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.

73 Responses to “Unforced Variations: Jun 2021”

  1. 51
    nigelj says:

    “California, ‘America’s 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


    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!


  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.

  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:

  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

    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:

    Source 2: (you can apparently download a free PDF of the book)

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

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


    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:


    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)

    Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

  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:

    Mulmenstad here:

    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?



  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?



  23. 73
    William Jackson says:

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

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.