RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Dec 2019

Filed under: — group @ 1 December 2019

This month’s open thread. December already?

182 Responses to “Unforced variations: Dec 2019”

  1. 151
    Dan H. says:

    David @ 138,
    If you read the full article, they said that 2m of SLR would not arrive soon – at least not this century. Recent changes in one part of Antarctica have been largely offset by opposite changes elsewhere. The mass balance is slightly negative, but the uncertainty is quite high.

    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surface-mass-balance/

  2. 152
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Dan H.,
    Please pardon me if I do not take great comfort in your assertion that an inevitable catastrophic outcome will be delayed. Even if it comes after I am long gone, I still care about those who will live on after me. Do you?

  3. 153
    Dan says:

    re: 150. KIA: “The popular vote goes to the known, long-time criminal – in 2016 that was HRC.”

    Since you went went off-topic, in response:
    HRC: Testified for 11 hours, endless investigations, zero indictments, zero charges.
    Trump (and his minions): Too scared to testify, 215 charges, 38 indictments, 5 prison sentences, Trump Foundation shut down for fraud, had to pay $2 million fine, Trump University shut down for fraud, specifically violated US Code on altering official weather service forecasts, numerous open investigations for corruption, obstruction of Congress, and by his own words and the WH transcripts violating the Constitution.

    So the question becomes why are you cowardly unable to admit to being fundamentally wrong (insecurity and hatred of strong women obviously) and continue to slander and blatantly lie?

  4. 154
    mike says:

    To MAR: I have been watching the CO2 (big surprise, right?) and thinking you were on solid ground with your predictions of yoy increase in monthly averages until this past week or two. I think we had a little EN bump in the early months of 2019 and that would allow the yoy monthly averages to fall under 2 ppm, but the past few weeks have tracked up again with numerous days at 3 ppm plus or minus a couple points.

    It’s too soon to say, but I am wondering if we are seeing something new getting going in the CO2 sats? If we are, it will likely be a combo of emissions from a variety of natural sources – like Australia fires, warmed/dried wetlands, thawing permafrost, and maybe some change in the uptake of CO2 from the natural sinks.

    What do you think? Are you seeing what I am seeing?

    Daily CO2

    Dec. 28, 2019: 412.11 ppm
    Dec. 28, 2018: 409.05 ppm

    December 22 – 28, 2019 412.21 ppm
    December 22 – 28, 2018 409.24 ppm

    Cheers,

    Mike

  5. 155
    scott nudds says:

    Re: 107 “Australia breaks continental (average) Maximum Temp Record 2 days in a row”

    Clearly they need to burn more coal.

  6. 156
    Mal Adapted says:

    Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:

    It’s even harder when your political candidates spout abject nutbaggery and idiocy 24/7/365. Dems – we want: to legalize all drugs (Petes Buttisthegig), to confiscate wealth from citizens until none are wealthy (Pocahantas), open borders (all of them), free everything (all of them), Socialism (all of them), Communism (all of them), drag queens teaching sex ed to toddlers (all of them), to let men shower with girls (all of them), man and woman are the same (all of them), it’s OK to give sex change treatments to 7 year olds (all of them), minorities can do no wrong (all of them), all straight white people are evil (all of them), confiscate firearms in violation of the Second Amendment (all of them), all Christians are evil (all of them), the USA is not legitimate because of slavery (all of them),…..

    You can’t make this stuff up! Run on all that. They’re ACTUALLY DOING IT! ROFLMAO

    He’s hyping up a straw army of his imaginary cultural adversaries again! ROFLMAO! His characterizations of what Democrats collectively want are absurdly exaggerated, a popular tactic with dogged denialist soldiers. Here’s irony: IAT blames all Democrats for everything a nominally Democratic politician says. Doesn’t he know shrewd politicians differentiate themselves by campaigning to their bases? He ought to – he’s one of the basest! And while IANA Psychiatrist, it does seem like he might be decompensating over time.

    As for me: speaking as a scientifically meta-literate, non-expert accepter of the climate science consensus, though always tentatively and provisionally as the experts themselves do, I’m a Democrat by necessity. My votes are decisions at the margin. I personally do not want each of the things on IAT’s list with equal priority, if at all. I’m not here to talk about them, either, unless they’re closely linked to atmospheric carbon. If, OTOH, a Republican politician proposes a revenue-neutral, non-regressive federal carbon tax or fee, I’ll read at least the first paragraph.

  7. 157
    Dan H. says:

    BPL@147,
    Of course I did. I preferred the original, rather than your interpretation thereof.

  8. 158
    MartinJB says:

    DanH (@151] It is worth noting that the site you link shows pretty dated numbers. The more recent Rignot et. al. 2019 (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095) shows acceleration in Antarctic mass balance. Table 2 has a good summary.

  9. 159
    Mr. Know It All says:

    150 – BPL: If you have proof it’s a scam, produce it. If you have no proof, STFU.

    He described an IPCC scam in the video. I have no knowledge of it – just questioning if his description of how it works in the video is correct or not.

  10. 160
    Mr. Know It All says:

    69 – Killian on Greenland’s rapidly melting ice sheet
    “From the article:

    The sheet’s total losses nearly doubled each decade, from 33 billion tons per year in the 1990s to an average now of 254 billion tons annually…….

    Someone care to do the calculations on SLR?”

    OK, I’ll do it. Assuming the numbers in the article are correct:

    254×10^9 tons ice=254×10^9 cubic meters of H2O @ 1,000 kg/cubic meter

    Ocean area = 361,132,000 sq.km.= 361.132×10^12 sq.m (m^2)

    Thickness of melt water spread over ocean surface:

    = 254×10^9 m^3/ 361.132×10^12 m^2 = 0.0007 m = 0.7 mm = 0.0276 inches

    Thus, SLR = 0.7 mm for one year due ONLY to Greenland ice melt! WOW!

    WE’RE ALL GONNA DROWN!
    :)

  11. 161
    MA Rodger says:

    mike @154,
    I don’t know what it is that you are seeing to get you wondering about “seeing something new getting going in the CO2 sats.” But what I am seing in terms of MLO data is this (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’). December will give an average annual CO2 rise of roughly 2.5ppm. Where things are going in following months is not something that can be predicted with any accuracy. I will continue to report that MLO CO2 projection I set out, now five months ago. So far it has done ridiculously well but that does not provide any realistic support for the notion that it may continue to do well.

  12. 162

    AB 139: I’m thinking “I’m thinking” is a much better starting point than “I refuse to think beyond what worked in 1935”.

    BPL: You resolutely refuse to look at the statistical properties of the data set in question. Five or ten years is not an adequate sample size, and that can be shown with modern data as well as with antique data. There has been no acceleration in surface temperatures; surface temperature has risen pretty linearly. See Tamino’s essays for data on that. There is some evidence of acceleration in sea level rise, not in temperature. Go take an introductory statistics class, Al. There are several available for free on the internet.

  13. 163
    Killian says:

    Re #154 mike said To MAR:… What do you think? Are you seeing what I am seeing?

    I think, “Why in the name of god is he asking CO2 rise minimalist MAR his opinion on CO2 rise?” MAR has consistently underplayed the issue of emissions and been insulting to those of us who dared to note and discuss the excursions.

    I have been watching the CO2 (big surprise, right?) and thinking you were on solid ground with your predictions of yoy increase in monthly averages until this past week or two. I think we had a little EN bump in the early months of 2019 and that would allow the yoy monthly averages to fall under 2 ppm

    I think your attribution is off here. That was not an EN bump, imo, but part of the transition of the Arctic. Or, only partly. We saw no such bumps in emissions in 2015-16 despite a much larger EN. It wasn’t until 2018 I ever noticed a muti-day, large magnitude spike in the Jan-April time frame – though because of the only two-year record of the Keeling data graphic there may be others before that which I missed.

    I think the bump we saw was a sign of systemic change: First in April, the net year advanced all the way to January. The sawtooth nature of data cautions us to acknowledge this could be abberant, but the rapidly changing conditions of climate on planet Earth urges us to err on the side of preparing for risk.

    We recently had an analysis that the permafrost is shifting from sink to source. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145880/permafrost-becoming-a-carbon-source-instead-of-a-sink Perhaps it is unquiet microscopic actors in an unfrozen tundra. Or the rapidly increasing thermokarst lakes and their rapid thaw of also recent scientific vintage. Perhaps there was a bit of EN involved, though those effects – the propogation of heat energy through dense materials – would seem more likely to be delayed, e.g. as ice melt after the EN itself is already over.

    Some stuff from my bookmarks:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4

    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/06/permafrost-is-thawing-rapidly-how-much-should-we-worry/

    but the past few weeks have tracked up again with numerous days at 3 ppm plus or minus a couple points.

    It’s too soon to say, but I am wondering if we are seeing something new getting going in the CO2 sats?

    I promise you, there *always* is. We are in a period of rapid change that will only be acceerating until we can reduce atmospheric concentrations over extended time frames.

    If we are, it will likely be a combo of emissions from a variety of natural sources – like Australia fires, warmed/dried wetlands, thawing permafrost, and maybe some change in the uptake of CO2 from the natural sinks.

    Indeed.

    What do you think? Are you seeing what I am seeing?

    “Skyrockety!” No?

    Daily CO2

    Dec. 28, 2019: 412.11 ppm
    Dec. 28, 2018: 409.05 ppm

    December 22 – 28, 2019 412.21 ppm
    December 22 – 28, 2018 409.24 ppm

    Outside the snow is falling and friends are calling, “you-hoo!” Oh, yes, it’s lovely weather for sleigh ride together…

    right?

  14. 164
    Mal Adapted says:

    Mr. Ironically Agnosognosic Typist:

    He described an IPCC scam in the video. I have no knowledge of it

    IAT doesn’t have to have actual knowledge, to call something an “IPCC scam”. He’ll say whatever sounds good to him, without regard for truth or even truthiness. He wields his keyboard like a street thug with an automatic weapon: spray and pray. He never hits the mark, but we still can’t seem to ignore him 8^(.

  15. 165
    mike says:

    to mar at 161: well, keep posting your monthly projections as the months go by and let’s see how you do. Dailies and weeklies are noisy, monthlies, slightly less so.

    Daily CO2

    Dec. 29, 2019: 412.75 ppm
    Dec. 29, 2018: 408.70 ppm

    to K at 163: you and I are generally close to agreement, but my energy for outrage and the nasty give and take isn’t all that great.

    I think you and I both know that things are very bad. We have known it for a while. More people recognize get the wake up call every day one way or another. I guess I want to be a little gentle with everyone right now for some reason. Maybe my compassion and tolerance is rising due to CO2 buildup in my system?

    Cheers,

    Mike

  16. 166
    Thomas says:

    #161, 163, 165 and the https://sites.google.com/site/marclimategraphs/

    What a truly sad case. More interested he is in the accuracy of his own fanciful (fanatical?) MLO CO2 projections system than he is about the real atmospheric CO2 and CO2e growth numbers – and the obvious implications of those numbers.

    While his Actual [Smoothed] Average MLO CO2 is +2.98 ppm for 2019 YTD.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/unforced-variations-dec-2019/#comment-751533 (ignores the Global means, the CO2e and CH4 growth numbers.

    This year there is no Super El Nino conditions like in 2015/2016 when the growth values were record breaking growth numbers of 2.98 + 3.00 respectively. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html Not even an El Nino in 2019. What an illogical irrational non-scientific position to hold when the numbers are staring him in the face on his very own website and on ESRL.

    It’s said there are none so blind as those who outright refuse to see. It’s typically called living in a state of obstinate Denial:
    -a statement that something is not true or does not exist:
    -an unwillingness to accept that something unpleasant is true:
    -the situation in which someone behaves in a way that goes against their beliefs and what they think is right:

    Thankfully the real scientific work and reports going in the world is not so biased or so distorted. The IPPC 6 packages will certainly put paid to the present indefensible and worthless positions of a MAR posting to an obscure social media type forum in due course. In the meantime just humouring him seems to be the most appropriate response. It’s a sad state of affairs, that’s maybe best to simply laugh it off?

  17. 167
    nigelj says:

    Mr. Know It All @160, nice maths but wrong assumption, so your answer is not useful. You are assuming the rate stays the same at 254 billion tons annually. This wont be the case. The doubling per decade is highly likely to continue given the processes, so by next year it wont be 254 billion tons annually but a little bit more, and the year after that more again etc. I dont have time to put a accurate number on it and my maths is rusty on rates of change, but its the principle that counts. By the end of the century that doubling per decade becomes quite significant ice loss.

  18. 168
    Thomas says:

    There is nothing “skyrockety” about these numbers from ESRL either.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

    2015 2.98
    2016 3.00
    2017 1.89
    2018 2.86
    2019 2.98 (estimate)
    5 y- avg +2.74 ppm

    20 years ago:
    1995 2.00
    1996 1.22
    1997 1.93
    1998 2.93 (Super El Nino)
    1999 0.93
    5 y- avg +1.80 ppm

    It’s basic math based on science.

    The logical Implications and the increased Risks are patently obvious (to most genuine knowledgeable people, but not all.)

    I don’t recall anytime in the 1990s when ‘fire generated tornados’ were lifting fire fighter trucks off the ground and flipping them into fires on the side of the road. A 27 year old volunteer lost his life yesterday near Albury (Australia) when that happened to him.

    His emergency vehicle suddenly went all ‘skyrockety’ without warning!

    But an extra 1 ppm is so tiny, what possible difference could that make? Well, there comes a time in every man’s life when they need to hang up their abacus and slide rules forever and step aside.

  19. 169
    Mal Adapted says:

    mike:

    to K at 163: you and I are generally close to agreement, but my energy for outrage and the nasty give and take isn’t all that great.

    I think you and I both know that things are very bad. We have known it for a while. More people recognize get the wake up call every day one way or another. I guess I want to be a little gentle with everyone right now for some reason. Maybe my compassion and tolerance is rising due to CO2 buildup in my system?

    Or perhaps the season is the reason, Mike. I, for one, appreciate your appeal to our better natures. Yet while narcissistic, hyper-combative types like Killian may be vexatious even when scientifically correct, they’re not the real enemy. I’ll be more inclined to be gentle with obdurate AGW-deniers, OTOH, when they no longer in charge of my country.

  20. 170

    KIA, #160–

    I am not the world’s best for proofing even simple calculations–to put it mildly!–but I don’t think KIA screwed his up; there are a couple of nits you could pick, like equating the density of ice to that of water, but close enough for BOTE purposes. (And anyway, the density thing cuts against his point, so props for that.)

    Where he did screw up was in thinking about the meaning of his numbers. His comment was, and I quote:

    WE’RE ALL GONNA DROWN!
    :)

    A masterpiece of minimization in sarcastic/scornful mode. Hard to refute, rhetorically speaking, because following such a tone anything tends to sound foolishly earnest and humorless. But sadly, actually think about it we must…

    So.

    The linear trend per the University of Colorado, which (slightly ironically for the flagship Uni of a landlocked state) tracks such things, is 3.1 mm/yr for the satellite monitored period (1993-2018).

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu

    Note that that does not assert that a linear fit is the best model for the trend; in fact there are visually apparent hints of acceleration in the graph, and Tamino and others are finding indicators of acceleration, as discussed for example, here:

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/sea-level-acceleration-2/

    And now we can add KIA to the list of folks reporting indicators of acceleration in SLR!

    I mean, he’s telling us that Greenland alone is now adding more than twice as much SLR per annum as all sources did over the record–and roughly half of past SLR was due to thermal expansion! So, if we may assume that that continues to be the case–and I’d like to know how it could fail to be!–and that contributions from the Antarctic, the Canadian archipelago and terrestrial and marine-terminating glaciers at least remain constant, then we can assume a minimum resultant of 1.42 mm/year.

    I may, as I said, not be the greatest with calculations, but I’m pretty sure that that amounts to nearly a quintupling of SLR rate.

    No, we won’t all drown. But some folks* sure will.

    *Denialists presumably will be at highest risk, all other factors being equalized. And I’m not smiling about any of it. Call me a killjoy.

  21. 171

    Can’t resist a couple more simple calculations on SLR:

    1) 7 mm/yr x 80ish years to end of century = 560 mm SLR

    2) Doubled for thermal expansion = 1.12 meters SLR at end of century.

    Hmm, didn’t the IPCC say something like that?

    And haven’t denialati heaped scorn on such predictions because, hey, the observed rate so far is only 3.1 mm/year?

  22. 172

    One more “Happy New Year!” comment.

    Or not. I’ve been getting notices for Pacific typhoon papers for a while, due to an inquiry I made, and this one came across the transom:

    https://www.academia.edu/14635765/Devastating_storm_surges_of_Typhoon_Haiyan

    Remember Haiyan? Back in 2013 it killed ~7,000 with a storm surge “unprecedented” for the region. This is a sobering post-mortem–although, encouragingly, the forecast modeling did a fair job of predicting the surge. Hope we don’t see one like that in 2020!

  23. 173
    Mal Adapted says:

    Ray Ladbury:

    Dan H.,
    Please pardon me if I do not take great comfort in your assertion that an inevitable catastrophic outcome will be delayed. Even if it comes after I am long gone, I still care about those who will live on after me. Do you?

    See, this is what I don’t understand about lukewarmers who mock “CAGW” (LMGTFY), and call climate realists “alarmists”: why aren’t they alarmed? Clearly they’re not looking beyond the span of their own lives. But they don’t appear to take the growing actuarial risk into account, either. Don’t they realize AGW has already claimed thousands of people’s lives around the world, surely a catastrophe for the victims’ loved ones wherever it occurs? How many extra deaths would amount to catastrophe in a lukewarmer’s private utility model? Must the Tragedy of the Climate Commons be lethal, to be tragic? Crucially, just who is entitled to publicly judge the private tragedy of the involuntary third parties who pay our socialized costs, even before accounting for accelerated biodiversity loss?

    Lukewarmers will evaluate private and social costs and benefits however they like. By definition, a lukewarmer accepts that the globe is warming anthropogenically. Yet although the social cost of carbon derives from basic physics, lukewarmers ignore or divert attention from the fact that it’s already greater than zero in aggregate. If they admit that it is, then what net aggregate cost due to AGW would reach alarming for them? Should the rest of us regard the lukewarmer’s own sudden death or dispossession, by storm, flood, heatwave or wildfire, as a disaster? Would they welcome our collective succor (pun resisted)? Why not collective actions to cap their private risk along with the net aggregate cost, and slow down the erosion of global biodiversity too? I confess I find a lukewarmer’s cognition unintelligible.

  24. 174
    nigelj says:

    MAR is not minimising CO2 trends and climate change. Hes just trying to be accurate. I’m only commenting because similar accusations have been made about me. The fact that MAR is so hard on denialists and does so in detail is more than enough to show there is no minimising going on. People would have to be brain dead not to work this out.

  25. 175
    Thomas says:

    Firenados are not fictional Sharknados

    “Similarly, the Carr fire, which occurred in Redding, California, was another example of a rotating bushfire thunderstorm that was able to push much, much further into essentially suburbs than a normal bushfire would have allowed,” he said.

    Dr Lareau conducted a study probing the origins of the fire-generated vortex that formed that day.

    He said the Carr fire vortex generated surface winds greater than 225kph, destroyed high-tension powerlines and killed a firefighter who was in his truck.

    “Like the [NSW] case, the truck was flipped, tossed and rolled off of the road.

    “The vortex also contributed to the collapse of a house that led to the death of a grandmother and her grandchildren. It was quite tragic.”

    While the Canberra and Carr instances involved bushfires impacting suburbs, Mr McCarthy said the link between supercell bushfire thunderstorms and city strikes was not clear-cut.

    It is difficult to draw conclusions with so few examples, especially as there are many factors at play.

    “You have to have a very intense fire, plus an atmosphere that could almost support a thunderstorm, plus some mechanism for pushing the fire to rotate one way or the other,” he said.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-01/why-bushfires-that-spin-are-incredibly-dangerous/11834006 (with video examples)
    Research Letter
    The Carr Fire Vortex: A Case of Pyrotornadogenesis?
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL080667

    FYI news updates anecdotes https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-01/nsw-vic-bushfire-emergency-follow-live/11835494

  26. 176
    Thomas says:

    “MAR is not minimising CO2 trends and climate change.”

    Yes he is. He’s manipulating the data by using a distorted “control” – his own “projections for 2019”

    The correct Control to use would be Zero CO2 grwoth every year the last 30 years.

    MAR’s personal projections for 2019 are placed on top every single prior Growth number.
    1990 1.16
    1991 1.04
    1992 0.46
    1993 1.35
    1994 1.94
    1995 2.00
    1996 1.22
    1997 1.93
    1998 2.93
    1999 0.93
    2000 1.61
    2001 1.61
    2002 2.50
    2003 2.27
    2004 1.60
    2005 2.54
    2006 1.68
    2007 2.27
    2008 1.57
    2009 2.02
    2010 2.32
    2011 1.92
    2012 2.61
    2013 2.01
    2014 2.19
    2015 2.98
    2016 3.00
    2017 1.89
    2018 2.86

    He is making THE issue about his own projections and not about a logical control figure.

    The only Control figure to use is Zero. Because it’s only Zero that delivers a stable climate.

    Simply look at the ERSL graph https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png

    Stack those blue lines vertically on top of each other – that Off The Charts! Of very serious and urgent concern.

    CO2 is rising at +3ppm levels now without any significant El Nino or Super El Nino driver. That is deadly serious.

    Real climate scientists have been telling the world this since the 1980s.

    MAR is trying to tell you there’s no need for concern at +3ppm in 2019 – that CO2 levels go up and down and growth rates are always changing.

    That is Denial:101 – that’s what they do when people on WUWT say “The climate has always been changing.”

    What MAR is practising is Rhetoric, not valid nor useful Science. He’s fiddling with the numbers to try and win an personal argument. That’s it. Caveat Emptor!

  27. 177
    Thomas says:

    #173 I think that comment about Lukewarmism was addressing MARs rhetoric.

    for example
    “By definition, a lukewarmer accepts that the globe is warming anthropogenically. Yet although the social cost of carbon derives from basic physics, lukewarmers ignore or divert attention from the fact that [CO2 growth rates] is already greater than zero in aggregate. If they admit that it is, then what net aggregate [CO2 growth rate] / cost due to AGW would reach alarming for them?”

    In early 2019 here a number of posters pointed out the subtle but noticeable Decadal pattern change in Monthly Growth rate increases from Dec 2018 – March 2019

    Now more clearly visible in the May peak on this graph https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

    They rightly pointed out that a near +3pmm trend at that time of year was ‘exceptionally’ higher than was typical. They also pointed out that were a Strong El Nino (or super el nino) develop in 2019 then given those higher than normal growth rates it was possible/feasible that 2019 CO2 growth at MLO might well strike near +4ppm.

    That El Nino never did develop and so what we have now a annual mean still near +3ppm – an El Nino in 2019 would easily have pushed that above +4ppm due to the CO2 being forced from natural sinks – as occurred in 2015/2016 record CO2 spike and confirmed by Nasa here https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/

    There was nothing close to anything “skyrockety” nor “the sky is falling” or overly emotional hand waving being said in early 2019. It’s was sensible, reasonable and valid to highlight those observations – and the potential implications of them.

    It’s a scientific fact that CO2 grwoth rates continue to increase over time. THat trend is cleat ask ESRL https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png

    The 2011 to 2020 Growth rate will be substantially higher than the 2000-2010 growth rate increase. That’s a scientific fact.

    Any coming Super El Nino will push the annual growth higher again, likely +1 ppm greater than the prevailing trend, now closer to +3ppm than it is to +2.5ppm .

    Even though post-El Nino there is typically a short term fall in growth rates YoY does not cancel the increases longer term.

    Anthropogenic GHG emissions continue to increase globally (despite all the efforts to lower them) and are set to continue higher again through the next decade (as the UNFCCC process falters at COP meetings.)

    With the Global CO2 levels now peaking at +411 ppm https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png AGW will continue to increasingly drive CO2 out of natural sinks at a much higher rate (fires, drought, ice loss, soils, rainforest deterioration) even without an El Nino event making it worse – logically the next Super El Nino will push global CO2 to even higher Record Levels – where every CO2 molecule *** in aggregate *** makes the warming just that little bit worse than it otherwise would be.

    That *** aggregate *** heat generated and the *** aggregate *** increases in CO2e don’t simply disappear form the system overnight once the last El Nino passes.

    I know of no credible climate science paper or IPCC report that forecast the possibility of Global CO2 levels to be at +411 ppm in 2019 nor annual Growth rates at +3ppm absent an El Nino event.

    To be using terms like “skyrockety” in order to ridicule people for pointing out such prescient observations in early 2019 and now today, after the results are in, is disingenuous Lukewarmist Denialism writ large in my view.

    Such rhetoric should either be 1) ignored, 2) shown for what it is, or 3) even condemned as ludicrous in the extreme…. even if the guilty party is seen as a long term friend or supportive of decades of climate science output – maybe more so if that’s the case.

    I’ve moved from position 1) to position 2) because I now think its important enough to speak up about. It creates too much Noise otherwise. It confuses people unnecessarily and wastes everyone’s time.

    The issue a few people were raising in early 2019 has transpired to be formidably accurate and valid in hindsight. Soon enough real scientists will be writing papers that focus on the CO2e growth data of this 2015-2019 period for good reasons.

  28. 178
    Thomas says:

    MAR http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/unforced-variations-dec-2019/#comment-751533

    12-Month MLO CO2 increase (ppm/yr)

    Modelled [Original,Smoothed]
    2019 AVG “projected values” Jan-Oct = +2.97
    2019 AVG “actual values” Jan-Oct = +2.98

    mike @152,
    Concerning El Niño, it is close enugh for some folk to be declaring one.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-721459

    Didn’t happen.

    (killian)
    Week beginning on February 17, 2019: 410.98 ppm +2.53
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

    I eyeballed the two-year chart at Scripps and it seems the late Feb/Early March weekly avg rise to peak is 3ppm. That would put us around 415. But if you look at daily avg, it could be 416 or 417. I’m comfortable with a weekly of 415+/- 0.5

    I think daily averages will peak closer to 417. Higher if we include the ones they don’t publish due to volatility, and probably in April. Hourly, good lord… 420?
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-721683

    That was correct.

    eg “the late Feb/Early March weekly avg rise to peak is 3ppm.”
    MAR’s numbers 1 Dec 2019 – 10 months later
    Feb19 … … … 2.92 … … … … … … 3.43 … … … … 2.95
    Mar19 … … … 3.13 … … … … … … 2.56 … … … … 3.02

    (Carrie)
    El Nino is now coming into sight – however potential El Ninos could not be affecting GHGs or Atmospheric CO2 levels or Temps months before an El Nino actually exists.
    Next BOM announcement, the gold standard for declaring El Ninos or not, comes 5th March. If declared opinions abound it will still only be weak/moderate thru 2019.
    Meaning, if the yardsticks are met, CO2 levels and temps may be impacted post May/June at the earliest or maybe not until November 2019. I’m happy to wait and see. Meanwhile MLO readings are back to +414 ppm. Pretty high for February given where they have been beforehand and annual cycle norms. Last year they were in the 408s.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-721741

    Correct observations.

    (killian)
    We seem to be in a strong El Nino year **** pattern **** with only a small EN *** signal ***. What, pray tell, gives?
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-721757

    Correct. 2019 YTD NOV is close to +3ppm (2015/2016 Super El Nino levels) without a genuine El Nino *Signal* present.

    (carrie sarcastically)
    “They all get washed out in the wash Killian. The decadal trend is still below +2.5 ppm / year, the running annual mean is still at or below +2.5 ppm, therefore these numbers do not count. ”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-721786

    MAR’s 2019 AVG “projected values” Jan-Oct = +2.97
    2019 AVG “actual values” Jan-Oct = +2.98

    What happened to that +2.5ppm Decadal Trend in both MARs Projections and Actuals?

    (carrie)
    “MLO CO2 readings data is “noisy” – yes that is true. The shorter the time frame the noisier it becomes. It appears the last months (28 days) MLO CO2 weekly increases yoy are +3.68, +3.07, +3.82 and now +3.86 ppm.”
    “Early days yet of course but it appears initially that at least one of my suggestions for 2019 is well on the way to coming true already. Let’s wait and see where things are at the end of May 2019 first. A lot can happen in a few months.”
    January 2019: 410.83 ppm +2.87 PPM
    Feb to-date : 411.80 ppm +3.61 PPM (estimate)

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-3/#comment-720491

    Prescient? Or simply discussing real genuine observations (recorded data results) looks like the above.

    (carrie) “Still no El Nino exists.”
    “Five of eight climate models indicate the central Pacific is likely to reach borderline or weak El Niño levels during autumn, with four models remaining above threshold levels into winter.
    El Niño predictions made in late summer and early autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current forecasts of the ENSO state beyond May should be used with some caution. The BOM says. THE scientific experts in the field.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-3/#comment-720644
    and “The 30-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has dropped rapidly over the last week, and for the 30 days to 17 February was −5.7. The 90-day SOI was +1.3. Both are within the neutral range.”

    Quite useful sensible information and correct.

    (carrie) “Not ‘skyrockety’ and not ‘panicky’ just pointing out the bleeding obvious.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-720107

    63 MA Rodger says:
    11 Feb 2019 at 3:27 AM
    Spouting Thomas @59,
    You say “Three weeks in a row above +3 ppm – no El Nino in sight (yet).” If not in sight, where then are you looking for El Niño?

    IN THE DATA DEAR MA Rodger – IN THE DATA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYY6Q4nRTS4

    (MAR) “By what logic is a period of +3ppm any different?”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-720245

    (mike)
    “I have it on good authority that if you know where to look in these numbers, you can spot the flattening of increase rate of CO2 accumulation to match the lower emission levels reported starting around 2014. I can’t see it, but I am old and my vision is not that great.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-720253

    (MAR) “All this emissions malarkey”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-720450

    FEB 2nd (Carrie)

    “CO2 MLO monthly data shapes up to look like a growth rate of +2.85 ppm over January 2018 – official number not out yet. Quite close to the Dec 18 monthly avg growth increase of +2.85 ppm”
    “This years numbers are far above those of that super el nino period. So even a 2ppm increase is set atop pre-existing very high numbers. Year to year comparisons they too do not tell the whole story.
    2019 will also be the first yearly average above 410 ppm @MLO. We’re setting a cranking pace.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/#comment-719116

    (mike)
    “dailies are very noisy and essentially mean nothing. 5.22 ppm increase in yoy number looks startling, but, really not a big deal. It’s not a 7 ppm increase. ” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/#comment-719917

    (carrie)
    “Is it only a coincidence that GHGs levels especially CO2 have also been the highest in the last four years too? And that 2018 GHGs dipped a little in it’s growth so did the global temps.
    Could it be that atmospheric CO2 is actually an “instant Proxy” for increasing global temps? A yard stick that is measurable, constant, immediate and reliable indicator of the looming trend.

    Paper says: “The four warmest years in the GISS record are the past four years, 2015-2018.”
    “The strong 2015-16 El Niño in the equatorial Pacific Ocean is more prominent in the annual 2015 map than in 2016, yet the impact of the El Niño on global temperature is greater in 2016. This is a result of the lag of 3-4 months between El Niños and their effect on global temperature.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/unforced-variations-feb-2019/#comment-719116

    JAN 2019 Worrying’ rise in global CO2 forecast for 2019
    Levels of the climate-warming gas are set to rise by near-record amounts, Met Office predicts
    The Met Office has a good record of forecasting global CO2 levels and predicts that the average rise over 2019 will be 2.75 parts per million (ppm). That would put it among the highest annual rises in the 62 years since good records began.
    Only years with strong El Niño events, 1998 and 2016, are likely to be higher. The rise in 2016 was 3.39ppm. In the decade after the first measurement on the Hawaiian volcano Mauna Loa in 1956, annual rises were less than 0.9ppm per year.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-5/#comment-718013

    JAN (killian)
    Re #154 MartinJB said Carrie (@152): Hey, it’s a noisy signal! Who knew?
    “This is moving beyond noisy. We’re seeing sustained elevated levels we normally would not see for another two months. It’s amazing how few here pay enough attention to long-tail events.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-717683

    (carrie)
    “Man, seriously. What is wrong with you? I did not conclude anything from the data in either post # 152 or 153.
    Can’t you work out what a sudden surge to 413 ppm (in January) could be “noteworthy” and could mean if it is sustained all by yourself?
    I never told you or anyone what to think or what to conclude – I did not say what I think about it either. As I have said previously to MAR again only recently “the Data Speaks for Itself!”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-717800

    Now y’all have a whole years worth of *** noteworthy *** data to play with and draw your conclusions from.

    No El Nino – Record Temps – Record Fires and Fire behaviour – Record Droughts – Record drying out of Soils and Rainforests – unprecedented formerly permanently WET Sub Tropical rainforests burning and destroyed –

    Record Breaking +415ppm CO2 level AND a +3ppm MLO CO2 Growth Rate.

    (ending with)

    176 Killian says:
    23 Jan 2019 at 9:18 AM
    “The Sky Rockets Don’t Exist club does not care what one of us says except to have a chance to slap it down. The logic is clear: Higher CO2 than expected this time of year *might* mean something. It *might* indicate the beginning of something yet not known or not yet connected or what have you.”

    “The logical fallacy that mentioning a thing equals claiming something is all too common a Straw Man – though in this case I think it is poor rhetorical skills rather than any form of dishonesty. We can see it as mere reading more into what is said than *is* said or intended.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-4/#comment-717843

  29. 179
    Mr. Know It All says:

    167 – nigelj
    “You are assuming the rate stays the same at 254 billion tons annually.”

    I did not assume that. I specifically noted that the rise of 0.7 mm is for ONLY one year, due to Greenland melt only. ;)

    170 – Kevin
    “… but I don’t think KIA screwed his up; there are a couple of nits you could pick, like equating the density of ice to that of water,..”

    No, the density of the ice doesn’t matter. A ton of ice will become a ton of water. I mentioned 1,000 kg/cubic meter only to note my calc assumes metric tons.

    171 – Kevin
    “Can’t resist a couple more simple calculations on SLR:

    1) 7 mm/yr x 80ish years to end of century = 560 mm SLR…”

    Not sure where you are getting 7mm/yr. My calc shows 0.7 mm/year (not 7mm/yr) for Greenland melt only, and yes, some predict it will increase over time, although your Univ of Colorado graph indicates 3.1mm/yr SLR with very little acceleration since 1993:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    The lowest point in Colorado is 3,317 feet so they’ll be OK. ;)

    HAPPY 2020 EVERYONE!

  30. 180
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @176, thanks for the comment, but I can’t see any obvious significant difference between the data in the table you attribute to MAR versus the MLO graph in your link, in terms of general magnitude. I confess I’m not really sure what the hell you are getting at, but I will say this:

    1) I dont follow weekly / monthly / single yearly MLO trends very much. It seems too short and contaminated by natural variation and just not enough hours in the day. However I respect that others are interested in it.

    2) I agree the year on year MLO CO2 trend is increasing relentlessly and is obviously very concerning and with no sign of slowing. Ditto warming.

    3) I agree the CO2 trend seems robust this year despite no big el nino to explain it. There was a weak el nino for the first half of this year and its been neutral since. This doesn’t seem to adequately explain the CO2 numbers you quote, at an intuitive level. There could be other natural reasons for example there have been some huge forest fires this year (eg the Amazon RF)and I seem to recall an article talking about heightened CO2 fluxes in the arctic recently. These could be suspects but its very speculative on my part.

    However I just find one year a bit too short to jump to conclusions that theres been a step change in terms of something like a positive feedback causing a natural sink to go crazy, however you are right to at least ask the question. It’s useful discussion. If your +3ppm number was to continue or accelerate even more for say 3 years in the absence of a big known natural driver like el nino, it would suggest an ominous step change. We will have to wait and see.

    4) I dont think anyone is fiddling the numbers to win a personal argument. It looks more like crossed communications to me. Mabye he’s missed something this year, but I dont see any attempt to deliberately play things down. I havent read your other related comments @178 and 179, a bit long and I dont have time. The fire storm thing @177 is really interesting.

  31. 181
    nigelj says:

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0686.1?af=R&

    Thomas this may be of interest, its new research: “The Decadal Reduction of Southeastern Australian Autumn Rainfall since the Early 1990s: A Response to Sea Surface Temperature Warming in the Subtropical South Pacific”

  32. 182

    173, Mal–

    Good points–but you inadvertently ‘lukewarm’ this bit yourself:

    Don’t they realize AGW has already claimed thousands of people’s lives around the world, surely a catastrophe for the victims’ loved ones wherever it occurs?

    I’ve never seen a really rigorous accounting of climate-related deaths to date–and to be fair, I suspect that there’s no way to be absolutely rigorous due to the challenges of attribution–but my own rough-and-ready tally of some of the more obvious disasters since the turn of the millennium gets us into hundreds of thousands of premature deaths to date. It’s very possible that a fuller accounting would reveal that to be at least an order of magnitude too low.

    But be that as it may, “hundreds of thousands” is a pretty hard lower bound, IMO.