Happy new year, and a happy new open thread.
In response to some the comments we’ve been getting about previous open threads, we are going to try separating out OT comments on mitigation/saving the planet/theories of political action from ones related to the physical climate system. This thread remains a place for climate science issues, questions, & news, but we have started a new Forced Responses thread where people can more clearly discuss mitigation issues. We realise that sometimes it can be hard to cleanly separate these conversations, but hopefully folk can try that out as a new year’s resolution!
Note we will be updating the Model/Data comparisons over the next few weeks as the various observational data sets get updated for calendar year 2017. The main surface temperature datasets will be released around Jan 18.
Happy New Year to the folks at RealClimate. I appreciate your work.
thank you for the forced responses.
Last Week
December 24 – 30, 2017 407.15 ppm
December 24 – 30, 2016 404.66 ppm
December 24 – 30, 2005 384.11 ppm
upward sticky number that we need to turn into a downward sticky number. We should start doing what it takes to make that happen. Folks will make the argument that we have started doing what it takes, but seriously, as long as the number continues to rise without showing any reduction in the rate of increase, then what we are doing, however impressive it might sound, is not what we have do to slow the real world rise in the only number that really matters: CO2 ppm.
Read’m and weep.
Mike
One of the key climate science issues is whether we can stay below +2ºC warming by reducing emissions alone. According to climate scientist Keven Anderson, essentially all emissions scenarios that keep us below +2ºC assume massive amounts of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. The amounts or CDR required are staggering… on the order of 10 GT-CO2 per year (more than the oceans sequester).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chsas3u8k-k (Carbon Budget discussion starts at 17:35)
Some questions for RC:
1. Is Anderson correct?
2. Anderson also claims that most climate scientists are not being forthright about the current predicament we are in. Is he correct about that?
Dan Miller @3,
The graph @22:00 in the Kevin Anderson graph is obviously a lot more than 10Gt(CO2)/yr. (Mind, I haven’t sat and listened through the video.) It us essentially the figure from Anderson & Peters (2016) which is also reproduced in Slide #11 of this Glen Peters presentation of Apr 2017 stating the negative emissions as 15Gt(CO2)/yr by 2100.
I don’t think Anderson (& Peters) is alone in this message of significant levels of negative emissions through the last decades of this century. But note that the size of those late 21st century negative emissions will depend on the late 21st century positive emissions which A&P are variously graphing at 5Gt(CO2)/yr to 6.5Gt(CO2)/yr. The carbon budgets are pretty-much from Table 2.2 of the AR5 Synthesis Report with five-year’s-worth of emissions duly subtracted.
There is however a potential difficulty in making plain that significant negative emissions will be required to keep AGW at ‘acceptable’ levels. Folk who are already reluctant to make plans for necessary mitigation will point to those significant negative emissions and suggest that if they were a little bigger, today’s cuts in emissions could be much reduced/delayed.
#3 and #4:
Very much depends on your goal. If it is 2C, I see no way to quantify that given feedbacks that aren’t even in the models yet. But if it is 2C, good luck with that because at the current +1~1.2C, things are crazy enough. At 2C? We have no idea what that will look like precisely because the models cannot tell us yet, and they have consistently been on the low side WRT effects.
What makes it worse, the 2C target has no relation to a concurrent goal of sustainability. This is partly why so many only focus on climate, remaining ignorant of, or setting aside, collapse scenarios that don’t even need climate change to be achieved this century.
Take Anderson’s warning for what it is: Rapid reductions and sequestration are the only sane pathway. Given the risk is existential, plan to the low end, not the middle or high end.
Have people already discussed this paper by M. Mann on the interactions between CC and Rossby Waves?:
Michael E. Mann et al. (2017), “Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events”, Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 45242, doi:10.1038/srep45242
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242
Abstract: “Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been shown to be associated with the presence of high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves within a particular wavelength range (zonal wavenumber 6–8). The underlying mechanistic relationship involves the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA) of synoptic-scale waves with that wavenumber range becoming trapped within an effective mid-latitude atmospheric waveguide. Recent work suggests an increase in recent decades in the occurrence of QRA-favorable conditions and associated extreme weather, possibly linked to amplified Arctic warming and thus a climate change influence. Here, we isolate a specific fingerprint in the zonal mean surface temperature profile that is associated with QRA-favorable conditions. State-of-the-art (“CMIP5”) historical climate model simulations subject to anthropogenic forcing display an increase in the projection of this fingerprint that is mirrored in multiple observational surface temperature datasets. Both the models and observations suggest this signal has only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability.”
MA Rodger @4,
While Anderson and Peters (and Hansen) are technically correct about the negative emissions necessity, no one is speaking as if they’ve done the cost analysis of drawing down 200-300 ppm CO2 using direct capture or other means. Any figures I’ve seen or done myself suggest the price is overwhelming to the world economy, unless someone pulls a technological rabbet (er, excuse me, rabbit) out of a hat and manages to reduce the cost per tonne of CO2 from US$300-US$600 to cents per tonne, and preferably fractions of one.
Worse, the sheer cost and longevity of the project really means emissions need to be zeroed first, since we’ll still have 4 GtCO2e per annum from agriculture even if planting, harvesting, production, and transport are electrified with zero Carbon sources.
When I say “sheer cost”, with prices at even a tenth of present estimates, we are talking dozens of multiples of Gross World Product (for, say, 2014) to come down 300 ppm or so. Dr Peters reminded me that coming down 300 ppm atmospheric is really coming down 750 ppm because atmosphere is in equilibrium with oceans and soils, and, presently, only about 40% of emissions remain in atmosphere.
And, note, the CO2e concentrations at present are already 490 ppm, not merely 408 ppm.
#3 from 2015
http://kevinanderson.info/blog/the-hidden-agenda-how-veiled-techno-utopias-shore-up-the-paris-agreement/
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2017/12/15/take-three-minutes-study-two-graphs/?utm_source=AGU+Blogosphere+-+Dan%27s+Wild+Wild+Science+Journal
<blockquote I know that most people will not take the time to read even the summaries from this special edition, but there are two graphs from a paper in the BAMS special edition that everyone should see. It shows that those who still believe the warming is natural are unarguably, and completely wrong.
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2017/12/giscmip5-768×289.png
Palaeoclimatology will doubtless be enlivened by a stunning archaeological discovery 14C dated to the height of Mycenaean civilization
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/12/was-it-minoan-warm-period-to-mycenaean.html
Here is the graph of the operational data for the temperature anomaly. It’s supposed to be an animation of the entire last week, but it got stuck on 28 Dec:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.anim.html
And here is the same graph for the reanalyzed data. This one is animated:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_01a.rnl.anim.html
Look at the aria of Antarctica at 60E. The operational data say it is -5C colder than normal. The reanalysis data say it is 5C to10C warmer than normal. What does this mean? Is the operational data really wrong by 10C or more?
Gavin,
Kudos on the separation of the two threads. Now, to be even more of a pest, might it be possible to separate “Recent Comments” into two–one for Forced Variations and one for everything else? That might decrease the frustration some have expressed at seeing all of the recent comments done by one or two names.
5 Killian – I concur. No IPCC RCP forecasts includes negative feedbacks – none. My ref: Gavin for starters. We are still tracking at RCP 8.5 – nothing has changed in this regard – nothing.
6 wili – thx for the ref. Sounds ‘chilling’ but I have no idea what his abstract is speaking to. The science jargon is way beyond me to comprehend. Wili, do you know of a plain speaking explanation by Mann, or is there a qualified person here who could decode what Mann is saying. ( i only ask because I don’t have the time these days to dig into such language issues anymore)
9 Hank Roberts – more kudos to you. Unfortunately that will not help fools like KIA nor the psychopaths in the US Congress and White House.
12 Ray Ladbury – frustration is a lower form of unexpressed anger. I suggest you and others get your own emotions under control. But it’s only a suggestion, not a directive. You decide. Though I do recommend that given your personal weaknesses that you instead simply focus on “science” and/or “maths”. I have the qualifications to make such recommendations btw, even if they not recognized here or by you. Just sayin’ :-)
Martin Smith @11,
Do note the anomaly base is 1981-2010 in your Dec 24th-31st anamation but 1985-96 in the frozen ‘stuck’ anamation. That will make a significant difference for Antarctica (for instance, see BEST Antarctic temps here) but immediately not a difference of the magnitude depicted in the two NOAA graphics. Yet the GHCN-M coverage used by NOAA does provide a very poor level of Antarctic coverage as their November 2017 anomaly map shows quote clearly.
At #3 Dan Millar asked:
“2. Anderson also claims that most climate scientists are not being forthright about the current predicament we are in. Is he correct about that?”
Yes! Climate scientists, like every one else, are unwilling to face up to the truth.
For instance, the climate models are unable to reproduce the climate of the last 10,000 year, the Holocene,
See: Liu, Z., Zhu, J., Rosenthal, Y., Zhang, X., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Timmermann, A., Smith, R. S., Lohmann, G., Zheng, W. and Timm, O. E. (2014) ‘The Holocene temperature conundrum’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 34, pp. E3501–E3505 [Online]. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1407229111.
but they will not admit that their models are wrong, or even that most of the absorption by CO2 is saturated.
See: http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2017-07-03T01:12:00-04:00&max-results=20&start=40&by-date=false
And, note, the CO2e concentrations at present are already 490 ppm, not merely 408 ppm.
This indicates the need for urgent action still. Hence if we keep postponing the action against Global Warming, then the problem will become unmanageable. If we at
least stabilise the CO2e concentrations,then further actions will be manageable.
Sastry
Copying a short section from the ASIF ……. cutting-edge climate scientists should repetitively remind consensus climate scientists that climate change is a dynamical coupled phenomenon that per Lovejoy (2017), https://doi.org/10.22498/pages.25.3.136, with an atmosphere that varies: “On scales ranging over a factor of a billion in space and over a billion billion in time …” (see the first image). Addressing the implications such scaling considerations requires a “Limit State” approach, especially when are combined with the facts as:
(a) We are radiatively forcing climate change at a rate over 100-times faster than any time in over 100 million years (see the second image from SciAm);
(b) Our current climate models omit numerous feedback mechanisms including freshwater hosing [e.g. Hansen et al. (2016), DeConto & Pollard (2016) and Bakker et al. (2017)];
(c) Our current climate models cannot replicate the relatively high climate sensitivities, and Arctic Amplifications, of Super Interglacial periods, which are most relevant to our future in 2100;
(d) Work such as Brown & Caldeira (2017), doi:10.1038/nature24672 shows that based on satellite cloud observations that the best CMIP5 projections indicate that the instantaneous climate sensitivity, ICS, is currently at least 3.7C (see the third image); while Proistosescu & Huybers (2017) demonstrate that when considering slow response feedback mechanisms, the best CMIP5 models indicate that the effective ECS could be between 6 and 8C this century (see the fourth image).
Pepijn Bakker et. al. (2017), “Centennial-scale Holocene climate variations amplified by Antarctic Ice Sheet discharge”, Nature 541, 72–76, doi:10.1038/nature20582
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature20582
Abstract: “Proxy-based indicators of past climate change show that current global climate models systematically underestimate Holocene-epoch climate variability on centennial to multi-millennial timescales, with the mismatch increasing for longer periods.
Proposed explanations for the discrepancy include ocean–atmosphere coupling that is too weak in models, insufficient energy cascades from smaller to larger spatial and temporal scales, or that global climate models do not consider slow climate feedbacks related to the carbon cycle or interactions between ice sheets and climate.
Such interactions, however, are known to have strongly affected centennial- to orbital-scale climate variability during past glaciations, and are likely to be important in future climate change.
Here we show that fluctuations in Antarctic Ice Sheet discharge caused by relatively small changes in subsurface ocean temperature can amplify multi-centennial climate variability regionally and globally, suggesting that a dynamic Antarctic Ice Sheet may have driven climate fluctuations during the Holocene.
We analysed high-temporal-resolution records of iceberg-rafted debris derived from the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and performed both high-spatial-resolution ice-sheet modelling of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and multi-millennial global climate model simulations.
Ice-sheet responses to decadal-scale ocean forcing appear to be less important, possibly indicating that the future response of the Antarctic Ice Sheet will be governed more by long-term anthropogenic warming combined with multi-centennial natural variability than by annual or decadal climate oscillations.”
ref/s/more info/visuals/graphs/
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.msg137631.html#msg137631
Any comments?
Interesting that in the PETM 1.7 petagram of carbon per year was being added to the atmosphere thus pushing temps up over 20,000 years.
In the modern world we are adding 25 petagram per year – 15x faster rate than in the PETM, check the 2nd image (and source)
Sigh. The temp curve does seem to be parabolic.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1774962182556622&id=100001285716909&ref=m_notif¬if_t=group_activity
emissions need to be zeroed first, since we’ll still have 4 GtCO2e per annum from agriculture even if…
I find it curious the entire planet changing is discussed as if each change is in isolation.
Imagine getting to negative emissions and sustainability with current agriculture practices, if you can. I cannot. We will not get to negative emissions without regenerative agriculture because we need the gt’s it first make unnecesary, then the ones the ggt’s they sequester. But what does this imply?
Regenerative agriculture implies an upheaval in social structures in the first place because it must be lowtech, hands-on, massively distributed to *be* regenerative.
If we have become serious enough about climate and resources to be moving significantly toward negative emissions then the glibal world view will have needed to have already shifted.
Thus, no, industrial ag will not be what we are doing at that time.
Thomas,
You are a quintessential example of stupidity sent to college. Dude, you don’t even know the difference between negative emissions and feedbacks–even when past posters have used the proper terminology.
You have given zero evidence that your learning curve has a positive slope.
Alistair McDonald @15,
I think you rather misrepresent the science with your:-
Concerning the Holocene, you cite Liu et al (2014) who conclude:-
This finding is echoed by Alder & Hostetler (2015) while Baker et al (2017) emphasis the seasonal bias as the main reason for the discrepancy.
As for the radiative characterisitcs of CO2, what is the basis for your ‘absorption’ assertion?
AM 15: but they will not admit that their models are wrong, or even that most of the absorption by CO2 is saturated.
BPL: Because saturation doesn’t f****g matter, as has been explained to you many, many times.
http://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html
Jan Galkowski @7,
I feel ‘forced’ to ‘respond’ to your comment on the ‘Forced Responses’ thread (here) as the interchange has become purely about mitigation.
21 Ray Ladbury says: “Thomas, ….”
WOW. Now wtf are talking about? Got a ref to something I “said”???? Like a post number for example and damned copy/paste of text?
I am not a mind reader [edit: please don’t name call]
Gee, Thomas
Gee, Thomas, you mean you can’t figure out which of the many comments you’ve made I am referring to? Do you think that might be part of the problem?
I would have called you a tool, but tools are sometimes useful.
MA Roger @24
Thank you for your polite response.
The three instances you cite of explanations for the failure of the models over the Holocene are, IMHO, just instances of the scientists refusing to accept that their models are wrong, and trying to excuse these failures away. They do not provide any experimental data to back up their claims, they are just three conflicting opinions.
My justification for the saturation of absorption of CO2 is based on this paper by Dr J Koch, who was Karl Angstrom’s PhD student:. Koch, J. (1901) ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Wärmeabsorption in Kohlensäure’, Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-akademie ns förhandlingar, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 475–488.
I have translated it here: McDonald, A. B. (2016) Translation of Koch, J., 1901. [Online]. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310460429_Translation_of_Koch_J_1901 (Accessed 15 March 2017).
I am not the only person to be convinced. S. Arrhenius, K. Angstrom, F. W. Very etc. were also convinced, as was G. S. Callendar who came up with an alternative explanation for the effect of increased CO2.
Increased CO2 does not warm the atmosphere, it melts the snow and ice reducing global albedo, and that causes AGW. Total loss of the Arctic sea ice, caused by increasing CO2, will be catastrophic.
The greenhouse effect isn’t even remotely near saturation. Here is simplified version with some nice analogies and graphics.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-basic.htm
Alastair McDonald @15
No one that I am aware of won’t admit that CO2 absorption is mostly saturated because it is. CO2 absorbs most all of the surface radiation in its absorption bands within tens of meters from the surface. But that heat is reradiated and the CO2 higher in the atmosphere reabsorbs it. This process continues until the atmosphere and CO2 is thin enough that the radiation can be radiated to space unimpeded. Adding CO2 raises the level where this can occur thus, due to the lapse rate, raises surface temperatures. Plass showed this back in 1955.
Saturation is just a red herring. As BPL says: “…saturation doesn’t f****g matter…”
Killian @20, there’s simply no way for regenerative agriculture to be an effective carbon sink by 2050, or even by the end of this century enough to prevent dangerous climate change. It takes significant time for carbon to build up in soils, and it will take time for farming systems to change to more sustainable models. It will help a little but not that much.
What regenerative agriculture can potentially do is build up soil carbon over multiple centuries, and reduce the length of time temperatures remain elevated and destructive weather persists. And of course regenerative agriculture conserves soils better, and requires less industrial pesticides,so has plenty of benefits.
Probably should have replied to K on the forced responses thread. Sorry.
23 – BPL: Because saturation doesn’t f****g matter, as has been explained to you many, many times.
You need one more * in there. :) I read some of your article on saturation. Complicated business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uCL8kTuIQw
21 – Ray
“You are a quintessential example of stupidity sent to college. Dude, you don’t even know the difference between negative emissions and feedbacks–even when past posters have used the proper terminology.”
Speaking of terminology is there a glossary on RC of climate science terms and acronyms to make the jargon easier to read?
3 – Dan
Did Branson ever give the Earth Challenge prize money to whoever came up with best way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Think it was $25 million. Here’s the answer, but not sure if this is the latest info:
http://www.virginearth.com/finalists/
I occasionally listen to Dr. Michio Kaku on his Science Fantastic radio program. He says there are no dumb questions, but on this website if you ask a dumb question you’ll be reminded of it every month! :)
I’m posting this here because it directly applies to the original purpose of this blog and may be important to the blog owners’ perspectives on their own efforts.
The Backfire Effect may not exist, whih multiplies the percieved importance of this blog.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2819073
Across all experiments, we found no corrections capable of triggering backfire, despite testing precisely the kinds of polarized issues where backfire should be expected. Evidence of factual backfire is far more tenuous than prior research suggests. By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments.
UAH are first off the mark posting a TLT anomaly for December with a temperature anomaly at +0.41ºC, a little up on November but warmer than months in early 2017. It was the 5th warmest anomaly of the year.
Dec 2017 is the 2nd warmest December on the UAH TLT record, behind 2015 (+0.46ºC) and ahead of 2003 (+0.38ºC) and 4th place 1987 (+0.37ºC).
November 2017 becomes the =29th warmest anomaly in the full UAH all-month record.
As expected for a few months now, for the full year 2017 sits in 3rd spot behind the two big El Nino years of 2016 & 1998 and a long way ahead of any non-El-Nino year. It was thus rated “scorchyissimo!!!!!”
The table below ranks years by the Jan-to-Nov average.
Annual Ranking for full calendar years.
1st 2016 .. +0.51 ºC
2nd 1998 .. +0.48 ºC
3rd 2017 .. +0.38 ºC
4th 2010 .. +0.33 ºC
5th 2015 .. +0.27 ºC
6th 2002 .. +0.22 ºC
7th 2005 .. +0.20 ºC
8th 2003 .. +0.19 ºC
9th 2014 .. +0.18 ºC
10th 2007 .. +0.16 ºC
NPR needs someone to go on air and talk about what happens to U.S. weather when we have a loopy jet stream, and how that relates to climate change.
AM 28: Increased CO2 does not warm the atmosphere
BPL: Yes it does.
http://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html
Hey RealClimate people, can you write up a quick post for the press, on how to get good people on for interviews etc, and how to come up with valuable questions to ask them? (Or has this already been done?)
I have a question regarding the extraordinary cold weather that has gripped the American eastern seaboard of late. (I live in Oregon, where we are enjoying high temperatures but insufficient rain.) My understanding was that these breakouts of Arctic air into more southerly latitudes were due to a weakening of the general circulation (the difference in temperature between equator and pole decreases), which diminishes the strength of the jet stream, which in turn wanders north and south more irregularly, occasionally dipping very far to the south, which in turn permits Arctic air to penetrate further south.
However, the only explanation I have found attributes these incidents to the reduction of Arctic sea ice, which in turn permits greater heat flow from the Arctic Ocean into the polar atmosphere, which in turn strengthens the polar vortex, which somehow permits more Arctic air to penetrate further south.
Each of these explanations has an unexplained (to me) step. In the case of the first explanation, the mechanism by which a weakened jet stream invites Arctic air southward is not presented. In the case of the second explanation, the mechanism by which a strengthened polar vortex permits (or pushes?) Arctic air to move southward is not presented.
Clearly, I do not understand this stuff. Can anybody help me out?
And RSS have posted for December with a temperature anomaly at +0.59ºC. As with UAH, this is a little up on November but in RSS roughly equal to the early months of 2017 and the 7th warmest RSS anomaly of the year (Dec was 5th warmest month in UAH).
Dec 2017 is the 2nd warmest December on the RSS TLT record (as UAH), behind 2015 (+0.73ºC) and ahead of 2003 (+0.50ºC) and 4th place 2014 (+0.44ºC).
The one region with an exceptional anomaly was the Arctic which was much higher than earlier months in 2017 and the 3rd warmest monthly anomaly for the Arctic after Jan & Feb 2016. (Perhaps why Arctic SIE is tracking below all previous years for the time of year.)
November 2017 is the 38th warmest anomaly in the full RSS all-month record (=29th in UAH).
As expected for a few months now, in RSS 2017 sits in 2nd spot behind 2016 (the most recent big El Nino year) and a long way ahead of any non-El-Nino year. It was thus “scorchyissimo!!!!!!!”
The top ten warmest years are the same in RSS as in UAH. Note that the different order in UAH is due to the earliest years in the top ten (1998, 2002, 2003) being demoted within RSS at the expense of later years. UAH generally yields a smaller warming trend than does RSS.
Annual RSS TLT Ranking
for full calendar year
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..Ranking in UAH
1st 2016 .. +0.74ºC ….. ….. ….. 1st
2nd 2017 .. +0.63ºC ….. ….. ….. 3rd
3rd 1998 .. +0.58ºC ….. ….. ….. 2nd
4th 2010 .. +0.57ºC ….. ….. ….. 4th
5th 2015 .. +0.55ºC ….. ….. ….. 5th
6th 2005 .. +0.43ºC ….. ….. ….. 7th
7th 2014 .. +0.42ºC ….. ….. ….. 9th
8th 2003 .. +0.39ºC ….. ….. ….. 8th
9th 2002 .. +0.38ºC ….. ….. ….. 6th
10th 2007 .. +0.16ºC ….. ….. ….. 10th
28, Alastair McDonald: Increased CO2 does not warm the atmosphere, it melts the snow and ice reducing global albedo, and that causes AGW.
How does increased atmospheric CO2 melt the snow and ice without warming the atmosphere?
39 – Chris
Latest satellite images show most of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice so lack of ice would not be the problem – unless ice thickness also counts:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Looks like most of the lowest temps for January occurred in the 50s, 60s and 70s – back then CO2 levels were considerably lower than today.
http://www.intellicast.com/local/history.aspx?location=USFL0089
Here is a list of coldest and hottest temperature records for each state. Most of them occurred before AGW and CO2 were in the news – in fact many of the highs and lows occurred before most people alive today were born – that’s right I’m talking about when CO2 was nearly 100 ppm lower than today. Thus, not likely to be related to Arctic sea ice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
To summarize all of these facts with respect to weather just realize that “s**t happens”.
:)
#31 nigelj saidKillian @20, there’s simply no way for regenerative agriculture to be an effective carbon sink by 2050
You are wrong. See you over on the other if you are foolish enough to repeat your error.
Well gee Ray. I would have called you a tool, but tools are sometimes useful.
You mean you can’t say which of the many comments I’ve made, you’re specifically referring to?
Do you think that might be part of YOUR problem?
The sheer insulting deprecating egotistical arrogance of it all, maybe?
Your emotions and lack of awareness are your problem Ray.
Seek help if ever you’re so inclined.
Oh the irony of it all. Hehehehehe ;-)
Should I correct the jargon phrase error?
Yeah, I probably should.
Will I?
Nope.
Will I accept false assumptions, false accusations, irrational illogical strawmen insults and ridicule from an ignorant angry person who enjoys making a fool of himself here?
Nope.
I enjoy the entertainment. :-)
Nope.
Re Matthew R Marler @41 who wrote: “How does increased atmospheric CO2 melt the snow and ice without warming the atmosphere?”
Only the surface layer which does not convect has its temperature raised by increased CO2. This is what melts the snow and ice. The resulting decrease in albedo then warms the atmosphere. So the mechanism of global warming is an indirect effect of increasing CO2, not the direct effect of warming the atmosphere as is generally believed.
I am not arguing that global warming is not caused by CO2. I am saying that increased CO2 is responsible for the melting the Arctic sea ice which will be catatrophic, since the sea ice acts as the air conditioning unit for the planet.
Re CC Holley who wrote ‘Saturation is just a red herring. As BPL says: “…saturation doesn’t f****g matter…’.
It does matter but it is being ignored. There is a little matter of the conservation of energy to be taken into account. If the terrestrial radiation is being absorbed and warming the air, then it is not available to radiate upwards and downwards. The energy can either warm the air or be radiated away, not both. If the absorption of the radiation is saturated then there is no energy left to re-radiate.
Plass’s idea that the lines are thinner high in the atmosphere is irrelevant since the radiation has already been absorbed below by the merged lines there.
Chris Crawford #39,
Perhaps someone will try to explain this verbally in detail but you should go to Wikipedia and other sources where there are pictures showing the complexity of atmospheric circulation patterns.
This is a three-dimensional system, and the simple answer is that temperature differentials north-south and up-down determine the nature of the boundary we think of as the jet stream.
It’s not as if there is some separate entity, like a wall, that surrounds the poles keeping the cold air in place, which is probably how you are thinking of it.
Alastair McDonald @28
I just don’t understand why people post preposterous claims without first making an attempt to understand what the science actually tells us and whether or not their claims can possibly have any validity.
I will give you that total loss of Arctic sea ice will be catastrophic.
Certainly everyone has a right to an opinion, but that opinion is worthless without supporting evidence.