Climate science from climate scientists...
1 Nov 2019 by group
This month’s open thread.
John Pollack says
11 Nov 2019 at 12:59 AM
Mike @43 I’ve been seeing a lot of these types of articles lately, and getting irritated. The headline announces something like “Nifty New Technology will capture lots of CO2 cheaply” with the implicit subtext that technology X can save us, and we might not even have to adjust our lifestyle. The headline is usually some editor’s take on original research that isn’t nearly as promising, as explained by MAR@47 in this case.
The big picture is that the laws of thermodynamics dictate that it will ALWAYS take more energy to get the carbon back where it came from than you got by burning it. Consequently, it will take lots of money, unless the energy supply happens to be free or negative cost. That’s not going to happen on a large enough scale to save us. Other problems typically develop when you start looking at the scale required to put enough gigatons of carbon back into the ground to reduce levels in the atmosphere. As you’ve pointed out, we’re still busy adding more, not reducing!
11 Nov 2019 at 3:50 AM
Susan, you are correct about paper for long-term storage.
However, for something ephemeral that was on the Internet, you can try the WayBack Machine to recover it. I Just used it to recover Kate’s (aka Dr Kaitlin Naughten) collection of climate quotes.
Ignorant Guy says
11 Nov 2019 at 6:09 AM
The animation mentioned by Susan Anderson is available from the Wayback Machine at:
Al Bundy says
11 Nov 2019 at 9:40 AM
The accounting issue arises because a sane structure is avoided on purpose. Carbon should be counted and charged to the consumer. A DUH thing, but for some reason I can’t fathom, most full-humans lie through their teeth and just happen to believe ridiculous concepts, but only until their pocket will be lined by espousing the truth.Makes me wonder if you all are worth saving. What do you think, Nemesis?
11 Nov 2019 at 9:52 AM
John Pollack (paraphrased) It will ALWAYS take more energy to get carbon back where it was.
AB: that’s only applicable if you store the carbon as crude oil. It is thermodynamically correct to pump oil, burn it, and then store the resulting CO2 in the now-depleted oil field.
Alan Lowey says
11 Nov 2019 at 11:36 AM
MA Rodger, the inverse cube law would give a SMALLER gravitational effect than the inverse square law.
11 Nov 2019 at 2:48 PM
Thanks to MAR for looking at the direct air capture piece from MIT. So, it appears that this technology can remove CO2 from air at a cost of $50 to $100 per ton. So, doesn’t that mean that a carbon tax in the same range could fund the direct air capture? This seems like a big deal or breakthrough to me.
Per JP’s concern: yes, of course, we should stop dumping CO2 in to the atmosphere. We have known that for decades and instead of stopping/reducing the dumping, we have increased the dumping. Now, every survival path forward depends to some extent on the magic bullet of carbon removal to help us avoid the worst outcomes.
My questions about this technology is on the cost, which MAR has addressed, and whether this tech can be produced and scaled up. I don’t have a sense that production at scale is impossible. I understand irritation about the various “news” stories that hype CO2 capture (or hairloss treatment, etc), but I don’t think MIT is doing a lot of releases about technology that are essentially scamful.
Oh, CO2? Yup, JP is right, we are still pumping it out at record levels:
As of Nov 10 2019: 410.07 ppm
As of Nov 10 2018: 407.13 ppm
No worries, not skyrockety, just steady in the wrong direction with no indication that it is slowing down.
MA Rodger says
12 Nov 2019 at 3:01 AM
John Pollack @51,
The energy released by burning carbon to create CO2 is 10GJ/t(CO2). The Carbon Capture technologies do not need to reverse this process to gather CO2 into containment. Thus the process described up-thread @43 & @47 is described using 1GJ/t(CO2). The link @43 tells us “other existing methods have energy consumption which vary between 1 to 10 gigajoules per ton.” But it is the whole process that should be considered, not just the capture of CO2. What do you do with all that CO2 after you’ve captured it?
There was very recently a piece at CarbonBrief comparing 10 ways to use CO2. The cost estimates for both Capture and Storage varied from $10/t(CO2) all the way up to $920/t(CO2). None of the ten ‘pathways’ were estimated to be shifting more than 5Gt(CO2)/yr (=1.4Gt(C)/yr), this a usefully large rate of draw-down. But this highest estimated rate was for BECCS – BioEnergy with CCS and it isn’t clear to me where such levels of storage will be found year-on-year.
There is, of course, a technology race in progress with CCS. Thus ‘claims’ need to be accepted with caution.
And do note this is mitigation talk so it properly should be on the Forced Responses thread.
Erik Lindeberg says
12 Nov 2019 at 4:36 AM
John Pollack (@51) wrote: “The big picture is that the laws of thermodynamics dictate that it will ALWAYS take more energy to get the carbon back where it came from than you got by burning it.”
There is absolutely nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that dictate this. The main reason is that we do not “get the carbon back”, but CO2 which is created after combustion of coal, oil or gas. CO2 has a much lower enthalpy than carbon (and oxygen). In a typical CCS processes (CO2 Capture and Storage) 10 to 20% of the produced energy is lost. These losses are acceptable considering that we live in a world where there is absolutely no shortage of fossil fuels (the resources are so large that we cannot possibly utilize them all with the ongoing methods without risking the global climate). CCS is a mature technology which is tested in industrial scale.
In the special CO2 capture posses referred to by Mike (@47) the 1 GJ per tonne CO2 corresponds to approximately 10 – 25% energy loss in a practical power conversion process depending on if the fossil fuel is gas oil or coal. In practice I think it is more, because I cannot see that the authors have included the energy for compression (only mentioned it) transport and underground storage. Their techno-economic analysis is not reported in the paper and to me the process is immature compared to existing CCS processes. It is an interesting process though, and it may not be fair to compare it to CCS process starting with much more concentrated CO2 streams. This process belong to a subgroup of methods usually call Direct Air Removal (DAR) which will be the last opportunity to produce atmospheric negative emission when all other responsibilities have been exhausted. Before that, the huge capacity of ordinary and cheaper CCS should be deployed in large scale. This will also require a full electrification of the transport sector.
Karl A. Anderson says
12 Nov 2019 at 10:07 AM
We didn’t hear you cpmplqining when Miss Thunberg sailed Trans-Atlantic last summer
How would we know if we did? What does “cpmplqining” sound like?
Kevin Donald McKinney says
13 Nov 2019 at 2:05 PM
“Pumped storage can’t scale.”
That’s been assumed in the past, yes. But there’s some recent developments on that:
We just got some massive news in the ongoing drive to switch to renewable energy: scientists have identified 530,000 sites worldwide suitable for pumped-hydro energy storage, capable of storing more than enough energy to power the entire planet.
14 Nov 2019 at 11:16 PM
Erik L: This will also require full electrification of transport
AB: the rest was wise but that is bull****. Batteries are heavy, use rare materials, and are expensive. Methanol is light and can be made cheaply using otherwise unusable renewable power.
As if batteries beat bio/synfuel in airplanes, where much of the energy goes into 9.8 meters per second squared.
15 Nov 2019 at 11:32 AM
GISTEMP have posted for October with a TLT anomaly of +1.04ºC, the second warmest anomaly of the year-to-date and a rise on September’s +0.92ºC anomaly. The year-to-date anomalies span from +0.86ºC down to +1.18ºC, averaging +0.97ºC. (I’m not too sure why the GISTEMP webpage map declares October’s anomaly as +1.06ºC rather than +1.04ºC. Maybe just to wind up more those good-old-boys in North Dakota who experienced an October anomaly below -4.0ºC.)
Globally, it is the second warmest October in GISTEMP record behind of 2015 (+1.09ºC) while ahead of 2018(+1.01ºC), 2017 (+0.90ºC), 2016 (+0.87ºC), 2014 (+0.80ºC) and 2012 (+0.79ºC).
It is the 11th highest anomaly on the all-month GISTEMP record.
With just two months to go to complete the year, 2019 sits quite firmly in 2nd place for the year-to-date. To drop to 3rd place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Nov-Dec to average less than a chilly +0.69ºC, something last seen in 2012. To gain 1st place above 2016 would require Nov-Dec to average a exceptionally steamy +1.24ºC. (The highest Nov-Dec average to-date was +1.11ºC in 2015.)
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.04ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.97ºC
2017 .. +0.93ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 2nd
2015 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 4th
2014 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 5th
2010 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.73ºC … … … 6th
2007 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 8th
2013 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 13th
16 Nov 2019 at 2:02 AM
Carbon emissions from forests significantly underestimated.
16 Nov 2019 at 8:02 AM
Just saw where NASA posted a 1.04C anomaly for the month of October. That’s the second highest value for the month of October after 2015 which was 1.09C. The June-August value was 0.93C which is the largest ever for those three months. The January-October is 0.97C which is the second highest for behind 2016 at 1.04C
16 Nov 2019 at 8:13 AM
KDM @ 61
“That’s been assumed in the past, yes. But there’s some recent developments on that:”
Great news! Thanks for the info.
Susan Anderson says
16 Nov 2019 at 10:54 PM
@Ignorant Guy, 11 Nov 2019 at 6:09 AM
Thank you! However, I can’t open it. What am I doing wrong?
17 Nov 2019 at 5:26 PM
Comments 61 – 67 dont appear on either of my computers.
17 Nov 2019 at 5:29 PM
Al Bundy, you are winning me over a bit on biofuels. Perhaps the ideal answer would be use of biofuels for air travel and batteries for cars.
18 Nov 2019 at 2:07 AM
this should work:
18 Nov 2019 at 3:44 AM
BEST have posted for October with an anomaly of +1.00ºC, the third warmest anomaly of the year-to-date and a rise on September’s +0.86ºC anomaly. The year-to-date anomalies span from +0.83ºC up to +1.13ºC, averaging +0.91ºC.
Globally, it is the second warmest October in BEST record behind of 2015 (+1.01ºC) while ahead of 2018(+0.91ºC), 2016 (+0.88ºC), 2017 (+0.79ºC), 2012 (+0.78ºC) and 2014 (+0.78ºC). It is the 12th highest anomaly on the all-month BEST record.
All of this is very similar to GISTEMP.
With just two months to go to complete the year, just like GISTEMP, 2019 sits firmly in 2nd place for the year-to-date. To drop to 3rd place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Nov-Dec to average less than a chilly +0.56ºC, something last seen in 2011. To gain 1st place above 2016 would require Nov-Dec to average a exceptionally steamy +1.26ºC. (The highest Nov-Dec average to-date was +1.02ºC in 2015.)
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.99ºC … … … +0.97ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.91ºC
2017 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.86ºC … … … 2nd
2015 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.83ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.79ºC … … … +0.79ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.71ºC … … … 5th
2014 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 6th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.64ºC … … … 8th
1998 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 12th
2002 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 13th
18 Nov 2019 at 5:40 AM
@admin: somethings off here; on page one it states “71 comments”, switch to next page its actualy “69 comments”; looks like the server on your side doesnt load the new page, cause it aint the cache of my browser. and tried it on 2 desktops and smartphone. same result.
18 Nov 2019 at 5:43 AM
thats weird; the moment Id submitted the last comment, its all here.
18 Nov 2019 at 11:11 AM
Susan Anderson @ 67
“I can’t open it. What am I doing wrong?”
When you get there, you have to pick a date. Pick an old date, before the link got bad.
18 Nov 2019 at 2:17 PM
And close on the heels of GISTEMP & BEST, NOAA have posted for October with an anomaly of +98ºC, the second warmest anomaly of the year-to-date (2nd in GISTEMP, 3rd in BEST) and a small rise on September’s +0.94ºC anomaly. The NOAA year-to-date anomalies span from +0.86ºC up to +1.09ºC, averaging +0.94ºC.
Globally, it is the second warmest October in the NOAA record (as per GISTEMP & BEST) behind of 2015 (+1.04ºC) while ahead of 2018(+0.92ºC), 2017 (+0.81ºC), 2016 (+0.79ºC), 2014 (+0.76ºC) and 2003 (+0.74ºC).
It is the 13th highest anomaly on the all-month NOAA record (11th for GISTEMP, 12th for BEST).
With just two months to go to complete the year, 2019 sits in 2nd place for the year-to-date but this is less firmly than in GISTEMP and BEST to retain 2nd place for the full callender year. To drop to 3rd place by end-of-year behind 2015 would require Nov-Dec to average less than +0.875ºC, something which has happened every year in the NOAA record bar 2015. To gain 1st place above 2016 would require Nov-Dec to average above +1.11ºC. (The highest Nov-Dec average to-date was +1.08ºC in 2015.)
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.03ºC … … … +0.99ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.94ºC
2017 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.91ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.90ºC … … … +0.93ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.73ºC … … … 6th
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 8th
2013 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 7th
2012 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.64ºC … … … 13th
18 Nov 2019 at 2:37 PM
Comments 70 – 74 dont appear.
18 Nov 2019 at 6:42 PM
Al Bundy in @62 did not agree in my statement on full electrification of the transport sector (@59).
Thank you, Al Bundy, I think my statement was not accurate enough and need some specifications:
1. Land transport: Small viechles, motor cycles, ATV, passenger cars pickup truck s will soon be both cheaper to produce and cheaper to run than their combustion engines alternative which will be outperformed even without subsidizing EV. Larger trucks and buses may take a little longer but within 20 year must land transport diesel engines are gone. Electrification of all trains is a walk in the park.
2. Sea transport: Coastal traffic and transportation will also soon outperform diesel ships. This may take a little longer than for land transport, because the ships are not replaced so fast (longer life-time). For international ship transport, hydrogen or biofuels may be needed to achieve a CO2-neutral transport.
3. Air transport: This is a sector which may have to limited in the future. Most business travel is totally unnecessary. In my own trade (science) meetings and conferences, speakers moving around between universities could easily be replaced by telephone or video conferences or other type of electronic exchange. This will also save time. Air flights shorter than 500 km will be soon be electric. Long-distance flights may be fueled by jet-fuel from bio-sources. I doubt bio-methanol will be the preferred fuel for jet engines though, due to that it is less compatible with aluminium than ethanol and jet-fuel (in this case bio-kerosene).
19 Nov 2019 at 5:21 PM
MA Roger 63, 71, 75
So yes, October 2019 was the second warmest month of October on record, behind October 2015 – during the strongest El Niño on record. Similarly, 2019 is going to be the second warmest year on record, behind 2016 – again during the strongest El Niño on record.
2019 is going to be the warmest non-El Niño year on record. I have averaged the GISTEMP V4 data for the months of January-October over the years 1880-1899 and compared that baseline to the January-October 2019 average.
The difference is 1.19C.
The present low estimate for the global warming rate is 0.2C per decade, so based on a simple extrapolation, we should reach 1.5C warming over 1880-1899 baseline by around 2035.
In April 2014, Michael E Mann published an article predicting that global warming would be reach 2C (relative to pre-industrial, which I take it for Mann would be around 1750) by around 2036.
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036
I am curious to know why climate scientists are still talking about carbon budgets for the 1.5C and 2C warming thresholds in the Paris Agreement. Would it not be better to provide realistic guidance to policymakers and indicate that both thresholds will inevitably be exceeded, and that there is no “carbon budget” to speak of?
Brian Dodge says
20 Nov 2019 at 6:32 AM
“Bangladesh has been forced to import planeloads of onions as the price of the cooking staple soared to record highs, an official said, with even the prime minister chopping the bulb from her menu.
The price of onions – a sensitive subject in south Asia where shortages can trigger widespread discontent with political ramifications – has climbed to eye-watering levels in Bangladesh since neighbouring India banned exports in late September after heavy monsoon rains reduced the crop.” from The Guardian
“The global land monsoon region, with substantial monsoon rainfall and hence freshwater resources, is home to nearly two-thirds of the world’s population. However, it is overwhelmed by extreme precipitation, which is more intense than that on the rest of the land…Based on a total of 5066 stations with at least 50 years of records, we found significant increases in the annual maximum daily precipitation and associations with global warming in regional monsoon domains, including the southern part of the South African monsoon region, the South Asian monsoon region (dominated by India)…”
“At the city’s busy Farmgate neighbourhood, hundreds of people queued for hours – some getting into scuffles – to buy the subsidised vegetable… Bangladesh’s largest opposition party has called for nationwide protests on Monday over the record prices, which they blame on the government.”
“When food systems fail, whether a failure of agricultural production, a supply chain failure that interferes with food processing or transport, or economic or financial disruption affecting demand, outbreaks of civil conflict and social unrest become more likely.”
20 Nov 2019 at 3:08 PM
Erik L: I doubt bio-methanol will be the preferred fuel for jet engines though,
AB: Hi! Batteries are golden when the battery to vehicle weight/cost ratio is small. This implies short trips, be it land, water, or air travel. For long trips, batteries are stupid.
Jets are stupid. The future of air transportation is props, with contra-rotating props being the most efficient but having noise issues. Note that jets CAN’T include solar assist during cruise because jets are too fast, which sucks because planes fly up where solar PV works wonderfully.
Yep, diesels suck. That in no way constrains internal combustion. I’ve filed a provisional patent on a 60+% efficient piston engine that spews essentially no NOX or UHC. I’m currently recruiting UMich students via their senior projects “class” so as to engineer said engine. Stay tuned…
20 Nov 2019 at 3:36 PM
Erik L: I doubt bio-methanol will be the preferred fuel for jet engines though, due to that it is less compatible with aluminium than ethanol and jet-fuel (in this case bio-kerosene).
AB: Sure. But a piston engine that segregates raw fuel from said engine’s aluminum structure doesn’t care about said lack of compatibility.
20 Nov 2019 at 9:11 PM
Andrew: I am curious to know why climate scientists are still talking about carbon budgets for the 1.5C and 2C warming thresholds in the Paris Agreement. Would it not be better to provide realistic guidance to policymakers and indicate that both thresholds will inevitably be exceeded, and that there is no “carbon budget” to speak of?
AB: Dunno. But my instinct is to agree with you: “Our children are effed but it is up to us how effed they are”.
20 Nov 2019 at 9:34 PM
AB: Note that jets CAN’T include solar assist during cruise because jets are too fast,
AB: “Can’t” is to me like a red flag to a bull, even if I said it. So I figured out how one could use solar assist during a jet’s cruise. I’m sure others have figured it out before me so this is me catching up as opposed to leading the pack.
21 Nov 2019 at 7:18 AM
I’m not sure why a Heatland jolly from back in September is still being brandished on that rogue planetoid Wattsupia. Their message is that the grown-ups refuse to ‘debate’ with them. (The grand list of swivel-eyed loons wanting such ‘debate’ (and empty-chairing certain grown-ups) comprised Patrick Michaels, David Legates, and Willie Soon.) Amongst other concepts, they were getting rather exercised by the “12 years left” statements but not because some folk rather over-egg the implications of such a time period. Their own take on it is quite bizarre.
The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees*, humans can adjust. We already have. People in Holland did. Holland is a low-lying country. Much of it is below sea-level. So many years ago, the Dutch built dikes to prevent flooding. Michaels says, “Are you telling me that the people in Miami are so dumb that they’re just going to sit there and drown?” “You acknowledge though the water is rising?” asks Stossel. Legates interjects, “Yes, the water has been rising for approximately 20,000 years.”
[* That does appear to be degrees celsiius.]
They ask why the grown-ups they invited to their jolly didn’t turn up, with jolly-mod John Stossel saying “I wish there were a real debate! Why won’t the other side debate?” “ The poor child evidently fails to grasp that the scientific process is a debate.
Mr. Know It All says
21 Nov 2019 at 10:25 PM
“Comments 61 – 67 dont appear on either of my computers.”
Now it says there are 84 comments, but only 78 are visible. Not a big deal, as they will eventually show up, but it is weird.
Don Condliffe says
22 Nov 2019 at 1:53 AM
The production gap report for 2019 published by UNEP (http://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Production-Gap-Report-2019.pdf) makes the point in detail that I have tried to make here, that planned global production of fossil fuels is on track to grow significantly. There is no evidence of any reduction of global production, no sign that the emissions reduction required to stay below 2 degrees C increase will occur after 2020. Quite the contrary, production of coal, oil and gas, and therefore emissions, are all programmed and subsidized and on track to keep increasing past 2040. Despite all the wonderful ideas and the many discussions of solutions, the reality is we are actually on the above Business-As-Usual track with no change in sight.
22 Nov 2019 at 6:33 AM
The European Central Bank President, Christine Lagarde, warned that “World trade is being reordered as new technologies disrupt conventional supply chains and workplace organization, and as potential new risks emerge from climate change”. Seems that most leaders are now recognizing the obvious.
Kevin McKinney says
22 Nov 2019 at 6:56 AM
It’s oranges and apples. Mann’s 2014 article said:
If the world keeps burning fossil fuels at the current rate, it will cross a threshold into environmental ruin by 2036.
So it is a projection based on BAU.
Carbon budget, on the other hand, is a total quantity, regardless of timeline. Obviously, if we were somehow to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow–or, better yet, today–we’d never hit the carbon budget number. Equally obviously, that would not be BAU.
James Charles says
23 Nov 2019 at 3:58 AM
Is this ‘a new one’?
” They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs.
I’ve asked in here more than once what happened to the hole in the ozone layer that would inevitably grow and grow and let all the heat out. Nobody will tell me.”
23 Nov 2019 at 4:51 AM
The numbers you present are not significantly different to those I find. There is one significant point which I feel you forget. The +1.5ºC limit will arrive “around 2035” only “if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate.”
This second bit of quote is from the 2014 OP (by one of our hosts) which you link to @78 ‘Danger Threshold by 2036’ which is pre-Paris and so is considering a ‘threashold’ of +2.0ºC but is applying this to Northern Hemesphere temperature. Note that NH temperature is sitting +0.4ºC above SH tmperature and warming at almost twice the rate. This is why a projection of global temperatures to a +1.5ºC limit gives the same timing as the 2014 OP graphic ‘False Hope’. (Note the ‘False Hope’ is in relation to the denialist blather that AGW had ‘paused’, a much-used argument back in 2014.) A very rough-&-ready attempt to plot the 2019 NH temperature onto that graphic puts it midway between the 2036 & 2046 projections.
You ask why climatology does not “indicate that both thresholds will inevitably be exceeded”, ie that AGW above +1.5ºC and the +2.0ºC cannot now be prevented. I would suggest that with deep cuts to global emissions and a rapid transition to net zero carbon and this followed by a period of net negative carbon will together prevent +1.5ºC warming. It is not clear to me if you consider such cuts to be impossible (which is an issue I do not address) or whether you consider such cuts to be too little-too late (which is contrary to what I present here).
Richard Creager says
23 Nov 2019 at 9:32 AM
This Thanksgiving I would like to state my deep gratitude to Dr Schmidt and colleagues, the authors, moderators, occasional contributors to the amazing resource which is RealClimate. You go far far above and beyond. Here is a small token of the gratitude due for knowledge gained, for providing THE go-to resource to point others toward, for your commitment to open discussion. And especially for the time this blog takes from your life that must often come at the end of already long days. Thank-You.
David B. Benson says
24 Nov 2019 at 2:45 AM
What Richard Creager stated in #91.
24 Nov 2019 at 5:27 AM
“The new study suggests otherwise. In the Pliocene — and especially the mid-Pliocene warm period, when atmospheric carbon dioxide was at about the level where it is now, 400 parts per million, but global temperatures were 1 or 2 degrees Celsius warmer than at present — the model not only collapses the entirety of West Antarctica (driving some 10 feet of global sea-level rise) but also shows the oceans eating substantially into key parts of East Antarctica. In particular, the multi-kilometer thick ice that currently fills the extremely deep Aurora and Wilkes basins of the eastern ice sheet retreats inland for hundreds of miles — which would have driven global seas to a much higher level than a West Antarctic collapse alone.”
‘Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released Monday.
A world that heats up by 2C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—long regarded as the temperature ceiling for a climate-safe planet—could see mass displacement due to rising seas, a drop in per capita income, regional shortages of food and fresh water, and the loss of animal and plant species at an accelerated speed.
Poor and emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will get hit hardest, according to the studies in the British Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions A.
“We are detecting large changes in climate impacts for a 2C world, and so should take steps to avoid this,” said lead editor Dann Mitchell, an assistant professor at the University of Bristol.
The 197-nation Paris climate treaty, inked in 2015, vows to halt warming at “well under” 2C compared to mid-19th century levels, and “pursue efforts” to cap the rise at 1.5C.’
24 Nov 2019 at 8:37 AM
You ask, “Is this a new one?”
Hard to be sure, but my guess is the gentleman you quote has always been an idiot, so no.
William Jackson says
24 Nov 2019 at 10:40 AM
#89 the hole on the ozone layer was never going to let the heat out the problem was that the layer cuts down on solar rays which are bad for skin health etc…cutting down on cfc’s has led to it shrinking. The other claim that a ice age was coming was a trial balloon that got no support from the scientific community as a whole and would be forgotten if it were not raised repeatedly to attack the same community that ignored it as of no value.
Philip Glynn says
25 Nov 2019 at 2:36 PM
There are many articles on news about the latest increases of CO2, NO2
and methane. Has there been any study as to whether these molecules when in combination in the atmosphere might cause effects that are greater or lesser than the sum of their parts?
25 Nov 2019 at 4:12 PM
And following GISTEMP, BEST & NOAA, HadCRUT have posted for October with an anomaly of +0.75ºC, the third warmest anomaly of the year-to-date (2nd in GISTEMP & NOAA, 3rd in BEST), a small rise on September’s +0.71ºC anomaly but not as emphatic as the rise in other surface records. The HadCRUT year-to-date anomalies span from +0.61ºC up to +0.87ºC, averaging +0.73ºC.
Globally, it is the second warmest October in the HadCRUT record (as per GISTEMP, BEST & NOAA) behind of 2015 (+0.84ºC) while ahead of 2018(+0.68ºC), 2014 (+0.64ºC), 2005 (+0.61ºC), 2003 (+0.61ºC) and 2016 (+0.60ºC).
It is the 16th highest anomaly on the all-month HadCRUT record (11th for GISTEMP, 12th for BEST, 13th for NOAA).
With just two months to go to complete the year, 2019 sits in 3rd place for the year-to-date in HadCRUT (2nd in GISTEMP, BEST & NOAA). For this to change in HadCRUT, the average for Nov-Dec would have to exceed +0.955ºC (the El-Niño-boosted autumn of 2015 managed +0.93ºC) or drop below +0.44ºC (not occurring since 2012).
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2015 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.73ºC
2017 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 4th
2014 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 5th
2010 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 6th
1998 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 13th
2007 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 14th
Mike Roberts says
25 Nov 2019 at 8:10 PM
I would suggest that with deep cuts to global emissions and a rapid transition to net zero carbon and this followed by a period of net negative carbon will together prevent +1.5ºC warming.
Such cuts cannot happen. Humans don’t behave like that, in the societies we have today. It’s pointless to hypothesise that some action could have such and such effect, if that action simply cannot happen in the real world. Humans have known about global warming, and its causes, for 30 years, and with that knowledge becoming clearer throughout that period. Humans, collectively, will not take meaningful action until forced to, by which time, it will be too late to prevent catastrophe (or said catastrophe might already be happening).
So although you don’t address whether its impossible, it’s clear to me that it is impossible.
26 Nov 2019 at 4:57 AM
I see some major flaws in this article. I would love to get some other opinions.
26 Nov 2019 at 4:09 PM
Richard Creager @91, well said.