UAH has posted for March at +0.73ºC. That is down on the record-setting +0.90ºC of February. For comparison, the 1997/98 El Nino peaked at +0.66ºC in Feb 1998, falling back to +0.42ºC in March with a second peak of +0.65ºC in April. A like-for-like comparison of Jan-Mar averages puts 1998 at +0.51ºC and 2015 at +0.75ºC. That would be a 0.13ºC/decade temperature increase. The rise on the Jan-Mar averages above preceding years may be worth consideration – 1997-to-98 rise 0.65ºC, 2015-to-16 rise 0.45ºC. (Note these are Spencer’s beta version v6.0 of UAH that he is posting.)
“New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and a coalition of AGs gave Exxon and all fossil fuel companies notice this week that obfuscating the threat of global warming could put them under the searchlight of an investigation.”
“Climate Fraud Investigation of Exxon Draws Attention of 17 Attorneys General”
“Thirty Years of Climate ‘Deception’ Could Become Offense Under New Calif. Law”
Ooops! In my previous post I’m mixing up UAH v5.6 & UAH v6.0 (not for the first time). Mind, with the latter still in a beta version but being presented as the official version, having two different versions rattling round all at once does take a bit of getting used to.
So take two.
UAH v6.0 anomaly for March was +0.73ºC which is down on the +0.834ºC record set in February and the third highest anomaly after April 1998 (+0.743ºC). Comparing this El Nino year with 1998, the Jan-Mar average stands at +0.70ºC compared with 1998’s +0.54ºC, a rise of 0.16ºC over the 18 year period (a rate of +0.09ºC/decade). A comparison of the Jan-to-Mar annual rise 1997-8 and 2015-6 may also be worth considering – 1997-8 – 0.66ºC, 2015-6 – 0.48ºC (suggesting El Nino is not boosting the troposphere temperatures as greatly as back in 1998. Certainly the 1998-2016 comparison yields half the warming trend show by a pre-El-Nino 1997-2015 comparison).
comments pop-up shows 4 comments but if you open unforced variations in a new window, they are not there.
JoeTsays
I have a question about forcings that I’m hoping someone from GISS might weigh in on. If I look at the forcings in GISS climate models page I notice there is about a factor of two difference in the forcings between the CMIP5 models and Hansen (2011). The difference appears to arise because of the much larger contribution of tropospheric aerosols in the Hansen model. Indeed there is a rather nice discussion by Hansen on the role of aerosols arguing for a larger forcing of up to -2W/m2 to account for what he claims is the net energy imbalance of around 0.6 W/m2.
I was hoping someone might discuss briefly whether they are inclined more to the CMIP5 or the Hansen model and explain their reasoning. Thanks in advance.
[Response: Different kinds of calculation. The Hansen et al 2011 values are from an inverse calculation, while the values used in CMIP5 simulations are from forward models driven by more up-to-date emissions data. The uncertainties in both are relatively large. – gavin]
JesusRsays
This comment is just to thank you for all that I’ve learned from you, the RC Team, and specially Gavin Schmidt. At first I thought I was learning about climate science. But then, after years of reading you (also SkepticalScience, Tamino, Annan&Hargreaves…) and fighting the denialists, I had a daughter and my interests gradually shifted from climate to, initially fetal medicine, then pediatrics and nutrition, and now even economics. I bumped into parenting philosophies, alternative medicine, anti-vaccine movements, the Austrian School, the Modern Monetary Theory… And it wasn’t that hard for me to distinguish evidence from speculation; logic from fallacies; expertise from quackery. This way I realised that I had learned a lot more than I thought at RealClimate. I had a new mental framework and skills to understand how the world works, when a model does fit facts, and to delimit the things we don’t know. All of you, academics in any field that spend time disseminating science to the laypersons; fighting science denial, prejudices and stupidity; exposing yourselves to personal attacks, slander, defamation and inquiries, all of you are damned heroes that are making the world a better place, by making the people think better. For all this, thank you very much. Thank you, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, William Connolley, Jim Bouldin and the rest of the contributors. I hope life brings you all the best of the best.
I think Gavin has nailed the issue with the models in his response on 7. when he says the uncertainties are relatively large. I like that explanation. I bet that’s accurate.
Interesting read. I hope this person will do an update later this year to catch up and include the “wow” numbers that have been posted since this post went up. Does “Our Changing Climate” look like a legitimate science page or am I being taken in? It’s got graphs and all that sciency stuff, so looks real to me. But what do I know, I am just an old guy enjoying some really great ENSO spring weather in the NW.
Hope you are all enjoying the lovely weather as well,
MA Rodger @2: Why are you quoting the early release temperature data from UAH? Isn’t Dr Spencer in some denial of human induced climate change?
Theosays
Policy Question:
Being a kind hearted christian, I have made the mistake of feeding the wild animals in my environment. Parrots, Magpies, Goannas, Possums and Wallabies make such a nice display around the home. They are doing well and, no doubt, breeding more, so that now, their polulations can only be sustained by me feeding them more.
Likewise, governments and charities provide aid to the poor starving humans in developing nations. These nations have the largest population growth and the largest rate of urbanisation. They are also doing better and breeding more, so that now, their populations and their habits can only be sustained by us giving them more.
That 4-letter word MORE. Everything in nature always wants more. More food, more territory and more breeding. Humans are no different.
Climate Change presents a remote or even likely chance of discomfort in the far future. Humanity can possibly avoid some of this discomfort by consuming LESS or maybe by spending lots of money and effort to reinvent our economy.
What would be the correct policy direction, so that we can avoid this climate change thingy and still have more ?
“Isn’t Dr Spencer in some denial of human induced climate change?”
Depends what you mean by “some.” He is firmly in support of the mainstream science on mechanisms of GHG-induced warming, and consistently tries to explain it to his more denialist followers.
But he also insists that there’s no evidence that warming will be particularly large or dangerous, that the mainstream is wrong either because of groupthink or political bias, and that fossil fuels are essential tools for economic and human development. Scientifically, he thinks he’s found evidence of climate-stabilizing negative feedbacks (if I correctly grasped and recall the essence of his paper with Braswell of a couple of years back.)
In short, a lukewarmer.
The UAH data set has its communicative value, though, since despite a couple of embarrassing glitches over the years*, and the curiously cooling set of revisions currently (and confusingly) in beta, it remains fairly consilient with the other data sets, and is clearly not run by alarmist conspirators. (Hmm, that sentence seems to have been brought to you by the letter “C”…)
*To be fair, RSS is in process of correcting one such, too. Satellite temperature retrieval may not be rocket science exactly, but it’s apparently damn finicky.
Just to illustrate the consilience of UAH, here’s the current iterations of GISTEMP, RSS and UAH, as available on woodfortrees (a tool well worth spending some play time with):
RSS shows the smallest trend, but that relationship with UAH should reverse when a) UAH v6 is implemented at wft, and b) RSS comes out with the revised TLT series AND it is implemented at wft. I suppose there could be ‘ifs’ inserted in that sentence at a couple of points, too.
Family subsidies only cause more poverty. The Green Revolution could have gotten people out of poverty, but India doubled its population instead.
I’m glad we now know that you are “a kind hearted christian.” Been there done that. It doesn’t work. We have been trying to feed the world since 1945 that I know of. Physical reality is a much better basis for your future actions. I recommend that you actually go to college and get a degree in physics, if you can. The big picture is as follows:
We are headed for a human population crash from 7.5 Billion to 70 thousand or zero people some time between 2022 and 2040. We don’t have time for research or fooling around with renewables. Causes of a population crash:
1. Global Warming [GW] will cause civilization to collapse within 13 years give or take 6 years because GW will cause the rain to move and the rain move will force agriculture to collapse. Famine has been the cause of many dozens of previous population crashes.
2. Reference “Overshoot” by William Catton, 1980 and “Bottleneck: Humanity’s Impending Impasse” by William Catton, 2009. Catton says that we humans are about to experience a population crash. Population biologist William Catton says that the US is the most overcrowded country. Collapse from overpopulation could happen any time now.
The Earth has 4.5 Billion too many people. An overshoot in population requires an equal undershoot. We overshot by 4.5 billion, and the consequence is an undershoot by 4.5 billion. The carrying capacity is 3 billion. 3 billion minus 4.5 billion is zero because there can’t be minus 1.5 billion people. This can happen even if there is enough food.
Catton tells the story of an island with deer but no wolves. The deer population increased to ~3500. There was still plenty of food, but the population crashed to 35. The reason was overcrowding.
Sharing kills everybody because you can’t survive on half of the required calories. 7 billion people is 4 billion too many no matter how you slice it. “We” didn’t make “Them” have too many children.
3. Aquifers running dry No irrigation, no wheat. No wheat, no bread. The “Green Revolution” was a bad idea. It caused India to double her population rather than get out of poverty. Now Indian farmers have “discovered” that water is a limiting resource. Water is a limiting resource in the US as well. When, not if, the aquifer under the high plains runs dry, there will be no bread and no pasta in the US.
We didn’t “cause” third world poverty. They were never “unpoor” in the first place. They were stone age, not poor. We invented science. They didn’t. Their failure to invent science is not our fault.
War will kill a lot of people. Famine will kill 8 billion out of 7.5 billion. 7.5-8=-0.5, but with population, the crash ends at zero.
Will there be survivors? Nobody knows. Nor does anybody have any idea who or where the survivors might be, if any.
NATURE has lots of other ways to kill humans. Don’t provoke her.
Edward Greischsays
10 Russell: Even though that map of Israel is from WUWT, I like it if it is right. The weight of that much more water in the Jordan River Valley would enable the East African Rift Valley system to continue doing its thing. Biblical scale earthquakes would deepen, lengthen and widen the rift valley as East Africa splits off from West Africa. The Red Sea would grow and link up with the Jordan River Valley, making a sea level canal to replace the Suez canal. A lot of holy shrines would wind up below the Deep Blue. How would the 3 Abrahamic religions survive?
It’s behind paywall, so not sure, but TruthDig quotes the authors saying:
“We looked at the long-standing problem posed by geological evidence that suggests sea level rose dramatically in the past, possibly by up to 10 to 20 metres around 3 million years ago in the Pliocene,” Dr Pollard says. “Existing models couldn’t simulate enough ice sheet melting to explain that.”
The part I can see on Nature includes the following:
“Here we simulate the glacial inception and early growth of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet using a general circulation model with coupled components for atmosphere, ocean, ice sheet and sediment, and which incorporates palaeogeography, greenhouse gas, changing orbital parameters, and varying ocean heat transport. In our model, declining Cenozoic CO2 first leads to the formation of small, highly dynamic ice caps on high Antarctic plateaux. At a later time, a CO2 threshold is crossed, initiating ice-sheet height/mass-balance feedbacks that cause the ice caps to expand rapidly with large orbital variations, eventually coalescing into a continental-scale East Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
I don’t understand this idea of a CO2 threshold. Is this function well-understood? Is it incorporated into most of the climate models. If anyone has access to the whole paper, can they provide the CO2 ppm number that DeConto and Pollard think was the threshold way back when?
No worries. Beautiful day here in NW, going to cruise the Prius to PDX and help a friend replace battery in his electric car. Then we plan to end up at the Laurelthirst Pub and dance to the Freak Mountain Ramblers for a couple of hours.
Join me there and I will buy you a pint. Brew selection is very good at LT.
Theo @11.
I assume by “early release” you mean UAH v6.0.beta5 (rather than the posting of the headline global anomaly from Spencer which is released earlier than the full monthly data set, be that beta v6.0 or the published v5.6).
If the output of the as-yet-unpublished beta versions of UAH v6.0 presented crazy numbers, I would be less eager to bring its data hot-press here to Real Climate. But note that UAH v6.0 does purport to measure similar bits of atmosphere to RSS TLT v3.3 and as of the present UAH v6.0 does give very similar results. Mind, we do await RSS v4.0 which promises to give significantly differing data (as was seen in the recent TMT & TTT v4.0). So should we continue to use RSS TLT v3.3 given it is about to be superseded? Or, given Spencer’s AGW denial, does the similarity of result of RSS TLT v3.3 with Spencer’s UAH v6.0 give us pause for thought over the RSS data?
As for AGW denial, we can but hope that the science will triumph over the poor judgement of an individual even if that poor judgement is deeply ingrained like AGW denial tends to be.
The period in the surface temperature record from 1940 to 1970 has been somewhat controversial for the “pause” evident in the trend line beginning about 1950. (Aerosols? Cool phase ocean circulations in rare congruence?)
But if one imagines the whole record without the rather dramatic spike in the 1940s, the trend line looks pretty steadily upward in monotonic relationship with CO2 PPM since 1910. Can someone explain why the curiosity is mostly about the pause rather than the spike? Or is that not the case and I’ve missed a lot in the lit.?
Chuck Hughessays
What would be the correct policy direction, so that we can avoid this climate change thingy and still have more ?
Worth pointing our that Edward has the math wrong. It is pretty easy to feed people with less land if we change the way we do animal husbandry. https://slashdot.org/journal/2621427/explanatory-note-for-better-home-through-chemistry And, Theo, #11, you don’t have a duty to feed wildlife, you are instructed to ignore the sabath rules to help your neighbor’s animal if needed. The key thing is helping your neighbor.
Theo, I won’t re-debunk all the rebunk that Ed just posted, but do note that IMO (and those of others here if I recall past discussions correctly), points 1-3 are very much ‘cartoon versions’.
For instance, I believe that this is the ‘deer on island’ story to which Ed refers:
Particularly egregious is the allegation that civilization will “collapse within 13 years give or take 6 years” due to drought. IMO there is essentially zero probability of widespread civilizational collapse within 7 years, and it’s not all that much higher out to 19 years.
There is serious literature on the possibility of collapse, though:
Doesn’t make any prediction/projection, but speaks to the magnitude of the resource/population/energy/food issues the world will face in 2030. Emphasizes that challenges can be met–or not.
#12 Theo: “What would be the correct policy direction, so that we can avoid this climate change thingy and still have more ?”
The place to start is to put a rising fee on the CO2 content of fossil fuels and distribute 100% of the money collected to every legal resident. An economic analysis of this “Fee and Dividend” policy says it will, over 20 years in the US, decrease emissions by over 50%, create 2.8 million jobs, and grow GDP by $1.4 trillion.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfect-storm-paper.pdf
“Science and technology can make a major contribution, by providing practical solutions.”
Counting your chickens before they hatch. A typical action of non-scientists who don’t know that miracles don’t come just because you need them. There is no reason to believe any of those chickens will hatch. Science and engineering are not easy.
“Global population is set to increase to around 9 billion” Not. John Beddington is dreaming.
The history of the past 10,000 years is full of people who didn’t see the crash coming. Nobody saw it coming until this time.
“collapse over 35-750 year timeframes–very much dependent on social choices” Denialist.
22 Chris Dudley: Go ahead and start building your sugar makers. Why are you wasting time here when you could be raising capital?
http://mdsolar.blogspot.com
“We could build dikes for example or try to move species poleward or attempt some other ridiculous adaptation measure like opening our borders to refugees. Mitigation is too easy and too cheap so let’s plan on breaking the bank.”
Exactly. 7.5 billion people are still 7.5 billion no matter how they are distributed on the globe. When evolutionists talk about adaptation, they mostly mean “die.” Species adapt when Nature kills 99.99% of the individuals.
16
Edward , the new map is from VV-, not W -UWT , but It is brave of you ro risk citation there as adding the Red Sea Rift to Willard’s underwater volcano arsenal– the Atlantis II Deep is one of the great hydrothermal hellholes of the world
Chuck, if you are talking about more of business, as usual, I agree. It is time to consider a different “more” that is not mutually exclusive with avoiding climate change. Steve
The study starts by reducing human civilization into four easy-to-toggle factors: Elites, Commoners, nature and wealth. The paper explains that this was done because “ecological strain” and “economic stratification” are the only two things that consistently plague collapsing societies.
Each factor was then assigned a complex mathematical equation and gathered together in what researchers called the HANDY (Human And Nature Dynamical) model.
The model was then configured to calculate the fate of several types of societies, including the “unequal society,” a system of rich and poor that researchers dubbed the one most “closely reflecting the reality of our world today.”
In the first scenario the population of elites suddenly spikes after 750 years, causing a “scarcity of workers” that sounds the civilization’s death knell by year 1000.
The second, “full collapse” scenario has the elites and commoners irreparably eating up the Earth’s resources after 350 years, leading to a slow bleed that destroys both humans and the planet by year 500.
“It is important to note that in both of these scenarios, the Elites — due to their wealth — do not suffer the detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners,” reads the paper…
The only two scenarios that do not kill everyone, in fact, are the ones in which birth rates are either strictly controlled or “resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.”
The non-deadly scenarios “are designed to indicate the kinds of policies needed to avoid this catastrophic outcomes,” read the study.
““Global population is set to increase to around 9 billion” Not. John Beddington is dreaming.”
It’s not John Beddington; it’s basically the entire demographic profession. Of course, they aren’t necessarily versed in disciplines that give us reason to expect, shall we say conservatively, “hard times.” They’re still more credible than Ed, though.
““Science and technology can make a major contribution, by providing practical solutions.”–Counting your chickens before they hatch. A typical action of non-scientists who don’t know that miracles don’t come just because you need them. There is no reason to believe any of those chickens will hatch. Science and engineering are not easy.”
Except that there is a pretty darn good record of “hatching”:
Global food production has more than doubled in the past 40 years, despite only an 8% increase in the use of land for agriculture since the 1960s (IPCC 2007). Much of the success over this period can be attributed to technological and process innovations, such as the introduction of chemical pesticides, fertilisers, irrigation and crop improvement through breeding.
True, ‘past performance is not a guarantee of future results,’ but it’s a better guide than random guesswork.
Chuck Hughessays
Will there be survivors? Nobody knows. Nor does anybody have any idea who or where the survivors might be, if any.
NATURE has lots of other ways to kill humans. Don’t provoke her.
Comment by Edward Greisch — 3 Apr 2016
That’s good. For a minute there I thought we were doomed.
I have been familiar with HANDY for some time. It has a lot of similarity to the rabbit studies that population biologists do.
The credible ones are Barton Paul Levenson, Catton, and Rees whom I follow.
The past is not a good forecast of the future. Farmers have found that other things, like running out of pumpable fresh water, land, insects, etcetera became the new limit before another green revolution has a chance anyway.
I am not doing random guessing. I am speaking as an engineer and scientist who has done R&D in the past and know how that goes. It is never as rosy as the boss expects.
All of you, academics in any field that spend time disseminating science to the laypersons; fighting science denial, prejudices and stupidity; exposing yourselves to personal attacks, slander, defamation and inquiries, all of you are damned heroes that are making the world a better place, by making the people think better. For all this, thank you very much.
That was very well said. I wish to associate myself with JesusR’s remarks 8^)!
Killiansays
Except that there is a pretty darn good record of “hatching”:
Global food production has more than doubled in the past 40 years, despite only an 8% increase in the use of land for agriculture since the 1960s (IPCC 2007). Much of the success over this period can be attributed to technological and process innovations, such as the introduction of chemical pesticides, fertilisers, irrigation and crop improvement through breeding.
True, ‘past performance is not a guarantee of future results,’ but it’s a better guide than random guesswork
Pretty good what? cause that “revolution” revolutionarily destroyed soils, waterways, lakes, oceans the world over, just for starters.
You’ve just said putting ourselves at the brink of collapse was a good thing.
#32–“You’ve just said putting ourselves at the brink of collapse was a good thing.”
Er, no, I didn’t. I said that there was a robust record of increasing agricultural productivity via innovation, and quoted what Beddington had to say about that.
You conflated 4 specific innovations into one ‘revolution’, then blamed it for water pollution ‘the world over’, then equated that with “putting ourselves at the brink of collapse.”
Of course chemical pollution of waterways is a problem. But increasing agricultural productivity is also a necessity–and there’s good evidence that it is possible. We face tough choices, no way around that.
vukcevicsays
2015 N.H temperature an outlier or step into unknown?
Most likely an outlier, but even so not unique if the 1870s temperature data records are realistic. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CruTempNH.gif
> vukcevic
You need to match more than one up-and-down to say there’s a cycle.
Sixty-something year cycles are much blogged about, but few agree that the cycle they’re talking about is the same one as others are talking about, and you get “quasi-60-year” and all sorts of adjustments to the wiggles to try to claim there might be a match.
”Does “Our Changing Climate” look like a legitimate science page or am I being taken in? It’s got graphs and all that sciency stuff, so looks real to me.”
Mike, “Our Changing Climate” is a blog about climate science and founded by Bart Verheggen. Bart is an atmospheric scientist, see for instance his guest post here at RealClimate: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/aerosol-formation-and-climate-part-i/
I’m not a climate scientist myself (actually I studied organic chemistry) but very interested in the topic. Normally I write blogposts for the Dutch version of “Our Changing Climate” (https://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/) and once in a while I try to write an English blogpost. You seem to have stumbled upon one of them. We try to take climate science very serious, so I’m glad it looks real to you :). You can always have a look at the links to the scientific papers or other sources present in our blogposts, so you can check for yourself whether the statements in the blogposts are correct or not.
RSS also now posted for March with +0.832ºC, down on February’s record-holding +0.978ºC. March takes third slot behind April 1998 (+0.857ºC), an identical ordering to the UAH data. A 1997/8 – 2015/16 El-Nino-year comparison of the average for first three months yields +0.62ºC for 1998 & +0.83ºC for 2016, a rise of 0.21ºC over the 18 years (UAH yielded an 18 year rise of 0.16ºC). The rise on the previous non-El-Nino year-starts yields 1997-8 RSS 0.62ºC, (UAH 0.66ºC,) & 2015-6 RSS 0.51ºC, (UAH 0.48ºC), both suggesting the ENSO wobble is significantly smaller this time.
Richard Caldwellsays
It looks like geoengineering is hitting the mainstream. I wonder whether we’ll Brimstone the atmosphere before installing carbon tax.
The notion that humanity is headed for a population collapse has been tossed around for decades. Certainly, given previous episodes as a model of the future, it’s gonna happen, sooner or later. The big difference this time will be the fact that the entire Earth is likely to experience the effects, since we humans have decided to become interconnected at some very basic levels. Our technologies have allowed Western style development patterns to infect populations the whole world around. Our reliance on non-renewable resources, especially fossil fuels, seems to be heading for a brick wall. Peak Oil hasn’t happened yet, thanks to fracking, but must eventually arrive. The oceans, which provide protein for a large fraction of humanity, are over fished and becoming more acidic, causing declining productivity. Agriculture depends on land and our overuse of the land results in a continual loss of available crop area, even as what little forested area remains is converted to crop production. Our present agricultural technology depends on non-renewable fossil fuels as well as phosphate mined in only a few locations, both soon to be depleted. The Limits to Growth problem has been been discussed by numerous studies for more than 40 years, most of which have been ignored by the political and economic powers which make things happen. Here’s another one to add to those listed above: Too Smart for our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind by Craig Dilworth.
However, to claim that a massive die back will decimate the entire human population seems a bit extreme, absent a nuclear war, which could certainly be suicidal. More likely, to my mind, is repeated local failures, such as Syria after the drought, each adding to the previous crisis events, slowly grinding global human society to dust. But, somewhere, some folks will still hang on, using simple technologies as humanity has done for thousands of years, maybe leading to new civilizations. Only next time, there won’t be any fossil fuels to re-start a technological society such as we enjoy today. Back to animals for motive power and wind energy for ships and wood for producing high temperatures to work metals. Rather like Medieval Europe where the daily struggle for survival was brutal and life was short and that was all there was to life.
Thomassays
#8 JesusR
“… all of you are damned heroes that are making the world a better place, by making the people think better. For all this, thank you very much.”
2011 Day 91 – 22.197 thousand kilometers cubed
2012 Day 91 – 22.913 thousand kilometers cubed
2016 is therefore currently still in second place behind 2011. Since records began of course.
Theosays
First Ed@15 and many other places: If you keep going like this, they will be reclassifying RC as alarmist. FYI more than 50 years ago, I realised that religion is all in the mind and is mainly used to control the population. Me, agnostic of the christian type, rather than any of those others. Nuclear Winter should go in there somewhere, actually stopping the warming and there will be at least one survivor, me !
I know that religion and politics are best to stay OT, but I would like to just state these three relating to climate change.
1. We need to convince religious leaders to get their flocks to worry about and do something about climate change, or else!
2. I do not take serious any scientist or politician suffering from a strong religious illusion. The US is full of that s–t, but they probably only say it, to get the vote. A scientist predicting the end of the world, may actually believe, that it is “the second coming”.
3. And watch out cause, they might also use that new US law to prosecute alarmists wasting public money and causing public unrest.
Russel @10 on the positive side: Always been a fan of Hansen, but again, like in this vid, he is too technical for the general public. I also cut at 13min, when again he gets on his high horse about fossil fuel companies. Scientists should research and report their findings, not preach to society on how to live. On the positive side, the next auto vid, was Michael Mann interviewed in Rubin Report. I love his style, but would like to see a more critical interviewer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rF9HMHl_cY (actually part 2)
Still on Hansen, cause Dan @24 is highlighting his Cap’n Trade solution. Very nice idea, but about as hard to implement as equal wealth distribution around the globe.
and finally this easy one for MA Rodger @18: by early release, I just meant “getting in first”. We all have egos and even W-UWT ran with it without too much denial.
Jesus! (and even he got into the mix), how do you people have any time left for living your lives after researching and defending your posts on RC? Suppose I asked for it :)
Kevin Anderson still spells out his message on our over simplification and optimistic message on GHG emissions and their implications.
The budgets are shrinking and we have better inform the world that the more likely scenario is a 3-4C world and not a 1.5-2C one.
zebrasays
#40 Eric Swanson,
Absent a nuclear war, this post-apocalyptic stuff is just silly.
Even if there is wide-spread mortality, knowledge will not vanish. In the long term, you only need enough individuals to maintain a diverse gene-pool– can any biologists give a rough number?
But other than that, you can always feed enough people to maintain a culture beyond the short brutish existence you suggest. Do you think the population of Germany, say, would have a problem maintaining a modern lifestyle if it didn’t have to compete with any other humans for resources? Even in some new normal climate regime?
Ecological Impacts
Genetic pinch
Alastair Brown
Nature Climate Change
3, 781 (2013)
doi:10.1038/nclimate1999
Ecol. Lett. http://doi.org/ndr (2013)
Genetic diversity is an important determinant of species persistence and adaptive capacity in the face of environmental change, but it is often overlooked in studies of the impacts of climate change. One way to investigate the potential influence of future climate on patterns of genetic variability is…
The shaping of genetic variation in edge-of-range populations under past and future climate change
26 July 2013
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12158
Worth noting that the Paris Accord leaves substantial fossil fuels in the ground, so your reboot scenario won’t be lacking that. I’ve noticed, however, that agriculture isn’t all that important when renewable electricity is available. You can substitute chemistry using less, and less fertile land. So, the constaints you worry about really are not a big concern.
Edward Greischsays
43 Theo: Could you give us the US code number for “that new US law to prosecute alarmists wasting public money and causing public unrest.”? There is nothing alarmist about telling the truth. Look up John Peter Zenger.
45 Zebra and 40 Eric Swanson: Nuclear war cannot make us extinct. At the peak of nuclear bomb arsenals, we were short of an ELE [Extinction Level Event] by a multiple of ten thousand. GW certainly can make us extinct. Nature can muster the required 100 million megatons. 100 million megatons. Get the number right. Syria is part of the leading edge.
Eric Swansonsays
zebra, #45 You are forgetting the Dark Ages, a time in the past where there was a great “forgetting” of technology. For example, the Romans built an industry producing pottery for export and with the collapse of the Roman Empire, these common utensils were replaced by locally produced products of much lower quality. Your assumption that ..”you can always feed enough people to maintain a culture beyond the short brutish existence…” ignores the many previous examples of collapse of civilizations. The problem is overshoot, that is, the tendency to grow beyond sustainable levels because of some temporary surpluses, followed by population crash as the surpluses are exhausted and no replacement supplies are available. Exponential population growth on a finite planet must eventually stop and the expected overshoot is likely to be followed by population crash.
Of course, you also are ignoring the fact that there is already a large number of people on Earth living on less than $2 a day who constantly faces the prospect of going hungry with children growing up malnourished. A prime example today is Egypt, which grew from some 19 million in 1948 to about 80 million today. They can not grow enough food to feed themselves and depend on imported wheat to make bread. Their ability to pay for imported wheat declined as their oil exports fell, causing prices for bread to rise which was a factor in the Arab Spring uprising. As the price of oil plunged, things became worse, such that today, they are supported by funds from Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis are running out of cash as well, they now are running a deficit and are rapidly depleting their oil fields. When the Saudis run out of money/oil, what will happen in Egypt? The Saudis are caught in Dilworth’s Vicious Circle Principle, their state budget is in deficit, thus they must continue to export oil, even though the result has been too much oil in the world market, thus continuing their low national income.
For those who remember Peter Minnett’s RC article, this just showed up on Google Scholar The Impact of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer on Air-Sea Interfacial Heat Fluxes.
UAH has posted for March at +0.73ºC. That is down on the record-setting +0.90ºC of February. For comparison, the 1997/98 El Nino peaked at +0.66ºC in Feb 1998, falling back to +0.42ºC in March with a second peak of +0.65ºC in April. A like-for-like comparison of Jan-Mar averages puts 1998 at +0.51ºC and 2015 at +0.75ºC. That would be a 0.13ºC/decade temperature increase. The rise on the Jan-Mar averages above preceding years may be worth consideration – 1997-to-98 rise 0.65ºC, 2015-to-16 rise 0.45ºC. (Note these are Spencer’s beta version v6.0 of UAH that he is posting.)
Looking for the April unforced variations.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=a2962618ee&e=62914d3491
“New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and a coalition of AGs gave Exxon and all fossil fuel companies notice this week that obfuscating the threat of global warming could put them under the searchlight of an investigation.”
“Climate Fraud Investigation of Exxon Draws Attention of 17 Attorneys General”
“Thirty Years of Climate ‘Deception’ Could Become Offense Under New Calif. Law”
Hope at last?
Ooops! In my previous post I’m mixing up UAH v5.6 & UAH v6.0 (not for the first time). Mind, with the latter still in a beta version but being presented as the official version, having two different versions rattling round all at once does take a bit of getting used to.
So take two.
UAH v6.0 anomaly for March was +0.73ºC which is down on the +0.834ºC record set in February and the third highest anomaly after April 1998 (+0.743ºC). Comparing this El Nino year with 1998, the Jan-Mar average stands at +0.70ºC compared with 1998’s +0.54ºC, a rise of 0.16ºC over the 18 year period (a rate of +0.09ºC/decade). A comparison of the Jan-to-Mar annual rise 1997-8 and 2015-6 may also be worth considering – 1997-8 – 0.66ºC, 2015-6 – 0.48ºC (suggesting El Nino is not boosting the troposphere temperatures as greatly as back in 1998. Certainly the 1998-2016 comparison yields half the warming trend show by a pre-El-Nino 1997-2015 comparison).
http://insideclimatenews.org/
“Climate Fraud Investigation of Exxon Draws Attention of 17 Attorneys General”
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/30032016/climate-change-fraud-investigation-exxon-eric-shneiderman-18-attorneys-general
“30 Years of Climate ‘Deception’ Could Become Offense Under New Calif. Law”
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032016/climate-change-deception-oil-companies-exxon-california-legislation
A ray of hope? But:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032016/ft-lauderdale-climate-change-global-warming-rising-sea-level
comments pop-up shows 4 comments but if you open unforced variations in a new window, they are not there.
I have a question about forcings that I’m hoping someone from GISS might weigh in on. If I look at the forcings in GISS climate models page I notice there is about a factor of two difference in the forcings between the CMIP5 models and Hansen (2011). The difference appears to arise because of the much larger contribution of tropospheric aerosols in the Hansen model. Indeed there is a rather nice discussion by
Hansen on the role of aerosols arguing for a larger forcing of up to -2W/m2 to account for what he claims is the net energy imbalance of around 0.6 W/m2.
I was hoping someone might discuss briefly whether they are inclined more to the CMIP5 or the Hansen model and explain their reasoning. Thanks in advance.
[Response: Different kinds of calculation. The Hansen et al 2011 values are from an inverse calculation, while the values used in CMIP5 simulations are from forward models driven by more up-to-date emissions data. The uncertainties in both are relatively large. – gavin]
This comment is just to thank you for all that I’ve learned from you, the RC Team, and specially Gavin Schmidt. At first I thought I was learning about climate science. But then, after years of reading you (also SkepticalScience, Tamino, Annan&Hargreaves…) and fighting the denialists, I had a daughter and my interests gradually shifted from climate to, initially fetal medicine, then pediatrics and nutrition, and now even economics. I bumped into parenting philosophies, alternative medicine, anti-vaccine movements, the Austrian School, the Modern Monetary Theory… And it wasn’t that hard for me to distinguish evidence from speculation; logic from fallacies; expertise from quackery. This way I realised that I had learned a lot more than I thought at RealClimate. I had a new mental framework and skills to understand how the world works, when a model does fit facts, and to delimit the things we don’t know. All of you, academics in any field that spend time disseminating science to the laypersons; fighting science denial, prejudices and stupidity; exposing yourselves to personal attacks, slander, defamation and inquiries, all of you are damned heroes that are making the world a better place, by making the people think better. For all this, thank you very much. Thank you, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, William Connolley, Jim Bouldin and the rest of the contributors. I hope life brings you all the best of the best.
[Response: Thanks. That means a lot. – gavin]
[Response: What Gavin said :-) – Mike]
I think Gavin has nailed the issue with the models in his response on 7. when he says the uncertainties are relatively large. I like that explanation. I bet that’s accurate.
Daily CO2
April 1, 2016: 404.33 ppm
April 2, 2015: 401.30 ppm
came across this posting from Jos Hagelaars
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/warm-2015-and-model-data-comparisons/
Interesting read. I hope this person will do an update later this year to catch up and include the “wow” numbers that have been posted since this post went up. Does “Our Changing Climate” look like a legitimate science page or am I being taken in? It’s got graphs and all that sciency stuff, so looks real to me. But what do I know, I am just an old guy enjoying some really great ENSO spring weather in the NW.
Hope you are all enjoying the lovely weather as well,
warm regards
Mike
Hansen et al. could become a climate communication tool of biblical proportions.
MA Rodger @2: Why are you quoting the early release temperature data from UAH? Isn’t Dr Spencer in some denial of human induced climate change?
Policy Question:
Being a kind hearted christian, I have made the mistake of feeding the wild animals in my environment. Parrots, Magpies, Goannas, Possums and Wallabies make such a nice display around the home. They are doing well and, no doubt, breeding more, so that now, their polulations can only be sustained by me feeding them more.
Likewise, governments and charities provide aid to the poor starving humans in developing nations. These nations have the largest population growth and the largest rate of urbanisation. They are also doing better and breeding more, so that now, their populations and their habits can only be sustained by us giving them more.
That 4-letter word MORE. Everything in nature always wants more. More food, more territory and more breeding. Humans are no different.
Climate Change presents a remote or even likely chance of discomfort in the far future. Humanity can possibly avoid some of this discomfort by consuming LESS or maybe by spending lots of money and effort to reinvent our economy.
What would be the correct policy direction, so that we can avoid this climate change thingy and still have more ?
Theo, #11:
“Isn’t Dr Spencer in some denial of human induced climate change?”
Depends what you mean by “some.” He is firmly in support of the mainstream science on mechanisms of GHG-induced warming, and consistently tries to explain it to his more denialist followers.
But he also insists that there’s no evidence that warming will be particularly large or dangerous, that the mainstream is wrong either because of groupthink or political bias, and that fossil fuels are essential tools for economic and human development. Scientifically, he thinks he’s found evidence of climate-stabilizing negative feedbacks (if I correctly grasped and recall the essence of his paper with Braswell of a couple of years back.)
In short, a lukewarmer.
The UAH data set has its communicative value, though, since despite a couple of embarrassing glitches over the years*, and the curiously cooling set of revisions currently (and confusingly) in beta, it remains fairly consilient with the other data sets, and is clearly not run by alarmist conspirators. (Hmm, that sentence seems to have been brought to you by the letter “C”…)
*To be fair, RSS is in process of correcting one such, too. Satellite temperature retrieval may not be rocket science exactly, but it’s apparently damn finicky.
Just to illustrate the consilience of UAH, here’s the current iterations of GISTEMP, RSS and UAH, as available on woodfortrees (a tool well worth spending some play time with):
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/mean:13/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/mean:13/plot/uah/trend
RSS shows the smallest trend, but that relationship with UAH should reverse when a) UAH v6 is implemented at wft, and b) RSS comes out with the revised TLT series AND it is implemented at wft. I suppose there could be ‘ifs’ inserted in that sentence at a couple of points, too.
12 Theo: Sorry, but please read this book: “Population politics: the choices that shape our future” by Virginia Abernethy, New York : Insight Books, ©1993. xix, 350 p. : ill. Library of Congress call number: HB883.5 .A23 1993.
Family subsidies only cause more poverty. The Green Revolution could have gotten people out of poverty, but India doubled its population instead.
I’m glad we now know that you are “a kind hearted christian.” Been there done that. It doesn’t work. We have been trying to feed the world since 1945 that I know of. Physical reality is a much better basis for your future actions. I recommend that you actually go to college and get a degree in physics, if you can. The big picture is as follows:
We are headed for a human population crash from 7.5 Billion to 70 thousand or zero people some time between 2022 and 2040. We don’t have time for research or fooling around with renewables. Causes of a population crash:
1. Global Warming [GW] will cause civilization to collapse within 13 years give or take 6 years because GW will cause the rain to move and the rain move will force agriculture to collapse. Famine has been the cause of many dozens of previous population crashes.
2. Reference “Overshoot” by William Catton, 1980 and “Bottleneck: Humanity’s Impending Impasse” by William Catton, 2009. Catton says that we humans are about to experience a population crash. Population biologist William Catton says that the US is the most overcrowded country. Collapse from overpopulation could happen any time now.
The Earth has 4.5 Billion too many people. An overshoot in population requires an equal undershoot. We overshot by 4.5 billion, and the consequence is an undershoot by 4.5 billion. The carrying capacity is 3 billion. 3 billion minus 4.5 billion is zero because there can’t be minus 1.5 billion people. This can happen even if there is enough food.
Catton tells the story of an island with deer but no wolves. The deer population increased to ~3500. There was still plenty of food, but the population crashed to 35. The reason was overcrowding.
Sharing kills everybody because you can’t survive on half of the required calories. 7 billion people is 4 billion too many no matter how you slice it. “We” didn’t make “Them” have too many children.
3. Aquifers running dry No irrigation, no wheat. No wheat, no bread. The “Green Revolution” was a bad idea. It caused India to double her population rather than get out of poverty. Now Indian farmers have “discovered” that water is a limiting resource. Water is a limiting resource in the US as well. When, not if, the aquifer under the high plains runs dry, there will be no bread and no pasta in the US.
We didn’t “cause” third world poverty. They were never “unpoor” in the first place. They were stone age, not poor. We invented science. They didn’t. Their failure to invent science is not our fault.
4. Resource depletion
4A oil
4B minerals
etcetera.
War will kill a lot of people. Famine will kill 8 billion out of 7.5 billion. 7.5-8=-0.5, but with population, the crash ends at zero.
Will there be survivors? Nobody knows. Nor does anybody have any idea who or where the survivors might be, if any.
NATURE has lots of other ways to kill humans. Don’t provoke her.
10 Russell: Even though that map of Israel is from WUWT, I like it if it is right. The weight of that much more water in the Jordan River Valley would enable the East African Rift Valley system to continue doing its thing. Biblical scale earthquakes would deepen, lengthen and widen the rift valley as East Africa splits off from West Africa. The Red Sea would grow and link up with the Jordan River Valley, making a sea level canal to replace the Suez canal. A lot of holy shrines would wind up below the Deep Blue. How would the 3 Abrahamic religions survive?
DeConto and Pollard published article about accelerated SLR related to loss of Antarctic ice in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6920/full/nature01290.html
It’s behind paywall, so not sure, but TruthDig quotes the authors saying:
“We looked at the long-standing problem posed by geological evidence that suggests sea level rose dramatically in the past, possibly by up to 10 to 20 metres around 3 million years ago in the Pliocene,” Dr Pollard says. “Existing models couldn’t simulate enough ice sheet melting to explain that.”
The part I can see on Nature includes the following:
“Here we simulate the glacial inception and early growth of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet using a general circulation model with coupled components for atmosphere, ocean, ice sheet and sediment, and which incorporates palaeogeography, greenhouse gas, changing orbital parameters, and varying ocean heat transport. In our model, declining Cenozoic CO2 first leads to the formation of small, highly dynamic ice caps on high Antarctic plateaux. At a later time, a CO2 threshold is crossed, initiating ice-sheet height/mass-balance feedbacks that cause the ice caps to expand rapidly with large orbital variations, eventually coalescing into a continental-scale East Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
I don’t understand this idea of a CO2 threshold. Is this function well-understood? Is it incorporated into most of the climate models. If anyone has access to the whole paper, can they provide the CO2 ppm number that DeConto and Pollard think was the threshold way back when?
No worries. Beautiful day here in NW, going to cruise the Prius to PDX and help a friend replace battery in his electric car. Then we plan to end up at the Laurelthirst Pub and dance to the Freak Mountain Ramblers for a couple of hours.
Join me there and I will buy you a pint. Brew selection is very good at LT.
Theo @11.
I assume by “early release” you mean UAH v6.0.beta5 (rather than the posting of the headline global anomaly from Spencer which is released earlier than the full monthly data set, be that beta v6.0 or the published v5.6).
If the output of the as-yet-unpublished beta versions of UAH v6.0 presented crazy numbers, I would be less eager to bring its data hot-press here to Real Climate. But note that UAH v6.0 does purport to measure similar bits of atmosphere to RSS TLT v3.3 and as of the present UAH v6.0 does give very similar results. Mind, we do await RSS v4.0 which promises to give significantly differing data (as was seen in the recent TMT & TTT v4.0). So should we continue to use RSS TLT v3.3 given it is about to be superseded? Or, given Spencer’s AGW denial, does the similarity of result of RSS TLT v3.3 with Spencer’s UAH v6.0 give us pause for thought over the RSS data?
As for AGW denial, we can but hope that the science will triumph over the poor judgement of an individual even if that poor judgement is deeply ingrained like AGW denial tends to be.
The Closing Window of Opportunity on Realizing Global Warming can Serviceably Be Unrealized
The period in the surface temperature record from 1940 to 1970 has been somewhat controversial for the “pause” evident in the trend line beginning about 1950. (Aerosols? Cool phase ocean circulations in rare congruence?)
But if one imagines the whole record without the rather dramatic spike in the 1940s, the trend line looks pretty steadily upward in monotonic relationship with CO2 PPM since 1910. Can someone explain why the curiosity is mostly about the pause rather than the spike? Or is that not the case and I’ve missed a lot in the lit.?
What would be the correct policy direction, so that we can avoid this climate change thingy and still have more ?
Comment by Theo — 3 Apr 2016
I believe the two are mutually exclusive.
Worth pointing our that Edward has the math wrong. It is pretty easy to feed people with less land if we change the way we do animal husbandry. https://slashdot.org/journal/2621427/explanatory-note-for-better-home-through-chemistry And, Theo, #11, you don’t have a duty to feed wildlife, you are instructed to ignore the sabath rules to help your neighbor’s animal if needed. The key thing is helping your neighbor.
#15, Ed–
Theo, I won’t re-debunk all the rebunk that Ed just posted, but do note that IMO (and those of others here if I recall past discussions correctly), points 1-3 are very much ‘cartoon versions’.
For instance, I believe that this is the ‘deer on island’ story to which Ed refers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island#Mammals
Particularly egregious is the allegation that civilization will “collapse within 13 years give or take 6 years” due to drought. IMO there is essentially zero probability of widespread civilizational collapse within 7 years, and it’s not all that much higher out to 19 years.
There is serious literature on the possibility of collapse, though:
Motesharrei et al:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615Lovelock,James(2014)Climate
It projects collapse over 35-750 year timeframes–very much dependent on social choices.
Beddington report to UK government:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfect-storm-paper.pdf
Doesn’t make any prediction/projection, but speaks to the magnitude of the resource/population/energy/food issues the world will face in 2030. Emphasizes that challenges can be met–or not.
#12 Theo: “What would be the correct policy direction, so that we can avoid this climate change thingy and still have more ?”
The place to start is to put a rising fee on the CO2 content of fossil fuels and distribute 100% of the money collected to every legal resident. An economic analysis of this “Fee and Dividend” policy says it will, over 20 years in the US, decrease emissions by over 50%, create 2.8 million jobs, and grow GDP by $1.4 trillion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k2-SzlDGko
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615LOVELOCK,JAMES2014CLIMATE
“Sorry, the requested document is unavailable. Contact the Help Desk if the problem persists. [SD-007]”
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfect-storm-paper.pdf
“Science and technology can make a major contribution, by providing practical solutions.”
Counting your chickens before they hatch. A typical action of non-scientists who don’t know that miracles don’t come just because you need them. There is no reason to believe any of those chickens will hatch. Science and engineering are not easy.
“Global population is set to increase to around 9 billion” Not. John Beddington is dreaming.
The history of the past 10,000 years is full of people who didn’t see the crash coming. Nobody saw it coming until this time.
“collapse over 35-750 year timeframes–very much dependent on social choices” Denialist.
22 Chris Dudley: Go ahead and start building your sugar makers. Why are you wasting time here when you could be raising capital?
http://mdsolar.blogspot.com
“We could build dikes for example or try to move species poleward or attempt some other ridiculous adaptation measure like opening our borders to refugees. Mitigation is too easy and too cheap so let’s plan on breaking the bank.”
Exactly. 7.5 billion people are still 7.5 billion no matter how they are distributed on the globe. When evolutionists talk about adaptation, they mostly mean “die.” Species adapt when Nature kills 99.99% of the individuals.
16
Edward , the new map is from VV-, not W -UWT , but It is brave of you ro risk citation there as adding the Red Sea Rift to Willard’s underwater volcano arsenal– the Atlantis II Deep is one of the great hydrothermal hellholes of the world
Re: Comment by Chuck Hughes — 3 Apr 2016 @ 10:45 AM, ~#21
Chuck, if you are talking about more of business, as usual, I agree. It is time to consider a different “more” that is not mutually exclusive with avoiding climate change. Steve
Sorry the first link has problems, currently–but try this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
If there are further issues, descriptions of the study aren’t hard to come by. Randomly:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/the-utter-collapse-of-human-civilization-will-be-difficult-to-avoid-nasa-funded-study-says
““Global population is set to increase to around 9 billion” Not. John Beddington is dreaming.”
It’s not John Beddington; it’s basically the entire demographic profession. Of course, they aren’t necessarily versed in disciplines that give us reason to expect, shall we say conservatively, “hard times.” They’re still more credible than Ed, though.
““Science and technology can make a major contribution, by providing practical solutions.”–Counting your chickens before they hatch. A typical action of non-scientists who don’t know that miracles don’t come just because you need them. There is no reason to believe any of those chickens will hatch. Science and engineering are not easy.”
Except that there is a pretty darn good record of “hatching”:
True, ‘past performance is not a guarantee of future results,’ but it’s a better guide than random guesswork.
Will there be survivors? Nobody knows. Nor does anybody have any idea who or where the survivors might be, if any.
NATURE has lots of other ways to kill humans. Don’t provoke her.
Comment by Edward Greisch — 3 Apr 2016
That’s good. For a minute there I thought we were doomed.
“Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
I have been familiar with HANDY for some time. It has a lot of similarity to the rabbit studies that population biologists do.
The credible ones are Barton Paul Levenson, Catton, and Rees whom I follow.
The past is not a good forecast of the future. Farmers have found that other things, like running out of pumpable fresh water, land, insects, etcetera became the new limit before another green revolution has a chance anyway.
I am not doing random guessing. I am speaking as an engineer and scientist who has done R&D in the past and know how that goes. It is never as rosy as the boss expects.
JesusR:
That was very well said. I wish to associate myself with JesusR’s remarks 8^)!
Pretty good what? cause that “revolution” revolutionarily destroyed soils, waterways, lakes, oceans the world over, just for starters.
You’ve just said putting ourselves at the brink of collapse was a good thing.
#32–“You’ve just said putting ourselves at the brink of collapse was a good thing.”
Er, no, I didn’t. I said that there was a robust record of increasing agricultural productivity via innovation, and quoted what Beddington had to say about that.
You conflated 4 specific innovations into one ‘revolution’, then blamed it for water pollution ‘the world over’, then equated that with “putting ourselves at the brink of collapse.”
Of course chemical pollution of waterways is a problem. But increasing agricultural productivity is also a necessity–and there’s good evidence that it is possible. We face tough choices, no way around that.
2015 N.H temperature an outlier or step into unknown?
Most likely an outlier, but even so not unique if the 1870s temperature data records are realistic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CruTempNH.gif
> vukcevic
You need to match more than one up-and-down to say there’s a cycle.
Sixty-something year cycles are much blogged about, but few agree that the cycle they’re talking about is the same one as others are talking about, and you get “quasi-60-year” and all sorts of adjustments to the wiggles to try to claim there might be a match.
Op. cit.: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/when-wiggles-collide-or-not/
Strangely, Edward wants to limit humans, whose chief character is to innovate, to mere adaptation. How shop worn.
@mike #9
”Does “Our Changing Climate” look like a legitimate science page or am I being taken in? It’s got graphs and all that sciency stuff, so looks real to me.”
Mike, “Our Changing Climate” is a blog about climate science and founded by Bart Verheggen. Bart is an atmospheric scientist, see for instance his guest post here at RealClimate:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/aerosol-formation-and-climate-part-i/
I’m not a climate scientist myself (actually I studied organic chemistry) but very interested in the topic. Normally I write blogposts for the Dutch version of “Our Changing Climate” (https://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/) and once in a while I try to write an English blogpost. You seem to have stumbled upon one of them. We try to take climate science very serious, so I’m glad it looks real to you :). You can always have a look at the links to the scientific papers or other sources present in our blogposts, so you can check for yourself whether the statements in the blogposts are correct or not.
RSS also now posted for March with +0.832ºC, down on February’s record-holding +0.978ºC. March takes third slot behind April 1998 (+0.857ºC), an identical ordering to the UAH data. A 1997/8 – 2015/16 El-Nino-year comparison of the average for first three months yields +0.62ºC for 1998 & +0.83ºC for 2016, a rise of 0.21ºC over the 18 years (UAH yielded an 18 year rise of 0.16ºC). The rise on the previous non-El-Nino year-starts yields 1997-8 RSS 0.62ºC, (UAH 0.66ºC,) & 2015-6 RSS 0.51ºC, (UAH 0.48ºC), both suggesting the ENSO wobble is significantly smaller this time.
It looks like geoengineering is hitting the mainstream. I wonder whether we’ll Brimstone the atmosphere before installing carbon tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/global-warming-gives-science-behind-nuclear-winter-a-new-purpose.html
The notion that humanity is headed for a population collapse has been tossed around for decades. Certainly, given previous episodes as a model of the future, it’s gonna happen, sooner or later. The big difference this time will be the fact that the entire Earth is likely to experience the effects, since we humans have decided to become interconnected at some very basic levels. Our technologies have allowed Western style development patterns to infect populations the whole world around. Our reliance on non-renewable resources, especially fossil fuels, seems to be heading for a brick wall. Peak Oil hasn’t happened yet, thanks to fracking, but must eventually arrive. The oceans, which provide protein for a large fraction of humanity, are over fished and becoming more acidic, causing declining productivity. Agriculture depends on land and our overuse of the land results in a continual loss of available crop area, even as what little forested area remains is converted to crop production. Our present agricultural technology depends on non-renewable fossil fuels as well as phosphate mined in only a few locations, both soon to be depleted. The Limits to Growth problem has been been discussed by numerous studies for more than 40 years, most of which have been ignored by the political and economic powers which make things happen. Here’s another one to add to those listed above:
Too Smart for our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind by Craig Dilworth.
However, to claim that a massive die back will decimate the entire human population seems a bit extreme, absent a nuclear war, which could certainly be suicidal. More likely, to my mind, is repeated local failures, such as Syria after the drought, each adding to the previous crisis events, slowly grinding global human society to dust. But, somewhere, some folks will still hang on, using simple technologies as humanity has done for thousands of years, maybe leading to new civilizations. Only next time, there won’t be any fossil fuels to re-start a technological society such as we enjoy today. Back to animals for motive power and wind energy for ships and wood for producing high temperatures to work metals. Rather like Medieval Europe where the daily struggle for survival was brutal and life was short and that was all there was to life.
#8 JesusR
“… all of you are damned heroes that are making the world a better place, by making the people think better. For all this, thank you very much.”
Damn right! Thank you all.
http://www.paradoxicalcommandments.com
@Al #38 – For those equally Arctic obsessed, the PIOMAS daily Arctic sea ice volume numbers for March 2016 have now been released:
More Of The Usual Hype About Arctic Sea Ice
2016 Day 91 – 22.337 thousand kilometers cubed
Compare and contrast with:
2011 Day 91 – 22.197 thousand kilometers cubed
2012 Day 91 – 22.913 thousand kilometers cubed
2016 is therefore currently still in second place behind 2011. Since records began of course.
First Ed@15 and many other places: If you keep going like this, they will be reclassifying RC as alarmist. FYI more than 50 years ago, I realised that religion is all in the mind and is mainly used to control the population. Me, agnostic of the christian type, rather than any of those others. Nuclear Winter should go in there somewhere, actually stopping the warming and there will be at least one survivor, me !
I know that religion and politics are best to stay OT, but I would like to just state these three relating to climate change.
1. We need to convince religious leaders to get their flocks to worry about and do something about climate change, or else!
2. I do not take serious any scientist or politician suffering from a strong religious illusion. The US is full of that s–t, but they probably only say it, to get the vote. A scientist predicting the end of the world, may actually believe, that it is “the second coming”.
3. And watch out cause, they might also use that new US law to prosecute alarmists wasting public money and causing public unrest.
Russel @10 on the positive side: Always been a fan of Hansen, but again, like in this vid, he is too technical for the general public. I also cut at 13min, when again he gets on his high horse about fossil fuel companies. Scientists should research and report their findings, not preach to society on how to live. On the positive side, the next auto vid, was Michael Mann interviewed in Rubin Report. I love his style, but would like to see a more critical interviewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rF9HMHl_cY (actually part 2)
Fossil Fuel, well how about on 28 march:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/conservation/what-the-approval-of-the-biggest-coalmine-in-the-country-means-for-australia/news-story/94bc498ff8c85132f0e5d90fc3ef2d17
Still on Hansen, cause Dan @24 is highlighting his Cap’n Trade solution. Very nice idea, but about as hard to implement as equal wealth distribution around the globe.
and finally this easy one for MA Rodger @18: by early release, I just meant “getting in first”. We all have egos and even W-UWT ran with it without too much denial.
Jesus! (and even he got into the mix), how do you people have any time left for living your lives after researching and defending your posts on RC? Suppose I asked for it :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJ8lMIm9-c
Kevin Anderson still spells out his message on our over simplification and optimistic message on GHG emissions and their implications.
The budgets are shrinking and we have better inform the world that the more likely scenario is a 3-4C world and not a 1.5-2C one.
#40 Eric Swanson,
Absent a nuclear war, this post-apocalyptic stuff is just silly.
Even if there is wide-spread mortality, knowledge will not vanish. In the long term, you only need enough individuals to maintain a diverse gene-pool– can any biologists give a rough number?
But other than that, you can always feed enough people to maintain a culture beyond the short brutish existence you suggest. Do you think the population of Germany, say, would have a problem maintaining a modern lifestyle if it didn’t have to compete with any other humans for resources? Even in some new normal climate regime?
Climate science under threat in Australia (made the front page of one of our major papers) – more details are emerging about this
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/no-science-for-science-sake-emails-show-csiro-plans-to-cut-climate-research-20160403-gnxezq.html
for zebra, I pasted your question into a search; these may help
(put the DOI into any browser search)
Eric #40,
Worth noting that the Paris Accord leaves substantial fossil fuels in the ground, so your reboot scenario won’t be lacking that. I’ve noticed, however, that agriculture isn’t all that important when renewable electricity is available. You can substitute chemistry using less, and less fertile land. So, the constaints you worry about really are not a big concern.
43 Theo: Could you give us the US code number for “that new US law to prosecute alarmists wasting public money and causing public unrest.”? There is nothing alarmist about telling the truth. Look up John Peter Zenger.
45 Zebra and 40 Eric Swanson: Nuclear war cannot make us extinct. At the peak of nuclear bomb arsenals, we were short of an ELE [Extinction Level Event] by a multiple of ten thousand. GW certainly can make us extinct. Nature can muster the required 100 million megatons. 100 million megatons. Get the number right. Syria is part of the leading edge.
zebra, #45 You are forgetting the Dark Ages, a time in the past where there was a great “forgetting” of technology. For example, the Romans built an industry producing pottery for export and with the collapse of the Roman Empire, these common utensils were replaced by locally produced products of much lower quality. Your assumption that ..”you can always feed enough people to maintain a culture beyond the short brutish existence…” ignores the many previous examples of collapse of civilizations. The problem is overshoot, that is, the tendency to grow beyond sustainable levels because of some temporary surpluses, followed by population crash as the surpluses are exhausted and no replacement supplies are available. Exponential population growth on a finite planet must eventually stop and the expected overshoot is likely to be followed by population crash.
Of course, you also are ignoring the fact that there is already a large number of people on Earth living on less than $2 a day who constantly faces the prospect of going hungry with children growing up malnourished. A prime example today is Egypt, which grew from some 19 million in 1948 to about 80 million today. They can not grow enough food to feed themselves and depend on imported wheat to make bread. Their ability to pay for imported wheat declined as their oil exports fell, causing prices for bread to rise which was a factor in the Arab Spring uprising. As the price of oil plunged, things became worse, such that today, they are supported by funds from Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis are running out of cash as well, they now are running a deficit and are rapidly depleting their oil fields. When the Saudis run out of money/oil, what will happen in Egypt? The Saudis are caught in Dilworth’s Vicious Circle Principle, their state budget is in deficit, thus they must continue to export oil, even though the result has been too much oil in the world market, thus continuing their low national income.