]

      I think you will have a tough time proving that not even .1C of warming from 1950 could have been caused by nature. I really don’t think my position is that far out of bounds.

      From the Preface to the NRC report: The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate (2012):

      Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

      No substantive evidence.

      As usual, we will see.

      As usual, we already know.

  41. You asked for evidence and I gave it to you.

    Except given the problems with L&C’s stuff you didn’t. Nevermind the fact that you clearly haven’t read Manabe.

    So we haven’t moved an inch.

    You are still bullshitting and still unable to produce *any* solid evidence to back up your false narrative.

    1. BBD:

      I give you evidence and you reject it.

      That is ok with me.

      You give me evidence and I reject it.

      We evaluate the evidence and reach different conclusions differently.

      We have different opinions.

      I don’t demand you agree with me or change your mind.

      And you should not demand I agree with you or change my mind.

      Our efforts to persuade each other are not working – but that is because none of the facts have changed since we first encountered each other (I am guessing around 2010).

      The range for ECS is still 1.5c to 4.5C and nothing over the last 8 years has resulted in a tightening of the range.

      We are both just waiting for the science to result in more clarity, and it has yet to deliver.

      I think it is fine that we disagree.

      The world is a big place and there is room for lots of different opinions.

    2. I give you evidence and you reject it.

      No, I’ve just explained why you have NOT provided any evidence. And STILL you repeat yourself.

      Makes you a liar.

    3. The world is a big place and there is room for lots of different opinions.

      Science doesn’t work like that, fuckwit. I no longer believe you are too stupid to understand that your worthless, wrong ‘opinion’ has nothing to do with science. And eventually, the world will end up being trashed by stupid, selfish rightwing liars.

    4. The range for ECS is still 1.5c to 4.5C and nothing over the last 8 years has resulted in a tightening of the range.

      Lie #1: we know that it’s vanishingly unlikely now that ECS is less than 2C. Ironically, L&C’s vociferous promotion of their results has helped clarify this and reinforce the likelihood that ECS is about 3C.

      We are both just waiting for the science to result in more clarity, and it has yet to deliver.

      Lie #2: fake uncertainty has been revealed as the climate liars’ tool of choice just as the scientific evidence has increased the likelihood of ECS being ~3C and all warming post-1950 being anthropogenic.

  42. RickA

    Going for a galloping medal.

    I am merely explaining (because you asked) what supports my position (in my opinion of course).

    How many times have you been told that your opinion is worthless if you continue to avoid studying worthwhile sources.

    More data and time will make it clear what the actual answer is.

    All we have to do is wait and in 50 or 100 years it should be much more clear how much of the warming from 1950 (or 1850) is caused by humans and how much by nature.

    You sir are a fool.

  43. If global warming then more hurricanes,

    is the logical equivalent of
    if there are not more hurricanes, then no global warming.

    Correct?
    I realize Greg said MORE global warming, so this would then be not (more global warming).
    But generally the first is what’s used.

    1. “If global warming then more hurricanes”
      Grrrrrrrr. Who claims this?
      Just Greg as far as I can tell. With no evidence provided for claim.

  44. “If global warming then more hurricanes,

    is the logical equivalent of
    if there are not more hurricanes, then no global warming.”

    Yes, as a (mathematical) logical construct, yes.

    You do realize that nothing physical in the universe is bound to follow the rules of a (strictly human) mathematical system such as logic, don’t you?

  45. BBD says “Science doesn’t work like that, fuckwit.”

    BBD – I have bad news for you.

    We are not doing science here.

    We are talking.

    I am talking about my opinion.

    You are pretending your opinion is science.

    1. I am talking about my opinion.

      You are pretending your opinion is science.

      A final desperate attempt to twist the facts from you.

      I’m reporting the scientific evidence – and you are denying it.

      You can take me away and the scientific evidence remains. Your bullshit is your own. The distinction is not subtle, so I suspect you know how dishonest you are being.

    2. BBD:

      Take me away and all the evidence I have cited remains as well.

      It is just that in your opinion what I have cited isn’t science (meaning you think it is wrong).

      The thing is that it is evidence, just evidence which you choose to ignore.

      And that is ok.

      You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

      You won’t change your mind. Ok.

      I won’t change my mind. Ok.

      We can just agree to disagree – nothing wrong with that.

      I won’t call you a liar even though I have pointed out over and over again why you are wrong – and you keep saying the same things you have said for 8 years. It is almost as if you haven’t changed your mind (grin).

      It would be nice if you could accord me the same respect – but you do not.

      Well – I can live with that.

    3. Take me away and all the evidence I have cited remains as well.

      It is just that in your opinion what I have cited isn’t science (meaning you think it is wrong).

      The thing is that it is evidence, just evidence which you choose to ignore.

      No. Your mishmash of misrepresentation and flawed outliers doesn’t constitute scientific evidence that supports your claim. And you’ve been shown that it doesn’t about a hundred times. Why you can’t see this after all we’ve been through is beyond comprehension unless you are simply being dishonest in refusing to acknowledge it.

      I won’t call you a liar even though I have pointed out over and over again why you are wrong

      Wow, I must have missed that.

  46. RickA

    Only time will tell.

    You are a fool, one wallowing in wilful ignorance. Here are texts which will allow you to understand. Split into parts to satisfy link limits.

    Part 1

    References to text books on the science of climate change Part 1.

    Raymond S Bradley; ‘Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary’

    Thomas M Cronin; ‘Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present’

    Hunt Janin, Scott A. Mandia; ‘Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact’

    David Archer; ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’

    see also: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

    also ‘The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate’

    David Archer & Ray Pierrehumbert; ‘The Warming Papers – a collection of papers from two centuries of atmospheric science’

    Ray Pierrehumbert; ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’

    William F Ruddiman

    1 Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate

    2 Earth’s Climate, Past and Future

    3 Earth Transformed

    see also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TOTsmqgmL8

  47. Educating RickA Part 2

    References to text books on the science of climate change Part 2.

    Richard B Alley; ‘The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future’

    See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

    Wally Broecker; ‘The Great Ocean Conveyor:Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change’

    see also: http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/sio210/readings/broecker_1991_ocean_conveyor.pdf

    Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump; ‘Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming’ – a simple text that lawyers should understand.

    Philip Conkling, Richard Alley, Wallace Broker, George Denton; ‘The Fate of Greenland: Lesons From Abrupt Climate Change’.

    A primer text for understanding Earth’s processes is:

    Tom Garisson; ‘Oceanography: An Introduction to Marine Science’ do not let the Marine of the title fool you for marine involves understanding of the interactions between all of the Earth’s system components is essential and a part of the brief.

  48. Educating RickA Part 3

    Climate Change, exposing the ‘Delay and Denial Machine’.

    Dana Nuccitelli; ‘Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics’

    Michael E Mann; ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars’

    Raymond S Bradley; ‘Global Warming and Political Intimidation’

    Stephen Schneider; ‘Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate’

    James Hansen; ‘Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity’

    James Lawrence Powell; ‘The Inquisition of Climate Science’

    Haydn Washington and John Cook; ‘Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand’

    James Hoggan/Richard Littlemore; ‘Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming’

    Joseph J Romm; ‘Straight Up: America’s First Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions’

    Mark Bowen; ‘Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth About Global Warming’

    Shawn Otto; ‘The War on Science: Who’s Waging it Why it Matters What We Can Do About It’

    Shawn Lawrence Otto; ‘Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America’

    Naomi Oreskes & Eric M Conway; ‘Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke [1] to Global Warming’

    Maxwell T Boykoff; ‘Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change’

    Eric Pooley; ‘The Climate War: True Believers, Power Briokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth’

    Do look at the work of James Balog and http://extremeicesurvey.org/

    find and watch a copy of ‘Chasing Ice’: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4zovl2 . Who to believe – Balog and his painfully obtained photographs or Jim Inhofe and his snowball?

    [1] See also: Robert N Proctor; ‘Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition’

  49. I also liked Jared Diamond – Collapse.

    I have read, also his other works one more of which appears in this collage, which is intended as an image (A4 landscape) which can be printed out and slit up for bookmarks – I have created others for other areas of my interest including climate change):

    http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Misc/Eco1BMx5.jpg

    With pollution and overexploitation of all resources animal, vegetable and mineral with attendant disruption of ecological networks climate change is just another of those which will see civilisation (of you can call it that) out this century as Astronomer Royal Martin Rees explained in:

    Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-First Century?

    I figure the domino toppling will accelerate over the next decade, maybe sooner, the state of Arctic ice and the weather patterns that could evolve, are evolving, from the great loss of sea ice will cause famine, increased migration of species will be vectors for disease spread and we could see a breakdown in societies in may countries – the disturbing patterns from the Middle East being harbingers.

    1. Nope, that’s a bunch of emereti with not a lot of domain expertise in climate science regurgitating a selection of contrarian talking points.

      Evidence looks like this.

      ‘Bout time you learned the difference. Or perhaps this is just desperation?

  50. Oh dear! RickA steps in the GWPF pool of toxic waste and drags some out here.

    He clearly has no idea of the type of reputation that organisation has for misleading the public, here is one round up.

    But the article cited is simply a rehash of the one from 2010 mentioned which has been thoroughly dissected and found wanting:

    UK’s Royal Society wastes everyone’s time with bland, pointless, and confused ‘summary’ of climate science

    And now you continue to waste everyone’s time because the only evidence you have provided is to confirm that your opinion on this issue is worthless.

    Be careful where you tread next, ‘We Use Wishful Thinking’ perhaps.

    1. Feel free to ignore this evidence if you wish. I merely point out that other people (with better credentials than I) agree with me.

    2. They’re geologists Rick, not climatologists. Funny thing is, you don’t get climatologists telling geologists that they’ve got it all wrong.

      Another funny thing is the fact that all the best paying jobs for geologists are in the oil industry.

      An even funnier thing will pop out when you bother to check some of the people involved with this letter. See ‘concerned colleagues’ and you’ll spot none other than Nils-Axl Morner and Tim Ball, nutters both.

      I notice that for all their ‘expertise’, this lot reference Euan Mearns, Notalotofpeopleknowthat, WTFUWT, the GWPF, Heartland Institute and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Yes, really.

      What. A. Fucking. Joke.

      Which bit of ‘this is not scientific evidence’ didn’t you understand?

  51. “Which bit of ‘this is not scientific evidence’ didn’t you understand?”

    That’s the key question, and the answer is that he doesn’t understand evidence in the way it’s used in science.

    If he really is a lawyer the “win” comes not from the use of facts, or honesty, but in “wordsmithery”. If he can bullshit his way past real issues better than other patent lawyers (that’s what he claims to be, but he claimed to have studied electrical engineering as well and he’s clearly demonstrated he doesn’t have the brains for that) he wins. This leads to his repeated lying about studies, references to people with no expertise, etc.

    In short, his repeated lies about science are not, from his point of view, lies (that statement is the only true thing he’s said) but part of his feature set. Given his unwillingness to learn anything, the crap from his computer will continue.

    1. dean:

      True enough. Evidence is whatever you can get admitted to court.

      But it is also what people cite to each other when they talk, discuss and argue.

      Everything BBD, Lionel and Bernard cited is evidence.

      But than so is everything I cited.

      The fact that it does not persuade or is ignored doesn’t make it NOT evidence, it just goes to its persuasive value.

      Anyway – off to the cabin.

      I will check back Monday.

      Have a good weekend everybody.

    2. Everything BBD, Lionel and Bernard cited is evidence.

      But than so is everything I cited.

      [Head in hands]

      No. Most of what you post is either misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the scientific evidence. It is not the evidence itself. Like your crap about the relative scale of the MCA and LIA – that wasn’t scientific evidence it was a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence.

      You *need* to sort this definition mess out before you can ever expect to be taken seriously in here.

    3. “But than so is everything I cited.”

      No, it is not. The things you cite have been rebuked in the scientific literature (many never made it into official publications), or have been shown to be creations based on cherry-picked data or things which were purely manufactured.

      Regardless of that: when ideas that are presented have been shown by analysis and/or new data to be invalid, those ideas are no longer evidence, and presenting them as such is pure dishonesty. Which, of course, is your stock in trade.

  52. RockA

    You are suffering from a fundamental inability to recognise the difference between opinion and empirically evidenced fact. The difference between supposition and ‘the smoking gun’.

    Everything BBD, Lionel and Bernard cited is evidence.

    And our evidence is from accredited scientific studies and thus admissible, which yours is not and has been demonstrated as inadmissible time after time by scientists working in the multiple fields relevant to climate science and which corroborate each other. Your so called evidence comes from ‘houses of cards’.

  53. BBD above.
    “They’re geologists Rick, not climatologists. Funny thing is, you don’t get climatologists telling geologists that they’ve got it all wrong.

    Hahahahaha.
    When described so simply and starkly, the situation looks so ridiculous.
    I wonder how many geologists make up bullshit about material science, or optometry, or fish studies or aerodynamics as a hobby? Fuck all, I bet.
    I’ve got a vague memory of someone in climate related research saying humorously that when she retires she’s gonna spend her time hassling engineers.

  54. I wonder how many geologists make up bullshit…

    Ian Plimer and ‘Heaven and Earth’ springs to mind. Well taken apart by George Monbiot and also Tim Lambert at Deltoid (RIP).

    1. I was thinking a bit about nulls.
      Reasonably, the AGW hypothesis needs to identify and define the null of completely natural variation and show the difference, if any. I reckon this has been done coherently and accuratly.
      What gets me is the strange psychology of Plimer and the rest of the deniers that seek to maintain the null without defining it, ( force x! Lol A mysterious thing is not a fucking null ) or the real loons won’t even accept data about what could be the null if they are correct ( co2 concentration, sea level etc. ).
      In a way, they have set up a sort of straw man. Ie. The null can’t be defined so any challenge is weak.
      It’s bullshit because the mob who do real science define nulls in order to strengthen them or get rid of em.
      I don’t know why Plimer mob can’t see the disconnect they have.

  55. Re: BBD above. “They’re geologists Rick, not climatologists. Funny thing is, you don’t get climatologists telling geologists that they’ve got it all wrong.

    I am a retired geologist and, of course, some overlap between geology and climate science does exist: glaciation, deglaciation, and related sea level change have long been important topics in geology. The existence of continental scale glaciation was, after all, a major 19th century geological discovery. However, I (and I hope most of us) recognize that until and unless we could point out serious relevant evidence not yet taken into consideration by climate scientists, it would be both arrogant and foolish to challenge climate scientists’ conclusions. I am aware of no such evidence and I am surprised that some geologists think they have some.

    As a climate science outsider, I found Fig. 2.9 in “A Global Warming Primer” by Jeffrey Bennett very interesting. The source is given as the IPCC and it shows temperature change relative to average global temperature from actual temperature data from 1860 to 2010, a composite of models that include both natural and human factors, and a composite of models that include only natural factors. by about 1920, the natural factors only curve departs significantly from the natural plus human curve which closely follows the actual temperature curve. By 2010, the natural factors only curve accounts for only about 20% of the temperature change. According to a note in the descriptions, there are “an outstanding set of graphics” showing how the natural factors combine to form the natural factors only curve at: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

    1. Very very nice graphics. Tamino the stat bloke did something similar a while back.
      My only quibble is it’s bizarrely in Fahrenheit, which hardly anyone uses.
      The original data woulda been metric for sure. And someone’s actually taken the time to convert it!
      Again though, very nice.
      Soooo that’s the correlation sorted.
      Any causation mechanism? Well yes there is. There’s established clear mechanisms for CO2 and aerosols doing their thing.
      Anyone wanting to come up with evidence of a undiscovered natural source thats really powerfull is more than welcome to try. But even then,
      as well as irrefutable evidence of the new source, they would have to say why atmospheric effects of co2 and aerosols are completely misunderstood and current knowledge wrong.

      It’s a massive ask, this 2 pronged thing and everything I’ve ever seen deniers put out shows they not up to the challenge remotely.
      Yet, somehow, this mob of absolute cretins seems to hold many politicians attention.

    2. Tyvor. Good points.

      That Bloomberg Graphic is clear, RickA should in particular note of the Aerosol track as underlying evidence as to why the human created component of warming is over 100 per cent.

      And many of us realise that geologists make, and have made, a valuable contribution to climate change science George Denton for one who is credited on the cover of:

      Philip Conkling, Richard Alley, Wallace Broker, George Denton; ‘The Fate of Greenland: Lesons From Abrupt Climate Change’.

      And in

      Wally Broecker; ‘The Great Ocean Conveyor:Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change’

      Both in of my Educating RickA Part 2 list above.

    3. Tyvor Wynne

      That’s an excellent graphic, thanks for the link. Of course ‘sceptics’ will attack it by making up lies about the reliability of the forcing estimates, forcing efficacy of CO2, observational record etc.

      Then whine about tone when you point out that they are just bullshitting in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

      My patience is just about gone with these clowns. When is it going to become socially unacceptable to peddle climate change lies, I wonder? Bigotry and sexism are getting the hammering they deserve, so about time attitudes hardened against climate liars. Although with the vast rightwing media licking this crap up and spitting it in the face of the public discourse, the lying will just go on and on, I suspect.

  56. My only quibble is it’s bizarrely in Fahrenheit, which hardly anyone uses.

    It is aimed at the US public who have yet to catch up with the remainder of the world and use Celsius.

    1. My quibble is that Bloomberg hasn’t updated it for three years. The Celsius/Fahrenheit thing doesn’t bother me as it’s easy enough to mentally multiply by 1.8 or 0.55 as required.

      The other thing that does bother me is that I’ve presented the Bloomberg graphic to RickA several times in the past, and the import doesn’t register on his radar. The cognitive scotoma is strong in that one…

    2. Re Lionel A & “… the US public who have yet to catch up with the remainder of the world and use Celsius.”

      Oh, it is just that Fahrenheit makes setting thermostats more precise. Those Celsius degrees are too damn big and fractions are a pain.

  57. RickA should also note that not only does the aerosol line track down but that the greenhouse gas forcing line tracks higher than observed, further reinforcing the point that AGW is greater that 100 per cent.

    1. Pretty sure you linked to Karsten’s page upthread, but here it is again, to go with Tyvor’s link. IIRC I did mention the negative volcanic aerosol forcing post 1950 to RickA, but he blanked it, as he always does when confronted with science that he doesn’t like, eg. >100% anthro forcing since 1950s.

      And they get all pissy when you call them what they are: deniers.

      We all need to toughen up, IMO. No more shit from these lying clowns.

  58. BBD:

    Although with the vast rightwing media licking this crap up and spitting it in the face of the public discourse, the lying will just go on and on, I suspect.

    Strange that you mention the role of the media just as I have been having another look at Carroll Quigley ‘Tragedy and Hope.’ and also ‘The Anglo American Establishment’

    Both books, and others, can be downloaded as pdfs from here:

    Carroll Quigley books

    One only has to read in a few pages of ‘Cultural Evolution in Civilizations’ (from Page 3) of ‘Tragedy and Hope’ to see described the role of the media and the nature of the present geo-political field.

    Some of the books that provide context and background to Quigley’s exposé of the secret organisations that walked the world to WW1 and beyond have their covers represented in another of those multiple bookmarks in A4 landscape that I have put together (have quite a collection now):

    http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/MorePics6/GeoPolt.jpg

    1. More denier crap. Given that during the Eemian, when it was no more than 1 – 2C warmer than the HCO, MSL was >6m above current, who but a fool with a rightwing political bias would waste time with McI’s garbage?

  59. Dear RickA:
    You linked to a lengthy, dated article, by Steve McIntrye, on Steve McIntryres blogsite. Steve McIntyre is not a climate scientist. The article is not peer reviewed or in a peer reviewed journal. Steve McIntyre is an extraction industry executive ( mining).

    One can safely attack Steve McIntyre’s credibility on many fronts. He is not widely considered an expert in any field of science. He was a participant in the climategate email scam, having been a main point of the distorted rebroadcast of those stolen-by-the-Russians emails.

    The one skill set that he has as a mining exec that is transferable to climate science is the ability to make a mountain of crap out of a small hole in the ground. McIntyre is an expert at distorting real and often minor discrepancies in research data and analysis into attention getting tirades used to indict all of climatology.

    The main point of his windy article appears to be to advance the argument that one should not be alarmed about the loss of antarctic ice mass because different measurement methods produce different numbers for the rate of ice loss.

    Well there is this. First, there is the data, and then there is how one reacts to the data. There is plenty of convincing data that the world is warming and that the Antarctic ice mass is melting, whatever the current disagreements about rate. But then there is the authoritarian control freak admonishment to not think about this problem as in any way alarming , simply because all the data sets have not yet converged to an agreed upon rate of melting.

    If a researcher writes a study, and it indicates that the Antarctic ice mass is melting at a particular rate, whether or not one actually does become alarmed by reading the study should not really be any of Mr. McIntyre’s bloody business, should it? But he thinks it is, because he is an active operative for the extraction industry, and he wants to shape the minds of consumers to encourage them to mindlessly consume .

    1. Hell, Zwally was an outlier. GRACE and Cryosat data strongly suggest he got it wrong.

      Single-study syndrome: a denier pathology.

  60. Just reading a geologist ( no offence Tyvor )having a go at Eric Rignot.
    Don Easterbrook sez

    “In a paper titled “Widespread, Rapid Grounding Line Retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica from 1992 to 2011,” Rignot et al. (2014) contend that increased flow velocity of several small outlet glaciers of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet as a result of increased rates of calving into the sea will lead to “unstoppable collapse” of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet and raising of sea level by 4 ft, which will displace tens of millions of people from coastal areas around the world. According to Rigot, an electrical engineer, “Warm ocean currents and geographic peculiarities have helped kick off a chain reaction at the Amundsen Sea-area glaciers, melting them faster than previously realized and pushing them ‘past the point of no return’…The system [becomes] a chain reaction that is unstoppable, [with] every process of retreat feeding the next one…The glacial retreat there appears unstoppable.”

    Curiously, Rignot asserts that “heat makes the grounding line retreat inland, leaving a less massive ice shelf above. When ice shelves lose mass, they can’t hold back inland glaciers from flowing toward the sea.” Apparently he believes that the terminal area of the glacier acts like a dam, “holding back” the rest of the glacier, and if it is removed, the glacier will essentially slide into the sea. That’s a false premise—every glaciologist knows that where a glacier terminates is determined by its mass balance between the amount of accumulation of new ice every year and the amount of ice loss by melting or calving. Thus, an important factor for the Rignot “unstoppable collapse” of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is based on a false premise.”
    Note the attempted dismissive calling Rignot an electrical engineer! Bwahahahahaha.
    Now, id like to ask, cuz I don’t know much about glaciers, is this Easterbrook correct?
    He seems pretty sure of his premise. Seems to think it’s glaciology 101 and everyone knows it. If so, wouldn’t at least one of radiologists Rignot hangs around and works with sort of mention it? That glaciers won’t speed up quick quick if the face retreats a heap.
    It’s damn hard for me to believe Rignots at odds with every glaciologist. And no ones said nothing.
    Any ideas?
    Thanks.

    1. Edit for above. Argggg. Stupid bloody phone.
      It says radiologist where it should say glaciologist.

    2. Hmmmm I wonder. There’s glaciers I’ve seen pics of with sorta nothing holding them back. Up in mountains. A stream just comes out the bottom of em. But the whole thing ain’t sliding down the valley.
      Maybe different glaciers have different characteristics.
      There’s a whole lot ( understatement! ) riding on the Rignot idea( I don’t know if it’s actually his original idea or not) at least as far as some Antarctic glaciers go.
      This shit needs to be thrashed out for laymen like myself to understand.
      Anyone with links to good science and/or discussion please put em up for me and other readers. Obviously no crap wtfuwt rubbish.
      We don’t have glaciers on Australian continent and I daresay many Australians, like myself, know fuck all
      about them.
      Thanks. Oh and thanks Greg for the space here to put this up. Even though I reckon you are wrong about the more cyclones scenario.

    3. The big WAIS outflow glaciers are impeded by marine ice sheets. It is if / when these collapse that unstoppable, gravity-driven drainage will take over and the WAIS will begin to collapse. It is widely accepted- except by Easterbrook – that embayed ice sheets can and do ‘hold back’ glacial drainage of the WAIS.

    4. BBD. Just so I’m really clear.
      By marine ice sheets do you mean frozen sea salt water or frozen fresh water from glacier floating on the sea.
      Thanks.

    5. I the embayed ice shelves damming the likes of the PIG etc are mainly freshwater ice from the glacier, but the composition of the ice doesn’t affect the way that the ice shelf inhibits the flow rate of the glacier itself.

  61. For Li D and anyone else interested, here’s my Geology 101 introduction to glaciation:

    Glaciers form and are maintained in any place where more snow falls during a year than can waste away by melting and/or sublimation for long enough. This occurs in high mountains and can occur on more level terrain, given the right climatic conditions. With time, even young, originally fluffy snow becomes granular snow and then becomes a sheet of ice which has to be chipped off sidewalks and driveways. Glaciers result when enough snow and ice accumulate over years to create a mass of ice thick enough that its lower part becomes capable of plastic flow under the weight of the overlying material. The crevasses common (and dangerous) on the tops of glaciers show that the ice there is still brittle, responding to the ice flow beneath by tension-cracking.

    If a glacier forms on the side of a mountain, it will flow down existing valleys (and may even slide on meltwater downslope). Valleys are reshaped and deepened by glacial movement along them. When a glacier reaches (or forms on) more level ground, it will flow horizontally as long as there is enough pressure in the zone of accumulation to maintain enough of a pressure difference. (That’s where the mass balance comes in.) Sooner or later, a moving glacier will enter a region where snowfall is less than wastage — and no new snow/ice can be added. The location of the edge of the glacier is determined by the rate of wastage in that region versus the rate of glacial flow into that region. The ice margin may advance, retreat, attain “stillstand,” or alternately advance and retreat depending on how those rates compare. Obviously, climate change in either the accumulation region, the wastage region, or both will affect the location of the glacial margin.

    Not being a glaciologist, I have no knowledge of situations in which glaciers could be or are being dammed. I will venture the opinion that an electrical engineers education and training would not ordinarily fit him/her to venture opinions without supporting data worth considering if they contradicted the consensus of specialists in geoscience or any other field. However, I had a friend who was an EE who had also taken geology courses in college and I wouldn’t have disregarded his geological opinions completely. Available evidence rules, though, always.

    1. Thanks Tyvor.
      I’m getting the idea that each glacier is unique. And each one sort of needs a school of knowledge around it.
      Perhaps the damming idea is applicable to some and not others.
      Here’s Rignots Wikipedia page so you can see what sort of electrical work he does. He’s not designing switch boards in factories as a day job and has a hobby at night looking at glaciers.
      It really was a crappy slight Easterbrook gave him.
      Thanks again for the glacier basics.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rignot

    2. Perhaps the damming idea is applicable to some and not others.

      Yup, the damming of WAIS outflow glaciers by embayed ice shelves don’t happen on mountain glaciers 🙂

    3. And yes, Easterbrook – a much-debunked denier of the always-wrong school – has a fucking nerve trying to pretend Rignot lacks domain expertise. In fact by doing so, Easterbrook reveals just how dishonest he really is.

  62. Does anyone know where and what percent of Antarctica ice sheet
    are located on land and sea?

    Where are all of the AGW experts???? This is a basic question for
    enviro scientists. Where is Harvey and BBD???

  63. Glaciers are made of precipitation, fresh water. Snow.

    Glaciers sit there and grow continuously, as new precip falls on them.

    Glaciers site there and shrink continuously, as warm air or water melts them a little.

    (Sometimes the growth or shrinkage is zero, for a period of time)

    When we add growth and shrinkage together, we get “mass balance.” When mass balance is negative, that fresh water that is in the glaciers is being converted at a certain rate into, ultimately, ocean water.

    For a very long time, the mass balance of the major glaciers of the world was at close to equilibrium. The sea level was therefore not going up or down much. Most of the up and down flux of sea level was probably other causes. For example, if Australia gets copious rain over a period of a couple of years, the sea level goes down.

    But for the last century or so, the mass balance across the world’s glaciers has been negative, and sea level has been going up.

    Regarding the claimed lack of connection between the upper video (note I added a second video) and hurricanes, please just watch the video and note all the parts where they make that connection.

    Please note that there are several different tropical cyclone basins. The research that suggested a decrease in frequency of TC’s pertained only to the oddest (or second oddest) of the basins: The Atlantic.

    Notice that there is at lease one independent TC basin that only recently started producing TCs. Maybe two.

    Regarding the damn dams. The process of a glacier of the type we see in Antarctica losing its grounding line is complex and not well understood. Yes, the mass of glacier in the valley helps slow the glacier’s move through the valley. Also, if there is a large mass behind the upper parts of that ice stream and the lower part is lose and moving ,that can speed up the movement of the glacier. Also, as the main river of ice held in the valley slides out of position, it exposes the sides of the valley and a huge amount of calving can happen.

    The process is known to have happened many times in the past, but the observation of this kind of thing is mainly, as far as I know, on smaller glaciers that are not grounded the same way.

    See here and search down to the word “swan”: http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/11/18/new-antarctic-glacial-melt-study-lowballs-rate-estimate/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.