This month’s open thread.
Just so you know, a lot of people have complained that these threads have devolved – particularly when the discussion has turned to differing visions of solutions – and have therefore become much less interesting. Some suggestions last month were for a side thread for that kind of stuff that wouldn’t clog interesting issues of climate science. Other suggestions were for tighter moderation. The third suggestion is that people really just stay within the parameters of what this site has to offer: knowledgeable people on climate science issues and context for the science that’s being discussed elsewhere. For the time being, let’s try the last one, combined with some moderation. The goal is not to censor, but rather to maintain somewhere where the science issues don’t get drowned out by the noise.
What is the relationship between the increase in downwelling longwave radiation over the oceans, due to elevated GHG levels, and the increase in heat content of the oceans? Should we expect the energy to be equivalent, or is it not that simple?
Good idea team!. What I have found is there is little progression of ideas many just keep round and round in circles. I wish everyone could broaden and loosen their perspective somewhat instead of steadfastly holding on to intractable thoughts and mind constructs. Everyone here can learn from one another so please-please put one’s egos in one’s respective pockets – as the product of focussed, cohesive thought on this terribly terribly important issue that affects us all is immeasurable in benefit on so many levels.
Been tracking the direction of the 250hPa jetstreams vs extreme weather events effecting the US for quite a while now and when you analyse and combine the surface winds as well as to how much water vapour over the warming atlantic and pacific there are sucking up you get a very good match. When there is unusually deep n-s excursions in a slow moving jetsteam you just know that a massive pool of super saturated air is trapped and keeps getting fed by the ocean. Really only effect – huge amounts of snow or rain or both. Has anybody also seen this quite obvious correlation?? Thanks.
Ellison said:
“I don’t comment here anymore …”
Which is an illogical thing to say because you just did, but what else do you expect from a Judith Curry acolyte ?
And all that stuff about chaos and uncertainty is simply to raise FUD.
We are making serious strides in extracting determinism from atmospheric measures such as QBO
http://contextearth.com/2016/02/03/if-the-glove-dont-fit/
This of course will upset the quote-mining Robert I. Ellison to no end.
Well, this is a disaster:
Climate science to be gutted as CSIRO swings jobs axe.
‘Misleading, inaccurate and in breach of Paris’: CSIRO scientist criticises cuts
Good news on US emissions, at least:
http://about.bnef.com/white-papers/sustainable-energy-in-america-2016-factbook/
http://about.bnef.com/content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/BCSE-2016-Sustainable-Energy-in-America-Factbook.pdf
I don’t read here very often, and comment even less often. Still, I feel the site is valuable — even the Unforced Variations, in general.
Would it be possible to add a way to upvote/downvote comments, much like Amazon customer reviews used to have? Any comment with a certain ratio of downvotes over upvotes would be hidden by default (although, as with Amazon’s old system, it could be viewed if desired.)
Of course the risk with this is that “certain people” could come in and run up the downvote counts on comments we’d all consider worthwhile. Perhaps the voting privilege could be restricted somehow.
A new analysis of the Paris Agreement is available. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2722880
From Robert Scribbler:
As CO2 levels hit a new record global high of 405.66 ppm yesterday, I couldn’t help but think that HG Wells could not have imagined a more perilous mechanism for exploring the world’s past.
For when it comes to testing the range of new climate extremes, the present mass burning of fossil fuels is like stepping into a dark time machine. As all that carbon hits the airs and waters, the climate dial spins backward through hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Speeding us on toward the hothouse extinction eras of Earth’s deep history. Now, not only is it driving us on through extreme weather and temperature events not seen in 100, 1,000, 5,000 or even 10,000 years, it is also propelling us toward climate states that haven’t occurred on Earth for ages and ages.
Never has the Earth seen a CO2 build-up so rapid as the one produced by the human fossil fuel energy era. Rates of CO2 increase just keep ramping higher ever as the world’s climate sinks appear to be filling up. In this context, 2015 saw the swiftest pace of CO2 rise yet. Warming ocean surface waters can’t absorb as much CO2 as cooler oceans. And a record hot ocean during 2015 contributed to this extreme atmospheric CO2 accumulation. For the whole of the past year, CO2 built up in the atmosphere at a rate of 3.2 parts per million per annum. That’s well above the already raging pace of 2 parts per million average annual accumulation during the decade of the 2000s. Image source: NOAA ESRL
http://robertscribbler.com/
We are in uncharted territory.
Feb 4 2016 CO2 405.66 ppm
Feb 4 2015 CO2 400.01 ppm
Increase of 5.65 ppm in a year.
[Response: There’s a lot of day-to-day variability and so claiming an annual jump based on a single day is not reliable. – gavin]
Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Ken (comment 50) completes on of the quotes “for other [eoples benefit”. Thanks Ken. We need to make the distinction between perturbed physic ensembles and ensembles of opportunity. The Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer paper quoted goes into some detail.
Perturbed physics models are in their infancy and what we get is ‘irreducible imprecision’ rather than a pdf as such.
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence. op. cit.
Realistically – as James McWilliams says – the results Ken so stoutly defends don’t mean what he thinks they do. Nor does the quote from the IPCC.
First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory.
So lets quote that again – and look at the schematic from Slingo and Palmer.
http://d29qn7q9z0j1p6.cloudfront.net/content/roypta/369/1956/4751/F2.large.jpg
We have two things. The model uncertainty – otherwise known as irreducible imprecision or divergence due to initial sensitivity and structural instability. Second is the climatology uncertainty due to the unpredictability of internal variability.
But even contemplating commenting here breaks my head – so I’ll catch you guys again next year maybe.
Chuck Hughes:
My take on Russell is that with a solid academic reputation and a long career in theoretical and applied physics, he’s still the class clown, always trying to jerk a laugh. Speaking for myself, he occasionally succeeds.
A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics… Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades.. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
The IPCC TAR quote is clearly referring to perturbed physics ensembles rather than the more usual ensembles of opportunity. Comments 50 takes one quote out of the context provided and misinterprets it. The Slingo and Palmer paper quoted goes into some detail.
Perturbed physic ensembles are in their infancy – and what we get thus far are estimates of irreducible imprecision rather than a pdf as such.
Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
There is a schematic in the Slingo and Palmer paper quoted that shows the situation. There is first of all model uncertainty – irreducible imprecision due to divergence of models solution as a result of sensitive dependence and structurl instability. There is secondly climatic uncertainty due to the unpredictability of internal variation.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
What we have with ensembles of opportunity is nothing that approaches the perturbed physic method.
In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence. op. cit.
Go organic, sequester carbon. Rodale says 40% of current emissions sequestered if *only* current ag land used (IIRC).
40% from one simple change.
Science Daily thinks it’s a good idea, too.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3596673718764&id=1331124071&set=a.1489543801833.2064618.1331124071&source=56
Ric Merritt@26: indeed. But over time the scrolling mouse had too much use!
Killian: that’s me told; hope that made you feel better.
Still think Admiral Titley is wonderful:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/14/commentary-after-the-paris-pact-thoughts-on-the-ted-cruz-climate-change-hearing/
Lawrence Coleman, yes to all, thanks.
I had been wondering for ages about the increased water vapor; we all know about the increased energy and disruption, but the WV is getting quite striking and worth mentioning; weather models operate on historical events and the change is happening too fast for that (though despite our all too human way of thinking about the short term, that El Nino will be over this summer or thereabouts). Recent US East Coast storms have mostly exceeded forecasts, sometimes doubled.
I wasn’t defending any results. I was simply pointing out that there is no suggestion that we can make precise predictions about future states. At best we make projections (conditional predictions) and even then they are typically presented as some kind of distribution of results. Whether they are perturbed physics ensembles or multi-model ensembles, doesn’t change this point.
Well will small mercies never cease. My comments are appearing. I have ‘mined’ a number of sources – in my quest to spread ‘FUD’ – with links but by all means read the sources.
I have – other than on infrequent and random occasions – when something comes to my attention – given up on climate blogs of any description. They are for the most part superficial, aggressive and boorish. Comment #54 comes to mind as an example.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
I wonder if it is all deterministic. Are comets and volcanoes random? Are the large scale patterns – temporal and spatial – of atmosphere and ocean circulation completely deterministic? Too philosophical? Even if ultimately predictable (using the QBO – lol) – the complexity of the system ensures that for practical purposes prediction remains problematic.
Complexity science is far from a crazy and marginal theory. There are in fact three possible climate theories – equilibrium, periodic and random and chaotic.
It may sound radical – even heretical – to many but random and chaotic is the best science.
https://i2.wp.com/watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ghil.png
But even if climate is not the problem – the solution in the first instance is restoring the organic content in agricultural soils – and in restoring global ecosystems. The new green revolution.
Re: upvote/downvote/hide comments:
thats already happening. the moderators have votes and the borehole. perfect, wish they would kill more comments.
Re: increasing water vapor :
more than WV content i think the hydro cycle is accelerating
Re:three possible climate theories – equilibrium, periodic and random and chaotic.
is that four ? “random” and “chaotic” are not the same
Of course the risk with this is that “certain people” could come in and run up the downvote counts on comments we’d all consider worthwhile. Perhaps the voting privilege could be restricted somehow.
Comment by Christopher Winter — 5 Feb 2016 @
I just gave you a ‘downvote’.
Btw. I love the new website loading time, its like instant loading! Feels like RealClimate is now hosted on NASA’s mainframe :)
66 Susan: Thanks for that!. I suppose as climatologists you should look at the unfolding situation over many years but I also seems to me, like you that the speed of the process seems to be ramping up. An article in the Australian newspaper by a noted climate scientist also mentioned the fact that the climate active methane timeframe should be brought from it’s overall effect over 100 years to 20 years. That changes the figures from 26 fold more damaging than CO2 to 100+ fold more damaging respectively. The arctic is melting at a phenomenal rate, it should be ice free in the summer in only a few more fleeting years( not over long extended periods favoured by Climate modellers). The atlantic (gulf stream) dipole has sprung up also in the past few years and the El-nino shows no sign of drastically weakening. I believe climate scientists have to take this quickening in account and shorten their reference frame. Re: I find null-school the best site for jet stream analysis. Cheers!
@Robert 68,
“random and chaotic”
What I find annoying about these discussions is that they devolve into rhetorical definition games rather than reaching for better understanding.
So, I could say something like: “But we reserve “chaotic” for systems that are deterministic but unpredictable, and “random” applies to quantum physics, yadda yadda.” But I would rather understand your point, which requires that you explain what you mean in this context. I may have missed something, but could you give some indication of the scale (both in space and time) you are talking about, and the variables under consideration? Are predictions of less ice and higher humidity in question, for example? How precise does “irreducible imprecision” have to be to be useful?
#68–Gotta say, that third graph, which purported to illustrate ‘random and chaotic’, appeared to me to be anything but. So the point remains pretty unclear.
Does anyone know whether the current Mauna Loa YOY CO2 delta (4.35ppm) is a record, or close to a record?
I was referring to the weekly delta. (Although it would appear a couple of the daily numbers look CONSIDERABLY higher.)
Re. #68
If you are speaking of the orbits of comets, yes they are indeed chaotic over the long haul.
LC 52
Lawrence Coleman said What I have found is there is little progression of ideas many just keep round and round in circles. I wish everyone could broaden and loosen their perspective somewhat instead of steadfastly holding on to intractable thoughts and mind constructs
The trick is knowing whether an idea or construct is a concept one recognizes as being germane and relatively well-developed. If one doesn’t, one may not understand what they are reading.
Happens a lot here. There. Everywhere.
Re #65 Susan Anderson said Killian: that’s me told; hope that made you feel better.
Not my intent nor aim. Yours, perhaps. And, perhaps, nothing learned. I can only try.
And the world turns.
Concave and convex. So simple? The Cliff Notes approach to the stability of Antarctic ice shelves.
This past summer I suggested a stronger El Nino correlation to ASI conditions than previously found in the literature, found here: EL Nino playing a role in ASI minimums?
And we are now seeing some record low ASI.
http://mashable.com/2016/02/05/arctic-sea-ice-hits-record-low-for-january/#pTqgSiWRgiqx
I think my scenario for new lows in ’16 due to influx of EL-driven heat are looking pretty good. I do, however, always caution predictions/scenarios for the notoriously variable ASI prior to the first week of July are a fool’s game. Except maybe this time…?
Also, there’s a possible eyeballed correlation with early January lows and September lows, too, at least recent years, so take a gander at that part of the curve.
Big discrepancy between Scripps and NOAA C02 readings, here:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
399.47 vs 406.27
Any ideas what’s going on?
Can anyone point me to a list of “world’s largest” GHG emitters by *site*? What I mean:
I have recently heard, a few times but with variations, the factoid that “half” of global anthropogenic GHG emissions are produced by some small number of “sites,” with that number varying between “100” and “a few hundred.” The only examples of such sites that I’ve heard are the Navajo Generating Station and the Wadi cement kilns.
Lists of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (esp CO2) by nation are easy to find, and I’ve even seen a few by region (e.g., US states, Canadian provinces), as well as global gridded emissions by type (e.g., EDGAR). But I’ve never seen global lists by “site,” which presumably is more fine-grained spatially. Can anyone point me to one or more such lists (of good repute)?
For Tom Roche, for a first take suggestion by an amateur reader, try this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+co2+source+map+site+location
Note the dates for the satellites capable of obtaining this information.
This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory
68 Robert: Book by Lisa Randall: “Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs” says comet impacts are not random. The big ones are at intervals of 30 million to 35 million years more often than at other times due to a thin disc of dark matter hypothesized to exist inside the galactic disc visible matter. The dark matter perturbs the orbits of Oort cloud objects as the solar system goes up and down through the dark matter disc. Measurements of star locations over the next 5 years should confirm or deny the hypothesis.
The book was written before the hypothesized Planet 9 that is in the process of being searched for.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-astronomers-could-actually-see-planet-nine/
See if you can spot the silver lining on this cloud:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3363
For Wili, who thinks there’s a “big discrepancy”
Don’t rely on second hand information from blogs; you may not easily figure out how they’re spinning the facts. look at the science sites, for example
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Oh, and, Wili, did you look down the page at the source that got you wondering about a “discrepancy”? It says right there:
The site you found is in the top three for a Google search on “CO2” — the other two are a notorious denial/spin site and Wikipedia. Looks to me like someone’s done a good job of Search Engine Optimization. Check their ads.
Tom Roche 83 @ https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=19095#comment-642406
>> Can anyone point me to a list of “world’s largest” GHG emitters by *site*?
Hank Roberts 84 @ https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=19095#comment-642415
> try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+co2+source+map+site+location
Thanks, but … I’ve done a fair bit of websearch myself, and the OCO-2 data (that I’ve seen, anyway) is about concentrations. Obviously one can work top-down from that to emissions, or work bottom-up from other data, but both of those are above my current expertise. Moreover,
>> the factoid that “half” of global anthropogenic GHG emissions are produced by some small number of “sites,” with that number varying between “100” and “a few hundred”
… is “in the wild.” Presuming folks aren’t just making it up, I’m guessing that factoid comes from published research–has anyone got a link to *that*?
for those of us trying to sort the CO2 levels: I think it makes sense to compare apples and apples, so you need to decide which location you are going to watch and stay with it. I like MLO for CO2. Gavin is correct, of course, that there is significant day to day variability in the concentration, but if you simply watch over time (probably years or decades) you will see the pattern. Then you also have to correct for known, large influences like El Nino, volcano activity, etc and maybe what you are left with is some sense of the trend of anthropogenic CO2 concentration, though that is mixed with other “warming planet” sources that are one step removed from the human-caused global warming. You can make an educated guess at global smokestack and tailpipe emission levels, but it may be harder to create an educated guess at the secondary sources – like CO2 released from warming/thawing permafrost, etc.
Sorting these sources probably does not matter because a GHG is a GHG is a GHG. As they build in the atmosphere, we can expect the planet to warm and we may not like the warmer planet as much as we liked a planet with a lower concentration of GHG in the atmosphere.
For me, this is a way to see the forest and not be totally distracted by the trees. The forest is the accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere. I use CO2 as proxy for all GHG for now because the CO2.earth appears to do a good job of presenting the CO2 numbers in a way that I can sort.
The long term trend that I see in the CO2 levels is that we may have moved into a period when we may be seeing annual increases of 3 ppm. It’s way to soon to know that for certain. El Nino may be driving us out of the more recent 2 ppm annual increase and we may drop back to a lower level when the current El Nino dissipates, but who knows for certain? And, GHG is GHG is GHG. The actual raw number of CO2 concentration is useful in cutting through the chatter and noise to see if current and historic attempts to reduce GHG accumulation in the atmosphere.
Even if we have not moved into the 3 ppm increase level, it’s important to point out that 2 ppm is disastrous and reflects increasing rather than static level of increase if you look back at the decadal trend based on the data that is available.
Warm regards to all,
Mike
More optimization discussion on Paris agreement. http://nuclear-news.net/2016/02/10/busting-the-obsolete-baseload-myth-and-other-myths-that-hold-back-renewable-energy/
Wili,
Look at that link again. The higher number is for today (more or less), the lower number is for a year ago (more or less). So the “discrepancy” is because there is a lot more CO2 in the air now, than there was a year ago.
for Tom Roche, I’ll be delighted if someone comes up with a simple bright line answer to your question, but you’re starting from a pretty vague description as you say. There are a lot of numbers found a lot of places.
It might help narrow down attempts to help find answers if you say what you’re looked at that hasn’t been satisfactory.
Just for example, have you looked at page 2 of this 30-page summary?
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_chapter2.pdf
If I were trying to find the answer for you, I’d start there — and go to Google Scholar for more recent science journal sources.
I know the looking-down concentration info only just begins to be focused enough to zero in on point sources, which I think is what you’re looking for — not broad area sources like agriculture?
The country-by-country reports are still approximate, e.g.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33972247
Re 86: Thank you Chuck. That was the best ever talk about Climate Change for me. The silver lining is that it only needs most of us high consumers to reduce our excess consumption to stay close to the agreed carbon budget. Nice presentation Kevin. Most educated consumers should be able to understand, what is at stake and feel empowered to do something about it. I certainly will be sharing it as is but to hit a larger audience, it needs to be prettied up and compressed retaining the easy flow.
Re:large anthro fossil CO2 generators
here’s a start for point sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_world#Coal
these things burn tons of coal every second.
Re: EN/ASI correlation, after seeing this quote regarding EN and ASI in an article:
I sent this
to Mark Serreze. He gave a hopeful response:
with this hopeful little bit:
He also suggested this as perhaps of interest to the topic:
ENSO and NAM
Maybe I’m not so crazy after all.
;-)
Posted with permission.
Cheers
#48 Chuck Hughes > Am I missing something?
No, you’re not missing a thing. Except clique chic.
Carry on.
mike @90.
Given the Response@59, you would do best to consider how long a period is useful for gauging the annual rise in CO2. Averaging the annual rise for each day of the month still shows large wobbles due to ENSO & volcanoes and they are still there when you average over a whole year of annual averages.
I would suggest that a proper assessment of the rate of CO2 increase would show CO2 increases have risen roughly from 1½ppm/yr in 1997/98 to 2¼ppm/yr today, a rise of 50% which is pretty-much the rise in emissions over the period.
The impact of the present ENSO has been to add perhaps ½ppm/yr to recent averages. If we take 1997/98 as a demonstration of what to expect through 2016, a further 1½ppm/yr will be likely added to the monthly averages through 2016 with values in excess of 4ppm/yr although the underlying rate continues at 2¼ppm/yr.
To illustrtate all this, graphs II & IIa at MARCLIMATEGRAPHS which present the NOAA MLO CO2 data are now returned to an up-to-date status (after a bit of a holiday).
Thanks, Tony.
Thanks for the Marclimategraphs link. That’s a pretty good graphic array. I think 2 1/4 ppm increase is accurate. This should be fine as long as El Nino patterns are stable and climate change proceeds in a linear fashion. No reason for alarm, right? Just business as usual.