RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Apr 2017

Filed under: — group @ 2 April 2017

This month’s open thread.

153 Responses to “Unforced variations: Apr 2017”

  1. 51
    Alastair McDonald says:

    Omega,

    In simple terms, the Earth is heated by the Sun, and the greenhouse effect amplifies that warming. More clouds reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface and so reduce the greenhouse effect. It is a matter of the conservation of energy. If the energy supply is cut (by clouds) then you get less heating (on the surface of the Earth).

  2. 52
    jgnfld says:

    Anyone interested in Newfoundland icebergs should bookmark:

    http://www.icebergfinder.com/

    Wonderful bit of code put together by students at Memorial University.

    So far only one really large berg has visited the eastern side of the Avalon Peninsula on its way south within easy sight of land.

  3. 53

    V 45: Good news for all you climate change alarmists out there. Our UN rep, Nikki Haley, has effectively declared war on Russia

    BPL: Congress declares war, not the US representative to the UN. And if you thought we weren’t at war with Russia already, you apparently missed how they’ve been hacking into everything from our elections to our infrastructure.

  4. 54
    Jim Hunt says:

    Geoff @36 – Re “How can we counter this?”

    By exposing the Fail on Sunday’s “inaccuracies”?

    Stale News? Mail on Sunday Corrects Yet Another David Rose “Porky Pie”

    For a summary of the “Swings v slides” issue see also:

    Is Arctic Ice Loss Driven by Natural Swings?

    P.S. I recommend linking to archives of Fail propaganda rather than to the originals.

  5. 55

    #35–“It suddenly occurs to me, IIRC, that we’re still within the Wadhams window which was much derided by the denialosphere back in 2013.”

    Indeed we are, and for another couple of years. We may or may not make it to “ice-free”, but we do appear to have an unhideable decline–so to speak.

  6. 56
    Hank Roberts says:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/

    —–excerpt—–

    Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

    It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.

    Accompanying the materials is a cover letter from Lennie Jarratt, project manager of Heartland’s Center for Transforming Education. He asks teachers to “consider the possibility” that the science is not settled. “If that’s the case, then students would be better served by letting them know a vibrant debate is taking place among scientists,” he writes. The letter also points teachers to an online guide to using the DVD in their classrooms….

  7. 57
    nigelj says:

    We people in Auckland, New Zealand (small place at bottom of world) have just had two 1:100 year (approx) major floods within a couple of weeks of each other. These have been due to low pressure systems from warm tropical air, running into stalled high pressure systems. We and are now expecting a third tropical cyclone heading our way, just weeks after these other events, although it’s expected to pass quickly, but still cause considerable floods.

    Of course nobody has as yet evaluated whether this series of events is specifically linked to climate change, but it is exactly what is expected in a warming world. There becomes a point where reality becomes very present and clear.

  8. 58
  9. 59
    Nick O. says:

    Sometimes, when I read comments made by people utterly determined to rubbish the science of man-made climate change, I am reminded of an ancient civilisation – apologies that I cannot remember which one it was – that decreed that the value of Pi should be set to 3. Needless to say, this did not work out terribly well and all sorts of adjustments and allowances had to be made to get calculations to balance properly, or to make measurements match reality, and so no. I just wonder why the skeptics don’t go the whole hog and simply pass a law, decreeing that, by law, there is no such thing as climate change? At the same time they could have a go at changing the value of ‘g’, maybe set it to 30 f.p.s^2 or 9 m.p.s^2, or the boiling point of water to 200 F, or the length of the day to 22 hours, or something equally absurd and counter-factual. It’s be rather funny to watch them fall flat on their faces. The only problem is that the rest of us still have to share the same planet, and our children and grandchildren, and all succeeding generations, would have to live with the consequences of their idiocy.

    [Response: Well, there ARE a bunch of laws bascially saying that .. E.g. the law in North Carolina (wasn’t it?) saying that you can’t account for sea level rise when doing coastal planning.–eric]

  10. 60
    Nick O. says:

    # 57 nigelj

    “Of course nobody has as yet evaluated whether this series of events is specifically linked to climate change, but it is exactly what is expected in a warming world.”

    Well, we all know the usual way such ‘links’ are established, namely by seeing to what extent the weather patterns conform to a warming world or to some other (presumably non-warming) world. Trouble is that these attributions rely on models and modelling, and if the people you’re dealing with are determined, at all costs and whatever the circumstances, to believe that all climate models are untrustworthy, just works of fiction, then you will never persuade them that there is a link between the extreme weather and man-made climate change. They will simply respond it’s all natural variation. Indeed, I’m surprised, following my post above, that they haven’t declared a ‘Law of Natural Variation’, the idea being that natural variation will trump all other causal trends. (No pun intended in the use of the word ‘trump’, by the way).

  11. 61
    Victor says:

    re #58 “Needless to say, this did not work out terribly well and all sorts of adjustments and allowances had to be made to get calculations to balance properly, or to make measurements match reality, and so no.”

    Well, like it or not, this is exactly what the skeptics say about the science behind climate change. And if you study the literature you see a great many examples of precisely this sort of thing. If no correlation is evident in the data from, say, 1910-1940, 1940-1979, or 2000-2014, then adjustments and allowances have to be made, based on an array of arbitrary considerations, such as volcanic or solar activity, ENSO, industrial aerosols, redirection of heat into the oceans, etc. And if these adjustments still don’t work then it’s necessary to “correct” the data itself until the desired results are attained.

    You may howl to the heavens regarding the “narrow mindedness” of the above assessment, but it’s issues like this that fuel the skepticism you see around you, and if you want to address that skepticism you need to treat the skeptics like adults rather than dismissing them as corrupt “deniers” paid by the big oil and coal companies to disseminate lies.

  12. 62
    Nicholas Odoni says:

    Eric, thanks for the comment, but I had no idea there was such a law (in Nth Carolina/wherever). I had meant my own post as a bit of satire, I suppose. That someone has beaten me to it is no cause for satisfaction. On the contrary, it is thoroughly depressing.

  13. 63
    Pat Cassen says:

    Hank @56 –

    A colleague at Cal Tech received a Heartland package like that to which you refer. It arrives in an envelope with no Heartland identifier on it, but features the New York Times logo above the headline “Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General”.

    There is no reference to this imprint on any of the enclosed material (the NIPCC book, a cover letter addressed to “Professors of Physical Science”, a DVD and a brochure).

    Bizzarro…

  14. 64
    S Molnar says:

    Re the legislated incorrect value of pi: the only such law of which I am aware is not so ancient, and never actually made it into law; it was the “Indiana Pi Bill” of 1897, which, despite being introduced in a Red state, was not passed. Today it is likely that it would also not become law, for the simple reason that the existence of pi would not be recognized.

  15. 65
    sidd says:

    Re: laws specifying disregard of sea level rise when doing coastal planning

    I’m afraid insurance won’t buy that idea. You can plan all you want, but nothing will get built without insurance. There needs to be another law making someone else pay for loss. Like the taxpayers.

    Oh, wait, there is. Never mind.

    sidd

  16. 66
    Bob Loblaw says:

    Nick O

    You’re probably think of the ancient civilization of Indiana, U.S.A. Wikipedia has an entry:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

    The North Carolina legislation Eric refers to was mentioned in this RC post:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/06/far-out-in-north-carolina/

  17. 67
    Charles Hughes says:

    61
    Victor says:
    11 Apr 2017 at 2:26 PM
    “You may howl to the heavens regarding the “narrow mindedness” of the above assessment, but it’s issues like this that fuel the skepticism you see around you, and if you want to address that skepticism you need to treat the skeptics like adults rather than dismissing them as corrupt “deniers” paid by the big oil and coal companies to disseminate lies.”

    > Victor, are you back again? Listen up…. everybody on this site KNOWS what a “Skeptic thinks”. In fact, when it comes to Climate Change, “Skeptic thinks” is an oxymoron. Skeptics in climate science aren’t skeptics at all; they’re morons with a political agenda.

    You Sir are a “Concern Troll”. Do you know what a Concern Troll is? ‘A concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.’

    So Weaktor, your Concern Trolling/Sockpuppet song and dance is old and worn out. I suggest you go back to the borehole where you belong. Maybe you and Thomas can hook up.

  18. 68
    MA Rodger says:

    Pat Cassen @63.
    Presumably the ‘NIPCC book’ you mention being delivered to educational establishments is the piece of filth in this PDF (which I name purely to assist avoidance of it elsewhere – Idso Craig D., Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer (2015) ‘Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming – The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus,’ Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, pp110.) I haven’t given it the courtesy of reading it properly before commenting. This is because I did once examine a short section of NIPCC work (their parody of the IPCC AR5 WG1) and found it was nought but a pack of lies/delusions, non-scientific garbage that selectively quoted and misrepresented out-of-date climate science in almost every reference it made. A very brief examination of the conclusions of this ‘NIPCC book’ show the denialist contrarianism of these jokers has not changed. As an exemplar, the “Key Findings” from one of the seven chapters are presented thus:-

    False Postulates
    # Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century
    surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability.
    # The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks.
    # Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 followed increases in
    temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO2 levels could not
    have forced temperatures to rise.
    # Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming.
    In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2
    in the atmosphere.
    # A warming of 2°C or more during the twenty-first century would probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.

    The remaining text presented by this band of deluded fools is more-than-likely entirely of similar stuff to this pack of nonsense.

  19. 69

    V 61: If no correlation is evident in the data from, say, 1910-1940, 1940-1979, or 2000-2014, then adjustments and allowances have to be made, based on an array of arbitrary considerations, such as volcanic or solar activity, ENSO, industrial aerosols, redirection of heat into the oceans, etc.

    BPL: Victor indulges the classic logical fallacy of “subverted support”–explaining a phenomenon that doesn’t exist. He starts off, “if not correlation is evident in the data,” when of course the correlation is, in fact, overwhelming. He then lists adjustments as if they were chosen at random out of thin air, instead of on the basis of physics. Apparently he doesn’t think volcanic eruptions, solar activity, ENSO, industrial aerosols, or heat-air thermal interchange can affect the surface temperature.

  20. 70
    Hank Roberts says:

    Pat Cassen says:
    11 Apr 2017 at 6:13 PM

    Hank @56 –

    A colleague at Cal Tech received a Heartland package like that to which you refer. It arrives in an envelope with no Heartland identifier on it, but features the New York Times logo above the headline “Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General”.

    There is no reference to this imprint on any of the enclosed material (the NIPCC book, a cover letter addressed to “Professors of Physical Science”, a DVD and a brochure).

    These people have no shame.

    I hope your colleague has shown this false-flag operation to the New York Times for comment, and posts pictures somewhere online.

  21. 71
    Victor says:

    Charles Hughes #67 — It’s immature outbursts like this which give RealClimate a bad name. I find it remarkable that reasonable posts with no trace of anything personal routinely get banished to the bore hole, while vicious personal attacks continue to be accepted. If you want to be taken seriously as a group of scientists you need to do a better job of monitoring this site.

  22. 72
    Hank Roberts says:

    It arrives in an envelope with no Heartland identifier on it, but features the New York Times logo above the headline

    Hmmm, trying to be charitable … I could bet some kid in the mailroom ran out of regular envelopes
    for this mailing, and grabbed envelopes out of the batch meant for some other mailing campaign?

  23. 73
    Dan says:

    re: 71. The irony is truly dripping off on that comment. Especially the idea that those comments are posted from someone who has clearly shown they have very little knowledge or understanding of the scientific methods. And yet they flaunt it on a blog hosted by peer-reviewed climate scientists. Scientific arrogance to the max. smh

  24. 74
    Digby Scorgie says:

    MA Rodger @68

    Perhaps they’re not “deluded fools”. Perhaps they know full well that climate change is a threat. But perhaps they consider climate change to be a long-term threat and the necessary climate action to be a greater short-term threat to their lifestyle. Perhaps they’re happy to continue with their high-energy high-flying high-consumption lifestyle and let future generations deal with the consequences of climate change.

    So I consider it quite possible that the garbage they produce is a deliberate part of the propaganda war against climate science and climate scientists. They don’t care that it’s garbage as long as it confuses enough of the public to forestall climate action.

  25. 75
    Charles Hughes says:

    71
    Victor says:
    12 Apr 2017 at 10:20 AM
    Charles Hughes #67 — It’s immature outbursts like this which give RealClimate a bad name. I find it remarkable that reasonable posts with no trace of anything personal routinely get banished to the bore hole, while vicious personal attacks continue to be accepted. If you want to be taken seriously as a group of scientists you need to do a better job of monitoring this site.

    Victor, I’d tell you where you can stick it but I’d probably get banned so I’ll say this… I called you out on your B.S. and you responded with more B.S. Like nobody could recognize it the first time you posted it. The Science IS SETTLED ON CLIMATE CHANGE. There is NO controversy. Calling me immature for calling you out on your tripe proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’re a TROLL. Don’t like it? Quit trolling. It’s as simple as that. Either add something of value to the discussion or take a hike. If you would like to email me I’d be more than happy to continue this discussion. Believe me I have plenty of things to say to you. Unfortunately this is not the place. Let me know if you need my email address.

  26. 76
    Brian Dodge says:

    nigelj 10 Apr 2017 at 5:35 PM asks “….whether this series of events is specifically linked to climate change, ” and notes “These have been due to low pressure systems from warm tropical air, running into stalled high pressure systems.”
    Global warming has been observed, and it’s not the sun. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1950/offset:0.5/mean:12/scale:150/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/trend
    Water vapor in the atmosphere has increased, as predicted by Arrhenius in 1897 – https://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html – and it’s a positive feedback.
    More heat at the surface and more moisture in the atmosphere increase the Convective Available Potential Energy, which physically drives storm intensity http://www.spc.noaa.gov/sfctest/help/sfcoa.html – “CAPE is a measure of instability through the depth of the atmosphere, and is related to updraft strength in thunderstorms.”
    The temperature at the poles has risen more than at the equator(also predicted by Arrhenius in 1897) – https://phys.org/news/2014-02-temperature-feedback-magnifying-climate-arctic.htmlhttps://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/papers-on-antarctic-temperature-trends/ The temperature differential between the equator and the poles drives the Hadley/Walker/Polar circulation, which together with the coriolus effect drives atmospheric Rossby waves; the decrease in temperature between the poles and equator has resulted in a “lazier” pressure system and jetstream circulation – http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/rutgers-climate-scientists-find-more-evidence-linking-arctic-warming-jet-stream-movement/20150601#.WO8tmfnyvIU

    What possible physical processes (what Viktor might call “arbitrary considerations”) could prevent global warming from causing the increased extreme rainfall events that you and others have experienced, while simultaneous unknown “natural fluctuations”(arbitrary fluctuations?) actually caused them?

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005450924499?LI=true “Percentage increases in the intensity of high rainfall events are largest for the most extreme events”
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035143/full “The trend for the recent period 1951–2004 is 2.2 events per decade or about 14.5%. All these trend values are significant at 99% significance level. It is interesting to note the significant increase in the frequency of VHR events after mid 1970s. ”
    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heavy-precipitation “In recent years, a larger percentage of precipitation has come in the form of intense single-day events. Nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990”

  27. 77
    Eric Swanson says:

    POLITACO reports that Prez Trump is considering nominating Kathleen Hartnett White to run the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). She has a long record as a climate change denialist, as a former chairman of the Texas CEQ and more recently working with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

    If one wants a sense of her efforts, HERE’s a long paper she authored (PDF warning) describing the history of the Industrial Revolution and the role of fossil fuels in the unprecedented rise of the modern Western consumer lifestyle. In her well written piece, she deftly manages to build a case for ever more use of fossil fuels to serve mankind’s continued progress.

    Like any good propaganda, what she has to say is mostly correct, but she misses the basics of ecology and the physical sciences, all of which point to much larger problems for humanity than just the lack of available “low cost” fossil fuels. Her appeal is to like minded engineers and financially focused business types, both of whom lack a sense of connection to the natural world. Like Mr. Trump, those who live in a world paved with concrete and asphalt while surrounded by buildings of concrete, steel and glass simply can’t understand that their world exists only because the much larger natural world provides the resources and a comfortable environment within which they can exist. These fools would like to continue to ignore the impacts of our/their activities, living for today’s enjoyment while pushing the long term costs onto future generations. And, they’re winning the hearts and minds of the average voter, people who know even less about the complex scientific issues which are being buried under a blizzard of daily media trash.

  28. 78

    Nick O.–“Ancient civilization decreed…”

    Actually, the only ‘decree’ I know of (nearly) happened in 1897 in Indiana:

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

    It is true that there is a passage in the Old Testament describing a Temple vessel as being a cubit across and 3 in circumference, which implies pi=3. (Though as Isaac Asimov pointed out decades ago, the fact that those quantities were given separately seems to imply that the writer did not have the *concept* of pi.)

  29. 79

    Gavin, not sure if you are aware thus want to point out that almost all of NASA’s Earth related media I came across in recent months uses audio from the source killertracks.com And videos published on YouTube are automatically flagged and ad revenue is attributed to those audio producers. This has issues with material published explicitly under public domain licenses, ie. NASA Ultra High Definition 17GB version with music https://archive.org/details/NASA-Ultra-High-Definition .

    However, YouTube also offers the removal of audio and replacement with audio licensed under creative commons. And YouTube offers the “Create” tab for adding such audio to uploads without audio/or to replace existing ones, which would be more in-line with the spirit of most NASA material being shared in the public domain.

    Also a great source is https://www.soundmorph.com (Primarily VST software and sound effects), and they have some free audio as well. Same with epicstockmedia.com who publish a couple of free sounds each month. This might also be interesting for other producers. And then there is ofc http://freesound.org and the http://freemusicarchive.org and many others.

  30. 80

    Carl Sagan on Climate as an Emerging Issue (1990) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZbZ5RvW_qI

    Stephen Schneider explains Global Warming in 1990 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiP9VFmep4c

  31. 81

    Modelling the mechanism of warm salty water getting to the surface, as a mechanism for rapid changes (AMOC, Bølling-Allerød warming) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1VcOHS0kGA some studies http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1952.0.html

  32. 82

    KM 78: It is true that there is a passage in the Old Testament describing a Temple vessel as being a cubit across and 3 in circumference, which implies pi=3. (Though as Isaac Asimov pointed out decades ago, the fact that those quantities were given separately seems to imply that the writer did not have the *concept* of pi.)

    BPL: No doubt he did not. He was being approximate. He was a scribe, not an engineer. The Hebrew engineers probably used the Babylonian value of pi, 3.16.

  33. 83
    mike says:

    Daily Records (by Year)
    Highest-ever daily average CO2 | Maua Loa Observatory

    2017 (so far)

    409.56 ppm on March 27, 2017 (Scripps)
    409.55 ppm on March 28, 2017 (Scripps)
    409.47 ppm on March 28, 2017 (NOAA)

    2016

    409.44 ppm on April 9, 2016 (Scripps)
    409.39 ppm on April 8, 2016 (Scripps)

    2015

    404.84 ppm on April 13, 2015 (Scripps)

  34. 84

    The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/full

  35. 85
    Killian says:

    Anyone have access to the new Jacobshavn paper John Abraham refers to in a recent Guardian article? His comments on the findings are far too vague to suss out the particulars of the article, which is paywalled.

  36. 86
    Russell says:

    Sorry, 65: isostasy happens.

    If granddad’s summer cottage moves farther from the mean tide line , will you send his estate a backdated insurance refund?

  37. 87
    mike says:

    Moderation and updating of comments seems to be crawling this month and the number of comments also dropping due to slow pace of comment approval.

    Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

    April 14: 409.11 ppm
    April 13: 407.80 ppm
    April 12: 409.17 ppm
    April 11: 409.14 ppm

    Hanging in around the 409 number. Could be worse.

    Full-on conflict between heavily armed clowns in USA and NK could reduce concerns about CO2 situation. That would be the good news on that story. Let’s just focus on good news.

    Warm regards

    Mike

  38. 88

    Recent research on volcanoes and climate are very interesting

    Climate change may prevent volcanoes from cooling the planet
    According to climate model projections and global warming, Aubry and his co-authors found the amount of volcanic sulfur gasses in the stratosphere will decrease anywhere from two to twelve per cent in the next 100 years. Longer term, they predict anywhere from 12 to 25 per cent less sulfur gas in the stratosphere by the 22nd and 23rd centuries. They say the range is large because it is difficult to predict future eruptions and future greenhouse gas emissions.
    https://phys.org/news/2016-11-climate-volcanoes-cooling-planet.html

    Interaction between climate, volcanism, and isostatic rebound in Southeast Alaska during the last deglaciation
    … intense volcanic activity, consistent with a two-way interaction between climate and volcanism in which rapid volcanic response to ice unloading may in turn enhance short-term melting of the glaciers, plausibly via albedo effects on glacier ablation zones. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306418361_Interaction_between_climate_volcanism_and_isostatic_rebound_in_Southeast_Alaska_during_the_last_deglaciation

  39. 89
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    57 nigel’s: the floods you are referring to relate to cyclone debbie which swamped eastern queensland and NSW with record breaking floods as well. When TC Debbie was gaining strength off the qld coast I immediately checked with null-school 250hPa jet stream projections and noticed the jetstream that should by pouring over central latitude australia was way down south over tassie. So I thought this cyclone is going to extend to high elevations and carry with it massive amounts of water vapour since the western pacific was also anomalously warm as well. Since the jetstreams were so far down south I thought this system is going to be very very slow moving compounding the flooding… and it sure was. I watched it go past our region of the sunshine coast and work it’s way down NSW and finally out to sea again en-route to you guys. I knew you’d be in for a drenching but I was still very surprised at the water it still held or gathered at it neared you. Probably the most expensive low we all have experienced. Cheers!

  40. 90
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    nigelj: the intensity of this system had the fingerprints of climate change written all over it. The ridiculously far south and relatively weak jetstream and the very warm pacific are probably the two main factors that make it a prime CC case study.

  41. 91
    MA Rodger says:

    The GISTEMP LOTI anomaly for March is posted shows continuing ””scorchyisimo!!!” The March global anomaly is +1.12ºC (slightly higher than the +1.10ºC February value).
    March 2017 becomes the fourth hottest month on the full record (behind Jan, Feb & Mar 2016) and the 2nd hottest March on record (behind 1st-place March 2016 (+1.28ºC) and ahead of 3rd-place March 2002 +0.92ºC, 4th-place March 2002 +0.91ºC and 5th-place March 2015 +0.90ºC).
    The start of 2017 is certainly looking ””scorchyisimo!!!” The first three months of 2017 are head-&-shoulders above the first three months of all other years excepting last year which was of course boosted by an El Nino. The first-3-months averages look like this:-
    2016 .. +1.24ºC
    2017 .. +1.04ºC
    2015 .. +0.86ºC
    2010 .. +0.81ºC
    2002 .. +0.81ºC
    2007 .. +0.79ºC
    1998 .. +0.71ºC
    2014 .. +0.67ºC
    Note that the only non-El Nino years in this ranking are 2017, 2015 and 2014.

  42. 92

    Killian, is this the study? A tipping point in refreezing accelerates mass loss of Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14730

  43. 93

    Re 2015 What’s going on in the North Atlantic? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic

    2016 AMOC slowdown: Connecting the dots http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/amoc-slowdown-connecting-the-dots/

    2017 The underestimated danger of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream System http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/the-underestimated-danger-of-a-breakdown-of-the-gulf-stream-system/

    Abrupt cooling over the North Atlantic in modern climate models https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14375

    In seven models (17.5% of the total) a rapid SST decrease in the SPG is driven by a sudden local MLD contraction, that is, a convection collapse, affecting but not completely disrupting the AMOC. In two models (5% of the total) the temperature drop involves the entire northern NA and is caused by a massive AMOC reduction and its associated change in meridional heat transport. Thus, although deep convection and AMOC are strictly connected, abrupt shifts in SPG convection may not necessarily imply similar AMOC shifts.

    Because deep convection in the Greenland-Iceland-Norwegian Sea and in the Labrador-Irminger Sea, as well as the overflows from Denmark Strait and the Scotland-Faroe channel are all integral parts of the AMOC deep-water formation system, a collapse in one part of this system may occur without an equally abrupt response in the AMOC. This supports the distinction between two separated climatic tipping points for the NA abrupt cooling, namely one associated with a local SPG convection collapse and one associated with a large-scale AMOC disruption.

    Figure 4 shows the ensemble mean surface air temperature (SAT) trend for the RCP4.5 scenario in the different subsets of models. For the non-abrupt sub-ensemble, the increase in SAT covers the whole globe (Fig. 4a), causing a global mean air temperature (GMT) trend of about 2 °C per century. The SPG convection collapse sub-ensemble shows an atmospheric ‘warming hole’ over the NA, which strongly influences the temperature response over highly populated areas such as the eastern North American coast and Western Europe (Fig. 4b), where the global warming trend is suddenly halted.

    The resulting GMT trend is about 1.5 °C per century. For the two models projecting a massive AMOC reduction (Fig. 4c), the northern hemisphere cools while the southern hemisphere strongly warms, consistent with the so-called bipolar seesaw. The altered hemispheric temperature gradient also affects the precipitation patterns by shifting the position of the intertropical convergence zone, in line with previous findings.

    In addition to the potential existence of a tipping point for an AMOC shutdown, we argue that a separate one involving a collapse of SPG convection also exists. Both AMOC disruption and SPG convection collapse are possible responses to the ongoing global warming trend and changes in the hydrological cycle that are freshening the northern NA. However, while the risk of an AMOC shutdown has been largely debated, an assessment of the possibility of a local SPG convection collapse and its potential impacts was missing so far. Our results highlight that in CMIP5 models the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an SPG convection collapse is almost four times more likely than the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an AMOC disruption.

    A final issue concerns the climate impact that a convection collapse in the SPG has on the surrounding regions. The repercussions of such an event on temperature and precipitation represent an important hazard for many economic sectors, notably for the agriculture industry as well as for water resources and energy management. Also, the associated modifications in ocean circulation alter the distribution of the main faunistic zones over the northern NA, with strong implications for the fishery sector.

    Our analysis suggests that these potential risks are erroneously underrated. For instance, over the UK, the temperature evolution in SPG convection collapse models largely deviates from the continuous warming trend characterizing the CMIP5 ensemble-mean, even exceeding the CMIP5 ensemble-mean standard deviation. When only looking to the CMIP5 ensemble mean, such a discordant temperature projection over the UK would appear as an extreme case and very unlikely to occur. However, our assessment, discussed in this paper, is that the chance for such a discordant response over the UK is actually almost as large as the chance of a continuous warming trend.

    Given the recent evidence of reversed climatic trends over the NA and the impact that the current Greenland meltwater accumulation may have on Labrador Sea convection, we ultimately stress the need to consider the potential risks associated with an SPG convection collapse when developing future strategies of adaptation to climate change as well as when searching for possible early warning signals of abrupt climate change in the Atlantic.

    Since the AMOC may not be primarily responsible for abrupt cooling events in the NA, observing the long-time evolution of the SPG stratification appears very relevant in light of the present results. The ARGOS and OSNAP programs associated with various decadal prediction systems will provide key information in the coming years to better estimate the possibility of NA rapid cooling.

    If you look at Figure 4 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14375/figures/4 you can see that a potential subpolar North Atlantic (SPG) convection collapse would not change much of the current deglaciation going on in middle to Northern Greenland. And Hansen pointed out, based on AMOC slow or shutdown: “Increased baroclinicity produced by a stronger temperature gradient provides energy for more severe weather events.” http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/09/21/predictions-implicit-in-ice-melt-paper-and-global-implications/

  44. 94

    A freezer malfunction at the University of Alberta in Edmonton has melted part of the world’s largest collection of ice cores from the Canadian Arctic, reducing some of the ancient ice into puddles. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/16/arctic-ice-cores-melt-university-alberta-canada

  45. 95
    Victor says:

    #75 Sorry, Charley. I don’t do flame wars, and I don’t respond well to bullying. Enough said. For now.

  46. 96
    Killian says:

    #92 Chris Machens,

    Looks like it. Hard slog for me. I’ve not been reading technical papers much of late. Losing my chops. Anyone care to summarize?

    Cheers

    #None Note on ASI,

    I was noting a pattern of one year higher sea ice and three years lower, roughly, for just one month. I didn’t bother checking it for other months or the yearly overall highs and lows. But, if it’s a thing, this should be a higher ASI than last year. Hmmm…

    I’m still unsure what to expect this year.

    Cheers

  47. 97
    Charles Hughes says:

    Victor says:
    16 Apr 2017 at 12:05 PM
    #75 Sorry, Charley. I don’t do flame wars, and I don’t respond well to bullying. Enough said. For now.

    “If you want to be taken seriously as a group of scientists you need to do a better job of monitoring this site.” ~ Victor the Troll

    NEWS FLASH TO VICTOR: Nobody here either needs or wants “your approval”. I know you’d like to think your statements have an air of gravitas but they don’t. You’re just another internet troll hoping someone buys into your b.s. and wastes an hour or two responding to your drivel. The fact that you refuse to engage me is proof enough. You might try debating this guy: #realtrump

  48. 98
    MA Rodger says:

    Digby Scorgie @74.
    We can differ in our views of how much these contrarians conspire to knowingly pervert climate science and how much they are misguided imbeciles. Yet when they come up with the same errors, the likelihood of a conspiracy has to be enhanced. And when the imbeciles insist that they are proper “scientists … independently evaluating the impacts of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth’s biosphere and evaluating forecasts of future climate effects,” it is difficult not to see them as a bunch of conspiring liars. I would thus be more than seeing it as “quite possible.”
    And in this particular case, these NIPCC/Heartland Institute liars shouldn’t be allowed to operate without proper challenge. Thus my comment @68 was lacking.

    Here then is an exemplar of the high quality science perpetrated by the liars at the NIPCC and published by the deluded contrarian Heartland Institute.

    The first of the exemplar NIPCC assertions I presented @68 was:-

    # Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability.

    The prime evidence they present to support this bold assertion of theirs is a graph they use to “illustrate the variability of global temperatures during the past 2,000.” The NIPCC graph faithfully plots the Loehle & McCulloch (2008) global temperature reconstruction. Unfortunately this NIPCC graph does not actually ”illustrate the … global temperatures during the past 2,000.” The Loehle & McCulloch reconstruction ends at AD1935 and things look very very different when the modern instrument record is presented to show properly ”the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming” (as graphed here usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
    So in this single exemplar of their work, the NIPCC manage to ”hide the incline,” a slight of hand incomparably more consequential than the rather trival, indeed in scientific terms non-consequential ”hide the decline” that became the dreaded CLIMATEGATE.
    And ”hide the decline” was a one-off. In 2013 the NIPCC/Heartland published a perverted parody of the UN IPCC AR5 WG1. (The NIPCC parody runs to 993 pages. I did examine an exemplar section, Section 2.1 which is a dozen pages long, and found over fifty lies/errors.) The NIPCC are a simply dishonest. Any such AGW “Red Team” would also be simply dishonest.
    I note that in their testemony to congress, both Curry and Christy were calling for government funding to set up a “Red Team”. Christy’s actual closing statement is

    “One way to aid congress in understanding more of the climate issue than what is produced by biased “official” panels of the climate establishment is to organize and fund credible “Red Teams” that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise. I would expect such a team would offer to congress some very different conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate.(My bold)

    Is Curry & Christy both calling for “Red Teams” a case of ‘great minds think alike’? Or is this the conspirators asking that their lies be funded by the tax payer?

  49. 99
    mike says:

    Daily CO2

    April 16, 2017: 409.52 ppm
    April 16, 2016: 408.10 ppm

    Last Week

    April 9 – 15, 2017 408.85 ppm
    April 9 – 15, 2016 408.81 ppm

    Almost a flat week, but I think this is about the ENSO runup in CO2 that happened last year and not about any actual change in the upward trend of CO2 numbers. I would love to be wrong about that and I am watching for evidence of change in the trend.

    My sense is that we are still bumping along at an underlying annual increase rate in range of 2.5 to 3 ppm. That is a disastrous rate of increase and one that did not exist in the record until this past decade. We have to deal with our CO2 habit or it will deal with us. We are like 2 pack a day smoker who keep promising to cut back.

    But, hey, what do I know? A lot of smokers live long happy lives.

    Mike

  50. 100

Leave a Reply

Comment policy.


Switch to our mobile site