This month’s open thread on climate topics. Try to be constructive!
Reader Interactions
77 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Sep 2024"
Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vp-harris-as-president-i-will-not-ban-fracking-165710122.html
Yet another indication on the critical nature of the cultural question. I have no doubt Harris and her team understand the situation with climate. Yet there is considerable evidence to suggest that promising a fracking ban will cost her the election.
If we are to be governed by some version of democracy and meet the climate threat, we’re not yet were we need to be with mass public understanding
Exactly so. And it may not even be in this case driven by national opinion, but rather by the public’s view in the swing state of Pennsylvania–in quite a few scenarios, as I understand it, the election could potentially turn on the result there. And a fracking ban is not popular in Pennsylvania.
(For readers not so familiar with the political landscape here, the US elects Presidents indirectly, via an 18th-century institution called the “Electoral College,” in which each state is allotted a specific number of electors based on population. State officials conduct the election according to their state’s laws; almost all use a winner-takes-all system by which all the state’s electors are pledged to vote for the candidate who received the most votes. In today’s landscape, a few states–so-called “swing states”–are closely competitive, and thus receive much attention and effort from both sides, as they are quite likely to be decisive. Pennsylvania (Harris +0.5 this morning) is one; the others generally considered as such right now are Arizona (Trump +0.5), Nevada (tied), Georgia (Trump +0.2), North Carolina (Trump +0.6), Wisconsin (Harris +1.4), and Michigan (Harris +1.1). All numbers are poll averages aggregated by RealClearPolitics. For the country as a whole, Harris is currently leading by 1.8%–a value that has been steady since last week. To our shame as a nation, this election is very, very close–margin of error of these polls is typically about +/- 3%.)
Kevin, you’re right about Pennsylvania. The whole thing is going to come down to Pennsylvania. If Harris wins the state, the probability is high of her maintaining the “blue wall.” If she loses the state, the probability of her replacing those 19 electoral votes via some combination of sunbelt states is depressing very low.
Given how battleground state polling has under-polled Trump votes in 2016 & 2020 (a polling issue that the pollsters admit they’ve no reasonable certainty has been corrected), the warning signs are flashing brightly. When the Harris campaign says they’re currently underdogs, that’s accurate. Whom ever is guiding her economic messaging is doing her a disservice, it’s killing her chances of winning.
From last months UV thread posted by CJ on 1st September: Holly Buck says (my paraphrasing) that people are genuinely worried about whether renewables will work, and that we should listen and not claim their concerns are all all a result of denialist missinformation / disinformation, and that we should do something about addressing their concerns. This sounds right in principle, because many people would have had these thoughts because they are natural concerns (although some people might have raised the issues after reading denialist websites). And if we say the general publics concerns are a result of missinformation, they might prefer to believe the missinformation, because this is easier than admitting to themselves they were fooled.
However millions of words have already been written in many forums answering questions about renewables and showing problems are over stated, and all this based on careful peer reviewed studies and experts views and without referencing denialist views. Despite this some people refuse to accept that renewables are the best solution overall. You can lead a horse to water….But fortunately polling shows the majority of people support renewables:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/majorities-of-americans-prioritize-renewable-energy-back-steps-to-address-climate-change/
https://www.renewableuk.com/news/672538/Polling-shows-strong-support-for-pro-renewables-policies-as-RenewableUK-launches-manifesto-.htm
It looks like Escobar has hijacked the discussion, but he made the crucial admission of defeat by stating: “which is clearly a lie / disinformation because “renewables” are NOT ETERNAL”.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIqrYFbXMAANUk6.jpg
Anybody see why one must not talk about Fight Club?
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q
Housekeeping to clear up other people’s confusions
[Response: Seriously, what are you even talking about? What new physics do you think we have invented? Radiative transfer? Conservation of energy and mass? Heat capacity? Navier-Stokes? Stefan-Boltzmann? Henry’s Law? Thermal expansion? Seems like pretty standard stuff to me… – gavin]
Yes, you don’t understand so try reading it again – it is you not me at fault here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-824223
If you wanted to understand what I was talking about you could. It’s not complicated nor a trick. I’m not talking about any “new” physics, I never used that term, so why did you strawman me?
I was obviously speaking to THE different physics of different drivers/forcings that produce past and present climate change. The same as climate scientists and the IPCC address such things all the time when trying to explain what THE PHYSICS of Different Forcing over Time and Space are behind climate science is all about in the past VERSUS the present and the future.
Yes, THE PHYSICS of the pattern of regular Ice Ages across Millions of Years is NOT THE PHYSICS of the forcing producing global heating and climate change today. It is a different dynamic – it is not new physics – it is a different kind of Physics in play forcing heating and climate change responses.
I say that as per the IPCC reports and climate research papers.
And that is still changing faster than the climate models and the research papers can keep up with. Obviously, or you would have known what was happening in 2023 during or before 2023.
Climate scientists know the physics of meteor hits and flood basalts and variations in orbits and insolation and continental shelfs (everything) were forcing and produced a paleo / ice ages climate very different from the physics of shipping sulfur emissions, the sea level and land use, the amoc, the volume of global ice that are forcing and impacting the climate dynamics of today.
I repeat, if you, Radge or anyone else wanted to understand what was being said then you could. You appear to chose not to.
…………………….
and then Radge — – was addressed to CJ.
I have thought and/or said almost the exact same things about this aspect (was it posted?) and wasn’t paying proper attention, Mea culpa for being ‘confusing’ this time. 1 time out of a 100 isn’t a bad result.
But I can’t compete with your wild judgements about ‘why” X happens so make up your own as usual. You’ll never believe me anyway because you do not care in the least.
FOR Radge: Quoting
Escobar says
30 Aug 2024 at 5:59 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824178
Anyone suggesting global heating can be stopped by unfounded unproven net zero theories (opinions & beliefs) and the proposed ‘actions’ globally by 2050 is overtly saying:- “global heating is no big deal” – if it is that easy and so quick to stop.
Beliefs like this are much closer to schizophrenia delusions than a science based material reality.
Good paper ref. It is obvious and undeniable what is happening today is nothing like what happened in the past (causes and outcomes) and is orders of magnitude faster.
As well as totally out of control with a body of climate science unable to explain what is happening and what is coming with any degree of intelligent physics based logic or certainty.
E: Anyone suggesting global heating can be stopped by unfounded unproven net zero theories . . . Beliefs like this are much closer to schizophrenia delusions than a science based material reality. . . . climate science unable to explain what is happening and what is coming with any degree of intelligent physics based logic or certainty. . . .
BPL: This is just insults, slander, and name-calling. If you can locate a specific error, spell it out. Show your work.
Or STFU.
…and that would be flatly false. There are certainly many uncertainties remaining, but the big picture is very, very clear.
Escobar, there is no such thing as physics based logic. If you feel you have to post wild inflammatory, incorrect, evidence free trolling rants at least get the terminology right.
You really don’t understand what you’re reading, do you, sweetie?
For Radge and Gavin – everything is connected, what I post now is connected to what came before – on this forum. If you wanted to understand what I and others are talking about, you could. But you choose not to understand and then blame others for what you do not know or remember.
Karsten V. Johansen says
29 Aug 2024 at 9:51 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824109
The reasons for this is obvious: over millions of years other external factors like plate tectonics, changing volcanism etc. play a bigger role, difficult to quantify.
The main characteristic of our human “global climate experiment” is that we are changing the tropospheric greenhouse gas content *at least an order of magnitude – ten times or more – faster than during any known comparable event from the whole geological history*, fx. the end permian basalt volcanism creating the siberian traps 252 m. yrs BP and the PETM 56 m. yrs BP.
This means that we should not only be extremely reluctant continuing along this path, in fact we would be better off, the sooner we manage to put an end to this global experiment, which was unconsciously startet by our ancestors a couple of hundred years ago.
Our climate models of course may all be very sophisticated mathematically etc., but they clearly have this serious weakness: because our “experiment” lacks parallels in the geological history, we really can’t calibrate the model results with anything known. Compared to the reality our models are indeed very simplistic.
…………………………….
Some people are allowed to use the word uncertainty, while others are not and automatically condemned as “deniers” or climate science illiterates.
From late last month
1 Sep 2024 at 3:11 AM
Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn
By Holly Buck
Much of the climate movement is now pouring its energies into combating disinformation. But this focus fails to address real concerns about a green transition and obscures what is needed to win the public over to effective climate action.
from https://jacobin.com/2024/08/climate-disinformation-green-transition-workers
The people who really need to act on this info / research will not read it, and if they do I suspect they will not know what it is talking about!
E: Our climate models of course may all be very sophisticated mathematically etc., but they clearly have this serious weakness: because our “experiment” lacks parallels in the geological history, we really can’t calibrate the model results with anything known. Compared to the reality our models are indeed very simplistic.
BPL: The physics remains the same. And I doubt you are familiar enough with the models to call them simplistic. How much model code have you read?
C’mon, BPL, Surely you know “THE PHYSICS” of forest fires set by people and those set by lightning are simply not the same???!!!
“I never suggested that the rate of change would somehow represent a change in (The Laws of) Physics! – was another example of me discussing these related issues on the Miocene page:
JCM says
30 Aug 2024 at 8:27 AM
The headpost article attempts to demonstrate that the climate sensitivity of the distant past, when including factors like solar forcing, topographic configuration, and minor trace gases, is directly comparable to today’s conditions, with a fast ECS estimated at only 3.5°C.
However, this could be misleading. Left unperturbed, the paleo Earth had total freedom in biogeochemical and biogeophysical response. As you noted, as the CO2 rose, it’s likely that life diversified, soils enriched, and nutrient cycling intensified.
Today, the situation is markedly different. As humanity artificially drives up CO2 levels, life is being drastically diminished, soils are actively eroded, and biodiversity is in sharp decline. This by direct ongoing intervention. This is the exact opposite of what occurred in the past. Today’s unnatural and unprecedented combination of rising CO2 and declining biosystems suggests that paleo climate sensitivity estimates may not be directly comparable to those of today. Alarmingly, this implies that today’s climate sensitivity is likely higher than in the past.
REPLY – Escobar says
30 Aug 2024 at 6:10 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824179
Climate science keeps on saying and implying and suggesting that they know things they do not know. Then basing their recommendations out of the IPCC and other bodies based on this not knowing unproven guesswork and assumptions, guesses and opinions of the most outspoken who declare they are certain about things when they and the science is clearly uncertain and unproven.
Resulting in – “it’s ‘easy’ to stop global heating, just hit zet nero (sic) emissions by 2050 and the warming will be stopped! The UNFCCC agrees.” That isn’t science. Or real.
[end quotes]
There would be far less confusion if people read what had already be said and remembered it better and were better equipped “to connect the dots” and not rush to judgement. There would be far less posts required to FIX other people’s ERRORS and ignorance of what recently happened.
Paying attention in the first place, not making assumptions, and asking questions respectfully is a far better approach. Oh, did I mention this new article yet? I think maybe I did.
https://jacobin.com/2024/08/climate-disinformation-green-transition-workers
E: Climate science keeps on saying and implying and suggesting that they know things they do not know. Then basing their recommendations out of the IPCC and other bodies based on this not knowing unproven guesswork and assumptions, guesses and opinions of the most outspoken who declare they are certain about things when they and the science is clearly uncertain and unproven.
BPL: This is about the tenth time you have posted basically the same rant. You don’t seem to have any specifics to go with the charges you make. Until you do that, STFU. We’re tired of reading the same abuse over and over and over again.
Agree with BPL 100%.
Another reference for good measure:
Mal Adapted says
29 Aug 2024 at 1:55 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824116
We’re talking about changes occurring over millions of years. Species evolved and went extinct as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and oceans rose and fell. Continents were moving. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current formed.
Climate is changing orders of magnitude faster now. We know with more than adequate confidence that ~300 years of economically-driven (i.e. anthropogenic) transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere is the principal driver of the contemporaneous rise of global heat content.
[end quote]
Nothing I have said contradicts Mal, nor does he contradict what I said yet many have found “wanting” here.
As Weird as Trump!
With all due respect, sir, your posts here are boorish, self-indulgent, pointless nonsense, and your responses to other commenters consist of little but name-calling and insults. All you are accomplishing here is to make a fool of yourself in public.
When someone’s comment begins with “With all due respect, sir,” it is guaranteed that zero respect is coming. So ‘secular animist’ you too are admitting what escobar said went way over the top of your head. No ‘comprender’! It was above your ‘pay grade’ too I assume given your illogical emotional response. Bringing insult and judgemental ridicule instead.
How nice of you, You should be proud of the good job you are doing on this forum and in your professional life. Kudos Señor!
JCM, I’d read your comments to Tomáš in the August UV on the 30th and 31st regarding the land/soil’s part in the C cycle, mankind’s impacts upon them, and your views on climate change modeling choices (or lack of) regarding this piece of the cycle as continuation of your discussion with others here:
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824195
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824227
.
While working in the yard this afternoon, I vaguely remembered I’d come across the following I’ve linked below somewhere sometime. If you have time/inclination to look at:
.
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/soil_and_climate_en.pdf
.
Does this “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” document address (in whole, in part, or not at all) your position?
BTW, if you or someone else here was the original source for this item previously, please forgive my memory lapse. I’d do a little digging to see how/when I came across this, but frankly Im too tired and hungry :-)
To David,
the article “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” focuses exclusively on the biogeoChemical effects related to the carbon exchange and oxidation between land and atmosphere.
This is the framing of all types of ClimateSmart™ initiatives, driven by the narrowly defined climate science and associated CO2 politics of today.
This naive framing results in enrolling landowners into carbon trading schemes (scams?), incentives for planting carbon sticks, and spreading stony reactive materials.
It’s part of a broader effort to commodify landscapes and trade them on global financial markets – where CO2 is treated as interchangeable across continents and fully fungible in investment portfolios. In the process, landscapes are detached from the places and communities they support, and the enormous power of self-motivation is diminished. This is catastrophic from a local governance perspective.
My interests are primarily in the biogeoPhysical land-atmosphere interactions and related effects of desertification. By marginalizing these effects in the study of climates, conservation stewardship has become undervalued by several times.
Climate science still falls short of providing the comprehensive, actionable insights needed to address changing climates at any scale. The European Commission report only reinforces a biased perspective which seems driven more by financialization than the needs of communities.
cheers
JCM,
Thanks for replying. Your advocacy in support of your position impresses. Not having a substantive grasp of the matter has lead me to pretty much refrain from engaging in the interesting “soil/land degradation, climate change, modeling etc) conversation here concerning your perspective thus far. That’s something I aim to rectify, at least a little, in time (a lengthy amount of time no doubt ;-) If for no other reason than to gain a further understanding of how things work. And perhaps be a better advocate for things I care a great deal about.
I had that item I asked about in my files and thought it was a place to start. Doing a subsequent google scholar search using different search terms has lead me to a number of works (many quite recent) that at first glance look like papers worth the efforts to study. If you have a recommendation, please pass it along.
To David,
I recommend a good foundation in the boundary layer and surface budget. A classic resource is T.R. Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates textbook which gives an overview of those climates formed near the ground and cycling of energy and mass through systems.
A few hostile contributors on these pages have attempted to engage with me without any foundation at all, and they always fail or continue to move the goalposts in a spirit akin to denialists.
Reasonable discussions which clearly make a distinction between the indirect effect of landscapes as a source or sink of greenhouse gases vs the direct thermodynamic effects of desertification are provided by people like Hanna Huryna, Jan Pokorny, and Petra Hesslerova. Strong overviews of thermodynamic constraints are provided by Axel Kleidon and Ghausi.
It’s useful to understand why a barren desertified landscape with relatively low surface net radiation has higher avg temperature compared to an ecologically functional one. Drainage and erosion of billions of hectares and removal of optimal biosystems brings about a large shift from latent heat to sensible heat flux. Latent heat prevails and uses 80% of surface net radiation in moisture unlimited regions. This reduces vertical temperature gradients, cools the surface air, and increases relative humidity and low cloud formation.
Evapotranspiration-condensation processes slow down over a barren landscape and solar radiation is increasingly transformed into sensible heat at the surface. The overheated surfaces warm the adjacent air layer which rises turbulently upwards and is capable of absorbing higher amounts of water vapour. For each 1 million hectares degraded releases additionally as sensible heat up to 2.5 MW to the lower atmosphere in mid-latitudes. Land-atmospheric interactions are relevant in planetary energy balance through global circulation as demonstrated by Maryssa Lague.
IPCC reports do not adequately take into account this direct thermodynamic effect of landscapes on climates because these documents are prescribed to support policies related to a trace gas global governance framework. A comprehensive policy framework must also recognize the direct role of landscapes in climate stabilization at all scales.
This year, in addition to voting for your favorite national candidate then kicking back to observe the political aftermath, consider finding a plot of one square meter in your community and engage in your own landscape stewardship project in the name of realclimates (+direct drought and flood attenuation, increased biodiversity, resilience, community, and renewed spirit).
thanks for the interest
correction: 2.5 million MW
JCM: Climate science still falls short of providing the comprehensive, actionable insights needed to address changing climates at any scale.
BPL: Have you actually read the IPCC reports?
In Re to David, 1 Sep 2024 at 9:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824261
Hallo David,
I agree to JCM, 3 Sep 2024 at 9:58 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824308 ,
that the role of soils and vegetation is much more complex than presented in the cited document “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” .
As I focus on one aspect of this complexity only, namely on the relationship between hydrological cycle and global climate and on its coverage in present climate change mitigation policies, I can hardly add anything to the general complex perspective emphasized by JCM.
Nevertheless, I think that from my (much narrower) perspective, the cited document can serve as a good example of the prevailing approach, treating soils and terrestrial vegetation mostly as a “carbon sink” or “carbon source” and basically omitting their important role in climate regulation through their participation in the hydrological cycle.
Greetings
Tomáš
CJ, quoting one Holly Buck last month: That’s because the focus on “climate disinformation” sets up a negative feedback loop. No one doubts that misinformation is often an issue in today’s politics, especially around climate. But instead of focusing on misinformation alone, we should think of the challenge of engaging the public with climate as a triangle with three points: misinformation, conflicts over values, and distrust of elites.
Ms. Buck said some wise things in her Jacobin piece. By definition, I’m one of the online climate commentariat, though not one anyone else listens to. I’m certainly not a politician, but I’m sure reminding Americans that their addiction to fossil carbon is the principal cause of global warming, that the warming is a predictable result of the free market’s propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with, that only collective (i.e. government) action can decarbonize the US economy, and only by either taxing carbon, subsidizing renewables or regulating emissions, is a hard sell with the 28% who are still disengaged, doubtful, or dismissive of the inconvenient truth.
Conflicts over values? You’re referring to the values of resolute culture warriors who equate all collective action with Communism. They’ll never admit that climate change isn’t just a liberal preoccupation. Thankfully, we don’t have to persuade those people, we just have to outvote them! For the 57% of us “concerned” or even “alarmed” about climate change, the choice of whom to vote for is a no-brainer. Trump and the Republicans will return the US government to a state of denial, leaving the costs of anthropogenic global warming open-ended. Harris and the Democrats will try to enact stronger decarbonization policies, although those are as yet unspecified; why should the Democrats propose a plan to get us to zero emissions, when the Republicans will throw every obstacle they can in the way from sheer spite, and reverse any previous, painful progress when they regain office? I’ll settle for a series of market interventions until nobody wants to buy fossil carbon anymore. Let the market do the hard work. Meanwhile, more doubters become believers whenever weather records get broken again. I’m optimistic climate realists will soon have a solid majority. Then it will be time to talk about a long-term plan.
You and Ms. Buck are entitled to your opinions. But distrust of elites? How come the documented funding of decades of official denialism by carbon capitalists doesn’t piss off the dimissives, CJ? Maybe angrily calling out mercenary denial won’t win the upcoming elections, but denying denial won’t either. I take seriously Dark Money author Jane Mayer’s remarks about a book by another business journalist, tracing the history of the Koch family’s long-term profit maximization strategy (my bolding):
If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.
Yes, yes, yes and again I say “yes.”
Please, all ye who pass by, reject false equivalencies and vote for the sanest climate policy on offer!
And organize, to the best of your ability, to encourage others to do the same.
Escobar,
Trivial jibber jabber with Portentous Intonations. You’re headed into Time Cube territory, Sparky.
UAH have posted for August with a TLT anomaly of +0.88ºC, that’s up on July’s +0.80ºC and the 14th ‘scorchyisimo!!! month in a row,
These TLT anomalies as not dropping like the SAT anomalies. UAH is still sitting at the “bananas” level reached in September last year, having averaged +0.90ºC Sept-Aug with the highest anomaly in April (+1.05ºC) and the lowest June (+0.80ºC). This bunch of “bananas” monthly anomalies sit head-&-shoulders above previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! months, (averaging a whopping +0.4ºC above their respective previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! month).
That’s a big gap.
UAH is not unique for TLT with these ongoing “bananas”. NOAA STAR (which is yet to post for August) shows a not-dissimilar situation with no dip in the anomalies, Sept-July anomalies averaging +0.78ºC (+0.89ºC max, +0.72ºC min) with an average headroom above previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! months of +0.33ºC.
To better illustrate this difference between SAT anomalies (which show a significant drop since the new year) & TLT anomalies (which remain high and even peaked since the new year), I’ve posted a graphic here (posted 3rd August). This TLT & SAT graphic plots 5-month rolling averages to smooth the data out and also it is repeated with NH & SH to demonstrate the declining SAT anomaly is solely a NH thing. It is actually a NH Land thing (as show in a graphic on the same web-page posted in the above link four graphic below, first posted 13th February). Previous El Niños have seen NH Ocean and SH anomalies running roughly steady before a drop in the last months of the year (a decline in their 5-month rolling aves starting with the July-Nov average).
And given all that, as with the “bananas” SAT anomalies of late last year, I’m still of the mind that these unusually high temp anomalies are all an amplified response to El Niño as was seen in 2015-16 but now super-amplified, this speculatively all due to increasing stratification of ocean temperatures.
The ERA5 reanalysis as per Climate Pulse is showing daily numbers which give a average August 2024 global anomaly of +0.71ºC, identical to the August 2023 anomaly and a small increase on the last few months (May-Jul run +0.65ºC, +0.67ºC, +0.68ºC) which together show little sign of continuing cooling. (The global graphic linked above plots these monthly global ERA5 anomalies to Aug.)
But note that the cooling post-2016-El Niño continued into 2018.
As for a multi-month wobble interrupting such an inter-year cooling, given the decline in global SAT so-far has pretty-much all been NH Land, and given there is an annual cycle buried in these NH Land anomalies (due to Oct-Dec warming at a significantly faster rate over NH Land prior to 2005) resulting in a NH Land wobble, and given that wobble is considerably lessened in La Niña years, and given the La Niña is struggling to appear this year: given all that, I can see the decline in global SAT would pause for a bit before the NH Ocean & SH begin strongly contributing to the post-El Niño cooling.
One measure at ClimatePulse I have been watching is the 60N-60S SST. This represents about 63% of the globe so is a big player in the global average. The 60-60 SST is cooling relative to 2023 as it did in previous El Niño years,
in that it dipped below 2023 levels mid-July. Whether it continues cooling and reverses the super-warming seen prior to July 2023 (but warming not in seen in previous El Niño) is yet to be determined.
to our good colleagues: Do you all remember the way Ned Ward monopolized this comment section, attacking all and sundry, flooding the zone with information and claiming it was to the discredit of our excellent hosts and climate science in general, and that none of us understood or were good enough?
Escobar is doing something similar. It doesn’t matter from which point of the compass the flooding comes, it still stifles open discussion and interesting material relevant to the subject matter of Real Climate.
I strongly recommend that we not encourage him with detailed responses and back and forth, becoming ever more elaborate in call and response, but rather treat it with dignified silence.
The annual “LAND-BASED WIND MARKET REPORT. 2024 EDITION” for the United States is out:
.
https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/Land-Based%20Wind%20Market%20Report_2024%20Edition.pdf
.
For those unfamiliar with this annual report, this is a soup-to-nuts comprehensive (92 pages) analysis of the wind market in the U.S.
.
Recommend it to anyone with an interest in renewable energy (even though its focus is the U.S.).
Thanks, David. Interesting stuff.
I am very excited by the new DCENT dataset. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-03742-x
It uses a variety of new and improved approaches to constructing an instrumental temperature dataset, including using deck metadata to improve sea surface temperature datasets, using improved land temperature homogenization methods that account for temporal autocorrelation, and using an energy balance model to compare sea surface temperatures with land surface temperatures to better account for biases in sea surface temperature datasets.
Hey, Russell: it’s your favorite Progressive social engineer!
Biden’s Top Climate Negotiator to Visit China This Week.
Here’s a gift link if you need one. You’re welcome.
To Kevin McKinney, referring to your post of 30 Aug 2024 at 2:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824170
Dear Kevin,
I read your post carefully, but have not understood several points therein, to that I subsequently asked a few questions on 31 Aug 2024 at 8:27 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824209
It was the very end of the previous month, so you might have overlooked them. Could you look thereon and clarify?
Greetings
Tomáš
To Kevin McKinney, referring to your post of 30 Aug 2024 at 2:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824170
Dear Kevin,
It is possible that my questions to you got buried under other posts accumulated during the previous long moderation timespan and that you have not noted them.
Therefore, I would like to repeat them herein again:
a) You speak about water vapour increase, however, Figures 1c and 1d show latent heat flux development of the tested models in time. Could you clarify?
b) You ascribe the course of the depicted time curves to the water vapour feedback, although there is no such commentary accompanying Fig. 1. The discussion of results provided by authors is, however, based mostly on results shown in Figures 3 to 9, and seems to give a more complex picture, I think.
c) Figures 3 to 9 depict differences between swamp land and desert land. I have not noted any other reference system throughout the article. Could you specify where you found the information that in the desert land, water vapour concentration increased commensurately to the water vapour residence time increase which is about 50 %? What was the baseline for this estimation?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Yes, Tomas. You are correct that Fig. 1 doesn’t show the water vapor concentration in the lower panels. However, it is well-described as follows in the text:
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
As to your question under c), the discussion about these matters is the first in the Results and Discussion section. I would particularly direct your attention to this passage:
I would additionally note an interesting passage about LW feedback:
Tomas Kalisz: I read the summaries of IPCC reports, I have a strong feeling that the land use was mostly treated from the viewpoint if (and if so, how) it influences grrenhouse gas absorption or release.
And that didn’t make you think? You see this means that there are 3 possibilities:
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
Now, Tomas, which of these 3 possibilities strikes you as the most likely?
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 1 Sep 2024 at 7:08 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824236
Dear Barton Paul,
you commented on my sentence
TK: , our concerns that anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial hydrology might have contributed to climate changes observed during anthropocene, including the industrial era, will be taken as mere unsupported speculations.
as follows:
BPL: Climate scientists found decades ago that land use was important to global warming. It is, however, a minor effect compared to that of greenhouse gases. The idea that it is being ignored is not true; please read the IPCC reports.
I would like to add that as much as I read the summaries of IPCC reports, I have a strong feeling that the land use was mostly treated from the viewpoint if (and if so, how) it influences grrenhouse gas absorption or release.
The second aspect which is treated quite frequently in IPCC reports is the influence of “land use” on Earth surface albedo.
As regards possible influences of anthropogenic interferences with land hydrology, it was so far only the summary of the sixth IPCC report where I found a short note that irrigation may be among forcings that cool Earth surface.
I have not found any evaluation how such human interferences with water cycle like landscape sealing and drainage could (or could not) contribute to the observed global warming in the IPCC reports yet.
As regards other climate parameters than global surface temperature, such as e.g. global precipitation and surface distribution thereof, I am afraid that even you will have hard time if you try to find any study about relationship between human interferences with land hydrology through land use on one hand, and these parameters of the global climate on the other hand.
Greetings
Tomáš
Dear Barton Paul,
In addition, please refer also to my post of 9 Sep 2024 at 5:23 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/the-need-for-pluralism-in-climate-modelling/#comment-824433,
in Re to your posts of 5 Sep 2024 at 3:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/the-need-for-pluralism-in-climate-modelling/#comment-824392 ,
and 5 Sep 2024 at 3:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/the-need-for-pluralism-in-climate-modelling/#comment-824393 .
I still think that Lague 2023
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1/pdf ,
may be the first swallow, signalizing that the community of climate scientists will perhaps once look on the terrestrial hydrology (and human interferences therewith) also as a possible forcing and not as a mere feedback only.
If you, however, find in IPCC reports some references to earlier publications on this topics (or to the variance analysis which you mentioned several times, showing unequivocally that the contributions of this forcing to all observable parameters of the present climate change are negligible compared to the contribution of the rising atmospheric GHG concentration), please share.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas, the problem remains that radiative effects (including feedbacks) are sufficient to reproduce the historic record quite skillfully. Therefore, there is no causal ‘room’ for a significant effect from terrestrial water availability: it would be necessary not only to demonstrate the TWA effect itself, but also to understand why the GHG effect were smaller than believed. It’s not impossible in principle, I suppose, but for now at least you are up against Occam’s hoary adage that “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.”
Hallo Kevin,
I think that the reproduction of historical (temparature) record (it appears that none more-less reliable global record of any other climate parameter than temperature is available yet) by the simple model “GHG and their feedbacks”* is sufficient only if we are satisfied with the very blurred picture of the climate change as characterized in the Palmer and Stevens 2019 PNAS article
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1906691116
*I think that this “GHG+feedbacks” approacch can be characterized as an assumption that the observed climate change can be accurately modelled in terms of “true” forcings directly influencing the radiative balance (insolation, greenhouse gases, aerosols, albedo), everything else can be considered as feedbacks that depend solely from the initial setup and from changes in the primary forcings, and that for good projections of the future, we do not need anything else than an accurate description of these forcings and feedbacks plus enough computation power.
As Palmer and Stevens, however, admit, this blurred picture is hardly suitable for anything else than for acknowledging that greenhouse gases indeed play an important role in the observed global warming.
I think that with the above described simple approach, we may in fact never come to the desired sharper picture that could effectively support practical policies. It is well possible that the picture is not blurred (only) because we do not have GW or TW computers yet, but also by the circumstance that the above mentioned oversimplistic view on forcings and feedbacks in fact cannot fit the complex reality better than very roughly.
Greetings
Tomáš
If it’s not already understood, all the thermodynamic and dynamical effects of continental configuration, their properties and biosystems, are inherently embedded in the climate sensitivity factor λ
The notation ΔT = λΔF tends to obscure this, as λ is often misconceived as constant to be discovered.
Additionally, the definition of climate sensitivity itself – based on a doubling of CO2 via ΔF – diminishes λ in such a way that it is perceived as merely a passive property of the system.
This misconception might lead to the mistaken belief that one can analytically derive a precise 288K GMST without accounting at all for terrestrial condition, which is simply false. Lague’s CESM idealized experiment demonstrates you would have a minimum resolution in the order of 10K.
And if I dare say in relation to Occam, it’s taking some serious complexity and mental gymnastics to arrive at energy accumulation solely in the SW based on LW radiative forcing concept, as described by Raghuraman.
TK: may be the first swallow, signalizing that the community of climate scientists will perhaps once look on the terrestrial hydrology (and human interferences therewith) also as a possible forcing and not as a mere feedback only.
BPL: I’m sure it is a forcing, but its magnitude compared to other forcings is minor.
“Today, The New York Times unveiled the lineup of interviewees for Climate Forward, a one-day event to be held at The Times Center in New York City on Wednesday, Sept. 25th.
Now in its fifth year, and coinciding with the 79th session of the United Nations (U.N) General Assembly, Climate Forward promises to be an immersive and dynamic experience for both in-person and virtual attendees. It will bring together some of the world’s most engaged climate voices as part of a community focused on change.
This year’s theme is “Confronting Our New Reality,” showing how the world has shifted due to the acceleration of climate change. Sessions will explore energy sources and solutions, the changing life cycle of food and water supplies and debates about where individuals and policymakers should center their attention now and in the years to come.”
On the confirmed list of interviewees for ‘Climate Forward’ is Real Climate’s Stephan Rahmstorf. The entire list and additional info is here:
.
https://www.nytco.com/press/2024-climate-forward-speaker-lineup/
.
You can register to join the live stream for this sold-out event here:
.
https://nyt.swoogo.com/climateforward2024/livestream-registration
.
.
One individual on the list is Kevin Roberts, president of Heritage Foundation and of Project 2025 fame of late. Media Matters article about this:
.
https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/project-2025s-kevin-roberts-speak-ny-times-climate-week-nyc-event
Dear all,
More than 100 hours have passed since last moderation / since posting new contributions.
I came to an idea / suggestion in this respect:
Could perhaps the moderators consider implementing an indicator showing when the publication of the next posts is expected?
Any time when an obstacle delays moderation, the expected time of the next publication could be actualized accordingly.
I think it could reduce the time spent by regular readers / commenters on fruitless inspecting the website, to merely find out that there is still no news there.
Many thanks to the moderators for reading the comments, and best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš,
Based on what I’ve observed, it appears that there are times when the comments accumulate until about the number twenty (20) end up in the backlog. I know it can be frustrating, but remember that running this site is not their primary job. I don’t think implementation of your ‘indicator’ idea is needed.
TK: Moderators almost never post comments over the weekend. AFAICT, they don’t peruse every hypothetical pearl of wisdom in our amateur writings, nor, as our hosts, are they required to do anything but what they do. They appear to pass comments no more than once a day, if that.
They are our hosts. It never ceases to amaze me how rude and/or demanding some of their guests presume to be.
They have day jobs.
1980 – It is not about the
ecological processes of ‘overshoot’ and ‘collapse’ specifically;
it is about us!, and how we collectively react to those issues.
At a time when the world seems incapable of addressing itself to the
issue of climate change, ‘Overshoot’ provides a valuable framework
to understand our predicament. For example: Simply swap
‘consumption’ for ‘emissions’, ‘tipping points’ for ‘overshoot’, and
‘climate breakdown’ for ‘collapse’, and book’s arguments easily map
to the climate debate; and thus how the world is, but practically, is not,
adapting to the objective ecological realities of climate breakdown.
The difficulty is, if you do transpose ‘Overshoot’ onto the ‘climate crisis’,
the results are not exhilarating. That’s because – as a sociological work
– you can see how the denial and deflection methods that ‘Overshoot’
outlines at length run throughout the climate change debate today;
and more importantly, that addressing those obstacles has little to do with
the technicalities of climate issues, and everything to do with the
self-delusion, and short-term, magical thinking that plagues human reasoning.
Perhaps more critically, the way ‘Overshoot’ addresses ‘Cargo cultism’,
or the belief that technology can insulate the individual from
radical systemic change, can equally be seen as critical of
the environmental movement itself. Environmentalism arose as a
‘deep ecological’ focus on the relation- ship of humans to their environment.
Unfortunately, as the issue became adopted into mainstream society, that
insightful focus was distorted by cultural forces into responses such
as ‘green consumerism’ or ‘green technologies’ – which operate,
as Catton outlines in the book, as a very effective distraction
from the deep systemic change which is actually required.
For those who choose to read, ‘Overshoot’, I suggest that
you keep this distinction in your mind:
Between the ‘phenomena’ of ecological collapse; and
the human interpretation of that phenomena.
When the book is read as a description of how humans respond to
existential threats, rather than how those threats evolve,
Catton’s work provides a really useful set of tests and tools
to pick-apart the environmental debate today.
‘Overshoot – The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change’ (1980)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEZLPudq6JQ
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285677670_Environmental_Sociology_A_New_Paradigm
The best guidance was always out there.
cj,
1980?
Is the dating of this message a bit wrong?
The transcription is not from the book Catton (1980) ‘Overshoot – The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change’ or from 1980, but from an ‘afterthought’ presented in the 2023 YouTube-review you link-to – ‘A Book in Five Minutes’ No.27 Podcast (a transcript of the full 13-minute narration being available HERE).
The idea behind Catton’s ‘Overshoot is that mankind’s burgeoning population will inevitably result in us running out of resources and so-doing also wreck the planet. That’s a bit different from the problem of AGW which can be solved by sourcing the energy that is presently pumping GHGs into the atmosphere from ‘alternatives’ that do not ‘pump’.
It appears to me that this ‘A Book in Five Minutes’ No.27 Podcast is less a genuine review of Catton’s book and more an interpretation of what the reviewer would like it to say. (I feel emboldened to write that because there is a 2009 review which bears no resemblance to this 2023 review.)
I’m not sure whether the ’causes’ of humanity’s inability to mitigate AGW is usefully explained by Catton’s book. The book itself is available to read on-line HERE and runs to 320 pages which I have not delved into beyond the Contents page which shows a large amount of the book could be dealing with ‘those causes’.
I suppose Catton would brand me a “cargoist” in that I do consider the technological abilities of humanity to mitigate AGW are available to us. And likewise, I am of the view that the other unsustainable uses of the planet’s resources will likely be replaced by techno-fixes. What I see a the problem is this:- Do we manage these many techno-fixes in a timely fashion or do we wreck the planet in the process? The AGW example doesn’t suggest the former as the default outcome.
Small mindedness is a part of the problem for sure.
The quote was openly ref’d to the yt video source. No hand holding or wild reinterpretations are required. Especially by someone who has not read Catton’s book.
What comes instead is another “very effective distraction from the deep systemic change which is actually required” from someone who wouldn’t know or care what deep systemic change would look like or why it is required despite 44 years of accumulated evidence since Cattons 320 page book was published. Blindness and denial persists.
cj,
You present yet another quote from the ‘Afterthought’ of the 2023 review of Catton’s 1980 book. And note that that ‘Afterthought’ presents your quote only in the context of the reviewer suggesting “[the] book’s arguments easily map to the climate debate” and it is only in this context is it that the reviewer boldly tells us the book “[shows] how the world is, but practically, is not, adapting to the objective ecological realities of climate breakdown. ” [My bold]
You yourself do not appear to have read Catton (1980). My reason for boldly suggesting this is because the ‘dipping’ I did into Catton (1980) shows no appreciation of the abilities of humanity to power a modern society from renewable sources. His appreciation of AGW mitigation and ‘renewable’ energy extends only to suggest wind and hydro were once a very modest supplement to ‘renewable’ plant fuels and animal muscle-power and that to replace fossil fuels we would have to be further expanding our eco-footprint and diminishing our natural environment.
In my ‘dipping’ I got only a strong whiff of Malthusianism. There likely is some interesting stuff buried in there, perhaps something applicable to why humanity finds AGW mitigation so difficult, but I didn’t see signs of it. Perhaps somebody who has read the book could point to the relevant chapter.
There is a difference between the climate crisis and the ecological crisis, the latter being the sixth mass extinction event the planet has witnessed and which so-far has not been properly analysed. This eco-crisis is the net result of that burgeoning human population trying to squeeze non-renewable resources out of our planet without any proper understanding of the consequences.
The methods employed by humanity by which that squeezing of non-renewables is first promoted and the resulting supply-failure then dodged [eventually] are, I would suggest, exemplified by the bane of this site back-in-the-day, nuclear power. However, those ‘squeeze-promoting/dodging’ methods do not, in my eyes, ‘translate’ into us, as Catton insists, having to “remain human in the face of dehumanising pressures.” And I am reluctant to read an entire book (or parts V & VI thereof) to discover whether or not Catton (1980) manages that ‘translation’ and thus makes discussion of eco-crisis relevant to addressing climate crisis.
So I would question whether “[the] book’s arguments easily map to the climate debate” and if there is any ‘mapping’ at all, whether it could “easily map to the climate debate”
MAR I have listened to the video link posted by CJ on ecological overshoot. Its interesting but it mixes numerous issues in together so its a bit confused. I have not read Cattons book but I’ve read enough similar sounding material to get the general idea. This is my take on what Catton is really saying and what it means especially for the climate issue.
Firstly Catton points out that the earths resources are clearly finite. We are using those resources up quite fast to the point its inevitable we will run short and find it impossible to maintain our high consuming lifestyles. While technology and recycling etcetera can prolong our lifestyles it cant stop us reaching hard limits eventually and having to reduce our consumption levels. And of course we are causing biodiversity loss and pollution. I have no argument with any of this although its near impossible to quantify any of it. Presumably humanity in the future will adapt to the new reality although it would likely be painful.
Cattons other point is we have to accept these realities and only then can we make the “required changes” to our socio economic system. Now Catton didnt specify these changes in the video but others who are like minded have suggested we should move as quickly as possible to a low consuming culture and zero economic growth economy to 1) preserve as many resources as possible for future generations and 2) reduce pollution and biodiversity loss.
IMO its a nice idea in theory but it could cause our economic system to crash and its not clear how we would persuade people. There may be a compromise solution where growth is eased down gradually, being the managed degrowth Catton despises but it might be the most practical option.
Now we get to the climate connection. Building a renewable energy system is resource intensive, and thus you have a conflict with the plan to reduce consumption levels. As a result there is a subset of academics suggesting renewables are not the solution and are just a fantasy techno fix. Which leaves us with either burning fossil fuels or burning vast volumes of timber or getting by with hugely reduced energy consumption implimented quite rapidly . None of which look like viable options to me. So I come down on the side of trying the renewable energy techno fix, even with its obvious downsides and the fact it wont last literally forever, but nothing does anyway. There is much we could still do to minimise its environmental impacts.
Catton and the ecological overshoot problem. Part of this problem is indisputably caused by 8 billion people wanting food and part by high levels in per capita industrial consumption. I agree technology can only solve some of the problem and is not a panacea.
The population component might be self correcting in that populations growth has already stopped in several countries. The whole socio-economic system is dependent on industrialisation and economic growth, so changing that will be very hard, and planned degrowth might cause considerable unemployment.
We are probably stuck with solving the worst aspects or symptoms. For example there is a very worrying decline in pollinating insects, mostly caused by overuse of insecticides, all for small gains in productivity and because people like pristine looking food. We really need laws limiting the use of pesticides, or some form of regenerative farming less reliant on presticides, before things get catastrophic. We do not really want to be reliant on pollinating crops by hand or by robots. It would just be crazy. But we are sleep walking towards this.
has the website passed away?
Ive noticed that comments dont get published in the weekends. Presumably its because the moderators dont work in the weekends, due to family commitments etc,etc.
In Re to Nigel, 11 SEP 2024 AT 4:51 PM, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824466
Hi Nigel,
During the last few months, there usually was at least one moderation round during the weekends, sometimes more. What was exceptional on the last long moderation delay was its timespan from Wednesday September 4 till Monday September 9, covering not only complete weekend but also three full week days.
I understand that it can happen. It would be nice to have a means which enables to see ehat just happens – how long the moderation can take.
Greetings
Tomáš
TK,
It is what it is. It’s not like it’s costing you money.
If you’re bored, you could set up a spreadsheet.
If it pains you to visit and not get your daily fix of commentary, try hitting the subscribe button on the top right of this page (it’s free). Then you can go about your business like a normal person.
The knowledge feedback cycle is all over the map. Consider the following processes:
In a strictly-moderated online discussion forum, one learns to be patient.
In the team software development world, any latency in issue reporting or resolution is not tolerated. Holding a message or comment for a day will blow all delivery milestones.
In climate science, predictions are made for years in advance, and we all patiently wait for the results to fail or succeed (and even then with residual statistical significance). So years later, a new prediction is made to replace the failed one.
Meanwhile, the machine learning community perfects cross-validation strategies [1] and is able to throw away all the non-performing models w/o having to wait at all. Progress is made in leaps and bounds.
In traditional peer-review, reviewers are assigned and do their job as time permits.
In open peer-review, anybody can jump in and make their criticisms known immediately. Example => https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2024-30/#discussion
It all depends on the intellectual drive and/or fiscal desperation level of those involved.
Reminder that a climate science forum open 24×7 exists at:
https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions
Reference:
[1] Sweet, L., C. Müller, M. Anand, and J. Zscheischler, 2023: Cross-Validation Strategy Impacts the Performance and Interpretation of Machine Learning Models. Artif. Intell. Earth Syst., 2, e230026, https://doi.org/10.1175/AIES-D-23-0026.1
a question about 2023 excessive heat and subsequent comments and research.
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory
If the anomaly does not stabilize by August — a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events — then the world will be in uncharted territory. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.
article by Gavin Schmidt in early 2024
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
Last year there was an active el nino. Now there isn’t. Large shipping IMO sulfur reductions are still operating globally. So DID the anomaly “stabilise” by now @ClimateOfGavin ?
To me it doesn’t look like it has stabilised because it is now as bad as or higher temps in 2024 than it was last year. Especially now it seems even worse an impact absent the ElNino we have moved out of as Zeke indicates here https://x.com/hausfath/status/1830820053496819752#m as do many others.
Zeke Hausfather @hausfath
Sep 3
With all of August now in, 2024 has effectively tied 2023 as the warmest August on record in the @Copernicus ECMWF dataset.
August 2024 was 1.49C above preindustrial levels, and 2024 is now virtually certain to be the warmest year on record.
Global Monthly Anomalies
https://cdn.x.com/pic/orig/media%2FGWhhII1XAAAptN2.jpg
Here is how August 2024 stacks up against all of the prior Augusts on record. Its around two thousandths of a degree above 2023 levels, which is well below the level of uncertainty in monthly records in the datasets making the two months a tie.
ERA5 August Historical https://x.com/pic/orig/media%2FGWhhKT6W0AEJCcY.png
Is this now what being in uncharted territory looks like?
Anyone have an answer or contribution post-aug 2024? the questions raised by the “unexpected heat” in 2023 now seems to be of little interest now, as if it never happened or is of no importance anymore. a history forgotten, we’ve moved on.
As I recall, there is typically a lag with ENSO-modulated warming and cooling, so it should not be unexpected that 2024 has continued to be warm–particularly as we remain in ENSO-neutral mode. But I think there’s a very good chance that 2025 will see slightly cooler temps–always guaranteed to bring out the “global warming has stopped!” brigade.
I much prefer Gavin, Zeke and climate science over feedback from amateurs who miss the point (and the data behind) the question/s being asked. Thanks anyway.
Your concern (?) about the deniers brigade could be sated by spending much more time on wuwt or twitter; and leaving me and the other readers here out of it.. Why? Because I am not interested.
So I will look elsewhere instead, and keep an eye open (blueskysocial etc) in case an answer to this “unchartered territory” comment by Gavin is ever addressed by him or other climate scientists.
Those who know what the Data has been saying for decades and that the anomaly is higher than it has ever been in the scientific record – as clearly outlined in my wasted comment above. Thanks for confirming asking and posting anything here is a waste of time.
The chances of 2024 cooling off enough to bring the annual average SAT below 2023 are indeed shrinkingly small.
The 2024 average Jan-Aug was +0.70ºC while the 2023 annual average was +0.60ºC. That means 2024 bcomes the hottest-year-on-record unless the 2024 Sept-Dec average cools below +0.40ºC. That’s almost impossible, not because +0.40ºC is that cold, (only 2015, 2019 & 2023 had Sept-Dec averages that weren’t that cold) but because there is no sign of the required cooling being underway, making it a cooling which would now be unprecidented in size. Sept-Dec would have to be -0.31ºC cooler than Jul-Aug. 1998 managed the greatest such cooling (-0.27ºC). 1992 managed -0.23ºC, 1988 -0.19ºC, 1990 -0.18ºC, 1996 -0.15ºC & 2011 -0.14ºC, this last cooling half the 2024 ‘requirement’. The bigger coolings also tend to be earlier years as the rate of Sept-Dec AGW had been running above-annual-average (up to 2005).
While declaring 2024 a ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ year will make news headlines, what is actually important is an explanation for those “bananas” SAT anomalies and the implications that will entail.
The Gavin quote above runs:-
My own humble view of it** is that August is too early to dismiss ENSO as the cause. Yes it would mean the climate response to El Niño is transforming, (with bigger NH Ocean SAT response and that causing giant NH Land anomalies) which might be seen as presenting “an unprecedented knowledge gap”.
The NH Ocean SAT (5-month rolling aves**) in 1998 presented a flat ‘plateau’ that has become less flat over the past three decades of ENSO. 2015-16 shows an high initial peak rather than a flat ‘plateau’, but that initial peak is far higher in 2023-24. And are we now also seeing a second later peak appearing? There was a tiny late bulge in 2010 and a bigger bulge in 2016. So is the ‘plateau’ transforming into ‘twin-peaks’?
The up-shot of all this nerdiness is that I would not expect SAT levels to start dropping from that NH Ocean ‘plateau’ until after August.
(** I base this all on NOAA SAT numbers of past El Niño years which are plotted out in a graphic posted here (a link which may not work) and if the ‘hot’ link doesn’t work here First POSTED 14th February 2024.)
As I looked at the flat haze that was the clear-weather sky in Chicago yesterday (and again today) I’m wondering if there has been much work done to incorporate trends in wildfire smoke plumes into climate models. I know that soot on Greenland and on ice fields in general reduces albedo and increases melt rates, but the reflectance of the plumes from wildfires is increasing as wildfire seasons expand, and overall ice field area outside of Antarctica is declining – especially in wildfire season.
Use settings to turn on the NOAA smoke plumes display in https://fire.airnow.gov/ and you can see much of the atmosphere over the US and Canada is now probably reflecting some of the incoming sunlight due to high haze.
There’s a lot of changes going on with reflectance as ships reduce their emissions, as electrification esp. with transport and renewable generation will reduce other haze, but as fire seasons are increasing everywhere. I doubt the increased albedo makes up for the CO2 released from the burning materials, just curious about how it might be factored into global models.
On the question of wildfire plumes: Similarly to shipping emissions, reflectance from wildfire plumes are included in many global models, inlcuding both climate models and weather forecasts models. The uncertainties are dependent on both the information about the plumes and the representation in models. The historical re-creation of the climate in the climate models often use monthly mean averages and assumptions about plume heights. There are attempts / parameterisations that try to take into account climate change but these are quite uncertain.
Very good question, thanks. Meanwhile, here’s a good place to look at North American smoke:
https://fire.airnow.gov/#2/52.62/-62.96
[my source suggested unclicking most of the choices, leaving NOAA smoke plumes in.]
I did see something that suggested this is now a major input. Found these two on a quick search:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-climate-connections-of-a-record-fire-year-in-the-us-west/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082018/extreme-wildfires-climate-change-global-warming-air-pollution-fire-management-black-carbon-co2/ How Wildfires Can Affect Climate Change (and Vice Versa) – It’s complicated: While CO2 causes long-term warming, aerosols can have both a warming and a temporary cooling effect.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/debate-2024-did-harris-join-the-all-of-above-energy-club-appears-so-112015703.html
Silicon Valley’s High tech data centers already require massive amounts of electricity and that demand is exploding with the move to AI. The defense industry also. Climate scientists who criticize Jem Bendell are being rather optimistic.
This comes from a non-scientist who browses this site from time to time. I’ve been thinking about the summer of ’23 temperature surge into “uncharted territory” and the persistence of the surge into the summer of ’24 … and the lack of any solid scientific proof of causation. Obviously heat doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. Where could the massive amount needed for the anomaly have come from? For a layman like me the most likely, prime suspect has to be the oceans. They’ve been acting as a vast storehouse for a long time now and maybe they’ve reached a point where they just can’t take in as much heat as before … and/or maybe, under the old “heat raises pressure and tends to rise” rule, they are now letting out some of what’s been stored. Sorry if this is an unbelievably stupid comment, but it’s in the context of news of extremely high SSTs around the world. No doubt many visitors to this site find it disconcerting that the otherwise knowledgeable moderators and commentators here seem stumped at what could be a momentous moment in the history of climate science.
Given recent comments about smokey skies, wildfires, and previous ones about indigenous communities and traditional knowledge WRT climate change, this CBC item seems like an apropos bit to share.
[Text begins]
When Dave Pascal began working as a forest firefighter, it was a three-months-a-year job. He spent the summers fighting wildfires, then went back to his regular job as a forest technician.
“It was like the little boys’ club. And we would just jump on helicopters, fly out into the bush, go and put fires out and come home and go back to our regular job,” he said.
But then, with climate change, the fire seasons kept getting longer — and so did Pascal’s work.
“All of a sudden, I don’t have another job anymore,” he said. “Now, it’s a career.”
Climate change has changed almost every industry — and provided opportunities to rethink established practices. Pascal, a member of the Líl̓wat First Nation, is a cultural and prescribed fire specialist at the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society of British Columbia, where he’s bringing traditional Indigenous knowledge back to managing wildfire.
Communities across the province come to him with proposals for prescribed burns, which are controlled and planned burns to reduce the amount of fuel around their lands and make them safer during fire seasons.
“It’s their territory, it’s their land,” Pascal said.
“They know how to manage it. So they’ll tell me what their plan is, and I’m there to support their plan.”
The need for bringing back those practices is growing, especially after the historically bad 2023 fire season in Canada, and the devastating fires in Jasper this year.
That means greatly expanding the number of people working in this field, just like Canada needs more people to work in green retrofitting or to drill for geothermal energy. And like other parts of the green economy, that can mean changing the way the agencies fund these job positions and choose the people for them.
Amy Cardinal Christianson, a former research scientist at the Canadian Forest Service, advocates for more Indigenous wildland firefighters. She says the recruitment process requires a change to what some typically consider as “expertise,” especially when many Indigenous firefighters may not have had access to the usual degree programs and certificates for leadership positions in their field.
“They know their area, they know the values, they know how fire moves on the land, but they’re totally withheld from decision-making in their territories,” she said.
Along with changing that rigid template of who qualifies for certain jobs, stable funding from the government for year-round job security is also important to attract new people to the job, said Christianson.
“We need to stop thinking about fire as something that we can just throw money at in the summer and the problem will go away,” she said.
“What we’re seeing now with these summers of smoke is that it’s something that we need to invest in year round.”
[End text]
Original source–if the link works:
https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/newsletter_static/messages/whatonearth/2024-09-12/
Looks like Zeke thinks “unchartered territory” is what is happening, and might be here to stay.
2024’s unusually persistent warmth
This year is increasingly diverging from past El Nino years.
Zeke Hausfather
Sep 09, 2024
Quote:
While its possible that global temperatures will finally start to fall in the next few weeks, given the highly anomalous trajectory of 2023 and 2024 to-date I would not bet on it.
What might this mean going forward?
Unfortunately we still lack a good explanation for what drove the exceptional warmth the world saw in 2023 and 2024. We have a lot of potential mediocre explanations (e.g. low sulfur marine fuel regulations, the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in 2022, an uptick in the 11 year solar cycle, El Nino behaving weirdly, etc.). But these have increasingly been modeled, and it is hard to explain the magnitude of the global temperature anomaly the world has experienced even adding all of these estimates together.
Many of us hoped that if 2024 returned to a more predictable post-El-Nino regime it would provide evidence that what happened in the second half of 2023 was a blip – some short lived internal variability that drove a spike in global temperatures but did not persist.
However, with temperatures remaining elevated into September 2024, its looking increasingly less likely that last year’s elevated temperatures were a mostly transient phenomenon. Rather, some combination of forcings or changes in feedbacks may be driving higher global temperatures going forward.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/2024s-unusually-persistent-warmth
Dessler says: The doom spiral – There are two facts that keep me grounded, and here they are:…….
Mal Adapted, can two ‘possibilities’ happening decades in the future really be defined as “Facts”?
And no matter what the US does, isn’t it practically guaranteed that we will exceed +3C this century, as per most climate scientists expectations and what the data also indicates repeatedly? I only ask because it looks to me that Dessler is clearly the outlier as his future scenario isn’t based on the evidence or the known facts and future possibilities but unfounded Hope alone.
nothing wrong with hope. We are alive, we must try. Please honor those who are still pushing us to do better.