mike @341 last month.
The latest weekly NOAA MLO numbers show 408ppm rather than 409ppm. It is a significant difference.
The 12-month rise of CO2 continues to show a decline following last years El Nino. Both 5-week and 9-week averages have now dipped below 2.5ppm/yr. This is actually a lower rate than the equivalent number back after the 1997/98 El Nino, as graphed here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) With a bit of a blip in the 2016 CO2 levels as they reached their peak 12-months ago (‘coming weeks’ last year 406.2ppm, 408.8ppm, 407.5ppm, 407.7ppm), we can expect the 12-month CO2 rise to continue dropping for at least the coming month.
“No comments” are visible to me at present, so assuming for the moment nobody has already broached the subject, here are my musings on Lamar Smith’s “show trial” last Wednesday:
The denialosphere is of course now spinning like crazy attempting to pin something, anything, on Michael Mann.
not to mention:
Why on Earth Judith chose to repeat the “CAI” allegation is beyond me.
and:
Given our long running campaign against the climate science misinformation frequently printed in the Mail on Sunday it gives us great pleasure to reprint in full the following extract from [Mann’s] written testimony:
Starting to get a handle on where I’ve gone wrong with Venus. My absorption is so heavy even in the visual that no light is getting through to the ground, or even to most of the atmosphere. I’ve been using Moroz’s (1983) cloud optical properties scheme and assuming it’s seamless–which, of course, it can’t be. So more recently I’ve been looking up the known visual windows into Venus’s atmosphere. Apparently windows all the way to the surface, or at least to very low levels of atmosphere, exist at 1, 1.1, and 1.38 microns in the near infrared–which is still sunlight. I’ll post more as I find out more.
The Idaho House of Representatives voted 56-9 to adopt Senate Concurrent Resolution 121 on March 24, 2017, thus finalizing the legislature’s decision to delete five standards — those discussing climate change and human impact on the environment — from a proposed new set of state science standards for Idaho.
As NCSE previously reported, the House Education Committee originally voted in February 2017 to remove the five standards, on the grounds that they failed to present “both sides of the debate.” Despite overwhelming testimony from the public in favor of retaining the standards, the Senate Education Committee followed suit later in the same month.
The recommendations of the two education committees were incorporated in SCR 121, which approves and extends temporary rules of state agencies subject to the legislature’s review. The Senate adopted SCR 121 on a voice vote on March 15, 2017, apparently with little discussion or controversy.
On the House floor, however, there was what the Spokane Spokesman-Review (March 24, 2017) described as “lengthy” debate. Ilana Rubel (D-District 18) was quoted as saying of the deletion of the material, “This takes us into the dark ages of science denial, and is absolutely something we should not be doing.”
But Scott Syme (R-District 11), who led the House Education Committee’s effort to remove the standards, was quoted as saying, “The overriding concern was we just wanted a little balance in it … In fact, we didn’t go as far as I really wanted to. And in retrospect, we probably should’ve exempted another five [standards].”
More than one legislator quoted in the Spokesman-Review story emphasized that the legislature’s decision was temporary. “That means a team of science teachers will be back on the job this summer, for the third consecutive year, working on wording” for a revised set of standards for the legislature’s review in 2018, noted Idaho Ed News (March 23, 2017).
Wow, that’s what typing on a tiny “smart”phone with no reading glasses on produces. Apologies.
Oalesays
Funny I first read the title “Uninformed variations” and then thought I’ve seen too much news of GOP politics. Then thought that this should be a science site with reality in it’s central theme, and was annoyed you’ve put up a whole lot of garbage by the current administration of the second largest state in Northern America. Then I decided to check the title again, and was relieved that this is only a normal open thread for the current month. Then I was dismayed for the people who are spreading news of ignorant, misinformed and nature-hating governement.
Then I thought the comments probably include some references to the actions of these reprehensible people so decided to come to write this comment.
Sorry, for the comment is likely way too much off topic and sorry for the government in the second largest state in North America. I do not mean they need to invade Canada, but that would be req…. NO. Hopefully the moderator enjoyed this, if you did, you might put it on show for the people who in need of the ‘some light refreshment’, the reference to HHGTTG is fully intentional, and refers to the time…Ah well read it yourself.
Russell – Are you aware that a “glitch free” version of that tape is available? See my link above.
Also included is a still picture of Dana Rohrabacher endangering the life of his pencil!
Ray Ladburysays
Jim Hunt,
The most notable result I saw from Smith’s circus was a call by the “denialist dream team” to implement climate science “red teams” to challenge the standard model of Earth’s climate. They neglect that science already has red teams–namely every scientist on the planet. Science is a free-for-all of all against all.
That Aunt Judy, Roger the Dodger and the clowns from Huntsville don’t realize this is either and indication that they don’t understand science or an admission they are being disingenuous.
Dave Csays
Does anybody know what happened to tamino’s blog? He has updated in two months, and commenting seems to have been turned off.
jgnfldsays
@2 Forgetting the denialsphere, I honestly didn’t think Mann made an effective presentation in terms of anyone outside the expert community. There was too much of who called whom what name, when did they call it, and who started it. Too much recapitulating the personal arguments of the past couple of decades which does nothing to go forward. Too much food fight. To an outsider it probably looked like a couple’s fight. It certainly twisted my guts.
How could it have been better? Well the situation was a setup from the beginning. Perhaps Adm. Titley has a point in suggesting that scientists stay away from such setups. That said focusing more on the 20 year history of the committee calling just these 3 might have been communicative. Using a different witness–Dr. Hayhoe springs to mind–might have changed the atmosphere from the food fight we saw. I liked where Mann stated that science is a contact sport but he should have stopped right there. Trying to justify Curry’s description as a denier of science results just doesn’t in a setting where you get seconds to elaborate and explain. Sticking to the putative subject of the hearing which was not climate science but rather the scientific method might have helped. In that regard calling a top notch historian of science who could place this “controversy” in context with tobacco, asbestos, acid rain, HFCs, etc. might have been a better course since deniers of each–often the very same people–have all perverted the scientific method equivalently. Bill Foster’s attempts to get at agreement on basic physics looked better than a lot of the rest of the hearing.
I’ve got no answers, but I think this hearing was a net step back, not forward. Not sure it could have been any other way, but I wish it could have been different.
Completing the February global temperature anomalies, HadCRUT have posted their February anomaly at +0.851ºC, the second warmest February on record (as per GISTEMP, NOAA & BEST) behind Feb 2016 (+1.07ºC) and ahead of Feb 1998 (+0.76ºC), Feb 2002 (+0.71ºC) and Feb 2015 (+0.69ºC). February 2017 came in as the 6th warmest month on the full record (GISTEMP 4th, NOAA 7th, BEST 6th) so all pretty consistently ”scorchyisimo!!” for a non-El Nino year.
Within the HadCRUT4 record, there are only 3 top-20 warm months earlier than the period 2015-to-date (GISTEMP 6, NOAA 1, BEST 6), with the highest ranked of these non-recent month being 9th (GISTEMP 10th, NOAA =15th, BEST 8th). These warm non-recent months are all the peak months of past El Ninos – Jan 2007 9th warmest, Feb 1998 12th warmest, and Feb 2002 =20th warmest.
Mar. 26 – Apr. 1, 2017 408.37 ppm
Mar. 26 – Apr. 1, 2016 405.56 ppm
2.81 ppm increase if my math is right. Noisy number. Does not mean too much except, of course, that the numbers continue to go in wrong direction at an alarming clip (unless anyone thinks that a clip above 2.5 ppm is not alarming?)
Daily CO2
April 3, 2017: 407.82 ppm
April 3, 2016: 405.98 ppm
2.84 ppm in really noisy number.
Dr. Mann said we ought to keep it under 405 ppm. Well, that ship has sailed.
MAR’s work on the global temp is appreciated, as always. It almost looks like global heat goes up in some kind of relationship to CO2 in the atmosphere! We can’t be sure about that yet, cuz a couple of important scientific advisors to the ruling party are not sure there is any real connection.
One thing we might try is simply erasing all the data. Then we put the economy on cruise for a couple of decades making this country great before we look at this stuff again. I think a couple of decades should make all this clear. The endless argument about the climate are just weakening this great country.
Thanks to John Hunt for his editiing diligence- my version was in response to Stoat’s posting the raw feed, which opened with sixteen silent minutes of hearing room wallpaper- when I had to testify, we at least got the comic relief of the Indian Treaty Room murals.
Charles Hughessays
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump both look forward to the Arctic melting:
Volume on March 31st 2017 was 20.398 thousand cubic kilometers. The previous lowest volume for the date was 22.129 thousand cubic kilometers in 2011.
Things aren’t looking too promising in the far north in other ways too:
Northern hemisphere snow cover is falling fast and is currently just above last year.
The usual southerly arch hasn’t formed in the Nares Strait between Greenland and Ellesmere Island, and as SMOS shows the sea ice in the strait is consequently very thin. That leads one to wonder when the northern arch in the Lincoln Sea might give way.
jgnfld @13 – Agreed re Mike Mann’s presentation. Too much “food fight” and self glorification from both sides in actual fact!
I’m from the other side of the pond, so I’m not too sure of the significance of Mann getting the Smith/Curry reliance on tabloid churnalism for “evidence” entered into the “Congressional record”
I did note that Lamar Smith seems to have changed allegiance from the Mail on Sunday to the Wall Street Journal, and that Science falls well below those two in his estimation!
barrysays
@12 & 15
Tamino occasionally goes on sabbaticals from his blog, sometimes because he’s working on a paper.
The TLT anomalies for March are posted by UAH & RSS showing a month dropped away from ”scorchyisimo!!” conditions. The UAH anomaly for March is +0.19ºC (down from +0.35ºC) and for RSS +0.349ºC (down fro +0.440ºC). These are, for UAH/RSS respectively, the 8th/5th warmest March on record and the 99th/64th warmest on the full record. If this all sounds rather cool, do note that this makes March 2017 the coolest anomaly on record since July 2015/July 2015 with 4/5 months of 2015 cooler than March 2017. And prior to last year with its El Nino, 2015 was itself ”scorchyisimo!!”
Those following the TLT Decadal bet, as does Kiwi Thinker, will be able to calculate that March 2017 is a second month of 2017 that comes in cooler than the equivalent month 10 years ago. Yet , like the Janurary 2017 values, the March 2017 values are still higher than the average 2011-to-date. Thus the March 2017 contribution increases the accumulating 2011-20 average by a whopping 0.0003ºC (so now it sits 0.0479ºC above the 2001-10 average) and dropping the average anomalies required for the remainder of the decade to yield a draw (my pyramid trace as graphed here (usually two clicks to “download your attachment”) to a lowly +0.125ºC, a drop of 0.003ºC on the February requirement. A period of 4 years with such low TLT numbers has not occurred since 1994-97 making the bet for a cooler 2011-20 an increasingly-forlorn hope.
April 4, 2017: 408.07 ppm
April 4, 2016: 406.09 ppm
March CO2
March 2017: 407.05 ppm
March 2016: 404.86 ppm
monthly average number peaks in May, then starts walking back down the low spot, usually in Sep/Oct, then turns and starts back up, etc. 407.05 somehow looks kind of good to me. Go figure.
The carbon brief piece has nice explanation of the RCP’s. Too much lingo and lots of it based on arcane knowledge and distinctions about models, projections etc. that I don’t think the average voter/citizen can parse. Too bad, I guess.
The article at Carbon Brief indicates that right now we are tracking most closely to RCP 8.5 (CO2 935 ppm at 2100) The piece also notes that we have pretty good track on fossil fuel and cement production carbon emissions, less so on landuse change emissions. My guess is that we will clean up our act a bit globally and probably produce something closer to RCP 6 (CO2 670 ppm at 2100), maybe even RCP 4.5 (CO2 540 ppm at 2100).
I won’t live to see the actual number at 2050, let alone 2100, but my kids and grandkids might. What can I say to them? Climate change? Ooops. Sorry about that.
Bill Arnold @27 — That speculative article in Nature is substantively correct. It is long past time to stop burning so-called fossil fuels and start the expensive process of removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
OK, so anyone planning to attend either the March for Science (Earth Day, April 22), or the follow-on People’s Climate March (April 29)? Seems like it can’t hurt, and might help.
There are multiple ‘satellite marches’ for each event:
The former seems to be getting much better traction. (The latter is nominally at least the same group that mounted the 2014 march in NY, and which also attracted some criticism for being too corporatist/liberal.)
Marching does not substitute for the hard work of political organization, but it has its place in the toolkit. At present, I expect to attend both days, one in my state capitol, one in DC.
Chris Ho-Stuartsays
Responding to #27. My thought on the paper “Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years”
The levels of CO2 they are considering are extreme. They use a scenario called WINK12K, in which “both conventional and non-conventional fossil fuel reserves […] were exhausted in such a business-as-usual scenario”. That is, we dig up and burn ALL fossil fuels we possibly can.
The leads eventually to CO2 levels of about 5000 ppm. A more modest scenario also used is the well known RCP8.5 which corresponds to a CO2 peak around the year 2250, of about 2000 ppm. Combined with their estimates of the increased TSI forcing over the last 420 Mya, they give these two cases.
(1) The RCP8.5 extrapolated scenario: leads to a total forcing similar to the early Eocene 50 Mya ago.
(2) The Wink12K scenario is the one in which total forcing matches what is given in the paper title: “potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years”.
It’s not stated in the abstract (and I think it SHOULD have been mentioned) that the second and more extreme scenario is the one reflected in the paper title, and this involves using absolutely all fossil fuels reserves including non-traditional sources.
Thanks for the link to ClimateState, where I also found a link to Arrhenius’s classic paper On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground. Their version is much easier to read than a scanned image of the original. OTOH, the original contains the tables and figures showing Arrhenius’s laborious hand calculations for the first quantitative model of AGW, back when “computers” were people rather than machines.
Googling for links to the Arrhenius paper inevitably hits Anthony Watts’s 2015 post titled “Father of Global Warming Svante Arrhenius: An Early False Prophet Of The ‘Energy Crisis’”, which I pointedly decline to link here. Watts is completely unrestrained by reason, isn’t he? He’s so determined to make AGW into a hoax and/or cult, he’ll go back 120 years to poison the well!
Solar Jimsays
Mike, RE: carbonbrief, their reporting of IPCC: “In RCP 4.5, atmospheric CO2 sits at 540 ppm by 2100 – roughly 140 ppm higher than now – and the global temperatures are likely to rise by 2-3C above pre-industrial levels.”
I believe statements such as the above are completely delusional, as indicated by the first comment for that article. I’ll add that Radiative Forcing of 4.5 watts per square meter (over the entire surface of the planet) will toast the biosphere to a crisp. We are most likely already on the way to 2-3C by exceeding 400ppm CO2 and our much higher carbonic acid gas equivalent at present (not to mention their unaccounted consideration of major feedbacks as cited in the comment).
While the timing of temperature rise lags radiative forcing via a “climate response function,” please note that 1.0 watt/m2 manifesting over the 5.1 x 10^14 m2 surface of earth is 510 trillion watts (TW). In comparison, total global human “energy production,” averaged over a year, is reported as around 17 TW. Now try 4.5 w/m2.
It’s “funny” how universal the atomic fission phrase of “meltdown” has become (financial, political, Arctic). By the way, nuclear Westinghouse just had one. Perhaps underground forms of matter are not, as our conventional “military-industrial” thinking demands, actually “forms of energy.” Oops, game over, it’ too hot in here.
Thanks for your tracking of atmospheric carbonic acid gas concentrations. We know there are also many others contributing to radiative forcing, yet ocean acidification is due to increasing amounts of carbonic acid (H2O+CO2=H2CO3), and that is a killer also.
Volume on March 31st 2017 was 20.398 thousand cubic kilometers. The previous lowest volume for the date was 22.129 thousand cubic kilometers in 2011.
It suddenly occurs to me, IIRC, that we’re still within the Wadhams window which was much derided by the denialosphere back in 2013.
Simon Csays
Not my field, but FWIW its very interesting to see the (very) long term draw-down of CO2 related to the change in radiative forcing caused by the progressive long-term increase in solar radiative output. It’s also a very good attempt to reconstruct past CO2 on long term (hundreds of millions of years) time scales. Of course there is still a vast amount to learn about the long-term CO2 history of the planet – but this potentially helps to deal with the problem that climate sensitivity can vary in the “short” term with temporally “local” characteristics such as the existence, on and off, of very large and potentially unstable ice sheets during the last million years. So this can provide a “broad brush” insight into planetary climate sensitivity, although of course the main question of interest for us as a species is, what is the likely outcome of the current situation given the present parameters?
There has been considerable discussion on the Artic Forum of Ding et al, 2017. “Influence of high-latitude atmospheric circulation changes on summertime Arctic sea ice”.
The Arctic icecap is shrinking – but it’s not all our fault, a major study of the polar region has found.
At least half of the disappearance is down to natural processes, and not the fault of man made warming.
Part of the decline in ice cover is due to ‘random’ and ‘chaotic’ natural changes in air currents, researchers said.
Others argue that the “natural swings” have been altered by global warming and change has assisted the slide in Arctic ice cover.
Any views on slides or swings here?
P.S. (How can we counter this?)
This is what the top rated comment on the Mail’s article said..
The green lies are perhaps exposed for what they are: lies.
Followed up by
More like 100% natural given the absolute LACK of conclusive evidence that human activity is impacting climate – all they have are computer models built on biased assumptions and fed highly selective data inputs to produce a result that will obtain the most grant $$$.
April 6, 2017: 406.92 ppm
April 6, 2016: 407.02 ppm
big run up in 2016 finally showing up in comparison, I think. But it’s a really noisy number and does not mean much. Weekly and monthly have been running in 2 ppm plus range as expected. I would love to see an inversion week. Need to get back to 405 and I don’t know how that is going to happen. CO2 is an upward sticky number set for our species.
Barton,
re you request for help with modelling Venus, the answer is that carbon dioxide acts as a warm blanket preventing the surface of Venus from cooling. CO2 has not raised the surfavce temperature to that of molten sulphur; it has prevented if from cooling below that temperature. If it does cool below that temperature, the sulphur dioxide clouds surrounding Venus dissipate, and the surface is reheated by solar energy and the greenhouse effect (back radiation) of CO2 until the surface melts again. The sulphur dioxide clouds act as a negative feedback preventing the surface of Venus becoming even hotter.
It is the same on Earth. The water clouds prevent the surface of the Earth becoming too warm for life.
TWsays
Re: 25
Yes, a scientist with amazing foresight. Even more foresight shown by the same scientist in 1978: https://youtu.be/DsdWTBNyvX0
You single out and describe as “delusional” the idea that “In RCP 4.5, atmospheric CO2 sits at 540 ppm by 2100 – roughly 140 ppm higher than now – and the global temperatures are likely to rise by 2-3C above pre-industrial levels.”
But you give nothing at all to put any doubt on those solidly founded numbers! You note that the forcing of 1 W/m^2 added up over the Earth’s surface is a big number — but that’s a non-sequitur. It’s a big area after all. To get a sensible idea of the temperature consequence, it’s sensible to look at energy per unit area, not just total energy. You’re just changing units to something awkward without giving any reason to doubt the conventional implications of the numbers, as described by the IPCC.
Now think: we get 240 W/m^2 from the Sun absorbed at the surface. An extra 1 W/m^2 is going to increase temperatures… but it’s no “toaster”. The effect is a bit less than 1 degree surface warming.
Best estimates for equilibrium climate sensitivity are of the order of 0.8 degrees per W/m^2 forcing, and for transient climate response it is about 0.5 to 0.6 degrees per W/m^2. (The latter is a better guide for temperatures in the year 2100; and the former for longer term change.)
Comparison with human energy production is another irrelevant non-sequitur. What matters for climate is the Sun’s energy, and how effectively that is radiated back to space. Other energy sources (tides, human energy production, geothermal, etc) have almost no influence on surface temperatures. So you are comparing with a number known to be negligible in impact. That’s no way at all to argue for a massive impact!
If we manage to keep to the RCP 4.5 scenario, that will require some major progress in controlling emissions, and the consequences would be well worthwhile. The result is roughly a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100, which means a forcing of about 3.7 W/m^2 and a temperature rise of the order of 2 to 3 Celsius — just as carbonbrief says. That’s still going to have a big impact; and it is more than the 1.5 or 2 C which we’d like to keep to. But it’s still a lot better than 6 C; which is why it’s worth working towards reducing our impact even if we don’t get the optimal results. 3 C temperature increase would have a big effect, but it won’t toast the biosphere. It will CHANGE the biosphere, and present lots of problems for humanity to adapt to those conditions.
I would advocate for urgency in describing the problem, but with recognition that any reduction of our impact is worth while. The more the better, of course. We certainly CAN avoid the worst case scenarios (RCP 8.5, for instance). I think we should avoid terms that are plain exaggeration for effect (like “toasting”).
SJ at 32: I agree with your evaluation that the RCP temp rise projections are too low, but I don’t have any basis for that other than a sense the IPCC consensus process allows us to consistently underestimate the gravity of our situation.
I feel really bad for my kids and grandkids, but I think there is almost nothing I can do. The global response to population and resource depletion pressures appears to be swinging to authoritarian and militarist approaches. Tragic.
Another inversion day!
Daily CO2
April 7, 2017: 406.95 ppm
April 7, 2016: 407.74 ppm
Doesn’t mean too much except we are probably seeing one of the amazing spikes in CO2 from 2016. Still, it’s just lovely to see inverted numbers.
Warm regards
Mike
Omega Centaurisays
Alastair @38:
I have my doubts whether water or sulfate clouds are really providing much if any negative feedback. The increased shortwave opacity, also is accompanied by an increase in IR opacity. So it a case of competing effects, decreased solar absorption versus increased greenhouse effects. Planetary climatologist have to sort this out by detailed modeling.
Entropic mansays
Re 24 mike
“I read good article at Carbon Brief that says we have over 4 years left in the 1.5 degree carbon budget.”
Carbon Brief may be conservative. We can calculate the expected warming since 1880.
Using the Myrn et al forcing equation, IPCC mid-range climate sensitivity of 3.0 and warming effect of 3.7W/M2 per degree Centigrade
5.35ln(408/280)3/3.7 = 1.63C
If this is valid, we have already passed the Paris 1.5C limit.
Victorsays
Good news for all you climate change alarmists out there. Our UN rep, Nikki Haley, has effectively declared war on Russia:
Not much doubt that Trump will go along, if for no other reason than to placate all those wonderful, liberal minded Democrats just aching to prosecute him, Joe McCarthy style, as a Putin-loving “fellow traveler” or worse, a latter day Manchurian Candidate.
Well making war with Russia, that’ll show ’em. Go Donald Go.
Only wait! Russia is a nuclear power. War with Russia would inevitably lead to nuclear war. Wow! What great news! Nuclear winter will cool things down fast. We can all stop worrying about climate change and learn to love the bomb.
This is what the top rated comment on the Mail’s article said..
The green lies are perhaps exposed for what they are: lies.
Followed up by
More like 100% natural given the absolute LACK of conclusive evidence that human activity is impacting climate – all they have are computer models built on biased assumptions and fed highly selective data inputs to produce a result that will obtain the most grant $$$.
Ouch. IMHO as a random reality-based guy on the Internet, a response you could work down to your own 1500 indispensable characters (for a comment on the Gray Lady; don’t know the Fail’s limit) might start by briefly summarizing the 19-century origins of the scientific consensus for AGW.
Begin with a sentence on Fourier in 1826, then touch on Tyndall mid-century, and finish up with Arrhenius in 1896 — see my previous comment on this thread.
Point out that the evidence for AGW was already persuasive by 1900, without computing machines, or much in the way of “grant $$$” either; it simply took another 90 years of technological progress for scientists to be convinced enough to bring AGW to the public’s attention, and since then their confidence has only increased as evidence has accumulated.
Optional: mention that the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of the UK, two of the world’s most respected scientific societies, find a absolute ABUNDANCE!!!1 of conclusive evidence that human activity is impacting climate. Link to the short booklet for lay (9th-grade-level, roughly) readers, Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, jointly published by the NAS and the RS in 2015, and free to download at the link. It begins with these words (all-caps in original): “CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.”
Then suggest out how preposterous the claim that “climate scientists are only in it for the gold” is: that a venal conspiracy could have been launched with such foresight 190 years ago, and the subterfuge maintained by thousands of people around the world to the present day.
April 2 – 8, 2017 407.60 ppm
April 2 – 8, 2016 406.19 ppm
The amazing runup of CO2 in 2016 is showing up in the reduced differential between this year and last year.
Daily CO2
April 8, 2017: 407.78 ppm
April 8, 2016: 409.39 ppm
Another inversion day. Maybe we will see an inversion weekly average? I think it would not mean that much, but much better to see this kind of thing than a 411 number for current reading.
mike @341 last month.
The latest weekly NOAA MLO numbers show 408ppm rather than 409ppm. It is a significant difference.
The 12-month rise of CO2 continues to show a decline following last years El Nino. Both 5-week and 9-week averages have now dipped below 2.5ppm/yr. This is actually a lower rate than the equivalent number back after the 1997/98 El Nino, as graphed here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) With a bit of a blip in the 2016 CO2 levels as they reached their peak 12-months ago (‘coming weeks’ last year 406.2ppm, 408.8ppm, 407.5ppm, 407.7ppm), we can expect the 12-month CO2 rise to continue dropping for at least the coming month.
“No comments” are visible to me at present, so assuming for the moment nobody has already broached the subject, here are my musings on Lamar Smith’s “show trial” last Wednesday:
The House Science Climate Model Show Trial
In brief:
The denialosphere is of course now spinning like crazy attempting to pin something, anything, on Michael Mann.
not to mention:
Why on Earth Judith chose to repeat the “CAI” allegation is beyond me.
and:
Given our long running campaign against the climate science misinformation frequently printed in the Mail on Sunday it gives us great pleasure to reprint in full the following extract from [Mann’s] written testimony:
Starting to get a handle on where I’ve gone wrong with Venus. My absorption is so heavy even in the visual that no light is getting through to the ground, or even to most of the atmosphere. I’ve been using Moroz’s (1983) cloud optical properties scheme and assuming it’s seamless–which, of course, it can’t be. So more recently I’ve been looking up the known visual windows into Venus’s atmosphere. Apparently windows all the way to the surface, or at least to very low levels of atmosphere, exist at 1, 1.1, and 1.38 microns in the near infrared–which is still sunlight. I’ll post more as I find out more.
Ages ago, 2006, Petter Minnett wrote an article here: Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean.
Skeptics hated it. How times flies:
Wong, Elizabeth, “The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Air-Sea Surface Heat Fluxes.” (2017).
The worst outbreak of sanity of the past decade has struck
The House Science Committee
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/03/virulent-outbreak-of-sanity-strikes.html
Climate change deletion finalized in Idaho
The Idaho House of Representatives voted 56-9 to adopt Senate Concurrent Resolution 121 on March 24, 2017, thus finalizing the legislature’s decision to delete five standards — those discussing climate change and human impact on the environment — from a proposed new set of state science standards for Idaho.
As NCSE previously reported, the House Education Committee originally voted in February 2017 to remove the five standards, on the grounds that they failed to present “both sides of the debate.” Despite overwhelming testimony from the public in favor of retaining the standards, the Senate Education Committee followed suit later in the same month.
The recommendations of the two education committees were incorporated in SCR 121, which approves and extends temporary rules of state agencies subject to the legislature’s review. The Senate adopted SCR 121 on a voice vote on March 15, 2017, apparently with little discussion or controversy.
On the House floor, however, there was what the Spokane Spokesman-Review (March 24, 2017) described as “lengthy” debate. Ilana Rubel (D-District 18) was quoted as saying of the deletion of the material, “This takes us into the dark ages of science denial, and is absolutely something we should not be doing.”
But Scott Syme (R-District 11), who led the House Education Committee’s effort to remove the standards, was quoted as saying, “The overriding concern was we just wanted a little balance in it … In fact, we didn’t go as far as I really wanted to. And in retrospect, we probably should’ve exempted another five [standards].”
More than one legislator quoted in the Spokesman-Review story emphasized that the legislature’s decision was temporary. “That means a team of science teachers will be back on the job this summer, for the third consecutive year, working on wording” for a revised set of standards for the legislature’s review in 2018, noted Idaho Ed News (March 23, 2017).
Ed Hawkins, Letter to Lamar Smith.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/letter-to-lamar-smith/#more-5019
Just re-read my last comment in the March thread.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/unforced-variations-march-2017/comment-page-7/#comment-676267
Wow, that’s what typing on a tiny “smart”phone with no reading glasses on produces. Apologies.
Funny I first read the title “Uninformed variations” and then thought I’ve seen too much news of GOP politics. Then thought that this should be a science site with reality in it’s central theme, and was annoyed you’ve put up a whole lot of garbage by the current administration of the second largest state in Northern America. Then I decided to check the title again, and was relieved that this is only a normal open thread for the current month. Then I was dismayed for the people who are spreading news of ignorant, misinformed and nature-hating governement.
Then I thought the comments probably include some references to the actions of these reprehensible people so decided to come to write this comment.
Sorry, for the comment is likely way too much off topic and sorry for the government in the second largest state in North America. I do not mean they need to invade Canada, but that would be req…. NO. Hopefully the moderator enjoyed this, if you did, you might put it on show for the people who in need of the ‘some light refreshment’, the reference to HHGTTG is fully intentional, and refers to the time…Ah well read it yourself.
Russell – Are you aware that a “glitch free” version of that tape is available? See my link above.
Also included is a still picture of Dana Rohrabacher endangering the life of his pencil!
Jim Hunt,
The most notable result I saw from Smith’s circus was a call by the “denialist dream team” to implement climate science “red teams” to challenge the standard model of Earth’s climate. They neglect that science already has red teams–namely every scientist on the planet. Science is a free-for-all of all against all.
That Aunt Judy, Roger the Dodger and the clowns from Huntsville don’t realize this is either and indication that they don’t understand science or an admission they are being disingenuous.
Does anybody know what happened to tamino’s blog? He has updated in two months, and commenting seems to have been turned off.
@2 Forgetting the denialsphere, I honestly didn’t think Mann made an effective presentation in terms of anyone outside the expert community. There was too much of who called whom what name, when did they call it, and who started it. Too much recapitulating the personal arguments of the past couple of decades which does nothing to go forward. Too much food fight. To an outsider it probably looked like a couple’s fight. It certainly twisted my guts.
How could it have been better? Well the situation was a setup from the beginning. Perhaps Adm. Titley has a point in suggesting that scientists stay away from such setups. That said focusing more on the 20 year history of the committee calling just these 3 might have been communicative. Using a different witness–Dr. Hayhoe springs to mind–might have changed the atmosphere from the food fight we saw. I liked where Mann stated that science is a contact sport but he should have stopped right there. Trying to justify Curry’s description as a denier of science results just doesn’t in a setting where you get seconds to elaborate and explain. Sticking to the putative subject of the hearing which was not climate science but rather the scientific method might have helped. In that regard calling a top notch historian of science who could place this “controversy” in context with tobacco, asbestos, acid rain, HFCs, etc. might have been a better course since deniers of each–often the very same people–have all perverted the scientific method equivalently. Bill Foster’s attempts to get at agreement on basic physics looked better than a lot of the rest of the hearing.
I’ve got no answers, but I think this hearing was a net step back, not forward. Not sure it could have been any other way, but I wish it could have been different.
https://www.metafilter.com/166099/Climate-change-is-happening-but-not-to-me
Good post and discussion, with links to sources.
Hey @ #12Dave C. I have wondered the same thing. Also no climate data emailed out for the climate data service since Jan 11.
Completing the February global temperature anomalies, HadCRUT have posted their February anomaly at +0.851ºC, the second warmest February on record (as per GISTEMP, NOAA & BEST) behind Feb 2016 (+1.07ºC) and ahead of Feb 1998 (+0.76ºC), Feb 2002 (+0.71ºC) and Feb 2015 (+0.69ºC). February 2017 came in as the 6th warmest month on the full record (GISTEMP 4th, NOAA 7th, BEST 6th) so all pretty consistently ”scorchyisimo!!” for a non-El Nino year.
Within the HadCRUT4 record, there are only 3 top-20 warm months earlier than the period 2015-to-date (GISTEMP 6, NOAA 1, BEST 6), with the highest ranked of these non-recent month being 9th (GISTEMP 10th, NOAA =15th, BEST 8th). These warm non-recent months are all the peak months of past El Ninos – Jan 2007 9th warmest, Feb 1998 12th warmest, and Feb 2002 =20th warmest.
Last Week
Mar. 26 – Apr. 1, 2017 408.37 ppm
Mar. 26 – Apr. 1, 2016 405.56 ppm
2.81 ppm increase if my math is right. Noisy number. Does not mean too much except, of course, that the numbers continue to go in wrong direction at an alarming clip (unless anyone thinks that a clip above 2.5 ppm is not alarming?)
Daily CO2
April 3, 2017: 407.82 ppm
April 3, 2016: 405.98 ppm
2.84 ppm in really noisy number.
Dr. Mann said we ought to keep it under 405 ppm. Well, that ship has sailed.
MAR’s work on the global temp is appreciated, as always. It almost looks like global heat goes up in some kind of relationship to CO2 in the atmosphere! We can’t be sure about that yet, cuz a couple of important scientific advisors to the ruling party are not sure there is any real connection.
One thing we might try is simply erasing all the data. Then we put the economy on cruise for a couple of decades making this country great before we look at this stuff again. I think a couple of decades should make all this clear. The endless argument about the climate are just weakening this great country.
Cheers and warm regards to all,
Mike
2
Thanks to John Hunt for his editiing diligence- my version was in response to Stoat’s posting the raw feed, which opened with sixteen silent minutes of hearing room wallpaper- when I had to testify, we at least got the comic relief of the Indian Treaty Room murals.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump both look forward to the Arctic melting:
https://thinkprogress.org/putin-thinks-russia-will-benefit-from-climate-change-and-communities-will-adjust-35a2014c28b5
The PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume numbers for March are out:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/04/facts-about-the-arctic-in-april-2017/#Apr-4
Volume on March 31st 2017 was 20.398 thousand cubic kilometers. The previous lowest volume for the date was 22.129 thousand cubic kilometers in 2011.
Things aren’t looking too promising in the far north in other ways too:
Northern hemisphere snow cover is falling fast and is currently just above last year.
The usual southerly arch hasn’t formed in the Nares Strait between Greenland and Ellesmere Island, and as SMOS shows the sea ice in the strait is consequently very thin. That leads one to wonder when the northern arch in the Lincoln Sea might give way.
Etc. etc.
Ray @11 – Agreed on both counts.
jgnfld @13 – Agreed re Mike Mann’s presentation. Too much “food fight” and self glorification from both sides in actual fact!
I’m from the other side of the pond, so I’m not too sure of the significance of Mann getting the Smith/Curry reliance on tabloid churnalism for “evidence” entered into the “Congressional record”
I did note that Lamar Smith seems to have changed allegiance from the Mail on Sunday to the Wall Street Journal, and that Science falls well below those two in his estimation!
@12 & 15
Tamino occasionally goes on sabbaticals from his blog, sometimes because he’s working on a paper.
The TLT anomalies for March are posted by UAH & RSS showing a month dropped away from ”scorchyisimo!!” conditions. The UAH anomaly for March is +0.19ºC (down from +0.35ºC) and for RSS +0.349ºC (down fro +0.440ºC). These are, for UAH/RSS respectively, the 8th/5th warmest March on record and the 99th/64th warmest on the full record. If this all sounds rather cool, do note that this makes March 2017 the coolest anomaly on record since July 2015/July 2015 with 4/5 months of 2015 cooler than March 2017. And prior to last year with its El Nino, 2015 was itself ”scorchyisimo!!”
Those following the TLT Decadal bet, as does Kiwi Thinker, will be able to calculate that March 2017 is a second month of 2017 that comes in cooler than the equivalent month 10 years ago. Yet , like the Janurary 2017 values, the March 2017 values are still higher than the average 2011-to-date. Thus the March 2017 contribution increases the accumulating 2011-20 average by a whopping 0.0003ºC (so now it sits 0.0479ºC above the 2001-10 average) and dropping the average anomalies required for the remainder of the decade to yield a draw (my pyramid trace as graphed here (usually two clicks to “download your attachment”) to a lowly +0.125ºC, a drop of 0.003ºC on the February requirement. A period of 4 years with such low TLT numbers has not occurred since 1994-97 making the bet for a cooler 2011-20 an increasingly-forlorn hope.
Daily CO2
April 4, 2017: 408.07 ppm
April 4, 2016: 406.09 ppm
March CO2
March 2017: 407.05 ppm
March 2016: 404.86 ppm
monthly average number peaks in May, then starts walking back down the low spot, usually in Sep/Oct, then turns and starts back up, etc. 407.05 somehow looks kind of good to me. Go figure.
I think lots of this stuff is simply out of our hands now. I read good article at Carbon Brief that says we have over 4 years left in the 1.5 degree carbon budget.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one-point-five-carbon-budget
The carbon brief piece has nice explanation of the RCP’s. Too much lingo and lots of it based on arcane knowledge and distinctions about models, projections etc. that I don’t think the average voter/citizen can parse. Too bad, I guess.
The article at Carbon Brief indicates that right now we are tracking most closely to RCP 8.5 (CO2 935 ppm at 2100) The piece also notes that we have pretty good track on fossil fuel and cement production carbon emissions, less so on landuse change emissions. My guess is that we will clean up our act a bit globally and probably produce something closer to RCP 6 (CO2 670 ppm at 2100), maybe even RCP 4.5 (CO2 540 ppm at 2100).
I won’t live to see the actual number at 2050, let alone 2100, but my kids and grandkids might. What can I say to them? Climate change? Ooops. Sorry about that.
Warm regards
Mike
*Mindblown* Scientist explains Global Warming in 1990 http://climatestate.com/2017/04/05/scientist-explains-global-warming-in-1990/
Future Climate Warnings in the Anthropocene http://climatestate.com/2017/04/05/future-climate-warnings-in-the-anthropocene/
Any opinion on http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845 “Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years”?
Bill Arnold @27 — That speculative article in Nature is substantively correct. It is long past time to stop burning so-called fossil fuels and start the expensive process of removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Sorry, this should have gone onto the UV thread:
Responding to #27. My thought on the paper “Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years”
The levels of CO2 they are considering are extreme. They use a scenario called WINK12K, in which “both conventional and non-conventional fossil fuel reserves […] were exhausted in such a business-as-usual scenario”. That is, we dig up and burn ALL fossil fuels we possibly can.
The leads eventually to CO2 levels of about 5000 ppm. A more modest scenario also used is the well known RCP8.5 which corresponds to a CO2 peak around the year 2250, of about 2000 ppm. Combined with their estimates of the increased TSI forcing over the last 420 Mya, they give these two cases.
(1) The RCP8.5 extrapolated scenario: leads to a total forcing similar to the early Eocene 50 Mya ago.
(2) The Wink12K scenario is the one in which total forcing matches what is given in the paper title: “potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years”.
It’s not stated in the abstract (and I think it SHOULD have been mentioned) that the second and more extreme scenario is the one reflected in the paper title, and this involves using absolutely all fossil fuels reserves including non-traditional sources.
prokaryotes:
Thanks for the link to ClimateState, where I also found a link to Arrhenius’s classic paper On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground. Their version is much easier to read than a scanned image of the original. OTOH, the original contains the tables and figures showing Arrhenius’s laborious hand calculations for the first quantitative model of AGW, back when “computers” were people rather than machines.
Googling for links to the Arrhenius paper inevitably hits Anthony Watts’s 2015 post titled “Father of Global Warming Svante Arrhenius: An Early False Prophet Of The ‘Energy Crisis’”, which I pointedly decline to link here. Watts is completely unrestrained by reason, isn’t he? He’s so determined to make AGW into a hoax and/or cult, he’ll go back 120 years to poison the well!
Mike, RE: carbonbrief, their reporting of IPCC: “In RCP 4.5, atmospheric CO2 sits at 540 ppm by 2100 – roughly 140 ppm higher than now – and the global temperatures are likely to rise by 2-3C above pre-industrial levels.”
I believe statements such as the above are completely delusional, as indicated by the first comment for that article. I’ll add that Radiative Forcing of 4.5 watts per square meter (over the entire surface of the planet) will toast the biosphere to a crisp. We are most likely already on the way to 2-3C by exceeding 400ppm CO2 and our much higher carbonic acid gas equivalent at present (not to mention their unaccounted consideration of major feedbacks as cited in the comment).
While the timing of temperature rise lags radiative forcing via a “climate response function,” please note that 1.0 watt/m2 manifesting over the 5.1 x 10^14 m2 surface of earth is 510 trillion watts (TW). In comparison, total global human “energy production,” averaged over a year, is reported as around 17 TW. Now try 4.5 w/m2.
It’s “funny” how universal the atomic fission phrase of “meltdown” has become (financial, political, Arctic). By the way, nuclear Westinghouse just had one. Perhaps underground forms of matter are not, as our conventional “military-industrial” thinking demands, actually “forms of energy.” Oops, game over, it’ too hot in here.
Thanks for your tracking of atmospheric carbonic acid gas concentrations. We know there are also many others contributing to radiative forcing, yet ocean acidification is due to increasing amounts of carbonic acid (H2O+CO2=H2CO3), and that is a killer also.
Regards.
> “Mindblown” Scientist explains
That’s Stephen Schneider, linked and cited to: https://archive.org/details/Agci-TheGlobalWarmingDebateScienceOrPolitics477
Jim @ 20,
Volume on March 31st 2017 was 20.398 thousand cubic kilometers. The previous lowest volume for the date was 22.129 thousand cubic kilometers in 2011.
It suddenly occurs to me, IIRC, that we’re still within the Wadhams window which was much derided by the denialosphere back in 2013.
Not my field, but FWIW its very interesting to see the (very) long term draw-down of CO2 related to the change in radiative forcing caused by the progressive long-term increase in solar radiative output. It’s also a very good attempt to reconstruct past CO2 on long term (hundreds of millions of years) time scales. Of course there is still a vast amount to learn about the long-term CO2 history of the planet – but this potentially helps to deal with the problem that climate sensitivity can vary in the “short” term with temporally “local” characteristics such as the existence, on and off, of very large and potentially unstable ice sheets during the last million years. So this can provide a “broad brush” insight into planetary climate sensitivity, although of course the main question of interest for us as a species is, what is the likely outcome of the current situation given the present parameters?
Natural swings or man made slides?
There has been considerable discussion on the Artic Forum of Ding et al, 2017. “Influence of high-latitude atmospheric circulation changes on summertime Arctic sea ice”.
This is the paper that prompted the Daily Mail’s headline HALF of Arctic ice loss is driven by natural swings and not global warming, controversial study claims
Others argue that the “natural swings” have been altered by global warming and change has assisted the slide in Arctic ice cover.
Any views on slides or swings here?
P.S. (How can we counter this?)
This is what the top rated comment on the Mail’s article said..
Followed up by
Inversion day!
Daily CO2
April 6, 2017: 406.92 ppm
April 6, 2016: 407.02 ppm
big run up in 2016 finally showing up in comparison, I think. But it’s a really noisy number and does not mean much. Weekly and monthly have been running in 2 ppm plus range as expected. I would love to see an inversion week. Need to get back to 405 and I don’t know how that is going to happen. CO2 is an upward sticky number set for our species.
Icebergs are spilling out of the Arctic into the North Atlantic. All that warmth at the top of the world is a wonder to watch. Slow tsunami of changes coming our way. Buy coastal property if you want to have the best view. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/icebergs-are-swarming-ships-in-the-arctic-21320
Warm regards,
Mike
Barton,
re you request for help with modelling Venus, the answer is that carbon dioxide acts as a warm blanket preventing the surface of Venus from cooling. CO2 has not raised the surfavce temperature to that of molten sulphur; it has prevented if from cooling below that temperature. If it does cool below that temperature, the sulphur dioxide clouds surrounding Venus dissipate, and the surface is reheated by solar energy and the greenhouse effect (back radiation) of CO2 until the surface melts again. The sulphur dioxide clouds act as a negative feedback preventing the surface of Venus becoming even hotter.
It is the same on Earth. The water clouds prevent the surface of the Earth becoming too warm for life.
Re: 25
Yes, a scientist with amazing foresight. Even more foresight shown by the same scientist in 1978:
https://youtu.be/DsdWTBNyvX0
Responding to Solar Jim, #32.
You are commenting on the carbonbrief article linked here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one-point-five-carbon-budget
You single out and describe as “delusional” the idea that “In RCP 4.5, atmospheric CO2 sits at 540 ppm by 2100 – roughly 140 ppm higher than now – and the global temperatures are likely to rise by 2-3C above pre-industrial levels.”
But you give nothing at all to put any doubt on those solidly founded numbers! You note that the forcing of 1 W/m^2 added up over the Earth’s surface is a big number — but that’s a non-sequitur. It’s a big area after all. To get a sensible idea of the temperature consequence, it’s sensible to look at energy per unit area, not just total energy. You’re just changing units to something awkward without giving any reason to doubt the conventional implications of the numbers, as described by the IPCC.
Now think: we get 240 W/m^2 from the Sun absorbed at the surface. An extra 1 W/m^2 is going to increase temperatures… but it’s no “toaster”. The effect is a bit less than 1 degree surface warming.
Best estimates for equilibrium climate sensitivity are of the order of 0.8 degrees per W/m^2 forcing, and for transient climate response it is about 0.5 to 0.6 degrees per W/m^2. (The latter is a better guide for temperatures in the year 2100; and the former for longer term change.)
Comparison with human energy production is another irrelevant non-sequitur. What matters for climate is the Sun’s energy, and how effectively that is radiated back to space. Other energy sources (tides, human energy production, geothermal, etc) have almost no influence on surface temperatures. So you are comparing with a number known to be negligible in impact. That’s no way at all to argue for a massive impact!
If we manage to keep to the RCP 4.5 scenario, that will require some major progress in controlling emissions, and the consequences would be well worthwhile. The result is roughly a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100, which means a forcing of about 3.7 W/m^2 and a temperature rise of the order of 2 to 3 Celsius — just as carbonbrief says. That’s still going to have a big impact; and it is more than the 1.5 or 2 C which we’d like to keep to. But it’s still a lot better than 6 C; which is why it’s worth working towards reducing our impact even if we don’t get the optimal results. 3 C temperature increase would have a big effect, but it won’t toast the biosphere. It will CHANGE the biosphere, and present lots of problems for humanity to adapt to those conditions.
I would advocate for urgency in describing the problem, but with recognition that any reduction of our impact is worth while. The more the better, of course. We certainly CAN avoid the worst case scenarios (RCP 8.5, for instance). I think we should avoid terms that are plain exaggeration for effect (like “toasting”).
Cheers — Chris
Alastair, thanks, but I really wanted help from the scientists here.
SJ at 32: I agree with your evaluation that the RCP temp rise projections are too low, but I don’t have any basis for that other than a sense the IPCC consensus process allows us to consistently underestimate the gravity of our situation.
I feel really bad for my kids and grandkids, but I think there is almost nothing I can do. The global response to population and resource depletion pressures appears to be swinging to authoritarian and militarist approaches. Tragic.
Another inversion day!
Daily CO2
April 7, 2017: 406.95 ppm
April 7, 2016: 407.74 ppm
Doesn’t mean too much except we are probably seeing one of the amazing spikes in CO2 from 2016. Still, it’s just lovely to see inverted numbers.
Warm regards
Mike
Alastair @38:
I have my doubts whether water or sulfate clouds are really providing much if any negative feedback. The increased shortwave opacity, also is accompanied by an increase in IR opacity. So it a case of competing effects, decreased solar absorption versus increased greenhouse effects. Planetary climatologist have to sort this out by detailed modeling.
Re 24 mike
“I read good article at Carbon Brief that says we have over 4 years left in the 1.5 degree carbon budget.”
Carbon Brief may be conservative. We can calculate the expected warming since 1880.
Using the Myrn et al forcing equation, IPCC mid-range climate sensitivity of 3.0 and warming effect of 3.7W/M2 per degree Centigrade
5.35ln(408/280)3/3.7 = 1.63C
If this is valid, we have already passed the Paris 1.5C limit.
Good news for all you climate change alarmists out there. Our UN rep, Nikki Haley, has effectively declared war on Russia:
“Assad did this because he thought he could get away with it. He thought he could get away with it because he knew Russia had his back. That changed last night.” http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/un-security-council-syria/
Not much doubt that Trump will go along, if for no other reason than to placate all those wonderful, liberal minded Democrats just aching to prosecute him, Joe McCarthy style, as a Putin-loving “fellow traveler” or worse, a latter day Manchurian Candidate.
Well making war with Russia, that’ll show ’em. Go Donald Go.
Only wait! Russia is a nuclear power. War with Russia would inevitably lead to nuclear war. Wow! What great news! Nuclear winter will cool things down fast. We can all stop worrying about climate change and learn to love the bomb.
Geoff Beacon, quoting a Daily Fail commenter:
Ouch. IMHO as a random reality-based guy on the Internet, a response you could work down to your own 1500 indispensable characters (for a comment on the Gray Lady; don’t know the Fail’s limit) might start by briefly summarizing the 19-century origins of the scientific consensus for AGW.
Begin with a sentence on Fourier in 1826, then touch on Tyndall mid-century, and finish up with Arrhenius in 1896 — see my previous comment on this thread.
Point out that the evidence for AGW was already persuasive by 1900, without computing machines, or much in the way of “grant $$$” either; it simply took another 90 years of technological progress for scientists to be convinced enough to bring AGW to the public’s attention, and since then their confidence has only increased as evidence has accumulated.
Optional: mention that the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of the UK, two of the world’s most respected scientific societies, find a absolute ABUNDANCE!!!1 of conclusive evidence that human activity is impacting climate. Link to the short booklet for lay (9th-grade-level, roughly) readers, Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, jointly published by the NAS and the RS in 2015, and free to download at the link. It begins with these words (all-caps in original): “CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.”
Then suggest out how preposterous the claim that “climate scientists are only in it for the gold” is: that a venal conspiracy could have been launched with such foresight 190 years ago, and the subterfuge maintained by thousands of people around the world to the present day.
Conclude by observing that, no matter how smart and disciplined the Fail’s truculent AGW denier thinks scientists are, it gives them way too much credit to suppose that “three may keep a secret, if fewer than two of them are dead“.
There. You’re welcome 8^}!
Well, I feel sheepish — superfluous “out” in my “Then suggest out how preposterous” above.
The four essential rules of writing 8^(:
“Be brief, be brief, be brief, beware of over-editing!”
Last Week
April 2 – 8, 2017 407.60 ppm
April 2 – 8, 2016 406.19 ppm
The amazing runup of CO2 in 2016 is showing up in the reduced differential between this year and last year.
Daily CO2
April 8, 2017: 407.78 ppm
April 8, 2016: 409.39 ppm
Another inversion day. Maybe we will see an inversion weekly average? I think it would not mean that much, but much better to see this kind of thing than a 411 number for current reading.
Warm regards
Mike
Best steer clear of the Titanic this year–
despite the record low in Arctic sea Ice, the North Atlantic is alredy awash in icebergs !
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/04/a-titanic-blow-to-disbelief-in-arctic.html