Continuing with the discussion on linear vs non-linear vs chaotic behaviors in climate models, it’s instructional to consider that even the most subtle non-linear models can wreak havoc on an analysis. And since the number of non-linear formulations is essentially infinite with respect to the number of linear possibilities, this topic of investigation has only begun to be explored. In other words, by punting the football and suggesting that the solutions are chaotic means that one has prematurely eliminated all the non-linear possibilities — and that are only challenging WRT linear models. IOW, they are deterministic and solvable, but with extreme difficulty.
So for solutions to Navier-Stokes, no one really knows what possibilities remain to be explored on a shallow-water 3-D rotating sphere. In my research, which hopefully will be accepted for this spring’s online EGU, I have discovered a N-S fluid dynamics solution that is analytically similar to Mach-Zehnder modulation. This is good news and bad news — it’s good news because M-Z modulation is a straightforward non-linear formlation, but it’s bad news because M-Z modulation is also used as a highly secure encryption scheme that is very difficult to decode without the nonlinear mapping key (see e.g. twisted light encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_vortex ) . This means that the model fitting process is computationally intensive because it is essentially a trial-and-error optimizing process using a gradient descent search, if that even gets close to the solution range.
Now consider the computational intensity of GCMs and multiplying that by the complexity of a non-linear fitting/decryption algorithm — one hasn’t even approached the scale of computational power needed to make headway.
Piotrsays
Re: Paul Pukite (3):
Gavin, here is an idea – maybe NASA could approach Bitcoin “ the biggest computing project that humanity has created” – and tell them to stop wasting huge computational resources for nothing, i.e., for solving useless (outside of gaining bitcoin) computational problems. Perhaps instead they could give Paul’s or your GCMs computationally expensive problems a hand, by making your problems something the miners have to solve to mine bitcoin?
This would go part way to atone for their useless GHG emissions sins (their mining using as much electricity as Belgium).
==
Piotr
===
Paul(3): “ bad news because M-Z modulation is also used as a highly secure encryption scheme that is very difficult to decode without the nonlinear mapping key. This means that the model fitting process is computationally intensive.[…] Now consider the computational intensity of GCMs and multiplying that by the complexity of a non-linear fitting/decryption algorithm.“
Guest(O.) @2,
The twenty-four second “animation at the end of the page” you reference (linked @1 and described there as providing “a more dramatic demonstration”) can be accessed directly here, it being an animation of the 2019 PAGES 2k Consortium’s 2,000 year global mean temperature reconstruction, the animation the work of Reddit user bgregory98.
Mind, elsewhere at RealClimate, the recent paper Bova et al (2021) ‘Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial’ has been referenced which proposes a significantly different evolution of Holocene global mean temperature and which may make the ‘hockey stick’ graph a little less ‘hockey stick’ shaped. I’m not sure how the Little Ice Age Revivalists will cope with Bova et al (2021).
Mr. Know It Allsays
1 – nigelj
“This is a rather interesting visual representation: “Visualized: Historical Trends in Global Monthly Surface Temperatures (1851-2020)””
Appears to be a direct correlation between temperature rise and the growth of urban heat islands where the sensors are located. Of course, prior to 1900s it’s all a big guess – thermometers were scarce around most of the globe prior to that. In fact, even today, the vast majority of the earth surface has no sensors other than satellites.
3 – PP
“Now consider the computational intensity of GCMs and multiplying that by the complexity of a non-linear fitting/decryption algorithm — one hasn’t even approached the scale of computational power needed to make headway.”
So you’re saying the results will have approximately the same accuracy as a blind guy throwing darts? :)
When you write the report, be sure to use lots of words like “probably”, “my best guess”, “possibly”, etc – you know, like most CC papers. Gives me some ammo. :)
The first monthly temperature record to report for 2021 is UAH which gives a TLT anomaly for January at +0.12ºC.
This reporting is a little odd as the accompanying graphic on the UAH ‘Latest Global Temps”page currently shows the December 2020 anomaly at +0.15ºC when the linked data table gives the December 2020 Global anomaly as +0.27ºC.
Assuming there is no mistake with the January reporting, 2021 kicks of in UAH TLT with the coolest January Global anomaly for 8 years. Mind, popping an OLS through this January UHA TLT data 2010-21 gives a trend of +0.19ºC/decade, a stronger result than the +0.14ºC/decade found for an OLS through 1979-2021.
“So you’re saying the results will have approximately the same accuracy as a blind guy throwing darts? “
You don’t think tidal tables are very accurate? So when you dock your yacht you can’t rely on the local tidal calendar to tell you that it won’t become land-locked? It seems you have little faith on what is possible.
And so yes the potential is there to create accurate forecasts, and all I am suggesting is that we may have to work smart instead of hard. The first step is to assume that it can be done, instead of falling back and resigning to only being able to do a stochastic forecast with a few months lead time to predict the next El Nino.
I predict it will either be accomplished by a human or by AI, it’s only a matter of when.
Mr. Know It Allsays
8 – BPL
“I wonder why they left off 1850?”
My guess is they probably didn’t have an entire year’s worth of data.
I wonder what happened in 1877 and 1878?!?! Glowbull warming?
Barton Paul Levenson @8,
You ask “why they left off 1850?”
Perhaps it’s because Neil Kaye isn’t that familiar with his nineteen-times table and thought 171 was a prime number.
Dansays
re: 7. “When you write the report, be sure to use lots of words like “probably”, “my best guess”, “possibly”, etc – you know, like most CC papers. Gives me some ammo. :)”
Flaunting your gross ignorance of science again. You still have no clue about the scientific method. Or statistics.
When you write the report, be sure to use lots of words like “probably”, “my best guess”, “possibly”, etc – you know, like most CC papers. Gives me some ammo. :)
That’s why you never hit your target. You’re firing blanks 8^|.
I see the HTTPS certificate for climate.nasa.gov expired on 2/3/2021 and the website is not accessible today. Am I paranoid to think that this is petard left over from the last administration?
Dansays
New climate adviser role named at NASA by President Biden: Gavin Schmidt! :-)
Because marine heatwaves are increasing in extent and intensity the last 40 years, with the last decade showing a fast spreading of them – influences atmospheric circulation (the height of the troposphere expands over them), maybe that way even favoring atmospheric blocking events, and cutting continents off from water vapor from the oceans, causing extreme droughts and continental temperatures (land/ocean pressure gradient is reversed). And if one cause is a declining mixed layer depth (i think the increasing stratification will also have something to say in regard with the non-linear emergence of marine heatwaves) we could speak here about a selfreinforcing feedback towards a warmer ocean surface. And all this could lead to oceans absorbing less heat, and this would be the point where the shit hits the fan! But now only the first connection is currently discussed – mixed layer depth is decreasing because of warming, which means that the upper mixed layer heats up faster (smaller volume, but same energy uptake).
Climate change is seriously underestimated, and our models don’t get it! Too many mechanisms are left out of the models, or can not be simulated well, in connection with the above-discussed topic we have a serious problem understanding what is coming at us…
If anybody is interested: vertical heat transport and vertical mixing in the oceans – look at the scientific discussion of what we know – bamm, just bammm!
All the best
Jan!
S.B. Ripmansays
From the NCAR & UCAR News, an article that raises many questions:
The lockdowns and reduced societal activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic affected emissions of pollutants in ways that slightly warmed the planet for several months last year, according to a new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The counterintuitive finding highlights the influence of airborne particles, or aerosols, that block incoming sunlight. When emissions of aerosols dropped last spring, more of the Sun’s warmth reached the planet, especially in heavily industrialized nations, such as the United States and Russia, that normally pump high amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere.
“There was a big decline in emissions from the most polluting industries, and that had immediate, short-term effects on temperatures,” said NCAR scientist Andrew Gettelman, the study’s lead author. “Pollution cools the planet, so it makes sense that pollution reductions would warm the planet.”
Temperatures over parts of Earth’s land surface last spring were about 0.2-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.1-0.3 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected with prevailing weather conditions, the study found. The effect was most pronounced in regions that normally are associated with substantial emissions of aerosols, with the warming reaching about 0.7 degrees F (0.37 C) over much of the United States and Russia.
DasKleineTeilchensays
“Appears to be a direct correlation between temperature rise and the growth of urban heat islands where the sensors are located”
are you f*ng kiddin, KIA?!? you REALLY coming up with this 20-year-old debunked BS?!?
Glen W Koehlersays
Congratulations to Gavin on his new post as NASA advisor on climate science to the Biden administration. Nice to have people with functioning brains returning to Washington DC after 4 years of evil lunacy.
That’s a bit harsh!!
I do agree with Dan @13 (that our pet troll Mr.KnowshItAll is ignorant of the scientific method and also statistics) and would myself go further because he surely cannot even spell his own pseudonym correctly.
But credit where credit is due.
Folk here at RealClimate will recall Cap’n Anthony Willard Watts, the bold explorer of Wattsupia, and his quest of many years to find that elusive archipelago, the fabulous Urban Heat Islands. And to date all his efforts have been in vain.
Yet it seems our very own pet troll, the moronic Mr KnowshItAll has obtained information as to the location of these Urban Heat Islands. He tells us up-thread @6 that they “appear to be … where the sensors are located.”
With such precise information, I am sure Cap’n Willard will soon be able to locate his elusive archipelago. So well done the pet troll!!!
Of course, as our moron troll and Cap’n Willard both actually reside on a different planet, this revelation will not impact understanding of our own climate.
Here on planet Earth an examination of our “Historical Trends in Global Monthly Surface Temperatures (1851-2020)” (derived from Earthly sensors known as ‘thermometers’) would show that three-quarters of the measured “temperature rise” occurred during the satellite era. Satellites, as our pet troll correctly suggests, are able to provide a measure of the average temperature of a region rather than a point temperature which could (if you were blazingly stupid enough to not account for it) result in you measuring “the growth of urban heat islands” and not regional “temperature rise.”
So backed up by satellite data which agree that all the measured “temperature rise” since 1979 on planet Earth has zip to do with any Urban Heat Islands, there is actually no chance of our global temperature records suffering from significant Urban Heat Island effects. (There is one small exception within the satellite records** but that is surely due to incompetents-at-work rather than Urban Heat Islands.)
(**That one exception concerns only the period 2000-15 in the Northern hemisphere when the UAH TLT record shows none of the warming found in surface-based records or other TLT records. As this UAH finding is not reflected within other TLT satellite records and that the idea of Urban Heat Islands suddenly materializing in 2000 to interfere with surface records for just this short period being obviously ridiculous, it can safely be assumed that the loss of warming trend in UAH TLT data for the NH 2000-15 is due to silly errors in calibration and nothing else.)
But of course far off on the rogue planetoid Wattsupia I’m sure the unworldly Cap’n Willard will appreciate this major new finding from our pet troll Mr.KnowshItAll.
are you f*ng kiddin, KIA?!? you REALLY coming up with this 20-year-old debunked BS?!?
Yup, Mr. Morally Corrupt Know Nothing isn’t here to learn about the science, but only to cast doubt by repeating the same old debunked denier talking points over and over again even though he has had more than enough opportunity to understand the robustness of the science. He’s shamelessly all about obstructing action caring only for his own self interests and priorities above the planets livability and future generations.
Chuck Hughessays
Mr. Know It All says:
3 Feb 2021 at 2:43 AM
8 – BPL
“I wonder why they left off 1850?”
My guess is they probably didn’t have an entire year’s worth of data.
I wonder what happened in 1877 and 1878?!?! Glowbull warming?
GAVIN – PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!
William B Jacksonsays
#21 Debunked BS is Mr. Know Nothings stock in trade!When it is not that it is stuff he totally misunderstands etc….
Quote:
““The appointment of Gavin Schmidt will help ensure that the Biden Administration has the crucial data to implement and track its plan toward the path to achieve net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, and a healthier, safer, more prosperous planet for our children,” said acting NASA Chief of Staff Bhavya Lal in a statement.”
Net-zero by 2050? Is that going to cut it? AOC says only 10 years left. Then there is the other problem as described by John Kerry:
Daily CO2 readings have been rolling along around 1 ppm over a year ago for a while now. I think current la nina influence, but I am not sure about that.
Feb 4th clocks in at 5 ppm over a year ago. Strange spike in noisy number.
Feb. 4, 2021 = 419.12 ppm
Feb. 4, 2020 = 413.9 ppm
co2.earth
Cheers
Mike
prlsays
KIA @11 I wonder what happened in 1877 and 1878?!?! Glowbull warming?
Try Googling “1877 el nino”.
mikesays
another day of weird CO2 daily readings:
Daily CO2
Feb. 5, 2021 = 419.45 ppm
Feb. 5, 2020 = 413.85 ppm
??
co2.earth
Mike
cloudpointsays
mike, Do think events in China exactly a year ago could have affected daily CO2 readings?
“Since the third week of January, 2020, massive public health interventions have been implemented across China to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 …. Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak, has been locked down since Jan 23, with 16 of its neighbouring cities in Hubei province included behind the cordon sanitaire shortly thereafter. The national Spring Festival holiday was extended by 8 days to Feb 7, and most schools have remained closed to date. As the Spring Festival holiday ended, stringent social distancing measures and mobility restrictions were coordinated and implemented by the central and local governments in many Chinese megacities (ie, the largest and wealthiest; figure 1), including Beijing (north of Wuhan), Guangzhou and Shenzhen (south), Shanghai and Hangzhou (east), and Chengdu (west).”
While rare, very high daily CO2 readings at MLO are not unprecedented.
The Schipps Inst do provide on their data page their daily data running back to the start in 1958. Taking the last 10,000 daily records (to avoid earlier big holes in the data), so about 30 years-worth, and relative to the preceding 30-day average, the largest daily positive deviation is 3.98ppm with 17 occurrences over 3ppm, 129 over 2ppm and 1,078 over 1ppm. The 4th Feb reading (+3.92ppm above the previous 30-day ave) appears in those totals but not the 5th Feb as the Scripps Keeling Curve page shows they are not returning a reading for the 5th.
Of course, the decision of what to accept as a daily reading may be what prevents even greater deviations from the ‘average’ appearing on-record and small changes in that ‘acceptance’ process would greatly impact on the frequency of such high crazy readings.
And we shouldn/t be so surprised if we do get a couple more days with crazy high readings. The 17 >3ppm above average readings have come in clumps with a clump of 3 back in 2019 & another 3 in 2016.
Remember our little flame war (getting flamed, not flaming) when I noted those Jan. jumps a couple years ago? Not only did that turn out to be meaningful, it’s become the norm, and then some.
What we have here, folks, is a system that is, in terms of chaotic and/or non-linear systems, well into the wobbles, IMO. We are in a La Nina period and getting daily readings of +6 ppm?! Between COVID and La Nina, we should see a smaller than normal increase this year, but numbers like the above make that look doubtful.
If we don’t have a year-to-year increase of less than 2.6ppm at peak, I don’t think anyone will any longer be able to make a logically valid argument that extremely rapid climate change is here because… where are those ppms coming from if not our emissions?
Killiansays
And, yes, I know of the particulates-related issue.
Killiansays
We’ve been hearing for years that these ice dams were going to be collapsing.
Welcome to reality. Sure, let’s take 30 years to *only* get to carbon neutral. What are a few hundred million deaths along the way, eh?
With the La Niña waggling the TLT satellite readings, the surface temperatures will be reacting far less to its cooling influence. And the first monthly temperature report for 2021 surface temperature, the Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis, gives the anomaly for January at +0.24ºC, slightly above the December 2020 anomaly of +0.23ºC which was itself the lowest monthly anomaly of 2020. (The 2020 monthly anomalies otherwise sat in the range +0.27ºC to +0.60ºC and the full 2020 year averaged +0.43ºC.)
January 2021 is the 6th warmest January in the ERA5 record.
creeping back down to what looks more like normal baseline for Feb 2021.
These “eruptions” – and this one was huge compared to others we have discussed – never last. They ae always mere hours, sometimes over some days, but they have become normal since the first time we discussed them a year or two ago, and seem to be happening over a broader period of time.
I think when we are sanguine about abrupt changes to CH4/CO2, we are playing a very dangerous game with poor risk parameters.
mikesays
at CP at 34: It’s not last year’s low numbers that produced the strange spike in yoy increase. The spike is caused by this year’s high numbers that lasted a couple of days, then have started to fall back toward what looks like our current baseline. So, now, I don’t think anything in China last year explains this year’s spike.
At MAR at 35: yes, that fits with what I have seen. These unusual spikes or pulses of CO2 do last several days. I think that tells us that this is not telemetry or anything like that. I think it means that suddenly, on rare occasions, there are large bursts of new CO2 into the atmosphere from somewhere on the planet. This seems like the kind of thing that might be tracked down and attributed, but I am not aware that the lookback tracking and attribution has been done in the past and I am not sure that anyone is looking at tracking and attribution in the current case.
It might just be natural variability (noise) in the global carbon cycle.
It’s not reassuring that I have not seen any of these spikes go in the opposite direction. Maybe I have missed that. Are you aware of any multi-day episodes where the CO2 ppm number suddenly dropped by 3 or more ppm?
Cheers
Mike
Killiansays
35 MA Rodger:
7 Feb 2021 at 4:05 AM
Once again, MA comes riding his steed to calm the waters and let us all know these extreme changes aren’t any big deal!
While rare, very high daily CO2 readings at MLO are not unprecedented.
The 17 >3ppm above average readings have come in clumps with a clump of 3 back in 2019 & another 3 in 2016.
Soooo…. 17 of them. At least 6 of the 17 in the last five years. Are this year’s in that 17, or do we need to add a couple ‘ a few more?
17/63 = 0.269 per year.
6/5 = 1.2 per year.
OR is it:
19/63 = 0.301 per year.
8/5 = 1.6 per year.
Yeah, no big deal. I wonder, MA, is there a difference in *when* these are occurring? The thing that struck me back in 2019 was that these were happening in Jan/Feb because I hadn’t remembered seeing that in previous years. Or have they always dominated in winter months and I just never noticed?
Killiansays
Oh, and MA, yes, Scripps routinely chops off the most (seemingly) aberrant readings. I’ve complained about this before as distorting the record as it is the extremes that indicate what’s coming in the future and have the greatest effects on ecosystems.
Folk here at RealClimate will recall Cap’n Anthony Willard Watts, the bold explorer of Wattsupia, and his quest of many years to find that elusive archipelago, the fabulous Urban Heat Islands. And to date all his efforts have been in vain.
LOL! Thanks for that. Die-hard AGW deniers are doubling down on the absurdity of their positions lately. IMHO, public scorn and ridicule are the most appropriate responses. Yours is expert 8^D!
mikesays
On MLO CO2 readings spike: I am guessing the Kilauea eruption is skewing numbers at Mauna Loa.
Yeah, and clearly the entire atmosphere has not seen a 1-day decrease of ~3 ppm. I’m reminded that the Scripps number is local, after all, and while CO2 is “well-mixed”, it’s not “perfectly mixed”–a fact that the lateHerr Ernst-Georg Beck inadequately appreciated, to the detriment of all concerned. He should have paid more attention to Callendar… even if Callendar’s methodology in selecting measurements of CO2 to arrive at a pre-Industrial baseline isn’t as clear as one would wish. Callendar was a practical meteorologist, albeit of amateur status. Beck wasn’t.
This is a rather interesting visual representation: “Visualized: Historical Trends in Global Monthly Surface Temperatures (1851-2020)”
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-temperature-graph-1851-2020/
@nigelj: interesting visualization with the colors; but the animation at the end of the page is really impressing.
Continuing with the discussion on linear vs non-linear vs chaotic behaviors in climate models, it’s instructional to consider that even the most subtle non-linear models can wreak havoc on an analysis. And since the number of non-linear formulations is essentially infinite with respect to the number of linear possibilities, this topic of investigation has only begun to be explored. In other words, by punting the football and suggesting that the solutions are chaotic means that one has prematurely eliminated all the non-linear possibilities — and that are only challenging WRT linear models. IOW, they are deterministic and solvable, but with extreme difficulty.
So for solutions to Navier-Stokes, no one really knows what possibilities remain to be explored on a shallow-water 3-D rotating sphere. In my research, which hopefully will be accepted for this spring’s online EGU, I have discovered a N-S fluid dynamics solution that is analytically similar to Mach-Zehnder modulation. This is good news and bad news — it’s good news because M-Z modulation is a straightforward non-linear formlation, but it’s bad news because M-Z modulation is also used as a highly secure encryption scheme that is very difficult to decode without the nonlinear mapping key (see e.g. twisted light encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_vortex ) . This means that the model fitting process is computationally intensive because it is essentially a trial-and-error optimizing process using a gradient descent search, if that even gets close to the solution range.
Now consider the computational intensity of GCMs and multiplying that by the complexity of a non-linear fitting/decryption algorithm — one hasn’t even approached the scale of computational power needed to make headway.
Re: Paul Pukite (3):
Gavin, here is an idea – maybe NASA could approach Bitcoin “ the biggest computing project that humanity has created” – and tell them to stop wasting huge computational resources for nothing, i.e., for solving useless (outside of gaining bitcoin) computational problems. Perhaps instead they could give Paul’s or your GCMs computationally expensive problems a hand, by making your problems something the miners have to solve to mine bitcoin?
This would go part way to atone for their useless GHG emissions sins (their mining using as much electricity as Belgium).
==
Piotr
===
Paul(3): “ bad news because M-Z modulation is also used as a highly secure encryption scheme that is very difficult to decode without the nonlinear mapping key. This means that the model fitting process is computationally intensive.[…] Now consider the computational intensity of GCMs and multiplying that by the complexity of a non-linear fitting/decryption algorithm.“
Guest(O.) @2,
The twenty-four second “animation at the end of the page” you reference (linked @1 and described there as providing “a more dramatic demonstration”) can be accessed directly here, it being an animation of the 2019 PAGES 2k Consortium’s 2,000 year global mean temperature reconstruction, the animation the work of Reddit user bgregory98.
Mind, elsewhere at RealClimate, the recent paper Bova et al (2021) ‘Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial’ has been referenced which proposes a significantly different evolution of Holocene global mean temperature and which may make the ‘hockey stick’ graph a little less ‘hockey stick’ shaped. I’m not sure how the Little Ice Age Revivalists will cope with Bova et al (2021).
1 – nigelj
“This is a rather interesting visual representation: “Visualized: Historical Trends in Global Monthly Surface Temperatures (1851-2020)””
Appears to be a direct correlation between temperature rise and the growth of urban heat islands where the sensors are located. Of course, prior to 1900s it’s all a big guess – thermometers were scarce around most of the globe prior to that. In fact, even today, the vast majority of the earth surface has no sensors other than satellites.
In other news, SNOWMAGEDDON!
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/major-nor-easter-affecting-northeast-possible-historic-snow-nyc-n1256318
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6227972213001#sp=show-clips
Be safe my fellow space travelers!
3 – PP
“Now consider the computational intensity of GCMs and multiplying that by the complexity of a non-linear fitting/decryption algorithm — one hasn’t even approached the scale of computational power needed to make headway.”
So you’re saying the results will have approximately the same accuracy as a blind guy throwing darts? :)
When you write the report, be sure to use lots of words like “probably”, “my best guess”, “possibly”, etc – you know, like most CC papers. Gives me some ammo. :)
I wonder why they left off 1850?
The first monthly temperature record to report for 2021 is UAH which gives a TLT anomaly for January at +0.12ºC.
This reporting is a little odd as the accompanying graphic on the UAH ‘Latest Global Temps”page currently shows the December 2020 anomaly at +0.15ºC when the linked data table gives the December 2020 Global anomaly as +0.27ºC.
Assuming there is no mistake with the January reporting, 2021 kicks of in UAH TLT with the coolest January Global anomaly for 8 years. Mind, popping an OLS through this January UHA TLT data 2010-21 gives a trend of +0.19ºC/decade, a stronger result than the +0.14ºC/decade found for an OLS through 1979-2021.
UAH TLT January anomalies over the last decade.
2010 … … … +0.50ºC
2011 … … … -0.06ºC
2012 … … … -0.20ºC
2013 … … … +0.45ºC
2014 … … … +0.20ºC
2015 … … … +0.31ºC
2016 … … … +0.56ºC
2017 … … … +0.40ºC
2018 … … … +0.29ºC
2019 … … … +0.38ºC
2020 … … … +0.56ºC
2021 … … … +0.12ºC
Mr. KIA says
You don’t think tidal tables are very accurate? So when you dock your yacht you can’t rely on the local tidal calendar to tell you that it won’t become land-locked? It seems you have little faith on what is possible.
And so yes the potential is there to create accurate forecasts, and all I am suggesting is that we may have to work smart instead of hard. The first step is to assume that it can be done, instead of falling back and resigning to only being able to do a stochastic forecast with a few months lead time to predict the next El Nino.
I predict it will either be accomplished by a human or by AI, it’s only a matter of when.
8 – BPL
“I wonder why they left off 1850?”
My guess is they probably didn’t have an entire year’s worth of data.
I wonder what happened in 1877 and 1878?!?! Glowbull warming?
Barton Paul Levenson @8,
You ask “why they left off 1850?”
Perhaps it’s because Neil Kaye isn’t that familiar with his nineteen-times table and thought 171 was a prime number.
re: 7. “When you write the report, be sure to use lots of words like “probably”, “my best guess”, “possibly”, etc – you know, like most CC papers. Gives me some ammo. :)”
Flaunting your gross ignorance of science again. You still have no clue about the scientific method. Or statistics.
Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
That’s why you never hit your target. You’re firing blanks 8^|.
Congrats!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/03/energy-202-biden-creates-new-climate-adviser-role-nasa/
Great news regarding the use of science and scientific integrity in US government policy decisions, especially at the Environmental Protection Agency:
https://earther.gizmodo.com/how-to-ensure-the-federal-government-doesnt-try-to-muzz-1846181505?utm_content=153174986&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-332593866775047
I see the HTTPS certificate for climate.nasa.gov expired on 2/3/2021 and the website is not accessible today. Am I paranoid to think that this is petard left over from the last administration?
New climate adviser role named at NASA by President Biden: Gavin Schmidt! :-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/03/energy-202-biden-creates-new-climate-adviser-role-nasa/
One of the most important findings of our time:
Are Long-Term Changes in Mixed Layer Depth Influencing North Pacific Marine Heatwaves?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/102/1/BAMS-D-20-0144.1.xml?tab_body=pdf
Because marine heatwaves are increasing in extent and intensity the last 40 years, with the last decade showing a fast spreading of them – influences atmospheric circulation (the height of the troposphere expands over them), maybe that way even favoring atmospheric blocking events, and cutting continents off from water vapor from the oceans, causing extreme droughts and continental temperatures (land/ocean pressure gradient is reversed). And if one cause is a declining mixed layer depth (i think the increasing stratification will also have something to say in regard with the non-linear emergence of marine heatwaves) we could speak here about a selfreinforcing feedback towards a warmer ocean surface. And all this could lead to oceans absorbing less heat, and this would be the point where the shit hits the fan! But now only the first connection is currently discussed – mixed layer depth is decreasing because of warming, which means that the upper mixed layer heats up faster (smaller volume, but same energy uptake).
Climate change is seriously underestimated, and our models don’t get it! Too many mechanisms are left out of the models, or can not be simulated well, in connection with the above-discussed topic we have a serious problem understanding what is coming at us…
If anybody is interested: vertical heat transport and vertical mixing in the oceans – look at the scientific discussion of what we know – bamm, just bammm!
All the best
Jan!
From the NCAR & UCAR News, an article that raises many questions:
The lockdowns and reduced societal activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic affected emissions of pollutants in ways that slightly warmed the planet for several months last year, according to a new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The counterintuitive finding highlights the influence of airborne particles, or aerosols, that block incoming sunlight. When emissions of aerosols dropped last spring, more of the Sun’s warmth reached the planet, especially in heavily industrialized nations, such as the United States and Russia, that normally pump high amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere.
“There was a big decline in emissions from the most polluting industries, and that had immediate, short-term effects on temperatures,” said NCAR scientist Andrew Gettelman, the study’s lead author. “Pollution cools the planet, so it makes sense that pollution reductions would warm the planet.”
Temperatures over parts of Earth’s land surface last spring were about 0.2-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.1-0.3 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected with prevailing weather conditions, the study found. The effect was most pronounced in regions that normally are associated with substantial emissions of aerosols, with the warming reaching about 0.7 degrees F (0.37 C) over much of the United States and Russia.
“Appears to be a direct correlation between temperature rise and the growth of urban heat islands where the sensors are located”
are you f*ng kiddin, KIA?!? you REALLY coming up with this 20-year-old debunked BS?!?
Congratulations to Gavin on his new post as NASA advisor on climate science to the Biden administration. Nice to have people with functioning brains returning to Washington DC after 4 years of evil lunacy.
DasKleineTeilchen @21,
That’s a bit harsh!!
I do agree with Dan @13 (that our pet troll Mr.KnowshItAll is ignorant of the scientific method and also statistics) and would myself go further because he surely cannot even spell his own pseudonym correctly.
But credit where credit is due.
Folk here at RealClimate will recall Cap’n Anthony Willard Watts, the bold explorer of Wattsupia, and his quest of many years to find that elusive archipelago, the fabulous Urban Heat Islands. And to date all his efforts have been in vain.
Yet it seems our very own pet troll, the moronic Mr KnowshItAll has obtained information as to the location of these Urban Heat Islands. He tells us up-thread @6 that they “appear to be … where the sensors are located.”
With such precise information, I am sure Cap’n Willard will soon be able to locate his elusive archipelago. So well done the pet troll!!!
Of course, as our moron troll and Cap’n Willard both actually reside on a different planet, this revelation will not impact understanding of our own climate.
Here on planet Earth an examination of our “Historical Trends in Global Monthly Surface Temperatures (1851-2020)” (derived from Earthly sensors known as ‘thermometers’) would show that three-quarters of the measured “temperature rise” occurred during the satellite era. Satellites, as our pet troll correctly suggests, are able to provide a measure of the average temperature of a region rather than a point temperature which could (if you were blazingly stupid enough to not account for it) result in you measuring “the growth of urban heat islands” and not regional “temperature rise.”
So backed up by satellite data which agree that all the measured “temperature rise” since 1979 on planet Earth has zip to do with any Urban Heat Islands, there is actually no chance of our global temperature records suffering from significant Urban Heat Island effects. (There is one small exception within the satellite records** but that is surely due to incompetents-at-work rather than Urban Heat Islands.)
(**That one exception concerns only the period 2000-15 in the Northern hemisphere when the UAH TLT record shows none of the warming found in surface-based records or other TLT records. As this UAH finding is not reflected within other TLT satellite records and that the idea of Urban Heat Islands suddenly materializing in 2000 to interfere with surface records for just this short period being obviously ridiculous, it can safely be assumed that the loss of warming trend in UAH TLT data for the NH 2000-15 is due to silly errors in calibration and nothing else.)
But of course far off on the rogue planetoid Wattsupia I’m sure the unworldly Cap’n Willard will appreciate this major new finding from our pet troll Mr.KnowshItAll.
All right, Dr. Schmidt! Way to go!
DasKleine Teilchen @21
Yup, Mr. Morally Corrupt Know Nothing isn’t here to learn about the science, but only to cast doubt by repeating the same old debunked denier talking points over and over again even though he has had more than enough opportunity to understand the robustness of the science. He’s shamelessly all about obstructing action caring only for his own self interests and priorities above the planets livability and future generations.
Mr. Know It All says:
3 Feb 2021 at 2:43 AM
8 – BPL
“I wonder why they left off 1850?”
My guess is they probably didn’t have an entire year’s worth of data.
I wonder what happened in 1877 and 1878?!?! Glowbull warming?
GAVIN – PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!
#21 Debunked BS is Mr. Know Nothings stock in trade!When it is not that it is stuff he totally misunderstands etc….
Delighted to hear of your appointment, Gavin!
Congratulations on the new job Gavin!
18 – Dan
Could not read the WAPO article about Gavin’s new job since I’m not a subscriber. Here’s one that you can read without being a subscriber:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-names-its-first-climate-advisor/#:~:text=NASA%20announced%20yesterday%20that%20Gavin,policy%20throughout%20the%20federal%20government.
Quote:
““The appointment of Gavin Schmidt will help ensure that the Biden Administration has the crucial data to implement and track its plan toward the path to achieve net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, and a healthier, safer, more prosperous planet for our children,” said acting NASA Chief of Staff Bhavya Lal in a statement.”
Net-zero by 2050? Is that going to cut it? AOC says only 10 years left. Then there is the other problem as described by John Kerry:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions-wont-make-difference-in-climate-change/
COVID shutdowns and reduced air pollution resulted in increased warming in 2020:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2020GL091805
Daily CO2 readings have been rolling along around 1 ppm over a year ago for a while now. I think current la nina influence, but I am not sure about that.
Feb 4th clocks in at 5 ppm over a year ago. Strange spike in noisy number.
Feb. 4, 2021 = 419.12 ppm
Feb. 4, 2020 = 413.9 ppm
co2.earth
Cheers
Mike
KIA @11 I wonder what happened in 1877 and 1878?!?! Glowbull warming?
Try Googling “1877 el nino”.
another day of weird CO2 daily readings:
Daily CO2
Feb. 5, 2021 = 419.45 ppm
Feb. 5, 2020 = 413.85 ppm
??
co2.earth
Mike
mike, Do think events in China exactly a year ago could have affected daily CO2 readings?
“Since the third week of January, 2020, massive public health interventions have been implemented across China to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 …. Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak, has been locked down since Jan 23, with 16 of its neighbouring cities in Hubei province included behind the cordon sanitaire shortly thereafter. The national Spring Festival holiday was extended by 8 days to Feb 7, and most schools have remained closed to date. As the Spring Festival holiday ended, stringent social distancing measures and mobility restrictions were coordinated and implemented by the central and local governments in many Chinese megacities (ie, the largest and wealthiest; figure 1), including Beijing (north of Wuhan), Guangzhou and Shenzhen (south), Shanghai and Hangzhou (east), and Chengdu (west).”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30746-7/fulltext
Mike @33,
While rare, very high daily CO2 readings at MLO are not unprecedented.
The Schipps Inst do provide on their data page their daily data running back to the start in 1958. Taking the last 10,000 daily records (to avoid earlier big holes in the data), so about 30 years-worth, and relative to the preceding 30-day average, the largest daily positive deviation is 3.98ppm with 17 occurrences over 3ppm, 129 over 2ppm and 1,078 over 1ppm. The 4th Feb reading (+3.92ppm above the previous 30-day ave) appears in those totals but not the 5th Feb as the Scripps Keeling Curve page shows they are not returning a reading for the 5th.
Of course, the decision of what to accept as a daily reading may be what prevents even greater deviations from the ‘average’ appearing on-record and small changes in that ‘acceptance’ process would greatly impact on the frequency of such high crazy readings.
And we shouldn/t be so surprised if we do get a couple more days with crazy high readings. The 17 >3ppm above average readings have come in clumps with a clump of 3 back in 2019 & another 3 in 2016.
It melts, and it breaks:
Himalayan glacier bursts in India
CO2 starting to drop back to normal range:
Daily CO2
Feb. 6, 2021 = 417.83 ppm
Feb. 6, 2020 = 414.4 ppm
Mike
33 mike says:
6 Feb 2021 at 6:14 PM
another day of weird CO2 daily readings:
Daily CO2
Feb. 5, 2021 = 419.45 ppm
Feb. 5, 2020 = 413.85 ppm
Remember our little flame war (getting flamed, not flaming) when I noted those Jan. jumps a couple years ago? Not only did that turn out to be meaningful, it’s become the norm, and then some.
What we have here, folks, is a system that is, in terms of chaotic and/or non-linear systems, well into the wobbles, IMO. We are in a La Nina period and getting daily readings of +6 ppm?! Between COVID and La Nina, we should see a smaller than normal increase this year, but numbers like the above make that look doubtful.
If we don’t have a year-to-year increase of less than 2.6ppm at peak, I don’t think anyone will any longer be able to make a logically valid argument that extremely rapid climate change is here because… where are those ppms coming from if not our emissions?
And, yes, I know of the particulates-related issue.
We’ve been hearing for years that these ice dams were going to be collapsing.
Welcome to reality. Sure, let’s take 30 years to *only* get to carbon neutral. What are a few hundred million deaths along the way, eh?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/number-missing-feared-dead-indias-124851801.html
Daily CO2
Feb. 7, 2021 = 416.48 ppm
Feb. 7, 2020 = 414.11 ppm
creeping back down to what looks more like normal baseline for Feb 2021.
Cheers
Mike
With the La Niña waggling the TLT satellite readings, the surface temperatures will be reacting far less to its cooling influence. And the first monthly temperature report for 2021 surface temperature, the Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis, gives the anomaly for January at +0.24ºC, slightly above the December 2020 anomaly of +0.23ºC which was itself the lowest monthly anomaly of 2020. (The 2020 monthly anomalies otherwise sat in the range +0.27ºC to +0.60ºC and the full 2020 year averaged +0.43ºC.)
January 2021 is the 6th warmest January in the ERA5 record.
ERA5 warmest January anomalies run:-
2020 … … … +0.58ºC
2016 … … … +0.55ºC
2017 … … … +0.40ºC
2007 … … … +0.36ºC
2019 … … … +0.28ºC
2021 … … … +0.24ºC
2018 … … … +0.24ºC
2010 … … … +0.19ºC
2015 … … … +0.19ºC
2005 … … … +0.15ºC
36 – Guest O.
“It melts, and it breaks:”
That’s what glaciers do. They are a hazard around the volcanos here in the PNW – flows can be large:
https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/mount-rainier/volcanic-hazards-mount-rainier
Lahars:
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/Emergency/PlansOEM/SHIVA/2014-04-23_VolcanoHazards.pdf
41 mike:
8 Feb 2021 at 8:53 PM
Daily CO2
Feb. 7, 2021 = 416.48 ppm
Feb. 7, 2020 = 414.11 ppm
creeping back down to what looks more like normal baseline for Feb 2021.
These “eruptions” – and this one was huge compared to others we have discussed – never last. They ae always mere hours, sometimes over some days, but they have become normal since the first time we discussed them a year or two ago, and seem to be happening over a broader period of time.
I think when we are sanguine about abrupt changes to CH4/CO2, we are playing a very dangerous game with poor risk parameters.
at CP at 34: It’s not last year’s low numbers that produced the strange spike in yoy increase. The spike is caused by this year’s high numbers that lasted a couple of days, then have started to fall back toward what looks like our current baseline. So, now, I don’t think anything in China last year explains this year’s spike.
At MAR at 35: yes, that fits with what I have seen. These unusual spikes or pulses of CO2 do last several days. I think that tells us that this is not telemetry or anything like that. I think it means that suddenly, on rare occasions, there are large bursts of new CO2 into the atmosphere from somewhere on the planet. This seems like the kind of thing that might be tracked down and attributed, but I am not aware that the lookback tracking and attribution has been done in the past and I am not sure that anyone is looking at tracking and attribution in the current case.
It might just be natural variability (noise) in the global carbon cycle.
It’s not reassuring that I have not seen any of these spikes go in the opposite direction. Maybe I have missed that. Are you aware of any multi-day episodes where the CO2 ppm number suddenly dropped by 3 or more ppm?
Cheers
Mike
35 MA Rodger:
7 Feb 2021 at 4:05 AM
Once again, MA comes riding his steed to calm the waters and let us all know these extreme changes aren’t any big deal!
While rare, very high daily CO2 readings at MLO are not unprecedented.
The 17 >3ppm above average readings have come in clumps with a clump of 3 back in 2019 & another 3 in 2016.
Soooo…. 17 of them. At least 6 of the 17 in the last five years. Are this year’s in that 17, or do we need to add a couple ‘ a few more?
17/63 = 0.269 per year.
6/5 = 1.2 per year.
OR is it:
19/63 = 0.301 per year.
8/5 = 1.6 per year.
Yeah, no big deal. I wonder, MA, is there a difference in *when* these are occurring? The thing that struck me back in 2019 was that these were happening in Jan/Feb because I hadn’t remembered seeing that in previous years. Or have they always dominated in winter months and I just never noticed?
Oh, and MA, yes, Scripps routinely chops off the most (seemingly) aberrant readings. I’ve complained about this before as distorting the record as it is the extremes that indicate what’s coming in the future and have the greatest effects on ecosystems.
MA Rodger:
LOL! Thanks for that. Die-hard AGW deniers are doubling down on the absurdity of their positions lately. IMHO, public scorn and ridicule are the most appropriate responses. Yours is expert 8^D!
On MLO CO2 readings spike: I am guessing the Kilauea eruption is skewing numbers at Mauna Loa.
Mike
#41, mike–
Yeah, and clearly the entire atmosphere has not seen a 1-day decrease of ~3 ppm. I’m reminded that the Scripps number is local, after all, and while CO2 is “well-mixed”, it’s not “perfectly mixed”–a fact that the late Herr Ernst-Georg Beck inadequately appreciated, to the detriment of all concerned. He should have paid more attention to Callendar… even if Callendar’s methodology in selecting measurements of CO2 to arrive at a pre-Industrial baseline isn’t as clear as one would wish. Callendar was a practical meteorologist, albeit of amateur status. Beck wasn’t.