Context – noun
– the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.
– the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
– “skilled readers use context to construct meaning from words as they are read”
David B. Bensonsays
Alf @298 — Actually almost all of the Sahara is cultivatable in trees as only water and some micronutrients are required wherever the trees can take root. That includes most bedrock as there are cracks, which then the roots slowly open.
And If you read the freely available full paper by Ornstein et al. you would see what parts of the Sahara are not to be planted and why; only about 20% of it.
patricksays
Theo: what’s your toy?
patricksays
“Everybody can…make a jump into the future, but we can make it today.”
The 4-min video linked by me #279 was posted on YouTube May 18:
UNEP is the UN Environment Programme. Bertrand Piccard is a UNEP goodwill ambassador. The video was played 18 May at the Bonn Climate Change Conference, as part of the 4th Dialogue on Climate Empowerment, following from Article 6 (Education, Training, and Public Awareness) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bertrand Piccard is a UNEP goodwill ambassador. The video is here at the UNFCC newsroom, with more from Bonn:
Piccard is now in Dayton OH with the Solar Impulse 2, which flew there to connect with the Wright brothers’ legacy. Not only did some say it couldn’t be done (to the Wrights) but some tried to prove it was impossible in principle. The mission’s goal is to be in New York by June 23, prior to crossing the Atlantic. Meteorological forecasting is always critical–especially for the Atlantic.
Pac NW has been back in a more familiar maritime nw mood for several days. It has been nice to get rain and cool breezes. I could stand a cooler than normal summer this year. Last year was too hot for me and also stressed the NW forests that are not accustomed to that much heat and that little precipitation. We have forest fire issues developing if we get several hot dry years back to back. This winter was wet and warm, I am not sure if that can help high elevation forests survive dry hot summers. I think snow pack is good and current snowpack is better than a year ago, but still under average generally.
Never mind, just go on talking about models, measurements, science ect pp, while politics goes on with BAU, hahaha. And please:
Have fun, I have fun too. Oh, and:
Good luck.
Killiansays
#297 Thomas said Oh really?
Yes, really. It’s simple math. You prefer old-school econ. So, no, you don’t get it. Try Steve Keen via Herman Daly and Minsky if you’d like to pull your head out.
Simpler, just ask yourself how long one can base a civilization on limited resources when using them at a rate that will exhaust many of them within 100 years. Really, it isn’t rocket science. Problem? You think it is.
I still hold to the fact that one cannot tell another things they do not want to know. And so it is.
Indeed. You are immune thus far. I have a rather extensive range of background knowledge I bring to my analyses, and they are pretty darned accurate.
Systems, sustainable systems, are my bailiwick. Learn or don’t. Up to you.
Now, you can keep whining like a spoiled 3 year-old or ask why I think you’re wrong without sounding like a whiny 3 year-old. You *are* wrong. I am not debating you, I am telling you. An intelligent man would want to know why. Hint: Tech can’t overcome nuttin’. Hint: Economics is voodoo. Hint: Simplicity.
Good luck.
Killiansays
Thomas, here’s the sort of stuff I do. Shaping up to be an interesting summer, no?
Economics is voodoo. Nature is real. Guess which one I rely on for data…
I said this last August despite consistently being of the opinion calling summer ASI lows before the first week in July is a bit of a fool’s game. Why? I noticed a pattern. I checked the pattern. I shard the info. So far, nobody has contradicted it and, so far, Nature is affirming it. So, I said this…
New records for area and volume. Period. The only scenario that doesn’t happen in is absolutely perfect conditions for ice growth over the fall and winter followed by absolutely perfect conditions for ice retention in the spring and summer.
Unlike many, I do not trust the volume models except as self-reference to watch trend. They are high, imo, significantly high. The are not catching something, and I think it may be that with the “popcorn” nature of so much of he ice, the lower height of the ice between the kernels is just being missed.
The conditioning of the ice from below is key to the changes we are seeing. Too much is made of the air temps and sun exposure relative to bottom melt, imo. I never felt the amplitude of supposed rises in volume in ’13 and ’14 were justified. A lot of ice added, but not a lot of thickness.
El Nino will ensure new lows. We may see a near-complete melt in 2016 or 17. I’ll be surprised if not. If I’m not mistaken, in terms of volume, we already hit the definition used for extent, -80% from historical levels at summer low, each year.
Comment by Killian — 17 Aug 2015 @ 1:43 PM
based on this….
Re #181 Dan H:
Further to the discussion on EL/LN (ENSO) and correlation with ASI Extent lows, my original observation noted rough correlations between EN’s followed 1 or 2 years later by new lows. This observation was based on eyeballing graphs and included no other conditions affecting the ice. However, it is clear the ’07 low was strongly affected by winds and weather generally. Likewise, the lack of winds and relative cold correlated well with the last two years of rise in ASIE and this year almost certainly not hitting new lows. In fact, I had not called new lows, or even 2nd or 3rd new records in extent because I think all the open water makes high variation in extent *less* likely. The weather has cooperated to make that still true.
I think, in fact, it makes little sense to look for new lows in extent as the primary metric when it is so easy for ice to spread in open seas. Area and volume both tell us more about the *amount* of ice, anyways, which I have focused on since ’10. Unfortunately, we don’t have good records on those so rely on the continuity of the extent record to check for this correlation.
I went further back, eyeballing from an extent graph through 2010 or so with poor detail (what I could find) and a list of ENSO years and intensities. This is the rough. If anyone has more detailed resources and can nail this down better, please do.
Here is what I found going all the way back to the beginning of ASIE decline @ 1953-ish.
EN ’51 – ’54 = inception of ASI Extent decline.
EN ’57 – ’59 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’65 – ’66 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’68 – ’70 = New Low
EN ’72 – ’73 = possible correlation, some delay
EN ’76 – ’78 = New Low
EN ’79 – ’80 = New Low
EN ’82 – ’83 = New Low
EN ’86 – ’88 = New Low (’89,’90)
EN ’94 – ’95 = New Low
EN ’97 – ’98 = Drop from Previous (?)
EN ’04 – ’05 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’04 – ’05/’06 – ’07 = New Low
EN ’09 – ’10 = New Low (’10, ’12)
EN ’15 – ’16 = New Low ’16,’17?
What about La Nina? First, I don’t care if the actual cause is LN or EN, the correlation with ENSO is the key. However, we have a problem, Houston. I didn’t check the full record of LN because I found this from recent years:
La Nina
’07-’08 After
’10-’11 After
’10-’11, ’11-’12 = New Low
If LN is following big melts, it can’t be contributing to them, so the correlation is already weaker than with EN. Also, the ’10-’11 EN could be said to be correlated with the ’12 low given the hypothesis of near new lows/new lows following EN’s by 1 or 2 years. Feel free to check the LN record, tho.
What I think is going on is the EN’s put a lot of heat into the ocean surface *and* the air, yes? I propose these waters and air temps propagate via multiple routes (directly, storm tracks, etc.) into the Arctic enhancing melt. We know melt from the bottom due to water temps is responsible for up to 2/3 of the ice melt, and also that it takes much longer for energy to propagate through the oceans than the atmosphere. It makes sense an EN correlation might be delayed.
It would be great to correlate wind and storm patterns and temps with all this. Let’s be clear: I am not saying ENSO *is the primary cause of melt*, only that there is what appears to be a strong correlation.
Comment by Killian — 22 Aug 2015 @ 11:42 AM
We shall see. Weather is king in the short term in the Arctic, so storms, temps and wind patterns, particularly wind patterns, will tell the tale. I don’t mind being wrong. It’s a learning opportunity. I doubt I will be. This summer or next will see new lows, almost certainly. Mother is fickle, though.
Victorsays
#306 “About the Sahara isn’t the Southern Sahara predicted to get a lot wetter in a warmer World? The irrigation might not be necessary there.”
Yes, and the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future) will certainly promote plant growth worldwide — the more plants, the more absorption of CO2. Also, warmer winters mean less need for gas, oil or coal for heating purposes. So there would seem to be a built-in negative feedback at work as increasing amounts of CO2 enter the atmosphere.
remaining upward sticky for second day. Very noisy number. But with global emissions down for several years in a row (according to IEA) why is this number not only rising, but rising at an increasingly higher rate? Yes, El Nino is good for a couple of ppm, but CO2 looks like it is an upward sticky number so far. I am watching to see this number drop as El Nino fades. Some days it drops back to the 406 range, but I think May average is going to be in 407.8 range for a 4 ppm increase over May 2015.
This goes to Tamino’s concern that we don’t need to worry too much about methane clathrates because there is potential for so much CO2 emission from warming planet. If we handle the potential releases of CO2 we probably also handle the potential methane releases, but I don’t think we are adequately handling or even discussing the potential CO2 releases. If/when we look back and say, uh-oh, we just passed a tipping point that has greatly accelerated ghg accumulation, what will our options be at that point? I think we will have to engage in a crash degrowth situation at that point and I am not sure our species can negotiate global degrowth terms without resorting to conflict. I don’t think global winter after a nuclear exchange of some sort is not a great plan. This stuff could jam up my retirement plans big time and I am enjoying retirement. I hope we do something to make sure my golden years golden. Is that too much to ask?
Grapes and kiwis are in the ground!
Warm regards
Mike
Alfsays
David B. Benson @ 294:
Here is a proposal to be taken seriously
What`s the sound of a bait?
p.s.(@ 302): Thanks for the link with the beautiful images of Sahara w/h lots of ff combusting vehicles, cart tracks and the mostly too specific or minor relevant infos regarding the topic. Somehow, — somehow, — yes, – somehow it makes me feel like an attempt for distraction.
David B. Bensonsays
DP @306 — Don’t count on the southern Sahara desert receiving enough more rain that irrigation becomes unnecessary.
Chuck Hughessays
I don’t think this is big news to anyone here at realclimate.org but I thought maybe one of the experts might shed some light on what constitutes a real “point of no return” when it comes to CO2 concentrations:
To my mind we’re continually passing “the point of no return”. My questions are; how bad will it get? How soon before things start to collapse to the point civilization becomes overwhelmed with insurmountable problems?
Chuck Hughessays
I personally do not see how we’re gonna make it. I guess some people will survive this century but if America elects Trump I think it’s game over in a hurry:
I just don’t see it happening. I always say, never underestimate the power of stupid people and their ability to stick together in an election year. We’re not just talking about CO2 levels here. This is death by a thousand cuts. Any one of the many problems listed in that truthout article by itself would be bad enough, but I see cascading events unfolding in rapid succession on a global scale. We’ve overloaded the system.
Also, the increase in CO2 levels that Mike continues to point out at over 5 ppm annually which is almost double what it was just a few years ago. Damn! And how about those Canadian fires? Those tar sands geniuses are really something. Anyone still talking about a pipeline? I haven’t heard anything lately. Maybe our new President will breath some life into it after the election. Jobs, jobs, jobs!
Thomassays
309/310 Killian … oh do put a sock in it. I think you belong on a 9/11 truther site not RC. Whatever.
V@311: the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future)
BPL: Can’t we put this troll in the bore hole? PLEASE? “Assuming it will actually increase?” Sweet jumped-up Jesus Christ in a sidecar, how much evidence do you actually need? This is supposed to be a climate science blog, not a haven for militant crackpots.
CH 316: I always say, never underestimate the power of stupid people and their ability to stick together in an election year. We’re not just talking about CO2 levels here. This is death by a thousand cuts.
BPL: You get it, Chuck. My concern has been the rising droughts, since that’s what I work on, but it’s not just drought that’s the problem. It’s drought PLUS flooded coastlines PLUS heat waves PLUS dying oceans PLUS the ongoing mass extinction PLUS tropical diseases moving into temperate zones (there’s kudzu in Ontario, for God’s sake, and Dengue fever in Texas)… I could go on all day. We might find tech solutions for one of the problems, or even several, but solving ALL of them will stretch civilization to the limit… and very likely beyond. It’s going to break sometime in this century. Most of us are going to die–even in America.
Victorsays
#319 BPL “This is supposed to be a climate science blog, not a haven for militant crackpots.”
Took the words right out of my mouth. :-)
Chuck Hughessays
Yes, and the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future) will certainly promote plant growth worldwide — the more plants, the more absorption of CO2. Also, warmer winters mean less need for gas, oil or coal for heating purposes. So there would seem to be a built-in negative feedback at work as increasing amounts of CO2 enter the atmosphere.
Comment by Victor — 24 May 2016 @
Dicktor, you are the Donald Trump of the Climate blogs. You get way more coverage than you deserve and have absolutely nothing to say. You need an ‘off switch’. This has turned into the “Victor Show” and I’m personally tired of reading about you and your inane comments. Your ignorance is NOT more important than everyone else’s knowledge yet you continue to take up massive amounts of real estate. Enough already.
I think the current trend looks like about 4.1 ppm increase over this time a year ago. El Nino still plays a part, but CO2 ppm is upward sticky, as it cranks up, it sometimes go down, but the losses in CO2 ppm are always gone as time passes and CO2 ppm continues its amazing creep upward. This is the ballgame, folks. The difference between 400 ppm and 409 ppm is heat in the global climate system. It’s not a great deal of heat increase with a few ppm, but the direction is up, the impact of increasing heat is up.
The impact is incremental and relentless. The solution is abrupt and wildly scary to our species.
All the science is very interesting. All of the review of transition away from fossil fuels to energy systems with less impact is encouraging, but unless and until we see the CO2 ppm start to reduce the rate of increase, it’s really just like a game of three card monte.
I was quiet when CO2 dropped in to the 406 range for a few days. I would love to have seen it stay around 406. But bang, here we are again, banging along at the 408 plus level. That’s the ball game, folks.
Victor is like the clown at the ball game: ” the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future) will certainly promote plant growth worldwide — the more plants, the more absorption of CO2.” and more about warmer winters, dropping need for heating as negative feedbacks!!
Yes, those things happen. They are happening. We just had a really warm winter and there is some vegetation “greening.” It’s happening and the CO2 ppm are soaring. You have to laugh at a guy who can spout these grains of truth and ignore the mountain of evidence that these negative feedbacks are swamped in the atmosphere. Victor, you crack me up, guy. I am literally chuckling thinking about the crazy stuff you post here. I think they should ban you from posting, but I will miss the chuckles you provide. Hey – tell me how a blue ocean in the Arctic will actually cool the planet or absorb ghg. Absurdity is funny! Bring it on. Fight the good fight, Victor!
Warm regards all,
Mike
alan2102says
Some months ago I recommended a site — http://sci-hub.io — as a great way to get around scientific article paywalls. That link is no longer valid. But sci-hub will not be stopped; it is now online at sci-hub.cc or sci-hub.ac
BPL, 320–“Most of us are going to die–even in America.”
Don’t mean to pick at you, Barton, but let me issue a slight correction–ALL of us are going to die, America or not. But that’s always been the norm.
I only mention it because I suspect that our pervasive cultural denial of our mortality has far-reaching deleterious psychological and cultural effects. Maybe even an increased carbon footprint, who knows? Compulsive consumption, anyone?
So, yeah, we’re all going to die. And demographics ensure that a sizable chunk of all humans who have *ever* lived will die in the 21st century.
But I’m still optimistic that humans will keep on dying long, long into the future.
Digby Scorgiesays
Nemesis @308
I’m aware of the shenanigans of the fossil-fuel industry in the twentieth century. But they’re not fools, Nemesis, they’re psychopaths. Their own scientists told them that continuing to burn their product would wreck the planetary environment. Embarking instead on a campaign to sabotage action on climate condemns them as psychopaths interested only in maintaining their wealth and power for as long as possible.
David B. Bensonsays
Alf @313 — Afforestation of the Sahara desert is a supliment to all the other activities required to stop all excess carbon dioxide emissions. But as the atmospheric level of the so-called greenhouse gasses is too high it is necessary to remove the excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.
Scott Stroughsays
@320 Barton
Look Barton, there is a solution. We are not necessarily all going to die. The trick is getting people focused on the main problem, and solution, agriculture. Can’t even convince many that’s even the problem, and even those convinced, huge dichotomy in what to do about it.
However, fix it properly and agriculture can become the stabilizing feedback to climate while at the same time changing from unsustainable emissions source to sustainable regenerative biological system.
It can be done. We know how to do it. It costs nothing, actually becomes more profitable. The only down side is to those with a vested interest in the current production models. But since they call the shots, they potentially could take us all down with them.
Theosays
Weather models are a piece of shit. AUS BOM has a section called Weather and Wave Maps. Using models, show in pics, it predicts Surface Presure & Rainfall and Surface Winds and so on. So there was one coming, which was going to bring 10-15mm of rain. I am in drought, so that would be a good thing. Then 3 days ago, my neighbour ( bloody neighbours, who wants them) did a burn-off and it got out of control. About a third of my property is currently on fire and it is slowly moving towards me. So now, I was hoping that that predicted rain would kill it. Well even the prediction one day before does not match reality. Also Radar shows a fairly big rain cloud around me, but I have had maybe one or two mm so far. So I will be holding out in my hole-in-the-ground and if I survive, you may see another post.
btw My CO2 toy has been going of the scale with all that smoke.
El Nino has been declared as on its last legs & those who enjoy the dramatic have been declaring for some time that it is at an end already.
NINO3.4 was down to +0.2ºC last week and likely will be going negative for this week.
The 30-day ave.SOI is up to -0.07 and certainly going positive in a day’s time.
This timing is about half a week earlier than the 1998 EL Nino did these things.
Further to some questions previously asked here about the Fort McMurray fire and Arctic ice melt, one professional at least opines that Greenland could indeed be affected this summer:
The massive plume from the fire could leave large swaths of Greenland’s 1,710,000 square kilometre ice sheet at risk of increased melting.
The landscape of ice, which is already at risk from rising global temperatures, is more vulnerable to melting if it becomes darkened by soot, said Gray, who runs his own consulting company in B.C.
“There will be a lot of soot deposited on the ice shelf from this fire. And it speeds up the warming process quite significantly.”
As to the fire itself, it continues to burn, continues to grow, and has expanded into Saskatchewan. An Alberta provincial site says:
“The wildfire is now estimated to be over 562,913 hectares in size.”
That was as of yesterday. For context, that would place it at 7th-largest in North American fire history, at least according to the list Wikipedia has. (And presuming I sorted it correctly!) The article has it at #8 right now, but they haven’t updated the current burnt acreage yet; if you figure that in, it’s now passed the Taylor Complex Fire, which burnt ~528K hectares in Alaska in 2004. Next on the list would be the California summer fires of 2008, which for some reason are aggregated on the list. Those fires burnt over 630K hectares.
The good part from a human perspective is that Fort Mac residents are still to be allowed to return beginning June 1; services in the city have been restored to a considerable degree already, and essential personnel are mostly in place.
Alfsays
@ 317
The Truth (TM) – No research necessary. =)
siddsays
“Most of us are going to die–even in America.”
All of us are going to die, everywhere. I would like an IAM to explicitly breakout mortality differences between the RCPs, say by decade.
And a pony.
Nemesissays
@Digby Scorgie, #326
” But they’re not fools, Nemesis, they’re psychopaths. Their own scientists told them that continuing to burn their product would wreck the planetary environment. Embarking instead on a campaign to sabotage action on climate condemns them as psychopaths interested only in maintaining their wealth and power for as long as possible.”
Ha, I second that! Btw, here’s some more psychopathic shit:
” A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification (1966)”
” Disney 1959 AD weather modification documentary Eyes in Outer Space (in collaboration with United States Departement Of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, Army Signal Research and Developement Laboratory)”
Well, yeah, and if you happen to have vast tracts of land in Siberia, you might figure to heck with the rest of the planet, warming is better. Until your roads and tractors sink into the melting tundra, that is. As a species, we don’t behave. As individuals, we do what we want. It’s a bad combination, at this point.
Please link to your source. Remember the kinds of comparisons you like — one day to the same date a year ago for example — need some nuance or else you’ll appear to be cherrypicking.
There’s plenty to worry about. Being clear about your source and what to rely on is important for credibility with those prone to doubt everything.
Just a reminder — it’s not highly likely that reversing our screwups will restore status quo ante.
We’re going to get something different, most of the time.
A good example of a successful restoration project is the reintroduction of wolves to the ecosystem in and around Yellowstone National Park. However, Stier and his co-authors noted that reintroducing wolves has not recreated an ecosystem that looks the same as it did pre-1920 when wolves were abundant. While wolves have contributed to a reduced elk population in recent years, lower elk numbers have not been sufficient to restore willows, the region’s dominant woody vegetation on which elk and other animals feed. This in turn has likely limited the recovery of the beaver population, which uses willow as building material for dams in small streams.
“Sometimes just reintroducing a species isn’t enough,” Stier said. “An ecosystem can morph into a different-looking system that can be relatively stable, and adding in these top predators doesn’t necessarily cause that system to recover back into its original state.”…
I just heard on PBS: “The G20 are going to talk about ‘post global warming.'” I wonder what that means? Maybe they are going to declare GW is over?
Chuck Hughessays
Daily CO2
May 26, 2016: 407.84 ppm
May 26, 2015: 403.01 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
CO2 stubbornly staying in the range of 4 ppm over this same time last year.
Comment by mike — 28 May 2016 @
Thanks Mike. I’m keeping up with your postings on CO2 and it’s disturbing isn’t it. I have a sick feeling that this dramatic increase per year of CO2 will persist. It may go back down a little over the next year, I don’t know but given the way things are progressing I bet it will stay this high and probably increase some.
As much as I hate to see it I’ve forced myself to look at the Syrian refugee crisis and my gut feeling is that this will also trend upward and expand over the coming decades. They’re not going to save these people. Attempts will be made of course but people will turn their backs or simply change the channel. I would like to hear more from Gwynn Dyer and Dr. Peter Ward. If anyone has more recent links please post them. And those Texas floods are dramatic as well. 16″ – 19″ according to news reports.
Does anyone know how much warmer ocean temperatures are along the Eastern Seaboard? Hurricane season is starting and the Atlantic has been relatively quiet over the last few years. Will this season be more active than “normal”?
I will post the link occasionally if/when talking about atmospheric CH4 levels, but for now, that is the one I always use for CH4.
I find it very difficult to sort out the CH4 numbers. The CO2 number is easy to track and it is the big dog in global warming.
I agree that it is easy to cherrypick the data. The year to year comparison conveys the seasonal fluctuation up and down. The monthly annual comparison number reduces the noise level in the annual comparison over a daily reading comparison. The idea of tracking only one number, CO2, is an idea that came to me in the last year. I think it makes sense, but so far I am only looking at data from one pretty unusual El Nino year. I expect we should see annual CO2 comparison number drop as El Nino subsides, but I don’t see that yet. Then in May of 2017, we might be seeing flat numbers between any given date in May 2017 when compared to the same date in May 2016, but somehow, I suspect we will not see flat numbers. That brings up Killian’s question from a couple of months ago: where is all of this CO2 coming from? Since he asked that question, we have had large fires in Alberta and in Siberia, a small but maybe significant source of CO2, but I think we will look back in a few years and have a building consensus that in 2016 we started to see natural release of CO2 from warming planet and that the sources will be thawing permafrost, drying bogs, peat, etc.
At some point, probably way too late, a lot of folks will start to embrace degrowth to reduce CO2 buildup. A lot of other folks will start migrating to escape great misery. A lot of other folks will start deploying poorly thought-out geoengineering ideas to restore disrupted rainfall patterns and to address other heat-related crises. The republicans will continue to deny that AGW is happening and the dems will look for solutions to global challenges with drone technology and hellfire missiles. I would really like to be wrong about any or all of that.
I think our species might buy some time with deployment of CO2 capture technology, but I am not sure the species is wise enough to use that technology or the extra time to do anything significant about the sixth great extinction that we have triggered. Any individual human being is capable of great beauty and creativity (JS Bach, anyone?) but I think our species is best-described as a blight on the planet. I think: choose beauty and creativity as a focus to avoid despair. But what do I know?
Daily CO2
May 27, 2016: 407.99 ppm
May 27, 2015: 403.33 ppm
about to see the May numbers. I think we will be looking at another month with another increase over 4 ppm.
We are remaining stubbornly over 4 ppm increase right now. We need to see the rate of increase number drop to zero and then start falling if we want to do anything significant about AGW. All the reports and technology in the world mean nothing if this number just keeps rising. You can’t cherry pick the outcome if that number keeps rising. More CO2, more heat.
The spectroscopic foundation of radiative forcing of climate by carbon dioxide
First published: 24 May 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068837
Abstract
The radiative forcing (RF) of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the leading contribution to climate change from anthropogenic activities. Calculating CO2 RF requires detailed knowledge of spectral line parameters for thousands of infrared absorption lines. A reliable spectroscopic characterization of CO2 forcing is critical to scientific and policy assessments of present climate and climate change. Our results show that CO2 RF in a variety of atmospheres is remarkably insensitive to known uncertainties in the three main CO2 spectroscopic parameters: the line shapes, line strengths, and half widths. We specifically examine uncertainty in RF due to line mixing as this process is critical in determining line shapes in the far wings of CO2 absorption lines. RF computed with a Voigt line shape is also examined. Overall, the spectroscopic uncertainty in present-day CO2 RF is less than 1%, indicating a robust foundation in our understanding of how rising CO2 warms the climate system.
Chuck Hughessays
I just heard on PBS: “The G20 are going to talk about ‘post global warming.’” I wonder what that means? Maybe they are going to declare GW is over?
Comment by Edward Greisch — 28 May 2016 @
A.K.A. “Post 6th Mass Extinction”? Maybe that’s what they mean.
Thomassays
May 30th news: follow up to prior news – bleaching doesn’t always kill the corals so scientists needed some time see what would happen in this years major bleaching event on the GBR.
“Corals to the north of Cairns – covering about two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef – were found to have an average mortality rate of 35 per cent, rising to more than 50% in areas around Cooktown.
“Professor Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said he was “gobsmacked” by the scale of the coral bleaching which far exceeded the two previous events in 1998 and 2002.”
a few pointers mentioned on radio interview fwiw: Before 1998 there had been no major bleaching events on the GBR even during el nino periods, this year is the third one in 18 yrs. scientists expect another 4 to 5 bleaching events in the next 20 yrs. The #1 issue for the GBR is climate change. The north region is not affected by crown of thorns starfish or agricultural run off. It takes about a decade for “dead reefs” to recover, meaning these areas probably will not recover fully.
343 Hank Roberts: Nah that can’t be true. Victor said otherwise and he wouldn’t lie to us – now would he? I have no reasojn to doubt his clevererestness? He wrote an ebook for amazon ya know! Him clever smart fella is.
Killiansays
309/310 Killian … oh do put a sock in it. I think you belong on a 9/11 truther site not RC. Whatever.
Comment by Thomas — 25 May 2016 @ 7:28 AM
So far this is what I got from saying you are getting it wrong: Whaaaaa!
Excellent. Now, can you please point to any analyses you’ve made of climate over the last 9 or 10 years? No? But you think your first foray, not even based in climate or resources, but economics, is a home run, do you?
Once again: Called this massive ice loss last August. Did you? Called potential 3 M SLR (2M likely based on virtually no hard info, but with major inconsistencies in the science calling for virtually no melt in Antarctica till near the end of this century) in ’97. Did you?
Called low in 2012. Did you? Called no new low, but within top 3 in ’13 and ’14. Did you? Called the same last year with caveat that if weather was like ’13 and ’14, then similar. If high Fram transport, then either new low or near new low. We got “good” winds.
Let’s see. Um…. challenged Gavin’s and Archer’s views on methane and call that one in my favor as CH4 keeps rising steeply and pingos, pingos, pingos… while they see no threat for decades or longer.
Now, I also called ramping up of weird weather, and particularly the effect on food, back in winter ’11-’12.
And more. U… have posted here for years on permacultue aka agroecology aka carbon farming as a solution to food and climate and resource limits. See the findings from the UN on same of very recent vintage.
Now, what have you done?
Nothing. Your analysis is WRONG. Why in the name of god do you not care WHY? These are serious issues requiring serious people. Be serious, or get the out of the way.
Killiansays
K 309: Economics is voodoo.
BPL: You mean your understanding of it is voodoo.
Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 25 May 2016 @ 8:03 AM
Oh, my world crumbled! Shut it or say something. Peanut gallry will be hit, hard, and nothing else. You’ve been pulling this drive by stupidity for years. Grow the heck up, BPL.
I put a Herman Daly and Steve Keen against anybody you’ve got. Go learn something. Try “Circular Economy” (flawed, but in the right direction) or “Steady-State Economy” (closer, but not perfect.) Best? Go see how some indigenous manage affairs. See if you can figure out why it matters.
Killiansays
Daily CO2
May 23, 2016: 408.86 ppm
May 23, 2015: 403.57 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
I think the current trend looks like about 4.1 ppm increase over this time a year ago. El Nino still plays a part
Exactly as predicted without a serious methane addition: 4 – 4.5 increase due to EN. If May comes in over 4.5, it may indicate something. However, due to slow migration of heat through the ocean and sediments, any long-term effect on Ch4 may take time to show up.
We await final May numbers. (We also can’t dismiss the 409 some weeks back. I wonder if it might indicate a shift in the curve as with ASI extent, so should be seen as our high for the year…)
Readers of social media commentary may find the following useful to keep in mind:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/assumption and
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Context – noun
– the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.
– the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
– “skilled readers use context to construct meaning from words as they are read”
Alf @298 — Actually almost all of the Sahara is cultivatable in trees as only water and some micronutrients are required wherever the trees can take root. That includes most bedrock as there are cracks, which then the roots slowly open.
Here is a nice sampling of the Sahara:
The Libyan Sahara Desert
https://www.temehu.com/Cities_sites/sahara.htm
And If you read the freely available full paper by Ornstein et al. you would see what parts of the Sahara are not to be planted and why; only about 20% of it.
Theo: what’s your toy?
“Everybody can…make a jump into the future, but we can make it today.”
The 4-min video linked by me #279 was posted on YouTube May 18:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoM3ZRtPnkc
UNEP is the UN Environment Programme. Bertrand Piccard is a UNEP goodwill ambassador. The video was played 18 May at the Bonn Climate Change Conference, as part of the 4th Dialogue on Climate Empowerment, following from Article 6 (Education, Training, and Public Awareness) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bertrand Piccard is a UNEP goodwill ambassador. The video is here at the UNFCC newsroom, with more from Bonn:
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/bertrand-piccard-around-the-world-to-promote-clean-technologies/
Piccard is now in Dayton OH with the Solar Impulse 2, which flew there to connect with the Wright brothers’ legacy. Not only did some say it couldn’t be done (to the Wrights) but some tried to prove it was impossible in principle. The mission’s goal is to be in New York by June 23, prior to crossing the Atlantic. Meteorological forecasting is always critical–especially for the Atlantic.
spiky day on CO2 readings:
Daily CO2
May 22, 2016: 408.97 ppm
May 22, 2015: 403.58 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
Pac NW has been back in a more familiar maritime nw mood for several days. It has been nice to get rain and cool breezes. I could stand a cooler than normal summer this year. Last year was too hot for me and also stressed the NW forests that are not accustomed to that much heat and that little precipitation. We have forest fire issues developing if we get several hot dry years back to back. This winter was wet and warm, I am not sure if that can help high elevation forests survive dry hot summers. I think snow pack is good and current snowpack is better than a year ago, but still under average generally.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/
Cheers,
Mike
About the Sahara isn’t the Southern Sahara predicted to get a lot wetter in a warmer World? The irrigation might not be necessary there.
New Letter: The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon doi:10.1038/nclimate3036
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3036.html
related news media report : 2016 ‘VIRTUALLY CERTAIN’ TO BREAK CLIMATE RECORDS
Professor Matthew England (video) examines why the recent slew of record-breaking hot weather has climate scientists alarmed.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/burning-all-fossil-fuels-would-cook-earth-raise-temperatures-8-degrees-study-20160523-gp1ih3.html
new paper: Global proliferation of cephalopods (aka weeds of the sea)
Numerous studies demonstrate that cephalopod populations are highly responsive to environmental change, with anthropogenic climate change, especially ocean warming, a plausible driver of the observed increase. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.002
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30319-0
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/boom-in-cephalopod-numbers-point-to-changing-oceans/7437560
AGW/CC seems to be getting a run in the media almost everyday of late, as science paper after paper rolls off the presses.
Haha, nobody is interested in the fact, that the ff fools forced global warming WILLINGLY for almost a century, as I said here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/unforced-variations-may-2016/comment-page-6/#comment-652738
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/unforced-variations-may-2016/comment-page-6/#comment-652739
Never mind, just go on talking about models, measurements, science ect pp, while politics goes on with BAU, hahaha. And please:
Have fun, I have fun too. Oh, and:
Good luck.
#297 Thomas said Oh really?
Yes, really. It’s simple math. You prefer old-school econ. So, no, you don’t get it. Try Steve Keen via Herman Daly and Minsky if you’d like to pull your head out.
Simpler, just ask yourself how long one can base a civilization on limited resources when using them at a rate that will exhaust many of them within 100 years. Really, it isn’t rocket science. Problem? You think it is.
I still hold to the fact that one cannot tell another things they do not want to know. And so it is.
Indeed. You are immune thus far. I have a rather extensive range of background knowledge I bring to my analyses, and they are pretty darned accurate.
Systems, sustainable systems, are my bailiwick. Learn or don’t. Up to you.
Now, you can keep whining like a spoiled 3 year-old or ask why I think you’re wrong without sounding like a whiny 3 year-old. You *are* wrong. I am not debating you, I am telling you. An intelligent man would want to know why. Hint: Tech can’t overcome nuttin’. Hint: Economics is voodoo. Hint: Simplicity.
Good luck.
Thomas, here’s the sort of stuff I do. Shaping up to be an interesting summer, no?
Economics is voodoo. Nature is real. Guess which one I rely on for data…
I said this last August despite consistently being of the opinion calling summer ASI lows before the first week in July is a bit of a fool’s game. Why? I noticed a pattern. I checked the pattern. I shard the info. So far, nobody has contradicted it and, so far, Nature is affirming it. So, I said this…
based on this….
We shall see. Weather is king in the short term in the Arctic, so storms, temps and wind patterns, particularly wind patterns, will tell the tale. I don’t mind being wrong. It’s a learning opportunity. I doubt I will be. This summer or next will see new lows, almost certainly. Mother is fickle, though.
#306 “About the Sahara isn’t the Southern Sahara predicted to get a lot wetter in a warmer World? The irrigation might not be necessary there.”
Yes, and the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future) will certainly promote plant growth worldwide — the more plants, the more absorption of CO2. Also, warmer winters mean less need for gas, oil or coal for heating purposes. So there would seem to be a built-in negative feedback at work as increasing amounts of CO2 enter the atmosphere.
Daily CO2
May 23, 2016: 408.86 ppm
May 23, 2015: 403.57 ppm
remaining upward sticky for second day. Very noisy number. But with global emissions down for several years in a row (according to IEA) why is this number not only rising, but rising at an increasingly higher rate? Yes, El Nino is good for a couple of ppm, but CO2 looks like it is an upward sticky number so far. I am watching to see this number drop as El Nino fades. Some days it drops back to the 406 range, but I think May average is going to be in 407.8 range for a 4 ppm increase over May 2015.
This goes to Tamino’s concern that we don’t need to worry too much about methane clathrates because there is potential for so much CO2 emission from warming planet. If we handle the potential releases of CO2 we probably also handle the potential methane releases, but I don’t think we are adequately handling or even discussing the potential CO2 releases. If/when we look back and say, uh-oh, we just passed a tipping point that has greatly accelerated ghg accumulation, what will our options be at that point? I think we will have to engage in a crash degrowth situation at that point and I am not sure our species can negotiate global degrowth terms without resorting to conflict. I don’t think global winter after a nuclear exchange of some sort is not a great plan. This stuff could jam up my retirement plans big time and I am enjoying retirement. I hope we do something to make sure my golden years golden. Is that too much to ask?
Grapes and kiwis are in the ground!
Warm regards
Mike
David B. Benson @ 294:
Here is a proposal to be taken seriously
What`s the sound of a bait?
p.s.(@ 302): Thanks for the link with the beautiful images of Sahara w/h lots of ff combusting vehicles, cart tracks and the mostly too specific or minor relevant infos regarding the topic. Somehow, — somehow, — yes, – somehow it makes me feel like an attempt for distraction.
DP @306 — Don’t count on the southern Sahara desert receiving enough more rain that irrigation becomes unnecessary.
I don’t think this is big news to anyone here at realclimate.org but I thought maybe one of the experts might shed some light on what constitutes a real “point of no return” when it comes to CO2 concentrations:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36133-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-concentration-has-passed-the-point-of-no-return
To my mind we’re continually passing “the point of no return”. My questions are; how bad will it get? How soon before things start to collapse to the point civilization becomes overwhelmed with insurmountable problems?
I personally do not see how we’re gonna make it. I guess some people will survive this century but if America elects Trump I think it’s game over in a hurry:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica/2990/
https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/Riskier%20Future.pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/climate-change-water-shortage-middle-east-asia-africa-world-bank
I just don’t see it happening. I always say, never underestimate the power of stupid people and their ability to stick together in an election year. We’re not just talking about CO2 levels here. This is death by a thousand cuts. Any one of the many problems listed in that truthout article by itself would be bad enough, but I see cascading events unfolding in rapid succession on a global scale. We’ve overloaded the system.
Also, the increase in CO2 levels that Mike continues to point out at over 5 ppm annually which is almost double what it was just a few years ago. Damn! And how about those Canadian fires? Those tar sands geniuses are really something. Anyone still talking about a pipeline? I haven’t heard anything lately. Maybe our new President will breath some life into it after the election. Jobs, jobs, jobs!
309/310 Killian … oh do put a sock in it. I think you belong on a 9/11 truther site not RC. Whatever.
K 309: Economics is voodoo.
BPL: You mean your understanding of it is voodoo.
V@311: the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future)
BPL: Can’t we put this troll in the bore hole? PLEASE? “Assuming it will actually increase?” Sweet jumped-up Jesus Christ in a sidecar, how much evidence do you actually need? This is supposed to be a climate science blog, not a haven for militant crackpots.
CH 316: I always say, never underestimate the power of stupid people and their ability to stick together in an election year. We’re not just talking about CO2 levels here. This is death by a thousand cuts.
BPL: You get it, Chuck. My concern has been the rising droughts, since that’s what I work on, but it’s not just drought that’s the problem. It’s drought PLUS flooded coastlines PLUS heat waves PLUS dying oceans PLUS the ongoing mass extinction PLUS tropical diseases moving into temperate zones (there’s kudzu in Ontario, for God’s sake, and Dengue fever in Texas)… I could go on all day. We might find tech solutions for one of the problems, or even several, but solving ALL of them will stretch civilization to the limit… and very likely beyond. It’s going to break sometime in this century. Most of us are going to die–even in America.
#319 BPL “This is supposed to be a climate science blog, not a haven for militant crackpots.”
Took the words right out of my mouth. :-)
Yes, and the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future) will certainly promote plant growth worldwide — the more plants, the more absorption of CO2. Also, warmer winters mean less need for gas, oil or coal for heating purposes. So there would seem to be a built-in negative feedback at work as increasing amounts of CO2 enter the atmosphere.
Comment by Victor — 24 May 2016 @
Dicktor, you are the Donald Trump of the Climate blogs. You get way more coverage than you deserve and have absolutely nothing to say. You need an ‘off switch’. This has turned into the “Victor Show” and I’m personally tired of reading about you and your inane comments. Your ignorance is NOT more important than everyone else’s knowledge yet you continue to take up massive amounts of real estate. Enough already.
Daily CO2
May 23, 2016: 408.86 ppm
May 23, 2015: 403.57 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
I think the current trend looks like about 4.1 ppm increase over this time a year ago. El Nino still plays a part, but CO2 ppm is upward sticky, as it cranks up, it sometimes go down, but the losses in CO2 ppm are always gone as time passes and CO2 ppm continues its amazing creep upward. This is the ballgame, folks. The difference between 400 ppm and 409 ppm is heat in the global climate system. It’s not a great deal of heat increase with a few ppm, but the direction is up, the impact of increasing heat is up.
The impact is incremental and relentless. The solution is abrupt and wildly scary to our species.
All the science is very interesting. All of the review of transition away from fossil fuels to energy systems with less impact is encouraging, but unless and until we see the CO2 ppm start to reduce the rate of increase, it’s really just like a game of three card monte.
I was quiet when CO2 dropped in to the 406 range for a few days. I would love to have seen it stay around 406. But bang, here we are again, banging along at the 408 plus level. That’s the ball game, folks.
Victor is like the clown at the ball game: ” the proliferation of atmospheric CO2, plus the increased warming (assuming it will actually increase in future) will certainly promote plant growth worldwide — the more plants, the more absorption of CO2.” and more about warmer winters, dropping need for heating as negative feedbacks!!
Yes, those things happen. They are happening. We just had a really warm winter and there is some vegetation “greening.” It’s happening and the CO2 ppm are soaring. You have to laugh at a guy who can spout these grains of truth and ignore the mountain of evidence that these negative feedbacks are swamped in the atmosphere. Victor, you crack me up, guy. I am literally chuckling thinking about the crazy stuff you post here. I think they should ban you from posting, but I will miss the chuckles you provide. Hey – tell me how a blue ocean in the Arctic will actually cool the planet or absorb ghg. Absurdity is funny! Bring it on. Fight the good fight, Victor!
Warm regards all,
Mike
Some months ago I recommended a site — http://sci-hub.io — as a great way to get around scientific article paywalls. That link is no longer valid. But sci-hub will not be stopped; it is now online at sci-hub.cc or sci-hub.ac
Happy hunting!
BPL, 320–“Most of us are going to die–even in America.”
Don’t mean to pick at you, Barton, but let me issue a slight correction–ALL of us are going to die, America or not. But that’s always been the norm.
I only mention it because I suspect that our pervasive cultural denial of our mortality has far-reaching deleterious psychological and cultural effects. Maybe even an increased carbon footprint, who knows? Compulsive consumption, anyone?
So, yeah, we’re all going to die. And demographics ensure that a sizable chunk of all humans who have *ever* lived will die in the 21st century.
But I’m still optimistic that humans will keep on dying long, long into the future.
Nemesis @308
I’m aware of the shenanigans of the fossil-fuel industry in the twentieth century. But they’re not fools, Nemesis, they’re psychopaths. Their own scientists told them that continuing to burn their product would wreck the planetary environment. Embarking instead on a campaign to sabotage action on climate condemns them as psychopaths interested only in maintaining their wealth and power for as long as possible.
Alf @313 — Afforestation of the Sahara desert is a supliment to all the other activities required to stop all excess carbon dioxide emissions. But as the atmospheric level of the so-called greenhouse gasses is too high it is necessary to remove the excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.
@320 Barton
Look Barton, there is a solution. We are not necessarily all going to die. The trick is getting people focused on the main problem, and solution, agriculture. Can’t even convince many that’s even the problem, and even those convinced, huge dichotomy in what to do about it.
However, fix it properly and agriculture can become the stabilizing feedback to climate while at the same time changing from unsustainable emissions source to sustainable regenerative biological system.
It can be done. We know how to do it. It costs nothing, actually becomes more profitable. The only down side is to those with a vested interest in the current production models. But since they call the shots, they potentially could take us all down with them.
Weather models are a piece of shit. AUS BOM has a section called Weather and Wave Maps. Using models, show in pics, it predicts Surface Presure & Rainfall and Surface Winds and so on. So there was one coming, which was going to bring 10-15mm of rain. I am in drought, so that would be a good thing. Then 3 days ago, my neighbour ( bloody neighbours, who wants them) did a burn-off and it got out of control. About a third of my property is currently on fire and it is slowly moving towards me. So now, I was hoping that that predicted rain would kill it. Well even the prediction one day before does not match reality. Also Radar shows a fairly big rain cloud around me, but I have had maybe one or two mm so far. So I will be holding out in my hole-in-the-ground and if I survive, you may see another post.
btw My CO2 toy has been going of the scale with all that smoke.
El Nino has been declared as on its last legs & those who enjoy the dramatic have been declaring for some time that it is at an end already.
NINO3.4 was down to +0.2ºC last week and likely will be going negative for this week.
The 30-day ave.SOI is up to -0.07 and certainly going positive in a day’s time.
This timing is about half a week earlier than the 1998 EL Nino did these things.
Further to some questions previously asked here about the Fort McMurray fire and Arctic ice melt, one professional at least opines that Greenland could indeed be affected this summer:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurray-fire-smoke-greenland-europe-1.3599812
As to the fire itself, it continues to burn, continues to grow, and has expanded into Saskatchewan. An Alberta provincial site says:
“The wildfire is now estimated to be over 562,913 hectares in size.”
http://srd.web.alberta.ca/fort-mcmurray-area-update
That was as of yesterday. For context, that would place it at 7th-largest in North American fire history, at least according to the list Wikipedia has. (And presuming I sorted it correctly!) The article has it at #8 right now, but they haven’t updated the current burnt acreage yet; if you figure that in, it’s now passed the Taylor Complex Fire, which burnt ~528K hectares in Alaska in 2004. Next on the list would be the California summer fires of 2008, which for some reason are aggregated on the list. Those fires burnt over 630K hectares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires#Canada_and_the_United_States
The good part from a human perspective is that Fort Mac residents are still to be allowed to return beginning June 1; services in the city have been restored to a considerable degree already, and essential personnel are mostly in place.
@ 317
The Truth (TM) – No research necessary. =)
“Most of us are going to die–even in America.”
All of us are going to die, everywhere. I would like an IAM to explicitly breakout mortality differences between the RCPs, say by decade.
And a pony.
@Digby Scorgie, #326
” But they’re not fools, Nemesis, they’re psychopaths. Their own scientists told them that continuing to burn their product would wreck the planetary environment. Embarking instead on a campaign to sabotage action on climate condemns them as psychopaths interested only in maintaining their wealth and power for as long as possible.”
Ha, I second that! Btw, here’s some more psychopathic shit:
” A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification (1966)”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19680002906
” Weather And Climate Modification (1965)”
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1965/nsb1265.pdf
” Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 (1996)”
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
And here a Walt Disney AD from 1959:
” Disney 1959 AD weather modification documentary Eyes in Outer Space (in collaboration with United States Departement Of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, Army Signal Research and Developement Laboratory)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yESzrqKOZlQ
And about an ice-free arctic ocean in the near future, this pre-viz of dramatic Arctic sea ice collapse was created by Scientists in 1969:
https://i1.wp.com/stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4609002/bambi-vs-godzilla-o.gif
Daily CO2
May 26, 2016: 407.84 ppm
May 26, 2015: 403.01 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
CO2 stubbornly staying in the range of 4 ppm over this same time last year.
How much longer before this starts happening in North America?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/
Well, yeah, and if you happen to have vast tracts of land in Siberia, you might figure to heck with the rest of the planet, warming is better. Until your roads and tractors sink into the melting tundra, that is. As a species, we don’t behave. As individuals, we do what we want. It’s a bad combination, at this point.
Mike, are you getting your CO2 numbers from here?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Please link to your source. Remember the kinds of comparisons you like — one day to the same date a year ago for example — need some nuance or else you’ll appear to be cherrypicking.
There’s plenty to worry about. Being clear about your source and what to rely on is important for credibility with those prone to doubt everything.
Just a reminder — it’s not highly likely that reversing our screwups will restore status quo ante.
We’re going to get something different, most of the time.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/uoc–att052716.php
I just heard on PBS: “The G20 are going to talk about ‘post global warming.'” I wonder what that means? Maybe they are going to declare GW is over?
Daily CO2
May 26, 2016: 407.84 ppm
May 26, 2015: 403.01 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
CO2 stubbornly staying in the range of 4 ppm over this same time last year.
Comment by mike — 28 May 2016 @
Thanks Mike. I’m keeping up with your postings on CO2 and it’s disturbing isn’t it. I have a sick feeling that this dramatic increase per year of CO2 will persist. It may go back down a little over the next year, I don’t know but given the way things are progressing I bet it will stay this high and probably increase some.
As much as I hate to see it I’ve forced myself to look at the Syrian refugee crisis and my gut feeling is that this will also trend upward and expand over the coming decades. They’re not going to save these people. Attempts will be made of course but people will turn their backs or simply change the channel. I would like to hear more from Gwynn Dyer and Dr. Peter Ward. If anyone has more recent links please post them. And those Texas floods are dramatic as well. 16″ – 19″ according to news reports.
Does anyone know how much warmer ocean temperatures are along the Eastern Seaboard? Hurricane season is starting and the Atlantic has been relatively quiet over the last few years. Will this season be more active than “normal”?
Hank at 338, I am watching CO2 MLO numbers for CO2 at https://www.co2.earth/
I will post the link occasionally, but for now, that is what I always use for CO2.
The best I can find for CH4 is at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker-ch4/summary.html
I will post the link occasionally if/when talking about atmospheric CH4 levels, but for now, that is the one I always use for CH4.
I find it very difficult to sort out the CH4 numbers. The CO2 number is easy to track and it is the big dog in global warming.
I agree that it is easy to cherrypick the data. The year to year comparison conveys the seasonal fluctuation up and down. The monthly annual comparison number reduces the noise level in the annual comparison over a daily reading comparison. The idea of tracking only one number, CO2, is an idea that came to me in the last year. I think it makes sense, but so far I am only looking at data from one pretty unusual El Nino year. I expect we should see annual CO2 comparison number drop as El Nino subsides, but I don’t see that yet. Then in May of 2017, we might be seeing flat numbers between any given date in May 2017 when compared to the same date in May 2016, but somehow, I suspect we will not see flat numbers. That brings up Killian’s question from a couple of months ago: where is all of this CO2 coming from? Since he asked that question, we have had large fires in Alberta and in Siberia, a small but maybe significant source of CO2, but I think we will look back in a few years and have a building consensus that in 2016 we started to see natural release of CO2 from warming planet and that the sources will be thawing permafrost, drying bogs, peat, etc.
At some point, probably way too late, a lot of folks will start to embrace degrowth to reduce CO2 buildup. A lot of other folks will start migrating to escape great misery. A lot of other folks will start deploying poorly thought-out geoengineering ideas to restore disrupted rainfall patterns and to address other heat-related crises. The republicans will continue to deny that AGW is happening and the dems will look for solutions to global challenges with drone technology and hellfire missiles. I would really like to be wrong about any or all of that.
I think our species might buy some time with deployment of CO2 capture technology, but I am not sure the species is wise enough to use that technology or the extra time to do anything significant about the sixth great extinction that we have triggered. Any individual human being is capable of great beauty and creativity (JS Bach, anyone?) but I think our species is best-described as a blight on the planet. I think: choose beauty and creativity as a focus to avoid despair. But what do I know?
Daily CO2
May 27, 2016: 407.99 ppm
May 27, 2015: 403.33 ppm
about to see the May numbers. I think we will be looking at another month with another increase over 4 ppm.
We are remaining stubbornly over 4 ppm increase right now. We need to see the rate of increase number drop to zero and then start falling if we want to do anything significant about AGW. All the reports and technology in the world mean nothing if this number just keeps rising. You can’t cherry pick the outcome if that number keeps rising. More CO2, more heat.
Warm regards
Mike
Geophysical Research Letters
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068837/
The spectroscopic foundation of radiative forcing of climate by carbon dioxide
First published: 24 May 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068837
I just heard on PBS: “The G20 are going to talk about ‘post global warming.’” I wonder what that means? Maybe they are going to declare GW is over?
Comment by Edward Greisch — 28 May 2016 @
A.K.A. “Post 6th Mass Extinction”? Maybe that’s what they mean.
May 30th news: follow up to prior news – bleaching doesn’t always kill the corals so scientists needed some time see what would happen in this years major bleaching event on the GBR.
“Corals to the north of Cairns – covering about two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef – were found to have an average mortality rate of 35 per cent, rising to more than 50% in areas around Cooktown.
“Professor Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said he was “gobsmacked” by the scale of the coral bleaching which far exceeded the two previous events in 1998 and 2002.”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/huge-wake-up-call-third-of-central-northern-great-barrier-reef-corals-dead-20160528-gp6dc9.html
a few pointers mentioned on radio interview fwiw: Before 1998 there had been no major bleaching events on the GBR even during el nino periods, this year is the third one in 18 yrs. scientists expect another 4 to 5 bleaching events in the next 20 yrs. The #1 issue for the GBR is climate change. The north region is not affected by crown of thorns starfish or agricultural run off. It takes about a decade for “dead reefs” to recover, meaning these areas probably will not recover fully.
Maybe RC could get someone to do a guest article on this matter?
eg http://www.thetippingpoints.com/scientists/prof-charlie-vernon/ the #1 expert in the field in the world, now retired.
343 Hank Roberts: Nah that can’t be true. Victor said otherwise and he wouldn’t lie to us – now would he? I have no reasojn to doubt his clevererestness? He wrote an ebook for amazon ya know! Him clever smart fella is.
309/310 Killian … oh do put a sock in it. I think you belong on a 9/11 truther site not RC. Whatever.
Comment by Thomas — 25 May 2016 @ 7:28 AM
So far this is what I got from saying you are getting it wrong: Whaaaaa!
Excellent. Now, can you please point to any analyses you’ve made of climate over the last 9 or 10 years? No? But you think your first foray, not even based in climate or resources, but economics, is a home run, do you?
Once again: Called this massive ice loss last August. Did you? Called potential 3 M SLR (2M likely based on virtually no hard info, but with major inconsistencies in the science calling for virtually no melt in Antarctica till near the end of this century) in ’97. Did you?
Called low in 2012. Did you? Called no new low, but within top 3 in ’13 and ’14. Did you? Called the same last year with caveat that if weather was like ’13 and ’14, then similar. If high Fram transport, then either new low or near new low. We got “good” winds.
Let’s see. Um…. challenged Gavin’s and Archer’s views on methane and call that one in my favor as CH4 keeps rising steeply and pingos, pingos, pingos… while they see no threat for decades or longer.
Now, I also called ramping up of weird weather, and particularly the effect on food, back in winter ’11-’12.
And more. U… have posted here for years on permacultue aka agroecology aka carbon farming as a solution to food and climate and resource limits. See the findings from the UN on same of very recent vintage.
Now, what have you done?
Nothing. Your analysis is WRONG. Why in the name of god do you not care WHY? These are serious issues requiring serious people. Be serious, or get the out of the way.
K 309: Economics is voodoo.
BPL: You mean your understanding of it is voodoo.
Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 25 May 2016 @ 8:03 AM
Oh, my world crumbled! Shut it or say something. Peanut gallry will be hit, hard, and nothing else. You’ve been pulling this drive by stupidity for years. Grow the heck up, BPL.
I put a Herman Daly and Steve Keen against anybody you’ve got. Go learn something. Try “Circular Economy” (flawed, but in the right direction) or “Steady-State Economy” (closer, but not perfect.) Best? Go see how some indigenous manage affairs. See if you can figure out why it matters.
Daily CO2
May 23, 2016: 408.86 ppm
May 23, 2015: 403.57 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
I think the current trend looks like about 4.1 ppm increase over this time a year ago. El Nino still plays a part
Exactly as predicted without a serious methane addition: 4 – 4.5 increase due to EN. If May comes in over 4.5, it may indicate something. However, due to slow migration of heat through the ocean and sediments, any long-term effect on Ch4 may take time to show up.
We await final May numbers. (We also can’t dismiss the 409 some weeks back. I wonder if it might indicate a shift in the curve as with ASI extent, so should be seen as our high for the year…)
The Economist Has No Clothes (Unscientific assumptions in economic theory are undermining efforts to solve environmental problems)
Pointing out the obvious: Sustainable societies have no sense of, nor use of, economics as the term is used on this bog.