There has been a lot of commentary about perceived disagreements among climate scientists about whether climate change is, or will soon, accelerate. As with most punditry, there is less here than it might seem.
Last year, Jim Hansen and colleagues published a long paper that included a figure suggesting that they expected that global temperature trends from 2011 to increase above the recent linear trends.
This has meshed with another argument around whether an acceleration of global temperatures in recent decades can already be detected. Tamino has made a case that it can be, if some of the ‘noise’ in the record is factored out (notably the linear impacts of ENSO and volcanoes). However, it not so obvious that the recent El Niño can be so easily removed in such a way. In my recent Nature commentary, I pointed out the difficulties explaining quantitatively why 2023 was so warm. Without further clarity on that, deciding whether we have yet seen an acceleration or not is a bit ambiguous.
Another view of the future is given by the results of climate models. We’ve discussed some of the issues with the latest CMIP6 round of simulations many times in recent years, nonetheless, by screening the model ensemble based on the likely range of climate sensitivity, we can create projections that align closely with assessed projections from the last IPCC report. These projections are the basis of our updated comparisons of CMIP6 models to observations, and specifically this graph:
It is worth remembering what the CMIP6 projections are based on. These simulations used historical GHG concentrations and aerosol emissions to 2014, and a mid-range scenario (SSP2-4.5) thereafter, which has continued increases of CO2 and CH4 as well as forecast decreases in aerosol emissions. The screening uses the likely range of 1.8 to 2.2ºC of transient climate response, roughly equivalent to to a screening uses equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.5 to 4ºC for a doubling of CO2 (Hausfather et al, 2022).
The question naturally arises as to who is correct, Hansen et al or the models?
We can assess this by extending our graph to 2050, and plotting Hansen et al’s projected range on top:
Remarkably, the Hansen et al projections are basically indistinguishable from what the mean of the TCR-screened CMIP6 models are projecting. Or, to put it another way, everybody is (or should be) expecting an acceleration of climate warming (in the absence of dramatic cuts in GHG emissions) (CarbonBrief has a similar analysis), even if we might differ on whether it is yet detectable.
Update (4/4): I was prodded to provide a histogram focused on the trends in the ensembles. Happy to oblige (note that this is only one run per model):
References
- J.E. Hansen, M. Sato, L. Simons, L.S. Nazarenko, I. Sangha, P. Kharecha, J.C. Zachos, K. von Schuckmann, N.G. Loeb, M.B. Osman, Q. Jin, G. Tselioudis, E. Jeong, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, J. Cao, and J. Li, "Global warming in the pipeline", Oxford Open Climate Change, vol. 3, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
- G. Schmidt, "Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory", Nature, vol. 627, pp. 467-467, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00816-z
- Z. Hausfather, K. Marvel, G.A. Schmidt, J.W. Nielsen-Gammon, and M. Zelinka, "Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem", Nature, vol. 605, pp. 26-29, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2
Ned Kelly says
QUOTE July 2023
Meanwhile, there are some misinterpretations that should be corrected. We did not say that the
global temperature record to date shows an acceleration of the global warming rate. Quite the
contrary, whenever we present the data we draw a straight line beginning in 1970, which shows that
the warming rate has been linear (green line in Fig. 1). It takes little knowledge or courage for us or
anyone to point out that the data are nearly linear from 1970 to 2022.
The physics informs us that, as the data set becomes longer, it will show a post-2010 acceleration of
global warming. The physics is discussed in the present version of Global warming in the pipeline.
The main factor driving acceleration is reduction of human-made aerosols in the atmosphere, and
the principal confirmation is Earth’s measured energy imbalance.
We take no pleasure in being the bearer of bad news, but the physics tells us that humanity is in the
process of driving an acceleration of global warming. Why report this? The same reason that we
predicted that the Pinatubo volcanic eruption would cause global cooling. It is just conceivable that
predictions and real-world confirmation may eventually persuade the darned fools that we know
what we’re talking about.
I refer not only to those who deny the reality of human-caused climate change, but to those who
pursue a wishful thinking policy approach.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Peer+PublicReview.21July2023.pdf
Ned Kelly says
QUOTE May 2023
Our research is focused on real world data and comparison with models, with the hope of gaining insights
about how the climate system works and where the real world is headed. Fig. 28 (lead figure) shows the
annual increase of GHG climate forcing based on real world data (which, BTW, is continually updated and
made available by Ed Dlugokencky of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory; Ed is an unsung hero
in the climate change story). Specifically, Fig. 28 compares the real-world growth rate of GHG forcing with
the RCP2.6 scenario, which is used in IPCC’s AR5 report as a scenario that would limit global warming to
about 2°C. Figure 28 shows that an enormous gap has opened between the real world and RCP2.6. The
“miracle” in RCP2.6 is largely an assumption of negative emissions via power plants that burn biofuels,
capturing and sequestering the CO2. Also beware of nations promising “net zero” emissions without defining
what they mean. As discussed in our paper, the present policy approach is not working and it is not likely to
work. For example, the cost to close the gap in Fig. 28 via carbon capture and storage is estimated as $3.4-
7.0 trillion per year – that’s the annual, growing cost. That miracle is not likely to happen.
There’s no time to get involved in Twitter wars. It’s disappointing that scientists who once contributed to
research progress, but now enjoy twittering, do not correct a nonscientist’s assumption that equilibrium
warming = committed warming but instead allow the misconception to persist and then use it to insist that we
are “wrong” in our assessment. Further, their claim that current scientific literature points to eventual global
warming being kept “well below 2°C” as being consistent with real world trends and policies is egregious, an
uncritical acceptance of models and the assumptions that went into them.
Let’s end with another figure from our paper, Fig. 25 (above), which compares the long-term global
temperature trend with our prediction of accelerated warming that accounts for declining atmospheric
aerosols and an uptick in GHG growth rates. As much as possible, the projection is based on data: measured
global energy imbalance and indirect indications of declining aerosol amount. It has become popular to say
that the emerging El Nino will cause global temperature to soon exceed 1.5°C. We don’t know that for
certain, but we can expect it to reach at least +1.4-1.5°C. An El Nino spurred global temperature close to
+1.5°C will not provide a valid measure of what the world will be like when the trend-line reaches +1.5°C,
but the El Nino spurred peak temperature will provide a first indication of whether there is a new, accelerated
trend line. If the 2024 temperature (peak global temperature lags El Nino by several months) falls clearly
above the yellow region in Fig. 25, it will tend to confirm the acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/CommittedWarming.25May2023.pdf
Ned Kelly says
Apologies for the bad formatting, a result of the realclimate system here.
NKNews – In other news it’s reported that horses are still having difficulty drinking water. And scientists are human who posses human foibles like everyone else. Few are surprised by either report.
Ned Kelly says
2024 tropical cyclone prediction
Michael Mann and colleagues predict a record-breaking 33 named storms for the 2024 North Atlantic hurricane season. It is the highest count ever projected.
For more than a decade, Michael Mann of the School of Arts & Sciences and his collaborators have annually reviewed historical weather data and current oceanic and atmospheric conditions, applying computational modeling to forecast coming hurricane seasons. These predictions are important for disaster preparedness and risk management in regions prone to hurricanes. This year, Mann and team anticipate 33 named storms, the highest to date.
“We’ve seen many hyperactive seasons over the past decade, and in just about all cases, like our prediction for this year, the activity is substantially driven by ever-warmer conditions in the tropical Atlantic tied to large-scale warming,” says Mann, Presidential Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science and director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.
This year’s predictions are influenced by particularly high sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic Main Development Region (MDR), which, as of this month, are recorded at more than 1.9°C above average according to NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch.
Why these matter
Mann cites three main reasons for why these results are of particular interest, saying, “first, from a preparation standpoint, these provide a lot of useful information as to whether those in areas impacted by Atlantic hurricanes should prepare for an especially active season.
“Second, these results underscore the seasonal relationship between climate and tropical cyclones, which helps to provide context for understanding how climate change is impacting hurricanes,” Mann says. “Since it’s the same basic relationships that are in play on seasonal and longer timescales, for instance, the warmth of the tropical Atlantic.”
Finally, it is an important demonstration of the strength of climate science models, Mann says. Scientists can make successful seasonal predictions based on the climate information they have, providing grounds for trust in longer-term climate predictions, particularly human-caused warming and its impacts.
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/2024-tropical-cyclone-prediction
Ned Kelly says
This is a good one to get your teeth into. With Dan Miller
“Accelerating” Debate on Global Warming: Interview with Dr. Zeke Hausfather
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoegRrN-yvw
The Clayton’s Debate – The Debate you Have while Denying a Debate is Happening ?
Snippets worth catching:
@5 mins
“so it’s led to a a pretty big debate in the community as to why we got 2023 so far off”
“half a degree C that is what was Gob smackingly bananas as I said at the time ”
“but on this broader question of is the world warming faster now than it has
since 1970 I think there’s a growing consensus that it is (accelerating) though there’s still a debate about how much faster ”
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=IIhaqu5LgKHW0WQg&t=310
@9.30 mins
“we still see in climate model land evidence of this acceleration, Now the reason why scientists have been a little reticent to talk a lot about acceleration at least until recently um is sort of we’re haunted um by the Spectre of the Hiatus (1998->)”
“the actual Observations were wrong … [ their Data was wrong iow ] “there’s a certain reticence to to make similar claims in the opposite direction this time”
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=O28EsiAFrydOuczT&t=562
[ Seriously? They’re “scared” iow. Don’t trust their own work or science? ]
@12:30 mins
“because we have this consilience of evidence across what the models expect in a scenario like we’re in today with falling aerosols and flattening emissions because the ocean heat content and Earth Energy imbalance also show an acceleration I think we’re a lot more confident today claiming that there is a detectable accelerathttps://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=Jx3B-93jkcnHxrDV&t=743
ion”
There’s more .. another 1hr 20 mins of the same. Worth getting into. I recommend watching all of it and also reading many of the comments which are equally interesting …. and insightful perpsectives from The Public who care about Climate Change.
Ned Kelly says
the url isolated —
…. I think we’re a lot more confident today claiming that there is a detectable acceleration
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=Jx3B-93jkcnHxrDV&t=743
People change their minds
Ned Kelly says
and @ 50 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=HgH39ZfrTG3b-g6q&t=2999
ZEKE: …. a big push to set a sort of ambitious Target you know to to limit warming well below 2 degrees which
is the unfccc language forever but aim to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and that led to a huge amount of scientific work on better understanding both the impacts at 1.5 and two and what sort of scenarios would be necessary to get to 1.5 degrees
now back in 2018 if you squint those scenarios looked like they could have been possible I think from the vantage point of today and you know six more years of not reducing emissions um it’s a lot harder to draw a line to1.5 degrees uh without overshoot.
now we’ve sort of sneakily defined redefined 1.5 degrees as instead of avoiding 1.5 degrees of minimizing how long we’re above 1.5 degrees and so these days like 96% of the scenarios the most recent ipcc report the limit 1.5 degrees or limit warming to 1.5 degrees by 2100 pass it on the way there you get to 1.6 1.7 some of them even 1.8 uh and then deploy you know 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide removal later in the century to to bring temperatures back down um that itself is a pretty heroic assumption
but you know I I think we certainly have been tried to explore that solution space more and out of the most recent ipcc report came this recommendation that governments need to cut emissions in half by 2030 to stay in track for these targets that’s not going to happen but I don’t think scientists saying that we need an even more stringent cut is going to change the needle there right
I think it’s more about how the public perceives this issue, how they vote, how politicians perceive this issue, and you know how the cost of mitigation change, that are going to dictate what actually happens not Scientists advocating for even more stringent Reductions …. “
end quote
So the Scientists have no agency then?
The Scientists have no influence over how the Public Perceives climate change?
The Scientists have no role to play in educating the Public better to understand the Implications?
The Scientists have no role to play in how people vote?
The Scientists have no influence over how politicians perceive this issue?
The Scientists have no role to play in how the costs of mitigation might be changed or reduced?
It is not the role of Scientists to be advocating for even more stringent Reductions of Emissions?
If not, then who is better qualified than Climate Scientists to do that?
These are the questions that come to my mind when listening to climate scientists like Zeke Hausfarher answer questions and talk about Climate Change and the near term future.
Ned Kelly says
Wow, is insane the warming taking place in the North Atlantic and is not summer yet.
see thread
https://nitter.poast.org/DrKimWood/status/1783923101874720853#m
eg tropical atlantic graph
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGMHEOMKbEAAuJ9s.jpg
Dr. Kim Wood
@DrKimWood 12h
Area-averaged daily SST charts for four North Atlantic sectors are now available on my website!
The domain plus that day’s SST anomalies are shown in the inset map, and 2023 is highlighted for comparison.
Anomalies are computed relative to the daily 1991-2020 mean.
see more
https://kouya.has.arizona.edu/tropics/SSTmonitoring.html
Aerosol Data from PACE not yet available but coming “soon” they say
Kind Regards …
Ned Kelly says
Ray Ladbury says
25 Apr 2024 at 8:50 PM
Ned Kelly
What you are NOT getting is the essential role of theory/modeling in science. You need the model to direct the empirical investigation. As George Box says, “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” Just because a model is wrong does not mean it is useless. The particular ways the models fail direct how we fix them. Your seeming advocacy that scientists discard the current model makes it clear that you do not understand how science is actually done–a characteristic you share with the denial crowd.
Where have I been? Doing science for 50 years. You?
—————————————————————–
Strawman!
Please stop misrepresenting my words and statements Ray!
It is you Ray who does not get it.
For 60 years I’ve been observing and researching how people like you fail to listen and therefore repeatedly fail to communicate effectively and subsequently fail to achieve their goals.
Name one Denier you have been able to educate and enlighten so far in your life. None.
Name one denier scientist the hosts of Real Climate have educated better. None.
Ray Ladbury says
Ned Kelly,
First: a denier is by definition ineducable, because they refuse to consider evidence.
Second, I have persuaded several skeptics that the science and the crisis are real.
Third, RealClimate has been quite effective at persuading skeptics who can be persuaded
Fourth, how we persuade people matters as much as whether you persuade them. I am not willing to shade the truth or abandon the scientific method just to persuade some ignorant food tube that I am correct.
Fifth, climate science ain’t my day job. In my day job, I’ve worked on numerous projects that have produced convincing data demonstrating that the crisis is real.
And lastly, you are obviously doing a bang up job of persuasion–tankies like you alienate even those who agree with you. And you wonder why nobody reads your crap.
Ned Kelly says
Ray Ladbury says
30 Apr 2024 at 9:14 AM
Ray, your claims are not evidence what you believe is true.
Lavrov's Dog loves Lakoff's Dog says
This goes well with my two other responses here and on the other thread …. maybe Ray you could learn something from some really good Science?
George Lakoff: Moral Politics … see family, conservatives vs liberals vs bigots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM&t=33s
Then you might be interested in learning how brains actually think … ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ
Probably not, but some readers could well be interested in learning new thinsg that can actaually lead to greater understanding and solving problems instead of only complaining about them 24/7.
Ray Ladbury says
LD, actually I’ve read and enjoyed Lakoff going back to his writing back in the ’80s. In fact, I’ve used his ideas when addressing denialists one-on-one. And I’ve read quite a bit about how the brain works and how it tricks itself. The problem is that the way the brain works is not adequate to ensure human survival. And Lakoff’s emphasis on broad archetypes and conceptions may have been insightful for explaining the differences between the “liberals” and “conservatives” of the 90s, but I don’t think they can explain the utter collapse of values that Republicans have exhibited in their embrace of Cheetolini.
In many ways, the viewpoint Lakoff has expressed reflects some of the arguments made by Bacon in Novum Organum–and I contend that the solutions Bacon proposed remain the only workable framework for overcoming the feebleness of human cognition and prolonging the survival of the species. The scientific method remains the best tool for discerning the true nature of reality, and it is our understanding of reality–not the metaphors we live by–that will determine that survival.
Ned Kelly says
Given what you say above Ray, you never really understood the cognitive science and linguistics behind that presented by Lakoff (nor Chomsky either), which went far beyond US politics (how myopic an observation.)
And it’s clear, at least to me you and your cohorts do not have an understanding of reality either.. Nor is climate science genre equipped with what is needed to determine the survival of humanity, or what passes for “civilization” today. I really feel sorry for you all
It’s actually people like Bacon who brought us Watt’s Steam engine and fossil fuel energy and modern day anti-human ‘economics ideology’ which is killing us and this world we live upon.
Tomáš Kalisz says
In Re to Ned Kelly, 1 May 2024 at 8:40 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821747
Dear Ned,
I suppose that James Watt was from the same sort of people that already in prehistory invented tools, domesticated animals and developed technologies like grain cultivation and processing or pottery that proved critical for survival of the mankind.
Personally, I think that technical creativity is very human and that it is the strength that we should rather support and cultivate than suppress. I see our weakness rather in our (low) capability to organize our own society and politics, as it somehow mirrors also in discussions on this website.
Greetings
Tom
Ned Kelly says
Tomáš Kalisz says
2 May 2024 at 3:53 PM
So you think the “issue” was about Watt, pottery, and inventors do you? Your apparent misinterpretations of what was being said and why, based on your response, could not be more misguided Tomas. I suggest if you’re ‘genuine’ you’d get yourself up to speed on Lakoff (see multiple refs already provided on RC including “How Brains Think”) and the issues under discussion before inserting yourself into a conversation you do not appear to understand the subject matter thereof.
Simply because someone mentions the name Watt does not mean the conversation was about Watt or inventors. (big sigh)
Yet, out of the mouths of babes? “I see our weakness rather in our (low) capability to organize our own society and politics, as it somehow mirrors also in discussions on this website.”
Maybe, maybe not. Some useful hints:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4426
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/108-steve-keen
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
https://metacrisis.org/META-CRISIS/00.+%F0%9F%91%8B+About/Start+Here
https://www.clubofrome.org/ltg50/
That Ray embraced parts of Lakoff and has subsequently dismissed that scientific work by dozens of cognitive scientists is telling. It a shame to see such good work being limited and dismissed out of hand as not relevant to our present collective conditions.
Experience is the only genuine Teacher. So may it be. Kind regards ….
zebra says
Ray,
You keep bringing up “the scientific method” but you can’t give a simple description of what you are talking about, and, (much more significant), how it can possibly be useful in convincing people who vote for Trump.
As I often point out, even the people here with actual science backgrounds devolve to the same level as the general public when discussing topics like human behavior, economics, politics and so on.
There is a whole lot of actual science about the psychology of those voters. It’s a topic that has been studied particularly after WWII and the Nazis, but it is a universal phenomenon. It’s called Authoritarian Personality, and it is a behavior that is extremely difficult to change.
It has nothing to do with “a collapse of values”. It’s just a different set of “values” than what many would like. And my suspicion is that it is just too scary a reality for people to accept, so you ignore the scientific method just like they do.
NedKelly says
First there was this new article from NL — Clean air can worsen warming
Global temperatures have risen by leaps and bounds since last year. In addition to climate change, cleaner ship-gases of ships have probably contributed to this as well.
On the satellite image, the shipping routes from before 2020, such as here in the Atlantic Ocean, were clearly recognizable by the light-colored clouds. – Earthobservatory.nasa.gov
https://www.weerenradar.nl/weer-nieuws/hoe-schone-lucht-klimaatverandering-versterkt-minder-zwavel-aerosolen-van-schepen–8a8f4836-a07a-4432-bc07-4dc692c18c05
Here’s is a very good Aug 2023 Science article worth reading imo
‘We’re changing the clouds.’ An unintended test of geoengineering is fueling record ocean warmth
Pollution cuts have diminished “ship track” clouds, adding to global warming
https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth
— then following down the new research papers it’s references because of the near future additional research in the Pipeline already — I’ll just post few short quotes:
>> By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions.
>> The influence of pollution on clouds remains one of the largest sources of uncertainty in how quickly the world will warm up, says Franziska Glassmeier, an atmospheric scientist at the Delft University of Technology. Progress on understanding these complex interactions has been slow. “Clouds are so variable,” Glassmeier says.
>> Using such techniques, and 2 decades of calibrated imagery from NASA’s ailing Terra and Aqua satellites, Yuan and co-authors discovered 10 times more ship tracks than previously identified using manual techniques. In their study, published last year in Science Advances, they also found these tracks decreased by more than 50% in the main shipping corridors after the IMO regulations. […]
The increase in light, which was worsened by a lack of reflective Saharan dust over the ocean this year, “can account for most of the warming observed” in the Atlantic this summer, he says.
>> They compared clouds at these locations with nearby clouds free of any ship pollution. In Nature last year, they reported that these “invisible” ship tracks not only enhanced low lying marine clouds, as usual, but also markedly increased the volume of puffy cumulus clouds higher in the atmosphere, previously thought to be immune to the influence of ship pollution. They concluded that air pollution could be causing clouds to cool the climate at roughly double the previously projected strength.
>> The decline in pollution didn’t make the cumulus clouds any less puffy, they report in a new preprint in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). It suggests these clouds have a saturation point, after which added pollution does little to increase their depth, Watson-Parris says. “We removed 80% of the aerosols, but that’s still not taking us close to the preindustrial state.”
>> Observing this region with the Terra satellite, Diamond found that, with lower pollution, the cloud droplet sizes had grown to the largest size, by far, in the past 2 decades. Extrapolating from there, Diamond estimates in a paper last week in ACP that the IMO rules have caused warming globally at levels like those seen by Yuan.
>> Later this year [2023] , Diamond, Yuan, and others will begin to compare their techniques for studying the interaction of pollution and clouds, under the auspices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s small geoengineering research program. After a few more years, Wood says, “We’re really going to have something to say about these cloud adjustments.”
SEE — https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth
———————————
REFS –
Global reduction in ship-tracks from sulfur regulations for shipping fuel
Tianle Yuan
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn7988
Invisible ship tracks show large cloud sensitivity to aerosol
Peter Manshausen
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05122-0
Rapid saturation of cloud water adjustments to shipping emissions
Peter Manshausen
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-813/
Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical changes within a major shipping corridor after implementation of the International Maritime Organization 2020 fuel sulfur regulations
Michael S. Diamond
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/8259/2023/
Could solar geoengineering cool the planet? U.S. gets serious about finding out
Campaign seeks to understand reflective particles in the stratosphere, which cooling schemes would enhance
https://www.science.org/content/article/could-solar-geoengineering-cool-planet-u-s-gets-serious-about-finding-out
Ned Kelly says
A study led by Roxy Mathew Koll of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), Pune, delves into the evolving climate of the Indian Ocean and its future projections. Understanding these changes is crucial for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, essential for safeguarding our collective future.
https://www.climate.rocksea.org/research/future-indian-ocean/
It should be obvious by now the world is on a high emissions track (see study projections above) that will not be turned around.
Saw a recent chat with Kevin Anderson …. no point sharing …. saying what’s needed now is for all advanced wealthy economies (OECD/West nations) to be at Net Zero Emissions by 2030.
That’s not 6 years from now. The level of denial in the both mainstream and alt climate action domain has become more ludicrous as each year passes. Meanwhile the climate science modellers and mathematicians are hard at it producing more and more stuff to no end.
Ned Kelly says
Agnotology is a branch of social science which looks at the ways in which doubt or ignorance about certain subjects is created.
Applied Agnotology is as effective against scientists like James Hansen as it is against climate science in the hands of motivated corporate deniers and think tanks. Both use FUD, ridicule, spin, false claims and disinformation.
Edward Burke says
Recent NOAA models and data on the anticipated transition from Pacific El Nino conditions to La Nina conditions across Summer 2024:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Susan Anderson says
repeat (from April): WaPo gift links about US sea level rise (one of which was front and center today, 3 May):
The Drowning South
Where seas are rising at alarming speed
https://wapo.st/3JYXTcp
The new face of flooding
https://wapo.st/44iCuEi
Kevin McKinney says
Thanks, Susan! That first article was gifted to me by a friend here in South Carolina. It’s a really nice blend of objective information and accounts of what people on the ground are experiencing.
Susan Anderson says
Just in case this makes it in time, noon today (3 May) zoom about Attribution Science with Climate Central, moderated by Bob Henson of Yale Climate Connections Eye on the Storm (also, Dr. Singh from Washington State U):
https://yale.zoom.us/webinar/register/7017145014668/WN_TZ6lvcxGROKOTOi_shkMAw#/registration
I’ll post whatever they share afterwards later.
Tomáš Kalisz says
In Re to Ned Kelly, 3 MAY 2024 AT 8:31 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821782
Dear Ned,
I am not interested in cognitive science, linguistic and vast majority of other scientific disciplines, because I strongly doubt that I would understand a single word therefrom.
It is, however, my pleasure reading about science when someone translates interesting observations the researchers made and insights they reached to a level on which I can grasp the point.
In your discussion with Ray, I just noted the mention of steam engine and “fossil fuel energy” in a context that raised my feeling that you consider them as something what is evil per se.
I may be, of course, wrong, and if so, I would like to apologize for my misunderstanding.
Please take my presentation of my own view on human technical creativity rather as a question if your view is different than as an attempt to misinterpret what you actually think. In my opinion, exploitation of fossil fuel energy was a big achievment in human history. This does not mean that it has not brought any negative side effects, nor that it must continue forever.
Please do not take as an insult when I say that I am not going to watch majority of videos you referred to. I just suppose that you share the same or similar views as their authors. That is why I am simply asking you how you personally see the role of human technical creativity in history of mankind, and if you perhaps see it directly linked to an anti-human “economics ideology”, how does the alternative proposed by you (and/or by people you trust to) look like.
Greetings
Tomáš