Jason Box: Clarifying about Climate Risks

July 25, 2015

Glaciologist and Dark Snow Project Chief Scientist Jason Box was recently featured prominently in a story about climate scientists coming to grips with  the implications of their work.

esquire

That story, and others, have lead some to draw the conclusion that Dr. Box’s views on coming climate impacts and sea level are extreme or on the high end, or that he views our situation as hopeless.

In particular, Dr. Box’s now-famously viral tweet of last summer:

effedWhere a lot of journalists read the “f’d”, but forgot the “if” – as Jason explains.

I’m glad he took the time to set some of those notions straight in the video above.

Another good example is Dr. Box interview on the Bill Maher show last summer.  Dr Box explained that in the past, at current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, sea levels were up to 70 feet higher – the main question being, how long it takes to reach those levels, which he  says are “.. beyond our lifetime.”

As so often happens, Bill Maher’s set-up question kind of muddies the issue.
You can hear the exchange which starts at 1:54.

Below, a couple of explanatory vids that show Dr. Box’s views to be firmly in the mainstream of climate science.

These two vids are bookends, describing the science of ice sheet retreat and sea level as mainstream scientists see it.

Here, scientists describe the newest research on the Antarctic ice sheet. You’ll see Dr. Eric Rignot, who is in fact one of the co-authors, with James Hansen, of the latest dire warning on sea level. Indeed, with the release of that paper, Dr. Box now seems positively moderate.

supportdarksnow

23 Responses to “Jason Box: Clarifying about Climate Risks”

  1. omnologos Says:

    That’s great. Extremophiles who think the world is already “f*d” are very dangerous, as they’re promoting a despair that might mean a total disregard of pretty much everything, if not wilful destruction.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      WHAAAAAAAT???

      Those who speak in non sequiturs are FAR more dangerous, and are willfully destroying our attempts at intelligent discussion on Crock. Look in a mirror!

      Ooops, I misspoke. Omno already spends a lot of time “looking in the mirror” and admiring himself (the Demented Rooster Strutting in the Barnyard Syndrome—DRSITB). What I should have said is “Look in a mirror and try to comprehend that I’m talking about YOU”

    • ubrew12 Says:

      Our BEST understanding of the last 40 million years is that the MOST likely equilibrium sea level correspondent to TODAY’s CO2 level is a sea level 75 ft higher than today. If Jason Box calls that’s “f*d!” and you call it “Heaven!”, I’m going to go with Dr Box.

      During the 1940’s, it was considered ‘indelicate’ to talk about what was happening to Europe’s Jews. If you see yourself in that remark, then good.


    • Yes, but that certainly doesn’t get those naysayers and poo-pooers off the hook. I had discussions with a guy who was in deep despair over the state of the world, and he thought we should just go extinct. That’s nihilistic in the same way that religious zealots want Armageddon to just be done with. Both crazy thinking, from opposite sides of the isle.

      But it’s also crazy to think that because Dr. Box doesn’t think oceans will rise by 70 feet in the next 85 years, that means we don’t have to do anything because it’s all hype, or whatever. No matter what someone says, someone else will come along and twist it to support whatever they want it to mean.

      • omnologos Says:

        I made no mention of naysayers, I did not say anybody was off the hook, and I have spoken of no Heaven. Another problem with you people is that you keep adding stuff to what I write, and reply in some pseudopsychotic fashion to what I have not written.

        Please stick to the letter of my comments. Thanks.

  2. Linda Plano Says:

    Didn’t you read the tweet? He doesn’t think it’s “f’d” now. He said “****IF**** even a small fraction…”

    That kind of cherry-picking of information is what leads you to incorrect conclusions on other climate change matters, as well as reducing your credibility among most of the readers of this blog.

    I urge you to be more careful in your reading, quoting and interpretation so we can have a meaningful discussion of our opposing views.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Linda once again shouts “Sancho, my armor!” as she prepares to tilt at the deranged and lopsided windmill that is our Omno. A “meaningful discussion” with Omno? LOL Omno has no “opposing view” to discuss—he is an attention seeker who began from the conclusion (belief) of denying AGW and, as you said, seeks out and cherry-picks info to try to support that self-serving, decided-before-looking-at-the-facts “conclusion”.

      Deluded and mindless opinions that ignore the “settled science” of AGW are not “views”—-they are evidence of serious mental issues, and you should not encourage Omno in his deliberately chosen illness. Tough love is what he needs! Nor should you be cluttering up this thread with attempts to talk to a moron when the topic is how Dr. Box has been forced to spend time defending what doesn’t need defending.

      And Omno REDUCES his credibility by what he does? Where have you been, Linda? Omno has NO-NONE-NADA credibility on Crock.

      I and others also pointed out the big “IF” in Dr. Box’s original comments as you have. It’s a great shame that he has to spend time defending himself against the morons, but the plus side may be that he will get some more air time out of it and can do some positive “educating” of the masses. This all goes back to the questions of media incompetence, the difficulties scientists have in communicating their science, and the dishonesty of the deniers who seize upon and distort—-a big mess that unfortunately will be with us as long as we have fossil-fuel interest paid deniers (whores) spreading their lying propaganda.

      • Linda Plano Says:

        Well, big DOG, you spend time writing posts in response to omnologos that are confrontational, I write them in the hopes of a useful interaction. I’ll grant you that you get what you want pretty much every time and that I have yet to get a useful response to any question that I’ve posted, so you are more successful than I am, assuming confrontation is your goal. 🙂

        I still hold out hope, forlorn though it is, that there is an opportunity for discussion. Don’t worry, I am realistic that it’s a long shot. To me, omnologos and his like-minded community can easily justify their attitude when they are attacked, even if they are inciting the attack. I am not attacking. I don’t want to attack. I am curious to see whether there is any question I can ask or approach I can take that will make omno feel comfortable enough to communicate with me.

        I.e., omnologos, if you’re listening, I’m 100% for real when I say I am looking for discussion, not a fight. WYSIWYG.

        I would like omno to answer my questions with reason and not deflection. He will not get sarcasm or anger from me. There is no safer place on the planet for him to espouse his viewpoints with a “warmist” than with me. If he won’t do it, then he gives me no reason to consider the alternate viewpoint (I am *still* waiting for a response on the satellite vs ground temp issue from the denier I first posed the question to 2 months ago). If he will, maybe I will learn something. And maybe so will he.

        A long shot, but it’s my time to waste. 🙂 And it does me good to write about something besides business once in a while!

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Linda,

          You badly misunderstand the intent of my “confrontational” comments to and about Omno. I am conducting a long term psychological study of denier narcissists, and Omno is a more-than-willing subject. He loves the attention, makes comments on Crock that literally “ask for it”, and keeps coming back for more, no matter how much he is abused That is not so much my “success” as it is proof of his failings.

          I have never been able to get him to talk much real “science”, nor has anyone else on Crock—-perhaps because he knows no science and is faking it. The best he can do is cut-and-paste BS from the denier blogosphere. You won’t succeed either, and it is the height of naivete for you to think you’ll get any “useful interaction” from Omno.

          You say “I am not attacking. I don’t want to attack. I am curious to see whether there is any question I can ask or approach I can take that will make Omno feel comfortable enough to communicate with me”?

          Guess what? You demanding that OMNO answer your questions and engage you on your terms IS an “attack”, and his failure to respond shows that Omno sees it that way. Your saying “I’m 100% for real when I say I am looking for discussion, not a fight. WYSIWYG” is IMO just an attempt to bait a dumb animal into a trap (and Omno is not totally dumb—he has survived this long). And WYSIWYG is not universally true —IMO, you are not WYSIWYG (and neither am I). Finally, why would he want to help you “… consider the alternate viewpoint” when you have already told him you reject it?

          Go to Omno’s website (omnologos .com) and see who and what Omno is really all about—–look at the “about” page in particular, and connect up some dots there. Read some of his “articles”. I myself sometimes wonder whether Omno is spoofing us and his site is a satirical one, and whether he is not a denier but just an “aggravator troll” here on Crock—-hard to tell.

          And it’s NOT just “YOUR time to waste”. The rest of us already have to put up with Omno crapping up the place, and your tilting at windmills with him just adds further confusion and distraction to the threads. We are more than glad to see you “…write about something besides business once in a while”, but you should find something other than Omno to write about if you want to talk to us.

          • omnologos Says:

            I do not want to be a topic of discussion. Please stop. AFAIK Linda has asked me three questions in another thread. and I have replied. Apologies but I do not follow Crocks all day.

            Now if there is any other question I missed to answer, please repeat it, preferably in a short comment. Most of the flourishes and assorted inanities, I do not even read, especially if about me.

            thanks

          • dumboldguy Says:

            DNFTT

          • omnologos Says:

            so the plan is to plaster this website with “DNFTT”, effectively trolling it in the puerile attempt to bully somebody away.

            I don’t think you can get any lower than this, dumbold.

            Anyway in this particular thread I was asked questions, and I replied. Silence followed.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ZZZZZzzzzz……!!!

    • omnologos Says:

      I have not cherry picked anything. I have written that I concur with Dr Box – what else would you need.

      I have also said that those who think we are “f*d” are promoters of destruction. And they are. Because if you think animals are bound to die a terrible, warm death, maybe you will be more prone to shoot them right now instead.

      If many people got convinced we were “f*d” (or even, “almost f*ed”) they would immediately stop to cooperate to any conservation effort, thereby rendering us “f*d”.

  3. Paul Magnus Says:

    sorry. we need to be honest here. we are f’d. Certainly for most of humanity. People need to say this. Especially scientist. That is why most people have not taken them seriously before and are now only starting to react as extreme weather starts to touch them directly. I think the predicament were in does have something to do with the inability of the science community to communicate the gravity of the situation.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I agree we need to be honest, though from what I’ve gathered, we are ALMOST f**ked at this point (although we really may be f**ked because of the unknown and perhaps unfixable unknowns—the IFS—that are already chewing at our behinds).

      It would appear that we have some very limited number of years remaining in which to turn things around, and if the science community could find ways to “better communicate the gravity of the situation” very soon, it would be very helpful in getting things started.

      We can all help “communication” by supporting Dr. Box and Peter in their efforts—-send $$$ to Greenman Studio in particular and to the Dark Snow Project (don’t count on the DiCaprio Foundation to do it all). Looking at the record wildfires in Alaska and Canada this year, there should be even more dark snow to study in 2016.

  4. redskylite Says:

    Personally I salute Jason Box for speaking out in plain, ordinary and sensible language, and salute James Hansen even more for boldly going where few man have gone before . . . . . . . . .

    “Why the peculiar 900 years instead of the logical 1000? Probably because nobody cares about matters 1000 years in the future (they may not care about 900, but 200-900 does not seem like infinity). A scientist knowing that sea level is a problem does not want the reader to dismiss it.

    Why 200 years? For one thing, 100 years would require taking on the formidable IPCC4, which estimates that even the huge climate forcing for a hypothetical 936 ppm CO2 in 2100 would yield less than one meter sea level rise. For another thing, incentives for scientists strongly favor conservative statements and militate against any “alarmist” conclusion; this is the “reticence” phenomenon that infects the sea level rise issue.”

    Darn!! Sea Level Disaster Ahead! In 200-900 Years. When??

    http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/27/darn-sea-level-disaster-ahead-in-200-900-years-when/

    • redskylite Says:

      James Hansen in the Boltimore Sun:

      “Otherwise, Los Angeles, New York, Miami and three-quarters of the biggest cities on the planet should prepare for life underwater. With temperatures rising and ice melting, time is dwindling to save our cities. So let’s get started — or else Atlantis awaits.”

      http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-climate-scientist-20150727-story.html

    • redskylite Says:

      Follow-up from Dr. Hansen regarding his communication “Darn!! Sea Level Disaster Ahead! In 200-900 Years. When??”.

      “Yikes! It has been pointed out to me that the specificity of 200-900 years in my post about ice sheet time scales has the potential to be very unfair to specific individuals.”

      http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/27/ice-sheet-200-900-year-time-scale/

      • dumboldguy Says:

        LOL…..

        Now we are reduced to making apologies for stepping on other scientist’s toes over who said what and used what numbers? Doesn’t the future (or loss thereof) belong to everyone?

        “Very unfair”? What will be VERY FAIR is the fact that ALL of us will be standing in water up to our (you-now-what’s) 100 or 200 or 900 years from now as we argue over inanities.

        Ooooops, I misspoke…..I don’t want to be “very unfair” to anyone, so please replace the numbers I used with 97, 202, and 938—-I’m claiming them and will defend them to the death from anyone who….(glub-glub-sputter-drowning noises).

        • omnologos Says:

          glad to see you are getting a hint of the strange tribal behavior shown by climate scientists. But don’t worry. You will lose track of that hint in no time.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: