“The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.” The same Pentagon that was struck by Flight 77?
They may have missed the warnings on 9/11/2001, but they’ve seen climate change coming from a long way off, and they have nothing to gain by denying it.
I hope he said just that, Tony, since it allows you to point out that it’s (IIRC) Carl Mears’s RSS. Spencer & Christy do UAH.
I suppose it’s an understandable confusion, since the UAH team are credentialed lukewarmers–but RSS currently shows the lowest warming trends.
Edward Greischsays
79 zebra: Nuclear has been most used to run base load by keeping nuclear power at 100%. They do this because nuclear fuel is essentially free. You change fuel rods after 54 months whether they need it or not.
Nuclear power plants can be made to load follow if you want them to. The problem is you have to get the operators to go along with it. If you take away the fossil fuels that they use for peaking, then they will have to have one more load following reactor for peaking.
“A Giant Battery” is a silly construct.” just as you say. The giant battery is there because of the equally silly construct of wind and solar energy.
Nuclear power is already well integrated into the modern electric grid.
Tony Weddlesays
Oh. Thanks, Kevin. Yeah, I may have got it wrong but the general thrust was accurate, I think – as dataset after dataset become untenable support for the notion of a pause (or a cooling, even), then simply switch datasets. That’s the modus operandi of deniers.
GlenFergus @94.
This dragging in the measurement-uncertainty into the process of proclaiming whether we have a “hottest year on record” as you point out Berkeley Earth have done would likely prevent any such ‘hottest year’ proclamation ever.
“Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.”
Berkeley claim a bold ±0.049ºC 95% uncertainty range for 2014 which is the main reason for them to act like this. HadCRUT4 gives ±0.09ºC which would make even proclaiming an “equal first” sound silly with a big long list of equal first years. Rather we would probably be back to a variant of the “Lindzen pause”. This denialist message would run something like “2014 was not statistically warmer than 1997,” as the statistical range of the two years’ average temperatures still overlap (as they do on HadCRUT4).
I think that because the information is fine grained geographically, it could be very useful in reassessing the recent IPPC efforts. There were cost assumptions there that could be updated and I would guess could make RCP3.0 much more economically attractive.
JCHsays
One internet news outlet has reported that Gavin Schmidt said the hiatus may continue for another 5 to 10 years. That I have been able to find, no other news outlet repeated this, which is odd.
The outlet sent me a response:
Thank you for your question. The quoted comments were made during a telephone news conference organised by NASA and NOAA (see link below).
Schmidt was asked by a reporter how much longer the pause would last.
“We do not expect it to persist,” he said “the increase in greenhouse gases… is going to dominate most of the other things that are going on”. He went on to mention the cooling effect of volcanoes and of the very slightly dimmer sun and then re-iterated “in five to ten years time changes in greenhouse gases will dominate”
Can we get a clarification? I think I know what they misinterpreted, but maybe I don’t.
[Response: Yeah, I saw that. It is an odd reading of my comments. I certainly don’t think the ‘hiatus’ will last 5 or 10 more years. Indeed, as you can see above, I don’t think there is much evidence for any significant shift in the long-term warming rate, which implies that the after another 5 years or so it will be obvious to all that the hiatus was nothing more than a small blip. There are questions about the attribution of short-term variations that are interesting (influence of ocean dynamics, solar or volcanic aerosols etc.), but they are independent of the bigger question. – gavin]
Ray Ladburysays
The Senate “Is Climate Change Real?” vote:
Inhofe voted for it before he voted against it. How do these guys shave?
Adamsays
What’s your take on the doomsday clock getting pushed to 3:00 minutes until midnight. Do you agree with this choice or no,
Personally it has me freaking out. [edit]
#106–Your general point was right on, Tony, IMO! They used to love UAH unambiguously, but now RSS has them “lusting in their hearts,” so to speak.
#108–Yes, there’s a lot there to ponder. I’ve only really read the Executive Summary, so far. But I very much like the fact that cost curves and adoption rates continue to follow, more or less, the favorable curves we were seeing a year ago. I want to revisit my estimates of when we get to a full stabilization wedge in light of the report.
SecularAnimistsays
The Doomsday Clock was originally supposed to be counting down to nuclear war, which always was and still is an “IF” — it could happen IF somebody “pushes the button”. There have been some close calls, but so far nobody has pushed it.
Global warming is entirely different. It is not an “IF”. It is a certainty. It is a reality.
And we are all of us “pushing the button” — we are POUNDING on the button, repeatedly, and hard, every day, all day.
wilisays
SA at #114–Good point. I hadn’t thought about that distinction between those two unquestionably existential threats.
Xavier Koenigsays
A report on the colloquium at Yale by Nir Shaviv (a collaborator with Svensmark among others).
He was somewhat inflammatory in his approach, saying we are all being brainwashed and trying to debunk the hockey stick graph with climategate and tree ring problems, but his end conclusion in what he *said* was that 50% to 2/3 of 20th/21st century warming is still anthropogenic (although someone said his powerpoint graph argued something else so we’ll see!!).
A summary of the main points of the talk:
– Warming observed in the last century is below model predictions, with a sensitivity of 1.4 deg per CO2 doubling, and 2014 is not a record year because of large error bars
– Observed warming trends with height in the atmosphere are wrong and there has been less warming over the equator than predicted, plus the predicted response to volcanoes (e.g. Krakatoa) is too large compared to the actual temperature response
– Uncertainties in the response to climate change, especially in cloud production and the effect of clouds as a feedback mean we don’t have a first principles calculation of climate sensitivity
– There is no fingerprint of CO2 causing large climate change, citing Al Gore and T vs. CO2 lag in the wrong direction, large variability in CO2 over geologic timescales and no corresponding T changes, all of which resulting in a maximum sensitivity of 1.5 deg per CO2 doubling
– Finally he showed the medieval warm period, little ice age and argued that tree ring problems obviate the hockey stick graph (although their models are fit to this temperature record essentially, so I don’t know why he did this)
– Instead, 14C measurements (solar activity) versus stalagmite temperatures or marine sedimentation, a 1976 paper citing European winter severity and sunspot count trends (again including medieval warming and little ice age) all show Solar activity affects the climate
– Also, sea level rate of change varies along with solar cycles (with correct 11 year period and phase), but with sea level changes rapidly responding due to thermal expansion not ice melting indicates sensitivity to Solar activity
– Finally, cloud cover changes over the solar cycle (I didn’t get the paper cited) and Svensmark’s paper showing low clouds are produced when solar activity is low (more cosmic rays) show the Sun influences cloud cover
– The model is that Galactic cosmic rays are modulated by Solar activity, and these produce small (3 nanometer) cloud condensation nuclei and also (from lab) help these small nuclei to grow, which finally has an effect in low altitude cloud cover
So their final composite model including CO2 shows that anthropogenic warming is real and significant, but the slower recent warming (since 1980) is partly explained by Solar activity. I think when the paper comes out (Howard, Shaviv and Svensmark) we will know exactly how significant AGW is in this picture, since his power point said something different to his spoken words!!
So back to the 400 parts per million thing. How long will it take to cross the tipping point of the 1000 parts per million and isn’t that when the Thermohaline Circulation will shutdown?
1) No-one knows, because no-one knows what we will collectively choose to do over the next decade plus.
2) No. There is no defined point at which Thermohaline Circulation ‘shuts down,’ and THC is not directly dependent upon CO2 concentration. AR 5 (Chapter 11.3.3.3) has this to say:
Overall, it is likely that there will be some decline in the AMOC by 2050, but decades during which the AMOC increases are also to be expected. There is low confidence in projections of when an anthropogenic influence on the AMOC might be detected (Baehr et al., 2008; Roberts and Palmer, 2012).
@Corey Barcus and @Edward Greisch, a brief response because I would like to respect the moderators wishes. You seem to be conducting your analysis based on the existing paradigm of utility scale renewable resources, storage, etc., built on top of the existing electric transmission and distribution system. What we (and the vendor community) are developing in CA is a new view of electric supply, that involves integrated portfolios of both customer side resources and utility side resources that supply very specific load needs in geographic areas. The goal is to drive down the costs of distributed renewable energy resources, and delivery of demand side solutions to the point where they are cost competitive with utility scale solutions. This works. It is a solid, engineering-based approach to cost reduction using proven technologies. Regarding the developing world, I would only point to the growth of the deployment of microgrid technology to serve specific geographic areas without the need for expensive new transmission infrastructure.
Finally, the goal is electrification of transportation systems. In CA, the policy direction is pointing toward (reducing cost and increasing availability) electric vehicles, but also the low carbon fuel standard is advancing for more efficient production and utilization of non-fossil-carbon fuels.
So, to put it another way, it is becoming clear that re-engineering the electricity production and supply systems to efficiently and cost effectively deploy distributed renewables and demand-side management technologies is a viable option for supplying increased demand for electricity. There is not much downside, and no need for nuclear. Cost containment is an engineering driven approach, and it works with electricity supply as well as anything else, if you are willing to forego preconceived notions about energy economics.
A mechanism for lack of sea ice reversibility in the Southern Ocean
Authors: Jeff K. Ridley, Helene T. Hewitt
(modeling, looking at possible future)
Abstract
We find evidence that ocean processes during global warming may result in irreversible changes to the Antarctic sea ice, whereas the Arctic sea ice changes appear to be reversible. Increased forcing gives rise to strong heat uptake in the Southern Ocean, and existing pathways provide an increased transport of heat to the Weddell Sea. As atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to preindustrial levels, the Antarctic ice extent at first recovers, but a rapid change in the position of the an ocean front in the South Atlantic maintains the heat transport into the Weddell Sea. A cooling surface initiates deep convection, accessing the stored heat, resulting in a substantial loss of sea ice, which has not recovered after a further 150 years at preindustrial CO2.
First published: 11 December 2014
DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062167
Chuck Hughessays
So their final composite model including CO2 shows that anthropogenic warming is real and significant, but the slower recent warming (since 1980) is partly explained by Solar activity. I think when the paper comes out (Howard, Shaviv and Svensmark) we will know exactly how significant AGW is in this picture, since his power point said something different to his spoken words!!
Comment by Xavier Koenig — 22 Jan 2015
I’m sure you have a point in there somewhere. Would you mind telling me what it is? Thanks
Antarctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly
It is reasonable to say that denialists have a bit of an obcession with the Global SIA anomaly, the sum of Arctic & Antarctic values published by The Cryosphere Today.“Look,”“they say “there is more ice, not less. How can the world be possibly warming?” The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed that as of 2015.0575 this Global SIA Anomaly has gone negative, just. You’d probably need a magnifying glass to see. It’s of no consequence.
But here’s a bit of fun.
The Cryosphere Today Antarctic SIA had an unusual 3-year period beginning in 2011 when it wobbled its way up and up, year after year. By mid-2014, the daily anomaly even topped the record daily anomaly set at the end of 2007 for all of seven days, a whole week, setting a new record at +2.11Mkm^2. That got the denialists cheering, no doubt.
Yet since then, the anomaly has begun to wobble its way back down at rather a rapid rate. This is not so obvious on The Cryosphere Today graphic as they plot the whole 36-year record. This home-made plot (usually 2 clicks to ‘download yuor attachment’) shows it a little clearer.
I’ve been keeping half an eye on the wobbles of Antarctic SIA since the Autumn. A big upward wobble at the end of the year has ended and now the anomaly is dropping like a stone.
The Antarctic SIA usually trends toward zero at this time of year with the tightest bunching at about the end of February, there being less ice about so net anomalies will tend to be small. But the drop towards the axis is exceptionally fast in 2015, although fo course it had further to go.
Now all this is, of course, idle speculation. The factors that drive the net anomaly of Antarctic SIA are far more complex that can be perused from a simple anomaly graph. The downward wobble may even now be coming to an end with a new positive record anomaly soon to arrive.
Yet, as denialists find this anomaly so very very important, to the point of it showing a fundamental flaw in AGW, allegedly, I find watching its progress, up or down, rather amusing.
And for the moment, it is down.
Down and down and down it goes,
Where it stops, well no one knows.
Chuck Hughessays
Eric Rignot interview below. Sooo… How screwed are we really?
Rignot says the biggest factor are the time scales. “There is no precedent in climate history for what we’re doing and even the current climate models are not keeping up with the rate of change. The message is not getting out and it’s not clicking with the public.”
How many decades do we have left before unmitigated misery set in? Just curious. Thanks
I also wish to respect the moderators’ rule that discussion of alternatives to fossil fueled electricity generation is off-topic for this site, but if I may, I would like to once again recommend the website CleanTechnica.com to anyone who is interested in current developments in renewable energy, efficiency, smart-grid, electricity storage and EV technologies, industries and markets.
They do have a comment facility so there is some degree of discussion there, mostly between renewable energy and EV enthusiasts. But it’s really more of a newsfeed / aggregator site than a discussion site, and as such it is valuable for keeping informed about what’s happening in those fields today.
The effort in California is moving with the kind of speed that adhering to RCP3.0 might require. That puts it in the main stream of climate science in another way as well. In particular, the species extinction burden from climate change seems minimal for that pathway. I notice also that in the press, there are questionable attributions such as Andy Revkin’s recent projection of only one foot of sea level rise this century that can only be supported under an RCP3.0 scenario. Looking at what California is doing seems topical.
Vendicar Decariansays
Half of the United States Senate has refused to formally acknowledge the existence of man-made climate change. Forty-nine Republicans voted against a measure noting “human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” The Senate did overwhelmingly approve a resolution acknowledging that climate change is not a hoax; just one person voted against it — Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker.
Chuck, when Dr. Shaviv gave his talk it sounded like he said anthropogenic warming explained 50% to two-thirds of 20th century warming but his powerpoint slide text said the opposite (50% to two-thirds explained by changes in solar activity). I actually think his work suggests the latter, that anthropogenic forcing is the smaller contributor to recent warming. Like I said, the published paper will reveal the details etc.
Jasper Jaynessays
Minoru Iyo has written a book: “Already Extinct”. His main thesis is: We don’t understand the problem; we couldn’t do anything about it if we did; and we wouldn’t do anything about it if we could.
What a breath of fresh air! This simple statement comports with all the evidence and actions we see in operation today. The fossil states, led by the good old USA, are in a no-holds-barred competition for who can capture the greatest market share, even if it means decreased revenue. The price of gasoline has plummeted, and demand for e.g. SUVs has increased. We will rocket by 2 C, 3 C, 4 C et al on a straight trajectory to oblivion!
Ray Ladburysays
Jasper@132,
Hopelessness is not a very good survival strategy. You write this on the very day when the US and India are taking first steps toward meaningful mitigation. I would not be so quick to give up on the futures of your children. I’ll keep fighting for them even if you give up.
#132–If you really think so, what are you doing in front of a computer and not in a bar? And sober enough to write a coherent, correctly-spelled post?
And–again, if you really think so–would you mind keeping your opinions to yourself so we poor deluded fools who think something useful might still be done can protect our illusions?
As to the recent ‘plummet’ in the price of oil, may I point out that analysts are almost uniformly in agreement that that will not slow the progress of clean electrical generation, and most think it won’t even slow down the progress of electric vehicles in the marketplace.
Some of the reasons for the former conclusion are on display here:
Jasper wrote: “Minoru Iyo has written … We don’t understand the problem; we couldn’t do anything about it if we did; and we wouldn’t do anything about it if we could.”
All three of those assertions are blatantly false with regard to anthropogenic global warming.
We understand the problem very well. There is plenty that we can do about it. And there are plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it.
Defeatism is the new denial.
Chuck Hughessays
SecularAnimist says:
26 Jan 2015 at 5:58 PM
So what would your response be to Eric Rignot in a one-on-one conversation? I assume you watched the video and don’t get me wrong, I completely respect your opinion on this. I’m just wanting to know what others who might be reticent about their views really think about our situation? Are we looking at billions of people not making it? I hate to even ask that question because there’s no way to phrase it without sounding “gloom and doom”. but I keep hearing it again and again from scientists who should know. I can even name them off. Does anyone really know how bad things could get or how soon?
I’m am in no way qualified to make any judgements about this. I don’t have a science background and I’m just trying to sort it all out for myself but I get the feeling that most folks are reluctant to say what they really think. Maybe I’m wrong. Feedback welcome. It seems to me that we should be taling more about the immediate or short term consequences of inaction. Thanks
Mike Robertssays
Minoru Iyo is at least correct on that last point. We’ve known about anthropogenic global warming for quite some time and maybe we could do something about it but we’ve shown, essentially, no inclination towards doing anything about it. I very much doubt that the “plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it” amounts to more than an insignificant scratching at the edges of the problem. When I see evidence that humans, collectively, are actually serious about wanting to do something and then about doing something, then we may have a chance of mitigating the worst effects. But we already know that the WAIS is probably in irreversibe decline, so we’ve already condemned future generations to metres of sea level rise. Emissions keep rising, globally, despite some countries and areas pretending that their emissions are decreasing.
Fingers crossed for Paris, though. It’s a shame that we all had to wait for Paris once Obama et al decided in 2009 that that is when, finally, a meaningful agreement must be reached. But then we have to wait until 2021 to see if anything might come of it.
Our only hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change would appear to be the collapse of industrial civilisation as, I think , Tim Garrett suggested, many years ago. That’s not impossible but it may not happen soon enough.
” We’ve known about anthropogenic global warming for quite some time and maybe we could do something about it but we’ve shown, essentially, no inclination towards doing anything about it. I very much doubt that the “plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it” amounts to more than an insignificant scratching at the edges of the problem.”
Right on! By whatever approach(s) we choose, we need to reduce fossil fuel use rapidly. The usage and emission numbers reflect the opposite. Even more ominous, the trends are in the wrong direction. Governments are being elected in the fossil producing regions that are pro-fossil fuel production expansion. The most egregious example is our own government, especially the legislature. We are responsible for much of the increase in global oil/gasoline production over the past few years, with no sign of that abating. The new Congress will do what it can to remove whatever barriers remain to no-holds-barred production and emissions control. Thus, we have growth in production, consumption, and emissions, and growth in the fossil state electorates for expanding production and consumption. These “plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it”, if they exist, are having little impact on the numbers that count.
” And–again, if you really think so–would you mind keeping your opinions to yourself so we poor deluded fools who think something useful might still be done can protect our illusions?”
You have every right to delude yourself for as long as you wish. You have no right to delude visitors to this site who are looking for facts and a realistic sober assessment of our collective future. Quoting electric vehicle and clean energy statistics without addressing the unabated growth in fossil fuel production and emissions, at present and for the foreseeable future, is misinformation.
JJ, as Blake pointed out, “You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.”
That’s the history of public health in a nutshell.
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 27 Jan 2015 @ 12:10 PM, ~#141
Jasper, you proclaim- “You have no right to delude visitors to this site who are looking for facts and a realistic sober assessment of our collective future.”
So you are the guy who wrote the book? Really?
Steve
Tony Weddlesays
Jasper Jaynes, this is just the comments section, not the RealClimate posts themselves. People have a right to express any opinion they want (provided it doesn’t advocate specific mitigation options) in the comments. Deluded or not.
Jasper Jaynessays
Steve#143,
http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/10/china-waits-shale-gas-soaring-energy-demands-create-regional-tensions/
Articles like this reflect the reality of rapidly increasing energy demand in the world, and the energy sources that will supply that demand. China has shale gas reserves estimated to equal that of USA and Canada combined. They have not done a good job so far in exploiting this shale gas, but the motivation to do so is there. Given their projected increase in demand, as well as that of India and other high population countries, it appears that China, like the USA, will pursue the ‘all-of-the-above’ energy supply policy. So, we can increase ‘clean energy’ production, but if it parallels, or more realistically lags behind, myriad forms of fossil fuel production, we lose the emissions game. I don’t see how we get out of this, and believe Minoru Iyo was ‘dead-on’ in all three comments. Look at the latest Keeling Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#mediaviewer/File:The_Keeling_Curve.png); where is your basis for optimism?
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 28 Jan 2015 @ 6:54 AM, ~#145
Jasper, your assertion- “So, we can increase ‘clean energy’ production, but if it parallels, or more realistically lags behind, myriad forms of fossil fuel production, we lose the emissions game,” is what could happen. No one can predict the future, so instead of bashing folks who can see a way for clean energy to completely displace fossil energy, why don’t you pitch in to help. Oh dear, the sky is falling is not a good strategy.
Good points, JJ. And of course we are continuing to spew ever higher amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere every year: are we up to 38 billion tons for 2014? I lose track.
As to Minoru Iyo’s points: 1) We certainly don’t fully understand everything we are doing to this set of very complex, interlocking systems we call home–we’re conducting an uncontrolled experiment, and there have been and will be many ‘surprises.’ But we _do_ know that we are adding carbon forcings at an unprecedented rate, and that previous rates of forcing orders of magnitude slower than today’s have lead to some of the largest mass extinction events in the history of complex life on the planet. And we do know that there are major ‘positive feedbacks’ in the wings or already kicking in that will further exacerbate our already-furious pace of forcing.
2) There are already lots of tipping points we have passed already, and others that seem unavoidable at this point, though we may be able to slow the speed at which they come about. Arctic sea ice on an death spiral. We just learned that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is doomed, though on a somewhat slower track. Many species have already gone extinct and many others are about to follow. Many coral reefs and other local habitats are already destroyed or in a death spiral. And don’t get me started on terrestrial and seabed permafrost thaw…
We _can_ slow and sometimes reverse deforestation and perhaps restore some other local ecosystems.
3) Would we if we could? Good question. Current power and ideological configurations mostly make it seem unlikely. But human society does occasionally change rapidly and fundamentally.
Ray Ladburysays
Jasper,
So the rest of us will continue working toward a solution while you quietly slit your wrists over in the corner?
Jasper Jaynessays
Ray#133,
” You write this on the very day when the US and India are taking first steps toward meaningful mitigation.”
So, Ray, we have ‘taking first steps toward meaningful mitigation’ vs opening up 14 potential sites for offshore drilling. Which do you think will come to fruition, and which will be yet another illusory hope based on wishful thinking?
“The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.” The same Pentagon that was struck by Flight 77?
Upwelling in the Southern Ocean
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/68/1/10.1063/PT.3.2654
Because deep water in the Southern Ocean is cold, centuries old, and rich in nutrients, its circulation exerts an outsized influence on Earth’s heat balance, the carbon cycle, and much of ocean biology.
Bill:
They may have missed the warnings on 9/11/2001, but they’ve seen climate change coming from a long way off, and they have nothing to gain by denying it.
“Roy Spencer’s RSS…”
I hope he said just that, Tony, since it allows you to point out that it’s (IIRC) Carl Mears’s RSS. Spencer & Christy do UAH.
I suppose it’s an understandable confusion, since the UAH team are credentialed lukewarmers–but RSS currently shows the lowest warming trends.
79 zebra: Nuclear has been most used to run base load by keeping nuclear power at 100%. They do this because nuclear fuel is essentially free. You change fuel rods after 54 months whether they need it or not.
Nuclear power plants can be made to load follow if you want them to. The problem is you have to get the operators to go along with it. If you take away the fossil fuels that they use for peaking, then they will have to have one more load following reactor for peaking.
“A Giant Battery” is a silly construct.” just as you say. The giant battery is there because of the equally silly construct of wind and solar energy.
Nuclear power is already well integrated into the modern electric grid.
Oh. Thanks, Kevin. Yeah, I may have got it wrong but the general thrust was accurate, I think – as dataset after dataset become untenable support for the notion of a pause (or a cooling, even), then simply switch datasets. That’s the modus operandi of deniers.
GlenFergus @94.
This dragging in the measurement-uncertainty into the process of proclaiming whether we have a “hottest year on record” as you point out Berkeley Earth have done would likely prevent any such ‘hottest year’ proclamation ever.
Berkeley claim a bold ±0.049ºC 95% uncertainty range for 2014 which is the main reason for them to act like this. HadCRUT4 gives ±0.09ºC which would make even proclaiming an “equal first” sound silly with a big long list of equal first years. Rather we would probably be back to a variant of the “Lindzen pause”. This denialist message would run something like “2014 was not statistically warmer than 1997,” as the statistical range of the two years’ average temperatures still overlap (as they do on HadCRUT4).
Kevin (#100),
I think that because the information is fine grained geographically, it could be very useful in reassessing the recent IPPC efforts. There were cost assumptions there that could be updated and I would guess could make RCP3.0 much more economically attractive.
One internet news outlet has reported that Gavin Schmidt said the hiatus may continue for another 5 to 10 years. That I have been able to find, no other news outlet repeated this, which is odd.
The outlet sent me a response:
Thank you for your question. The quoted comments were made during a telephone news conference organised by NASA and NOAA (see link below).
Schmidt was asked by a reporter how much longer the pause would last.
“We do not expect it to persist,” he said “the increase in greenhouse gases… is going to dominate most of the other things that are going on”. He went on to mention the cooling effect of volcanoes and of the very slightly dimmer sun and then re-iterated “in five to ten years time changes in greenhouse gases will dominate”
Can we get a clarification? I think I know what they misinterpreted, but maybe I don’t.
[Response: Yeah, I saw that. It is an odd reading of my comments. I certainly don’t think the ‘hiatus’ will last 5 or 10 more years. Indeed, as you can see above, I don’t think there is much evidence for any significant shift in the long-term warming rate, which implies that the after another 5 years or so it will be obvious to all that the hiatus was nothing more than a small blip. There are questions about the attribution of short-term variations that are interesting (influence of ocean dynamics, solar or volcanic aerosols etc.), but they are independent of the bigger question. – gavin]
The Senate “Is Climate Change Real?” vote:
Inhofe voted for it before he voted against it. How do these guys shave?
What’s your take on the doomsday clock getting pushed to 3:00 minutes until midnight. Do you agree with this choice or no,
Personally it has me freaking out. [edit]
Adam links to what looks like a clickfarm site “inquisitr” full of tasty tidbits. Eschew; the BAS clock isn’t forecasting WW3, these days.
It’s about finding new ways to be stupid, which we’re good at:
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists link:
http://thebulletin.org/multimedia/it-3-minutes-midnight
One symptom of the problem:
http://thebulletin.org/2015/january/serengeti-strategy-how-special-interests-try-intimidate-scientists-and-how-best-fight-back7898
#106–Your general point was right on, Tony, IMO! They used to love UAH unambiguously, but now RSS has them “lusting in their hearts,” so to speak.
#108–Yes, there’s a lot there to ponder. I’ve only really read the Executive Summary, so far. But I very much like the fact that cost curves and adoption rates continue to follow, more or less, the favorable curves we were seeing a year ago. I want to revisit my estimates of when we get to a full stabilization wedge in light of the report.
The Doomsday Clock was originally supposed to be counting down to nuclear war, which always was and still is an “IF” — it could happen IF somebody “pushes the button”. There have been some close calls, but so far nobody has pushed it.
Global warming is entirely different. It is not an “IF”. It is a certainty. It is a reality.
And we are all of us “pushing the button” — we are POUNDING on the button, repeatedly, and hard, every day, all day.
SA at #114–Good point. I hadn’t thought about that distinction between those two unquestionably existential threats.
A report on the colloquium at Yale by Nir Shaviv (a collaborator with Svensmark among others).
He was somewhat inflammatory in his approach, saying we are all being brainwashed and trying to debunk the hockey stick graph with climategate and tree ring problems, but his end conclusion in what he *said* was that 50% to 2/3 of 20th/21st century warming is still anthropogenic (although someone said his powerpoint graph argued something else so we’ll see!!).
A summary of the main points of the talk:
– Warming observed in the last century is below model predictions, with a sensitivity of 1.4 deg per CO2 doubling, and 2014 is not a record year because of large error bars
– Observed warming trends with height in the atmosphere are wrong and there has been less warming over the equator than predicted, plus the predicted response to volcanoes (e.g. Krakatoa) is too large compared to the actual temperature response
– Uncertainties in the response to climate change, especially in cloud production and the effect of clouds as a feedback mean we don’t have a first principles calculation of climate sensitivity
– There is no fingerprint of CO2 causing large climate change, citing Al Gore and T vs. CO2 lag in the wrong direction, large variability in CO2 over geologic timescales and no corresponding T changes, all of which resulting in a maximum sensitivity of 1.5 deg per CO2 doubling
– Finally he showed the medieval warm period, little ice age and argued that tree ring problems obviate the hockey stick graph (although their models are fit to this temperature record essentially, so I don’t know why he did this)
– Instead, 14C measurements (solar activity) versus stalagmite temperatures or marine sedimentation, a 1976 paper citing European winter severity and sunspot count trends (again including medieval warming and little ice age) all show Solar activity affects the climate
– Also, sea level rate of change varies along with solar cycles (with correct 11 year period and phase), but with sea level changes rapidly responding due to thermal expansion not ice melting indicates sensitivity to Solar activity
– Finally, cloud cover changes over the solar cycle (I didn’t get the paper cited) and Svensmark’s paper showing low clouds are produced when solar activity is low (more cosmic rays) show the Sun influences cloud cover
– The model is that Galactic cosmic rays are modulated by Solar activity, and these produce small (3 nanometer) cloud condensation nuclei and also (from lab) help these small nuclei to grow, which finally has an effect in low altitude cloud cover
So their final composite model including CO2 shows that anthropogenic warming is real and significant, but the slower recent warming (since 1980) is partly explained by Solar activity. I think when the paper comes out (Howard, Shaviv and Svensmark) we will know exactly how significant AGW is in this picture, since his power point said something different to his spoken words!!
Nir Shaviv at DeSmogBlog:
Nir Shaviv at DeSmogBlog:
http://www.desmogblog.com/nir-shaviv
http://www.desmog.ca/2014/01/27/why-it-s-not-enough-be-right-about-climate-change
Old Ice in Arctic vanishingly rare. NOAA January 20:
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/old-ice-arctic-vanishingly-rare
Best Arctic sea ice data-animation ever, I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421828030&x-yt-cl=84411374&v=FDRnH48LvhQ#t=25
Chartic Interactive Sea Ice Graph:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
So back to the 400 parts per million thing. How long will it take to cross the tipping point of the 1000 parts per million and isn’t that when the Thermohaline Circulation will shutdown?
#119–In order:
1) No-one knows, because no-one knows what we will collectively choose to do over the next decade plus.
2) No. There is no defined point at which Thermohaline Circulation ‘shuts down,’ and THC is not directly dependent upon CO2 concentration. AR 5 (Chapter 11.3.3.3) has this to say:
Not very exciting (or categorical, but there you are. More discussion here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
@Corey Barcus and @Edward Greisch, a brief response because I would like to respect the moderators wishes. You seem to be conducting your analysis based on the existing paradigm of utility scale renewable resources, storage, etc., built on top of the existing electric transmission and distribution system. What we (and the vendor community) are developing in CA is a new view of electric supply, that involves integrated portfolios of both customer side resources and utility side resources that supply very specific load needs in geographic areas. The goal is to drive down the costs of distributed renewable energy resources, and delivery of demand side solutions to the point where they are cost competitive with utility scale solutions. This works. It is a solid, engineering-based approach to cost reduction using proven technologies. Regarding the developing world, I would only point to the growth of the deployment of microgrid technology to serve specific geographic areas without the need for expensive new transmission infrastructure.
Finally, the goal is electrification of transportation systems. In CA, the policy direction is pointing toward (reducing cost and increasing availability) electric vehicles, but also the low carbon fuel standard is advancing for more efficient production and utilization of non-fossil-carbon fuels.
So, to put it another way, it is becoming clear that re-engineering the electricity production and supply systems to efficiently and cost effectively deploy distributed renewables and demand-side management technologies is a viable option for supplying increased demand for electricity. There is not much downside, and no need for nuclear. Cost containment is an engineering driven approach, and it works with electricity supply as well as anything else, if you are willing to forego preconceived notions about energy economics.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL062167
A mechanism for lack of sea ice reversibility in the Southern Ocean
Authors: Jeff K. Ridley, Helene T. Hewitt
(modeling, looking at possible future)
First published: 11 December 2014
DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062167
So their final composite model including CO2 shows that anthropogenic warming is real and significant, but the slower recent warming (since 1980) is partly explained by Solar activity. I think when the paper comes out (Howard, Shaviv and Svensmark) we will know exactly how significant AGW is in this picture, since his power point said something different to his spoken words!!
Comment by Xavier Koenig — 22 Jan 2015
I’m sure you have a point in there somewhere. Would you mind telling me what it is? Thanks
Antarctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly
It is reasonable to say that denialists have a bit of an obcession with the Global SIA anomaly, the sum of Arctic & Antarctic values published by The Cryosphere Today. “Look,”“they say “there is more ice, not less. How can the world be possibly warming?” The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed that as of 2015.0575 this Global SIA Anomaly has gone negative, just. You’d probably need a magnifying glass to see. It’s of no consequence.
But here’s a bit of fun.
The Cryosphere Today Antarctic SIA had an unusual 3-year period beginning in 2011 when it wobbled its way up and up, year after year. By mid-2014, the daily anomaly even topped the record daily anomaly set at the end of 2007 for all of seven days, a whole week, setting a new record at +2.11Mkm^2. That got the denialists cheering, no doubt.
Yet since then, the anomaly has begun to wobble its way back down at rather a rapid rate. This is not so obvious on The Cryosphere Today graphic as they plot the whole 36-year record. This home-made plot (usually 2 clicks to ‘download yuor attachment’) shows it a little clearer.
I’ve been keeping half an eye on the wobbles of Antarctic SIA since the Autumn. A big upward wobble at the end of the year has ended and now the anomaly is dropping like a stone.
The Antarctic SIA usually trends toward zero at this time of year with the tightest bunching at about the end of February, there being less ice about so net anomalies will tend to be small. But the drop towards the axis is exceptionally fast in 2015, although fo course it had further to go.
Now all this is, of course, idle speculation. The factors that drive the net anomaly of Antarctic SIA are far more complex that can be perused from a simple anomaly graph. The downward wobble may even now be coming to an end with a new positive record anomaly soon to arrive.
Yet, as denialists find this anomaly so very very important, to the point of it showing a fundamental flaw in AGW, allegedly, I find watching its progress, up or down, rather amusing.
And for the moment, it is down.
Eric Rignot interview below. Sooo… How screwed are we really?
Rignot says the biggest factor are the time scales. “There is no precedent in climate history for what we’re doing and even the current climate models are not keeping up with the rate of change. The message is not getting out and it’s not clicking with the public.”
How many decades do we have left before unmitigated misery set in? Just curious. Thanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANBHZfH4l6M#t=250
Dave Erickson: thank your for your informative comments and the inside look at what’s happening in California.
I also wish to respect the moderators’ rule that discussion of alternatives to fossil fueled electricity generation is off-topic for this site, but if I may, I would like to once again recommend the website CleanTechnica.com to anyone who is interested in current developments in renewable energy, efficiency, smart-grid, electricity storage and EV technologies, industries and markets.
They do have a comment facility so there is some degree of discussion there, mostly between renewable energy and EV enthusiasts. But it’s really more of a newsfeed / aggregator site than a discussion site, and as such it is valuable for keeping informed about what’s happening in those fields today.
#126,
The effort in California is moving with the kind of speed that adhering to RCP3.0 might require. That puts it in the main stream of climate science in another way as well. In particular, the species extinction burden from climate change seems minimal for that pathway. I notice also that in the press, there are questionable attributions such as Andy Revkin’s recent projection of only one foot of sea level rise this century that can only be supported under an RCP3.0 scenario. Looking at what California is doing seems topical.
Half of the United States Senate has refused to formally acknowledge the existence of man-made climate change. Forty-nine Republicans voted against a measure noting “human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” The Senate did overwhelmingly approve a resolution acknowledging that climate change is not a hoax; just one person voted against it — Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker.
The Keystone vote should not distract us from Canada’s glorious energy innnovation opportunities !
HadCRUT has 2014 tied with 2010 as warmest year: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature
#123,
Chuck, when Dr. Shaviv gave his talk it sounded like he said anthropogenic warming explained 50% to two-thirds of 20th century warming but his powerpoint slide text said the opposite (50% to two-thirds explained by changes in solar activity). I actually think his work suggests the latter, that anthropogenic forcing is the smaller contributor to recent warming. Like I said, the published paper will reveal the details etc.
Minoru Iyo has written a book: “Already Extinct”. His main thesis is: We don’t understand the problem; we couldn’t do anything about it if we did; and we wouldn’t do anything about it if we could.
What a breath of fresh air! This simple statement comports with all the evidence and actions we see in operation today. The fossil states, led by the good old USA, are in a no-holds-barred competition for who can capture the greatest market share, even if it means decreased revenue. The price of gasoline has plummeted, and demand for e.g. SUVs has increased. We will rocket by 2 C, 3 C, 4 C et al on a straight trajectory to oblivion!
Jasper@132,
Hopelessness is not a very good survival strategy. You write this on the very day when the US and India are taking first steps toward meaningful mitigation. I would not be so quick to give up on the futures of your children. I’ll keep fighting for them even if you give up.
#132–If you really think so, what are you doing in front of a computer and not in a bar? And sober enough to write a coherent, correctly-spelled post?
And–again, if you really think so–would you mind keeping your opinions to yourself so we poor deluded fools who think something useful might still be done can protect our illusions?
As to the recent ‘plummet’ in the price of oil, may I point out that analysts are almost uniformly in agreement that that will not slow the progress of clean electrical generation, and most think it won’t even slow down the progress of electric vehicles in the marketplace.
Some of the reasons for the former conclusion are on display here:
http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=494
Jasper wrote: “Minoru Iyo has written … We don’t understand the problem; we couldn’t do anything about it if we did; and we wouldn’t do anything about it if we could.”
All three of those assertions are blatantly false with regard to anthropogenic global warming.
We understand the problem very well. There is plenty that we can do about it. And there are plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it.
Defeatism is the new denial.
SecularAnimist says:
26 Jan 2015 at 5:58 PM
So what would your response be to Eric Rignot in a one-on-one conversation? I assume you watched the video and don’t get me wrong, I completely respect your opinion on this. I’m just wanting to know what others who might be reticent about their views really think about our situation? Are we looking at billions of people not making it? I hate to even ask that question because there’s no way to phrase it without sounding “gloom and doom”. but I keep hearing it again and again from scientists who should know. I can even name them off. Does anyone really know how bad things could get or how soon?
I’m am in no way qualified to make any judgements about this. I don’t have a science background and I’m just trying to sort it all out for myself but I get the feeling that most folks are reluctant to say what they really think. Maybe I’m wrong. Feedback welcome. It seems to me that we should be taling more about the immediate or short term consequences of inaction. Thanks
Minoru Iyo is at least correct on that last point. We’ve known about anthropogenic global warming for quite some time and maybe we could do something about it but we’ve shown, essentially, no inclination towards doing anything about it. I very much doubt that the “plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it” amounts to more than an insignificant scratching at the edges of the problem. When I see evidence that humans, collectively, are actually serious about wanting to do something and then about doing something, then we may have a chance of mitigating the worst effects. But we already know that the WAIS is probably in irreversibe decline, so we’ve already condemned future generations to metres of sea level rise. Emissions keep rising, globally, despite some countries and areas pretending that their emissions are decreasing.
Fingers crossed for Paris, though. It’s a shame that we all had to wait for Paris once Obama et al decided in 2009 that that is when, finally, a meaningful agreement must be reached. But then we have to wait until 2021 to see if anything might come of it.
Our only hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change would appear to be the collapse of industrial civilisation as, I think , Tim Garrett suggested, many years ago. That’s not impossible but it may not happen soon enough.
University of Maine will divest from coal companies. http://news.mpbn.net/post/umaine-system-votes-divest-coal
#137-Mike,
” We’ve known about anthropogenic global warming for quite some time and maybe we could do something about it but we’ve shown, essentially, no inclination towards doing anything about it. I very much doubt that the “plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it” amounts to more than an insignificant scratching at the edges of the problem.”
Right on! By whatever approach(s) we choose, we need to reduce fossil fuel use rapidly. The usage and emission numbers reflect the opposite. Even more ominous, the trends are in the wrong direction. Governments are being elected in the fossil producing regions that are pro-fossil fuel production expansion. The most egregious example is our own government, especially the legislature. We are responsible for much of the increase in global oil/gasoline production over the past few years, with no sign of that abating. The new Congress will do what it can to remove whatever barriers remain to no-holds-barred production and emissions control. Thus, we have growth in production, consumption, and emissions, and growth in the fossil state electorates for expanding production and consumption. These “plenty of people already doing what needs to be done about it”, if they exist, are having little impact on the numbers that count.
President Obama has praised the divestment movement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/obama-and-the-divestment-_b_3520933.html But he plans to allow oil drilling off the East Coast: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/white-house-to-propose-allowing-oil-drilling-off-atlantic-coast.html
Seems like a contradiction.
Kevin#134,
” And–again, if you really think so–would you mind keeping your opinions to yourself so we poor deluded fools who think something useful might still be done can protect our illusions?”
You have every right to delude yourself for as long as you wish. You have no right to delude visitors to this site who are looking for facts and a realistic sober assessment of our collective future. Quoting electric vehicle and clean energy statistics without addressing the unabated growth in fossil fuel production and emissions, at present and for the foreseeable future, is misinformation.
JJ, as Blake pointed out, “You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.”
That’s the history of public health in a nutshell.
Re- Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 27 Jan 2015 @ 12:10 PM, ~#141
Jasper, you proclaim- “You have no right to delude visitors to this site who are looking for facts and a realistic sober assessment of our collective future.”
So you are the guy who wrote the book? Really?
Steve
Jasper Jaynes, this is just the comments section, not the RealClimate posts themselves. People have a right to express any opinion they want (provided it doesn’t advocate specific mitigation options) in the comments. Deluded or not.
Steve#143,
http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/10/china-waits-shale-gas-soaring-energy-demands-create-regional-tensions/
Articles like this reflect the reality of rapidly increasing energy demand in the world, and the energy sources that will supply that demand. China has shale gas reserves estimated to equal that of USA and Canada combined. They have not done a good job so far in exploiting this shale gas, but the motivation to do so is there. Given their projected increase in demand, as well as that of India and other high population countries, it appears that China, like the USA, will pursue the ‘all-of-the-above’ energy supply policy. So, we can increase ‘clean energy’ production, but if it parallels, or more realistically lags behind, myriad forms of fossil fuel production, we lose the emissions game. I don’t see how we get out of this, and believe Minoru Iyo was ‘dead-on’ in all three comments. Look at the latest Keeling Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#mediaviewer/File:The_Keeling_Curve.png); where is your basis for optimism?
Re- Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 28 Jan 2015 @ 6:54 AM, ~#145
Jasper, your assertion- “So, we can increase ‘clean energy’ production, but if it parallels, or more realistically lags behind, myriad forms of fossil fuel production, we lose the emissions game,” is what could happen. No one can predict the future, so instead of bashing folks who can see a way for clean energy to completely displace fossil energy, why don’t you pitch in to help. Oh dear, the sky is falling is not a good strategy.
Steve
> where is your basis for optimism?
Stein’s Law applies.
Good points, JJ. And of course we are continuing to spew ever higher amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere every year: are we up to 38 billion tons for 2014? I lose track.
As to Minoru Iyo’s points: 1) We certainly don’t fully understand everything we are doing to this set of very complex, interlocking systems we call home–we’re conducting an uncontrolled experiment, and there have been and will be many ‘surprises.’ But we _do_ know that we are adding carbon forcings at an unprecedented rate, and that previous rates of forcing orders of magnitude slower than today’s have lead to some of the largest mass extinction events in the history of complex life on the planet. And we do know that there are major ‘positive feedbacks’ in the wings or already kicking in that will further exacerbate our already-furious pace of forcing.
2) There are already lots of tipping points we have passed already, and others that seem unavoidable at this point, though we may be able to slow the speed at which they come about. Arctic sea ice on an death spiral. We just learned that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is doomed, though on a somewhat slower track. Many species have already gone extinct and many others are about to follow. Many coral reefs and other local habitats are already destroyed or in a death spiral. And don’t get me started on terrestrial and seabed permafrost thaw…
We _can_ slow and sometimes reverse deforestation and perhaps restore some other local ecosystems.
3) Would we if we could? Good question. Current power and ideological configurations mostly make it seem unlikely. But human society does occasionally change rapidly and fundamentally.
Jasper,
So the rest of us will continue working toward a solution while you quietly slit your wrists over in the corner?
Ray#133,
” You write this on the very day when the US and India are taking first steps toward meaningful mitigation.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/27/obamas_climate_irony_the_administration_just_announced_plans_to_open_the_atlantic_to_drilling/?source=newsletter
“The Obama administration Tuesday announced a proposal to ban drilling in certain environmentally sensitive parts of the Arctic — but in exchange, it will open up the Atlantic to gas and oil interests for the first time in decades.”
So, Ray, we have ‘taking first steps toward meaningful mitigation’ vs opening up 14 potential sites for offshore drilling. Which do you think will come to fruition, and which will be yet another illusory hope based on wishful thinking?