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.
To MAR: yes, I can wait years. I have been following the rate of CO2 increase for a number of years and I will continue to follow for years. I skimmed the post at 103 and shrugged.
I think the post at 103 also suggested current smoothed rate of increase at 2.5 ppm. I think that is pretty accurate, I might choose 2.4, but we are in the same ballpark. In any case, a smoothed annual rate of increase of 2.3 and above continues the trend of larger amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than exists in the record, hence, the trend continues. The rate of increase continues to rise which is not a good thing for us.
You say at 142:
“CO2 emissions are encouragingly looking flat-ish over recent years. If this continues, we can expect the wobbly increase in the rate of rise of CO2 to show signs of dropping back towards zero.”
Can you provide a source of the numbers that you are looking at, the time period in something tighter than recent years, so that I can review? I think you are mistaken about this, but I can’t be sure without looking at the numbers you are using and the source of those numbers.
The spikes and troughs of EN and LN events can and should be smoothed for the purpose of a discussion like this. Tamino is excellent at the smoothing process. I hope he will answer, but we will see. I skim Willard’s comments and don’t pay too much attention to much in them for a bunch of reasons. Sounds like he got under your skin a bit. You are a steady voice generally, so hope you can shrug that off.
I said at 145:I believe that you can only see a flattening of the rate of increase if you choose time frames that allow for ENSO and LN spikes and troughs that have been smoothed” that should have been HAVE NOT BEEN SMOOTHED, of course. Sorry for any confusion that arose when I typed too fast to get an important word in the sentence.
Cheers
Mike
Alastair M #150,
Saying you are wrong is not “ad hominem”. And predicting you would not reply is because I have asked you simple questions in the past and you haven’t answered.
Vendicar D,
I rest my case. I certainly wasn’t suggesting presenting the public with equations; I was saying that the simpler the question the more clearly the flaws are exposed. I don’t think one needs to be what Omega C calls a “competent physicist” (who could do the math) to see that Alastair’s conception makes no sense.
148
MA Rodger says:
20 Jan 2018 at 7:49 AM
Thomas @135.
You provided a response to a critique of your comment @103 about future CO2 levels before any is even offered, before you even post it. This does suggest you felt your comment @103 was controversial
—
Looks like MA has hit paranoid delusional territory. Again. Sad.
Tamino responded to my question. Is CO2 still rising?
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/is-co2-still-accelerating/
“Not only is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere on the rise, the rise itself has been getting faster — so CO2 concentration has been accelerating… I’ve tested this time series for a change in its trend, and found no reliable evidence. Not even close.
Bottom line: CO2 is on the rise, the rise itself (velocity) has been getting faster (acceleration), and there’s no evidence at all that has changed recently.”
To MAR: I think you should acknowledge that your suggesting that recent years show change in the trend is incorrect. You are not wrong here very often, but I think you are wrong as can be with your assertion at 145. It is possible to read the reports of falling emissions and think those reports will be seen in falling CO2 accumulation, but that simply has not happened thus far. I don’t know if skyrocket is descriptive of the trend, I could suggest hockey stick, but would prefer to simply post numbers. The numbers are not good. The rate of increase is accelerating per T.
Warm regards all,
Mike
aka
Creates a Strawman, knocks it down. Creates a Strawman, knocks it down. Creates a Strawman, knocks it down.
K McKinney @144
Yes the denialistia community will twist the study.
The media are not much better. The Guardian, usually good on climate change, also had a misleading statement that “temperatures will almost certainly not rise at 4 or 5 degrees by the end of the century”. I think they have mistaken the climate sensitivity range as a prediction of temperatures by 2100, when it also depends on rates of fossil fuel burning.
The worst case IPCC scenario was 5.8 degrees and the new climate sensitivity numbers would only change that down to about 4.8 degrees wouldn’t they? Does anyone else have a comment on this aspect of things?
mike @151,
Try here. The GCP is authoritative. They estimate CO2 emissions (FF & LUC) as rising over the years 2006-16 as follows:-
3.6%, -0.0%, 3.4%, 3.5%, 2.8%, 3.1%, 2.1%, 1.2%, 0.5%, 1.1%, -1.8%.
These figures suggest a flat emissions trend 2014-on although prelimenary data from 2017 has suggested a return to rising CO2 emissions, or at least the FF component of it.
You mention Wattsupia, Do note that the Lord High Willard got under Tamino’s skin long ago but by publishing Sheldon Walker he introduced another irritant, someone who is stupid enough to think that an OP or two nailed to the Wattsupia pub door gives him the right to visit Open Mind and spout gobshite. That was in Oct 2016. (And in linking to that, I note Tamino has answered your question. Just be sure you understand what you asked and what the reply was.) For my own part, I just treat Willard and his planet Wattsupia with all the respect they deserve.
Alistair McDonald @150
“The answer is that the energy is radiated back down to the surface at night and then out to space through the IR window. It cannot go directly to space since absorption is saturated.”
This is wrong (and saying its wrong is not an ad hominem Mr McDonald)
The energy is also radiated to other molecules in the atmosphere. Now think through what happens as extra CO2 molecules are added to the atmosphere.
I’m not sure what you mean by IR window. Radiation does go directly to space.
Alistair McDonald @150
This is nonsensical. The energy is radiated back down to the surface both during the day and at night. Matter with heat energy does not care what time of day it its, it radiates in all directions per the Stephan-Boltzmann Law based on its absolute temperature. Likewise for radiation going up into the atmosphere above where it can be reabsorbed and eventually be radiated to space.
Apparently stating the facts to you is pointless. But you are so arrogant to think that your gibberish, which is what it is, actually means something. It doesn’t. And you are arrogant to state that anyone other than you on here has blindly accepted anything. My acceptance of the science is based on decades of study and research. You are just an arrogant fool. Not an ad hominem, just the truth based on direct observation.
fwiw NASA report on the Cause of Record Carbon Dioxide Spike: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike
Climate change to expand impacts of El Nino/La Nina extremes https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074509 and https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/1201-climate-change-expand-impacts-el-ninola-nina-extremes
imho, the 2017 global temperature remains stubbornly high. Conceivably this continued temperature excursion above the trend line is not a statistical fluke, but rather is associated with climate forcings and/or feedbacks. Moreso, the growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated in the past decade. There is also concern that polar climate feedbacks may accelerate. Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.
Alistair,
I have a very clear idea of the description in Spencer’s post. So do the other scientists here. It is accepted because it is what is going on. The fact that the inverted lapse rate yields cooling in the stratosphere–as predicted–is a pretty good indication that the scientists know what they are talking about.
This isn’t controversial. It isn’t in question. It isn’t cutting edge. It is established science. Period.
mike
Is the “warm” in your “regards” any relation to “global warming”?!
#157 “These figures suggest a flat emissions trend 2014-on ….” and “They estimate CO2 emissions (FF & LUC) as rising over the years 2006-16 as follows:-…..”
Apples speak about atmospheric CO2 ppm increasing rates of increase, while Orange builds another Strawman by totally changing the subject to human induced Emissions. (sigh)
NOAA says:
The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year. If used as an average for the globe, it would represent the sum of all CO2 added to, and removed from, the atmosphere during the year by human activities and by natural processes. There is a small amount of month-to-month variability in the CO2 concentration that may be caused by anomalies of the winds or weather systems arriving at Mauna Loa. This variability would not be representative of the underlying trend for the northern hemisphere which Mauna Loa is intended to represent.
The Rate of Increase of atmospheric CO2 ppm at ML has only been below 2 ppm once in the last 9 (nine) Years.
The Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii, has only ever broken +2.5 ppm 6 times – all during the last 20 years – and 3 times +2.5 ppm during the last 6 years!
Yes, 3 (three) of the largest growth rates ever recorded by scientists have all occurred in the last 6 (six) years.
Do you see what I see?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Remember? Do you see what I see?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civzfZ_3uVc&feature=youtu.be&t=42s
And so at this time of year, I do wonder what 2018 might bring?
January 19: 408.45 ppm – is another record broken.
CO2 ppm has only ever been higher than right now in the last northern spring/summer Apr-May-June 2017.
So what will it be in Apr-May-June 2018? 412ppm? 413ppm?
Whatever it is, it will be another world record.
149, M A Roger: No meaningful signal will be apprearing for some years to come.
I agree with that.
I can’t tell whether I am patient any more. I am 70 yo, and I would like a clearer signal than what has appeared so far.
JM: “CO2 can’t just absorb energy ad infinitum without then re-emiting it.”
VD: “False. Emissions don’t need to occur at the frequency of absorption”
I never said the energy needed to be re-emitted as radiation at the same frequency.
In fact, I never even said the energy needed to be re-emitted as radiation.
I simply pointed out that over time CO2 molecules must shed as much energy as they absorb (ignoring small finite fluctuations in their stored energy, since these asymtotically approach zero compared to the unbounded cumulative energy flowing through them).
After a CO2 molecule has absorbed some amount of energy it must shed that energy before it can absorb again.
Exactly how it disperses that energy is completely irrelevant to the main point.
JM: “Any extra energy absorbed at low levels by added CO2 is exactly equal to the added energy then reemitted.”
VD: “Absolute nonsense.”
I would delete the confusing word “added”, but the claim follows directly from consevation of energy.
Energy in must equal energy out. (Modulo the aforementioned negligable bit of stored energy.)
VD: “More CO2 means more scattering events and a longer residency time ….”
For the basic argument there is absolutely no need to go down into the weeds about the paths the energy follows, or their timelines.
In fact, that just adds a layer of needless and confusing detail to the essential argument.
If you focus on the essentials you don’t need any explicit math to establish the main point:
(1) Define a (theoretical) spherical shell around the earth at the top of the atmosphere, where photons are being emitted just prior to their final escape to space.
(2) Then add new CO2 molecules above that shell.
(3) Those added molecules will intercept some photons which otherwise (by definition) would have gone straight to space.
(4) Those added molecules will (due to conservaton of energy) later shed the energy obtained from those captured photons.
(5) Some of that shed energy will (due to entropy) migrate back down below the shell defined above, by whatever mechanisms.
And that’s it. Once you establish the correctness of that argument you have proven that temperatures below the shell will
increase if CO2 is added. When you trap more energy below level X, things heat up below level X.
Lapse rates, scattering, precise absorption spectra, convection, conduction, etc. etc. etc. don’t even come in to the picture.
Energy is energy is energy, no matter what kind of tortured path it takes, on what time scales.
nigelj @156,
The Guardian quote you mention was actually:-
Trying to track down where the “…according to a study…” part comes from doesn’t unveiled an actual author. The quote doen’t sound like it would come from a Nature article, the one in question Cox et al (2018) being paywalled. The quote has been attributed to NewsFeed AFP but the story is not evident at that site.
As for where the reporting went wrong, I wonder if ‘temp-rise-since-pre-industrial’ is being read instead of the ’21st-century-temp-rise’ that has itself been mistaken for ECS. Cox et al rule out the likelihood of an ECS of 4. The IPCC projections (graphed here) for a ’21st-century-temp-rise’ (actually 1990-2090) are 2.6°C to 4.8°C under RCP8.6 with ECS 1.5 to 4.5, the central ECS of 3.0 resulting in 3.7°C. A narrower ECS estimate of 2.2 to 3.4 would still yield a ’21st-century-temp-rise’ roughly something like 3.1°C to 4.0°C. To this should be added 0.65°C for ‘temp-rise-since-pre-industrial’ and the last decade of the 21st century would also add more warming, perhaps 0.4°C.
Elsewhere, at CarbonBrief Cox is quoted explaining the difference between ECS values in terms of temperature but not as in the quotes above. The only serious comment that mentions 4 °C and 2100 is a totally different message in this Nature News & Views where Piers Forster states “The authors also provide the first convincing evidence that we are not living in a world in which ECS is greater than the range of values thought likely by the IPCC [ie higher than 4.5]. This is important, because estimates of ECS based on the historical temperature record have largely been unable to exclude high values that would invariably result in world-devastating warming of 4 °C or more by 2100. “
It appears that some here need a refresher course on the dynamics of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The idea that an excited CO2 molecule can only relax via re-emission of an IR photon is incorrect. It can also relax collisionally via interacting with any gas molecule it comes into contact with. The relatively long lifetime of the vibrational CO2 excitation, coupled with the much greater number of N2 and O2 molecules actually makes this the main mode of relaxation–note not the only one, but the main one. This means that the greenhouse mechanism heats the entire atmosphere, and not just the CO2 molecules.
Note, however, that the layer of the atmosphere thus heated will also radiate with a more-or-less greenhouse spectrum–upward and downward, but the net emission is still outward. All the greenhouse gasses do is take a bite out of the greenhouse spectrum, heat the layer of the atmosphere and force the overall greenhouse spectrum toward higher temperature. At equilibrium, energy out still equals energy in, just at a higher temp. greenhouse spectrum with bites taken out.
This really isn’t that hard. It isn’t controversial. It isn’t open to argument from the scientifically illiterate.
mike @154.
Do note that you misquote Tamino who wrote
But you reduce this to ” The rate of increase IS accelerating per T.” (My bold)
Of course, this would still leave open the possibility that Tamino would expect a reduction on acceleration to be apparent if it had recently occured. I say “would” because the Tamino response to this comment at Open Mind (from Greg Simpson) suggests he would not.
And do note that you misrepresent me. “To MAR: I think you should acknowledge that your suggesting that recent years show change in the trend is incorrect. … I think you are wrong as can be with your assertion at 145.”
I have always been clear.
@105 – “note that even decadal averages can be significantly influenced by ENSO.”
@142 – “note that even decadal averages can be significantly influenced by ENSO.” This is explained demonstrating that the long-term acceleration can be explained by man-made emissions. And concluding “CO2 emissions are encouragingly looking flat-ish over recent years. If this continues, we can expect the wobbly increase in the rate of rise of CO2 to show signs of dropping back towards zero.”
@148 – ” If there has been an end to the accelerating CO2 levels of recent years, you will not find it appearing in the analysis used in 2015, even with all the up-to-date data added into the analysis. And that is because of all the wobbles. No meaningful signal will be apprearing for some years to come.” (Note – you even acknowledge the need to “wait years” @151.)
I will happily ackmowledge that your ‘thoughts’ are as wrong as your reference to comment #145 which was actually one of yours.
And some news to cheer you up. With the inclusion of the latest week’s data, the weekly MLO CO2 data shows the average rate of change of the annual increase over the last 5-year has dropped below zero. Over the last five years, atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing less quickly. It has decelerated. That hasn’t happened since, goodness, 2013. And before that 2009, and 2007 and 2002, ……
Thomas @163,
I have not forgotten your skyrocket comments up-thread @109 where you said “2 weeks of Jan 2018 ~409 ppm avg., and heading towards 410 ppm / +4 ppm above last year”
So far the weeks of January 2018 have seen annual CO2 increases at MLO of +1.64ppm, +2.14ppm and +1.83ppm. This follows an average for December of 2.40ppm. The “heading” you predicted seems to have been a little off. Still, one more week provides you with a snowball’s-chance-in-hell of vindication.
Your apples & oranges shows you eager to de-couple the rise in atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic emissions. I don’t know of any actual evidence that supports significant de-coupling.
Your comment “The Rate of Increase of atmospheric CO2 ppm at ML has only been below 2 ppm once in the last 9 (nine) Years.” only apply to calendar year annual increases. That the largest increases have occured in recent years is likely because the anthropogenic emissions have been largest in those years. And if this is the full depth of your message, you evidently have a very limited view of things. So in answer to your repeated question, I likely see a lot more than you do.
Your question about April, May, June 2018 CO2 levels – a 2.2ppm/yr increase would suggest 411.2ppm, 411.8ppm, 411.0ppm respectively. Do you require an average single figure of 411.33ppm to set against your 413ppm? (Do note your 413ppm is requiring a 3.9ppm increase, something we haven’t seen happen outside the peak of the 2016 El Nino for any 12-week period.)
for MAR and Thomas: MAR and I are in agreement that Thomas needs to be careful about projections of 4 ppm increase. I don’t think we are going to see that kind of increase until the next EN event takes hold, even then, those noisy EN numbers don’t mean too much except that they drive our baseline number ever higher and that’s not a good thing.
My best guess is that the current background rate of increase is 2.4 ppm, but the background rate at any moment is not definitive because the rate of increase continues to accelerate.
MAR says to Thomas at 169: “Your apples & oranges shows you eager to de-couple the rise in atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic emissions. I don’t know of any actual evidence that supports significant de-coupling.”
I agree with MAR that emissions and accumulation in atmosphere are coupled, but I would add that the relationship between the two is mediated by a lot of factors, particularly the functions of natural carbon sinks and sources in a warmed and warming planet.
Mike to MAR: Hypergeometric at Open Mind suggested there is evidence about the changing functions of natural carbon sinks and sources at Global Carbon Project. I scanned that website from your post earlier, but could not find the data that you referenced. I am sure it’s there, I just don’t have time or interest in studying up on this website. Seems like you and HG are able to use the GCP website effectively.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/is-co2-still-accelerating/#comments
You mention Willard and Wattsupia at 157. I know nothing about them, only familar with Willard from comments at Open Mind and I don’t just skim Willard and move on, my take has been that he is active, but adds little to the discussion. I don’t waste my time on that kind of poster, just skim and move on. I only take this much time to engage with you because I think you bring something to the table with your temp analyses and I trust your number-crunching skills. Keep up the good work and don’t let the noise distract or get you riled.
MM at 164: I am also old and would love to see a clear signal that accumulation has stopped accelerating. That would be evidence that our efforts are working to start moving the needle in the right direction. We will never know that it is happening, we will only be able to determine that it has happened when we look back at the numbers. MAR is correct and I agree that the increase has been happening. Is it happening at this moment? I think it is, but I would love to be wrong. Maybe we look back in a few years and say, oh, MAR was correct, the rate of increase went flat in December 2017. That would be great. For now, I agree with Tamino, who says “I’ve tested this time series for a change in its trend, and found no reliable evidence. Not even close.”
DS at 162: yes on warm regards as in global warming, but also simply true warm regards because I respect and appreciate anyone who is trying to understand climate change and takes the time to share their thoughts. I only engage with the folks who show they are really trying to understand. I have no interest in playing climate ball or getting riled by the fact that someone is wrong on the internet. I am more interested in whether anyone on the internet is trying to get it right.
Warm regards
Mike
https://www.studyfinds.org/earth-natural-thermostat-climate/
Thermostat works too damn slow, though.
MA Rodger @166,
The guardian article I read did mention the Cox study. Sorry, I should have provided a link, but here its is now:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/18/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-says-study
However your explanation sounds pretty credible. Its hard untangling how the media arrive at some of their statements.
The bottom line is 4 degrees is still possible.
James McDonald @5, your points 1-5 are my understanding. They sum it up nicely.
169 MA Rodger, sad has morphed into pathetic, from where I sit.
RE: “Your apples & oranges shows you eager to de-couple the rise in atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic emissions.”
Totally False and Presumptuous Strawman. Proven by my comment @ #103 UV https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/unforced-variations-jan-2018/comment-page-3/#comment-689429
being: “This data closely resembles the size of known yearly increases in ff energy use globally during the same periods.”
He’s wrong again. aka Creates a Strawman, knocks it down.
RE: “The “heading” you predicted seems to have been a little off. Still, one more week provides you with a snowball’s-chance-in-hell of vindication.”
I made NO PREDICTION. At the time of my comment the “heading” was “heading” in that “direction” aka “heading”. What I said was correct in the context of my comments at the time I made them. There were 9 readings above 408 at that point in time.
Besides, I do not do “predictions”. I have zero interest in “vindications” either. But I do do present time anecdotes and wonder about “interesting things” out loud.
Besides I actually said: (my estimated) January-February weekly ppm average and 2 weeks of Jan 2018 ~409 ppm avg., and heading towards 410 ppm / +4 ppm above last year.
It’s not the end of February yet.
Besides that, the subject matter of my post was in fact the following: “This means that as we ‘speak’ even more climate forcings are being embedded into the climate system for decades and centuries to come until such times as atmospheric ghg concentrations begin decreasing on a permanent and sustainable basis. That is what the science and the data is in fact now saying, isn’t it? Or is there a better way to say it?”
How redundant to be repeating myself. My “estimates” were not and are not an issue, or THE Issue.
RE: “The Rate of Increase of atmospheric CO2 ppm at ML has only been below 2 ppm once in the last 9 (nine) Years.” only apply to calendar year annual increases.
Like DOH Einstein! My calculator, spreadsheets, NOAA website and grey matter are all in good working order.
RE: “Do you require an average single figure of 411.33ppm to set against your 413ppm?”
No, I do not.
I asked: “So what will it be in Apr-May-June 2018? 412ppm? 413ppm?”
Given MA has no idea what that means, I doubt anyone could help him.
2017 1 1 2017.0014 405.91 7 402.03 382.08 125.97
2017 1 8 2017.0205 405.98 7 402.35 382.92 125.86
2017 1 15 2017.0397 406.14 6 402.62 382.20 125.86
2017 1 22 2017.0589 406.48 4 403.12 383.91 126.06
2017 1 29 2017.0781 406.20 6 403.84 383.61 125.66
2017 2 5 2017.0973 406.03 7 404.34 383.37 125.37
Rough Avg 406.12
2017 4 16 2017.2890 409.61 6 407.48 387.49 126.55
2017 4 23 2017.3082 409.92 6 407.67 386.85 126.62
2017 4 30 2017.3274 409.13 5 407.68 386.44 125.67
2017 5 7 2017.3466 409.28 7 407.77 386.48 125.75
2017 5 14 2017.3658 410.36 5 407.39 386.30 126.86
2017 5 21 2017.3849 409.96 7 408.16 386.79 126.61
2017 5 28 2017.4041 409.52 7 407.62 386.92 126.39
2017 6 4 2017.4233 409.65 7 406.77 386.81 126.82
2017 6 11 2017.4425 409.39 4 407.28 386.36 126.92
Rough Avg 409.65
Equals a +3.53 ppm Increase from January 2017 to April-May-June – and this during a non-El Nino year/period.
January 2018 rough avg. so far = 408 + 3.53 = 411.53 avg Apr-Jun
Or go mid-May 2017 @ +410ppm and that’s +3.88, so 408 + 3.88 = 411.88
A whisker off 412-413 ppm and within Natural Daily Variations for CO2 ppm – Doh! So asking rhetorical questions on that basis as to what the ppm might be during this year’s PEAK CO2 PPM PERIOD is more than merely being “reasonable” for “reasonable people” imho.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt
Every single additional Molecule of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere matters. (shrug)
170 mike says: “Thomas needs to be careful about projections of 4 ppm increase”
I do not need to be careful about any such things. When I get to making “projections” Mike, you’ll be the first to know. (shrug)
Re 152 “I don’t think one needs to be what Omega C calls a “competent physicist” (who could do the math) to see that Alastair’s conception makes no sense.”
Do you think that the 30% of Americans who are Drumpf supporters and who can’t really figure out how to read a simple graph, or who can only marginally add and subtract will be able to understand the science you mention?
There is not a chance in hell of that. And that is why denialists are such a tough nut to de-nut.
Tea Bagging Kooks aren’t swayed by logic.
JM: “Any extra energy absorbed at low levels by added CO2 is exactly equal to the added energy then reemitted.”
VD: “Absolute nonsense.”
“I would delete the confusing word “added”, but the claim follows directly from consevation of energy.”
You made no claim. The words you wrote – first sentence – were incoherent nonsense.
JM – “Lapse rates, scattering, precise absorption spectra, convection, conduction, etc. etc. etc. don’t even come in to the picture.”
You have just argued against the concept of CO2 saturation.
Congratulations.
mike @170,
Concerning CO2 sinks & Global Carbon Project:
You may have spotted the Hypergeometrics comments over @Open Mind that did initially suggest that he had some take on a dropping-off of CO2 sinks in GCP data. But he didn’t sound very convincing as to what he was about and has since commented there that the/a finding is actually third-hand from GCP itself, findings that I am unaware of.
The GCP data resides in an Excel spreadsheet that is accessed via this URL. The only odd thing that I have seen is the size of the biosphere sink back in the 1970s which exhibited a large wobble for the length of the decade. I see no signs of more recent oddities that may presage reduced sinks.
Thomas @174,
So when you wrote back @163 “Apples speak about atmospheric CO2 ppm increasing rates of increase, while Orange builds another Strawman by totally changing the subject to human induced Emissions. (sigh) “ you were not complaining that I had changed the subject. And this is evident because you said @103 that the atmospheric CO2 change “closely resembles the size of” human emissions. Perhaps then the speaking apples and Orange have some other metaphorical useage for you, one entirely indecipherable to me, and perhaps all others here.
And when you wrote @103 “(my estimated) January-February weekly ppm average 2015 ~400, 2016 ~403, 2017 ~406, 2 weeks of Jan 2018 ~409 ppm avg., and heading towards 410 ppm / +4 ppm above last year, “ this isn’t a prediction or a projection. So what is it?
I have previously pointed out to you that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is what is causing AGW so while folk here will be pleased that you agree, your continally repeating this as the “subject matter of” is perhaps become a bit tiresome now. And I may do so again. And while you tell us “Every single additional Molecule of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere matters. (shrug)” This isn’t entirely true. It is the continued accumulation that “matters.”
And finally I should perhaps point out that your tortuous calculation of peak CO2 this coming year (which did rather compare apples with oranges, that is in the conventiona sense of apples & oranges) could be simply achieved by totting up the average of annual increases in CO2 over recent weeks. That would be +1.9ppm over this year so far (3 weeks), +2.1ppm over the last 6 weeks, +2.2ppm 9 weeks, +2.0ppm 12 weeks, +2.0ppm 15 weeks…
“So what is it?”
You’re already so “clever” Rodger you can call it whatever you want.
I do not care one tiny bit what you think or believe about anything.
(shrug)
Just a quick look at papers at GCP:
Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo689 “In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability. Changes in the CO2 sinks are highly uncertain, but they could have a significant influence on future atmospheric CO2 levels. It is therefore crucial to reduce the uncertainties.”
First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/news/CarbonSinkSaturation.html
“European forests are seen as a clear example of vegetation rebound in the Northern Hemisphere; recovering in area and growing stock since the 1950s, after centuries of stock decline and deforestation.
These regrowing forests have shown to be a persistent carbon sink, projected to continue for decades, however, there are early signs of saturation.”
Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/news/CarbonSinkIncreases.html
“Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4 +/- 0.8 to 5.0 +/- 0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale.”
Mike says: The question of how the terrestrial carbon sinks are functioning is a lively area of science and makes for interesting reading if you have the time.
Noisy number: January 14 – 20, 2018 408.16 ppm
January 14 – 20, 2017 406.02 ppm
2.14 ppm increase in yoy comparison. I think 2017 number carrying a little residual EN bump.
Cheers
Mike
#157 MA Rodger said mike @151,
Try here. The GCP is authoritative.
I think you are using “authoritative” incorrectly here. You use it to argue you are correct, but, frankly, CO2 emissions are, in the very best case, a weak set of assumptions with zero verification. Given the rates of increase we have seen despite claims going back… what? Three years?… that emissions are flat, I find it virtually impossible for there to have been flat emissions. Consider: If flat emissions is accurate, then we suddenly, in the last three years or so, have seen a natural source for 2.2+ to 3.0+ ppm of CO2 arise out of nowhere. Yet, it is claimed it’s not CH4 from the Arctic.
What, then?
Your authority is the most authoritative of a weak lot. That is, actually measuring emissions is impossible and the assumptions related to the numbers used are massive. Yet another way, they’re not even equal to an educated guess.
I, for one, have never believed them. I think they are a combination of industry false reporting, outright propaganda and shaky assumptions.
Killian @182
“If flat emissions is accurate, then we suddenly, in the last three years or so, have seen a natural source for 2.2+ to 3.0+ ppm of CO2 arise out of nowhere.”
The increase in atmospheric levels of CO2 over the last three years is due to the 2015 el nino and it’s lingering effects as below:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36521068
“That is, actually measuring emissions is impossible and the assumptions related to the numbers used are massive. Yet another way, they’re not even equal to an educated guess.I, for one, have never believed them. I think they are a combination of industry false reporting, outright propaganda and shaky assumptions.”
I agree the measurements of industry emissions would be pretty suspicious. However we know roughly how much renewable energy is being built, and how many electric cars are being sold and so on. We know some things reasonably well and they can be independently verified, and others are probably highly exaggerated. We probably have a half educated guess overall.
However I believe emissions have been flat, or at least reduced recently, especially as the causative factors given are reasonable.
Killian @182,
Indeed it is approaching three years since the lack of a rise in CO2 emissions was announced. I suppose we can say we have “seen a natural source for 2.2+ to 3.0+ ppm of CO2 arise” although the ppm values you quote are surely too high, even perhaps the “2.2+ppm”.
The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase wobbles up and down with ENSO (just like the global average temperature; in fact the CO2-rise wobbles are biggerer). So through the 2016 El Nino we saw elevated 12-month CO2 increases, reaching 4.14ppm/yr in April 2016. Of this peak value, perhaps a little more than half was anthropogenic, the rest “natural” in that ENSO disrupted plant growth in various regions reducing the uptake of CO2 by the biosphere and this resulting in elevated atmospheric concentrations.
Annual CO2 rates (as calculated by NOAA, although it is not how I would do it as they ignore a lot of the data) show the impact of the 2016 El Nino thus:-
2014 +2.18ppm
2015 +3.03ppm
2016 +2.98ppm
2017 +2.13ppm
A flat +2.1?ppm annual increase with added ENSO acting from late 2015. Now, if you look in more detail this simplistic analysis is shown to be illusory, but I think the point is made.
As for the Global Carbon Project being authoritative or not, your argument is solely that their results are “not even equal to an educated guess” because in your view “they are a combination of industry false reporting, outright propaganda and shaky assumptions.” Is there any evidential basis for that?
MAR asked for evidence about carbon emission reports. This from MIT Tech Review: “…how much carbon dioxide is really being added to the atmosphere? Today, national carbon emissions are essentially self-reported, based largely on statistics on the amount of fossil fuels burned in each country. Such estimates are notoriously unreliable, particularly in the developing world, which now accounts for 60 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions (China, for example, admitted last November that it has burned up to 17 percent more coal each year than previously reported.)”
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601698/seeking-answers-in-space-for-accurate-emissions-data/
from senior editor Richard Martin. I am attempting to contact RM to get further information on why he thinks the estimates are notoriously unreliable. How far out on this limb do you want to climb, Al?
Cheers
Mike
mike @185,
There you are!!!
You seem to be ignoring me @OpenMind despite it being allegedly quieter (“there is a large amount of noise in the UV thread comments.”) Perhaps all the noise here has deafened you.
You will see above that I actually asked for evidence of GCP numbers being “not even equal to an educated guess.” Are you signed up to such claims youself? Or are you riding the “fluff”? (Don’t feel obliged to nail your colours to any particular flagstaff, but it is helpful if those who exchange broadsides with you know what it is they are firing at.)
So this unreliable national reporting – is it accelerating? Given that the pending threat of satellite monitoring has been around for some years, could it be that the mis-reporting/under-reporting is decelerating! Mind, such satellite monitoring will tend to be poor in accuracy relative to the honest reporting of FF extraction/use. Given that much of FF use involves crossing an nternational border, the big mis-reporting will probably be restricted to domestic FF extraction/use. And emissions estimates have always had to cope with the additional LUC emissions.
#185, Mike–
The Review article raises more questions than it provides answers. It does, however, say that the Chinese reporting problem was relative to the span from 2000 to 2015, and that it reflects a systemic bias (ie., some industrial emissions such as coking in steelmaking or cement-making being unreported.) Presumably the 2016 numbers would be good (or at least better)–as, one hopes, would numbers going forward.
Unanswered is the question of whether in other ‘unreliable’ data the bias is always to undercounting. Sure, no-one wants to be a bigger emitter, but officials may want, for example, to take the most optimistic view of production, which could conceivably lead to overestimates of emissions as well. That would mean offsetting errors in the global total.
But let’s consider the effect of a 17% undercount in the Chinese case. Chinese emissions are about 30% of the global total. If we conflate the coal undercount to total emissions–in reality it would be just a proportion of total emissions, but let’s keep it simple–then the undercount would amount to at most about a 5% difference in global emissions.
Again, assuming a simple relationship that may or may not be valid, if we’re seeing annual increases of ~2 ppm, then 5% of that would be 0.1 ppm. But we see much bigger swings than that due to natural variations such as ENSO. That leads me to doubt that there’s much visible linkage between concentrations and human emissions over timescales of a few years.
That said, when and if we actually see atmospheric concentrations slow their growth, that will be a great, great milestone.
KM at 187: thanks, agree with what I understand of what you stated. Emissions reports are not generally my thing, just got nudged into that discussion and am backing away as it seems to stimulate too much personal attack stuff.
Here is an interesting link courtesy of Hypergeometric over at Tamino: Towards real-time verification of CO2 emissions https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/peters_et_al_verification_nature_cc_2017.pdf
I skimmed this one quickly and conclude that it says a relatively long term plateau in emissions would not be detectable for a decade, maybe more. As I read it, I think it also said that an actual switch from the increase in emissions to actual drop in emission total might be detected in a few years.
quotes from the paper: “With sustained changes in emission trajectories
from 1% per year to 0% per year, it may take 10 years to distinguish the different emission trajectories…”
“If emissions declined faster than expected (blue, –1% per year), then a more marked change in atmospheric growth would be expected, and a much earlier detection.”
I would love to see a year when the yoy rate of increase falls below 2.0 ppm, even if the reduced rate of increase is driven by comparison of a EN year with a non-EN year. Maybe that will happen in 2017.
One thing appears certain to me, it’s much easier to push the CO2 (and CO2e gasses) into the atmosphere than it is going to be pull them back out.
Cheers
Mike
Mike, did it get too noisy over @OpenMind? :)
Welcome back (I think).
When you were at school, do you recall any school yard bully admitting to being a bully? I don’t. Some people are unwilling to confront such people head on, and throw the gear shift into reverse, while others choose differently and go on the counter-attack to out the bully publicly.
Both approaches are appropriate under the circumstances. It’s a choice – one is not better than the other. Horses for courses, basically. It’s best not to judge others choices nor find them wanting.
I agree with this: “…… it’s much easier to push the CO2 (and CO2e gasses) into the atmosphere than it is going to be pull them back out.” … at present.
Things change.
A reverse gear would be helpful.
And maybe it’s actually much easier than ‘we’ have all been led to ‘believe’?
Myself, I am all for 350ppm by 2070.
It’s as easy as throwing the multi century drivers into reverse at scale.
#183 nigelj said Killian @182
“If flat emissions is accurate, then we suddenly, in the last three years or so, have seen a natural source for 2.2+ to 3.0+ ppm of CO2 arise out of nowhere.”
The increase in atmospheric levels of CO2 over the last three years is due to the 2015 el nino and it’s lingering effects as below:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36521068
You are lecturing me, again, on things I am already ahead of the pack on. See my post in August 2015 on the effects of the coming El Nino on Arctic Sea Ice, then note there is supposed to be zero cause and effect between the two, then note the many months of record low ASI volume in 2015-2017 time frame.
The EN would not produce the levels of CO2 we’ve seen over all three years, thus, emissions are coming from somewhere. And the claims over flattening emissions go back more than three years, so do some research.
mike, #187–
Thanks for the link. I saw it over there, too–I’m ‘Doc Snow’ on that forum–and noted it. It does seem consistent with the notion I–and MAR, actually–expressed that the human emissions-observed concentrations link is hard to observe over sub-decadal timescales.
I’m sure we’re all cheering for any slowing of the concentration rise, the more persistent, the better.
I would love to see a year when the yoy rate of increase falls below 2.0 ppm, even if the reduced rate of increase is driven by comparison of a EN year with a non-EN year. Maybe that will happen in 2017. whoops, make that 2018
#184 MA Rodger said Now, if you look in more detail this simplistic analysis is shown to be illusory, but I think the point is made.
What point? You haven’t made one. EN raises CO2? Already known. Are you claiming to be informing us? Or perhaps you think you are letting us know the magnitude? No. We all saw the numbers as they ran.
I don’t think you even know what your point is.
Here’s mine: Believe industry and gov’t numbers on anything related to energy at your own peril.
As for the Global Carbon Project being authoritative or not, your argument is solely that their results are “not even equal to an educated guess” because in your view “they are a combination of industry false reporting, outright propaganda and shaky assumptions.”
Why lie? That is now what I said. What I did saywas, “CO2 emissions are, in the very best case, a weak set of assumptions with zero verification.” See? I said feck all about that report being anything. I said the bases of the report were bullocks. And they are. You see, I was on theoildrum before I started posting at RC.
I hope you are right, but I don’t think anyone has a clue whether or not they are rising or falling.
Hey, Kev at 187. Thinking more about what you said: “Unanswered is the question of whether in other ‘unreliable’ data the bias is always to undercounting. Sure, no-one wants to be a bigger emitter, but officials may want, for example, to take the most optimistic view of production, which could conceivably lead to overestimates of emissions as well. That would mean offsetting errors in the global total.”
Can you find a single instance in the record where a country appears to have over-reported CO2 emissions for any reason? Would you agree that it is very unlikely that the offsetting errors in emission reports, if there are any, are essentially insignificant?
I did quick search and found nothing to support significant offset errors of the kind you suggest.
Cheers,
Mike
re: “the human emissions-observed concentrations link is hard to observe over sub-decadal timescales.”
Which doesn’t matter, because over decadal timescales it is obvious and compelling. The foundation issue of AGW/CC in fact.
The only thing that matters ghg concentrations is the headline rate. Because every molecule of CO2/CO2e (in the atmosphere, obviously) is what matters, because every single one adds to the GWP of the atmosphere and therefore warming over and above what otherwise would have been, all things being equal.
At scale and over time.
Right now the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere is 408ppm and still rising. This is, as usual, record breaking ppm territory for January, going back millions of years.
December 2017: 406.82 ppm, that was a world record for December. December 2016: 404.42 ppm, that was the world record for December until 2017. December 2018 will post a new world record, again.
In May 2018 a new world record of ~412ppm will be set for the weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa breaking the old world record of 410.36 ppm in May 2017.
The world is currently experiencing a Weak La Nina phase. fwiw.
As James Hansen et al have said very recently: “The growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated in the past decade.”
“There is also concern that polar climate feedbacks may accelerate.”
“Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.”
Because — “Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf
Noting of course that “greenhouse gas climate forcing” and actual “global temps” are not the same things.
iow no matter what the temperature is or isn’t, it doesn’t change the GWP/climate forcing of the CO2ppm that is already in the atmosphere, and that is being added to the atmosphere each and every day.
And noting (again 3rd time) that:
“They found the total amount of carbon released to the atmosphere from all land areas increased by 3 gigatons in 2015, due to the El Nino. About 80 percent of that amount — or 2.5 gigatons of carbon — came from natural processes occurring in tropical forests in South America, Africa and Indonesia, with each region contributing roughly the same amount.”
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike
And plugging the numbers there into a calculator quickly shows that that El Nino increase amounted to ~1.5ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2015.
That 1.5ppm immediately added to the GWP of the atmosphere in 2015, than it otherwise would have been, and ever since (all things being equal).
PPM and Temps have kept on increasing since then. Current readings show 408-409ppm. The record in 2015 was only 404.13 ppm CO2.
Therefore, that 1.5ppm from the El Nino Spike in 2015, and even more in 2016 and 2017, is essentially still there as a climate forcing greenhouse gas now and forever – until the TOTAL PPM returns back to at least 404 ppm globally…. (as per 2015 status – all things being equal)
Unnecessary ‘arguments’ tend to distract from this quite logical hard fact of life.
Killian @190
The 2015 – 2016 el nino was certainly a major factor in higher atmospheric CO2 over the full period of 2015 – 2017. The el nino can produce delayed effects, for example dead rotting vegetation from forest fires. And temperatures have remained unusually high in 2017
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-huge-spike-global-carbon-emissions.html
However higher atmospheric levels in 2017 are probably partly due to China burning more coal in that year:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau
It’s ridiculous to suggest all the figures quoted by specific countries on their emissions are 100% wrong, if that’s what you are claiming. A more perceptive view is they are probably about 75% believable, and it will vary from country to country, as we know some countries are notorious for unreliable data on all sorts of things.
Mike gets it as well in his comments. In any event, if you want to accuse countries of fraud, you really need some actual proof.
Since the start of the year, JAXA is showing record-breaking lows for Arctic Sea Ice Extent. Except for six days when a 2017 wobble still holds the record, 2018 has the lowest Arctic SIE by some margin (as graphed HERE (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’). Relative to 2002-2015, 2018-so-far has averaged 0.71 million sq km below the 2002-15 daily means. (For the same period 2017 managed 0.55-below while 2016 & 2011 managed 0.33-below.) And yesterday SIE deviated from that mean by 0.792 million sq km which is a record lack of daily ice over the entire early-year freeze period (New Year to end of March).
So, hold on to your hats. It could be that the crazy daily SIE anomalies seen in 2016 during both the melt season and the autumn freeze season are now about to extend through into the winter freeze season.
Killian @193.
My apologies. When I responded @184 I thought I was responding to somebody who would accept that the words in their comment @182 as expressing their position on the matter.
Evidently, as you deny it, the emboldened words below in the extract from your comment @182 describing the work of th Global Carbon Project do not describe your position:-
Of course, I still struggle to grasp whose position on the matter is being described. When you write “I think…” who is the “I”?
As for the allegedly absent point @184 of which you say “You haven’t made one.” – this point is set out in the preceding sentence. Again, my aplolgies. I did interpose a finer bit of detail into my narrative. And this point I made, which you dismiss saying “EN raises CO2? Already known. Are you claiming to be informing us?”, was made because the numbers you set out @182 for the natural wobble (“have seen a natural source for 2.2+ to 3.0+ ppm of CO2 arise out of nowhere.” and note that here you fail to attribute it to ENSO but instead invoke “nowhere” as the source): these numbers were far too high. Or are you going to deny responsibility for that part of the comment as well?
Some comments on ‘accuracy’ of FF data, from the IPCC AR5 (if interested)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf
( +/-10% seems the norm recommendation for errors/variations/accuracy — and uncertainty has been increasing in recent decades )
6.1.2.1 CO2 and the Global Carbon Cycle Since the beginning of the Industrial Era, humans have been producing energy by burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), a process which is releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Rotty, 1983; Boden et al., 2011; see Section 6.3.2.1). The amount of fossil fuel CO2 emitted to the atmosphere can be estimated with an accuracy of about 5 – 10% for recent decades from statistics of fossil fuel use (Andres et al., 2012).
Total cumulative emissions between 1750 and 2011 amount to 365 ± 30 PgC (see Section 6.3.2.1 and Table 6.1), including a contribution of 8 PgC (2.19%) from the production of cement. […]
6.3.2.1 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion and Cement Production Global CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels used for this chapter are determined from national energy consumption statistics and converted to emissions by fuel type (Marland and Rotty, 1984).
Estimated uncertainty for the annual global emissions are on the order of ±8% …… (converted from ±10% uncertainty for 95% confidence intervals in Andres et al. (2012) to the 90% confidence intervals used here).
The uncertainty has been increasing in recent decades because a larger fraction of the global emissions originate from emerging economies where energy statistics and emission factors per fuel type are more uncertain (Gregg et al., 2008).
Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production were: 7.8 ± 0.6 PgC yr–1 on average during 2000 – 2009,
6.4 ± 0.5 PgC yr–1 during 1990 – 1999,
and 5.5 ± 0.4 PgC yr–1 during 1980 – 1989 (Table 6.1; Figure 6.8).
Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased by 3.2% yr–1 on average during the decade 2000 – 2009 compared to 1.0% yr–1 in the 1990s and 1.9% yr–1 in the 1980s.
Francey et al. (2013) recently suggested a cumulative underestimation of 8.8 PgC emissions during the period 1993 – 2004, [ that’s 2.41% of the total cumulative 365PgC emissions ] which would reduce the contrast in emissions growth rates between the two decades.
[end quotes]
little bit of a spikey Day on CO2:
Daily CO2
January 28, 2018: 407.82 ppm
January 28, 2017: 405.39 ppm
Weekly CO2
January 21 – 27, 2018 408.30 ppm
January 21 – 27, 2017 406.84 ppm
January 21 – 27, 2009 386.22 ppm
Noisy numbers except for the 386 to 408 number. Over that period of time, the 22 ppm increase just is what it is, suggesting background decadal rate of increase in 2.2 ppm range. I think the current background increase rate is in the 2.4 to 2.5 ppm range. Disastrous is the word that comes to mind. Let’s say that for the sake of discussion that the rate has flattened in the 2.2 range. In that case, we would be able to confirm that background rate with significant confidence in about ten years when our atmospheric CO2 numbers would be around the 430 ppm level. I don’t want to think about what global weather patterns will look like at 430 ppm. Dr. Mann said we ought to try to peak at 405. How will we get back to 405 and hold there or reduce now that we over that number and proceeding up at 2 plus ppm per year?
Read’m and weep.
Mike