RealClimate logo

Unforced Variations: Oct 2016

Filed under: — group @ 1 October 2016

Here’s hoping for no October climate surprises…

Carry on. Usual rules.

265 Responses to “Unforced Variations: Oct 2016”

  1. 101
    TTT says:

    Re #98
    I meant rain / water drop lets. I wouldn’t ask that if it’s the normal winds but it seems that the hurricane winds and rain water droplets in it are integrated. Sometimes I see it rains sideways. So I thought when the winds hit something water droplets would hit at the same time, too. The whole energy. Though it was a just simple question popped into my head. Thank you Rodger for your kind reply.

  2. 102
    mike says:

    Last Week

    October 2 – 8, 2016 400.91 ppm

    October 2 – 8, 2015 398.51 ppm

    Looks like 2.4 ppm increase in a noisy number. That is the smallest week on week increase I have seen for a long time. We are at the annual pivot where the numbers stop falling and start moving in the other direction.

    I will believe we are serious about addressing AGW when we commit to serious change in agriculture and energy industries. I don’t see it yet.

    Warm regards


  3. 103

    Katrina-like floods in North Carolina #Aerial Footage (Oct 10, 2016) — again with climate context, refined.

    It really is odd that the media is still basically ignores to point out the simple connection of climate and weather.

    Example of NBC meterologist John Morales opinion. He is not a scientist, if he makes conclusion in his position as a media person, he should at least consult an expert.

  4. 104

    #97, Chris O’Neill–But, Chris, a reductio ad absurdam only works where the conclusions follow directly or ineluctably from the premises. In the case of #47, that condition does not apply. Everything he says there is either 1) observation of solar PV prices (and trends thereof), or 2) comparison with his more conservative expectations. There’s nothing along “Oh, goody, all our problems are solved.”

    So to me it looks as if you’ve added in the idea that the outlier case is somehow typical. Perhaps there was context upthread, missed by me, that implies he *intended* his response to address typical cases. Could have happened–but if that’s not the case, I’d say you’ve tried to debunk observation by extending its implications well beyond anything explicitly presented–not a good empirical approach, I fear.

    Indeed, as I noted in my comment at #86, there’s a good case for a lot of renewable energy development, based on pure economic rational self interest. That’s part of why we are seeing so much deployment of RE. But optimism isn’t the same thing as triumphalism (though I do see ‘RE triumphalism’ cropping up sometimes.)

  5. 105
    Geoff Beacon says:

    @scott #94

    Thanks – good to see some numbers.

    Short rotation willow coppacing yields 8 to 18 tonnes of dry woodchip per hectare per year. That is then used as fuel, generally for heating homes

    Willow coppice

    I was not necessarily thinking of using the willow as woodchip fuel. A friend grows it for the Drax power station in the UK. The Drax management have have toyed with BECCs to make it carbon negative.

    In the initial stages at least, root growth stores as much carbon as harvested coppice. Let’s say, 20 tonnes per hectare per year at 50% carbon. That’s 36 tonnes CO2 extracted from the atmosphere in the initial stages. In desperation (and we should be desperate) we could simply store it for the medium term of use it in a way that would prevent the carbon being returned to the atmosphere.


    A report in says

    Converting to pastures managed using intensive grazing principles can capture up to 8 metric tons of carbon per hectare per year in the soil.

    The source for the Phys Org article is in Nature Communications. It says

    While such a high rate cannot be maintained indefinitely following conversion, intensively grazed pasture does meet this criterion for at least an initial 5-year period following land use change.

    That’s 29 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year stored – initially at least. Managed intensive grazing seems to have 5 or more cows per hectare. Five cows produce about 0.6 tonnes methane per year.

    Which GWP of methane to use is a matter of argument. It’s somewhere between 25 and 113 times CO2. Choosing 50 that gives a CO2 equivalent of 30 tonnes, cancelling out the 29 tonnes of sequestration.

    I rather suspect it’s worse than that because, despite the cows being “grass fed”, they will have had other food inputs which have a role in adding to the soil carbon mentioned in the Phys Org piece.

    But I’m suspicious of soil carbon story for grass fed cattle – too many interests to declare. I still believe that now CO2 is short lived, cows really are bad.

    P.S. We haven’t mentioned crop albedo yet.

  6. 106
    Nemesis says:

    @Chris O’Neil, #97

    ” OK. The Free Market will take care of the Carbon Dioxide problem.”

    Yep, for sure. If not money, then technology or science will save us. Or maybe GOD? I mean, when nothing helps, people will begin to pray, I bet^^ After all, in any way, it’s about POWER:

    The “elite” against Nature.

    It started some 8000 years ago in Mesopotamia. A vertical structure, a pyramid- like structure to rule over people and land. It started in Mesopotamia, went on in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Berlin, Washington. The socalled “western” culture. It was no “biological gene” or else, that brought us into the mess. It was the socalled “elite”, who transformed the planet and wanted to reach the stars, wanted to get immortal. But what they realize now, is being animal creatures on a finite planet, no Star Trek, no SDI (greetings to the George C. Marshal Institute), no Empire throughout the Universe, but REAL darwinian struggle for survival, not just for the poors, but for everyone soon. The “american dream”? What is that? Do you know the tale of the fisherman’s wife? That’s what it is.

  7. 107
    Scott Strough says:

    Here is a better link to the Nature study:

    While the study does have some significant flaws with regard to quantifying BCCS potential. It is a pretty good short term study to show the rapid change immediately following conversion from cropland to MIRG.

    AND They acknowledge:

    “This suggests that accumulation at depth may require a longer timeframe or a shift in management practices.”

    Which after looking closely at what they are doing, I would say is correct on both points. If they should shift their management practices to allow some of the later deep rooted highly productive top successional native species like Eastern Gamagrass, Tripsacum dactyloides L. and others, they would see the “plateau” they found dissolve away. (It’s a plateau in rate, not carbon capture and storage, which does still continue at a significant rate even with the lower successional species they are managing.) Or alternately they could shift management to a 12 Aprils type pasture cropping system that uses both C4 and C3 over seeded forages instead of only the C3 annual ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum they used. Which would also push through that plateau.

    For information regarding adaptive management changes that can be made after this initial land use change from cropping to MIRG, a good source would be: .

    For information regarding management changes to a 12 Aprils type forage system can be found here:

    And another good source for information on potential management changes can be found here: and here: Although these last 2 sources are regional and a different region from the study, the principles are the same.

    Another flaw which they seem to have missed entirely is methanotroph activity. They haven’t even attempted to measure it or even estimate it at all, nor are the management systems they use designed to optimize this important part of the carbon cycle. (although a big improvement over the cropland they converted) So pretty significant gaps remain and their extrapolated final results that include a rather crude methane analysis can be safely dismissed. There is no data with which to base their calculations as they neglected to collect it.

    So good study considering its limitations. (With their extrapolations particularly limited) However, it doesn’t support your misgivings as written in your blog.

  8. 108

    #100, Zebra–

    As far as I can tell, Chris O’Neill is correct about the etymology–“laissez faire”, which translates pretty much as “allow to do” has always meant governmental non-intervention. That meaning goes back to the early 18th century, apparently, and certainly is the one that I grew up with way back in the 20th century.

    also laissez faire, 1822, French, literally “let (people) do (as they think best),” from laissez, second person plural imperative of laisser “to let, to leave” (10c., from Latin laxare, from laxus “loose;” see lax) + faire “to do” (from Latin facere; see factitious). From the phrase laissez faire et laissez passer, motto of certain 18c. French economists, chosen to express the ideal of government non-interference in business and industry. Compare laisser-faire “a letting alone,” taken to mean “non-interference with individual freedom of action” as a policy in government and political economy.

    Your point about anti-trust law is good, but you may be falling victim to a false dichotomy. I wouldn’t call the Sherman Act either ‘laissez-faire’ or ‘socialism’, but perhaps ‘regulated capitalism.’

    “There is no such thing as a laissez-faire Free Market, because without government intervention, capitalism results in monopolies.”

    I’m not so sure that’s an invariable rule, but even if it were, so what? There are no unicorns, either, yet we have the term… You are, however, quite close to the banner sentence for the Sherman Act, which its authors intended as a “charter of economic liberty”. (As linked above).

  9. 109
    Hank Roberts says:

    >> Timothy J. Hansen:
    >> … How does the Modeling work, and how many models do you have to run
    >> until you get to the one you are satisfied with? Thanks for your time……

    > seems not to have posted on RC before. From his comment, he apparently harbors some curious misapprehensions about science,

    Yep. He’s implying cherrypicking, thinks models are predictions, and doesn’t understand simulations, scenarios, or what the innards of models are doing.

    This may help:

    A climate model is like a train barreling through a tunnel — scientists put data on the train at one end and the train delivers a view of the climate out the other. In a perfect world, the simulated climate would take a smooth ride through that tunnel. But it’s possible that a rollercoaster resides within, taking the simulation through twists and turns that don’t resemble reality.

    To compare the different models, the team looked at the rides taken by the individual components of the equations that make up the simulations. The relationship between the pre-industrial and present day values of any given component, say, the changes in the concentrations of cloud droplets resulting from a change in aerosols, should be the same across the nine different computer models they tested and should be reflected in data from observations.

    The team found, however, that pre- and post-industrial values didn’t agree, and in some cases the there was even a difference in sign (that is, one model yielded a positive value while another yielded a negative one).

    That indicated they could not model pre-industrial clouds using measurements that have been collected in a post-industrial world….
    … Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

    If it were possible to just cherrypick and find one model that could support the desired politics, Mr. Hansen, you’d be seeing those political promoters proclaiming that model, and only that model must represent reality– they’d have been saying it loudly and for a long while.

    Notice how they’re not?
    They don’t have a model that can fit how they want the world to work.

    Thus the ostrich posture.

    Remember: “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” — you know how to look this stuff up.

  10. 110
    sidd says:

    Re: soil carbon sequestration

    Rodale Institute Table 1. 2014 ( )

    USA: Corn-Vegetable-Wheat,organic,tillage,composted manure,legume cover crop 2.36MgC/(ha yr)

    Egypt: Peanuts, Biodynamic,compost,irrigation 4.10 MgC/(ha yr)

    Iran: Corn,No-till,manure,hand-weeding 4.10 MgC(ha yr)

    Thailand: Unreported crop(?!),Organic 6.38 MgC/(ha yr)

    Global: Pasture,improved grass species 3.04 MgC/(ha yr)

    Range of sequestration is 12 to 37 GTCO2/yr if extrapolated worldwide


  11. 111
    Nemesis says:

    Btw, has anybody recognized the obvious disappearence of insects? I do for some years now. It is DEVASTATING. In Germany we lost 80% of the insect population ! A worldwide collapse of the insect population will be the END of life on earth as we know it. If this doesn’t stop very soon, we are done.

    ” 4.10.2016 – Global warming collapses symbiotic gut bacteria, killing host insects”

    Add insecticides (neonicotinoids ect!), profit-maximized agriculture, missing suitable habitats for insects ect. But hey!, we got wonderful, lifeless sterile LAWNS en masse!


  12. 112
    MA Rodger says:

    As ENSO is a big factor in where the global temperatures are going following the 2015/16 El Nino, the IRI ENSO Forecast for early-October is worth a mention. It is suggesting no true La Nina conditions will be developing soon.
    The mid-Sept forecast was a bit more favourable towards La Nina than the previous forecasts but the early-Oct forecast is showing true neutral conditions by mid-2017. “The collection of ENSO prediction models indicates SSTs near or slightly cooler than the threshold of La Niña during fall, then weakening to cool-neutral during winter.”

  13. 113
    Alfred Jones says:

    zebra, quite true, but it goes further. “Capitalism” is diametrically opposed to “free markets” because free markets require that all participants have reasonably similar power, while capitalism is based on the idea that only money has power, not people. Personally, I prefer the term “Laborism” to define free markets.

    On Scott’s grasses: I find it amazing that the government pays farmers welfare in order to support prices. Kinda a DUH thing that the government should instead use that money to BUY land and return it to the ecosystem, eh?

  14. 114
    Omega Centauri says:

    Here is one of these mostly academic decarbonization studies. This one has the goal of reaching 100% renewable by 2037 (and that includes we have electrified the currently non-electrified applications, such as heating and transportation).
    Tom Solomon 350 New Mexico

    “There really is a feasible way to build our way out of the climate crisis in time to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

    builds upon the great work done [by] Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson.
    3,966 GW PV-solar
    2,421 GW Wind
    61 GW of new Hydro+Geo+Wave+Tidal.

    (The proposed solar buildout is greater than a million PV panels per day)

    So are indeed plans being made that could address our problem. And strong arguments are being made that these plans are actually cheaper than business as usual even discounting climate change effects.

    I note that the observed learning curve for PV has been a twenty one percent reduction in cost for every doubling of built capacity. If that rate could continue this project would be much cheaper than modeled here.

  15. 115
    Thomas says:

    Here’s something a little different. I learnt a knew word “displacement”. A psychological term which tends to apply/fit the ‘liberal left’ who accept agw/cc science. It’s discussed in this video – “Psychology and global warming: why we can’t seem to prevent the coming disaster (revised 2016)
    by emeritus Prof. Jerry Kroth a psychologist, Based on his latest book ‘Duped! Delusion, denial, and the American dream’, Dr. Kroth dissects the delusory beliefs of both the right and the left.

    It’s a long video talk 1h15m here’s some direct urls to different parts of his talk.

    The end summary –

    Denier’s collective mental illness summary –

    The mantra of the left –

    US vs other nations –

    Is it possible to stop Chinese CO2 emissions?
    Walmart is China’s 8th largest individual trading partner, but not a ‘nation’!

    Facing Reality section beyond denial and displacement –

    The Radical Activist point of view aka Obama Meets a Martian

    What I most like about this video isn’t so much what he says but how much it is likely to make people ‘think beyond the norms’ as they view it.

  16. 116
    Thomas says:

    PS Prof. Jerry Kroth outlines the huge level of denial about global warming that exists in American culture
    section – Minority Voices Facing Reality To Do List?

  17. 117
    Brian Blagden says:

    Nemesis you say: ‘Btw, has anybody recognized the obvious disappearence of insects? I do for some years now. It is DEVASTATING. In Germany we lost 80% of the insect population’.

    Perhaps your insects are over here in Scotland. My garden has been crammed full of insects this summer…probably one of our better years…although long term I would suggest that neither number of individuals nor variety of species has changed much.

    If Germany has indeed lost 80% of the insect species then you are in deep trouble….however I doubt that is the case.

  18. 118
    Nick Gotts says:

    “I learnt a knew word “displacement”. A psychological term which tends to apply/fit the ‘liberal left’ who accept agw/cc science.” – Thomas

    Yeah, yeah. How about the overwhelming majority of relevant experts who accept “agw/cc science” (otherwise known as “climate science”)?

  19. 119
    Hank Roberts says:
    October 14, 2016
    How subpoenas, lawsuits, and even Freedom of Information Act requests can look and feel like harassment to scientists.

  20. 120
    zebra says:

    Kevin McKinney #108,

    Perhaps I fired off my comments too quickly and wasn’t completely clear.

    My point is that in economics, as in climate denial, the Republican/Right Wing employs the rhetorical tactic of co-opting language. It has been going on for quite a while, and has obviously been effective, given the many comments we see erroneously conflating free markets with laissez-faire capitalism.

    Free markets, in the original meaning, going back to Adam Smith, exist when transactions occur between multiple entities (buyers and sellers) with approximately equal market power. It is not at all a trivial problem that this term has been inverted by the R’s– it is now Orwellian doublespeak, used to connote a system of market power concentration, which operates both for buying and selling, and leads inevitably to extreme wealth disparity and concentration of political power.

    Many people on the left, in the USA in particular it seems to me, have “bought into” this framing, and they are the ones who have enabled the false dichotomy, where the only alternative is over on the end of the Socialism (properly defined) spectrum. This is what the R’s want.

    So I continue to make the case here that yes, free markets do have an essential role in solving the CO2 problem. My kind of free markets, of course.

    I say this not only because they work to efficiently allocate resources, but because it is politically absurd to keep arguing for solutions that cannot be implemented here precisely because they fall on that side of the Socialism spectrum, and ignore the structural realities of our political system.

    You aren’t going to get elected and pass bills running on the “regulated Capitalism” platform– it isn’t sexy, and “regulation” is another term that has been effectively distorted by the usual suspects.

  21. 121
    Chris O'Neill says:


    you’ve added in the idea that the outlier case is somehow typical. Perhaps there was context upthread, missed by me

    Yes you missed the context. It wasn’t just an “outlier” that was mentioned:

    The solar prices I expected have been smashed by bids in the Middle East and in Latin America.

    The cost of electricity from a new natural gas powerplant in the US is now estimated at 5.6 cents / kwh. (pdf link) That is with historically low natural gas prices in the US, which are far lower than the price of natural gas in the rest of the world.

    So it wasn’t just a fortunate outlier being mentioned so reductio ad absurdum applies.

    But if it actually was just a fortunate outlier being mentioned then in that case what is the point? Did anyone say before it was just a fortunate outlier and thus nothing to get excited about? (i.e. ho-hum.) I missed it if anyone said that.

  22. 122
    Chris O'Neill says:


    There are clear signs of economic irrationality in the system, notably the enormous subsidies for fossil fuel use existing at the global level.

    A lot (most) of the “fossil fuel” subsidy in the system in Australia goes to subsidising Aluminium smelting and this isn’t done to subsidise fossil fuel in preference to renewable energy. If renewable energy can supply the electricity for Aluminium smelting then it will get the subsidy too. So getting rid of this economically irrational subsidy won’t improve the relative economics of renewable energy.

  23. 123
    Chris O'Neill says:

    #100 zebra

    Kevin McKinney has addressed your issue with etymology but I just want to point out that you are going off on a tangent getting so hung up about terminology. My point was about how people respond to having a choice of two sources for a commodity which have a different price from each other. You may have a different attitude but I really don’t care what name you give to that response behaviour.

  24. 124
    Chris O'Neill says:

    My comment:

    If renewable energy can supply the electricity for Aluminium smelting then it will get the subsidy too

    within jurisdictional limits. Of course, subsidies are normally jurisdictionally based anyway.

  25. 125
    Ric Merritt says:

    Omega Centauri, currently #114, on favorable learning curve for cheapening PV build: I would be cautious extrapolating that. The history so far has PV as a rare ornament in a FF economy, now just emerging out of rounding-error territory. Naive extrapolation ignores the possibility that further changes by orders of magnitude would change the whole system. (Yes, I know we’re *trying* to change the whole system, but you may be closing your eyes to negative effects.) For example, if PV starts to get more common, but is not a big help in moving stuff by truck (or building trucks), then trucking starts to be a limiting factor. Just a small example, embedded in the world industrial economy, but exemplifying the considerations needed to model the whole thing. And, considering the difficulties, modeling won’t be enough. We have to actually see the trucking that depends on PV but not FF, in large percentages, before knowing much. I get worried when I see lovely projections of increasing something like PV, without much detail about decreasing FF.
    I have no doubts that we could see quite a lot of progress with the electric grid, but that takes us only so far.

  26. 126
    Geoff Beacon says:

    Scott Strough #107

    It’s a plateau in rate, not carbon capture and storage, which does still continue at a significant rate even with the lower successional species they are managing.

    That’s not how I read their Figure 2. It looks like a plateau in carbon storage to me not just a plateau in rate. They also say

    Six years after conversion, our data suggest that an apparent plateau in SOC accumulation occurs at ca. 38 Mg C ha−1 in the top 30 cm, which is consistent with peak SOC stocks in the region.

    Although, accumulation may continue “over the millennial scales at slower rates”, if you subtract 8 tonnes C (ie 30 tonnes CO2 equivalent) each year for the methane in cattle breath, then you are about 10 tonnes C per hectare (36 tonnes CO2e) on the wrong side of the climate in the first six years.

    I think that does support my misgivings.

    Sidd @110

    Those look interesting numbers for organic farming showing soil carbon can be increased without using global warming cattle. I haven’t read the article in detail but I assume there is a plateau in soil carbon in those cases too – but carbon will have been removed in the produce.

    I sometimes wonder if sinking those big rolls of wheat straw in the deep ocean would be any help.

  27. 127
    sidd says:

    One point made in the Rodale paper is that soil carbon accumulates deeper than is usually measured.

    “It is likely that current data sets underestimate soil organic carbon stocks in organically managed systems because soil carbon is often measured at plow depth when recent findings suggest that more than half of the soil organic carbon stocks are likely in the 20-80cm depth. Beyond 30cm in the soil profile, the age of carbon increases continuously, much of it persisting for thousands of years. How carbon acts in this subsoil range is poorly understood, but increasing rooting depth, application of irrigated compost (compost tea), choosing deep rooted grass-legume cover crops and encouraging earthworm abundance are all promising pathways for introducing carbon to depths where it is likely to remain stable over very long periods.”


  28. 128
    Thomas says:

    120 zebra, yes, what you said is true imo.
    “the rhetorical tactic of co-opting language” with the power of paid advertising.

  29. 129
    Thomas says:

    118 Nick Gotts: “Yeah, yeah. How about” you look at the refs before commenting?

  30. 130
    Scott Strough says:

    Please do the math. Even assuming you are correct, (extremely unlikely) you still have, even on such a short term.
    35 tC/ha x 3.67 (conversion to CO2e) = 128.45 tCO2e/ha
    128.45 tCO2e/ha x 5 Gha of land = 642.25 tCO2e
    642.25 tCO2e / 2.12 (conversion to PPM IPCC) = 302.94 PPM

    The agricultural soils worldwide are approximately 50% degraded on average.

    That gives you a ~150 PPM drawdown not counting other sinks in just 5 years. And these guys haven’t even optimized for BCCS in their study.

    So assuming that all recent BCCS work on the LCP fails worldwide and we fail to restore soils to historical carbon levels and are stuck with only improving the top 30cm, and even that 30cm caps off below historical levels, we still reach the IPCC goal in under 5 years just by changing agriculture to better but still somewhat antiquated production models.

    I would caution you however, extrapolating that far like I did using numbers from a study of so short a duration and limited in scope is also wrong. I did it just to show you that should you extrapolate it beyond its usefulness to try and support your case, it still doesn’t support your case. Just the opposite.

  31. 131
    Nemesis says:

    @Brian Blagden, #117

    ” Perhaps your insects are over here in Scotland. My garden has been crammed full of insects this summer…probably one of our better years…although long term I would suggest that neither number of individuals nor variety of species has changed much.
    If Germany has indeed lost 80% of the insect species then you are in deep trouble….however I doubt that is the case.”

    Man, what do our german insects in your scotish garden?^^ Send em back to Germany soon!

    Beside humor, there is a serious background of that topic, because the decline I talked about is for real, I see it in Germany, I have seen it in the Netherlands some monhts ago. You doubt that. Well, doubt is one of the very best intentions in science for sure. I like doubt, I prefer doubt, I love doubt. You know, why? Because when I was young I started to doubt, I prefered to doubt all these stories I have been told from childhood on about wonderful progress, infinite progress, a wonderland of endless consumption without any price, Gawd up in the sky, the “elite” up there on top of the pyramid of “western” culture and infinite prosperity of Empire. So I found out the price. One part of the price is climate change. Another part of the price is the destruction of the eco-systems of planet earth. The dire, global decline of insects has many causes:

    Insecticides (mainly neonicotinoids), masses of fertilizers running into rivers and lakes (birth place of many, many insects), loss of natural habitats, nightly lighting in the cities, climate change ect, ect, ect. Here some german sources:

    ” 14.10.2016 – Dramatisches Insektensterben in NRW

    Das Landesamt für Umwelt beziffert den Rückgang auf 75 Prozent…”

    ” 8.8.2016 – Dramatisches Insektensterben in Deutschland – mit unbekannten Folgen”

    Here some sources in english:

    ” 6.6.2016 – Vanishing Act: Why Insects Are Declining and Why It Matters

    Insect populations are declining dramatically in many parts of the world, recent studies show. Researchers say various factors, from monoculture farming to habitat loss, are to blame for the plight of insects, which are essential to agriculture and ecosystems…”

    ” 25.6.2016 – Not Just Bees, All Insects are in Decline and Heading for Extinction”

    ” 13.6.2016 – A Growing Crisis: Insects are Disappearing — And Fast”

    Btw, bird and invertebrate ect ect populations for instance are also in sharp decline. The 6th mass extinction is here, IMO:

    And, last but not least, especially for you with greetings to Scotland (See also the other two articles over there):

    ” 29.2.2016 – Scotland’s native insects at severe risk from climate change”

    I could give you more information about Scotlands wildlife:

    ” 15.5.2016 – Special report: Scotland’s waning natural treasures

    MORE than 1,700 of Scotland’s most precious wild animals, plants and places are in a poor state – and 600 of them are getting worse…”

    And on and on and on goes the list, globally… The political/cultural/economic SYSTEM is seriously flawed. And that’s no news, is it?^^


  32. 132
    Omega Centauri says:

    Thomas about the Kroth tape.

    I do agree about the displacement effect, but there were some things I found disturbing because I thought they were wrong and potentially misleading.

    There was the obvious conflation between emissions and atmospheric concentration, which showed up later by his apparent surprise that the 2009
    2% emission drop didn’t produce a noticeable relief in the climate.

    Later one it turns into a blame China fest. Now as one who follows renewable energy China is by far the world leader, both in terms of production and deployment. In electric vehicles, China has a goal of literally millions of cars, they also lead the world in electric buses. Claiming that China will never play ball, and therefore the game is over is just plain wrong.

  33. 133
    Karsten V. Johansen says: – Unfortunately text only in danish. But look at the illustrations. Sea temperatures in the Arctic ocean now up to ten degrees C above 1971-2000 mean (the map). The meteorologist Tonboe saying he expects arctic sea ice in the summer of 2017 to be “very weak”.

  34. 134
    mike says:

    We are doing a fine job of cooking the planet with CO2 emissions directly, we don’t really need help from methane, but The Siberian Times has a story that suggests methane release in Arctic has increased. I didn’t see direct link to the Semiletov study. maybe it was there, I was just skimming.

    Daily CO2

    October 14, 2016: 401.81 ppm
    October 14, 2015: 398.70 ppm shows we continue to crank along at rate of increase of 3 ppm plus. If we were smart and cautious, we would do what it takes to make the rate of increase zero. I don’t think we are smart and cautious. I think there is good argument that our species is clever.

    Warm regards


  35. 135
    Thomas says:

    132 Omega Centauri says: “I do agree about the displacement effect

    Great. the rest is eye candy imo and not that important what he chose to exemplify the effect.

    Besides he wasn’t so much railing “against China” per se as he was poking a stick in the eyes of Americans who shop at Walmart on a Thursday who then rock up for a Protest march on the Saturday about the Keystone Pipeline or against GenIV Nuclear energy development or farting cows.

    His talk was all about “thinking” and not about the “facts.” A discourse on psychology of the human mind based on philosophical logic, reason, and objective evidence – and not the details of AGW/CC mitigation per se.

    iow Thinking at a higher state of consciousness above and beyond the limited thinking and knowledge state which caused the problems in the first place is where the real practical solutions will be found – if at all. The collective thinking at present indicates (to me) real practical solutions will not be implemented globally in time to stop 2C or 3C.

    Though a nuclear winter in the nth hemisphere would certainly help and is probably more likely than any decent global agreement to solve AGW/CC by moving away from fossil fuels and changing land use practices (as per Strough et al).

  36. 136
    Thomas says:

    134 mike, The really frightening thing about the clouds, they are methane.

  37. 137
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    134: Mike. I’m not doubting for one bit that our species is clever. Wise..ummm??
    Read that sobering article, thanks for posting it. Jeez 17Tg/yr! If CH4 has the CO2e of 100x plus every day within the first 20 years. Then 17Miliion tonnes x 100 = 1.7Bil tonnes of CO2e/yr. He did say at least 17Tg the upper level could be considerably higher. That’s not counting the permafrost on the tundra even.
    That’s the current situation guys.
    We should all be very very worried.

  38. 138

    Though a nuclear winter in the nth hemisphere would certainly help and is probably more likely than any decent global agreement to solve AGW/CC by moving away from fossil fuels and changing land use practices (as per Strough et al).

    A curious and callous assessment. Quite apart from the merits of nuclear winter as geoengineering tactic–actually, ‘demerits’ would have been a better-chosen word–we already *have* an agreement to move away from fossil fuels and change land use practices in order to mitigate carbon emissions.

    Presumably its ‘indecency’ lies in the fact that it’s inadequate, based on current INDCs, to mitigate sufficiently that we avoid even the 2 C ‘buffer.’ However, the genius of the agreement is that it envisions and mandates a process of ‘ratcheting up’ ambition via ongoing monitoring and 5-year reviews.

    Current INDCs are not and never were envisaged as end goals, but rather as starting points. What Paris codifies is an ongoing process to reach ‘decent’ mitigation goals.

  39. 139
    mike says:

    Last Week

    October 9 – 15, 2016 401.57 ppm
    October 9 – 15, 2015 398.03 ppm

    3.54 ppm increase in noisy number. It’s a good thing we are cutting emissions, otherwise CO2 might just keep going up, up, up.

    It almost looks like the rate of increase is increasing. How could that be? We have turned the corner on annual low and we are headed toward annual high.

    No worries.


  40. 140
    Chris Dudley says:

    Most recent GISTEMP figures also indicate August 2016 is the hottest month on record globally. Please settle with your bookie if you have not already done so.

  41. 141
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index

    Sept. 91
    2016 Est J-D 96 +- 1

  42. 142
    Thomas says:

    Interesting to look at maximum temperature and Sea Ice TRENDS in the Arctic which directly influences the climate of North America including the Corn belt mid-west, and the entire planet’s interconnected climate system.

    In reference to Spencer’s latest post and misc comments plus I thought some here may find the links useful in other places.

    Arctic Air Temperatures were 20C to 40C ABOVE normal mean during DECEMBER WINTER 2015 into 2016 – Press conference, at European Geosciences Union General Assembly 21 April 2016.

    Five of the first six months set records for the smallest monthly Arctic sea ice extent since consistent satellite records began in 1979. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet’s warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.

    Visual Arctic map and bar graph show how air temperatures in the Arctic compare to averages from 1979 to 2015.

    Visual Arctic maps and bar graphs show how the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover for different years and months compares to averages from 1979 to 2015. – NOTE choose SEPT in bottom right box – click PLAY > at bottom left and then wait for the maps to speed up.

    Dwindling of Arctic’s oldest ice since 1990

    The animation presents Arctic sea ice evolution from sea ice maximum reached on 24 March 2016 to its annual minimum extent on 10 September 2016. Also, comparisons between Arctic sea ice minimum 2016, 30 year average minimum (1981 – 2010) and 36 year average minimum (1979 – 2014).

    Of course, it is also “POSSIBLE” that NASA, GISS, NSIDC, and the European Geosciences Union are all lying about this.

    Psychology of the “Global Warming” Delusion (revised 2016)

  43. 143
    Thomas says:

    134 mike, thanks for the Siberian news ref. Excellent report, great pics. Russians aren’t stupid.

    There is no direct link to the Semiletov study because it is yet to be presented published, they mention an upcoming meeting where he’ll be discussing his study.

    A curious question I have Mike, when you use the word “we” are you basically referring to “humanity” in general? I want to be sure, that’s all. (vs making an assumption)

  44. 144
    Thomas says:

    Marine scientists surveying coral reefs off Western Australia’s northern coast are concerned some may not recover from a recent coral bleaching event.

    This is the opposite side from the GBR.

    btw recent surveys by AIMS of GBR areas severely coral bleached earlier this year is showing that the mortality rate is off the scale relative to previous effects of coral bleaching. There’s some news about this on TV and so I suspect something more scientific will be coming out in the near future as they summarize their data.

    (hyperbole, and 2-3 decades too early, but still) Mr Jacobsen wrote: “The Great Barrier Reef of Australia passed away in 2016 after a long illness. It was 25 million years old.”

    and in the USA

    another major “extreme weather event” I mentioend a few months back was about the massive mangrove dieback.
    “One of Australia’s largest trawler operators is questioning why more is not being done to explain a mass mangrove dieback event in the Gulf of Carpentaria.”

    “nuffin'” much being done. There are limits to what can be done – while the CSIRO and other climate research activities have been cut or completely defunded.

    Australian university and science body staff still only have 24 hours in a day.

    What about those poorer nations with minimal news media and all but zero scientific resources?

    How will the first world nations even keep up with such matters in a decade or two from today?

    What do yo do with people who state that there is no issue regarding the arctic sea ice loss and that there’s no such a thing as global warming or greenhouse gases?

    Personally if I was the benevolent dictator I would have them ALL placed into a secure psyche ward for the term of their natural lives. and throw away the keys with no option for release. maybe that could focus people’s minds and actions and words far better than any internet social media site ever hope to achieve.

    But that’s me. You may have other ideas like better “school education” or something similar. But to me this problem of AGW/CC and everything related to it is heading in one very clear and obvious direction in the long term.

  45. 145
    Tony Weddle says:

    Nemesis, something is definitely going on with regard to insects and birds but, as yet, there seems to be a lot of variability, year to year, in some countries. I was in the UK four years ago, in many regions of the UK, and saw very few birds and insects – I barely saw a songbird in three weeks (there was no dawn chorus) and almost no common flies. However, I had to be there again this year and saw what has become a normal amount and heard the dawn chorus, though less than their used to be. I doubt this is climate change effects, yet, but whatever it is, it’s variable.

  46. 146
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    In regard to the plummeting invertebrate pop. A link to the site I read takes you to another Yale study which indicates that due to the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere the concentration of protein in the pollen of many plants is decreasing by up to 30% thus depriving the insects that visit the flowers of adequate sustainence. So insects are being hammered on all sides. Nothing occurs in isolation…..nothing!

  47. 147
    Thomas says:

    138 Kevin McKinney, hi, I can certainly understand your feelings on the matter Kevin. It’s a fair cop, and I have no problems this end with what you say.

    I do understand the UN agreements were very much about developing a “process” and on the surface it sounds reasonable even if coming so late. maybe Kyoto timing would have been a better option, obviously. I’m not a fanatic nor am I impatient. I think I’m quite realistic actually. In that I have no confidence that much will come of it and I seriously doubt the current goals will be achieved or later agreements stuck that have any chance of avoiding 2 or 3C as I said.

    One key reason is that this ‘problem’ does not exist in a vacuum but the whole energy dynamic is intrinsically intertwined into the whole shebang. Nations do not act fairly openly nor honestly for one. Many have their hands tied behind their backs while others have guns pointed at their heads and then others are holding the guns. That and people in power lie 24/7/365 days year.

    Speeches and motherhood statements are all so easy to produce. Typically nothing ever changes at a fundamental level and I am not only pointing to agw/cc issues.

    To me this problem is like trying solve the problem of untangling a large box of knitting wool that a hundreds kittens have been playing with for a week. an example is Afghanistan has been a war zone now for more than 3 times longer than WW2 went for. We do not have the same calibre of national leaders nor the same level of character in societies that existed back then.

    Maybe John Lennon says it better and clearer than I ever could:

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I knew what he was on about way back he said it. Things have not improved one bit.


  48. 148
    MA Rodger says:

    As Vendicar Decarian @141 said succinctly, GISTEMP has posted for September with an anomaly of +0.91ºC. This is the hottest September on record. The run of months taking the ‘hottest Xember on record’ spot has been spoilt rather by the June anomaly being revised down from that hottest position. September’s anomaly stands as the 12th warmest month in the full record. The average anomaly for 2016-to-date is running at +1.03ºC. This compares with the average for the last 12-months of +1.04ºC and the average for the last calendar year (also presently the record calendar year) of +0.87ºC. The remainder of 2016 would have to average above +0.39ºC to gain the ‘warmest calendar year’ accolade. (The last 3 months’ average of all years since 2000 have all been well above +0.39ºC.)
    The anomalies for 2015/16 and their rankings within the full record are as follows:-
    2015.. 1 … +0.82ºC … = 22nd
    2015.. 2 … +0.87ºC . = 17th
    2015.. 3 … +0.91ºC . = 12th
    2015.. 4 … +0.75ºC . = 48th
    2015.. 5 … +0.78ºC . = 32nd
    2015.. 6 … +0.78ºC . = 32nd
    2015.. 7 … +0.72ºC . = 63rd
    2015.. 8 … +0.79ºC . = 29th
    2015.. 9 … +0.82ºC . = 22nd
    2015. 10 … +1.07ºC … 6th
    2015. 11 … +1.03ºC … 7th
    2015. 12 … +1.11ºC … 4th
    2016.. 1 … +1.16ºC … 3rd
    2016.. 2 … +1.34ºC … 1st
    2016.. 3 … +1.30ºC … 2nd
    2016.. 4 … +1.09ºC … 5th
    2016.. 5 … +0.93ºC … 10th
    2016.. 6 … +0.75ºC . =48th
    2016.. 7 … +0.84ºC … 21st
    2016.. 8 … +0.97ºC … 8th
    2016.. 9 … +0.91ºC . =12th

  49. 149
    Nemesis says:

    @Tony Weddle, @145

    ” Nemesis, something is definitely going on with regard to insects and birds but, as yet, there seems to be a lot of variability, year to year, in some countries. I was in the UK four years ago, in many regions of the UK, and saw very few birds and insects – I barely saw a songbird in three weeks (there was no dawn chorus) and almost no common flies. However, I had to be there again this year and saw what has become a normal amount and heard the dawn chorus, though less than their used to be. I doubt this is climate change effects, yet, but whatever it is, it’s variable.”

    You want to tell me, that it’s just “variability”? As I said: Germany for instance lost 80% of her insect populations during the last 15 years (sources see #131). That’s NOT just natural variability absolutely for sure. And we have a massive GLOBAL decline as well.

    ” I doubt this is climate change effects, yet, but whatever it is, it’s variable.”

    Come on, I did not say, that it’s just climate change. I said, climate change is just one cause out of many causes (see #131). I refered to scientific sources, now please let me see your scientific sources as a scientific evidence, that it’s just natural variability, otherwise your comment is nothing but guessing….^^

  50. 150
    Jim Galasyn says:

    Re bird and insect abundances in the UK:

    Report revels 56 percent of UK species have declined since 1970 and 1,199 species are threatened with extinction

    The State of Nature 2016 UK report is launched by Sir David Attenborough and UK conservation and research organisations at the Royal Society in London this morning (Wednesday, 14 September 2016).

    Following on from the first State of Nature report published in 2013 the report reveals that over half (56%) of UK species studied have declined since 1970, while more than one in ten (1,199 species) of the nearly 8000 species assessed in the UK are under threat of disappearing from our shores altogether.