Chuck Hughes, 45: “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”
Many possibilities. E.g.:
1. countries deliberately under-report the types of emission they have to report
2. some types of emissions countries do not have to report (e.g. CO2 emissions from forest fires)
3. C sinks today may not be as effective as in the past – particularly the ocean:
a) warmer water -> lower solubility of CO2 -> less take up of atm. CO2;
b) slower AMOC, weaker vertical mixing -> slower removal of human CO2 from surface waters into deeper layers
c) Revelle factor: R=[dCO2/CO2]/ [dDIC/DIC], where DIC= dissolved inorganic carbon
At higher CO2 R increases -> ocean can match the same increase in pCO2 with smaller increases of DI(Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) -> the ocean picks less CO2 to keep up with atm. CO2.
The #Media Malpractice on #ClimateChange! (Full Interview w/Guest: Dr. Michael Mann)
Thomassays
27 Hank Roberts
Yes he did, back in 2013. Google it https://goo.gl/o5xKYU he’s not the only one. Good ideas spread like wildfires, eventually. :-)
Thomassays
29 Silk says: exactly what I believe too. Well said.
Thomassays
30 mike says: I think the “unusual blob of air” story does not hold water.
Well it’s an interesting coincidence that Tasmania’s sth hemisphere CO2 reading crossed the 400ppm record at the same time. It picks up an entirely difference body of atmosphere than Hawaii. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Forties
Hawaii does not have a history of blobs of air nor a record of wildly divergent readings. That is precisely why they located the MLO there.
I believe it’s important to remember that annual global CO2e emissions have a significant ‘guestimated’ component that relies to a degree on input from individual nations. It’s also a fact that PPM sensors don’t lie.
Hank at 46: how do you think we can make collective action happen? I am down for it. I think collective action is best undertaken through economics, so I favor a carbon tax. It would be best if the carbon tax was global, but I think a lot of nation-states will insist on their independence.
Is there a powerful idea in these links somewhere? I could not fine one. Of course, this is a collective action problem. Of course collective action problems are hard to solve. The solution to “stop freaking out and just get to work on it” seem a bit vague and rhetorical. Maybe I missed the powerful idea or shining path forward in these links?
Daily CO2
June 2, 2016: 407.37 ppm
June 2, 2015: 402.88 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
May numbers not posted yet at co2.earth. I expect them to come in a little under 408, I will choose and number and say 407.7 ppm. May 2015 was 403.94, so I am hoping to see a monthly number that shows slightly less than a 4 ppm increase over the same month last year.
Too hot in the Pac NW today, had to scoop up the grandchildren and take them to the spray park. The place was packed with little ones playing in the water. It was great fun and collective action.
I did not find the links to be very persuasive, but at least these two links are fielding the question.
I think we are seeing a rise in numbers because the global north is less of a carbon sink than it has been in the past, I think there is a pulse of CO2 from the warming and drying of the ground that used to be more of a carbon sink as the ground remained stable, the trees continued to grow and ice cover remained largely intact.
There are indications that agriculture may be emitting more carbon. It’s hard for me to grasp why agriculture, cafo work, etc. would suddenly start emitting more, but as I read it, the “chemical fingerprint” of agricultural source CO2 is up and the “chemical fingerprint” of the global north boreal forest is not showing a spike.
I think the truth is that no one knows why CO2 is now bumping along at 3 and 4 ppm increase over a year ago (not noisy daily numbers, the monthly averages). Certainly El Nino is good for a point, maybe two. But a lot of folks think the El Nino does not explain 4 ppm.
I hope a year from now we are looking at numbers back in the 404 to 406 range for monthly average for April and May 2017. If we are looking at monthly average above 407 that should cause concern. If we are looking at 410 next year or if the Republican party starts talking about how we need to do something serious about AGW, we should probably freak out.
Generally, all. The tone here has got pretty nasty. Seems we are mostly on the same side. Can we focus on science questions and answers? Less mud-slinging?
True, there’s been a fair amount of back-biting lately. I have a theory about that: we’re all Cassandra. Or at least feel a bit the way she must have; we see the blade coming, and can’t get anybody to listen.
(Though I don’t think it’s quite that bad; the majority haslistened, and it’s an increasing majority. But metaphorically, the Horse is about to come through the gates…)
It’s enough to give anyone the grumps.
Digby Scorgiesays
Chuck @45
I asked this very question last month (I think). There were several responses and Gavin even chipped in at one point. If my understanding is correct, the essential point is that emissions have to drop a helluva lot more than a couple of percent before you’ll see this reflected in the Keeling curve.
Edward Greischsays
43 dnem: Go to BraveNewClimate.com.
44Scott Strough: You take the low-hanging fruit first.
Thomassays
44 Scott S, hi scott I don’t have an answer to your questions. All I could say is to encourage you to engage with those who are involved in this aspect of agw/cc and see where that may take you. As an example (ok?), using the following urls, you can offer your maths and also ask questions of the key players/depts or request “bests refs” they might recommend.
I have found that emails of quality do get a positive response from Govt depts, science bodies, and university personnel. iow go direct. Just ignore the ‘online agw science forums’ that ignore you and your area of interest.
Chuck Hughessays
“Saying these things out loud got me branded a FF apologist and co-conspirator. I hope we can overcome these issues but wishing they weren’t there doesn’t help anybody.”
Comment by dnem — 3 Jun 2016 @
Quite frankly I was shocked at the reaction and the subsequent conversation. I haven’t been back other than to post a regret that my response didn’t seem to appear anywhere in-line with the rest of the discussion. It may have been posted later. i don’t know. I just wanted to make sure of the credibility of the source and the validity of the content of the paper. It certainly looked legit to me and I read up on the researchers etc. I don’t want to be guilty of posting incorrect information. Kevin McKinney pointed out, as did the paper that the analogy of Earth’s biosphere being “like” a charged battery is a useful ‘metaphor’. Stark but useful.
One thing I admire about Science and scientists in particular is that analysis is rather dry and to the point. I think Hank mentioned Al Bartlett. He’s a great example of that. I see no reason to get all worked up over the exponential function. It is what it is.
I’ve certainly had my share of ass kickings on this site but I learn from it which is why i keep coming back. I want to know.
Scott Stroughsays
Chuck @45,
“I said something about this in an earlier thread; “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?” I still don’t get that. It’s a maddening situation. Talk about a “disconnect”. I would love for someone to address this conundrum.”
I’ll give it a shot.
It’s a stocks and flow problem, very basic to climate science.
To draw down CO2, (decrease the stocks in the atmosphere) we must adjust the flows into and out of the atmosphere until we achieve a net negative flux.
You can reduce the flow into the atmosphere, but if the net is still positive, stocks of CO2 will still be rising, just not as fast as if the emissions flows were larger.
As a thought experiment, think of a kitchen sink with a drain, a faucet, and a basin. What water comes into the basin arrives through the faucet. What water leaves the basin either leaves by the drain, or by evaporation, or by spilling over the edge. One notes that the water in the sink basin is rising, options are turn down the faucet to a tiny drip equal to evaporation, unclog the drain, a bit of both, or do nothing and watch the sink overflow.
Just turning down the faucet will slow the sink filling and overflowing, but it won’t actually stop the sink from overflowing unless it is very nearly completely turned off. At least as long as the drain is clogged.
Thomassays
The new site Climate Feedback are on the ball. They are still seeking ‘scientist contributors’.
Climate Feedback is looking for a part-time Scientific Editor. Experience:
We are looking for candidates with a science journalism or scientific background with experience writing about climate science (eg background in Science Journalism or a PhD in Climate Science) http://climatefeedback.org/scientific-editor-position/
dnemsays
#17 and #46 – I don’t think it’s a great mystery. The vaunted CO2 emissions going down numbers are from the IEA and report only “energy related emissions.” So they don’t include many, many possible sources, and they don’t include anything related to the performance of sinks. And the IEA numbers themselves have associated errors and might not be right. Probably the biggest driver of the mismatch is El Nino, but I’m sure there is an interplay of many complex factors. But you’re right, the overall picture is not pretty: atmospheric CO2 is high and for the time being appears to be rising at the highest rate yet.
dnemsays
Sorry, previous comment was to #17 and #45 (not #46). Please edit if possible.
I’ve already announced my solidarity with Klein’s harsh take on what she calls the “extractive” industries. Indeed, I’m very much with her on just about every front — with the exception of her extreme, almost hysterical, and also very naive, views on climate change, and her promotion of the most extreme forms of climate activism, regardless of the cost. The review, by Peter Dorman, who shares her concerns about climate change, mercilessly reveals the many shortcomings of this book, which I won’t attempt to summarize here.
While I previously urged the denizens of this blog to read Klein’s remarkable essay “Let Them Drown” (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown), I must now urge everyone to read Dorman’s astute, eminently reasonable and thorough critique. What’s especially important here is not simply his take on Klein’s book, but his very deep, probing analysis of the many hidden (and not so hidden) weaknesses of the climate activist program generally. As he states in his rather unsettling conclusion:
“what I find diagnostic is the warm reception [Klein’s book] received from virtually every media outlet on the English-speaking left. This suggests that Klein is moving with the political tide and not against it, and that the problems that seemed obvious to me were either invisible to her reviewers or regarded as too insignificant to bring up. The view that capitalism is a style of thinking, progress is a myth, and political contestation is irrelevant to “true” social change belongs not just to this one book but to all the commentators who found nothing to criticize. That’s the real problem.”
Dan DaSilvasays
#31 further comment:
I omitted Dr. Mann’s most useful mitigation, going on a diet.
That carbon sink is get a little big.
This should not cause anyone to freak out, but should motivate us all to get to work on on collective action plan.
My thought on collective action plan: we should all make a plan to lower our carbon footprint by no less than 50% by January 1, 2017. It will be hard for each of to do that, but we should just get to work on it. If we are already at zero footprint (very few of us there I think) then we need to work on creating carbon negative footprint. We can do this.
It’s the polar bear moment, we should all strive to have the carbon footprint of a walrus, polar bear or penguin. Get to work!
warm regards,
Mike
Eric Swansonsays
MA Rodger #22 and others, I notice that John Christy’s latest effluent continues to provide his humorous perspective on science. Notice that his monthly averaged data continues to include “forecasts” thru the end of 2016, projecting even warmer temps for November and December. The averages are also padded with fabricated values thru November 1979. Is he caught in the Matrix Illusion or just blinded by his religious world view? Or, is he repeating a basic blunder, such as not checking his data before posting it? The US Government is paying him (and Spencer) to spread these errors!!!
Adam Leasays
#45 – “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”.
It is because even if the emissions are going down, the overall CO2 input (from natural and anthropogenic sources) can still be greater than the sinks. The best analogy I can think of is solar radation and the summer solstice. In a middle latitude country such as the UK (temperate maritime climate), incoming solar radiation peaks at the summer solstice (climatologically speaking) and decreases during the rest of the summer (slowly at first, rate of decrease increases up to the autumn equinox), yet the climatological peak in summer temperature does not occur at the summer solstice, but several weeks later in July or August. This happens because even though the incoming solar radiation is decreasing after the solstice, it still exceeds outgoing longwave radiation for a few weeks and peak climatological summer temperature is reached when the incoming solar radiation equals outgoing longwave radiation.
Victorsays
Oh, and by the way,
From this peer-reviewed paper, published last Fall–http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136147:
Abstract
Dry forests at low elevations in temperate-zone mountains are commonly hypothesized to be at risk of exceptional rates of severe fire from climatic change and land-use effects. Their setting is fire-prone, they have been altered by land-uses, and fire severity may be increasing. However, where fires were excluded, increased fire could also be hypothesized as restorative of historical fire. These competing hypotheses are not well tested, as reference data prior to widespread land-use expansion were insufficient. Moreover, fire-climate projections were lacking for these forests. Here, I used new reference data and records of high-severity fire from 1984–2012 across all dry forests (25.5 million ha) of the western USA to test these hypotheses. I also approximated projected effects of climatic change on high-severity fire in dry forests by applying existing projections. This analysis showed the rate of recent high-severity fire in dry forests is within the range of historical rates, or is too low, overall across dry forests and individually in 42 of 43 analysis regions. Significant upward trends were lacking overall from 1984–2012 for area burned and fraction burned at high severity. Upward trends in area burned at high severity were found in only 4 of 43 analysis regions. Projections for A.D. 2046–2065 showed high-severity fire would generally be still operating at, or have been restored to historical rates, although high projections suggest high-severity fire rotations that are too short could ensue in 6 of 43 regions. Programs to generally reduce fire severity in dry forests are not supported and have significant adverse ecological impacts, including reducing habitat for native species dependent on early-successional burned patches and decreasing landscape heterogeneity that confers resilience to climatic change. Some adverse ecological effects of high-severity fires are concerns. Managers and communities can improve our ability to live with high-severity fire in dry forests.
noisy number, but still, 5.1 ppm increase of the same date in 2015?
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
April in the boks at 4.12 ppm over April 2015. Still waiting for the May 2016 average number. Normal annual patterns call for June numbers to drop below May numbers. We should expect to see something close to 407.3 for June average. If we see something higher, we should be asking, where is all this CO2 coming from?
scott@44 — I’m not an expert, but I can see two obvious problems with your proposal.
The first is that you would need to achieve that kind of sequestration on average over all agriculture on earth. That’s a very tall order. It’s hard to imagine even 10% getting that kind of improvement, with 1% likely a more realistic target. It might not be impossible, but the amount of world-wide cooperation would be unprecedented.
The second (and maybe only potential) problem is that you haven’t indicated if the sequestrations you allude to can be sustained year after year. It if one thing to sequester 8 tons in one year on depleted soil, quite another to repeat that 100 years running.
But as I said, I’m not an expert, and even if my concerns are correct there would seem to be no harm in aggressively pushing things in the direction you suggest. (I’ve seen similar proposals to use hemp or algae farms to produce biomass that can be sequestered.)
Killiansays
Re: #27 Hank Roberts said When I think of the children I imagine a computer game approach
That’s — explicitly — what Peter Ward is asking climate scientists to develop, in the video recently linked here.
Guess somebody read my blog… or ,my many posts here… or at The Oil Drum…. or something:
AGU’s e-alerts for “Global Change” in today’s email, for those not reading them yet
(this is a one-time large post; find this via AGU if you want more of it)
Climate change impact on the roles of temperature and precipitation in western U.S. snowpack variability
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 12 MAY 2016 Jason Scalzitti, Courtenay Strong and Adam Kochanski
Published Online : 30 MAY 2016 01:25PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068798
Climate change reduces warming potential of nitrous oxide by an enhanced Brewer-Dobson circulation
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 14 MAY 2016 Daniela Kracher, Christian H. Reick, Elisa Manzini, Martin G. Schultz and Olaf Stein
Published Online : 4 JUN 2016 04:05PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068390
Seasonal and regional variations in extreme precipitation event frequency using CMIP5
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 16 MAY 2016 E. Janssen, R. L. Sriver, D. J. Wuebbles and K. E. Kunkel
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 06:40PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL069151
High-latitude dust in the Earth system
Reviews of Geophysics
March 2016 Accepted Online: 23 MAY 2016 Joanna E. Bullard, Matthew Baddock, Tom Bradwell, John Crusius, Eleanor Darlington, Diego Gaiero, Santiago Gassó, Gudrun Gisladottir, Richard Hodgkins, Robert McCulloch, Cheryl McKenna-Neuman, Tom Mockford, Helena Stewart and Throstur Thorsteinsson
Published Online : 4 JUN 2016 06:01PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 RG000518
Idealized climate change simulations with a high-resolution physical model: HadGEM3-GC2
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
March 2016 Accepted Online: 6 MAY 2016 Catherine A. Senior, Timothy Andrews, Chantelle Burton, Robin Chadwick, Dan Copsey, Tim Graham, Pat Hyder, Laura Jackson, Ruth McDonald, Jeff Ridley, Mark Ringer and Yoko Tsushima
Published Online : 29 MAY 2016 12:20PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015MS000614
Future changes in regional precipitation simulated by a half-degree coupled climate model: Sensitivity to horizontal resolution
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
March 2016 Accepted Online: 9 MAY 2016 Christine A. Shields, Jeffrey T. Kiehl and Gerald A. Meehl
Published Online : 2 JUN 2016 10:18AM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015MS000584
Evaluation of reanalysis, of spatially interpolated and satellite remotely sensed precipitation data sets in central Asia
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
27 April 2016 Accepted Online: 16 MAY 2016 Zengyun Hu, Qi Hu, Chi Zhang, Xi Chen and Qingxiang Li
Published Online : 30 MAY 2016 04:55PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 JD024781
Simulating the extreme 2013/2014 winter in a future climate
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
27 April 2016 Accepted Online: 2 MAY 2016 L. M. Rasmijn, G. Schrier, J. Barkmeijer, A. Sterl and W. Hazeleger
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 04:10PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015JD024492
Historic drought puts the brakes on earthflows in Northern California
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 G. L. Bennett, J. J. Roering, B. H. Mackey, A. L. Handwerger, D. A. Schmidt and B. P. Guillod
Published Online : 1 JUN 2016 09:00AM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068378
Enhancement of non-CO2 radiative forcing via intensified carbon cycle feedbacks
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 18 MAY 2016 Andrew H. MacDougall and Reto Knutti
Published Online : 4 JUN 2016 03:30PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068964
Response of lightning NOx emissions and ozone production to climate change: Insights from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 16 MAY 2016 D. L. Finney, R. M. Doherty, O. Wild, P. J. Young and A. Butler
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 07:35PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068825
A nonstationary bias-correction technique to remove bias in GCM simulations
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
27 April 2016 Accepted Online: 19 MAY 2016 Chiyuan Miao, Lu Su, Qiaohong Sun and Qingyun Duan
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 06:10PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015JD024159
Multidecadal freshening and lightening in the deep waters of the Bransfield Strait, Antarctica
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
April 2016 Accepted Online: 9 MAY 2016 Tiago S. Dotto, Rodrigo Kerr, Mauricio M. Mata and Carlos A. E. Garcia
Published Online : 2 JUN 2016 10:13AM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015JC011228
Lorius´ carsays
Any reflections on the recent CLOUD papers from Kirkby and Tröstl?
I know they are likely to be touted in the denialosphere as the death of manmade warming (which anyone sane can see is ridiculous), but I would like to hear your opinion about their validity and how far their implications go if taken at face value.
Looking at the four bullet points you raised five years ago about CLOUD and climate:
“Establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:
1… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
I could, of course be quite wrong, so if was hoping teh redaction or someone here could help me put these into context. Thanks in advance!
Eric Swansonsays
Victor #67, I found Peter Dorman’s critique of Naomi Klein’s book (which I read) to be on the mark. But, the problems he lays out aren’t just with Klein, but with a far larger group of people who see environmental problems as existential for humanity, yet, can’t come up with a way to solve the basic problems. I’ve been associated with some environmental groups over the years and never felt that the plans advocated could actually produce results. I think that we are all imprisoned within a system we call “economics”, which fundamentally ignores the natural world and thus proceeds to destroy those natural systems upon which our survival depends.
We are all born into surroundings which we did not make and we won’t have any means to impact those surroundings until we have lived thru perhaps 1/4 of our lives. In the US, every day is energy consumption day, from the time the alarm clock rings and we turn on the lights as we step into the shower, then dress in cloths made by someone else, then cook our breakfast with food and energy delivered from far away, then travel to work using cars or other energy consuming transport, then “work” using more energy, then go back to our energy warmed abodes to eat again and then sleep in beds made by someone else, turning off the lights to end the daily cycle. All of the work we do is rewarded with “money”, with which we “pay” for all the consumption we cause. More people arriving on the scene thru birth and immigration results in more consumption as each individual demands his/her share of the total. Our institutions collectively promote ever more consumption, so an individual has little recourse but to join the herd or be trampled.
To be sure, an individual or small group can separate themselves from the herd and there have been many attempts to do so, such as the Mennonites or the so-called Hippies from the late 1960’s who moved back to nature in communes. The rest of the herd simply kept on moving and there is a tremendous inertia against efforts to change the materialistic societies which we’ve built. Capitalism is little different than socialism in regards to promoting development, and the accumulation of wealth form exploiting land and it’s resources is the basic problem. I think it’s clear that if technologies were available to provide all the energy people demanded from non-carbon sources, the demand for the other material resources not be slowed and thus the environment would continue to degrade. We might solve the CO2/climate change problem and still fall over the cliff.
Worse, population growth is likely to continue, eventually negating any progress to reduce consumption. Migration is part of the problem, since moving people from a region of high population growth to one with more space and opportunity won’t slow the population growth rate in the region(s) left behind. I contend that the world is already beginning to experience what’s called “over population” as migrants from tropical nations are now risking their lives to move toward the more wealthy, temperate nations now that they too have “smart phones” and other media to show them what they are missing. This can’t end well and I think Klein doesn’t see what’s coming. When push comes to shove, the police/military will simply start shooting…
You’ve now had several responses to your question. Do they help? However, to me the real problem is: By how much should emissions drop before one sees the rate of increase in the Keeling curve start to slow?
It should be obvious that as emissions decline, first you’ll see the rate of increase in CO2 levels slow down, then later the level will stop rising and stay constant for a while, and then later still the levels will start dropping.
As I understand it, the drop in emissions has to be significant before you’ll see the rate of increase start to slow. And they have to drop something of the order of 80% before you’ll see the CO2 levels actually start to decline.
Something I learnt at SkepticalScience is that, if emissions suddenly ceased altogether, natural processes would immediately start removing some of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere but, perhaps paradoxically, the average global temperature would remain roughly unchanged. That’s a consequence of the inertia of the climate system. The delayed warming because of the inertia would roughly balance the effect of the declining CO2 levels.
Chuck Hughessays
There are more expensive ways to conserve water than Los Angeles’s ill-fated floating plastic reservoir balls.
Comment by Russell — 4 Jun 2016 @
I always thought that was a stupid idea. So now you have a bunch of plastic floating in the water. Surely that will start to break down with sun hitting it from above and water from below. Just another excuse to make a bunch of plastic. I don’t know. I could be wrong about that. Even if it works it looks dumb. Just my opinion. Also, weren’t the plastic balls black? So now the water is also hot. Great for microbes. Kill all the fish. ???
Eric Swanson @70.
I agree that it is bizarre to set out an annual average based on a single month’s data, as the UAH folk do at the ends of their data posting. And I would agree that John Christy & his chums are entirely untrustworthy when it comes to pronouncements on AGW. Their scientific position on AGW can be demonstrated as unreasonable, which presumably means it is unscientific.
Where we perhaps differ is in seeing some usefulness in examining the UAH data. Their TLT v6.0beta5 data is not greatly different to the RSS TLT data and that RSS data does not carry with it any of the stench of denialism. The data UAH & RSS both may suffer from a significant systematic error (& we await RSS TLT v4.0 which could be interesting) but I don’t believe we should ignore it because of that likelihood.
Meanwhile, RSS has posted for May 2016. I did upload a comment of a similar form to the UAH comment @22 but it appears not to have successfully arrived in this thread.
As the RSS data is so similar to the UAH data, I will not re-post that listing of monthly numbers. Suffice to say that May 2016 RSS has dipped a little lower than its UAH equivalent. It sits 18th highest in the record, this because, unlike UAH (which was 8th highest), RSS has dipped below the peak temperatures of 2007 & 2010. The comparison with the 1997/98 El Nino TLT temperatures is graphed here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) showing also MEI (the next data point will doubtless show a rapid drop from El Nino conditions) & an average of surface temperature data.
Chuck Hughessays
I’ve noticed that when Weaktor shows up the comments thread increases by about 100. That’s just a round figure. Could be less than that.
Vendicar Decariansays
45: “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”
Because Arithmetic.
Learn some.
dnemsays
#47 Kevin MicKinney
No, I get that! I did say “apart from the obvious other impacts on the biosphere!” in my original post. I was referring the energy implications of the discharge of the battery, and particularly the implications of sustaining the overshot human population/economy without further tapping the big stored FF battery. In that context, standing biomass is not really relevant. In the larger context of human (and planetary) wellbeing, it is obviously is.
I am confused about discussions of staying below 1.5°C. By 2002, ENSO neutral temperatures had reached 1998 level. Take out the air pollution from fossil fuels, and temperatures go up another 0.4°C. Then there is a 10-year lag between atmospheric levels of GHG and temperature.
What am I missing? Why aren’t we committed to 1.5°C yet?
Please remember when talking abt rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that we are not just talking about rising levels, the bigger story is that the rate of increase is rising. Once you incorporate that tidbit/fact into your review of atmospheric composition, the story gets more challenging. It’s not the simple issue of adding two gallons to yr fuel tank, it appears that someone/something is slipping up to yr car while you are out and pouring in a couple of gallons of something that they no longer want.
That really is the important question: what are the sources of CO2 that are currently overwhelming the planet’s carbon cycle? I think it’s going to prove out to be changes in the oceans’ ability to absorb CO2 at the ocean surface (which would be a good thing for a lot of crustaceans) and more importantly, releases of CO2 from permafrost, warmed soil, loss of sea ice, warming and outgassing from previously cold ocean floor. etc. This is stuff over which we have very little control or influence. Not good.
Some of the increase appears to be from agriculture – really industrial agriculture, I think.
Here are two things that we can change to address the problem:
1. Immediately cut our energy consumption by at least 50%. Each and everyone of us would have to do that to make a large and meaningful impact on CO2 concentration problem.
2. Immediately mandate global changes in agriculture practice to reduce the CO2 release and maximize the CO2 sequestration through a process of restoring healthy topsoil around the world.
But, hey, what do I know?
another spiky day at MLO with increase of 4.88 ppm over same date in 2015. Still waiting to see the May monthly average number.
Daily CO2
June 5, 2016: 407.51 ppm
June 5, 2015: 402.63 ppm
read’m and weep.
Mike
Eric Swansonsays
MA Rodger #85, I’ve have recently been working on a paper comparing MSU/AMSU results, which was rejected after the first submission. The reviewers reminded me that there are 3 groups which regularly produce analysis of the MSU/AMSU data, UAH, RSS and NOAA/STAR. There is also work in progress(?) from the University of Washington, but I couldn’t find any ongoing release of their results. My paper may yet see the light of day, after extensive revision.
Comparing the lower troposphere results from UAH and RSS is only one way to view the results. Christy’s new TLT is a radical departure from their earlier work, as seen by comparing the latest trends from the older UAH TLT v5.6 Northern Hemisphere at 0.21 K/decade with the new v6b5 NH result of 0.15 K/dec against the latest results from RSS TLT v3 at 0.18 K/dec. Also, compare these TLT trends with the RSS TTT v4 at 0.21 K/dec and my calculated T24 from NOAA at 0.22 K/dec. It appears to me that the UAH results are too low and Christy’s graphs further understate the warming in the global results for the MAU/AMSU data over the Antarctic is compromised by surface contamination, which adds a strong cooling trend.
Gavin’s reply to my #91, Thanks, I hadn’t seen that, though I had previously learned that Po-Chedley’s series was only for tropical data. These data can’t be compared with the other Northern Hemisphere results, though one might do a comparison with the UAH and RSS tropical series. To include the NOAA/STAR data, one would need to calculate a tropical result from the appropriate gridded data set.
Piotrsays
mike, 90:
“we are not just talking about rising levels, the bigger story is that the rate of increase is rising. ”
I agree that the latter is the bigger story (the initial question has been already explained by several posters). My own earlier answer in this thread seems now more relevant to the MODIFIED question. i.e. why the RATE of increase of CO2 increases despite supposedly decreasing emissions. i.e. why (dpCO2/dt)/dt >0
My suggestion: under-reporting of emissions and/or weaker sinks:
1. countries deliberately under-report the types of emissions they have to report
2. some types of emissions countries do not even have to report (e.g. CO2 emissions from forest fires)
Caveat: to explain the discussed paradox – the amount of undereporting in 1 and 2 would have to be larger now than was in the past (say, more cheating now than in the past given higher international expectations; or more wildfires/decomposition of organic matter now)
3. The C sinks today may be less effective today than in the past – particularly the ocean:
a) warmer water -> lower solubility of CO2 -> less take up of atm. CO2;
b) slower AMOC, weaker vertical mixing -> slower removal of human CO2 from surface waters into deeper layers
c) Revelle factor: R=[dCO2/CO2]/ [dDIC/DIC], where DIC= dissolved inorganic carbon
At higher CO2 R increases -> ocean can match the same increase in pCO2 with smaller increases of DI(Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) -> the ocean picks less CO2 to keep up with atm. CO2.
I guess the weakening of the sinks would be the more troubling answer, because it would mean we have to cut our emissions even harder than we thought we have to.
2.11 ppm per year (higher number of increase ppm over the previous decade)
1995 – 2004
1.87 ppm per year (higher number of increase over the previous two decades)
1985 – 1994
1.42 ppm per year (almost no change in rate of increase over previous decade – rising oil prices? opec impact?)
1975 – 1984
1.44 ppm per year (higher number per year than first partial decade)
1965 – 1974
1.06 ppm per year (partial decade of first measurements)
1959 – 1964
(6 years only)
0.73 ppm per year (maybe a base line? incomplete reccords)
my thoughts in ( ) above. But the numbers show a trend to increasing rate of accumulation unless I am missing something significant.
Tamino in the link you provided agrees with me. Tamino says: “More to the point, there’s no sign of any decrease in the rate (deceleration of CO2). In fact the rate seems to be increasing still (acceleration of CO2). ”
Hank, more from Tamino: “There’s still the possibility of faster rise since about 2010, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that conclusion. I do, however, have a lot of confidence in the conclusion that the rate of CO2 growth has not decreased. There’s been no deceleration. Whatever emissions reductions have happened, haven’t yet slowed down the rise of CO2.”
Tamino is correct to be cautious and not try to read the current decade rate of increase from partial decade of data, especially with the current el nino bump in the data, but he says he is confident the rate has not decreased.
I have no great desire to be cautious because Tamino and I also agree on the following from your link:
“All of which emphasizes the importance of reducing our own emissions, quickly and as much as possible.”
Tamino goes on to say: “It’s past time to tell our elected officials that we won’t put up with more delays, or more catering to the fossil fuel industry. We really need to let politicians know that if they don’t act quickly, they’ll be out of a job.”
I don’t share Tamino’s confidence that climate change and AGW have the political traction with the electorate to move the politicians. I have said for quite a while that I think we are in real trouble when the republican party starts accepting that AGW is a serious problem that we must address. I think they will still be throwing snowballs after the temp increase hits 2 degrees.
If you read the tamino piece and find that it confirms my statement, it would be gracious for you to say, whoops, my bad. But, hey, I don’t care one way or the other. The numbers are what the numbers are. We are driving the car by watching the rear view mirror. What’s the worst that could happen?
84:
IgNobel nominations are open, and may be addressed to
marc(at)improbable.com>
Digby Scorgiesays
Karen Street @89
According to Kevin Anderson we are committed to 1.5 C — or, to be more accurate, our chances of avoiding it are close to zero.
On the question of the delay between GHG levels and temperature, I remember some time ago seeing a comment by James Hansen that this is between 25 and 50 years. I don’t know if this estimate still holds.
Thomassays
Tamino in January 2016: “There’s still no sign that we’ve stopped the acceleration of atmospheric CO2, let alone actually decreased the growth rate.”
“The rate of CO2 growth has been increasing (we knew that) so CO2 concentration has been accelerating. Unfortunately is hasn’t yet shown any sign that the acceleration has stopped.” https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/co2-increase-2/
Tamino in April 2016: “Back in 1960, CO2 was only increasing at about 0.77 ppmv/yr. Now it’s rising about 2.4 ppmv/yr.”
“More to the point, there’s no sign of any decrease in the rate (deceleration of CO2). In fact the rate seems to be increasing still (acceleration of CO2).”
“There’s a distinct visual impression that recently (since about 2012) it’s been rising faster than before 2012, and it’s been considerably higher for the last 5 months.”
“There’s still the possibility of faster rise since about 2010, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that conclusion. I do, however, have a lot of confidence in the conclusion that the rate of CO2 growth has not decreased. There’s been no deceleration.”
From https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/co2-status-report/
Misc Tamino quotes:
– but I’m not sufficiently expert to know for sure…
– I’m certainly not an expert in the carbon cycle…
– … we need to reduce CO2 emissions.
– All of which emphasizes the importance of reducing our own emissions…
May 2016 407.70 ppm pending +3.76
May 2015 403.94 ppm pending +2.06
May 2014 401.88 ppm pending
(SCRIPPS UCSD pending)
April 2016 407.42 ppm 407.57 ppm +4.14
April 2015 403.26 ppm 403.45 ppm +2.02
April 2014 401.34 ppm 401.33 ppm
Looks to me that the data shows the rate of CO2 increase is rising at present. I cannot see any of Tamino’s “work” on his website, only the resulting graphics.
“Horses for courses” (British & Australian saying) something that you say which means that it is important to choose suitable
people for particular activities because everyone has different skills http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Horses+for+courses
And I would add to that there “horses” who have Different Interests and Different Ways of Making a Difference. Diversity is a good thing in human beings, imo.
diversity – noun – the state of being diverse. “there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports”
Chuck Hughessays
45: “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”
Because Arithmetic.
Learn some.
Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 6 Jun 2016
You’d never survive as a teacher. “Because Arithmetic”? That’s your explanation? You’re not as smart as you think you are.
Chuck Hughes, 45: “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”
Many possibilities. E.g.:
1. countries deliberately under-report the types of emission they have to report
2. some types of emissions countries do not have to report (e.g. CO2 emissions from forest fires)
3. C sinks today may not be as effective as in the past – particularly the ocean:
a) warmer water -> lower solubility of CO2 -> less take up of atm. CO2;
b) slower AMOC, weaker vertical mixing -> slower removal of human CO2 from surface waters into deeper layers
c) Revelle factor: R=[dCO2/CO2]/ [dDIC/DIC], where DIC= dissolved inorganic carbon
At higher CO2 R increases -> ocean can match the same increase in pCO2 with smaller increases of DI(Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) -> the ocean picks less CO2 to keep up with atm. CO2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jczdUAPjl6k
The #Media Malpractice on #ClimateChange! (Full Interview w/Guest: Dr. Michael Mann)
27 Hank Roberts
Yes he did, back in 2013. Google it https://goo.gl/o5xKYU he’s not the only one. Good ideas spread like wildfires, eventually. :-)
29 Silk says: exactly what I believe too. Well said.
30 mike says: I think the “unusual blob of air” story does not hold water.
Well it’s an interesting coincidence that Tasmania’s sth hemisphere CO2 reading crossed the 400ppm record at the same time. It picks up an entirely difference body of atmosphere than Hawaii. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Forties
Hawaii does not have a history of blobs of air nor a record of wildly divergent readings. That is precisely why they located the MLO there.
I believe it’s important to remember that annual global CO2e emissions have a significant ‘guestimated’ component that relies to a degree on input from individual nations. It’s also a fact that PPM sensors don’t lie.
Hank at 46: how do you think we can make collective action happen? I am down for it. I think collective action is best undertaken through economics, so I favor a carbon tax. It would be best if the carbon tax was global, but I think a lot of nation-states will insist on their independence.
Is there a powerful idea in these links somewhere? I could not fine one. Of course, this is a collective action problem. Of course collective action problems are hard to solve. The solution to “stop freaking out and just get to work on it” seem a bit vague and rhetorical. Maybe I missed the powerful idea or shining path forward in these links?
Daily CO2
June 2, 2016: 407.37 ppm
June 2, 2015: 402.88 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
May numbers not posted yet at co2.earth. I expect them to come in a little under 408, I will choose and number and say 407.7 ppm. May 2015 was 403.94, so I am hoping to see a monthly number that shows slightly less than a 4 ppm increase over the same month last year.
May is usually the peak for the year. You can see the monthly numbers in a chart here: https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
Too hot in the Pac NW today, had to scoop up the grandchildren and take them to the spray park. The place was packed with little ones playing in the water. It was great fun and collective action.
Mike
Chuck at 45: Look at these blog links for discussion of the disconnect between emissions and CO2 levels:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2016/05/23/why-has-a-drop-in-global-co2-emissions-not-caused-co2-levels-in-the-atmosphere-to-stabilize/
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2016/04/20/comment-on-recent-record-breaking-co2-concentrations/
I did not find the links to be very persuasive, but at least these two links are fielding the question.
I think we are seeing a rise in numbers because the global north is less of a carbon sink than it has been in the past, I think there is a pulse of CO2 from the warming and drying of the ground that used to be more of a carbon sink as the ground remained stable, the trees continued to grow and ice cover remained largely intact.
There are indications that agriculture may be emitting more carbon. It’s hard for me to grasp why agriculture, cafo work, etc. would suddenly start emitting more, but as I read it, the “chemical fingerprint” of agricultural source CO2 is up and the “chemical fingerprint” of the global north boreal forest is not showing a spike.
I think the truth is that no one knows why CO2 is now bumping along at 3 and 4 ppm increase over a year ago (not noisy daily numbers, the monthly averages). Certainly El Nino is good for a point, maybe two. But a lot of folks think the El Nino does not explain 4 ppm.
I hope a year from now we are looking at numbers back in the 404 to 406 range for monthly average for April and May 2017. If we are looking at monthly average above 407 that should cause concern. If we are looking at 410 next year or if the Republican party starts talking about how we need to do something serious about AGW, we should probably freak out.
Warm regards
Mike
True, there’s been a fair amount of back-biting lately. I have a theory about that: we’re all Cassandra. Or at least feel a bit the way she must have; we see the blade coming, and can’t get anybody to listen.
(Though I don’t think it’s quite that bad; the majority has listened, and it’s an increasing majority. But metaphorically, the Horse is about to come through the gates…)
It’s enough to give anyone the grumps.
Chuck @45
I asked this very question last month (I think). There were several responses and Gavin even chipped in at one point. If my understanding is correct, the essential point is that emissions have to drop a helluva lot more than a couple of percent before you’ll see this reflected in the Keeling curve.
43 dnem: Go to BraveNewClimate.com.
44Scott Strough: You take the low-hanging fruit first.
44 Scott S, hi scott I don’t have an answer to your questions. All I could say is to encourage you to engage with those who are involved in this aspect of agw/cc and see where that may take you. As an example (ok?), using the following urls, you can offer your maths and also ask questions of the key players/depts or request “bests refs” they might recommend.
http://sydney.edu.au/news/agriculture/1272.html?newsstoryid=15532
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/content/archive/agriculture-today-stories/ag-today-archive/october-2012/enough-soil-carbon-to-mitigate-climate-change-is-a-big-ask
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880916300056
http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Major-initiatives/Australian-National-Outlook/National-Outlook-publications/Foundation-science-papers/Carbon-sequestration-and-biodiversity-services
I have found that emails of quality do get a positive response from Govt depts, science bodies, and university personnel. iow go direct. Just ignore the ‘online agw science forums’ that ignore you and your area of interest.
“Saying these things out loud got me branded a FF apologist and co-conspirator. I hope we can overcome these issues but wishing they weren’t there doesn’t help anybody.”
Comment by dnem — 3 Jun 2016 @
Quite frankly I was shocked at the reaction and the subsequent conversation. I haven’t been back other than to post a regret that my response didn’t seem to appear anywhere in-line with the rest of the discussion. It may have been posted later. i don’t know. I just wanted to make sure of the credibility of the source and the validity of the content of the paper. It certainly looked legit to me and I read up on the researchers etc. I don’t want to be guilty of posting incorrect information. Kevin McKinney pointed out, as did the paper that the analogy of Earth’s biosphere being “like” a charged battery is a useful ‘metaphor’. Stark but useful.
One thing I admire about Science and scientists in particular is that analysis is rather dry and to the point. I think Hank mentioned Al Bartlett. He’s a great example of that. I see no reason to get all worked up over the exponential function. It is what it is.
I’ve certainly had my share of ass kickings on this site but I learn from it which is why i keep coming back. I want to know.
Chuck @45,
“I said something about this in an earlier thread; “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?” I still don’t get that. It’s a maddening situation. Talk about a “disconnect”. I would love for someone to address this conundrum.”
I’ll give it a shot.
It’s a stocks and flow problem, very basic to climate science.
To draw down CO2, (decrease the stocks in the atmosphere) we must adjust the flows into and out of the atmosphere until we achieve a net negative flux.
You can reduce the flow into the atmosphere, but if the net is still positive, stocks of CO2 will still be rising, just not as fast as if the emissions flows were larger.
As a thought experiment, think of a kitchen sink with a drain, a faucet, and a basin. What water comes into the basin arrives through the faucet. What water leaves the basin either leaves by the drain, or by evaporation, or by spilling over the edge. One notes that the water in the sink basin is rising, options are turn down the faucet to a tiny drip equal to evaporation, unclog the drain, a bit of both, or do nothing and watch the sink overflow.
Just turning down the faucet will slow the sink filling and overflowing, but it won’t actually stop the sink from overflowing unless it is very nearly completely turned off. At least as long as the drain is clogged.
The new site Climate Feedback are on the ball. They are still seeking ‘scientist contributors’.
Analysis of Andrew Freedman’s “Great Barrier Reef may perish by 2030s…”
Published in Mashable, by Andrew Freedman – 29 Apr. 2016
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/great-barrier-reef-perish-2030s-andrew-freedman-mashable/
Climate Feedback is looking for a part-time Scientific Editor. Experience:
We are looking for candidates with a science journalism or scientific background with experience writing about climate science (eg background in Science Journalism or a PhD in Climate Science)
http://climatefeedback.org/scientific-editor-position/
#17 and #46 – I don’t think it’s a great mystery. The vaunted CO2 emissions going down numbers are from the IEA and report only “energy related emissions.” So they don’t include many, many possible sources, and they don’t include anything related to the performance of sinks. And the IEA numbers themselves have associated errors and might not be right. Probably the biggest driver of the mismatch is El Nino, but I’m sure there is an interplay of many complex factors. But you’re right, the overall picture is not pretty: atmospheric CO2 is high and for the time being appears to be rising at the highest rate yet.
Sorry, previous comment was to #17 and #45 (not #46). Please edit if possible.
#46 Hank Roberts points us, however indirectly, to an outstanding piece of critical thinking, a probing, deeply skeptical, though also sympathetic, review of Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything” (http://nonsite.org/editorial/the-climate-movement-needs-to-get-radical-but-what-does-that-mean) Hank, what were you thinking? :-)
I’ve already announced my solidarity with Klein’s harsh take on what she calls the “extractive” industries. Indeed, I’m very much with her on just about every front — with the exception of her extreme, almost hysterical, and also very naive, views on climate change, and her promotion of the most extreme forms of climate activism, regardless of the cost. The review, by Peter Dorman, who shares her concerns about climate change, mercilessly reveals the many shortcomings of this book, which I won’t attempt to summarize here.
While I previously urged the denizens of this blog to read Klein’s remarkable essay “Let Them Drown” (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/naomi-klein/let-them-drown), I must now urge everyone to read Dorman’s astute, eminently reasonable and thorough critique. What’s especially important here is not simply his take on Klein’s book, but his very deep, probing analysis of the many hidden (and not so hidden) weaknesses of the climate activist program generally. As he states in his rather unsettling conclusion:
“what I find diagnostic is the warm reception [Klein’s book] received from virtually every media outlet on the English-speaking left. This suggests that Klein is moving with the political tide and not against it, and that the problems that seemed obvious to me were either invisible to her reviewers or regarded as too insignificant to bring up. The view that capitalism is a style of thinking, progress is a myth, and political contestation is irrelevant to “true” social change belongs not just to this one book but to all the commentators who found nothing to criticize. That’s the real problem.”
#31 further comment:
I omitted Dr. Mann’s most useful mitigation, going on a diet.
That carbon sink is get a little big.
Arctic sea ice set a record low every day in May.
http://mashable.com/2016/06/01/arctic-sea-ice-record-low/#oSai.3ttfEqS
This should not cause anyone to freak out, but should motivate us all to get to work on on collective action plan.
My thought on collective action plan: we should all make a plan to lower our carbon footprint by no less than 50% by January 1, 2017. It will be hard for each of to do that, but we should just get to work on it. If we are already at zero footprint (very few of us there I think) then we need to work on creating carbon negative footprint. We can do this.
It’s the polar bear moment, we should all strive to have the carbon footprint of a walrus, polar bear or penguin. Get to work!
warm regards,
Mike
MA Rodger #22 and others, I notice that John Christy’s latest effluent continues to provide his humorous perspective on science. Notice that his monthly averaged data continues to include “forecasts” thru the end of 2016, projecting even warmer temps for November and December. The averages are also padded with fabricated values thru November 1979. Is he caught in the Matrix Illusion or just blinded by his religious world view? Or, is he repeating a basic blunder, such as not checking his data before posting it? The US Government is paying him (and Spencer) to spread these errors!!!
#45 – “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”.
It is because even if the emissions are going down, the overall CO2 input (from natural and anthropogenic sources) can still be greater than the sinks. The best analogy I can think of is solar radation and the summer solstice. In a middle latitude country such as the UK (temperate maritime climate), incoming solar radiation peaks at the summer solstice (climatologically speaking) and decreases during the rest of the summer (slowly at first, rate of decrease increases up to the autumn equinox), yet the climatological peak in summer temperature does not occur at the summer solstice, but several weeks later in July or August. This happens because even though the incoming solar radiation is decreasing after the solstice, it still exceeds outgoing longwave radiation for a few weeks and peak climatological summer temperature is reached when the incoming solar radiation equals outgoing longwave radiation.
Oh, and by the way,
From this peer-reviewed paper, published last Fall–http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136147:
Abstract
Dry forests at low elevations in temperate-zone mountains are commonly hypothesized to be at risk of exceptional rates of severe fire from climatic change and land-use effects. Their setting is fire-prone, they have been altered by land-uses, and fire severity may be increasing. However, where fires were excluded, increased fire could also be hypothesized as restorative of historical fire. These competing hypotheses are not well tested, as reference data prior to widespread land-use expansion were insufficient. Moreover, fire-climate projections were lacking for these forests. Here, I used new reference data and records of high-severity fire from 1984–2012 across all dry forests (25.5 million ha) of the western USA to test these hypotheses. I also approximated projected effects of climatic change on high-severity fire in dry forests by applying existing projections. This analysis showed the rate of recent high-severity fire in dry forests is within the range of historical rates, or is too low, overall across dry forests and individually in 42 of 43 analysis regions. Significant upward trends were lacking overall from 1984–2012 for area burned and fraction burned at high severity. Upward trends in area burned at high severity were found in only 4 of 43 analysis regions. Projections for A.D. 2046–2065 showed high-severity fire would generally be still operating at, or have been restored to historical rates, although high projections suggest high-severity fire rotations that are too short could ensue in 6 of 43 regions. Programs to generally reduce fire severity in dry forests are not supported and have significant adverse ecological impacts, including reducing habitat for native species dependent on early-successional burned patches and decreasing landscape heterogeneity that confers resilience to climatic change. Some adverse ecological effects of high-severity fires are concerns. Managers and communities can improve our ability to live with high-severity fire in dry forests.
spiky co2 day:
Daily CO2
June 3, 2016: 408.25 ppm
June 3, 2015: 402.90 ppm
noisy number, but still, 5.1 ppm increase of the same date in 2015?
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
April in the boks at 4.12 ppm over April 2015. Still waiting for the May 2016 average number. Normal annual patterns call for June numbers to drop below May numbers. We should expect to see something close to 407.3 for June average. If we see something higher, we should be asking, where is all this CO2 coming from?
Cheers
Mike
There are more expensive ways to conserve water than Los Angeles’s ill-fated floating plastic reservoir balls.
scott@44 — I’m not an expert, but I can see two obvious problems with your proposal.
The first is that you would need to achieve that kind of sequestration on average over all agriculture on earth. That’s a very tall order. It’s hard to imagine even 10% getting that kind of improvement, with 1% likely a more realistic target. It might not be impossible, but the amount of world-wide cooperation would be unprecedented.
The second (and maybe only potential) problem is that you haven’t indicated if the sequestrations you allude to can be sustained year after year. It if one thing to sequester 8 tons in one year on depleted soil, quite another to repeat that 100 years running.
But as I said, I’m not an expert, and even if my concerns are correct there would seem to be no harm in aggressively pushing things in the direction you suggest. (I’ve seen similar proposals to use hemp or algae farms to produce biomass that can be sequestered.)
Re: #27 Hank Roberts said When I think of the children I imagine a computer game approach
That’s — explicitly — what Peter Ward is asking climate scientists to develop, in the video recently linked here.
Guess somebody read my blog… or ,my many posts here… or at The Oil Drum…. or something:
Global Simulation Would Solve Climate, Resources, Collapse
Re #27 Hank Roberts said in the video recently linked here.
Forgot to ask where that link is; seem to have missed it.
Dr Peter Ward presenter 2013
https://youtu.be/HP_Fvs48hb4?t=23m44s
AGU’s e-alerts for “Global Change” in today’s email, for those not reading them yet
(this is a one-time large post; find this via AGU if you want more of it)
Climate change impact on the roles of temperature and precipitation in western U.S. snowpack variabilityGeophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 12 MAY 2016 Jason Scalzitti, Courtenay Strong and Adam Kochanski
Published Online : 30 MAY 2016 01:25PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068798
Climate change reduces warming potential of nitrous oxide by an enhanced Brewer-Dobson circulation
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 14 MAY 2016 Daniela Kracher, Christian H. Reick, Elisa Manzini, Martin G. Schultz and Olaf Stein
Published Online : 4 JUN 2016 04:05PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068390
Seasonal and regional variations in extreme precipitation event frequency using CMIP5
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 16 MAY 2016 E. Janssen, R. L. Sriver, D. J. Wuebbles and K. E. Kunkel
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 06:40PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL069151
High-latitude dust in the Earth system
Reviews of Geophysics
March 2016 Accepted Online: 23 MAY 2016 Joanna E. Bullard, Matthew Baddock, Tom Bradwell, John Crusius, Eleanor Darlington, Diego Gaiero, Santiago Gassó, Gudrun Gisladottir, Richard Hodgkins, Robert McCulloch, Cheryl McKenna-Neuman, Tom Mockford, Helena Stewart and Throstur Thorsteinsson
Published Online : 4 JUN 2016 06:01PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 RG000518
Idealized climate change simulations with a high-resolution physical model: HadGEM3-GC2
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
March 2016 Accepted Online: 6 MAY 2016 Catherine A. Senior, Timothy Andrews, Chantelle Burton, Robin Chadwick, Dan Copsey, Tim Graham, Pat Hyder, Laura Jackson, Ruth McDonald, Jeff Ridley, Mark Ringer and Yoko Tsushima
Published Online : 29 MAY 2016 12:20PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015MS000614
Future changes in regional precipitation simulated by a half-degree coupled climate model: Sensitivity to horizontal resolution
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
March 2016 Accepted Online: 9 MAY 2016 Christine A. Shields, Jeffrey T. Kiehl and Gerald A. Meehl
Published Online : 2 JUN 2016 10:18AM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015MS000584
Evaluation of reanalysis, of spatially interpolated and satellite remotely sensed precipitation data sets in central Asia
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
27 April 2016 Accepted Online: 16 MAY 2016 Zengyun Hu, Qi Hu, Chi Zhang, Xi Chen and Qingxiang Li
Published Online : 30 MAY 2016 04:55PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 JD024781
Simulating the extreme 2013/2014 winter in a future climate
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
27 April 2016 Accepted Online: 2 MAY 2016 L. M. Rasmijn, G. Schrier, J. Barkmeijer, A. Sterl and W. Hazeleger
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 04:10PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015JD024492
Historic drought puts the brakes on earthflows in Northern California
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 G. L. Bennett, J. J. Roering, B. H. Mackey, A. L. Handwerger, D. A. Schmidt and B. P. Guillod
Published Online : 1 JUN 2016 09:00AM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068378
Enhancement of non-CO2 radiative forcing via intensified carbon cycle feedbacks
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 18 MAY 2016 Andrew H. MacDougall and Reto Knutti
Published Online : 4 JUN 2016 03:30PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068964
Response of lightning NOx emissions and ozone production to climate change: Insights from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project
Geophysical Research Letters
16 May 2016 Accepted Online: 16 MAY 2016 D. L. Finney, R. M. Doherty, O. Wild, P. J. Young and A. Butler
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 07:35PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2016 GL068825
A nonstationary bias-correction technique to remove bias in GCM simulations
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
27 April 2016 Accepted Online: 19 MAY 2016 Chiyuan Miao, Lu Su, Qiaohong Sun and Qingyun Duan
Published Online : 31 MAY 2016 06:10PM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015JD024159
Multidecadal freshening and lightening in the deep waters of the Bransfield Strait, Antarctica
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
April 2016 Accepted Online: 9 MAY 2016 Tiago S. Dotto, Rodrigo Kerr, Mauricio M. Mata and Carlos A. E. Garcia
Published Online : 2 JUN 2016 10:13AM EST, DOI : 10.1002/2015JC011228
Any reflections on the recent CLOUD papers from Kirkby and Tröstl?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6289/1109
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
I know they are likely to be touted in the denialosphere as the death of manmade warming (which anyone sane can see is ridiculous), but I would like to hear your opinion about their validity and how far their implications go if taken at face value.
Looking at the four bullet points you raised five years ago about CLOUD and climate:
“Establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:
1… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
As far as I can gather (which might not be too far), at least Kirkby´s paper here appears to indicate that 1 and 2 do in fact have some truth to them
(https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/)”
I could, of course be quite wrong, so if was hoping teh redaction or someone here could help me put these into context. Thanks in advance!
Victor #67, I found Peter Dorman’s critique of Naomi Klein’s book (which I read) to be on the mark. But, the problems he lays out aren’t just with Klein, but with a far larger group of people who see environmental problems as existential for humanity, yet, can’t come up with a way to solve the basic problems. I’ve been associated with some environmental groups over the years and never felt that the plans advocated could actually produce results. I think that we are all imprisoned within a system we call “economics”, which fundamentally ignores the natural world and thus proceeds to destroy those natural systems upon which our survival depends.
We are all born into surroundings which we did not make and we won’t have any means to impact those surroundings until we have lived thru perhaps 1/4 of our lives. In the US, every day is energy consumption day, from the time the alarm clock rings and we turn on the lights as we step into the shower, then dress in cloths made by someone else, then cook our breakfast with food and energy delivered from far away, then travel to work using cars or other energy consuming transport, then “work” using more energy, then go back to our energy warmed abodes to eat again and then sleep in beds made by someone else, turning off the lights to end the daily cycle. All of the work we do is rewarded with “money”, with which we “pay” for all the consumption we cause. More people arriving on the scene thru birth and immigration results in more consumption as each individual demands his/her share of the total. Our institutions collectively promote ever more consumption, so an individual has little recourse but to join the herd or be trampled.
To be sure, an individual or small group can separate themselves from the herd and there have been many attempts to do so, such as the Mennonites or the so-called Hippies from the late 1960’s who moved back to nature in communes. The rest of the herd simply kept on moving and there is a tremendous inertia against efforts to change the materialistic societies which we’ve built. Capitalism is little different than socialism in regards to promoting development, and the accumulation of wealth form exploiting land and it’s resources is the basic problem. I think it’s clear that if technologies were available to provide all the energy people demanded from non-carbon sources, the demand for the other material resources not be slowed and thus the environment would continue to degrade. We might solve the CO2/climate change problem and still fall over the cliff.
Worse, population growth is likely to continue, eventually negating any progress to reduce consumption. Migration is part of the problem, since moving people from a region of high population growth to one with more space and opportunity won’t slow the population growth rate in the region(s) left behind. I contend that the world is already beginning to experience what’s called “over population” as migrants from tropical nations are now risking their lives to move toward the more wealthy, temperate nations now that they too have “smart phones” and other media to show them what they are missing. This can’t end well and I think Klein doesn’t see what’s coming. When push comes to shove, the police/military will simply start shooting…
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2016/06/plastic-reservoir-balls-are-not-most.html
I thought this was a stupid idea to start with.
Chuck @45
You’ve now had several responses to your question. Do they help? However, to me the real problem is: By how much should emissions drop before one sees the rate of increase in the Keeling curve start to slow?
It should be obvious that as emissions decline, first you’ll see the rate of increase in CO2 levels slow down, then later the level will stop rising and stay constant for a while, and then later still the levels will start dropping.
As I understand it, the drop in emissions has to be significant before you’ll see the rate of increase start to slow. And they have to drop something of the order of 80% before you’ll see the CO2 levels actually start to decline.
Something I learnt at SkepticalScience is that, if emissions suddenly ceased altogether, natural processes would immediately start removing some of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere but, perhaps paradoxically, the average global temperature would remain roughly unchanged. That’s a consequence of the inertia of the climate system. The delayed warming because of the inertia would roughly balance the effect of the declining CO2 levels.
There are more expensive ways to conserve water than Los Angeles’s ill-fated floating plastic reservoir balls.
Comment by Russell — 4 Jun 2016 @
I always thought that was a stupid idea. So now you have a bunch of plastic floating in the water. Surely that will start to break down with sun hitting it from above and water from below. Just another excuse to make a bunch of plastic. I don’t know. I could be wrong about that. Even if it works it looks dumb. Just my opinion. Also, weren’t the plastic balls black? So now the water is also hot. Great for microbes. Kill all the fish. ???
Whose stroke of genius was this?
Eric Swanson @70.
I agree that it is bizarre to set out an annual average based on a single month’s data, as the UAH folk do at the ends of their data posting. And I would agree that John Christy & his chums are entirely untrustworthy when it comes to pronouncements on AGW. Their scientific position on AGW can be demonstrated as unreasonable, which presumably means it is unscientific.
Where we perhaps differ is in seeing some usefulness in examining the UAH data. Their TLT v6.0beta5 data is not greatly different to the RSS TLT data and that RSS data does not carry with it any of the stench of denialism. The data UAH & RSS both may suffer from a significant systematic error (& we await RSS TLT v4.0 which could be interesting) but I don’t believe we should ignore it because of that likelihood.
Meanwhile, RSS has posted for May 2016. I did upload a comment of a similar form to the UAH comment @22 but it appears not to have successfully arrived in this thread.
As the RSS data is so similar to the UAH data, I will not re-post that listing of monthly numbers. Suffice to say that May 2016 RSS has dipped a little lower than its UAH equivalent. It sits 18th highest in the record, this because, unlike UAH (which was 8th highest), RSS has dipped below the peak temperatures of 2007 & 2010. The comparison with the 1997/98 El Nino TLT temperatures is graphed here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) showing also MEI (the next data point will doubtless show a rapid drop from El Nino conditions) & an average of surface temperature data.
I’ve noticed that when Weaktor shows up the comments thread increases by about 100. That’s just a round figure. Could be less than that.
45: “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”
Because Arithmetic.
Learn some.
#47 Kevin MicKinney
No, I get that! I did say “apart from the obvious other impacts on the biosphere!” in my original post. I was referring the energy implications of the discharge of the battery, and particularly the implications of sustaining the overshot human population/economy without further tapping the big stored FF battery. In that context, standing biomass is not really relevant. In the larger context of human (and planetary) wellbeing, it is obviously is.
I am confused about discussions of staying below 1.5°C. By 2002, ENSO neutral temperatures had reached 1998 level. Take out the air pollution from fossil fuels, and temperatures go up another 0.4°C. Then there is a 10-year lag between atmospheric levels of GHG and temperature.
What am I missing? Why aren’t we committed to 1.5°C yet?
Dear all:
Please remember when talking abt rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that we are not just talking about rising levels, the bigger story is that the rate of increase is rising. Once you incorporate that tidbit/fact into your review of atmospheric composition, the story gets more challenging. It’s not the simple issue of adding two gallons to yr fuel tank, it appears that someone/something is slipping up to yr car while you are out and pouring in a couple of gallons of something that they no longer want.
That really is the important question: what are the sources of CO2 that are currently overwhelming the planet’s carbon cycle? I think it’s going to prove out to be changes in the oceans’ ability to absorb CO2 at the ocean surface (which would be a good thing for a lot of crustaceans) and more importantly, releases of CO2 from permafrost, warmed soil, loss of sea ice, warming and outgassing from previously cold ocean floor. etc. This is stuff over which we have very little control or influence. Not good.
Some of the increase appears to be from agriculture – really industrial agriculture, I think.
Here are two things that we can change to address the problem:
1. Immediately cut our energy consumption by at least 50%. Each and everyone of us would have to do that to make a large and meaningful impact on CO2 concentration problem.
2. Immediately mandate global changes in agriculture practice to reduce the CO2 release and maximize the CO2 sequestration through a process of restoring healthy topsoil around the world.
But, hey, what do I know?
another spiky day at MLO with increase of 4.88 ppm over same date in 2015. Still waiting to see the May monthly average number.
Daily CO2
June 5, 2016: 407.51 ppm
June 5, 2015: 402.63 ppm
read’m and weep.
Mike
MA Rodger #85, I’ve have recently been working on a paper comparing MSU/AMSU results, which was rejected after the first submission. The reviewers reminded me that there are 3 groups which regularly produce analysis of the MSU/AMSU data, UAH, RSS and NOAA/STAR. There is also work in progress(?) from the University of Washington, but I couldn’t find any ongoing release of their results. My paper may yet see the light of day, after extensive revision.
[Response: The UW results are available on Po-Chedley’s website: http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~pochedls/nobackup/share/ – gavin]
Comparing the lower troposphere results from UAH and RSS is only one way to view the results. Christy’s new TLT is a radical departure from their earlier work, as seen by comparing the latest trends from the older UAH TLT v5.6 Northern Hemisphere at 0.21 K/decade with the new v6b5 NH result of 0.15 K/dec against the latest results from RSS TLT v3 at 0.18 K/dec. Also, compare these TLT trends with the RSS TTT v4 at 0.21 K/dec and my calculated T24 from NOAA at 0.22 K/dec. It appears to me that the UAH results are too low and Christy’s graphs further understate the warming in the global results for the MAU/AMSU data over the Antarctic is compromised by surface contamination, which adds a strong cooling trend.
Mike, why do you say “the rate of CO2 increase is rising” above?
Why should I consider you more reliable than Tamino on this point?
He shows his work.
How about supporting your statement?
Gavin’s reply to my #91, Thanks, I hadn’t seen that, though I had previously learned that Po-Chedley’s series was only for tropical data. These data can’t be compared with the other Northern Hemisphere results, though one might do a comparison with the UAH and RSS tropical series. To include the NOAA/STAR data, one would need to calculate a tropical result from the appropriate gridded data set.
mike, 90:
“we are not just talking about rising levels, the bigger story is that the rate of increase is rising. ”
I agree that the latter is the bigger story (the initial question has been already explained by several posters). My own earlier answer in this thread seems now more relevant to the MODIFIED question. i.e. why the RATE of increase of CO2 increases despite supposedly decreasing emissions. i.e. why (dpCO2/dt)/dt >0
My suggestion: under-reporting of emissions and/or weaker sinks:
1. countries deliberately under-report the types of emissions they have to report
2. some types of emissions countries do not even have to report (e.g. CO2 emissions from forest fires)
Caveat: to explain the discussed paradox – the amount of undereporting in 1 and 2 would have to be larger now than was in the past (say, more cheating now than in the past given higher international expectations; or more wildfires/decomposition of organic matter now)
3. The C sinks today may be less effective today than in the past – particularly the ocean:
a) warmer water -> lower solubility of CO2 -> less take up of atm. CO2;
b) slower AMOC, weaker vertical mixing -> slower removal of human CO2 from surface waters into deeper layers
c) Revelle factor: R=[dCO2/CO2]/ [dDIC/DIC], where DIC= dissolved inorganic carbon
At higher CO2 R increases -> ocean can match the same increase in pCO2 with smaller increases of DI(Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) -> the ocean picks less CO2 to keep up with atm. CO2.
I guess the weakening of the sinks would be the more troubling answer, because it would mean we have to cut our emissions even harder than we thought we have to.
Hank at 92: https://www.co2.earth/co2-acceleration
The rate of increase used to be
2015 annual increase? 2.31 ppm
2005 – 2014
2.11 ppm per year (higher number of increase ppm over the previous decade)
1995 – 2004
1.87 ppm per year (higher number of increase over the previous two decades)
1985 – 1994
1.42 ppm per year (almost no change in rate of increase over previous decade – rising oil prices? opec impact?)
1975 – 1984
1.44 ppm per year (higher number per year than first partial decade)
1965 – 1974
1.06 ppm per year (partial decade of first measurements)
1959 – 1964
(6 years only)
0.73 ppm per year (maybe a base line? incomplete reccords)
my thoughts in ( ) above. But the numbers show a trend to increasing rate of accumulation unless I am missing something significant.
Tamino in the link you provided agrees with me. Tamino says: “More to the point, there’s no sign of any decrease in the rate (deceleration of CO2). In fact the rate seems to be increasing still (acceleration of CO2). ”
Mike
Hank, more from Tamino: “There’s still the possibility of faster rise since about 2010, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that conclusion. I do, however, have a lot of confidence in the conclusion that the rate of CO2 growth has not decreased. There’s been no deceleration. Whatever emissions reductions have happened, haven’t yet slowed down the rise of CO2.”
Tamino is correct to be cautious and not try to read the current decade rate of increase from partial decade of data, especially with the current el nino bump in the data, but he says he is confident the rate has not decreased.
I have no great desire to be cautious because Tamino and I also agree on the following from your link:
“All of which emphasizes the importance of reducing our own emissions, quickly and as much as possible.”
Tamino goes on to say: “It’s past time to tell our elected officials that we won’t put up with more delays, or more catering to the fossil fuel industry. We really need to let politicians know that if they don’t act quickly, they’ll be out of a job.”
I don’t share Tamino’s confidence that climate change and AGW have the political traction with the electorate to move the politicians. I have said for quite a while that I think we are in real trouble when the republican party starts accepting that AGW is a serious problem that we must address. I think they will still be throwing snowballs after the temp increase hits 2 degrees.
If you read the tamino piece and find that it confirms my statement, it would be gracious for you to say, whoops, my bad. But, hey, I don’t care one way or the other. The numbers are what the numbers are. We are driving the car by watching the rear view mirror. What’s the worst that could happen?
Warm regards,
Mike
84:
IgNobel nominations are open, and may be addressed to
marc(at)improbable.com>
Karen Street @89
According to Kevin Anderson we are committed to 1.5 C — or, to be more accurate, our chances of avoiding it are close to zero.
On the question of the delay between GHG levels and temperature, I remember some time ago seeing a comment by James Hansen that this is between 25 and 50 years. I don’t know if this estimate still holds.
Tamino in January 2016: “There’s still no sign that we’ve stopped the acceleration of atmospheric CO2, let alone actually decreased the growth rate.”
“The rate of CO2 growth has been increasing (we knew that) so CO2 concentration has been accelerating. Unfortunately is hasn’t yet shown any sign that the acceleration has stopped.”
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/co2-increase-2/
Tamino in April 2016: “Back in 1960, CO2 was only increasing at about 0.77 ppmv/yr. Now it’s rising about 2.4 ppmv/yr.”
“More to the point, there’s no sign of any decrease in the rate (deceleration of CO2). In fact the rate seems to be increasing still (acceleration of CO2).”
“There’s a distinct visual impression that recently (since about 2012) it’s been rising faster than before 2012, and it’s been considerably higher for the last 5 months.”
“I find the strongest influence when the el Niño effect is lagged by 6 months; it models the residuals shown above thus:” https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/co2_mei.jpeg
“There’s still the possibility of faster rise since about 2010, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that conclusion. I do, however, have a lot of confidence in the conclusion that the rate of CO2 growth has not decreased. There’s been no deceleration.”
From https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/co2-status-report/
Misc Tamino quotes:
– but I’m not sufficiently expert to know for sure…
– I’m certainly not an expert in the carbon cycle…
– … we need to reduce CO2 emissions.
– All of which emphasizes the importance of reducing our own emissions…
May 2016 407.70 ppm pending +3.76
May 2015 403.94 ppm pending +2.06
May 2014 401.88 ppm pending
(SCRIPPS UCSD pending)
April 2016 407.42 ppm 407.57 ppm +4.14
April 2015 403.26 ppm 403.45 ppm +2.02
April 2014 401.34 ppm 401.33 ppm
Warmest April since 1880: 2016
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
Looks to me that the data shows the rate of CO2 increase is rising at present. I cannot see any of Tamino’s “work” on his website, only the resulting graphics.
“Horses for courses” (British & Australian saying)
something that you say which means that it is important to choose suitable
people for particular activities because everyone has different skills
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Horses+for+courses
And I would add to that there “horses” who have Different Interests and Different Ways of Making a Difference. Diversity is a good thing in human beings, imo.
diversity – noun – the state of being diverse.
“there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports”
45: “if emissions are going ‘down’ then why are CO2 levels going ‘up’?”
Because Arithmetic.
Learn some.
Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 6 Jun 2016
You’d never survive as a teacher. “Because Arithmetic”? That’s your explanation? You’re not as smart as you think you are.