Unforced variations: March 2023 1 Mar 2023 by group This month’s open thread. Antarctic sea ice anyone?
318 Responses to "Unforced variations: March 2023"
Ron R. says
Victor, just curious – do you really think that all of the the hundreds of billions to trillions of tons of oil, coal and gas that we have pulled out of the ground to date, fossil fuels which took hundreds of millions of years to form a long time ago, but which we are now extracting, burning and sticking back up into the atmosphere again, (which is holding about 1/2, the rest by the oceans and vegetation), fuel which is now being consumed to the tune of about 100 billion barrels a day
will have NO cause and effect on climate?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Geoff Miell says
Ron R.: – “…fuel which is now being consumed to the tune of about 100 billion barrels a day”
I’d suggest that should be million barrels per day, NOT billion. Was that a typo?
In Aug 2022, total world liquid fuel production was averaging at around 100 million barrels per day (Mb/d), including:
* crude oil + condensate (80.3 Mb/d)
* refinery gain
* other liquids (bio-methanol, bioethanol, biodiesel, synthetic liquid fuel derivatives of coal & gas)
* natural gas liquids (ethane, propane, butane, isobutane, natural gasoline)
See Figure 10 at: https://www.artberman.com/2023/01/18/theyre-not-making-oil-like-they-used-to-stealth-peak-oil/
Per BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy-2022:
* World CO₂ emissions from energy in 2021: 33884.1 million tonnes CO₂ (page 12)
* World natural gas production in 2021: _ _ _ 4036.9 billion cubic metres (page 29)
* World coal production in 2021: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 167.58 Exajoules (page 38)
Ron R. says
Oops, just saw your comment. Oops, yes. A typo. Not very well said either. Sorry.
I wonder if there is a link that tells how much oil, coal and gas has been pulled out of the ground and has ended up in the atmosphere to date? Maybe obvious to seasoned Real Climaters. I have as chart that’s based on Vaclav Smil from here that gives it as a chart but can’t post it.
Geoff Miell says
Ron R.: – “I wonder if there is a link that tells how much oil, coal and gas has been pulled out of the ground and has ended up in the atmosphere to date?”
In the YouTube video titled Keynote Debate Can the Climate Emergency Action Plan lead to Collective Action? (50 Years CoR), duration 2:23:08, Professor H. J. Schellnhuber CBE presented his Aurelio Peccei Lecture: Climate, Complexity, Conversion on 17 Oct 2018, which included an animation from time interval 0:15:35, of how human-induced cumulative global emissions have risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
The animation begins from about 1750, focusing on England initially, then Europe, then pans across to look at emissions from North America from about 1925, followed by zooming out from around the 1970s to view the Northern Hemisphere. The animation includes a projection of emissions out to 2100 for a BAU scenario.
ICYMI, published Mar 30 at John Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations blog is a piece by David Spratt headlined IPCC: a gamble on earth system failure. IMO, it’s required reading for an understanding of how the IPCC produced their latest AR6 Synthesis SPM Report. It begins with:
I have tried to say it othervice.
Today, we have Google- earth and Google maps, 2 new media. where we can focus in on the earth both by maps and by satelite and aerial photo. And I find human imprints and “footprints” allmost everywhere.. The earth is obviously changed quite a lot and allmost overall by humans.
Then, do you really think that the atmosphere, that is not seen on Google Maps has not been changed just as much in recent time?
Well, this is against the fameous argument that the earth and the oceans are so large and heavy that tiny humans can ardly change anything, it remains natural cycling of course, as it allways was.
And have you heard of the king who came to the shore and commanded the sea level to change?, Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha… smile smile.
Google maps and earth should rather tell everyone that it might well be thinkable…. Hmmmmmm!
But it does not tell how much, and how human activity can change it. That remains another question that cannot be answered by Google Earth and Maps.
But in all this, Victor & al. should be made aware that their etnic racial class- routine of denying things is rather 1, mad, 2, perverse, and 3, erroreous, and not the good way to find out about things and to state proof.
As an Englishman said to me about another Englishman ” The will of understanding must also be there, Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha, smile smile!”
I repeat. Mad Perverse, and Erroreous , codified MAPEERs!.
It roots in vulogar hegeliuanism Marxist Leninism, where matter is supposed to be created and anihilated, and proof is stated, by contra- diction, namely by their denial.
They are “syndicalists”, Racketeers or something by organized state religion. . They feel like our teachers and pioneering owners like the ” orcs” feel about Ukraina.
@ Victor: Did you get this?
Ron R. says
“tiny humans”. Multiplied by 8,024,856,813, and counting. :)
Ron R. says
On an earth with atmosphere comparable in size to the skin on an apple. IOW, yes, we can alter it.
Ladies and Gentlemen
I red this morning on Yahoo. News Sat. March 25 at 1000
That John Kerry has said we must work with India, China and even Russia as soon as they can take to their mind again ( and there is allways a hope) on curbing CO2 polution and ofn climate & environmental issues.
You must find it yoursef, I do not how to get it up in red text here. But, you know John Kerry and will find him.
My Advice on that is:
Even if you are the smaller brother and not the guilty one and the chased victim of all the big brothers and the conventional wolf pack routines, it is not impossible to be an influenzer who can actually herd the mob and agressor and the guilty Mobsters,
The Russians are mad and drunk and quite sad at the moment and need help and guidance.
And this may be a way for them to recover and get to their reason and self- respect , politically and geo politically again.
Just tell them that.
Climate and environment may also benefit from it.
I go for John Kerry on this.
V: “Yet when we listen carefully to such alarming reports one gets the impression that the “climate change” responsible for such events constitutes little more than a rise in global temperatures, which might well be due largely to natural variation.
Any possible link with CO2 emissions is simply assumed, ”
jgnfld: No, there are many studies which clearly show that natural variation alone cannot explain the observed warming.
V: What “observed warming” are you referring to? 1910 through 1940? CO2 emissions were too low at the time to have had much of an effect. 1940 through 1979? No warming at all. 1998 through 2016? The hiatus — very little warming. 2016 to present? Usually attributed to a pair of unusually strong El Ninos. All that’s left is `1979 through 1998 — 20 years.
jgnfld: A.1.1 Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities. . .
V: This paragraph refers to greenhouse gas concentrations only. No reference to warming.
You will find many answers in the latest report backed by thousands upon thousands of studies.
And no, the fact that gramps lived to 102 and smoked every day. is NOT a disproof that tobacco really does cause cancer.
Victor. The following page includes some temperature graphs from 1950 – 2016, superimposed on each other.
One graph shows the temperature record. Another graph superimposed shows the temperature record with all el nino and la nina events removed. Another graph has the short term solar cycle removed.. As you can see the graph with el nino and la nina removed has plenty of warming over the entire period 1950 – 2016, and the trend is almost identical to the graph of the raw data. So is the graph with the solar cycle removed.
Of course even this probably wont change Victors mind. But I found it interesting and others might also.
Forgot to mention. The graphs are interactive if you position the cursor over them.
Ray Ladbury says
Weaktor, your continued assertions that greenhouse forcing could not have contributed to warming observed in the 1930s is simply false. The enhancement of the greenhouse effect by 1910 was about 20% of the present enhancement. That is not negligible. Moreover, Total Solar Irradiance over the period 1910-1940 was also increasing. (it has been declining since 1950). The period was also characterized by low injection of volcanic aerosols into the upper atmosphere. This isn’t the great mystery you think it is, and it certainly is not a “smocking gun”.
Then there’s his far, far, far beyond continued assertions that correlations require that series wriggle the same way.
Running this simple R script will show that 2 lines which wriggle quite differently in fact which NEVER have the same slope sign (except at inflection points, of course) yet have a ..89 correlation.
i = 1:500/10
x = i+(5*sin(i))
y = i-(5*sin(i))
I wonder how this is possible when it is completely “obvious” to the eye they are utterly non-correlated???!
shurly: “Not all papers are useless – but quite a lot of peer-reviewed papers consist of “one idiot certifying another idiot as a genius”.”
That statement alone speaks volumes about how anti-data and science you are. To your core. What an incredible ignorant statement that is. Clue for you, sport: Peer-review is one of the foundations of all science. It has been for centuries. And you have no clue about how it is conducted. And are too insecure to admit to being fundamentally wrong.
I tend to believe that the “peer rewiew” has taken off in recent time and gone way beyond its reasonable value and official purpose.
I found a typical example yeaterday, the discovery of Vanadium. First found in spanish south america about 1800 thought to be a variety of lead but anyway claimed by the finder to be a new element. “Peers” who rewiewed that, did all deny it and gave the unqualified excuse that the tests were contaminated by Chromium.
Then 50 years later the Swedes re- discovered it and verifyed it. By digging into history then, one found that those “peers” had been in error alltogether,.
This is no unique case at all. in science history.
Max Planc said that “The science goes on-comes forward … by the funerals…. Die Wissenschaft schreitet mit den Bestattungen fort!
Meaning that all those “peers” mostly have to die first, especially if they are anonymeous irresponsible, and more or less political KADREs withour scientific orientation and scill, or not yet aware of the last 75 years of new methods and research..
Which is not unknown and uncommon in science history either, especially if all those “peers” are more or less planted there from The Party with P, the grand old one.
They are simply not of the faculty that is qualified to judge and to decide what it is all about.
Think of Gallilei for instance, and even Christiaan Huyghens 75 years later, who had to close down his correct theory about Saturnus in the bank till after his death, due to agressive behavious by those days national jesuits in charge . The Vatican had its own very fameous and large Jesuit “PEER!” on it, a certain Athanasius Kircher..
There were to be limits to revolutionibus in the Universe in those days Holland
“The case against Gallilei was erroreous, sinful, and deeply regrettible, on behalf of the church and all the saints , I repeat and in all languages!” , = Pope Johannes Paul 2.
It took 400 years and Pastor Vojtyla from Krakow at last, who was Bold, Polish and Copernican enough for it. Till then the very “peers” of the congregation of faith had had Gallilei 0n INDEX LIBRORVM PROHIBITORVM.
But, why go all the way to the Vatican for scandals? just think of the frameous US american anonymeous “peer”rewiewers of Darwin.. I have heard it, they hardly dare to say “Darwin!” to their children.
Keppler had to send his planetary laws by horse carriage and sailboat over to London instead, due to Peer rewiewers back in Praha. Thus it came in the hands of Newton.. And did not dare to mention Gallileo at all. Only his father Vincenzo Gallilei.
I even had it myself,
As a radio freak and modern physical chemist I had designed quantum behaviours by an electromagnetism shivering capillary waves in a water- bath and asked 2 “Peers” from our local inst of physics to judge it and judge me also. One of them official antroposopher and the other one officially . “christian”.
( I think I had my ideas by accident from a Jew, namely Niels Bohrs philosophy. on pensum.)
Both of them got physically mad!
Because I am not of the racial union. of anonymeous “peers”.
I thought it had to be decided on officially in full daylight by withnesses..
None of them had their own science in press, but they ruled the very institute until the Devil took them all at last..
“Und deshalb schloss er messerscharff dass, nichts sein kann, was nicht sein darf!”
That is a story that repeats again and again and again by “Peers” . They do not give in until they are officially beaten up brutally, or go to Hell.
“Peer rewiew” can be quite corrupt, History and reality tells us. Max Planc has also commented on how the”Peers..” took over all the faculties quite soon in the days of Adolph.
Think further of The Grand Old Party in the Soviet academy of Science in Leningrad.
But, why go over the creek for water? Why go all the way to Roma and the old Vatican or to Leningrad? What about Thinktank at Chateau Heartland in Michigan on CO2?
Why have to adapt that especially risky form, where organized crime is especially trained to infiltrate and to take over by its own routines?
““Peer rewiew” (sic) can be quite corrupt,”
No, that statement is only made by those who disagree with the scientific results being presented. It is a weak effort at denial of science. Peer review is quite difficult. Try having a paper published.
I hope everybody understands.
Truth, reality, science, and justice should not be a social class or group or anonymeous “peer” or racial or bloodgroup- story. Not even related to it or dependent of it or guaranteed by it. DS.
Tomáš Kalisz says
Dear Dr. Gavin Schmidt,
I would like to ask you for your kind comment on a relatively recent preprint published by Makarieva et al, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09998 . Particularly, I would like to know your opinion about significance of concerns raised under Figure 5 in this articke, with respect to differences between modelled and observed trends in temperature profile developments.
I am aware of your negative comment on an older article describing the “biotic pump” hypothesis co-developed by this author under JCM post of 20 Mar 2023 at 3:23 PM, mentioning this yet unproven concept:
[Response: This was all shown to be nonsense in the epic series of comments on a submitted (but never accepted) paper. An error in their theoretical derivation was ‘recast’ as a new parameterization but one that has no actual basis in reality. The rejection of this ‘theory’ has absolutely nothing to do with it’s supposed consequences. – gavin]
However, I very recently learned from discussions with scientists like prof. Dennis Hartmann of the University of Washington or Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie in Hamburg that latent heat transfer from Earth surface in the atmosphere is among temperature regulation mechanisms implemented into state-of-art climate models.
Furthermore, from the publication by De Hertog at al https://cris.vub.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/88409508/DeHertog_etal_2022_ESD.pdf ,
it is apparent that these computational tools indeed predict some global effects of measures changing the latent heat flux, like e.g. increased irrigation. It is thus my understanding that the current mainstream climatology recognizes changes in the latent heat transport as one of climate “forcings”.
I therefore suppose that the question raised by Makarieva et al (whether or not the recent models properly address the assumed interplay between small water cycle intensity and long-range moisture transport from ocean to continents, as a mechanism that may play a role in regulation of the overall intensity of global water cycle and thus of the intensity of the said global cooling effect) may be indeed justified. I will highly appreciate if you review the recent preprint published by Makarieva et al and comment thereon, irrespective of possible older mistakes made by any of the authors.
Thank you very much in advance and best regards
I arrived at the recent article by Makarieva when I tried to learn how relevant can the predictions made on the basis of the state-of-art climate models be with respect to supposed increase of precipitation in deserts of Arabian Peninsula or Sahara in case of their exploitation for solar energy conversion into electricity. I summarized it in my public orgpage (an interactive dynamic scheme made in application OrgPad) which is accessible under link https://orgpad.com/s/VhvfDd5uRIP
macias shurly says
@Tomáš Kalisz says: –
.” We emphasize that our goal here is not to obtain an accurate
estimate of global transpirational cooling, but to present plausible arguments showing that it can be large.
Therefore, by construction, global
climate models cannot provide any independent information about the climatic effect of evapotranspirational cooling ”
ms: — Hello Tomáš Kalisz – I am a biologist and artist and I looked at your graphic about heat wave mitigation / global water cycle restoration. dr Gavin Schmidt is hard to reach when it comes to evapotranspiration and ecology. I’ve been posting on more or less the same topic for many months and it’s hard to have fact-based communication. Broad sections of the audience here are convinced that water cycles should only be seen as feedback on higher GHG emissions. A theory according to which man has actively interfered with the water cycle for thousands of years and actively impeded evaporation – they reject.
So don’t let that unsettle you. Of course, the water cycle plays the primary role in regulating the Earth’s temperature. According to the IPCC, on agricultural and forestry areas and urban land areas land use change has decreased evaporation extensively on 72% (94 million km²) of the ice-free land area (130 million km²).
BOX | BREAKDOWN OF THE GLOBAL, ICE-FREE LAND SURFACE (130 MILLION KM2)
72% of land directly affected by human use:
37% of pastures, of which 16% are used savannahs and shrublands, 19% extensive pastures and 2% intensive pastures (since 1961, the number of people living in areas affected by desertification almost tripled).
22% of forests, of which 20% are managed for timber and other uses and 2% are planted
12% of cropland, of which 10% are non-irrigated and 2% irrigated (since 1961, the use of fertilisers increased by nearly ninefold and the use of irrigation water doubled.
1% of settlements and infrastructure
28% of unused land:
9% of intact or primary forests
7% of unforested ecosystems, including grasslands and wetlands (since 1970, wetland areas have declined by 30%).
12% of barren wilderness, rocks, etc.
Thank goodness the IPCC at least recognized in 2021 AR6 that irrigation has a cooling radiative forcing, even if IMHO the value is far too low and cooling through the albedo change of land use change is a very questionable matter in particular.
Since the loss of evaporative landscapes cannot be denied (nor can the GHE of CO2) a value for this loss is missing in the 200 times peer reviewed graphic (@ Dan).
The following graphic is the combination of a GEB model with the observation values CERES 2000-2020, which also quantitatively captures the loss of evaporation and the 20-year development of the global climate. Less evaporation (-0,86W/m²) —> less cloud albedo (~ -0,8W/m²) are the main driver of the increased energy imbalance.
I also really like the project of conquering/populating the desert with solar cells.
However, at the moment it seems that the production of electricity via mirror power plants and concentrated solar radiation in combination with a steam turbine has better efficiency, since the electricity production can be sustained at night by thermal storage.
But you probably know that cooled PV modules show an improved power production with every °C of cooling (~0.5%/°C). A PV module that is cooled down from 95°C to 35°C, for example, produces ~ 30% more energy and is certainly more durable. I myself develop prototypes in the field of *water-cooled LED light and PV-T modules with ~85% efficiency”. If you are interested – just contact me.
Mirror power plants are very expensive in terms of production costs – which not every desert state can afford. PV systems in the desert require significantly less effort, time and capital.
If I understand your graphic correctly, you want to evaporate water with hot solar cells ????