mike @96.
The graphic you link to is frozen in time & a few days out-of-date. That daily graphic orignates with the DMI here although a version of the same exercise in reanalysis with uncertainty intervals showing the level of previous variation (which are useful to know) is here. That second version is also accompanied by bar graphs of ranked monthly averages (at present updated only to June) which doesn’t entirely afford a view of the chronology of this data, although the graphic here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) of 12-month rolling averages perhaps does better (at present updated only to June). An Arctic Ocean chronology based on UAH TLTv5.6 (again 2 clicks) affords a view of monthly Arctic Ocean temperatures (measured considerably higher than 2m). In a couple of weeks we will see November’s posting for UAH which should be interesting.
Lawrence Colemansays
Does anyone know what’s happening to the arctic sea extent graph? It’s the season when the ice is supposed to be growing at the fastest rate and instead it seems to be melting again. Checking the sea temp anomaly partly tells the story. Large parts of it are actually quite high above the norm. Might be getting battered by intense arctic lows as well. Thus entire freezing season the line has been way way outside the norm and well and truly in record territory.
Thomassays
90 Chuck Hughes says: “Thomas, your word salads make Sarah Palin sound like Shakespeare.”
Mr Hughes, if you chose to check the many refs I provide like that given in #78 your opinions would be more right more often. (in theory at least) :-)
I’m feel sorry that you and others keep missing the point. Does Climate Science exist in a Vacuum?
If it does then ‘the possessive purists’ could go and live in the Unabomber’s Cabin and be in a permanent state of Bliss. :-)
National Geographic article March 2015 – one of thousands on the subject – Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?
“Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that’s because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.
In the U.S., climate change somehow has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: “People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this.”
Says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always TRUMPING science. And they will continue to TRUMP science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
People who miss the point will still see Polling, Elections, Politics and the Media, and Science from other fields of study, as irrelevant and an unnecessary distraction from their very narrow frame of reference and myopia.
“You can only understand what your brain allows you to understand.” George Lakoff
When Lakoff says “Reason is 98% Subconscious Metaphor in Frames & Cultural Narratives” does this apply or as I suspect, do many still believe that they are immune from these scientifically proven psychological realities? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0R1du1GqA
BY Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA’s history program, and was a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.
TITLE:
In post-election media, colorful thread develops on science—mainly climate science.
Is Donald Trump “the first anti-science president we have ever had”?
by Steven T. Corneliussen 18 November 2016
Extracts:
At the New York Times, “Dot Earth” science columnist Andrew Revkin has twice pointed readers to an article at Vox arguing that “few people understand just how radical the GOP environmental agenda is.” Vox offers this list of “top environmental priorities for Trump and a GOP Congress”:
1) Kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan
2) Withdraw from the Paris climate agreement
3) Dismantle US environmental rules around coal power
4) Weaken fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks
5) Open up new public lands to oil and gas drilling
6) Scale back federal support for wind and solar power
7) Dramatically limit the EPA’s ability to regulate in the future
8) Reverse the White House’s climate guidance to federal agencies
9) Make the Supreme Court more hostile to environmental regulation
10) Pack the executive branch with industry-friendly appointments
11) A flurry of anti-EPA budget bills that will emerge every year, without end
Vox concludes that “the overwhelming likelihood is that GOP operatives and industry lobbyists will control energy and environmental policy for the next four years. What lies ahead now is triage, a long string of terrible choices, desperate battles, and wrenching losses, the consequences of which could reverberate for millennia.” ”
[..]
“But mockery isn’t concerning the many scientists and science observers who have begun calling for active, positive participation in the coming political struggles involving science generally and climate specifically.
Science quoted Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Scientists need to stand up and be heard. They can’t just hunker down in their labs and say that they won’t get involved because the election didn’t go the way they wanted it to.”
Nature quoted Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative relations at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology: “It’s going to be critically important for researchers to stand up for science.” A Nature editorial declared that “the world must not lose faith in the value and the power of evidence.”
Under the headline “How to save the Earth in the era of Donald Trump?” at the Washington Post, Anthony Faiola and science writer Chris Mooney pointed to market forces and to the mitigating effects of political momentum in India and China.
At Slate, meteorologist Eric Holthaus contributed “All is not lost on climate change: Trump will be terrible, but it’s not just about Trump. It’s about you, too.”
Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe published a gently worded, optimistic open letter to the president-elect. Nature conveyed constructive thoughts from nine prominent scientists about science policy.
At the Guardian, Jack Stilgoe of University College London and Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado Boulder declared “They may not like it, but scientists must work with Donald Trump.” ”
PS
Thomas did NOT say nor write any of that extract – other people did – imo the article is worth reading in full and keeping in mind when deciding how to move “forward” or do/say something that helps vs hinders.
Thomassays
102 Lawrence – Does anyone know what’s happening to the arctic sea extent graph?
Some info via Nasa/Noaa:
” another strong cyclone has been having a similar effect on the Arctic over the last week.”
“As a consequence of the strong winds, huge waves and 20 degrees Celsius temperature anomaly across much of the Arctic, sea ice area has been falling during a period when it is usually increasing rapidly” http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/11/nasa-researches-storm-frank-in-the-arctic/
OCT. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
NASA chief slaps down climate sceptic senator Malcolm Roberts
A senior NASA official has taken the extraordinary step of personally rejecting the claims of One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts that the agency had falsified key data to exaggerate warming in the Arctic.
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Senator Roberts he was “mistaken” in his assertion that the US agency had “removed” Arctic data to mask warming in the 1940s.
“You appear to hold a number of misconceptions which I am happy to clarify at this time,” Dr Schmidt told Senator Roberts in letters and emails obtained by Fairfax Media. “The claim that GISS has ‘removed the 1940s warmth’ in the Arctic is not correct.”
Dr Schmidt noted in his letter dated November 18 that the data was freely available on its website.
“We are certainly gratified by the attention Australia pays to our analysis, but in case you have remaining questions, I urge you to perform your own analyses.”
The claim that NASA tampered with decades-old Arctic data is a favourite conspiracy theory among global warming sceptics who argue the current run-up in temperatures – especially at the North Pole – is nothing exceptional, and so action to address climate change is unnecessary.
“But the insistence that the data must’ve been inappropriately adjusted [is what the sceptics say] all the time,” he told Fairfax Media. “[It’s] pretty much the definition of denial.”
Dr Schmidt said he was not surprised that the query about Arctic temperatures was coming from Australia.
“I’m aware of who Malcolm Roberts is, and the only surprise is that he is in fact a senator,” he said.
(big smile)
Killiansays
When I have time, this will be so much fun. As it virtually always is around here and everywhere else, y’all payin’ attention to the wrong things: Remember my August 2015 post on ASI, then look at the charts. Yes, I called it… a year early. It’s all in knowing what to pay attention to.
Anywho… only one bit important here: Why was Bernie’s campaign important?
Hint: It’s not why you think, so step a goodly ways outside the political box on this one.
Please speak plainly about bernie or don’t mention it – i hate guessing. :-)
Thomassays
The youth/hansen court case in Oregon is interesting especially the recent Judge Aiken Order early Nov. 2016; here’s a couple of extracts that touches on the legal basis for the Case (pages 25-27) and about ‘causation’
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
Defendants.
Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 25 of 54
“The causal chain alleged by plaintiffs here is conclusory, but that is because they have not yet had the opportunity to present evidence. And unlike in Bellon, plaintiffs’ causation allegations are not vague. At oral argument, plaintiffs (Youth/Hansen) explained that their theory of causation has two components.”
“The first relates to defendants’ (US Govt, Obama & Agencies) affirmative acts. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that fossil fuel combustion accounts for approximately ninety-four percent [94%] of United States C02 emissions.
“Defendants lease public lands for oil, gas, and coal production;
undercharge royalties in connection with those leases;
provide tax breaks to companies to encourage fossil fuel development;
permit the import and export of fossil fuels;
and incentivize the purchase of sports utility vehicles.
Id.~~ 164, 166, 171, 173, 181, 190.”
“Here, the chain of causation is:
– fossil fuel combustion accounts for the lion’s share of greenhouse gas emissions produced in the United States;
– defendants have the power to increase or decrease those emissions;
– and defendants use that power to engage in a variety of activities that actively cause and promote higher levels of fossil fuel combustion.”
“The second component of plaintiffs’ causation theory involves defendants’ failure to act in areas where they have authority to do so. Plaintiffs allege that together, power plants and transportation produce nearly two-thirds [64%] of C02 emissions in the United States.
Id. ~ 115 (transportation produces approximately twenty-seven percent of annual emissions);
id. ~ 125 (power plants produce roughly thirty-seven percent of annual emissions).”
“Plaintiffs also allege DOT and EPA have broad power to set emissions standards in these sectors. So the chain of causation is:
– DOT and EPA have jurisdiction over sectors producing sixty-four percent [64%] of United States emissions,
– which in turn constitute roughly fourteen percent [14%] of emissions worldwide;
– they allow high emissions levels by failing to set demanding standards;
– high emissions levels cause climate change;
– and climate change causes plaintiffs’ injuries.”
“Each link in these causal chains may be difficult to prove, but the “spectre of difficulty down the road does not inform [the] justiciability determination at this early stage of the proceedings.” Alperin, 410 F.3d at 539. At the pleading stage, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a causal link between defendants’ conduct and the asserted injuries.”
Hint: It’s not why you think, so step a goodly ways outside the political box on this one.”
Because Berniebots think that a 75 year old Jewish/Socialist/Atheist who couldn’t beat Hillary Clinton could somehow beat Trump even though Clinton had adopted most of Sanders’ platform and he was telling his supporters to vote for Clinton.
Incidentally, Clinton won the election. Right now she’s ahead by 1.7 million votes. Had the Russians not tampered with the voting she would have won outright. Investigations are ongoing but Hillary Clinton did her job as a candidate. Our democracy is currently under siege. Identity politics is not going to be a winner for Bernie Sanders. If the Liberal Democratic party can’t pull it together we don’t stand a chance against Trumpism.
Al Gore. You remember Al Gore. Was working with the Clinton’s on environmental policy and issues. Believe me Hillary Clinton was prepared to tackle Climate Change had she won.
Kilian @109,
I always enjoy a good laugh. So bring on the “fun.”
You ask us “Remember my August 2015 post on ASI?” I assume you mean this one in which you tell us
“Here is my statement on ASI for 2016:- New records for area and volume. Period. The only scenario that doesn’t happen in is absolutely perfect conditions for ice growth over the fall and winter followed by absolutely perfect conditions for ice retention in the spring and summer. … El Nino will ensure new lows. We may see a near-complete melt in 2016 or 17. I’ll be surprised if not.”
Now, we did have pretty good “conditions for ice retention in the summer” this year but that aside, the “new lows” being predicted for 2016 were certainly the Arctic SIA & SIV annual minimums. They didn’t happen. Period. The prescience you appear to imagine within your August 2015 comment is not there. Or am I “payin’ attention to the wrong things”?
Perhaps next year you may have better luck. 2017 ASI does look interesting. It will certainly not be benefiting from “absolutely perfect conditions for ice growth over this fall and winter.”
November 13 – 19, 2016 403.74 ppm
November 13 – 19, 2015 400.59 ppm
3.15 ppm increase. Too high for a time period when we should heading toward a flat month comparison. I am looking for weekly averages under 3 ppm, maybe even 2.5 or lower. Noisy number, but monthly averages arrive almost every month and those are less noisy.
I am looking for Nov average to come in at 2.9 ppm over 2015. Nov 2015 was 2.9 over Nov 2014, hence, flat, not increasing rate of increase. That should happen and then we should move into smaller numbers with monthly avg increase comparison of under 2 ppm for 2016 over 2015, where 2015 over 2014 is in the books in the 3 plus range.
Meanwhile, I read on Scribbler that the local readings on CO2 around the Amazon suggest that carbon sink is not working as it has historically. Hope it rains on Amazon and that this large carbon sink resumes regular function. I think I also read that a million trees died in CA due to the drought. Sounds like a lot of trees. Hard to predict how these changes play out. It’s a very dynamic system with indications that there may be somewhat steady states and that flux within the system can create state change.
I would not mind if the political discussion remained on the recent political thread. Election is over, how about we talk science except on the overtly political post?
Warm regards
Mike
Thomassays
“Incidentally, Clinton won the election.”
Bias is a problem that always gets in the way of rational clear thinking. Clinton lost the election.
Was Clinton able to prove to and convince the American people that Action on Climate Change was the #1 Moral Imperative of our time? No. She was a failure.
Trick question: If the GOP and Democrats are the solution, then what on earth is the problem supposed to be? :-)
The Electoral College was meant to prevent half-crazies from becoming President.
That turned out well didn’t it?
Ray Ladburysays
On Bernie vs. Hillary vs. Trump: I know counterfactuals are fun, but can we focus on reality?
The reality is that we have a President elect who is choosing a cabinet who agree with him in his sincere belief that physical and fiscal realities are irrelevant. I think that might be a problem.
… the exact chemical processes that led to the deadly mix of fog and pollution have not been fully understood over the past 60 years.
The 1952 killer fog led to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1956 by the British Parliament and is still considered the worst air pollution event in the European history.
Through laboratory experiments and atmospheric measurements in China, the team has come up with the answers.
“People have known that sulfate was a big contributor to the fog, and sulfuric acid particles were formed from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for residential use and power plants, and other means,” Zhang says.
“But how sulfur dioxide was turned into sulfuric acid was unclear. Our results showed that this process was facilitated by nitrogen dioxide, another co-product of coal burning, and occurred initially on natural fog. Another key aspect in the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfate is that it produces acidic particles, which subsequently inhibits this process. Natural fog contained larger particles of several tens of micrometers in size, and the acid formed was sufficiently diluted. Evaporation of those fog particles then left smaller acidic haze particles that covered the city.”
The study shows that similar chemistry occurs frequently in China, which has battled air pollution for decades. Of the 20 most polluted cities in the world, China is home to 16 of them, and Beijing often exceeds by many times the acceptable air standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“The difference in China is that the haze starts from much smaller nanoparticles, and the sulfate formation process is only possible with ammonia to neutralize the particles,” Zhang adds.
I would think we are at a key point in the evolution of climate awareness, my sublime tries to plot the current political events and my own experience with our weather, the unprecedented uptake in warming, to a potential threshold in human history.
#113 Ma Rodger “… we did have pretty good “conditions for ice retention in the summer” this year but that aside, the “new lows” being predicted for 2016 were certainly the Arctic SIA & SIV annual minimums. They didn’t happen.”
A main take away from the sea ice 2016 record (let aside the yet low September minimum):
For January 2016, the satellite based data showed the lowest overall Arctic sea ice extent of any January since records begun in 1979. Bob Henson from Wunderground noted:
From February 2016: Hand in hand with the skimpy ice cover, temperatures across the Arctic have been extraordinarily warm for midwinter. Just before New Year’s, a slug of mild air pushed temperatures above freezing to within 200 miles of the North Pole. That warm pulse quickly dissipated, but it was followed by a series of intense North Atlantic cyclones that sent very mild air poleward, in tandem with a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation during the first three weeks of the month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
And records were broken during early summer as well. However, i don’t understand why various people postulate a ice free state, let alone the definition. Ice free is pretty much irrelevant if the overall decal trend is downward.
from the climate change dispatch piece link at 123
“Dr. Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin), the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the Independent he and other government scientists are “not going to stand” for any funding cuts or other interference in their work…
When The Independent asked Schmidt what he would do if Trump told him global warming was a hoax, Schmidt replied: “With respect, that’s not actually true.”
Schmidt went on to say he’d consider resigning if Trump didn’t embrace his vision of NASA as an environmental research institution or threatened to censor him.”
It’s tragicomic to read that Gavin is considering resigning if Trump guts NASA’s study of global climate science as Trump says he intends to do. Makes me think of Dirty Harry moment: come on. make my day.
I have been urging climate scientists to speak much more forcefully about the dangers of climate change for years. Climate scientists usually retreat to the Pure Science explanation of their work and want to avoid the heavy lifting that arises when discussion of how the pure science must impact public policy arises. Guess what? When enough voters don’t understand the basic science and the public policy implications of same, then we get President Trump.
It’s fun to say, “hey, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you” but when that stance comes back to bite you in the ass, you may want to consider whether a more effective, forceful explanation might have been called for. You want to keep a job studying climate science on this planet with a paycheck from the US government? You have to reach a lot of red state voters with your message and the message needs to help those voters understand why their tax dollars are hitting your bank account.
President Trump. I think we are there. I know that Clinton “won” the election, but Trump appears to be our next president. Threaten to resign? Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?
Scientists like Mann and Schmidt needed to step up when Hansen retired and maintain the high pressure, straight talk. Speak scientific truth to power. Not up to the task imho. On the hook and squirming instead of fighting and leading public science education for all ages. Backs to the wall now. Get after it. Is it too late? It’s never too late to do the right thing.
“with respect, that’s not actually true.” Shorter, babe: That’s completely false. You are dead wrong about that.
Come on, you can do it.
I have seen you speak more directly and disrespectfully to commenters here, you can do it.
Warm regards
Mike
oh, btw:
Daily CO2
November 22, 2016: 403.55 ppm
November 22, 2015: 400.15 ppm
3.4 ppm increase. Respectfully, that looks wrong. Should be 3 minus range right now. Yes, noisy number. no problemo.
Thomassays
119 prokaryotes; the linked news report says: “while they have not found conclusive evidence of a hack, the pattern in their results merits an independent review.”
P. this is punditry based on selective statistics and a conspiracy theory. The GOP could equally assert, using the same stats pattern: “Ms Clinton received 7 per cent MORE votes in counties that used paper ballots” and it deserves an independent review.
I’m not biased so I’ll wait and see if fraud charges are ever laid and it goes to Court – only then would I give it any attention. Despite all the bs before the election by media pundits proven wrong, none have shut up since.
eg see Trafalgar Group (R) in PA, NC, MI, GA, FL; Remington Research (R)* in FL; Emerson in OH; RCP Average in NM Clinton jumps 3%; RCP Average in NH & CO where both jump 4% in votes vs polls.
WI is an outlier, minimally polled across time, where Clinton never visited, a GOP Governor, and the home of the GOP Speaker of the House. It’s too late now to pay it the attention it always deserved – Trump et al were there regularly for good reason – their own “private polling” told a different story than that in Polls and by the useless Media pundits and DNC leadership.
Before entertaining conspiracy theories it’s more logical to first consider Occam’s Razor and his best friends Incompetence & Stupidity! These are far more logical reasons why Clinton and the Democrats lost the un-loseable election. :-)
Let’s do what climate scientists do – stick to the empirical evidence – ie Clinton lost the election – and move on?
Simon Csays
50:Lawrence: This overlooks the sad history of what happens when real power is delegated into the hands of a oligarchy, however well meaning they may be at first. They end up defending their power and supressing popular resistance; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, even when in the hands of a group rather than an individual. Popular dissent is brutally supressed. Eventually they are liable to be overthrown, and whether or not they are overthrown (cf Syria) the cost is enormous.
That’s why Winston Churchill was correct when he pointed out that democracy is the worst system of govenment, except for all the others.
Wow, that’s an ugly and noisy number.
I am looking for 2.9 ppm increase or below on monthly average 2016 to 2015. Anything higher raises questions about carbon cycle, changes in carbon sinks, etc.
Would either Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann have any thoughts on the following paper regarding higher climate sensitivities during interglacials and its possible implications for the later part of our century — and the next century, if you are feeling generous?
Wishing Neven well on his well deserved sabbattical. Also to clear the mind and reset the mojo. The arctic sea ice extent graph is positively scary. It started out early in the year by melting sooner and at a faster rate than ever before. It won’t be long perhaps a couple weeks until the melting rate begins to slow again amazingly prematurely. Is the the unmistakable fingerprint of a major tipping point tipping over?. The extent of the constant year’s anomaly seems to indicate thus. Less ice begets even less ice. The last el-nino might still be having an influence but the situation sure seems to be ramping up.
Soon anthropogenic emissions will dissolve into insignificance against the unstoppable might of a furious gaia fully prepared to clean the slate after 200+years of ignorant and wanton abuse at the hands of homo-sapien.
What do you expect this time of year? What’s the normal variability in the data day to day? And how often is the preliminary data point revised for accuracy? Remember last February and last April?
Yes, we have real problems here. But your post just “raises questions” — questions already addressed that you can answer by reading here at RC and Tamino’s and other science sites.
Remember you’re writing for an audience here. Being scared about numbers in public isn’t educating anyone about what’s happening. There’s plenty of info on what’s happening. You know how to find this stuff.
#129, Timothy Chase–Thanks for a very interesting link. Not good news, if it’s a robust result–and this is already the second paper finding higher sensitivity during warmer regimes.
Who’s this? ‘Google just showed me an unfamiliar site that says:
Real Global Temperature Trend, p9 – ‘Not all Climate Forcers are equal, so Climate Sensitivity is Higher,’ NASA says
Posted on April 9, 2016 by Rolf Schuttenhelm
Climate sensitivity is hot these days. That is because ‘the lukewarmers’* have tried to suggest it is overestimated – and now real climate scientists are publishing studies showing the opposite: climate sensitivity may be underestimated…..
Real Global Temperature Trend, p10 – Refining cloud feedbacks lifts climate sensitivity to 5-5.3 degrees(!), say Yale researchers ….
Caballero, Rodrigo, and Matthew Huber. “State-dependent climate sensitivity in past warm climates and its implications for future climate projections.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.35 (2013): 14162-14167. (open access) http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14162.full
Are you thinking of something else? I was also struck by how quickly temperatures might rise in the 2016 paper, perhaps as much as 6°C by end of century under BAU.
As I have also repeated several times – everything is connected!
AGW/CC is not “The Problem” – it is not the cause of anything – it is merely one of the many symptoms that some people choose to care about and focus upon – others choose to deny.
Meanwhile almost everyone sits on their hands and does nothing about the Real Problems facing humanity, the environment and life on Earth.
Look at the dumb comments under that article. People just live in denial or don’t care. Unfortunately you can’t force people to care, so it looks likely to me that humans have collectively decided to take the do-what-I-want-now and gamble on climate change not being a problem, or if it is a problem, then it is someone elses problem. It is a pity no-one has invented a justice field to surround the earth, which would act to ensure that perpetrators and perpetators only suffered from the consequences of their choices.
November 20 – 26, 2016 403.98 ppm
November 20 – 26, 2015 400.30 ppm
3.68 ppm increase which is too high. We should be around 2.9 ppm or below. Weekly average is a noisy number, but the trend day after day and week after week is in the wrong direction. I think what this means is that CO2 sats are continuing to rise because of changes in the natural carbon cycle of the planet. I think we are seeing changes in abilities of forests and oceans to act as carbon sinks and we may also be seeing new sources of CO2 coming on line now – things like melting permafrost, drought stricken lands, tree deaths due to prolonged drought conditions (CA tree deaths for one example). We should become quite alarmed if we continue to observe CO2 continue to accumulate at a rate of 3 ppm or more because we are now comparing monthly average numbers from the current year (which is not an EN state) in comparison with the same month last year (which was a strong EN state).
I expect it will take some time for the real scientists to accumulate the data and start publishing about the increase.
We need to see a monthly November number for 2016 with CO2 at around 402.9 or below. I suspect we are going to be higher than that. As I said last year, the rate of increase is increasing. EN played a part, but the underlying trend and numbers are also simply increasing and the rate of increase is increasing. November monthly number should be out in a few days.
Is the rate of increase rising, falling, or steady? You were so noisy last year criticizing my posts when I stated that the rate of increase was rising and you didn’t stop until Tamino agreed with my position that the rate of increase is increasing.
Were you wrong last year about the rate of increase? It’s a simple yes or no type answer. A track record of being right or wrong about things is useful when trying to evaluate the kind of stuff that pops up in a thread like this. Were you right or wrong last year about the rate of increase?
mike @96.
The graphic you link to is frozen in time & a few days out-of-date. That daily graphic orignates with the DMI here although a version of the same exercise in reanalysis with uncertainty intervals showing the level of previous variation (which are useful to know) is here. That second version is also accompanied by bar graphs of ranked monthly averages (at present updated only to June) which doesn’t entirely afford a view of the chronology of this data, although the graphic here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) of 12-month rolling averages perhaps does better (at present updated only to June). An Arctic Ocean chronology based on UAH TLTv5.6 (again 2 clicks) affords a view of monthly Arctic Ocean temperatures (measured considerably higher than 2m). In a couple of weeks we will see November’s posting for UAH which should be interesting.
Does anyone know what’s happening to the arctic sea extent graph? It’s the season when the ice is supposed to be growing at the fastest rate and instead it seems to be melting again. Checking the sea temp anomaly partly tells the story. Large parts of it are actually quite high above the norm. Might be getting battered by intense arctic lows as well. Thus entire freezing season the line has been way way outside the norm and well and truly in record territory.
90 Chuck Hughes says: “Thomas, your word salads make Sarah Palin sound like Shakespeare.”
Mr Hughes, if you chose to check the many refs I provide like that given in #78 your opinions would be more right more often. (in theory at least) :-)
I’m feel sorry that you and others keep missing the point. Does Climate Science exist in a Vacuum?
If it does then ‘the possessive purists’ could go and live in the Unabomber’s Cabin and be in a permanent state of Bliss. :-)
National Geographic article March 2015 – one of thousands on the subject – Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?
“Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that’s because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.
In the U.S., climate change somehow has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: “People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this.”
Says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always TRUMPING science. And they will continue to TRUMP science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
People who miss the point will still see Polling, Elections, Politics and the Media, and Science from other fields of study, as irrelevant and an unnecessary distraction from their very narrow frame of reference and myopia.
“You can only understand what your brain allows you to understand.” George Lakoff
When Lakoff says “Reason is 98% Subconscious Metaphor in Frames & Cultural Narratives” does this apply or as I suspect, do many still believe that they are immune from these scientifically proven psychological realities?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0R1du1GqA
“In short, she landed on many of the right messages, but she was the wrong messenger.” Naomi Klein
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/opinion/trump-defeated-clinton-not-women.html
BY Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA’s history program, and was a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.
TITLE:
In post-election media, colorful thread develops on science—mainly climate science.
Is Donald Trump “the first anti-science president we have ever had”?
by Steven T. Corneliussen 18 November 2016
Extracts:
At the New York Times, “Dot Earth” science columnist Andrew Revkin has twice pointed readers to an article at Vox arguing that “few people understand just how radical the GOP environmental agenda is.” Vox offers this list of “top environmental priorities for Trump and a GOP Congress”:
1) Kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan
2) Withdraw from the Paris climate agreement
3) Dismantle US environmental rules around coal power
4) Weaken fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks
5) Open up new public lands to oil and gas drilling
6) Scale back federal support for wind and solar power
7) Dramatically limit the EPA’s ability to regulate in the future
8) Reverse the White House’s climate guidance to federal agencies
9) Make the Supreme Court more hostile to environmental regulation
10) Pack the executive branch with industry-friendly appointments
11) A flurry of anti-EPA budget bills that will emerge every year, without end
Vox concludes that “the overwhelming likelihood is that GOP operatives and industry lobbyists will control energy and environmental policy for the next four years. What lies ahead now is triage, a long string of terrible choices, desperate battles, and wrenching losses, the consequences of which could reverberate for millennia.” ”
[..]
“But mockery isn’t concerning the many scientists and science observers who have begun calling for active, positive participation in the coming political struggles involving science generally and climate specifically.
Science quoted Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Scientists need to stand up and be heard. They can’t just hunker down in their labs and say that they won’t get involved because the election didn’t go the way they wanted it to.”
Nature quoted Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative relations at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology: “It’s going to be critically important for researchers to stand up for science.” A Nature editorial declared that “the world must not lose faith in the value and the power of evidence.”
Under the headline “How to save the Earth in the era of Donald Trump?” at the Washington Post, Anthony Faiola and science writer Chris Mooney pointed to market forces and to the mitigating effects of political momentum in India and China.
At Slate, meteorologist Eric Holthaus contributed “All is not lost on climate change: Trump will be terrible, but it’s not just about Trump. It’s about you, too.”
Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe published a gently worded, optimistic open letter to the president-elect. Nature conveyed constructive thoughts from nine prominent scientists about science policy.
At the Guardian, Jack Stilgoe of University College London and Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado Boulder declared “They may not like it, but scientists must work with Donald Trump.” ”
PS
Thomas did NOT say nor write any of that extract – other people did – imo the article is worth reading in full and keeping in mind when deciding how to move “forward” or do/say something that helps vs hinders.
102 Lawrence – Does anyone know what’s happening to the arctic sea extent graph?
Some info via Nasa/Noaa:
” another strong cyclone has been having a similar effect on the Arctic over the last week.”
“As a consequence of the strong winds, huge waves and 20 degrees Celsius temperature anomaly across much of the Arctic, sea ice area has been falling during a period when it is usually increasing rapidly”
http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/11/nasa-researches-storm-frank-in-the-arctic/
OCT. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
NOV 18th – Extreme Arctic warmth was drawn in by two warm storms — one running north from the Barents on November 14. Another emerging from Kamchatka on November 16 and 17.
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/18/arctic-storms-sparked-severe-polar-warming-sea-ice-melt-for-november-2016/
cheers
Another denier meme bites the dust? “Ice loss in the Arctic is being balanced off with ice sheet and sea ice gains in the Antarctic”
summary and videos on Arctic, Antarctic (Sea) Ice in Free Fall November 20, 2016 https://climatecrocks.com/2016/11/20/arctic-antarctic-ice-in-free-fall/
and on CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/18/world/sea-ice-arctic-antarctic-lows/
NASA chief slaps down climate sceptic senator Malcolm Roberts
A senior NASA official has taken the extraordinary step of personally rejecting the claims of One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts that the agency had falsified key data to exaggerate warming in the Arctic.
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Senator Roberts he was “mistaken” in his assertion that the US agency had “removed” Arctic data to mask warming in the 1940s.
“You appear to hold a number of misconceptions which I am happy to clarify at this time,” Dr Schmidt told Senator Roberts in letters and emails obtained by Fairfax Media. “The claim that GISS has ‘removed the 1940s warmth’ in the Arctic is not correct.”
Dr Schmidt noted in his letter dated November 18 that the data was freely available on its website.
“We are certainly gratified by the attention Australia pays to our analysis, but in case you have remaining questions, I urge you to perform your own analyses.”
The claim that NASA tampered with decades-old Arctic data is a favourite conspiracy theory among global warming sceptics who argue the current run-up in temperatures – especially at the North Pole – is nothing exceptional, and so action to address climate change is unnecessary.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/nasa-chief-slaps-down-climate-sceptic-senator-malcolm-roberts-you-hold-a-number-of-misconceptions-20161120-gstp0y.html
(smile)
“But the insistence that the data must’ve been inappropriately adjusted [is what the sceptics say] all the time,” he told Fairfax Media. “[It’s] pretty much the definition of denial.”
Dr Schmidt said he was not surprised that the query about Arctic temperatures was coming from Australia.
“I’m aware of who Malcolm Roberts is, and the only surprise is that he is in fact a senator,” he said.
(big smile)
When I have time, this will be so much fun. As it virtually always is around here and everywhere else, y’all payin’ attention to the wrong things: Remember my August 2015 post on ASI, then look at the charts. Yes, I called it… a year early. It’s all in knowing what to pay attention to.
Anywho… only one bit important here: Why was Bernie’s campaign important?
Hint: It’s not why you think, so step a goodly ways outside the political box on this one.
109 Killian, hi, which post on ASI?
“We may see a near-complete melt in 2016 or 17.” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/unforced-variations-aug-2015/comment-page-4/#comment-635099
and/or https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/unforced-variations-aug-2015/comment-page-5/#comment-635199
Please speak plainly about bernie or don’t mention it – i hate guessing. :-)
The youth/hansen court case in Oregon is interesting especially the recent Judge Aiken Order early Nov. 2016; here’s a couple of extracts that touches on the legal basis for the Case (pages 25-27) and about ‘causation’
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
Defendants.
Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 25 of 54
“The causal chain alleged by plaintiffs here is conclusory, but that is because they have not yet had the opportunity to present evidence. And unlike in Bellon, plaintiffs’ causation allegations are not vague. At oral argument, plaintiffs (Youth/Hansen) explained that their theory of causation has two components.”
“The first relates to defendants’ (US Govt, Obama & Agencies) affirmative acts. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that fossil fuel combustion accounts for approximately ninety-four percent [94%] of United States C02 emissions.
“Defendants lease public lands for oil, gas, and coal production;
undercharge royalties in connection with those leases;
provide tax breaks to companies to encourage fossil fuel development;
permit the import and export of fossil fuels;
and incentivize the purchase of sports utility vehicles.
Id.~~ 164, 166, 171, 173, 181, 190.”
“Here, the chain of causation is:
– fossil fuel combustion accounts for the lion’s share of greenhouse gas emissions produced in the United States;
– defendants have the power to increase or decrease those emissions;
– and defendants use that power to engage in a variety of activities that actively cause and promote higher levels of fossil fuel combustion.”
“The second component of plaintiffs’ causation theory involves defendants’ failure to act in areas where they have authority to do so. Plaintiffs allege that together, power plants and transportation produce nearly two-thirds [64%] of C02 emissions in the United States.
Id. ~ 115 (transportation produces approximately twenty-seven percent of annual emissions);
id. ~ 125 (power plants produce roughly thirty-seven percent of annual emissions).”
“Plaintiffs also allege DOT and EPA have broad power to set emissions standards in these sectors. So the chain of causation is:
– DOT and EPA have jurisdiction over sectors producing sixty-four percent [64%] of United States emissions,
– which in turn constitute roughly fourteen percent [14%] of emissions worldwide;
– they allow high emissions levels by failing to set demanding standards;
– high emissions levels cause climate change;
– and climate change causes plaintiffs’ injuries.”
“Each link in these causal chains may be difficult to prove, but the “spectre of difficulty down the road does not inform [the] justiciability determination at this early stage of the proceedings.” Alperin, 410 F.3d at 539. At the pleading stage, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a causal link between defendants’ conduct and the asserted injuries.”
cheers
see http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/AikenOrder.2016.10November.pdf
Killian says:
21 Nov 2016 at 7:10 AM
Why was Bernie’s campaign important?
Hint: It’s not why you think, so step a goodly ways outside the political box on this one.”
Because Berniebots think that a 75 year old Jewish/Socialist/Atheist who couldn’t beat Hillary Clinton could somehow beat Trump even though Clinton had adopted most of Sanders’ platform and he was telling his supporters to vote for Clinton.
Incidentally, Clinton won the election. Right now she’s ahead by 1.7 million votes. Had the Russians not tampered with the voting she would have won outright. Investigations are ongoing but Hillary Clinton did her job as a candidate. Our democracy is currently under siege. Identity politics is not going to be a winner for Bernie Sanders. If the Liberal Democratic party can’t pull it together we don’t stand a chance against Trumpism.
Al Gore. You remember Al Gore. Was working with the Clinton’s on environmental policy and issues. Believe me Hillary Clinton was prepared to tackle Climate Change had she won.
Kilian @109,
I always enjoy a good laugh. So bring on the “fun.”
You ask us “Remember my August 2015 post on ASI?” I assume you mean this one in which you tell us
Now, we did have pretty good “conditions for ice retention in the summer” this year but that aside, the “new lows” being predicted for 2016 were certainly the Arctic SIA & SIV annual minimums. They didn’t happen. Period. The prescience you appear to imagine within your August 2015 comment is not there. Or am I “payin’ attention to the wrong things”?
Perhaps next year you may have better luck. 2017 ASI does look interesting. It will certainly not be benefiting from “absolutely perfect conditions for ice growth over this fall and winter.”
Last Week
November 13 – 19, 2016 403.74 ppm
November 13 – 19, 2015 400.59 ppm
3.15 ppm increase. Too high for a time period when we should heading toward a flat month comparison. I am looking for weekly averages under 3 ppm, maybe even 2.5 or lower. Noisy number, but monthly averages arrive almost every month and those are less noisy.
I am looking for Nov average to come in at 2.9 ppm over 2015. Nov 2015 was 2.9 over Nov 2014, hence, flat, not increasing rate of increase. That should happen and then we should move into smaller numbers with monthly avg increase comparison of under 2 ppm for 2016 over 2015, where 2015 over 2014 is in the books in the 3 plus range.
Meanwhile, I read on Scribbler that the local readings on CO2 around the Amazon suggest that carbon sink is not working as it has historically. Hope it rains on Amazon and that this large carbon sink resumes regular function. I think I also read that a million trees died in CA due to the drought. Sounds like a lot of trees. Hard to predict how these changes play out. It’s a very dynamic system with indications that there may be somewhat steady states and that flux within the system can create state change.
I would not mind if the political discussion remained on the recent political thread. Election is over, how about we talk science except on the overtly political post?
Warm regards
Mike
“Incidentally, Clinton won the election.”
Bias is a problem that always gets in the way of rational clear thinking. Clinton lost the election.
Was Clinton able to prove to and convince the American people that Action on Climate Change was the #1 Moral Imperative of our time? No. She was a failure.
Trick question: If the GOP and Democrats are the solution, then what on earth is the problem supposed to be? :-)
Sea Ice North Pole region slush 27 Aug 2016 – Only 30-40% Ice Cover or 60% is open water. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPYTcyM0NRdmt1Mlk/
Democracy.
The Electoral College was meant to prevent half-crazies from becoming President.
That turned out well didn’t it?
On Bernie vs. Hillary vs. Trump: I know counterfactuals are fun, but can we focus on reality?
The reality is that we have a President elect who is choosing a cabinet who agree with him in his sincere belief that physical and fiscal realities are irrelevant. I think that might be a problem.
Uh, oh. Bad news for India and China:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-mystery-historic-london-fog-current.html
Look at the smoke piling up against the Himalaya range and blowing east from India: http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-archive/natural/jpg/epic_1b_20161122053239_01.jpg
Yep, it’s a forcing AND a feedback.
We still don’t model the feedbacks through mortality and politics, do we?
Thomas #115 “Bias is a problem that always gets in the way of rational clear thinking. Clinton lost the election.”
Computer scientists say they have strong evidence election was rigged against Clinton in three key states http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania-election-hillary-clinton-hacked-manipulated-donald-trump-swing-a7433091.html
#ElectronicVotingIsEasillyAccessible
Tempering would confirm my personal bias, and the bias of polling (Which is generally accurate).
I would think we are at a key point in the evolution of climate awareness, my sublime tries to plot the current political events and my own experience with our weather, the unprecedented uptake in warming, to a potential threshold in human history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abjE9Qx0O60
#Phylosophical
#113 Ma Rodger “… we did have pretty good “conditions for ice retention in the summer” this year but that aside, the “new lows” being predicted for 2016 were certainly the Arctic SIA & SIV annual minimums. They didn’t happen.”
A main take away from the sea ice 2016 record (let aside the yet low September minimum):
For January 2016, the satellite based data showed the lowest overall Arctic sea ice extent of any January since records begun in 1979. Bob Henson from Wunderground noted:
From February 2016: Hand in hand with the skimpy ice cover, temperatures across the Arctic have been extraordinarily warm for midwinter. Just before New Year’s, a slug of mild air pushed temperatures above freezing to within 200 miles of the North Pole. That warm pulse quickly dissipated, but it was followed by a series of intense North Atlantic cyclones that sent very mild air poleward, in tandem with a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation during the first three weeks of the month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
And records were broken during early summer as well. However, i don’t understand why various people postulate a ice free state, let alone the definition. Ice free is pretty much irrelevant if the overall decal trend is downward.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nasa-global-warming-climate-change-denial-donald-trump-interference-science-a7421416.html
http://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa-climate-scientists-threatens-to-resign-if-trump-cuts-funding/
from the climate change dispatch piece link at 123
“Dr. Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin), the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the Independent he and other government scientists are “not going to stand” for any funding cuts or other interference in their work…
When The Independent asked Schmidt what he would do if Trump told him global warming was a hoax, Schmidt replied: “With respect, that’s not actually true.”
Schmidt went on to say he’d consider resigning if Trump didn’t embrace his vision of NASA as an environmental research institution or threatened to censor him.”
It’s tragicomic to read that Gavin is considering resigning if Trump guts NASA’s study of global climate science as Trump says he intends to do. Makes me think of Dirty Harry moment: come on. make my day.
I have been urging climate scientists to speak much more forcefully about the dangers of climate change for years. Climate scientists usually retreat to the Pure Science explanation of their work and want to avoid the heavy lifting that arises when discussion of how the pure science must impact public policy arises. Guess what? When enough voters don’t understand the basic science and the public policy implications of same, then we get President Trump.
It’s fun to say, “hey, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you” but when that stance comes back to bite you in the ass, you may want to consider whether a more effective, forceful explanation might have been called for. You want to keep a job studying climate science on this planet with a paycheck from the US government? You have to reach a lot of red state voters with your message and the message needs to help those voters understand why their tax dollars are hitting your bank account.
President Trump. I think we are there. I know that Clinton “won” the election, but Trump appears to be our next president. Threaten to resign? Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?
Scientists like Mann and Schmidt needed to step up when Hansen retired and maintain the high pressure, straight talk. Speak scientific truth to power. Not up to the task imho. On the hook and squirming instead of fighting and leading public science education for all ages. Backs to the wall now. Get after it. Is it too late? It’s never too late to do the right thing.
“with respect, that’s not actually true.” Shorter, babe: That’s completely false. You are dead wrong about that.
Come on, you can do it.
I have seen you speak more directly and disrespectfully to commenters here, you can do it.
Warm regards
Mike
oh, btw:
Daily CO2
November 22, 2016: 403.55 ppm
November 22, 2015: 400.15 ppm
3.4 ppm increase. Respectfully, that looks wrong. Should be 3 minus range right now. Yes, noisy number. no problemo.
119 prokaryotes; the linked news report says: “while they have not found conclusive evidence of a hack, the pattern in their results merits an independent review.”
P. this is punditry based on selective statistics and a conspiracy theory. The GOP could equally assert, using the same stats pattern: “Ms Clinton received 7 per cent MORE votes in counties that used paper ballots” and it deserves an independent review.
I’m not biased so I’ll wait and see if fraud charges are ever laid and it goes to Court – only then would I give it any attention. Despite all the bs before the election by media pundits proven wrong, none have shut up since.
fwiw RCP Battleground State Polls vs Final Results http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016StateFinalResults.html
eg see Trafalgar Group (R) in PA, NC, MI, GA, FL; Remington Research (R)* in FL; Emerson in OH; RCP Average in NM Clinton jumps 3%; RCP Average in NH & CO where both jump 4% in votes vs polls.
WI is an outlier, minimally polled across time, where Clinton never visited, a GOP Governor, and the home of the GOP Speaker of the House. It’s too late now to pay it the attention it always deserved – Trump et al were there regularly for good reason – their own “private polling” told a different story than that in Polls and by the useless Media pundits and DNC leadership.
Before entertaining conspiracy theories it’s more logical to first consider Occam’s Razor and his best friends Incompetence & Stupidity! These are far more logical reasons why Clinton and the Democrats lost the un-loseable election. :-)
“Wisconsin is a blue state, but you wouldn’t know it from attending this rally, where thousands of passionate Trump fans came out to cheer on their candidate.” http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-rally-speech-event-eau-claire-wisconsin-wl-zorn-arena-supporters-fans-scott-walker-crowd/
Let’s do what climate scientists do – stick to the empirical evidence – ie Clinton lost the election – and move on?
50:Lawrence: This overlooks the sad history of what happens when real power is delegated into the hands of a oligarchy, however well meaning they may be at first. They end up defending their power and supressing popular resistance; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, even when in the hands of a group rather than an individual. Popular dissent is brutally supressed. Eventually they are liable to be overthrown, and whether or not they are overthrown (cf Syria) the cost is enormous.
That’s why Winston Churchill was correct when he pointed out that democracy is the worst system of govenment, except for all the others.
Modelers — anyone got a before-the-eruption vs. ongoing eruption comparison yet:?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/nov/25/mexicos-popocatepetl-volcano-emits-huge-columns-ash-smoke-video
Daily CO2
November 25, 2016: 405.2 ppm
November 25, 2015: 400.81 ppm
4.39 ppm increase
Wow, that’s an ugly and noisy number.
I am looking for 2.9 ppm increase or below on monthly average 2016 to 2015. Anything higher raises questions about carbon cycle, changes in carbon sinks, etc.
Warm regards
Mike
Would either Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann have any thoughts on the following paper regarding higher climate sensitivities during interglacials and its possible implications for the later part of our century — and the next century, if you are feeling generous?
Friedrich, Tobias, et al. “Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming.” Science Advances 2.11 (2016): e1501923.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
Wishing Neven well on his well deserved sabbattical. Also to clear the mind and reset the mojo. The arctic sea ice extent graph is positively scary. It started out early in the year by melting sooner and at a faster rate than ever before. It won’t be long perhaps a couple weeks until the melting rate begins to slow again amazingly prematurely. Is the the unmistakable fingerprint of a major tipping point tipping over?. The extent of the constant year’s anomaly seems to indicate thus. Less ice begets even less ice. The last el-nino might still be having an influence but the situation sure seems to be ramping up.
Soon anthropogenic emissions will dissolve into insignificance against the unstoppable might of a furious gaia fully prepared to clean the slate after 200+years of ignorant and wanton abuse at the hands of homo-sapien.
Mike, Mike, Mike … please.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_one_year.png
What do you expect this time of year? What’s the normal variability in the data day to day? And how often is the preliminary data point revised for accuracy? Remember last February and last April?
Yes, we have real problems here. But your post just “raises questions” — questions already addressed that you can answer by reading here at RC and Tamino’s and other science sites.
Remember you’re writing for an audience here. Being scared about numbers in public isn’t educating anyone about what’s happening. There’s plenty of info on what’s happening. You know how to find this stuff.
Reality is plenty scary.
#129, Timothy Chase–Thanks for a very interesting link. Not good news, if it’s a robust result–and this is already the second paper finding higher sensitivity during warmer regimes.
NOAAs Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2 @Oct +3.3ppm – with last 4 years avg
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
#127, comparison of what Hank?
> #127, comparison of what Hank?
https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+volcano+model
PS, for Mike:
http://www.nature.com/search?q=carbon+sink
Just one of many from the results you’ll get:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/161108/ncomms13428/full/ncomms13428.html
Who’s this? ‘Google just showed me an unfamiliar site that says:
http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-forcers-climate-sensitivity-nasa-7046/
Scientists assess coral deaths in the worst-affected part of the Reef in November 2016.
Scientists expect that the northern region will take at least 10-15 years to regain the lost corals, but they are concerned that a fourth bleaching event could happen sooner and interrupt the slow recovery.
https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/life-and-death-after-great-barrier-reef-bleaching
The Great Barrier Reef bleached severely for the first time in 1998, then in 2002, and now again in 2016. This year’s event was more extreme than the two previous mass bleachings.
http://theconversation.com/how-much-coral-has-died-in-the-great-barrier-reefs-worst-bleaching-event-69494
#132 Kevin McKinney – I see a couple of papers that also suggest a higher sensitivity in warmer climates – both from 2013:
Hansen, James, et al. “Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 371.2001 (2013): 20120294. (open access)
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.short
Caballero, Rodrigo, and Matthew Huber. “State-dependent climate sensitivity in past warm climates and its implications for future climate projections.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.35 (2013): 14162-14167. (open access)
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14162.full
Are you thinking of something else? I was also struck by how quickly temperatures might rise in the 2016 paper, perhaps as much as 6°C by end of century under BAU.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/on-giving-tuesday-support-increasingly-embattled-climate-scientists
Increasing Methane Releases in Arctic Proven by International Expeditions
25 November 2016 http://tpu.ru/en/news-events/987/
I’ve mentioned the Indonesian clear felling burning destrcution of rain forests for Palm Oil plantations before – so did Di Caprio.
“Colgate-Palmolive, Kellogg’s, Nestlé and Unilever [Multinational Corporate heavyweights in a Globalized world of greed and graft] are among nine global food and household companies selling products containing palm oil tarnished by human rights abuses in Indonesia, an Amnesty International investigation has found.”
http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/amnesty-international-alleges-human-rights-abuses-in-global-palm-oil-production-20161129-gszyx9.html
As I have also repeated several times – everything is connected!
AGW/CC is not “The Problem” – it is not the cause of anything – it is merely one of the many symptoms that some people choose to care about and focus upon – others choose to deny.
Meanwhile almost everyone sits on their hands and does nothing about the Real Problems facing humanity, the environment and life on Earth.
123:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nasa-global-warming-climate-change-denial-donald-trump-interference-science-a7421416.html
Look at the dumb comments under that article. People just live in denial or don’t care. Unfortunately you can’t force people to care, so it looks likely to me that humans have collectively decided to take the do-what-I-want-now and gamble on climate change not being a problem, or if it is a problem, then it is someone elses problem. It is a pity no-one has invented a justice field to surround the earth, which would act to ensure that perpetrators and perpetators only suffered from the consequences of their choices.
Last Week
November 20 – 26, 2016 403.98 ppm
November 20 – 26, 2015 400.30 ppm
3.68 ppm increase which is too high. We should be around 2.9 ppm or below. Weekly average is a noisy number, but the trend day after day and week after week is in the wrong direction. I think what this means is that CO2 sats are continuing to rise because of changes in the natural carbon cycle of the planet. I think we are seeing changes in abilities of forests and oceans to act as carbon sinks and we may also be seeing new sources of CO2 coming on line now – things like melting permafrost, drought stricken lands, tree deaths due to prolonged drought conditions (CA tree deaths for one example). We should become quite alarmed if we continue to observe CO2 continue to accumulate at a rate of 3 ppm or more because we are now comparing monthly average numbers from the current year (which is not an EN state) in comparison with the same month last year (which was a strong EN state).
I expect it will take some time for the real scientists to accumulate the data and start publishing about the increase.
We need to see a monthly November number for 2016 with CO2 at around 402.9 or below. I suspect we are going to be higher than that. As I said last year, the rate of increase is increasing. EN played a part, but the underlying trend and numbers are also simply increasing and the rate of increase is increasing. November monthly number should be out in a few days.
Read’m and weep.
Mike
Hank, Hank, Hank…
Is the rate of increase rising, falling, or steady? You were so noisy last year criticizing my posts when I stated that the rate of increase was rising and you didn’t stop until Tamino agreed with my position that the rate of increase is increasing.
Were you wrong last year about the rate of increase? It’s a simple yes or no type answer. A track record of being right or wrong about things is useful when trying to evaluate the kind of stuff that pops up in a thread like this. Were you right or wrong last year about the rate of increase?
Cheers,
Mike
30 November 2016
ESA’s CryoSat satellite has found that the Arctic has one of the lowest volumes of sea ice of any November, matching record lows in 2011 and 2012. Early winter growth of ice in the Arctic has been about 10% lower than usual.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Arctic_freeze_slows_down
NSIDC extent data for Nov should arrive soon. the last late Nov info shows record low extent – even further below the 2012 mark than it was 2 weeks ago.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
2017 will be interesting everywhere. cheers