A week is a long time in politics climate science: Nonsense debunked in WaPo, begininngs of recovery in the ozone hole, revisiting the instrumental record constraints on climate sensitivity…
Lots of lessons there.
Usual rules apply.
Climate science from climate scientists...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clouds-get-high-on-climate-change/
“Clouds Get High on Climate Change
Changes in cloud patterns match predictions from climate simulations of a warming world”
Comments from RC?
Hank Roberts @85,
The Norris et al (2016) ‘Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record’ full paper is available here. The abstract reads:-
The Nature News release points to the continuing need to identify how much of this cloud-change since the 1980s is due to AGW and how much due to the likes of EL Cich’on & Pinatubo. “Still, the story remains complicated. The cloud shifts match what scientists would expect from increasing greenhouse-gas emissions, but also what happens in the aftermath of large volcanic eruptions that spew particles into the atmosphere. Researchers need to dig a little more to tease out the relative roles of greenhouse gases and volcanoes, (Katherine) Marvel (of GISS) says.”
barry at 99: Yes, as I have said a few times, el nino is definitely good for part of the jump in the CO2 sats. I calculate the EN bump at 1.5 ppm in my projections and I have taken that bump out by the end of the year as EN should be over. Even with that bump factored in/out the rise in CO2 is unprecedented in the historic record. from the article you linked to:
“Carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa is currently above 400 parts per million, but would have been expected to drop back down below this level in September. However, we predict that this will not happen now, because the recent El Niño has warmed and dried tropical ecosystems and driven forest fires, adding to the CO2 rise.”
The question that I am interested in is: can the dried tropical ecosystems, the loss of sea ice, the drying/warming of permafrost recover/cool/re-dampen and slip back into the pre-EN state or are we going to see these big “natural” carbon players function as emitters now rather than as carbon sinks. I suspect the answer is that at baseline CO2 levels of 405 plus, the natural carbon players will no longer function as they have in the past and the change in function will result in additional bumps in CO2 sat rise.
I think a lot of folks on the planet do not understand that the climate models are pretty crude in many ways, such as: no factoring of forest fires as GB mentioned in 23. As Gavin has stated: all the climate models are wrong. But as discussed here at some length over the past few months, wrong models are almost certainly still be useful in some ways. That utility has to be weighed against the mythology of climate modeling that is leading a lot of folks/deciders to think that we are doing ok on carbon emissions when somebody like IEA produces carbon emission reports that really mean very little with regard to the survival tasks we face.
I don’t seem to communicate my perspective very effectively here. My take is that each rise of 3 ppm now is absorbed by a very different global carbon cycle disequilibrium. When I state things in simple declarative manner (like the increasing rate of rise issue or the record heat level)I get a lot of pushback from folks who can’t read the handwriting on the wall unless there are graphs and charts attached. If I ask a rhetorical question like: where is all this CO2 coming from? (a better teaching approach per Socrates), the conversation sometimes dumbs down to basic misunderstanding of the relationships and complexity of the relationship between our species’ impact on the planet and the mediated level of CO2 sats in the atmosphere.
Plus on top of all that, I have to expect that I will simply get things wrong some times. I have seen that. I try to learn from that when it happens. I think I have been generally right about the global temp rise associated with changes in the complex system that we can measure by simply observing the daily/monthly CO2 sats.
Have more to say, of course, but I have two grandkids with me for the day and they want to commandeer my attention and cheer me up, so I am going to stop and put my energies into helping them have a fun time for the next 24 hours.
Daily CO2
July 10, 2016: 405.59 ppm
July 10, 2015: 401.46 ppm (4.13 ppm increase)
June CO2
June 2016: 406.81 ppm
June 2015: 402.80 ppm (4.01 ppm increase)
so what? what is 4 ppm in an atmosphere as large as ours? What is the worst that could happen? Why should we try to imagine the worst that could happen? Why track the bad possibilities?
gotta go play with my grandkids and ruminate on those questions.
Warm regards
Mike
Thank you Kevin.
guardian coverage of heat
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/11/we-just-broke-the-record-for-hottest-year-9-straight-times
wrt to impact/contribution of El Nino it is important to note the the historic 1998 EN event with annual heat record has now fallen to number 60 of record heat in 12 month period, with all the rest of the record years happening since the 1998 EN event. from the article: “The difference is that while September 1997–August 1998 was the hottest 12-month period on record at the time; it’s now in 60th place. It’s been surpassed by yearlong periods in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Many of those years weren’t even aided by El Niño events; unassisted global warming made them hotter than 1998.
Global surface temperatures are now more than 0.3°C hotter than they were in 1997–1998. That’s a remarkable rise over just 18 years, in comparison to the 1°C the Earth’s average surface temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution began.”
The real danger is that we are building momentum in runaway warming through various tipping points that are passed and fall toward additional CO2 and/or heat.
On a positive note, CO2 sats are down at 404.40 for July 12th. I would love to see that number keep dropping. My projection for the annual low is 402.80 for September monthly average. I would love to see the actual numbers come in under my projections.
Warm regards
Mike
@Laurence Coleman, #72
” Nemesis. er..just how many biggest elephants can there be in the same room? I thought our obscenely high global population was the biggest elephant in the room…please correct me if I’m wrong. ”
Er.. there seems to be a lot of room for elephants, I could go on with politics, economy, socioeconomic justice and consequences, if it fails ect ect. But let’s correct the overpopulation myth:
https://overpopulationisamyth.com/
http://thegenerator.com.au/malthus-theories-are-outdated/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
Btw: If you think, that “overpopulation” is a problem, then you did not procreate, right? I did not procreate as well and I am REALLY happy about that.
@MA Rogers, #56
Wow, that’s a lot of words about some small piece from the Washington Times. Anyway, thanks a lot!
@Riley, #57
“… he meant that we don’t need models to *prove* AGW anymore, and need to start taking action? ”
YOH, that’s the whole point I guess!
@Solar Jim, #69
” The atomic phrase “meltdown” comes to mind, in many manifestations. ”
True. The real problem is not “just” the military-industrial complex nor climate change, the real problem is SYSTEMIC on almost every level. So, I am happy, that I am no politician and no climate scientist, I’d just go insane, hahaha.
@Killian, #79
“Nemesis, a bloated military is incompatible with regenerative nee sustainable systems, so the issue is moot, really. The goal is make everyone aware of the limits, then the actions needed become largely self-evident… the problem, of course, is the idjits who may think they ca kill off 2/3 of hte planet and instantly have themselves a comfy 500-year future.”
Yes, military is Incompatible with sustainability. And that’s a problem. You know, I drive a bycicle all my life, while the US military alone blows 300.000 pounds during one Blue “Angels” show into the atmosphere, hahaha, I feel somewhat funny about my bike :-)
@Chris Machens, #87
” Nemesis #67, peopel do not understand the national security implications”
Oh, I do understand the SECURITY implications quite well^^ And they will grow bigger and bigger, together with the military. The more security implications, the more military, the more military, the more security implications- now, that’s a funny and reasonable game, isn’t it?
Correction:
” I drive a bycicle all my life, while the US military alone blows 300.000 pounds during one Blue “Angels” show into the atmosphere, hahaha…”
should be:
” I drive a bycicle all my life, while the US military alone blows 300.000 pounds of CO2 during one Blue “Angels” show into the atmosphere, hahaha…”
97 Kevin McKinney: Tanks for that, I cross checked with Cape Grimm, and it too showed a spike in 98/99 and 00, as well as 3.3ppm up till May. http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/GreenhouseGas/data/CapeGrim_CO2_data_download.txt
I hadn’t looked that closely before (obviously) at those EN numbers in ppm so thanks for the heads up. It is more significant than I thought it was. I was aware of the annual cycle up and down and natural fluxes being greater then agw drivers etc.
That being said seems that the spike at MLO and Cape Grimm is much higher than the 98 EN and it isn’t as intense (?) or as long lived as back then. So there still seems to be a range of 1 to 2pt jump mid-year above 98/99 (roughly). It still seems out of the ordinary / unprecedented jump above the norms anyway (yes?). I’d expect it (as Mike does) to slow at a faster rate than 98/99 now thru 2016/17 — but we will have to wait and see I suppose.
PS I am not concerned about things like permafrost or SLR etc. imo what’s going to hit hardest will be food production especially from the oceans sooner than anything expect the odd extreme weather event. I feel that is going to creep upon the globe much faster than most expect or could imagine possible (will wait and see too) eg one day there was NA cod then in the next season they were almost all gone. That’s what I think will happen year after year in different places everywhere on top of the land based agriculture all over the shop all over the world soon (in decade plus) – the faster rising PPM is a clear signal EN or not. cheers
Re: #47 Ellis (the putative lead author) has no known science background but did publish a trilogy of books concerning Jesus being related to Cleopatra. At least one source described him as an conspiracy theorist. The co-author (Palmer) is a chemistry professor at a Canadian University (sorry, going on memory here and I can’t recall which one) and has a number of mainstream chemistry papers credited to him. No known climate-denial history – or any background in climatology for that matter. Naturally, the paper is published in the Journal of Neverheardofit and is somewhat amateurish. (The paragraph relating to bumblebees is quite amusing though.)
Devore, who wrote the Forbes article which will probably be the only publication ever to cite the paper, is apparently connected with Ellis somehow. He is citing the paper as vindicating his previous statements implying that orbital procession is causing current warming. Hard to see how this paper, regardless of its merit (or lack thereof), does that.
The paper doesn’t explicitly reject* (or endorse) CO2 radiative warming, but the apparently intended message is that all you climate scientists have it backwards. Glaciation reduces CO2 until it gets so low that tropical plants suffocate and turn to dust which is deposited on the ice sheets. When the milankovich cycle is favorable, warming starts melting the ice, concentrating the dust, reducing albedo and ending the ice age.
I am not clear how much of this is conventional wisdom – hoping someone here can enlighten me. Even if it is all true, it doesn’t alter the role of CO2 in warming the planet.
* I think the bumblebee paragraph is supposed to “disprove” conventional Global Warming theory, but it doesn’t explicitly reject it and the argument is quite silly.
Do i understand this correctly, does the recent discussion of cross equator jet stream by bloggers, might be related to El Nino, as outlined here
Atlantic Climate Variability and Its Associated Atmospheric Circulation Cells
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C1516:ACVAIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Thomas, #107–De nada. You piqued my interest. And cool that you cross-checked the CG data.
“That being said seems that the spike at MLO and Cape Grimm is much higher than the 98 EN and it isn’t as intense (?) or as long lived as back then.”
Speaking broadly, that sounds like a good description of the temperature spike from this Nino, too.
You think, sheer moneymaker institutions like the EU and it’s TTIP plans can not interfere climate mitigation? Well, it goes like this:
1. Ignore blatant social injustice, always prefer the wealthiest of society and beat down any social protest with brute force
2. Sooner or later, the nationalists and hardliners (Trump and alike, you know^^) will happily join the game and gain more and more momentum
3. Bingo! Now you won one Brexit. Want more? Just go back to point 1 and go on with that game
4. When the nationalists and hardliners gained enough momentum, they finally come to power, see next point^^
6. Now, we reached the next level, a more global level and THIS level might be the final level once and for all:
” 14.7.2016 – Climate change department killed off by Theresa May in ‘plain stupid’ and ‘deeply worrying’ move”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
Cheers from the United Kingdom. Want more? Start again at point 1.
Dedicated not only to the Queen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snyjRd93HBs
EVERYTHING is interconnected.
Nemesis, climate change effects all of us, not only the military. It is for most a complex abstract psychological challenge for each individual, then it is a health issue (i.e. various bacteria, viruses proliferate with shifting climatic zones, same for other invasive species), or pure survival issues during a famine/heatwave/extensive dry spell – with food rationing, water or electricity shortages and price hikes, and because with rising temperatures people react differently. See this related study http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214
At one point it is meaningless what kind of military you have, though then its more of a question if weapons remain safe (Think nuclear power). Or who will control all the nuclear power plants when the storm surge hits during an unprecedented nation crisis?
We have to be cautious ofc, when playing out scenarios to not conclude that one thing surely leads to the next worst thing (cognitive bias). Time scales are also a big “if”.
An important question is, can civilisation be sustained on an ice free planet, or through the transition to it. James Lovelock early postulated that the carrying capacity of the planet will be lowered, and then people migrate to the pole. In my opinion that is a very optimistic utopia, when factoring in geomorphological responses and reconfiguration of ecosystems – which could take thousands of years. Surely it is not impossible but a future where habitats could resemble a moon base.
But some people are not yet worried enough (idealistic conclusion/simplification)- ice melting away, sea level rise of several metres, more extreme weather and so on.
Related: Your brain on climate change: why the threat produces apathy, not action
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/10/brain-climate-change-science-psychology-environment-elections
Re112 this board seems to becoming less about climate science and more for people using it as a platform for far out politics. Even the Independent story if you read to the bottom turns out to be unfounded. I doubt if the poster did.
104 Hank Roberts:
Thank you Hank. You’re an inspiring motivator here. Keep it up.
Mike: “I don’t seem to communicate my perspective very effectively here.”
Au contraire mon ami! Don’t use faulty yardsticks in drawing such judgments. :-)
112 Nemesis “14.7.2016 – Climate change department killed off by Theresa May in ‘plain stupid’ and ‘deeply worrying’ move” and “everything is connected”
Yes, in all kinds of ways, like killing off CC departments. Harper did it in Canada. He’s gone. Prime Minister Tony “Coal is Good for Humanity” Abbott’s govt did the same thing in Australia in 2013/2014. He was rolled by his own party (for many reasons) in Sept 2015, and the new PM barely won the election a few weeks ago. So it’s unlikely the CC depts, CSIRO research, and other pro-renewable energy actions will be reinstated nor the biggest coal in history operating until circa 2095 will be stopped.
There’s money in them there holes in the ground. How do we levy mining royalties on the wind and the sun? Most Politicians are not the cream of the crop. Look at the main two running for US president if in any doubt. Whoever wins will wish they hadn’t before too long. Change is afoot anyway for ‘everything good is connected’ too.
106: Nemesis. Let me see if I get you correctly, you are saying our current population is not contributing to the environmental stress the world is enduring. Maybe if all 7.5×10^9 people all live scattered throughout the planet’s habitable land similar to small villages in Africa, another-words each person having a very small carbon footprint. Then you are going to have no more forests- boreal, temperate, subtropical or tropical..whatever. All the fauna depending on forests to survive..gone! Other solution having the majority of the earth pop. living in towns and cities..resulting in disassociation with the global ecosystem, rampant industrialisation, consumerism and high pollution and GH emissions…. ring a bell! How is our current population not going to have far reaching and dire effects on the planets finite reserves??? Oh! come on Nemesis, surely you cannot be that blind or stupid. Oh..one more thing, Never in the history of planet earth has there been 7.5 billion largish animals with their supporting food species(cattle, sheep, poultry etc). You have the audacity to state that that does not make a difference..shaking my head in amazement.
Nemesis: and you might just like to peruse this site..www.kalaharilionresearch.org/…/human-vs-livestock-vs-wild-mammal-biomass-earth
sounds pretty logical to me.
moderators are doing a pretty good job of suppressing the conversation. They will say they are very busy. Plausible deniability is a thing of great wonder.
no dailies at http://www.co2.earth (MLO source) for a few days, so here is latest weekly average:
Last Week
July 3 – 9, 2016
405.57 ppm
1 Year Ago
July 3 – 9, 2015
401.78 ppm
for a 3.79 ppm differential. Better than a 4 plus number I guess.
Avoid getting lost in the forest and think about this number (405 plus) in the simplest way: it is like a nice, insulating blanket that keeps us warm in a cold universe. It also a nice insulating blanket that makes us warmer when we are already too warm. We can kick the blankets off at night when we get too warm. Right now we know of no way to kick this blanket off and lots of folks think we are too warm.
To some extent, all of the back and forth about where it is coming from, whether it is EN effect, or agricultural byproduct, or warming peat, or decaying CH4 is a sideshow. The main show is that the planet is too warm and we haven’t figured out a way to kick off the blanket. We just keep pulling on more blankets, 1 ppm at a time.
This critical number keeps moving up and we need to figure out how to drive it down or we are going to get cooked.
Thomas at 108: agree with you on SLR, it’s a sideshow to the food system disruption – look at the “Arab spring” and correlate that unrest with crop failures and the cost of grain in the countries like Tunisia, Syria, etc and you might see a disturbing pattern.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-and-rising-food-prices-heightened-arab-spring/
However, you probably should be concerned about permafrost because as it become perma-defrost it will release more CO2, drive more heat and further disrupt our food system. This is why I mentioned the strawberry and avocado crop failures. No strawberry daiquiries? First world problem. No guacamole dip? First world problem. Disruption of entire agricultural system on Earrrth? Global problem.
Enjoying the cooler than normal weather in the NW this month. Hope you are all comfortable. Sequester some CO2 if you have spare time and share your ideas. Maybe we should all buy some dry ice? Lots of it!!
Warm regards
Mike
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1468070206-20160709.png
How do I get rid of that “f bird printer” thing at the bottom so I can get to the third page and get back to desktop mode?
@Stephan Rahmstorf. I observed by surveying the evolution of sea surface temperatures anomalies the following thing : the cold anomaly located on atlantic subpolar gyre vanished during june 2016 and simultaneously, the hot anomaly on east american coast vanished as well. I think that results in two statements : 1) the hot anomaly on east american coast is linked to the cold anomaly on subpolar gyre, which confirms the hypothesis of an anomalous oceanic circulation. 2) the system is apparently highly variable. I observed also that this anomalies dipole w
(the two comments must be put together, sorry for the wrong manoeuver) I observed that the rainy weather in western Europe (especially France)was associated with this dipole and that with the disappearance of this dipole, the weather dried in western Europe (France). I don’t know if there is a link between the two.
@mike: You might be interested in this set of recent CO2 graphs showing peaks above 410ppm and even 420ppm in some parts of Asia. The different annual cycles and trends all have a story to tell.
This is cool.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/kelp_seagrass_slow_ocean_acidification_netarts/3013/
I quite like the long comment moderation cycle. Kills flame wars when esprit d’escalier stalls on slow elevator.
sidd
‘The Human Species Has Never Faced A Question Like This’ (2016)
In an exclusive new interview Noam Chomsky reflects on the incredible period in human history we currently find ourselves in where climate change, and looming environmental collapse, threaten the very future of our species.
Recorded May 17 2016 for The Elephant Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqBEXo_e9Y
mike @120.
I was surprised when I read your comment that “no dailies at http://www.co2.earth (MLO source) for a few days” as that was not the case on the NOAA-ESRL site which provides data for a comparison for 14th, 15th &16th. Of course this could be co2.earth taking the weekend off, but it did lead me to visit that site.
And there sat the real surprise. The data presented for annual comparison 2015-to-2016 for July 16th used the Scripps value for 2015 & the NOAA value for 2016. And checking the NOAA numbers for 2015 against the numbers you have been pasting in from co2.earth for July also yields a significant difference. It appears that while the 2016 figures at co2.earth concur with the NOAA values, the 2015 are (for whatever reason) all significantly different. It may be co2.earth is using NOAA for 2016 and Scripps for 2015. Whatever the reason, the lower 2015 value will evidently add to any annual CO2 increase calculated from the co2.earth numbers.
2015 CO2 readings at MLO.
Date … … ..co2.earth.. … … ..NOAA…. … .. Difference
3 Jul … … 401.75 ppm … … 402.10 ppm … … +0.35 ppm
4 Jul … … 401.76 ppm … … 402.14 ppm … … +0.38 ppm
5 Jul … … 402.43 ppm … … 402.52 ppm … … +0.09 ppm
8 Jul … … 401.07 ppm … … 401.29 ppm … … +0.22 ppm
10 Jul .. … 401.46 ppm … … 401.50 ppm … … +0.04 ppm
I don’t know what co2.earth are about, but I would recommend sourcing your data direct from NOAA. Their interactive graphs give the full available daily record (although it would be more than a cut-&-paste task to upload it here at RealClimate).
For the record, using that NOAA weekly and daily averages & interpolating for absent values, the averages for the period Jul 1st – Jul 16th works out to:-
2015 … 401.88 ppm
2016 … 405.05 ppm
Annual change for period – +3.17 ppm.
In the 1997/98 El Nino, the annual CO2 increase peaked in September 1998. With the annual CO2 change dropping down substantially below the 4ppm peak, a September peak increase appears unlikely to be repeated for this present 2015/16 El Nino.
The Guardian has story on fire conditions in Amazon and leads with:
“Conditions created by the strong El Niño event that warmed up Pacific waters in 2015 and early 2016 altered rainfall patterns around the world. In the Amazon basin, that meant reduced rainfall during the wet season, plunging some parts of the region into severe drought.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/18/amazon-could-face-intense-wildfire-season-this-year-nasa-warns?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+morning+briefing+2016&utm_term=182212&subid=11249832&CMP=ema_a-morning-briefing_b-morning-briefing_c-US_d-1
More correctly, that lead should with “El Nino event and CO2 levels above 405 ppm that warmed…”
Many human beings just are not able to understand these events and their connectedness and it is the job of media and scientific community to get these things right so that humans can understand our situation and make good global decisions.
Fires in the Amazon, Siberia, and elsewhere may be presented as something close to carbon neutral on the basis that forest fires have always occurred and forests have almost always responded post-fire with new growth. There are at least two problems with this presentation: 1. I suspect we have no reasonable data about forest fires and regeneration at CO2 levels of 405 ppm. 2. At critical levels of atmospheric disruption (above 405 ppm?) any additional CO2 pulse into the atmosphere may have amplified consequences.
Now maybe we just cruise through this and we start to see CO2 levels dropping related to ENSO cycle, maybe we start to see the rate of increase of CO2 levels level off as we cycle on more clean energy and cycle off coal. But maybe we don’t. We are poking the global climate with a stick. That is not a smart move.
I think it’s past time to be quite alarmed about our situation, but cooler heads always want to argue and demonstrate their higher understanding on these matters. Like it would be a bad thing if we moved too fast to address the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Numbers:
Daily CO2
July16, 2016: 404.34 ppm
July 16, 2015: 400.85 ppm (3.49 ppm increase, better, merely catastrophic instead of terrifying number of 4 ppm and above)
June CO2
June 2016: 406.81 ppm
June 2015: 402.80 ppm (4.01 ppm)
Moderators published new comments on the 14th, then nothing until the 18th. before the 14th, it may have been Tuesday the 12th, but I am not sure about that. So, I guess we are essentially on limited comment status with updates roughly two to three times per week. I think daily is reasonable, but I think the whole media and science cycles both take weekends off and that makes sense to me. A weekend is a wonderful thing.
Warm regards,
Mike
>EG
‘oogled: No results found for “f bird printer”
You might want to run a check for viruses and malware
> iceBunny, Mike
That’s the “megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking” page, op. cit.
(their pages disappear after a while, though Google caches them)
You can get the same information, better presented and direct from the source — along with appropriate comments:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=sc
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21702167-tiny-fossils-used-date-rocks-may-not-be-accurate-clocks-once-believed-shell
Jody Wycech, D. Clay Kelly, and Shaun Marcott
Effects of seafloor diagenesis on planktic foraminiferal radiocarbon ages
Geology, July 2016, v. 44, p. 551-554, first published on June 15, 2016, doi:10.1130/G37864.1
What’s going on? I can’t access the last batch of posts. When I click on the link I find myself going around in circles. No way to treat a troll, imo. :-)
@Karen Street,
It may have been covered in the intervening comments, but And Then There’s Physics has a quick summary of how atmospheric temperatures get to where they get along with concentrations of CO2, if emissions are zeroed.
Victor, I’ve had a similar response from time to time. As a workaround, try accessing threads via the comment capsules.
@Hank:
Thanks, Hank. The source is certainly better for keeping up with the times however that apocalypse4real page, even if temporary, is the better presentation for the exploration initiative that I was suggesting to Mike as it has all the graphs available at once without the treasure hunt that most data sources offer.
I’m not sure that it matters as I’m not sure that Mike’s noticed either my or MA Rodger’s posts. ;-)
@Victor:
You’re not a troll, you’ve just a very naughty boy. ;o)
mike @129,
Further to my blather @128.
Taking the table of differences @128 & also the daily 16th & 17th differences, the average of the annual rises you calculated has been running at +0.25ppm simply due to co2.earth comparing Scripps 2015 with NOAA 2016 data.
The NOAA data and the Scripps data presented at co2.earth do show different results which can be significant during certain periods and this happens to be one of those periods. There are three considerations but the lion’s share is down to just one of those.
Firstly, the time-frame difference (Scripps use local time to define a day) will have a small effect, its size depending on the point in the annual cycle. That effect would be at its positive maximum (NOAA-Scripps) in July but would be no more than +0.025ppm (assuming NOAA use GMT). So no lion here.
Secondly, the difference in annual data from NOAA & Scripps exhibits a multi-annual wobble. This wobble shows an average difference of +0.05ppm(+/-0.2ppm 2sd) over the 1985-2015 period but the wobble for 2015 (the year co2.earth are substituting Scripps for NOAA in the comparison) is running very slightly negative at -0.06ppm, so again no lion here.
Thirdly, on top of the wobble is the monthly noise. (I’m using the monthly data.) For July 2015 (the month of substitution) the difference is +0.30ppm which concurs (or whatever lions do) with the average calculated difference of +0.25ppm.
RE #42, I didn’t read the study, so I’m not sure if by “sensitivity increasing with the warming” they meant that or that the warming caused greater GHG releases, causing greater warming. I had earlier understood that the relationship between GHGs in the atmosphere and warming was actually a log relationship, with the sensitivity decreasing, but that for our intents and purposes we could treat it as a linear relationship.
If some savvy in climate science has read the article, could they explain what they meant by increasing sensitivity.
Recently I posted that piece of the Washington Times here at realclimate:
” Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.”
” Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/michael-mann-climate-scientist-data-increasingly-u/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Now, learn about the REAL story behind it:
” 15.7.2016 – How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts the Climate Change Discourse – By Michael Mann
” It all started on Monday, June 27 with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.”
Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line.
Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair …
Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change.’
Somehow “tools” have become “data.” It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it?
Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy…”
http://www.ecowatch.com/right-wing-denial-machine-distorts-climate-change-discourse-1924120031.html
Hahaha, now, THAT’S interesting:
” 19.7.2016 – The Koch and Exxon Funded Think Tanks Supporting, and Being Courted by, Britain’s Brexit Campaigners
The Republican National Convention kicks off this week in Cleveland, Ohio and among the crowd clamouring to see Donald Trump will be one man who crossed the Atlantic to be there: Nigel Farage.
The former head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) helped lead Britain’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) and is famous for saying last year “I haven’t got a clue whether climate change is being driven by carbon-dioxide emissions.”
But he’s made the trip this week to deliver a message to Republicans that the UK’s vote to leave the EU, or ‘Brexit’, holds lessons for America.
This isn’t the first time Farage and other Brexit campaigners have visited the US to talk shop. Exactly one year ago Farage delivered a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. where he made the case for the US to support Brexit.
Prior to that in March 2015 ahead of the UK general election, the Heritage Foundation hosted former environment secretary and climate science denier Owen Paterson who also called for the US to back Britain’s “new global role” outside of the EU.
And while it may be easy to laugh off as ridiculous Lord Christopher Monckton’s calls for Texas to ‘Texit’, under the surface there appears to be a growing alliance between the Koch- and Exxon-funded American think tanks and Britain’s prominent pro-Brexit politicians and organisations.
This alliance is one which holds in common a disdain for State intervention and top down regulations, along with a uniform dismissal of climate science.
In fact, the US think tanks linked to Brexit campaigners can be found in the ‘Web of Denial’ denounced by a group of 19 Democratic Senators last week. This Web of Denial has helped to spawn and support climate science denial in the UK.
As mapping by DeSmog UK shows, there are deep-rooted connections between those who campaigned for Brexit (and now form part of the new government) and those who deny the science on climate change…”
http://www.desmog.uk/2016/07/19/koch-and-exxon-funded-think-tanks-supporting-and-being-courted-britain-s-brexit-campaigners
The more I learn, the more I get SICK OF IT 3:-)
Thanks to MAR at 128. I am reviewing and discussing with the folks at co2.earth. I will pass on what they have to say about this. I find NOAA a little difficult to navigate compared to co2.earth, but I will have to switch if co2.earth is not showing apples to apples. I camme across this page that might be useful to HR for reviewing the rate of rise in ppm on annual basis.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
In the annual increase table on left you can see annual MLO rate. You can guess at EN and LN years based on surge and fallback.
I found this website: http://www.stormfax.com/elnino.htm that appears to rank EN years and I hope it is not providing misleading info. Just a quick look at top four 1972, 1982, 2015 and 1997 seem to match well with rises in rate of increase.
I think you can see global recession expressed in declines in rate of increase. 1975, 1982, 1991 and 2009 recessions probably tug the rate of increase number down a bit, but the effect is less than EL in opposite direction.
Big/long trends in rate of increase in CO2 look like this to me:
1965 first year increase above 1 ppm (short record from 1959 forward)
1977 first year increase above 2 ppm
1987-1988 first two yr back to back increase above 2 ppm
2012-2014 first 2 yr back to back increase above 2 ppm
2015 – first year increase above 3 ppm
agree with Sidd at 126, long comment period may have some benefits. How about a Mon-Wed-Fri update commitment from moderators? Is that a possibility?
Lots of things happening on the planet: big fires in siberia and elsewhere, big melt in Greenland, big heatwave and sea ice loss in the Arctic, big heatwave building over much of the US. Nice weather in the NW, July has been cooler than normal.
Warm regards
Mike
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index
114,133,129,109,93,79
Averaged 109.5
Crude estimate for yearly average = 87. Tied with last year.
I’ll eschew too much comment on this, as MAR always does such a thorough job, but the NCEI June update is out. Unlike the UAH TLT data set, in NCEI the anomaly actually edged up slightly from May, coming in at a very toasty 0.90 C. It’s the 14th consecutive record-warm anomaly in that data set.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606
Gavin, nice to hear you interviewed on NPR by Christopher Joyce and in the article at http://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-half-of-2016-record-hot-by-far-20540
also reproduced at Scientific American at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-half-of-2016-blows-away-temperature-records/
Nice to have this news at the top of science news stories.
See, JUSTICE against the criminal causes of climate change and other eco crimes is on the way:
” A.G. Schneiderman Announces Suit Against Volkswagen Alleging Company Sold Illegally Polluting Cars
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh announced lawsuits today against Volkswagen AG and its affiliates Audi AG and Porsche AG, as well as their American subsidiaries, for the automakers’ sale of diesel automobiles (including over 25,000 in New York, 15,000 in Massachusetts and 12,935 in Maryland) that were fitted with illegal “defeat devices” that concealed illegal amounts of harmful emissions these cars spewed– and then allegedly attempting to cover-up their behavior.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMjLE0x8Dtg
Btw: Schneiderman, as you might know, is the leading attourney against Exxon Mobil et al’s climate crimes as well.
“ These suits should serve as a siren in every corporate board room, that if any company engages in this type of calculated and systematic illegality, we will bring the full force of the law — and seek the stiffest possible sanctions — to protect our citizens,” Schneiderman said.”
http://tinyurl.com/hv75czp
128 MA Rodger says: I don’t know what co2.earth are about, but I would recommend sourcing your data direct from NOAA.
Good catch. What did co2earth say to you when you told them what you found? I presume they were grateful and thanks you for pointing it out (if it is as you say it is) Is it a one off for this year, or has such errors occurred before as well?
Curious to hear any evaluations checks on this report ref’ed by IceBunny
http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com/2016/06/co2-surges-past-410-ppm-at-30-esrl.html
130 Hank Roberts: Look at the bottom edge of the web page on the desktop page. It reads
2 shares ; f ; bird ; picture of a printer ; +
Don’t google it. Look at the bottom edge of the web page. RC has put something there which interferes with navigation. Request RC remove it.
EG @ ~ 122
Scroll to the bottom of the page, hit refresh, then click fast before the social media bar reappears.
Both NOAA & NASA have declared their June temperature anomalies. Here in UK, the NOAA headline coverage sounded a lot better (on the BBC) than is usual. Recent months have been announced ‘Oh it’s hot and this is mainly due to El Nino.’ This time it was ‘Record heat. The 14th record breaking month in a row. It’s because of AGW.’ Mind, I note the “most scientists” and “at least partially to blame” appear in this BBC web item & if I hear similar on TV bulletins this evening, I think I will enact my right as a TV license payer and put in a complaint.
The NASA June anomaly was significantly cooler than May’s but was still the hottest June on record (just), while the NOAA June anomaly was slightly hotter than May’s. NASA has now had 9 hottest months on record in a row. For NOAA it is 14. A comparison with the past El Nino year’s June 1998 also shows a difference – NASA’s June this year stands 0.02ºC warmer than June 1998, NOAA stands 0.23ºC warmer.
The first 8 months of 2016 averaged +1.09ºC (NASA) & +1.06ºC (NOAA) compared with the 12-month average for 2015 of +0.87ºC (NASA) & +0.90ºC (NOAA)
The anomalies for 2015/16 and their rankings within the full record are as follows.
… … … … … … .NASA … … … … … …NOAA
2015.. 1 … +0.82ºC … 19th … …+0.81ºC … 22nd
2015.. 2 … +0.87ºC . = 15th … …+0.88ºC . = 11th
2015.. 3 … +0.90ºC . = 12th … …+0.90ºC . = 9th
2015.. 4 … +0.74ºC . = 48th … …+0.77ºC . = 31st
2015.. 5 … +0.78ºC . = 30th … …+0.85ºC . = 17th
2015.. 6 … +0.78ºC . = 30th … …+0.88ºC . = 11th
2015.. 7 … +0.73ºC . = 53rd … …+0.80ºC . = 23rd
2015.. 8 … +0.78ºC . = 30th … …+0.87ºC … 15th
2015.. 9 … +0.81ºC . = 20th … …+0.92ºC … 8th
2015. 10 … +1.07ºC … 6th … …+0.99ºC … 6th
2015. 11 … +1.03ºC … 7th … …+0.96ºC … 7th
2015. 12 … +1.10ºC … 4th … …+1.12ºC … 3rd
2016.. 1 … +1.14ºC … 3rd … …+1.05ºC … 5th
2016.. 2 … +1.33ºC … 1st … …+1.20ºC … 2nd
2016.. 3 … +1.29ºC … 2nd … …+1.22ºC … 1st
2016.. 4 … +1.09ºC … 5th … …+1.08ºC … 4th
2016.. 5 … +0.93ºC … 9th … …+0.88ºC . = 11th
2016.. 6 … +0.79ºC . = 25th … …+0.90ºC . = 9th
And GISTEMP for June is out, too; it’s 0.79C, which is warmish on the whole, yet also the coolest anomaly that we’ve seen since last August. Apparently the El Nino continues to decay.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt