This month’s open thread for climate topics. Please stay vaguely on topic and do not abuse other commenters.
Reader Interactions
126 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Oct 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.
Geoff Miell says
30 Sep 2024 at 9:50 PM
Looks like we’re on the same intelligent evidence data based team, and abhor disinformation and wild unsubstantiated claims and seriously flawed published studies by people here and elsewhere, but it would help your case and mine if you read more closely what I say (or anyone was saying) before replying. Thanks.
Nigelj says
1 Oct 2024 at 3:46 PM
I note your commentary with Don Williams late last month which I completely reject as factually wrong and unsupportable, along with your reply and questions to me as well. I cannot see there is anything I can do to help you out of your misguided dilemma. Honestly you are completely lost. I don’t want to say any more. It is clear sharing genuine factual material here, including peer reviewed detailed studies by experts and scientists is a waste of time and space if it says what you refuse to accept by default and then with you continually dismissing these experts and research studies data and conclusions out of hand. You and almost all here are living a world of extremely motivated denial and hurt. I nor anyone else I could imagine could help you with this no matter material you were shown. Or rather asked to look at and understand it. Die happy with your foolhardy beliefs in tact.
Piotr? Have a great day. lol
Complicius
I’m absolutely mortifed (sarc). The problem is your comments October 1st are just empty, evidence free rhetoric. You haven’t quoted what I said and provided any specific evidence of relevance. You havent listed the studies you claim I have dismissed out of hand. The following applies to your comments “That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence” (Hitchens Razor )
And no a peer reviewed study that you or someone else may have quoted months back doesn’t help. I have no idea what you are referring to. Nobody should be expected to trawl back to see if its relevant or has merit (it probably doesn’t anyway). Your comments need to be reasonably self contained.
You say on last months UV thread: “Emotionally driven self-deluded hopism entrenched with fraudulent claims like SA’s above and the RE myths by Sylvia is all they have left now.” “They are like children”, (referring to people on this website) “The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked.Good riddance. ” It all sounds like trolling by any normal dictionary definition.
It’s simply called “an opinion,” Nigelj.
noun:
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Example: “That, in my opinion, is right.”
PS for nigelj
Dr. James Hansen, former NASA scientist and prominent climate expert, is also critical of the current, overly conservative approach to assessing how severe the situation is and what needs to be done. Many, like myself, feel that the underlying issue is our long-term reliance on cheap, abundant energy, which has fueled unsustainable economic activity and consumption. This has, in turn, driven rapid population growth, soon expected to reach 9 billion by 2040.
Unfortunately, it seems the solution may come from the consequences of inaction: catastrophic climate impacts combined with widespread economic collapse. Humanity will likely endure, but in a very different form from the unsustainable reality we face today.
I am in possession of hundreds of peer-reviewed climate science and technology papers I could share but would not be so presumptuous nor wish to drown you in onerous data. These many many other aspects to life inform my thinking and conclusions on what are challenging and emotionally confronting matters of life and death.
Complicius, I also believe the IPCC are underestimating the severity of climate change and I have said so before.
I agree that cheap energy has indisputably caused negative environmental impacts. However if we were to choose to reduce our energy use, this would cause considerable problems for our society. Our society has become kind of addicted to energy use.
We probably just have to try to reduce as many negative environmental impacts as we can within the framework of moderately high energy use, preferably renewables. Sure we might run out of materials one day. We will just have to adapt.
patrick o twentyseven says
28 Sep 2024 at 6:37 PM
On EROEI and
Silvia Leahu-Aluas says
1 Oct 2024 at 11:42 AM
On electric vehicles are viable now and will replace ICE within years.
Problem solved then. We all live happily ever after.
Feel free to believe whatever you wish. Terrific. Be at peace then.
cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-824958
“ (2024) Systemwide energy return on investment in a sustainable transition towards net zero power systems ”
I’ve still only read/skimmed quickly through some of this; it seems to be just about the electricity supply, and I haven’t found the extent to which the scenarios grow/expand electricity supply, eg, if it is sufficient to replace all or most direct fuel use. I read ahead a bit and … how much do the results depend on EROI learning curves for PV systems going into the future? … But I noticed a slight error in my original numbers so I decided to discuss a bit more now, and provide a few quotes; hopefully I didn’t miss any important context for them:
“Fig. 1: Energy mix of all scenarios.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9/figures/1
emphasis added/mine:
me: “(Fig. 2 (p.6): EROEI values stay above 16, some scenarios stay above 18; 2015 value is just above 19some scenarios go up before coming back down)”
Once again, the text contradicts the graph (“18.8” (see below) vs. “just above 19”) (my “some scenarios go up before coming back down” applies post-2020. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9/figures/2
2nd paragraph after Table 1:
From last paragraph before section “Impacts of the energy transition on global EROI”
Immediately following:
See also: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9/figures/3
———–
Clarification about my discussion of https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-12-Fact-Sheet-v2-1.pdf 1
My description of above:
My math here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821049 … (correction in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821251 ) was based on exponential decay of performance.
Questions: are 976 kWh AC the annual output per kWp AC (ie inverter output capacity) or DC (panel/module capacity)? If the later, the 11.1% CF may give an inflated impression of variability. There are wiring and inverter losses, including clipping losses, etc. Related: what is the ILR? ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35372# ). And is this 976 kWh/kWp for the average of 30 years or for the as-new performance? (So the EROEI might be 30 rather than ≈27 for the mono-Si.) Does the EPBT (energy payback time) account for some fossil fuel inputs having same or larger electrical equivalents rather than smaller (as they would for input to engines and power plants to produce mechanical work and/or electricity (aside from CHP plants** https://www.energy.gov/eere/iedo/combined-heat-and-power-basics )).
in Re to patrick o twentyseven, 5 Oct 2024 at 6:59 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825119
Hallo Patrick,
To your question regarding the annual output per kWp, I know from a few talks with photovoltaic dealers / businessman in Czech Republic that for this central European country, they simply count with 1000 kWh average annual output per kWp. I therefore suppose that it is a net value which can serve for economic calculations.
As regards the decay, I think that it pertains also to the kWp output. So if you have an older facility with lower kWp than ten years ago, you obtain commensurately less kWh per year.
By the way, I noted somewhere that in Sicily, the average annual output per kWp is 2000 kWh.
Greetings
Tomáš
So nothing should be done because it’s never enough. Solutions not welcome. Progress and trying to overcome opposition don’t matter.
The world is a messy place. We can act or give up. The latter is lazy and stupid.
Most of us can see we’re headed for disaster, but that’s not an excuse to carp at anyone who won’t do the woe is us dance.
Well… At least the two gents running to become the next V.P. of the good old United States gave two minute long answers plus followup comments tonight when asked about climate change policy by CBS moderator Norah O’Donnell:
.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-L6W9dJEqko
.
.
The following pieces are initial reactions to varying degrees on what was said by Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz on climate change and hurricane Helene:
.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-10-01/vance-and-walz-spar-on-climate-change
.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/01/jd-vance-climate-change-weird-science-vp-debate/75471987007/
.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/01/walz-vance-debate-fact-check-updates
.
.
Vance is whip-smart and it’s personally disappointing to see how his comments regarding anthropogenic influences has devolved over the last 3-4 years. When he straightforwardly lied by saying the U.S. is one of the cleanest economies carbon-wise in the world, I was tempted to throw my tablet at the damn tv. From the USA Today article linked above: “The United States emitted .26 kilograms of carbon dioxide per dollar of economic activity in 2022 and is the third dirtiest economy behind India and China, according to the Global Carbon Budget.”
Tim Walz did fair, though he missed several easy slam dunks in his statement and followup:
>failed to make it crystal clear that it is Republicans who repeatedly have hamstrung FEMA’s budget for response to the increasing cost of natural disasters (climate and other),
>failed to mention that Republicans want to ditch the current Federal Insurance Programs and dump it back into the state’s lap,
>tell people that Trump’s supporters have plans (and Trump will fully embrace come the day he knows he has won) to:
>>dismantle NOAA,
>>privatize The National Weather Service so folks will have to pay twice; once to get the weather forecast and while still paying tax dollars to continue providing the infrastructure from the ground to space,
>>God knows what would happen to entities like the National Hurricane Center, the Storm Prediction Center, the Space Weather Prediction Service, and on and on!,
>>pullback every unspent dollar he can from the I.R.A.,
>>pull us out of The Paris Agreement yet again,
>>throw up every roadblock he can to slow/stop further development of wind farms in particular,
>>remove climate change data/information throughout the federal government (remember how climate change info disappeared from the EPA site while he was President…now they will try implementing that everywhere in the government, and
>>will severely restrict and silence federal scientists (those who aren’t shown the door in the purge)
>While he did say that Trump is completely dismissive of anthropogenic climate change (and did remind people that Trump thinks climate change is a “hoax” and rising sea level will yield more beachfront property). He missed an opportunity to remind folks that Trump failed when he was President for four years and that is a major contributor to why we are still importing so much in the way of solar components because Trump’s term as cheeto-in-chief almost nothing was done to help develop a domestic renewable energy supply chains.
I’m not optimistic that Harris will win the Electoral College. I wish to hell I was. She is still underperforming (compared to Biden 2020) with older white voters in the Rust Belt trio, with Latinos and segments of the under 35 crowd everywhere. I hope she is putting her best supporters that can truly appeal in particular to the under 35 and college crowds as climate change matters to them across party lines. And get them to actually translate concern into massive action and vote (not an act that comes naturally to these groups compared to us old folks). Particularly every college in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Remembering of course a Vote for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party is a Vote for the Dick Cheney’s of this world the Neocon Zionist Warmongers and Genocidal maniacs in Israel and Washington DC.
But so does Voting for Trump and the Republicans, so you can’t lose either way. It’s a Win-Win!
And for those chasing a little slice of the truth out there’s this: Professor Marandi effectively silenced this Journalist @SkyNews https://xcancel.com/Powerfulmindx/status/1841517396093215003#m
small snippet ….
“Unlike you, we don’t believe in chosen people, and the Palestinian people on that land who have been displaced and pushed into Gaza and slaughtered regularly over 76 years, we will not stand for that… The Israeli regime, if they strike Iran, we will hit them much harder next time, and they can pretend that they got away, but we hit very hard last time; we hit their bases. And, unlike the Israeli regime, which always carries out slaughter and genocide, carrying out a holocaust in Gaza, we strike their military targets, because, unlike you, we actually care about human rights. Not you.”
In a BBC Interview similarly: https://www.channel4.com/news/israel-will-be-hammered-into-submission-if-it-strikes-iran-says-iranian-academic
How soon before the Cold War v2.0 explodes into world war III? Given Israel just attacked Russia naval air base in Syria. And Iran seriously smashed up Israel despite the news black out across the west.
-Missile Barrage Overwhelms Israeli Defenses-video evidence
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/operation-true-promise-2-iran-strikes
Arabs in the Negev film Iranian missiles impacting Israeli airbases
Israeli air defenses have completely failed
https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/10460
https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/10458
https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/10456
They (western MSM/politicians/govts) are all lying to you 24/7.
No one is forcing you to believe the lies. It’s your own choice.
Vote for Sanity and Truth – at least Vote Jill Stein – but please do not vote for the current Psychopaths.
Complicius says: “Remembering of course a Vote for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party is a Vote for the Dick Cheney’s of this world the Neocon Zionist Warmongers and Genocidal maniacs in Israel and Washington DC.But so does Voting for Trump and the Republicans, so you can’t lose either way. It’s a Win-Win!”
False claims. Huge lack of evidence. Lots of trolling. Way too much false equivalence between democrats and republicans. Democrats lean liberal so equating them to “neoconservatives” is ludicrous. Democrat governmnets have obviously not been perfect, but they have rightly defended many other countries (WW1, WW2, Korean War, Ukraine, Israel), and not plotted the invasion of Iraq like Bush and Cheney did. And now the Republicans are backing away from supporting Ukraine.
Cheney promoted torture while Biden has opposed torture of suspects and has moved to close down Guantanamo bay. The Democrats promote a proper palestinian state on the west bank and many support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza while the Republicans are less supportive of these things. Multiple polls and commentaries support this.
Regarding the video of Israel allegedly being hit by multiple missles. Theres no way of knowing whether the video is genuine. Its totally gullible to take it at face value. These days its easy to fake videos. Although its likely both sides of the conflict have been hit by more missles than they admit. Famous quote “the first casualty of war is the truth”. Of course the authorities sometimes lie, – as if we didnt know this, and needed your pearls of wisdom (sarc).
1) Dealing with climate change requires the united effort of the entire world — we are all on this lifeboat with no other place to live. Uninhabitable space for tens of trillions of miles in all directions. How does inciting hatred and corrupt, hugely expensive continuous wars help humanity?
2) In 2002 the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Robert Graham, said he saw no evidence that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the USA — the only justification under UN law for invading Iraq. Nevertheless, 29 Democratic Senators voted for the war — including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. You might want to look at the $14 Million Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumped into the Democratic Party in 2002 — and at that 2007 interview Haim gave to Haaretz boasting of how he dumps money into US politics to buy US military protection of Israel. Of how the Clintons sucked up to him whenever he visited the White House..
3) Dick Cheney had not shown his face in public since 2008. In contrast, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have since all received the Democratic nominations for President with Biden succeeding in winning.
4) If Democrats are promoting a Palestinian state on the West Bank then why have they said nothing as Bibi Nethanyahu and the Likud have engaged in slow motion genocide there — slowly taking more and more land year after year for at least the past 30 years. In case you wonder how the terrorists recruit new members.
Why did Joe Biden give Bibi that big hug? Which did nothing to aid Israel but encouraged millions of Muslims to consider killing a few thousand American tourists in the next decade. Well, it did announce the White House was open for business. Does no one remember Bibi coming here in 2002 and helping Cheney lie us into invading Iraq?
Don Williams
“1) Dealing with climate change requires the united effort of the entire world — we are all on this lifeboat with no other place to live….How does inciting hatred and corrupt, hugely expensive continuous wars help humanity?”
I agree with your points but you are lecturing me, and I didn’t suggest otherwise. I said that the Democrats have come to the aid or defence of allies under attack. This doesnt mean I LIKE wars.
“2) . Nevertheless, 29 Democratic Senators voted for the (Iraq) war — including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. ”
Apparently its because they believed George Bushes claims / lies that there were weapons of mass destruction despite what Robert Graham said. Thats what the written record apparently shows. Maybe they were gullible to do that, but the Democats didn’t do the lying. The Democrats didn’t plan and start the war. So I just feel its false equivalence to say The Democrats are as equally culpable for Iraq as the Republicans (if you are impluyng that). Just my opinion of course.
“You might want to look at the $14 Million Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumped into the Democratic Party in 2002….”
Both Democrats and Republicans have accepted donations form Israel. So its a moot point.
“4) If Democrats are promoting a Palestinian state on the West Bank then why have they said nothing as Bibi Nethanyahu and the Likud have engaged in slow motion genocide there — slowly taking more and more land…”
The polling I have read suggests the Democrats Party leadership have only recently changed their position and favoured an independent palestinian state. But they now have a different position to the GOP.
“Why did Joe Biden give Bibi that big hug? Which did nothing to aid Israel but encouraged millions of Muslims to consider killing a few thousand American tourists….”
Because Biden is a hugging sort of guy apparently and America does support Isreal. Whats he supposed to do, be really cold towards Bibi? It might be tempting but it would only encourage Israels enemies.
Israelis occupation of the west bank is totally illegal and unjustified. But its beside the point. The point is the Democrats do not have identicial views on the issue to Republicans. Complicius made the claim that Biden and Trump are essentially the same and that The Democrats and Republicans Parties are all the same and as bad as each other. It is not true and its FALSE EQUIVALENCE all things considered. I’ve pointed out some foreign policy differences. They are not huge but there are differences. There are also more substantial differences in social and environmental policy and views, and some significant economic differences. Then there is Agenda 25 which is dramatically different to anything the Democrats propose. Its also a steaming pile of rubbish and very bad environmentally. I think its very unwise to vote for Republican politicians right now. But thanks for your comments.
To Nigelj:
I agree wholeheartedly that free speech is important, and so is maintaining respectful, constructive discourse. However, I’d like to clarify my stance on the comment you mentioned. It’s true that I may have expressed strong frustration with the current geopolitical climate, especially the destructive nature of certain foreign policies, but this wasn’t meant to “gloat” over anyone’s suffering or destruction.
When I said, “The great reckoning is upon us… good riddance,” I was referring to a broader critique of systems and structures that, in my view, have contributed to global instability and environmental degradation. This wasn’t aimed at people or designed to incite hate, but rather to express frustration with the policies that I believe are unsustainable in the long term.
I understand how such comments can be misinterpreted, and I will take care in the future to ensure my words are not taken as incitement or wishful thinking for anyone’s harm. My ultimate aim is to discuss solutions and challenges in a way that moves the conversation forward, not to derail it or antagonize others.
Compliqius. Ok fair comment. I do think you should choose your words more wisely. As we all should at times. I thought you might have been broadly critiquing the system – but I wasnt 100% sure either. When people wish my destruction, I have to assume they might be serious and react accordingly.
Aaand the socially stunted Complicius sock puppet has officially succeeded in derailing a climate thread.
Who/what does that remind you of? The stuff of grifts.
Climate Change can not be treated in isolation from the other social forces and powers of the world. Environmental concerns are the first thing that gets discarded in a war.
There are many things that can derail the energy transition — high debt/ lack of money for one thing. Economic depression. Corruption.
Another is Lack of cooperation among nations because no one wants to accept the sacrifices if others will freeload or take economic/military advantage. Rising mistrust and competition — due to a leader’s actions in a different area — can make it impossible to gain the necessary agreements.
But, hey, Exxon was able recently to sell Iraq’s oil back to the Iraqis –reportedly for $350 million — who in turn are handing it over to China’s PetroChina. So I suppose we should all just jump up and shout “Yay”. Well, maybe not the paraplegics in our VA hospitals.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/petrochina-replace-exxon-lead-contractor-iraqs-west-qurna-1-oilfield-oil-2023-11-11/
Complicius said they knew CJ. Either the same entity, or work together in the same troll farm.
Seriously, take your political opinions elsewhere and knock it off. You’re not contributing anything to this site.
Complicius: Jill Stein supports antivaxx and other fringe ideas. Putin supports her (to help Trump). Please get some wisdom and objectivity.
[The US could use a proper Green party, but she ain’t it. She’s a bundle of ego.]
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/jill-stein-a-russian-asset-and-a-hypocrite
A comment on Complicius, 3 Oct 2024 at 4:38 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825060
“Complicius” is a further embodiment of persons approaching Real Climate discussion fora with the sole aim – to spread anti-western / anti-American propaganda.
For more details, see further stuff published on the website he refers to:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/last-dance-at-the-vampire-ball-west
I would like to propose again that if the moderators wish that people with such an agenda have also a chance to publish on Real Climate, it is enabled only in a separate part of RC forum, clearly assigned as “unmoderated”.
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz, I feel free speech is important and criticism of western society is ok, but there are limits. Nobody has to provide a platform for comments that are massively off topic, that incite hate or violence, or gloat over our alleged destruction for example Complicius on last months UV thread: “The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked. Good riddance. ” His / her whole post belongs in the borehole.
To Tomáš:
I understand that you’re concerned about the nature of some posts, and I fully support having a healthy, respectful discussion space. However, I want to clarify that my intention has never been to spread “anti-western” or “anti-American” propaganda. Rather, I strive to bring up valid geopolitical and environmental concerns that are critical to understanding the broader context of climate change and energy policy.
The link to Simplicius’ work is provided as a resource for those interested in deeper analyses of global political dynamics. While it may be critical of certain Western policies, critique is not synonymous with propaganda. Constructive criticism of any nation, including Western countries, is a vital part of informed discourse, especially when it comes to the global challenges we face today, like climate change.
The issues I raise relate directly to how global political conflicts hinder collective action on climate change, which is why I see them as on-topic. That said, I am fully open to feedback on tone or approach if it seems my posts are being interpreted differently than intended.
I also believe moderation should be fair and transparent, but I don’t think creating separate “unmoderated” sections is the best solution. Instead, discussions can benefit from clear, consistently applied guidelines about what is considered on-topic and civil in a forum like this. If we stick to the facts, remain respectful, and avoid inflammatory rhetoric, I think we can all benefit from a diverse range of perspectives.
in Re to Compliciated aka Complicius, 6 Oct 2024 at 12:10 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825125
Sir,
Simplicius site has nothing to do with “analyses”, it is clearly fed by Russian propaganda. Ukrainian nazis, decadent West, and stuff like this. You can assert an opposite to people who do not know this, not to me.
If you really would like to bring a constructive criticism, you must avoid such sources.
Best regards
Tomáš
Vance is a slick snake. here’s DeSmog on his lies and evasions.
https://www.desmog.com/2024/10/02/jd-vance-peter-thiel-alex-epstein-joe-rogan-weird-science-debate-remark-echoes-billionaire-who-powered-his-political-rise/
From yesterday at ProPublica; guess what one of the issues being targeted using FOIA’s requests is?
“Heritage Foundation Staffers Flood Federal Agencies With Thousands of Information Requests
The conservative think tank’s requests are clogging the pipeline at federal agencies in an apparent attempt to find employees a potential Trump administration would want to purge.”
.
https://www.propublica.org/article/have-government-employees-mentioned-climate-change-voting-or-gender-identity-the-heritage-foundation-wants-to-know
.
.
No matter how many times Trump, Vance & the campaign publicly deny any connections or plans; this doesn’t change the truth. They are going to do every single thing they can to thwart federal action/protection where the climate and environment are concerned. If Trump wins, combined with the near-certain loss of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate, better hope the D’s somehow can swim against the tide and gain control of the U.S. House to slow the nose cutting.
Ummm… the extreme temps of ’23 were driven by an El Nino that started well after the extremes did? I don’t claim to be a climate scientist, just an excellent, accurate analyst. Also, are we now claiming that the Pacific-located El Nino stretches into other oceans? It would have to to explain the ocean heat content across more than just the Pacific.
This is a reach from people scrambling to understand something that doesn’t fit what they previously knew. But it’s Occam’s Razor-simple: The oceans can’t hold as much heat as was believed, likely due to the speed of build-up, so we’re getting exchange with the atmosphere at overall levels that had been more stable in the past. But there are two issues: Magnitude of change and rate of change. You can go from 0 to 130 mph in a supercar safely over as little as 20 or 30 seconds, but punch the pedal to the floor and you’re likely going to lose control if you are not a skilled driver. Perhaps a bit oversimplified, but that’s the gist.
And I guess the issue of changes to ship fuels is being dismissed?
Three years from now, remember I said this.
To Killian:
“And I guess the issue of changes to ship fuels is being dismissed?”
It’s not just the reductions in IMO shipping aerosols that we should consider—there have also been significant, ongoing reductions in man-made aerosols like SO₂ worldwide. This includes reductions in the U.S., China, India, and Europe in recent years, all of which are accumulating and leading to atmospheric changes.
I kept checking the new satellite info on the website PACE Ocean Sciences, which Gavin previously championed as a crucial source of global data on this topic, including albedo changes. https://pace.oceansciences.org/data_table.htm
But eventually, I stopped waiting for updates, as it seems to have gone quiet. No updates from the RealClimate website either, which makes me wonder how significant this data was after all.
Here are some relevant references, though it seems like the discussion around this issue has largely disappeared from climate circles:
Spiegel: Aerosol Reduction in China Leading to North Pacific Heat
URL: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/weniger-ausstoss-von-aerosolen-in-china-fuehrt-zu-hitze-im-nordpazifik-a-52949ec6-37c6-46f6-8664-ab4b5bd64b3d
ECS Symposium: Event 33
URL: https://sites.google.com/tamu.edu/ecs-symposium/event33?authuser=0
Geeta Persad UT Austin Seminar: UTIG Seminar Series
URL: https://ig.utexas.edu/utig-seminar-series/2024/utig-seminar-series-geeta-persad-ut-austin/
Nature Communication: Aerosols and Climate
URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42891-2?fromPaywallRec=false
Twitter – Dan Miller: Tweet Link
URL: https://xcancel.com/danmiller999/status/1791387737859498204#m
Spiegel: Aerosol Reduction in China
URL: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/weniger-ausstoss-von-aerosolen-in-china-fuehrt-zu-hitze-im-nordpazifik-a-52949ec6-37c6-46f6-8664-ab4b5bd64b3d
Copernicus: Aerosol Reductions and Global Warming
URL: https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming
Uhm.. there is:
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/05/new-journal-nature-2023/
.
Latest update to the above post here at Real Climate was last week (10/01/2024). So not sure what is driving comments implying the opposite.
A question to our hosts: Is it possible or considered worthwhile to modify the main page that would add a “last updated” to a post’s title block for those posts still being occasionally updated with new info?
[Response: This is only the 2023 post. I have added a ‘last updated’ to the lede, which could help, and I’ve reduced the number of other ‘featured stories’ so that it stays on the top two on the main page. Thanks. – gavin]
Killian said:
Something like that. The Atlantic had a large spike concurrent with El Nino
Notably, this happened in 1878 as well — a huge El Nino in the Pacific and a large temperature spike in the Atlantic
https://figshare.com/articles/figure/AMO_spikes/27159060?file=49579239
I’m of the train of thought that there are common-mode mechanisms across the set of ocean basins. This is in contrast to teleconnections, which are argued more as one behavior is impacting another.
Common-mode:A correlation is due to a shared influence, not a direct interaction between the regions themselves. Both are responding to a common underlying driver.
Teleconnection: Regions are linked by a mechanism that transfers information, energy, or momentum over long distances. The influence is not due to a shared cause, but rather an active interaction between different parts of the system.
I think the common underlying driver is tidal orbital dynamics interacting with the seasonal cycle. Sunspot activity is way down the list of strong drivers.
Paul Pukite, I do think the idea tidal forcings causes el ninos sounds intuitively appealing. But why would a common mode driver related to tidal forcings cause regular and frequent el ninos in the pacific but only very occasional temperature spikes in the Atlantic? I would logically expect it to effect both oceans equally.
NigelJ, The model of fluid dynamics in an ocean basin involves the boundary conditions of the basin itself. This is what contains and sets the standing waves of the oceanic dipoles/tripoles such as ENSO and AMO. But since the individual ocean basins have different dimensions, the characteristic wavelengths of the standing waves will differ. No different in principal than the other kind of waves (acoustic, E-M) generated in cavities and waveguides. The outcome of this is that the generated non-linear responses will be incommensurate across the basins, but which also means that they can go in and out of synch over the years.
This is still a common-mode response, but like conventional tides, they can be out-of-phase or respond distinctly to various tidal factors across spatially separated regions.
What I have found is that a common global tidal forcing can be used to model individual responses to AMO, PDO, ENSO, IOD and others simultaneously. The modulation responses only differ, with cross-validation approaches used to avoid over-fitting. It’s a model that deserves investigation since — let’s face it — nothing else seems to be working.
There are many temperature spikes in the Atlantic, and just like the Pacific the spikes can have different magnitude. As with conventional tides, the time between the biggest will vary geographically. For AMO, the model will fit ALL the details.
https://geoenergymath.com/2024/09/23/amo-and-the-mt-tide/
I’ve got no problem with a sort of antipode view of ocean changes, but I’d like to see something about the mechanism before signing on whole-hog.
Tomas Kalisz: Another possible explanation is that the strange Tomas Kalisz tirelessly promoting Sahara irrigation scheme with annual operational costs in trillions USD in hope that he helps saving Saudi Arabia and Russia as fossil fuel sources for the world economy […] does in fact exist in your posts only”
– “TENS of trillions” annually to achieve a fraction of 0.3K cooling.
– I don’t consider you “strange” – this word has at least possibility of being brilliant but misunderstood by others. You are NEITHER.
– Instead I consider you … not the sharpest knife in a drawer, who has proven times and times again that he doesn’t understand what he reads, nor does he understand (the logical implications of) what he writes.
And one who tries to boost his ego by coming up with his absurd and unsupported by facts opinions, theories and proposals, for the typical conspiracy theorist/contrarian psychological payout: “ if 1000s of climate scientists haven’t thought of this, but I Tomáš Kalisz, without any climate knowledge, had – then I must be really, really, smart .
I have never said that you “hope” to support the regime of Russia and Saudi Arabia – the very definition of Lenin’s “useful idiots of Russia” is that they either have NO IDEA that they play straight into Russia’s hands, OR they don’t allow a thought of this, when others point it to them.
And no – all the above does not “only you exist in my posts. I merely put a dot over i – all the proof is on YOUR posts. By the fruits, not their declarations about themselves, you shall know them.
With comments from Michael Mann and several others:
.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-project-2025-would-treat-helene-survivors/
.
.
It is sadly ironic that there are many folks who will vote for Trump that will suffer the most by what he will try to do.
A new infilled global temperature dataset is now available: DCENT_MLE_v1. This dataset estimates more #globalwarming than other datasets: an increase of 1.59 °C from the late 19th century to 2023, with an uncertainty range of [1.48,1.72] °C.
https://www.wdc-climate.de/ui/entry?acronym=DCENT_MLE_v1_0
DCENT_MLE_v1 is based on the non-infilled DCENT dataset. DCENT incorporates improvements developed by the DCENT scientists over many years, such as using deck metadata (e.g., country of origin of a ship) to improve sea surface temperature estimates.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03742-x
DCENT_MLE_v1 follows the methodology of HadCRU_MLE_v1 to infill unobserved regions of the planet. HadCRU_MLE_v1 was developed to better account for nonuniform warming across the planet, such as the high rate of warming in regions of sea ice loss.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4791
Since DCENT does not yet have estimates of measurement and sampling uncertainties, I used the HadSST4 measurement and sampling uncertainties for sea surface temperatures. DCENT and HadSST4 use the same underlying sea surface temperature observations.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029867
For measurement and sampling uncertainties of land observations, these were calculated using the standard approach described by Brohan et al. (2006) and using data from GHCNv4 to better account for the distribution of weather observations in DCENT.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006548
It is only one data point sure, but long since the El Nino ended the Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly has reached record daily highs again
see https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/media%2FGYvz3PIWQAAyVSg.jpg
Significantly and constantly elevated for 18 months now.
ECMWF uses a depth of 10 meters for their Sea Surface Temperature product, while NOAA uses the top surface layer. Which makes this increase even more significant than the spike in the NOAA dataset.
Absolute temperature graph: 60N-60S 2023-2024 vs Average 1991-2020
https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/media%2FGY4h2ZXXQAAhBdv.jpg
The Daily Surface Air Temperature and Anomaly still remains elevated as well.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
In case anyone missed this, NCEI @NOAANCEI has been impacted by Hurricane Helene, as their data center is located in Asheville and as such their data are unavailable online
Breaking News!
ERA5 September Global Temperature Anomaly was +1.53°C above the 1850-1900 baseline, making it the 16th straight month above pre-2023 records.
https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/media%2FGY4Yz62asAASGjk.jpg
On the plus side, at least September wasn’t as totally f&%king nuts as last year 2023?
James Hansen in early July said – “In September, global temperature surely will fall well below the unusually-high September record (Fig. 1); with that, the 12-month running-mean global temperature (Fig. 2) will decline noticeably.”
Reflections:- http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Reflections.2024.07.12.pdf
Dr Hansen also said:
“Global SST is now at about the level that it was 12 months ago (Fig. 5), but still far from the
pre-El Nino level. Global SST will soon be falling below the elevated late-2023 levels, but
we should not expect SSTs to fall back to the pre-2023 level as the aerosol effect continues
and greenhouse gas forcing continues to grow. The moderate size of the El Nino suggests that
global temperature will probably fall to only about +1.4°C relative to the preindustrial level.
Zonal-mean SST anomalies (Fig. 6) provide an informative summary. In our interpretation,
the strong midlatitude warming in the Northern Hemisphere will not disappear. However, the
ocean has natural variability on the time scale of years and decades, so others may interpret
the warm anomalies in the North Pacific and North Atlantic differently. Given the absence of
observations of the global aerosol forcing, a little patience will provide data allowing a more
persuasive interpretation of ongoing climate change. ”
UAH TLT has reported for September with the global TLT anomaly still running at full “bananas”, (unlike the SAT anomalies which has sen some cooling). The Sept UAH TLT anomaly is +0.96ºC, up on August’s +0.88ºC and continuing within the range seen since Sept 2023 of +0.80ºC to +1.05ºC.
The Aug-to-Sept increase was a NH thing, with the NH warming (Aug +0.96ºC, Sept +1.21ºC – this the largest up-tick in UAH’s NH TLT anomalies thro’ the “bananas” period), and the SH cooling (Aug +0.81ºC, Sept +0.71ºC).
(To put these “bananas” anomalies in context, the warmest pre-“bananas” year in the UAH TLT record was 2020 +0.37ºC global, +0.41ºC NH, +0.32ºC SH.)
(The TLT “bananas” saw last year Jan-Dec 2023 average a ‘scorchisimo!!!’ +0.51ºC globally. With Jan-Sept 2024 now averaging a mega-toasty +0.91ºC, a ‘scorchisimo!!!’ 2024 can only be prevented if Oct-Dec 2024 averages below -0.68ºC which would be a new record 3-month low, that ‘frostyisimo!!’ record being currently -0.56ºC set Jan-Mar 1985.)
And a proper nerdy look at the NH & SH UAH TLT numbers through these “bananas” months, the NH have been ‘sort-of’ on the rise through the period (OLS yields +0.1ºC/year) while the SH has been cooling at roughly he same rate.
And an ultra-nerdy look, the NH Land & NH Ocean TLT numbers (which are not posted for Sept yet) show that sort-of’ rising NH trend comprises a Land component with peak “bananas” in Sept23 {+1.34ºC}, cooled thro’ to Jan24 {+0.89ºC} but since has warmed again with a new peak “bananas” set in Aug24 {+1.35ºC}. The NH Ocean component hit its peak “bananas” in April24 {+0.97ºC} and has been cooling since {to Aug24 +0.70ºC}.
Given the large Aug-to-Sept uptick in the TLT NH anomaly, the Sept NH Land & Ocean numbers will be interesting when the arrive.
To me, it seems like the latest data is once again pointing to a message that isn’t directly related to ENSO dynamics.
Complicius,
You say “once again” which would seemingly imply you are involving more than just “the latest data” in your considerations of data “pointing.”
Your comment is presumably saying that you would expect the ‘effects’ of the 2023-24 El Niño (the “ENSO dynamics”) to have been seen ended by now in the “the latest data.” Such a comment would be helpfully accompanied by an indication of what “the latest data” is being pointed at.
The SOI shows the 2023-24 El Niño kicked-off Jan 2023 and peaked in Sept-Oct 2023 and NINO3.4 shows that it peaked Nov-Dec 2023. But its impacts around the globe go on far longer. The NOAA global surface temperature data (currently the data-provision from NCEI Asheville NC is down while recovering post-Helene) shows quite a solid El Niño signal through 1997-98. 2009-10 & 2015-16 for the Northern Hemisphere Oceans with a very broad peak July-year-1 to Sept-year-2, a broad peak that perhaps is becoming more a double-peak Sept-year-1 & Sept-year-2.
(I am maintaining a graphic showing 5-month rolling averages of global, SH, NH Ocean & NH Land temperatures here – first posted 14 Feb 2024.)
Given the global temperature rise from AGW is causing such things as an increase in the stratification of ocean temperature, should we be at all surprised if the “ENSO dynamics” are changing?
So I would not be in a rush to dismiss the 2023-24 El Niño as responsible for the on-going “bananas”.
The enduring issue is that GHG models to first-order find only a monotonic change of intrinsic factors (such as temperature) with atmospheric concentration. Any other changes, such as the rapid temperature spike, are not accounted in what’s considered a mean-valued model. The effort may indeed need to be placed on how GHG modulates natural process such as ENSO, but the problem there is that there is no accepted consensus model for ENSO. That’s a general rule of science — if you can’t model the fundamentals, you have no chance of predicting a perturbation. There is also the concept of a tipping-point but that still has to follow thermodynamics relationships such as the Arrhenius rate activation law, which is not that explosive for typical reactions or changes in state. And of course, there are always the impulse functions, such as the Hunga-Tonga volcano or the sudden change in aerosols due the pandemic, which lead to impulse responses (or Green’s function responses that you can search for in recent papers).
It all reminds me of a trouble-shooting exercise that one goes through when some piece of equipment goes haywire. Except there are no systematic controls or duplicate apparatus one can use to isolate the problem.
The above was fed to ChatGPT 4 o1-preview, with a couple of insights that might be useful: https://chatgpt.com/share/67050068-4310-8005-bd20-4f7c070a9907
“What’s to be done? None of us likes turbines, or hydro, and obviously not nuclear either. So how do we get out of this mess?”
“I don’t know — how do we?”
“Whatever the answer is, it absolutely must involve stopping thinking about science as though it were a religion. Once upon a time, the Church would solve the big problems of the day with rogations and novenas and so on. People now trust science [and the latest hypothetical scenario papers like 100% WWS] in the exact same way. And that’s because we aren’t prepared to give anything up. We need to stop flying, stop consuming such ridiculous quantities of energy. But no, no, people say, anything but that. The solution has to be magical, somehow, and it’s science that’s got to give it to us. There’s no way for us just to face the problems in a realistic way.”
From “Death as told by a sapiens to a neanderthal”, Juan José Millás and Juan Luis Arsuaga
Complicious, people are addicted to energy use. Its a hard habit to break. Especially when all our jobs are dependent on it, and it provides basic goods needed to survive, and flying is such a nice thing. Thats why I promote renewables. Its a compromise solution.
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
James Charles, thanks for the link. Renewables are clearly not fully renewables until they are the dominant energy source and no longer need fossil fuels in the manufacture or supply chain. This doesnt diminish their value in reducing emissions as they gradually reduce the need for fossil fuels, and particularly because they are a step towards a fully renewable system. If the writer doesnt understand this, I feel he should pack up his computer and try another occupation. Maybe brick laying or something.
“ . . . remember that people have been developing technology for the last two
1:00:44 million years and for the last two million years each new technology was supposed to solve humanity’s problem and
1:00:50 yet over the last two million years each new technology created its own new problems which were then solved with yet
1:00:58 again new technologies so the belief that technology will be the savior is
1:01:04 complete delusion but it’s a very human delusion so people who think that are
1:01:09 deeply delusional. . . “?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsbtt-6Dpww&t=2002s
James Charles, you have raised a completly separate issue. Its interesting material, but I dont accept that technology was deveoped to “solve societies problems’ per se. It was developed to make things better and reduce manual labour. Subtle but important difference.
People certainly believe technology makes things better or people would live quite differently.
Of course technology makes some things worse – the obvious one being environmental degradation to the point we really have to confront this and figure out a solution that mitigates the problem, but I suggest without expecting people to go back to the stone age.
Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things. Nice in theory but difficult to define how much simpler we should go, and how to get there and persuade people its of real benefit to them. One can point at benefits to future generations but humans are not psychologically wired up for such long term thinking.
But commonsense does suggest to me that many people could get by with a bit less consumption, and still have a good life. But a lot less consumption, and the picture is less pleasant.
“As for green energy subsidies spurring the development of new, lower-cost clean technologies, there is nothing new about wind and solar generation that receives the lion’s share of subsidies. After almost half a century, neither are cost-competitive, especially when the additional costs of addressing their inherent intermittency are included—costs that others must pay. And new technologies, such as direct air capture of carbon, will only be commercially viable if the U.S. imposes carbon taxes of several hundred dollars per ton, which few politicians will be willing to do.
The overwhelming majority of green energy subsidies reward politically powerful constituencies and businesses whose primary purpose is not to build better energy mousetraps but to build only ones that qualify for the largest subsidies.”
https://realclearwire.com/articles/2024/09/03/do_green_energy_subsidies_work_1055865.html
complete delusion but it’s a very human delusion so people who think that are
1:01:09 deeply delusional. . . “?
Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things.
Liar.
Admins: Why is this allowed? Been going on since 2016. If you don’t want me to handle it, shouldn’t you?
James Charles says
11 Oct 2024 at 1:59 AM
Thanks for the lecture ref. I’d not seen him before. It’s a very good lecture and did like how he addressed the closing question, part of which you quoted. It led to a few other potentially good ideas, we’ll see.
I was so impressed with Professor Tadeusz Patzek I created a new info page with this lecture the centre piece of much more to come.
No matter how we frame it—there are undeniable hard limits to growth!
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150134168
thanks for the unexpected tip off.
In Re to Nigelj, 30 Sep 2024 at 2:42 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-825008
Hallo Nigel,
I would hardly assign my post as an “analysis”. I just expressed my feeling that it appears that there is still no global study clearly showing, e.g. on the basis of the same method of soil moisture evaluation as in the Chinese study
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3239/2021/essd-13-3239-2021.html
cited by Kevin, that there is no general trend towards “continent desiccation” (or an opposite thereof).
In this respect, I further expressed my feeling that there is no benchmark yet for evaluation of validity of model projections of future precipitation as they were summarized in the Carbon Brief article
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall/
cited by you, and a hope that extension of studies like the Chinese analysis of soil humidity on the entire globe perhaps helps.
I agree that cutting GHG emissions is reasonable, because lot of expected consequences of global warming raise justified concerns.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Apologies for a delayed response.
Kalisz: I just expressed my feeling
Please express your feeling in a appropriate forum (a Hallmark discussion group?).
RC is a scientific discussion group, so we don’t share our “feelings”, but falsifiable arguments.
TK: “there is still no global study clearly showing, e.g. on the basis of the same method of soil moisture evaluation as in the Chinese study
Your Chinese study uses DIRECT measurements of soil moisture “in China in 2002–2018” – ergo is IRRELAVANT to your “feelings” that “the same method” can be recreate GLOBAL precipitation patterns.C
How do you propose to MEASURE global soil moisture in “centuries / millennia” BEFORE we were started to obtain direct measurements.
Nigel has told you so – but you as ALWAYS – ignore the facts and arguments that conflict with your “feelings” that you must be very very special, to have thought of something that 1000s of scientists over decades have failed to.
in Re to Piotr, 5 Oct 2024 at 5:22 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825118
Hallo Piotr,
With respect to Chinese study cited by Kevin McKinney, I expressed the hope that the satellite measurements of soil moisture might be perhaps available also for other regions than China, and thus serve as a basis for the desired global reconstruction of soil moisture during the last two decades.
Greetings
Tomáš
Re Tomas Kalisz: I expressed the hope that the satellite measurements of soil moisture might be perhaps available also for other regions than China,
And what relevance it has to:
a) your opening “hope” that we can reconstruct global patterns of precipitation during the “centuries or millennia” BEFORE the satellites – and
b) to my direct question to that:
How do you propose to MEASURE global precipitation during “centuries/millennia” before present ?
And we can add a third:
c) Why T.Kalisz brain always drifts off on a tangent the moment his original “beliefs” and “hopes” are questioned?
Hint: As zebra says about the deniers: “they never answer the question”.
In Re to Piotr, 11 Oct 2024 at 12:25 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825329
Dear Piotr,
a) There was recently a discussion between zebra and many others what is hope, faith, belief etc. Unfortunately, too high level for me.
I would say that hope may be a kind of an optimistic approach to human life.
My hope regarding precipitation reconstructions has multiple layers. The hope that
(i) the available satellite data might perhaps enable also soil humidity evaluation beyond China is, for example, a bit stronger than the hope that
(ii) there might be proxy records for past precipitation that may amend historical precipitation records and enable a reliable precipitation reconstruction for the industrial era, and this hope is still stronger than the hope that
(iii) an even longer global precipitation reconstruction, based mostly on proxy records and thus, perhaps, covering entire holocene, could be possible as well.
b) In absence of any hint from Real Climate audience with respect to existence or non-existence of a global past precipitation reconstruction., I tried to search myself.
In an article “Assimilating monthly precipitation data in a paleoclimate
data assimilation framework”, Clim. Past, 16, 1309–1323, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1309-2020,
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/16/1309/2020/
the authors write in the paragraph bridging pages 1309-1310:
“To reconstruct local millennia-long hydroclimate variability, tree-ring series were used, for example, in southern–central England (Wilson et al., 2013) and in southern Scandinavia (Seftigen et al.,2017). Pauling et al. (2006) reconstructed a 500-year-long seasonal precipitation field over Europe back to the 16th century by using instrumental measurements, documentary data, and proxy records. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere hydroclimate variability from multi-proxy records and documentary data is available between the 9th and 20th century
(Ljungqvist et al., 2016). A similar reconstruction was also produced for southern South America for the last 500 years (Neukom et al., 2010). Centuries-long tree-ring drought atlases are available for North America (Cook et al., 2010b), Asia (Cook et al., 2010a), Europe (Cook et al., 2015), and eastern Australia and New Zealand (Palmer et al., 2015) to study long-term hydroclimate variability. Steiger et al. (2018) produced the first global hydroclimatic reconstructions at annual and seasonal resolutions by combining multi-proxy data with the Community Earth System Model Last Millennium Ensemble model simulations (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2016) over the last 2 millennia. A multi-century global reconstruction making use of observational precipitation datais still missing.”
The Steiger et al (2018) reference “A reconstruction of global hydroclimate and dynamical variables over the Common Era” is also an open access article,
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201886
It appears that the proxy data the authors used include tree rings, sediments, speleothem (stalactites and stalagmites from karst caves), glacial ice, and even coral reefs and marine sponges.
c) As a proper troll, I leave your question unanswered.
Greetings
Tomáš
To Tomas,
Regarding precipitation analysis, it’s interesting to consider global precipitation sensitivity alongside the so-called climate sensitivity (the temperature sensitivity to radiative forcing). CMIP6 indicates a precipitation sensitivity (PS) of 2 – 2.5% per K.
Model Name PS(% per K) ECS
CESM2 ~2.3% per K 5.1°C Meehl et al. (2020)
GFDL-CM4 ~2.0% per K 3.9°C Held et al. (2019)
UKESM1-0-LL ~2.1% per K 5.4°C Sellar et al. (2019)
EC-Earth3 ~2.2% per K 4.3°C Döscher et al. (2021)
IPSL-CM6A-LR ~1.8% per K 4.6°C Boucher et al. (2020)
MIROC6 ~2.0% per K 2.6°C Tatebe et al. (2019)
MRI-ESM2-0 ~1.9% per K 3.1°C Yukimoto et al. (2019)
CNRM-CM6-1 ~2.1% per K 4.8°C Voldoire et al. (2019)
MPI-ESM1-2-HR ~2.4% per K 3.0°C Mauritsen et al. (2019)
HadGEM3-GC31-LL~2.5% per K 5.5°C Williams et al. (2020)
NorESM2-LM ~2.0% per K 2.5°C Seland et al. (2020)
CanESM5 ~2.1% per K 5.6°C Swart et al. (2019)
Observations:
Adler et al. (2017) analyzed precipitation trends using the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) dataset, reporting an increase in global precipitation of about 1.1% per K: “Global Precipitation: Means, Variations, and Trends During the Satellite Era (1979–2014).” Surveys in Geophysics 38(4): 679-699.
Wentz et al. (2007) used the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) to estimate global precipitation trends, reporting that the global precipitation rate increased by 1.3 ± 0.3% per K over the period 1987–2006: “How much more rain will global warming bring?” Science 317(5835): 233-235.
These findings suggest some discrepancies between observations and model means.
Modeled Land Connections to Global Precipitation:
When comparing to Lague’s idealized CESM experiment, a suppressed evapotranspiration (ET) of -1.3 mm/day is associated with a global precipitation change of -0.17 mm/day.
This equates to a decline of -0.13 mm/day (approximately -50 mm/year) in global precipitation for each 1 mm/day of ET suppression, resulting in about a 6% reduction from a baseline of 2.5 mm/day (approximately 900 mm/year). Alternatively, this corresponds to a decline of -0.14 mm/year in global precipitation per 1 mm/year ET suppression.
Reanalysis:
For the period from 1980 to 2014, reanalysis shows a decreasing ET slope of -0.20 mm/year2, while the CMIP6 mean indicates an increase of +0.37 mm/yr2. Multi-source ensemble products such as REA, DOLCE V3.0, and CAMELE report a decline of -0.28 mm/yr2 during the same period. In contrast, land surface models (LSMs) show an increase of +0.32 mm/yr2.
Excluding outliers, reanalysis products yield a historical slope of -0.2 mm/yr2 in recent decades, which is a significant departure from model expectations of approximately +0.3 mm/yr2.
Quantification:
Reanalysis suggests a decadal change of -2 mm/year in ET, translating to a 10-year suppression of -0.3 mm in global precipitation. Over 50 years, this accumulates to an annual precipitation suppression of -1.5 mm, or about 0.17% of a baseline of 900 mm.
The 50-year period was chosen as it represents approximately the time for a 1K temperature change in the recent historical record at a rate of 0.2K/decade.
Relative to the CMIP model’s decadal change in ET (+3 mm/year), this results in a difference of -5 mm/year, leading to a 50-year suppression of precipitation of -3.5 mm (0.4% of a baseline of 900 mm/year).
Comparing the CMIP6 model precipitation sensitivity of around 2% per K with SSM/I observational data of around 1.3 ± 0.3% per K yields a model overestimation of precipitation change of about 0.4% to 0.7% per K.
This is in the ballpark of the discrepancy between reanalysis and CMIP class models for the change in terrestrial ET.
From where else could the “missing” precipitation sensitivity originate when a 2-3% change per K is consistent with theory (all else being equal).
Summary:
Allow for a theoretical precipitation sensitivity of 2-3% per K as an upper bound, as depicted in models, and subtract the underappreciated effect of direct ET suppression to align more closely with GPCP or SSM/I datasets. This demonstrates how biophysical effects can be deduced from climate observables.
Additionally, the discrepancy suggests a potential misattribution of global mean temperature change of about 0.04K – 0.1K per decade since the 1980s related to ET, as discussed previously on another thread. This appears consistent with a global precipitation sensitivity that’s lower than theoretical expectation i.e. impeded moisture cycling -> higher temps.
The IPCC AR6 WGI acknowledges that precipitation sensitivity could be as low as 1% per K in its statement: “For every degree of global warming, the global mean precipitation is projected to increase by about 1-3%.” This is despite CMIP class models never reaching such low values.
cheers
PS
as an additional note, and in line with the comment policy for this site, I encourage others to avoid explicitly or implicitly impugning the motives of others, or to personalize matters in discussion.
We each bring unique personal values, assumptions, perspective, and cultural norms to the discussion. I understand that some “believe” humanity is too insignificant to impact global climate variables in this way. Nevertheless, it is evident how such impacts can be reflected in climate observables and trends at any scale.
I understand that these dynamics may be difficult to grasp within the current forcing-feedback paradigm, and the concept of biophysical stabilization may seem daunting. However, the challenges of quantifying historical effects and the perceived inconvenience of stabilization must not result in denial.
JCM I understand that some “believe” humanity is too insignificant to impact global climate variables in this way.
Projections, my dear JCM, projections. It has been YOU, who DECLARED the effect of humans on evaporation to be “profound forcing to climates“, decried the “mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact” and blamed the degradation of environment
on climate science’s “artificial overemphasis” on a “trace gas”.
And yet despite such strong claims, you didn’t provide …. ANY NUMBERS to support them. In the absence of such numbers – the only alternative is that you have based your pronouncements on your … “beliefs” . Was it: humanity is TOO significant NOT TO DRIVE global climate in this “mindboggling” and “profound way.” ?
In contrast to your belief-based pronouncements, I came to this discussion open-minded, without any preconceived, belief-based, opinions – ready to be led by facts. To this end, I looked up some data for an elementary scale analysis. I found: that the global evaporation (Trenberth et al 2007): was 486,000 km3/yr .
Then I estimated the effect of deforestation:
Assuming 40.5 mln km2 of forests in 2021 vs 42.4 mln km2 in 1990, gives us the deforestation rate of 0.06 mln km2/yr . Even if we assumed that ALL of the 73,000 km3/yr evaporation from land comes only from the forests. this would give max. 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation. Which means that – deforestation reduces global evaporation by … -0.02 %/yr, less if we allow for non-forested land to have some evaporation.
A truly “ profound” and “mindboggling” result, eh?
But wait maybe reforestation could have somehow an outsized effect on AGW? I have checked this one too, ironically, using Lague et al. 2023, the only paper relevant to this issue that JCM brought up. Based on that – EVEN IF we converted ENTIRE CROPLANDS on Earth to a swampy forests – the effect on global GMST would a cooling by … a fraction of a fraction of 1K.
Of course we need the croplands to provide food for the 8 billion of people, so we can’t convert 100% of the croplands to swampy forests – say we have a very ambitious plan of shrinking the global agricultural land by 1/5 and reforesting it – the resulting cooling would have been: “a fraction of a fraction of 0.2K“.
MIND-BOGGLING, I am telling ya, MIND-BOGGLING!
in Re to Piotr, 11 Oct 2024 at 11:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825352
Dear Piotr,
The 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation (or let us assume a half thereof, provided that forest is replaced with cropland which also enables evaporation, only at a smaller rate) may look small, indeed. Over 30 years since 1990, it is, however, already 3000 km3 (or a half thereof).
I agree that 1500 km3 less evaporation is still a fraction of one per cent (ca 0.3%) of the base value which is about 500 000 km3. I agree that it may be too little to make a significant DIRECT contribution to the warming observed during these three decades.
These changes, however, run much longer than the last 30 years, and the cumulative value of evaporation decrease caused by deforestation and further human interferences with land hydrology may be thus in the order of 10000 km3. You will likely object that even if the cumulative value of this change during the entire anthropocene was 50000 km3, it is still less than 10% change (assuming pre-anthropocene annual global water cycle intensity slightly above 50000 km3).
I think that JCM can consider as mind boggling the circumstance that such a change in evaporation, and its possible consequences on global hydrology (please note that I assume a negligible DIRECT effect on global mean surface temperature) may be still considered as unimportant.
Can present climate science exclude with certainty that we have not prepared, during the millenia-long continental deforestation and further changes in terrestrial hydrology, the stage for present anthropogenic global warming (which seems to be indeed DIRECTLY caused by the sharp increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases during industrial era)? Are there studies convincingly excluding that the deforestation and further human interferences with terrestrial hydrology have not significantly increased climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric GHG concentration?
I do not think so, because it appears that the single study dealing with the relationship between land hydrology on one hand and global climate on the other hand seems to be still Lague 2023, which deals solely with the DIRECT effect of a change in land hydrology on global mean surface temperature, and is absolutely silent about possible effects on climate sensitivity.
You may, of course, object that it may be, from a practical point of view, irrelevant if we prepared the stage for the GHG-caused AGW by the suspected changes in terrestrial hydrology or not, because we need the cropland anyway and cannot change it back into forest. If you think so, I admit that you may be right, I do not know. I am, however, afraid that you might be also wrong. I cannot bring a clear reason why. I just think that arbitrarily assuming that certain aspect of an unexplored phenomenon is unimportant and therefore does not deserve any attention may be misleading and potentially lead the discipline into a dead end.
Greetings
Tomáš
I stumbled upon this comment elsewhere and thought I’d share it to show the naysayers are still out there.
Since you plan to write an article on global warming within a few months, here are a few sources that, to me, appear worthy of consideration, regardless of whether one is going to conclude they’re deceitful, or truthful, or something else.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1131412883669129355
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/11/fake-data-the-basis-of-climate-science/
https://notrickszone.com/2022/02/14/hundreds-more-papers-published-in-2021-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
What an array dubious critters they are. For use by anyone suffering withdrawals :-)
Try DeSmog blog. Don’t waste our time and energy with material which is almost wholly dishonest. If it was your intention to debunk a comment, you should have put it in quotes so it didn’t sound like you are that out of touch.
Verstappen Happened, thank’s for the links. I can’t help but make a few comments on Willis Eschenbachs comments. He argues that global warming is not a concern, because global deaths per million caused by weather related events have fallen over the last 100 years or so. His data looks approximately correct, but I think this is superficial analysis for the following reasons:
1) The fall in the death rate related weather events so far is due to improvements in healthcare and rescue systems and infrastructure design. Impovements will continue but we cannot assume they would be robust. The negative effect of climate change are likely to intensify in coming decades making it harder to reduce the death rate.
2) He also misses the fact that it costs money and resources every time someone is injured in a weather event and with severe weather becoming worse this will become more and more of an expensive problem.
3) His graph does show global deaths from weather events fell steeply from 1920 – 1980 and fell slightly from 1980 – 2020. Deaths from events like volcanic eruptions have generally fallen at a steady rate from 1920 – 2000. He missed the fact that global deaths from weather events stopped falling nearly as steeply, approximately when the modern global warming period started in the late 1970s, – which shows that climate change is arguably already having a negative effect by stopping the steep decline in the global death rate. There may be some other factors involved, but you can guarantee climate change is a big one, because we know heatwaves and floods etc have got worse since about the late 1970’s from research studies. So Eshenback should go back to the drawing board and rethink his conclusions.
Eschenbach has a long history of simplistic and/or misleading ‘analyses’. Tamino has taken many of them down over the years.
“global warming is not a concern,”?
Climate has changed before?
“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are
1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but
1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over
1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years
1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your
1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature
1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ako03Bjxv70
Burn the Planet and Lock Up the Dissidents
The fossil fuel industry, and the politician class they own, have no intention of halting the ecocide. As the climate crisis worsens, so do the laws and security measures to keep us in bondage.
Chris Hedges
Oct 6
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/burn-the-planet-and-lock-up-the-dissidents
Norfolk, U.K. — I am sitting with Roger Hallam, his gray hair pulled back in a ponytail, in the visitor’s room at HM Prison Wayland. On the walls are large photographs of families picnicking on lawns, verdant meadows and children playing. The juxtaposition of the photographs, no doubt hung to give the prison visiting room a homey feel, is jarring. There is no escaping, especially with prison guards circulating around us, where we are. Roger and I sit on squat upholstered chairs and face each other across from a low, white plastic table. Roger’s lanky frame tries to adjust to furniture designed to accommodate children.
Roger, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, is serving a five-year prison sentence for “causing a public nuisance without reasonable excuse.”
He and his four co-defendants, who each received four-year sentences, were convicted for hosting a Zoom call in 2022 to organize activists to climb onto bridges over the M25, the main motorway that circles Greater London. The short-term aim was to stop traffic. The long-term aim was to force the government to stop new oil and gas licenses.
This was not a symbolic protest, exemplified by protesters hurling tomato soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, preserved by protective glass, in the National Gallery in London. It was a protest designed to disrupt, as it did, commerce and the machinery of state. Although even the protestors who tossed soup at the painting, which was not damaged, received harsh prison terms of nearly three years.
Global warming is expected to exceed 1.5 degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) in the 2020s and 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit) before 2050, according to a 2023 study published in the Oxford Open Climate Change journal. NASA scientists warn that “a 2-degree rise in global temperatures is considered a critical threshold above which dangerous and cascading effects of human-generated climate change will occur.”
The more the planet warms, the more extreme events such as severe droughts, heat waves, intense storms, and heavy rainfall intensify. The extinction of animal and plant life — one million plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction — accelerates.
We are on the verge of tipping points, thresholds beyond which ice sheets, ocean circulation patterns, and other components of the climate system sustain and accelerate irreversible changes. There are also tipping points in ecosystems, which can become so degraded that no effort to save them can halt the effects of runaway climate change. At that point “feedback loops” see environmental catastrophes accelerate each other. The game will be up. Nothing will save us.
Mass death from climate disasters is becoming the norm. The official death toll from Hurricane Helene is at least 227, making it the deadliest in mainland U.S. since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In North Carolina, South Carolina and northern Georgia 1.1 million people remain without power. Mountain towns, without electricity and cell phone service, are cut off. Hundreds of people are missing with many of them feared dead. Anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 people were killed last year in a single night by Cyclone Daniel in Libya.
These climate catastrophes, which occur routinely in the Global South, will soon characterize life for all of us.
“A billion refugees, the worst episode of suffering in human history,” Roger says of the 2 degrees Celsius mark, “and then human extinction.”
And yet with the devastation outside their doors, including the Southwest United States enduring the highest temperatures ever recorded in October — 117 degrees Fahrenheit in Palm Springs — the global oligarchs have no intention of risking their privilege and power by disrupting an economy driven by fossil fuel and animal agriculture, which is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock and their byproducts account for 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) released each year into the atmosphere and 51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of a rational response, we get more drilling and oil leases, more catastrophic storms, more wildfires, more droughts, toxic factory farms, the charade of the U.N. Conference of the Parties (COP) summits, the eradication of the rain forests and the false panacea of geoengineering, carbon capture and artificial intelligence.
Darmah,
The punishment meted-out to the Just Stop Oil protesters is no real surprise given the government-of-the-day was happily embracing climate change deniers. The M25 protest of Nov 2022 was particularly effective making more than a splash – the four-consecutive-day Just Stop Oil protest ” left the M25 “compromised” for more than 120 hours,” something government could not dismiss without making an example.
Other protests also impact the national consciousness – last year stunts at the UK’s Chelsea Flower Show and World Snooker Championship made prime-time TV – but are more likely to have sent the message that climate change mitigation policies are being driven by nut-cases than persuade folk that the government’s mitigation policies are failing.
Quite what can be done to get the UK & other countries to ramp-up their Net-Zero policies is not clear. The new UK government isn’t riven with over climate deniers but is hardily grasping the nettle.
It was last year talking about £28 billion/year in green governmental investment plans but by the time they stood for election this July, that had been converted into a commitment to “get Britain back on track to meet our climate targets” and “accelerating to net-zero” with the cash commitments reduced by 88% to just {8.3/5 +6.6/5 +0.5 =} £3.5 billion/year.
Just last week there was a mainly-anodyne announcement (maybe extra to this £3.5B/y cash commitment) of {21.7/25 =} £0.9 billion/year part-financing two CCS projects, a “gamechanging technology (which) will bring 4,000 good jobs and billions of private investment into Teesside and Merseyside – and support 50,000 jobs in the long term, while powering up the rest of the country. Its quoted annual capacity is just 2% of UK emissions. A bigger CCS project local to me which was to use saline aquifers rather than old oil wells was the wrong end of the country politically (and raising a bit of a stink with the southern natives due to the proposed CO2 pipeline) so the developer (ExxonMobil) have now cancelled it.
The Just Stop Oil protests have peaked through October in past years. Whether having a new government will lead to less protests is yet to be seen. (Post the election, there have been just a couple of recorded protests.) But the new Prime Minister has called Just Stop Oil pathetic so I would expect the protesting to continue.
Re. crypto which you mention…
I have a hard time understanding why crypto even exists except in classic Thorstein Veblen terms of conspicuous waste. It wouldn’t in a rational world. I mean burning up X dollars of FF to produce a number with zero intrinsic value except to record that you expended X dollars of energy seems more like a mere sales receipt than anything of value. At least most conspicuous waste involves spending on frivolity. and shallow entertainment.
Want to burn up 10 grand to produce a number? Fine if it floats your boat. Don’t expect anyone but a fool to buy it, though. Presently there a lot of fools. But then a lot of people feel foolish after every bubble.
I hope this reaches people in time, presentation by Jeff Masters tonight on Hurricane Milton (bearing down at catastrophic strength on Tampa area in eastern Florida). He is one of the world’s experts on tropical storms:
There are other presentations at the main YouTube channel, including one by Mike Mann. https://https://www.youtube.com/@HarrisBlueSkiesBlueWaters [though fundraising is a part, it’s mostly informative]
Thank you Susan for the links. I just finished watching the 8:30 edt presentation and found it worthwhile, yet perhaps not surprisingly, not exactly welcoming for someone not a liberal. Yes, I know it was a Harris fundraiser, but anyway…
Not looking for sympathy or anything of the like, but these are lonely days for me, a conservative who respects science, sees the need for rapid action, and advocates for efficient use of tax dollars targeted at change free of the slog of government bureaucracies:
.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/why-is-the-feds-ev-charger-rollout-so-slow-these-people-know/
.
David: Jeff Masters was well organized and interesting (he always is). The rest, not so much. Sorry about that.
It is unfortunate. that rational Republicans no longer have a home. If you have access, Washington Post is doing a series on what government does and does well. Unfortunately, since Reagan greed and profit have come to dominate the private sector.
You’re right that bureaucracy is a complicated web, out of shape and proportion and often not fit for purpose. It is particularly effective when used to obstruct positive shifts to cleaner energy and affordable housing.
This is a fascinating story about a coal mining engineer who figured out how to prevent mine collapses and finally after decades of effort managed to get mines to stop putting profits over lives. Father was Princeton, but the son refused the patronage and got busy. It reads like a thriller, and it saved lives. In this case government regulation, against all odds, was the solution, not the problem.
The Canary – Gift link -> https://wapo.st/4dPYZV9
[gift links with WaPo are intrusive, unfortunately]
The most recent one is about the IRS fighting corruption. NOAA, NWS and NASA are other examples of agencies which excel.
You might also enjoy some of the material posted by Peter Sinclair, though recently he’s been distracted by politics (who isn’t, hope it takes a break after November (what a hope).
https://thinc.blog/
Susan, thank you so very much for “The Canary” link. What an amazing story it is to me on so many levels! I can’t and won’t explain here why, but the tale truly touched me. And an added bonus: I now know what mille-feuille is :-)
And you’re of course correct; there are many great people and effective components of the federal government. And that gets lost and overlooked far too often in discussion. Sometimes as easily as my comment’s clumsy implication “slog of government bureaucracies” suggests.
Thank you again Susan, that story has brightened my evening.
David: I am reading your E&E news article with interest.
Thank you also for the follow-up on the birds in the hurricane (Mongabay).
It is unfortunate that compromise and design by committee has led away from a fully operational shift to real clean energy (NatGas and Blue hydrogen are not ‘clean’ – but of course we need the ‘bridge’).
I believe Russell is another honest conservative without a proper ‘home’.
Error in previous comment, here’s the correct link for the main video channel
https://www.youtube.com/@HarrisBlueSkiesBlueWaters
Milton…
Sustained winds: 95 mph increase in 24 hours currently 175 mph at 1pm Monday
Pressure drop: 77 millibars decrease in the same 24 hour period
.
Can’t wait to hear the comments from the two who campaign for the Presidency on this perfectly named hurricane as it moves towards Florida’s west coast. At least it is forecast to weaken to “just” a Cat. 3 at landfall. I just don’t understand what has happened to my fellow Americans decision making.
Indeed!
I can’t help but wonder whether, and how much, of the conspiracy-mongering about the response to Helene and the prospective response to Milton on display from Trump and down to the least of his minions is due not just to opportunistic smearing of the opposition, but also to distract from the catastrophe itself, and particularly the role of climate change in exacerbating it?
That was an unnecessarily wordy sentence, so let me try again:
Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
Kevin: Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
Yes.
Yes! to your last question.
Because Trump has perfected the “tell the lie repeatedly, the more exaggerated and full of b.s., the better, anything to change the focus.” And my party is chock full of folks who largely fall into one of two camps gobbling his crap up:
The true believers and those who mimic the true belief to satisfy unrelated anger at the need for change in the country, and
.
Those who know better, but keep their mouths shut bidding time for Trump’s time to pass.
Kevin McK: You give them too much credit. They attack anything and everything sane, rational, and/or civilized because they can. Don’t sanewash Trump, or give any credit to his followers who will say or do anything to hurt and/or eliminate opposition (including violence promotion).
Federal, state, and local authorities are begging people to not listen, since they can’t get the monsters to stop being monstrous. Here’s FEMA:
All local office holders, many of whom are Republican, are begging people not to listen.
KM: Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
BPL: I doubt it’s that sophisticated. Trump just wants to blame Harris and Democrats for anything he can think of.
Milton 17:02z Vortex Data Message… wonder how the birds will make out?
.
924
URNT12 KNHC 071727
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE AL142024
A. 07/17:02:00Z
B. 21.69 deg N 091.43 deg W
C. 700 mb 2354 m
D. 912 mb
E. 290 deg 11 kt
F. CLOSED
G. C8
H. 177 kt
I. 305 deg 5 nm 17:00:30Z
J. 036 deg 154 kt
K. 305 deg 5 nm 17:00:30Z
L. 166 kt
M. 054 deg 5 nm 17:03:30Z
N. 151 deg 155 kt
O. 054 deg 5 nm 17:03:30Z
P. 10 C / 3067 m
Q. 21 C / 3050 m
R. 3 C / NA
S. 12345 / 7
T. 0.02 / 0.5 nm
U. AF309 0814A MILTON OB 33
MAX FL WIND 158 KT 226 / 5 NM 15:40:00Z
SUSTAINED MDT, OCNL SVR TURB IN NW AND NE EYEWALLS, OBSERVED FLOCKS OF BIRDS WITHIN THE EYE
;
David: “Milton 17:02z Vortex Data Message… OBSERVED FLOCKS OF BIRDS WITHIN THE EYE wonder how the birds will make out?”
Many may not … – they are observed in the eye because they couldn’t make out ?.
Probably too high to fly up above the hurricane wall. They could stay within the eye until it makes the landfall and then weakens – but this would mean constant keeping up with the moving eye – you can’t rest on the water for too long. Then again some birds are sleeping during the flight, so for some it may be doable.
Unless you used “make out” in the N.American meaning “kiss and caress amorously” – then I don’t have the foggiest ….
“Unless you used “make out” in the N.American meaning “kiss and caress amorously” – then I don’t have the foggiest ….”
Ha! That made me chuckle Piotr.
I came across this at the Yale CC Milton story comments section earlier today (thank you Susan Anderson for your past heads up about this site) about the matter:
.
https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2024/10/birds-caught-in-the-eye-of-hurricane-milton/
.
So it looks like at least some types of birds just turn up their beaks at my concern for them being caught in this predicament.
Another from Yale CC, interview with Gavin
https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview
Very good interview and honest responses
I added my Disqus comment to the article at the end.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview#comment-6567932855
Reply to Paul Pukite
Thank you for sharing that interview.
a short quote from GS goes:
“And it’s still pretty much, I would say, amateur hour in terms of assessing what actually happened in 2023.
While it’s true that no (known) single potential cause accounts for the entire +0.2°C temperature anomaly, that’s no reason to dismiss any of the proposed explanations outright. In fact, it’s entirely plausible that multiple factors—perhaps shifts in various warming drivers—are acting in combination, leading to the sharp rise in temperatures we’ve seen in 2023 and continuing into 2024.
The complexity of the climate system often requires a multi-faceted approach to understanding sudden changes. Rather than searching for a singular explanation, we should be open to the possibility that several contributing causes may be interacting in unison, reinforcing one another in ways we haven’t fully anticipated.
Regarding https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview, someone on twitter noticed that not one mention of CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas, climate change, global warming in the article. The author of the article can choose what to quote Gavin on, so perhaps he did at some point in the full interview. IPCC was mentioned, for example.
Paul Pukite: “ Regarding https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview, someone on twitter noticed that not one mention of CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas, climate change, global warming in the article.”
Maybe that Someone on twitter doesn’t know that:
– 1.5 years is NOT “climate” (for that you need trends surviving decades)
– “CO2″, “GHG” “greenhouse gas” are important to CLIMATE change, and climatic “global warming”, but NOT important to the SHORT-TERM (1.5 year) fluctuations, for the simple reason that their concentrations do NOT change ENOUGH over such a short time-scale to alter their radiative forcing in any meaningful amount
– for that – you’d need forcings that do change significantly over such a short time-scale:
– air sea fluxes of heat (ENSO),
– water vapour and SO2 from volcanic eruptions,
– reductions in aerosol emissions from ships (less direct reflection of solar radiation by SO2 and fewer aerosol particles to function as CCNs (cloud condensation nuclei): => fewer clouds where it matters (to the albedo) most – over the low and mid latitude ocean.
Thus – the Great Twitter Mystery of Paul Pukite solved!
No need to invoke editorial dishonesty of the interviewer, nor, alternatively, imply that Gavin is retreating from his previous position that “Climate change” and “Global warming” are driven by increases in ” CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas” .
Occam’s razor, my dear Pukite!
@whut – Whut!!!!
Elizabeth Kolbert interview Gavin Schmidt.
Yale Environment is a broad platform, so this appears to have been a focused interview for a specific purpose, and of great value as such. Your Twitter-based complainant seems irrelevant. Reminds me of this (#15, for example):
https://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
Piotr, In the past, you have criticized my view of the importance of being able to forecast El Nino events, for the number of lives it impacts across the world
e.g. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/a-nobel-pursuit/#comment-796871 , I said:
Yet here is Gavin Schmidt saying essentially the same thing in the Yale CC interview:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview
Now you seem upset at me for pointing out that climate scientists are focusing their attention on these temperature spikes at the expense of the secular long-term trend due to GHGs. If that’s indeed the case, the discussion question can lead with either (1) Is there something else that man or nature is doing that is making these erratic cycles even more mysterious or (2) Are the models for El Nino, AMO, PDO not that great to begin with, and admit that they never have been that good beyond the year following the spring predictability barrier.
This is in the context of Gavin saying the past relationship patterns are “no longer any good”.
Paul Pukite, thank you for the link to the story and reference to your comment.
A couple of things, and perhaps I’m just dense, but I don’t find a lack of specific mention on Gavin’s part regarding CO2, or the terms “climate change” and “global warming” at this point curious. Perhaps it was an editorial choice, but if not, at this point of the investigation, that doesn’t strike me as particularly telling one way or the other. If there was something abruptly wayward in recent CO2 trends, then yes, but since not, excluding CO2 mention doesn’t seem exceptional. And imo regarding “climate change” and “global warming;” aren’t these terms better invoked in longer-‘range timeframes, not when discussing 2023 (at this point anyway)? Particularly since what caused the variance is still being researched. Like many, it frustrates me when many in the media automatically say “climate change” when reporting on what was observed in 2023.
.
.
Dharma, you in part wrote “While it’s true that no (known) single potential cause accounts for the entire +0.2°C temperature anomaly, that’s no reason to dismiss any of the proposed explanations… Rather than searching for a singular explanation, we should be open to the possibility that several contributing causes may be interacting in unison, reinforcing one another in ways we haven’t fully anticipated.”
Regarding interview stories in the media, whether this story or in other previous story interviews of climate scientists I’ve read in the last year, none I recall indicate a search for a singular explanation is being pursued in lieu of a combination of factors, or vice-versa, or something that is new/unexpected.
If your commentary was focused just on research itself, I defer to those of you who are far more qualified in climate research to opine.
1 Given the hurricanes, Any survivalists out there? US News Media has suggested heading for northern US states but wildfires in Minnesota/Canada and huge flooding in mountainous Vermont indicates reporters not best sources of advice. Plus –Duluth?
2) Various actions by our billionaires suggest they are morons—spending hundreds of $millions for mansions on Miami’s fortified Indian Creek island – about 6 feet? above sea level.
https://blog.augurisk.com/indian-creek-risk/
3) I had heard Jem Bendell (Deep Adaptation) left England and wondered what bolthole he might be heading to. Recently found out he bought a farm in Indonesia’s Bali. Which seemed very strange given how close it is to equator – until I saw this:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7079/historic-tropical-cyclone-tracks
4) Bali is in the narrow channel where typhoons don’t occur. Plus its temps hover around 85 deg F – perhaps due to being an island surrounded by deep ocean. Bali checks a few other boxes – very fertile soil, lots of rainfall and drinking water, mountains to give elevation for lower temps. Plus one needs a plan B exit –and in an apocalypse sailboats are the only way to carry heavy food/supplies long distances. Indonesia island chain gives access to Asia or to Australia.
5) However, there are those 4 billion people just to the north –but Bendell may think Bali’s peaceful Hinduism will be a shield. Be a shame to tell him about Our Man in Jakarta — Suharto.
6) Several billionaires have bought land (or entire islands) in Hawaii (4th largest collection of US military personnel in US) and Peter Thiel picked up New Zealand land/citizenship in the duty free shop. Pierre Omidyar seems to take the hedge fund approach — mansions in Hawaii, Nevada and on island off France — with a long range jet to let him play whack-a mole with climate change.
Don Williams: – “2) Various actions by our billionaires suggest they are morons—spending hundreds of $millions for mansions on Miami’s fortified Indian Creek island – about 6 feet? above sea level.>/i>
I’d suggest a slightly different track of Hurricane Milton (or another Cat 5 hurricane inbound from the Atlantic) passing over or near Indian Creek Island would likely inundate these ‘billionaire havens’. I’d suggest it’s only a matter of time as the Earth System continues to warm further and SLR accelerates.
Per the US National Hurricane Center & Central Pacific Hurricane Centre, re Hurricane Milton Advisory Number 15, as at 04 PM CDT Tuesday October 08, 2024, the Peak Storm Surge Forecast shows a range of expected storm surges along most of the Florida and South Carolina coastlines and all of the Georgia coastline. The Tampa Bay area, between Anclote River and Englewood are expected to see storm surges of 10-15 feet.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/213144.shtml?peakSurge#contents
Per NOAA’s Feb 2022 report titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines, Table 2.2 shows observation-based extrapolation and regionalized global mean sea level scenario–based estimates, in meters, of relative sea level in 2050 relative to a baseline of 2000 for eight coastal regions of the United States. For the Southeast region of the US, for the Intermediate-High scenario (closest to the observation-based extrapolation) the projected SLR is 0.43 [0.32, 0.58] m (relative to year-2000 baseline).
https://sealevel.globalchange.gov/resources/2022-sea-level-rise-technical-report/
In the YouTube video titled sea level rise – is Greenland beyond its tipping point?, published 29 Jul 2024, duration 04:19, glaciologist Professor Dr Jason Box, from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, said from time interval 0:01:50:
“Now if climate continues warming, which is more than likely, then the loss commitment grows. My best guess, if I had to put out numbers; so by 2050, 40 centimetres above 2000 levels; and then by the year 2100, 150 centimetres, or 1.5 metres above the 2000 level, which is something like four feet. Those numbers follow the dashed-red curve on the IPCC’s 6th Assessment, which represents the upper 5-percentile of the model calculations, because the model calculations don’t deliver ice as quickly as is observed. If you take the last two decades of observations, the models don’t even reproduce that until 40 years from now.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jpPXcqNXpE&t=110s
SLR is relentless and accelerating. I would not be at all surprised to see the global mean rate of SLR accelerate from about 5 mm/year observed now (i.e. in year-2024), to about 10 mm/year sometime in the 2030s, and accelerate further to 20 mm/year perhaps by the late 2040s.
Any comments from our climate scientist hosts on this?
“Global emission reduction efforts continue to be insufficient to meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. This makes the systematic exploration of so-called overshoot pathways that temporarily exceed a targeted global warming limit before drawing temperatures back down to safer levels a priority for science and policy. Here we show that global and regional climate change and associated risks after an overshoot are different from a world that avoids it … we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/10/09/overshoot-climate-targets-one-point-five/
America has experienced two huge Atlantic Ocean hurricanes in a matter of weeks after a mostly quiet hurricane season. I notice some experts saying its all unusual. But haven’t the climate experts generally being telling us global warming would cause a decease in the numbers of moderately sized hurricanes, and an increase in the numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes? So isnt this at least a possible validation of their models?
Nigelj: I never like trying to attribute any single event directly to climate change. A single event is deterministic, climate is probabilistic, so climate change effectively changes the probability of weather-related events happening. Explosive intensification as with hurricane Milton always has a chance of happening with or without climate change, it needs warm SSTs combined with near perfect atmospheric conditions, but climate change is likely making these explosive intensification events more likely. Thinking logically, a warmer ocean rasies the maximum potential intensity, so when perfect atmospheric conditions come along – boom, you get a hurricane that is more intense than it would have been if the ocean underneath it was half a degree cooler.
As far as the Atlantic hurricane season as a whole is concerned, it has been an oddball. We started off with a record breaking hurricane in July followed by an extended quiet period during the peak season, a period which should have been very active given the cool-neutral ENSO and very warm SSTs across the tropical Atlantic. This hiatus is why the seasonal forecasts (including mine) have been way over what has been observed even if the impacts have been consistent with a hyper-active season (>=160 ACE). There is a chance we might get to the huperactive threshold with several weeks of the season left, but we are not getting to the 200+ ACE seasonal forecasts. The suggested reasons for this unexpected quiet period is a combination of factors: 1. A northerly displaced ITCZ resulting in easterly waves departing Africa further north into less favourable conditions. 2. A persistent strongly positive NAO, which aside from bringing wet conditions to the northern half of the UK, resulted in pressure patterns that advected dry stable mid-latitude air into the sub-tropics, which was ingested into these easterly waves, killing further development. Once we got past peak season, the ITCZ moved back south and MDR activity was kick-started with Kirk and Leslie. La Nina or cool-neutral ENSO tends to reduce vertical wind shear across the Caribbean Sea and Gulf late season, and with the near record warm SSTs in the Gulf, this aided in the formation and intensification of Helene and Milton. In contrast to the Atlantic, both sides of the Pacific ocean have been very quiet for tropical cyclone activity, reminds me of the strong La Nina year of 2010.
I’m not convinced this year alone is sufficient as a validation of the prediction of a reduction in hurricanes and an increase in intense hurricanes. This year seems to be heavily influenced by ENSO combined with intra-seasonal factors. Whether those intra-seasonal factors amongst others are likely to be influenced by climate change in a way that is compatible with a reduction in hurricane numbers I don’t know.
1. (specific) https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/10/without-climate-change-hurricane-milton-would-have-hit-as-a-cat-2-not-a-cat-3/ [and many others]
2. (general) https://climateattribution.org/
also, an easier read on developing science:
https://www.climatecentral.org/attribution-science
Adam Lea (and MAR and SA), thank’s for the constructive replies!
Nigelj,
The “mostly quiet season” was not what was forecast back pre-season. The forecasts were for a particularly busy season and as Adam Lea says, the early season activity was followed by an unexpected ‘entirely quiet period’. The ultra-activity was very late in arriving.
October 2024 has clocked up ACE=62 so-far, which means it is already the 2nd-most active October (since 2000, the active Octobers now exceeded by 2024 running 2005 ACE=52, 2018 =41, 2020 =38, 2012 =33.)
The still-record-holding October 2016 achieved ACE=66 and did this with just two storms, both strong & long-lasting, Matthew which struck the US East coast a glancing blow (a path not dissimilar to the 2019 Hurricane Dorian that Trump famously forecast would make a proper landfall & go on to impact Alabama) & the mid-Atlantic Nadine.
The climatology suggests 2024 could still top October 2016’s ACE=66, perhaps adding significantly to the ACE=140 of the 2024-season-so-far. (The 1991-2020 average ACE increase Oct 11th-31st adds 12, & adds 18 by end-of-year, this for an average year.) The last couple of decades shows that big storms can still appear late in the season post mid-October, the likes of Wilma of 2005 (ACE=39) or Gonzalo 2014 (ACE=25) or the handful of short-sharp storms of 2020 (totaling ACE=55).
But with the 2024 season-so-far at ACE=140, reaching the ACE=220+ of the pre-season forecasts will require a really powerful end to the season.
NEW book to put under the christmas tree this December:
Jean-Baptiste Fressoz
More and More and More
An All-Consuming History of Energy
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/464145/more-and-more-and-more-by-fressoz-jean-baptiste/9780241718896
Summary
A radical new history of energy and humanity’s insatiable need for resources that will change the way we talk about climate change
It has become habitual to think of our relationship with energy as one of transition: with wood superseded by coal, coal by oil, oil by nuclear and then at some future point all replaced by green sources. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’s devastating but unnervingly entertaining book shows what an extraordinary delusion this is. Far from the industrial era passing through a series of transformations, each new phase has in practice remained almost wholly entangled with the previous one. Indeed the very idea of transition turns out to be untrue.
The author shares the same acute anxiety about the need for a green transition as the rest of us, but shows how, disastrously, our industrial history has in fact been based on symbiosis, with each major energy source feeding off the others. Using a fascinating array of examples, Fressoz describes how we have gorged on all forms of energy – with whole forests needed to prop up coal mines, coal remaining central to the creation of innumerable new products and oil still central to our lives. The world now burns more wood and coal than ever before.
This book reveals an uncomfortable truth: ‘transition’ was originally itself promoted by energy companies, not as a genuine plan, but as a means to put off any meaningful change. More and More and More forces its readers to understand the modern world in all its voracious reality, and the true nature of the challenges heading our way.
Reviews
This is truly is a radically and very necessary new history of energy. A rich, unnerving, funny and utterly compelling account, it destabilises our understanding again and again. With uncanny examples, he makes the invisible obvious, and shows how the obvious was made invisible by forms of understanding in which even climate activists operate. This remarkable material and intellectual history will change our minds about one of the most important challenges humanity currently faces, indeed it gives us a new way of thinking about the profound challenge decarbonisation represents
David Edgerton, author of The Shock of the Old and The Rise and Fall of the British Nation
Oh, it’s much worse than that. We in the USA have $36 Trillion in federal debt, our total debt is much larger and the derivatives casino is about $6333 Trillion. If the growth in energy consumption slows (e.g, the AI and crypto bubbles pop) then the music slows and begins heading to a stop. Remember 2008?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prnY2FOxns
Someone remind me — what’s the budget for the energy transition?
Correction: Derivatives casino is around $633 point 3. Trillion. Dropped a decimal point.
Don, you raise a valid concern about debt and financial instability, but Fressoz’s point is focused on the myth of smooth energy transitions. Instead of cleanly moving from one energy source to another, we’ve simply added layers—burning more coal, wood, and oil than ever, even as we talk about renewables.
Your point on financial fragility does connect to this: how do we move toward true sustainability without triggering economic collapse? That’s the challenge. The question isn’t just about the budget for the energy transition—it’s whether our current system can handle the shift at all.
In my view energy companies have done some things wrong, for example toxic waste, and promoting climate change denial, but blaming them for our high levels energy use and societies wider sustainability problems doesnt make a lot of sense to me. Neither does suggesting the energy companies have deliberately put off considering meaningful change to a more restrained, sustainable use of energy. This is because in capitalist systems companies exist to make a profit and promoting low levels of energy use would directly conflict with the profit goal. I doubt that energy companies hundreds of years ago even had decent information on availablity of resources and whether there could be a scarcity problem.
.
If we want a “plan” for societies levels of energy use and general lifestyle it would probably have to come from government. Most people would probably find that too intrusive, so it probbaly isnt going to happen. Personally I expect governmnets to have strong health and safety and envionmental laws, but I wouldnt want them telling me how much energy, food, or clothing etc,etc we can consume.
Nigelj, thanks for your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood the main argument of Fressoz’s book and my point in sharing it. The central issue here is not about blaming energy companies for all of society’s sustainability problems or suggesting they deliberately avoided sustainable practices for centuries. Instead, Fressoz’s work highlights how the narrative of “energy transition”—the idea that one energy source will fully replace the previous one—has been misleading and historically untrue. Each energy source has continued to exist and grow alongside the others, and the concept of transition was, in many ways, promoted by the energy industry to defer any true, systemic change in how we approach resource use.
The idea isn’t that energy companies should have promoted lower energy use for profit’s sake but that the narrative of transition has allowed us to avoid addressing the reality that every new energy phase has been built on top of the last, not as a replacement. The world still burns more coal and wood today than ever before, despite the rhetoric of “transitioning” to oil or cleaner energy.
So, this isn’t an issue of whether companies knew about scarcity hundreds of years ago or whether governments should regulate individual consumption. It’s about understanding that the concept of “transition” itself has been used to justify expanding our energy appetites while delaying meaningful shifts to sustainability. Fressoz challenges us to see that this pattern has deep historical roots, which makes the current conversation around green energy transitions more complex than it first appears.
Dharma.
You said “the idea that one energy source will fully replace the previous one—has been misleading and historically untrue. Each energy source has continued to exist and grow alongside the others, and the concept of transition was, in many ways, promoted by the energy industry to defer any true, systemic change in how we approach resource use.”
Yes new energy sources didnt completely replace the older energy sources. Coal use continued alongside the newer use of oil, although the reasons were obvious: coal happened to suit electricity generation while oil suited conversion into petrol for automobiles .
However I’m not aware that there was some sort of consensus that experts or even the public really thought that every new energy source would completely replace the old source. I would be interested if you have evidence otherwise, without me having to buy the book right now. I might eventually buy it becaus eit does look thought provoking.
And of course the past trend of nwe energy sources not completely replacing older sources can’t be extrapolated into the future. Renewables such as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal might replace all other sources. Although even if they didn’t IMHO it’s not necessarily a problem, if the other energy sources are low carbon, like nuclear power.
The idea of a concept of transition was to defer systemic change doesnt sound plausible. It seems implausiblee that energy companies deliberately developed new energy sources to avoid confronting the fact that there would be global warming. This was not seriously on anyones radar hundreds of years ago.
It also seems unlikely the companies promoted new energy sources to avoid confronting the need for systemic change, whatever this means. I assumed the writer might have meant lower levels of energy use. Its hard to know what ELSE the writer would have meant. But its certainly not clear why energy companies or governments would worry about a possible need for lower levels of energy use, because back then resources seems near infinite, population was much lower and also because society dealt with pollution issues as they arose in pragmatic ways, sometimes well, sometimes badly.
Putting it simply its not clear why anyone back then would have considered the need for systemic change given the circumstances and knowledge at that time.
Its far more likely energy companies ( and perhaps society at large) were just being practical. For example Europe started to run short of timber so naturally energy companies developed coal and oil to meet energy demands and to make a proft. Occams Razor. Im not saying this was necessarily wise. Just that the author is reading too much into things.
This is what I was trying to say previously, but maybe not very clearly.
But of course we have 8 billion people now, and much greater environmental impacts, and a much better understanding of resource issues and limits, environmental impacts, and how we are pushing planetary boundaries, so some sort of transition to a more sustainable lower environmental impacts system is more on peoples radar, and seems entirely desirable.
The question is how we achieve that transition to a more sustainable world, and without totally destabilsing the economy (as you mention elsewhere, and its been a concern of mine also). I would suggest it might have to be a bit slow or gradual, so the human systems can adapt, and will have to make practical compromises, other than to say the climate problem needs urgent attention. And right now the only useful approach to the climate issue that looks plausible overall to me is renewables. There are other possibilities, but they look problematic and very unlikely to get any significant traction with people.
Wildlife numbers fall by 73% in 50 years, global stocktake finds
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wildlife-numbers-fall-73-50-002705402.html
Snippets:
“Tom Oliver, professor of ecology at the University of Reading, who is unconnected with the report, said when this information was combined with other datasets, insect declines for example, “we can piece together a robust – and worrying – picture of global biodiversity collapse”.
….
“Please don’t just feel sad about the loss of nature,” Mr Barrett said.
“Be aware that this is now a fundamental threat to humanity and we’ve really got to do something now.”
Valentina Marconi, from the Zoological Society of London’s Institute of Zoology, told BBC News the natural world was in a “precarious position” but with urgent, collective action from world leaders “we still have the chance to reverse this”.
Behind it all are our growing numbers.
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/
Tales from the Carbon Energy Pulse
How Ancient Sunlight Fuels Our Own Destruction
Does the topic of climate change, energy use, and hand-waving environmentalists drive you over the edge? Do you find it impossible to pinpoint or understand the core issues that actually matter? Are you frustrated with being bombarded by confusing scientific jargon, endless streams of data, and unprovable claims that make your head spin and eventually bore you to tears?
If so, this article might be exactly what you’ve been waiting for.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-149955421
One of the biggest issues for the West, but also for the East when we pillage their resources is the stock market. I should have pointed that out in the article and would have if I thought about it. :-( It’s rather obvious. It’s based on continual growth. People are dependent on its continually rising. The whole structure of the first world is based on it! Development is dependent on it. Without the money invested in stocks they can’t do business. The idea of inflation is too, isn’t it?
We desperately need to come up with an alternative to Wall Street.
Ron R: Behind it all are our growing numbers.
I read the Ehrlichs’ book The Population Bomb shortly after it was published in 1968. I was in High School then. The global Total Fertility Rate was about 5.0 children per average woman at that time. I saw clearly how open-ended human population growth would result in ever-worsening environmental impacts, eventually leading to a global “war of all against all” (T. Hobbes) on an ecologically ruined planet. As all those babies born in the 60s and 70s grew up and had children of their own, I watched the pressure on global natural resources and biodiversity explode. That sense of doom dominated my thinking about the future for several decades.
Then, in the early 2000s, I learned that global TFR had fallen by half from its 1963 peak of 5.3. IOW, the problem of open-ended population growth was resolving itself. While the rate of TFR decline has slowed since then, it’s now at 2.3, barely above the replacement value of 2.1, and still declining. It looks right now like our numbers will peak at around 10 – 12 billion before 2100, then start to fall.
Of course, many of the pejorative trends underway in 1970 have intensified as our numbers have grown past 8 billion. Without several significant technological breakthroughs, we’d have hit Malthusian limits already. Sadly, pretty much everything done for “the benefit of all humanity” carries a cost to multiple other species we evolved with. We can expect more erosion of ecological carrying capacity and biodiversity in the decades and centuries ahead. Population growth won’t be a forcing factor in the process, however: if anything, population decline will constrain future economic growth.
My sense of inexorable doom is thus ameliorated by the falling global TFR, and by the “green vortex” of energy market responses to collective decarbonization measures taken around the world. That leaves the impact of growing per capita income, and of markets that will always socialize every transaction cost they can get away with, as globally controlling forces. Incremental market intervention is where we’ll get the biggest bang for our collective buck, as I live out my medically-assisted, “natural” but childless life (gotta love Medicare). Count me out of storming the Capitol.
My fellow US citizens, please vote Democratic, the party of collective action against climate change, next month. If you live in a swing state, remember that a vote for anyone but Harris and the Democrats, or no vote at all, is equivalent to a vote for Trump and the Republicans, the party of plutocracy in our country. However distasteful you may otherwise feel voting Democratic is, please just hold your nose and do it. Your country, all the other countries, and the biosphere will thank you!
@ MalAdapted
1) I’m not sure a group of men knows what affects the fertility rate but I will take a shot. Sorry to state the obvious but:
2) The primary effect is driven both by population growth and level of consumption per person. Africa and central Asia have a very high fertility rate but people in rich countries emit far more carbon/consume more natural resources/create more pollution per person than someone in Africa. We would need 3-4 more planet Earths to give everyone the US/EU living standard that allegedly leads to low fertility.
3) In the aggregate, world GDP(consumption) has continued to climb, world Primary Energy consumption continues to climb and world population continues to climb. US native fertility rate is low but our high consumption population has continued to climb because of emigration and a high birth rate for some groups. Rich investors/political donors push for high emigration/population growth to sustain continued GDP growth because without GDP growth their investments crash and burn (debt service,etc.)
4) It may be an error to conclude that high incomes will always lead to low fertility rates. US fertility rate soared in the high income 1950s , possibly because (a) Government policy gave job priority to WWII returning soldiers leaving few good jobs for women (b) there was more competition for providing husbands due to fewer men (war deaths) and children was a way to commit a marriage (c) conditions ensured there would be food for the children. Similarly, population soared in Asia when the Green Revolution made child starvation unlikely and it is likely to climb with China’s revoking of the one-child policy.
5) Multiple factors –War/economic depression/AI etc — could encourage high fertility conditions (e.g loss of jobs for women) and War would also result in high consumption with indifference to environmental effects. Male infantry deaths might also lessen support for feminism. Another factor is religion – e.g, Catholicism’s encouragement of high birth rates.
6) Bottom Line: Projections of flat/declining world population and declining consumption in 2060 are guesses. At some point Mother Nature may opt for a brisk nuclear war to thin the human herd (and the remaining wildlife—which do not have fallout shelters. )
Don, what causes decline in fertility rates is well established… it is rational self-interest.
For women in third-world countries, in particular where agriculture is small-scale, children are an economic benefit. And the family structure works to support the individuals as much as possible, pooling diverse sources of income.
You need to do a little research, since your comment on China is contradicted by reality. The Chinese government is desperately trying to encourage an increase in TFR, but with little success, even though China is nowhere near as “wealthy” as the USA.
When women achieve a certain reasonable level of economic security, and are empowered to make their own decisions, the logic is obvious… every additional child is an economic and personal burden, which is detrimental to the “previous” child as well as the woman. And of course there are the physical consequences and risks with each pregnancy.
We see this playing out in a variety of cultures, at different levels of prosperity, and even where women are still less socially and politically empowered.
Don Williams,
You mention that it may not be possible for high fertility countries like Africa to achieve the high incomes of the western world needed for a demographic transition to low fertility rate, because the world has limited resources. Its possible, but we just dont really know what will happen because theres not enough certainty on levels of resources. Parts of Asia achieved low fertility rates with modest incomes growth, so there may be enough resources for that in Africa.
Also there is evidence that high incomes are not the main factor in low fertility. A poor African country (I can’t recall the name) did an experiment where the government gave away free contraceptives to a couple of regions, and the fertility rate plumetted. So countries do not have to have to have high average incomes to reduce fertilty.They just need to liberalise contraception.
You mention examples of high incomes leading to low fertility. However these are exceptions and for reasons understood, and the point is they havent lead to higher global fetility rates. Higher incomes and the demographic transition have lead to lower fertilty rates through much of the world.
You mention wars and economic depressions could cause higher fertility rates. But the world has had many wars and depressions and this hasnt stopped a decline in the global fertility rate. Probably because they are mostly local and of limited duration and not enough people defer having families. It would probably take a massive global war lasting a very long time of many decades to change the global fertility trend such a thing is unlikely.
You mention Chinas one child policy being cancelled could lead to high fertility rates. But people have continued to choose to have very small families! Google it.
As a result of the demographic transition the global population growth rate did start reducing around 1970. The experts project that global population growth rate will continue to slow down, and that while population growth will will increase it will peak at about 10 million late this century. Some believe it will then stabilise while others believe global population will start to shrink. Personally I think the demograpic transition will cause population growth to stop and global population will shrink, provided incomes continue to rise a bit and contraception is liberalised in Africa.
Mal wrote “My fellow US citizens, please vote Democratic, the party of collective action against climate change, next month. If you live in a swing state, remember that a vote for anyone but Harris and the Democrats, or no vote at all, is equivalent to a vote for Trump… However distasteful you may otherwise feel voting Democratic is, please just hold your nose and do it.”
Yes on Trump for a hundred reasons. I’ve never before actively encouraged some of my family and friends who rarely vote to do so. But not this year.
Mal, btw, I wanted to thank you for your generous words in last month’s U.V. By the time I saw the comment the month was over, so I waited till I could reply to you now. :-)
Mal Adapted, we may hit a total fertility or replacement rate of 2.0 as you say. Maybe we’ll level out at 10,000,000,000 as others say. They think that’d be great! But our numbers now are already spelling biocide. You know, that sixth extinction thing? They have been for awhile now.
http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html
If we are content to level out at 8 or 10 billion then say goodbye to the majority of other species.
IOW, we need to greatly REDUCE our current numbers to a global carrying capacity, not hold them steady.
https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/
What is that number? I’ve said before that 1 or 2 billion is it and that I think the whole world, not just 30%, should be designated a nature preserve with everything else conditioned on that, not be the piecemeal charity after thought that it is now. How do we do it? We can start by taking it seriously, acknowledge it and start at least talking about it (and no, I’m not talking about genocide – oh brother). If we are concerned about climate change for the world’s sake it makes zero sense if we are willing to ignore something else which has such dire consequences does it? It’s like a mass blind spot.
We are very close to the 50% – 90% of earth alteration that Barnosky warned of before a mass extinction event becomes irreversible, if we’re not already there.
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/knowing-the-score/
Ehrlich stumbled upon this issue as far as I’m concerned. If not for him someone else would have had to say something, it’s so obvious. Ehrlich doesn’t own the issue.
You might be interested in Barnosky’s book.
https://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Planet-Earth-Close/dp/1250051150
“someone else would have had to say something, it’s so obvious.”
Yes
Ron R. and Don Williams: we need to greatly REDUCE our current numbers to a global carrying capacity, not hold them steady.
If this is TL;DR, please just skip it. Otherwise, please read at least as far as my questions for both of you before responding, as they aren’t purely rhetorical. I promise there’s a point!
First, let’s explicitly take any proposals to reduce our current numbers by deliberately raising the global mortality rate, off the table. That said, I think the three of us are in moral agreement with Ron’s assertion, at least from a biodiversity protection perspective. The Sixth Great Extinction has been a source of grief for me since age eight. I was convinced by fourteen that humanity’s population growth was unsustainable for most other species. My childhood preoccupation with “natural history” extended to two years in a doctoral problem in Ecology and Evolution, before I decided not to work that hard for a living. My pseudonym reflects my voluntary (though not primarily for unselfish reasons) self-selection out of the species’ gene pool!
So, What is to Be Done? A rhetorical question, as none of us is King of the World, and every one of our 8+ billion conspecifics acts primarily for their own inclusive fitness, without regard for the personal fears of three westerners on a blog. Consider: with some prominent exceptions like China’s top-down, coercive one-child policy, the global decline in TFR hasn’t been the result of targeted collective intervention in women’s reproductive choices. For example, Brazil’s internal TFR has fallen more or less steadily from 6.1 in 1960 to 1.6 in 2022, primarily attributed to rising economic expectations:
Demographers say the fertility rate is declining because the country is richer and more urban, but they also point to Brazil’s hugely popular soap operas and their portrayal of small, glamorous families.
My first point is that it may be possible to drive TFR lower, faster, by collective action, so that our global population peaks a couple of decades sooner than it otherwise would, then starts to decline, as birth rate falls below the global “natural” death rate. But at what collective cost? Must we live under a Chinese-style authoritarian government that’s able to disregard individual women’s wishes for more children? Or should wealthy countries simply assist poor, high-fertility ones to improve family health, social security, female education and empowerment, and even didactic telenovelas? Again, bearing in mind that all collective action is driven by politics, the art of the possible, I’d appreciate seeing your plans for collectively bringing global population down more quickly. Should we (i.e. US voters) expand our ostensibly benevolent “economic development assistance” to other countries, explicitly to reduce their population growth? Should we (i.e. voters in any nominal democracy) give the UN the power to enforce a global one-child policy, and back it up with our police at home and our military abroad? These aren’t rhetorical questions, because while I have opinions, I don’t have definitive answers. All I’ve got is a vote in US elections.
My other point, which I’m always belaboring, is that targeted collective intervention in national energy markets, to neutralize the price advantage fossil fuels currently have over carbon-neutral alternatives, is already driving a global green vortex of rapidly expanding renewable energy supply combined with precitipitously falling LCOE. In the US, the “Inflation Reduction” Act of 2022 was the first federal legislation aimed at decarbonizing our economy in 34 largely wasted years. The IRA was a bare Democratic victory. At this moment, US voters are choosing between securing and extending our national decarbonization policy incrementally, or taking a giant step backward into denial. Note: those are our only choices! I know how I’m voting. How about you (rhetorical question: I don’t even know if either of you live in the US)?
My version has +/- 0.06 uncertainty for each year in average, which I think is more secure than the +/- 0.02 uncertainty as communicated by individual institutes.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122178699254086116&set=a.122095851482086116
Friends from Princeton have been in touch about Hopfield Hinton Nobel. Hopfield on AI; he also made a reference to More is Different, for which I found an open link: “I worry about anything which says, I’m big, I’m fast, I’m bigger than you, I’m faster than you, and I can also run you.”
https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf
The 17 November 2023 New Yorker focused on AI. Some extracts if anyone is interested, particularly if they subscribe but some meat on the bones for those who don’t. I worry about supercomputing’s vast use of energy, and still think of computers as machines we can pull the plug on. Lots about Hinton!
David Remnick interview includes conversations with Hinton about AI: Geoffrey Hinton: “It’s Far Too Late” to Stop Artificial Intelligence: The so-called godfather of A.I. believes we need to put constraints on the technology so it won’t free itself from human control. But he’s not sure whether that’s possible. – https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/geoffrey-hinton-its-far-too-late-to-stop-artificial-intelligence
More recent. Are We Doomed? Here’s How to Think About It:Climate change, artificial intelligence, nuclear annihilation, biological warfare—the field of existential risk is a way to reason through the dizzying, terrifying headlines. Rivka Galchen – https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/06/10/are-we-doomed-heres-how-to-think-about-it — About a course so it doesn’t really focus as this next does (Joshua Rothman is a personal favorite).
Geoffrey Hinton: “It’s Far Too Late” to Stop Artificial Intelligence: The so-called godfather of A.I. believes we need to put constraints on the technology so it won’t free itself from human control. But he’s not sure whether that’s possible. – https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/geoffrey-hinton-profile-ai
near the end:
Susan said:
“I worry about supercomputing’s vast use of energy”
It’s a fact of life now. Even for the use of supercomputers for solving climate/MET models it’s a fact. It’s also sad that there’s a Green(!!!) 500 list of energy efficient supercomputers –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green500 . The most efficient ones on the list around 1 Exaflops are still comparable to the power consumption of a Boeing 737 flying at altitude, and that’s considering the extrinsic factor of cooling the systems with water while running non-stop for maximum utilization. Hopefully they use the waste heat for the buildings. Just think about the number of electrons traveling through all those chips with nothing accomplished but colliding with lattice defects, phonons, etc to dissipate that kind of energy through heat!
That’s why I have adopted as my recent crusade to advertise working smart and not hard in solving climate models. There’s absolutely no excuse for researchers to not cross-check model results that can potentially capture ocean cycles by computations running on a laptop. https://geoenergymath.com/2024/09/23/amo-and-the-mt-tide/
OK, so what if this model doesn’t pan out? How much energy is wasted? Is it the equivalent of fleets of 737’s running around the clock while not making any progress in explaining what caused the 2023 temperature or being unable to predict an El Nino beyond a year?
Face it. If nothing else, these natural climate patterns will be found out by a machine learning experiment run by Google or NVIDIA. And like what happened with the most recent physics and chemistry Nobel prizes, it won’t go to a traditional physicist or chemist but to someone applying AI.
Just think if someone the equivalent of Susan’s father https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_W._Anderson will no longer receive Nobel physics awards at the expense of machines? Let’s get the recognition before that plays out ;)
Dharma
“Your point on financial fragility does connect to this: how do we move toward true sustainability without triggering economic collapse?”
I would suggest slowly and gradually. IMHO a rapid transition maybe on timeframe of decades would likely create mass unemployment, and a collapse of the transport grid and provision of basic goods and services. A slower transition gives us time to adapt.
However we do have to solve the climate issue quite rapidly but I’ve seen enough to believe this is possible without wrecking the ecnomy – if we want.
It also depends what is meant by true sustainability? What is your understanding? Personally I think such concepts are nebulous, and some interpretations and plans I have seen are so incredibly stringent and demanding, with such ambitious reductions in consumption of modern goods, services and energy, that they are quite onerous and unlikely to gain significant traction with people.
We are going to have to come up with a definition that significantly reduces environmental damage, and solves the serious problems like the decline in insect population, and accepts we are best to reduce our use of energy and materials to at least a moderate degree. Its going to require practical commonsense and compromise on what seems the best way forwards. The world has experimented with purist, massively ambitious doctrinaire idealism with communism, and that went horribly wrong.
Fortunately population growth has slowed in many places and it seems likely this will continue. This will help to some extent, given population gowth is the main driver of environmental impacts, along with high levels of per capita consumption.
@Nigelj : “The world has experimented with purist, massively ambitious doctrinaire idealism with communism, and that went horribly wrong.”
Hopefully not too wrong — since the Master Plan to Save the World seems to depend upon massive imports of cheap solar panels and electric cars components produced by the Commies in China.
PS And if we’re defining “horribly wrong” lets not forget that the Capitalist Demigods of Europe and the USA caused this disaster by burning huge amounts of coal/ oil and dumping 1 trillion tons of CO2 into the air. This AFTER woman scientist Eunice Foote warned in 1856 that increased CO2 in the air would raise the Earth’s temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#“Circumstances_Affecting_the_Heat_of_the_Sun’s_Rays”
I know that calling for a reduction in global population will sound rather unrealistic to a lot of people here, can almost hear the words, “good luck with that! Maybe so. Good thing, though, we didn’t take such a defeatist attitude towards climate change. But maybe that’s all some people can fit on their plate.
My feeling is that we don’t fully appreciate what a sixth extinction will do to the planet and to people if we choose to look the other way. To treat concern for their loss as a “quaint” issue that we are above. They are still here, most of them anyway. Other species. We still have time. It’s simply unacceptable that we calmly allow them to go away before our eyes. We should all be raising the roof.
If we care, if we are going to say something, its time.
Gotta love the catchy cheerful headline phys.org chose for this Oct. 10 story:
“Catastrophically warm predictions are more plausible than previously thought, say climate scientists”
.
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-catastrophically-plausible-previously-thought-climate.html
.
Nature Communications link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50813-z
.
.
Closing paragraph in the phys.org story (I wonder how many climate scientists share this feeling?):
.
“Sometimes I feel that climate scientists are a bit like Cassandra of Greek mythology,” concludes Nenes. “She was granted the power of prophecy, but was cursed so that no one would listen to her. But this inertia or lack of action should motivate not discourage us. We have to collectively wake up and really address climate change, because it may be accelerating much more than what we thought.”