A lot of information, but kind of wraps with the question of why we are seeing so much heat and here is the quote:
“In case you’re wondering why all these changes are taking place, there are many reasons. But the most important, by far, is the fact that we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The one we’re having the biggest impact on is carbon dioxide (CO2). Here’s the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, in “parts per million by volume” (ppmv), measured at the atmospheric observatory at Mauna Loa in Hawaii…
There are fluctuations, which are dominated by a seasonal cycle. But again, there’s also a trend. This particular trend isn’t following a straight line; the rate at which CO2 is increasing has been getting faster and faster.”
I don’t know if any of this post is persuasive to the diehards, but it kind of supports what I have been seeing and posting about here.
I would love to be wrong about the CO2 accumulation trend, but the numbers seem pretty clear. Tamino sounds a little cranky about the global weather if you take the time to read the whole post.
Warm regards,
Mike
Pat Cassensays
…recommendation from Annie Proulx
Thanks for passing on the link. Cannot believe that Annie Proulx is 80 years old. She writes like someone half that age, totally engaged with the crazy lives of characters grappling with their conflicted connections to the land.
She provides our favorite backcountry around-the-campfire reading.
The UK referendum on June 23rd. is not carbon neutral
[UK voters have to decide whether they want the UK to leave the European Union (BREXIT) or REMAIN within it.]
If the EU undergoes fission both pieces will be affected, so discussion should not be restricted to the UK.
The campaign to reduce CO2 emissions would receive a serious set-back if BREXIT wins. Nigel Farage made a fool of himself by going to the European Parliament and waving a graph showing a small ONE YEAR recovery of the minimum summer Arctic sea ice. He keeps relatively quiet about it now, but all the senior members of UKIP turn out to be CO2 contrarians. So are some of the well known Tory Brexiteers, fellow travelers of UKIP , who are poised to replace Cameron et al. Fossil fuelists also argue that the UK only contributes 2% of the world’s CO2 emissions so what is the point of reducing them? But the EU as a whole is a much bigger contributor and had agreed to do something about the problem. All of that would be in jeopardy of Brexit wins.
from Robert Scribbler, with links to Tamino:
“Perhaps the most worrisome threat is that because the Arctic is warming so much faster than the globe as a whole, the permafrost — soil that remains frozen year-round — is thawing. As it does, organic matter which is trapped within can decay, and when it does it releases CO2 into the atmosphere, except those places where instead of releasing CO2 it releases CH4.” — Tamino.
With the Northern Hemisphere Pole warming at a rate 2-3 times faster than the rest of the globe, there’s a risk that we start to set off a kind of runaway warming feedback. We may be near that threshold now… God help us if we’ve crossed it…
*****
Prior to 2015, the highest annual rate of atmospheric CO2 increase occurred in 1998 at 2.9 ppm. This record was broken in 2015 when atmospheric CO2 levels climbed by 3.05 ppm. But so far this year, the rate of increase for this heat-trapping gas is a stunning 3.68 parts per million above comparable monthly averages seen during 2015. That’s nearly four times the rate of atmospheric accumulation since the early 1960s. A level of increase that almost guarantees that 2016 will shatter 2015’s record for CO2 gain and set a new ominous benchmark for a ramping accumulation of hothouse gasses.” https://robertscribbler.com/
The heat accumulation in the global north worries me. Plus, I think that some part of the heat that we are seeing/feeling right now is due to the lower level of aerosols in the atmosphere. Reductions in coal-burning are great in some ways, but the loss of aerosol particles in atmosphere may be part of the record heat that we are experiencing.
Daily CO2 average falling as expected for June, but differential between 2015 and 2016 remains pretty high.
Daily CO2
June 21, 2016: 406.53 ppm
June 21, 2015: 402.68 ppm (3.85 ppm jump in a year)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm
Warm regards
Mike
Racetrack Playasays
209, 219 (patrick, Alfred Jones, Tony W)
On global ocean/biosphere/atmosphere CO2 distribution:
The first thing to keep in mind is that atmospheric CO2 was pretty stable for thousands of years before the industrial fossil fuel era:
“One aspect of the global carbon cycle that helps us to better understand the pre-industrial period is the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration was remarkably stable, with variations in atmospheric CO2 of <20 ppm, during at least the last 11,000 years prior to the anthropogenic perturbation (Joos and Prentice, 2004)"
So the big question is, as we poured all the extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion, where did the fraction that didn’t stay in the atmosphere go? Was there enhanced photosynthesis? Was it oceanic uptake? The general consensus seems to be ocean uptake:
“Since the pre-industrial period, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 ppm to nearly 380 ppm. This increase in CO2 drives the sea water to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere so that surface sea water is pushed to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with the atmospheric partial pressure. Figure 3.2 shows a summary of the additional fluxes in the modern ocean resulting from human activity and rising atmospheric CO2. The role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle has changed from being a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere to a net sink for CO2 of ~2 Pg C/year (Sabine et al., 2004a).”
This is driven by a disequilbrium, a differential:
Today, the average pCO2 of the atmosphere is ~7 ppm higher than the global ocean pCO2. This small air–sea difference, when spread across the entire surface of the ocean, is sufficient to account for the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2.
Here’s the total uptake of human fossil fuel emissions:
Sabine et al. (2004b) estimated that 118 ± 19 Pg C has accumulated in the ocean between 1800 and 1994. This inventory accounts for 48% of the fossil fuel and cement manufacturing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere over this time frame.
However, this rate might be decreasing:
These estimates suggest that the oceanic uptake of net CO2 emissions decreased from ~44% during the first period to ~36% over the last two decades. Although this difference is not statistically significant, there is a suggestion that the oceanic uptake efficiency is decreasing with time.
There are quite a few other factors – warming surface waters will reduce CO2 uptake; ocean acidification effects on biological carbonate precipitation reduce CO2 uptake; – a highly complex system. However, even with cessation of fossil fuel combustion, the deforestation / permafrost / shallow sediment CO2 release will continue at some positive rate for a long time, that seems certain.
try: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nclimate2892
COMMENTARY:
Reaching peak emissions
Robert B. Jackson, Josep G. Canadell, Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters and Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Rapid growth in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry ceased in the past two years, despite continued economic growth. Decreased coal use in China was largely responsible, coupled with slower global growth in petroleum and faster growth in renewables.
alan2102says
and, speaking of China:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/chinas-meat-consumption-climate-change
China’s plan to cut meat consumption by 50% cheered by climate campaigners
New dietary guidelines could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1bn tonnes by 2030, and could lessen country’s problems with obesity and diabetes
Oliver Milman and Stuart Leavenworth in Beijing
Monday 20 June 2016
Hank: 239
“Seriously. That, along with the other links people have suggested, give you the information you’re looking for.”
Your link does not prove what you say it proves. From your own description of the data in the link:
“Red Curve: Fossil fuel trend of a fixed fraction (57%) of the cumulative industrial emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production. ”
See? CUMULATIVE. Cumulative i.e. the SUM of all annual emissions from some starting point (50 yrs ago?) until a given year. The only way CUMULATIVE emissions may have decreased would be if in some year annual industrial emissions became … NEGATIVE ;-)
Since we are still far off from the industry sucking more CO2 from the air than they emit, so nobody claimed negative emission rates in any year, so Hank, you are fighting your own shadow.
again, you search string contains “cumulative” – hence is _mostly_ irrelevant to my argument. I say “mostly”, because thanks to it I have come across a denialist website that makes the SAME fallacy of mistaking “cumulative emissions” for emission rates as you do, but does it
to question validity of your .. Red line in Manua Loa data:
“Mauna Loa CO2 levels seem to fit our rising emissions closely as well. However… there is a problem. The cumulative emissions curve’s slopes do not agree with the CDIAC/BP annual emissions graph.” and from that the denialist blogger concludes that Mauna Loa Red line is faked, and that humans do not have influence on the atmospheric CO2. (see http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm)
Wasn’t it you who was appealing in his thread to be better than the denialists ? ;-)
Hank 240: “Again, just looking at a picture can confuse you. […] Also, read the FAQ which explains that in more detail”
As explained in the post you are commenting – I am not confused, I just merely find your claims confused (the latest being you not understanding what “cumulative” means). So again your source does not deliver what you promise – your FAQ does not prove that “cumulative emissions” means current/annual emission rates. The latter being subject of this discussion.
Piotrsays
Hank: “You referred to a chart from that paper but haven’t read the paper (you hit a paywall).”
No. I have read the paper, but just in case if somebody had problem with the paywall, I gave a link to the non-paywalled graph that provides the data you were asking for.
Still, I choose to take your comments as an advice where to find paywalled papers and not an attempt to put down an opponent as somebody who bases his claims on papers he didn’t even read. ;-)
(Hank: ” When you hit a paywall, use Scholar and search for the DOI, then check where it says various versions of the paper are available. Often one will be fully readable.” )
Re: @242
From: MA Rodger
If you are still seeking MLO CO2 data (& I’m not sure where you are sourcing it from so far), the monthly data from ESRL from 1958 up-to-date plus weekly from 1974 up-to-date is available here and their data finder here also provides hourly & daily data from 1974 to 2014.
I’ve already found those links and I’ve also contacted Ed Dlugokencky at NOAA for more. He’s been very generous with the data he can provide and he’s asked me to contact Ralph Keeling and/or Steve Piper for data going back earlier than the mid-1970’s as a matter of professional courtesy. I am in the process of doing that, too.
In the meantime, I’ve prepared an exponential fitting algorithm so that folks (like me) can play around with the idea that the Mauna Loa monthly averages from 1958 forward are tracking along an exponential curve and to at least somewhat explore the idea of annual respiration there. The program accepts the MLO data from this NOAA link and allows the user to enter a value for any desired estimate of the pre-industrial CO2 level. The chart will then display the raw monthly CO2 readings, the single exponential model line, and a detrended version of the monthly CO2 readings using the exponential model to do the detrending. The detrended data is automatically aligned at the 350 ppmv level on the chart. It also provides the detailed formula used in the new model. This ZIP file holds the VB.NET executable. That, combined with the data from MLO, does the job. Try out a pre-industrial value for CO2 of 260 ppmv, for example. The source code is available to anyone who wants it, here. There is some modest documentation at the top of the main source code file. (Forgive me the hacked code, but I just wanted something fast to try out.)
Thomassays
241 Hank Roberts says: “You can’t just track the level in the atmosphere as though it’s not connected to the rest of the planet.”
Well, isn’t the very point about the rising atmosphere readings of CO2/CO2e at MLO and everywhere else on this planet this year? Those readings are directly connected to the whole of the planet – land, oceans, mankind and the atmosphere and dangerous climate changes.
Re: “When the CO2 level in the atmosphere changes, some of that goes into the oceans and the land.” Exactly, and speeds up coral reef and shell fish damage and some of it further raises temperature even more.
re: “When we quit pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere ……” Please do let us know when that happens. Until then, it’s a moot point and meaningless, imo.
Lawrence Colemansays
257 Scared teen. “Are we finally passed the point of no return on Climate change?.” Climate feedbacks are complex issues as there so many of them. Yes red snow would not help the situation any. The fact is that the arctic is melting so fast that is really wouldn’t matter if red snow existed or not. Projections are that it will be ice free in the arctic summer in around 5-7 years..or sooner. Yes you have a right to be scared. We all are! They say that fear arises through ignorance of an issue right?…well not this one. Us here all understand the mechanics of what is unfolding pretty well and yet the solution/s seem more and more daunting as the years progress. Maybe you could be part of a program to geo-engineer carbon out of the atmosphere, as it seems that geo-engineering will be the only way get a handle on this issue while we address the main culprit..our carbon/fossil fuel emissions and endeavour to get the world down to as near to zero emissions as possible. This obviously won’t happen overnight and whilst we are very much on borrowed time Co2 sequestration underground or aggressive CO2 removal from the atmosphere must be employed NOW. Thanks for joining the forum.
another spikey day with increase of 4.65 over same day in 2015
I think the daily average should be dropping down under 407.0 as part of the seasonal up and down with CO2. I think we should expect and hope for a June monthly average of 407.0, but I am not confident we are going to get there. It could be a year with a slow transition and dropoff like 2000 and 2002. The monthly NOAA numbers are presented in a nice table format here: https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
My concern is that the global carbon cycle is simply changing in some unfortunate ways now. It may be that natural sinks are no longer working as they did with a CO2 saturation of 350-380 ppm. Or it may be that new sources of CO2 release are now making themselves known in these numbers – things like drying soil carbon releases, peat drying, permafrost melting etc. I can’t get my head around the potential impact/CO2 release/pulse from forest fires. I think that potential source for increases in CO2 increase is small when compared to the global releases associated with the jump in temperature that we have seen in the past 6 to 12 months. This is not just the el nino bump. There is a lot of discussion out there at Tamino, Robert Scribbler and others that note the current situation does not look like the last el nino.
Daily CO2
June 23, 2016: 407.32 ppm
June 23, 2015: 402.67 ppm (4.65 ppm increase)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm (3.76 ppm increase)
I think we can expect increased discussion of geoengineering (aerosol injection to atmosphere) to tamp down the heat once a consensus emerges that loss of aerosol cooling from Chinese coal burning is implicated in the current temperature jump. To be clear, I don’t think geoengineering is a good idea, but then I think Michael Mann was correct when he said in 2014 that we should not let CO2 sats exceed 405. It’s not clear how we are supposed to stay under 405 ppm. We are going to be close to that number for a annual average in 2016 and I think we will blow past that number 2017. We should do something about that if we can.
Warm regards
Mike
Thomassays
HONOLULU (AP) — As the largest international gathering of coral reef experts comes to a close, scientists have sent a letter to Australian officials calling for action to save the world’s reefs, which are being rapidly damaged.
The letter was sent Saturday to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull imploring his government to do more to conserve the nation’s reefs and curb fossil fuel consumption.
Professor Hughes, president of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Australia said. “There’s nowhere to hide from climate change.”
But the panel of scientists emphasized the progress they have made over the past 30 years and stressed that good research and management programs for coral reefs are available. The scientists said they just need the proper funding and political will to enact them.
More than 1.5 billion people rely on seafood as their primary source of protein.
Fish are being caught faster than they can reproduce.
87% of the world’s fisheries are considered overfished or completely collapsed, key habitat is disappearing due to destructive fishing practices, and 40% of the world’s seafood is considered “bycatch,” meaning it is discarded before use.
830 marine species are listed as critically endangered. http://waittfoundation.org/mpas-fisheries/
I never for a moment claimed CO2 wasn’t increasing at an accelerating rate. I just had a technical argument with the evidence you present for that. The year-to-year thing just doesn’t mean very much; it will go up and down. In a year when it’s going down, you could have some denier posting just the way you have, saying “See! The increase is dropping!” for week after week. You need 30 years of data to show a climate trend, generally speaking. Comparisons between single days spaced a year and two years apart just doesn’t do it.
Killiansays
Re: 238 mike said Thanks to Killian at 205 for helping me understand that some folks I thought were on their game are just PG crazies. The bullying stuff makes more sense if I recognize that fact.
Took me years to get to the point of not getting dragged in. Try not to unless there’s something germane among the bullying and ego. You’ll also note no matter how on target or germane my posts, their egos keep them from doing anything useful with them.
Hi,
I understand that most of you in this blog have worked for years in tha AGW hypothesis but in my opinnion you should look deeply into my theory on solar activity and climate variability, since the case I think is kind of settled now. Between others you shall see that I have theoretically calculated all solar wind properties.
You can find the pdf here:
Especially the fact that he references the recent javelins article.
What I wish someone, or anyone, would address in this forum or on this website, is that the 97-98 El Nino only had an increase over one year. Then La Nina kicked in and we saw a decrease to 1.3 from 2.9. When you look at our CO2 data for 2015-2016 it looks like it could show a increase over two years unless there is a very strong La Nina this year.
Does anyone have a problem with that assumption? Is this a problem that should be addressed? If this is the case doesn’t that mean decreasing activity from carbon sinks or increased emission from permafrost or some other source, peat fires, deforestation, under reporting of emissions, is really increasing. What kind of increase in emissions or decrease in sinks could account for such an increase in CO2. Has the current El Nino triggered a tipping point somewhere, at least temporarily. Does that mean that somewhere in the near future, even if El Nino is the cause of this increase, once we hit this level of heat again, which I assume will be before the next strong El Nino we will begin to see the same effects.
Andrew Spiterisays
Just for reference, I got my information on CO2 ppm increase here:
PS
(not that it matters but) I agree with everything Hansen has to say including GenIV Nuclear rollout globally EXCEPT for his Fee & Dividend Carbon Price Theory – it’s far too late for that even if politicians could agree globally (and they will not).
Global agreements to set National Regulation of decreasing FF Emission Limits is the only answer. ie Progressively achieve a ban of all fossil fuels in the energy mix by 2040 in the developed world. First no new fossil fuel mines or wells opened anywhere, and no new fossil fuel power generators (except in third world nations).
No ETS, Carbon tax, or F&D is required to push up the cost of using fossil fuels. Place bans and limits on their extraction and the price of FF supply shoots up immediately which then drives non-FF alternatives and rapid innovation globally. The rest is common sense all the way down to consumer choices.
I doubt anything like this will happen before 2025, if then, but eventually FF extraction and use in the energy mix will be banned globally and criminalized. The question is when and will that be too late anyway.
Dimitris Poulos @274.
Your assumptions concerning the authority of commenters here are poorly devised. Concerning the thesis you present, you (metaphorically) butter your bread not just on both sides but additionally on rather too many edges. This is a situation that is neither helped by the linguistical problems your thesis exhibits nor helped by previous butterings of this bread which you refrain from giving mention.
To consider just the initial side of your buttered bread: Why syzygy or are there some words missing? And the four planets – yes they produce the largest tidal forces on the sun but why do you pair these four planets in this manner?
> mike,
>
> I never for a moment claimed CO2 wasn’t increasing at an accelerating rate.
> I just had a technical argument with the evidence you present for that.
Ditto that. Without statistics, handwaving assertions substitute for evidence of the likelihood of the claim.
June 26, 2016: 406.21 ppm
June 26, 2015: 401.48 ppm (4.73 ppm increase on daily average from 2015)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm (3.76 ppm increase on monthly average from 2015)
Watching these numbers in this way is like testing blood sugars with diabetics. There are blood tests that show the long term state of disease (I think that’s an A1C blood draw) but most acute diabetics also keep a daily log. There is information and knowledge to be gleaned from a long term and ongoing review of these numbers.
I expect the June monthly average to come in pretty close to the 407.0 number. That is not a good number. I don’t think this is all El Nino. I think we are starting to see changes in the carbon cycle. Same kind of thing happens with blood sugar with change in diet or loss of pancreatic function. There is natural variability and there are slow trends that can be discerned if eyes and mind are open.
don’t feed the trolls, (DP at 274 from the flat earth academy).
Warm regards
Mike
Edward Greischsays
Brexit: I predicted the breakup in the 1960s, based on the lack of a common language. Belgium tried to break into the French and Flemish speaking parts. It didn’t yet. Scotland will probably leave the UK even though Scotland speaks English as well as Broad Scots and Scottish Gaelic. The Netherlands, France and Italy have people who want to leave the EU. Germany is too dominant. The culture of Greece is too different from German culture.
The EU grew too fast and too unconsolidated. You can’t have a nation where each state gets a veto rather than a vote and an exit route is allowed. Consider the EU to be already back to individual countries when you try to predict future CO2 production.
Chuck Hughessays
Throughout all of the news coverage of the West Virginia flooding and fires in California I have yet to hear anyone mention Climate Change. I’m also wondering if Climate has had any impact on Brexit since the news media mentioned the Syrian Refugee crisis as a factor. Is anyone attempting to connect the dots on these events?
Prietzel, J. et al. (2016) Organic matter losses of German Alps forest soils since the 1970s likely caused by warming, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2732 & Kirk, G. (2016) Carbon losses in the Alps, Nature Geoscience.
Concluding comment from the carbonbrief story:
Prof Guy Kirk, professor of soil systems at Cranfield University and author of the News & Views article, writes that the findings of this “exemplary” monitoring study might be a sign of how soils could amplify warming in future, perhaps triggering a self-reinforcing loop. He writes:
[The study’s] evidence that climate change has already started depleting soil carbon in the German Alps raises the possibility that a positive feedback between climate and ecosystems is beginning.
naizaiyitie4zahwsays
Randall Carlson was on Joe Rogan. I would like to hear something about his opinions.
Annual cycle, past peak and dropping, but the numbers are still awful.
Daily CO2
June 27, 2016: 405.29 ppm
June 27, 2015: 401.26 ppm (4.03 ppm increase over same date 2015)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm (3.76 ppm increase over same month 2015)
I have skimmed the monthly NOAA numbers and I think that April 2016 was the first time in the record where a monthly average number was over 4 ppm (4.16 per NOAA). We dropped to 3.76 ppm for May 2015, but I expect 4.2 ppm for June. I would love to be wrong about that.
Yes, these numbers are noisy. Yes there is an El Nino effect. But there is something else happening here and I think it is release of CO2 from warming permafrost, etc. I think we are seeing a tipping point kick in with at least 1 ppm increase in one year. We may also be seeing reductions in the ability of the natural carbon cycle to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
interesting post on jet stream antics. Sounds like we might feel a slightly warm breeze if we were standing on WAIS. I don’t follow this stuff, but it sounds like things are not quite normal, but, hey, what’s the worst that could happen? Is this the kind of thing that deserves an RC post or do we just wait for this to blow over?
To put things into perspective at least for me are the memories I have of snorkeling on the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef when I was only about 12-13 or so. The larger than life colors and infinite types of corals and fish that I saw has been vivid memories I have never forgotten. To see that part of the reef now was truly gut-wrenching. That I won’t be able to show my 10 y/o son that wonder of nature that I saw is really really sad. Malcolm Turnbull keeps emphasising what he will enforce measures to minimise agri- run-off etc but keeps repeatedly failing to mention the inconvenient truth that is AGW. Enough to make you want to pull your hair out..sigh!!
Vendicar Decariansays
#274 From your PDF…
“In the case of Jupiter orbiting the produced sound waves within the solar mass should lead to energy diffusion with 12 year periodicity leading to the formation of sunspots.”
Thank you for that Brilliant analysis. Please don’t forget your hat on your way out the door.
Adam Ashsays
Antarctica. The weather near there has been kinda odd of late, with really unusual blocking winds obstructing the normal circumpolar Roaring 40s (50s etc) winds. Ive put some illustrations of this on Arctic Sea Ice forum (For want of a more relevant place),
HadCRUT has been posted for May with the global anomaly +0.680ºC, a drop on past months and a little sharper than the drop for GISTEMP & NOAA. May 2016 thus stands as the second warmest May on record (behind 2015) and the 20th warmest monthly anomaly within the full record – that is behind ten months of 2015, two of the 2006/07 El Nino, two of the 2002 El Nino and one of the 1998 El Nino.
A comparison of recent anomalies with their 1997/98 equivalent below is given to the end of 1998 which may give some sort of indication of where 2016 is heading following the ending of the El Nino. A graphical comparison of averages for surface records & TLT records plus MEI is here (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
……….1997/98 … 2015/16
Dec … +0.505ºC … +1.010ºC
Jan … +0.483ºC … +0.908ºC
Feb … +0.763ºC … +1.061ºC
Mar … +0.558ºC … +1.063ºC
Apr … +0.636ºC … +0.926ºC
May … +0.573ºC … +0.680ºC
Jun … +0.592ºC
Jul … +0.672ºC
Aug … +0.603ºC
Sep … +0.392ºC
Oct … +0.404ºC
Nov … +0.295ºC
Dec … +0.473ºC
As we are now approaching the mid-year, and given this drop in HadCRUT plus the ”mucho scorchyissimo” achieved in 2015, the average anomaly for the rest of the year required to make 2016 the warmest on record may start to become of interest. June to Dec 2016 would now have to average +0.618ºC or above for 2016 to gain hottest-year-on-record status.
Tamino has a post on global heat:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/state-of-the-climate-earths-temperature/#comments
A lot of information, but kind of wraps with the question of why we are seeing so much heat and here is the quote:
“In case you’re wondering why all these changes are taking place, there are many reasons. But the most important, by far, is the fact that we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The one we’re having the biggest impact on is carbon dioxide (CO2). Here’s the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, in “parts per million by volume” (ppmv), measured at the atmospheric observatory at Mauna Loa in Hawaii…
There are fluctuations, which are dominated by a seasonal cycle. But again, there’s also a trend. This particular trend isn’t following a straight line; the rate at which CO2 is increasing has been getting faster and faster.”
I don’t know if any of this post is persuasive to the diehards, but it kind of supports what I have been seeing and posting about here.
I would love to be wrong about the CO2 accumulation trend, but the numbers seem pretty clear. Tamino sounds a little cranky about the global weather if you take the time to read the whole post.
Warm regards,
Mike
…recommendation from Annie Proulx
Thanks for passing on the link. Cannot believe that Annie Proulx is 80 years old. She writes like someone half that age, totally engaged with the crazy lives of characters grappling with their conflicted connections to the land.
She provides our favorite backcountry around-the-campfire reading.
Bray and von Storch just published their 5th survey of climate scientists: https://www.academia.edu/26328070/The_Bray_and_von_Storch_5_th_International_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_2015_2016
It’s very detailed on specific issues (incl extreme weather and modeling capabilities), but some questions are to my mind poorly phrased 9outdated information, incomplete answer options) or biased (e.g. regarding consensus or alarmism, without asking mirror image questions about denialism). I laid out my criticism and a discussion of their consensus results here:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/new-survey-of-climate-scientists-by-bray-and-von-storch-confirms-broad-consensus-on-human-causation/
The UK referendum on June 23rd. is not carbon neutral
[UK voters have to decide whether they want the UK to leave the European Union (BREXIT) or REMAIN within it.]
If the EU undergoes fission both pieces will be affected, so discussion should not be restricted to the UK.
The campaign to reduce CO2 emissions would receive a serious set-back if BREXIT wins. Nigel Farage made a fool of himself by going to the European Parliament and waving a graph showing a small ONE YEAR recovery of the minimum summer Arctic sea ice. He keeps relatively quiet about it now, but all the senior members of UKIP turn out to be CO2 contrarians. So are some of the well known Tory Brexiteers, fellow travelers of UKIP , who are poised to replace Cameron et al. Fossil fuelists also argue that the UK only contributes 2% of the world’s CO2 emissions so what is the point of reducing them? But the EU as a whole is a much bigger contributor and had agreed to do something about the problem. All of that would be in jeopardy of Brexit wins.
from Robert Scribbler, with links to Tamino:
“Perhaps the most worrisome threat is that because the Arctic is warming so much faster than the globe as a whole, the permafrost — soil that remains frozen year-round — is thawing. As it does, organic matter which is trapped within can decay, and when it does it releases CO2 into the atmosphere, except those places where instead of releasing CO2 it releases CH4.” — Tamino.
With the Northern Hemisphere Pole warming at a rate 2-3 times faster than the rest of the globe, there’s a risk that we start to set off a kind of runaway warming feedback. We may be near that threshold now… God help us if we’ve crossed it…
*****
Prior to 2015, the highest annual rate of atmospheric CO2 increase occurred in 1998 at 2.9 ppm. This record was broken in 2015 when atmospheric CO2 levels climbed by 3.05 ppm. But so far this year, the rate of increase for this heat-trapping gas is a stunning 3.68 parts per million above comparable monthly averages seen during 2015. That’s nearly four times the rate of atmospheric accumulation since the early 1960s. A level of increase that almost guarantees that 2016 will shatter 2015’s record for CO2 gain and set a new ominous benchmark for a ramping accumulation of hothouse gasses.”
https://robertscribbler.com/
The heat accumulation in the global north worries me. Plus, I think that some part of the heat that we are seeing/feeling right now is due to the lower level of aerosols in the atmosphere. Reductions in coal-burning are great in some ways, but the loss of aerosol particles in atmosphere may be part of the record heat that we are experiencing.
Daily CO2 average falling as expected for June, but differential between 2015 and 2016 remains pretty high.
Daily CO2
June 21, 2016: 406.53 ppm
June 21, 2015: 402.68 ppm (3.85 ppm jump in a year)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm
Warm regards
Mike
209, 219 (patrick, Alfred Jones, Tony W)
On global ocean/biosphere/atmosphere CO2 distribution:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/sabi2854.shtml
The first thing to keep in mind is that atmospheric CO2 was pretty stable for thousands of years before the industrial fossil fuel era:
So the big question is, as we poured all the extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion, where did the fraction that didn’t stay in the atmosphere go? Was there enhanced photosynthesis? Was it oceanic uptake? The general consensus seems to be ocean uptake:
This is driven by a disequilbrium, a differential:
Here’s the total uptake of human fossil fuel emissions:
However, this rate might be decreasing:
There are quite a few other factors – warming surface waters will reduce CO2 uptake; ocean acidification effects on biological carbonate precipitation reduce CO2 uptake; – a highly complex system. However, even with cessation of fossil fuel combustion, the deforestation / permafrost / shallow sediment CO2 release will continue at some positive rate for a long time, that seems certain.
I saw this article on the snow: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pink-snow-climate-change_us_576c1684e4b0b489bb0caa66
Are we finally passed the point of no return on Climate change.
I’m losing sleep at nigh t
Either my computer isn’t updating or there are no updates. 4 days? Was it something I said?
Piotr, 226:
“I am not sure on what Chuck based his statements, but one possible source could be
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2892.html
It is behind a paywall”
Don’t forget sci-hub.cc
Works just loverly, ducks.
try:
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nclimate2892
COMMENTARY:
Reaching peak emissions
Robert B. Jackson, Josep G. Canadell, Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters and Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Rapid growth in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry ceased in the past two years, despite continued economic growth. Decreased coal use in China was largely responsible, coupled with slower global growth in petroleum and faster growth in renewables.
and, speaking of China:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/chinas-meat-consumption-climate-change
China’s plan to cut meat consumption by 50% cheered by climate campaigners
New dietary guidelines could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1bn tonnes by 2030, and could lessen country’s problems with obesity and diabetes
Oliver Milman and Stuart Leavenworth in Beijing
Monday 20 June 2016
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/06/unforced-variations-june-2016/comment-page-5/#comment-655891“>Dang. I hate when the pessimistic eyeballs do get support for bad news from the statistics.
Hank: 239
“Seriously. That, along with the other links people have suggested, give you the information you’re looking for.”
Your link does not prove what you say it proves. From your own description of the data in the link:
“Red Curve: Fossil fuel trend of a fixed fraction (57%) of the cumulative industrial emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production. ”
See? CUMULATIVE. Cumulative i.e. the SUM of all annual emissions from some starting point (50 yrs ago?) until a given year. The only way CUMULATIVE emissions may have decreased would be if in some year annual industrial emissions became … NEGATIVE ;-)
Since we are still far off from the industry sucking more CO2 from the air than they emit, so nobody claimed negative emission rates in any year, so Hank, you are fighting your own shadow.
> Want more? You can quote that string and search and find multiple sources of the information:
https://www.google.com/search?q=+cumulative+industrial+emissions+of+CO2+from+fossil+fuel+combustion+and
again, you search string contains “cumulative” – hence is _mostly_ irrelevant to my argument. I say “mostly”, because thanks to it I have come across a denialist website that makes the SAME fallacy of mistaking “cumulative emissions” for emission rates as you do, but does it
to question validity of your .. Red line in Manua Loa data:
“Mauna Loa CO2 levels seem to fit our rising emissions closely as well. However… there is a problem. The cumulative emissions curve’s slopes do not agree with the CDIAC/BP annual emissions graph.” and from that the denialist blogger concludes that Mauna Loa Red line is faked, and that humans do not have influence on the atmospheric CO2. (see http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm)
Wasn’t it you who was appealing in his thread to be better than the denialists ? ;-)
Hank 240: “Again, just looking at a picture can confuse you. […] Also, read the FAQ which explains that in more detail”
As explained in the post you are commenting – I am not confused, I just merely find your claims confused (the latest being you not understanding what “cumulative” means). So again your source does not deliver what you promise – your FAQ does not prove that “cumulative emissions” means current/annual emission rates. The latter being subject of this discussion.
Hank: “You referred to a chart from that paper but haven’t read the paper (you hit a paywall).”
No. I have read the paper, but just in case if somebody had problem with the paywall, I gave a link to the non-paywalled graph that provides the data you were asking for.
Still, I choose to take your comments as an advice where to find paywalled papers and not an attempt to put down an opponent as somebody who bases his claims on papers he didn’t even read. ;-)
(Hank: ” When you hit a paywall, use Scholar and search for the DOI, then check where it says various versions of the paper are available. Often one will be fully readable.” )
Another source to cite on changing rate of change:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/state-of-the-climate-earths-temperature/#comment-95450
and the following comment there, which has more information on that.
I’ve already found those links and I’ve also contacted Ed Dlugokencky at NOAA for more. He’s been very generous with the data he can provide and he’s asked me to contact Ralph Keeling and/or Steve Piper for data going back earlier than the mid-1970’s as a matter of professional courtesy. I am in the process of doing that, too.
In the meantime, I’ve prepared an exponential fitting algorithm so that folks (like me) can play around with the idea that the Mauna Loa monthly averages from 1958 forward are tracking along an exponential curve and to at least somewhat explore the idea of annual respiration there. The program accepts the MLO data from this NOAA link and allows the user to enter a value for any desired estimate of the pre-industrial CO2 level. The chart will then display the raw monthly CO2 readings, the single exponential model line, and a detrended version of the monthly CO2 readings using the exponential model to do the detrending. The detrended data is automatically aligned at the 350 ppmv level on the chart. It also provides the detailed formula used in the new model. This ZIP file holds the VB.NET executable. That, combined with the data from MLO, does the job. Try out a pre-industrial value for CO2 of 260 ppmv, for example. The source code is available to anyone who wants it, here. There is some modest documentation at the top of the main source code file. (Forgive me the hacked code, but I just wanted something fast to try out.)
241 Hank Roberts says: “You can’t just track the level in the atmosphere as though it’s not connected to the rest of the planet.”
Well, isn’t the very point about the rising atmosphere readings of CO2/CO2e at MLO and everywhere else on this planet this year? Those readings are directly connected to the whole of the planet – land, oceans, mankind and the atmosphere and dangerous climate changes.
Re: “When the CO2 level in the atmosphere changes, some of that goes into the oceans and the land.” Exactly, and speeds up coral reef and shell fish damage and some of it further raises temperature even more.
re: “When we quit pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere ……” Please do let us know when that happens. Until then, it’s a moot point and meaningless, imo.
257 Scared teen. “Are we finally passed the point of no return on Climate change?.” Climate feedbacks are complex issues as there so many of them. Yes red snow would not help the situation any. The fact is that the arctic is melting so fast that is really wouldn’t matter if red snow existed or not. Projections are that it will be ice free in the arctic summer in around 5-7 years..or sooner. Yes you have a right to be scared. We all are! They say that fear arises through ignorance of an issue right?…well not this one. Us here all understand the mechanics of what is unfolding pretty well and yet the solution/s seem more and more daunting as the years progress. Maybe you could be part of a program to geo-engineer carbon out of the atmosphere, as it seems that geo-engineering will be the only way get a handle on this issue while we address the main culprit..our carbon/fossil fuel emissions and endeavour to get the world down to as near to zero emissions as possible. This obviously won’t happen overnight and whilst we are very much on borrowed time Co2 sequestration underground or aggressive CO2 removal from the atmosphere must be employed NOW. Thanks for joining the forum.
another spikey day with increase of 4.65 over same day in 2015
I think the daily average should be dropping down under 407.0 as part of the seasonal up and down with CO2. I think we should expect and hope for a June monthly average of 407.0, but I am not confident we are going to get there. It could be a year with a slow transition and dropoff like 2000 and 2002. The monthly NOAA numbers are presented in a nice table format here: https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
My concern is that the global carbon cycle is simply changing in some unfortunate ways now. It may be that natural sinks are no longer working as they did with a CO2 saturation of 350-380 ppm. Or it may be that new sources of CO2 release are now making themselves known in these numbers – things like drying soil carbon releases, peat drying, permafrost melting etc. I can’t get my head around the potential impact/CO2 release/pulse from forest fires. I think that potential source for increases in CO2 increase is small when compared to the global releases associated with the jump in temperature that we have seen in the past 6 to 12 months. This is not just the el nino bump. There is a lot of discussion out there at Tamino, Robert Scribbler and others that note the current situation does not look like the last el nino.
Daily CO2
June 23, 2016: 407.32 ppm
June 23, 2015: 402.67 ppm (4.65 ppm increase)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm (3.76 ppm increase)
I think we can expect increased discussion of geoengineering (aerosol injection to atmosphere) to tamp down the heat once a consensus emerges that loss of aerosol cooling from Chinese coal burning is implicated in the current temperature jump. To be clear, I don’t think geoengineering is a good idea, but then I think Michael Mann was correct when he said in 2014 that we should not let CO2 sats exceed 405. It’s not clear how we are supposed to stay under 405 ppm. We are going to be close to that number for a annual average in 2016 and I think we will blow past that number 2017. We should do something about that if we can.
Warm regards
Mike
HONOLULU (AP) — As the largest international gathering of coral reef experts comes to a close, scientists have sent a letter to Australian officials calling for action to save the world’s reefs, which are being rapidly damaged.
The letter was sent Saturday to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull imploring his government to do more to conserve the nation’s reefs and curb fossil fuel consumption.
Professor Hughes, president of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Australia said. “There’s nowhere to hide from climate change.”
But the panel of scientists emphasized the progress they have made over the past 30 years and stressed that good research and management programs for coral reefs are available. The scientists said they just need the proper funding and political will to enact them.
The researchers focused on the economic and social benefits coral reefs contribute to communities across the globe, saying the critical habitats generate trillions of dollars annually but conservation efforts are not proportionately or adequately funded.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3660141/Scientists-send-coral-reef-plea-Australia.html
and https://sgmeet.com/icrs2016/
Not to mention the oceans as a major food source across the globe.
No reefs = little to no fish to harvest into the future.
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/festival/play/5917/Empty-Oceans-Empty-Nets
More than 1.5 billion people rely on seafood as their primary source of protein.
Fish are being caught faster than they can reproduce.
87% of the world’s fisheries are considered overfished or completely collapsed, key habitat is disappearing due to destructive fishing practices, and 40% of the world’s seafood is considered “bycatch,” meaning it is discarded before use.
830 marine species are listed as critically endangered.
http://waittfoundation.org/mpas-fisheries/
Any comments on this paper? It would certainly be nice if we had better near-term predictability of warming trends.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3058.html
mike,
I never for a moment claimed CO2 wasn’t increasing at an accelerating rate. I just had a technical argument with the evidence you present for that. The year-to-year thing just doesn’t mean very much; it will go up and down. In a year when it’s going down, you could have some denier posting just the way you have, saying “See! The increase is dropping!” for week after week. You need 30 years of data to show a climate trend, generally speaking. Comparisons between single days spaced a year and two years apart just doesn’t do it.
Re: 238 mike said Thanks to Killian at 205 for helping me understand that some folks I thought were on their game are just PG crazies. The bullying stuff makes more sense if I recognize that fact.
Took me years to get to the point of not getting dragged in. Try not to unless there’s something germane among the bullying and ego. You’ll also note no matter how on target or germane my posts, their egos keep them from doing anything useful with them.
Cheers
An interesting item in the ‘impacts’ category:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/climate-change-forcing-builders-to-rethink-how-they-design-structures-expert-says-1.3653394
Hi,
I understand that most of you in this blog have worked for years in tha AGW hypothesis but in my opinnion you should look deeply into my theory on solar activity and climate variability, since the case I think is kind of settled now. Between others you shall see that I have theoretically calculated all solar wind properties.
You can find the pdf here:
http://gpcpublishing.com/index.php?journal=gjp&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=443
regards
Dimitris
I like what what Thomas has to say at #146.
Especially the fact that he references the recent javelins article.
What I wish someone, or anyone, would address in this forum or on this website, is that the 97-98 El Nino only had an increase over one year. Then La Nina kicked in and we saw a decrease to 1.3 from 2.9. When you look at our CO2 data for 2015-2016 it looks like it could show a increase over two years unless there is a very strong La Nina this year.
Does anyone have a problem with that assumption? Is this a problem that should be addressed? If this is the case doesn’t that mean decreasing activity from carbon sinks or increased emission from permafrost or some other source, peat fires, deforestation, under reporting of emissions, is really increasing. What kind of increase in emissions or decrease in sinks could account for such an increase in CO2. Has the current El Nino triggered a tipping point somewhere, at least temporarily. Does that mean that somewhere in the near future, even if El Nino is the cause of this increase, once we hit this level of heat again, which I assume will be before the next strong El Nino we will begin to see the same effects.
Just for reference, I got my information on CO2 ppm increase here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
Dr. James Hansen 30 min video interview – “The Climate…In Your Backyard”
Air Date: May 9, 2016 with Transcript.
http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/science/the-climate-in-your-backyard/5468/
PS
(not that it matters but) I agree with everything Hansen has to say including GenIV Nuclear rollout globally EXCEPT for his Fee & Dividend Carbon Price Theory – it’s far too late for that even if politicians could agree globally (and they will not).
Global agreements to set National Regulation of decreasing FF Emission Limits is the only answer. ie Progressively achieve a ban of all fossil fuels in the energy mix by 2040 in the developed world. First no new fossil fuel mines or wells opened anywhere, and no new fossil fuel power generators (except in third world nations).
No ETS, Carbon tax, or F&D is required to push up the cost of using fossil fuels. Place bans and limits on their extraction and the price of FF supply shoots up immediately which then drives non-FF alternatives and rapid innovation globally. The rest is common sense all the way down to consumer choices.
I doubt anything like this will happen before 2025, if then, but eventually FF extraction and use in the energy mix will be banned globally and criminalized. The question is when and will that be too late anyway.
Dimitris Poulos @274.
Your assumptions concerning the authority of commenters here are poorly devised. Concerning the thesis you present, you (metaphorically) butter your bread not just on both sides but additionally on rather too many edges. This is a situation that is neither helped by the linguistical problems your thesis exhibits nor helped by previous butterings of this bread which you refrain from giving mention.
To consider just the initial side of your buttered bread: Why syzygy or are there some words missing? And the four planets – yes they produce the largest tidal forces on the sun but why do you pair these four planets in this manner?
> mike,
>
> I never for a moment claimed CO2 wasn’t increasing at an accelerating rate.
> I just had a technical argument with the evidence you present for that.
Ditto that. Without statistics, handwaving assertions substitute for evidence of the likelihood of the claim.
another spikey day:
Daily CO2
June 26, 2016: 406.21 ppm
June 26, 2015: 401.48 ppm (4.73 ppm increase on daily average from 2015)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm (3.76 ppm increase on monthly average from 2015)
Watching these numbers in this way is like testing blood sugars with diabetics. There are blood tests that show the long term state of disease (I think that’s an A1C blood draw) but most acute diabetics also keep a daily log. There is information and knowledge to be gleaned from a long term and ongoing review of these numbers.
I expect the June monthly average to come in pretty close to the 407.0 number. That is not a good number. I don’t think this is all El Nino. I think we are starting to see changes in the carbon cycle. Same kind of thing happens with blood sugar with change in diet or loss of pancreatic function. There is natural variability and there are slow trends that can be discerned if eyes and mind are open.
don’t feed the trolls, (DP at 274 from the flat earth academy).
Warm regards
Mike
Brexit: I predicted the breakup in the 1960s, based on the lack of a common language. Belgium tried to break into the French and Flemish speaking parts. It didn’t yet. Scotland will probably leave the UK even though Scotland speaks English as well as Broad Scots and Scottish Gaelic. The Netherlands, France and Italy have people who want to leave the EU. Germany is too dominant. The culture of Greece is too different from German culture.
The EU grew too fast and too unconsolidated. You can’t have a nation where each state gets a veto rather than a vote and an exit route is allowed. Consider the EU to be already back to individual countries when you try to predict future CO2 production.
Throughout all of the news coverage of the West Virginia flooding and fires in California I have yet to hear anyone mention Climate Change. I’m also wondering if Climate has had any impact on Brexit since the news media mentioned the Syrian Refugee crisis as a factor. Is anyone attempting to connect the dots on these events?
IPCC “…The Physical Science Basis: “CO2 Emissions and Increases” charts, 2007.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-3.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-4.html
No fair looking without reading text.
A big ‘oh-oh’:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/alpine-soils-storing-up-to-a-third-less-carbon-as-summers-warm
Prietzel, J. et al. (2016) Organic matter losses of German Alps forest soils since the 1970s likely caused by warming, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2732 & Kirk, G. (2016) Carbon losses in the Alps, Nature Geoscience.
Concluding comment from the carbonbrief story:
Prof Guy Kirk, professor of soil systems at Cranfield University and author of the News & Views article, writes that the findings of this “exemplary” monitoring study might be a sign of how soils could amplify warming in future, perhaps triggering a self-reinforcing loop. He writes:
Randall Carlson was on Joe Rogan. I would like to hear something about his opinions.
Annual cycle, past peak and dropping, but the numbers are still awful.
Daily CO2
June 27, 2016: 405.29 ppm
June 27, 2015: 401.26 ppm (4.03 ppm increase over same date 2015)
May CO2
May 2016: 407.70 ppm
May 2015: 403.94 ppm (3.76 ppm increase over same month 2015)
I have skimmed the monthly NOAA numbers and I think that April 2016 was the first time in the record where a monthly average number was over 4 ppm (4.16 per NOAA). We dropped to 3.76 ppm for May 2015, but I expect 4.2 ppm for June. I would love to be wrong about that.
Yes, these numbers are noisy. Yes there is an El Nino effect. But there is something else happening here and I think it is release of CO2 from warming permafrost, etc. I think we are seeing a tipping point kick in with at least 1 ppm increase in one year. We may also be seeing reductions in the ability of the natural carbon cycle to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Warm regards
Mike
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/06/28/gigantic-gravity-waves-to-mix-winter-with-summer-wrecked-jet-stream-now-runs-from-pole-to-pole/
interesting post on jet stream antics. Sounds like we might feel a slightly warm breeze if we were standing on WAIS. I don’t follow this stuff, but it sounds like things are not quite normal, but, hey, what’s the worst that could happen? Is this the kind of thing that deserves an RC post or do we just wait for this to blow over?
Hi, how much credence should be dedicated to this recent find?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/30/the-mysterious-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-is-starting-to-give-up-its-secrets/
Climate Go Boom!
To put things into perspective at least for me are the memories I have of snorkeling on the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef when I was only about 12-13 or so. The larger than life colors and infinite types of corals and fish that I saw has been vivid memories I have never forgotten. To see that part of the reef now was truly gut-wrenching. That I won’t be able to show my 10 y/o son that wonder of nature that I saw is really really sad. Malcolm Turnbull keeps emphasising what he will enforce measures to minimise agri- run-off etc but keeps repeatedly failing to mention the inconvenient truth that is AGW. Enough to make you want to pull your hair out..sigh!!
#274 From your PDF…
“In the case of Jupiter orbiting the produced sound waves within the solar mass should lead to energy diffusion with 12 year periodicity leading to the formation of sunspots.”
Thank you for that Brilliant analysis. Please don’t forget your hat on your way out the door.
Antarctica. The weather near there has been kinda odd of late, with really unusual blocking winds obstructing the normal circumpolar Roaring 40s (50s etc) winds. Ive put some illustrations of this on Arctic Sea Ice forum (For want of a more relevant place),
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,622.msg81837.html#msg81837
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,622.msg81931.html#msg81931
Is this a sign that the upset in jet stream configuration RS notes is having an effect closer to ground level?
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/06/28/gigantic-gravity-waves-to-mix-winter-with-summer-wrecked-jet-stream-now-runs-from-pole-to-pole/
HadCRUT has been posted for May with the global anomaly +0.680ºC, a drop on past months and a little sharper than the drop for GISTEMP & NOAA. May 2016 thus stands as the second warmest May on record (behind 2015) and the 20th warmest monthly anomaly within the full record – that is behind ten months of 2015, two of the 2006/07 El Nino, two of the 2002 El Nino and one of the 1998 El Nino.
A comparison of recent anomalies with their 1997/98 equivalent below is given to the end of 1998 which may give some sort of indication of where 2016 is heading following the ending of the El Nino. A graphical comparison of averages for surface records & TLT records plus MEI is here (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
……….1997/98 … 2015/16
Dec … +0.505ºC … +1.010ºC
Jan … +0.483ºC … +0.908ºC
Feb … +0.763ºC … +1.061ºC
Mar … +0.558ºC … +1.063ºC
Apr … +0.636ºC … +0.926ºC
May … +0.573ºC … +0.680ºC
Jun … +0.592ºC
Jul … +0.672ºC
Aug … +0.603ºC
Sep … +0.392ºC
Oct … +0.404ºC
Nov … +0.295ºC
Dec … +0.473ºC
As we are now approaching the mid-year, and given this drop in HadCRUT plus the ”mucho scorchyissimo” achieved in 2015, the average anomaly for the rest of the year required to make 2016 the warmest on record may start to become of interest. June to Dec 2016 would now have to average +0.618ºC or above for 2016 to gain hottest-year-on-record status.