Silence Is Consent
Kevin Anderson on the coming disaster
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Eli meant to behave but there were way too many options.
KoFi Button
Posts
Contributors
Eli Rabett
Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.
Brian's Other Blog
On Line Textbooks
- Atmospheric Chemistry - Daniel Jacob
- Environmental Geosciences - Robert Stewart
- Ray Pierrehumbert on the physics of climate
- David Archer's Global Warming (Parts)
- Spencer Weart's Disovery of Global Warming
- Stratospheric Ozone
- Global Land Vegetation
- Polar Sea Ice
- Sea Surface Temperatures
- Skeptical Science - not a book but a resource
Mostly Science
- And Then There's Physics
- Blue Skies Research - J&J in the UK
- Bob Grumbine in the 21st Century
- Easterbrook's Serendipity
- Izen or Izen it not?
- James' Empty Blog
- Neven's Artic Sea Ice Blog
- Nick Stoke's Moyhu
- Real Climate
- Science of Doom
- Simon Donner's Maribo II
- Tamino's Open Mind
- The Weasel, aka Stoat
- Victor Venema
- Weather from Bridford, Devon, a beautiful corner of the world
Mostly Climate Policy
Other Lands
Southerners
Cuter in Bunny Ears
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(284)
-
▼
March
(45)
- Dano Tells Eli to Get to Work And Save the World
- Do Bears Snack in the Woods?
- We Are All Sitting Ducks
- Stealth Issue Advocate Pielke
- Belief
- Steve McIntyre in the library with the knife
- A total of two decent articles on the military sit...
- Don't Mess With Chemists
- The Ferret Pwnd
- The Ferret Cornered
- The Reverse Ferret
- Noted with little comment
- A Sea Surface Temperature Blog
- Might help more if the link supports your assertion
- Who You Gonna Trust, Models or Data?
- Continuous plagiarism of James Annan needed
- Two of Scott Lemieux
- Mordor Of Our Own Making
- Pour Stiff Drink
- Springtime, and the Ice Is A Melting
- Silence Is Suicide
- Silence Is Consent
- Little Liver Treats - Ryan Cooper Planks Roger Pie...
- Environmental denial in history - nope, nothing's ...
- All of a Sudden the World Famous Attorney May Real...
- Ms. Rabett Sends Craic and Memory
- The End of Science
- It's summer time in San Francisco Bay
- USAmerikaner Exceptionalism BRDeutscher Unhappiness
- The Royal Society Answers Questions
- Since no bunny reads comments
- Early Footnoteology
- Senate Mid-Term All Nighter on Climate Change
- Millennials walk the walk but don't talk the talk
- The Whitehouse Marathon
- Another sadly-unpaid endorsement: Duolingo
- Spinning the wheel
- Shameless self-promotion: on GoGreen America radi...
- My guess: Putin won't invade the rest of eastern ...
- The Angry Author
- Indre, Chris, Steven, and Ed are acting like Keith
- Amazonian in the Martian sense of the word
- Weekendus Interuptus
- Thanks a lot, Khruschev
- Does acidification overcome the one PhD theory?
-
▼
March
(45)
Nil Nisi
- A Few Things Illconsidered
- Arthur Smith
- Atmoz
- Capital Climate
- Chris Colose
- Climate Physics Forum
- Cruel Mistress
- Deep Climate
- Delayed Oscillator
- Deltoid
- Denis Delbecq
- Fergus Brown's Old Man
- Greenfyre
- Horatio's Muse
- John Nielsen-Gammon
- Lab Lemming
- Logical Science
- Magnus Westerstrand
- N3xus 6
- Policy Lass
- Post Normal Times
- Rick Piltze
- Some Are Boojums
- Throbgoblin
11 comments:
Sobering stuff. BTW - it's "Kevin" Anderson, not "Kenneth".
Corrected. Thanks
Hee-hee.
6C per century?
Since observations are around 1.3C per century I guess
being wrong by a factor of 4 is not as bad as being off
by an order of magnitude.
Then the talking head proceeds to make the same gross error denialists
make by citing not even accumulations, but emissions.
Meanwhile, greenhouse forcing growth peaked in 1987 and has declined
( even with the emergence from poverty by China ) to a relatively
stable growth rate:
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/011006/erl459410f5_online.jpg
If one wants to be seen as being on the side of 'science' one should
not lie about it.
Now, go and take your anti-xylotics.
Eunice.
Since observations are around 1.3C per century I guess being wrong by a factor of 4 is not as bad as being off by an order of magnitude.
Like the difference between weather and climate you seem to have trouble distinguishing between last century and this century and the past and the future. These are easy concepts. What elementary school did you attend? That might explain it.
Alas poor Eunice...
It appears that what is being plotted in your link, as any bunny can plainly see, is the annual change, delta F, in the CHG forcing...
A flat line would represent a monotonically increasing radiative forcing...
I suppose that we can take some solace in that it is not accelerating untowardly...
Out of curiosity, are you that naive or are you being deliberately mendacious?
Once again I have a strong suspicion that 'Eunice' is not female. Aside from certain masculine stylistic hints, it's almost always males who present the grossly idiotic straw men to which Eunice is partial.
Newsflash Einstein, the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and hence of its forcing, can be continuously decreasing - or even zero - and the absolute value of each would still increase and lead us to crispy toast at the end of the journey.
Please learn the difference been derivatives and their integrals - they tell us different things. By your logic terminal velocity is harmless...
Anderson deems it 'likely' that temperatures will rise 4 C by "2050 to 2100"
2050 - 2014 = 36
4/36 = .111 degree C/ year
.111 X 10 = 1.1 C / decade
What is the first decade of the three remaining before 2050, or the 8 remaining before 2100 in which anybunny , Anderson included, expects to see a whole 1 degree delta T, and why ?
Discuss
The talk was in 2012 and the 4C by mid century was based on Betts et al from 2010:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full
from this:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc
Where his paper on the likelihood of staying within 2C is published. AR5 doesn't think that's really a feasible outcome. Of course, AR5 was after the talk.
In 2012 he could point to that one paper and say there is some probability of hitting 4C, on current emissions trajectory, by mid century. I haven't checked whether AR5 discusses the Betts et al paper, though. Maybe it's since been shown to no longer be a valid result?
I don't know what he thinks is likely now. Maybe someone should ask him (or Betts, etc.)?
Here's the money shot:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67/F7.large.jpg
Cheers,
Adam
Do note that ~19.00 the curve he showed (hockey stick in shape?) was for emissions. He stated 'it could be for anything with humans'.
This key point was made by Gus Speth in his latest book, where he used that shape to track about a score of indicators, and used them throughout the book as optics.
So note the shape. Now look in some population biology texts for curves of growth for organisms. That's right: the curves never continue unabated.
Best,
D
The AR5 results would seem consistent with Anderson's assertions. Per Fig. 12.5 in the report, it looks like high-emission (i.e., high forcing, in the new lingo) potentially leads to 4C rise over pre-industrial by 2065-2070 (2 sigma)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig12-5.jpg
Let's bring the story forward.
All of the Greenland Ice Sheet is moving, and we are not even to 1C yet. If the GIS goes down or sideways, sea level goes up. We do not need to invoke temperature rise for real AGW effects and impacts.
Arctic permafrost is thawing at current temperature and the peat is being converted to methane. Again, this is at less then 1C. Now carbon emission reduction is harder.
Albedo feedback has started due to reduced snow and ice cover. With reduced ice on the Barents and East Greenland seas, it is more likely that the GIS will stay warm enough to move.
And, there is more heat in the pipeline from the tropical oceans to the Arctic. We are an impatient species and have not given the climate time to come into equilibrium either with the heat in the system or the carbon in the atmosphere. the carbon already in the atmosphere will produce more warming over time. We do not need any more global warming to keep the GIS flowing into the ocean, but we are going to get more warming.
Again sea level rise and ice dynamics are honestly considered, I have doubts that our global industrial economy can survive 20 years of 1C warming.
In spring of 2014, the Emperor is still not wearing a stitch of clothing.
Post a Comment