RealClimate logo


Unforced Variations: Jun 2021

Filed under: — group @ 2 June 2021

This month’s open thread for climate science. Start of the meteorological summer, official hurricane season (outlook), the final stretches of the IPCC AR6 review process and a rare conjunction of Father’s Day and the summer solstice. Please stay on topic.

199 Responses to “Unforced Variations: Jun 2021”

  1. 51
    nigelj says:

    “California, ‘America’s garden,’ is drying out”

    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/california-americas-garden-is-drying-out/

  2. 52
    Michael sweet says:

    marodger at 48:

    Don’t hold back so much. Tell us what you really think of Mr Know Nothing.

    I feel the same way.

    In conversations with real people I find that few people are as stupid as KIA. 10 years ago lots of people were stupid. That gives me hope that real change will occur in the next five years.

  3. 53

    KIA 42: That does not correlate with CO2 warming theory. There is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere today than in previous years; quite a bit more than 2010. How can it be that 2010 was warmer than today with the current CO2 concentration? . . . What accounts for the failure of measured temperatures to correlate with CO2 warming theory?

    BPL: Are you going to take up Victor’s gross ignorance about what correlation means? Is there any pseudoscience you won’t embrace? How do you feel about the Bermuda Triangle? Do you think flying saucers are alien starships?

  4. 54
    MA Rodger says:

    The CRU e-mail hacking of 2009 (aka Climategate) is to be turned into entertainment in a BBC film called ‘The Trick’. There are webpages listing some of the cast (eg this one which calls the film a ‘thriller’ and lists a dozen of the cast) but the only named casting I can see is Phil Jones (to be played by Jason Watkins) and his wife. A transmission date is yet to be announced.

  5. 55
    Robert Ingersol says:

    42- KIA. At my location (42° North) the daily high on February 27 was warmer than the high on May 10. This does not correlate with the theory of seasons, and more broadly the Copernican model of the solar system. Unless you can explain this discrepancy, you need to embrace flat earth theory and go charging at that windmill for a while.

  6. 56

    #44-8–

    Yes, I can report from the green fields of Twitter that there is another outbreak of Global Warming Cessationism in full cry–arguably the first sizable one since 2014. There is certainly no “failure to correlate” with significant La Ninas! (Though there is a bit of lag in the system–this last La Nina is officially toast, while GWC appears to be peaking only now.)

  7. 57
    Thomas Fuller says:

    Mr. Rodger, I would prefer to wait for the musical.

  8. 58

    #54, MAR–

    Oh, boy, I’m looking forward to that!

    (Not!)

  9. 59
    Solar Jim says:

    Thanks MAR for the notice above (RE: The Trick). For more real-life political climate thriller stories we can also refer to Michael Mann’s new book The New Climate War (2021). It’s about the “political climate,” such as it is, aka corporatism.

  10. 60
    Russell says:

    The House of Representatives has beaten the BBC to the punch with a climate entertainment video of its own, starring Rep. Louie Gohmert , who’d like to make climate change and the nation’s planetariums impotent and obsolete by changing the Earth’s orbit.

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/06/kicking-solar-radiation-management-up.html

  11. 61
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Mr. KIA: “What accounts for the failure of measured temperatures to correlate with CO2 warming theory?”

    And Jesus fucking wept, you are stupid! I mean you’ve been on this site, for a fricking decade and you’ve learned nothing? The simple answer is that temperature data are noisy. That is why they say you need 30 years to get a signal out of that noise. Please crack a book…Oh, wait. You’re a Republican. OK, carry on.

  12. 62
    jgnfld says:

    Re. “That does not correlate with CO2 warming theory.”

    Just another great example of your completely inane and totally incorrect idea of “correlation”.

  13. 63
    Piotr says:

    MA Rodger (54) “The CRU e-mail hacking of 2009 (aka Climategate) is to be turned into entertainment in a BBC film called ‘The Trick’.

    Let’s see what they will do about the most important part – who have done/ordered the hack, and what they gained from it. Because that’s the part that was curiously missing from all the “Climategate” circus.

    Which also shows the dishonesty of calling it: “Climategate” – in Watergate
    everybody went after those who ordered and covered up the break-in,
    NOT going forever on what was in those Democrat files the Nixon burglars were after. And in Watergate – it was Nixon and his operatives who paid the price,
    not their victims ^*

    Follow the money – who would benefit most from the hack, timed to occur several weeks before the major Copenhagen conference, on which massive reduction in the use of fossil fuels were to be discussed. Whose economy, and therefore stability of power structure, and the resources to exert geopolitical international influence, would have collapsed if the world stopped buying their oil and gas?

    Canada? ;-)
    ======

    ^* see: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned

  14. 64
    Killian says:

    A 2017 report found that a third of the planet’s land is severely degraded and that fertile soil was being lost at the rate of 24bn tonnes a year. The UK’s environment secretary said in 2017 that the country was 30 to 40 years away from “the fundamental eradication of soil fertility” in places.

    But let’s listen to know-nothing incrementalists and half-ass the shift to regenerative agriculture.

  15. 65
    Killian says:

    Oops… wrong forum.

  16. 66
    Passerby says:

    anecdotal news report with excellent photo
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/10/lake-mead-reservoir-drought-low

    The Hoover dam reservoir of Lake Mead near Las Vegas, Nevada. Photograph: Bridget Bennet/Reuters

    Officials, who said the reservoir will be at its lowest since the 1930s when the dam was built, expect levels to get worse through another dry, hot summer. With no reprieve expected in the coming months, the human-made lake is currently at roughly 36% of its capacity.

    The Hoover dam’s energy capacity had already dropped by 25% by Tuesday, and Aaron added that levels will continue to decline through the autumn this year.

    The rapid decline has prompted plans for the first-ever water shortage declaration from the federal government, according to reports from the US Bureau of Reclamation released in April, which projected the record-breaking declines.

    Roughly 75% of the American west is currently mired in “severe” drought, according to the US Drought Monitor, but the region has been strained by drought conditions for decades. The climate crisis has amplified effects of the dryness, as rising temperatures obliterated the already sparse snowpack and baked even more moisture out of the landscape.

    The historic drought has caused the Colorado River system to decline to half its capacity, according to the US Department of Interior, which also reports that the basin has had the lowest inflows over a 16-year period in the 100 years records have been kept.

    Roughly one in 10 Americans depend on the Colorado River for some of their water and the basin also provides irrigation for more than 5.5m acres in the south-west. Twenty-two recognized tribes depend on the river as a vital economic and cultural resource.

    “The past 10 years of Colorado River runoff have been the driest in the river’s history, exacerbating a drought that spans more than two decades,” said Jeffrey Kightlinger, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of southern California in a statement responding to the expected federal declaration.

    “The conditions we’re seeing this year highlight the threat of climate change and the drying trend we’re seeing on the river,” he added. “We must continue to work collaboratively as we begin longer-term discussions on how to address the river’s supply imbalance.”

  17. 67
    Mr. Know It All says:

    51 – nigelj
    ““California, ‘America’s garden,’ is drying out””

    Don’t know about California in particular, but the Western US in general was very wet during the 1900s compared to hundreds of years before – according to tree rings, etc. The wet 1900s were unusual, but since Whites just arrived about that time, they thought the wet period was normal. It wasn’t. Now the west is trending back to it’s historically dry climate. It may cause problems:

    Source 1:
    https://lasvegassun.com/news/2006/may/28/colorado-river-drought-not-rare/

    Source 2: (you can apparently download a free PDF of the book)
    https://www.nap.edu/read/11857/chapter/5

    53 – BPL
    “How do you feel about the Bermuda Triangle?”

    I’m kind of enthusiastic about it, actually – how about you?

    https://www.h2ohswim.com/product/201-the-bermuda-triangle-top/

    :)
    :)
    :)

    45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53 – all you smarty pants

    Yes, local weather variability explains the anomalies in local temperature trends, but not for the average global temperature. The global average should rise steadily as CO2 increases per AGW theory, right? If not, what are the forcings external to the earth causing such global averages to fluctuate? Are there cold spots and hot spots in the space the earth travels through similar to those felt when swimming in a lake? Or something else? Or perhaps the forcings are within the earth – variable heat released from the core? Maybe too many Democrats blowing hot air?
    :)

    My guess is that the global average temperature measurements are just not that accurate due to a limited number of readings over a vast planet; yet we have scientists citing the temperatures to the nearest tenth, and even hundredth of a degree!!! A single measurement may be that accurate, but what, realistically, is the true accuracy of the global average?

  18. 68
    Killian says:

    This:

    fixing the “problem” in rainfall simulations “reduces the amount of warming predicted by the model, by about the same amount as the warming increase between CMIP5 and CMIP6”.

    Does not even approach this:

    says climate sensitivity is significantly lower than this

    thus proving me and Mike correct about your constantly attempting to constrain climate risk as middle-of-the-road, the dangerous logic of which might get us all dead.

    Seriously, go jibber-jabber where your words have no possibility of killing us all if they were taken seriously and applied to problem-solving.

  19. 69
    MA Rodger says:

    How should we interpret Roy Spencer’s reaction to Santer et al (2021) ‘Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations’?

    The reaction from Spencer appears to be more a response to the media coverage of Santer et al, or more likely the headlines used in such coverage – “Satellite Measurements of Troposphere Temperature may have Underestimated Global Warming” or the Daily Mail’s version “Satellites may have been underestimating global warming for the last 40 YEARS, scientists warn”. The first of these media articles does describe how it may be something other than Spencer’s temperature record that could be wrong (or perhaps “still wrong” is more accurate as in the past Spencer’s work has required quite a bit of correction by others). This first media article says:-

    “If climate model expectations of such relationships between tropical moisture and temperature are practical, the results reflect either an overvalue of the noted atmospheric moistening signal or a systematic low bias in satellite tropospheric temperature trends.”

    So under the assumption that the models “are practical”, it is either the satellite temperatures or water vapour values that are inaccurate.

    Spencer sets out his objections to all this on his blogsite insisting it can’t be his temperature work that is wrong as “The New Santer at al. Study Ignores Radiosonde Evidence Supporting Our UAH Satellite Temperatures”. He does also point out the radiosonde data for water vapour is potentially awry, this due to complications (“subtle changes in the vertical profile of water vapor during global warming can potentially cause biases in the TWV trends”). Further, he has been concerned about satellite data for Total Water Vapour for decades, apparently. And that all leads back to “improper assumptions” in the climate models. And besides “SST warming has been considerably less that the models predict, especially in the tropics”.

    So if nothing else, it appears Santer et al (2021) has prodded Spencer hard enough to get him off his arse and thinking sciency stuff. Perhaps he might write it all up and get it published which is what you should do with sciency stuff. But then perhaps he won’t.

  20. 70
    Guest(O.) says:

    Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI)
    https://cbeci.org/

    Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
    https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

  21. 71
    Mike says:

    on the cloud study from Carbon Brief, it appears we have competing studies that appear to show pretty different things. From Carbon Brief:

    Clouds could have a greater cooling effect on the planet than climate models currently suggest, according to new research.

    The paper, published in Nature Climate Change, (Mulmenstad et al) aims to correct a “long-standing” and “unaddressed” problem in climate modelling – namely, that existing models simulate too much rainfall from clouds and, therefore, underestimate their lifespan and cooling effect.

    The authors have updated an existing climate model with a more realistic simulation of rainfall from “warm” clouds – those that contain water only, rather than a combination of water and ice. They find that this update makes the “cloud-lifetime feedback” – a process in which warmer temperatures increase the lifespan of clouds – almost three times bigger.

    The authors note that the newest generation of global climate models – the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) – predicts faster future warming than its predecessors. This is largely because the new models simulate a smaller cooling effect from clouds.

    However, the lead author of the study tells Carbon Brief that fixing the “problem” in rainfall simulations “reduces the amount of warming predicted by the model, by about the same amount as the warming increase between CMIP5 and CMIP6”.

    So, this study kicks out the CMIP6 numbers or suggests reducing them to CMIP5. I am a little foggy on the CMIP thingie, but isn’t that a set of numbers that covers a range depending on certain variables (pathways?) like how much co2e we produce? There’s lot of acronyms and lingo to absorb and understand.

    The odd thing that jumped out at me was that the criticism of the CMIP6 numbers had a lot to do with rainfall predictions, though not only rainfall predictions. Be that as it may, I came across this study from September 2020, Zamani et al, that indicates that CMIP6 is more accurate than CMIP5 with regard to rainfall predictions.

    Zamani here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-020-03406-x

    Mulmenstad here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01038-1

    Mulmenstad appears to be about cloud lifetime change, Zamani is more of a comparision of CMIP5 and CMIP6 with regard to measured rainfall vs. predicted rainfall, so may these are apples and oranges, so to speak.

    Is anyone here following this closely with a deep understanding of cloud lifetime changes and how those relate to rainfall and global cooling related to global cloud cover?

    Cheers

    Mike

  22. 72
    mike says:

    quote from Zamani that I omitted above:

    The present study aimed to assess the performance of CMIP6 and CMIP5 projects in projecting mean precipitation at annual, summer, autumn, winter, and spring timescales in the north and northeast of Iran over the period 1987–2005 using relative bias, correlation coefficient, root mean square error, relative error, and the Taylor diagram. This is the first attempt to compare CMIP6 and CMIP5 data in an arid region at a seasonal and annual scale. The results showed that the precipitations simulated by the ensembles of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models were different. The relative bias for winter was lower at all stations in CMIP6 than in CMIP5, so CMIP6 performed better in this respect. CMIP6 outperformed CMIP5 in projecting annual and spring precipitation in 60 and 69% of the stations, respectively. Whereas CMIP6 overestimated precipitation in 70% of the stations, CMIP5 underestimated it in 77% of the stations. CMIP5 models exhibited better performance in 70% of the stations only in autumn. In most seasons and stations, CMIP6 CGMs’ ensemble outperformed CMIP5. The results of HadGEM2-ES from CMIP5 and CESM2 from CMIP6 were more accurate than the models’ ensembles in both projects. Overall, CMIP6 models exhibited better performance than CMIP5 models.”

    hmm… what does it all mean?

    Cheers

    Mike

  23. 73
    William Jackson says:

    #67 You seem intent on proving yourself even worse than those posters suggested. How very very sad!

  24. 74
    Piotr says:

    KIA(67) “Yes, local weather variability explains the anomalies in local temperature trends, but not for the average global temperature.

    Bravo! So finally you can comment on the intelligence of those who think
    they know it all and yet are sure that “a local weather anomaly” invalidates ….” Global (climate) Warming“. Morons, eh? Say:

    “It’s really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!”

    “Wow, it’s snowing in Isreal and on the pyramids in Egypt. Are we still wasting billions on the global warming con? MAKE U.S. COMPETITIVE!”

    “Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”

    “It’s late in July and it is really cold outside in New York. Where the hell is GLOBAL WARMING??? We need some fast! It’s now CLIMATE CHANGE”

    “Wow, 25 degrees below zero, record cold and snow spell. Global warming anyone?”

    “Record low temperatures and massive amounts of snow. Where the hell is GLOBAL WARMING?”
    =====

    So what do you think about _this_ guy? Who, BTW, modestly considers himself a “Very Stable Genius”. Megalomaniacal Antediluvian Grotesquely Asinine?

  25. 75
    MA Rodger says:

    The inane comment from the cretin Mr. Know Shit All @67 actually began (@42) by his protesting about the wobbles in Jan-May averages in the Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis. This part of the year is actually more wobbly than the full calendar year as ENSO impacts mainly the early part of the year. While “the global average should rise steadily as CO2 increases per AGW theory,” in the ERA5 Jan-May data the superimposed wobbles provide an s.d. of 0.15ºC so there will be instances of a Jan-May average lower than those for years approaching tow decades before. And indeed there are such instances – J-M 1980 warmer than J-M 1999, likewise 1990 and 2008. So for two years as close on the record as 2010 and 2021 to also show the warmer J-M as warmer on ERA5 is entirely unremarkable.

  26. 76
    Jim Hunt says:

    Al @54 – I noticed a couple of days ago that in its infinite wisdom the Beeb had resurrected “Climategate” in the guise of its forthcoming “thriller” The Trick. Note that according to the writer the title does not refer to “Mike’s Nature trick”.

    I have subsequently been engaged in earnest “debate” on Twitter with Stephen McIntyre and several of the “usual suspects”, most of whom have “muted” or “blocked” me by now!

    Here’s the abstract of my recent battle with the forces of darkness:

    https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/06/mud-wrestling-with-climategate-pigs/

    Can you see any similarities between the techniques used by Willis and Stephen to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question?

  27. 77
    nigelj says:

    KIA @67

    “The global average (temperature) should rise steadily as CO2 increases per AGW theory, right?”

    No it shouldn’t. Not if by steady you mean a straight line. You expect an upwards line on a graph, but very wiggly because of things like el nino, the 11 year sunspot cycle, etc. Small, short term trends modulate the longer term trend. And thats what the real world graph of warming looks like.

    How you can ask the same stupid questions over and over, and write the same repetitive crap amazes me. You obviously have no self respect.

  28. 78

    KIA 67: The global average should rise steadily as CO2 increases per AGW theory, right?

    BPL: Wrong. Try again.

  29. 79
    John Pollack says:

    KIA @67 In referring to the western US, your grasp of history is on a par with your grasp of climate science. “The wet 1900s were unusual, but since Whites just arrived about that time, they thought the wet period was normal. It wasn’t.” Do you recall reading about the California Gold Rush, when lots of “whites” came to the West? That was 1849. They took up the water laws that the Spanish had established (BTW the Spanish might be surprised to know that they aren’t “white”). Those laws basically encourage maximum water consumption by the first to arrive and stake a claim. They didn’t care what normal was. For the next 125 years or so, there was a big race to extract as much water as possible, and only when it started to be a problem was there any thought given to conservation or available supply. Those laws are still in place, and the denizens of the Southwest U.S. are in trouble.

    Yes, there is some resemblance between the Southwest water crisis and the fossil fuel mess. Denial that a problem exists until the consequences are nearly inescapable, and even then an inability to put a halt to any extraction and wasteful use, no matter how foolish.

    Of course, the problems are also interlinked because climate change tends to worsen the water problems in many places, particularly including the Southwest U.S.

  30. 80
    John Pollack says:

    KIA @67 Part of your erroneous strawman argument about average temperature not correlating with CO2 is that you are talking about average SURFACE temperature. You seem to have some vague awareness that the heat might be exchanged with non-surface sources and sinks with your references to “cold spots and hot spots in space” or variable forcings “within the earth.” In fact, the oceans store a vast amount of energy, and the amount of energy exchanged between the oceans and the surface varies substantially. However, because of greenhouse gas forcing, the overall amount of heat being stored is rising over the decades, the same as in the atmosphere.

    Your guess about average temperature measurements is also incorrect. You can get a good average from a relatively small sample – provided that you carefully account for bias. That’s being done. The statistical reason for it is summarized as the Central Limit Theorem, which is very powerful.

  31. 81
    Mark BLR says:

    @KIA, #67 : “The global average should rise steadily as CO2 increases per AGW theory, right?”

    In “western philosophy” terms the word “mu” translates (approximately …) as : “Both ‘Yes’ AND ‘No’ are invalid responses to the question AS POSED.”

    In “eastern philosophy” terms the closest is something like : “The answer is larger than your question.”

    – – – – – –

    Within your question is EACH (rolling ?) “average” over :
    – 1 day
    – 30 days (= 1 month)
    – 12 months (= 1 year)
    – 30 years (= “climate” …)
    – Other (please SPECIFY)

    – – – – – –

    Your question does NOT include the notion of “delay”. In YOUR understanding of “AGW theory” the delay from “CO2 change” to “GMST change” is on the order of :
    – 0 femtoseconds
    – 1 day
    – 1 month
    – 1 year
    – 1 decade
    – 1 century
    – 1 millennium
    – Other (please SPECIFY)

  32. 82
    zebra says:

    KIA Syndrome,

    Why does he keep doing it? Because people respond.

    This is well established psychology. When those people talk about “owning the libs”, that’s it! Really, if they could elicit indignant responses by writing “lalalalala”, they would. There’s nothing more! Nothing to puzzle about, nothing subject to analysis or explanation! They are not actually trying to convince anyone of anything.

    This is the psychology of the caged monkey throwing feces, of the bully who steals your lunch money and then throws it down the sewer instead of buying himself some food. There’s no actual benefit other than having you acknowledge his existence.

    But then, there’s the psychology of the educated adults who can’t stay away from the front of the monkey cage. Now that indeed is a puzzlement…

  33. 83
    Andrew says:

    Passerby@66 Interesting article. I’ve been reading Major Powell’s writings about western settlement and water and have been keeping up with the goings on around the Colorado River. The Bureau of Reclamation has a lot of smart hydrologists and yet they’ve been caught by surprise with how quickly the two main reservoirs have been sucked down. Similar to the unexpected sensitivity of western forest cover to increased temperatures. And the temperature rise is just now really getting started.

    Something will have to be done with Lakes Mead and Powell. The original plan isn’t going to work. Lake Powell was to have a 700 year useful lifespan before sedimentation rendered it largely useless. Now that it appears that one-third to one-half capacity is the norm and that during low water episodes the massive plug of sediment that has already accumulated is being moved down towards the dam, that useful life span, I think, will be much less.

    Some engineers will have to think outside the box. Maybe re-engineering the dams to more efficiently accommodate what water there is, and maybe some sort of sediment bypass will be required. Hubris is the word with AGW.

  34. 84
    mike says:

    at K at 68. you said “fixing the “problem” in rainfall simulations “reduces the amount of warming predicted by the model, by about the same amount as the warming increase between CMIP5 and CMIP6”.”

    that’s what I got out of the Mulmenstad study also. I think folks have been puzzling and trying to resolve the bump in ECS that showed up in some of the CMIP6 models. This looks like more of that, so the “cooling” they suggest is really the amount of upward deviation that showed up in some of the CMIP6 models. The temps projected by CMIP5 are sufficient to alarm this “reasonable” person.

    I think when the dust settles from the Mulmentstad study we are at the same place: hoping that the ECS is in the low range, but without any significant reason to believe that is the case, just hoping because our species has made so little progress toward a net zero state.

    Maybe others will weigh in with other ideas about the cloud cover study.

    Cheers

    Mike

  35. 85
    Killian says:

    82 zebra says:
    12 Jun 2021 at 11:07 AM

    KIA Syndrome,

    Why does he keep doing it? Because people respond.

    …But then, there’s the psychology of the educated adults who can’t stay away from the front of the monkey cage. Now that indeed is a puzzlement…

    Fascinating to watch intelligent people self-propagandize. There is no better audience for KIA than right here. If he were, say, Bernie Madoff, and this his prison, it’d be a grand mansion in Beverly Hills.

    Or a megaphone multiplied by the people trying to shut it down.

  36. 86
    Killian says:

    83 Andrew says:
    12 Jun 2021 at 2:54 PM

    …a lot of smart hydrologists and yet they’ve been caught by surprise with how quickly the two main reservoirs have been sucked down. Similar to the unexpected sensitivity of western forest cover to increased temperatures. And the temperature rise is just now really getting started.

    Thus I started saying back in maybe the 2007-’10 period sensitivity had to be at the high end bc the changes we were already seeing were just too large. That has held to consistently be the case.

    But who wasn’t surprised? Anyone who started from the premise the system is chaotic, at least partially so, and definitely non-linear, so to *not* expect that to be the case was maladaptive.

    Still is.

    Some engineers will have to think outside the box.

    Not really: Return the watershed to its original state, teach people what Brad Lancaster has been doing for many years if they intend to stay in the region, and the rest will have to be climate refugees – which, if handled with good planning, will be a positive in the end.
    83
    Andrew says:
    12 Jun 2021 at 2:54 PM

    Passerby@66 Interesting article. I’ve been reading Major Powell’s writings about western settlement and water and have been keeping up with the goings on around the Colorado River. The Bureau of Reclamation has a lot of smart hydrologists and yet they’ve been caught by surprise with how quickly the two main reservoirs have been sucked down. Similar to the unexpected sensitivity of western forest cover to increased temperatures. And the temperature rise is just now really getting started.

    Something will have to be done with Lakes Mead and Powell. The original plan isn’t going to work. Lake Powell was to have a 700 year useful lifespan before sedimentation rendered it largely useless. Now that it appears that one-third to one-half capacity is the norm and that during low water episodes the massive plug of sediment that has already accumulated is being moved down towards the dam, that useful life span, I think, will be much less.

    Hubris is the word with AGW.

    And everything else humans do outside of the principles and patterns of Nature.

  37. 87
    nigelj says:

    zebra @82 says , “KIA Syndrome…..When those people talk about “owning the libs”, that’s it! There’s nothing more! They are not actually trying to convince anyone of anything. This is the psychology of the caged monkey throwing feces…”

    Yes theres some truth in that. But is fun throwing mud back, and I enjoy reading peoples responses. And my gut feeling is KIA works for some lobby group as I’ve indicated before. Lobby groups dont exist just to bait liberals. They want to influence everyone especially politicians. And I don’t think you can categorise all sceptics and denialists as the same as KIA. Steve Koonin does not come across as baiting liberals. Theres something more going on there.

    And while a few websites like this have articles formally rebutting denialists nonsense, in my experience most of the science community and media appear to avoid doing this. While our media print their nonsense for so called “balance” I’ve never seen a formal point by point rebuttal of denialists nonsense in our media. It’s all presumably based on the idea don’t give the denialists too much visibility or take them seriously. But has this worked out well? It’s hard to see how it has.

  38. 88
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Mr. KIA, If you are serious about understanding variability in temperature rise despite continual rise in CO2, I commend to you some of the posts done by Tamino (anybody know where he is?). You could start here:
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/the-global-warming-signal/

  39. 89
    Mike says:

    what zebra said at 82: don’t feed the trolls. Don’t respond to folks who make no sense or are so ill-tempered that the conversation is likely to go nowhere.

    I think it might make sense to engage a bit with some real climate discussion with folks who are abusive or get off on the back and forth, but then I figure keep the discussion on the climate facts in play and be ready to ignore the other stuff.

  40. 90
    Susan Anderson says:

    re Tamino: Somebody told me a while ago that he took a job (was it San Diego?) and is OK. I was worried and asked around, and my memory on the subject is a mite vague, but I think that’s what I was told, probably here on RC.

  41. 91

    I don’t agree with “Don’t feed the trolls.” We don’t know how many “lurkers” are here reading this stuff without commenting. They might be influenced by the seemingly reasonable posts from deniers. That stuff has to be countered.

  42. 92
    Silvia Leahu-Aluas says:

    Sorry for not staying on topic, but I had to share this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/its-the-hug-a-climate-scientist-day-ten-year-happy-tenniversary

    Thank you and ~97% climate scientists for your work and perseverance in discovering and describing accurately the problem, Anthropogenic climate change, and offering multiple, feasible, implementable now solutions.

  43. 93
    Carbomontanus says:

    #67 Genosse KIA:

    “but, what realistically is the true accuracy of the global average?”

    My suggestion is to look at the syntetic empirical graphs from the institutes that claim to deliver such data. Ande I follow Ole Humlums “Climate4you” for that purpose.

    Then look at the similarities and the deviations between those bureaus.

    Then I would estimate deltaT between the highest and the lowest peaks for a shorter time lets say a year or maybe 11 years, a sunspot period. That, I would say is the plausible limit- deviation 3 std. And 1/3 of that is the plausible Std.

    That comes near to the arbitrary or systematic deviations between the institutes.

    Then I have a proper idea, and I do not have to know it more precisely than that in order to judge their reliability and usefulness, in order to make up my mind..

    Because the longterm tendency is very obvious. I see it in a glimpse allready, and I sometimes use a ruler on the screen for control. It obviously follows the Keeling- curve.

    So maybe you rather are the problem yourself, needing better training and enlightment on hown to read and to judge empirical graphics, online servography, or oscilloscopy. And maybe also highscool on analytic geometry, some enlightment about the derivative and the integral, and ideas of the possible highpass, lowpass, and bandpass filters.

    That is how we analyze sound and other kinds of natural moovements, waves, and noises.

    You hardly find any better match to those graphs, when smoothed out the meteorologically orthodox way, than the keeling curve, the ENSO, and the sunspot periods..

    It is not mysterious at all if you simply reaqllize what is beeing mapped.

  44. 94
    MA Rodger says:

    GISTEMP has posted for May with a global SAT anomaly of +0.80ºC, a small rise from April’s anomaly of +0.76ºC and the third highest monthly anomaly of the year which span the range +0.65ºC to +0.89ºC.

    May 2021 is the =7th warmest May on the GISTEMP record (5th in ERA5) behind the years 2020, 2016, 2017, 2014, 2019 & 2018 and May 2021 is the =77th warmest monthly anomaly in the all-month GISTEMO record (58th in EAR5).

    The first five months of 2021 average +0.78ºC and are the 8th warmest start-to-the-year on the GISTEMP record (7th in ERA5) behind the years 2016, 2020, 2017, 2019, 2018, 2015 & 2010.

  45. 95
    Barry E Finch says:

    @81 Mark BLR and everybody. Actually, the correct answer to the question “The global average should rise steadily as CO2 increases per AGW theory, right?” (assuming surface-air temperature is the topic) is “No, wrong”. That’s it. If atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) were to increase by 2.50 ppmv and become well mixed horizontally and vertically over an eye blink such as 12 months and there was no change to other “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” and there was no change to anything that would alter planetary SWR reflectivity such as air or land pollution change, then all that this one change of +2.50 ppmv CO2 would do is increase the present global heater of 443,000 gigawatts (2010-2018 average global heater, ref 1) by ~16,300 gigawatts, an increase of 3.7% in the global heater, and it would increase downwelling LWR by the ~16,300 gigawatts. It would do nothing else whatsoever. It would not alter surface-air temperature at all, thus the “The global average should rise steadily as CO2 increases per AGW theory, right?” is patently incorrect.
    ———–
    This global heater then (guess what) heats. According to climate models the rate at which it heats (determined, obviously, mostly, by a large margin, by ocean mixing), the surface-air heating rate of this 459,300-gigawatt global heater, the “surface climate response”, is shown at 9:55 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8 and at 4:34 to 5:30 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?=WadywyVi7xMAt The point is that the +2.50 ppmv CO2 adds only 3.7% to the global heater because the global heater has now grown to quite a large size, and therefore the +2.50 ppmv CO2 adds only ~3.7% to the surface-air temperature increase that would have occurred anyway if CO2 had not increased.
    ———–
    The modeled “surface climate response” is an average, which means mostly that it is an average mix of ENSO cycles (I’ve not kept track of whether PDO, AMDO & any others are thought separate natural cycles, or artifacts or merely resultants of ENSO with current thinking), so the point is that the ocean takes responsibililty for surface-air heating rate using the global heater that is provided and the GHGs adjust the global heater provided. For one thing, atmospheric heating over the 72% of Earth’s area that’s ocean & sea is by SWR into the ocean and then heat out of the ocean, so only the 25% of Earth’s area that’s land gets the instant (~123-day) response, and air flows rather a lot between ocean and land over ~123 days so their temperatures are highly intertwined. So, ENSO cycles will greatly affect that average “surface climate response” on near-instantaneous time scales such as 5 years of less.
    ————-
    ref 1: Figure 6 of “Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go ?” Karina von Schuckmann et al (a large cast) Review article | 07 Sep 2020 at https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2013-2020

  46. 96
  47. 97
    Barry E Finch says:

    watch?= S.B. watch?v= to see/hear that

  48. 98
    nigelj says:

    BPL @91 says “I don’t agree with “Don’t feed the trolls.” We don’t know how many “lurkers” are here reading this stuff without commenting. They might be influenced by the seemingly reasonable posts from deniers. That stuff has to be countered.”

    Yes this is my reaction as well. By analogy its like being charged in court. If you or your lawyer say nothing in your defence, the prosecutor is almost certainly going to sway public opinion against you. That said sometimes a single concise, cogent response to denialist trolls is better than engaging them in too much discussion, because they will spam the place with seemingly exponential growth of nonsensical verbiage.

  49. 99
    Mr. Know It All says:

    88 – Ray Ladbury
    “Mr. KIA, If you are serious about understanding variability in temperature rise despite continual rise in CO2, I commend to you some of the posts done by Tamino (anybody know where he is?). You could start here:

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/the-global-warming-signal/

    Thanks Ray,

    That looks like an interesting article. Earth temps affected by ENSO, volcanic and solar activity. I wonder if scientists measure the temperature of space that the earth is orbiting through. Whether it affects earth temp or not, does it vary along our orbital path? The Tamino site did lead me to some non-CC related stuff – one was on the Covid-19-failure. Holy cow! The Trump Derangement Syndrome afflicted Trump&America-haters came out in force to comment on that one! Sick stuff, but a great monument to their stupidity for all time and eternity on Al Gore’s internet.

  50. 100
    CCHolley says:

    Ray Ladbury @88

    Mr. KIA, If you are serious about understanding variability in temperature rise despite continual rise in CO2, I commend to you some of the posts done by Tamino (anybody know where he is?).

    Mr. Know Nothing isn’t here to learn. That should be quite obvious by now. He makes his statements in order to simply sow doubt to the casual visitors to the site. The moderation delay gives him the window of opportunity. He rarely acknowledges the responses to his tripe nor does he acknowledge an acceptance of the the explanations which would show a desire to actually learn the science.

    I’ll repeat what I’ve stated before. Mr. Know Nothing has had plenty of opportunity to understand the robustness of the science behind AGW, but refuses to acknowledge any attempt to learn. How morally corrupt and bankrupt is this? He represents the worst of humankind—caring more about one’s self interests and priorities above the planet’s livability and the future of ensuing generations. This is so glaringly obvious because if the likes of Mr. Know Nothing had any compunction at all, they would make an attempt or at least acknowledge an attempt to understand the science before actively making posts whose appearance is that of casting doubt and obstructing action.

    This is so morally irresponsible and shameful. Sure Mr. Know Nothing posts in a friendly folksy way to come across as a nice guy who is just a little doubtful, but this is just a facade to mask his lack of compassion and evil selfish intent.