This month’s open thread. Pros and cons of celebrity awareness-raising on climate? The end of the cherry-picking of ‘pauses’ in the satellite data? Continuing impacts of El Niño? Your choice (except for the usual subjects to be avoided…).
Climate science from climate scientists...
Well-read laymen here… I’m struggling to understand a path out of this situation. I read much about climate change, but am nowhere near the depth of knowledge as most on this site. It appears to me like the 3 current most significant elements are carbon dioxide, methane and global dimming. The effect of increased carbon in the atmosphere can range from 100-500 years, but the globe doesn’t feel the effects of the carbon for up to 40 years. Increased global temperature releases more methane, which is under way, and this effect is felt faster but doesn’t last as long. And global dimming results from the particulates left from fossil fuel burning, which if stopped, would, relatively speaking, increase global temperatures swiftly. So if we tamp down on our fossil fuel burning, would we not end up in a perfect storm of delayed Co2 effects, increased methane and decreased effects of global dimming that would accelerate temperature exponentially? I’m sure I’m oversimplifying here, but generally speaking is that a reasonable conclusion? Or am I misinterpreting? Thanks for any thoughts.
Vendicar Decarian @190 spotted the NASA GISS February temperature had been posted at +1.35ºC a rise of 0.21ºC on January’s record-as-was anomaly.
With the El Nino impacting global temperature, we could perhaps take the 1997/98 temperatures as a predictor for 2015/16 temperatures. This would suggest an average 2016 temperature anomaly of +1.0ºC (GISS & NOAA) or +0.9ºC (HadCRUT). That would result in 2016 anomalies as follows – GISS +1.02ºC, NOAA +1.01ºC, HadCRUT +0.89ºC.
Alternatively, taking the January 2016 data and using 1998 as a predictor these values are increased by 0.15ºC (GISS), 0.05ºC (NOAA, HadCRUT) yielding 2016 values of +1.17ºC (GISS), +1.07ºC (NOAA), +0.95ºC(HadCRUT).
A closer inspection of 1997/98 temperatures (see graph here, usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’) shows a sweet little spike in the surface temperature record in February 1998 with Feb sitting 0.28ºC above Jan (on all surface records) thus besting the February 2016 GISS rise. But these February spikes are not characteristic of other El Nino years and the present El Nino is accompanied less by tropical heat and more by northern hemisphere heat. (The satellite records showed massive record Arctic temperatures in January and very large record NH extra-tropical temperatures in February.) So 1998 may likely prove a poor predictor for 2016 temperatures.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/plot/gistemp/trend/from:1996
Tipping point?
Sou now on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/HotWhopper-356926434444732/?fref=nf
The NASA GISS LOTI anomaly maps for January & February 1998 & 2016 are stitched together here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment) to allow a comparison of temperature anomalies. The global warming over the intervening years (~0.5ºC) should be remembered but it is small compared with some of the steps in the anomaly contours. The main differences between today & Feb 1998 appears to be at the poles. Back then the Antarctic was well warm and the Arctic seriously cold. Feb 2016 shows Antarctic mildly cool and the Arctic seriously “scorchyissimo!!!”.
RC: I do understand your confusion as others have misapplied the phrase “picking winners” to apply to loans, even though my comment expressly said welfare, not loans. Welfare isn’t paid back.
BPL: And we all know that “welfare” is the greatest threat to the American republic since freeing the slaves. You’re right that I’d forgotten the Norquist reference, but it seems appropriate for someone who is against “picking winners,” a frequent GOP objection to government subsidies. “Government should not be in the business of picking winners.” “Let the Free Market(TM) handle it.”
I have read an excellent article in the Atlantic magazine 1491. This discusses the theory that the Amazon was mostly cultivated before European invasions that caused and enormous decline in population due to disease.
Is the Amazon forest just an overgrown garden. This would have extracted CO2 and cooled the Earth. This seems almost plausible looking at ice-core CO2 readings.
I do remember reports of the Black Death affecting climate through agriculture being abandoned.
Is this another tree growth effect?
#198, Victor–“…there is no evidence linking that [Syrian] drought, or any other drought, to AGW…”
If you look, Victor, you will find that Middle Eastern drought is a longstanding modeled feature of a warming world. I’d call that evidence.
Victor, the notion that climate scientists do not correct unrealistic claims of attributions to climate change is not true. Of course journalists love alarmistic titles, it’s their job to create attention. But it’s a continuous job of scientists to get them on the right track and explain to them that climate change does not trigger extreme events, etc. I myself have done it a lot of times. And many journalists have understood. But of course we cannot always correct everybody, as well as we do not correct any denier’s outputs, they’re too many.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/plot/gistemp/from:1996/trend
Tipping point reached?
#157 Phil Scadden: “Victor – try https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/the-most-common-fallacy-in-discussing-extreme-weather-events/
Perhaps you could point to the where in published science are the claims that you think are mistaken or hyperbole.”
Thanks for the link. Stefan makes a valid point in distinguishing between hurricanes that make landfall and hurricanes per se. He references a recent study of Atlantic hurricanes, by Kerry Emanuel, revealing a marked increase in overall intensity in this region since the mid-70’s, presenting this as a corrective to widely disseminated studies that found no significant increase in either frequency or intensity in hurricanes that made landfall. Good. This sounds reasonable and is certainly useful. It is far from definitive, however, since the new finding is limited to the Atlantic region and the time period since ca. 1975. Does the Emanuel study tell us that hurricanes are likely to be increasing in intensity worldwide from now on, thanks to AGW? Not really, though it certainly suggests such a possibility and reveals a need for more comprehensive research.
Stefan goes on to discuss record heat waves, claiming “The number of record-breaking hot months (e.g. ‘hottest July in New York’) around the world is now five times as big as it would be in an unchanging climate. This has been shown by simply counting the heat records in 150,000 series of monthly temperature data from around the globe, starting in the year 1880.”
Very interesting. Do you see the problem? No one, not even the most adamant denier, questions the strongly supported fact that the world is now warmer than it was in 1880. All the evidence tells us that. So why would we be surprised to learn of record-breaking temperatures from then to now? The real question, which he fails to address, is the frequency of extreme heat waves, of the sort that can be considered dangerous. Not to mention the more basic question of the role fossil fuel emissions has played in the temperture runup from then to now. Everyone agrees that things are heating up, but there are strong disagreements as to why — which he fails to address. This pertains to the hurricane situation as well, incidentally, since an increase in hurricane intensity due to an overall increase in temperature tells us nothing, in itself, about the role of fossil fuels. If the increase in temperature is due to natural variation rather than fossil fuel emission, it becomes impossible to predict what will happen down the line.
I’ve done some research on heat waves, by the way, and I can report that the two most destructive heat waves in recent years, affecting Russia in 2010 and Europe in 2003 are not thought to have been caused by climate change but natural cycles. I’ll refer you to this report from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-russia-heat-idUSTRE7287DS20110309 and this paper by Marlo Lewis: http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/08/08/hansens-study-did-global-warming-cause-recent-extreme-weather-events/
Lewis’ paper contains a revealing graphic supporting his argument quite convincingly: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/European-Heat-Wave.jpg Caption: 1000–500 mb thickness temperature anomaly for June, July, and August 2003. Green and blue tones indicate below-normal temperature anomalies.
As Lewis puts it: “During June, July, and August 2003, more than half the planet was cooler than the mean temperature from 1979 through 2003. Europe – a tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface – was the only place experiencing high heat. Does it make sense to attribute that local anomaly to global warming?”
When I look at the global temperature anomalies of the recent five months, this comes to my mind:
” Through the Roof”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grKaSsyvxZE
200 Richard Caldwell: Making a profit by screwing the customer has always been considered good business.
#196 Jon: I’m not sure what you mean by “I’ll assume this is the best you are able to currently find to make your point.” My point is that DAC can be achieved (with further R&D) for much less than $1000/ton, in fact for less than $100/ton.
You say: “I tentatively don’t even believe $1000/ton of atmospheric CO2 sequestered long-term.” I assume you believe it will cost more than $1000/ton for DAC. That’s a very high number and people are pretty innovative. I’m sure many solutions that cost less than $1000 can be implemented.
As for further papers on the subject, I’m aware of a very relevant paper coming out in the next few months. I’ll post on RC when it is available.
V 198: This blog is yet another example of the same sort of thing, where people who have no idea what they’re talking about make absurd assumptions linking the crisis in Syria with “climate change.” While there may be good reason to associate the crisis with a persistent drought in the region, there is no evidence linking that drought, or any other drought, to AGW.
BPL: Look again.
http://www.ajournal.co.uk/pdfs/BSvolume13(1)/BSVol.13%20(1)%20Article%202.pdf
Dr Michael E. Mann. Writing in Scientific American in March 2014 (with the maths explained here), Mann says that new calculations “indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to 2C° by 2036” and to avoid that threshold “nations will have to keep carbon dioxide levels below 405 parts per million”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/
MLO daily levels:
March 12, 2016: 404.65 ppm
March 12, 2015: 401.30 ppm
Monthly CO2 levels
February 2016: 404.16 ppm
February 2015: 400.31 ppm
Yes, El Nino is good for a couple of points. I guess we can hope the species will get serious about reducing ghg output once a lot of them recognize that we are pushing the level that Dr. Mann announced in April 2014.
I don’t mean to pick on Dr. Mann, but he does get a lot of ink in the media and some scrutiny comes with that territory. Why move the goalposts now and start talking about focus on carbon emissions now instead of staying with the CO2 ppm that were the topic less than two years ago?
We are poking the global climate system with a stick. We are playing with fire. I don’t think any reasonable and well-informed person fails to understand the situation. It’s hard to increase the number of well-informed persons on the planet if we keep changing the conversation in arcane ways.
Here’s some of the ‘non-existent’ evidence of the connection between Syrian drought and climate change:
http://religioner.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/religioner.no_wcas-d-13-00059.pdf
The article is wider than just that question, of course, but does cover aspects of the connection. For example:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20111027_drought.html
More recently, there’s evidence that the drought exceeds previous natural variability:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-finds-drought-in-eastern-mediterranean-worst-of-past-900-years
Do you get why trend detection is important to understand?
Do you get why statistics is the tool we use to assess whether a trend is detected?
The people you seem to be arguing with are not here.
Comment by Hank Roberts — 12 Mar 2016 @
Fair enough. Got it.
What to think of this ?
http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/extreme_weather_pre-agw
Yes. This has been known for a while now. It became clear once the Amazon started getting cleared and there were air flights where geometric shapes stood out, then satellites used to help confirm. Yes, very developed with quite extensive earthworks.
There is an old book thought to be fantasy written and illustrated by someone on the first Pacific-to-Atlantic traverse of from the headwaters to the Atlantic that described what seemed a pure fantasy of many, many villages, well-developed, connected in many cases.
The findings on the ground now indicate the book is in fact a lost history of the Amazon.
And one of the reasons I know we can do this.
#165 Richard Caldwell:
When a fuel is burned for energy, costs are exported to the environment (which includes me). Among the costs exported are healthcare costs. Burning fuel, any fuel, isn’t good for lungs. Before you claim it’s efficient, you have to factor in the health care costs. COPD is increasingly common. The simpler thing to do is to produce energy without burning fuel. It’s time to talk about this, I think. Actually, it’s time to talk about producing energy without burning fuel and without creating inefficiencies that translate as waste heat–which includes all heat engines, however combined. It’s strange to me to hear such primitive ways to produce energy confused with epochal-scale innovation. To me they are transitional at best.
Geoff Beacon, that was fabulous! Hadn’t seen that before. Great implications for simplification, though.
I recently introduced a new driving force in global weather, mid-latitude ozone formation. It accelerates jet streams and accentuates Rossby waves. I also linked magnetic pole wandering to Antarctic ice growth and challenged Brewer-Dobson convection.
Seems very late in this particular game to just start declaring an emergency, but I appreciate these quotes showing up in the Guardian nonetheless. Two scientists involved with RC are quoted:
One of the world’s three key temperature records is kept by Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and its director Prof Gavin Schmidt reacted to the February Giss temperature measurements with a simple “wow”
Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin)
March 12, 2016
Normally I don’t comment on individual months (too much weather, not enough climate), but last month was special.https://t.co/nALWMlNDcP
“We are in a kind of climate emergency now,” said Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research in Germany. He told Fairfax Media: “This is really quite stunning … it’s completely unprecedented.”
I appreciate Hank’s distinction between data points and trends. I think a lot of folks may be seeing a trend now. How do you reverse this kind of trend? Is this trend one of those bad possibilities showing up at our doorstep and pounding on the door like a Syrian refugee fleeing drought and indiscriminate bombing?
can cooler heads rescue us from ourselves?
We can always ask Victor and his friends to explain this stuff away. They have been practicing that arcane art for a while.
We may see a drop in global mean temp as this El Nino event weakens, but my gut says we are seeing warming related to other processes now, things like methane release, etc. I expect monthly temps in 2016 to be like February: jaw-dropping global temperature gains.
February numbers are in, you can see them in the rear view mirror.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/february-smashes-earths-alltime-global-heat-record-by-a-jawdropping
Understood and will look for it. Thanks.
Regarding my assumption, it’s just that I wouldn’t expect you to suggest a poorer paper than a better one.
Thanks,
Jon
#217 Kevin: “Here’s some of the ‘non-existent’ evidence of the connection between Syrian drought and climate change: http://religioner.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/religioner.no_wcas-d-13-00059.pdf”
From the paper cited above: “Martin Hoerling, one of the study authors,
stated, ‘‘The magnitude and frequency of the drying that
has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability
alone’’ (NOAA 2013).”
A perfect example of the sort of exaggeration I was complaining about. The same could be said for any of the extreme events I linked to in my first post on this topic. The same could certainly be said for the dust bowl disaster of the 1930’s that we know so well.
Here’s an even more telling example, from an article published by NSA (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/nsf-wad041309.php): “A new study of lake sediments in Ghana suggests that severe droughts lasting several decades, even centuries, were the norm in West Africa over the past 3,000 years.” That too seems unlikely to be explained by natural variability. But it certainly can’t be explained by AGW either. Maybe an act of God?
What is more, we’ve been warned continually by climate scientists that evidence of regional variation is no substitute for evidence on a global scale, and as I’ve demonstrated, studies with global scope, ranging over considerable time scales, show no increase in either drought frequency or intensity.
(Barton, your study is interesting, but as you are well aware, it’s been published in a journal with a dubious reputation, never subject to legitimate peer review, and to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong) not picked up by any legitimate scientific publication or news source. That doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong, but does give cause for skepticism.)
#225, Victor–
“No one, not even the most adamant denier, questions the strongly supported fact that the world is now warmer than it was in 1880.”
Would you be surprised if I told you that I continue to meet very ‘adamant deniers’ who question just that? I wouldn’t call them ‘well-informed,’ to be sure, but they exist and do have enough skill to be able to compose (mostly) intelligible sentences and post them to news sites.
“The real question,… is the frequency of extreme heat waves, of the sort that can be considered dangerous.”
So if the world is posited to be warming up, just precisely what change in the frequency distribution of temperatures do you envision that would allow there to be no increase in dangerous heat waves? Inquiring minds (including this one) want to know.
“Not to mention the more basic question of the role fossil fuel emissions has played in the temperature (sic) runup from then to now. Everyone agrees that things are heating up, but there are strong disagreements as to why…”
Not in the scientific literature, there aren’t. Since:
1) we know that we have increased atmospheric CO2 mixing levels by over 40% since pre-Industrial times, and have added a nice cocktail of other powerful GHGs (some entirely novel) worth about (IIRC) another 60 ppm; and
2) since we are able to calculate in great detail the radiative consequences of this change; and
3) since we observe changes in multiple earth subsystems (far too numerous to list here) which support the radiative role in the warming, and
4) since all other known explanations for the observed changes are demonstrably insufficient, then
5) do you have a proposed alternate mechanism that could account for the warming? Please recall that such a mechanism has been the object of persistent search since at least the 19th century (at which time it was a theoretical pursuit only).
“mixing levels”… Oops, meant ‘mixing ratios’, of course.
I want to raise an issue that, to the best of my knowledge, has not appeared elsewhere. The various forces, threads, institutions, personalities, documents and media segments that constitute the climate change denial enterprise should be captured and preserved in a central location, such as a museum, or perhaps a dedicated department at a major university.
This would have several purposes. First, it would provide a comprehensive history of the denial enterprise and avoid the possible loss of important information as denialists seek to cover their tracks in the future. (It is not hard to imagine a future “denial of denial” enterprise.)
Second, if a similar dangerous denial of science should arise in the future, it would provide a ready resource to help expose and stop the effort.
Third, it would be an important resource for years ahead in the production of histories, documentaries, etc., about how we got into the terrible situation(s)humanity is sure to face. It would provide objective proof of the actions of political leaders, holding them accountable in the historical record. (Knowledge of this might even have a transforming effect on certain senators.)
To some this might sound like a witch hunt. It would have to be done with great care to maintain fairness and avoid that impression.
The Heartland Institute has christened its new new lunchroom
The Breitbart Freedom Center
V: Barton, your study is interesting, but as you are well aware, it’s been published in a journal with a dubious reputation, never subject to legitimate peer review, and to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong) not picked up by any legitimate scientific publication or news source. That doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong, but does give cause for skepticism.
BPL: Granted. But can you refute anything in it? Ignore the venue–is the argument wrong? If so, where?
Dan: if we tamp down on our fossil fuel burning, would we not end up in a perfect storm of delayed Co2 effects, increased methane and decreased effects of global dimming that would accelerate temperature exponentially?
Richard: No. Methane emissions would drop and aerosols can be replaced quite easily. Even if we chose to not replace aerosols, it would just be a step change. Natural methane emissions are generally quite slow, at least on human timescales. Plus, the oceans are quite hungry. Our current levels of CO2 would start dropping about half as fast as they’ve been rising.
Then, it becomes a sort of a race between the loss of arctic sea ice, natural slow feedbacks, and ecosystem death on one side, and the oceans, our scrambling to replace dead boreal (and other) forests with more suitable ecosystems, and the fact that we’re orbitally positioned for a cooler climate than we currently have on the other.
Personally, I’m rooting for absolute devastation of the Arctic sea ice this fall. Open water would drive the US elections, and that’s far more important than a single year’s numbers.
————
BPL, thank you for the thoughtful reply. If you knew me, you’d know I believe in Capitalism with a Socialist Ceiling. That’s way off topic, so I’ll just let folks ponder what that means.
————–
Edward Greisch, :-)
———-
Victor, you hinted at what you desire, which is a count of extreme event frequency and magnitude. I’ll let others find and link to such data. It’s been posted here before. But then you warped right back to individual event attribution, which, of course, is patently ridiculous. Every single bit of weather everywhere is 100% caused by global warming, even instances of cooler weather. Without GW, Sandy, for example, would not have happened, BUT an even stronger hurricane might have occurred three seconds/hours/weeks sooner.
————-
Patrick, yes, I’m primarily concerned about what to do over the next 50 years. Short-range EVs in the city centers and biofuel hybrids in the suburbs and intercity would be my vision. Did you know that most ICE pollution is caused by the horrible warm-up techniques used today? They literally dump up to triple the fuel into the engine in an attempt to warm up the cat, so hydrocarbons are spewed with abandon. And they don’t even use staged-combustion, so NOX is always sky-high! Plus, 100MPG instead of 20MPG is a factor of five. All that COPD is a choice/design flaw, not an inherent “feature” of an ICE. (And with EVs in the city centers, everything drops even further)
———
Hank, in case you missed the offer, would you like to see how my engine works?
@202
The ongoing El-Nino weakened all through Feb. of this year, yet temperatures have risen by an additional 0.13’C over that period.
This as far as I can see is an unprecedented change that can not be attributed to the El-Nino itself.
I don’t see how it could be a reporting quantization issue, as the change is rather staggering in magnitude.
“sweet little spike in the surface temperature record in February 1998”
Yes, but this did not come on top of an immediately previous rise of almost 0.3’C rise the month before, as we are seeing today.
“Alternatively, taking the January 2016 data and using 1998 as a predictor”
Puts the Nino neutral temperatures at 1’C which is what 1.2’C above pre-industrial norms.
I am not an alarmist, but I am alarmed by NASA’s posted Feb Temp.
Jon Kirwin: it’s just that I wouldn’t expect you to suggest a poorer paper than a better one.
Richard: Ahh, but he’s involved in commerce. It’s possible that he’s sitting on a unique solution. I’m sure I sound like a crackpot when I speak about my engine cycle.* Heck, I’d dismiss most folks who talked like me. Magic carburetors don’t exist and never will…
Personally, I’m betting you are substantially right. Most people are way off when it comes to rating their own creations. $2000/ton dropping to $1000/ton sounds reasonable. Drop it to $500 and I’m intrigued but starting to smell something funny. Claim $50/ton and I’m way skeptical. That probably isn’t even enough to mine the ore and smelt the metal required.
*That’s why I’m offering Hank 0.5% of my IP to just look at my theories. If Hank says, “Cool!”, people will listen.
————
Victor: The same could certainly be said for the dust bowl disaster of the 1930’s that we know so well.
As a Nebraskan (Nebraska was the epicenter of the Dust Bowl) I know Dust Bull when I hear it. The 30’s were hot and dry, but not exceptionally so, when viewed from the current era. Instead, it was a man-made disaster caused by horrible farming practices and the lack of hybrid seed. In fact, a single Nebraska farmer was responsible for the incredible takeover of hybrid seed in farming. He noticed that a single “square” of test hybrid corn still produced even under Dust Bowl conditions. After that, nobody wanted to risk the total loss of their crop. Hybrids didn’t succeed because they increased yield, but because they protected against catastrophic loss.
Look at figures 1 and 2. Recent temps have spiked higher and rainfall lower than the Dust Bowl. Please comment, Victor.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/dl/NebGuide.pdf
Dan,
Well read layman here, too. CO2 provides the main forcing at the moment, other forcings are largely cancelled out by the aerosols (which you term Global Dimming), which are themselves caused mainly by burning fossil fuels. CO2 can have an effect for thousands of years, particularly because of slow feedbacks. The notion that the globe doesn’t feel the effects of the carbon for 40 years is a meme which is simply wrong but seems to have imprinted itself on many lay people (plus a few who should know better). There is no delay or lag (that’s a misnomer) unless you’re thinking of the full effects of the carbon. It takes roughly 40 years to get to 60% of the effect though it actually ramps up quickly (it’s starting to level off at 40 years). So we’re already feeling the effects of yesterday’s emissions.
So, yes, there would likely be some ramping up of warming, if aerosols are reduced by reduced fossil fuel burning (though not quite as badly as you’re painting) but that is still something that has to be done to avoid even worse effects later on if fossil fuel burning continues at current rates (or even ramps up).
If I’ve misstated anything, I hope more knowledgeable heads will correct.
In a leading danish newspaper today, Stefan Rahmstorf is quoted saying about the february temperature: “We are in a climate emergency situation now.”
Vendicar Decarian @233.
I’m a little at a loss as to the basis of your alarm from the NASA February value.
The correlation between El Nino strength and global temperature anomaly is neither exact nor instantaneous. And the “sweet little” temperature spike in 1998 was in truth preceded by larger temperature rises in prior months than those that that went before the present the smaller (as reported so far) spike of 2016. (Comparing Jan to Jan 1997/98 with 2015/16 the rise back then was either identical (NOAA) or larger (NASA by 0.05ºC, HadCRUT by 0.071ºC.) Indeed, what you describe as “rise of almost 0.3’C rise the month before” I see as comprising +0.04ºC (NASA), -0.08ºC (NOAA) and -0.111ºC (HadCRUT) which surely overall suggests a fall in temperature not a rise.
Finally, global temperature in 2016 (as in 1998) will not reflect ENSO neutral conditions. In 1998 the global temperature was greatly elevated. Using a 1980-2015 regression as datum lines yields elevations of 0.16ºC (NASA & NOAA) and 0.30ºC (HadCRUT).
We may see a drop in global mean temp as this El Nino event weakens, but my gut says we are seeing warming related to other processes now, things like methane release, etc. I expect monthly temps in 2016 to be like February: jaw-dropping global temperature gains.
February numbers are in, you can see them in the rear view mirror.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/february-smashes-earths-alltime-global-heat-record-by-a-jawdropping
Comment by mike — 14 Mar 2016
I know better than to argue with Hank but I do ‘believe’ that we’re seeing an upward trend that is different from the trend we’re used to seeing. I ‘think’ things are starting to accelerate. I don’t know because I am not a scientist but I also don’t know why it can’t already be happening.
Every freaking time there’s been a projection of WHEN things will happen they’ve had to revise it. We need a climate model that factors in human behavior so we can get a true picture of the future. Human behavior is way more predictable.
The trend is that the processes are speeding up. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. We may drop back a little bit after this El Nino subsides but probably not much.
#226, Victor–Ah, but I notice that there is pecisely zero evidentiary support for your assertion that Martin Hoerling’s assessment of the drought is in any way exaggerated. I admit that I haven’t examined its foundation, but I expect it rests on a quantification of natural variability as observed in the available (proxy, probably) record. If so, Dr. Hoerling is on much firmer ground than you are.
Similarly for your assertion about the Dust Bowl. Given that there are mega-droughts in the paleo record, I doubt it is outside variability. (There’s also some suggestion of a human role via land use, IIRC, but that’s another issue.)
And I’m afraid your ‘even more telling’ point about West African drought descends to complete bathos. By definition, if those droughts “were the norm in West Africa over the past 3,000 years,” then they were clearly not outside the range of natural variability.
Finally, you are correct that some studies at global scale do not show drought trends. However, it’s a cherry pick in that you ignore the fact that other such studies do show such trends. As far as I can tell, the metaphorical jury is still out, and alarming results such as Barton’s remain unproven but also unexcluded–unfortunately.
> I’m offering Hank 0.5% of my IP to just look at my theories.
> If Hank says, “Cool!”, people will listen.
I don’t work that cheap, 5 percent is normal for competent expert advice, and this is an area where I’m not competent to advise, so — no.
On trends, see Tamino:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/surprise-but-not-shock/
The world (and the climate blogs in particular) have a plethora of people repeatedly proclaiming their beliefs based on hunches about what stuff looks like to them, and very few scientists and fewer statisticians participating trying to teach us to think beyond that.
Please follow Tamino.
Those who, like me, are not competent to teach can at least recognize and point to good teachers rather than adding to the noise.
I found Gavin’s “wow” comment to be too subtle. I think Stefan’s “we are in a climate emergency situation now” to be more useful for those of us trying to understand the data, the science and their implications.
Now we wait and watch through the year to see if this is a trend or data points. If it’s a trend, I think we are in trouble.
But maybe not, cooler heads sometimes think I am an alarmist.
Stefan may want to walk back his climate emergency comment. That sounds alarmist. Wow is less likely to create concern among the folks who fund climate science.
Chuck – it’s a disaster to keep predicting the worst case scenario, catching flak for a non-scientific read of the tea leaves, then have the worst become reality in six months to a year. Rear view mirror science has some weaknesses.
Chuck – it’s a disaster to keep predicting the worst case scenario, catching flak for a non-scientific read of the tea leaves, then have the worst become reality in six months to a year. Rear view mirror science has some weaknesses.
Comment by Mike — 15 Mar 2016
Mike, I am in no way qualified to make any predictions about Climate, politics, human behavior etc. The only thing I see is that the people who do have the qualifications to make any sort of predictions concerning climate get it right but on a completely screwed up time scale. I’m always reading things like… “by the end of the century we should see X amount of SLR with GAT @ ~ X degrees Celsius”. Then they add the same old qualifier “under a BAU scenario”. Well guess what? I don’t see BAU changing any time soon; especially if we elect Donald Trump, so can we just leave that off for now?
I think it should say something like: “Based on a human stupidity factor of 10, which seems to have plateaued but could double over the next election cycle….”
Telling folks that ‘it is possible to hold GAT at under 2C’ is a lie based on known facts. Who on this site really thinks that that is possible given what we know already? Sure, it’s possible that the GOP could experience an Epiphany and embrace Science. I could also drive to Hollywood tomorrow and become the next Robert Redford. It’s possible that I could be on the first manned mission to Mars. I could also win the lottery and retire but I’m not looking for it to happen.
I’m not panicked, scared, alarmist or any of that. I am frustrated as I’m sure many others are. I share in that feeling of utter frustration because changes are so incremental. Existential forces may not already be in play but given our track record for doing anything they will be soon.
Anyway, end of rant. I feel much better now. Thank you for your post. If anyone wants to visit me I have my own private padded room in the local Asylum, Block C, Rm 214.
Chuck,
I have to agree. I don’t see any way we’re going to hold it under +2 K. The vast majority of voters in industrial countries–or, I should say, policy-makers in industrial countries–simply don’t care enough to do what has to be done. Either, for whatever reason, they can’t bring themselves to quite believe it, or, for whatever reason, they ultimately don’t care.
If you look back at the way James Hansen was treated by his employer, the Fed Govt, it’s really not hard to see why climate scientists make choices, conscious or otherwise, to tailor their models to produce results that are in synch with the political winds. That is how we end up with consensus science that creates a “wow” moment for a fine scientist like Gavin. There is so much pressure from every side on the climate scientists to somehow save us from ourselves. Sometimes that means to tweak climate models, keep playing with the variables and modulation of same until the outcome is in synch with the outcome that protects something close to a bau economy, things like CO2 capture, the LU question that arose from Lewis on the Marvel comments, etc.
[Response: Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We don’t ‘tweak’ the models to support the ‘bau economy’ and frankly I wouldn’t know how to even if it was desirable. – gavin]
Gavin’s defensiveness on the Lewis question reflects the pressure that the scientists are under. Almost without exception, the predictions from models have underestimated the rate and degree of change. What does that tell all of us?
When there are exceptions that are closer to reality overtime – like Wadhams arctic sea ice loss will prove to be – these scientists are treated like orphans by the scientific community. If that was not the case, we would be able to look back in the record and see folks like the scientists saying something like: “I think Wadhams is wrong, but his model and scientific predictions should make us all think about the “bad possibilities”, the low probability, high impact events. These bad possibilities are why we build structures designed to stand the very rare, large earthquake and why we build roads and bridges to the 100 year flood. The high impact evaluations that are derived from solid scientific methods probably represent the outcomes that policy makers, governments, etc. should be using to determine changes in the way we live on this planet so that we are not all standing on the 50 year flood plain when the 100 year flood arrives.”
Wow does not cut it imho.
[Response: Meh. Wadhams (and others like McPherson or Beckwith) get criticised because they don’t present convincing evidence to support their points. It has nothing to do with their solutions – they are simply seen as making the science fit their preconceived notion of what should be happening. That doesn’t work if it’s a contrarian denying anything is happening and it shouldn’t work at the other end either. – gavin]
Mike: If it’s a trend, I think we are in trouble.
Richard: No, it’s just the expected step change that fills in the “missing” rise of the hiatus. (plus a bit of natural variability) Kind of like what happens when you’re sitting in front of a fan in a heat wave and the power goes out. If there was a trend, we’d see its signature, perhaps via rising methane concentrations. As folks here admonish deniers, you’ve got to have a mechanism. Nothing new here, folks. Move along. (though we might see a mechanism this fall when the sea ice melts out)
————-
Hank, actually, it was an offer of a gift and social interaction, though I dressed it up to appear like an exchange. Note that I didn’t ask for anything beyond a a single word on a social forum of no economic value to me based on a two minute initial impression. It was, “Is this as interesting to you as one of the hundreds of mouse-clicks you do every day?” Thanks for the answer. I got what I wanted, which was more a study of human nature than anything else. The internet has greatly expanded one of my catchphrases, “I hate know-it-alls. They make it ever so hard for those of us who do.” (which I balance with, “I don’t know much, but I can figure anything out.”)
It will be interesting to do the math, especially when one adds in the rest of “all” and the expansion of 0.5%. It’s not like I need more than 0.01% myself. Stewards are as stewards do.
To me, a “Wow” from the always cool Gavin Schmidt means a lot.
Re me@63: Climate Change Communication. Is there or should there be a phone App and/or Facebook page with a live list of factual indicators of Climate Change. To gain trust, these must be factual i.e. true observations like NASA gistemp and ESRL CO2. No unverified data, no predictions and definitely NO suggestions of blame or how to change your life to fix it. Some indicators would come and go depending on relevance. Some might have a local function to see how the Climate is faring at your location.
In my early years, I studied a Russian Philosopher called Ouspensky. It was his view, that to make (personal) change, one is only required to observe oneself i.e. to be fully aware what you are doing, cause our brains are clever enough to initiate subtle change just from observation. Like an obese person only needs to observe what they eat, see themselves often in mirrors and be aware of things like the huffing and puffing when walking up a hill.
Don’t all queue up for responses, cause I am too busy preparing for change to debate any issues at length.
Gavin at 245: can you explain why you and Stefan appear to be so surprised at the February temperature measurement?
from pbs website: Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist who uses data to create a virtual reality model of earth. He looks at the past and present to predict the future, and wants you to think about climate change NOW.
It seems that part of what you are working on is models to predict the future. How is your model working if you have to look at real numbers and say wow?
The thread started with a question about celebrity awareness-raising on global warming, but I don’t think many of us bit on that. I continue to wish that a climate scientist might do some awareness-raising on global warming.
Do you agree with Stefan’s comment on February temperature? Are in a kind of climate emergency now?
Climate change alarmism: the belief that responsible action on climate change will wreck the economy.