As NSIDC’s ChArctic plots show, the Arctic Sea Ice has at last begun to take the coming winter seriously and close up on the Sea Ice Extent levels of previous years. Today (7th Nov) it sits 582,000 sq km below 2012 and 1,075,000 sq km below the ‘pack’ of other years. These gaps have closed some 200,000 sq km in recent days.
The reason for the slow freeze this year is because it is rather warm up there. The DMI daily temperature plots show a large diviation from the climatology but the DMI graphic doesn’t allow an understanding of how much of this deviation is part of the usual Arctic variations. Happily Andrew Slater of NSIDC plots the same thing but showing statistical variation. Today’s temperatures are well above anything output by these reanalysis in the past.
And this recent warming since June does not yet feature on this time-series plot of the data (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which plots 12-month rolling averages of Slater’s data since 1979, last data June 2016, showing them already higher than previous years before this toasty Arctic Autumn began.
As NSIDC Sea Ice News report for October, it was ‘hot’ up there thro’ October which was was a dramaitc record for low SIE. It remains ‘hot’ according to DMI. So expect November to be an even bigger record-breaking SIE low. PIOMAS for October shows the Sea Ice Volume is not yet leading the pack but in second-place, now trailing 512 cu km behind 2012 having closed that gap 230 cu km since September.
(And just so as not to be a party-pooper, the Antarctic has decided to join the record-breaking club, with ChArctic – or should that be ChAntarctic – showing 2016 150,000 sq km below second-place 1986 & 680,000 sq km below the ‘pack’. Not quite as impressive as the Arctic is, but in recent years the Antarctic has been breaking records in the other direction with 2014 & 2015 both running impressive record highs for SIE.)
thomas @261 (October Unforced Variations),
Would this paper on modelling of CO2 sources help – Feely et al (1999)? The paper referenced in this Met Office press release is unfortunately paywalled but the release blames it on CO2 sinks. I’m no expert but I think it’s a bit of both.
I was skimming the arctic sea ice forum and getting the impression that the average thickness is creeping down toward 1/2 meter. I gather that the icecap in that thickness is subject to being torn apart by winter storms, so the iceheads tend to describe the ice extent that is in the 1/2 meter range as essentially rotten ice because it is such an unstable mix of new freeze and low thickness multi-year ice. In that big picture, I think I understand better how it could be that we would lose the icecap as a winter rather than summer melt event. You can kind of see that happening this year with the strange sideways motion of sea ice extent after the low point where a normal year starts the curve up rather smoothly after the low point.
This is complicated stuff, there is air temperature to consider plus the rising ocean temp. We could use a cold blob in the north pacific and up into bering sea to stabilize the ice cap, but maybe we are not going to get that cold blob we need. Too bad for us.
Still seeing the 3.3 to 3.5 range increase in CO2 in year 2016 over year 2015 comparison.
Oh yeah. election day. We need a president and congress that really get the AGW problem and are ready to take serious action to address the problem. I am hoping to see the WA State carbon tax initiative pass. It’s a pretty modest proposal, fingers crossed on that one.
Mike
Lawrence Colemansays
Well in light of the disastrous election result, I think I speak for everyone in RC at how shocked and saddenened I am by the surprise result. My disdain for the democratic system has not been quelled one little bit. We have got to get together and fight for this planet like never before. Those of us who understand the deep and profound implications of the promised environmental apocylpse to engulf this planet, we have got to get out there and educate, inspire and tear apart the vail of ignorance covering so many people’s eyes. DT got in due to high degrees of abject ignorance of far far too many americans. We have got to make our voices head!! Sorry for the rushed nature of this post and the disjointed flow. We are heading for dangerous and challenging times ahead. We have to stand together and fight. Fight for the future viability of this beautiful planet.
“We need a president and congress that really get the AGW problem and are ready to take serious action to address the problem.”
:-(
Jim Eagersays
Things fall apart
The center cannot hold
And a blood dimmed tide
Is loosed upon the world
Nothing is sacred
The ceremony sinks
Innocence is drowned
In anarchy
The best lack conviction
Given some time to think
And the worst are full of passion
Without mercy
… Joni Mitchel, adapted from William Butler Yeats
Heard last night: 229 years is a pretty good run for a republic.
Sic gloria transit mundi
Brysonsays
As Josh Whedon once wrote, in a fictional dark aftermath, “where do we go from here? It’s hard to say. Fiction and fantasy, shaped to serve the obvious interests, have won control of the entire federal government. The founding fathers divided power carefully, in hopes of preventing any faction from taking full control, and forcing negotiation and compromise in government. For the last six years the result was an unhappy paralysis– but now we really do have a faction in control, with many subfactions to satisfy. No doubt the real, established money will come first– tax cuts for the rich, roll-back of any constraints on fossil fuels, complete rejection of any action on climate change. The latter, of course, is the darkest news to come out of this– our slim chances of keeping global temperature increase below 2 degrees C are going down fast, and our legacy to the future is looking even uglier.
Wheels Of Confusionsays
I think we can write off any meaningful science-based climate policies from the US for the next few years, perhaps even write off a big chunk of climate research at all.
Although Trump has portrayed himself as the ultimate outsider, in putting together a transition team the New York real estate mogul has chosen veteran Washington insiders, many of them lobbyists for fossil fuel companies and skeptics about climate science.
Oil industry executives were delighted.
“It sure looks a whole lot friendlier than it would have under President Podesta … I mean President Clinton,” Stephen Brown, vice president of government relations for the oil refiner Tesoro, said, referring to John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman who views steps to slow climate change a high priority and who led climate efforts under Obama.
Brown predicted that the Paris climate accord “will be scrapped quickly,” obstacles and “procedural hurdles” to infrastructure projects such as pipelines would be reexamined, and regulations about the social cost of carbon and other environmental impacts would be “gone.”
“The Clean Power Plan will die a slow death,” he said, adding that public lands permitting for oil and gas drilling would open up.
Feeding off the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party has become riddled with lobbyists, billionaires, and hustlers who pocket huge sums of money by running either nonprofit “think tanks” or election-cycle networks, and politicians who, indeed, are focused mostly on reelection. Surrounding the party are extremely well-paid non-profit leaders, who end up defending the status quo.
Chief component of the Clinton machine in recent years, the Clinton Foundation operated somewhat out of sight.
The big donations streaming from anti-union powerhouses like Wal-Mart or big financial entities like Bank of America not only whitewashed the policies of interests directly opposed to what the Democratic Party should stand for, but they also clouded the deeper systemic crisis within the party. We can only address climate change, poverty and global inequality by axing the very system benefiting many of the donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Fast forward to the 2016 election. There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump.
and
What was often given short shrift was his broader philosophical willingness to challenge American exceptionalism. Many times, including during two national debates, he pointed out that, while he was proud as a son of immigrants to be an American, this country has supported repressive dictators, sent the CIA on missions to help overthrow democratically elected governments that were not supportive enough of our interests and sent our young men and women to die in immoral wars.
And he wasn’t afraid to point out that those failed foreign policies have been bedrocks of the Democratic Party for several decades.
Rather than foster a good debate during the primaries, the party, obsessed with the coronation of an anointed candidate, set out to destroy Sanders and his movement.
The various email leaks showing broad collusion only confirmed what was patently obvious on the surface: We stood in opposition to a virtual wall of elected Democratic officials, and party functionaries.
[note: you can’t unscramble an egg]
Casiquiaresays
There’s a paper floating around that I have seen at some point but I can’t seem to find it, so I’m hoping someone can point me in the right direction.
The paper explains a simulation of the spectral anomaly of the OLR from the top of the atmosphere based on measurements of the accumulating ocean heat content, and shows that there is agreement with satellite observed spectral anomalies.
Many thanks if someone knows which paper I’m talking about.
Eskosays
Trump may not yet be too deep in denial. Could it be that he just hasn’t thought about it much? Now would be the time to explain to him that climate action is the winning strategy. He likes to win. Being global leader regarding climate action would ensure that USA wins globally. He would have the chance to be the biggest winner ever. Any ideas how to make him get this? Are there any proper climate scientists etc. who would have access to him? I understand that what I say is completely naïve. But during these fact-free times I’m fine being naïve once or twice a year.
There’s a paper floating around that I have seen at some point but I can’t seem to find it, so I’m hoping someone can point me in the right direction.
>
This paper may be what you are thinking of:
Harries, J. E., Brindley, H. E., Sagoo, P. J. and Bantges, R. J. (2001) ‘Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997’, Nature, vol. 410, no. 6826, pp. 355–357.
It made a stir when it was published implying that it proved global warming was caused by greenhouse gases. But it does not! They measured the radiation being emitted at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) in the IR window. In other words in the part of the spectrum where greenhouse gases do not operate. All they were showing was that the planet had warmed.
Moreover, the climate models are based on the idea that the surface warms because the TOA balance has to be maintained, ie the outgoing radiation stays constant despite more greenhouse gases. This causes the surface to warms in order to force the radiation through. So, if the models are correct, (which they are not), then the radiation in the greenhouse bands at the TOA should be unchanged.
…and the conservation of energy radiated wrt energy absorbed does not imply that the frequency distribution cannot change. (Having some posting issues here.)
Casiquiaresays
Thanks Alistair.
That’s not the paper. In the one I am thinking of the researchers specifically use the change in OHC over time to simulate the variation in the spectrum of OLR.
“the climate models are based on the idea that the surface warms because the TOA balance has to be maintained, ie the outgoing radiation stays constant despite more greenhouse gases. This causes the surface to warms in order to force the radiation through. So, if the models are correct, (which they are not), then the radiation in the greenhouse bands at the TOA should be unchanged.”
Really? My understanding was that OLR at TOA responds to an increase in GHGs by decreasing power output at GHG active wavelengths. Outgoing power then gradually increases until a new radiative equilibrium is achieved which may take hundreds of years.
Tony Weddlesays
In his Scientific American commentary about the US presidential election result, Michael Mann said: “The rest of the world is no longer debating climate change, it is moving on with a rapid transition to carbon-free energy.“. Does anyone know what this “carbon-free” energy is?
Dansays
re: 19. “There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump.”
Late on Election Night I turned to a friend and said someone would say this after the election as you just. It is ridiculous. There is little doubt at all that Bernie would have lost badly. Because a. the GOP would have ripped him for his socialist background and even his religion via dog whistles which appeal to the alt-right crowd, and b. they actually wanted him to run (think of all the things they said to support him over Clinton) because they knew he would be a weaker link, and c. unfortunately in this climate there is no way in the world a socialist Jew who was not even a Democrat before running would have appealed more to people. And I say that as a Jew.
That was not all Harries et al. found. Here’s their abstract:
“The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes–most importantly the hydrological cycle–that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
In any case, we have direct confirmation of increased back-radiation from greenhouse gases in the absorption lines of those greenhouse gases:
Philipona, R., B. Du”rr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004. “Radiative Forcing–Measured at Earth’s Surface–Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202
“…Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm 2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm 2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm 2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m 3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm 2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate.” 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth’s surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Table 2: Measured Greenhouse Fluxes at the Earth’s Surface
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Band (cm-1)
Measured Flux (W/m2)
Simulated Flux (W/m2)
CFC11 830 – 860 0.14 0.12
CFC12 900 – 940 0.12 0.11
CFC12 all bands 0.28 0.26
CFC11 & 12 all bands 0.42 0.38
CCl4 786 – 806 0.046 0.039
CFC113 800 – 830 NA 0.033
HCFC22 780 – 830 NA 0.031
HNO3 850 – 920 0.085 0.060
N2O all bands 1.06 0.99
CH4 1200 – 1400 0.85 0.80
CO 2000 – 2200 0.032 0.033
CO2 all bands 26.0 24.8
O3 950 – 1100 3.26 3.20
Trop. O3 950 – 1100 0.61 0.58
Read ’em and weep, deniers. This is the smoking gun.
I think the paper being referred to is “Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming,” Friedrich et al., Sci. Adv. 2016;2: e1501923
David Smithsays
@Lawrence Coleman
My disdain for the democratic system has not been quelled one little bit.
So, it’s dictatorships and despotism for you then, is it?
I heard the other day (not sure how true/accurate it is) that 95% of Alaska Govt revenue comes from oil/gas fossil fuels related taxation.
It reminded me about the ‘elephant in the room’ that I have never heard anyone mention/address in future economic terms – in a ‘almost perfect world’ that is carbon-neutral, where almost all homes and business have solar panels recharging their electric cars, say circa 2030-2050, what replaces the existing govt revenues from fossil fuel mining royalties, export income, sales/gst taxes, fuel excise, and energy/mining and power generator corporate profits?
How big a barrier to genuine action is this to many Govts and power brokers around the world today I wonder. How many citizens have thought about it?
Thomassays
Climate change is already being felt from our genes to entire ecosystems, and the effects are damaging, a new (meta) study finds.
Don’t look now but the stage 4 lung cancer patient is busy lighting up his last pack of cigarettes:
Interior secretary
Lucas, the 74-year-old co-founder of oil products company Lucas Oil, is seen as a top contender for Interior secretary.
Trump’s presidential transition team is also eyeing venture capitalist Robert Grady, a George H.W. Bush White House official with ties to Christie. And Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., is said to be interested in the job.
Meanwhile, a person who spoke to the Trump campaign told POLITICO that the aides have also discussed tapping Sarah Palin for Interior secretary. Trump has said he’d like to put Palin in his cabinet, and Palin has made no secret of her interest.
Other possible candidates include former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer; Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin; Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis; and Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm.
Anyone still hoping rational, thoughtful humans will somehow pull together to solve Climate Change might want to start rethinking that position.
Strap yourselves in folks!
Chris O'Neillsays
#5:
My disdain for the democratic system
Except it’s not a democratic system when someone else gets more votes than the winner. You’ll need to think more carefully about what deserves the disdain.
Chris O'Neillsays
Being global leader regarding climate action would ensure that USA wins globally.
That’s not how tragedy of the commons (look it up) works.
Codysays
To All (in these trying moments of Reflecting upon ‘Our Spot’) :
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Leo Tolstoy — 1897/
Chrstophersays
Yearly rate of increase in Atmospheric CO2 concentrations has accelerated from 2ppm to almost 3.5ppm. Have scientist identified cause of this acceleration? Will the rate of rise continue to accelerate? Do climate models predict this accelerstion? Do climate models project consequences?
Alastair B. McDonaldsays
Re Kevin McKinney at 24 and 25, and Barton at 29.
The abstract posted by Barton claims that “Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.” but they are based on this figure: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/fig_tab/410355a0_F1.html#figure-title
As you can see, most of the range is withing the IR window. The H2O rotation band is completely absent and the CO2 bending band just sneaks in at the lower wavenumbers (frequency). The CH4 band shows more absorption but that band, unlike CO2, is not saturated.
Re 26 Where Casiquiare says: “Really? My understanding was that OLR at TOA responds to an increase in GHGs by decreasing power output at GHG active wavelengths. Outgoing power then gradually increases until a new radiative equilibrium is achieved which may take hundreds of years.”
As I understand it, the equilibrium is maintained constantly, i.e. there is no delay. If there was a delay of hundreds of years we would not be experiencing global warming now.
But that is not how the greenhouse effect works. As Barton reports at 30, it is the back radiation which changes, warming the surface. CO2 absorption is saturated as was shown by Koch (1901), whose results were cited by Callendar (1938). Callendar explained that the greenhouse effect was due to the back radiation from a lower and warmer altitude producing a warmer surface. This increases the humidity and cloud cover, and it raises the snow line both in altitude and latitude. That is what is causing the melting snows of Kilimanjaro and the melting of the sea ice in the Arctic.
Evans and Puckrin 2008 state “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming” but that is not what I am arguing. I am saying the models are under estimating the effects of AGW, and we are in deep trouble, not least because the modellers are never going to accept that their model is wrong!
Koch, J. (1901) ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Wärmeabsorption in Kohlensäure’, Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-akademiens förhandlingar, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 475–488. http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32299447
and that’s not even considering voter suppression, which is huge.
Myron Ebell of CEI, former tobacco industry shill, is a key member of his Administration already. He was on my original 15 Most Heinous Climate Villains list, now scrubbed from the internet. Myron hearts fossil fuels, and has been well paid for it.
As for persuading the new President, this is a man who does not read, use a computer, or even write his tweets (he dictates them). He is a psychopath, right off the assembly line, and will have fun with the global gotterdammerung he is creating. He and his wealthy friends think they can just retire to their yachts and whores when things get tough, but… there are always the servants to reckon with. That’s what Parisians found out in 1789.
Thanks to Mike and Jim. More of you need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them, and find a way to communicate- and possibly alter- our current course to Venus.
Regarding the Friedrich et al. paper, I wish they had published estimates for scenarios other than RCP8.5, which I believe is far to aggressive as far as emissions growth in the latter 2/3rds of the century. Resource constraints are real and even assuming BAU in regards to burn-what-we-can-extract, there are practical limits to what will be extracted.
TurkeyBreathsays
In re: #’s 1 [MA Roger, 11/8, 12:44P] & 4 [mike, 11/8, 7:39P] — I recall Rutgers’ Dr. Francis stating that the Reason she shifted to Consequences, from her twenty-year scrutiny of Autumnal boreal float ice loss (& associated diminution of the slope of the longitudinal pressure gradient, polewards), was that since the first Polar Bird flew in 1979, PIOMAS has booked an ~80% mass loss in 33 years. Hence, @ > ~2% Melt Off per annum, that Jet-Guiding membrane is clearly Toast!
A handy index (or ‘proxy”) for Sierra monsoonal moisture is: Does Tahoe Spill? It did briefly this Nino-dominated Spring, but has since fallen away. Beaches on the Southern Shore now clearly in retreat, despite quite a storm system which passed thru in mid-October. If the Francis extrapolation of Rossby Theory holds, now that we are Nino neutral, the ’10 – ’15 drought should be back ON! Tahoe may not spill again for a couple-three thousand years.
As a scientist, I’m sure Michael Mann is careful with his words. If he is mentioning “carbon free energy”, I should surely assume he means “carbon free energy”. However, given your comment, I now assume that he was being misleading and what he meant was “lower carbon energy”. If so, then he’s referring to something that will definitely not get us to zero carbon by the second half of this century, which is the minimum necessary to have half a chance of avoiding 2C of warming.
I think we need to be clear that if energy infrastructure harnessing renewable energy can power the world, it would only slow the warming, since it is not carbon free.
Thomassays
28 Dan, I didn’t say that in #19, I quoted it to share it: Tasini a Democrat ‘commentator’ said it.
Jonathan Tasini (@jonathantasini) has been a frequent commentator on CNN and is a Bernie Sanders supporter. He is the author of “The Essential Bernie Sanders and His Vision for America,” president of the Economic Future Group and the host of the Working Life podcast. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.
I am not even saying anyone has to accept his long article as correct, however it is being said and these issues are part of the mix. I think it’s good to be aware of all the most consistent views/beliefs on issues – especially those who believe that agw/cc is a conjob or anti people’s self-interests.
iow knowledge is power? and extensive broad based comprehensive knowledge is …..
Angstrom and Koch 1901 was overturned by later research in the 1940s which showed that at higher altitudes, the absorption lines are NOT saturated. I treated this in a full-length article, originally meant for Physics Today, which may be found here:
I wish you’d be up-front about the fact that your ideas on radiative transfer are at odds with the scientific consensus.
Thomassays
27 Tony Weddle asks: Does anyone know what this “carbon-free” energy is?
Yes anything that doesn’t use fossil/carbon based fuel, eg coal gas oil. It helps to be a pedantic about unsaid context when being pedantic about taking things said literally. :-)
Then there is hydro, wind, solar thermal/pv, geothermal, and tidal. Biofuels are at elast supposed to be carbon-neutral. This should adequately answer your question Tony. :-)
Killiansays
Re #5 Lawrence Coleman said in light of the disastrous election result
Meh, once they conspired to knock Bernie out with cheating, lying, propaganda, vote suppression and election fraud, it no longer mattered. I did, however, think more Berners would go Stein, but just goes to show how broad his coalition was that once he was out they scattered like the wind and the Lesser of Two Evils argument held the day.
But the disaster was in place, . Four years of Trump will not alter the planet so much more than Clyinton’s policies would have. She was all-in for fracking, said even recently the poor folk at Standing Rock had to share the world with those great friends of humanity, the FF diggers.
Trump will be gone in 4 years, all his undoing redone lickety-split. Trump is a blip in human history, at best.
What is a concern is the overall failure to understand what must be done. Even here, though the number of voices calling for regenerative type responses is now a handful vs those long years when there was me and sometimes one other, the awareness is low. Only from Michael Mann have I seen clear statements about changing how we do things. He even barked at me twice for assuming his views were like the seeming majority among the scientists running this site. Still, among them and among the every day hacks ourselves, there is precious little deep understanding and even less agreement.
I reached out to Kevin McKinny. Somewhere along the line he got his knickers in a twist. This has been the pattern all along. Not just with me – hey, I have an INTP personality, so it makes sense toucky-feelies don’t “get me”, but it’s not just me. It’s ego. We cannot unite on these pages despite the high level of knowledge. What do you expect of the average person who gets nothing at all?
I think I speak for everyone in RC at how shocked and saddenened I am by the surprise result.
Nope. I was a Berner. Warned all those I could. Y’all did not listen, as ever. Not at all saddened. Those thinking Clinton was an improvement have grossly misunderstood the situation. She was more dangerous, not less, on multiple fronts: More likely to expand wars, which would drain attention and resources from our true problems: Climate and resources, and her centrism would have been very comfortable to too many, causing an eight year pause in any meaningful change. At least with Trump, the overreaction to him combined with realistic reaction to him will cause a large uptick in understanding how precarious our situation is. The FEAR of non-action will be more powerful than the risk assessment itself. Then he’ll be gone and we’ll get a huge swing toward sustainability with the next president.
My disdain for the democratic system has not been quelled one little bit. We have got to get together and fight for this planet like never before. Those of us who understand the deep and profound implications of the promised environmental apocylpse to engulf this planet, we have got to get out there and educate, inspire and tear apart the vail of ignorance covering so many people’s eyes.
No, you have to build sustainable communities. That and that alone solves climate AND ends all the ~isms you are concerned with, including a political system that is suicidal. Do regenerative, save the world. To offer a simple thought experiment: What happens if nobody makes any money, yet has food, water, shelter? Where do tax dollars come from? What happens to Big Business and Big Gov?
The solutions are simple.
I call sane governance Regenerative Governance. It’s lots of small communities managing themselves feeding into city/region groups managing themselves feeding into bio-regions managing themselves. It’s the only way.
Lawrence Colemansays
32: David: Not at all. More of careful and duly considered nomination by a committee of highly regarded in their respective fields – wise elders. Why is it that some always think it’s democracy or anarchy. That is such an uneducated viewpoint David. It’s exactly the same as trump saying you are either with us or against us. The global stakes are far too high to let joe blow on the american street determine the country’s climate policy. Sorry it is! If you can’t appreciate the logic in that than you must be very misguided or ignorant indeed.
As NSIDC’s ChArctic plots show, the Arctic Sea Ice has at last begun to take the coming winter seriously and close up on the Sea Ice Extent levels of previous years. Today (7th Nov) it sits 582,000 sq km below 2012 and 1,075,000 sq km below the ‘pack’ of other years. These gaps have closed some 200,000 sq km in recent days.
The reason for the slow freeze this year is because it is rather warm up there. The DMI daily temperature plots show a large diviation from the climatology but the DMI graphic doesn’t allow an understanding of how much of this deviation is part of the usual Arctic variations. Happily Andrew Slater of NSIDC plots the same thing but showing statistical variation. Today’s temperatures are well above anything output by these reanalysis in the past.
And this recent warming since June does not yet feature on this time-series plot of the data (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which plots 12-month rolling averages of Slater’s data since 1979, last data June 2016, showing them already higher than previous years before this toasty Arctic Autumn began.
As NSIDC Sea Ice News report for October, it was ‘hot’ up there thro’ October which was was a dramaitc record for low SIE. It remains ‘hot’ according to DMI. So expect November to be an even bigger record-breaking SIE low.
PIOMAS for October shows the Sea Ice Volume is not yet leading the pack but in second-place, now trailing 512 cu km behind 2012 having closed that gap 230 cu km since September.
(And just so as not to be a party-pooper, the Antarctic has decided to join the record-breaking club, with ChArctic – or should that be ChAntarctic – showing 2016 150,000 sq km below second-place 1986 & 680,000 sq km below the ‘pack’. Not quite as impressive as the Arctic is, but in recent years the Antarctic has been breaking records in the other direction with 2014 & 2015 both running impressive record highs for SIE.)
thomas @261 (October Unforced Variations),
Would this paper on modelling of CO2 sources help – Feely et al (1999)? The paper referenced in this Met Office press release is unfortunately paywalled but the release blames it on CO2 sinks. I’m no expert but I think it’s a bit of both.
The month has already seen further evidence of warming nighttime temperatures at high latitudes , and some surprisingly good news about falling energy storage costs.
I was skimming the arctic sea ice forum and getting the impression that the average thickness is creeping down toward 1/2 meter. I gather that the icecap in that thickness is subject to being torn apart by winter storms, so the iceheads tend to describe the ice extent that is in the 1/2 meter range as essentially rotten ice because it is such an unstable mix of new freeze and low thickness multi-year ice. In that big picture, I think I understand better how it could be that we would lose the icecap as a winter rather than summer melt event. You can kind of see that happening this year with the strange sideways motion of sea ice extent after the low point where a normal year starts the curve up rather smoothly after the low point.
This is complicated stuff, there is air temperature to consider plus the rising ocean temp. We could use a cold blob in the north pacific and up into bering sea to stabilize the ice cap, but maybe we are not going to get that cold blob we need. Too bad for us.
Still seeing the 3.3 to 3.5 range increase in CO2 in year 2016 over year 2015 comparison.
Oh yeah. election day. We need a president and congress that really get the AGW problem and are ready to take serious action to address the problem. I am hoping to see the WA State carbon tax initiative pass. It’s a pretty modest proposal, fingers crossed on that one.
Mike
Well in light of the disastrous election result, I think I speak for everyone in RC at how shocked and saddenened I am by the surprise result. My disdain for the democratic system has not been quelled one little bit. We have got to get together and fight for this planet like never before. Those of us who understand the deep and profound implications of the promised environmental apocylpse to engulf this planet, we have got to get out there and educate, inspire and tear apart the vail of ignorance covering so many people’s eyes. DT got in due to high degrees of abject ignorance of far far too many americans. We have got to make our voices head!! Sorry for the rushed nature of this post and the disjointed flow. We are heading for dangerous and challenging times ahead. We have to stand together and fight. Fight for the future viability of this beautiful planet.
“We need a president and congress that really get the AGW problem and are ready to take serious action to address the problem.”
:-(
Things fall apart
The center cannot hold
And a blood dimmed tide
Is loosed upon the world
Nothing is sacred
The ceremony sinks
Innocence is drowned
In anarchy
The best lack conviction
Given some time to think
And the worst are full of passion
Without mercy
… Joni Mitchel, adapted from William Butler Yeats
Heard last night: 229 years is a pretty good run for a republic.
Sic gloria transit mundi
As Josh Whedon once wrote, in a fictional dark aftermath, “where do we go from here? It’s hard to say. Fiction and fantasy, shaped to serve the obvious interests, have won control of the entire federal government. The founding fathers divided power carefully, in hopes of preventing any faction from taking full control, and forcing negotiation and compromise in government. For the last six years the result was an unhappy paralysis– but now we really do have a faction in control, with many subfactions to satisfy. No doubt the real, established money will come first– tax cuts for the rich, roll-back of any constraints on fossil fuels, complete rejection of any action on climate change. The latter, of course, is the darkest news to come out of this– our slim chances of keeping global temperature increase below 2 degrees C are going down fast, and our legacy to the future is looking even uglier.
I think we can write off any meaningful science-based climate policies from the US for the next few years, perhaps even write off a big chunk of climate research at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/09/trump-victory-reverses-u-s-energy-and-environmental-priorities/
It would appear that the White House Troglodyte Narrative did not work out as planned.
TIL: Trump wants to fast pace dangerous climate change.
Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition
Choosing Myron Ebell means Trump plans to drastically reshape climate policies https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition
Some energizing music for the struggle ahead …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW74ut2DW3g
LIVE in Chicago: Thousands marching downtown towards Trump Towers https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa/status/796506505654706176
Washington voters reject initiative to impose carbon tax on fossil fuels http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/carbon-emissions-tax-initiative-732
Mars’s Atmosphere Matches Earth’s Turbulent Nature
Mars is even more like Earth than we thought, according to a statistical analysis of the planet’s swirling atmosphere. https://eos.org/research-spotlights/marss-atmosphere-matches-earths-turbulent-nature
Refined: Trump threatens national security https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/
Someone wants to accelerate dangerous climate change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYHzkYD1KTI
Some more insights? From the Bernie Sanders side of the road… longer than a Twitter note.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/opinions/democratic-party-burn-tasini/
cpl of good quotes:
Feeding off the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party has become riddled with lobbyists, billionaires, and hustlers who pocket huge sums of money by running either nonprofit “think tanks” or election-cycle networks, and politicians who, indeed, are focused mostly on reelection. Surrounding the party are extremely well-paid non-profit leaders, who end up defending the status quo.
Chief component of the Clinton machine in recent years, the Clinton Foundation operated somewhat out of sight.
The big donations streaming from anti-union powerhouses like Wal-Mart or big financial entities like Bank of America not only whitewashed the policies of interests directly opposed to what the Democratic Party should stand for, but they also clouded the deeper systemic crisis within the party. We can only address climate change, poverty and global inequality by axing the very system benefiting many of the donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Fast forward to the 2016 election. There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump.
and
What was often given short shrift was his broader philosophical willingness to challenge American exceptionalism. Many times, including during two national debates, he pointed out that, while he was proud as a son of immigrants to be an American, this country has supported repressive dictators, sent the CIA on missions to help overthrow democratically elected governments that were not supportive enough of our interests and sent our young men and women to die in immoral wars.
And he wasn’t afraid to point out that those failed foreign policies have been bedrocks of the Democratic Party for several decades.
Rather than foster a good debate during the primaries, the party, obsessed with the coronation of an anointed candidate, set out to destroy Sanders and his movement.
The various email leaks showing broad collusion only confirmed what was patently obvious on the surface: We stood in opposition to a virtual wall of elected Democratic officials, and party functionaries.
[note: you can’t unscramble an egg]
There’s a paper floating around that I have seen at some point but I can’t seem to find it, so I’m hoping someone can point me in the right direction.
The paper explains a simulation of the spectral anomaly of the OLR from the top of the atmosphere based on measurements of the accumulating ocean heat content, and shows that there is agreement with satellite observed spectral anomalies.
Many thanks if someone knows which paper I’m talking about.
Trump may not yet be too deep in denial. Could it be that he just hasn’t thought about it much? Now would be the time to explain to him that climate action is the winning strategy. He likes to win. Being global leader regarding climate action would ensure that USA wins globally. He would have the chance to be the biggest winner ever. Any ideas how to make him get this? Are there any proper climate scientists etc. who would have access to him? I understand that what I say is completely naïve. But during these fact-free times I’m fine being naïve once or twice a year.
The Independent has published an article referring to a new study which, according to the journalists, suggests that climate sensitivity could be much higher than widely assumed, or rather than it could become higher at higher temperatures: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html . It would be good to know more about this!
Re. 20
This paper may be what you are thinking of:
Harries, J. E., Brindley, H. E., Sagoo, P. J. and Bantges, R. J. (2001) ‘Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997’, Nature, vol. 410, no. 6826, pp. 355–357.
It made a stir when it was published implying that it proved global warming was caused by greenhouse gases. But it does not! They measured the radiation being emitted at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) in the IR window. In other words in the part of the spectrum where greenhouse gases do not operate. All they were showing was that the planet had warmed.
Moreover, the climate models are based on the idea that the surface warms because the TOA balance has to be maintained, ie the outgoing radiation stays constant despite more greenhouse gases. This causes the surface to warms in order to force the radiation through. So, if the models are correct, (which they are not), then the radiation in the greenhouse bands at the TOA should be unchanged.
#23, Alastair–“The part of the spectrum where greenhouse gases do not operate?”
Main non. The dips in the spectra are precisely those corresponding to common ghgs.
…and the conservation of energy radiated wrt energy absorbed does not imply that the frequency distribution cannot change. (Having some posting issues here.)
Thanks Alistair.
That’s not the paper. In the one I am thinking of the researchers specifically use the change in OHC over time to simulate the variation in the spectrum of OLR.
“the climate models are based on the idea that the surface warms because the TOA balance has to be maintained, ie the outgoing radiation stays constant despite more greenhouse gases. This causes the surface to warms in order to force the radiation through. So, if the models are correct, (which they are not), then the radiation in the greenhouse bands at the TOA should be unchanged.”
Really? My understanding was that OLR at TOA responds to an increase in GHGs by decreasing power output at GHG active wavelengths. Outgoing power then gradually increases until a new radiative equilibrium is achieved which may take hundreds of years.
In his Scientific American commentary about the US presidential election result, Michael Mann said: “The rest of the world is no longer debating climate change, it is moving on with a rapid transition to carbon-free energy.“. Does anyone know what this “carbon-free” energy is?
re: 19. “There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump.”
Late on Election Night I turned to a friend and said someone would say this after the election as you just. It is ridiculous. There is little doubt at all that Bernie would have lost badly. Because a. the GOP would have ripped him for his socialist background and even his religion via dog whistles which appeal to the alt-right crowd, and b. they actually wanted him to run (think of all the things they said to support him over Clinton) because they knew he would be a weaker link, and c. unfortunately in this climate there is no way in the world a socialist Jew who was not even a Democrat before running would have appealed more to people. And I say that as a Jew.
ABM 23,
That was not all Harries et al. found. Here’s their abstract:
“The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes–most importantly the hydrological cycle–that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
In any case, we have direct confirmation of increased back-radiation from greenhouse gases in the absorption lines of those greenhouse gases:
Philipona, R., B. Du”rr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004. “Radiative Forcing–Measured at Earth’s Surface–Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202
“…Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm 2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm 2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm 2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m 3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm 2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate.” 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth’s surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Table 2: Measured Greenhouse Fluxes at the Earth’s Surface
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Band (cm-1)
Measured Flux (W/m2)
Simulated Flux (W/m2)
CFC11 830 – 860 0.14 0.12
CFC12 900 – 940 0.12 0.11
CFC12 all bands 0.28 0.26
CFC11 & 12 all bands 0.42 0.38
CCl4 786 – 806 0.046 0.039
CFC113 800 – 830 NA 0.033
HCFC22 780 – 830 NA 0.031
HNO3 850 – 920 0.085 0.060
N2O all bands 1.06 0.99
CH4 1200 – 1400 0.85 0.80
CO 2000 – 2200 0.032 0.033
CO2 all bands 26.0 24.8
O3 950 – 1100 3.26 3.20
Trop. O3 950 – 1100 0.61 0.58
Read ’em and weep, deniers. This is the smoking gun.
I think the paper being referred to is “Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming,” Friedrich et al., Sci. Adv. 2016;2: e1501923
@Lawrence Coleman
So, it’s dictatorships and despotism for you then, is it?
Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein has hit out at the Federal Government’s climate change policy, saying Australia is “raising the middle finger to the world”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/q&a:-australia-%27raising-middle-finger-to-the-world%27/8003132
Q&A: Naomi Klein criticises Institute of Public Affairs over climate interventions –
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/08/qa-naomi-klein-criticises-australias-climate-and-asylum-policies
fwiw the ABC is always putting IPA execs (and former ones many now elected MPs) on their talk shows.
I think Naomi called the IPA the ‘Heartland Institute’ for Australia.
Australian Senator rails against climate conspiracy in 42-page report
Malcolm Roberts and his blogger co-authors aren’t sure greenhouse effect exists.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/australian-senator-rails-against-climate-conspiracy-in-42-page-report
……
I heard the other day (not sure how true/accurate it is) that 95% of Alaska Govt revenue comes from oil/gas fossil fuels related taxation.
It reminded me about the ‘elephant in the room’ that I have never heard anyone mention/address in future economic terms – in a ‘almost perfect world’ that is carbon-neutral, where almost all homes and business have solar panels recharging their electric cars, say circa 2030-2050, what replaces the existing govt revenues from fossil fuel mining royalties, export income, sales/gst taxes, fuel excise, and energy/mining and power generator corporate profits?
How big a barrier to genuine action is this to many Govts and power brokers around the world today I wonder. How many citizens have thought about it?
Climate change is already being felt from our genes to entire ecosystems, and the effects are damaging, a new (meta) study finds.
Of 94 different ecological processes studied, 80 per cent were already altered due to climate change, according to the study published in the journal Science.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/everything-nature-changing-genes-ecosystems-due-warming-climate-1591112
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
Don’t look now but the stage 4 lung cancer patient is busy lighting up his last pack of cigarettes:
Interior secretary
Lucas, the 74-year-old co-founder of oil products company Lucas Oil, is seen as a top contender for Interior secretary.
Trump’s presidential transition team is also eyeing venture capitalist Robert Grady, a George H.W. Bush White House official with ties to Christie. And Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., is said to be interested in the job.
Meanwhile, a person who spoke to the Trump campaign told POLITICO that the aides have also discussed tapping Sarah Palin for Interior secretary. Trump has said he’d like to put Palin in his cabinet, and Palin has made no secret of her interest.
Other possible candidates include former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer; Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin; Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis; and Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071
Anyone still hoping rational, thoughtful humans will somehow pull together to solve Climate Change might want to start rethinking that position.
Strap yourselves in folks!
#5:
Except it’s not a democratic system when someone else gets more votes than the winner. You’ll need to think more carefully about what deserves the disdain.
That’s not how tragedy of the commons (look it up) works.
To All (in these trying moments of Reflecting upon ‘Our Spot’) :
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Leo Tolstoy — 1897/
Yearly rate of increase in Atmospheric CO2 concentrations has accelerated from 2ppm to almost 3.5ppm. Have scientist identified cause of this acceleration? Will the rate of rise continue to accelerate? Do climate models predict this accelerstion? Do climate models project consequences?
Re Kevin McKinney at 24 and 25, and Barton at 29.
The abstract posted by Barton claims that “Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.” but they are based on this figure: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/fig_tab/410355a0_F1.html#figure-title
As you can see, most of the range is withing the IR window. The H2O rotation band is completely absent and the CO2 bending band just sneaks in at the lower wavenumbers (frequency). The CH4 band shows more absorption but that band, unlike CO2, is not saturated.
Re 26 Where Casiquiare says: “Really? My understanding was that OLR at TOA responds to an increase in GHGs by decreasing power output at GHG active wavelengths. Outgoing power then gradually increases until a new radiative equilibrium is achieved which may take hundreds of years.”
As I understand it, the equilibrium is maintained constantly, i.e. there is no delay. If there was a delay of hundreds of years we would not be experiencing global warming now.
But that is not how the greenhouse effect works. As Barton reports at 30, it is the back radiation which changes, warming the surface. CO2 absorption is saturated as was shown by Koch (1901), whose results were cited by Callendar (1938). Callendar explained that the greenhouse effect was due to the back radiation from a lower and warmer altitude producing a warmer surface. This increases the humidity and cloud cover, and it raises the snow line both in altitude and latitude. That is what is causing the melting snows of Kilimanjaro and the melting of the sea ice in the Arctic.
Evans and Puckrin 2008 state “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming” but that is not what I am arguing. I am saying the models are under estimating the effects of AGW, and we are in deep trouble, not least because the modellers are never going to accept that their model is wrong!
See “A Paradigm shift to an Old Scheme for Outgoing Longwave Radiation” at: http://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2016-18088_presentation.pdf
and: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304897458_A_New_Radiation_Scheme_to_Explain_Rapid_Climate_Change
Koch, J. (1901) ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Wärmeabsorption in Kohlensäure’, Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-akademiens förhandlingar, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 475–488. http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32299447
Callendar, G. S. (1938) ‘The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 64, no. 275, pp. 223–240. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/abstract
Tony Weddle wrote: “Does anyone know what this ‘carbon-free’ energy is?”
Please stop being stupid. You know exactly what Mann is referring to.
I’m surprised that there isn’t much of a ruckus here over the election results. It’s entirely possible that Trump and friends stole this election
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen
and that’s not even considering voter suppression, which is huge.
Myron Ebell of CEI, former tobacco industry shill, is a key member of his Administration already. He was on my original 15 Most Heinous Climate Villains list, now scrubbed from the internet. Myron hearts fossil fuels, and has been well paid for it.
As for persuading the new President, this is a man who does not read, use a computer, or even write his tweets (he dictates them). He is a psychopath, right off the assembly line, and will have fun with the global gotterdammerung he is creating. He and his wealthy friends think they can just retire to their yachts and whores when things get tough, but… there are always the servants to reckon with. That’s what Parisians found out in 1789.
Thanks to Mike and Jim. More of you need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them, and find a way to communicate- and possibly alter- our current course to Venus.
Regarding the Friedrich et al. paper, I wish they had published estimates for scenarios other than RCP8.5, which I believe is far to aggressive as far as emissions growth in the latter 2/3rds of the century. Resource constraints are real and even assuming BAU in regards to burn-what-we-can-extract, there are practical limits to what will be extracted.
In re: #’s 1 [MA Roger, 11/8, 12:44P] & 4 [mike, 11/8, 7:39P] — I recall Rutgers’ Dr. Francis stating that the Reason she shifted to Consequences, from her twenty-year scrutiny of Autumnal boreal float ice loss (& associated diminution of the slope of the longitudinal pressure gradient, polewards), was that since the first Polar Bird flew in 1979, PIOMAS has booked an ~80% mass loss in 33 years. Hence, @ > ~2% Melt Off per annum, that Jet-Guiding membrane is clearly Toast!
A handy index (or ‘proxy”) for Sierra monsoonal moisture is: Does Tahoe Spill? It did briefly this Nino-dominated Spring, but has since fallen away. Beaches on the Southern Shore now clearly in retreat, despite quite a storm system which passed thru in mid-October. If the Francis extrapolation of Rossby Theory holds, now that we are Nino neutral, the ’10 – ’15 drought should be back ON! Tahoe may not spill again for a couple-three thousand years.
SecularAnimist,
As a scientist, I’m sure Michael Mann is careful with his words. If he is mentioning “carbon free energy”, I should surely assume he means “carbon free energy”. However, given your comment, I now assume that he was being misleading and what he meant was “lower carbon energy”. If so, then he’s referring to something that will definitely not get us to zero carbon by the second half of this century, which is the minimum necessary to have half a chance of avoiding 2C of warming.
I think we need to be clear that if energy infrastructure harnessing renewable energy can power the world, it would only slow the warming, since it is not carbon free.
28 Dan, I didn’t say that in #19, I quoted it to share it: Tasini a Democrat ‘commentator’ said it.
Jonathan Tasini (@jonathantasini) has been a frequent commentator on CNN and is a Bernie Sanders supporter. He is the author of “The Essential Bernie Sanders and His Vision for America,” president of the Economic Future Group and the host of the Working Life podcast. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.
Dan, you picked out one sentence, partial personal opinion of Tasini. There’s more to what he said and explained and to what he was “pointing to – in context” than just that minor/irrelevant belief.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/opinions/democratic-party-burn-tasini/
I am not even saying anyone has to accept his long article as correct, however it is being said and these issues are part of the mix. I think it’s good to be aware of all the most consistent views/beliefs on issues – especially those who believe that agw/cc is a conjob or anti people’s self-interests.
iow knowledge is power? and extensive broad based comprehensive knowledge is …..
ABM 40,
Angstrom and Koch 1901 was overturned by later research in the 1940s which showed that at higher altitudes, the absorption lines are NOT saturated. I treated this in a full-length article, originally meant for Physics Today, which may be found here:
http://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html
I wish you’d be up-front about the fact that your ideas on radiative transfer are at odds with the scientific consensus.
27 Tony Weddle asks: Does anyone know what this “carbon-free” energy is?
Yes anything that doesn’t use fossil/carbon based fuel, eg coal gas oil. It helps to be a pedantic about unsaid context when being pedantic about taking things said literally. :-)
One example of “carbon-free” energy is Nuclear power stations. 27 nations including oil rich Saudi Arabia & Iran are either building new plants now or they are in the pipeline already. Even coal rich Indonesia are going nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268154/number-of-planned-nuclear-reactors-in-various-countries/
Then there is hydro, wind, solar thermal/pv, geothermal, and tidal. Biofuels are at elast supposed to be carbon-neutral. This should adequately answer your question Tony. :-)
Re #5 Lawrence Coleman said in light of the disastrous election result
Meh, once they conspired to knock Bernie out with cheating, lying, propaganda, vote suppression and election fraud, it no longer mattered. I did, however, think more Berners would go Stein, but just goes to show how broad his coalition was that once he was out they scattered like the wind and the Lesser of Two Evils argument held the day.
But the disaster was in place, . Four years of Trump will not alter the planet so much more than Clyinton’s policies would have. She was all-in for fracking, said even recently the poor folk at Standing Rock had to share the world with those great friends of humanity, the FF diggers.
Trump will be gone in 4 years, all his undoing redone lickety-split. Trump is a blip in human history, at best.
What is a concern is the overall failure to understand what must be done. Even here, though the number of voices calling for regenerative type responses is now a handful vs those long years when there was me and sometimes one other, the awareness is low. Only from Michael Mann have I seen clear statements about changing how we do things. He even barked at me twice for assuming his views were like the seeming majority among the scientists running this site. Still, among them and among the every day hacks ourselves, there is precious little deep understanding and even less agreement.
I reached out to Kevin McKinny. Somewhere along the line he got his knickers in a twist. This has been the pattern all along. Not just with me – hey, I have an INTP personality, so it makes sense toucky-feelies don’t “get me”, but it’s not just me. It’s ego. We cannot unite on these pages despite the high level of knowledge. What do you expect of the average person who gets nothing at all?
I think I speak for everyone in RC at how shocked and saddenened I am by the surprise result.
Nope. I was a Berner. Warned all those I could. Y’all did not listen, as ever. Not at all saddened. Those thinking Clinton was an improvement have grossly misunderstood the situation. She was more dangerous, not less, on multiple fronts: More likely to expand wars, which would drain attention and resources from our true problems: Climate and resources, and her centrism would have been very comfortable to too many, causing an eight year pause in any meaningful change. At least with Trump, the overreaction to him combined with realistic reaction to him will cause a large uptick in understanding how precarious our situation is. The FEAR of non-action will be more powerful than the risk assessment itself. Then he’ll be gone and we’ll get a huge swing toward sustainability with the next president.
My disdain for the democratic system has not been quelled one little bit. We have got to get together and fight for this planet like never before. Those of us who understand the deep and profound implications of the promised environmental apocylpse to engulf this planet, we have got to get out there and educate, inspire and tear apart the vail of ignorance covering so many people’s eyes.
No, you have to build sustainable communities. That and that alone solves climate AND ends all the ~isms you are concerned with, including a political system that is suicidal. Do regenerative, save the world. To offer a simple thought experiment: What happens if nobody makes any money, yet has food, water, shelter? Where do tax dollars come from? What happens to Big Business and Big Gov?
The solutions are simple.
I call sane governance Regenerative Governance. It’s lots of small communities managing themselves feeding into city/region groups managing themselves feeding into bio-regions managing themselves. It’s the only way.
32: David: Not at all. More of careful and duly considered nomination by a committee of highly regarded in their respective fields – wise elders. Why is it that some always think it’s democracy or anarchy. That is such an uneducated viewpoint David. It’s exactly the same as trump saying you are either with us or against us. The global stakes are far too high to let joe blow on the american street determine the country’s climate policy. Sorry it is! If you can’t appreciate the logic in that than you must be very misguided or ignorant indeed.