jgnfld @49: thanks for the update. It was paywalled when I posted at 31, but SpringerNature opened it after that point. I am reading through it.
thanks
Mike
Killian 48: given what seems to be a clear carcinogenic effect from cell radiation
BPL: And here I thought that was egregious pseudoscience.
Ray Ladburysays
Killian,
The problem is that the RF from cell phones doesn’t penetrate sufficiently to deposit any energy inside the human body. There is no plausible mechanism by which cell phones cause damage to humans. Period.
> RF from cell phones doesn’t penetrate sufficiently
But consider the total exposure to the field of RF from all sources.
I wonder if the “rogue wave” effect occurs with RF as it does when ocean waves happen to coincide and sum into a powerful peak. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/1/58
Could a handheld GPS interfere with the INS system? – Page 3 … https://www.pprune.org › Flight Deck Forums › Tech Log
On a two-dimensional surface, the ocean, such a spike (rogue wave) can break a long oil tanker in half. The tanker design assumes … The Japanese had a term for this long ago, in a very dense population with a lot of electronics and electrical gear and little in the way of shielding — “electronic smog.”
Ray Ladburysays
Hank: “I wonder if the “rogue wave” effect occurs with RF as it does when ocean waves happen to coincide and sum into a powerful peak.”
Nope. We aren’t dealing with coherent sources. No credible study has found ANY effect.
Killiansays
#53 Ray Ladbury said The problem is that the RF from cell phones doesn’t penetrate sufficiently to deposit any energy inside the human body. There is no plausible mechanism by which cell phones cause damage to humans. Period.
Did you read the story? Or just an ongoing bias? This is not like climate which really is settled. But, you are welcome to your opinion. I am somewhat agnostic, but I cannot imagine we can surround ourselves with various sorts of energies and have them not affect us.
Time will tell, but when companies pay off scientists and attack science that is not produced by them, it is never a positive sign. Occam’s.
Dan Miller @5&17,
Excepting @15, you remain without a proper reply up-thread. Mind, your question does address complex subjects.
The talk of 3% emissions reduction (not compound so = 0.3Gt(C)CO2/year) is alternatively a budget of 20 years current CO2 emissions before we stop. Budgets such as this one at CarbonBrief are based on Table 2.2 on p64 of IPCC AR5 Sysnthesis Report which shows budgets from 2011 in Gt(CO2) [so divide by 3.67 for Gt(C) – 550Gt(CO2)=150Gt(c)] for 1.5ºC, 2.0ºC & 3.0ºC warming threasholds.
If 3% annual cuts were achieved, CO2 levels would continue to rise for the initial years and then, by the end of the 33 year period be falling at about a third the current level of rise. IPCC AR5 AII tables 3.1 & 4.1 yield the following for RCP2.6 (which would deliver ~2ºC of warming).
… … . … .Emission cuts … … ΔCO2
Decade .. Gt(C)CO2/year … ..ppm/year
2020s. . . …. 0.20 … … … … ..+1.9
2030s. . . …. 0.27 … … … … ..+1.0
2040s. . . …. 0.18 … … … … ..+0.2
2050s. . . …. 0.14 … … … … .. -0.1
2060s. . . …. 0.12 … … … … .. -0.4
2070s. . . …. 0.06 … … … … .. -0.6
Today about 45% of our emissioned CO2 equates to rising atmospheric levels while some 33% enters the oceans and 22% the biosphere (this despite emissions from LUC).
This profile results from our rising emissions. The oceans are the major sink for our CO2. So for RCP2.6, Table AII 4.1 shows the annual flux into the oceans in the 2070s at 0.12Gt(C), and in following decades 0.10, 0.85, 0.77. (The net negative anthro emissions would make little difference to this.)
Absorption into the oceans will continue for centuries as deep waters circulate back to the surface to recieve their dosing of CO2. By about AD3000 and without human intervention, something like 20% of our emissions will be remaining in the atmosphere. That would be roughly 360ppm if we achieved the 20 year budget. Note that one of our hosts is the lead author on the authoritative text on this subject Archer et al (2009) ‘Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel CO2’
Ray Ladburysays
Killian,
If you don’t have a physical mechanism, you don’t have an effect. I don’t get my science from The Nation any more than I get it from National Review.
The NTP study was proposed by the FDA in 1999. At that time, few epidemiologic and long-term experimental studies of the effects of radiofrequency energy exposure from cell phones had been conducted.
In the 20 years since then, a myriad of scientific studies have been published regarding an association between RFR and cancer risk. The results have been contradictory and have evoked strong reactions on both sides of the issue.
(Further links in the text at the Medscape page.
None of this will convince anyone who’s sure of the answer to change his or her mind about the subject.
As with climate change, an effect, if any, will only emerge when very large numbers are studied statistically)
Al Bundysays
Hank: “I wonder if the “rogue wave” effect occurs with RF as it does when ocean waves happen to coincide and sum into a powerful peak.”
AB: Well, it’s possible to drop a pen through a tabletop. So, let’s consider the result: your hair or skin would heat up for a teensy time until blood and the atmosphere carried the energy away.(I know this because I have a degree in skyrocketry.)
Killian, note that the article’s source was a not-yet-published (at the time of the article) paper. Note that “radiation” is not fully descriptive, and is in fact a word that should instantly put up your “bulls*** detector”. An honest article would use the full description: “non-ionizing radiation”. While “ionizing radiation” is strong enough to knock your molecules apart and so cause genetic damage without symptoms, “non-ionizing radiation” can only wiggle your molecules. So unless your ear starts burning, you haven’t gotten too much “non-ionizing radiation”.
AB: So, it seems that Killian’s article’s writer deliberately twisted the data by cherry-picking one teensy statistic that went against the final conclusion.
CONGRATS, Killian, you’ve been suckered in exactly the same way deniers have been for years! Natural variation happens so folks are out there ready, willing, and eager to sell clicks, and it worked here. We all (well, at least I) read the article, thus enriching the unethical story writer.
the regions expected to have the greater absorption of RF-EMFs from the cell phone exposure were the ones that showed the larger increases in glucose metabolism.
Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming
DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2015.68068
David A. E. Vares, Michael A. Persinger
Hat tip to John Mashey on this one.
Vares and Persinger cite a 2008 paper that found that magnetism affects the solubility of CO2 in water. With a weaker field, CO2 would become less soluble in the oceans and some would be released into atmosphere.
However, as John Mashey (who brought this paper to my attention) pointed out to me, the cited 2008 paper explicitly rejects the idea that geomagnetism can explain global warming (although acknowledging that it might exacerbate it):
The magnitude of the [geomagnetic-CO2] mechanism is small compared to the magnitude of the preponderant mechanisms driving the exchange of carbon between ocean and atmosphere, such as water temperature, biological pumping, overturning circulation… it would be preposterous to make the weakening Earth’s magnetic field responsible for global warming.
With a weaker field, CO2 would become less soluble in the oceans and some would be released into atmosphere.
Scenario for a climate disaster movie suggests itself — when the Earth’s magnetic field goes to nothing on the way to reversing polarity.
But I’d guess the other consequences of missing the magnetic field would be rather worse than a solubility change, wouldn’t they?
The compass sales market would collapse.
When he looked at public data on leaks, what he found astounded him. The US government’s Energy Information Agency logs “lost and unaccounted for” gas, which it defines as the difference between the amount of gas that utilities buy from wholesalers and that which they sell to users. In Massachusetts alone, over 140 million cubic metres of gas was lost every year. Nationwide, the figure was over 8 billion cubic metres —equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions from more than 30 coal plants. The American Gas Association, which represents gas utilities, claimed the primary cause of the losses was “meter uncertainty”. In other words, that the lost gas was actually just a blip in measurement. Phillips wanted to know more: that would have been some blip.
What puzzled Phillips, at first, was why the gas industry did nothing about it. In purely financial terms, the amount of gas lost nationwide had a value of more than three billion dollars. Why would they let so much money leak out of their pipes? The answer, he discovered, was that state regulators allowed the companies to pass on the cost of lost gas to ratepayers. Utilities had little incentive to fix small leaks.
nigeljsays
“Exposure to the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones excites the brain in a small but measurable way, reveals a new study published in the Annals of Neurology. However, scientists aren’t quite sure yet if the temporary excitment is a good or bad thing.”
This seems to suggest radiation must penetrate into the brain. Anyone explored relationships of radiation to things like insomnia, anxiety and depression?
Of course almost anything can cause problems if used in excess.
Mr. Know It Allsays
65 – Hank R
“What tangled webs we find when we start looking stuff up.”
Yes, indeed.
The discussion above on earth’s magnetic field, led me to find this excerpt from wikipedia:
“Calculations of the loss of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere of Mars, resulting from scavenging of ions by the solar wind, indicate that the dissipation of the magnetic field of Mars caused a near total loss of its atmosphere…..”
And this: “At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years;…..”
Based on the juciest, most cherry parts, I present my new CO2 theory – what is CO2 caused AGW good for: The good Lord, who made the planet, gave us CO2 spewing FFs so that as the magnetic field weakens, and CO2 is lost to the solar wind, we’d have a little extra CO2 to tide us over for a while so we don’t freeze to death. Perhaps just long enough for the reversal of the poles to occur so that enough of us survive to carry on.
Could be. Even a broken clock is right twice per day.
Ray Ladburysays
RE: geomagnetic field weakening
We’re overdue for a flip of the field. It is starting to happen now as more of the energy in the field flows into multipoles higher then the dipole. The transition, however, is relatively rapid on geologic timescales, so Mr. KIA is, as usual, full of fetid dingo’s kidneys.
Mr. KIA, a broken clock is right twice a day because it is unchanging. Your scattershot opinions pretty much guarantee that if one of them ever proves right, you will have long since abandoned it, as you did your intelligence, long ago.
KIA: gave us CO2 spewing FFs so that as the magnetic field weakens, and CO2 is lost to the solar wind, we’d have a little extra CO2 to tide us over for a while so we don’t freeze to death.
BPL: Earth has 2 and 1/2 times the gravity Mars has, so we’re in no danger of losing CO2. Google “Jeans escape.”
True (for an analog timepiece at least), but how do you know when those two times are, exactly?
Dr. Systemic Causationsays
Anyone know or can share refs to which GCMs or science papers or IPCC reports forecast the probability of the following occurring as early as 2018 Spring in the Arctic zone?
Any news on Mike Mann’s defamation suit? I haven’t heard anything for more than a year. I see that Andrew Weaver’s suit against Tim Ball was dismissed in February.
Whatever happened with these permanent contributors to this site? Not seen a contribution for years – Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert.
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.
Most recent articles on climate science specifically seem to be only these:
rasmus @ 21 January 2018
gavin @ 19 January 2018
rasmus @ 21 November 2017
stefan @ 4 November 2017
group @ 12 October 2017 Guest Commentary by Scott Denning
group @ 4 October 2017 Guest commentary by Ben Sanderson
stefan @ 22 September 2017
in the last 8 mths?
We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.
(ref About)
Ray@73.
I think reversals are pretty random, there is no such thing as being overdue, that’s like being overdue at a slot machine, past behavior has no predictive value.
I also think reversals can be pretty chaotic, the field dropping to a small value is about as likely to return to the pre-decay polarity as it is to push through to the opposite polarity.
Reversals are not predictable and are certainly not periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average reversal interval….
…
… Human beings and their ancestors have been on the Earth for a number of million years, during which there have been many reversals, and there is no obvious correlation between human development and reversals. Similarly, reversal patterns do not match patterns in species extinction during geological history.
I doubt anyone’s going to find blips in the fossil CO2 record associated with magnetic field variation.
Perhaps some science fiction author can make something of
Earth’s magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.
Could an extremely strong magnetic field force CO2 to dissolve in significant amounts?
There’s your geoengineering possibility, super-fizzy soda on demand.
Canadian scientists thought one of the Arctic’s largest lakes could handle small changes in climate, but it turns out that’s not the case.
A study published recently in the journal Nature Communications, found that it only took 1 C of warming in the last 18 years to change the ecosystem in Lake Hazen on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut — which holds more water than any other lake in the High Arctic. … https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4603809
Scientists from the Australia Institute yesterday delivered to the NT Government a report which showed the number of Darwin days with a maximum temperature of 35C or above will reach 132 by 2030 “without drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”. The number of 35C days has already increased fourfold from 5.6 days per year early last century to 22 days per year since 2012, according to their report. https://twitter.com/climatecouncil/status/978179898413125632
No biggy. We have all the time in the world. Besides until it gets published in 10 or more peer reviewed climate science papers it’s not really real nor an observational scientific fact yet.
Sorry you’ll need to wait another 5 to 10 years before it’s ‘real’.
Meanwhile… 2017 – Continued increase of extreme El Niño frequency long after 1.5 °C warming stabilization
The increasing frequency of extreme El Nino events with climate change (even if limited to a 1.5C GMSTA), is part of why ECS increases together with global warming. Thus projections considering fundamental physicals would show an increasing GMSTA with time for reasons including that extreme El Nino events are becoming more frequent (together with other fundamentals like Arctic Amplification, etc): http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3351
Thomas @77,
While “breaking 410ppm” could be argued to have happened already in February 2018 and happened seven times in March 2018, it is best to be clear and compare apples with apples. So let us consider monthly averages. Thus re-stated, you ask for “GCMs or science papers or IPCC reports” setting out the potential for MLO CO2 readings averaging 410ppm or more for April or May 2018.
Goodness. I’m initially at a loss for words.
Projections for global average annual CO2 levels under PCP2.6, RCP4.5 & RCP8.5 for 2010 and 2020 are set out in Table 4.1 of IPCC AII. This location for such data should be obvious and no surprise to you.
From these values, you could very easily interpolate a 2018 global average CO2 value, adjust for MLO annual average and adjust again for April & May averages (perhaps by mirroring the value-adjustments between annual, April & May in 2017). The resulting projected CO2 levels for April & May 2018 for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, & RCP8.5, are respectively 411.0ppm & 411.7ppm, 410.2ppm & 410.8ppm, 414.0ppm & 414.6ppm.
You might also note the projected CO2 emissions that are presented within Table AII.2.1c (2010=2005-14) for these RCPs were 6%, 8% and 3% respectively below the actual emissions values calculated by the GCP.
As you raise this CO2 projections issue, perhaps you could “share refs to which GCMs or science papers or IPCC reports forecast the probability of … CO2 in March/April 2018 (not) breaking 410 ppm at Mouna Loa.”
(And note, as part of a skyrockety argument, your CO2 quesion @77 provides an excellent example of an actual ‘straw man’ fallacy, a concept you seem to have failed to understand properly up-thread).
Ray Ladburysays
Omega Centauri,
While it is true that field reversals are not truly periodic, they do exhibit a characteristic range of timescales dictated by the energetics (google “self-organized criticality”). The average over the past 20 million years or so has been 200-300 thousand years, and we’re more than twice that. However, the reason why I say we’re overdue is that the field has been oscillating and weakening for quite a while now, indicating that more energy is flowing into the higher multipoles. The only reason why we don’t have reversals more often is that the solid inner core acts as an inductor, stabilizing the field.
Heliomagnetic reversal is also a random process, and yet reversals are sufficiently regular that we refer to an 11-year (actually 22-year) solar cycle. The geomagnetic reversals are more random because the fluctuations required to destabilize the equilibrium dipole are larger due to the greater inductance in the system.
Were we to have a reversal really get under way in the near future, it might happen in conjunction with a grand solar minimum, which may be getting under say over the last couple of solar cycles.
from mar @ 85: “Projections for global average annual CO2 levels under PCP2.6, RCP4.5 & RCP8.5 for 2010 and 2020 are set out in Table 4.1 of IPCC AII. This location for such data should be obvious and no surprise to you.
From these values, you could very easily interpolate a 2018 global average CO2 value, adjust for MLO annual average and adjust again for April & May averages (perhaps by mirroring the value-adjustments between annual, April & May in 2017). The resulting projected CO2 levels for April & May 2018 for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, & RCP8.5, are respectively 411.0ppm & 411.7ppm, 410.2ppm & 410.8ppm, 414.0ppm & 414.6ppm.”
Thanks, Al. This sounds like a good and easy math check/spreadsheet function that can be set up on observations of monthly CO2 saturation value against the various RCPs. I am not great at math, but I can punch numbers into a spreadsheet and import formulas.
you also stated: “You might also note the projected CO2 emissions that are presented within Table AII.2.1c (2010=2005-14) for these RCPs were 6%, 8% and 3% respectively below the actual emissions values calculated by the GCP.”
I would like to come back to the CO2 emissions statement later, but for right now, I would like to see if I can throw together the spreadsheet that crunches the CO2 sat numbers from the RCPs. I will start with looking at Table 4.1 of IPCC All. thanks for the pointer in that direction. You say the location should be obvious, but there’s a lot of data coming at us every day and sometimes Sinclair Broadcasting forgets to mention some of the basic sources that we should check.
April 1 – 7, 2018 409.22 ppm
April 1 – 7, 2017 407.72 ppm 1.50 ppm EN annual the 2017 number
April 1 – 7, 2009 388.39 ppm 2.03 ppm average annual increase past decade
annual number is pretty noisy, decadal average is somewhat less noisy.
AB: Fortunately, it shows the way for a better prosecution. Mike needs to provide evidence that Republicans do in fact believe the garbage they’re being fed. Simply distribute the articles/claims in Republican districts and poll the residents. It would be hard to deny denial exists then, eh?
Mr. Know It Allsays
79 – Jim G
89 – Al B
In the USA, when the majority of folks pushing AGW belong to the D party, and the majority of those folks deny the obvious truth that a man is not the same as a woman, why would anyone believe them on AGW? They have NO credibility!
Victorsays
I just now discovered, via youtube, a very interesting brief lecture on sea level rise by Stefan Rahmstorf — https://youtu.be/WQpv-yhEBoY. His treatment of this issue is especially welcome because he delves more deeply into the problem of local sea level variation than is usually the case in presentations of this sort. I was troubled, however, by his apparent inability to see something in the graph he himself presents that seems obvious to me. I consequently added a comment, which I reproduce here for the benefit of my many “fans” on this blog:
“Thank you, Stefan, for your very illuminating comments regarding the variability in world sea level rise, an issue that needs to be addressed but is usually ignored. However, the graph we see at 2:32 (https://youtu.be/WQpv-yhEBoY?t=2m32s) suggests that the overall rise in sea level cannot be due to CO2 emissions as you would like us to believe. The relatively modest burning of fossil fuels prior to the 1940’s is considered insufficient by most climate scientists to have played a major role in either global temperature rise or sea level rise, as I feel sure you are aware. And during the period from ca. 1940 to ca. 1979, as is also acknowledged by most climate scientists, there was no significant warming of either the land or sea, despite the strong increase in the burning of fossil fuels during this period. Thus the steady rise from ca. 1880 through 1979, so evident from your graph could not possibly be due to CO2 emissions, but must have had some other cause. It is also possible, as your presentation suggests, that our ability to determine sea level rise globally is so distorted by local variations that the data now available to climate scientists like yourself is all but meaningless.”
As always I feel confident that the experts prowling here will have no problem spotting my mistake.
Greg Simpsonsays
91 Victor:
The time constant on sea level rise is not ten years, but more like a millennium.
siddsays
EGU is streaming 2018, and i just watched a very interesting video by Giorgi delivering the Humboldt lecture:
At about 19 minutes in he has a nice graf of projected precipitation intensity change in RCP8.5 for coming decades. I assume the x-axis is, as is his wont, to be mm/day on wet days. It seems that worldwide we can expect the number of wet days with less than 15 mm to decline while the number of wet days with more than 20 mm to increase. And, much more surprisingly, the models indicate the 15-20 mm/wet day threshold does not move as the temperature rises in coming decades. He confesses that he does not know why the threshold doesn’t move.
Any comments on why by those more informed would be welcomed.
sidd
scott nuddssays
Re 76 – “but how do you know when those two times are, exactly? ”
Obviously the times are clearly indicated on the face of the clock.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA: “In the USA, when the majority of folks pushing AGW belong to the D party, and the majority of those folks deny the obvious truth that a man is not the same as a woman, why would anyone believe them on AGW?”
Mr. KIA, allow me to introduce you to the “straw man fallacy”. Cite one, just one person who has claimed that men and women are “the same”. Seriously, is this the best you can do? How can you possbily expect us to treat you seriously when everything you say sounds like it came out of either Bill O’Reilly’s mouth or his ass–which produce argmuments of equal intelligence and persuasive power.
KIA 90: In the USA, when the majority of folks pushing AGW belong to the D party, and the majority of those folks deny the obvious truth that a man is not the same as a woman, why would anyone believe them on AGW?
BPL: Because of the masses of physical evidence for it?
You need to Google “ad hominem argument.”
Astringentsays
91 Victor
I’m glad to see that you are sticking to your ‘it’s too complicated’ trope. But if we can’t actually accurately measure sea level rise (which, btw, we can) how do you know it’s not a lot worse than you think?
Of course at its base your premise is wrong – the majority of observed sea level rise over the last century has been a function of thermal expansion, which even you would probably concede is a physical phenomenon that is well understood and easily modelled. You can see the excellent correlation between sea level rise from thermal expansion models and observations in an earlier Rahmstorf paper . Of course that would have taken 30 seconds worth of search, a willingness to recognise that ‘intuition’ doesn’t beat data and models, and facing up to reality.
…the majority of [Democrats] deny the obvious truth that a man is not the same as a woman…
Also, a rather spectacular variation of ad hom; analogous to “You are a spectacularly bad volleyball player, hence your opinions on knitting must also be rubbish.’
Plus, the premise is false; if Dems thought men and women were identical, why would they promote female candidates, or support something called ‘women’s rights?’ The subject is complex (duh!), but since it is also quite OT, let me just say that a fairer statement would be that Dem support allowing both men and women to figure out for themselves what their biological gender means to them without imposing discriminatory constraints in law or regulation.
mike @87,
You will of course note that @85 I failed to mention RCP6.0. That did yield a sub-410ppm 2018 and a projected level of emissions for 2005-14 10% below the GCP values of actual emissions.
Perhaps one un-discussed issue with rising atmospheric CO2 is, when you say “pretty noisy,” actually how noisy is that?
Having a quick look at it, a good starting point would be to compare the CO2-rise with, say, GISTEMP, as the SAT records have similar characteristics to the CO2-rise data from MLO.
The acceleration within the CO2 rise and the rising SAT measured by GISTEMP are both remarkably good for a linear fit over the period 1975-to-date. On top of the linearity both show an ENSO wobble and superimposed on top of all that is noise.
Comparing monthly data of GISTEMP & MLO CO2-rise, relative to their linear trends, GISTEMP has a wobble and noise about a third the size of that within the MLO CO2-rise data. So, if you remember all the ‘hiatus’ nonsense that SAT data recieved mainly because of its ENSO wobble, or remember the need for 15-years SAT data to get an OLS with statistical significance, attempting to identify if there is a change in trend within the MLO CO2-rise data will be more difficult.
The MLO CO2-rise is showing acceleration with a linear rate of 0.27ppm/yr/decade (+/- 0.02ppm/yr/decade[1sd]) And that linearity would suggest an underlying MLO CO2-rise today of 2.36ppm/yr(+/-0.08ppm/yr[2sd])
The ENSO wobbles easily exceed +/-1ppm/yr. And monthly the superimposed noise is +/-0.5ppm/yr[2sd].
Quarterly averages should shake out most of the superimposed noise. The last year’s worth come in at +1.85ppm/yr, +2.6ppm/yr, +2.03ppm/yr & +2.02ppm/yr, the variation showing a small wobble rather than noise. The annual average comes in at +2.13ppm/yr, a little below the linear projection.
So I reckon we can cope with the superimposed noise. It’s the ENSO wobble that needs further consideration.
jgnfld @49: thanks for the update. It was paywalled when I posted at 31, but SpringerNature opened it after that point. I am reading through it.
thanks
Mike
Killian 48: given what seems to be a clear carcinogenic effect from cell radiation
BPL: And here I thought that was egregious pseudoscience.
Killian,
The problem is that the RF from cell phones doesn’t penetrate sufficiently to deposit any energy inside the human body. There is no plausible mechanism by which cell phones cause damage to humans. Period.
@51
I’d wondered if that might be the case.
> RF from cell phones doesn’t penetrate sufficiently
But consider the total exposure to the field of RF from all sources.
I wonder if the “rogue wave” effect occurs with RF as it does when ocean waves happen to coincide and sum into a powerful peak.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/1/58
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22electronic+smog%22+%22rogue+wave%22
Hank: “I wonder if the “rogue wave” effect occurs with RF as it does when ocean waves happen to coincide and sum into a powerful peak.”
Nope. We aren’t dealing with coherent sources. No credible study has found ANY effect.
#53 Ray Ladbury said The problem is that the RF from cell phones doesn’t penetrate sufficiently to deposit any energy inside the human body. There is no plausible mechanism by which cell phones cause damage to humans. Period.
Did you read the story? Or just an ongoing bias? This is not like climate which really is settled. But, you are welcome to your opinion. I am somewhat agnostic, but I cannot imagine we can surround ourselves with various sorts of energies and have them not affect us.
Time will tell, but when companies pay off scientists and attack science that is not produced by them, it is never a positive sign. Occam’s.
Dan Miller @5&17,
Excepting @15, you remain without a proper reply up-thread. Mind, your question does address complex subjects.
The talk of 3% emissions reduction (not compound so = 0.3Gt(C)CO2/year) is alternatively a budget of 20 years current CO2 emissions before we stop. Budgets such as this one at CarbonBrief are based on Table 2.2 on p64 of IPCC AR5 Sysnthesis Report which shows budgets from 2011 in Gt(CO2) [so divide by 3.67 for Gt(C) – 550Gt(CO2)=150Gt(c)] for 1.5ºC, 2.0ºC & 3.0ºC warming threasholds.
If 3% annual cuts were achieved, CO2 levels would continue to rise for the initial years and then, by the end of the 33 year period be falling at about a third the current level of rise.
IPCC AR5 AII tables 3.1 & 4.1 yield the following for RCP2.6 (which would deliver ~2ºC of warming).
… … . … .Emission cuts … … ΔCO2
Decade .. Gt(C)CO2/year … ..ppm/year
2020s. . . …. 0.20 … … … … ..+1.9
2030s. . . …. 0.27 … … … … ..+1.0
2040s. . . …. 0.18 … … … … ..+0.2
2050s. . . …. 0.14 … … … … .. -0.1
2060s. . . …. 0.12 … … … … .. -0.4
2070s. . . …. 0.06 … … … … .. -0.6
Today about 45% of our emissioned CO2 equates to rising atmospheric levels while some 33% enters the oceans and 22% the biosphere (this despite emissions from LUC).
This profile results from our rising emissions. The oceans are the major sink for our CO2. So for RCP2.6, Table AII 4.1 shows the annual flux into the oceans in the 2070s at 0.12Gt(C), and in following decades 0.10, 0.85, 0.77. (The net negative anthro emissions would make little difference to this.)
Absorption into the oceans will continue for centuries as deep waters circulate back to the surface to recieve their dosing of CO2. By about AD3000 and without human intervention, something like 20% of our emissions will be remaining in the atmosphere. That would be roughly 360ppm if we achieved the 20 year budget. Note that one of our hosts is the lead author on the authoritative text on this subject Archer et al (2009) ‘Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel CO2’
Killian,
If you don’t have a physical mechanism, you don’t have an effect. I don’t get my science from The Nation any more than I get it from National Review.
Further, very large ‘n’ study released:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf
Discussion of that study:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892346
(Further links in the text at the Medscape page.
None of this will convince anyone who’s sure of the answer to change his or her mind about the subject.
As with climate change, an effect, if any, will only emerge when very large numbers are studied statistically)
Hank: “I wonder if the “rogue wave” effect occurs with RF as it does when ocean waves happen to coincide and sum into a powerful peak.”
AB: Well, it’s possible to drop a pen through a tabletop. So, let’s consider the result: your hair or skin would heat up for a teensy time until blood and the atmosphere carried the energy away.(I know this because I have a degree in skyrocketry.)
Killian, note that the article’s source was a not-yet-published (at the time of the article) paper. Note that “radiation” is not fully descriptive, and is in fact a word that should instantly put up your “bulls*** detector”. An honest article would use the full description: “non-ionizing radiation”. While “ionizing radiation” is strong enough to knock your molecules apart and so cause genetic damage without symptoms, “non-ionizing radiation” can only wiggle your molecules. So unless your ear starts burning, you haven’t gotten too much “non-ionizing radiation”.
Mother Jones: By the 105th week, males exposed to the highest levels of radiation had a survival rate of about 70 percent. Those exposed to no radiation (the red dots) had a survival rate of 30 percent. Among female rats, survival rates were similar for all groups. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/04/does-cell-phone-radiation-help-you-live-longer/
AB: So, it seems that Killian’s article’s writer deliberately twisted the data by cherry-picking one teensy statistic that went against the final conclusion.
CONGRATS, Killian, you’ve been suckered in exactly the same way deniers have been for years! Natural variation happens so folks are out there ready, willing, and eager to sell clicks, and it worked here. We all (well, at least I) read the article, thus enriching the unethical story writer.
Hmmmm
The impossible weak effect takes a little longer to detect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/
What tangled webs we find when we start looking stuff up.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/10/16/magnetism-neuroscience-to-climate-change/
Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming
DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2015.68068
David A. E. Vares, Michael A. Persinger
Hat tip to John Mashey on this one.
The magnitude of the [geomagnetic-CO2] mechanism is small compared to the magnitude of the preponderant mechanisms driving the exchange of carbon between ocean and atmosphere, such as water temperature, biological pumping, overturning circulation… it would be preposterous to make the weakening Earth’s magnetic field responsible for global warming.
[edit – this is OT.]
Hank, #65—
“The magnitude of the [geomagnetic-CO2] mechanism is small…”
Boy, that’s a shocker, eh?
Scenario for a climate disaster movie suggests itself — when the Earth’s magnetic field goes to nothing on the way to reversing polarity.
But I’d guess the other consequences of missing the magnetic field would be rather worse than a solubility change, wouldn’t they?
The compass sales market would collapse.
Methane leaks from the gas infrastructure — everywhere:
https://medium.com/matter/the-environmental-scandal-thats-happening-right-beneath-your-feet-406a9f0d4166
Excerpt from that page:
“Exposure to the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones excites the brain in a small but measurable way, reveals a new study published in the Annals of Neurology. However, scientists aren’t quite sure yet if the temporary excitment is a good or bad thing.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cell-phones-give-brain-burst-caffeine-energy/story?id=2112186
This seems to suggest radiation must penetrate into the brain. Anyone explored relationships of radiation to things like insomnia, anxiety and depression?
Of course almost anything can cause problems if used in excess.
65 – Hank R
“What tangled webs we find when we start looking stuff up.”
Yes, indeed.
The discussion above on earth’s magnetic field, led me to find this excerpt from wikipedia:
“Calculations of the loss of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere of Mars, resulting from scavenging of ions by the solar wind, indicate that the dissipation of the magnetic field of Mars caused a near total loss of its atmosphere…..”
And this: “At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years;…..”
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
OK, OK, I cherry picked the juciest parts….. :)
Based on the juciest, most cherry parts, I present my new CO2 theory – what is CO2 caused AGW good for: The good Lord, who made the planet, gave us CO2 spewing FFs so that as the magnetic field weakens, and CO2 is lost to the solar wind, we’d have a little extra CO2 to tide us over for a while so we don’t freeze to death. Perhaps just long enough for the reversal of the poles to occur so that enough of us survive to carry on.
Could be. Even a broken clock is right twice per day.
RE: geomagnetic field weakening
We’re overdue for a flip of the field. It is starting to happen now as more of the energy in the field flows into multipoles higher then the dipole. The transition, however, is relatively rapid on geologic timescales, so Mr. KIA is, as usual, full of fetid dingo’s kidneys.
Mr. KIA, a broken clock is right twice a day because it is unchanging. Your scattershot opinions pretty much guarantee that if one of them ever proves right, you will have long since abandoned it, as you did your intelligence, long ago.
Simpler method of coping with sea level rise and storm surge — build a wall of money to protect the areas most at risk:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-08/aramco-confirms-accords-for-chemical-complex-study-in-u-s
KIA: gave us CO2 spewing FFs so that as the magnetic field weakens, and CO2 is lost to the solar wind, we’d have a little extra CO2 to tide us over for a while so we don’t freeze to death.
BPL: Earth has 2 and 1/2 times the gravity Mars has, so we’re in no danger of losing CO2. Google “Jeans escape.”
“Even a broken clock is right twice per day.”
True (for an analog timepiece at least), but how do you know when those two times are, exactly?
Anyone know or can share refs to which GCMs or science papers or IPCC reports forecast the probability of the following occurring as early as 2018 Spring in the Arctic zone?
https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/na_swe.png
Average sea ice area for Bering Sea so far in April is just 89,000 km²
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2278.0;attach=99312;image
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2278.0;attach=99279;image
Or CO2 in March/April 2018 breaking 410 ppm at Mouna Loa
Are there any? I would like to see them and collate some info about that.
Please hold back with the ‘natural variation’ excuses/sophistry.
When the Earth’s magnetic field zeros out, we can apply the same fix proposed for Mars:
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html
Any news on Mike Mann’s defamation suit? I haven’t heard anything for more than a year. I see that Andrew Weaver’s suit against Tim Ball was dismissed in February.
Judge finds written attack on climate scientist too ludicrous to be libel
Hopefully, Mike will fare better!
Whatever happened with these permanent contributors to this site? Not seen a contribution for years – Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert.
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.
Most recent articles on climate science specifically seem to be only these:
rasmus @ 21 January 2018
gavin @ 19 January 2018
rasmus @ 21 November 2017
stefan @ 4 November 2017
group @ 12 October 2017 Guest Commentary by Scott Denning
group @ 4 October 2017 Guest commentary by Ben Sanderson
stefan @ 22 September 2017
in the last 8 mths?
We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.
(ref About)
Marine heat waves, like their terrestrial counterparts, are becoming more frequent and more persistent:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/marine-heat-wave-ocean-hot-spot-study-1.4611794
Ray@73.
I think reversals are pretty random, there is no such thing as being overdue, that’s like being overdue at a slot machine, past behavior has no predictive value.
I also think reversals can be pretty chaotic, the field dropping to a small value is about as likely to return to the pre-decay polarity as it is to push through to the opposite polarity.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html
I doubt anyone’s going to find blips in the fossil CO2 record associated with magnetic field variation.
Perhaps some science fiction author can make something of
Could an extremely strong magnetic field force CO2 to dissolve in significant amounts?
There’s your geoengineering possibility, super-fizzy soda on demand.
81 Kevin McKinney, really?
But what about these?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12029763
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12028417
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/most-intense-marine-heatwave-yet-recorded-off-tasmania/8717352
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-27/bom-and-nz-body-issue-joint-statement-on-marine-heatwave/9593618
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-tasmania-fisheries-cooked-record-breaking-marine.html
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/10/14/ocean-heatwave-destroys-tasmanias-unique-underwater-jungle/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-10/mangroves-die-off-along-coast-of-qld-gulf-country-limmin-bight/7400626
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/marine-heatwaves-spawning-unprecedented-climate-chaos/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/15/the-blob-how-marine-heatwaves-are-causing-unprecedented-climate-chaos
Canadian scientists thought one of the Arctic’s largest lakes could handle small changes in climate, but it turns out that’s not the case.
A study published recently in the journal Nature Communications, found that it only took 1 C of warming in the last 18 years to change the ecosystem in Lake Hazen on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut — which holds more water than any other lake in the High Arctic. …
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4603809
https://thinkprogress.org/newtok-alaska-gets-relocation-funding-35b4434242a6/
Scientists from the Australia Institute yesterday delivered to the NT Government a report which showed the number of Darwin days with a maximum temperature of 35C or above will reach 132 by 2030 “without drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”. The number of 35C days has already increased fourfold from 5.6 days per year early last century to 22 days per year since 2012, according to their report.
https://twitter.com/climatecouncil/status/978179898413125632
No biggy. We have all the time in the world. Besides until it gets published in 10 or more peer reviewed climate science papers it’s not really real nor an observational scientific fact yet.
Sorry you’ll need to wait another 5 to 10 years before it’s ‘real’.
Meanwhile… 2017 – Continued increase of extreme El Niño frequency long after 1.5 °C warming stabilization
The increasing frequency of extreme El Nino events with climate change (even if limited to a 1.5C GMSTA), is part of why ECS increases together with global warming. Thus projections considering fundamental physicals would show an increasing GMSTA with time for reasons including that extreme El Nino events are becoming more frequent (together with other fundamentals like Arctic Amplification, etc):
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3351
Oct. 13, 2017 – NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike
Nothing to see here.
Please carry on regardless.
Thomas @77,
While “breaking 410ppm” could be argued to have happened already in February 2018 and happened seven times in March 2018, it is best to be clear and compare apples with apples. So let us consider monthly averages. Thus re-stated, you ask for “GCMs or science papers or IPCC reports” setting out the potential for MLO CO2 readings averaging 410ppm or more for April or May 2018.
Goodness. I’m initially at a loss for words.
Projections for global average annual CO2 levels under PCP2.6, RCP4.5 & RCP8.5 for 2010 and 2020 are set out in Table 4.1 of IPCC AII. This location for such data should be obvious and no surprise to you.
From these values, you could very easily interpolate a 2018 global average CO2 value, adjust for MLO annual average and adjust again for April & May averages (perhaps by mirroring the value-adjustments between annual, April & May in 2017). The resulting projected CO2 levels for April & May 2018 for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, & RCP8.5, are respectively 411.0ppm & 411.7ppm, 410.2ppm & 410.8ppm, 414.0ppm & 414.6ppm.
You might also note the projected CO2 emissions that are presented within Table AII.2.1c (2010=2005-14) for these RCPs were 6%, 8% and 3% respectively below the actual emissions values calculated by the GCP.
As you raise this CO2 projections issue, perhaps you could “share refs to which GCMs or science papers or IPCC reports forecast the probability of … CO2 in March/April 2018 (not) breaking 410 ppm at Mouna Loa.”
(And note, as part of a skyrockety argument, your CO2 quesion @77 provides an excellent example of an actual ‘straw man’ fallacy, a concept you seem to have failed to understand properly up-thread).
Omega Centauri,
While it is true that field reversals are not truly periodic, they do exhibit a characteristic range of timescales dictated by the energetics (google “self-organized criticality”). The average over the past 20 million years or so has been 200-300 thousand years, and we’re more than twice that. However, the reason why I say we’re overdue is that the field has been oscillating and weakening for quite a while now, indicating that more energy is flowing into the higher multipoles. The only reason why we don’t have reversals more often is that the solid inner core acts as an inductor, stabilizing the field.
Heliomagnetic reversal is also a random process, and yet reversals are sufficiently regular that we refer to an 11-year (actually 22-year) solar cycle. The geomagnetic reversals are more random because the fluctuations required to destabilize the equilibrium dipole are larger due to the greater inductance in the system.
Were we to have a reversal really get under way in the near future, it might happen in conjunction with a grand solar minimum, which may be getting under say over the last couple of solar cycles.
from mar @ 85: “Projections for global average annual CO2 levels under PCP2.6, RCP4.5 & RCP8.5 for 2010 and 2020 are set out in Table 4.1 of IPCC AII. This location for such data should be obvious and no surprise to you.
From these values, you could very easily interpolate a 2018 global average CO2 value, adjust for MLO annual average and adjust again for April & May averages (perhaps by mirroring the value-adjustments between annual, April & May in 2017). The resulting projected CO2 levels for April & May 2018 for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, & RCP8.5, are respectively 411.0ppm & 411.7ppm, 410.2ppm & 410.8ppm, 414.0ppm & 414.6ppm.”
Thanks, Al. This sounds like a good and easy math check/spreadsheet function that can be set up on observations of monthly CO2 saturation value against the various RCPs. I am not great at math, but I can punch numbers into a spreadsheet and import formulas.
you also stated: “You might also note the projected CO2 emissions that are presented within Table AII.2.1c (2010=2005-14) for these RCPs were 6%, 8% and 3% respectively below the actual emissions values calculated by the GCP.”
I would like to come back to the CO2 emissions statement later, but for right now, I would like to see if I can throw together the spreadsheet that crunches the CO2 sat numbers from the RCPs. I will start with looking at Table 4.1 of IPCC All. thanks for the pointer in that direction. You say the location should be obvious, but there’s a lot of data coming at us every day and sometimes Sinclair Broadcasting forgets to mention some of the basic sources that we should check.
April 1 – 7, 2018 409.22 ppm
April 1 – 7, 2017 407.72 ppm 1.50 ppm EN annual the 2017 number
April 1 – 7, 2009 388.39 ppm 2.03 ppm average annual increase past decade
annual number is pretty noisy, decadal average is somewhat less noisy.
Cheers
Mike
#84, NC–
Yes, really.
Jim G: Hopefully, Mike will fare better!
AB: Fortunately, it shows the way for a better prosecution. Mike needs to provide evidence that Republicans do in fact believe the garbage they’re being fed. Simply distribute the articles/claims in Republican districts and poll the residents. It would be hard to deny denial exists then, eh?
79 – Jim G
89 – Al B
In the USA, when the majority of folks pushing AGW belong to the D party, and the majority of those folks deny the obvious truth that a man is not the same as a woman, why would anyone believe them on AGW? They have NO credibility!
I just now discovered, via youtube, a very interesting brief lecture on sea level rise by Stefan Rahmstorf — https://youtu.be/WQpv-yhEBoY. His treatment of this issue is especially welcome because he delves more deeply into the problem of local sea level variation than is usually the case in presentations of this sort. I was troubled, however, by his apparent inability to see something in the graph he himself presents that seems obvious to me. I consequently added a comment, which I reproduce here for the benefit of my many “fans” on this blog:
“Thank you, Stefan, for your very illuminating comments regarding the variability in world sea level rise, an issue that needs to be addressed but is usually ignored. However, the graph we see at 2:32 (https://youtu.be/WQpv-yhEBoY?t=2m32s) suggests that the overall rise in sea level cannot be due to CO2 emissions as you would like us to believe. The relatively modest burning of fossil fuels prior to the 1940’s is considered insufficient by most climate scientists to have played a major role in either global temperature rise or sea level rise, as I feel sure you are aware. And during the period from ca. 1940 to ca. 1979, as is also acknowledged by most climate scientists, there was no significant warming of either the land or sea, despite the strong increase in the burning of fossil fuels during this period. Thus the steady rise from ca. 1880 through 1979, so evident from your graph could not possibly be due to CO2 emissions, but must have had some other cause. It is also possible, as your presentation suggests, that our ability to determine sea level rise globally is so distorted by local variations that the data now available to climate scientists like yourself is all but meaningless.”
As always I feel confident that the experts prowling here will have no problem spotting my mistake.
91 Victor:
The time constant on sea level rise is not ten years, but more like a millennium.
EGU is streaming 2018, and i just watched a very interesting video by Giorgi delivering the Humboldt lecture:
https://client.cntv.at/egu2018/ml1
That and much else is linked from:
https://egu2018.eu/webstreaming.html
At about 19 minutes in he has a nice graf of projected precipitation intensity change in RCP8.5 for coming decades. I assume the x-axis is, as is his wont, to be mm/day on wet days. It seems that worldwide we can expect the number of wet days with less than 15 mm to decline while the number of wet days with more than 20 mm to increase. And, much more surprisingly, the models indicate the 15-20 mm/wet day threshold does not move as the temperature rises in coming decades. He confesses that he does not know why the threshold doesn’t move.
Any comments on why by those more informed would be welcomed.
sidd
Re 76 – “but how do you know when those two times are, exactly? ”
Obviously the times are clearly indicated on the face of the clock.
Mr. KIA: “In the USA, when the majority of folks pushing AGW belong to the D party, and the majority of those folks deny the obvious truth that a man is not the same as a woman, why would anyone believe them on AGW?”
Mr. KIA, allow me to introduce you to the “straw man fallacy”. Cite one, just one person who has claimed that men and women are “the same”. Seriously, is this the best you can do? How can you possbily expect us to treat you seriously when everything you say sounds like it came out of either Bill O’Reilly’s mouth or his ass–which produce argmuments of equal intelligence and persuasive power.
KIA 90: In the USA, when the majority of folks pushing AGW belong to the D party, and the majority of those folks deny the obvious truth that a man is not the same as a woman, why would anyone believe them on AGW?
BPL: Because of the masses of physical evidence for it?
You need to Google “ad hominem argument.”
91 Victor
I’m glad to see that you are sticking to your ‘it’s too complicated’ trope. But if we can’t actually accurately measure sea level rise (which, btw, we can) how do you know it’s not a lot worse than you think?
Of course at its base your premise is wrong – the majority of observed sea level rise over the last century has been a function of thermal expansion, which even you would probably concede is a physical phenomenon that is well understood and easily modelled. You can see the excellent correlation between sea level rise from thermal expansion models and observations in an earlier Rahmstorf paper . Of course that would have taken 30 seconds worth of search, a willingness to recognise that ‘intuition’ doesn’t beat data and models, and facing up to reality.
KIA, #90–
Wow, talk about OT:
Also, a rather spectacular variation of ad hom; analogous to “You are a spectacularly bad volleyball player, hence your opinions on knitting must also be rubbish.’
Plus, the premise is false; if Dems thought men and women were identical, why would they promote female candidates, or support something called ‘women’s rights?’ The subject is complex (duh!), but since it is also quite OT, let me just say that a fairer statement would be that Dem support allowing both men and women to figure out for themselves what their biological gender means to them without imposing discriminatory constraints in law or regulation.
mike @87,
You will of course note that @85 I failed to mention RCP6.0. That did yield a sub-410ppm 2018 and a projected level of emissions for 2005-14 10% below the GCP values of actual emissions.
Perhaps one un-discussed issue with rising atmospheric CO2 is, when you say “pretty noisy,” actually how noisy is that?
Having a quick look at it, a good starting point would be to compare the CO2-rise with, say, GISTEMP, as the SAT records have similar characteristics to the CO2-rise data from MLO.
The acceleration within the CO2 rise and the rising SAT measured by GISTEMP are both remarkably good for a linear fit over the period 1975-to-date. On top of the linearity both show an ENSO wobble and superimposed on top of all that is noise.
Comparing monthly data of GISTEMP & MLO CO2-rise, relative to their linear trends, GISTEMP has a wobble and noise about a third the size of that within the MLO CO2-rise data. So, if you remember all the ‘hiatus’ nonsense that SAT data recieved mainly because of its ENSO wobble, or remember the need for 15-years SAT data to get an OLS with statistical significance, attempting to identify if there is a change in trend within the MLO CO2-rise data will be more difficult.
The MLO CO2-rise is showing acceleration with a linear rate of 0.27ppm/yr/decade (+/- 0.02ppm/yr/decade[1sd]) And that linearity would suggest an underlying MLO CO2-rise today of 2.36ppm/yr(+/-0.08ppm/yr[2sd])
The ENSO wobbles easily exceed +/-1ppm/yr. And monthly the superimposed noise is +/-0.5ppm/yr[2sd].
Quarterly averages should shake out most of the superimposed noise. The last year’s worth come in at +1.85ppm/yr, +2.6ppm/yr, +2.03ppm/yr & +2.02ppm/yr, the variation showing a small wobble rather than noise. The annual average comes in at +2.13ppm/yr, a little below the linear projection.
So I reckon we can cope with the superimposed noise. It’s the ENSO wobble that needs further consideration.
Victor:
Once again Mr. Vl repeats his frequently claimed discovery of a chart that he thinks proves his “anything but CO2” belief.