The first open thread of the new year. Your resolution will be to keep the comments focused on science. Try to keep it longer than your resolution to exercise more…
Last year I mentioned a few unprecedented extreme events in and around Australia, fwiw, as merely a heads up.
One was a the extreme warming of the southern waters around Tasmania that was causing impacts on Oysters and other produce. Heard on the news today that the lethal problem was Pacific Oyster Syndrome POS which is a known Virus.
It’s turned up in Tasmania as a direct result of the warming waters there, according to the scientists in the know. It kills 50-60% of oysters when it hits. One Oyster farmer lost $1.5 million of product last year – if you know “business and farming” that kind of losses is unsustainable.
It’s just one “product” in a one tiny region of the world being impacted by climate change today. It’s impossible for “science” or scientists to accurately know all potential impacts into the future (as most here would already know).
Another similar thing has happened with salmon farming … why do we do salmon farming? Because the natural ocean food resources have collapsed and it’s a money making product like oysters are. The most recent story doesn’t cover all the salmon / fish farming problems and locations that are now arising. eg https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/price-of-salmon-leaps-50-as-sea-lice-epidemic-worsens
And then there are the threats to Bees all over the world. My point? Well just another heads up (reminder) fwiw. And an acknowledgement that in this day and age these “stories/events” have been popping up in the news in specific nations or regions, only to be forgotten a few days later, and will continue to pop up and be ignored …. people may not understand the complexities of climate science but surely they understand the cost of food and the impact of malnutrition and eventual starvation?
Now of “they” care, well that’s another question entirely.
Thomassays
January 13, 2017
Last month, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric sciences at Penn State University, could proceed in a defamation suit against climate change-denying blogger Rand Simberg.
In finding that Mann’s case was “likely to succeed” on its merits, Ruiz forced climate change deniers accusing scientists of incompetence or conspiracy to reconsider the legal ramifications of their rhetoric. Legal experts disagree on whether or not this is a good thing.
I mentioned something recently about the only only best chance left for action on AGW/CC (like civil rights) will be in the hands of the courts – this and Hansen’s federal court case being two goods examples, there are many others already happened in Europe – and the environmentalists technically won against the Govts.
It’s damn hot where I am, I can tell you that.
Ray Ladburysays
Thomas@93,
Barrack Obama has accomplished more than any other President as far as climate. He did so at great political cost and with no support from the Congress, showing great creativity along the way. I am very confident that his contribution will be greater than the sum total of those lofty lefties like you who now disparage him.
You don’t even really want to accomplish anything. You just want to be able to say to your grandchildren, “It wasn’t my fault.’
Adam Leasays
If this is not fake news, it is a little concerning for anyone advocating transition to renewable energy.
Why do I get the increasing impression that nothing is going to change, and consequences will hit down the line. Can anyone offer anything optimistic to help me counter despair and negativity about humanity in general?
The number is the amount of carbon that we must somehow suck out of the air, if we want to get back to 350 ppm CO2 in the air by the end of the century, which is a first approximation, a first target, for what must be done to keep climate close to the Holocene range, the relatively stable climate of the past 11,700 years during which civilization developed.
Here I only want to note that the 8-year delay has made the task much more difficult, increasing the magnitude of carbon extraction from 100 GtC to 150 GtC.
Let me also comment on the realism or lack of realism of the 6%/year rate of reduction for CO2 emissions.
Some people say that is implausible, and then, out of the other side of their mouths, they say that we need a plan to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. I’ve got news for them. An 80% reduction by 2050 implies ~5%/year reduction, for the common assumption of exponential reduction, i.e., the percent applies to the fossil fuel emissions still remaining, a reasonable assumption, because you take the low-hanging fruit first.
An alternative scheme to get 80% reduction would be linear reduction of emissions, so 80/30, i.e., ~2.7%/year, if reductions start in 2020.
This is just more Trumpism come to life. If people don’t start smacking this down it will take over in a hurry. Maybe someone needs to do a background check on Mr. Kirk. If he’s anything like the Trumpster fire he’s probably got a full closet.
Charles Hughessays
Thomas says:
11 Jan 2017 at 9:40 PM
#89 Bill, sounds like Barack Obama after wasting 8 years in office failing to convince anyone else there’s a problem here apart from his own two children and wife.”
Thomas, on the other hand, prefers to “save the world with spam”.
Marcosays
Marcus @106: although not a climate scientist, I notice Lawrence Torcello is on their list, based on the misrepresentation by Breitbart of what he said. Then again, Robert Schneider is on their list, too, because he’s said something about fracking they didn’t like. That is, even if Torcello’s words were *not* misrepresented, they’d still likely add him to their list, because, you know, they don’t like his opinion.
SecularAnimistsays
Ray Ladbury wrote: “Barrack Obama has accomplished more than any other President as far as climate.”
I agree, and indeed I would go so far as to say that the Obama administration has done more to address climate change than all previous administrations combined.
Unfortunately that is more an indictment of the inaction of previous administrations than it is praise for Obama — because I would also say that what Obama has done is too little, too late (most of his significant steps to address global warming came in the second half of his second term), and falls far short of both what needs to be done to have any hope of avoiding the worst consequences of global warming, and what could very easily be done.
And of course we now face a hostile takeover of the US government by the fossil fuel corporations, and a new administration determined not only to deny the reality of global warming and suppress climate science, but to actively make global warming worse.
So unfortunately the work at hand is not to build on Obama’s climate policy accomplishments, but rather to fight to keep them from being dismantled and reversed.
Thomassays
Here’s avery interesting story and Poll from Australia, fwiw.
The People seem to be saying that the world should Ban New Coal Mines and Phase it out asap. The People seem to be more switched on than the “experts” who made a Treaty in Paris. Mmmmmm.
Thomassays
104 Ray Ladbury, thanks so much for sharing your opinionated opinion with me. It’s always helpful to know a little bit more about what kind of person someone really is. Have a great 2017 with much joy and happiness to you and your family and friends.
nigeljsays
Thomas @93 says: “89 Bill, sounds like Barack Obama after wasting 8 years in office failing to convince anyone else there’s a problem here apart from his own two children and wife.”
Totally unreasonable criticism. Obama did his best in face of a stupidly hostile congress, a rather dumbed down American public, and a system where politicians are funded by the corporate sector so they become captive to the wishes of this sector. It’s not Obama’s fault he faces these obstacles. It’s a mountain for anyone to overcome single handed.
Having read your confused, long, windy posts I very much doubt you would have done better convincing anyone. (although I agree with some of the points you make)
At first I didn’t like Obama, but I now think he was pretty good overall. I would bet serious money America will look back and ask themselves why they didn’t support him more when it counted.
Was he perfect? Of course not for example Syria, but I would rather have Obama any day than Trump.
Thomassays
106 Marcus, oh another pseudo-think tank / ideological activist group who believe they(quoting) “promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government” while existing off the “welfare benefits” of taxpayer supported “tax free donations” for 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. http://tpusa.com
So much for self-sufficiency and fiscal responsibility by another band of rank Hypocrites; incapable of practicing what they preach is good for everyone else while promoting “Free Speech” by Chilling It at the very same time.
Obviously only their “Free $peech” has any currency, to them. Personal denial, cognitive dissonance and delusions are no way to run a “think” tank or a country, imo.
Ray, the beauty of good science to me is that at the end of the day it is not based on personal opinion or beliefs or even the audacity of hope.
Unlike things such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkMA6JPOHU
Those with a good healthy sense of humour should get a good laugh out of it.
Stick to the science Ray. :-)
Thomassays
Here’s a thought .. “There’s a difference between things that look different and make you feel good, and things that make a difference and actually do good. Symbols should not be dismissed as insubstantial; but nor should they be mistaken for substance.”
I like that. Rings true.
Vendicar Decariansays
# 106 – Professorwachlist
Professorwatchlist is a project of the 501K organization that calls itself “TurningpointUSA”.
It is yet another Libertarian propaganda organization that is doing it’s best to promote Fascism.
Turning Point USA is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization founded on June 5, 2012 by Charlie Kirk. The organization’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.
It is just one of thousands of similar organizations in the U.S. most of which are employed by corporations to produce pro-corporate – pro-fascist propaganda.
Americans have allowed these organizations to grow like weeds and now you are being chocked by them.
Why are you surprised? The result was plainly obvious 40 years ago.
Haven’t you been paying attention?
What do you plan on doing about it?
Vendicar Decariansays
Know the enemy – Charlie Kirk.
The 21-Year-Old Becoming a Major Player in Conservative Politics
Charlie Kirk’s backers swear he’s the future of conservative politics—and he’s only just old enough to drink.
This Conservative College Group Is Keeping a Watch List of Left-Leaning Professors Across America
On Monday, Turning Point USA launched a new site called Professor Watchlist with the mission to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”
After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.
Ray Ladburysays
Thomas: “Stick to the science Ray. :-)”
Practice what you preach, Thomas. Or don’t. I really don’t care.
January 8 – 14, 2017 405.98 ppm
January 8 – 14, 2016 402.35 ppm
3.63 ppm increase in weekly avg over same week last year. This is not where we want to be.
Quick, everyone buy a bunch of led bulbs and install them. And bike or walk to work.
thanks to Thomas for sharing this one: “There’s a difference between things that look different and make you feel good, and things that make a difference and actually do good. Symbols should not be dismissed as insubstantial; but nor should they be mistaken for substance.”
and a reminder (as far as I am aware from reading Gavin et al here as one example) that in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc. cheers
T 123: in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc.
BPL: Perhaps not in the emissions, but the climate models certainly include all of those.
Mike Roddysays
Realclimate needs to address land use impacts more. Most of you come from atmospheric science and physics, and do a great job there, but…
The Canadian boreal forest is still being clearcut every day for fluffy toilet paper and two by fours, global forest land is being cleared at a furious rate to grow cattle feed, and the US subsidizes continued destruction of remnant healthy forests. Alternatives to forest products are available, and that transition might even be easier than cutting back power plant emissions.
It’s true that land use effects on emissions are very difficult to quantify, but those efforts are improving. Please dedicate a couple of posts to this area. Suggested resources might be Ruddiman, Harte, Franklin (formerly OSU faculty) and others. Any of them would be a great addition to the RC team, but I would at least like to see more of their work presented and discussed here.
And while the Arctic continues it warmer winter, an unusual half a foot of snow in Corinth southern Greece (probably the polar vortex etc see Francis), Australia is already looking to make another new high temperature record for January.
Thomassays
Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: “El Niño was a factor this year, but both 2015 and 2016 would have been records even without it.” He said about 90% of the warming signal in 2016 was due to rising greenhouse gas emissions. He expects 2017 to be another extremely hot year.
Scott Stroughsays
@ 105
You said, “Why do I get the increasing impression that nothing is going to change, and consequences will hit down the line. Can anyone offer anything optimistic to help me counter despair and negativity about humanity in general?”
… the long-term rise can be easily masked by short-term variations, and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study — the one conducted by global warming skeptics that reached the same conclusions as the rest of the climate science community — reached the following conclusion:
Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
There are prominent climatologists who have made these arguments before (who will likely make these arguments again), and they will be quoted in a great many news outlets and by numerous science writers. If you see an article that cites one of them claiming global warming has stopped and it isn’t yet 2033, the 17 years from now that we’re required to wait to see if the rise continues, please refer them back to this article….
Does anyone have an idea how much radiative forcing this lack of ice surface would generate?
Arunsays
What happened to the water of the Aral Sea?
The world’s ocean area is roughly 360*10^6 km^2.
Since a millimeter is 10^-6 km, so 360 km^3 of water will raise the ocean level by a millimeter.
The Aral Sea has supposedly shrunk from around 1100 km^3 to around 100 km^3 over the last several decades, so has it contributed to more than 2mm of the rise of the oceans?
While the 2016 annual values show the third warmest calendar year in a row, the individual monthly temperatures show the December 2016 anomalies continuing at the level of recent months and similar to early 2015 when the effects of the El Nino had yet to bite. A graph comparing the average of GISS/NOAA/HadCRUT, the average of RSS/UAH TLT and MEI for this last El Nino and the 1997/98 El Nino is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) The MEI shows well the absence of a follow-on La Nina this time round.
The three surface temperature records December 2016 is still sitting high up in the rankings. For GISS it was the 2nd warmest December on record and 25th warmest anomaly for all months. For NOAA it was the 3rd warmest December & 58th for all months. For HadCRUT it was 5th warmest December (after 2015 which is head-&-shoulders above the rest on all three records, 2006, 2014 & 2003) and 52nd on the full record.
Frank @126,
Do note that your conversion for the GISTEMP LOTI anomaly from a base of 1951-1980 to 1880-1919, the annual average anomaly base is as you say reduced by 0.27ºC but there is an annual cycle hiding within that change in anomaly so the monthly anomaly bases drop by a value from 0.20ºC to 0.35ºC depending on the month.
L 133: Global sea ice has been some 2 mill. sq. km below the usual level for about three months by now . . . Does anyone have an idea how much radiative forcing this lack of ice surface would generate?
BPL: I’ll take a stab at it. Let’s say the portion under discussion has gone from 0.50 albedo (roughly correct for sea ice; better figures are welcome) to 0.07 (for open ocean at high latitudes; again I welcome correction). Assume the patch in question is at about 70 degrees from the equator. Insolation at that latitude averages perhaps 62 watts per square meter at the ground. So instead of absorbing (1.00 – 0.50) * 62 * 2e12 = 6.2 x 10^13 watts, it now absorbs (1.00 – 0.07) * 62 * 2e12 = 1.15 x 10^14 watts, or an extra 53 trillion watts.
Trenberth et al. (2009) give the global mean annual surface absorption as 161.2 watts per square meter, which for a global surface area of 5.10066 x 10^14 square meters adds up to 8.22 x 10^16 watts. So radiative heating is increased 0.006%. But that’s just in that area. The rest of the global is also heating. It doesn’t help, let’s put it that way. But it is not, in and of itself, catastrophic.
January 18, 2017: 406.00 ppm
January 18, 2016: 402.58 ppm
3.42 ppm increase, noisy number, but latest in long line of noisy numbers in the 3 plus range and it was only a few years ago that there was nothing in the “un-noisy” number in the 3 plus range, so it’s easy to spot the trend if you are so inclined.
December monthly average increase dropped from 3.01 ppm for 2015 to 2.89 ppm for 2016, but the feel of January daily numbers seems to be in 3 ppm plus range. MAR mentioned a bulge in December 2015 CO2 numbers, so that would explain it, will wait to see what the increase number is for Jan 2017. Jan 2016 was 2.56 pm over Jan 2015. I think Jan 2017 will be over that. These are really atrocious real world numbers even if you want to argue that EL Nino is responsible. Yes, there is a cyclical EN/LN effect, but the underlying and longstanding trend (all the decades of record keeping) show an increase in CO2 in atmosphere and increase in the rate of increase. If folks want to discuss a pause, they ought to talk about a pause in the CO2 in ocean and atmosphere because there is no pause. Talk about falling emissions is a smoke screen, the dissemination of “feel good” numbers that are probably real in their limited presentation frame, but are of little consequence when the levels of CO2 in ocean and atmosphere continue to rise at increasing rate. That is the ball game. That is what we should be talking about.
The White House’s exposition on the threat of climate change and efforts to combat it? Gone.
In its place, An America First Energy Plan:
“For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”
The #1 thing that first seriously got my attention in the 1990s about climate change was when I heard about and understood the scientific validity of Tipping Points … in the last decade this concept has kind of been left behind in normal discourse and reporting of AGW/CC – responses denial and carbon pricing always seems to suck all the oxygen out of climate related discussions in the public sphere (imho).
quoting: “We don’t know exactly when we might pass these points—or whether we already have crossed some of them,” Strauss added.
James Hansen, former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has argued that West Antarctica could disintegrate rapidly, adding up to a couple of metres to ocean levels this century.
But most experts say humanity is still within a “safe operating space” for the ice sheets, even if the margin for error has become uncomfortably thin.
Other tipping points could trigger the natural release, on a massive scale, of the same greenhouse gases that humans have spewed into the atmosphere, further destabilising the delicate balance that has made our planet so liveable over the last 11,000 years.
and
But scientists also admit their tools are better at measuring steady, linear progressions than sudden shifts.
“In general, climate models are too stable,” said Drijfhout. “They are calibrated to the present climate, have difficulty simulating the abrupt changes we have witnessed in the geological past.”
Looking for lessons from the past also has limits, notes Didier Swingedouw of the University of Bordeaux.
“The problem is that there is no perfect analogue to what we will experience in the near future.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-climate-science-bedeviled.html#jCp
Date:
January 17, 2017
Source:
University of New South Wales
Summary:
In a new article, experts outline three key questions that are needed to direct the next generation of climate research. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117140256.htm
Thomassays
RE: 127 Barton Paul Levenson says: T 123: in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc.
BPL: Perhaps not in the emissions, but the climate models certainly include all of those.
My wording was not 100% as “no” doesn’t fit, and I may have not bothered to include any refs as I assumed this was well known issue but the intent idea is clear and meaning might have been clear enough – the issue being feedbacks are not included in future scenarios ie (to be clear) the RCPs
Per Aubrey Meyer: Unfortunately,as can be seen from the source material and as the UK Met Office [UKMO] has repeatedly admitted, as the IPCC’s ‘Representative Concentration Pathways’[RCP] scenarios all omit key feedback effects [such as Arctic and Permafrost melt]so these figures under-estimate what lies ahead. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Potty_Fix.pdf
quoting: 3
IPCC publishes the 5th Assessment [AR5] in September 2013 & significantly
under-state the rate extent of impending change
It is already clear IPCC AR5 under-represents the rate and the extent of the cli
–
mate changes that are now increasingly likely to occur.
At the heart of this ‘conservatism’ is the omission of major feedback effects from
the climate-models used to inform the AR5. In fact the entire suite of the climate-
change projections in AR5 for the next 100 years come from models that omit
significant ‘positive feedback’ effects from what are already starting to become
potentially major sources of non-human carbon-emission releases.
Already people like Michael Mann a climate-scientist at Pennsylvania State University are commenting on this matter saying,
“The 2012 melt caused [climate] modellers to step back and say,
‘Maybe nature really is proceeding much faster than our models predicted.’”
Quoted in the New York Times on August 19th he said: –
“IPCC has once again erred on the side of understating the degree of
likely changes,”
[end quote]
And I know/recall that Gavin has ‘basically’ said the very same things here on RC in his inline comments – gave up trying to find it/them using the RC search box.
I may not be a working climate scientist, but I have a good memory and I can read very well and well above avg IQ too …. but if my two little refs above are not good enough for you, then by all means do your own climate science searches about Feedbacks & RCPs and the IPCC as mentioned in my original comment, and thus prove me wrong vs merely claiming I am wrong.
Or one of the RC owners/contributors can clarify using their accepted higher authority over and above that of all “commenters”.
Thomassays
135 MA Rodger says: The MEI shows well the absence of a follow-on La Nina this time round.
Do you recall our not so recent ‘conversation’ Mr Rodger?
About my query as to the possibility that AGW is actually driving higher El Nino response …. thus making it worse in 2016, perhaps coming more often as things unfold, and that one could perhaps see El Nino as yet another as yet non-quantified (and not yet studied by scientists) feedback response to warming?
Those chats revolved around Mike’s dutiful reporting on CO2ppm increasing growth in 2016 which was being dismissed here by many (aka Dissed) because it was merely (probably?) an El Nino response – remember that? …. and yet here we are in January 2017 and there’s no sign of a La Nina nor a noticeable drop in CO2 levels either.
To be clear, I am only asking if you remember. :-)
Thomassays
So as a falsely accused and assumed “Radical Red Marxist Leftist” I’m curious now (and will remain so throughout 2017) if anyone is warming to the notions of an international Moratorium via a UNFCCC Treaty (or similar body) on the opening of new coal mines with a view to Banning coal extraction sometime in the near future along with the rigorous science based intelligent implementation of stricter Government Regulations upon the use of carbon fuels for energy in the developed wealthy nations of the world as yet?
Peter Langsays
Gavin,
Can you please refer me to a widely accepted chart of global average temperatures through the Phanerozoic Eon (i.e. the past ~542 Ma)?
The benefits of this chart for ease of communication to a general audience are:
1. the vertical axis is in degrees C, not degrees change or some other units
2. It can be compared with his charts of temperature by latitude for different average global temperature and temperature gradient from equator to poles. And with his chart of average temperature in the tropics for the past 542 Ma (although I find it hard to believe the trend). These two charts are Figures 12 and 13 here: https://www.academia.edu/12082909/Some_thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_from_Icehouse_to_Hothouse
I hope you can provide a link to an authoritative chart of global average temperature for the Phanerozoic Eon.
Thomas @143.
I have long since come to the view that attempting to correct your wild assertions is a non-productive and pointless exercise. The lesson learned, I have no interest in remembering that learning experience.
For those less ridgidly attached in their own self-beliefs, a plot of recent annual CO2 rises can be seen here (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which well illustrates the impact of the recent El Nino & the 1997/98 El Nino on annual CO2 increases.
Thomassays
So in your view MA, making a simple inquiry by asking an open ended question such as “could it be possible that global warming is pushing the ENSO cycle further than historical norms, being aware the el nino itself is only a relatively new science discovery morphs into being “your wild assertions”? [rhetorical]
While noting that there is no firm consensus of the effects or duration of enso as it relates to climate science knowledge as yet, while various ideas exist, none is definitive as yet. Yet asking questions about it on rc in relation to global temps and ppm spikes etc, is again dismissed as “your wild assertions”? [rhetorical]
And so recalling that in line with Gavin’s recent position that el nino in 2015/16 only accounts for about 0.2C of the years avg mean temp again all you can see in a question of scientists as to the possibility of xyz, again gets filed under “your wild assertions”? [rhetorical]
Amazing. Believe whatever you wish about me, no big deal. I’m grateful for you clarifying how you think and come to judgements about things. It’s interesting. And given my prior respect for your intelligence and openness it is somewhat of a surprise to me. Thanks for the correction, it’s healthy and good to be proven wrong about one’s erroneous judgements. :-)
Meanwhile it’s becomes ever more self-evident the reasons why so many scientists and their supporters have such difficulty in conveying what they know with a high degree of credibility to all politicians and the public whether they be intelligent educated or not. Some cannot resist every opportunity to treat their genuine friends and supporters like shit.
Have a good one. :-)
Thomassays
Here’s another good presentation by Kevin Anderson UK Tyndall Center
The Ostrich or the Phoenix? … Trapped inside Cognitive Dissonance (aka Hypocrisy) or striving for Creativity in a Changing Climate. 48mins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtehlDpLlU
Further evidence of structural change in the Presidental science advisory process emerged this week .
Increasing AGW impacts coming to light?
Last year I mentioned a few unprecedented extreme events in and around Australia, fwiw, as merely a heads up.
One was a the extreme warming of the southern waters around Tasmania that was causing impacts on Oysters and other produce. Heard on the news today that the lethal problem was Pacific Oyster Syndrome POS which is a known Virus.
It’s turned up in Tasmania as a direct result of the warming waters there, according to the scientists in the know. It kills 50-60% of oysters when it hits. One Oyster farmer lost $1.5 million of product last year – if you know “business and farming” that kind of losses is unsustainable.
It’s just one “product” in a one tiny region of the world being impacted by climate change today. It’s impossible for “science” or scientists to accurately know all potential impacts into the future (as most here would already know).
Another similar thing has happened with salmon farming … why do we do salmon farming? Because the natural ocean food resources have collapsed and it’s a money making product like oysters are. The most recent story doesn’t cover all the salmon / fish farming problems and locations that are now arising. eg https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/price-of-salmon-leaps-50-as-sea-lice-epidemic-worsens
And then there are the threats to Bees all over the world. My point? Well just another heads up (reminder) fwiw. And an acknowledgement that in this day and age these “stories/events” have been popping up in the news in specific nations or regions, only to be forgotten a few days later, and will continue to pop up and be ignored …. people may not understand the complexities of climate science but surely they understand the cost of food and the impact of malnutrition and eventual starvation?
Now of “they” care, well that’s another question entirely.
January 13, 2017
Last month, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric sciences at Penn State University, could proceed in a defamation suit against climate change-denying blogger Rand Simberg.
In finding that Mann’s case was “likely to succeed” on its merits, Ruiz forced climate change deniers accusing scientists of incompetence or conspiracy to reconsider the legal ramifications of their rhetoric. Legal experts disagree on whether or not this is a good thing.
There has been no high-profile example of this sort of case arising from criticism of climate change science. If that changes, the whole tenor of the so-called debate might change as well.
https://www.inverse.com/article/26429-michael-mann-climate-change-denial-defamation-libel
I mentioned something recently about the only only best chance left for action on AGW/CC (like civil rights) will be in the hands of the courts – this and Hansen’s federal court case being two goods examples, there are many others already happened in Europe – and the environmentalists technically won against the Govts.
It’s damn hot where I am, I can tell you that.
Thomas@93,
Barrack Obama has accomplished more than any other President as far as climate. He did so at great political cost and with no support from the Congress, showing great creativity along the way. I am very confident that his contribution will be greater than the sum total of those lofty lefties like you who now disparage him.
You don’t even really want to accomplish anything. You just want to be able to say to your grandchildren, “It wasn’t my fault.’
If this is not fake news, it is a little concerning for anyone advocating transition to renewable energy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/12/26/trumps-energy-policy-10-big-changes/#31e4654718aa
Why do I get the increasing impression that nothing is going to change, and consequences will hit down the line. Can anyone offer anything optimistic to help me counter despair and negativity about humanity in general?
From Hansen: I certainly admire his persistence, values and positive never give up attitude.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2017/20170111_RollingStones.pdf
The number is the amount of carbon that we must somehow suck out of the air, if we want to get back to 350 ppm CO2 in the air by the end of the century, which is a first approximation, a first target, for what must be done to keep climate close to the Holocene range, the relatively stable climate of the past 11,700 years during which civilization developed.
Here I only want to note that the 8-year delay has made the task much more difficult, increasing the magnitude of carbon extraction from 100 GtC to 150 GtC.
Let me also comment on the realism or lack of realism of the 6%/year rate of reduction for CO2 emissions.
Some people say that is implausible, and then, out of the other side of their mouths, they say that we need a plan to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. I’ve got news for them. An 80% reduction by 2050 implies ~5%/year reduction, for the common assumption of exponential reduction, i.e., the percent applies to the fossil fuel emissions still remaining, a reasonable assumption, because you take the low-hanging fruit first.
An alternative scheme to get 80% reduction would be linear reduction of emissions, so 80/30, i.e., ~2.7%/year, if reductions start in 2020.
Concerning
http://www.professorwatchlist.com
Are there yet any climate researches on the blacklist of this protofascist scum?
Regards,
Marcus
Marcus says:
15 Jan 2017 at 2:08 AM
Okay, so it’s CPAC that’s behind the reich wing “professorwatchlist” crap. Meet the joker heading it up:
http://tpusa.com/aboutus/charliekirk/
This is just more Trumpism come to life. If people don’t start smacking this down it will take over in a hurry. Maybe someone needs to do a background check on Mr. Kirk. If he’s anything like the Trumpster fire he’s probably got a full closet.
Thomas says:
11 Jan 2017 at 9:40 PM
#89 Bill, sounds like Barack Obama after wasting 8 years in office failing to convince anyone else there’s a problem here apart from his own two children and wife.”
Thomas, on the other hand, prefers to “save the world with spam”.
Marcus @106: although not a climate scientist, I notice Lawrence Torcello is on their list, based on the misrepresentation by Breitbart of what he said. Then again, Robert Schneider is on their list, too, because he’s said something about fracking they didn’t like. That is, even if Torcello’s words were *not* misrepresented, they’d still likely add him to their list, because, you know, they don’t like his opinion.
Ray Ladbury wrote: “Barrack Obama has accomplished more than any other President as far as climate.”
I agree, and indeed I would go so far as to say that the Obama administration has done more to address climate change than all previous administrations combined.
Unfortunately that is more an indictment of the inaction of previous administrations than it is praise for Obama — because I would also say that what Obama has done is too little, too late (most of his significant steps to address global warming came in the second half of his second term), and falls far short of both what needs to be done to have any hope of avoiding the worst consequences of global warming, and what could very easily be done.
And of course we now face a hostile takeover of the US government by the fossil fuel corporations, and a new administration determined not only to deny the reality of global warming and suppress climate science, but to actively make global warming worse.
So unfortunately the work at hand is not to build on Obama’s climate policy accomplishments, but rather to fight to keep them from being dismantled and reversed.
Here’s avery interesting story and Poll from Australia, fwiw.
Climate change: 90% of rural Australians say their lives are already affected
Overwhelming majority believe they are living with the effects of warming and 46% say coal-fired power should be phased out
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/16/climate-change-90-of-rural-australians-say-their-lives-are-already-affected
The People seem to be saying that the world should Ban New Coal Mines and Phase it out asap. The People seem to be more switched on than the “experts” who made a Treaty in Paris. Mmmmmm.
104 Ray Ladbury, thanks so much for sharing your opinionated opinion with me. It’s always helpful to know a little bit more about what kind of person someone really is. Have a great 2017 with much joy and happiness to you and your family and friends.
Thomas @93 says: “89 Bill, sounds like Barack Obama after wasting 8 years in office failing to convince anyone else there’s a problem here apart from his own two children and wife.”
Totally unreasonable criticism. Obama did his best in face of a stupidly hostile congress, a rather dumbed down American public, and a system where politicians are funded by the corporate sector so they become captive to the wishes of this sector. It’s not Obama’s fault he faces these obstacles. It’s a mountain for anyone to overcome single handed.
Having read your confused, long, windy posts I very much doubt you would have done better convincing anyone. (although I agree with some of the points you make)
At first I didn’t like Obama, but I now think he was pretty good overall. I would bet serious money America will look back and ask themselves why they didn’t support him more when it counted.
Was he perfect? Of course not for example Syria, but I would rather have Obama any day than Trump.
106 Marcus, oh another pseudo-think tank / ideological activist group who believe they (quoting) “promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government” while existing off the “welfare benefits” of taxpayer supported “tax free donations” for 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. http://tpusa.com
So much for self-sufficiency and fiscal responsibility by another band of rank Hypocrites; incapable of practicing what they preach is good for everyone else while promoting “Free Speech” by Chilling It at the very same time.
Obviously only their “Free $peech” has any currency, to them. Personal denial, cognitive dissonance and delusions are no way to run a “think” tank or a country, imo.
Marcus, did you not follow the links to the list of demonic targets?
http://www.professorwatchlist.com/index.php/watch-list-directory/search-by-name
Ray, the beauty of good science to me is that at the end of the day it is not based on personal opinion or beliefs or even the audacity of hope.
Unlike things such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkMA6JPOHU
Those with a good healthy sense of humour should get a good laugh out of it.
Stick to the science Ray. :-)
Here’s a thought .. “There’s a difference between things that look different and make you feel good, and things that make a difference and actually do good. Symbols should not be dismissed as insubstantial; but nor should they be mistaken for substance.”
I like that. Rings true.
# 106 – Professorwachlist
Professorwatchlist is a project of the 501K organization that calls itself “TurningpointUSA”.
It is yet another Libertarian propaganda organization that is doing it’s best to promote Fascism.
Turning Point USA is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization founded on June 5, 2012 by Charlie Kirk. The organization’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.
It is just one of thousands of similar organizations in the U.S. most of which are employed by corporations to produce pro-corporate – pro-fascist propaganda.
Americans have allowed these organizations to grow like weeds and now you are being chocked by them.
Why are you surprised? The result was plainly obvious 40 years ago.
Haven’t you been paying attention?
What do you plan on doing about it?
Know the enemy – Charlie Kirk.
The 21-Year-Old Becoming a Major Player in Conservative Politics
Charlie Kirk’s backers swear he’s the future of conservative politics—and he’s only just old enough to drink.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-21-year-old-becoming-a-major-player-in-conservative-politics/451110/
This Conservative College Group Is Keeping a Watch List of Left-Leaning Professors Across America
On Monday, Turning Point USA launched a new site called Professor Watchlist with the mission to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/turning-point-usa-launches-professor-watchlist.html
Word of the Year 2016 is…
After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.
Thomas: “Stick to the science Ray. :-)”
Practice what you preach, Thomas. Or don’t. I really don’t care.
Last Week
January 8 – 14, 2017 405.98 ppm
January 8 – 14, 2016 402.35 ppm
3.63 ppm increase in weekly avg over same week last year. This is not where we want to be.
Quick, everyone buy a bunch of led bulbs and install them. And bike or walk to work.
thanks to Thomas for sharing this one: “There’s a difference between things that look different and make you feel good, and things that make a difference and actually do good. Symbols should not be dismissed as insubstantial; but nor should they be mistaken for substance.”
Warm regards all,
Mike
fwiw very short video by Jennifer Francis about the New Arctic Feedback/s from AGU late 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_EzF4k9_QY
and a reminder (as far as I am aware from reading Gavin et al here as one example) that in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc. cheers
Arctic temps are still 10-14 degrees kelvin above 1958-2002 Mean this january
graph http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1611.0;attach=40488
Meanwhile Pooling melt waters are increasing in antarctica regions (they say)
eg images here http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1827.msg97381.html#msg97381
I really don’t care.
I knew that already. But thanks anyway. :-)
Re #86 and #92. Thank you Tony. From https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt, the mean GISS anomoly from 1880 to 1920 was -0.2693 (and from 1951-1980 it was zero, as expected).
So to convert GISS base 1951-1980 to base 1880-1920, add 0.27 degrees.
T 123: in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc.
BPL: Perhaps not in the emissions, but the climate models certainly include all of those.
Realclimate needs to address land use impacts more. Most of you come from atmospheric science and physics, and do a great job there, but…
The Canadian boreal forest is still being clearcut every day for fluffy toilet paper and two by fours, global forest land is being cleared at a furious rate to grow cattle feed, and the US subsidizes continued destruction of remnant healthy forests. Alternatives to forest products are available, and that transition might even be easier than cutting back power plant emissions.
It’s true that land use effects on emissions are very difficult to quantify, but those efforts are improving. Please dedicate a couple of posts to this area. Suggested resources might be Ruddiman, Harte, Franklin (formerly OSU faculty) and others. Any of them would be a great addition to the RC team, but I would at least like to see more of their work presented and discussed here.
You probably know this already – it’s official.
2016 is Earth’s warmest year, culminating in a remarkable 3-year streak of record warm years for the globe
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201612
And while the Arctic continues it warmer winter, an unusual half a foot of snow in Corinth southern Greece (probably the polar vortex etc see Francis), Australia is already looking to make another new high temperature record for January.
Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: “El Niño was a factor this year, but both 2015 and 2016 would have been records even without it.” He said about 90% of the warming signal in 2016 was due to rising greenhouse gas emissions. He expects 2017 to be another extremely hot year.
@ 105
You said, “Why do I get the increasing impression that nothing is going to change, and consequences will hit down the line. Can anyone offer anything optimistic to help me counter despair and negativity about humanity in general?”
Maybe this might help?
Can we reverse Global warming?
https://www.quora.com/Can-we-reverse-global-warming/answer/Scott-Strough
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/16/the-next-great-global-warming-hiatus-is-coming/#68973082372b
RE #126
Global sea ice has been some 2 mill. sq. km below the usual level for about three months by now:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png
Does anyone have an idea how much radiative forcing this lack of ice surface would generate?
What happened to the water of the Aral Sea?
The world’s ocean area is roughly 360*10^6 km^2.
Since a millimeter is 10^-6 km, so 360 km^3 of water will raise the ocean level by a millimeter.
The Aral Sea has supposedly shrunk from around 1100 km^3 to around 100 km^3 over the last several decades, so has it contributed to more than 2mm of the rise of the oceans?
While the 2016 annual values show the third warmest calendar year in a row, the individual monthly temperatures show the December 2016 anomalies continuing at the level of recent months and similar to early 2015 when the effects of the El Nino had yet to bite. A graph comparing the average of GISS/NOAA/HadCRUT, the average of RSS/UAH TLT and MEI for this last El Nino and the 1997/98 El Nino is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) The MEI shows well the absence of a follow-on La Nina this time round.
The three surface temperature records December 2016 is still sitting high up in the rankings. For GISS it was the 2nd warmest December on record and 25th warmest anomaly for all months. For NOAA it was the 3rd warmest December & 58th for all months. For HadCRUT it was 5th warmest December (after 2015 which is head-&-shoulders above the rest on all three records, 2006, 2014 & 2003) and 52nd on the full record.
Frank @126,
Do note that your conversion for the GISTEMP LOTI anomaly from a base of 1951-1980 to 1880-1919, the annual average anomaly base is as you say reduced by 0.27ºC but there is an annual cycle hiding within that change in anomaly so the monthly anomaly bases drop by a value from 0.20ºC to 0.35ºC depending on the month.
L 133: Global sea ice has been some 2 mill. sq. km below the usual level for about three months by now . . . Does anyone have an idea how much radiative forcing this lack of ice surface would generate?
BPL: I’ll take a stab at it. Let’s say the portion under discussion has gone from 0.50 albedo (roughly correct for sea ice; better figures are welcome) to 0.07 (for open ocean at high latitudes; again I welcome correction). Assume the patch in question is at about 70 degrees from the equator. Insolation at that latitude averages perhaps 62 watts per square meter at the ground. So instead of absorbing (1.00 – 0.50) * 62 * 2e12 = 6.2 x 10^13 watts, it now absorbs (1.00 – 0.07) * 62 * 2e12 = 1.15 x 10^14 watts, or an extra 53 trillion watts.
Trenberth et al. (2009) give the global mean annual surface absorption as 161.2 watts per square meter, which for a global surface area of 5.10066 x 10^14 square meters adds up to 8.22 x 10^16 watts. So radiative heating is increased 0.006%. But that’s just in that area. The rest of the global is also heating. It doesn’t help, let’s put it that way. But it is not, in and of itself, catastrophic.
I meant “the rest of the globe…” tired… need to proofread…
Daily CO2
January 18, 2017: 406.00 ppm
January 18, 2016: 402.58 ppm
3.42 ppm increase, noisy number, but latest in long line of noisy numbers in the 3 plus range and it was only a few years ago that there was nothing in the “un-noisy” number in the 3 plus range, so it’s easy to spot the trend if you are so inclined.
December monthly average increase dropped from 3.01 ppm for 2015 to 2.89 ppm for 2016, but the feel of January daily numbers seems to be in 3 ppm plus range. MAR mentioned a bulge in December 2015 CO2 numbers, so that would explain it, will wait to see what the increase number is for Jan 2017. Jan 2016 was 2.56 pm over Jan 2015. I think Jan 2017 will be over that. These are really atrocious real world numbers even if you want to argue that EL Nino is responsible. Yes, there is a cyclical EN/LN effect, but the underlying and longstanding trend (all the decades of record keeping) show an increase in CO2 in atmosphere and increase in the rate of increase. If folks want to discuss a pause, they ought to talk about a pause in the CO2 in ocean and atmosphere because there is no pause. Talk about falling emissions is a smoke screen, the dissemination of “feel good” numbers that are probably real in their limited presentation frame, but are of little consequence when the levels of CO2 in ocean and atmosphere continue to rise at increasing rate. That is the ball game. That is what we should be talking about.
but, hey, what do I know?
warm regards
Mike
“The Trump era begins on the web
It didn’t take long.
The White House’s exposition on the threat of climate change and efforts to combat it? Gone.
In its place, An America First Energy Plan:
“For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-inauguration.html?_r=0&referer=https://news.google.com/
The #1 thing that first seriously got my attention in the 1990s about climate change was when I heard about and understood the scientific validity of Tipping Points … in the last decade this concept has kind of been left behind in normal discourse and reporting of AGW/CC – responses denial and carbon pricing always seems to suck all the oxygen out of climate related discussions in the public sphere (imho).
quoting: “We don’t know exactly when we might pass these points—or whether we already have crossed some of them,” Strauss added.
James Hansen, former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has argued that West Antarctica could disintegrate rapidly, adding up to a couple of metres to ocean levels this century.
But most experts say humanity is still within a “safe operating space” for the ice sheets, even if the margin for error has become uncomfortably thin.
Other tipping points could trigger the natural release, on a massive scale, of the same greenhouse gases that humans have spewed into the atmosphere, further destabilising the delicate balance that has made our planet so liveable over the last 11,000 years.
and
But scientists also admit their tools are better at measuring steady, linear progressions than sudden shifts.
“In general, climate models are too stable,” said Drijfhout. “They are calibrated to the present climate, have difficulty simulating the abrupt changes we have witnessed in the geological past.”
Looking for lessons from the past also has limits, notes Didier Swingedouw of the University of Bordeaux.
“The problem is that there is no perfect analogue to what we will experience in the near future.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-climate-science-bedeviled.html#jCp
Date:
January 17, 2017
Source:
University of New South Wales
Summary:
In a new article, experts outline three key questions that are needed to direct the next generation of climate research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117140256.htm
RE: 127 Barton Paul Levenson says:
T 123: in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc.
BPL: Perhaps not in the emissions, but the climate models certainly include all of those.
My wording was not 100% as “no” doesn’t fit, and I may have not bothered to include any refs as I assumed this was well known issue but the intent idea is clear and meaning might have been clear enough – the issue being feedbacks are not included in future scenarios ie (to be clear) the RCPs
Various comments refs here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/
Per Aubrey Meyer:
Unfortunately,as can be seen from the source material and as the UK Met Office [UKMO] has repeatedly admitted, as the IPCC’s ‘Representative Concentration Pathways’[RCP] scenarios all omit key feedback effects [such as Arctic and Permafrost melt]so these figures under-estimate what lies ahead.
http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Potty_Fix.pdf
Some Comments on IPCC AR5 and the omissions of significant ‘Feedback Effects’ from the Climate-Models used in its preparation.
http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/IPCC_AR5_Underestimates_Climate_Change.pdf
quoting: 3
IPCC publishes the 5th Assessment [AR5] in September 2013 & significantly
under-state the rate extent of impending change
It is already clear IPCC AR5 under-represents the rate and the extent of the cli
–
mate changes that are now increasingly likely to occur.
At the heart of this ‘conservatism’ is the omission of major feedback effects from
the climate-models used to inform the AR5. In fact the entire suite of the climate-
change projections in AR5 for the next 100 years come from models that omit
significant ‘positive feedback’ effects from what are already starting to become
potentially major sources of non-human carbon-emission releases.
Already people like Michael Mann a climate-scientist at Pennsylvania State University are commenting on this matter saying,
“The 2012 melt caused [climate] modellers to step back and say,
‘Maybe nature really is proceeding much faster than our models predicted.’”
Quoted in the New York Times on August 19th he said: –
“IPCC has once again erred on the side of understating the degree of
likely changes,”
[end quote]
And I know/recall that Gavin has ‘basically’ said the very same things here on RC in his inline comments – gave up trying to find it/them using the RC search box.
I may not be a working climate scientist, but I have a good memory and I can read very well and well above avg IQ too …. but if my two little refs above are not good enough for you, then by all means do your own climate science searches about Feedbacks & RCPs and the IPCC as mentioned in my original comment, and thus prove me wrong vs merely claiming I am wrong.
Or one of the RC owners/contributors can clarify using their accepted higher authority over and above that of all “commenters”.
135 MA Rodger says:
The MEI shows well the absence of a follow-on La Nina this time round.
Do you recall our not so recent ‘conversation’ Mr Rodger?
About my query as to the possibility that AGW is actually driving higher El Nino response …. thus making it worse in 2016, perhaps coming more often as things unfold, and that one could perhaps see El Nino as yet another as yet non-quantified (and not yet studied by scientists) feedback response to warming?
Those chats revolved around Mike’s dutiful reporting on CO2ppm increasing growth in 2016 which was being dismissed here by many (aka Dissed) because it was merely (probably?) an El Nino response – remember that? …. and yet here we are in January 2017 and there’s no sign of a La Nina nor a noticeable drop in CO2 levels either.
To be clear, I am only asking if you remember. :-)
So as a falsely accused and assumed “Radical Red Marxist Leftist” I’m curious now (and will remain so throughout 2017) if anyone is warming to the notions of an international Moratorium via a UNFCCC Treaty (or similar body) on the opening of new coal mines with a view to Banning coal extraction sometime in the near future along with the rigorous science based intelligent implementation of stricter Government Regulations upon the use of carbon fuels for energy in the developed wealthy nations of the world as yet?
Gavin,
Can you please refer me to a widely accepted chart of global average temperatures through the Phanerozoic Eon (i.e. the past ~542 Ma)?
I have read some of the comments on your 2014 post “Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/ , but did not find the answer to my question. (e.g. I saw comments by Dana Royer and Gavin Foster and others)
The best I am aware of is Scotese’s 2015 update here:
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9mhexie60w4ho2f2/images/1-9fa3d55a6c.jpg
Source: https://www.academia.edu/12114306/Phanerozoic_Global_Temperature_Curve
The benefits of this chart for ease of communication to a general audience are:
1. the vertical axis is in degrees C, not degrees change or some other units
2. It can be compared with his charts of temperature by latitude for different average global temperature and temperature gradient from equator to poles. And with his chart of average temperature in the tropics for the past 542 Ma (although I find it hard to believe the trend). These two charts are Figures 12 and 13 here: https://www.academia.edu/12082909/Some_thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_from_Icehouse_to_Hothouse
I hope you can provide a link to an authoritative chart of global average temperature for the Phanerozoic Eon.
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
December 2016: 404.48 ppm
December 2015: 401.85 ppm
Last updated: January 11, 2017
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
That’s + 2.63 ppm
I significant drop on prior months, yes? The lowest increase in December for 5 years or more, by the look of it.
Therefore this indicates there may be a Hiatus/Pause in the CO2ppm growth rate – surely? :-)
[joking]
T 142: I have a good memory and I can read very well and well above avg IQ too
BPL: And modest to a fault.
Thomas @143.
I have long since come to the view that attempting to correct your wild assertions is a non-productive and pointless exercise. The lesson learned, I have no interest in remembering that learning experience.
For those less ridgidly attached in their own self-beliefs, a plot of recent annual CO2 rises can be seen here (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which well illustrates the impact of the recent El Nino & the 1997/98 El Nino on annual CO2 increases.
So in your view MA, making a simple inquiry by asking an open ended question such as “could it be possible that global warming is pushing the ENSO cycle further than historical norms, being aware the el nino itself is only a relatively new science discovery morphs into being “your wild assertions”? [rhetorical]
While noting that there is no firm consensus of the effects or duration of enso as it relates to climate science knowledge as yet, while various ideas exist, none is definitive as yet. Yet asking questions about it on rc in relation to global temps and ppm spikes etc, is again dismissed as “your wild assertions”? [rhetorical]
And so recalling that in line with Gavin’s recent position that el nino in 2015/16 only accounts for about 0.2C of the years avg mean temp again all you can see in a question of scientists as to the possibility of xyz, again gets filed under “your wild assertions”? [rhetorical]
Amazing. Believe whatever you wish about me, no big deal. I’m grateful for you clarifying how you think and come to judgements about things. It’s interesting. And given my prior respect for your intelligence and openness it is somewhat of a surprise to me. Thanks for the correction, it’s healthy and good to be proven wrong about one’s erroneous judgements. :-)
Meanwhile it’s becomes ever more self-evident the reasons why so many scientists and their supporters have such difficulty in conveying what they know with a high degree of credibility to all politicians and the public whether they be intelligent educated or not. Some cannot resist every opportunity to treat their genuine friends and supporters like shit.
Have a good one. :-)
Here’s another good presentation by Kevin Anderson UK Tyndall Center
The Ostrich or the Phoenix? … Trapped inside Cognitive Dissonance (aka Hypocrisy) or striving for Creativity in a Changing Climate. 48mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtehlDpLlU