+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 42
Latest: eranda
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 10176
Total Topics: 244
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Message icon:

Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 14, 2018, 08:05:43 pm »

Weather Underground

Above:  A sampling of all-time high temperatures reported around the world in 2018 thus far, rounded to the nearest degree Fahrenheit. Most of these were set in late June and early July (see details below). The reading of 51.3°C (124.3°F) at Ouargla, Algeria, is the highest reliably measured temperature on record for Africa. Background image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.

Christopher C. Burt  ·  July 13, 2018, 12:40 PM EDT

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 13, 2018, 12:41:26 pm »

Americans Increasingly Aware of Climate Change, Media 😈 👹🐉🦕🦖 Clueless  ;)

By Paola Rosa-Aquino

YJuly 12, 2018 Filed to: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 12, 2018, 01:04:52 pm »

6 Climate Change Movies You HAVE To See 👀  🧐

July 11th, 2018 by Guest Contributor

Originally published on The Climate Reality Project.

Six deeply engaging and thought-provoking films shine a light on the realities of the climate crisis today – and imagine what it means for our tomorrow.

Truly great films about the climate crisis are tough to come by. Allusions to environmental destruction are very familiar in the futuristic dystopias Hollywood churns out like clockwork, but they rarely get the science right – or they abandon it entirely in favor of skipping straight to some post-apocalyptic CGI extravaganza.

Those of us with a little knowledge of the climate crisis bristle at this kind of doom-and-gloom bombast – because we know better. But that doesn’t mean a few thoughtful films haven’t been able to cut through the noise.

Below are six of our favorites. We decided to spice it up by mixing narrative films with documentaries – and while our changing climate understandably casts a long, dark shadow over any future that wrestles with its impacts, we did our best to stay on the right side of the fine line between raucous, factually dubious calamity and thought-provoking “what if” explorations or science-centered spectacle.


Director Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar is that rarest of Hollywood anomalies – a wildly complicated, lavishly expensive, wholly original mainstream blockbuster. It doesn’t exist in the Marvel or DC cinematic universes; instead, it occupies a not-so-distant-future version of our very own – and things aren’t exactly going great.

While the words “climate change” are never explicitly said in the film, the impacts of the crisis are writ large, driving a plot about an attempt to flee a near-future Earth reeling from drastically changing weather patterns and global food shortages for the safety of a new habitable planet.

Featuring one of the most stacked casts in recent memory, including Oscar winners Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, and Ellen Burstyn and nominees Jessica Chastain, Timothée Chalamet, and John Lithgow, Interstellar takes on a very real consequence of climate inaction, though it offers up an untenable solution.

After all, there’s still no Planet B.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Living in a Louisiana bayou community called “the Bathtub,” six-year-old Hush Puppy (youngest-ever Best Actress Oscar nominee Quvenzhané Wallis) can’t get the prehistoric aurochs her teacher tells her will be released from melting ice caps off her mind – even as the world in front of her crumbles and cowers, the victim of powerful storms, failing levees, and familial health problems.

While the film’s setting is technically fictional, it was inspired by several very real fishing villages in Southern Louisiana’s Terrebonne Parish. These small, isolated wetland communities are threatened by climate-driven erosion, extreme weather, and rising sea levels. Most notable among them is the rapidly disappearing Isle de Jean Charles, former home of “the first American climate refugees.”

Chasing Coral

The 2017 documentary Chasing Coral enjoys a rare accolade: It is one of a pretty short list of films to hold a 100 percent “fresh” rating on popular review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

That coral reefs are existentially threatened by the climate crisis is a truth near-universally acknowledged. But filmmaker Jeff Orlowski doesn’t simply telegraph a report on this impending ecological catastrophe.

Instead, Orlowski infuses his film with such empathy and ardor for our world’s oceans and their vibrant ecosystems – as well as those working hard to save what’s left – that it’s impossible to not walk away pumped up and ready to join the fight.


Like we already mentioned, we try to avoid cynical, despondent hot takes on the climate crisis. But we’re fans of director Bong Joon Ho’s Snowpiercer for two big reasons: First, it’s a very, very good, wildly underseen film, and second, because it confronts head-on the dangers of a “we’ll deal with this later” approach to climate action.

The film is set in a future where a failed geoengineering experiment to counteract climate change plunges the planet into a new ice age, killing all life except for those lucky enough (a phrase we’re using loosely here) to have boarded the titular train. This train now circles the globe on a constant loop and a tyrannical class system has taken hold onboard.

It’s an important cautionary tale: While we should investigate any and all scientific developments to stop the climate crisis, dangerous gambles like geoengineering – or for that matter, fleeing our planet for an imagined oasis somewhere deep in the universe – could come with unintended consequences. So, why risk it when we know for sure that quickly transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables can and will work?

There’s even an important philosophical principle – one at work in another great, underappreciated sci-fi film, 1997’s Contact – to back this one up. Attributed to fourteenth century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham, Ockham’s Razor states… well, Jodie Foster’s Dr. Ellie Arroway put it best: “All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the right one.”

(We agree, Dr. Arroway.)

Note: For all its incredible imagination, Snowpiercer definitely has some moments of real violence and isn’t one for younger audiences.

An Inconvenient Truth/An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power

Now, of course, the film that started a movement – and the follow-up that propelled it to new heights.

After seeing former US Vice President Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, people worldwide finally understood the reality of the climate crisis devastating our planet. For many, it was the moment they knew they personally had to do something about it. The film’s impact continues to be felt more than a decade after it won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Documentary and took its place among the highest-grossing documentaries ever.

Last year’s follow-up, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, took that story further, showcasing both the amazing progress that’s been made as well as how much further we still have to go to solve the climate crisis.

Both documentaries present the science and stakes of the crisis and ask viewers if they’re ready to fight like our world depends on it (because it does).


Just like you saw others do in An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, you too can work with Vice President Gore himself along with a host of field-leading experts and activists to learn the facts of the climate crisis and how we can solve it together. Apply today to attend our Climate Reality Leadership Corps training in Los Angeles, California, from August 28-30, and join an incredible network of dedicated activists devoted to solving the greatest challenge of our time.

You know our climate is changing. You know renewable energy is the answer. And you want to make a difference. We’ll show you how.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 09:42:44 pm »

July 10, 2018

Death Toll Rises After Torrential Rain in Japan

At least 155 are dead and dozens more missing in Japan after "historic" rainfall 🌩🌪🌧 this weekend triggered intense flooding and landslides, the government reported Tuesday. According to Japanese public broadcaster NHK, nearly 15 inches of rain, roughly equivalent to 1.5 times the average rainfall for all of July, fell in just two hours on Sunday morning.

Nearly 2 million people were still under evacuation order as of Monday, while thousands of homes have been damaged and phone lines are down across the country. Increased extreme rainfall, a signal of climate change that has been documented in Japan, can lead to flooding and landslides.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 08:51:17 pm »

An Iceberg the Size of Lower Manhattan Just Broke off Greenland

Maddie Stone

July 10, 2018 10:50am Filed to: ICE ON THIN ICE

Read more:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 08:45:27 pm »

July 11, 2018

Quebec's Deadly Heat Wave

The death toll in Quebec's heat wave last week may have reached as many as 70, officials said Tuesday, as temperatures reached over 100 degrees F.

Thirty-four of those deaths were in Montreal, where temperatures soared 20 degrees above normal and CBC reports that the morgue became so overcrowded it had to partner with a local funeral home for extra storage. Officials say most of the deaths were women and men over the age of 50 living alone in apartments with no air conditioning, and over 60 percent had an underlying medical condition.

The increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves is among the most obvious and well-documented effects of climate change.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 10, 2018, 11:15:15 pm »

The PROBLEM is GREED by the RICH, NOT the SIZE of the human population.

Promotion of population reduction of the poorest among us is based on a FALSE EQUIVALENCE between two factors.

The carbon footprint of the the top 17% VASTLY outweighs the carbon footprint of the lower 83%. It is disingenuous, as well as mean spirited, to claim the two sources of emissions are "equally" damaging.

What those who push this false equivalence REALLY want to do is depopulate the earth of of the lower 83% so that they can continue their unsustainable hydrocarbon burning reliant standard of living. Not only is that murderous plan  empathy deficit disordered, but doomed to failure!

The biosphere math facts clearly state that less than 17% of the human population, MOSTLY concentrated in wealthy countries, is DOING over 80% of the damage by consuming over 80% of the resources. Only about half (or less) of the MILITARY budgets alone of the wealthy countries could pay for bio-remediating the most impacted areas, stop the exploitation and care for and educate the high population growth poor there so they become good stewards instead of biosphere destroyers.

The fossil fuel industry 🐉🦕🦖, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies 😈 👹 💵 🎩, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:

How convenient!

We DO NOT NEED TO BURN HYDROCARBONS for energy to have a civilization that guarantees a viable biosphere for future generations. Amory Lovins has made that crystal clear since a peer reviewed study he published over a decade ago titled, "Reinventing Fire". Google it. We need hydrocarbons like a dog needs ticks, PERIOD.

Amory Lovins on Energy Efficency Breakthroughs (real world 90% plus waste reduction) that seem hard to believe:
"Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."

"Capitalist ideology claims that the world is perfectly ordered and everybody is in their place (i..e. everybody gets what they deserve). This self legitmating aspect of Capitalism is Socially Catastrophic. This is the Victorian view of the world."Rob Urie - Author " Zen Economics"
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 09, 2018, 07:57:25 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 09, 2018, 02:13:57 pm »

July 9, 2018

Why Did the Name 'Maria' Reappear? ???

The Hurricane Maria that caused catastrophic damage in Puerto Rico had its name retired earlier this year due to the amount and severity of damage and fatalities on the U.S. island territory.

But that name was only retired in one part of the world – the Atlantic Ocean. There are 12 other basins in the world that can have the same names.

Read more:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 07, 2018, 01:19:35 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 06, 2018, 01:34:59 pm »

Words cannot describe the horror that Catastrophic Climate Change, gifted to us by the Hydrocarbon Defending Criminals 😈 👹 💵 🎩 🍌, will bring, FAR above ☠️ and beyond  🚩 the misery and pollution the Hydrocarbon Greedballs 🐉🦕🦖 have already devastated the biosphere with.

The Hydrocarbon Huslters 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 06, 2018, 01:24:26 pm »

Ghost Ships No More: Seismic Vessels Resume Oil and Gas Search as Prices Perk Up 🤬

July 4, 2018 by Reuters

seismic survey vessel Photo: CutePloy / Shutterstock


By Florence Tan and Gavin Maguire SINGAPORE, July 5 (Reuters) – A growing fleet of ships is scanning oceans in search of new oil and gas fields as energy companies, now with more cash thanks to stronger crude prices, gradually resume spending on seismic services after a four-year downturn.

A doubling in the area contracted for seismic work in the first quarter this year from the last three months of 2017 has injected optimism into surveillance firms, with a global fleet of about 24 vessels, most of whom struggled to survive in the past years.

But they say the road to recovery remains bumpy with producers big and small not keen on drilling for new reserves unless oil prices, which have more than doubled from 2016 lows, stay high for at least a year.

Still, with crude prices stabilising well above $60 a barrel in the past six months, companies including mid- and small-sized independents such as Woodside Petroleum Ltd, Kosmos Energy Ltd and Tullow Oil PLC have helped boost demand for surveillance.

The total area tendered by upstream companies 🦖 for seismic work doubled to 40,000 square kilometres in the first quarter this year from October-December last year, said Duncan Eley, chief executive officer at Polarcus which owns a seismic fleet.

“That’s positive in isolation,” said Eley, keeping his optimism in check even as he pointed to a busy fourth quarter for geophysical work in Asia Pacific, particularly for gas with demand forecast to soar in coming decades.

Gas projects 🦖 in Myanmar could take two to three vessels from the global fleet, while there are also potential activities in Malaysia, Australia, India and Papua New Guinea, where Exxon Mobil and Total plan to feed more gas into their existing liquefied natural gas infrastructure, Eley said.

That marks a stark change from the dark days of 2015 and 2016 when orders for geophysical survey work came to a grinding halt as oil prices plummeted from over $100 a barrel to less than $50.

Petroleum Geo Services (PGS)🦖, the world’s largest seismic operator, was also seeing better opportunities now than last year.

“The recent increases we’ve seen are primarily driven by Africa and Brazil when it comes to bidding for contract work,” said Bård Stenberg, PGS’ senior vice president for investor relations and communication.

Demand for geophysical data at producing oil and gas fields, also known as 4D seismic survey, has also increased as explorers sought to maximise output from these assets ☠️, the two executives 😈 👹 said.

PGS expects to secure between 20 and 25 4D seismic jobs this year, up from 16-17 in 2017, Stenberg said, with most of it located in the North Sea, West Africa and Brazil.


The increased work should help improve the company’s earnings which remain well below pre-crisis levels.



Agelbert NOTE: Corruptio Optimi Pessima (evidenced in the video below).

In the year 2050, most humans alive today..., WON'T BE ☠️.

The Age of Stupid

Dr. Brown is the guy in the video. His credentials are World Class.

Patrick T. Brown, PhD

Curriculum vitae


Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University
Postdoctoral Research Scientist (under Ken Caldeira)


Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Doctor of Philosophy, Earth and Ocean Science, 2016
San Jose State University, San Jose, California
Master of Science, Meteorology and Climate Science, 2012
University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Bachelor of Science, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2008


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 05, 2018, 10:51:53 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

July 5, 2018

Deadly ☠️ Heat Wave Continues 😓

Heat records were smashed across the globe this week as multiple countries in the Northern Hemisphere suffered intense heat waves. At least 17 deaths have been reported in Canada and three in the US since this weekend as temperatures hit nearly 110 degrees F in Montreal.

In the UK, below-normal rainfall and the second-hottest June on record are sparking concerns about limited water supply. In the US, data show that both hot days and hot nights--a classic signature of climate change, as the influence of global warming is particularly strong in elevating overnight temperatures--have been increasing in the US since 1985.

Global records: 🚩 Carbon Brief

Deaths: ☠️ Reuters.

Hot days & nights 🚩background: Climate Signals

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 05, 2018, 04:38:15 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This is the final portion of a post where I address Surly, an Admin at the Doomstead Diner. I have basically had it with Surly's soft spot for the Palloy "Peak Oil caused collapse will save us" hydrocarbon worshiping propagandist BULLSHIT ARTIST.

Palloy mixes hard facts with bullshit seamlessly and you get your drawers in a bunch every time I expose the arrogant bastard for what he truly is!

After the defamatory CRAP he pulled on Dr. Brown, all you could come up with is some lame request for "proof", which he DID NOT PROVIDE, by the way, and you left it right there, rather than ask me if that constituted "proof" (which it did NOT), after putting me in the exact same "don't Ad hom" scolded at position as the routinely defamatory Palloy PEDANT.

I will NO LONGER TOLERATE you coming after me for alleged AD Hominem towards Palloy. I told you loud and clear what a dangerous F U C K he is in PMs. He is pushing a meme that will kill ALL of us, and you, like Palloy, are too bound up in your belief that a lack of hydrocarbons caused collapse will come before environmental catastrophe caused collapse to see that.

Allowing an ASS HOLE like Palloy to keep parading his pseudo-erudite BULLSHIT continually is a testament to EVERYONE HERE's incredibly STUPID world view that is contributing to the AGE OF (hydrocarbon loving) STUPID that is DOOMING human civilization.

GET OFF your "hydrocarbons are needed for civilization" STUPID VIEW, Surly. It IS STUPID.

Here is PROOF that it is STUPID!

Conversation with a Buddhist.

Ka said
I think it likely that the remaining hegemons will say -- time to withdraw to the Western Hemisphere (except maybe keep the sea lanes open to Nigerian and Angolan oil). If so, then I think the West has better long-term prospects than the East.

I hope you are right. But the MO of the goons (with a CONSISTENT historical track record) in charge that you are totally ignoring makes your wish look more like a prayer than a serious possibility.

THE MO of the neocon has a LONG history. As a scholar, you probably know it better than I do but you JUST DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE. It's time you did.

Let me refresh your memory on how this works:

Richard Nixon was the first (in our country - as far as I know) to espouse the policy of acting super belligerent and crazy as a foreign policy tactic. The purpose is to intimidate the other nation into acting "reasonable" and acceding to our predatory corporate demands RATHER THAN BEING DESTROYED. You need to convince the other nation that you will gladly go beyond the brink even if your economy will be hampered by it! This BULLY policy has gotten more polished but it's still the same basic MO.  Look up some quotes from the Republican speaker of the house (Gingrich). He said NEVER back down. When an opponent attempts to negotiate a settlement agreeable to both, DOUBLE DOWN on the threats. Never admit fault. Never go on the defensive. Always remain on the offensive. THAT is the MO that you want to pretend does not DOMINATE US foreign policy.

The problem with that type of MO is that it leads to WAR if the other party does not back down. It has worked BECAUSE it has been used on WEAK countries for the past few decades. If you think Russia is going to back down here, you just do not understand the situation.

Russia, by the way, STILL has complete underground cities and an extensive plan to survive (as well as possible under the circumstances - they KNOW how to grow food in sealed areas - they did a multiyear study to simulate a closed food system on mars) a full scale nuclear attack. Have you forgotten that?

The people doing this in our country have LOST IT. They aren't PRETENDING to be crazy. They have GONE CRAZY! It's called megalomania born of too many monstrous "successes" like Iraq and 9/11. 

It happened in Germany before WWII. We are there. Only some smart people that can counter them INSIDE our government will avoid WWIII. The neocons BELIEVE, like the crazies Reagan spoke about in the 1980s (you've got to be pretty crazy to be to the right of Reagan!) that "we" can win a nuclear war. They will NOT EVER accept a multi-polar world. That's the reality. We are all in danger as long as they are commanding our government sponsored terrorism.

All that said, I envy your ability to pretend all this is an illusion. That means your stress hormones are probably lower than mine and you will never have heart disease from stress.

I wish it was an illusion. I don't think so. I remember how you claimed Fossil fuels had NOT gamed the playing field against renewable energy in the 1980s as if dirty energy actually WON the cost competition in those days. I gave you all sorts of circumstantial evidence but since it wasn't in the New York Times, I guess you remained unconvinced.

Watch this two minute tape. Accept EVERYTHING on it as true. If you don't, then watch the entire video the clip comes from and you WILL see the evidence for yourself. You were wrong to think fossil fueldom did not screw us back then and continues to screw us now. These people are not stupid; they are evil. But I agree that if this is all an illusion, it does not really matter...

Fossil Fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip FULL VIDEO, "The Age of Stupid": 

corruptio optimi pessima

THIS is not an illusion:

Surly, if you are too enthralled with your concept of "freedom of speech" to see how SUICIDALLY STUPID it is to allow assholes like Palloy to claim the greater problem for human civilization is the "lack of energy from the lack of hydrocarbons", then you, like Palloy, are part of the problem and I am in the wrong forum.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 05, 2018, 12:31:13 pm »

Radio Ecoshock

June 20, 2018


My second discussion is with Jim Kossin who just published a paper in Nature about slower moving cyclones since 1950. They are slowing (think Hurricane Harvey) and the peak is moving toward the Poles. Closer to the tropics a slight there may be a slight reprieve in the odds of extreme rainfall events; further north – welcome to a new and terrible experience!

Dr. Jim Kossin, NOAA

From Texas to Taiwan slow-moving hurricanes have caused record damage. Has something changed in the way these big storms work? Four well-known climate scientists are asking “Does global warming make tropical cyclones stronger?”

Dr. Jim Kossin is an Atmospheric Research Scientist. He’s with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA. Jim is currently a Lead Author on the U.S. Global Change Research Program, for their Fourth National Climate Assessment [NCA4]. He’s also working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] Sixth Assessment Report [AR6]. Jim has won awards and the key science he publishes is used by world climate researchers and meteorologists. He’s just published an important paper in the journal Nature.

Dr. Jim Kossin of NOAA leads climate reports for the U.S. Government and the IPCC. His specialty is big storms. Kossin’s latest paper says tropical cyclones (hurricanes) are slowing down and leaving a greater trail of destruction.

Kossin also helped co-ordinate the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters. He is a recognized world experts on big storms. Jim’s latest paper was published June 6th, 2018 in Nature. It is titled “A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed“.

Before we can talk about the most damaging storms in the world, we need to quickly clear up two terms. First, hurricanes and tropical cyclones are the same thing.

Second, storm scientists talk about “translation speed”. While newscasters report on the spinning speed within the hurricane (winds of 160 miles per hour, for example) – the translation speed is the progress of the storm over land or sea. If it is moving “forward” at 30 miles or kilometers per hour, that is the translation speed. This new paper is largely about a slowdown not in the winds of hurricanes (in general those are tending to increase) but in the movement of the big storms across the landscape.

That matters a lot. Hurricane Harvey stayed over Houston for a couple of days, dumping massive amounts of rain, and then doubled back for a second hit. It’s translation speed was quite low. In 2011, I covered Hurricane Irene which wasn’t all that strong by the time it hit New England. But it dumped incredible amounts of rain for several days, causing wide-spread flooding and damage. When we consider a warmer atmosphere puts more water into the sky, a slower translation speed means even more flooding.

Similarly, while scientists suspect that a slow-down in the movement of tropical cyclones/hurricanes is due to climate change, the exact mechanism has not yet been proven.

Another recent paper, published April 6th and led by Ethand Gutmann from The National Center for Atmospheric Research also suggested slower moving storms with faster winds. That study was published by the American Meteorological Society, and it backs up what our guest Jim Kossin found.

From Kossin’s paper, here are the regions most impacted by this tropical cyclone slowdown. “Of particular importance is the slowdown of 30 per cent and 20 per cent over land areas affected by western North Pacific and North Atlantic tropical cyclones, respectively, and the slowdown of 19 per cent over land areas in the Australian region.”


Jim Kossin, Kerry Emanuel, Stefan Rahmstorf and Michael Mann published a post in the RealClimate blog titled “Does global warming make tropical cyclones stronger?“.

This is your news before it’s news, on Radio Ecoshock.

My 31 minute interview with Jim Kossin


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 04, 2018, 09:12:28 pm »


Agelbert NOTE: Dr. Canadell tells it like it is. That is, emissions are going unsustainably UP, as in, there is NO WAY we can stop warming at 2º C above pre-industrial UNLESS we have ZERO emissions as of 2040.

He explains the gravity of the climate situation with evidence. He points out that fires are occurring in wooded areas with no history of fires.

He explains that when most known coral bleaching occurs, the cause is that corals basically starve over several weeks, but the Australian Great Barrier Reef bleaching was caused by the corals overheating to death in about ONE WEEK!.

He explains that an even more alarming event, that has not been widely publicized, occurred. That is, mangrove regions experienced the largest die-off that has ever been observed. All this is a DIRECT result of Global Warming.

Finally, this serious scientist with world class credentials makes it crystal clear that if we do not replace ALL hydrocarbon burning with Renewable Energy Technology BEFORE 2050 , 4º C above pre-industrial and above is unavoidable. He goes further to state that, by 2040, ALL developed country economies most be fully decarbonized. He admits he sees no way that can occur unless massive carbon capture and sequestration technology efforts are undertaken.

He states that it would be incredibly stupid to continue burning hydrocarbons in the face of the threat to the biosphere of an overheated climate.

For anybody here (you know who you are) that attempts to discredit or ridicule what Dr. Canadell says in the interview, I suggest you read his bio before you insert your hydrocarbon loving foot in your mouth. Please do not make a fool of yourself by trying to undermine the validity of Dr. Canadell's information.


Dr. Josep (Pep) Canadell

email pep.canadell@csiro.au

Ph.D. Biology (Terrestrial ecology)

1995 University Autonomous of Barcelona, Spain

Current Position: Executive Director Global Carbon Project and CSIRO Research Scientist

Education: B.S. Biology (Biology) 1984 University A. of Barcelona, Spain

M.S. Biology (Terrestrial ecology) 1988 University A. of Barcelona, Spain

Ph.D. Biology (Terrestrial ecology) 1995 University A. of Barcelona, Spain

Learn more about this respected scientist at the link below:

Awards top

Member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Fourth Assessment Report) awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Professional Experience

Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project (GCP), the first joint project of the Earth System Partnership (ESSP) sponsored by: the Interntional Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimension Programme (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and Diversitas. For information on the GCP, please visit: www.globalcarbonproject.org.


Carbon Climate Showdown

Posted on June 20, 2018, by Radio Ecoshock
In this week’s show I have two top level scientists. Pep Canadell the Director of the Global Carbon Project reports a big increase in greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, mostly coming from China. We talk about whether even 2 degrees C of global warming is just a dream now.

Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (57 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB)

The first interview is with Pep Canadell from the Global Carbon Project. As examples, Pep told me three stories about Australia that made my hair stand up 😨 (well… the hair I have left). Two I heard of and covered, and yet his explanation carried fundamental facts about each that I did not know.

Also, he says, in the first 3 months of 2018, global carbon emissions took a serious step up, after pausing for a couple of years. (For a couple of years the increase paused, not the pollution). The reason for the new carbon spurt: growth in the Chinese economy. China emitted 27% of the globe’s greenhouse gases in the past year. The U.S. was responsible for 14%, and the EU 7%.

““Our estimates indicate that, due to higher than assumed economic growth rates, there is a greater than 35 per cent probability that year 2100 emissions concentrations will exceed those given by RCP8.5,” says Peter Christensen of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.”

Christensen continues: “While some claim the link between economic growth and greenhouse emissions has been broken – or ‘decoupled’ – it’s only been weakened. Carbon emissions have risen in the European Union over the past four years as economic growth has picked up, Peters points out. In 2017, EU emissions rose 1.8 per cent.”

Climate change is coming sooner and harder than expected. With alarming new research, I’ve been saying the dreaded 2 degrees C of warming is unlikely – even with geoengineering. So why are some officials still talking as though 1.5 degrees is the goal? Finally more realism is emerging – partly due to stunning new emission figures for China. Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper “Most climate scientists think 2 degrees to be aspirational.”

While all industrial nations have failed to slash emissions, the story from China is worse. The latest emissions figures come from satellite data, with reporting from Greenpeace and the Global Carbon Project.

The Greenpeace report says:

“Now government data indicates China’s CO2 emissions went up 4.0% on the first quarter, after a 2% increase in 2017. Calculating demand from government data on production, trade, and industry data on inventories, coal demand increased 3.5%, oil demand 4.3%, gas demand 10% while cement output fell 4.5%. This has led researchers to warn that we could see a 5% increase in emissions from China this year, the largest since 2011.”

In Canberra Australia, I reached Dr. Josep Canadell, known as “Pep”. He is the long-time Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project, and a research scientist for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia. Pep is an author in more than 150 peer-reviewed science papers and a member of the Nobel Prize-winning 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Dr. Josep “Pep” Canadell, Global Carbon Project and CISRO

There was a lot of good news coming out of China over the past few years. Mass transit there is booming along with the world’s largest solar build-up. We heard the Chinese coal plant binge was ending. I thought big hydro electric plants, like Three Gorges, would help cut coal dependence. But actual emissions measurements tell us greenhouse gas emissions from China are much worse during the first 3 months of 2018.

Dr. Canadell was also a co-author of a 2016 paper on “Estimating cropland carbon mitigation potentials in China“. There are several ways China can modify its huge agricultural system to help the climate system, but they need time and a lot of investment in training millions of farmers. For example, rice-growers can reduce the time their fields are flooded, to reduce the dangerous greenhouse gas methane.

We also discuss whether the world can stop at 2 degrees of warming, or whether we are headed to a planet 3, 4 or more degrees C hotter. In July 2011, there was a conference at the University of Melbourne, titled “Four Degrees Or More? Australia in a Hot World”. The German climate scientist Dr. John Schellnhuber gave the keynote address, which we broadcast on Radio Ecoshock. The mood then was “what if”. Now four degrees seems much more possible.

A day before this interview, I drove through a flooded out neighborhood in southern British Columbia. Everything was dragged to the street in piles. Many houses had a red tag, condemned to be torn down. Hardly anyone could get insurance. Their lives are wrecked along with their homes. Local business may never return. We see emissions accelerating. So are the repeated hits to people and communities all over the world. Do you think climate change alone could bring down the economy into a new low state?

We began by talking about a worrying burst of carbon coming from China. I worry that pretty soon the worst of nationalist voices will blame China for the extreme weather. But of course, the extreme heat and weather we are experiencing now comes from emissions from North America and Europe. The real impact of Chinese emissions in 2018 will be experienced at least 20 years from now.

Tune in the big picture on carbon in the atmosphere at globalcarbonproject.org.


My second discussion is with Jim Kossin who just published a paper in Nature about slower moving cyclones since 1950. They are slowing (think Hurricane Harvey) and the peak is moving toward the Poles. Closer to the tropics a slight there may be a slight reprieve in the odds of extreme rainfall events; further north – welcome to a new and terrible experience!

Dr. Jim Kossin, NOAA

From Texas to Taiwan slow-moving hurricanes have caused record damage. Has something changed in the way these big storms work? Four well-known climate scientists are asking “Does global warming make tropical cyclones stronger?”

Dr. Jim Kossin is an Atmospheric Research Scientist. He’s with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA. Jim is currently a Lead Author on the U.S. Global Change Research Program, for their Fourth National Climate Assessment [NCA4]. He’s also working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] Sixth Assessment Report [AR6]. Jim has won awards and the key science he publishes is used by world climate researchers and meteorologists. He’s just published an important paper in the journal Nature.

Dr. Jim Kossin of NOAA leads climate reports for the U.S. Government and the IPCC. His specialty is big storms. Kossin’s latest paper says tropical cyclones (hurricanes) are slowing down and leaving a greater trail of destruction. This is your news before it’s news, on Radio Ecoshock.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 08:29:25 pm »

The Nuts and Bolts of Arctic Methane 🚩 1

Paul Beckwith

Published on Jun 27, 2018

In this first of a series of videos on Arctic Methane, I get down to the nitty-gritty. I discuss natural and human-caused sources of methane, and how humans are even changing these natural sources with abrupt climate change. 

I highly recommend that you google “AMAP Arctic Methane” and download the comprehensive report to follow along as you watch this video and the ones to follow.

The risk of huge burps of methane in the Arctic are ever increasing from Arctic Temperature Amplification and accelerating sea ice loss.

Please support my work with a donation at http://paulbeckwith.net

The Nuts and Bolts of Arctic Methane 🚩 2

Paul Beckwith

Published on Jun 30, 2018

What are the major sources and sinks for methane gas? Are they “natural” or human caused; does “natural” even exist in our world of abrupt climate change? How does methane concentration change hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, seasonally and yearly? How does it change with latitude, elevation, and even temperature? Why does any of this matter? Believe me; if, or rather when, it comes up big time from a burst it will affect us all. This info is very important.

Please consider supporting my prolific educational video production with a donation at http://paulbeckwith.net

The Nuts and Bolts of Arctic Methane 🚩 3

Paul Beckwith

Published on Jul 3, 2018

As climate change accelerates, it is crucial to understand risks from feedbacks like methane bursts from terrestrial permafrost (think Siberian blowholes) and marine sediment clathrates (think methane “gun”). To understand these things, this video continues the Arctic Methane story. Risks increase significantly as we near an Arctic “blue ocean” event (loss of all sea-ice), which will greatly accelerate Arctic warming, since ice keeps Arctic Ocean temperatures near zero Celsius.

To get the unvarnished no-BS story on Abrupt Climate Change in videos please share and donate to my blog http://paulbeckwith.net

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 06:17:02 pm »

World Resources Institute

by Frances Seymou - June 26, 2018

Deforestation Is Accelerating, Despite Mounting Efforts to Protect Tropical Forests. What Are We Doing Wrong?

Logging in Brazil. Photo by Wilson Dias/Agência Brasil

The 2017 tree cover loss numbers are in, and they’re not looking good. Despite a decade of intensifying efforts to slow tropical deforestation, last year was the second-highest on record for tree cover loss, down just slightly from 2016. The tropics lost an area of forest the size of Vietnam in just the last two years.

In addition to harming biodiversity and infringing on the rights and livelihoods of local communities, forest destruction at this scale is a catastrophe for the global climate. New science shows that forests are even more important than we thought in curbing climate change. In addition to capturing and storing carbon, forests affect wind speed, rainfall patterns and atmospheric chemistry. In short, deforestation is making the world a hotter, drier place.

In light of these high stakes, those of us in “Forestry World” who dedicate our professional lives and personal passions to saving the rainforest need to pause and reflect:  If the indicators are going in the wrong direction, are we doing something wrong?

Brick on the Accelerator, Feather on the Brake  >:(

There’s no mystery on the main reason why tropical forests are disappearing. Despite the commitments of hundreds of companies to get deforestation out of their supply chains by 2020, vast areas continue to be cleared for soy, beef, palm oil and other commodities. In the cases of soy and palm oil, global demand is artificially inflated by policies that incentivize using food as a feedstock for biofuels.  And irresponsible logging continues to set forests on a path that leads to conversion to other land uses by opening up road access and increasing vulnerability to fires.

A large portion of that logging and forest conversion is illegal, according to the laws and regulations of producer countries, yet illegality and corruption remain endemic in many forest-rich countries. And Indigenous Peoples—whose presence is associated with maintaining forest cover, yet whose land rights are often unrecognized—continue to be murdered when they attempt to protect their forests.

The situation reminds me of the many movies that feature a runaway train: The throttle of global demand for commodities has been engaged, and the brakes of law enforcement and indigenous stewardship have been disabled. The only way to prevent a disastrous train wreck is for the hero (or heroine) to get into the conductor’s seat, remove the brick on the accelerator, and hit the emergency brakes.

We actually know how to do this. We have a large body of evidence that shows what works. Brazil, for example, reduced large-scale deforestation in the Amazon by 80 percent from 2004-2012 by increasing law enforcement, expanding protected areas, recognizing indigenous territories, and applying a suite of carrots and sticks to reign in uncontrolled conversion to agriculture, even while increasing production of cattle and soy. The problem is that our current efforts to apply these tools amount to a feather on the brake compared to the brick on the accelerator.

Forests Are Collateral Damage in Major Economic and Political Events

To a certain extent, the bad news in the 2017 tree cover loss numbers reflects collateral damage from unrelated political and economic developments in forested countries. Colombia’s 46 percent increase in tree cover loss is likely linked to its recent conflict resolution, which opened up to development large areas of forest previously controlled by armed rebel forces. While the doubling of Brazil’s tree cover loss from 2015 to 2017 was in part due to unprecedented forest fires in the Amazon, the uptick is likely also attributable to a relaxation of law enforcement efforts in the midst of the country’s ongoing political turmoil and fiscal crisis. Indeed, it is striking how many of the world’s tropical forested countries have either experienced a recent change in government (Liberia, Peru), are currently in political crises (Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo), are in the midst of elections (Colombia), or will face elections in the near future (Indonesia).

We Know the Solutions for Stopping Deforestation

This context hammers home what we already knew: No amount of international concern about tropical forests will make a difference unless it meaningfully connects to domestic constituencies in forested countries, and changes the incentives that drive deforestation.

One of the key strategies for aligning national priorities with anti-deforestation actions started a decade ago. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and enhancing forest carbon stocks, or REDD+, is a framework endorsed by the Paris Agreement on climate change that encourages rich countries to pay developing countries for limiting deforestation and forest degradation. Unfortunately, the volume of REDD+ funding on offer (about a billion dollars per year) remains trivial compared to the $777 billion provided since 2010 for financing agriculture and other land sector investments that put forests at risk.  This is surely one reason why domestic coalitions for change in countries participating in REDD+ have been unable to overcome competing coalitions for deforestation-as-usual.

While the prospects for immediate increases in REDD+ finance remain bleak, other strategies to strengthen domestic constituencies for reform show promise.

Brazil pioneered a system of monitoring deforestation by satellite. The public disclosure of that data was key to generating political will and the information necessary for fighting illegal clearing. Now, remote-sensing tools are helping communities and law enforcement officials around the world to detect and respond to illegal deforestation in near-real time. For example, Peru’s Ministry of Environment distributes weekly deforestation alerts to more than 800 government agencies, companies and civil society groups, which led to several prosecutions in 2017.

International cooperation on law enforcement can also create domestic incentives for forestry sector reform. In late 2016, Indonesia became the first country to receive a license to export to the European Union timber verified as legally harvested. By ensuring that its timber was harvested legally, Indonesia secured access for its forest products in a lucrative international market.

Indonesia has also witnessed the application of a new generation of transparency tools to fight deforestation. For example, in 2017, civil society groups used publicly available databases on corporate finance and governance to uncover monopolistic practices and non-compliance with plantation regulations among 15 companies in the palm oil sector. They then shared their findings with Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission and other government authorities in a position to respond with policy or legal action.

Finally, there’s increased action at the sub-national level. Dozens of governors and district heads in forest-rich jurisdictions around the world have committed to low-emissions development. For example, the Brazilian State of Mato Grosso launched a “Produce, Conserve, and Include” strategy to end illegal deforestation while promoting sustainable agriculture. Some of the companies that have made anti-deforestation commitments are considering preferential sourcing of commodities from such jurisdictions as a way of both reducing risk and encouraging continued progress toward better land-use management.

Those of Us in “Forestry World” Can’t Do It Alone

There are clearly solutions out there, but they need to be scaled up and expanded to forests throughout the world. This week, more than 500 citizens of Forestry World are gathering at the Oslo Tropical Forests Forum to reflect on the last 10 years of efforts to protect forests, and chart a way forward. But we can’t do it alone.

Preliminary analysis suggests that a significant chunk of forest loss in 2017 was due to “natural” disasters of the sort expected to become more frequent and severe with climate change. Hurricane Maria flattened forests in the Caribbean, and fires burned large areas of Brazil and Indonesia over the last few years. While degradation of forests through logging and fragmentation by roads renders them less resilient to extreme weather events, there is a limit to which forest-specific interventions can be effective in the face of a changing climate. While stabilizing the global climate is contingent on saving the world’s forests, saving the forests is also contingent on stabilizing the global climate.

In addition to doubling down on the proven strategies for reducing deforestation (and allocating a fair share of climate finance toward those efforts), all countries need to up their game on climate action.

Nature is telling us this is urgent. We know what to do. Now we just have to do it.

deforestation, climate, forests

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 05:52:56 pm »


JUL 02, 2018

New Atlas Traces the Scar Humans Have Inflicted on Earth

 Soil erosion at Péyiri, Burkina Faso. (Le Soleil dans la Main / Wikimedia Commons)
Earth’s human scar, the mark humankind has left upon the planet, is growing apace: three-fourths of the ice-free land areas of the globe have been in some way degraded, according to a new global survey.

And by 2050 this degradation could reach nine-tenths, unless the world’s nations take urgent action. But by that time an estimated 700 million people could have been displaced because of all the implications of this debasement of what was once rich natural landscape.

A new edition of the World Atlas of Desertification, just published by the European Commission, spells out the scale of the problem: an area almost half the size of the European Union is each year in some way damaged by erosion, overgrazing, salinisation, desiccation or human exploitation.

Although the continents most at hazard are Asia and Africa, even the temperate nations of the European Union are affected: around 8% of the land of the member states in southern, eastern and central Europe is affected by desertification.

The word itself is a catch-all term: the editors of the Atlas themselves call it a nebulous and all-encompassing concept that defies physical description. But they choose the term degradation and make their meaning clear: they are talking about soil erosion by wind and rain; they are talking about deterioration of the properties of the soil, and they are talking about the loss of natural vegetation.

In their definition, in a degraded landscape, natural ecosystems cannot supply the essential goods and services to which humans have become accustomed.

These include the supply of food, forage, fuel, building materials; fresh water for humans and their livestock, for irrigation and for sanitation; control of agricultural pests, nutrient recycling, the purification of air and water, the moderation of extreme weather, the protection of biodiversity and other benefits.

And, of course, all the challenges presented by the expansion of both human population and national economies are heightened by global warming and climate change as a consequence of the fossil fuel combustion that adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

In principle, the researchers who have assembled the Atlas from prodigious quantities of satellite data have simply reinforced warnings issued earlier. Climate change has already begun to expand those arid zones defined by geographers as deserts, while drylands that now provide grazing and shelter for huge numbers are likely to become more arid as the global thermometer rises. As usual, the hardest hit will be the poorest nations.

Climate change is likely to affect rainfall patterns in ways that will affect global food production and worsen loss of natural forests, and the degradation of what would have been healthy natural grassland or wetland will in turn fuel further climate change.

Confident statement

What is new is the level of detail and confidence in the information in the new edition of the Atlas, along with extra focus on the human impact on the planet: an impact so marked that many earth scientists now use the term Anthropocene to describe the present geological epoch.

The European Commission has already charted population growth and the explosion of the cities with a new Atlas of the Human Planet.

The latest study calculates the economic cost of soil degradation and climate change as a threat to global food supplies: the two together could lead to a drop in global crop yields by about 10% by 2050.

Most of this will be in India, China and sub-Saharan Africa: in this last region, land degradation could actually halve agricultural output. And by 2050, another two billion people will have been added to the planetary population.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 01:36:33 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 02, 2018, 09:43:03 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 30, 2018, 10:01:11 pm »

Climate Change: Heading For Extinction - Robin Boardman

Fossil Free Bristol

Published on Jun 5, 2018

Agelbert NOTE: Learn how depraved humans can get when there isn't enough food. The historical example of extremely depraved German treatment of Russian soldier prisoners during WWII is discussed.  :(

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 29, 2018, 09:07:23 pm »

Can 'We' Save 'Us' from Our Own Greed and Stupidity?


Published on Jun 10, 2018

Here's an acerbic sound bite with Dr. Peter Wadhams on humanity's greed and stupidity ranging from SUVs (Stupid Urban Vehicles) to the idiocy of politicians who won't take the steps to save humanity because they think it will cost too much and they might lose some votes.

We are not as clever a species as we think we are. After all, how can we save ourselves if there's no profit in it? Simply mind-boggling discussion you may want to watch twice. 

Do share it around the world. And help us translate subtitles this and other videos for other languages.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 29, 2018, 03:11:28 pm »

Denver Matches All-Time High of 105°F 🚩; Heat 🔥, Pollution Spread East This Weekend 😓

Bob Henson  ·  June 29, 2018, 11:06 AM EDT

Above: This photo provided by the Department of Homeland Security Emergency Management shows a wildfire burning near Forbes Park in southern Colorado, Thursday, June 28, 2018. Hot, dry and windy weather has raised the fire danger across much of Colorado as well as Utah and parts of Arizona and Nevada. (DHSEM via AP).

June will segue into July this weekend with much of the central and eastern U.S. enduring a blistering, dangerous heat wave that could extend into the July 4 holiday in some areas. Excessive heat warnings were already in place Friday morning for parts of 11 states from Kansas to Michigan, and heat advisories for the upcoming onslaught extended all the way to Vermont.

Ample low-level moisture—perhaps boosted by “corn sweat”—will add to the misery of the high temperatures in many locations. The heat index, a measure of the combined effects of heat and humidity, was predicted to soar as high as 120°F on Friday and Saturday across parts of northern Illinois as dew point temperatures approach 80°F. The heat index could be in the 105-110°F range in the New York City area from Sunday into Tuesday.

All-time record highs 🚩 matched or toppled from Colorado to Scotland 😨

The dome of heat building into the Northeast U.S. gripped the Rockies on Thursday. Denver’s high of 105°F on Thursday matched its all-time high in data going back to 1872. The other dates that saw 105°F in Denver were June 25 and 26, 2012; July 20, 2005; and Aug. 8, 1878. Two other nearby cities set daily records that came within 1°F of their all-time highs: Colorado Springs, CO (100°F) and Cheyenne, WY (99°F). Amid the intense heat, a wildfire in the Sangre de Cristo range of southern Colorado surged to envelop more than 14,000 acres by Friday morning, closing a major travel route (U.S. Highway 160).

All-time heat records will be a bit less likely across the central and eastern U.S., but many daily record highs and record-warm minimums can be expected. Triple-digit highs aren’t out of the question by Sunday in upstate New York, where such readings are very uncommon. The last time Albany, NY, got up to 100°F was on Sept. 3, 1953.

Parts of Europe are also suffering through an intense early-summer heat wave, especially the United Kingdom. Thursday was the first day since 2013 that all four U.K. countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) saw a temperature of at least 30°C (86°F). The airport observing site at Scotland’s largest city, Glasgow, notched the city’s highest official temperature ever recorded Thursday: 31.9°C (89.4°F). It was so hot that a membrane on the roof of the Glasgow Science Centre—designed to be “weatherproof”—began to melt. The capital of Northern Ireland, Belfast, also broke its all-time high on Thursday at the airport observing site, with a high of 29.5°C (85.1°F) beating 29.4°C (84.9°F) from July 10, 1934. In western Ireland, Shannon set its all-time high with 32.0°C (89.6°F). According to weather records expert Maximiliano Herrera, the reading at Shannon is the hottest temperature recorded anywhere in Ireland since 1976.

Extremely dry conditions have paved the way for the heat across northwest Europe. The Netherlands are expecting their driest June on record, with the De Bilt weather station now at a record-low June rainfall total of 12.1 mm (0.48”). England’s “home counties” surrounding London are on track to tie June 1925 as their driest on record; they’ve averaged just 3.3 mm (0.13”) for the month so far—about 6% of normal. Near Manchester, an unprecedented burst of moorland fires is ravaging the normally moist peat-bog countryside.

Moorland fire near Manchester, England, 6/28/2018

Figure 1. Firefighters tackle the wildfire on Saddleworth Moor, England that continued to spread on Thursday, June 28, 2018, after the blaze was declared a major incident by Greater Manchester Police. Image credit: Danny Lawson/PA Images via Getty Images.

Heat 🌡️ is one of the most dangerous 🚩 weather hazards ☠️

It’s estimated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 150 to 300 people are killed in the U.S. each year directly by heat, with heat contributing to hundreds more deaths in some years. The worst year of the 21st century for U.S. heat deaths was 2006, with 2012 a close runner-up. Air pollution during heat waves can be just as dangerous as the heat itself (see below).

For those without air conditioning, the most dangerous set-up is a multi-day stretch of hot afternoons combined with very high overnight lows that keep interior spaces (and people) from cooling off. Fortunately, the U.S. has made great strides in heat awareness and heat safety over the 20 years since the horrific 1996 heat wave in Chicago that led to more than 700 deaths. For example, neighborhood cooling centers are now common in larger Midwest and Northeast cities, and media are paying more attention to heat risks.

AQI Forecast

Figure 2. Predicted air quality index (AQI) for Friday, June 29, 2018. Regions colored in orange are expected to see ozone levels in excess of the federal standard, reaching the “Unhealthy For Sensitive Groups” range. Image credit: U.S. EPA.
Dangerous ozone pollution event underway

This week’s heat wave is bringing the worst ozone air pollution thus far this year to much of the Midwest and Northeast United States. An Ozone Action Day was declared for 24 U.S. cities for Friday, including Cincinnati, Detroit, Dayton, Denver, Indianapolis, Louisville, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City. On Saturday, Ozone Action Days are up for 18 cities, mostly in New Jersey and Utah. Ground level ozone, which has been blamed for approximately 12,000 premature deaths per year in the U.S. between 2010 and 2016, is created from chemical reactions between volatile organic carbon (VOC) compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. The chemical reactions that create ozone happen faster at high temperatures, and the current heat wave can be expected to cause one of the deadliest ozone pollution events of 2018. Expect to see many areas with ozone pollution topping out in the “Unhealthy For Sensitive Groups” (orange) range on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. At this level of pollution, people who are sensitive to air pollution can see negative heath effects, though the general public is not likely to be affected. If pollution levels hit the “Unhealthy” (red) range, people who are sensitive to air pollution are at increased risk of stroke, heart attack and breathing problems, and even healthy people may experience discomfort. On an Ozone Action Day, you are encouraged to:

• Conserve electricity and set your air conditioner at a higher temperature.

• Choose a cleaner commute—share a ride to work or use public transportation. Bicycle or walk to errands when possible.

• Refuel cars and trucks after dusk.

• Combine errands and reduce trips.

• Limit engine idling.

• Use household, workshop,and garden chemicals in ways that keep evaporation to a minimum, or try to delay using them when poor air quality is forecast.


Agelbert NOTE: I will add a recommendation for those who live in latitudes like that of Vermont. The water is always relatively cold. If you are suffering from heat because of a power blackout, which often happens in northern country when the frozen chosen go nuts turning on their air conditioners, go to the shower and put your head under it for a minute or so every half hour. Lay on the floor and read a book or concentrate on ice cubes. DO NOT open the refrigerator or freezer for ANY reason during daylight hours.

If you follow this advice from a VERY frugal fellow  ;D, No matter how hot it gets, you will not die of heat prostration.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 06:14:00 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 03:42:25 pm »

I fully expect that human created CO2 will kill our precious blue marble. I see no other reasonable expectation. I don't have to read Dr. Brown to get that. I can see that there is no chance for voluntarily powering down.

I do wonder if we will get a chance to see how Climate Change might be affected by a few years of Nuclear Winter. That's the only thing humans might actually do that would affect the outcome. Not much of a trade-off, I know.

I only wanted you to thoroughly absorb the nitty gritty from Dr. Brown so you can laugh in anybody's face that claims any other IPCC scenario besides RCP 8.5 is "more realistic".

As to what humans will do, that is an interesting question. We know what the elite plan to do. They plan to throw any life form, human or otherwise, under the profit over planet bus. The "creep, creep, creep" of Global Warming is not something they want to think about. Of course Global Warming will eat the elite's lunch AFTER most of us are long gone. I guess being the last group of assholes standing is all the Darwinian Justification they need to continue their stupid profit over planet modus operandi.

You know MKING and I went round and round. ;D However, as you demontrated in your discussions with him, nobody can doubt that MKING is a knowledgable person in regard to the availability of hydrocarbon sources on this planet. He is, after, a Geochemist. He may lie about lots of stuff and psuh happy talk that ignores the pollution issue 24/7, but I always believed, and said so, that he was RIGHT about the fact that we aren't gonna run out of hydrocarbons any time soon.

Here is an old quote from him. He was trying to cheer me up, as strange as that sounds. Of course he was also taking his book, but I continue to believe that Fossil Fueler is right about how much hydrocarbons we can access to burn for well over 50 years.

MKing said,
You are on the right track agelbert, don't give up yet. Obviously you look around and see everything you've written extensively on, while the power of fossil fuels might get you down occasionally, buck up! They can certainly duke it out for decades, maybe even a century or two, but at the end of the day it is a finite world, and there is only one choice. Gradually increasing scarcity will affect price, people reacting to this economic stimuli will drive substitution and conservation, and one day a few generations from now Johnny will laugh at old granddad for offering him a ride in that antique classic, a 2014 Corvette. Sorry Pops, he will say, but my carbon fiber 1200# with D/C motors in each wheel hub and fully charged just 20 minutes ago ride makes that heap of junk look like a Model T, fit only for senior citizens with poor reflexes or antique collectors. And jesus Pops, it SMELLS and makes all that NOISE.

Might not happen in your lifetime Agelbert, or mine, but the future is already here, oil is already obsolete, and the winds of change aren't just turning windmill blades in southern Colorado nowadays.

Well,  I agree on your last statement. It will definitely NOT happen within the next 50 years. I am a realist, as much as I understand the math and physics, I also understand the power politics. Big oil will transition ONLY when they are assured continued control of the centralized energy spigot

There is a way to do that with renewable energy. As a matter of fact, it dovetails EXACTLY with something big oil might be VERY interested in pushing simply because they will continue to have control through a centralized source of energy with such a gigantic concentration of energy in a small footprint that, get this, it has more energy than a nuclear power plant.

The ONLY energy corporations in a PERFECT position to tap this massive energy gold mine (lots of free minerals without open pit mining as well!) are the Oil corporations because you need a massive "former" (lol!) Sea going oil platform to position the equipment and tap the energy. Exxon Mobile, if it hogs the hydrothermal vent energy gold mine will be even richer than it already is. And that means more fascism, MKing. I wish it didn't.

But anyway, it doesn't look like energy is going to be lacking anytime soon, whether we go extinct from pollution along the way or not.

Enjoy this video. It's not pie in the sky; Big oil has the pipes and knowhow to lay them to collect this energy with the SAME steam turbines (400C to 600C) that they use in nuclear power plants to generate electricity and cable it to shore. Big oil has lots of rigs that float or are anchored to the sea bed. In short, THEY have the lead on this bonanza.

Listen to the stats. It's forking mind boggling. 20 MILLION households powered from ONE hydrothermal tap!

All that deep ocean drilling knowhow they have developed can now be put to use. Sure, the corrosive crap that comes up from these hydrothermal vents may have every heavy metal contaminant in the world BUT they might have rare earths and other mineral goodies too. It might be a double grand slam for big oil

But thanks for the pep talk, anyway. 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 03:39:08 pm »

So, why ain't I upper middle class or rich? The REASON I am not rolling in the doe is not something I wish to discuss, but my intelligence is not the reason I am not upper middle class.

Anybody who's been around the block knows damn well that affluence is not a function of intelligence. Sometimes I think it's a major impediment. Not that affluence was ever your goal (I know it wasn't).

Affluenza is not my disease either, although some people seem to think so. Actually, my goal is simply to prosper in the coming hard times and hopefully help my kids and grandkids (hope springs eternal). I hope for the best and don't at all expect it. Like GO, I've been poor. I can do poor if I need to, and I'm not expecting that I won't need to, at some point.

I never expected anybody to help me in life. But several people did, and I give them a lot of thanks, even though most of them are long gone now. I've always been lucky.

Karma of Luck. Dharma of Hard Work. I don't think it's an accident that our little Diner group is here, watching the world end.

I don't believe in coincidences. Where some people see nothing but randomness, I see elegant patterns. I don't always understand them.

Thank you. I too do not believe in coincidences.

Eddie, I appeal to you, a person who survived the gruelling mess of 23 plus credit hours of college punishment, to carefully read what Dr. Brown has said. If you are unfamiliar with some term just please look it up.

That's what I did with some of the terms in the article until I figured out exactly where the clever scientist trying undermine Brown's paper was coming from.

The whole point, which I have tried to make for YEARS on this forum, to moslty deaf ears, is that the IPCC RCP 8.5 is the closest one to reality, even if it is too conservative. I held this view long before Dr. Brown did, but not have the credentials or the scientific tools to make my case, I would post items from those who did.

RCP 8.5 is ANATHEMA to the fossil fuel industry and the denier shills they fund BECAUSE it forces TPTB to DO something about Global Warming. So, I understand why all shills, like the scientist Lewis, go ballistic every time RCP 8.5 is presented, in a peer reviewed paper, as the best fit.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 03:32:33 pm »

CO2 traps heat by continually absorbing and releasing it until it finally gets to space.  The effect can be measured and a mathematical model could be built to show average warming to high accuracy.  On the earth other variables such as cloud cover will affect how warming manifests locally.  Anybody who would actually do the work would be a fool and likely assassinated so instead mountains of obfuscation hides a truth that could easily be modeled by a second order differential equation.

An analog computer from the fifties could do it.

The physics behind the problem have been known for a 100 years.  All some mathematicians have to do is make a model of the atmosphere and 'illuminate' it with a stimulus which models solar radiation inputs.  In an analog computer that would modeled by a series of voltages.  Several voltages would account for different frequencies of solar radiation.  A fixed percentage of solar radiation from each band is turned into heat by a resistive divider.  The heat signals are summed together and passed up thorough the atmosphere simulation.

Heat is continually caught and released as it travels through the atmosphere but eventually finds its way into space.  The more it bounces around before it gets a clear shot off the planet determines how much the atmosphere warms.  The method described produces a graph of retained heat as a function of CO2 concentration.  This graph of values could then be used in weather predictors to see what happens. 

A Monte Carlo analysis of predictions could produce a series of stepwise approximations to determine a new steady state.   This would allow us to know how bad thermogeddon will be.


Parts of the Earth could start to become uninhabitable within a century. Surely it cannot be true?

Belong caught in trivia is the game 'they' want you to play because that cultivates doubt.  Yesterday's political production of fear has run its course.  Now a switch is being made to emphasize doubt until fear regains potency.  Doubt is divide and conquer so don't play! 

Or we can all pretend the problem is really complicated and have nothing to do with it on a personal level.  We can all talk **** about it if we all do that.  That being the easiest thing to do will be the way it rolls.

In my dreams I see a club of nerds and one of them has added a methane gas model to simulate the effect of arctic methane release.  He is going to release it into the model both slowly and all at once to see if there is a difference at Tuesdays meeting.  The final steady state being the same he won't see any once things settle down.  That will be true for the earth as well though for humans it makes a lot of difference it thermogeddon comes on quickly or slowly.

Doing such a simulation would be far too useful.  Consequently it must never be done!

Let's talk about what is applicable to this debate. I appreciate the fact that you are objective enough to not point out my frequent spelling errors. Anyone that does that, instead of arguing the issues, is deliberately creating an Ad Hominum distraction.

Since you are not into disingenuos distractions, I will debate the CO2 issue with you briefly.

As you know, CO2 is a tri-atomic molecule. Tri-atomic molecules (e.g. H2O), due to their covalent bond nature (varying electronegativity in the molecular electron cloud topography) to absorb energy in some frequencies in the Infrared Band.

CO2 and other molecules with a similar structure (e.g. O3, H2O) insulate the earth. This greenhouse effect keeps the earth’s surface temperature at a habitable level of about 14 °C (57°F) instead of the temperature -19 °C (-2.2 °F) which it would have without the atmosphere absorbing the radiated IR. Thus, the greenhouse accounts for approximately a
33°C (59°F) warming (Le Treut et al., 2007). By trapping energy, the greenhouse heats the earth and its atmosphere by raising the radiative equilibrium.


Your statement, "CO2 traps heat by continually absorbing and releasing it until it finally gets to space." omits 
a very import frequency changing aspect of CO2 gas. It absorbs energy in higher bands and emits energy at a much lower IR frequency. That heat energy, due to being of such a low frequency, cannot ever get into space. That is why we have such a huge global Warming problem with GHG pollution from the burning of hydrocarbons.

At the end of this post I will provide additonal quotes about CO2 atmospheric chemistry.

Other atmospheric variables that decrease surface heat that you mentioned, such as cloud cover, don't actually come into play when the overall average temperature of the atmosphere is figured, though they do affect surface temperatures, as global dimming caused by particulates from hydrocarbon burning pollution also do now. That is because virtually all the higher energy coming in the atmosphere, except for the very highest levels, where O3 sends some heat energy back into space (O3 at the surface sends nada back into space), has already been converted into an IR frequency without the power to get back into space. It is here.

Many people incorrectly assume that once we stop making greenhouse gas emissions, the CO2 will be drawn out of the air, the old equilibrium will be re-established and the climate of the planet will go back to the way it used to be; just like the way the acid rain problem was solved once scrubbers were put on smoke stacks, or the way lead pollution disappeared once we changed to unleaded gasoline. This misinterpretation can lead to complacency about the need to act now. In fact, global warming is, on human timescales, here forever. The truth is that the damage we have done—and continue to do—to the climate system cannot be undone.

And it is here for centuries, not a decade or so. The above quote and the following one, from a 2013 well referenced article, explains:

Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels has been building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is now approaching 400 parts per million (ppm), up from 280 ppm prior to 1800. If we were to stop all emissions immediately, the CO2 concentration would also start to decline immediately, with some of the gas continuing to be absorbed into the oceans and smaller amounts being taken up by carbon sinks on land.

According to the models of the carbon cycle, the level of CO2  (the red line in Figure 1A) would have dropped to about 340 ppm by 2300, approximately the same level as it was in 1980. In the next 300 years, therefore, nature will have recouped the last 30 years of our emissions.


As dire as the above quotes sound, the article is actually overly optimistic. As of 2013, it was believed that, IF we stopped TOTALLY any and all human industrial hydrocarbon burning caused addition of CO2 to the atmoshere, the temperature would remain where it was, due to natural processes that absorb CO2.

As of 2017, scientists like Dr. Brown (and others) have made clear that the heat in the Global Warming pipeline has been grossly underestimated.

Also, even if the "Collapse from ZERO availability of cheap hydrocarbons to burn will save us" meme was true, no IPCC scenario addresses that. They ALL count on a certain amount of hydrocarbons to burn. The rosy scenarios count on technology for capturing and sequestering CO2 that, as the International Space Station evidences, cannot get the ppm of CO2 back to 280 ppm. The best they can do in nuclear submarines and space is about 4,000 ppm CO2. Astronauts have headache issues. Ya don't say? The Planet's Biosphere is starting to have them too, to put it mildly.

Even the RCP 8.5 "business as Usual" scenario is too conservative, though RCP 8.5 (that 8.5 means radiative forcing in W/m2) is, according to the Brown and Caldeira peer reviewed paper published in Nature, the one that best fits empirical observations.

There is no way in God's good Earth that this planet's increasingly over-heated atmosphere is going to recover for at least 300 years, even if we had stopped buring hydrocarbons as of 2013. It is now 2018. It is now a lot worse. Three hundred years is a long time, K-Dog.

More technical stuff on Carbon Dioxide Gas:

Much attention has been given to the CO2 absorption band at 15 microns because this absorption peak has high absorptivity placed in the far-IR region, and the paramitization of its effects have been comparably easy to quantify (Fomichev et al., 1993; Fomichev & Turner, 1998; Kiehl & Briegleb, 1991).

Carbon dioxide, though, also absorbs radiation in near-IR (NIR) bands between 1.05-4.3 µm. When a CO2 molecule absorbs NIR radiation it is excited to the v3 (anti-symmetric) mode. Using the more realistic model of non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE), the energy is redistributed by emission in the NIR bands, and converted into thermal energy by colliding with other molecules, or de-excited to the v2 (bending) mode. The v2 energy is either emitted as a photon of lower frequency or it is converted to thermal energy by colliding with other molecules (Figure 3).

In lower altitudes where pressure is higher, more energy is converted to thermal energy due to more frequent collisions with other molecules such as N2. (López-Puertas & López-Valverde, 1990; Fomichev et al., 2004;
Ogibalov & Fomichev, 2003)

There are three general vibrations for a CO2 molecule:

a symmetric mode,
a bending mode,

and an asymmetric mode (Figure 1).

Each mode is able to absorb certain bands of wavelengths, with the bending mode absorbing longer wavelengths (667 cm-1) and the asymmetric absorbing shorter wavelengths, 2349 cm-1 (Figure 2). (Kverno)

Ultimately, the energy from the photon has two pathways.

It can either be converted into thermal energy by the conversion of the internal kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule to the kinetic energy of a different, inert molecule such as N2. Or the molecule can reemit a photon at a lower frequency.

CO2 and other molecules with a similar structure (e.g. O3, H2O) insulate the earth.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 12:39:44 pm »

Patrick T. Brown, PhD

Curriculum vitae


Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University
Postdoctoral Research Scientist (under Ken Caldeira)

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Doctor of Philosophy, Earth and Ocean Science, 2016
San Jose State University, San Jose, California
Master of Science, Meteorology and Climate Science, 2012
University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Bachelor of Science, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2008

Tweets by ‎@PatrickTBrown31
 Patrick T. Brown, PhD Retweeted

Max Roser

Recently @BillGates asked me which statistics we should all know if we want to understand how the world is changing.

Just now he published my answer on his personal website:https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know …

Greater future global warming (still) inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget

Posted on December 21, 2017 by ptbrown31


We recently published a paper in Nature in which we leveraged observations of the Earth’s radiative energy budget to statistically constrain 21st-century climate model projections of global warming. We found that observations of the Earth’s energy budget allow us to infer generally greater central estimates of future global warming and smaller spreads about those central estimates than the raw model simulations indicate. More background on the paper can be obtained from our blog post on the research.

Last week, Nic Lewis published a critique of our work on several blogs titled A closer look shows global warming will not be greater than we thought. We welcome scientifically-grounded critiques of our work since this is the fundamental way in which science advances. In this spirit, we would like to thank Nic Lewis for his appraisal. However, we find Lewis’ central criticisms to be lacking merit. As we elaborate on below, his arguments do not undermine the findings of the study.

Full lengthy article:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 12:36:40 pm »

AG: You are insulting Doctor Brown, you grossly ignorant, sad excuse for an eductated person. You should be banned for disingenuous BULLSHIT!

Anyone reading this, please visit Doctor Brown's page and inform him of what Palloy is saying if possible.

This is an OUTRAGE by Palloy!

Unfortunately you don't say WHY this is outrageous.

I have demonstrated that the image in the video is NOT from IPCC AR5, even though it is labeled as such.  You are now trying to drag me into an argument over whose models are "better" than others, when IPCC does that and presents them a

Two thoughts: @Palloy, as I recall, and unless I missed the post, you asserted that the graph in question was not from IPCC. Have you in fact demonstrated that? I recall finding that assertion interesting, but I don’t recall seeing any proof. If you have demonstrated it, please point me to the post, because I missed it.

@Agelbert: please argue the point not the man. No more ad hom.  Name calling makes the color look positively Trumpian.   I really enjoy the debate, although I don’t fully understand them, but can clearly do without the “your sister fucks goats“ portion of the program.

👍 👍 👍

Greater future global warming (still) inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget

Posted on December 21, 2017 by Patrick T. Brown, PhD (ptbrown31)

We recently published a paper in Nature in which we leveraged observations of the Earth’s radiative energy budget to statistically constrain 21st-century climate model projections of global warming. We found that observations of the Earth’s energy budget allow us to infer generally greater central estimates of future global warming and smaller spreads about those central estimates than the raw model simulations indicate. More background on the paper can be obtained from our blog post on the research.

Last week, Nic Lewis published a critique of our work on several blogs titled A closer look shows global warming will not be greater than we thought. We welcome scientifically-grounded critiques of our work since this is the fundamental way in which science advances. In this spirit, we would like to thank Nic Lewis for his appraisal. However, we find Lewis’ central criticisms to be lacking merit. As we elaborate on below, his arguments do not undermine the findings of the study.

Brief background

Under the ‘emergent constraint’ paradigm, statistical relationships between model-simulated features of the current climate system (predictor variables), along with observations of those features, are used to constrain a predictand. In our work, the predictand is the magnitude of future global warming simulated by climate models.

We chose predictor variables that were as fundamental and comprehensive as possible while still offering the potential for a straight-forward physical connection to the magnitude of future warming. In particular, we chose the full global spatial distribution of fundamental components of Earth’s top-of-atmosphere energy budget—its outgoing (that is, reflected) shortwave radiation (OSR), outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and net downward energy imbalance (N). We investigated three currently observable attributes of these variables—mean climatology, the magnitude of the seasonal cycle, and the magnitude of monthly variability. We chose these attributes because previous studies have indicated that behavior of the Earth’s radiative energy budget on each of these timescales can be used to infer information on fast feedbacks in the climate system. The combination of these three attributes and the three variables (OSR, OLR and N) result in a total of nine global “predictor fields”. See FAQ #3 of our previous blog post for more information on our choice of predictor variables.

We used Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) to relate our predictor fields to predictands of future global warming. In PLSR we can use each of the nine predictor fields individually, or we can use all nine predictor fields simultaneously (collectively). We quantified our main results with “Prediction Ratio” and “Spread Ratio” metrics. The Prediction Ratio is the ratio of our observationally-informed central estimate of warming to the previous raw model average and the Spread Ratio is the ratio of the magnitude of our constrained spread to the magnitude of the raw model spread. Prediction Ratios greater than 1 suggest greater future warming and Spread Ratios below 1 suggest a reduction in spread about the central estimate.

Lewis’ 🦖 criticism

Lewis’ post expresses general skepticism of climate models and the ‘emergent constraint’ paradigm. There is much to say about both of these topics but we won’t go into them here. Instead, we will focus on Lewis’ criticism that applies specifically to our study.

We showed results associated with each of our nine predictor fields individually but we chose to emphasize the results associated with the influence of all of the predictor fields simultaneously. Lewis suggests that rather than focusing on the simultaneous predictor field, we should have focused on the results associated with the single predictor field that showed the most skill: The magnitude of the seasonal cycle in OLR. Lewis goes further to suggest that it would be useful to adjust our spatial domain in an attempt to search for an even stronger statistical relationship. Thus, Lewis is arguing that we actually undersold the strength of the constraints that we reported, not that we oversold their strength.

This is an unusual criticism for this type of analysis. Typically, criticisms in this vein would run in the opposite direction. Specifically, studies are often criticized for highlighting the single statistical relationship that appears to be the strongest while ignoring or downplaying weaker relationships that could have been discussed. Studies are correctly criticized for this tactic because the more relationships that are screened, the more likely it is that a researcher will be able to find a strong statistical association by chance, even if there is no true underlying relationship. Thus, we do not agree that it would have been more appropriate for us to highlight the results associated with the predictor field with the strongest statistical relationship (smallest Spread Ratio), rather than the results associated with the simultaneous predictor field. However, even if we were to follow this suggestion, it would not change our general conclusions regarding the magnitude of future warming.

We can use our full results, summarized in the table below (all utilizing 7 PLSR components), to look at how different choices, regarding the selection of predictor fields, would affect our conclusions.

Lewis’ 🦖 post makes much of the fact that highlighting the results associated with the ‘magnitude of the seasonal cycle in OLR’, rather than the simultaneous predictor field, would reduce
our central estimate of future warming in RCP8.5 from +14% to +6%.
This is true but it is only one, very specific example. Asking more general questions gives a better sense of the big picture:

1) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCP predictands, if we use the OLR seasonal cycle predictor field exclusively? It is 1.15, implying a 15% increase in the central estimate of warming.

2) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCP predictands, if we always use the individual predictor field that had the lowest Spread Ratio for that particular RCP (boxed values)? It is 1.13, implying a 13% increase in the central estimate of warming.

3) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCP predictands, if we just average together the results from all the individual predictor fields? It is 1.16, implying a 16% increase in the central estimate of warming.

4) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCP predictands, if we always use the simultaneous predictor field? It is 1.15, implying a 15% increase in the central estimate of warming.

One point that is worth making here is that we do not use cross-validation in the multi-model average case (the denominator of the Spread Ratio). Each model’s own value is included in the multi-model average which gives the multi-model average an inherent advantage over the cross-validated PLSR estimate. We made this choice to be extra conservative but it means that PLSR is able to provide meaningful Prediction Ratios even when the Spread Ratio is near or slightly above 1. We have shown that when we supply the PLSR procedure with random data, Spread Ratios tend to be in the range of 1.1 to 1.3 (see FAQ #7 of our previous blog post, and Extended Data Fig. 4c of the paper). Nevertheless, it may be useful to ask the following question:

5) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCP predictands, if we average together the results from only those individual predictor fields with spread ratios below 1? It is 1.15, implying a 15% increase in the central estimate of warming.

So, all five of these general methods produce about a 15% increase in the central estimate of future warming.

Lewis also suggests that our results may be sensitive to choices of standardization technique. We standardized the predictors at the level of the predictor field because we wanted to retain information on across-model differences in the spatial structure of the magnitude of predictor variables. However, we can rerun the results when everything is standardized at the grid-level and ask the same questions as above.

1b) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCPs if we use the OLR seasonal cycle predictor field exclusively? It is 1.15, implying a 15% increase in the central estimate of warming.

2b) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCPs if we always use the single predictor field that had the lowest Spread Ratio (boxed values)? It is 1.12, implying a 12% increase in the central estimate of warming.

3b) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCPs if we just average together the results from all the predictor fields? It is 1.14, implying a 14% increase in the central estimate of warming.

4b) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCPs if we always use the simultaneous predictor field? It is 1.14, implying a 14% increase in the central estimate of warming.

5b) What is the mean Prediction Ratio across the end-of-century RCP predictands if we average together the results from only those individual predictor fields with Spread Ratios below 1? It is 1.14, implying a 14% increase in the central estimate of warming.


There are several reasonable ways to summarize our results and they all imply greater future global warming in line with the values we highlighted in the paper. The only way to argue otherwise is to search out specific examples that run counter to the general results.

Appendix: Example using synthetic data 

Despite the fact that our results are robust to various methodological choices, it is useful to expand upon why we used the simultaneous predictor instead of the particular predictor that happened to produce the lowest Spread Ratio on any given predictand. The general idea can be illustrated with an example using synthetic data in which the precise nature of the predictor-predictand relationships are defined ahead of time. For this purpose, I have created synthetic data with the same dimensions as the data discussed in our study and in Lewis’ blog post:

1) A synthetic predictand vector of 36 “future warming” values corresponding to imaginary output from 36 climate models. In this case, the “future warming” values are just 36 random numbers pulled from a Gaussian distribution.

2) A synthetic set of nine predictor fields (37 latitudes by 72 longitudes) associated with each of the 36 models. Each model’s nine synthetic predictor fields start with that model’s predictand value entered at every grid location. Thus, at this preliminary stage, every location in every predictor field is a perfect predictor of future warming. That is, the across-model correlation between the predictor and the “future warming” predictand is 1 and the regression slope is also 1.

The next step in creating the synthetic predictor fields is to add noise in order to obscure the predictor-predictand relationship somewhat. The first level of noise that is added is a spatially correlated field of weighing factors for each of the nine predictor maps. These weighing factor maps randomly enhance or damp the local magnitude of the map’s values (weighing factors can be positive or negative). After these weighing factors have been applied, every location for every predictor field still has a perfect across-model correlation (or perfect negative correlation) between the predictor and predictand but the regression slopes vary across space according to the magnitude of the weighing factors. The second level of noise that is added are spatially correlated fields of random numbers that are specific for each of the 9X36=324 predictor maps. At this point, everything is standardized to unit variance.

The synthetic data’s predictor-predictand relationship can be summarized in the plot below which shows the local across-model correlation coefficient (between predictor and predictand) for each of the nine predictor fields. These plots are similar to the type of thing that you would see using the real model data that we used in our study. Specifically, in both cases, there are swaths of relatively high correlations and anti-correlations with plenty of low-correlation area in between. All these predictor fields were produced the same way and the only differences arise from the two layers of random noise that were added. Thus, we know that any apparent differences between the predictor fields arose by random chance.

Next, we can feed this synthetic data into the same PLSR procedure that we used in our study to see what it produces. The Spread Ratios are shown in the bar graphs below. Spread Ratios are shown for each of the nine predictor fields individually as well for the case where all nine predictor fields are used simultaneously. The top plot shows results without the use of cross-validation while the bottom plot shows results with the use of cross-validation.

In the case without cross-validation, there is no guard against over-fitting. Thus, PLSR is able to utilize the many degrees of freedom in the predictor fields to create coefficients that fit predictors to the predictand exceptionally well. This is why the Spread Ratios are so small in the top bar plot. The mean Spread Ratio for the nine predictor fields in the top bar plot is 0.042, implying that the PLSR procedure was able to reduce the spread of the predictand by about 96%. Notably, using all the predictor fields simultaneously results in a three-orders-of-magnitude smaller Spread Ratio than using any of the predictor fields individually. This indicates that when there is no guard against over-fitting, much stronger relationships can be achieved by providing the PLSR procedure with more information.

However, PLSR is more than capable of over-fitting predictors to predictands and thus these small Spread Ratios are not to be taken seriously. In our work, we guard against over-fitting by using cross-validation (see FAQ #1 of our blog post). The Spread Ratios for the synthetic data using cross-validation are shown in the lower bar graph in the figure above. It is apparent that cross-validation makes a big difference. With cross-validation, the mean Spread Ratio across the nine individual predictor fields is 0.8, meaning that the average predictor field could help reduce the spread in the predictand by about 20%. Notably, a lower Spread Ratio of 0.54, is achieved when all nine predictor maps are used collectively (a 46% reduction in spread). Since there is much redundancy across the nine predictor fields, the simultaneous predictor field doesn’t increase skill very drastically but it is still better than the average of the individual predictor fields (this is a very consistent result when the entire exercise is re-run many times).

Importantly, we can even see that one particular predictor field (predictor field 2) achieved a lower Spread Ratio than the simultaneous predictor field. This brings us to the central question: Is predictor field 2 particularly special or inherently more useful as a predictor than the simultaneous predictor field? We created these nine synthetic predictor fields specifically so that they all contained roughly the same amount of information and any differences that arose, came about simply by random chance. There is an element of luck at play because the number of models (37) is small. Thus, cross-validation can produce appreciable Spread Ratio variability from predictor to predictor simply by chance. Combining the predictors reduces the Spread Ratio, but only marginally due to large redundancies in the predictors.

We apply this same logic to the results from our paper. As we stated above, our results showed that the simultaneous predictor field for the RCP 8.5 scenario shows a Spread Ratio of 0.67. Similar to the synthetic data case, eight of the nine individual predictor fields yielded Spread Ratios above this value but a single predictor field (the OLR seasonal cycle) yielded a smaller Spread Ratio. Lewis’ post argues that we should focus entirely on the OLR seasonal cycle because of this. However, just as in the synthetic data case, our interpretation is that the OLR seasonal cycle predictor may have just gotten lucky and we should not take its superior skill too seriously.  ;D


Smileys added by Agelbert. Don't blame Dr. Brown! ;D

Surly, it is ourageous and insulting, not to me, but to Dr. Brown, for Palloy to claim his analysis of the IPCC RCP various scenarios is "absurd".

As to cotinuing this quixotic debate with Confirmation Bias Palloy,  I'll think about, it, but I believe I have already made my points clear enough to those who are objective about which of the two threats is greater, "Collapse" from Peak Hydrocarbons or death dealing massive pollution from their continued profit over planet use.

I am done with "Professor" Palloy. I am sure he is not done with me, as his latest bit of mockery (He said he is going to use my old nickname, "lazer brain", IN QUOTES of course ).  👎  👎  👎 

+-Recent Topics

Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟 by AGelbert
July 16, 2018, 11:20:39 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
July 16, 2018, 08:07:21 pm

Money by AGelbert
July 16, 2018, 07:52:53 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
July 16, 2018, 05:44:41 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
July 14, 2018, 08:05:43 pm

Carbon Neutral Buildings by AGelbert
July 14, 2018, 05:50:53 pm

Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable by AGelbert
July 14, 2018, 02:48:13 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
July 13, 2018, 04:51:38 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
July 13, 2018, 04:50:49 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
July 13, 2018, 12:33:06 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial