Sorry for the low rate of posts this summer. Lots of offline life going on. ;-)
Meantime, this paper by Hourdin et al on climate model tuning is very interesting and harks back to the FAQ we did on climate models a few years ago (Part I, Part II). Maybe it’s worth doing an update?
Some of you might also have seen some of the discussion of record temperatures in the first half of 2016. The model-observation comparison including the estimates for 2016 are below:
It seems like the hiatus hiatus will continue…
Alfred @118 “why would anybody put solar PV on their roof before a solar water heater?”
Well, the math has to work out. My water costs (nat gas) are about $10/month. There is no way solar water heating would pay for itself at my low demand level, and I would still need nat gas or electric backup. While solar hot water may be low tech, its not cheap. Its even more expensive in areas where one has to worry about outdoor pipes freezing, as then you need a closed loop with antifreeze and a heat exchanger for transfering the heat to the water. Around here (California), people with pools have solar pool water heaters, but not many solar domestic heaters, but lots and lots of PV.
Regarding comment 35: “The model-observation comparison including the estimates for 2016 are below:” Those plots don’t show for me…
[Response: Try reloading? Anyone else having the same issue? – gavin]
Comment by Henry — 3 Aug 2016 @ 2:17 PM
I have an extension loaded in my browser (Safari) called “Disconnect”. This extension blocks trackers. If I have that enabled, I do not see the plots. If I disable Disconnect and reload, the plots appear.
@ Thomas 133: FWIW, in 1980 I spent three weeks at Jorgensen Steel in Seattle where they cast huge ingots of high-quality stainless steel from electric arc furnaces. No metallurgical coke was used. I recognize that this is not primary steel production, but a great deal of the steel coming to the U.S. from China is secondary: our own scrap returned to us.
… it presents hard conceptual challenges to which implementable, real-world solutions for working scientists are either not available or routinely ignored in practice.
Warning, 4-letter word in the link.
133 Thomas: The use of coke has got to stop. except for carbon that is going to become part of the steel. We are looking for zero CO2 production, not lower CO2 production. Coal or coke cannot be used for thermal energy. The blast furnace must be an electric arc furnace.
Sheesh. Waiting to see new posts go up on this blog is like waiting for a glacier to melt. (No sarcasm intended.)
While climate scientists have done a good job explaining the role of carbon dioxide in the Earth climate system, they are by and large utterly ignorant on energy production issues; their support for nuclear power and bogus “zero-emission coal” schemes are proof enough of this. A good example is the recent letter sent to the California Legislature signed by Hansen, Emanuel, PierreHumbert et al. opposing the closure of California’s last nuclear power plant.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Nuclear-fans-want-California-legislature-to-vote-9137626.php
You might as well ask a medical doctor to design a skyscraper, as take advice from climate scientists on what’s the best option for fossil carbon-free energy production. Stop embarrassing yourselves by trying to addess topics outside your area of expertise.
157 Racetrack Playa: What are your qualifications in nuclear power?
149 and “Sorry, Kevin, but I still don’t see a correlation between hurricane activity and CO2. ”
How convenient of you to completely ignore the Pacific ocean hurricane trends. Yeah, I know, it does not meet your agenda. And do not deny that because it is quite clear. You continue to cherry-pick data and studies and have the nerve to reference denier web blogs as sources. Time and time again you flaunt the concept that somehow you know something more than literally every professional climate science organization in the world. Learn how science is conducted.
AJ: The only “paper” I’ve noticed you mentioning here was your rejected (and laughable) paper that claimed we’re all going to die almost immediately. . . since you brought it up, how about a list of (and links to) all your wondrous works that you’ve been hiding from us?
BPL: Surely.
Peer-reviewed:
Levenson, B.P. 2011. “Planet Temperatures with Surface Cooling Parameterized.” Advances in Space Research, 47, 2044–2048.
Levenson, B.P. 2015. “Why Hart Found Narrow Ecospheres–A Minor Science Mystery Solved.” Astrobiology, 15, 327-330.
Non-peer-reviewed:
“Statistical Data on Orthoselection for Intelligence.” Tripolitan (J. Tripoli Sci. Assn.) 15, 5-10. Levenson, B.P. 1983.
“Social Design Considerations for a Lunar Colony.” Selenology 6, 22-28. Levenson, B.P. 1987.
“An Examination of Jules Verne’s Moon Gun, ‘Columbiad’.” Selenology 7, 19-21. Levenson, B.P. 1988.
“Analysis of the August 17, 1989 Total Lunar Eclipse.” The Strolling Astronomer (J. Am. Lunar Planetary Soc.) 38, 61-64. Graham, Francis G. and B.P. Levenson 1995.
“Get Your Stars Straight.” The Lyriodical, 3rd Quarter 2009
MEI has posted for June/July prompting a round-up of ENSO indicators.
MEI is showing a decline pretty-much in sync with the 1997/98 El Nino. The comparison is graphed here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which also compares aggregates of surface & troposphere temperatures (showing a more spikey temperature response than in 1997/98).
The data for NINO3/4 show Pacific temperatures holding up without the drop into a La Nina as per 1998 (NINO3/4 -1.4ºC early Aug 1998,, -0.4ºC early Aug 2016). NINO3/4 predictions (from last month – this month is awaited) suggest no full La Nina but ‘marginally’ neutral conditions continuing into next year. Also SOI has not risen to the La Nina values seen following the 1997/98 El Nino (which were +15 back then, today +4).
Another difference between now & 1997/98 is the 12-month CO2 rise which peaked in size back in August 1998. As commented up-thread, this time the peak 12-month rise has already happened & now it is shrinking such that, with the annual autumn dip in CO2 levels and the 12-month rise also shrinking, there looks to be sub-400ppm values recorded at MLO this September (enjoy – this will be the last time), be it daily averages, a weekly average or even a monthly one.
For the steel and aluminum boys:
Yet another bizarre discussion that presumes some kind of Stalinist industrial policy where you guys are advisors trying to convince the Commissar of the optimal modality he should impose. There is no “we”, so there is no “we should do X”. Not in the US, at least.
The answer is simple. If you want to have one of these manufacturing facilities, while minimizing production of CO2, get together with others of like interest and build a generating facility to supply your particular needs. This could take the form of:
1. Hydro.
2. Build a nuclear plant that matches your load, or contract with someone who will.
Others will meet their particular requirements as they see fit– residential users, commercial users, non-continuous manufacturing, and so on, each optimizing their generation and consumption choices.
What’s the problem?
Ed Greisch: 137 in responses to Omega 97:
“already above 400 ppm CO2” -> “we have to produce ZERO CO2” -> “That is not the same as reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 85% [argued by Omega]. We can’t get to 100% reduction, but we must do better. We can get over 95% reduction” -> “we need fossil fuels”
Well, for the guy who lectures others that they should have done their homework you certainly don’t do what you preach:
No, to start reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere we don’t need “ZERO CO2 emissions”. If you have done your homework, my “professor”, you would have known that about HALF of the emissions does not stay in the atmosphere, but instead is taken up by sinks. Which means that even if we cut the CO2 emissions by 50% – CO2 in the atmosphere should stabilize, and therefore any cut ABOVE 50% would actually START TO REDUCE CO2 conc. The more we cut above 50% the quicker. So Omega’s “85% reduction” you ridicule as insufficient may be not as laughable as you imply – it would allow sustained REDUCTION of atmospheric CO2, why at the same time the remaining 15% of CO2 emissions may be enough to address your “windless dark night in February”, just in case if the wind does not blow in any other part of the continent and all hydroreservoirs have run out of water. ;-).
But don’t let my “obnoxious” arguments make you question your expertise, my dear professor Greisch.
Piotr
—
” The professor assumed that you are smart enough to figure out what is your homework assignment. He showed you how to do the problem. Piotr is to finish it. The answer is so obvious that I am not going to do the homework for you.” Ed Greisch
Victor the Troll ignores my warnings @106. To err is human, to promulgate lies is monstrous. Sadly, as like attracts like, trolls will thus be attracted to the purveyors of monstrous lies and to uncorrected devilish incompetence.
So it is no surprise to read @142 that Victor the Troll is a frequent visitor to the denialist planet Wattsupia. He tells us of Lord High Willard ” I read his blog regularly and have learned a lot from it.” Within the gobshite that sloshes round planet Wattsupia and despite my warnings @106, Victor the Troll still feels we should be made aware of the analysis of one Danley Wolfe who apparently “thoroughly explains his methodology.” I suppose this is correct in that the accumulation of error in the gobshite Wolfe presents is quite apparent, unless that is you are unaware of his work’s Wattsupian origins and thus more inclined to take what he says at face value.
Victor the Troll has been warned above @106 that this work of Wolfe’s is dodgy. And he knows its origins, even describing that “it comes to us via the notorious WUWT website.” Yet he still manages @150 to say of Wolfe’s analysis posted on Wattsupia “if you read the article you’ll see that his reasoning is sound.” So convinced is Victor the Troll of the importance of this Wolfe analysis, Victor tells us he has written a book about it.
But the testament of Victor the Troll is not worth the diodes it is encoded in because Victor is incredibly stupid and his views distorted by his implacable denial of man-made climate change.
Mind, if the work of Wolfe were true, there would be some rather interesting implications.
Welcome to the new Victor-Wolfe year which comprises just 9.6 months or 293 days.
Welcome to a new understanding of climate and geography with new continents appearing on the maps – Atlantica, Pacfica, Indiana, Arctica, etc as the oceans are now land.
Welcome to a new kind of science where – Look into my eyes! Look into my eyes!! – the manipulated visual appearance of something is all-important, where construction lines are allowed to create the illusion of your choice. This last is a worrying concept as the human mind is not unsusceptible to such perversion of reality.
I have to say that when examined clearly, the world view of the likes of Victor the Troll is truly a nightmare.
And now for something more on topic:
I keep hearing people reporting from the latest massive flooding event saying something like: “We never expected this much rain to fall.”
Perhaps I missed it being covered here, but could someone explain how that’s possible? This is meteorology, not “that flaky climate change stuff”. Why are the predictions that far off?
142 Victor says: “because for you there is no hope. No matter what data or analysis you are confronted with you will not only deny it, you will toss a royal hissy fit over it.
That and the rest is cheap as chips teenage level debating with extra adhom on top for free. It sure isn’t valid true or even half sciency … it’s quite sad actually.
155 Ed Greisch says: “We are looking for zero CO2 production”
Are “we”? I think you’re dreaming.
“The blast furnace must be an electric arc furnace.” I still think you’re dreaming.
China’s communist party just announced a return to push bikes for all Chinese personal transportation except buses and trains. Trump said he would match that with a new Presidential decree to ban all cars and SUVs on public roads from Feb 1st in the USA. Anything China can do the USA can do better.
Meanwhile Narendra Modi announced the shutting down and deconstruction of all coal and gas fired power stations in India on 13th Sept 2016. When asked how would the people survive he said “Well they can all eat cake.” Apparently he has contracts signed to sell the now defunct and useless electricity towers and wires to China to make bicycles.
Seriously. I’m all for legging it, bicycles, safe gen 4 nuclear, renewables, batteries, public transport, and the end to clear felling and new coal mines and new oil fields. I’m also for realism and practicality too.
The last leader to use the word “Zero” in a manifesto was Pol Pot. It didn’t bother him much but it did not work out too well for others.
154 Hank Roberts – I saw two … “real hard” :-)
157 Racetrack Playa says: “Stop embarrassing yourselves by trying to address topics outside your area of expertise.”
That’s funny, I often say the same thing about the media, politicians, corporate boards, shareholders, bloggers, religious ministers and gurus.
At least Hansen has some proven intelligence, a functional philosophy about Life, and common sense. :-)
Victor@156
What’s the matter, Victor? Don’t the existing posts provide ample opportunity for you to demonstrate your ignorance?
As a relative newcomer to this comments section, I am astonished by the destructive endeavors of two demonstrably trolls that practically monopolize any and all discussions here: Victor and Ed Greisch. Is there not a way to simply stop feeding them, after which hopefully they would move elsewhere? It’s a real pity, because I was hoping to find an up-to-date website with mostly scientific/public policy discussions, but any interesting information is literally drowned in the noise from these two individuals.
I’ll be back in six or twelve months to check on how things are going, presumably we’ll be around 410ppm and 0.1C warmer by then.
Many thanks to all who participate in a meaningful way in this otherwise excellent website.
I think it’s time for me to repeat my request from several months ago:
Could you PLEASE (pretty, pretty please) split this into two threads: one for science and one for engineering?
As it is, the engineering (and far more abundant pseudo-engineering) posts completely dominate the site, to the point where I’ve given up coming here to learn anything about the latest news in climate SCIENCE.
This could return to being a very informative and valuable site, but you’ve allowed a small group of persistent trolls to completely hijack it.
At the risk of this thread being a lost cause, let me just refer to the original post regarding Hourdin etl al 2016. It’s funny that the deniers don’t even see the sheen or this pyrite…
“parameterizations are needed for many components not amenable to first-principle approaches at the grid scale of a global model, including boundary layers, surface hydrology, ecosystem dynamics, and so on. Each parameterization, in turn, typically depends on one or more parameters whose numerical values are poorly constrained by first principles or observations at the grid scale of global models.”
This is a very interesting truth that should inspire future bright minds to get into climate science. More to the point of the paper:.
“tuning consists in choosing parameter values in such a way that a certain measure of the deviation of the model output from selected observations or theory is minimized or reduced to an acceptable range. Defined this way, tuning is usually called calibration in other application areas of complex numerical models (Kennedy and O’Hagan 2001). Some climate modelers are reluctant to use this term however since they know that, by adjusting parameters, they also compensate, intentionally or not, for some (often unknown) deficiencies in the model formulation itself.”
Calibrating vs tuning… Anyone want to start?
“. . . two demonstrably trolls that practically monopolize any and all discussions here: Victor and Ed Greisch.”
In all fairness to Victor the Troll (aka Victor the Bad Boy of Climate Change), he actually abstained from posting here for some time, giving everyone a chance to recover and return to their usual indulgence in mindless blather (sorry, that’s Victor the Bad Boy talking — shame on you, Vic).
Mr. Rodger’s favorite troll has returned lately because he senses a disturbance in the climate change force that might very well have a real impact, and can’t resist being part of it.
Beginning with the very surprising and eminently non-dogmatic paper by Fyffe et al. (aided and abetted by, of all people, Michael Mann), not only is the “hiatus” back in force, but there is now a highly visible and visibly growing rift emerging in the solid brick wall of “consensus” with which “the science” has surrounded itself. Sensing a weakness, Victor has decided to move in for the kill. It will not be pretty. But imo it is necessary, if any of us are going to survive the next few turbulent years with our sanity intact.
The remarkable scattergram by Danley Wolfe is part of this revolution, which is why I included references to it in recent posts. But all the other links I’ve offered constitute powerful witness to a serious correction in the thinking of climate scientists that might not yet have garnered much media attention, but is due for it some time soon.
To repeat: there has been much too much harping on recent extreme events (aka “noise”) and far too little attention given to the actual science (aka signal, better known as correlation — or lack of it). Wherever Victor looks he sees NO evidence of long term trends in just about all the types of events that are now getting so much hysterical attention. Sooner or later the bubble of hype is bound to burst. And I want to be here when it does. Sorry if some of the regulars here are offended.
piotr — The partial pressure of carbon dioxide at the ocean surface tends to equilibrium in the atmosphere and the water. If carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere some of it in the oceans will replace some of that removed.
For completeness the carbon dioxide in soils, the ocean and the atmosphere has to be considered together.
To avoid a 25 meter sea level rise at the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will require net negative carbon dioxide emissions in the near future. By the way, the sea level rise estimate is from the Wikipedia page on Pliocene climate. In the mid-Pliocene the carbon dioxide concentration was about the same as now.
“Is there not a way to simply stop feeding them …”
Ja, it’s called the page down key.
Empirically, the Usenet experience advises self control. If you think someone is trolling, ignore them. Reply not, nor comment on their behaviour. Shunning used to be a term once.
But Usenet did have killfiles too. Greasemonkey used to have a similar thing.
Thomas @136 says ref. computers: “sure as hell know how to use one properly to gain true knowledge via the internet”
I profoundly disagree with the ‘true’. I have kept my encyclopedias from the early 20th century and the differences between historical observation records are often poles apart from the internet. e.g. Russia operated a shipping route for the flax trade across their northern territorial waters when ice was similar to what we experience today. That closed down in the 1950’s because the ice returned. Try finding that detail on the internet. I have numerous examples.
You say ‘Your beliefs are your problem’. And likewise your beliefs (not sure where ‘problem’ comes in) are yours. We just agree to differ. That doesn’t mean either of us are right.
I look at this site from time to time to get some balance in my understanding and force an open mind. I’d recommend a trip to WUWT for you from time to time and practice an open mind.
MA Rodger @143. Actually Wikipedia has a nice collection of historical temperature data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Eyeballing the charts I’d say we are in for a mighty roller coaster. Current temperatures look pretty idyllic by comparison.
BTW. It was Thomas who said he lived in Australia to which I was referencing. I do indeed live in NZ, I’m hoping those few degrees to the next ice age, which you mention, are offset by your belief that the earth is warming:)
Victor, various responses to my responses:
I’ll be brief, Victor. You make ‘correlation’ an ‘idol of the mind,’ yet refuse to take your own criterion seriously by actually applying it. The only reason I can see for doing so, is that that allows you to reach the conclusion that you prefer.
Illuminating, I think, in this context is your quote from Fyffe:
“Statistical analysis is a vital tool in any climate scientist’s toolbox. However, even the application of sophisticated statistical tools can shed more heat than light, particularly in arguments that focus on limited aspects of statistical significance rather than on broader physical understanding.”
You quote this, yet none of the papers you cited did the ‘statistical analysis’ necessary to support the claims you based on them. Further, you also ignore precisely the “broader physical understanding” that Fyffe says is crucial. (Examples: ignoring the confounding variable of land use in the CONUS heatwave graph you cited, or, in the same post, pretending that a decisive trend in heat versus cold records is not relevant to heatwave statistics as well.)
Why? I can only conclude that there are certain things that you just don’t want to know.
MAR@161: You note that pacific ocean temps are not falling into La Nina state as they did in 1998. I think the ocean heat cycle may be less inclined to make that EN-LN transition because so much heat has been stored in the ocean since 1998. Also, I worry that we are seeing the early stages of fundamental changes in oceans on the globe: slowing of AMOC, stratification with glacial melt water input, acidification and expansion of dead zones. I don’t think we have a lot of data about how an ocean proceeds from healthy state to Canfield state. Ugly area of science to jump into.
I don’t track data on ocean state, not sure what that would be or where I would find it. Global ocean state comes to my attention as anecdotes about bleaching, dead zones, loss of fisheries, jellyfish “blooms” etc. This kind of anecdotal sampling is startling and alarming, but does not have a steady “pulse” that I can track like atmospheric CO2 and CO2e levels.
On atmospheric pulse – I hope you are right, but I fear you are wrong with prediction that we will see anything below 400 ppm at any level except the random low-spikey day that is essentially an outlier as far as the trends are concerned. We can/will revisit in September.
I am on record with projection of 404.1 for August monthly and 402.8 for September monthly. I think I am about 1 ppm on the high side with the annual trough of CO2 level, but I don’t see us having any weekly numbers under 400 ppm again. I would love to be wrong about that. I think we are in uncharted territory with changes in carbon sinks and the slow transition from sinks to net positive status of global features like the over-heated Amazon forest and thawing permafrost.
Don’t feed the trolls!
Too hot in the NW this week. I am packing up and taking a grandkid to one of my favorite river swimming spots for a couple of days. Time to soak my old bones in a beautiful river.
Mike
Good troll, man.
Is it possible to add a hindcast/forecast demarcation line to the top graph, similar to the line in the second graph? The two graphs are clearly different, and it would help to underststand how much of the top graph is hindcast.
“Leaving aside the formal statistical significance (an issue we explore later), we note first that all of the temperature time series shown by Rahmstorf et al. exhibit a slowdown – that is, the warming rate between 2001 to 2014 is less than the warming rate from 1972 to 2001, regardless of the data set used or which method is employed to estimate slopes.”
One might wonder why Fyffe et al chose to make an apples to oranges comparison between dissimilar time periods, or why they “chose” 2001 – 2014 instead of 2003 – 2016, which shows virtually identical rates of warming to 1972 – 2001
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2/from:1972/plot/gistemp/from:1972/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1972/to:2001/trend
Marine Heatwaves
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/15/the-blob-how-marine-heatwaves-are-causing-unprecedented-climate-chaos
180 Dear Hank … http://www.dictionary.com/browse/context ? :-)
176 Titus says: “Try finding that detail on the internet”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/83885551
http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Foreign%20trade%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union&item_type=topic
http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol03/tnm_3_2_1-17.pdf
Sorry Titus I have been using the ‘internet’ properly for 19 years.
Thanks for the tip about WUWT. I have been there before. After I finish my OT-VIII at Scientology and complete my new book which proves beyond all doubt the Planet is only 8,000 years old, based on the truth of the Bible, I will drop in there again. Take care.
157 Racetrack Playa a PS fyi on Hansen et al
2008 Nuclear Power (page 6)
On one of my trips I read a draft of “Prescription for the Planet” by Tom Blees, which I highly recommend. Let me note two of its topics that are especially relevant to global warming.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf
2014 Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo:
(context) These misconceptions have a greater impact on prospects for stabilizing climate and preserving the remarkable life on our planet than fossil fuel lobbyists and climate change deniers will ever have.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
My take away from Hansen is that he is intelligent enough to recognize his own limitations and then has the intelligence to recognize sound reasoning by others who are expert in their own fields, eg the latest in Nuclear developments.
One could couple those missives with his real science contributions of the critical nature of energy use and climate eg http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06610d.html
Hansen also promotes a carbon “Fee-and-dividend is democratic”, and while I disagree (mainly because it is too late) I still see he has every right to push it. Even when employed at Nasa/Giss I personally believe he had every right to present his own political / social views publicly even when/if they disagreed with the Govt who paid his wages.
The US system (and here in Oz) is often far closer to Stalinism & Mao than it would like to admit… as it goes about silencing people’s free speech being aired in proper venues by any means possible.
Climate Scientists are “We the People” too. I would rather hear more speaking publicly about their “political opinions” and the Laws of the land than less – no matter who they “work for” and irrespective of their scientific papers.
Every Corporate Billionaire seems to have a god-given right to get onto the news regularly to sprout their self-important opinions about anything and everything they are not “experts” in. A little more balance cannot hurt anyone imo.
another good note by Hansen here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20160323_DangerousReticence.pdf
source: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/
Hank Roberts 180 says
Thomas may be trolling but maybe worth feeding. In saying
does he really know what he means? (Or do we?)
There are just four or five few years left before the carbon budget for 1.5°C is blown. It’s roughly 30 tonnes CO2 per person in the world. Driving a car for a year is 4 tonnes, building the infrastructure for an extra person in a “modern” city is about 100 tonnes.
Clearly 1.5°C has no realism to it. 2°C little realism. (Climate and carbon emissions: It’s worse than you think).
OK, those of us in the powerful world (including the UK?) can say “Screw it. The rest can take the strain.” Unfortunately the rest want to live like us and are becoming powerful too.
This does not leave any solutions that can “realistically” be put forward. The “realism and practicality” from Thomas comes from a political reading of our situation. It is one that is unrealistic in ignoring the laws of physics. (Lord Deben, Lord Stern and the Physics-Politics Gap)
Is there any hope? Realistically? No.
However, I dream about a lifestyle with hardly any cars killing with their pollution, with local employment, with locally grown food and without their populations surging round the world chasing Pokémons.
Ed Greisch @ 137
MOL for a metal melting mill, is 100%. If the melt cools off, it hardens in place and welds onto whatever it is touching. The furnace must then be replaced. That is equivalent to buying a new mill.
This is an example-based restating of your earlier point, not a response to the replies on it.
So your response is to state that we’re over the ‘safe’ limit of 350ppm and need to do better.
Obviously we’re not going to stop CO2 emissions tomorrow. It seemed from your comments that you were eschewing solar because it could not completely replace fossil energy sources, storage being one issue and intermittent supply another.
No idea what you think at this point: It’s too late, and slow fixes are a waste of time? We need to not only reduce GHG emissions but somehow draw down atmospheric concentrations to the 350 ‘safe’ level?
Hoping for a more responsive reply, I’ll repeat my original:
“What is your point, exactly, or what is the one you are rebutting? That wind and solar can completely replace all other forms of energy? That enough batteries to ensure this is affordable?
Would it be sufficient to reduce GHG emissions by 85% [or more, ASAP]? It’s the rate of change of climate change that matters most, isn’t it?”
You seem to be implying that because solutions aren’t perfect they’re no good, but it’s hard to tell. Can you clarify?
Titus @177.
I think if you revisit my comment @143 you will see that I make no mention of any “next ice age”. The processes precipitating such an event were slow and caused by small forcings. They have been well-&-truly stopped dead in their tracks by man-made climate change.
You point to a Wikipedia page sporting a collection of graphics illustrating paleoclimate on different time scales. A while back somebody was working to create a scheme that would allow all these various paleo-data to be plotted together on one single graph covering all time scales. One such scheme still resides in my files & may be of interest. See here.
adam at 173: I think the whole question of the models is a minefield. I stated a few months ago that I thought the question of choices of values used in the model (specifically around ECS, as I recall) were a problem and I got slammed by folks here about the “fact” that the issue of the values was driven by physics, that the tuning/parameterization described in Hourdin (and that I was talking about)were essentially the talking points of denialists. It’s a problem that a person cannot question the basic construction of the models without being lumped into the anti-science crowd. I think the models are shite for many important purposes. I think Gavin said all the models are wrong.
I asked earlier this month if anyone knew of a GCM that showed good match in it’s prediction of sea ice loss, glacial changes and I got no meaningful responses. I don’t think it’s a secret that the models are not good with this important function.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-arent-climate-models-better-at-predicting-arctic-sea-ice-loss
Personally, I would be interested in a discussion of the models, but I think it’s a sideshow to the heat we are experiencing and the rising rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. I think that is the main show. We appear to have entered an era of 3 ppm annual increase. Bad news.
I also think that a discussion of reduced levels aerosols in the atmosphere and correlation with heat, torrential rains, etc is in order and probably more important than a protracted argument over the climate models, but we could do both. Everyone should stop feeding the trolls and taking the bait when it is offered so frankly and deliberately, then we could use the UV thread for interesting discussion. Ad hominen attacks and petty feuds are pathetic and uninteresting to me. There is a plethora of interesting factoids to discuss.
I think our species (and a lot of other species) is wading into the sixth great extinction. Not much that we can do about that. We will probably try geo-engineering and war as our means to handle the challenge. I think geo-engineering is a pretty terrible idea, but war is even worse. Syria? Libya? Global warming migrations have begun. Can our species help refugees and be kind to each other or will we choose ideological conflict? (that, btw, is a rhetorical question)
The drop in aerosols related to drop in coal burning is more interesting to me than reading the entrails of the GCM morass, but that’s just me.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-katrina-changed-climate-research-19386
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/aerosols-masking-hurricane-trend-20599
Last Week
August 7 – 13, 2016 402.88 ppm
August 7 – 13, 2015 399.24 ppm
3.64 ppm increase year to year. that is a terrible number. Last week was 5.04 ppm increase.
fasten your seatbelts, put your trays in the upright position, turbulence ahead.
too warm here, heading for the Washougal River basin for a couple days.
Cheers,
Mike
A correction for some of the mistaken optimism posted lately here in comments:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/climate-inertia/
Ed G: To go with renewables only, you need a whole week’s worth of battery power for the whole world because Europe can have a long cold cloudy calm winter. The batteries can run down over several months.
AJ: Naw. Ya just need ethanol and methane to keep things spinning. We’ve already got all those shiny new natural gas plants. We’ll have to either trash or decarbonize them. Biofuel hybrid vehicles will do what no EV can do: support the grid at night and still perform as a vehicle the next morning. And your article doesn’t support your conclusion about supergrids. It says tech is on the cusp of making worldwide transmission cost about 2 cents a KWH.
On solar hot water: I deliberately made my comment hyperbolic by leaving out the word “consider”. As Omega noted, solar hot water is perfect for swimming pools. It’s also grand in warmer climates (and since we have to build for the future, that’s most? of the USA) Narrow thinking that envisions a single savior is simply wrong in a zero carbon world. Every form of energy has strengths and weaknesses.
Mike McGee of CO2.earth has responded to my enquiries about his postings of daily MLO CO2. He thanks us for showing him a source of last year’s daily NOAA MLO CO2 data which he was conscious he was lacking and which he is now using for his postings. So one positive result.
July 84 Projected J-D global temp anomaly = 95
Brian Cox attempt to educate newly elected Australian Senator aka climate science denier and foil hat conspiracy theorist live on TV … he fails of course … I think Cox was in “shock” while he spoke about his preference for democracy (considering what that sometimes produces).
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm
(see video from 11 mins and 39 mins)
The new Senator is seeking “empirical evidence” human produced CO2 causes global warming. It’s August 2016 btw.
Gavin, your mates at Nasa/Giss should get a good laugh out of the Q&A video. Apparently, the 1930s were warmer than today but Nasa has manipulated the data. LOL
https://twitter.com/hashtag/qanda?src=hash
Ed Greisch says: “We are looking for zero CO2 production”
Thomas: Are “we”? I think you’re dreaming.
AJ: Well, zero (or negative) net planetary carbon would be more accurate.
——–
David B Benson: For completeness the carbon dioxide in soils, the ocean and the atmosphere has to be considered together.
AJ: And folks seldom consider the ramifications of that trinity. Our glacial/interglacial climate has existed with a relatively constant amount of carbon. Now, how does one hold atmospheric carbon constant when we’ve added so much to the grand total? Eventually, we’ll have to rebury most of carbon we’ve dug up, and not in the ocean or topsoil. That carbon is still “in play” (though topsoil can be “on the way out”).
Nasa reports new record temp for July 2016. Ok then. Seems to fit the co2 ppm, el nino, and heat waves across middle east and so on. Oooops? So much for Paris.
Lewandowsky on Malcolm Roberts et al Aug 11th with ref links
“There is now ample research showing the link between science denial and conspiracism. This link is supported by independent studies from around the world. Indeed, the link is so established that conspiracist language is one of the best diagnostic tools you can use to spot pseudoscience and science denial.”
https://theconversation.com/the-galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-the-three-main-tactics-of-climate-denial-63719
Think Victor and Titus and …