This month’s open thread on climate topics. Lots more discussion about 2023, aerosols, heat content and imbalances to come I expect…
Note, comments should be substantive even if you are arguing with who you perceive to be the worst person in the world. Comments that are mainly personal attacks will just get deleted.
Paul Pukite: ” -Piotr: Classic Paul Pukite
– Correction. My classic work is in applied math and applied physics, starting from way back in the day.”
My comment was not about that, but about pattern in your response on this forum:
1. Start with a bold claim about your research interest:
– “ [better prediction of the timing of El Nino] can save COUNTLESS lives”; or
– [open ocean internal waves] “have HUGE implications for how fast the SST will change“, and compare their results to … large-scale overturning in lakes.
2. Problems with your claim are pointed out:
– better prediction of the timing of El Nino does not offer much actionable information that “would save countless lives”;
-waves on the top of thermocline do not cause large-scale overturning and without it cannot have “huge” implications for how fast the SST will change.
3. In “response”, you .. ridicule the opponent implying their ignorance: “So you’re really not aware how large subsurface internal waves along the thermocline can get?” even though the opponent was pointing that their size is too small to bring water from deep ocean toward surface (i.e., too small to cause “overturning”)
4. When asked to justify your bold claims on this forum, answer :
“ there is no such thing as a proof in the physical science“,
and go on some tangent about your past work irrelevant to your current claim
5. All the while – patronizingly lecturing the opponent – Nice Piotr, you understand the diff between a lake and an ocean.” even it was me questioning you:
” Why would you [Paul] bring up lakes? There is very little similarity between them and the ocean. MOST of the ocean, unlike your lakes – does NOT overturn” -Piotr Mar. 21.
And that’s the pattern of your behaviour on RC. Given that – I am not that interested in learning more of your “ classic work in math and physics“. Our credibility is like a chain: only as strong as the weakest link.
I think there’s something to do with the detail in the applied math/physics necessary depending on the technical discipline. This last total solar eclipse raised lots of awareness in this. Consider the science teacher that promised his class in 1978 that they would meet up again in 2024 to watch the eclipse near their school location in upstate New York — and they did just that. Incredible precision needed for that. There’s more of that for demanding applications such as satellite control and GPS technology.
I just don’t think climate science is there yet. Yes, lots of compute cycles are being spent on solving numerical weather models, but throwing horsepower at a problem is not always a solution. One that has been bothering me for a long while is ocean tidal cycles. For extreme tidal peaks leading to nuisance flooding, why haven’t the scientists working it correctly attributed the “4.4 year perigean” cycle to the 4.53 year combined declination/perigean cycle? Perhaps with the renewed interest in orbits thanks to the eclipse, we can get to the bottom of this — here’s me prompting the folks at the physics forum to get involved
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/orientation-of-the-earth-sun-and-solar-system-in-the-milky-way.888643/post-7076902
The implication in all this is the mathematical focus placed on a problem that needs to be solved. For example, control of satellites is not possible unless the exact behavior of attracting forces due to the earth-sun-moon system is understood down to a gnat’s ass. Yet, this level of sophistication is apparently not yet needed by those earth scientists tracking sea-level rise, as they apparently are satisfied with rough estimates.
In fact, I am convinced that these kinds of corrections will lead to understanding the multidecadal variations in climate cycles such as AMO. The reality behind the 4.53 year cycle is that it is connected to a longer 70-year cycle when interacting with the metastable annual seasonal behavior that seems to have gotten Piotr’s panties into a bunch.
Re: Paul Pukite, Apr. 11.
To stay within your own metaphor, my panties are only in your mouth, Paul:
NOTHING you wrote in your April 11 post falsifies ANY of my proofs of your ignorance, and the condescending arrogance you built on that ignorance – see my April 1 post.
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
11 Apr 2024 at 9:43 AM
I do enjoy reading your comments which nicely breaks up the usual pattern on these pages.
I believe whatever you are doing, you’re being underutilized in your current role. It’s unfortunate I often am having trouble keeping up with you (technically speaking) but I want you to know I really, really like the way you think and your authenticity!
I really do hope you get a break and someone helps you achieve your goals on the topics you clearly care about. You make a lot of sense to me. Your misc observations (such a few comments above) often match my own even if I do not know exactly why that is so.
Best regards …..
From last month’s unforced variations thread, Patrick 27 said:
From that description, the claimed causality chain is :
MJO >>> Wind >>> Kelvin Waves >>> ENSO
But I found clear indications that MJO lags SOI (a measure of ENSO) by 21 days. So that the more likely causality chain is :
Tidal Forcing >>> Kelvin >>> ENSO >>> MJO, winds
This is the chart of MJO (140° series) shifted by 21 days wrt SOI
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/7305/bXNFwm.png
You can do the analysis yourself, and save for some massive screwup on my end, you will see the same result. To substantiate, the following link is a description put together by the NOAA Climate Program Office, where a ship represents ENSO, and the traveling-wave wake from the ship is MJO:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/catch-wave-how-waves-mjo-and-enso-impact-us-rainfall
For something this fundamental, there needs to be a consensus. And if it was MJO, nice to have a causal mechanism for that oscillation, unless one believes it’s “unforced variations” all the way down.
Reminder: A solar eclipse is coming up in a few days, April 8 (yawn). I refer to Patrick O’27 doing an analysis on the lunar orbital path — consider that the Draconic lunar month is the same whether one times the path interval between complete cyclical crossings of the equatorial plane OR of the ecliptic plane. What makes it challenging to pin down is that reference texts will define it both ways, with the ecliptic crossing perhaps being a more common def’n. The likely reason for that is that human cognition is so sun-centric, in that everything is defined in terms of what the eye sees, thus the emphasis on behaviors such as the solar eclipse and the full moon. Yet the moon is doing it’s own thing irrespective of the sun. Sure, the moon crosses the ecliptic plane, and that’s what causes eclipses, but it’s also obviously crossing the equatorial plane, and the maximal excursions in latitude are equal and opposite in sign.
https://space.physics.uiowa.edu/~dag/1999-2000/vus/10-29/Vu10-29K.jpg
While the maximum excursion also changes over an 18.6 year nodal cycle, see lunar standstills
So I don’t think Patrick is necessarily making a mistake, but it is being filtered by the wrong optics. No one can see the invisible QBO up in the sky reversing back and forth every few years. I bet if millions more people could see it with their own eyes and ponder over it, then the mechanism likely would have been figured out long ago. But instead, you have gatekeepers such as Richard Lindzen who thought about it for a few years, wrote a thesis and then slammed the door shut. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with re-evaluating the research Lindzen did many moons ago.
Quote about Kelvin Waves and MJO is from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JC014838#:~:text=The%20waves%20maintain%20an%20average%20phase%20speed%20of,150%C2%B0W%20and%20minimum%20of%202.35%20m%2Fs%20near%20175%C2%B0W
re https://space.physics.uiowa.edu/~dag/1999-2000/vus/10-29/Vu10-29K.jpg – Great link! Clarification: the nodes (intersections of Moon’s orbit and ecliptic) move westward on the ecliptic as the Moon’s orbital plane precesses around what could be called the axis of the ecliptic (ie Earth’s orbital plane, corresponding to the path of the Sun in the sky), completing a revolution in 18.6 years (relative to the intersections of the ecliptic and equator(ial plane) ie. equinoxes) – this would be more clear if the arrows showing this arced up and down with the ecliptic.
The intersections between the Moon’s orbit and the celestial equator could only revolve completely around the celestial equator (relative to the equinoxes, ie. 360° of RA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension ) if the Moon’s orbit were inclined from Earth’s orbit at least as much as Earth’s axis tilt (obliquity).
Consider that the Moon is never much more than 5° from the ecliptic. All possible positions form a band centered on the ecliptic; this band only includes segments of the celestial equator. Over 18.6 years, the intersections between the Moon’s orbit and the celestial equator wobble back and forth around the equinoxes; thus the average period of two crossings of the celestial equator = average period of lunar declination cycle = a tropical month.
PS I calculated that the Moon’s crossings of the celestial equator can extend ~ 13.4° (along the equator) to either side of each equinox.
(from arcsin[ sin(Moon’s orbit’s inclination) / sin(Earth’s obliquity) ]
arcsin[ sin(5.30°) / sin(23.44°) ] ≈ 13.43°
Edited+corrected from: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817384 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817438
I find I can visualize this by mapping the Earth’s equator and Moon’s orbit as great circles on a globe whose own equator is Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The Earth’s equator revolves westward around this globe once per ~26,000 years while the Moon’s orbit revolves westward much faster (≈ 1 / (18.6 yr)). The points where they cross each other wobble back and forth , revolving only ~1/(26,000 yr); if the Moon’s orbit tilted more than Earth’s axis then those points would revolve ≈ 1 / (18.6 yr) and the averages of the [draconic month and period of lunar declination cycle] would be the same.
Also note that the component of solar tidal torque which drives the precession of the Moon’s orbit around the ‘axis’ of the ecliptic goes to 0 whenever the Moon’s orbit appears edge-on as seen from the Sun, and twice per synodic month; the period of the Draconic month is a bit variable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_coordinate_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_equator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_coordinate_systems
QBO: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818389 …
Patrick O27: The tropical lunar cycle is the time it takes for the moon to orbit completely around the earth returning to the same line of longitude (pick one, doesn’t matter). This is extremely close (within 7 seconds) to the sidereal lunar cycle time, which is in reference to the fixed stars. These two are tightly linked to a geographic location on earth and one can use a sextant to precisely time when the sidereal cycle completes. On the other hand, the draconic cycle is independent of longitude and is calculated indirectly from knowledge of the nodal crossings. That’s likely the reason that it’s a more obscure cycle, and why most people don’t have an intuitive feel for it..
Now, think about the QBO cycle — it’s completely independent of the longitude, which is the definition of a wavenumber=0 cycle. Same thing with the SAO cycle (which is higher altitude than the QBO). The QBO aligns with the declination of the moon i.e. the draconic cycle, while the SAO with the declination of the sun i.e. the seasonal cycle. Simple.
Richard Lindzen was ignorant of (astronomy, geometry, trig, orbits, topology, logic, etc) overlooking this connection over 50 years ago, and he’s still ignorant today. It’s not my problem that Lindzen screwed up. His disciples such as Tim Dunkerton realize the mistake but they are trying to be cagey of how to deal with it, because they also bought into Lindzen’s boo-boo.
Since I mentioned Tim Dunkerton, tried to bait him into Tweeting to the above QBO discussion. He always responds by top-level quote tweet, so I gathered these as reply tweets to keep it all in one Twitter thread, which was then unrolled. This should be informative because it puts into perspective what it’s like to argue with someone that has been studying QBO since the late 1970’s.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1776001576856965456.html
As with all scientific disciplines that lack controlled experiments, the only thing that really matters is what model better fits the empirical observations and is measurably predictive. The bottom-line is that Dunkerton still has no predictive model and there is no reproducibility or commonality among other models, so his responses should be placed in that context.
If that thread reads like a stalemate, realize that more of this will come about with machine learning. There’s a recent paper out called “Toward a learnable climate model under the artificial intelligence era” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379083789_Toward_a_learnable_climate_model_under_the_artificial_intelligence_era
where they state:
Note: Limits to predictability are often expected and don’t automatically count as failures.
I skimmed your https://geoenergymath.com/2024/03/16/are-the-qbo-disruptions-anomalous/ ; regarding your “two possibilities” 2.: “There are other observations, say at different altitudes,” – [or latitudes] – “that are out of the ordinary, or that the behavior observed is actually an external transient. That would be similar to a tsunami or hurricane temporarily impacting tidal gauge measurements. In that case, the transient doesn’t impact the long term coherence of the tidal cycles.” – but I believe the wave-driven model suggests that (aside from damping, ongoing momentum advection…) the QBO would tend to pick up where it leaves off (or is left off); whatever the vertical momentum profile, the wave driving will act on it as it is.
Patrick O’27 said:
I don’t want this statement to be ambiguous. Do you mean that the phase will adopt the latest disturbance and thus shift from the original synchronization? Or do you mean that the disturbance will damp out and the phase will return to the original synchronization?
The phrase “where it leaves off” is ambiguous. If a wall clock was ticking and the hands stopped moving for some duration, and then it picked up “where it leaves off” that to me would imply that it lost synchronization with the actual time. But if it was a GPS clock, it would sync back up with the time. The latter is equivalent to tidal synchronization.
This is crucial to understanding the QBO model, as the tidal force is a strict timekeeper, and the model assumes it will always resynchronize. Just like the seasons always resynchronize after a large climate disturbance such as an El Nino or volcano. There are dozens of papers that discuss the QBO “anomaly/disturbance” that occurred in the years 2016 and 2020 including one by Tim Dunkerton — yet as of the last measurements, the QBO is still aligned with the fundamental nodal tidal cycle. My modeling suggests the reported anomalies may not actually be disturbances but additional secondary tidal cycles with the primary cycle, including the 18.6 year nodal modulation.
Consider also that what lies stratified directly above the QBO in altitude is a cycle called the Semi-Annual Oscillation (SAO). This is strictly linked (nonlinearly) to the seasonal cycle and hasn’t been shifted by the 2016 disturbance, see the following:
https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+The+QBO+and+SAO
The SAO is part of the time-keeping process — semi-annual impulses modulating the primary draconic lunar tidal cycle enforce the QBO cycle.
“If a wall clock was ticking and the hands stopped moving for some duration, and then it picked up “where it leaves off” that to me would imply that it lost synchronization with the actual time. But if it was a GPS clock, it would sync back up with the time. The latter is equivalent to tidal synchronization.”
Well I would need to go read more about how the seasonal cycles (SAO – but maybe also wave driving?, Brewer-Dobson Circ.? … others?) affect the QBO, but in the abstract, consider the tip of a hand on the clock, moving along its regular closed loop in phase space. Now lets add some other dimensions – fiber bundles, perhaps. The loop may be a cylinder along its length (forming a torus), and position around the cylinder’s circumference would be time of year, perhaps. And we can slide through the plane of the clock and out of the plane to get to momentum distributions over height (and latitude) that are not characteristic of the normal phases of the QBO (in case that was a feature of the disruptions; offhand idk). Okay. So not all QBO cycles are identical, of course, but there are tendencies in the trajectory – the paths taken cluster in some way. When something more abnormal happens, the trajectory goes farther from its regular track. So with a major disruption, the distance from where things are at to the regular track will eventually decay. But the point on the track it gets to will, I expect, depend on where it is.
Yes, but it never gets to the point where say (in a global context) the seasons permanently shift in phase due to a cold snap or heat wave. The SAO is seasonally synched and the QBO is seasonally+lunarTidal synched. This is the aspect that fried Tim Dunkerton’s brain I think — he wrote papers on the SAO years ago (told me to read them) but never made the connection to a forced response
He responded to me on Twitter (tim_dunkerton/status/1776137878239576261):
Note the synchronization to a seasonally locked SSAO. But then claims that kicks off QBO — but something else needs to be added to the mix, otherwise that too will be seasonally synched. The secret ingredient is gravity wave forcing from the wavenumber=0 draconic tidal cycle. That’s enough to create an aliased cycle, which looks erratic until you examine it closely.
Clarification: for sake of argument, let’s imagine a QBO with average frequency = 1/(2.25 years) = 4/(9 yr); if the pattern repeats exactly every 9 years, this produces a quintuple helix (winding number 5) around the torus described earlier. Allowing the QBO to have seasonal habits, the various windings needn’t be equally spaced from each other. A transient disruption could decay back to this 9-year cycle, but it may be phase-shifted ie. it wouldn’t generally go back to the original schedule.
PS you still haven’t provided a plausible mechanism for significant tidal influence (I have yet to see any tidal explanation of SAO), or how it would be linked to the draconic cycle in particular.
(Have you tried looking at diurnal tide resonance with inertial oscillations near 30° lat? (28.84° mean lunar day, 29.91° mean solar day, 30° sidereal day) (As I understand it, land-sea and mountain-valley type diurnal flows driven by the diurnal heating cycle may resonate with ~inertial oscillations near 30°. It’s tricky for the diurnal tide because it’s circularly polarized at 30° and rotates the wrong way; the part that would resonate is the opposite circular polarization – so I broke it into 2 such components (= g [A/2 · sin(2δ)]·[ cos(2ø) ± sin(ø) ]÷R; A≈ 53 cm for Moon (nominal, can be larger), g≈9.81 m/s² , R≈6371 km ); the part that resonates grows going away from ø=30°, … )
…1st graph https://geoenergymath.com/2024/03/16/are-the-qbo-disruptions-anomalous/ model leads before training, lags ~ 2007 to 1st disruption, leads slightly until 2nd disruption, then lags a bit again (last 2 parts very short, not much to go on).
“this produces a quintuple helix (winding number 5)” – no, 9 one way, 4 the other.
g [A/2 · sin(2δ)]·[ cos(2ø) ± sin(ø) ]÷R is ‘raw’ – doesn’t include fraction of tidal potential used up by solid+liqu. Earth, nor gravitational feedback.
45/19 is a good heuristic for the QBO cycle period but that’s all I think it is, a heuristic like 22/7 is an estimate for the value of pi. Otherwise the draconic cycle and annual cycle is not commensurate.
re: plausible tidal explanation for SAO. There is a well known long period tidal factor which is named SSA standing for solar semi-annual, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides . The plausibility of this matching is tied to the requirement for angular momentum to be conserved, and also to the impact of the seasonal Northern hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere excursions to be identical if it is strictly a function of absolute declination. The lunar plausibility follows from this, assuming it is strictly declination, as with the sun.
P O’27 said:
I seriously am interested in what you are trying to convey here, since I’m a fan of unconventional approaches, but really have no idea, starting from equating the various days of rotation. ChatGPT4 is usually a big help here with terminology but even it is confused
https://chat.openai.com/share/10debf94-544b-4d07-95b9-e37fcc21b92e
As far as resonances, yes, they do impact the amplitude of a response, but not the frequency. Consider the Bay of Fundy, which shows the biggest extremes in tides, due to the resonances of the enclosing bay (and the fact that the north part of the bay curls in the direction of Coriolis). Yet the most massive BoF extremes are still overwhelmingly governed by the 18.6 year nodal period interspersed with the 4.53 year Draconic fast-side-band cycle. Why are lunar declination-related cycles so strong here?
Angular frequency of inertial oscillation on a local horizontal surface = 2Ω sin(ø) = f = Coriolis parameter;
Ω = | Planet’s angular velocity | ;
ø = latitude
Eg., 2Ω sin(±30°) = Ω
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_frequency
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817865 (A is ‘raw’ equilibrium bulge height = difference between highest and lowest displacements of a geopotential surface, not including gravitational feedback (of the mass redistribution caused by/of the tides):
h_{diurnal} = A/2 · sin(2δ)·sin(2ø)·cos(λ)
horizontal gradient (derivatives over distance on surface of sphere):
= A/2 · sin(2δ)· [ −sin(2ø)·sin(λ)/(R cos(ø)) , 2 cos(2ø)·cos(λ)/R ]
= A/2 · sin(2δ)· [ −2 sin(ø)·sin(λ) , 2 cos(2ø)·cos(λ) ] / R
Multiply by g₀ (≈ 9.81 m/s² @ Earth’s surface R ≈ 6371 km) for horizontal tidal acceleration g’
Etc.
u’_{amplitude} (est.**) ≈ (g₀/R) · [A/2 · sin(2δ)] · [ cos(2ø) − |sin(ø)| ] ÷ [~max(Δω , ~1/τ)]
Δω = ω_{tidal forcing} – 2Ω sin(ø)
2Ω∙sin(ø_{resonance}) = ω_{forcing}
PS ω_{forcing} may be doppler shifted (lower in westerlies) ; I gave ø_{resonance} values based on mean periods of Sun and Moon crossing the same longitude on a rotating Earth, no wind.
τ is a time scale eg. damping time, time an air parcel lingers around the necessary latitude band, etc.
Note, organized motion varying horizontally may involve convergence and divergence, which would tend to alter pressure and thus the motion would not be purely inertial (besides being forced).
PS based on preliminary results, I don’t expect anything major; I just wanted to satisfy my curiosity.
“ ‘raw’ – doesn’t include fraction of tidal potential used up by solid+liqu. Earth, nor gravitational feedback.” – I should say it does include “fraction of tidal potential used up by solid+liqu. Earth”, but we should subtract that from the ‘raw’ , but add the gravitational feedback.
Re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821256 “Note the synchronization to a seasonally locked SSAO. But then claims that kicks off QBO — but something else needs to be added to the mix, otherwise that too will be seasonally synched. The secret ingredient is gravity wave forcing”… and Rossby-gravity, etc. But no need for tidal forcing. This has been explained:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818389
(PS …“ as the regions are damped/squeezed out at the bottom of the QBO region,”… link below explains a bit about that, too (3rd paragraph under “3. Structure of the axisymmetric fields”)
re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821329 “ plausible tidal explanation for SAO. There is a well known long period tidal factor which is named SSA standing for solar semi-annual,” But the annual solar heating cycle is by far, far, far, the big factor in seasonal weather variations, AFAIK including the BDC (Brewer-Dobson Circulation). The annual cycle has a semiannual cycle built in when the magnitude of the differences between Northern and Southern hemispheres matters. Flow across the equator from North or South will tend to bring easterlies (or reduced westerlies relative to origin – if the air starts out sufficiently westerly and not too far from the equator) to the Equator (via Coriolis effect – eg. trade winds):
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/78/3/JAS-D-20-0248.1.xml
“Revisiting the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation as Seen in ERA5. Part I: Description and Momentum Budget” Hamid A. Pahlavan, Qiang Fu, John M. Wallace, George N. Kiladis
4th paragraph under “3. Structure of the axisymmetric fields”: “ The flow in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere exhibits a pronounced semiannual oscillation, characterized by easterly wind maxima a few weeks after the solstices and westerly wind maxima a few weeks after the equinoxes, as first documented by Reed (1962, 1966). It has been suggested that the westerly phase of the SAO is due to eastward-propagating waves, in particular shorter-period Kelvin waves with high phase speed, while the easterly phase is driven by a combination of planetary wave forcing and the meridional advection of angular momentum in the upper branch of the BDC, which consists of rising motions in the summer hemisphere, a cross-equatorial drift, and sinking in the winter hemisphere (Holton and Wehrbein 1980).”
PO27,
Unfortunately that information on Coriolis is of little value. I’m doing a universal analysis that considers tidal forcing on each of atmosphere, ocean, and solid body scales. The solid body is obviously the most well-understood (except for Chandler wobble, which is a related story). Ocean tidal cycles have never reflected Coriolis cycles as far as I am aware, yet they can always be mapped to lunisolar cycles. But even here it gets confusing when dealing with the most extreme cycles.
The aspect that confuses everyone (you apparently as well) is that the lunar tropical month period (27.32166 days) can’t both represent the ~cycle to return to the same longitude (wrt the stars) AND the time it takes to complete plane crossings — that’s entirely because of the 18.6 year retrograde precessional cycle of the nodes. So the draconic month period (27.2122 days) is used to represent the average time between plane crossings. The complication is that for modeling, you want to be able to mathematically describe the gradual change of maximum excursions of lunar declination, which also follows the 18.6 year cycle. That’s what according to NASA will create huge nuisance flooding in the next decade (Google moon+wobble+flooding). In this case we want to be able model the cycling between maximum and minimum lunar standstills, which is 18.6 year period max-to-max. To do that most efficiently all it takes is to create a sinusoidal multiplier
ModulatedDraconic = (1 + k sin(2π/18.6 * t)) * sin(ω_D * t)
where ω_D is the draconic radial frequency. This when expanded will create 3 sinusoidal terms — the draconic, and 2 satellite subbands. The slower -subband is just the aforementioned tropical/sidereal lunar period, which makes sense because it represents the value if there were no retrograde speed-up due to the precession. But the weird part is the faster +subband, which is at 27.1036 days. It has to exist to compensate for the tropical, otherwise averaging the modulatedDraconic mixed sinusoid wouldn’t generate the mean 27.2122 day period.
This lunar cycle has no name as far as I can tell, yet it indirectly pops up everywhere in extreme tidal analysis. I’d like to call this new period either the Laciport or Cinocard month which is the backward spelling of Tropical or Draconic.
The starting place to look at extreme tides is the Bay of Fundy. Here they have extreme tidal flooding on an 18.6 year repeat period and also modulated by a 4.53 year period which is usually attributed to lunar perigee assist multiplying the tropical tide — but that value is actually more precisely 4.42 years not 4.53.. The eye-opener is that this 4.53 year period comes directly from the unnamed 27.1036 day lunar cycle interacting with the 27.554 day anomalistic perigee tide, so that the multiplication creates a 1/27.103 – 1/27.554 constructive beat frequency = 4.53 years !
It’s a breakthrough because I also use the 27.1036 day value on the QBO to explain the anomalies observed. When used there with the main draconic cycle and a slight compensating tropical cycle it can maintain the 2.36 year QBO cycle while fluctuating about the average.
But now what’s cooking is that it also appears to be able to model the Bay of Fundy’s big neighbor — the AMO. The 70 year multidecadal period naturally falls out at is related to the 27.1036 day value as well.
PO27 said:
No need for the usual qualitative hand-wavy “explanation” when one can produce quantitative physics models. The battle is not between who can create the best narrative prose when it comes to describing a physical phenomenon, but who can match the data best with known physics. That’s the way it is in every other hard scientific discipline. Climate science in some ways is more challenging in only that we can’t do controlled experiments. Yet, cross-validation is always available as a replacement for experiments.
To make my point again, it’s not just any tidal forcing — rather it’s the class of tidal forcing that has been overlooked over time in preference to the conventional diurnal tides. As many people were made aware following the recent total solar eclipse, the moon covers lots of ground in a day, but that’s mainly because of the earth’s rotation. To remove that rotation and isolate the mean orbital path is tricky. And that’s the time-span duration where long-period tidal effects and inertial motion can build up and show the extremes. Consider again the 4.53 year cycle observed at the Bay of Fundy (see Desplanque et al). This is predicted if the long-period lunar perigee anomaly (27.554 days and the 8.85 absidal precessional return cycle) amplifies the long period lunar ecliptic cycle, as every 9.3 years the lunar path intersects the ecliptic plane, one ascending and the other descending as the moon’s gravitational pull directly aligns with the sun’s. The prediction is 1/8.85 +/- 2/18.6 = 1/4.53 and 1/182, the latter identified by Keeling in 2000. The other oft-mentioned tidal extreme is at 18.6 years, which I mentioned earlier.
This is not hand-waving but a direct rocket science level explanation. But please PO’27 help me find a scholarly citation where the 4.53 year extreme tidal cycle is explained in this way. I haven’t found anything.
The same for the QBO where I am suggesting that the frequent crossing of the lunar orbit with the ecliptic plane, at 27.212/2 day intervals constructively interferes with the semi-annual cycle, thus maximizing gravitational forcing (moon+sun) at the frequency observed of QBO. Thus 365.242/27.2122 mod 1 = 0.422 is the 2.368 quasi-biennial period. And again nowhere will you find a citation to this identity — unless to my pubs.
Even though I appreciate the other explanations you offer, I suggest that they are wrong or misguided at best. Tidal forcing is required to quantitatively explain the empirical observations.
PP, the simple truth, though why it has to be a battle eludes me.
“The battle is not between who can create the best narrative prose when it comes to describing a physical phenomenon, but who can match the data best with known physics.”
Also, an accurate list of Lindzen’s blind spots “(astronomy, geometry, trig, orbits, topology, logic, etc)”. He also smokes (and denies of tobacco’s harmful effects); quelle surprise.
re: “Lindzen’s blind spots”
Someone was asking me why Richard Lindzen never responded to the model I published on the forcing of QBO over 5 years ago, I don’t know. But it could be that (1) he is semi-retired and doesn’t work on the topic any longer, (2) he is not aware of it (even though his disciples such as Dunkerton know about it), (3) he doesn’t care or has no energy for it, (4) he doesn’t want to draw attention to it by addressing it, (5) it is correct so no need for any action.
As silence is often taken as acknowledgment, and with no challenge (5) is the best bet.
(PS this thread continued from:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820653 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820688 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820782 …
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820528 …)
“I calculated that the Moon’s crossings of the celestial equator “…PS view unit sphere of directions along the equinox direction, in orthographic projection; draw a right triangle with one corner at equinox (angle = Earth’s obliquity), hypotenuse along celestial equator, one leg along ecliptic, other leg has length = sin(Moon’s orbit’s inclination) …
“The tropical lunar cycle is the time it takes for the moon to orbit completely around the earth returning to the same line of longitude (pick one, doesn’t matter).” …” These two are tightly linked to a geographic location on earth”…
(PS sorry I have absolutely no experience using a sextant.)
Yes, the Moon returns to the same ecliptic longitude. You seem to be forgetting about the rotation of the Earth, though. Lunar declination (δ) oscillates while ecliptic longitude cycles 360° but the Earth is rotating all the while through the tidal bulges of the perturbed geopotential. Lunar δ cycle (determines (along with phase of anomalistic month) lunar contribution to zonally-symmetric tide and amplitude of the lunar diurnal and lunar semidiurnal tides) is dominated by the tropical month but the draconic month contributes resulting in an 18.6-year modulation of lunar δ cycle.
“draconic cycle” … “That’s likely the reason that it’s a more obscure cycle, and why most people don’t have an intuitive feel for it..” – Seem’s easy enough to understand to me. It helps knowing how tidal effects (variations in Sun’s gravity over the space of the orbit) produce a torque on the orbit, similarly (**to some extent) to how the Sun and Moon exert torques on Earth via its equatorial bulge. (**Big difference: Moon is not spread out into a circular ring around the Earth.)
(Is my passion for geometry noted?)
“His disciples such as Tim Dunkerton realize the mistake” …
Based on?
a = F/m ; pressure gradient, coriolis (+curvature terms), gravity, viscosity; vorticity eqn, etc.; thermodynamics, equation of state, …
Patrick O’27 said:
4 minutes of time off per day.. Consider the M2 semidiurnal lunar tidal cycle at 12.4206012 hr, which is the strongest. This aliases against the sidereal 1/2 day 23.934477/2 hr => 1/(1/M2-2/day) = 13.66 day Mf long-period tide which is the strongest LOD factor.
If aliased against EXACTLY a half-day instead of the sidereal half-day that is 4 minutes off then the calculation aliases to the 14.765 Msf long-period tide which is a rather weak LOD factor.
The Msf is half the synodic month which is the full-moon cycle. Tides will respond to this sun-moon alignment more than the LOD. The LOD is responding to the torque of the Sun on an annual cycle, not daily.
Have you looked up the symmetry of lunar standstills (max and min separated by 18.6 years) with respect to the Earth’s equatorial plane? They swing + to – and back every
27.2122 days.
Susan, when you tell an untruth about Lindzen (that he denies smoking’s harmful effects) it weakens the rest of your attacks upon him. The quotes are out there. You shouldn’t lie about what people say when the quotes are easily available.
[Response: At the time, Lindzen would “even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.” (July 2001), while “clearly relish[ing] his role as a naysayer”. He may well have moderated his public statements (and maybe his opinion) since then because it makes him seem like a fool rather than a brave naysayer, but it remains a valid critique of his approach.- gavin]
Thomas W Fuller (at 28 APR 2024 AT 2:22 AM): – “The quotes are out there. You shouldn’t lie about what people say when the quotes are easily available.”
The 22 Jul 2021 Newsweek article (Gavin refers to) included:
https://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937
Hansen vs Lindzen
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17
Meanwhile, the periods between the observed “Climate Milestones” keep dropping. I’d suggest the data indicates a clear acceleration in the rate of warming, and is now certainly more than +1.25 °C above the 1850-1900 baseline.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-820953
It seems to me that Lindzen’s “calculations” have well and truly been proved false.
Re my work @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821362
Correction: Δω = ω_{tidal forcing} – 2Ω |sin(ø)|
“ω_{forcing} may be doppler shifted (lower in westerlies)”… well I suppose the inertial oscillation frequency could also be shifted but I think that’s more complicated…
Of course, ω_{tidal forcing} (in this context) is lower when A and/or δ are larger, and given the modulation, I expect the forcing is equivalent to a sum of various components with their own frequencies and amplitudes.
—— —–
Re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821378
“The aspect that confuses everyone (you apparently as well)”…
I was confused about the definition of a tropical month, and polar tides – that was a few tropical months ago. I stand by what I wrote here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820883
…“(wrt the stars)”… that’s a sidereal month.
“ModulatedDraconic = (1 + k sin(2π/18.6 * t)) * sin(ω_D * t)”…
That is *not* the lunar declination cycle. Try swapping ω_T for ω_D, or perhaps better yet, use a linear superposition A sin(ω_T) + B sin(ω_D). But this is still a rough approximation. …where λ is ecliptic longitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_coordinate_system#Spherical_coordinates ) (λ ≈ ω_T t ), sin(δ) ≈ … (maybe I’ll come back to this later)
Re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821418 “No need for the usual qualitative hand-wavy “explanation” when one can produce quantitative physics models. The battle is not between who can create the best narrative prose when it comes to describing a physical phenomenon, but who can match the data best with known physics. ” …
Sure, but…
1 I didn’t realize your model used known physics… where do you explain that?
2 Prose can be quite helpful in the course of communicating ideas, eg. education.
3 GCMs (general circulation models) use known physics – including those which can simulate a QBO: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-818221 (linked from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818389 ) My description was not intended to be a complete summary of the scientific knowledge on the QBO and ‘hand-wavy’ is, IMO, not a fair description of what I wrote (eg. I provided links) – although it may apply to some of what you’ve stated previously.
…“This is not hand-waving but a direct rocket science level explanation.”…
In rocket science, you need to use F = ma. Do you use that?
“ Tidal forcing is required to quantitatively explain the empirical observations. ”
I am not convinced that this is true.
Momentum budgets seem rather quantitative to me, as do GCMs and weather data. See again https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-818221 (Admittedly, I have not yet read most of the two momentum budget articles).
———- —
Re Susan Anderson https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821458
Richard Lindzen is no hero of mine, either, but while he’s been wrong on anthropogenic climate change (specifically on GHE matters (CO2 vs. H2O), maybe some other things I’ve forgotten about), I am unaware of just cause for trashing his work on fluid dynamics (which I presume required logic, geometry…).
Perhaps a problem area in applying tidal analysis is that predictions are not intended for many years into the future, So in the short term, there is no difference between using the tropical vs draconic factor in modeling the principal tidal modes. There’s only a 0.4% difference between those 2 cycles in terms of period and so only with time does the error really start to accumulate. That’s why I’m interested in understanding the extremes in tides, such as in Bay of Fundy. What we see here are the results of nature doing the bookkeeping of the numbers so we can see the significance of the differences . And that would extend to the progressively longer scale behaviors such as QBO, ENSO, and the multidecadal AMO, Remember that Richard Lindzen essentially marginalized and thus discounted any contributions of tides to QBO in the 1960’s by likely only looking at the daily periods and dismissing based on that. No sense of the long term or (aliased) interactions with the annual, which is vitally important to keep track of volumes with enormous non-fixed inertial masses such as the atmosphere and the ocean. When these volumes start sloshing back and forth, it’s the accumulation that’s important, not the daily variations. Climate scientists should be sensitive to this topic as CO2 growth is eventually an inertia problem — as sequestering can’t keep up with introduction.
No wonder why we are having problems keeping straight the difference between declination (wrt equator) and inclination (wrt ecliptic) — rarely is this considered an important distinction, thus reference works are sloppy in terms of attribution. Consider again the difference between the 4.42 year subcycle in extreme tides vs my proposed 4.53 year subcycle. The former is understood as 1/2 the 8.848 year cycle in precessional perigee approach to a specific geographic location. But 4.53 is the perigee cycle mixed in with the 9.3 year cycle in which the moon crosses the ecliptic plane, thus maximizing gravitational pull at a frequency 1/4.53 = 1/8.848 + 2/18.6 (or 1/27.554 – 1/27.1036 in counter -precessing lunar monthly cycles). Yet, who is considering the possibility that this is the dominant cycle, if not the combination of those two? Only a 2.4% difference exists between 4.42 and 4.53 which means that a ~180 year cycle exists in where these go through constructive and destructive interference cycles. Keeling & Whorf discussed a 180-year cycle related to perigean eclipse cycles (from https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.070047197).
It is relatively easy to pick out 9 year cycles in AMO and generate a ~70 year cycle to accommodate the multidecadal nature, but who else is doing it? Foremost, this has to be a methodical approach with careful accounting. PO’27 is taking swags in comment sized bites that really should be addressed in a better forum.
“(maybe I’ll come back to this later)”
Okay,
Let’s *Do* this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_coordinate_system
RA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_coordinate_system#Right_ascension
δ = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_coordinate_system#Declination
For the Moon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic#Obliquity_of_the_ecliptic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination
O.T._ = oscillatory terms to account for unsteady motions (eccentricity or pulsed precession)
n = any integer
Ob = Earth’s axial tilt (obliquity) ≈ 23.44°
i = inclination of orbit (of Moon to ecliptic) ≈ 5.145° ± 0.155°ish**
( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820783 )
β = ecliptic latitude
λ = ecliptic longitude;
Ω = ecliptic longitude of ascending node (of Moon’s orbit);
Ω = Ωp∙t + O.T.p
Ωp ≈ −2π÷(18.6 yr)
let λ’ = λ – Ω
let θd = ω_D∙t + O.T.d = phase of draconic month (= 0 at ascending node)
let θt = ω_T∙t + O.T.t = phase of tropical month
— —
sin(β) = sin(θd)∙sin(i)
sin(λ’)∙cos(β) = sin(θd)∙cos(i)
let λarg = sin(θd)∙cos(i) ÷ cos(β)
——-
for −π/2 ≤ θd ± 2πn ≤ π/2
λ’ ± 2πn = arcsin(λarg)
——-
for other θd
λ’ ± 2πn(?) = π − arcsin(λarg)
——-
β = arcsin[ sin(θd)∙sin(i) ]
λ = λ’ + Ω
————————————–
sin(δ) = sin(λ)∙cos(β)∙sin(Ob) + sin(β)∙cos(Ob)
δ = arcsin[ sin(λ)∙cos(β)∙sin(Ob) + sin(β)∙cos(Ob) ]
———- ———
sin(RA)∙cos(δ) = sin(λ)∙cos(β)∙cos(Ob) − sin(β)∙sin(Ob)
let RAarg = [ sin(λ)∙cos(β)∙cos(Ob) − sin(β)∙sin(Ob) ] ÷ cos(δ)
——-
for −π/2 ≤ λ ± 2πn ≤ π/2
RA ± 2πn = arcsin(RAarg)
——-
for other λ
RA ± 2πn(?) = π − arcsin(RAarg)
Any errors?
re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821505
Correction:
“ω_{forcing} may be doppler shifted (”higher “in westerlies) ”
Does PO’27 think that the Coriolis frequency is a real frequency? It’s actually a misnomer to consider it a frequency as it’s more of a rate of rotation-induced deflection. The commonality is that both a frequency and a rate have dimensions of inverse seconds. Likely someone long ago noticed that the Coriolis parameter had this 1/time dimensionality and so designated it as a frequency. Hard to imagine how it can have a Doppler effect, as sound waves are compression waves so air will actually bunch-up or stretch-out depending on the velocity of the observer.
Lots of junk terminology that one finds in Earth sciences, for whatever reason, and that one wouldn’t find in other sciences.
But getting back to the point, the only reason I am looking at side-band variants of the lunisolar orbital forcing is because that is where the data is empirically taking us. I had originally proposed solving Laplace’s Tidal Equations (LTE) using a novel analytical derivation published several years ago (see Mathematical Geoenergy, Wiley/AG, 2019). The takeaway from the math results — given that LTEs are actually used in GCMs as the shallow-water approximation to oceanic fluid dynamics — was that my solution involved a specific type of non-linear modulation or amplification of the input tidal. However, this isn’t the typical diurnal tidal forcing, but because of the slower inertial response of the ocean volume, the targeted tidal cycles are monthly and annual. Moreover, as very few climate scientists are proficient at signal processing and all the details of aliasing and side-bands, this is an aspect that has remained hidden (again thank Richard Lindzen for opening the book on tidal influences and then slamming it shut for decades).
So considering the extreme tides at Bay of Fundy in the western Atlantic, I used the side-band draconic lunar cycle of 27.1036 day which explains the 4.53 year Bay of Fundy extreme repeat cycle when applied in conjunction with the perigee cycle of 27.554 days.
365.242 * (1/27.1036 – 1/27.5545) = 1/4.53
(see also section 3.3 on equinoctial tides in https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ageo/2004-v40-n1-ageo_40_1/ageo40_1art01)
But all the side-bands when aliased against an annual impulse are also likely important
365.242 * (1/27.1036 – 1/27.5545) mod 1 = 0.2205
365.242 * (1/27.1036 + 1/27.5545) mod 1 = 0.731
365.242 * (1/27.1036 – 2/27.5545) mod 1 = -0.0347
365.242 * (1/27.1036 + 2/27.5545) mod 1 = 0.9863
The 1st is again the 4.53 year period, the 2nd smaller, but the third and fourth relate to the 1st harmonic of the perigee, which occurs due to the pair of inline pulls corresponding to each of the solar and lunar eclipse alignments. The 3rd equates to nearly a 30 year cycle and the 4th a 70 year cycle. Note how close the latter is to the multidecadal AMO cycle.
Now, this isn’t just a selective situation where we can cherry-pick the periods that we want to analyze — they all have to work together when the declination and perigee terms are multiplied together creating all the various cross-harmonic terms. Same as with conventional tidal analysis. That means we will see fast cycles on the order of a year and all the other longer cycles simultaneously if we attempt this kind of fit. And that’s how straightforward it is to model all the short-term and long-term intricacies of the AMO time series. And PDO and ENSO if you go there, first PDO as a perturbation to AMO and then ENSO as a perturbation to PDO. The approach works extremely well with minimal degrees of freedom to achieve cross-validation. PO’27 can make lots of noise to explain how it can’t work, but that’s not enough — he will have to show how the excellent cross-validation results across all the climate indices — QBO, AMO, PDO, ENSO and the small scale Bay of Fundy results — can occur just by statistical chance. Good luck with that. As PO’27 was also asking about the physics, this is about as close as one can get — physics is about creating a unified view of plausible behavior that is both precise and parsimonious.
I can imagine that machine-learning will also discover the cross-validation eventually but the challenge there will be to reverse engineer the results. Fortunately it’s something we don’t have to do here, as the analysis was physics-first.
“Does PO’27 think that the Coriolis frequency is a real frequency?”
Original context: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821362 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821505 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821571 ; I prefer the term “Coriolis parameter” (f), but it is the “Angular frequency of inertial oscillation on a local horizontal surface”. (Also, it’s the (local vertical component of) planetary vorticity.)
(see links about Coriolis effect in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818389 : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817618 , note correction in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817664 )
“Hard to imagine how it can have a Doppler effect” … “ Lots of junk terminology that one finds in Earth sciences, for whatever reason, and that one wouldn’t find in other sciences. ”
What The Coriolis parameter?
AFAIK, any situation in which relative (linear?) motion changes the observed/experienced frequency of an oscillation/wave (sound, light, Kelvin, Rossby, Alfven – whatever that is, etc.), that’s Doppler.
In the context of the of diurnal or semidiurnal tidal forcing (caused by Earth rotating through the tidal g’), the frequency is the difference between Earth’s angular velocity and that of the orbital motions involved; a westerly jet goes faster in the same direction and thus the air flowing through it will experience a higher frequency. A mass of air rotating relative to Earth could, in a corotating frame of reference, experience a different effective inertial oscillation frequency (???- I could explain better?, – but see inertial stability) – that might not be a Doppler shift, but it would be an effect.
PS in (aspects of?) Astronomy/Astrophysics (one or both?), all elements besides H and He are metals, correct? And I’m fine with that.
“ QBO, AMO, PDO, ENSO”
It’s impolite to use all caps – oh, wait, never mind.
You forgot MJO, NAO, C3PO and XOXO.
But seriously, note that I’ve not addressed any claims of significant tidal influence besides on the QBO (doubtful (except maybe via ENSO etc.??)) and ENSO (maybe??).
PO’27 said:
Did not forget those. Preface again that I’m an empiricist who’s handy with applied math and physics. With respect to the MJO, I made an interesting observation a few years ago that the MJO pentad time series at 180 longitude lags the SOI by ~21 days. So, it is highly correlated with ENSO if a time shift is applied. Haven’t felt the need to publish this because I thought it was quite obvious https://geoenergymath.com/2020/02/21/the-mjo/ . Yet, the implication being that MJO as a behavior is just as a traveling wave offshoot of ENSO — what it does after this may also be important but I am interested in the origins of these natural phenomena. So MJO is essentially subsumed by whatever ENSO has as an origin. Rare to find much on the correlation, but the pair of indices is considered synergistic at the NOAA climate web site : https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/catch-wave-how-waves-mjo-and-enso-impact-us-rainfall, where there is a neat visual analogy of the ENSO ship creating the MJO as a traveling wave wake as it moves through the water
NAO, alas is one behavior that I face a challenge in modeling. It has a higher frequency in oscillation than the other indices, so it’s entirely possible that I will need higher resolution than monthly data to model it. It also only goes back to 1950, which is shorter a time series than the other oceanic indices so there is less to cross-validate against.
Yet, I do feel that I should treat all these indices collectively. What often happens in science is the “raising of the goalpost” response. So for whatever model that one presents, the reaction is typically one of “yes, that’s fine but it doesn’t explain this other thing”. That’s a difficult response to counter unless one has those other things in your back pocket.
Is It A Record?
The March UV had 447 comments!! Not to mention other threads had lots and lots of comments (unfortunately many off topic).
Mea Culpa????
In March, Gavin was kind enough to fulfill my request to expand the Recent Comments list, in order to prevent potentially interesting comments from new or infrequent participants getting lost. But it seems just the opposite has happened, and the list is full of the usual suspects, sometimes making 6-8 comments in a row.
Now, as with Chaos Theory, I stipulate that I have no formal training in Sociology, but…. coincidence? Since people here speculate all the time about stuff the actual experts can’t figure out yet, I will suggest that in this case, correlation does hint at causality…. is there perhaps a Territorial Imperative at work??
Well, I have missed my chance to patent the concept, and it is probably in some marketing textbook somewhere anyway, so if the RC folks get some benefit, I’m happy. But I would still like to see some visitors and lurkers participating more actively.
in Re to zebra, 2 Apr 2024 at 8:25 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820813
Dear zebra,
Thank you for this comment.
A remarkable record has been achieved by Piotr, by subsequently posting three completely identical comments in a row – wherein all of them appeared in the Recent comment list.
I would therefore propose a new strict rule for the Recent comment list:
If someone will post in one forum (e.g. in Unforced variations) more than one posts within one “moderation run” (sometimes it is a day, sometimes a few hours only, sometimes more than three days), only one of these multiple post of the same author should appear in the Recent comment list anyway.
I would allow “double advertisement” of the same author in the Recent comment list only in case that his / her contributions appeared in distinct fora (e.g. Unforced variations and AMOC..). It should be fully on consideration of moderators which of the multiple posts (if any) appears in the Recent comment list.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: Dear zebra, Thank you for this comment. A remarkable record has been achieved by Piotr, by subsequently posting three completely identical comments in a row – wherein all of them appeared in the Recent comment list.
A thief shouts: “Catch the thief!” ?
And if 3 posts in a row are “a remarkable record achieved” , how would you call those “6-8 posts in a row” from zebra’s post to which you supposedly reply? How About “The Super Terrific Happy Hour Remarkable Record Has Been Achieved“?
And the fact that recent comment list has, for example:
-“Susan Anderson on Unforced variations: Apr 2024
– Susan Anderson on Unforced variations: Apr 2024
– Susan Anderson on Unforced variations: Apr 2024”
does NOT mean that Susan has just … littered RC with “ three completely identical comments ” [(c) Tomas Kalisz]
So before you start “proposing new strict rules for the Recent comment list, how about you learn about the thing you are talking about, and do that before imposing your “new strict rules” on the people like Susan (currently 3 posts in a row), or Ray Ladbury (currently – 5 posts in a row).
Thanks. My notes are usually specific and acknowledge my amateur status. I did, this time, pay specific attention to the request above in the hopes of not contributing to the problem about which I regularly complain/whine.
“comments should be substantive even if you are arguing with who you perceive to be the worst person in the world. Comments that are mainly personal attacks will just get deleted.“
Actual lurker here. No need for convoluted rules or tortured legislation by the moderators. This comment self-illustrates the type of in-thread interaction that degrades the discussion. You all know who you are. Please sit on your thumbs.
zebra: People here are not paying any attention to your (or anybody else’s) statistical concerns. They are interested in their ability to promote their opinions without having to achieve an audience on their own. It’s a piggyback operation. The more obsessed and self-indulgent, the more desirable the opportunity. We feel we’re actually doing something. It’s an addiction of sorts.
I do think all of us should count the time and effort we put into these remarks, and consider whether our time and effort would be better spent elsewhere. [Exception: Scientific material which adds value.]
Re “one comment per day,” the blog owners have made no such stipulation. The rest of us are exactly equal – one column inch = one column inch. Fact.
zebra Apr.2 “In March, Gavin was kind enough to fulfill my request to expand the Recent Comments list, “Mea Culpa????”
you said it, sister. April 3-4: Ned Kelly posted, in this thread alone, FIFTEEN posts, of his usual quality and scientific rigor. I am sure he appreciate your action ;-)
Picking up from last month’s forum. I have to respond to Karsten, as I think he’s under a very dangerous misapprehension that:
It’s certainly wrong in terms of policy: republicans have, as a group, done just about everything they could aggressively to promote the use of fossil fuels. MAGA types have even resurrected the “Drill, baby, drill!” slogan. Meanwhile, “Sleepy Joe” Biden has managed to shepherd through Congress–and on a bipartisan basis at that–by far the largest package of climate initiatives ever seen in the US, in the form of the Infrastructure Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/16/fact-sheet-one-year-in-president-bidens-inflation-reduction-act-is-driving-historic-climate-action-and-investing-in-america-to-create-good-paying-jobs-and-reduce-costs/
https://media-publications.bcg.com/BCG-Executive-Perspectives-US-Inflation-Reduction-Act-16August2022.pdf
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/how-the-inflation-reduction-act-and-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-work-together-to-advance-climate-action
To be fair, the context of Karsten’s comment wasn’t domestic policy, but the silence of the IPCC on the inadequacy of UNFCCC emissions reporting. But his comment is wrong purely in that context as well. However inadequate or “lukewarmish” one may find the Biden administration’s actions in the fora of the UNFCCC, they indisputably stayed in it, and participated meaningfully (and, I would say, mostly positively). Trump’s MAGA administration actually pulled us out, and would do so again. Just how adequate would US emissions reporting be under Trump, do you think? Read Chapter 10 of Project 2025–basically a wet dream for the fossil fuel industry and allies–and take your best guess as to whether the date would even continue to be collected at all.
https://www.project2025.org/
The choice between “lukewarm” Dems and a denialist MAGA party owned lock, stock, and barrel by the fossil fuel interests could hardly be starker–or more consequential for the entire planet.
Re: Kevin McKinney APR 2
I fully agree with you – Karsten’s equating US dems and republicans – is false equivalency. And a case of “all or nothing” fallacy. Quite common among the “maximalists” – there are so far to one extreme that everybody not there – fuses into one.
And this maximalism is counterproductive:
– cognitively – does not allow one to see significant differences;
– ethically – blurring the boundaries between right and wrong – putting down the US dems by saying they are no better than Trumpists – comes at the price of saying that Trumpists are not that bad – since they are no worse (“the difference is zero”) than the Biden and US dems
– motivationally – instead of mobilizing to fight for a change – it discourages from action, by making the situation feel hopeless – if almost everybody is a denier then we are doomed, so what’s the point of even trying – let’s disengage, “emigrate internally”, and enjoy what we have while it lasts.
Given their unattainable standard of what a success would be, the maximalist are never satisfied with what has been achieved. And they often flame out – having the contempt to most of the people, why would you waste your time trying to help _them_ ? Let them reap what they have sown.
The psychological payout of feeling smarter than everybody else (“ I can see what others can’t” “I have warned you many times, but you are too stupid/corrupted to listen“) may be enough only to some of them.
A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker (Piotr/Kevin) attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists.
That you see a difference is THE problem here. And to be expected, unfortunately. People who know, know better.
Both Parties (and the cultural norms of the USA and the Anglo-American White West, first world in particular; are immoral degenerates. Especially when it comes to their collective inaction on climate change for 35 years, the inaction over ecological environmental destruction and loss, finance capitalism and economic norms, plus global civilisational collapse and coming catastrophes (meta-crisis).
NK. Just because the Democrats and Republicans both support finance capitalism in principle and neither party has done great with climate change, does not make them the same party. There are numerous very discernable differences. .The Democrats are much stronger on climate change both in words and legislation, and the two parties are poles apart on taxation, regulation, social issues, attitude to Ukraine, etcetera. These things matter.
Ned K.: A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker (Piotr/Kevin) attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists
Except Kevin has put falsifiable arguments for the massive difference between the Biden’s “the largest package of climate initiatives ever seen in the US, in the form of the Infrastructure Act and the Inflation Reduction Act” and Trump’s and MAGA’s climate change denial, promotion of coal, and other fossil fuels, and resurrecting “Drill, baby, drill“.
Contrast this with the guy who based his derision toward Kevin on own assertion that: “ Both Parties (and the cultural norms of the USA and the Anglo-American White West) are immoral degenerates“.
Ever heard about Hitchens’ razor, Ned? You know: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.“?
And since you are so vocal on fallacies – how you going to call the fallacy of being unable/not wanting to see a massive difference between two things,
and lecturing other’s on the imaginary straws in their eyes and missing a beam in own? How about: “Ned’s syndrome“?
NK: Both Parties (and the cultural norms of the USA and the Anglo-American White West, first world in particular; are immoral degenerates.
BPL: Not as much as you, buddy.
UAH TLT has posted for March with a new record all-month high global monthly anomaly. This means the last 9 months Jul 2023 to Mar 2024 all sit in the top 12 monthly anomalies. This top-12 are tabulated below.
Mar 2024 … +0.95ºC
Oct 2023 … +0.93ºC
Feb 2024 … +0.93ºC
Nov 2023 … +0.91ºC
Sep 2023 … +0.90ºC
Jan 2024 … +0.86ºC
Dec 2023 … +0.83ºC
Feb 2016 … +0.71ºC
Aug 2023 … +0.69ºC
Mar 2016 … +0.65ºC
Jul 2023 … +0.64ºC
Apr 1998 … +0.62ºC
The CFRS re-analysis of SAT is reported showing a drop in the March global SAT anomaly, the webpage also graphing out anomaly series for N & for S polar & mid-latitudes and for the tropics with only the tropics & N mid-latitudes showing an above-trend March 2024 anomaly and the year-on-year anomaly plots showing only the tropics with the hottest March-on-record.
MA Rodger says
2 Apr 2024 at 1:38 PM
This means the last 9 months Jul 2023 to Mar 2024 all sit in the top 12 monthly anomalies.
Seems uncommon, to say the least.
Why is that so Rodger? or iow,
What caused that to happen Rodger?
aka
Why have those anomalies been so high, (been so Hot), Rodger?
and/or iow
What has Changed (Increased) to Cause that to happen these last 9 months Rodger?
Uh, you know that you are asked to limit your self to one or two posts a day, right? Or is what you have to say so incredibly valuable the guielines don’t apply to you?
Karsten V. Johansen 29 Mar: “ The rise in the atmospheric CO2-level is accelerating. But the IPCC seems to ignore that ugly fact.”
Could you be more specific how IPCC “ignores it”? Projections of the future climate are run from the current baseline – so the PAST CO2 acceleration. is NOT ignored, since it is used as the most current baseline.
The FUTURE acceleration is not ignored either, since there is ,,,,nothing to ignore – IPCC does NOT run a single projection based on ITS PREDICTION of future CO2 – instead IPCC tests range of emission scenarios https://www.climateneutralgroup.com/en/news/five-future-scenarios-ar6-ipcc/
or https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
ranging from
– the most optimistic: SSP1-1.9: “where global CO2 emissions are cut to net zero around 2050”
– to the most pessimistic: SSP5-8.5: “where current CO2 emissions levels roughly double by 2050”
So you can state that the IPCC seems to ignore that ugly fact.” ONLY if ALL their scenarios were well below the rate you anticipate. In other words, given your confident language ( “fact”) – how confident you are that the emissions of CO2 would MORE THAN DOUBLE between 2015 and 2048?
Jonathan David @ March UV page.
“Nigelj, how would someone like Charles Koch be characterized? Koch is an MIT trained engineer and respects the scientific consensus. However, Koch is opposed to any governmental action to address climate change. Instead he advocates that this problem be address through market-based private sector initiatives.”
I believe Charles Koch should be called a lukewarmer. Charles Koch says he accepts that greenhouses gases are warming the climate but he does everything possible to downplay the severity, and impacts, so I would suggest regarding the science Koch is a lukewarmer at best. Refer his desmog.blog entry:
https://www.desmog.com/charles-koch/
Koch has also poured millions of dollars into organisations opposing the scientific consensus on climate change. So I’m not sure I even believe him when he says he supports that humans are warming the climate, given he funds several organisations determined to prove the opposite. His support looks like a public relations stunt while he secretly does the opposite. But I don’t know for sure, so lukewarmer seems an ok label. Piotr will probably prefer denialist!
I would say Koch is a solutions denialist. Kochs idea that free markets and private investment is enough to fix the climate problem looks completely delusional to me. The free market with its private sector initiatives has value in general terms, but has a terrible historical record of fixing environmental problems. Due largely to the tragedy of the commons issue.
Most environmental improvements seem to have come primarily from government interventions , whether laws, regulations, subsidies, cap and trade schemes or taxes. Court cases have sometimes helped but are very expensive processes and problematic. Obviously farmers sometimes do the right thing environmentally without government pressure but not all do. So because Kochs views are so implausible I would call him a solutions denialist.
People who think we should solve the climate problem mostly not by renewable energy, but by absolutely huge reductions in energy consumption look deluded to me also, but at least they mean well and there is a place for some reductions in energy use.
Nigel: “Piotr will probably [call Charles Koch] denialist”.
Exactly, Nigel – if one denies the need to rapidly reduce our GHG emission then one meets my definition of the denialist. And by their fruits, not their noble declarations about themselves, you shall know them: what Koch SAID – that he “respects the scientific consensus ” and that he “accepts that GHGs are warming the climate”, has to be tested against what he DOES – his foundation supports climate change denialist think-tanks and politicians, both in the US and abroad.
For example, his foundation is one of the major funders of a Canadian Fraser Institute – a right-wing think tank that has the Canadian denier Ross McKittrick , as a senior fellow, and which “institute” vehemently opposes Canadian revenue-neutral carbon tax, i.e. the most conservative solution to GHG emissions of them all:
Traditional liberal economy has a blind spot for things it can’t put price on – the “ priceless“for the market is “worthless“. Thus putting the price on emissions – fixes it, thus allowing market to find the most cost-effective way to reduce these emissions. Of the two main market-based strategies – carbon tax is:
– more universal – the alternative – cap-and-trade – applies only to the big centralized emitters, thus misses the consumption emissions – you can’t cap and trade household emissions. Carbon tax, OTOH, can be used for both the production part (the big emitters) and for the consumption end as well, or in hybrid solution – with carbon tax for most and cap and trade where it makes more sense.
– simpler to administer – much less bureaucracy, you just slap the tax at the source of energy, and whoever uses more pays more. i.e. you don’t have to come to each entity and measure how much emissions they produce during a year.
– revenue-neutral nature means that there is no net cost to the people everybody gets the same rebate, but those who use less FF than average, pay less tax and therefore turn a net profit, while those who use more than their fair share of FF – pay tax, but are not ruined since it is still partly offset by the rebate. This tax does what any good tax should – reward the good choices and penalizes the bad ones, And here, the good choices are rewarded from the pockets of those making bad choices. And the higher the tax – the bigger the net benefit to those making good choices
– leaves much less room for government interference – if your company uses more fuel – you just pay proportionally more tax. In the cap-a-trade – the politicians/bureaucrats would decide what’s the reference level emission for each factory from which the reductions will be counted (e.g. 90% of what?). If you just grandfather in the preexisting emissions – you will be rewarding the bad ones – those who haven’t done a squat to reduce their emissions in the past – and as a result their reference emissions would be inflated and thus more “forgiving” than their competitor’s, who have done the right thing and already reduced their emission – so their low-hanging fruit was already gone before we set the reference emissions – so their getting to 90% of their much tighter reference emissions would be much more expensive. And how big a quota you assign to the new entries that don’t have pre-existing emissions? In this situation, there will be pressure to adjust the individual factory quota allocation, thus opening the room for conflict of interest, corruption, industry lobbyists, and for the government choosing the winners.
All that – an anathema to somebody believing in the “market-based private sector initiatives.” And yet Charles Koch foundation has been one of the largest donors to the organization that tries to discredit this the most market-based, the least government regulation and intervention, solution. Therefore, I won’t be calling Koch “lukewarmer” – in my book he is denialist – by their fruits, not their declarations, you shall know them.
Jonathan David could avail himself of Jane Mayer’s Dark Money, Chris Mooney’s Republican War on Science, DeSmog, Skeptical Science, or one of the many valuable evaluations of the network of doubt sellers allied to Republicans and the world of ‘woke’ science denial, a cancer which is spreading throughout our society. Mike Mann, James Hansen, and many many others have delved into the wealth and power at the root of short-term gain at the expense of our future. A quick look at Project 2025 should give anyone with five senses and a brain a cauld grue.
Charles Koch may be an MIT-trained engineer, but his vast wealth is the result of his and his energy industry associates’ freedom to charge all the traffic will bear for fossil carbon while socializing its climate-change cost. Of course he’s opposed to collective (i.e. government) interference with his revenue streams. He’s the model of the profit-motivated climate-change denier (which includes lukewarmers). I’m not prejudging him just because he’s rich, either. Take a look at this item on forbes.com (erstwhile motto: “Forbes, the Capitalist’s Tool”) from 2012: Inside the Koch Empire: How The Brothers Plan To Reshape America:
Snort! And here’s Jane Mayer (“Dark Money”) on newyorker.com in 2019:
Sometimes it’s hard to know a denialist’s motivation; not with this guy, though. And it’s a sad fact of life on Earth that Charles Koch’s personal and family wealth, including his late brother’s legacy, gives him political power far greater than non-profit decarbonization advocates can muster. What a world.
Shoulda linked to Jane Mayer’s book review, “Kochland” Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial. I’d buy the book by Christopher Leonard, but I’d probably throw it down furiously before finishing it. Meh, I’m already quite willing to believe the worst about the Kochs! The question is, how can high-quality investigative journalism like this reach a wider audience?
Koch is a hypocrite and a liar. He’s always on about reducing taxes and regulation, but it was his organization that influenced the Oklahoma state legislature to put all kinds of restrictions and extra regulations on wind farms. He also stole oil from federal and Indian lands:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/22/kochland-excerpt-senate-investigation-oil-theft-native-american-tribes-227412/
Charles Koch is a Vulture capitalist. He has his fortune and doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about the rest of humanity. He is also a glibertarian–one whose idea of libertarianism is that he can do whatever he wants, damn the consequences.
Of course, Koch’s political activities are well known. What I find interesting about Koch is that even if he excepts the reality of climate science projections he still obstructs any viable solution. His greed for continuing revenue offsets any long term concerns he might have about the realities of climate change. I suppose from that point of view I would prefer a word like “obstructionist” not simply “denialist” to categorize him. Dealing with some one like Koch requires more than simply a presentation of the facts since he appears to simply not care about the consequences of his actions. His positions are fundamentally irrational.
Jonathan David. After suggesting Charles Koch as a solutions denialist I thought solutions crackpot was probably better.
Charles Koch is driven by libertarian ideology. This belief system is so extreme I wonder if its a mental disorder of some sort. However it provides a pseudo intellectual justification for greed and minimal laws so that’s maybe partly why Koch subscribes to it.
I’ve noticed that libertarians are often utter hypocrites, same as BPL mentioned.
Am amusing real world example of why libertarianism doesn’t work: “How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
On the contrary, Jonathan, Charles Koch has demonstrated ample business acumen – hey, if I’m so smart, why ain’t I rich? He may or may not acknowledge anthropogenic global warming privately, but even if he does, his private benefit from the sale of fossil carbon far exceeds his anticipated share of the social costs. Quite rationally, he’s made a clear-eyed benefit/cost analysis. He owes his vast personal fortune, and the political power it gives him, to his choice. His money buffers him against personal climate-related disaster, and allows him to absorb any conceivable cost. He’s already influenced the political trajectory of the US radically. He ‘s certainly got no use for our understanding or sympathy. Nonetheless, “the future’s uncertain and the end is always near” (J. Morrison). Sooner or later he’ll end up dead like the rest of us. It may take a few generations to undo his political legacy, sadly. I hope there’ll be time for that!
True, but one would think he would be more concerned about his children and grandchildren. Come to think of it though, looking at the bios of Charles Chase and Elizabeth Koch, I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t something of a disappointment to their father and that Koch may very well not have a lot of sympathy for them.
I do not think it is purely greed that motivates Koch’s position. Rather, I think his libertarian ideology is his religion, and it cannot be swayed regardless of evidence or the long litany of failures whenever libertarians get their way and implement policy or shape society.
The entomologist Edward Wilson after describing the literal selflessness of social insect societies once said, “Marx was exactly right. He just had the wrong species.” Koch and the other glibertarians are wrong on the other extreme–they refuse to acknowledge the importance of commonwealth in the success of the human species.
Hmm. Well, if the -ism in ‘denialism’ is indicative of a closed system of thought or a set of political tactics (or both), and Koch is cooking it up and pushing it out on the streets, in one sense or another, it seems to me that he’s a maestro instrumentalist when it comes to thought terminating dogma, whatever his motivation.
Radge, and others on this.
In my comment above about comments, I said I hadn’t studied Sociology (or Psychology and other such as well), but I have read a bit, and my observation is that even people who think of themselves as science-oriented have a hard time accepting the realities about human behavior, even when there is good science characterizing it.
I think it’s because it is difficult to accept that we all fall on some spectrum or other, but don’t want to admit to ourselves that swapping circumstance with Koch-types might have led us to the same outcome.
I think I’ve brought up Authoritarian psychology/personality before, and there really is a lot of science behind it, but there is also a lot of denial from, again, people here who are on the “science team”.
Koch, for example, might well be a “True Believer”, to the point of sociopathic behavior. But it’s about the power, and, as difficult as it may be for you folks to believe, it’s even better when you know you are lying and cheating. (Consider Trump, and all those who relate to and admire him.)
So, it really has nothing to do with getting some degrees from MIT… that’s a non-factor, as we can see with numerous politicians with even more credentials, on whom reality and facts have no observable influence.
Zebra,
What you’re saying isn’t so hard to accept. Intuitively, human behavior isn’t so far off from the way chimps behave, after all. But there are many different angles and approaches as to how you examine it: social, psychological, economic, political, cultural, biological, historical…
Much of the discussion of what constitutes a denialist is categorically descriptive for the sake of clarity. That’s how I see it, anyway. For instance a troll and a denialist are not necessarily interchangeable terms. Sometimes a troll is just a jackass with no particular ideology or agenda other than perhaps nihilism, and maybe not even that– just channeling their inner chimpanzee: hooting, shaking trees, and otherwise indulging in basic dominance displays.
Does it matter? Maybe. It might change how you choose to handle (or ignore) them.
Radge, my point is that all the different angles are not science.
If you want to ask why Koch and others behave the way they do, expressing moral indignation by saying they are hypocrites or greedy or whatever is not an answer.
There really is science about human behavior. Some of it characterizes what we call “mental illness”, some describes “personality disorders”, and so on. And there is also behavior that manifests itself… the chimp thing… in varying degrees, in very large percentages of the population, depending on their early developmental environment.
The problem is that instead of acknowledging this very depressing and scary fact, people who may otherwise think scientifically revert to their own versions of denial and deflection.
Zebra,
I think I mistakenly glossed over something in your original comment that I probably should have responded to first.
I agree with this. We’re all subject to cause and effect. And since people are complicated, monocausal explanations for why people behave the way they do don’t fit the bill here. If anything people are even more complicated than climate, and I disagree that all the different angles are not science. Certainly all the things I listed above are indeed sciences.
Moral indignation? Perhaps. Anger? Oh yeah. We’re in the middle of a culture war like it or not. Hey, if you can launch a successful charm offensive, I say more power to you. Go for it.
I hope my reply didn’t come of as brusque. I was in a rush when I dashed that off.
I think “team science” is reasonably savvy here on RC (in aggregate, over the years), but what you say resonates with what I’ve seen on some other sites.
Radge, not brusque, but here’s a question to clarify my point, and I apologize if it is not PC.
Lately we’ve had Ned Kelly posting multiple (6,7,8) long screeds one after the other, which include lists of references that nobody would have the time to read even if they wanted to. Before NK, there was TK, and Victor, and several others, filling up the column inches.
In some cases, the incoherence of the language itself is more obvious than in others, but it seems obvious that there is some behavioral “issue” that would receive a diagnosis from a professional, if it were occurring in direct personal interactions.
So my question is, why act as if there is a “normal” conversation going on? Would you do it with a co-worker in the office who acted that way? Would you apply “normal” descriptions like greedy or inconsiderate, and offer logical/factual counter-arguments, after the initial attempts have no effect?
The same question applies to the vast number of people who belong to a particular sub-culture in the US, and with minor variations everywhere in the world. Is the diagnosis for Koch different from the one for all the petty tyrants in the world, from the local bad cop to Putin?
Humans have the capacity to transcend their chimp-nature, but it requires an environment that develops alternative characteristics, and an effort to maintain and continue that development. A big part of that is not hiding from the unpleasant reality that science illuminates for us.
Zebra,
Hmm. Well personally, my responses tend to vary depending on any number of factors. As for NK, I rarely respond to him directly if at all. I could give my amateur, arm chair analysis of what I think is going on there, but I’ll just say, you have to wonder if someone that hyper isn’t tweaking. In any case, it looks like he’s starting to spam the site and maybe needs a time out if not blocking altogether.
When this topic has come up in the past, I don’t recall seeing much agreement on how to herd cats, and I’m not seeing that changing anytime soon. Now I surely wouldn’t want to see certain of the commenters here given the ability to post articles alongside Gavin et. al,. That said, the comment sections are open to the public, so it’s not exactly an office or classroom type environment. You never know who’s going to walk through that door.
For the UV thread, think maybe “perpetual public meeting on climate related issues with just a suggestion of an agenda.” Even formal, well planned, professionally conducted, public meetings with diverse stakeholders can be an eye-opening trip and a half, complete with the occasional physical altercation.
I’d only add that I think there’s more than just minor variations in the people who come here (good, bad, and indifferent) and what they hope to get out of it. Again, maybe it’s just me, but I try to tailor my responses to whom I’m addressing based on my, no doubt sometimes faulty, assessment of them.
I can think of numerous reasons people might post a large number of comments, including being passionate about some cause, enjoying debates with other posters, being very extraverted, having spare time (eg: being retired), having important knowledge to share, being lonely and bored, having a big ego, having a mental disorder, being employed by some lobby group to spam websites with denialism. Or some combination.
I don’t think that multiple comments are necessarily bad, but it can sometimes get out of control and you know it when you see it. If someone is posting so many comments, that are literally crowding out other people, then that’s not fair. But its an issue for website moderators, of perhaps warning people then ultimately banning them.
Radge, fair enough in your description of what goes on here. And of course I reply/comment according to my own motivations. I check in on people (you are one) who write coherently, not very often, and to the point.
With respect to RC, my concern is that it is labeled as a place for people to learn about science, run by scientists, and my idea of helping with that is for it to be less of a middle-school lunchroom food-fight. And when the science is discussed, it should be coherent, and to the point.
On the diagnosis front, I think the point remains that if you want to achieve a goal, you have to accept that large cohorts of people can be influenced by understanding certain characteristics common to the members, putting aside individual variations. That’s why marketing works. Trees, forest, weather, climate, and all that.
Zebra,
I share your concern. There’s at least one mechanism here that seems to be underutilized. As I understand it, the Unforced Variation page was put place to siphon off OT comments and distractions from the comment sections that accompany RC articles.
Such comments can be directed and responded to here (the UV threads) by the commentariat– not always easy in the heat of the moment, but doable with practice. Or so I imagine.
And you’d have to keep an eye out for those posting flimsy pretexts for discussions as an excuse to drag everyone down a rabbit hole.
I agree that people can be influenced as you say, but the caveat is always “know your audience.” IOW, it’s important to be consistent on the facts, but the delivery will vary. There’s art to it as well as science.
Thanks Zebra. The class bore misses the point. I diagnose a severe case of frustrated ego. It’s too bad, because he really doesn’t get that the more he posts the more we all want to move on, and that we already know what he’s trying to ‘educate’ us about.
Susan, you are the one who completely misses the point of what I said.
You saying “the class bore” is a perfect example of the kind of the kind of denial and deflection I described.
Try reading it again.
Zebra: Sorry not sorry, the ‘class bore’ is Ned Kelly* not you.You appear to have missed my point: I supported what you wrote fwiw. [*I don’t disagree with his worries, but I won’t repeat what I wrote already about that.]
Nigelj, good reply. My point is not that Koch is really a nice guy that is simply misunderstood (or some such silliness). But rather that I am a little uncomfortable with various individuals all being labeled as “denialists” despite appearing to have somewhat differing motivations. This is not because I think this does them a disservice, I believe they can all be classified as opponents in some sense. However, the strategies for countering their arguments cannot all simply be reduced to the same rhetoric. For me, this ties in somewhat to the previous conversation on the effectiveness of rational argument. Some opponents may be susceptible to rational argumentation whereas others are not. It could presumably be a considerable waste of time and effort to not know which is which.
Jonathan David. I agee labelling everyone denialists regardless of motivation seems wrong, but Im not sure what else you label them as. For example some people diismiss climate science and solutions because they genuinely believe it will hurt poor people, and so have more nobel intent than Charles Kochs motivations. Labelling them denialists does seem quite harsh and blunt however 1) I can’t think of another useful term 2) They are still spreading denial and thus undermining the consensus 3) Their arguments aren’t very convincing. There are obvious ways to make sure low income people dont get hurt by mitigation costs.
I still believe the main problem is labelling everyone a denialist regardless of the extent or scale of their objections to the climate consensus. It seems crazy to me. I mean I think thats why we have the lukewarmer term.
The problem I have is its hard identifying which denialists, luke warmers, etc, are amenable to rational argument. In most cases I just keep my rebuttals facts based and polite and hope it might convince a few of them, and a few other rational people reading along, or at least get them thinking. I also enjoy the mental exercise. So if its wasted time in terms of the specific denialist I dont mind too much.
And fine tuning the communications methods is easier said than done. You can try to word things in terms that resonate with peoples political ideologies but its hard work and they might think they are being manipulated. Being emotive can also have unpredictable results.
Jonathan David APR 4: “ I am a little uncomfortable with various individuals all being labeled as “denialists” despite appearing to have somewhat differing motivations
By their fruits you shall know them. The lowest common denominator of all subtypes of denialists is their “fruit” – support for continued use of fossil fuels by disparaging the current actions to reduce GHG concentrations.
Now, if you want distinguish the paths in which denialists converge at the same “fruit” – you can subdivide them into the 3 subgroups:
1. GW denialist (no Global Warming)
2. AGW denialist (Humans not responsible)
3. GHG-denialists urgent reduction of GHG is pointless (not needed because of “1” or “2”,
or too little too late so no point to bother^*)
—-
^* the last includes both extremes – George W. Bush who in the span of a few years went from – we don’t need to do anything , to it’s too late to do anything now, so let’s concentrate on adaptations, as well the ‘ all-or-nothing’, ‘no point in good unless it is perfect‘, and/or I told you so, but you never listen and never appreciate me for the prophet I am‘ fundamentalists like Ned Kelly and Killian.
===
But since that “1” leads to “3” (GHG reduction not needed) , and “2” leads to “3”, and by definition “3” leads to “3” – so I don’t think this distinction would be needed very often.
Particularly, that your proposed reason for such a distinction – tailoring your counterargument to the path that brings a denialist to “3” – would be relevant ONLY if they were open to being convinced. However, almost without exception, they are not:
because of their financial, ideological, religious or psychological needs, they believe a-priori that, to paraphrase Gordon Gekko, “Fossil Fuels, for lack of a better word, are good“, and then only look for the justification of this conclusion after the fact.
But if you still hope to convince them with a rational argument tailored to the specific path they chose to achieve the common “fruit” then my distinction into the 3 subtypes of denialist seems preferable compared to “denialist” vs. “lukewarmer” division: since “lukewarmer” seems poorly defined and subjective:
– Nigel considers Koch “lukewarmer”, Ned or Killian likely considers Nigel, you and me lukewarmers too. And Koch certainly would not call himself a denialist… ;-) So this word hides more than it illuminates.
Plus one!
The essential point–the one completely characteristic ‘field mark’–of the denialist (of whichever subtype) is the refusal to consider evidence in a reasonable way. That’s the bit that merits the term “denialist”, and it’s quite precise.
“Skeptics” may have a bias of one sort or another, may be stubborn and persistent long beyond the bounds of plausibility as most folks would see it, but as long as they’ll meaningfully engage on the evidence, they aren’t (yet) a denialist. But when the evidence gets tossed as a “conspiracy,” or because of some sort of ad hominem claim or another, or maybe dismissed by the [in]judicious application of a triple dose of Ye Olde Salve of False Equivalence, well, the balance has tipped.
Fellow space travelers,
I hope you are all well, and enjoying the spring weather. I hope also that you all dodged the winter storm that dumped up to 12 feet in California accompanied by 190 mph wind gust:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/03/blizzard-pounds-california-sierra-nevada/72830152007/
That’s not quite world record territory, but it’s getting up there:
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/mount-washington-world-record-wind-april-12/
We do have good news on the climate change front. Disasters, and deaths from weather events are declining:
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2022/01/10/why-disasters-have-declined/?sh=6163eab31897
It appears that we may not be getting the bang for our buck we had hoped for the infrastructure bill expenditures. To be fair, I hear the number of new EV charge stations is now up to 4, not 2 as claimed here:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/2-billion-subsidies-only-2-ev-stations-opened-holdup-social-justice
As we go about the important business of educating our fellow space travelers about climate change, it is important to be well prepared to face those who doubt that it is a serious problem;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb8ORrIljuQ
Enjoy the spring, and may we have a mild summer in 2024.
Be strong; be of good courage; God bless America; long live the republic.
Mr. Know It All: – “We do have good news on the climate change front. Disasters, and deaths from weather events are declining: …”
Um, why would you include a link to a study that ends in 2010? Where’s the latest 13 years of data? Can’t you find a more recent one, Mr. Know It All? Or would that be inconvenient for your ideological narrative?
As for Michael Shellenberger, here’s DeSmog’s extensive background information on him at:
https://www.desmog.com/michael-shellenberger/
Meanwhile, on 19 Mar 2024, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its latest report titled State of the Global Climate 2023. On page 23 begins a section titled Extreme weather and climate events with the lead key points:
On page 26 begins a section titled Socio-economic impacts with the lead key points:
In the sub-section labelled FOOD SECURITY, included:
https://library.wmo.int/records/item/68835-state-of-the-global-climate-2023
Mar 2024 came in at +1.68 °C relative to the 1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline, making it the 10th consecutive month at an instrumental record high, and the 9th consecutive month breaking the ‘Paris 1.5°C limit’.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1775118948117426364
Global warming is accelerating.
https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen/status/1773706310812598486
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1775275383593795997
A final word from the WMO’s Mar 19 publication announcement:
https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-global-climate-2023
Is the WMO’s State of the Global Climate 2023 too inconvenient for your “good news on the climate change front” narrative, Mr. Know It All?
We are pretty much stuck on our decreasingly habitable and finite planet earth, despite science fiction dreams of ‘escaping’ since space is not a hospitable place. Fixing our bad habits doesn’t come cheaper, but it is orders of magnitude easier, cheaper, and less dangerous than providing life sustenance outside our inner atmosphere.
As a plain matter of fact, the assertion that disasters have diminished is simply not true. It is true that we have better warning and rescue systems, and to some extent, ways to manage consequences such as heat and A/C (which increase the cause while remedying the symptoms).
I checked the first two references: the first is out of date (2010) and the Forbes one relies on Roger Pielke Jr., who is a well know luckwarmer with a degree in political science. The YouTube is a grilling from Republican MAGA collaborator Senator John Kennedy.
With regard to data on disasters here is one of many useful factual records: A record 63 billion-dollar weather disasters hit Earth in 2023: Seven nations had their most expensive weather disaster on record, and the continent of Africa suffered two of its deadliest
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/01/a-record-63-billion-dollar-weather-disasters-hit-earth-in-2023/
It is now 2024, so records which stop at 2010 are suspect.
Thank you, Susan, for calling out or the arch-lukewarmers Shellenberger and Pielke Jr., both frequent subjects of discussion on RC, e.g. this superb, definitive rebuttal by Michael Tobis of Shellenberger’s 2020 book “Apocalypse Never”. MT has a very clear mind, IMHO. Yet “a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” (variously attributed). Especially when the lie is being supplied with fresh horses by self-interested parties.
A lukewarmist claim is that aggregate tragedy from climate-related weather disasters is declining, due to advances in forecasting and early warning systems, and other cultural adaptations that have saved millions of lives in recent decades. What’s not mentioned is that in the absence of anthropogenic climate change, the same cultural evolution would have saved even more lives; and that the total cost, in money and tragedy, of adaptation will be open-ended until the global economy is decarbonized.
If one seeks a rigorous, peer-reviewed estimate of the costs of extreme weather changes to date, try The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change in Nature Communications last fall (open access). Abstract:
I wonder how lukewarmers will react to it.
Thank you for the weather report and the view into the rightwing nutjob fever swamps. You rot your brain so we don’t have to.
As I predicted back in 2007-2010, this is doubling in nearly a decade. That rate of doublings in any area of the climate system = global disaster/collapse by 2100, and we are seeing these kinds of doublings all over the system.
Thread: https://x.com/LeonSimons8/status/1767509577656856739?s=20
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1774005639573848209#m
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGJ6IudoWAAMx7pv.jpg
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1775160466366489087#m
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1773739983016231004#m
https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-42/
Hansen et al discussion Nov 2023 0 really good details even in Q&A section
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXDWpBlPCY8
Interesting times. This “accelerated warming / aerosols argument” is going to blow up in someone’s face in due course.
IN other news:
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-atmospheric-scientists-link-arctic-sea.html
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk3990
Arctic sea ice–air interactions weaken El Niño–Southern Oscillation
Using deductive reasoning to assign meaning, this concludes that loss of arctic sea ice will tend to stronger El Nino responses. Meaning: Future Climate chaos driven extreme weather events during El Nino periods including more record temperatures such as in 2023 …. accelerated warming leads to accelerated arctic sea ice loss leads to lower albedo leads to stronger el ninos leads to accelerated warming leads to ……. stronger el ninos leads to greater arctic sea ice loss leads to ………..
If the entirety of the Leon Simons 12th March 2024 twitteration is considered (as it should), he begins boldly telling us:-
And, given this Leon Simons is but an internet blogger insinuating himself into the scientific firmament, he ends his twitteration with a DJTrumpian-like statement:-
He is, of course, himself managing to ignore a big disparity in time scales. The arrival of “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas” temperatures occurred thro’ the summer of 2023 while his doubling of EEI occurred over a decade-long period.
MA Rodger says
3 Apr 2024 at 2:51 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820843
1) “given this Leon Simons is but an internet blogger insinuating himself into the scientific firmament”
Leon Simons is a multi-published author of peer reviewed climate science papers.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leon-Simons
https://nl.linkedin.com/in/leon-simons-b715989
Rodger, instead of displaying your own ignorance, pushing ad hominem insults, could you stick with the data, the science, and the arguments please? I expect no change unfortunately, but may as well ask one more time.
2) “while his doubling of EEI occurred over a decade-long period.”
Not really true, quite exaggerated straw man there – but please explain why you have problems with the data and analysis provided by NASA CERES and EBAF displayed in the EEI and ASR graphs?
And I expect no improvement here either.
That you have no rational science based retort to Hansen’s papers, articles, nor Simon;s comments and input is clear. I conclude it’s because you, much like Victor, cannot understand it, and/or have never actually read their output. There can be no disagreement with things you are unaware of; therefore you naturally have no arguments to make beyond grasping at straws and online ridicule. Normal people would be embarrassed, but not you. Again I expect no change.
The wise will actually investigate the scientific work themselves while ignoring the output of internet trolls.
I think that the point MAR is really making is that its not tenable to blame the particularly high temperatures of 2023 – 2024 on an EEI that doubled over a period of about a decade, as opposed to a doubling or having sharp increase over just the last couple of years. However the accelerating EEI trend is very concerning.
IF you assume what Rodger is claiming was true, and that that is what Simon;s was saying (whne he was not) was also true.
Why are you defaulting to assuming / taking what Rodger said is correct?
I recommend to check the record on twitter/nitter and in the published papers and articles by Leon and Hansen … and ignore what Rodger claims they say – which they do not.
The ASR 12 month global mean in the graph ref doubled in little under 4 years … and ‘appears’ to be accelerating. ASR quadrupled in annual data points in 6 years. The graphs and data on EEI say similar things, go look them up for yourself is my tip and ignore the biased distorted social media “commentary”.
I have no skin in this game. It is not responsibility to fix anything, or change what people choose to believe. eg when it comes to climate change approaches there is no real difference between the two US parties – the outcomes are the very same. Collapse of the US, global destruction and catastrophe. Rhetoric is as vapid as the passing clouds in the sky. Meaningless.
Cheers
NK: when it comes to climate change approaches there is no real difference between the two US parties
BPL: Inflation Reduction Act.
NK: when it comes to climate change approaches there is no real difference between the two US parties
BPL: Inflation Reduction Act.
… vs. “ The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese“
To be fair to MA, this has always been his approach: Extreme scientific reticence. He makes Gavin look wildly speculative by comparison.
If memory serves, while the laws limiting shipping emissions have been on the books for a bit, they were made stronger recently and really started to bite in the 2002- 2003 time frame. It takes corporations time to change their systems, as should be obvious.
This likely not a perfect accounting of events, but is close enough. The actual issue in this thread is MA’s hyper-conservative scientific reticence. It’s the worst case of it I have ever come across and is deeply resistent to being educated.
E.g., there is not a single thing I have predicted, proposed, or analyzed over the last fifteen years that has not been proven accurate, yet MA has consistently criticized virtually everything I have ever said. For him, and this is where I give him some slack, it’s all about the numbers that are certain and only about the numbers that are certain. A fair, if deeply flawed, approach. But it ignores other ways of doing analysis that are important to effective systemic analyses.
The thing I don’t give him slack for is the rudeness, the ad homs, etc. Absolutely unnecessary and damaging to dialogue and solutioneering. Many of his posts deserve the Bore Hole for the personal attacks they contain, but are never sent there.
But, meh, all this has been said before, so… let MA do MA stuff. We’re not going to change his views or approach and he will never be disciplined. We’re spitting into the wind here.
Killian says
4 Apr 2024 at 11:00 PM
And got all that correct as well Killian.
Ned Kelly,
I fear you trip over your own foolishness, yet again.
(1) Leon Simons has to his name but one actual foray into the scientific world of climatology. That is a 2021 conference presentation, the substance of which is still buried in the conference papers. If he were to write this work up and get it published properly (and given its alleged importance, why has this not been done), its significance could then be assessed. Indeed, the work could be developed by more competent researchers.
One of the big pieces of nonsense being pushed by Leon Simons is the attribution of the last two decades’ increased albedo. A proper assessment of that attribution is a big missing piece in the understanding of AGW. But Leon Simons appears more interested in internet blogging than he does the science.
(2) You appear to dispute my statement that EEI has doubled over the last decade. CERES data indeed shows EEI has been doubling per decade since 2003, this the total of the CERES data. If someone here does “have problems with the data and analysis provided by NASA CERES and EBAF displayed in the EEI … graphs” (although I’m not sure you mean to say “EBAF” [=Energy Balanced and Filled]), it is not me. The ASR graphs are a different matter; not in “the data and analysis but in their employment by Leon Simons.
MAR’s comments.
Leon Simons has been a co-author on several published climate papers as per Ned Kelly’s link.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leon-Simons
A couple are co-authored with Hansen. They are researchgate publications so not necessarily peer reviewed. However he is clearly more than an internet blogger. Unless there are two Leon Simons.
Regarding EEI here is a graph of the ceres data.
https://climatecasino.net/2023/11/the-keeling-curve-for-the-earth-energy-imbalance/
It does indeed show a doubling per decade. (2003 – 2013: 0.4 – 0.8 & 2013 – 2023: 0.8 – 0.16 approx.) There’s a shallow quadratic acceleration not shown on this graph but the following shows the acceleration for the second decade and it looks like it might extend into part of the first decade:
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1767509577656856739?s=20
I dont see any logic in how a doubling per decade and gently accelerating trend over the second decade and perhaps part of the first decade would explain a sudden huge temperature spike in 2023. There is however a significant spike in EEI corresponding to 2023 but there are several other spikes of similar scale in 2018, 2016 and 2012 and 2008 approx. and this didnt correspond with unusually hot years, apart from 2016. So I’m not sure the spike in EEI in 2023 would explain the unusual 2023 warming.
Therefore 2023 remains a bit of a mystery. Shipping aerosols reductions does seem the obvious suspect given warming is in the northern oceans right where ships travel, but as I said things are often not that simple. The link I posted previously to Carbon Brief showed the drop in shipping emissions happened mainly in 2023, as opposed to be spread out over several years, so its a bit hard to see why it would manifest three years latter and so dramatically. But maybe it just did manifest years later, or maybe that data is wrong. (Clearly the reduction in aerosols will in any event cause some acceleration in warming longer term.)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
I do accept that carbon brief might not have the full picture on 2023 correct as per Ned Kellys comments. But I don’t think anyone has. I don’t have a strong view on what’s caused the 2023 temperature spike. Normally I have a view on things but this one is a bit of a mystery.
If the next two years are is relatively cool it might suggest 2023 was mainly AGW + El Nino + short term natural variation + The tongan volcano. If the next two years are unusually hot it might indicate aerosols are a larger factor than M Mann thinks, and we also can’t rule out a possible step change in anthropogenic warming , and this is a scary possibility. Just my two cents worth.
nigelj says
5 Apr 2024 at 3:24 PM
” ….so its a bit hard to see why it would manifest three years latter and so dramatically….”
Nigelj, Have you read what I wrote elsewhere, or not understand it because it;s so complex and/or I was not clear enough? I will try to explain again fwiw.
If you read Hansen et al Pipeline, and other papers I have posted, you should see that aerosols were noted as decreasing and asr increasing … this all BEFORE the major 2020 decrease instigated by the IMO; which hansen and simons point out subsequently to their Pipeline paper in late 2022.
Hansen and Simon provide the data in graphs etc of the nth atlantic pacific oceans of satelite based data.
I have explained before, as explained in detail by Hansen et al repeatedly and I repeat for you here again, there is a TIME DELAY between heat/energy (eg EEI) being absorbed in the system (as OHC etc etc ) as shown by EEI albedo ASR measures BEFORE it eventually manifests as a specific change in MEASURED OCEAN SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURES being recorded by other NASA/Giss systems equipment… and reported to the world.
ALA in the north Atlantic / Pacific which finally appeared AS A SUDDEN SPIKE in 2023 — that HEAT was a combination of accumulated heat within the System from the 2020 change of SO in shipping over 3 years……. plus the impact of 2023 albedo change specifically (higher atmos temps also causes a decrease in clouds) plus a slight increase in solar radiation, plus 2023 El Nino forcing, plus whatever the ocean currents were doing as natural variability ……. READ THEIR PAPERS – ARTICLES – OFFICIAL DATA VIA SOCIAL MEDIA
POST their 2022/2023 published paper which only has data up to 2019/2020– Hansen/Simons specifically point out the total additional heat/temps in the nth atlantic/pacific oceans from SO changes up to 2023 specifically as an EFFECT/FORCING plus global SO changes / reductions incl CHINA … whereas Mann etc only ref MODEL outputs for ASSUMED SO changes calculated globally to 2018/2019 as a minor 10% impact which is patently wrong – but they are blind from their own cognitive dissonance and their entrenched view that HANSEN is a disreputable unhinged science troll these days….
All these things came together in 2023 ….. whereas before they were “hidden” not showing up clearly in temperature readings …. the exceptional year brought all these things to the surface at once ….. but they still need more detailed info records because what we have is not enough to be totally 100% convincing … but this is coming soon!!!!!!!!!
Hansen et al apply Deductive Reasoning to the KNOWN Data (incl Paleoclimate ECS and more) to arrive at rational conclusions — Gavin Mann et al refuse to accept this SCIENTIFIC LOGIC … because “their precious models” have not yet been able to tell them what to THINK ….. it’s sad, but true.
READ THE PAPER! IN detail.
You (and others) need to make up your own mind, which entails either looking into the DETAILS of what I say Hansen et al say …… of course I could be wrong, and so might they ….. but at present it is also clear that Gavin says he has no idea, and Mann is distorting everything, as is Hausfather Dessler etc etc etc because (?) they outright REJECT HANSEN out of hand.
Their minds are closed and stuck in DENIAL / Cognitive Dissonance iow. I don;t care if you agree or not, but that is what I hear see Hansen Simons et al saying over and over and over again. I posted refs. Everyone here clearly has ignored them and or does not understand them like I do, and Hansen does.
Oh well, whatever. Leave you with it, there is nothing else for me to say on the matter. Good luck.
NK: Everyone here clearly has ignored them and or does not understand them like I do
BPL: They’re all sending out waves of incomprehension and obfuscation. But you can protect yourself from their evil mental influence! Just fasten a simple head covering out of aluminum foil to keep out that awful pressure.
RE – Killian says
2 Apr 2024 at 7:14 PM
As I predicted back in 2007-2010, this is doubling in nearly a decade.
Thread: https://x.com/LeonSimons8/status/1767509577656856739?s=20
— and related comments by Rodger that refs the same thread content —
—
For those without twitter/X account use this work around to see the thread posts / all graphs in full
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1767509577656856739?s=20
NIGELJ,
Any idea why Rodger is making an issue of Leon (and holding him to account) for something Killian said which is far from clear what he even thinks was “doubling”?
Leon is not responsible for either Killian or Rodger’s comments. Nor am I. (smile)
Cheers – have fun working that out.
The graph is very clearly labeled.
Don’t bring me into squabbles with the usual suspects, please.
Killian says
7 Apr 2024 at 12:16 AM
The graph is very clearly labeled.
Don’t bring me into squabbles with the usual suspects, please.
——
Sorry, but you started it. So you are involved whether you like it or not. (smile)
Which Graph are talking about Killian? Tell me what the Label was you saw please.
People who do not have an X account only get to see one post (when following a link) not the whole thread of posts/tweets Killian.
The ONLY Graph I saw was Global Net Flux of EEI from 2002 to 2023 ….. which part of that are you referring to as having Doubled Killian – because for I have no idea to what you are referring – between what years Killian.
You may have noticed I contributed an Alt url where all the tweets in the thread could be seen. (Tweets, or do they call them Xs now?)
Are you following what I’m saying and pointing to here? I hope so.
Cheers, kind regards NK.
Other people’s tech issues have nothing to do with what I said nor how clear I was. So address it in a way that solves the problem rather than insinuating or assuming someone else was unclear.
E.g., “It’s unclear what Killian is referring to because I can’t see the graph.”
Clarity will always be one’s friend.
Cheers
I found this plain language description of one of our modern dilemmas well worth repeating. It comes from the main body of the most recent Masters/Henson YCC Eye on the Storm blog, from Dr. Marshall Shepherd: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/04/how-might-the-next-super-tornado-outbreak-play-out-in-tomorrows-world/
“Targets”—i.e., humans and their possessions—of geophysical hazards are enlarging as populations grow and spread. It is not solely the population magnitude that is important in creating disaster potential, it is how the population and built environment are distributed across the landscape that defines how the fundamental components of risk and vulnerability are realized in a disaster.
I’m not sure why this seemed so important to repeat, but so be it.
Just glancing at comments on RealClimate not studying it I suggest that “overturning” and “large scale” must be defined in worthwhile terms if not already done. There’s an (ahem) slight difference between large scale overturning between surface and a depth of ~400 m in the tropical Pacific and another large scale overturning between surface and a depth of ~5800 m in most of the global ocean (pushed by the Antarctic AABW which I figure lifts the permanent, maybe also seasonal, thermocline by 1.8 M / year, so replaces the permanent thermocline every 650/1`.8 = ~360 years with the 5.0 degrees water just below it). The fight between the AABW high-pressure Antarctic pumps wedging under the ocean and trying to make the tropical and sub-tropical ocean be at -0.5 degrees from 5800 m depth to surface (fought to ~0.0 degrees by a couple thousand years of geothermal) and the sunshine trying to make the tropical and sub-tropical ocean be at 27 degrees from 5800 m depth to surface results in the Mexican Standoff that’s the permanent thermocline warm-water lens within the top 11% of ocean depth and is separate from ENSO overturning.
I’m hugely insubstantial so permitted as 2nd comment by the Boss. “this is doubling” (singular). “That rate of doublings” (plural). Just showing off my British education with advanced wordology.
https://youtu.be/pf0oAaVwaXc?si=U2ixD2FMhtO8Oi-L&t=1172
FLAG! “Evidence that we are living in the last days” from someone who believes in the Rapture does not belong on RealClimate. I hope others will not elevate this delusional material with a response.
Oh, puh-leez!
“Only true Scotsmen,” much?
@ John Pollack says (to tomas last month)
30 Mar 2024 at 11:47 PM
The same applies to warnings about climate change. Those caught up in disputes about uncertainties in the correctness of the climate models will always be able to find something to pick at. Similarly, observations are never perfect, and can often be interpreted various ways. However, climate history is telling us that something very big is in the process of happening, well outside of human experience.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820738
Hi John, I wanted to say that whole comment was excellent, and good to see. I think it was you who also mentioned the aerosol issues / debate about last year – differences from Mann vs Hansen / Leon Simons etc? Like what happens here all the time they are imho talking past each other. and as shown above in one of the links https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820841 M Mann is pushing the “narrative” that Leon is a liar who cannot be trusted because Mann is claiming Leon is not a member of the Club of Rome. It gets very pathetic very fast in these “so-called debates” (unfortunately).
Anyway, Mann and others are pushing their opinions X science data reports/papers debunk what Hansens Y science reports/papers say — and they even use the same data from the same satelites …. go figure. And people complain the “public” are useless don;t have a clue about “the science”? Whose Science?
All I wanted to point out because of what I think you were saying last month, is that Hansen, Simons etc have mentioned the (post-2020) eg 2024 reduction in aerosols in the ocean regions from shipping (based on measurements/calculations of traffic) matches up with albedo reduction (measured by satellites), the reduction is actual cloud cover there (as measured by satellites) matches the increased heating/warming of that very same ocean regions (as measured by satellites)…… and that when all that data was collated together it MATCHED their “theory/output” indicated in their 2023 science Paper of an acceleration in Warming due to an increase of EEI, due primarily to decrease in aerosols, coupled with a higher than accepted ECS of GHGs, …. and that once one adds in the underlying El Nino spike that the record 2023 temperatures are “explained”.
So what’s my point? I understand ( I think-as best I can ) what they mean by this is that the reduction of SULPHUR aerosols over the OCEANS with very high Shipping TRAFFIC is a critical factor in the overall warming response versus what happens if those aerosols were reduced (or increased) over Land. Mann et al all ignore this “fact” (?)
Because there was a massive reduction over the oceans, the impacts of the albedo change from Suplhur alone, plus the decrease in cloud cover over the oceans specifically, has led to a significant increase in heat absorption by the Oceans in those regions — and that it is that mechanism which has driven temperatures much higher on top of the El Nino impact.
iirc a temperature spike in 2023 about 0.2C from the massive aerosol change and 0.3C from the El Nino globally.
These combine to make the effect greater/more powerful in some other scenarios of changes in Albedo and Aerosols. I may not be able to explain the science myself, but I can understand what they are SAYING about these matters, which they say is based upon genuine scientific Data (and mechanisms) used by everyone else in the climate science community.
Plus the (physics) impact of Sulphur aerosols (plus or minus) is much more “powerful” than alt increase of aerosols, such as from wildfires over land which I think you mentioned last month as well. iow the effect of Suplur of reflecting incoming SW solar radiation, PLUS it’s a capacity to generate more highly reflective Cloud cover than other aerosols combines to be a powerful imapct on warming across the oceans — which simultaneously absorbs radiative heating much more than the Land does …. eg 89% of all heat uptake is via the oceans (yes) not the Land, including that Forest and other vegetation are relatively less absorbing of Heat (a higher albedo rating) than the oceans are (yes?)
There are nuances in the Hansen et al paper and their followup info data to 2023 heating spike that are being ignored by those who present them as “outlier extremists and/or unscientific trolls” to be totally ignored. Which is extremely unfair and misrepresents their actual work , their findings and what they have said.
Do you see what I mean? I have obtained the above info (understanding) by reading / listening to them (directly first person) for months now. eg Hansen’s latest which a missed posting above in that collection of links
Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium
29 March 2024
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
Gavin disagrees, is unconvinced wants more research done. But Gavin does not write an article like he does against Soon and others that shows Hansens Warming in the pipeline paoer is incorrect. Gavin says he doesn’t know what the “cause is” becasue at present nothing does – NASA’s Gavin Schmidt explores off-charts heat and climate science gaps – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYknM2qtRp4&t=238s
and yet Hansen (and Simons et al ) ARE VERY EMPHATIC the numbers/data all add up to show it is El Nino and the mass reduction in Sulphur aerosols combined.
Mann does not show why that 2023 paper is incorrect either, but simply dismisses it (and aerosols) out of hand relying on “data” from other sources that do not in fact undermine Hansen’s paper at all.
Mann (and several others) says the claims by Leon and Hansen for 2023 heat spike are more or less ludicrously flawed, and yet does not prove it or show why that is so …. in writing beyond “verbal social media dismissals” claiming they are just wrong.
Poor old Leon Simons is an unknown online, with next to no social media presence, and is being drowned out by everyone else rallying to the call of Mann et al. Hansen as well has next to no media presence anymore, and he does not use Twitter like Mann and Gavin do …. M Mann has made 180,000 posts to date btw – impressive Data that.
My overall point is this: discussions and arguments spiral out of control all the time, and very quickly they SOURCE DATA and scientific points being made, the nuances of specific scenarios/events eg 2023 and post-2020 sulphur changes and where they specifically occurred , and all the accumulated climate Data and knowledge at hand …. far too often it deteriorates into nothing more than an ego / spitting contest instead.
I personally HATE it with a passion!
Hansen shows how that should be done here: he sticks with the SCIENCE and the DATA they have collated and rely upon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXDWpBlPCY8 Nov 2023
Ned Kelly: – “M Mann is pushing the “narrative” that Leon is a liar who cannot be trusted because Mann is claiming Leon is not a member of the Club of Rome.”
I’d suggest that would be a stupid narrative to propagate if one wished to remain credible.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1731050558201454727
If M Mann had clicked on the “National associations” tab (instead of the “Members” tab) he would have found:
https://www.clubofrome.org/about-us/national-associations/
Leon Simons is listed as the Executive Director of The Netherlands Association for the Club of Rome (Erasmus Liga).
https://www.clubofrome.org/associations/club-of-rome-dutch-association/
Ned Kelly: – “Mann (and several others) says the claims by Leon and Hansen for 2023 heat spike are more or less ludicrously flawed, and yet does not prove it or show why that is so …. in writing beyond “verbal social media dismissals” claiming they are just wrong.”
Zeke Hausfather comes out in support of Hansen & colleagues with a piece published by Carbon Brief on 4 Apr 2024 headlined Factcheck: Why the recent ‘acceleration’ in global warming is what scientists expect. It included:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/
Hansen & Co have been saying climate sensitivity is higher for more than a decade, so I’d suggest the Carbon Brief piece is another confirmation of his extraordinary skill in climate science.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294
Thanks for the info with refs.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1731050558201454727
https://www.clubofrome.org/associations/club-of-rome-dutch-association/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294
I quite like this “quote” which is found via the link provided in the ZH article
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1773827951051554937/photo/2
But I’m not buying into Zeke Hausfather’s rhetoric/narratives (bothsidesism aka speaks from both sides of his mouth) – from one day to the next – it does not match his Twitter rhetoric nor what he and Dessler have been saying on their substack pages – https://www.theclimatebrink.com/ and here https://substack.com/@hausfath
– SEE https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/ and see Hansen here – http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf ,
Nor his conclusions or title of the article – and his cherry-picking of Hansen et al and misrepresenting the whole of what his paper provides… which is not what ZH writes / claims in this CB article.
ZH does not mention ECS and other major issues in Hansen’s paper and his Hopium article in late march. I do not believe ZH – it’s biased spin imo, It’s Ideological not scientific, more like a defense lawyer summing up their case in court or on the steps to the credulous Media outside.
But not for me to defend Hansen etc, they’ll have to do it for themselves.
Also my initial review suggests ZH comments are (from memory almost?) the complete opposite of Gavin said here as well:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
Others can read what is out there and make up their own minds of course. For good or ill. It won’t change anything though.
Re post above to Johnathon and aerosols etc ….. fwiw this is Mann’s position via twitter
Quote:
Prof Michael E. Mann
@MichaelEMann
Planet is warming ~0.03C/year. Aerosols (see below) account for ~1/8 of that, i.e. ~0.004C/year. La Nina/El Nino transition led to ~0.5C warming during past year, 100 x as much warming as aerosols.
It is absolutely absurd to attribute the warming spike to aerosols.
To summarize:
1) Aerosols have little if any role in the recent warming
2) The claim that IPCC climate models underestimate that warming is equally false (see below)
3) Using unsupportable claims to campaign for geoengineering is (dangerous) advocacy, not science.
The models and observations are quite consistent–little if any acceleration (technically there’s a bit because aerosols have slowly been decreasing while greenhouse warming is steady–but this is captured IN the models).
https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1774438094688653680#m
cheers
PS I may have got my comment wrong re
“iirc a temperature spike in 2023 about 0.2C from the massive aerosol change and 0.3C from the El Nino globally.”
Please refer direct to Hansen et al for what they were saying. eg SEE
QUOTE
Fig. 3. Percent of sulfate from ships prior to IMO regulations on fuel sulfur (Jin et al.3)
Global warming in 2010-2023 is 0.30°C/decade, 67% faster than 0.18°C/decade in 1970-
2010 (Fig. 1). The recent warming is different, peaking at 30-60°N (Fig. 2); for clarity we
show the zonal-mean temperature trend both linear in latitude and area-weighted. Such an
acceleration of warming does not simply “happen” – it implies an increased climate forcing
(imposed change of Earth’s energy balance). Greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing growth has been
steady. Solar irradiance has zero trend on decadal time scales. Forcing by volcanic eruptions
has been negligible for 30 years, including water vapor from the Honga Tunga eruption.4 The
one potentially significant change of climate forcing is change of human-made aerosols. The
large warming over the North Pacific and North Atlantic (Fig. 1) coincides with regions
where ship emissions dominate sulfate aerosol production (Fig. 3, from Jin et al.3)
AND
The 2021 IPCC report (AR6) pegs total aerosol forcing as
1.06 W/m2 in 2019, with 0.22 direct aerosol forcing and 0.84 the indirect effect on clouds. A
2021 update16 reduces the aerosol forcing to 0.98 W/m2 (0.21 direct, 0.77 indirect). Based on
this small aerosol forcing, Hausfather and Forster17 obtain a forcing of 0.079 W/m2 for 100%
implementation of 2020 IMO18 ship emission limits. Our estimate of 0.5-0.7 W/m2 refers to
the actual (~80%) reduction of sulfates from ships. The difference with the Hausfather and
Forster value is so large that it must be possible to resolve this issue within a few years.
AND
Decreased aerosol forcing since 2010 accelerates global warming and, in combination with
a moderate El Nino, accounts for the magnitude and geographical location of unusual 2023
warming. There is no need for concern that the physics of the climate system has changed. .
( and the rest as well )
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
Look for the phrase “model fog” — I recommend reading the whole thing verbatim, slowly and carefully, in conjunction with the science explained in the Pipeline paper from 2023. Hansen’s discussions are of a higher order than what flows across social media posts … Watts per sq meter changes (vs temps), impacts of underestimated climate sensitivity when aerosols decrease, problems with IPCC and Models eg “no group had realistic aerosol-cloud modeling”
Everything is connected — even the higher CO2 rate increase up to +5ppm in 2024 has had an impact on 2023 and 2024 temps even if only slight it is additive — the Hansen accelerating global warming naysayers on the other hand are imho Cherry-picking while relying upon rhetoric, ad hominems, and not all the known science as it stands.
And it is nt as if they only thought of it yesterday ….. SEE
Climate Impact of Decreasing Atmospheric Sulphate Aerosols and the Risk of a Termination Shock
November 2021
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356378673_Climate_Impact_of_Decreasing_Atmospheric_Sulphate_Aerosols_and_the_Risk_of_a_Termination_Shock?channel=doi&linkId=619775253068c54fa50008bb&showFulltext=true
Gavin’s input refs (missed above)
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc02900o.html AND
CERESMIP: a climate modeling protocol to investigate recent trends in the Earth’s Energy Imbalance
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1202161/full
These matter will be resolved in good time…. in the meantime be careful whose side you’re on and why you’re choosing that side versus choosing Science instead.
Article
Open access
Published: 03 April 2024
Recent reductions in aerosol emissions have increased Earth’s energy imbalance
Øivind Hodnebrog, Gunnar Myhre, Caroline Jouan, Timothy Andrews, Piers M. Forster, Hailing Jia, Norman G. Loeb, Dirk J. L. Olivié, David Paynter, Johannes Quaas, Shiv Priyam Raghuraman & Michael Schulz
Communications Earth & Environment volume 5, Article number: 166 (2024)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01324-8
Abstract
The Earth’s energy imbalance is the net radiative flux at the top-of-atmosphere. Climate model simulations suggest that the observed positive imbalance trend in the previous two decades is inconsistent with internal variability alone and caused by anthropogenic forcing and the resulting climate system response. Here, we investigate anthropogenic contributions to the imbalance trend using climate models forced with observed sea-surface temperatures. We find that the effective radiative forcing due to anthropogenic aerosol emission reductions has led to a 0.2 ± 0.1 W m−2 decade−1 strengthening of the 2001–2019 imbalance trend. The multi-model ensemble reproduces the observed imbalance trend of 0.47 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 but with 10-40% underestimation. With most future scenarios showing further rapid reductions of aerosol emissions due to air quality legislation, such emission reductions may continue to strengthen Earth’s energy imbalance, on top of the greenhouse gas contribution. Consequently, we may expect an accelerated surface temperature warming in this decade.
>>>>>> Oh, it’s only one paper. /s
Intro–
Recent estimates for the 2010–2022 period give a value of 0.89 ± 0.26 W m−2 (ref. 2), increasing from the value of 0.79 ± 0.27 W m−2 for 2006–2018 reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report 6 (AR6)3. The mean EEI from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) is constrained by adjusting SW and LW TOA fluxes within their ranges of uncertainty such that the mean EEI from CERES for 07/2005-06/2015 is consistent with EEI from in situ observations for the same period4,5. Variations in EEI from CERES are independent of in situ data and have been demonstrated to be especially useful for examining trends in EEI6. Two decades of satellite observations are now available from CERES, and show a positive 2005–2019 trend in the EEI of 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (ref. 6). The CERES trend is in agreement with ocean-derived trends1,2. Single climate model simulations indicate that the recent trend is only explained when anthropogenic forcing and response are included7.
The EEI can be seen as the sum of effective radiative forcing (ERF), which includes rapid adjustments to natural and anthropogenic instantaneous radiative forcing, and the radiative response to the forcing, which is the result of global mean surface temperature change (ΔTs) and associated climate feedbacks (α)3,7. Thus, a positive EEI confirms the lag of the climate system in responding to forcing and implies that additional global warming will take place even without further forcing changes8. On shorter time scales, EEI is modulated by internal variability such as the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)9.
(snipped – while they mention CERESMIP – per Gavin’s call for an urgent update in mid-2023 )
results gets interesting in various places especially their last conclusions
QUOTE
We find good agreement between GCMs and CERES in terms of changes in outgoing SW fluxes and net downward fluxes over the stratocumulus-dominated eastern Pacific region (Fig. 4a; Supplementary Fig. 8), similar to Loeb, et al. 10. Part of the large reduction in outgoing SW flux off the west coast of North America has been linked to reductions in low cloud cover following surface warming after 2014 10,23, and the models in our study do indeed show reduced total cloud fraction in this region, consistent with MODIS.
A main finding from our model results is that the forcing due to aerosol emission reductions has led to an approximate doubling of the trend in EEI over the 2001–2019 period (Fig. 1a, b). We find that the large positive trend in all-sky net downward SW flux, which drives the positive EEI trend, is due to approximately equal contributions from ERF aero and total radiative feedback. Our result showing a negligible impact on EEI of using an emission inventory that better accounts for the decline in Chinese aerosol emissions, illustrates that further research is needed to fully understand the impact of aerosols on EEI.
While aerosol emission reductions are needed to improve air quality, they have added considerably to the amount of global warming we can expect without any further changes in forcing. This is likely partly responsible for the unprecedented rate of human-induced warming in the last decade2. Most future scenarios show rapid reductions of emissions of aerosols and their precursors 25, and it is therefore likely that such emission reductions will continue to strengthen the Earth’s energy imbalance, on top of the greenhouse gas contribution. Consequently, we may expect an accelerated surface temperature warming in this decade.
Enjoy,
Cheers
IIRC M Mann has said that changes in aerosols could not have made any difference (beyond very minor hardly noticeable impacts to temps) – I saw a post where he referenced aerosol data across the last 2 decades — Could M Mann be wrong?
Here is another report on that paper posted above in Nature by the AUTHORS —
Figure 1: Satellite observations (CERES) vs. three different model simulations showing contributions to the 2001-2019 trend in Earth’s energy imbalance.
See Hodnebrog et al. (2024, doi: 10.1038/s43247-024-01324-8) for details.
Cleanup of air pollution heats the Earth
Recent reductions in emissions of tiny particles, the major cause of air pollution globally, have led to more heat in the Earth’s climate system. This is shown in a new international study led by CICERO and published in Nature Communications Earth & Environment.
https://cicero.oslo.no/en/articles/cleanup-of-air-pollution-heats-the-earth
Publishing date
3.4.2024
Published by
Øivind Hodnebrog
Gunnar Myhre
Caroline Jouan
Satellite measurements clearly show that more heat is entering the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun compared to the amount of terrestrial energy escaping to space. This so-called Earth energy imbalance leads to accumulation of heat and warming of the Earth’s surface.
It is well known that man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been the major cause of global warming in recent decades, and that emissions of particles have masked part of this warming. Most of the particles, especially sulphate, reflect sunlight and therefore act to cool the planet. In the last couple of decades, however, this cooling effect has reversed and now contributes to a warming due to extensive measures to improve air quality in many regions worldwide.
The authors found that the recent reduction in man-made particle emissions needed to be accounted for in order for the models to reasonably match the satellite measurements (see Figure 1; black vs. orange line).
“Our study makes novel use of models and observations to explain why the Earth’s energy imbalance is increasing so much. This is of utmost importance because there has been a lot of debate about what is causing the observed doubling in imbalance, which is what drives global warming, sea level rise, extreme weather events, melting of snow and ice, and other aspects of climate change,” explained senior researcher at CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Øivind Hodnebrog, who is the lead author of the study now published in t Nature Communications Earth & Environment.
“Our study underscores the importance of having continuous satellite measurements of the Earth’s energy budget,” says senior technologist at NASA, Norman Loeb, who is co-author of the study.
Another co-author of the study, research director Gunnar Myhre at CICERO, says that “the additional warming effect that comes from removal of cooling particles is something researchers have anticipated would happen for a long time, and do not come as a surprise in that sense, but now we have the evidence. Also, the strong impact that the particle emission reductions had on adding to the Earth’s energy imbalance in the past two decades was an eye-opener.“
“Continued reductions of particle emissions may lead to an accelerated surface temperature warming already in this decade,” Hodnebrog adds.
NOTE- This study only goes to 2019 before the massive (80%) reductions in shipping sulphates by the IMO were introduced in 2020 … and subsequent impacts after the Covid transport downturn circa 2021 has passed – (as indicated in various graphs already shared here)
study link – https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01324-8
A plea for understanding:
Last month saw a lot of diatribes castigating climate scientists for not predicting the “bananas” temperature trends seen in 2023. The denialist nutjobs claim that this failure means that we understand nothing about science, so the greenhouse effect must be wrong–this, despite the fact that pretty much all the errors argue against their pleas for sanguinity. The pro-action contingent are a little less nutty, but also fail to understand the critical fact that climate scientists are first and foremost scientists and not policy wonks.
Isaac Asimov said: “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny…’”
The failure to fully understand why last year was so hot represents an opportunity to increase our understanding. And since the goal of science is not simply explanation, but prediction, the advances in theory will give us tools that will help us do far more than simply avoid being surprised the next time temperatures go “bananas”.
At the same time, the failure to understand the exceptional behavior seen last year does not invalidate what we already understood, and part of that is the role of greenhouse gasses in explaining the warming seen over the past 50 years. That, in itself, was a prediction–one going back all the way to 1896. The overwhelming confirmation of this prediction is just one piece of the overwhelming evidence that supports our current model of Earth’s climate.
This model is not perfect. There are uncertainties. However, it is the best theory we have to date for understanding ALL the aspects of Earth’s climate (not just the surface warming or ice melting, but all the climatic data for the whole planet!). There simply is NOT a better theory out there, and you can’t just tweak a knob here or flip a switch there to match a single trend. There has to be evidence that a change to the model actually improves its predictive power over all.
And having a model is essential to the scientific process, because scientific empiricism is model driven. You need a model to find the weak points in your understanding, so you can gather more data to improve your understanding most efficiently. You cannot discard a model simply because it fails to perform in some aspect. Those failures are key to improving the model.
The job of climate scientists is not to persuade corrupt, stupid politicians of the urgency of our situation. Arguably, if one is not convinced by the overwhelming evidence to date, no additional evidence will suffice–and science does not and cannot deal with propaganda or appeals to emotion.
So, you can either try to understand what is going on and enjoy the excitement that will unfold as we start to understand last years “bananas” behavior, or you can continue to feel morally superior in your poutrage.
Correct. the job of persuasion falls to folks who do deal in one way or another with “appeals to emotion”–journalists, writers of all other sorts, media people, artists of multiple stripe, musicians, actors, culture workers writ large, basically. And teachers. Especially teachers, and at all levels.
I’m trying, FWIW:
https://open.spotify.com/track/076Gcsyk57oxpqs4UgBpOu?si=6ab8ff7cfc404d10
https://open.spotify.com/track/076Gcsyk57oxpqs4UgBpOu?si=31c28bbd1a744081
https://open.spotify.com/track/70g0jkLSSohW5ckGMVzmeb?si=ffcc721e9dc548de
https://open.spotify.com/track/3NhWNTejCxRSFkmiGCzjER?si=ca312c9c4adc4ced
We–by which I mean all of us; everybody–need to hear and see the facts, and we also need to understand in as visceral a way as possible what those facts mean in human, personal terms–how and why they matter.
Well said Kevin. It seems unseemly to have to resort to tactics beyond the providing of factual information. However, the fossil fuel side does this extensively. Without a proper and commensurate response very little progress can be made.
Thank you, JD! However, I don’t personally feel the “tactics” are “unseemly,” because most people for various perfectly good reasons aren’t prone to grasp a complex reality just based on factual propositions, even if they firmly believe them at a purely cognitive level. They need to understand what those facts mean in human terms–how they do, can, or could affect real people. In short, they need narratives of one kind or another to help them to process what those ‘mere facts’ might mean.
Where the scientists have been and continue to underserve is in the *choice* to not address and frame the overall situation in terms of risk.
This is a fundamental failure that is partially causal to our lack of appropriate response.
That said, *I* have been talking about it for something like 15 years now… and none of you have taken up the banner, so it’s on you, too. And all the (tens of?) thousands of others who have read my comments and also done nothing in this specific regard.
Prof. Barlett said the greatest failing of the human race was not understanding the exponential function. That is now the 2nd greatest. The greatest is the failure to appreciate the risks of climate change and frame discourse around mitigation and adaptation around risk.
Cheers
Yeah, we know–you’ve been doing it right for years, and everyone else sucks because their ego is too involved.
Whatever.
KMcK: +++++
Are you denying the recent calls for a risk-based approach to climate science *from climate scientists* exist and that I have been calling for at least that for a very long time now, Kevin McJealous?
No, Killian. Ray L, just to cite one very consistent example, has been drawing attention to risk for a long time, and I’ve following him in that. I’m sure he’s not the only one, either.
Perhaps you had failed to notice?
Killian, It is not really surprising that the risk-based approach has not been emphasized by the scientists. Evaluating risk is not something scientists typically do as part of their day jobs. To provide context for those not familiar with the technical definition of risk we are discussing here, risk is the product of the cost/consequences of an event multiplied by the probability of its occurrence. Risk evaluation is more commonly the realm of engineers or economists than of scientists.
True, scientists may produce the probability curves and evaluate the likely consequences, but combining that information into a coherent risk analysis at the appropriate level of confidence–that is well beyond what scientists usually do. What has happened here is that fossil fuel propagandists have short-circuited the normal political process and prevented engagement between the scientists and the risk analysts. This has left scientists in the uncomfortable position of having to go well beyond the typical activities of scientists. And when they do, denialists pounce and accuse the scientists of alarmism or activism.
I would note in this regard that a lot of what James Hansen has been doing over the past several years is closer to risk calculus than traditional scientific analysis. That is why he has also faced criticism from some scientists as well.
The ultimate problem, though, is that the political process has been sabotaged by those who benefit from the status quo.
Ray Ladbury says “Evaluating risk is not something scientists typically do…” ???
23 Apr 2024 at 1:44 AM
One anecdotal study recently posted here on RC … as one example of many:
Rapidly evolving aerosol emissions are a dangerous omission from near-term climate risk assessments G Persad et al 2023
3. Consequences of the omission of aerosols from climate risk assessments
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/acd6af/meta#erclacd6afs3
SEE LECTURE panel workflow – Climate Risk Assessment Frameworks evaluation section
Earth Science Models to Regional Climate Models to Impact Assessment Models to Near-term Climate Risk Estimates
https://youtu.be/rQd0_YyydmY?si=aIlbaTiWtUZp7r45&t=1941
Integrated assessment models (IAM) aim to provide policy-relevant insights into global environmental change and sustainable development issues by providing … (Risk Related)
https://unfccc.int/topics/mitigation/workstreams/response-measures/modelling-tools-to-assess-the-impact-of-the-implementation-of-response-measures/integrated-assessment-models-iams-and-energy-environment-economy-e3-models
The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/02/Risk-guidance-FINAL_15Feb2021.pdf
5 Feb 2021 … In the context of climate change impacts, risks result from dynamic interactions between climate-related hazards with the exposure and …
Assessing and Managing the Risks of Climate Change – IPCC
Assessing and Managing the Risks of Climate Change. Observed Impacts, Vulnerability, and Exposure. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts …
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – IPCC
Chapter 3 provides a global assessment of climate change impacts and risks to ocean and coastal ecosystems and their services as well as adaptation options to …
2: Determinants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerability – IPCC
You may freely download and copy the material contained on this website for your personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell, redistribute, …
Step 2. Assessing climate change risks and vulnerabilities · Climate-related hazards – The current climate conditions and how they will change in the future.
Assessing Current Climate Risks – UNFCCC
… Climate Change. (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). … have been used in climate risk assessments. They … An assessment of current climate risks (baseline) is …
SEE Search results link of climate scientists working on Climate Risk Assessments
https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?q=ipcc+climate+risk+assessments&cat=web&language=english
Not necessarily effective or adequate enough but work is being done by scientists for a very long time and communicated to policy makers, government depts and the media and the public.
Ray Ladbury SEE
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-821516
Kevin:
I’d say show me. It may be true, but it certainly can’t have been very often or it would have stuck out in my memory. And “a long time” might not be very long, depending.
So, feel free to link to the earliest you can find.
Ray:
Why are you pointing out what I have been saying all these years? I’ve cited Anderson Hansen and others for doing this. Clearly they are not the issue, right? It’s the other thousand or more that haven’t been. This is…. obvious?
As to whether it’s their job… also obvious? And also noted by me all along?
Kind of a pointless post, eh?
Ned,
Note how recent all those studies are. I was calling for a risk-based approach to climate comms something like 14 or 15 years ago. (I don’t recall that being on Ray’s agenda then, but I could have missed it or forgotten. It certainly wasn’t a common refrain, I wager. But if it was, OK. That doesn’t alter or change anything. “Yes, Killian. ONE other did.” Oh, OK, Kev. That changes EVERYTHING! LOL…) That’s the point I have been making: We could have seen the social tipping point a long time ago if more than a handful of scientists were speaking up re risk.
Oh, well.
Killian, sorry if my point was unclear. Let me try again. The point is that most scientists don’t do risk analysis. It isn’t their métier, so you really don’t want them to be dabbling. Yes, you have pointed out that there are scientists who are doing risk studies. However, my point is that in a normal world, those studies would be sufficient to prompt action. The problem is that wrt climate change, the world ain’t normal. The process has broken down, and it has broken down at the political level. That is clear from the fact that nearly all the skeptics come from the political right. It is as if climate change is the perfect storm that demonstrates that rightist solutions are inadequate for dealing with the problem. All they have left is denial and lies.
.
From today’s Guardian as the next storm is about to drench the UK.
England saw a record amount of rainfall in the 18 months to March.
Figures released this week showed that 1,695.9mm of rain fell from October 2022 to March 2024, beating the previous record of 1,680.2mm, which had been set only the month before and covered the 18 months from September 2022 to February 2024.
This is the highest level for any 18-month period in England since comparable data began in 1836, according to analysis by the PA news agency of Met Office provisional statistics.
One wonders whether this new record will survive any longer than its predecessor.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/04/storm-kathleen-to-bring-unseasonably-wet-and-windy-weather-to-uk-and-ireland
As a resident of SE England the weather has been appalling for months. Virtually every week if I am going outside for more than ten minutes I have to take full body waterproofs with me like I am about to hike up Ben Nevis just so I don’t get soaked. I’m sure this super-persistent cloudy and wet weather (amongst other things) is having a negative impact on the mental health of the population.
It should be noted that the rainfall anomaly has so far had a strong South to North bias. Southern England has been notably wet, recording double the normal rainfall in February and March combined in places, whereas northern Scotland has been drier than normal in over half of the last 12 months. The Western Isles (off the NW coastof Scotland) have just had their sunniest March on record in contrast to most of the rest of the UK which had a dull month.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/charts/hadukp_daily_plots.html
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-actual-and-anomaly-maps
My daily permitted insubstantial comment is Victor my Evidence That I Am Living In The Last Days mostly involves my feet and (in)digestive system. Also, all of you unstudied pseudo-scientists keep forgetting It’s Not You !! It’s Not CO2 !! It’s The Sin !! I’ll throw in that you’ll never see this comment sequence in GoogleyTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD-szQI_MhQ
@grindupBaker Shows at 12:20 a February-only global GMST 1850 -2024 with drawn trend line of:
0.196 / decade 1975-2015/18
0.284 / decade 2015/18-2024 (2015/18 is the trend turn-up curve)
while stating that annual global GMST is 0.300 / decade 2009-2024. Should show annual global GMST instead of February-only global GMST and prove 0.300 / decade 2009-2024.
—————-
@gilbertsatchell6866 Like watching an All Star game, the heavy hitters are here. These are the voices I have learned to trust, together, talking to each other. Can we do this again real soon? I have questions concerning the reduction in cloud cover. More CO2 means less clouds, I get that but where is the tipping point for no clouds? CO2 at 1200ppmv as projected or is there a lower value we aren’t aware of yet?
—————-
@andrewfinlay5160 Young people do not trust or believe these rwo pale faces .be an environmentalist and live your life.
——–
I’m banned from commenting a few years (I dunno I duncare) on GoogleyTube “Channels” “Paul Beckwith”, “Heartland”, “Climate Emergency Forum”, “Jordan Peterson”, “Nick Breeze”, “Simon Clark”, “ClimateAdam”, “Doctor Glibz”. I’m not banned from commenting (zero or hugely rare) on “Sabine HossenFelder” “potholer54”, “Mister Think” (English bloke with shiny bald head).
I’m seriously building up to finding which carboard box from Vancouver in 2018 has my plots & notes on envelopes in it and doing a plot of maybe SLR, maybe GMST, maybe EEI and looking at it for an hour but my energy last 17 minutes and it takes me 1.5 hours to find a carboard box.
And speaking, as some of us were, of impacts… how about climate change impacts on chimpanzees? We don’t hear as much as we should about the threat to biodiversity. Here’s an instance:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/apes-climate-change-impacts-1.7127745
Regarding Ned Kelly’s useful information above on the effects of the 2020 decrease in shipping aerosols, with Hansen arguing they increase warming quite strongly longer term, and are a major factor in the 2023 temperature spike, and Mann suggesting the effects are not very strong ( this is my understanding of the debate). The following detailed analysis by carbon brief also suggests the effects of aerosols decreasing are not so strong and can’t explain the 2023 temperature spike:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
As a layperson I’m not sure who to believe. Both Hansen and Mann are people I respect. My initial impression was it does seem very suspicious that the decrease in shipping aerosols is right in the area of the atlantic where sea surface temperatures are unusually high and this strongly suggests cause and effect, but one thing I’ve learned reading this website over the years is things are often not that simple!
nigelj says
4 Apr 2024 at 4:11 PM
Quote- “one thing I’ve learned reading this website over the years is things are often not that simple!”
Yes indeed. aka the devil is in the details?
This Carbon Brief article, btw, is from July 2023, and is by Dr Zeke Hausfather, Prof Piers Forster, who Hansen specifically mentions in my quoted comments above, where he essentially states they are wrong for several reasons, especially their “assumptions” that underpin their “output”.
Subsequent peer reviewed Papers, Hansen and Øivind Hodnebrog et al and others show there are “issues” with what Hausfather Forster are claiming. H&F do not show their “work” in the Carbon Brief article so how can anyone raise an argument against what they say and present? You cannot. They do not specifically address Hansen’s data in his Nov 2023 Pipeline paper, nor his March 2024 Hopium vs Hope article nor Hodnebrog’s peer reviewed paper (pre-2019 data) which includes updated Data since this CB article.
AS you say Nigelj “things are often not that simple” and this July 2023 CB article doesn’t really help, except to inform people of another example where the key differences might lay between competing (ideological?) groups of climate scientists.
Where is the “proof”, the undeniable data, that shows the post-2020 reductions of IMO/ Ocean SO only amounts 10% of a global SO reduction – as claimed in the CB article? I have seen no such evidence, only these “claims”. What are their assumptions, the numbers? They claim maybe the shipping companies are not fully compliant – but how would they know that? They do not – it is a guess, yet another assumption absent all evidence to support their claim/s.
I’ll add that Hansen is working from a position where ECS is not centered on 3C but on nearer 4.8C – which means the impact from removing aerosols is far greater than what the “mainstream defenders” are saying.
Hodnebrog’s Paper directly counters some of the data and claims made by H&F in their paper, and the CB article. As does up-to-date satellite Data as mentioned above, undermines H&F and M Mann;s claims to date.
Hodnebrog’s Paper still does not include the massive SO reductions starting in 2020 — nor the cumulative effects on the ocean (OHC) during the following 3 years. Nor the EEI and temps of 2023
Hansen et al speak about a delayed effect of increasing heat before showing up as Temperatures – that fits what happens with ocean warming patterns – heat gets absorbed and then later it shows up as surface temp increases but not immediately a forcing changes. H&F ignore all these issues by the look of it.
H&F and Mann focus only on “global” analysis ignoring any specific (more dynamic?) impacts of the SO reduction in compact ocean regions as presented by Hansen et al driving ocean warming due to aerosol albedo ASR changes and cloud cover over the Ocean … vs over land and globally averaged. Oceans absorb far more heat than on land. Aerosol reductions over the ocean must absorb even more heat than normal … and store it before showing up in actual Temperature increases … yes?
If ECS is closer to 4.8C then all of H&F and Mann calculations/assumtpions are wrong, as are the Models.
Then there is the issue of global aerosols from wood burning that Hansen raises — he puts that at -0.5C (or is that W/sqm? I can’t recall, see his article refs above – check it for yourselves).
Hansen is stating clearly that number of a cooling effect from wood burning has never decreased since 1750 to today — iow it has been a constant Forcing — but that this 0.5 is NOT included in any GCMs anywhere. See “model fog” — Hansen is saying clearly that the under-reporting of the impact of wood burning Aerosols has been covered over by making GCMs FIT THE OBSERVATIONS – and they are wrong.
And again the issue of 3c vs 4.8C for ECS is problematic in all these issue if Hansen et al are correct.
And again that no one is actually including real world Aerosol/Cloud behavior in the GCMs either.
Rather than ridicule or insult people, Hansen simply says these issues are so clearly out of order (EEI, ASR, Albedo measurements by satellites now and the difference in climate scientists views) they will readily be resolved by the coming evidence in the next few years, or sooner.
Hansen says the DATA the PHYSICS will actually decide what is true and false … and so does Leon Simons say the same thing.
But nigelj thanks for the CB article, I had seen that myself months ago, saved in my bookmarks, but it’s good to have it here in writing what people are actually saying and claiming.
Here is a reminder of comments by Gavin I may have missed above – he is more tempered than his peers in his comments (?)
19 March 2024
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
(I think Hansen is specifically addresses these issues in his late March Hopium article commentary)
AND this quotes Gavin
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-is-the-sea-so-hot
I’m with Hansen will sit back and wait to see what else arises. My guess there will be more Papers coming out soon that support his views and evaluates the 2020-2023 period better, which will further undermine H&F and Mann’s opinions of “reality”, and the ECS and what the GCMs have been telling us.
Ned Kelly.
“If ECS is closer to 4.8C then all of H&F and Mann calculations/assumtpions are wrong, as are the Models.”
Thats the problem right there. There is no consensus on climate sensitivity being that high, or on aerosols, or the cause of 2023 temperatures. You put a good argument that Hansen is right and Carbon Brief are wrong, but a whole lot of other scientists disagree with Hansen, and probabably see problems in his calculations that lay people just don’t.
Yes shipping aerosols reductions would cause oceans to warm and that heat might manifest several years later through el nino, but we have a moderately strong el nino not a record setter. So hmm.
I agree with Hansen that that the next couple of years data will narrow the possible causes for the spike in 2023 temperatures.
There is no consensus on climate sensitivity being that high, or on aerosols, or the cause of 2023 temperatures.
nigelj, you are of course correct.
On the other hand Consensus does not get to decide what the actual reality is.
Your challenge is to actually go see what Hansen’s arguments is actually based upon.
Or sit back and accept that others say he is wrong.
He is either right or he is wrong.
And if he is right nigelj, then what?
Will you believe him then? :-)
Have you read his Pipeline paper in full nigelj? Do you understand his many very complex points?
Whether you agree with them or not …. do you at least know what it is he is saying AND WHY?
If not, why are you asking so many questions, or pointing out problems and sowing so many doubts? ;-)
Hansen has already answered these issues a hundred times over. He is either right or he is wrong.
cheers good luck
NK: Consensus does not get to decide what the actual reality is.
BPL: Technically, quite right. Of course, in practice, the scientific consensus is as close as we can get to the actual reality.
Admin: Please allow these multiple posts as I post here relatively rarely.
“I’ll add that Hansen is working from a position where ECS is not centered on 3C but on nearer 4.8C – which means the impact from removing aerosols is far greater than what the “mainstream defenders” are saying
Indeed. And the reason some have been far more accurate than others in analyzing how severe climate would be by this time.
And it will be years before the models get around to using the corrected sensitivity – and they will be forced to, mark my words – and those are years we simply do not have.
Remembering the consensus us ALWAYS years behind the reality and should play a limited role in policy is VITAL: Consensus is basically never where the long-tail risk lies. The constant focus on consensus as policy is concerned is akin to agreeing to fire a gun at your temple most people *think* is empty.
Nigel, Mike Mann imho feels very strongly that action requires a sense of proportion and perspective. He seems carried away with trying to get us to calm down and get to work, rather than fight and panic. He’s so used to being the target of hate and violence from real fakers he seems to be missing the fact that this supposed argument is setting us in opposition to each other [people of good will and understanding].
My rather simplistic understanding of this follows the main articles here and a lot of weather detail, and the way various inputs like the Hunga Hunga extra water vapor, shipping aerosol reduction, the timing of the El Nino and approaching La Nina have skewed short term data to an extreme [and a number of other inputs, cycles, what have you that are above my ability to fully appreciate and understand]. Meanwhile, nearly half a century of kicking the can down the road has brought us to this dangerous present. On the whole, I’m expecting from my close attention to weather effects that we will see a slight drop in the extremes rather than an over the top acceleration. (see SkepticalScience escalator for the stepwise nature of all this: projecting from highs and lows misses the gradual longer-term trends) This is not good news, but the extreme stuff, as Mann tries to point out, isn’t quite as off the charts as it appears to be, at least for the moment.
Meanwhile, genuinely dishonest and evil people are exploiting the conflict to bring us to a permanent state of violence, greed, and stupidity. Then there are people like Ned Kelly who are dedicated to trying to set us at enmity with each other. I don’t think he’s wrong on the dangers we face, but he appears to be addicted to a very narrow unhelpful desire to be the guru of catastrophe. He may not be aware he’s doing this.
I do long for RealClimate to return as a place where scientists discuss science and policy without all this fringe material and bickering. [not to say scientists don’t bicker, but at least they work from a place of common knowledge]
Susan, your comments (opinions) about me are ridiculous and false.
Nigelj, sorry, but this is not an election or popular poll, all we need to “believe” in, is the integrity of the on-going scientific investigatory process. As lay persons or non-specialists we don’t have the resources or experience to make such a determination. As more data becomes available, it will become clear who’s position is closer to reality.
Jonathan David. Good points. In fact I’m very reluctant to take sides with either Hansen or Mann over the aerosols issue as I lack enough technical knowledge and the devil is in the detail of their calcs and assumptions However laypeople can pontificate on some aspects and Hansen has always impressed me.
Jonathan David: – “As more data becomes available, it will become clear who’s position is closer to reality.”
How much more data do you need, Jonathan?
I’d suggest there’s a clear acceleration in the rate of global warming.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-820953
What’s driving this is that the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is increasing.
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1765665922990112978
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1725529865690976507
We/humanity aren’t doing anything effective to get our GHG emissions rapidly reduced.
Per the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy – 2023, in 2022:
* Global carbon dioxide emissions from energy was at an all-time high (34,374.1 Mt CO₂);
* Global total liquids consumption (at 100255 kb/d yearly average) was near the all-time peak in 2019;
* Global natural gas production (at 4043.8 Gm³) was near the all-time peak in 2021;
* Global coal production (at 8803.4 Mt) was at an all-time peak.
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Per Art Berman/EIA data, in Nov 2023, global total liquid fuel production (but not crude oil + condensate) was higher than the previous peak in Nov 2018.
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1763977009225417056
Per Art Berman/EIA data, US gas production is at an all-time high.
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1765589832347115952
To avoid our current trajectory towards civilisation collapse well before the end of this century we/humanity need to:
Reduce,
Remove,
Repair.
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
I’d suggest we know what’s REQUIRED, yet various jurisdictions around the world continue to encourage and approve more fossil fuel projects.
We/humanity still choose not to do what is REQUIRED.
At the end of the day it all comes down to credibility, accuracy, and competence. Yes? No?
Will global temperatures exceed 1.5C in 2024?
With a growing El Nino event next year is shaping up to be a record-breaker. But by how much?
Zeke Hausfather
May 01, 2023
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/will-global-temperatures-exceed-15c
How well did he do? In 2023 and so far in 2024 with only a short lived ‘moderate-strong’ El Nino in 2023?
NK: do you really think “credibility, accuracy, and competence” directs policy in the halls of power? At least US Dems are trying (and many are better than trying, see Whitehouse, Warren, Markey, and others). But they’re handicapped by the structures of power and wealth. If you want an increase in these qualities, stay away from Trump and and anti-woke cultists, who use actual violence to suppress reality-based progress. Try to help rather than hinder. Your 1% (or less) needs allies. Attack your real enemies, not those who are trying to cope with the handicaps in the way of real action.
Everyone wants a piece of the action …. you can decide for yourself who is credible and who is not based on the data and the cumulative science knowledge / physics.
How extreme was the Earth’s temperature in 2023
If 2023 Earth were a chicken tender, would it be mild, medium, Caliente!, Mui Caliente!, or Fire In The Hole!
Andrew Dessler
Apr 01, 2024
In this post, I compare the observational temperature record to an ensemble of state-of-the-art CMIP6 models to see exactly how unusual 2023 was. It turns out that 2023 is just not that unusual when compared to the model ensemble.”
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-extreme-was-the-earths-temperature
Zeke H — “Given the warming rate of 0.2C per decade since 1970, and the fact that a super El Nino event can add up to 0.2C to a specific year’s global temperatures through natural variability, ”
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/will-global-temperatures-exceed-15c
Any questions as to why Zeke H never mentions the acceleration of warming in the last 10-15 years in this article which he mentions elsewhere?
A small thing is that the “3 degrees” being mentioned I’ve understood for ~6 years as 3.3 degrees ECS since I heard Andrew Dessler say on Greenman post “We’ve settled on likely 3.3 degrees”. Also 25 of the 31 PALEOSENS proxy analyses have 2.2 to 4.4 degrees range for CO2 doubled. So 3.3 not 3.0 is my understanding of median consensus.
https://youtu.be/pf0oAaVwaXc?si=U2ixD2FMhtO8Oi-L&t=1172
Susan Anderson says:
FLAG! “Evidence that we are living in the last days” from someone who believes in the Rapture does not belong on RealClimate. I hope others will not elevate this delusional material with a response.
V: I’m not surprised to see you’re not getting it, Susan. as there is so much else you’ve failed to get. There’s a lot in that video you, along with all the other climate alarmists, need to seriously contemplate. Unfortunately this preacher loves to hear himself talk, so it takes him forever to get to the point. To make things easier to understand, I’ll skip ahead to the segment where he finally gets down to the four “irrefutable” evidences that we are living in “the last days.”
Listen carefully, because this message concerns YOU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0oAaVwaXc&t=1947s
And no I am NOT attempting to convert anyone reading here, far from it. What you need to understand from this example is NOT that we are in the biblical “last days” (God help us) but that the message this delusional preacher is presenting parallels very closely the message we are getting from those climate alarmists preaching a very similar message, only based on equally “irrefutable evidence” predicting the coming disasters of climate change. In both cases very similar “evidence” of increasingly disastrous events is used to convince true believers to repent and change their ways — or else.
I posted this link to hold a mirror up to those of you so eager to interpret any and every sign of coming disaster according to an untested and extremely dangerous dogma.
Of course Weaktor believes that if some threats prove to be bogus, all threats must be bogus. I worry that some time I’ll find him playing hackeysack on the Jersey Turnpike when it’s actually moving.
I’ve always wanted to play hackeysack in Hackensack on the Erie Lackawanna from Hoboken to Albuquerque without going screwy in St. Louie, of course.
V. I can’t even …
Everybody else: DNFTT, please!!!
RE: Discussion above about Mr. Koch not considering AGW an “emergency”. He is not alone. Many recognize that AGW exists, but do not believe it is an emergency. There is a lot of evidence for their thinking. Fact is that old photos of the sea level on rocks and structures at the waterline, show the sea level is not discernably different today. Also, many high temperature records have held from the 1800s, early 1900s, etc.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
https://www.newsweek.com/yes-climate-changing-no-its-not-emergency-opinion-1615632
Part of the reason so many do not believe AGW is an emergency is because the people who say it is are not serious people – they don’t have the slightest inkling about the science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxF_rrJUlSU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJfrKNR3K2k
In other news, if you’re traveling to New England, be careful – big snow storm up there:
https://www.boston.com/weather/weather/2024/04/02/4-maps-showing-how-much-snow-new-england-will-get-from-this-weeks-noreaster/
Mr. KIA claims there is a “lot of evidence” but then cites none of it–just 500 self-proclaimed experts and the James Taylor you’d actually be disappointed to meet. Meanwhile in the real world, people are already dying, others are emigrating and conflicts are raging.
I would note that you can probably find 500 self-proclaimed experts who will tell you the world ids flat.
“Fact is that old photos of the sea level on rocks and structures at the waterline, show the sea level is not discernably different today.”
The so called fact is misleading for two potential reasons. TIDES affect sea level and its likely the photos were taken at different times of the day! . So you are not comparing like with like. Secondly some places show no SLR because local land is uplifting due to local geology. but the whole world is not the same. References:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/23/fact-check-water-level-photos-dont-disprove-climate-change/7333921002/
KIA: Many recognize that AGW exists, but do not believe it is an emergency.
BPL: They’re called “short-sighted idiots.”
Please, we got about 2 inches. New Englanders have become pretty spoiled if that’s a “big” snowstorm. Actually the Boston Globe recent published an article (February 23) that the region hadn’t had a significant snowfall in 726 days. My impression is that localities are adapting to warmer winters by scaling back snow removal budgets. Just an impression, I have no data on this. It does seem that schools get snow days based on a lot fewer inches than in the past. Thanks for thinking of us though, KIA.
Mr. Know It All: – “Part of the reason so many do not believe AGW is an emergency is because the people who say it is are not serious people – they don’t have the slightest inkling about the science:”
I’d suggest many people cannot handle the truth about AGW. They’d much rather believe in reassuring lies.
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1772728200491135208
Global SST is at record high levels.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1776630175855530072
The 365-day running mean reached +1.58 °C above the 1850-1900 baseline for the first time on record on 2 Apr 2024.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1775487513878274393
The increasing Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is accelerating the rate of warming.
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1765665922990112978
The planet is getting progressively too hot for humans and most other species to flourish.
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1776566334060384472
Food shortages historically are the biggest driver of regime change. This is where the AGW emergency becomes all too real for people.
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-could-lead-to-food-related-civil-unrest-in-uk-within-50-years-say-experts-214754
The AGW emergency has already become a real and present danger for hundreds of millions of people around the world.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820838
When will the AGW emergency become real for Mr. Know It All?
My critics here are (of course) ignoring the facts I referred to:
1) The big greenhouse gas emitters (companies and states, especially big oil, China and the US) are systematically lying about their emissions, meaning they systematically underreport them:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/undercounted-emissions-un-climate-change .
“They are supposed to be the climate-savers’ gold standard — the key data on which the world relies in its efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions and hold global warming in check. But the national inventories of emissions supplied to the United Nations climate convention (UNFCCC) by most countries are anything but reliable, according to a growing body of research.
The data supplied to the UNFCCC, and published on its website, are typically out of date, inconsistent, and incomplete. For most countries, “I would not put much value, if any, on the submissions,” says Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway, a longtime analyst of emissions trends.
The data from large emitters is as much open to questions as that from smaller and less industrialised nations. In China, the uncertainties around its carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are larger than the total emissions of many major industrial countries. And companies preparing data for its carbon-trading system have been accused of widespread data fraud.
In the United States, an analysis published this month of the air over the country’s oil and natural gas fields found that they emit three times more methane — a gas responsible for a third of current warming — than the government has reported.”
Has the IPCC in any way protested against all this blatant lying? If so they have hidden it completely from the public. What is the result if someone for more than thirty years mumbles that there there maybe is a growing fire threat, at last, after thirty years of empty talks, dithering, delay and no action, says somewhat louder that now it’s closing in (but always being surprized by it’s advancing consequences), and then engages with the arsonists in talks about outsourcing the remaining fire service to them?
Will the public take this as a confirmation that the warnings are correct? Really? Your proof being Trump’s popularity?
Why has Biden done nothing about his government’s grotesque lying about methane emissions? Don’t tell me that Trump would do exactly the same, as if that makes Biden’s lying less dangerous.
In fact, it’s the other way around: Why is AGW still in doubt among many people? Why is the use of fossil fuels still relentlessly growing? Is it mainly because of the open and absurd lying about the facts from Trump, Putin, the saudi murderer in chief (Salman) etc.? Because of Trump saying nonsense like “there is no climate, it’s called the weather, it changes all the time” etc.?
Historical experience will tell you, that around the 25 pct. of any population are always diverse kinds of ignorants, believing absurd and often barbaric nonsense one way or the other. The percentage of americans voting is seldom higher than around 50 pct. Since Trump like his ideological and denialist predecessors – Bush the second, Reagan etc. inevitably get around 50 pct. of the votes, the conclusion is obvious: their support comes mainly from the abovementioned around 25 pct. inevitably ignorant people. If anything is going to change in american politics, it’ll have to come from the other 75 pct. of americans, the huge not actively and obsessively ignorant majority. Why isn’t that happening?
The short answer is that the american political duopoly makes real change impossible. In fact it works as a much smarter version of an open one-party dictatorship, because the leaders of the “progressive” part of the duopoly will almost always (there has been no Roosevelt since he died, and *he was exceptional by not surrendering to the inevitable republican slur of being a covert devilish bolshevik*) be saying that they have to get votes from the reactionary idiots to win – because they wouldn’t dream of mobilizing the 50 pct. who aren’t voting, on the contrary: they fear the poor people.
They wouldn’t even dream of changing the absurd electoral system which belongs in the dustbin of history. Clinton thought he won because he was “the better” reaganist etc.: the result was Bush II, absurd lies, climate ignorance de luxe, and more fatal wars for oil, culminating in the subprime financial collapse. Obama lied about “change” and (together with the hyper-arrogant Clinton II and her gossiping court ), talked and talked his empty talk from the golf course, gave all the money to the hyper-rich, did zero about fossil fuel rise – and led to Trump. The legacy of Obama was the Paris “agreement”, which James Hansen correctly characterized as “pure bullshit” (november 2015). It has led to exactly nothing but fossil business as extremely usual hidden behind false promises and blatant lies about greenhouse gas emissions.
As Carter said 2004: the US is an oligarchy (I would call it oiligarchy together with Russia and the other feudal oil fiefdoms who are now in complete control of the COP “process” towards hothouse earth) with it’s super-PACs (a plutocratic institution created by Clinton I), it’s gerrymandering, it’s corrupt non-parliamentary system: the president is a kind of “elected” half-baked dictator – what would you say if say the germans had a president whith this amount of power and being called “the commander in chief” in german? Wait – didn’t they have that once? His name was Paul von Hindenburg, he was corrupt and because of that he paved the way for Hitler in january 1933. Think about it. The senate is a roman copy, an antidemocratic club of multibillionaires (soon to be trillionaires). The supreme court is a corrupt club of appointees of the half-baked dictator presidents, and *that* is ridiculously presented as a “balance of powers”… If that’s a balance, Stalin was a democrat. The US constitution belongs in the late 18th century, it’s the inherited illusion of democracy created by slaveowners and since changed only superficially, because it’s being worshipped as if it came from God himself and not from humans, now being published by Trump together with the presbyterian Bible… while Biden sends still more military equipment to Netanyahu’s mass murder in Gaza, and has still less to Ukraine? You find that a proof of wisdom from the Democrat elite? As the former soviet foreign minister Litvinov wrote in his secret diary about the Stalin-Hitler treaty 1939: “If this is diplomacy, what is idiocy?”
2) https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewables-growth-did-not-dent-fossil-fuel-dominance-2022-statistical-review-2023-06-25/
“Renewables Growth Did Not Dent Fossil Fuel Dominance in 2022, Report Says, Reuters, June 26, 2023
Global energy demand rose 1% last year and record renewables growth did nothing to shift the dominance of fossil fuels, which still accounted for 82% of supply, the industry’s Statistical Review of World Energy report said on Monday.
Last year was marked by turmoil in the energy markets after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which helped to boost gas and coal prices to record levels in Europe and Asia.
The stubborn lead of oil, gas and coal products in covering most energy demand cemented itself in 2022 despite the largest ever increase in renewables capacity at a combined 266 gigawatts, with solar leading wind power growth, the report said.
“Despite further strong growth in wind and solar in the power sector, overall global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions increased again,” said the president of the UK-based global industry body Energy Institute, Juliet Davenport.
“We are still heading in the opposite direction to that required by the Paris Agreement.”
The annual report, a benchmark for the industry, was published for the first time by the Energy Institute together with consultancies KPMG and Kearny after they took it over from BP (BP.L), which had authored the report since the 1950s.”
In 1975 global fossil fuel consumption amounted to 75 pct. of the global total. Now it’s hovering above 82 pct.
There is no “green energy change”, “green new deal” etc. There is only a thinning propaganda of empty green symbolism being spread in order to hide the relentlessly rising fossil fuel consumption and the accelerating climatic destabilization. Do you really think this vague greenwashing of fossil business as extremely usual convinces anyone that the scientific warnings are being heard and taken seriously? By Biden? By any leading politicians?
What did Einstein say again about people doing the same mistakes again and again and every time still expecting a different outcome?
3) “A mere 57 oil, gas, coal and cement producers are directly linked to 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since the 2016 Paris climate agreement, a study has shown.
This powerful cohort of state-controlled corporations and shareholder-owned multinationals are the leading drivers of the climate crisis, according to the Carbon Majors Database, which is compiled by world-renowned researchers.
Although governments pledged in Paris to cut greenhouse gases, the analysis reveals that most mega-producers increased their output of fossil fuels and related emissions in the seven years after that climate agreement, compared with the seven years before.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/04/just-57-companies-linked-to-80-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-since-2016
Why is this happening? Any suggestions? Is it – forgive my bluntness – connected with the american-global oiligarchy, the american constitution and the american way of life? Could it be that this is why Trump is on course to win again in november, because it’s impossible for american voters to chose anything but the same old shit, and not even in new wrapping? Why is Biden against James Hansen’s idea: carbon fee and dividend? Could it be because Biden and his lame duck “altenative” is being sponsored mainly by the same oiligarchs as Trump? Because no politician ever speaks the truth about the driving social and economic forces behind fossil fuel “economics”?
“Senior executives from the UAE’s national oil company are working with the Cop28 team as the country ramps up its PR campaign ahead of the major UN climate summit later this year, leaked internal records show.
Two PR professionals from the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc) are identified as providing “additional support” to the team running the summit, according to a Cop28 communications strategy document obtained by the Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) and the Guardian. It adds to growing evidence of blurred lines between the UAE’s Cop28 team and its fossil fuel industry (…)
“The meeting at the UN will “set the tone, inform the climate agenda and *shape the climate narrative* (my exclamation marks, KJ) in the lead up to Cop28”, the document states.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/22/uae-oil-company-executives-working-with-cop28-team-leak-reveals
Good morning my bare ass, as we say in Norway.
5) A newly released NOAA report noted that CO2 levels are: (1) 50% higher than pre-industrial (2) the highest in the modern atmospheric record (3) the highest in the paleoclimate records over the past 800,000 years.
You often read statements like this one from the NOAA about paleoclimatic CO2 levels. But this only what you get from the airbubbles in the deepest ice-cores from Antarctica. There are other paleoclimate records going much further back into the deep past.
Why does the NOAA, IPCC etc. never mention this?
In fact *present CO2 levels are probably higher than anytime in at least 23 million years*, according to this research:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/48/9/888/586769/A-23-m-y-record-of-low-atmospheric-CO2
“Across the past 23 m.y., CO2 likely ranged between ∼230 ppmv and 350 ppmv (68% confidence interval: ∼170–540 ppm). CO2 was found to be highest during the early and middle Miocene and likely below present-day levels during the middle Pliocene (84th percentile: ∼400 ppmv). These data suggest present-day CO2 (412 ppmv) exceeds the highest levels that Earth experienced at least since the Miocene, further highlighting the present-day disruption of long-established CO2 trends within Earth’s atmosphere”, “A 23 m.y. record of low atmospheric CO2”, Cui et al. 2020.
This deserves much more attention than it gets.
Furthermore, *the present rise in CO2-levels is probably at least ten times faster than anytime before in the known geological record*. Could this be the reason for the climate modelling being unable to grasp the looming dangers? The calibration of the models is probably based on unrealistic assumptions, not taking into consideration that they are supposed to model something that has never happened before in the known geological history? That the optimistic bias of a smooth development is simply wrong? You don’t have to go further back in time than to the Younger Dryas to detect that even very slow gradual natural global warming can lead to sudden jolts in the climate system:
“The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core. The deuterium excess, a proxy of Greenland precipitation moisture source, switched mode within 1 to 3 years over these transitions and initiated a more gradual change (over 50 years) of the Greenland air temperature, as recorded by stable water isotopes. The onsets of both abrupt Greenland warmings were slightly preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, reflecting the wetting of Asian deserts. A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1157707
As Wally Broecker said: “The climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks”.
Karsten V. Johansen — Why is this happening?
You may find some of the answers as to why, here
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
and here
https://metacrisis.org/META-CRISIS/00.+%F0%9F%91%8B+About/Start+Here
or here
https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/
Good luck finding fellow travellers
Karsten V. Johansen “My critics here are (of course) ignoring the facts”
One of these vicious critics here: could you point where in your multipage post – you do answer my baseless criticism of your claim:
Piotr Apr 2: “ Could you be more specific how IPCC “ignores” [acceleration in the rise in the atm. CO2? ”
I even unscrupulously indicated the rationale for that underhanded question:
===Piotr Apr 2 “ Projections of the future climate are run from the current baseline – so the PAST CO2 acceleration. is NOT ignored, since it is used as the most current baseline. The FUTURE acceleration is not ignored either, since there is ,,,,nothing to ignore – IPCC does NOT run a single projection based on ITS PREDICTION of future CO2 – instead IPCC tests a range of emission scenarios.”
===
So what exactly are these “ facts [that I have] (of course) ignored” here?
“Fact is that old photos of the sea level on rocks and structures at the waterline, show the sea level is not discernably different today” == Far beyond pathetic. It’s like I’ve been punished by being thrown back into GoogleyTube comments. I know I’ve been naughty but shouldn’t punishment to me be commensurate rather than I’m subjected to the “thought” equivalent of being water-boarded ?
JCM Apr. 5: Quoting extensively De Hertog e.g. as ” ESMs generally show a decrease in evaporation over land due to cropland expansion and an increase in evaporation due to afforestation and irrigation expansion (Fig. 2).”
So … when I pointed out that the decrease evaporation in the net cropland expansion is countered by the increase in evaporation by irrigation expansion – you …. dismissed it as …imaginary process mechanisms” that use arbitrary “rules about how things ought to be”, and “cautioned” the reader that these models, a,k,a, “own mental constructs and perceptions” of their authors, offer no insight into the real world.
What changed?
JCM: “Previously, using the results of Lague, I estimated about 0.1K GLOBAL temperature increase per W/m2 suppressed LE from land.”
So what – haven’t you dismissed using the results of Lague as using ..”.imaginary process mechanisms” that use arbitrary “ rules about how things ought to be”, and by being
“ own mental constructs and perceptions ” of their authors – offer no insight into the real world?
You can’t eat the cake and lecture others how they shouldn’t eat cakes.
De Hertog and co attempt demonstrate the effects of land management on the atmosphere:
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/15/265/2024/ 20 Mar 2024
Effects of idealized land cover and land management changes on the atmospheric water cycle
“”””From a biogeophysical perspective, LCLMC leads to changes in the albedo, aerodynamic conductance, and the partitioning between the sensible and latent heat flux, which has an impact on atmospheric temperature and moisture content (Bowen, 1926; Wang et al., 2009; Cui et al., 2022). For example, tropical deforestation is expected to further dry and warm the regional climate (Bonan, 2008; Akkermans et al., 2014; Spracklen et al., 2018; Smith and Spracklen, 2023). In contrast, irrigation expansion can cause a local to regional cooling and moistening of the atmosphere (Mahmood et al., 2014; Thiery et al., 2017, 2020; Hauser et al., 2019; Tuinenburg et al., 2014).””””
“”””ESMs generally show a decrease in evaporation over land due to cropland expansion and an increase in evaporation due to afforestation and irrigation expansion (Fig. 2).””””
“”””Here, we assess the atmospheric water cycle responses to idealized LCLMC scenarios using global simulations of three different ESMs (De Hertog et al., 2023). The simulations comprise different idealized LCLMC scenarios – from afforestation, over cropland expansion to irrigation expansion – and have been implemented in a chequerboard pattern.””””
It is worth noting that these simulations are not directly comparable, as they each implement their own schemes for handling of surface properties. In general, they are all dealing with the issue in terms of a conductance “forcing” (I think), not in terms the drainage/channelization/erosion, i.e. the moisture depletion per unit area which exists in reality. Additionally, the simulations exhibit dramatically different control conditions. Almost nightmarish and highly inconsistent…
anyway, very roughly:
As a guide to aid in consistency, land is producing about 40 W/m2 latent flux from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z
and from NASA, continental evap is about 70,000 km3
https://phys.org/news/2015-07-nasa-liquid-assets.html
That is
1750 km3 per W/m2 as a rough guide.
Using Figure 8 from De Hertog and co:
Crop-CTRL in CESM was listed as -6000 km3/yr, while in MPI-ESM this magnitude was about -4000 km3/yr. That is 6000 and 4000 cubic km missing continental evaporation annually in Crop vs Control.
I have omitted the EC-Earth owing to missing parameters and quite bizarre results.
Noting possible issues in the data Table F1, I interpret:
CESM listing continental evap as about 65,000 km3 (CTRL)
MPI-ESM listing continental evap as about 45,000 km3 (CTRL)
In summary:
In CESM this gives 3.4 W/m2 missing LE from land in Crop compared to CTRL
In MPI-ESM this gives 2.3 W/m2 missing LE from land in Crop compared to CTRL
Accounting for differences control conditions, I estimate roughly 3 W/m2 missing in “Crop” compared to “Control” as a rough approximation across CESM and MPI.
This paper makes clear the quite large uncertainty in the surface energy budget (or water budget constraints).
Recognize also, ocean is always working at maximum. Only an increase in temperature can result in a compensation of missing LE from land. In doing so, the global relative humidity must decrease. The authors of the study only discuss the issue in terms of the water cycle, without reference to temperature. It should be kept in mind prior to attempted distortions that climatology does not deny the influence of land surface hydrologies in the dynamics of climate.
This discussion is meant to highlight the utility of ESMs, and the non insignificant aspect of land surface disturbance / configuration in affecting climate sensitivity to trace gas forcing.
Previously, using the results of Lague, I estimated about 0.1K GLOBAL temperature increase per W/m2 suppressed LE from land. With some difficulty to compare, the ESMs yield significant climate influences from the scenarios of CTRL, CROP, FOREST, and IRRIGATED CROP.
This highlights to utility of Lague’s “Simple Land Interface Model” to aid in such ESM intercomparison, which is very difficult otherwise. I think it is obvious how the ESMs are showing strong compensating errors in hydrologies as they strive to fit within the bounds of expected ECS. In reality, however, there can only be one hydrological truth.
For additional perspective:
The CONTROL scenario aims to replicate the actual 2015 climate.
In the CESM ESM, the CLM5 land model is used, while the MPI-ESM employs the JSBACH3.2 land surface model LSM.
“”””In all simulations, anthropogenic forcing (including greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations) is held constant at 2015 conditions. The initial conditions are derived from the CMIP6 historical simulations in 2014…”””” as described in De Hertog 2023 (https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/629/2023/).
It’s observed that despite the intention for the control climates to be identical, particularly according to a globally averaged temperature and forcing prescription, there’s a discrepancy of 20,000 km3 (30-40%) in local and remote continental moisture re-cycling between MPI-ESM and CESM for the year 2015. So it could hardly be said the control climates are identical, other than through an abstract globally averaged T along with the associated atmospheric forcing prescription.
When analyzing the CLM5 used in CESM and JSBACH used in MPI-ESM, Pan et al. 2020 (https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/1485/2020/) report the JSBACH LSM historical ET trend for land surface at -0.05 mm yr-2, while the CLM45 is reported as 0.38 mm yr-2. There the LSMs implemented across coupled-climate simulations have a total range of -0.34 mm yr-2 to 0.87 mm yr-2 continental ET trend calibrated against the required historical globally averaged T in their respective coupled-GCM and atmospheric modules.
The freely varying simulated land surface flux characteristics used in allowing ESMs to comply with historic T change to 2015 with prescribed atmospheric forcing is obvious.
Of interest is to compare climate sensitivity across GCMs in a scenario where land surface factors are prescribed in CONTROL. It is reasonable to expect that climate sensitivities will vary widely when the land surface flux isn’t freely adjustable but rather forced to match realclimates. This is opposite to the preference to prescribe globally averaged T change along with cumulative atmospheric forcing.
Acknowledging that users of real climate information are most interested in the changing hydrological and temperature extremes in their regions, and in attributing the causes of such extremes for science-based policy advice, it becomes evident that leaving such factors unconstrained is uninformative. By solely striving to match globally averaged temperature to the forcing prescription, the most crucial aspects of real climates are overlooked (IMO).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820984
PS I should revise the wording to clarify instead that the different modelling groups strive to adhere to the historical temperature record or another constraint in terms of globally averaged climates, and/or the observable aspects of climate sensitivity. In doing so, they are using a great deal of freedom in hydrological conditions which must result in compensating errors. The previous wording was sloppy and it was not my intent to suggest there is a future target they are shooting for. I know that’s not how it works even if it’s somewhat implied in the CMIP perspective of Bjorn Stevens https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023AV001086
In Re to JCM, 5 Apr 2024 at 12:24 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820990 ,
5 Apr 2024 at 11:40 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820984 ,
9 Apr 2024 at 10:12 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821134 ,
and
16 Apr 2024 at 9:01 PM ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821363
Dear JCM,
Many thanks for your references to the recent article by De Hertog et al and to your helpful comments regarding the relationship between climate sensitivity and hydrology.
If I understand correctly, it appears that it is not usual yet that the authors of a new model “tune” (or test?) their creation so that they strive to achieve the best possible fit with the available past climate record. Do I understand correctly that if such tuning or tests are being done at all, they usually focus on achieving a fit with historical surface temperature record only?
If so, are you aware of efforts to improve? I mean to tune / test “two dimensionally” – by fitting, in parallel with the temperature record, also the available historical record of global precipitation data (so that the model reflects at least the global water cycle intensity more-less realistically).
Greetings
Tomáš
To Tomas,
Multi-criteria evaluations of model ensembles at global scale are practically non-existent. However, scholars have attempted to undertake this exercise at regional scale, with each study finding different rankings for their area of interest. Various statistical approaches are used to find optimal compromise at different scales. There is a business opportunity there to operationalize this service. Search “multi-criteria evaluation of CMIP” to find various examples across the world. Each region finds a different optimal multi-criteria set. From Orgeon to Lesotho the optimal model selections will bear little resemblance in their global mean properties.
Despite this, the practical application of such products in local watershed management decisions, like floodzone delineation or drought tendencies, or [gasp!] soil conservation & restoration priorities, is limited. Engineers predominantly rely on local observational data and locally developed models. CMIP-class model insights seem chiefly used for political leverage in advocating for green tech investment. Professional academics ought to steer clear of any illusions about how the products are used out in the wild.
Importantly, known systematic biases exist across ensemble members with a root in the actual ET parameter. ET lacks reference field data, allowing for substantial error compensation, possibly even more so than the widely discussed unconstrained aerosol issues. Notably, successive CMIP generations exhibit an increasing systematic overestimation of annual ET. Mueller and Seneviratne suggest “new model developments and ensembles did not necessarily lead to a better performance for key variables such as ET, precipitation, and temperature over land.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459216/
The primary control knob being used in the land surface models (LSMs) to handle the required compensating errors in meeting targets (e.g. temperature) is the sensitivity of ET to leaf area index (LAI). Based on gridded optical remote sensing inputs from sensors like MODIS etc, there is a generally assumed increasing ET trend in model-land. However, from personal experience – transforming a wetland to golf course results in brightly popping “green” afterwards in remote sensing indices, which is highly misleading from an ET perspective IMO. Additionally, cash crops are intentionally desiccated for weeks or months which is somehow ommitted in the RS indices. Right now crops are barely sown beyond 40N, and any green observed is winter wheat stubble emerging from rockflour. This is in stark-contrast to the natural features which have been emergent for weeks (wetlands!!). Besides, continents are moisture limited to begin with.
Strikingly overlooked and almost completely unknown (and unseen) is that extratropical biodiveristy and organics is overwhelmingly dominated by life and biogeochemical cycling below ground, unseen, in the soils. That is where >>50% of biodiversity once resided, now almost completely eroded. The scale of destruction is inconceivable. Recently Merlin Sheldrake gave an inspiring talk about massive knowledge gaps and new initiatives to get involved in mapping such residual features. The profound degradation of soils and the associated slowing of biogeochemical cycling, including moisture recycling rates, appears to be playing second fiddle to what can be seen from space, leading to enormous knowledge gaps and mishandling of land-surface models.
From this standpoint, it is clear why conducting a global multi-criteria evaluation of CMIP is generally avoided. There is just so much more to learn. There’s a wealth of knowledge to be gained across disciplines, requiring essential insights beyond those typically provided by an astrophysics background.
in Re to JCM, 19 Apr 2024 at 11:45 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821457
Dear JCM,
Many thanks for your informative explanations.
Have you ever considered running your own educational blog on these topics?
Or is there perhaps already another website dealing with soil biodiversity and its climatic consequences?
I would be also interested if there is a research aimed to agricultural practices that might reverse the damages already inflicted to soil ecosystems, or at least prevent further undesired progress in soil biodiversity loss and soil degradation.
Greetings
Tomáš
To Tomas,
soil is a subject as rich and vital as any other in earth system processes. Typically I refrain from getting too deep into it here, opting instead for “sponge” analogies.
Generic principles for cultivating “healthy soils” and realistic implementation for practitioners is available through various channels such as Certified Crop Advisors, Regional Soil and Crop Improvement Associations, Ranchers Stewardship Assoc, Forestry Conservation associations, as well as hydrologists, agronomists, microbiologists, chemists, and physicists.
Briefly, soil remediation deals in the quality of ecologies, which focus on the fundamental flows of energy and nutrients through systems. At its essence, ecology perceives life as both a fundamental driver and a consequence of thermodynamic processes within the biosphere and habitats.
The structure of soil evolves in response to life, transmitting change throughout the system, impacting water, air, climate, and other organisms.
In the video below, Chad embodies a scientist and practitioner, running many simultaneous experiments and complex optimization schemes integrated into active production. Learning, advancing, and adapting – through hands-on experience, trial and error, he’s orchestrating transformative change on his lands.
Watch to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VUWCrVffzk
With the backing of the local farmer-led conservation district in Kansas, USA, the essential knowledge he owns rivals that of any academic product in press. This is not anyone’s enemy or denier. He knows what’s up just as well as anyone.
Despite facing challenges from cynics and pseudo-environmentalists, and profound undervaluation (often due to misunderstanding) amidst the overwhelmingly dominant expansion of the climate industry, this work must persist. It serves as an essential pillar and partner in upholding the values of climate stabilization, with multiple co-benefits in additional to globally averaged temperature.
JCM,
Beautiful!
Until, that is: “Despite…” the “… overwhelmingly dominant expansion of the climate industry,”.
I get that you’ve got a bur under your saddle, but I’m not buying that narrative. From what I can tell, you haven’t connected dots in any convincing way, other than maybe (maybe) a local anecdote about a wind farm in one of your posts.
REPOST LINK
An Intimate Conversation with Leading Climate Scientists To Discuss New Research on Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXDWpBlPCY8
nov 2023
Ahead of the upcoming COP28, renowned climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, and his co-authors present the novel findings of his new paper “Global Warming in the Pipeline.”
Read the paper: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false
The event was moderated by Professor Jeffrey Sachs and features interventions by the following individuals:
– Dr. James Hansen, Lead Author and Director, Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute
– Leon Simons, The Club of Rome Netherlands, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
– Dr. Norman G. Loeb, CERES Principal Investigator, NASA
-Dr. George Tselioudis, Author and Research Physical Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
– Dr. Pushker Kharecha, Author and Associate Research Scientist, Director, Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions, Columbia Climate School
Read the Paper in full, watch the presentation, think about what is written and said or don’t. Your choice.
Mauna Loa CO2
March 2024: 425.38 ppm
March 2023: 420.99 ppm
March 2014: 399.77 ppm
Last updated: Apr 05, 2024
The annual increase for March 2024 is at 4.39 ppm.
This is the highest ever recorded monthly rate increase.
It is also the highest CO2 monthly average on record.
The increase rate is also by far higher than the expected rate which should be (linearly fitted 1958-2024) at 2.54 ppm/a.
Atmospheric CO2 drives global warming doesn’t it? CO2 concentrations appears to be accelerating of late. But I could be wrong.
You will find the March MLO CO2 numbers are the most variable within the year. Back in 2022, the March average even managed to be a drop on the preceding month, but his only because the wobbles coincided with the calendar month for once.
The CO2 record does show large upward wobbles in the early months following an El Niño year. For 1998 & 2016, the upward wobble reached in excess of -2ppm above the general level of the time.
In the above discussions, there seems to be a desire to understand WHY there was a temperature spike in 2023. Apparently, the UK Met office claimed 2023 was the second hottest year in the UK since 1884, right behind 2022. Of interest to climate scientists, the article below describes in some detail HOW they came up with the temperature data that resulted in their claim. According to the article, THEY MADE UP QUITE A BIT OF THE DATA. Is it true? I have no idea, BUT if it is even slightly true, and IF a lot of other nations did similar magic tricks to get their numbers, then that would seem to me to be a problem. Article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/was-2023-really-second-hottest-year-1884
Others are also saying the data is bad:
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
BUT if 2023 WAS the hottest, maybe this is the culprit:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/worlds-coal-fired-power-generation-hit-record-high-2023
Someone above said something about Native Americans. They are in the climate news:
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/judge-orders-wind-farm-dismantled-win-tribal-sovereignty
Lots of folks are concerned about the real intent of the globalist climate change folks. They’ve seen this movie before:
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/157/290/790/original/2468db5bb6104da8.png
KIA: According to the article, THEY MADE UP QUITE A BIT OF THE DATA. Is it true? I have no idea, BUT…
BPL: …you’re going to post it anyway.
Mr. KIA (aka zero hedgehog),
Zerohedge might as well be called zerocredibility. NO, the don’t make the data up. Quit huffing the rightwing nutjob exhaust and listen to actual scientists.
Some PV power calculations
f^t = e^(-r∙t)
t ln(f) = -r∙t;
-r = ln(f)
For 0.7% decay per year → f₁ = 0.993
Time average performance/ performance as new, for retirement age T, let f = f₁
= 1/T ∙ ∫_0^T exp(−r∙t) dt = [exp(−r∙0) − exp(−r∙T)]/(r∙T)
= [ exp(ln[f] ∙ T) – 1 ]/( ln[f]∙T )
= [ f^T – 1 ]/( ln[f]∙T ) =
90.17%
84.33%
78.99%
For T=30 yr, 50 yr , 70 yr.
Suppose there were a 0.7% breakage rate: f₂ = 0.993 (don’t know what is realistic)
Let f = f₁∙f₂ for:
PavR = Average (capacity * performance) / (capacity*performance) as new, for retirement age T:
= [ f^T – 1 ]/( ln[f]∙T ) =
81.60%
71.84%
63.65%
For T=30 yr, 50 yr , 70 yr.
CavR = Average capacity / capacity as new, for retirement age T:
= [ f₂^T – 1 ]/( ln[f₂]∙T )
average performance/ performance as new, for retirement age T:
= (ln[f₂]/ln[f]) ∙ [ f^T – 1 ] ÷ [ f₂^T – 1 ]
But also, P = T*PavR * I*CFn , is the steady-state power supply where I is the installation+replacement (ie ~manufacturing) rate and CFn is the capacity factor as new.
T*PavR, T=…
f₂ ; 30 yr, 50 yr, 70 yr
1 . . . ; 27.0 , 42.2 , 55.3
0.996 ; 25.5 , 38.4 , 48.8
0.993 ; 24.5 , 35.9 , 44.6
Ie. for an installation rate of 150 GW/yr , CFn of 16%, and breakage rate (derechos, tornados, big hail, floods, hurricanes, fires, cars, war, haboobs, oopsies, sinkholes – particularly time-traveling sinkholes in eastern Canada (I love that show!)) of 0.4%/yr, and retirement age of 50 yr, 38.4*150*0.16 GW = 922 GW
…
So the installation rate needed to sustain 1500 W per person for 10 G people, at CFn of 18%, retirement age of 50 yr, is 150 GW/yr , CFn of 16%, and breakage rate = 0.4%/yr, is
P / ( T*PavR * CFn ) = I ≈ 15 TW / (38.4 * 0.18) ≈ 2.1684 TW/yr (calc. using more digits than written (ie. 38.4306…)
3.263 TW/yr for retirement age T = 30 yr.
Of course, different parts of the the power infrastructure will age differently; I was thinking mainly of panels for T; much of BOS may last longer, although I had the impression that inverters tend to need replacing more often – still true? This doesn’t include energy storage. Note I’m thinking of DC-rated capacity, such as given by SEIA ( https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-q4-2023 , https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data ). EIA tends to report AC capacity, which is generally smaller, and the capacity factors in AC terms are larger; see:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
“Solar plants typically install more panel capacity relative to their inverter capacity” (2018)
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35372#
“At the end of 2016, the United States had 20.3 gigawatts (GW) AC of large-scale photovoltaic capacity in operation with a DC module rating of 25.4 GW, resulting in a capacity-weighted average ILR of 1.25. For individual systems, inverter loading ratios are usually between 1.13 and 1.30.”
“Because the output of panels may only reach peak DC capacity a few hours out of the year, it may not be cost effective to size an AC inverter to capture that full output.”
(Also, having storage on the DC-side would enable higher ILRs without increasing clipping, and higher capacity factors for AC capacity)
—
Also: I should have said time-travel sinkholes; the sinkholes themselves don’t time travel (AFAIK). And I forgot earthquakes, volcanos, landslides, avalanches, tsunamis, meteorites, lasers, sharknados, and laser-sharknados.
So the installation rate needed to sustain 1500 W per person for 10 G people, at CFn of 18%, retirement age of 50 yr, —————— and breakage rate = 0.4%/yr, is…
Much denial about acceleration:
2018 ….. old news long forgotten ?
But the latest IPCC special report under-
plays another alarming fact: global warming
is accelerating. Three trends — rising emis-
sions, declining air pollution and natural
climate cycles — will combine over the next
20 years to make climate change faster and
more furious than anticipated. In our view,
there’s a good chance that we could breach the
1.5 °C level by 2030, not by 2040 as projected
in the special report ….
Three lines of evidence suggest that global
warming will be faster than projected in the
recent IPCC special report…..
This dark news means
that the next 25 years are poised to warm at a
rate of 0.25–0.32 °C per decade3. That is faster
than the 0.2 °C per decade that we have expe-
rienced since the 2000s, and which the IPCC
used in its special report….
Second, governments are cleaning up air
pollution faster than the IPCC and most
climate modellers have assumed. For exam-
ple, China reduced sulfur dioxide emissions
from its power plants by 7–14% between 2014
and 2016 (ref. 4). Mainstream climate models
had expected them to rise. ….
The Pacific Ocean
seems to be warming up, in accord with a
slow climate cycle known as the Interdecadal
Pacific Oscillation 7 …..
Similarly, the mixing of
deep and surface waters in the Atlantic Ocean
(the Atlantic meridional overturning circu-
lation) looks to have weakened since 2004,
on the basis of data from drifting floats that
probe the deep ocean8 . Without this mixing,
more heat will stay in the atmosphere rather
than going into the deep oceans, as it has in
the past.
These three forces reinforce each other…..
We estimate that rising greenhouse-gas
emissions, along with declines in air pol-
lution, bring forward the estimated date of
1.5 °C of warming to around 2030….
Adding in natural decadal fluctua-
tions raises the odds of blasting through 1.5 °C
by 2025 to at least 10% (ref. 9)………
FOUR FRONTS
Scientists and policymakers must rethink
their roles, objectives and approaches on
four fronts.
Assess science in the near term. Policy-
makers should ask the IPCC for another
special report, this time on the rates of climate
change over the next 25 years. The panel
should also look beyond the physical science
itself and assess the speed at which political
systems can respond, taking into account
pressures to maintain the status quo from
interest groups and bureaucrats……………
For decades, scientists and policymakers
have framed the climate-policy debate in
a simple way: scientists analyse long-term
goals, and policymakers pretend to honour
them. Those days are over. Serious climate
policy must focus more on the near-term and
on feasibility.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329411074_Global_warming_will_happen_faster_than_we_think
IPCC – GCMs – are not fit for purpose. They keep failing. Climate scientists keep denying they are failing.
There’s a core group of climate scientists who maintain they and their work has never been wrong.
It is they who are living in denial.
June 3, 2023
International climate targets are achievable, but only in models, not in the real world
Roy Thompson
Abstract
The article argues that the relationships and historical trends of global temperatures and of fossil-fuel production are now both clear and relatively stable. Hence archival data of past performance allow a ‘speedometer reading’ of current rates of change and enable a direct ‘reality check’ on claims about future climate change. Embedded in a new Hubbert-style resource model the historical rates forecast that surface temperatures remain on course to rise by 4.5°C (6°C over land) by the early 2100s. This unsettling prospect is in close accord with several middle-of-the-road projections in the recent sixth IPCC Assessment Report (2021). Instead, if hoped-for targets of carbon neutrality are to be met and global temperature rises held to well below 2°C, as stipulated in the Paris Agreement, then the current rate of deployment of clean power sources would need to accelerate by an unprecedented 100-fold, to around 50 EJ year−1, within the decade.
Empirical evidence
The article contends that time-series of past surface temperatures and global-energy use allow a strong causal relationship to be constructed and expressed mathematically. Moreover, on the assumption that the overall pattern of the relationship will continue into the future, it also asserts that a useful forecast of impending temperature change can be made based on past and present data and by an analysis of trends. The two key, historical time-series required to drive the forecast are past global temperatures (Figure 1) and fossil-fuel use (Figure 2). The information contents of these two time-series are combined using the well-known finding that global mean surface warming is approximately proportional to cumulative (total) CO2 emissions (Matthews et al., 2009), alongside the premise that the burning of fossil fuels has been the dominant contributor to rising levels of CO2 and to recent global warming. In essence the underlying mathematics assumes that cumulative carbon emissions, with at most a very short delay (Ricke and Caldeira, 2014), will largely determine global warming levels into the late 21st century and beyond.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20530196231177686
Statistics vs the Real world — lies damned lies and statistics
06 Mar 2024 Is a Recent Surge in Global Warming Detectable?
Claudie Beaulieu
2.2 How many years are needed to detect a surge?
While the fitted models suggest that no changepoints (surges or pauses) have occurred after the 1970s in any of the GMSTs analyzed, it would be somewhat naive to categorically conclude that no surge has occurred. In this section, we consider how far into the future a GMST must be observed to identify a statistically significant surge at the current warming rate.
With the HadCRUT GMST from 1970-2023, we computed how large a surge would need to be to become statistically detectable at the α=0.05 significance level (see Methods). Elaborating, during the 1970-2023 period, the maximum difference in trend slopes occurs in 2012, with the estimated segments being 1970-2012 and 2013-2023, respectively. Enforcing continuity between the two regimes, the estimated slopes are 0.019∘C/year (first segment) and 0.029∘C/year (second segment), a 53% increase. Accounting for the short-term variability in the HadCRUT GMST over 1970-2023 and the added uncertainty for the changepoint location, the second segment (2013-2023) would need a slope of at least 0.039∘C/year (more than a 100% increase) to be statistically different than 0.019 at the α=0.05 significance level right now.
The estimated slope of 0.029∘C/year falls far short of this needed increase. While it is still possible there was a change in the warming rate starting in 2013, the HadCRUT record is simply not long enough for the surge magnitude to be statistically detectable at this time.
https://arxiv.org/html/2403.03388v1
NOTE: The above statistics ignores all known scientific data today that shows accelerated forcings and feedbacks — not least being an unprecedented decrease in aerosols since 2010 (land and shipping) and especially the IMO 2020 reductions ongoing; an acceleration in the Rate of GHG emissions especially CO2 @ +4ppm vs historic trend of 2ppm see NOAA; albedo changes, cloud cover changes, ice cover changes, ASR changes, IPO changes etc etc
AND
Arriving at a tipping point for worldwide forest decline due to accelerating climatic change
by Cuauhtémoc Sáenz-Romero 2024
ABSTRACT
The 2023–2024 El Niño is inducing an acceleration of global warming that is likely to far exceed 1.5 °C. The Boreal summer of 2023 provided numerous examples of catastrophic forest fires (e.g., >18 million hectares of forest burned in Canada, making the Canadian forest a clear carbon source rather than a carbon sink), a trend that has been accompanied by worldwide examples of unusual tree mortality linked to hotter droughts. It is reasonable to expect that the warming induced by El Niño could push forests in several parts of the world over a tipping point, where they will hardly be able to recover their original state. It is therefore necessary to address the meaning, realistically, of sustainable forest management in the era of accelerated climatic change.
https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.5558/tfc2024-003
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=4045509275128937674&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
Anyway…
Hansen Nov 2023-
QUOTE-
“…what’s happening is the amount of absorbed solar energy has increased. And that’s what you
would expect from the effect of decreased aerosols on cloud formation and cloud brightness,
cloud cover and cloud brightness. A one watt increase in the solar absorption is equivalent
to increasing CO2 from 420 to 500 ppm suddenly. And so the imbalance, the planet’s
energy imbalance has increased from 10 or 15 years ago is about six-tenths of a watt
per meter squared. Well, now it’s at least doubled from that. And so the rate of warming
of the planet is going to increase. I mean, it’s the amount, the imbalance is what
drives global warming. And that imbalance has been doubled. So the rate of warming
is going to increase. And you can look at the response function of any climate model
and it’ll show you that you get about half of the response within a decade or so.
So that increase of one watt is going to give us a substantial warming of the order
of half a degree.” (in the short term)
Dr. James E. Hansen in Conversation
@ 10:50 mins https://youtu.be/WTWUJ8Lvl-U?si=c0M5UYdVrGH2Dq51&t=650
I guess one question people could be asking is how come all the climate scientists who criticize Hansen et al do not have an answer for what the Data says, nor do they ever address the commentary such as the above. They seem to have no answers, nor adequate responses, they have no valid explanations against the Data presented nor what Hansen says about it. None I have seen so far.
It’s also odd what Hansen et al say as to the faults in the current CMIP6 models … where a large portion (30%?) ran hotter due to higher ECS levels, and so they’ve been discarded/ignored because they were said to not fit “observations”. Where Hansen and others keep pointing out the issue there is that the hotter models actually fit real world cloud observations from SO, eg in the southern ocean, but the colder models do not. That the GCMs have been “forced” to reflect global mean temperature observations by understating the forcing (and ECS) of ghg gases and understating the much greater real world cooling effects of aerosols particularly SO.
The hotter models run hot because they still do not incorporate real world aerosol forcings as they should. Hansen and others has been saying this a while, but it’s just dismissed out of hand by the senior mainstream minimalist climate scientists who keep doubling down on defending their prior decisions despite not having the hard science evidence to back them up in those decisions (imo if you insist). It’s quite odd as well.
I suspect soon this is going to be sorted out. Eventually rhetoric, distractions and denial will not be enough to defy reality. Daily World & North Atlantic SSTs have been at record highs for every day so far this year, a continuous run since March 2023 of about 390 days for both World and North Atlantic SSTs. What has happened in the North Atlantic as per Hansen/Simons Data on SO aerosols is patently clear and extreme change – not connected with El Nino. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
The Aussie BOM says El Nino is fading, and we will have a new monthly update coming. So for how long will these record highs remain, and to what extent will they go down as ENSO neutral then La Nina take over? And late in the year and then next year as the lower SO shipping aerosols continue declining, as well as on land (eg China etc) reductions. All of the nuances are addressed by Hansen et al – what we have here is a couple of projected temperature graphs to supposedly explain everything. Strange.
Eventually the CMIP6 models will need to be addressed as faulty too despite the cognitive dissonance driving people to defend to the death their choices while contrary evidence keeps accumulating all around them. NO one speaks about this here. Hansen been a convenient exception but there is more out there than only him and his coauthors. Using findings based on selective CMIP6 models to argue against Hansen is I think flawed and will be proven unsustainable.
Eventually even denial becomes undeniable. We’ll see. It will take time but it will happen. Anyway….
“We live on a planet with a climate characterized by defined by delayed response and amplifying feedbacks.”
Dr James E. Hansen
Ned Kelly 6 APR 2024 AT 3:00 AM It appears that the high North Atlantic Ocean which always punched well above its weight in absorbing CO2 is getting hot, flustered, tired & fed up with doing its duty. Does anyone know of ~real time measurement that would confirm or refute that ? Jim Hansen warned circa 2010 if memory serves that there were (paraphrasing) “indications of perhaps the ocean starting to absorb less of the human-emitted CO2.
Barry E Finch says
7 Apr 2024 at 9:35 AM
I do not know about reduction in absorption of CO2 by the ocean waters Barry. I have not seen it mentioned. Though I am very limited in my capacity to be aware or uptodate on all the intracisies of agw/cc. So I only look at a few narrow issues these days. If I see something I’ll pass it on though. Kind Regards.
and to Geoff Miell says
9 Apr 2024 at 8:03 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821147
Yes, you shared that club of Rome John Schellnhuber et al talk, and I bookmarked it after watching it. Excellent material. But very sad too. I see no exit ramp without a massive revolution in human consciousness. Unlikely I am afraid.
Barry, I saw a graph posted by Glen Peters (see X account) showing CO2 ocean absorption at 24% or total emitted, and it has declined slightly in the last couple of years … but it had been that low before in the 80s … who knows if that is reliable info. Check him out. cheers
Barry E Finch: – “It appears that the high North Atlantic Ocean which always punched well above its weight in absorbing CO2 is getting hot, flustered, tired & fed up with doing its duty. Does anyone know of ~real time measurement that would confirm or refute that ?”
You may wish to view a PBS article by Bella Isaacs-Thomas headlined When it comes to sucking up carbon emissions, ‘the ocean has been forgiving.’ That might not last. It included:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-ocean-helps-absorb-our-carbon-emissions-we-may-be-pushing-it-too-far
The daily North Atlantic (o-60°N, o-80°W) and daily World (60°S-60°N, 0-360°E) mean sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have been at record high levels for more than a year.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
The daily North Atlantic SST anomaly remains at record high levels.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1777712687327346982
The daily World SST is currently close to the record high 21.17 °C reached on Mar 1 & 2.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1777718751850639545
The daily Tropics (23.5°S-23.5°N) surface air temperature (SAT) is currently at record high levels.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=tropics
Per Copernicus Climate Change Service, March 2024 was the tenth month in a row to be the hottest on record.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-march-2024-tenth-month-row-be-hottest-record
I’d suggest with less colder surface water available, the ocean’s ability at absorbing atmospheric CO₂ will diminish further as the Earth System’s global mean surface temperature (relative to the 1850-1900 baseline), on our current GHG emissions trajectory, warms further;
• +1.35-1.42 °C now;
• +1.50 °C estimated in 2028-2033;
• +1.75 °C estimated in 2035-2040;
• +2.00 °C estimated in 2045-2050.
https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/1000-day-climate-graphic-design/
Barry E Finch says
7 Apr 2024 at 9:35 AM
Well Hello Again Barry .. I said I would keep an eye out, when out of the blue the following literally fell into my lap unasked for. Praise the Lord looking over my shoulder and guiding my decrepit old hand.
Review| January 12 2024
Advances in understanding of air–sea exchange and cycling of greenhouse gases in the upper ocean
Collections: Knowledge Domain: Ocean Science , Special Feature: Boundary Shift: The Air-Sea Interface in a Changing Climate
Hermann W. Bange et al
https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/12/1/00044/199221/Advances-in-understanding-of-air-sea-exchange-and
I have only skimmed the content Barry to be sure it was related to your query, and I believe it is. My guess is the uptake continues … circa 26% of CO2 is still being absorbed by the oceans (big and small) which is fairly steady rate – although possibly increasing still as Atmospheric concentrations continue to rise.
Looks like an excellent paper Barry …. and good institutional source to bookmark / keep an eye on
Kind Regards, but I must away. No doubt there are people lurking waiting to pounce upon me for replying to you for the 3rd time ….. tsk tsk I am a very naughty boy …. anyways …
Although there are still plenty of people who deny that the climate is warming. I’ve seen an increasing number of X posts where deniers do acknowledge warming but blame in on some other mechanism than heat trapping gases. However, they never suggest how that extra heat (it’s usually something to do with the sun) is retained. If not GHGs, then what? What other mechanisms can stop some of the heat being radiated to space, thus warming the surface of the planet?
In Re to Tony Weddle, 8 APR 2024 AT 12:23 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821095
Dear Tony,
it is not only about atmospheric heat “conductivity” in the direction outwards (for the heat intercepted by Earth) but also about the conductivity in the direction inwards (basically transmitance for solar radiation). Their ratio estimates the average surface temperature at which both energy flows become equal and establish a steady state.
It appears that there is less sunlight reflecting clouds above Earth surface than earlier, what also contributes to the radiative “imbalance” that causes the observed warming.
Greetings
Tomáš
I realise that the globe will warm until there is a balance. GHGs stop some of that heat escaping to space, exacerbating the imbalance. What the deniers offering “new” theories don’t tell us (as far as I can tell) is why this imbalance exists under those theories.
Tony Weddle A technical, science, thing is that nothing can “stop some of that heat escaping to space” because heat is “energy” and radiation must happen. What GHGs and other things do is reduce the RATE at which heat escapes to space, the “power”, and there’s nothing that can increase the RATE at which heat escapes to space that competes in power, in capability, with either the surface temperature increasing or the GHGs and other things that reduce the RATE at which heat escapes to space decreasing. Ocean emissivity isn’t going to be able to change substantively to increase the RATE. Perhaps I overstated that a bit because tropospheric temperature lapse rate response is apparently quite high vis a vis the Planck response but as far as I recall there’s nothing else in the power-altering ball-park and of course these responses Planck and delta lapse rate are responses to something else(s) forcing a temperature change so they aren’t causes. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8 at 13:54 to 17:18
in Re to Barry E. Finch, 15 Apr 2024 at 7:48 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821334
Dear Barry,
I think that, in fact, there might be a means that CAN “increase the RATE at which heat escapes to space”.
It is, of course, still an open question if we INDEED can increase heat conductivity of the atmosphere sufficiently to enable that the “overheated” Earth surface cools again, however, there are in my opinion at least decent hints that this option should be taken into consideration seriously.
Let us assume a sudden increase in latent heat flux, which could be theoretically enabled e.g. by water dumping in a desert. It may act similarly as an additional heat pipe added into an assembly of a computer processor with a cooling radiator.
As Dr. Marysa Laguë et al showed in their 2023 article,
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
more efficient heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere enabled by increased latent heat flux will result in decrease of the mean surface temperature as soon as the system reaches the new steady state.
This is a full analogy with my computer example: Provided that the mean power input to the processor as well as the room temperature remain constant, the additional heat pipe will finally enable the desired lower mean operational temperature of the processor.
Let us now look in more detail at the time course of this change.
As soon as we interconnect the hot processor operating at an original steady state temperature Tproc0 and the radiator operating at an original steady state temperature Trad0 with the additional heat pipe, it seems reasonable to assume that Trad will, at least at the very start, rise at the expense of decreasing temperature Tproc. Otherwise, the system could hardly ever release the accumulated excess heat and reach the new steady state with a lower Tproc1.
To explain this partial conclusion in more detail, we should keep in mind that the power input to the processor remains constant. It is therefore necessary that the accumulated heat is released by a temporal increase of the radiative output from the radiator above its original steady state level. I cannot imagine another way how to reach it than a temporal Trad increase above Trad0 – that is why I believe that my explanation may be correct.
As Tproc approaches the new steady state temperature Tproc1, Trad should reach a maximum and start to decrease. Finally, it should reach the same steady state Trad0 as at the start, in accordance with unchanged power input to the system and unchanged room temperature during the entire thought experiment.
I assume that with the Earth, an abrupt change in latent heat flux should work analogously to this example.
The reason why I am trying to present this explanation herein is in potential practical importance of a such artificial latent heat flux management. Let us now set aside practical questions and focus just on its theoretical feasibility. I believe it could pay off, because there seem to be potential benefits that cannot be achieved in other means for a global warming mitigation, such as management of the atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases and/or management of the atmospheric aerosol.
Let us assume that the EEI rise in the last decades is at least partially caused by continuous rise in concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, while air pollution with anthropogenic aerosols slowed down.
Let us further assume that professor Kleidon is right that the “compensation” of the greenhouse effect by aerosol pollution is incomplete:
https://idw-online.de/de/news564976
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/piuz.201401381
https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/farm/BGC/uploads/veranstaltungen/1386254929_document__2013.pdf
https://pro-physik.de/nachrichten/kann-geoengineering-die-welt-retten
If I understood him correctly, he asserts that for thermodynamic reasons, maintaining at a rising GHG concentration a constant surface temperature by aerosols must in fact work at the expense of global water cycle suppression.
Taking these assumptions for correct, it appears that for fixing the anthropogenic damages already inflicted to the Earth climate, we should consider fixing not only the increased GHG concentration, but also the respective anthropogenic water cycle intensity (and corresponding latent heat flux) decrease.
Artificial water cycle intensity management could be therefore desirable. Moreover, I think that it might become particularly beneficial, due to a unique aspect: It appears that none of the means discussed so far, such as the greenhouse gas management and aerosol management, can speed up the release of the excessive heat that has already accumulated in oceans during the last decades.
Conclusion:
It seems possible that articificially increasing the latent heat flux above its recent level could help slow down or stop further heat accumulation and perhaps even speed up the release of the previously accumulated heat to the space.
That is why I dared to offer this amendment to your comment,
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “ Let us assume a sudden increase in latent heat flux, which could be theoretically enabled e.g. by water dumping in a desert.
As Dr. Marysa Laguë et al showed in their 2023 article, more efficient heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere enabled by increased latent heat flux will result in decrease of the mean surface temperature
Getting on the first name basis with an author does not prove that she supports your claims. Quite the contrary – her change in GSMT of ~ 8K was calculated for the EXTREME difference of ALL continents being a desert and being a swamp. Your iriotic schemes of irrigating worlds deserts with salt water
to Tony Weddle on 9 APR:
“It appears that there is less sunlight reflecting clouds above Earth surface than earlier, what also contributes to the radiative “imbalance” that causes the observed warming. Greetings”
Except that despite being a year(?) on this group – you STILL don’t get the difference between a feedback and a driver: GHGs are a driver; clouds are a mere feedback: GHGs warm the Earth, which then reduces clouds. This means
that clouds do NOT CAUSE the warming, but merely AMPLIFY the effect of GHGs, therefore making the climate MORE, NOT LESS, susceptible to GHGs.
And coming back to Tony’s point – the deniers like you, Tomas, STILL have to come up with an ALTERNATIVE driver of the GW- one that by warming the Earth CAUSES the reduction in clouds you brought up. “Greetings” ;-)
Tomas Kalisz Apr. 16: “ Let us assume a sudden increase in latent heat flux, which could be theoretically enabled e.g. by water dumping in a desert. […]As Dr. Marysa Laguë et al showed in their 2023 article…”
Dropping in the first name of an author does not prove that she supports your claims. Quite the contrary – her change in GSMT of ~ 8K was calculated for the EXTREME RANGE – a difference between ALL ice-cap free continents being a desert and ALL continents being a swamp. Our alteration of the Earth water cycle can possibly cover a tiny fraction of that range.
Which brings us to TKS (Tomas Kalisz Scheme) – irrigating worlds deserts with many mln km3 of seawater, pumped over 1000s of km and spread over many mln of km2, causing the wholesale destruction of desert ecosystems by the salination of the soil, and destroying agriculture downwind with the salt dust – to achieve … a fraction of that 8K cooling.
TKS must be in the same league of idiocy as the proposal by his fellow expert on climate, “Mr. Know it All”, to cover the Arctic ocean with …
Mr. KIA: “2-3 feet thick panels of styrofoam [reinforced with] fiberglass or plastic. […] That’s the solution [to AGW] – let’s get started NOW ” ;-)
Mr. KIA – Mr. K, Mr. K. – Mr. KIA. Great minds think alike! ;-)
In Re to Piotr, 17 APR 2024 AT 8:59 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821387
and 17 APR 2024 AT 8:14 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821384
Dear Piotr,
A friendly reminder that in my post of 6 APR 2024 AT 6:28 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821056
I already once corrected your misleading figures:
“A remark regarding the option for artificial EEI management by switching e.g. 4 % (about 5 000 000 square km) of Earth surface from the “desert land” to “swamp land” regime,
Assuming similar evaporation rate like from the Red Sea (about 2m water column (per year)), the necessary water amount enabling that evaporation rate (from the considered area of about five millions square km of a recent hot desert) would have been about 10 000 cubic km, not millions.”
As global annual precipitation amounts about 500 000 cubic km water (only), adding millions cubic km above it would have been quite superfluous even with the aim to switch the land to swamps globally, I am afraid.
As regards the wording “dumping water in a desert”, I used it herein just to keep my post short. Readers who find my original questions that I posted a year ago will find out that they pertained to evaporative cooling of solar panels, and that the idea comprised either returning the concentrated brine to the sea, or dumping it in surface depressions on the land. The excess of the produced electrical energy could be used for sea water desalination, enabling irrigation of the desert (and plants growing thereon) with water having a “drinking” quality.
I think that although switching ca 5 million square km of a hot desert into irrigated forests and irrigated cropland will certainly be expensive, it could be still a significantly cheaper and faster way towards the desired 0.3 W/m2 increase in global latent heat flux (that could significantly reduce the present Earth energy imbalance) than any direct air (CO2) capture (DAC) technology that might theoretically enable the same result.
Moreover, I think that it may be well possible that through increased CO2 fixation by growing plants, the proposed “Tomáš Kalisz Scheme” could in parallel remove from Earth atmosphere a comparable CO2 amount as any “reference” DAC technology.
I think that results published by Lague et al give a hint that this idea is not as silly as you repeat from the very start, and that it might in fact deserve a serious scientific examination.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Apr. 18: “ I already once corrected your misleading figures: A remark regarding the option for artificial EEI management by switching 5 000 000 km2 of Earth surface from the “desert land” to “swamp land” regime,
Let’s see who of us two, is more misleading here:
You (Tomas) claimed that your evaporative schemes can not only counter the warming by GHGs but actually can cause global net “cooling”. Let’s crnch some numbers in the modelling by your “Dr. Marysa Laguë” – conversion of 127 mln km² of desert to swamp causes ΔGMST = – 8K. With GKS (the Great Kalisz Scheme) applied to 5 mln km2 this should cool by, AT MOST, (5/127)*8K =0.3K.
“AT MOST” – because in your “Dr. Marysa Laguë” paper, the maximum (swamp) evaporation was based on the full availability of water AND on the action of the vegetation “force multiplier” – 1 km2 of swamp vegetation can transpire much more water than 1km2 of wet sand.
Not in your scheme – the salt would salinate sand/soil, thus preventing the vegetation growth, and with it – its effectiveness in transpiring water. Hence – the actual cooling would be a fraction of that 0.3K.
And while grossly overstating the benefits of GKS – you glos over the ecological, technical, and financial problems
– the amount of water you would need to pump over the distance of 100s and 1000s of km – would be MANY times larger you claim – when you pour seawater onto dry sand- a lot (most?) of it would sink into the sands, thus won’t be available for evaporation. So you would have to pump MANY 10,000s of km3 of water (some to evaporate some (most?) to sink into the sands) and spreading all that water uniformly over …. 5 mln km2.
Salt in the ground would destroy any usable ground water, and kill all the desert vegetation. Salt left on the surface by evaporation would be picked by powerful Sahara sand storms and transported over 1000s km, and when deposited on land – salinating the soils, harming crops and other vegetation, in those places.
And all these costs and destruction for … a fraction of 0.3K cooling, and doing nothing about the other effect CO2 emissions – ocean acidification???
But, I guess, for a denier ANY idiocy that can defend the profits of multinational oil&gas corporations, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Iran, is worth it.
In Re to Piotr, 19 Apr 2024 at 12:26 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821432
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your feedback.
1) You still somehow miss that I have never proposed spraying deserts with sea water. Please read the posts you comment on to the end.
2) A good question – I do not know how the model used by Laguë et al treated the evaporation from their “swamp land” – if as an evaporation from a free water surface, or as a “turboevaporation” from vegetation with an unlimited water supply.
Anyway, the “Tomas Kalisz Scheme” supposes combining vegetation irrigated by desalinated sea water and evaporatively cooled solar panels. I guess it still may be quite powerful and efficient – and, last but not least, it could be easily tested in a small scale, and in case of a successfull proof, it could be scaled-up step by step.
3) Although “garbage in, garbage out” is frequently used for dismissal of assertions based on (allegedly) false assumptions, I would like to say that this is not a good criterion for assessing new ideas in real life.
I will offer an example from development of an alternative synthesis methof for a prostaglandin (an active pharmaceutical ingredience, in this specific case used in ophtalmology).
The purpose of this specific modification of a known industrial procedure was circumventing a patented intermediate comprising a saturated single bond, by using its analog with a double bond, and making the desired unsaturated single bond by hydrogenation in one of later synthesis steps.
The alternative method, however, suffered from a significant disadvantage. Whereas the saturated patented intermediate exhibited an ability to crystallize (a quite rare property in prostaglandin chemistry), the unsaturated analog was an usual viscous liquid without any tendency to form crystals – and thus had to be purified by laborious chromatography instead of much simpler (although also sophisticated) crystallization.
Nevertheless, we made a small discovery that the unsaturated compound forms a solid hydrate. We hoped that we find a way how to turn this discovery into a technological procedure. Unfortunately, all laboratory experiments made in this direction resulted in an uncontrolled sudden formation of a semi-solid mass that contained lot of mother liquor and could not be reasonably processed by filtration.
In this situation, a technician made an own experiment that seemingly made no sense – and succeeded. He simply applied the sophisticated crystallization procedure, as it was designed for the saturated intermediate, to the unsaturated compound – and obtained this compound in form of perfectly separable needles.
It was the desired hydrate, although the procedure (seemingly) has not comprised any water addition. We found out that, actually, it was just sufficient that acetone used in the procedure was not perfectly dry.
Should he asked me if he has to do the experiment, I would have told him that it is a nonsense. Since then, I experienced a few other inventions based on totally false assumptions. This is why I do not think anymore that we have too much rely on previous experience or theories if we enter a new, uncharted territory.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz 22 APR: You still somehow miss that I have never proposed spraying deserts with sea water.
sure, you proposed desalinating …. tens of thousands km3 of seawater needed for actual evaporation scheme AND to cover the massive losses when you pour water into the desert sands.
For a comparison – the present day GLOBAL desalination is about … 35 km3/yr, and is so expensive that it is done as the last resort solution. The modest proposal by Tomas Kalisz suggest we increase it ….. THOUSAND-fold.
And when you add the costs of pumping all this water over 100s and1000s of km FOREVER? (because the moment you stop the cooling effect disappears).
And trucking away billions of tons of salt. And ALL THAT for a …fraction of 0.3K?
You missed your time – with the schemes hatching in your head you would have been much more at home in the Brezhnev times – e.g. irrigating the semi-deserts of Central Asia into the fields … At a fraction of your scale, how well this has worked out!
In Re to Piotr, 23 APR 2024 AT 3:10 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821563
Dear Piotr,
Many thanks for your comment. I am really happy that we finally clarified the basic idea behind some of my questions that I asked in this discussion forum. Yes, I agree that it may resemble the old Soviet plans. Nevertheless, please let me now dig deeper and try to clarify further details.
1) I do not understand yet why do you still insist in your opinion that the actual effect of the “TKS” would have been a fraction of the originally assumed 0.3 K only. In your earlier post of 19 APR 2024 AT 12:26 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821432
you reasoned this opinion just by the assumed presence of salt in the evaporated water:
“Not in your scheme – the salt would salinate sand/soil, thus preventing the vegetation growth, and with it – its effectiveness in transpiring water. Hence – the actual cooling would be a fraction of that 0.3K.”
As we clarified that the proposed scheme in fact assumes watering the vegetation with water of “drinking” quality, this objection seems to be not relevant anymore.
2) “Trucking salt” – may not be necessary. Either the brine could stay in the ocean, or we would have had smaller pipelines for brine along the big pipelines for water :-)
3) Costs, generally
I keep repeating that the costs have to be compared with direct air capture (DAC). It is well possible that TKS is a nonsense, however, in this case I would expect that DAC is a much bigger nonsense.
Nevertheless, it does not appear to be clear yet. Honestly, it rather looks like DAC is generally accepted and seen as a promise. There already are running billion dollar DAC projects in the USA, and tens of articles dealing with DAC issue annually even in most prestigious scientific journals like Nature. Why should we arbitrarily dismiss TKS, if we take DAC as a real option?
4) Benefits
Whereas I do not see any positive side effect of DAC, side effects of making specific deserts green (again :-)) could exist.
One of them could be CO2 binding in growing biomass. Another one could be creation of new economical development opportunities (agriculture / industry / cities) in the “greened” desert. Or, should there be nothing else than forest and facilities for solar energy exploitation in the newly “greened” desert, these economical opportunities might perhaps still improve in at least in its neighbourhood. For example people living in the Subsaharan Africa are threatened by negative climate change impacts, and TKS might perhaps improve their chance for a decent livelihood in their countries.
For these reasons, I do not see a clear argument yet why the “TKS” idea should be dismissed. I still think that it might in fact deserve at least the same attention as another comparably silly idea, namely DAC, has already attracted.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “Yes, I agree that [Tomas Kalisz Scheme] may resemble the old Soviet plans.
And you know how their plans ended, right? Or you grasp of history is on the same level as your grasp of climatology?
TK I do not understand yet why do you still insist in your opinion that the actual effect of the “TKS” would have been a fraction of the originally assumed 0.3 K only.
the 0.3K is based on your Lague et al 2023. A “fraction” of that 0.3K comes from the fact that the 0.3K was computed on the assumption of a transpiration of the vegetation of a SWAMP. You WON’T create a swamp on Sahara by pouring TENS OF TRILLIONS of tons of your desalinated water onto the sand per year – plants to grow need also soil. Not much of that on Sahara. And it takes 200 yrs in tropical wet climate to create 1cm of soil.
To sum up
– your scheme would take THOUSANDS of Years to achieve that maximum effect of 0.3K
– EACH of these YEARS would require desalinating THOUSAND times more seawater than the today’s global desalination volume (35 km3/yr).
If you can’t see, or admit, the sheer idiocy of your scheme, then you are beyond help.
Tomas, you might want to ask yourself how and why it is that the same folks who claim that “clouds are a huge uncertainty” tend to be the very same ones who claim that decreasing cloud is certainly, definitely, and without a doubt responsible for our observed warming. A bit contradictory, isn’t it, to claim knowledge of something in one breath and ignorance of it in the next? To me, it seems just to be another instance of “ABC”–that is, “Anything But Carbon.”
They also refuse to consider the possibility that as Barry alluded to, decreased cloud could be a feedback invoked by GHG warming–a possibility for which I believe there is some evidence on the table already.
Kevin McKinney says
16 Apr 2024 at 10:50 AM
QUOTE – “….. decreasing cloud is certainly, definitely, and without a doubt responsible for our observed warming ”
I have seen no one making statements like that. Would you have any verbatim quotes that does?
To me, it seems just to be another instance of not seeing what was written and/or not correctly understanding was in fact said or written. aka interpreting other peoples statements and/or the provided quotes/refs ….. a very common thing that happens all over the internet often due to undue haste and not enough care.
KM: “….. decreasing cloud is certainly, definitely, and without a doubt responsible for our observed warming ”
NK: I have seen no one making statements like that. Would you have any verbatim quotes that does?
BPL: Both Macias Shurly and Carbomontanus have said things to that effect. Maybe you have to go back further to find it.
Sorry, I don’t have a quote for that, but I certainly had extended conversations with denialati who made precisely that claim, back when I was still on Twitter. I deleted my account when Musk went full-blown anti-semitic, so AFAICT those comments are no longer accessible to me.
RE Barton Paul Levenson says
18 Apr 2024 at 7:26 AM
BPL: Both Macias Shurly and Carbomontanus have said things to that effect. Maybe you have to go back further to find it.
Finding things like that should be Kevin’s job not mine.
Besdies which I do NOT consider “Macias Shurly and Carbomontanus’ relevant or credible referees.
My question was directly referring to Kevin’s assertion (not misc unimportant internet commentators / trolls ) — quote *** the same folks who claim that “clouds are a huge uncertainty” tend to be the very same ones who claim that decreasing cloud is certainly ***
Folks who claim clouds are a huge uncertainty in my mind were actual climate scientists from Gavin to anyone of the other 60K …… so the question was directed at Kevin to clarify who said what and when and where?
Surely that was obvious before …. if not why not?
Ned Kelly: “ Finding things like that should be Kevin’s job not mine “.
Let’s summarize:
1. Kevin warns Tomas about deniers by whom Tomas seems to be influenced or manipulated, with their claim: it’s not us – it’s the clouds.
2. Tomas does not insinuate to Kevin intellectual dishonesty of assigning to the deniers claims they have never made. This falls upon … Ned Kelly, who JOINS the discussion for this purpose, and demands from Kevin the quote.
3. Kevin answers that he remembers those from his Twitter account to which he no longer has access; while BPL mentions Shurly and Carbo.
4. That’s not good enough for our Ned:
NK: “ Finding things like that should be Kevin’s job not mine “.
A bit strange coming from the mouth of somebody who in recent weeks posted 1os?, 100s?, of quotes nobody asked him for, and bitterly complained that nobody is interested in. But if finding a quote from Shurly on the role of clouds was too difficult, I’d suggest typing: “Shurly CERES clouds “, and voila:
macias shurly 26 JUL 2023:
“ Douville Hervé says: Water remains a blind spot in climate change policy.
– ms: Not only in the climate change policy, but above all in the generally recognized climate science, there are a number of blind spots that are related to the water cycle. […]
There is much to suggest that decreasing global evaporation (- 0.86W/m²) and cloud albedo (- 0.8W/m²) are the main drivers of global warming (not only) since the year 2000 (CERES with satellite-based measurements. ”
Ned Kelly: “ Besdies which I do NOT consider “Macias Shurly and Carbomontanus’ relevant or credible referees.”
Hmm, in the discussion you JOINED – about the people who might influence Tomas’ views of the water cycle – Macias Shurly, his fellow “water boy”, is not… “ relevant” to you?
Your playing footsie with Tomas and JCM, and reserving your contempt and vitriol for “climate scientists including modellers like Gavin and thousands more” – … makes psychological sense:
for a true revolutionary the worst enemy is not a symmetrical opponent, but those on “his side” who don’t go as far as he:
– for Robespierre – it was Danton who wanted calling off the Terror,
– for Bolsheviks – it were their former allies with whom they deposed the last Tsar, only to be branded “Revolutionary defeatist” by Lenin and overthrown half a year later
– Communists in Spain went after the non-Communist Republicans, with a zeal similar to going after the Franco’s forces
Of course, toutes proportions gardées: our Ned Kelly is not a blood-thirsty tyrant in spe, rather, more prosaically, somebody after the psychological payout of being a conspiracy theorist:
– if I, Ned, a person who [unless he is uncharacteristically modest] has not published widely in best climatological journals – can see, what people who do publish there (“climate scientists including modellers like Gavin and thousands more”) could not, or refused to, see, then I must be really, really, smart ! .
In such a context, for Ned, the enemies of his enemies are his friends. So if Tomas or JCM are seeing this – don’t read too much into Ned’s defending you, offering you compliments on your work and words of support against your critics – he doesn’t really care about you, you are just means to an end, easily disposed the moment you stop serving your purpose. See what happened to your fellow waterboy, Macias?
NK: “I do NOT consider Macias Shurly relevant or credible referee”
Ouch.
Ouch indeed.
Kevin’s reply to tomas (which I queried) was about this comment:
Tomáš Kalisz says
9 Apr 2024 at 5:17 PM
In Re to Tony Weddle, 8 APR 2024 AT 12:23 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821095
Dear Tony,
it is not only about atmospheric heat “conductivity” in the direction outwards (for the heat intercepted by Earth) but also about the conductivity in the direction inwards (basically transmitance for solar radiation). Their ratio estimates the average surface temperature at which both energy flows become equal and establish a steady state.
It appears that there is less sunlight reflecting clouds above Earth surface than earlier, what also contributes to the radiative “imbalance” that causes the observed warming.
Greetings
Tomáš
————————————————
It is a known fact that — the same folks who claim that “clouds are a huge uncertainty” (comment by Kevin above) — are called CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
My position remains unchanged regarding the credibility & relevance of QUOTE
Do carry on to your hearts content. I have moved on.
Ned Kelly. “ Kevin’s reply to tomas (which I queried) was about this comment:
Tomáš Kalisz 9 Apr 2024”
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Nobody discussing that comment of Tomáš Kalisz 9 Apr 2024 – but your “queries” to Kevin. I quote:
Ned Kelly: “ I have seen no one making statements like that. Would you have any verbatim quotes that does? To me, it seems just to be another instance of not seeing what was written and/or not correctly understanding was in fact said or written ”
To which … I have given you “ a verbatim quote that does“:
=== macias shurly 26 JUL 2023:
“ Douville Hervé says: Water remains a blind spot in climate change policy.
– ms: Not only in the climate change policy, but above all in the generally recognized climate science, there are a number of blind spots that are related to the water cycle. […]
There is much to suggest that decreasing global evaporation (- 0.86W/m²) and cloud albedo (- 0.8W/m²) are the main drivers of global warming (not only) since the year 2000 (CERES with satellite-based measurements. ”
====
So now it’s your turn – put your money where your mouth is by proving how Kevin, BPL and me “ do not see what was written and/or not correctly understanding was in fact said or written ” by showing what is
YOUR “correct understanding of the above quote.
Or, after your patronizing comments to Kevin, and attempts at guilt by association (“climate scientists including modellers like Gavin and thousands more” with climate change deniers) – blew in your face – proudly declare: “ I have moved on” [(c) Ned Kelly]
When the going gets tough, the tough get going? ;-)
RE Kevin McKinney says
18 Apr 2024 at 1:40 PM
Sorry, I don’t have a quote for that, but I certainly had extended conversations with denialati who made precisely that claim, back when I was still on Twitter. I deleted my account when Musk went full-blown anti-semitic, so AFAICT those comments are no longer accessible to me.
Right OK .. so what you’re saying is you have Nothing at all.
Merely some vague memory of someone somewhere at some time.
Sorry, that’s unconvincing at best.
I repeat folks who say “clouds are a huge uncertainty” are in fact climate scientists including modellers like Gavin and thousands more.
Would you like a quote? Search these pages on RC ( big smile)
Kind regards …
In Re to Piotr, Ned Kelly, Kevin McKinney and Barton Paul Levenson.
Dear all,
I think that we all can mutually agree that clouds are a big uncertainty and difficulty in climate modelling, including the question in which extent their changes (let now aside the question whether it is a mere “feedback” to changes in greenhouse gases, or to all “forcings” that influence energy fluxes in the atmosphere, or it is even more complex) contributed to the Earth warming observed in the last decades.
If so, I do not think that we need to discuss who exactly said what and why.
As you mentioned Macias Shurly, there is still an unresolved question he posed by his assertion that there is an evidence for continent desiccation from the GRACE-FO experiment. I asked him for a reference that, unfortunately, has not came yet. There are people on this forum who perhaps could answer if a such evidence indeed does exist – I think that e.g. MA Rogers once discussed the GRACE-FO data with respect to changes in continental ice sheets.
If anyone could answer my question if this data indeed support Macias’ claim, I will be very grateful.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz Apr.23 says “let now aside the question whether it is a mere “feedback” to changes in greenhouse gases, or to all “forcings”
Nobody discussed it, so there is nothing to “aside”. UNLIKE what has been discussed – your inability to accept that the water cycle is NOT a forcing, but a “mere feedback” to anything that changes temperature, the fact that renders all your blabbering about the “ contribution” of the water cycle to the climate change forcings – a monument to your willful ignorance and refusal to take “no” for an answer
TK: “If anyone could answer my question if this data indeed support Macias’ claim, I will be very grateful.”
Who cares about your Macias and his claims? He was as ignorant of the things he quoted as you are. And what he or you, are you going to do with an answer
what are you propose to do about “ continent desiccation” that has not already been done – not for the negligible GW effect, but for the access to water by agriculture, cities and industry.
But thank you for illustrating a classic trolling technique – see the Wikipedia definition posted here by your defender, Ned. K.:
“ Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “ incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate ”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings “.
Dear Tomas, I have nothing to add about MS’s claim. But I want to address another aspect of your comment that appears to me to be something of a misapprehension.
You mention the proposition that cloud could be “a mere “feedback” to changes in greenhouse gases…” The word “mere” seems to suggest that you may be thinking that “feedback” implies something about the magnitude of an agent within the climate system. It doesn’t, in principle.
What “feedback” does mean is that the factor in question is a driver external to the system itself. To clarify, let’s consider the case of CO2 itself. We know that anthropogenic CO2 is considered a forcing, not a feedback. This is because it is being injected into the atmosphere by human activities–thus, its origin is largely extrinsic to the system.
Now contrast the CO2 increase driven by the ending of the last glacial period: as orbital parameters inexorably shifted in their complex cycling, they initiated a process of deglaciation affecting many relevant parameters of the earth’s climate system. In particular, as temperatures rose, the oceans warmed. This in turn drove emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, in a process arising from the solar drivers and the interaction of system feedbacks (such as albedo changes). But as CO2 increased, it began to cause yet more warming. Therefore, *that* CO2 was not a forcing; rather, it was a feedback.
Now, there has been no change in the effect of a molecule of CO2 then, as opposed to one now. They will have the same probability of encountering absorbable IR, under the same temperature and pressure conditions (even if those conditions aren’t encountered now in the same geographic locations as then.) “Old” CO2 was a feedback because of its place in the causative structure, and “new” CO2 is a forcing because of its (contrasting) place in the causative structure.
Turning to the case of water vapor, if you could somehow double the mean concentration of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere, and do so in a stable manner, there’s no doubt you’d have created a very strong forcing indeed, because you would have introduced something in a manner not forced by the earth system. On the other hand, the observed increasing mass of water vapor in the atmosphere is not a forcing but a feedback, because it is a consequence of increasing mean temperature.
I hope that’s helpful. And forgive the explanation if you already grasped this distinction; it really didn’t sound as if that were the case.
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 24 Apr 2024 at 2:13 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821595
Dear Kevin,
Many thanks for your explanation. It was indeed useful.
Nevertheless, if the “forcing” of the climate system is any parameter (not only external one, such as solar irradiation of the Earth) that can change independently (and in some cases could change as a result of human activity), then I do not understand why Piotr criticizes that I called anthropogenic changes in water availability for evaporation from land as a “forcing”.
It was my understanding that Lague et al
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1/pdf
provided a hint that changes in water availability for evaporation may change global climate.
Piotr, on one hand, seems to agree to conclusions made by Lague et al (although he has not answered my direct questions asked in this regard yet). On the other hand, he still repeats that global water cycle intensity and surface latent heat flux are mere “temperature feedbacks”, what sounds to me as a contradiction in view of Lague and of your explanation.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz to Tony Weddle on 9 APR:
“It appears that there is less sunlight reflecting clouds above Earth surface than earlier, what also contributes to the radiative “imbalance” that causes the observed warming. Greetings”
Except that despite being a year(?) on this group – you STILL don’t get the difference between a feedback and a driver: GHGs are a driver; clouds are a mere feedback: GHGs warm the Earth, which then reduces clouds. This means
that clouds do NOT CAUSE the warming, but merely AMPLIFY the effect of GHGs, therefore making the climate MORE, NOT LESS, susceptible to GHGs.
And coming back to Tony’s point – the deniers like you, Tomas, STILL have to come up with an ALTERNATIVE driver of the GW- one that by warming the Earth CAUSES the reduction in clouds you brought up. “Greetings” ;-)
in Re to Piotr, 17 Apr 2024 at 8:04 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821383
Dear Piotr,
I said “contributes”, because I still have not understood how can the scientists unequivocally assign an alleged “feedback” to a single forcing in such complex cases like “cloud response”, which may very likely depend on multiple variables.
I think that cloud formation may depend not only on radiative surface budget and water availability (that, I guiess, both drive water vapour supply into atmosphere, wherein there might be,moreover, a feedback loop between cloud formation and surface radiative budget), but also on aerosols that may act as nucleation centres for water condensation (and, moreover, may directly influence the surface radiative budget as well).
As regards the amplification of GHG effect by clouds (or rather by a combined effect of water vapour and clouds – you possibly might have meant rather this?), I am not sure if it can be generalized the way as you seem to assume. That is why I asked if someone could expand the experiments made by Dr. Lague, so that they could clarify if this amplification may simply linearly depend on surface coverage by oceans, or if it may be more complex.
It was my feeling that you assume a simple relationship, whereas JCM guesses that this relationship may be more complex and that the “compound” climate sensitivity (including the vapour and cloud response) to GHG forcing may even exhibit a minimum, perhaps just for the “swamp” planet.
Nevertheless, before you start discussing this aspect that is, to my best understanding, not addressed in Lague 2023, I would like to repeat my plea to you from my earlier post of 31 Mar 2024 at 6:00 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-820771
which I now attach below for your convenience.
I suppose that clarifying if there recently is any difference between you and JCM in your understanding to conclusions proposed by Lague et al could be very helpful for any further discussion on this topics.
Greetings
Tom
—
In Re to Piotr, 30 Mar 2024 at 11:27 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-820737
Dear Piotr,
The conclusion of the article Lague 2023 reads:
4. Conclusions
In a global model with realistic continental geometry,
reducing terrestrial evaporation increases the total
amount of atmospheric water vapor over most land
and ocean regions. The residence time of water vapor
in the atmosphere increases by roughly 50% from the
simulation with fully saturated land to the simulation
with desert land. Suppressing land evaporation has a
direct warming effect on the land surface by reducing
latent cooling of the surface, but also drives atmo-
spheric feedbacks including reductions in terrestrial
cloud cover. The anomalous surface energy fluxes
driven by atmospheric cloud, water vapor, and tem-
perature feedbacks are larger than the initial change
in latent heat flux driven directly by suppressed
terrestrial evaporation. The cloud feedback is crit-
ical for increasing near-surface MSE and generating
anomalous atmospheric circulations throughout the
depth of the troposphere. Simulations conducted in
a cloud-free model still show surface warming with
suppressed terrestrial evaporation, but also show a
decrease, rather than an increase, in near surface
MSE. Anomalous atmospheric circulations over the
continents in cloud-free simulations are much shal-
lower, and the atmosphere shows reduced atmo-
spheric water vapor with suppressed terrestrial evap-
oration. This extreme experiment raises the ques-
tion of how real-world changes to the land surface
(e.g. land use, agriculture) may be contributing to cli-
mate change by altering atmospheric water vapor and
cloud cover, and how terrestrial evaporation modu-
lates climate on other planets or in past continental
configurations of Earth’s history.
As I pointed several times in the previous discussion, my understanding to these conclusions is as follows:
The authors brought a hint that water availability for evaporation on land plays a significant role in Earth climate. I tried to show that human interferences with the water availability, like converting 4 % of the considered land area from the swamp land hydrology to the desert land hydrology or vice versa, could already have a measurable effect on global climate. For that reason, I think that the topics touched by Lague may deserve further attention and proof by other models, and further expansion of this research.
It is my understanding that JCM agrees to conclusions presented by the authors and that he basically shares my view on the potential importance of the topics and of further research in this direction.
Oppositely, at the start of the discussion, it was my feeling that you interpreted the article basically oppositely to the conclusion provided by the authors. It was further my feeling that during the discussion, you have modified your view and that you, now, may basically agree with conclusions offered by Lague et al.
In this respect, however, I still do not understand why you think and assert that JCM misinterprets Lague 2023.
Could you perhaps clarify for others (who do not like to peruse the entire discussion that became quite discouraging by its extent and style) if your view currently anyhow differs from the conclusions provided by Lague et al, and if not, in which aspect JCM does not understand the article?
It is my feeling that, in fact, there may be no substantial difference between you both, and that using conclusions provided by Lague et al as a reference, the present discussion could be perhaps brought to a conclusion as well, without further unnecessary disputes that seem to be based on unimportant details or misunderstandings / misinterpretations presented in the discussion but not in the disputed article itself.
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz: 19 APR: “ Dear Piotr, I said “contributes”, because I still have not understood how can the scientists unequivocally assign an alleged “feedback” to a single forcing in such complex cases like “cloud response”, which may very likely depend on multiple variables.”
Discussion is about drivers of GW. Water cycle is not a driver, it is a PASSIVE FOLLOWER – when driver warms, it makes the warming larger; if the driver cools, it makes the cooling larger. Imagine you drive a car. You come to the fork of the road – it is you who decide whether you go left or right. No sane person would demand to know what was the “contribution” of the car to your decision. Or patronizingly question why scientists are telling you that it was you who made the decision, even though your decision “may very likely depend on multiple variables.“. IRRELEVANT to the question at hand.
So don’t bring your water gun (feedback) to a gunfight (challenge to deniers to come up GW drivers more important than GHGs).
Since your starting assumption is wrong (your persistent inability to distinguish a forcing from a feedback) there is no point to discuss the subsequent pages upon pages of your thoughts, “feelings”, and opinions. Garbage in, garbage out.
Tomas Kalisz Apr/22 I would like to say that “garbage in, garbage out” is not a good criterion for assessing new ideas in real life.
… said Mike Hughes, shortly before attempting to prove that the Earth is flat?
There are a number of ways that this can be investigated. One is statistical: there are established methods for trying to divine which of a number of related factors is causative. Another is analytical, based on physical mechanisms. For example, there are well-understood reasons why increased temperature should increase evaporation.
In the present case, I at least am not aware of any cause extrinsic to the earth system which is directly driving a change in cloud. It could in theory be “unforced variability”, in which case one would expect the change to revert to the mean over time; or it could be that it is being driven by the warming we observe. But absent an extrinsic cause accounting for it, it isn’t a forcing. And as I said, there’s good reason to think that the intrinsic cause–warming temperatures–are in fact the cause, based on the mechanisms involved.
In Re to KevinMcKinney, 24 Apr 2024 at 2:32 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821596
Dear Kevin,
Honestly, the discussion about climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration changes in the recent “hopium” article published by Dr. Hansen raises rather my feeling that particular contributions or various “forcings” (like CO2 and aerosols) and “feedbacks” (like clouds) to this “ultimate feedback” are still being estimated quite arbitrarily (or deliberately), just to enable that the designed climate model more-less fits the reality.
It seems that so far, there was no better way how to do it, because the respective physical mechanisms e.g. for aerosols are too complex, and the data that might help to evaluate their contribution were mostly unavailable.
Greetings
Tomáš
Kevin McKinney says
24 Apr 2024 at 2:32 PM
Another is analytical, based on physical mechanisms. For example, there are well-understood reasons why increased temperature should increase evaporation.
In the present case, I at least am not aware of any cause extrinsic to the earth system which is directly driving a change in cloud.
——————————————
I don’t understand comments like this, nor where they come from and why.
1) “there are well-understood reasons (known physics) why increased temperature should increase evaporation.”
– Yes sure. It also requires there is sufficient water available to be evaporated to achieve an “increase”. Otherwise all you get is just higher temperatures and the same RH, or lower. ‘
2) “there are well-understood reasons (known physics) why increased temperature should increase evaporation.”
– Yes sure. But it does not follow a default outcome / result that any increase in evaporation will force a change in Cloud formation, cover, or type – locally regionally or globally within a known time frame.
3) “there are well-understood reasons (known physics) why increased temperature should increase evaporation.”
– Yes sure. There are also simultaneously well-understood reasons (known physics) why decreased anthropocentric aerosol emissions should (all other things being equal) :-
— decrease cloud formation
— decrease Albedo levels
— increase ASR, iow heat absorption of SWR and increase reflective LWR
— should increase GSAT temperatures
— should increase TOA EEI
— should increase OHC uptake and increase SSTs
— should increase evaporation, causing drier surface conditions locally (feedbacks)
— should impact precipitation patterns regionally, globally (via feedback mechanisms)
In the above warming temperatures are an effect, a result of a change in forcing, and not the intrinsic cause. It’s complicated. Because everything is happening simultaneously and interacting with each process all the time.
The Data and Dynamics of which are not contained accurately in any of the GCMs climate modelling available now or in the near future.
The only real Model for these physics mechanisms is Reality. The only way to understand the “intrinsic causation” is solid Theory of the Physics. The logical solutions do not require a flawed hypothetical Climate Model, only a knowledge of Physics and Applied Logic and Reason.
A number of climate scientists keep contending there is no credible evidence of an “acceleration in global warming” – however there is much scientific evidence available for some time: for example:
Full-depth Ocean heat content (OHC) peaked in 2023
In situ and satellite approaches indicate an increasing — and accelerating — global heating rate
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00539-9
extracts include –
OHC records have been broken every year since 2017
…. year-on-year increases of
10 ± 6 ZJ were observed from 2019 to 2020,
19 ± 6 ZJ from 2020 to 2021, and
18 ± 8 ZJ from 2021 to 2022,
culminating to an increase of
16 ± 10 ZJ from 2022 to 2023
2023 reflects greater heat accumulation in the upper layers compared to the deeper layers
Changes in OHC also exhibit spatial differences linked to greenhouse gases, aerosol effects and natural variability. All major basins exhibit warming, albeit at different rates.
[ see Hansen et al 2023 ]
OHC changes in 2023 provide evidence of ongoing and accelerated heat gain. The acceleration is mainly associated with the elevated ocean warming rate since the 1990s, with a two- to four-fold increase in the rate of OHC since this time
Supporting evidence for ocean warming
In addition to direct evidence from in situ observations, estimates of 2023 OHC changes can also come from other sources, including sea level budgets, model simulations and the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI)
[ see Hansen et al 2023 ]
Beyond 2023, these different data products and approaches also provide supporting evidence for OHC acceleration.
For the simulated higher emission paths, ocean warming acceleration will continue throughout the twenty-first century.
Given that ocean warming provides direct evidence that the climate system is out of thermal equilibrium and, hence, accumulating heat, the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) can also be used as a supporting metric.
[ See Hansen et al 2023 ]
Collectively, these various lines of evidence confirm a robust long-term ocean warming acceleration, with the warming trend progressively increasing since the 1960s. These long-term warming trends set the stage for the record-high OHC in 2023.
[ and yet some climate scientists contended they had no evidence to expect record warming in 2023 ]
Ocean warming has already led to pervasive impacts and consequences, for example, altering ocean circulation, rising sea level and vertical stratification, intensifying tropical cyclones, reducing ocean oxygen levels, melting sea ice and ice sheets from below, busting marine heat waves, and other extremes
Detecting changes in ocean warming is crucial for informed decision-making in international climate negotiations to limit anthropogenic warming to specific levels.
[end quotes]
Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content: Seasonal, Yearly, and Pentadal Fields
Data / Graphs / Evidence of Accelerating Warming to Qu4 2023
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
PART 2 of 2
Last month was hottest February ever recorded. It’s the ninth-straight broken record
SETH BORENSTEIN March 09, 2024
https://www.stuff.co.nz/climate-change/350205857/last-month-was-hottest-february-ever-recorded-its-ninth-straight-broken
Aerosols must be included in climate risk assessments — Estimates of impending risk ignore a big player in regional change and climate extremes. 2022 By Geeta G. Persad
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03763-9
Why was 2023 so extreme? The data is finally in!The world absorbed a lot more sunlight, as less was reflected.
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1767509577656856739?s=20
This doesn’t even include 2020 shipping desulphurisation yet!!
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1775498391662866820#m
The climate community suffered a credibility hit a decade ago when many fell victim to the misguided framing of the “faux pause”
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1773827951051554937
Please note that Mann has been denying the desulphurisation of shipping and plenty evidence of the increased rate of global heat uptake from NASA CERES satellites and NOAA Ocean Heat Content data.
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1773739983016231004#m
Recent reductions in aerosol emissions have increased Earth’s energy imbalance
03 April 2024 Øivind Hodnebrog
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01324-8
Cleanup of air pollution heats the Earth 3.4.2024
https://cicero.oslo.no/en/articles/cleanup-of-air-pollution-heats-the-earth
Why Is the Sea So Hot? March 2024 By Elizabeth Kolbert
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-is-the-sea-so-hot
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory By Gavin Schmidt
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
Much ado about acceleration – 4 Apr 2024 by Gavin Schmidt
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/
Factcheck: Why the recent ‘acceleration’ in global warming is what scientists expect
Zeke Hausfather 04.04.2024
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/
IAPv4 ocean temperature and ocean heat content gridded dataset Lijing Cheng
https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-42/
James Hansen’s New Climate Warning and Controversial Plan to Cool the Planet
https://www.newsweek.com/james-hansens-new-climate-warning-controversial-plan-cool-planet-1840385
Past climates inform our future Jessica E. Tierney 2020
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aay3701
Global warming will happen faster than we think
December 2018 Nature 564
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329411074_Global_warming_will_happen_faster_than_we_think
Hansen: CITES Global warming in the pipeline – Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=4045509275128937674&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
Is a Recent Surge in Global Warming Detectable?
https://arxiv.org/html/2403.03388v1
Ocean heat content in 2023 Lijing Cheng https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00539-9
Conversation with Leading Climate Scientists To Discuss New Research on Global Warming
Hansen et al Pipeline paper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXDWpBlPCY8
Dr. James E. Hansen in Conversation with Paul Beckwith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWUJ8Lvl-U
Global warming in the pipeline
James E Hansen et al 2023
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
Mainstream Climate Science: The New Denialism?
March 2024 – Jonathon Porritt
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1bci3cy/mainstream_climate_science_the_new_denialism/?rdt=44559
MMm, ok, some keyword being blocked? who knows.
2 of 3 ?
2/3
Why we ignore science – The Cognitive Dissonance Crisis
Sarah Stein Lubrano – Planet: Critical 1 Feb 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPBzHLjgw4
Why 1.5°C Matters (and from which past Year) – Myles Allen
Gresham College 1 Dec 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaOsJv0lvq4
Schmidt, G.A., 2024: World view: Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — We could be in uncharted territory. Nature, 627
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc02900o.html
CERESMIP: a climate modeling protocol to investigate recent trends in the Earth’s Energy Imbalance
Front. Clim., 03 July 2023 Gavin A. Schmidt
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1202161/full
Climate Impact of Decreasing Atmospheric Sulphate Aerosols and the Risk of a Termination Shock
November 2021 Leon Simons, James E. Hansen, Yann Dufournet
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356378673_Climate_Impact_of_Decreasing_Atmospheric_Sulphate_Aerosols_and_the_Risk_of_a_Termination_Shock?channel=doi&linkId=619775253068c54fa50008bb&showFulltext=true
How 2023 Broke Our Climate Models 24 Jan 2024
with Neil deGrasse Tyson & Gavin Schmidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHJKKsOHtAk
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt explores off-charts heat and climate science gaps
Andrew Revkin 22 Mar 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYknM2qtRp4
WORSE THAN WE’RE BEING TOLD, EXPECT EXTREME EVENTS IN NEXT FEW MONTHS 18 Mar 2024
Leon Simons https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8 – https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq34Xn4CZnI
Copernicus: February 2024 was globally the warmest on record – Global Sea Surface Temperatures at record high Date: 5th March 2024
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-february-2024-was-globally-warmest-record-global-sea-surface-temperatures-record-high
OK then …. 3 of 4
Deep time evidence for climate sensitivity increase with warming
Gary Shaffer 23 June 2016
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL069243
Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming
Paulo Ceppi July 19, 20
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2026290118
Three climate interventions: Reduce, remove, repair
21 June 2023
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
What Happened in 2023? Are Our Models Wrong?
greenman3610 Posted on January 28, 2024
https://thinc.blog/2024/01/28/the-weekend-wonk-what-happened-in-2023-are-our-models-wrong/
Humanity’s new era of “global boiling”: Climate’s 2023 annus horribilis
By David Spratt and Ian Dunlop Jan 25, 2024
https://johnmenadue.com/humanitys-new-era-of-global-boiling-climates-2023-annus-horribilis/
only some success — will try 4 of 5 for the 6 th time
James Hansen Warns of a Short-Term Climate Shock Bringing 2 Degrees of Warming by 2050
By Bob Berwyn May 26, 2023
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052023/james-hansen-climate-change-2-degrees-2050/
Comments on New Article (Pipeline) by James Hansen By Michael E. Mann
November 1, 2023
https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansen
I wasn’t worried about climate change. Now I am.
Sabine Hossenfelder 28 Jan 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4
I Was Worried about Climate Change. Now I worry about Climate Scientists.
Sabine Hossenfelder 1.21 Million Subscribers 29 Feb 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEZ9HFlqzms
An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence
S. C. Sherwood First published: 22 July 2020
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019RG000678
AND https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sh02800e.html
So much for making it easier for everyone ….. one post of ref links LOL – no that would be too easy.
OK success ….
so why won’t RC accept this info (now edited)?
(see Use of Short-Range Forecasts to Evaluate Fast Physics Processes Relevant for Climate Sensitivity
Sabine Hossenfelder 28 Jan 2024 video
and the PAPER by xyz @ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS001986
Well that was not fun …. here is now 6 from 6
which was supposed to be at the beginning …. oh well, like I said, you;d think it would be simple to just post one post witha list of ref links – but nope.
SORRY ABOUT THAT PEOPLE ….. who knew?
LIST of SCIENCE REFS regarding the issues surrounding the topic of possible accelerated warming, aerosol changes and effects, 2023 record warming, GCM assumptions & CMIP6 models etc See – Ned Kelly says- 9 Apr 2024 at 12:36 AM
The world has been its hottest on record for 10 months straight. Scientists can’t fully explain why https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-09/data-can-t-explain-off-the-charts-heat/103649190 — AND Much ado about acceleration by Gavin SChmidt
The following ref links are more or less related to the topic mentioned, in particular to the Hansen et al 2023 paper. It will save me repeating myself or posting multiple comments on the topic. Some readers of RC may find these helpful. Kind Regards
2018 Keynote Debate Can the Climate Emergency Action Plan lead to Collective Action? (50 Years CoR) The Club of Rome 20 Nov 2018 with John Schellnhuber, Anders Wijkman, Connie Hedegaard, Ian Dunlop, Camilla Born, Camilla Born and Yoshitsugu Hayashi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2XLeGmHtE
2018 Aurelio Peccei Lecture: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber – Climate, Complexity, Conversion The Club of Rome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtg5QJlb484
KIND Regards
Ned Kelly: – “2018 Keynote Debate Can the Climate Emergency Action Plan lead to Collective Action? (50 Years CoR) The Club of Rome 20 Nov 2018 with John Schellnhuber, Anders Wijkman, Connie Hedegaard, Ian Dunlop, Camilla Born, Camilla Born and Yoshitsugu Hayashi”
Thanks for highlighting this session. I think this is worth reiterating:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-818872
Addendum …. these are worth knowing the details of as well
Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
Global Warming Acceleration: Causes and Consequences
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/AnnualT2023.2024.01.12.pdf
Global Warming is Accelerating. Why? Will We Fly Blind?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/FlyingBlind.14September2023.pdf
The Climate Dice are Loaded. Now, a New Frontier?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/ClimateDice.13July2023.pdf
Mainstream Climate Science: The New Denialism? by Sir Jonathon Porritt
https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism/
Addendum 2
ADDITIONS SINCE POSTED 10 Apr 2024 at 7:26 PM
Perspectives on shipping emissions and their impacts on the surface ocean and lower atmosphere: An environmental-social-economic dimension
Collections: Knowledge Domain: Atmospheric Science
Special Feature: Boundary Shift: The Air-Sea Interface in a Changing Climate
October 18 2023 Zongbo Shi et al
https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/11/1/00052/197500/Perspectives-on-shipping-emissions-and-their
Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades
27 December 2023 Audrey Minière et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1
Integration of air quality and climate change policies in shipping:
The case of sulphur emissions regulation
March 2020 Christos A. Kontovas
https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/12041/1/Kontovas%202020%20JMPO-Accepted.pdf
Exacerbated summer European warming not captured by climate models neglecting long-term aerosol changes
06 April 2024 Dominik L. Schumacher et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01332-8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379642493_Exacerbated_summer_European_warming_not_captured_by_climate_models_neglecting_long-term_aerosol_changes
Substantial cooling effect from aerosol-induced increase in tropical marine cloud cover
11 April 2024 Ying Chen et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01427-z
ADDITIONS SINCE 12 Apr 2024
NEW REFS for Aerosols / Temperature acceleration / Hansen et al 2023
Aerosol demasking enhances climate warming over South Asia
Published: 20 May 2023 H. R. C. R. Nair et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-023-00367-6
Aerosols overtake greenhouse gases causing a warmer climate and more weather extremes toward carbon neutrality
09 November 2023 by Pinya Wang, Yang Yang et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42891-2?fromPaywallRec=false
New Record Ocean Temperatures and Related Climate Indicators in 2023
Published: 11 January 2024 Lijing Cheng (Michael E Mann coauthor)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-024-3378-5
NASA Satelite PACE data, scientists can study microscopic life in the ocean and (Aerosols) particles in the air, to monitor ocean health, air pollution, and impacts of climate change.
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/nasas-pace-data-on-ocean-atmosphere-climate-now-available/
Heat stored in the Earth system 1960–2020: where does the energy go?
Published: 17 Apr 2023 Karina von Schuckmann et al
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1675/2023/
Earth warming has been accelerating for the last 60 years
Earth Energy Imbalance: where does the excess heat go?
https://www.mercator-ocean.eu/actualites/earth-warming-accelerating-for-60-years/
— —
The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory
December 2023
Life on planet Earth is under siege. We are now in an uncharted territory.
We are losing the functions and resilience in the earth system while we at
the same time are causing unprecedented energy imbalance on planet Earth.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/73/12/841/7319571?login=false
DAAD Climate Lecture Series with Johan Rockström
10 Jan 2024 – “A safe and just future for humanity on earth”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDcYkNwKyrc
The 17 Things I Am Certain About | Frankly #60 Nate Hagens
I am 100% certain that our Global macro situation is such that we are so far
from Equilibrium with Debt and Supply chains and Geopolitics that there
are no longer any non-radical non-disruptive Pathways back to Equilibrium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPv0wa5U0WA
Michael Every: “The Many -Isms of the Metacrisis” with Nate Hagens
March 14th, 2024 Morality in Economics Values MMT War Wealth Inequality Systems Fairness
Freedom in markets doesn’t work without morality. What would Jesus do with this money?
57:59 – Morality in Economics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DhZaVoflA&t=3479s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DhZaVoflA
5 mins on HansenN~Climate Change:Choosing to Fail Climate Scientist Kevin Anderson
https://invidious.poast.org/watch?v=tVFSJINGueM&t=1000s
Choosing to Fail, with Climate Scientist Kevin Anderson
@36 minutes – “The IPCC Working Group 3 is just Exxon in Disguise!”
https://youtu.be/tVFSJINGueM?si=xn9XQIjLCCsVptp5&t=2166
Recall the hoopla over Sabine H comments on CMIP6 hot models and the issue of clouds.
Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their predecessors.
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8
— —
Climate and air quality trade-offs in altering ship fuel sulfur content
12 Dec 2013 A. I. Partanen (shipping SO2 scenarios)
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/12059/2013/acp-13-12059-2013.html
The inadvertent geoengineering experiment that the world is now shutting off
MIT April 11, 2024
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/11/1091087/the-inadvertent-geoengineering-experiment-that-the-world-is-now-shutting-off/
NEW REFS accumulated since the 16th April
Related to Aerosols / Temperature acceleration / Hansen et al 2023
& Much Ado About Acceleration
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration
—————————
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
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
—————-
Ramage, J, et al. 2024. The Net GHG Balance and Budget of the Permafrost Region (2000–2020) From Ecosystem Flux Upscaling. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GB007953
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
Area-averaged daily SST charts for four North Atlantic sectors
https://kouya.has.arizona.edu/tropics/SSTmonitoring.html
“Accelerating” Debate on Global Warming: Interview with Dr. Zeke Hausfather
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoegRrN-yvw
————————
Massive Marine Ecosystem Crash Along Galicia’s Coast Due To Prolonged Atlantic Heatwave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE5V4l_JaAs
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence Piers M. Forster et al.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2295/2023/
Anthropogenic Aerosol as a Driver of Climate Risk
VIDEO Presentation
https://ig.utexas.edu/utig-seminar-series/2024/utig-seminar-series-geeta-persad-ut-austin/
Paper 2023
Rapidly evolving aerosol emissions are a dangerous omission from near-term climate risk assessments
Authors G Persad et al,
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/acd6af/meta
google scholar Geeta Persad
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=svMwSNYAAAAJ&hl=en
—————-
PART 2 Ned Kelly says — URLS BEING BLOCKED AGAIN BY RC
30 Apr 2024 at 7:20 PM
NEW REFS accumulated since the 16th April
google scholar George Tselioudis
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xc-ynkwAAAAJ&hl=en
-Dr. George Tselioudis, Author and Research Physical Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies comparing evidence from palaeoclimatology to 2xCO2 scenarios in climate models
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGLhMEiYXIAE5flQ.png
Apr 16, 2024
What do Americans want to know about climate change?
In Fall 2023, we asked Americans what questions they would ask a global warming expert if they had the opportunity.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
summary graph
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGLSt9CzasAAfMIM.jpg
see Dr. Robert Rohde for nasa ceres graphs etc
https://nitter.poast.org/RARohde/status/1780194101758931198#m
and https://nitter.poast.org/RARohde
New graphs 2003-2023 SO2 shipping emissions from CEDS and CAMS Data
Versus heating ASR W/m2 correlations
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGLdpAfrWYAAsKVL.png
https://nitter.poast.org/ckontovas/status/1776400744846905434#m
and
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FF3A5Juxa8AAe6rp.png (2022 data)
and see
https://nitter.poast.org/ckontovas/status/1688913491237994496#m
Observational data from The great inadvertent aerosol experiment is coming available:
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1780272459071037536
(alt) thread posts global data images
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/status/1780272459071037536
In the section about The great inadvertent aerosol experiment, starting page 18:
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
365-day running mean global temperature anomaly from ERA5 reached just a new decimal: 1.6°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average.
See the graph https://nitter.poast.org/mikarantane/status/1780588900844519574#m
Recent acceleration in global ocean heat (OHC) accumulation by mode and intermediate waters
Published: 28 October 2023 by Zhi Li, Matthew H. England & Sjoerd Groeskamp
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42468-z
—————
Choosing to Fail, with Climate Scientist Kevin Anderson 12 Mar 2024
@36 minutes – https://youtu.be/tVFSJINGueM?si=xn9XQIjLCCsVptp5&t=2166
Quote “The IPCC Working Group 3 is just Exxon in Disguise!”
——
Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their predecessors.
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8
Now that the rules are in place and the industry is running on low-sulfur fuels, intentionally reintroducing pollution over the oceans would be a far more controversial matter.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/11/1091087/the-inadvertent-geoengineering-experiment-that-the-world-is-now-shutting-off/
Related paper from 2013 – a hypothetical SO2 shipping evaluation
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/12059/2013/acp-13-12059-2013.html
Some of the above may well be worth saving for the Historical Record.
Kinds Regards ….
TEST https://invidious.poast.org/watch?v=NXDWpBlPCY8&si=Kq_AOdgA8tZfu2uA&t=1306
google scholar George Tselioudis
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xc-ynkwAAAAJ&hl=en
-Dr. George Tselioudis, Author and Research Physical Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies comparing evidence from palaeoclimatology to 2xCO2 scenarios in climate models
https://invidious.poast.org/watch?v=NXDWpBlPCY8&si=Kq_AOdgA8tZfu2uA&t=1306
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGLhMEiYXIAE5flQ.png
Recent acceleration in global ocean heat (OHC) accumulation by mode and intermediate waters
Published: 28 October 2023 by Zhi Li, Matthew H. England & Sjoerd Groeskamp
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42468-z
—————
Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished professor emeritus with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said he was surprised the new paper was published, noting that the journal is relatively obscure.
“I think it is likely wrong,” Trenberth said. “Hansen has never been involved in the IPCC in any capacity, even as a reviewer. He is not at all collegial and he tends to ignore legitimate criticism. He moves papers around until they get published. He stuffs papers full of extraneous stuff that would not be publishable by itself.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112023/study-warns-of-spike-of-warming-divides-climate-scientists/
————————————
Copernicus has now posted for March 2024 with the as-expected 10th “scorchyisimo!!!” month in a row.
Using GISTEMPv4 (to account for the pre-1979 numbers), there have been 125 “scorchyisimo!!!” months since 1900 (98 since 1970), and the previously longest run was 8-in-a-row. The top-ten longest runs of “scorchyisimo!!!!” on record are as follows:-
1st … … .. 10 months so-far to March 2024
2nd … … … 8 months ending May 2016
=3rd … … . 6 months ending Feb 1998
=3rd … … . 6 months ending Jun 1988
=3rd … … . 6 months ending Sep 1940
6th … … … 5 months ending May 1973
=7th … … . 4 months ending May 1944
=7th … … . 4 months ending Apr 1981
=7th … … . 4 months ending May 1980
=10th … … 3 months ending Jun 2020
=10th … … 3 months ending May 2010
=10th … … 3 months ending Jan 2007
=10th … … 3 months ending Nov 2005
=10th … … 3 months ending May 1990
The “scorchyisimo!!!” ‘headroom’ of the present run does appear to be in decline, running Jul 2023-Mar 2024 (°C) 0.163, 0.327, 0.308, 0.497, 0.397, 0.317, 0.306, 0.117, 0.123, 0.102, this perhaps an indication of an end to the run.
The ERA5 global anomaly sits at +0.73°C, a drop on Feb’s +0.80°C but above Jan’s +0.70°C.
The start-of -the-year is obviously the warmest on record at +0.74°C, considerably above 2016’s +0.62°C , 2020’s +0.56°C , 2017’s +0.47°C & 2019’s +0.37°C.
For the full calendar year 2024 to drop below the current 2023 record warmest year, the remaining nine months of 2024 would need to average below +0.55°C, and to drop below current 2nd-warmest year 2016 the average would be less than +0.34°C. A year-on-year graphic of monthly ERA5 anomalies is posted HERE Graph 2B.
Tenth consecutive monthly heat record alarms and confounds climate scientists
If the anomaly does not stabilise by August, ‘the world will be in uncharted territory’, says climate expert
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, one of the vice-chairs of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), noted the planet has been warming at a pace of 0.3C per decade over the past 15 years, almost double the 0.18C per decade trend since the 1970s. “Is this within the range of climate variability or signal of accelerated warming? My concern is it might be too late if we just wait to see,” she tweeted.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/apr/09/tenth-consecutive-monthly-heat-record-alarms-confounds-climate-scientists
Hey, what a coincidence, James Hansen has been saying the very same thing for quite some time also.
For example –
Global warming in 2010-2023 is 0.30°C/decade, 67% faster than 0.18°C/decade in 1970-2010 (Fig. 1).
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
C’mon man! You shouldn’t be worried about 0.3 deg C/decade. You should be worried about 100 MILLION deg C/microsecond that Biden is trying to subject us to in multiple places around the world. No joke!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/
Mr. Know It All: – “C’mon man! You shouldn’t be worried about 0.3 deg C/decade.”
It depends on how much longer you plan to remain ‘vertical’ and whether you have any empathy for the fate of others that may be younger than you (including any offspring you may have), and for future generations.
Writing back in 2019, US author Jonathan Franzen put it like this:
https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism/
Mr. Know It All: – “You should be worried about 100 MILLION deg C/microsecond that Biden is trying to subject us to in multiple places around the world. No joke!”
I’d suggest this may be a concern for elderly people that are only interested in their own welfare/comfort during the remainder of their limited lifespan.
I’d suggest you are attempting to conflate an observed and ongoing process (i.e. 0.3 °C/decade global warming) that currently puts us/humanity on a trajectory towards civilisation collapse well before the end of this century, with a possible event (i.e. nuclear war) that we/humanity have so far continued to avoid since the end of WW2.
Mr. Know It All says
17 Apr 2024 at 1:30 AM
All Americans, you included KIA, along with others on this forum, deserve Biden as President and the current political chaos of your dysfunctional nation.
Enjoy! You’ve earned it.
NK, I cannot quite make up my mind whether you are a troll or whether you are simply possessed by an astounding butt-hurt myopia that blinds you to what is needed for humans to negotiate this threat. The US is far from perfect–hell, far even from adequate–but it does possess a significant proportion of the scientific and technical expertise in the world. Without the US getting its collective shit together, we will not navigate the path ahead.
Even if the US follows the political path of Haiti, it would still be Haiti with nukes. It would be much better if the US were inside the climate tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Ray Ladbury says
19 Apr 2024 at 7:29 AM
” The US is far from perfect”
NK: Is that all? The Outlaw US Empire of Lies is in fact a belligerent criminal colonial regime of violent genocidal thieving psychopaths. Which part/s of this long known reality are you obstinately blind to?
RL: The US “does possess a significant proportion of the scientific and technical expertise in the world.”
NK: How’s that working out for you so far? Including climate science aspects. It is not helping one bit. It is in fact destroying the world and peace on the planet everywhere for decades non-stop.
RL: “… if the US were inside the climate tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. ”
NK: You kind of get it right there. The US is a dysfunctional baby who should be wearing giant Diapers to stop it from pissing all over everyone else.
More likely than not at this point, the US problem as well as it’s nukes will be solved the same way WW2 was – by military defeat, invasion, disarmament, decades of occupation and subsequently broken apart like Yugoslavia was into several nations states, with new Constitutions, and political systems.
That’s your future for America …. all the while suffering from the ongoing onslaughts of catastrophic climate change impacts and entrenched poverty, national bankruptcy, social upheavals, lawlessness, and famines.
Karma:101
Your climate scientists are not helping to avoid this kind of future for America. Nor are you on this forum and elsewhere – you are, they are, in fact helping to ensure it happens as I described.
Kind regards …
NK: The Outlaw US Empire of Lies is in fact a belligerent criminal colonial regime of violent genocidal thieving psychopaths.
BPL: And it’s ugly, and its mother dresses it funny.
Good. I’m glad to know that I “deserve” a decent, competent, and hardworking President.
Not so thrilled that you feel so ready to pronounce on what an entire nations “deserves,” though. Kinda hubristic, seems to me.
Biden is not trying to start a nuclear war, KIA. That’s LaRouche stuff. And I hope you know what you can do with it.
And after all, it’s not like he has to maneuver deviously if that were really wanted. He’s got the codes, after all, and the authority.
(Although I suppose some color of rationality would be required to avoid the high brass invoked the 25th.)
Mr. KIA, It is nice to know that if I ever want to find what the stupidest people are saying on the Intertubes, all I have to do is come to RC and find your latest post.
Mr. Know It All: – “C’mon man! You shouldn’t be worried about 0.3 deg C/decade.”
The Earth System is currently on a trajectory towards exceeding the +2.0 °C global mean surface temperature threshold relative to the 1850-1900 baseline, and it’s likely to happen before year-2050.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-820953
Professor Johan Rockström, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said:
“We have no evidence, whatsoever, that we can support in a dignified and responsible way, eight, soon to be 9 billion people in the world as we know it, at anything above 2 °Celsius.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-816647
Do you expect to be still around to perhaps witness this, Mr. Know It All?
There won’t be nine billion people around if WWIII kicks off within the next 5-10 years which is looking increasingly likely depending on the opinions you read. Some might argue avoiding this is the immediate priority, then we can get back to prioritising climate change and sustainability solutions.
It all reminds me of a quote from the film Terminator 2:
“It is in your nature to destroy yourselves.”
I can’t believe KIA is still here when his stupidity eats up half of the month’s thread. And, I have no idea why people continue responding to his bullshit.
A well moderated thread is essential to productive discussion but moderators are MIA.