This month’s open thread for general climate science discussions.
Reader Interactions
321 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2018"
CCHolleysays
Victor @91
As always I feel confident that the experts prowling here will have no problem spotting my mistake.
Victor, apparently is a slow learner, the sea level issue has been discussed previously.
Sea level rise is highly variable about the mean level due to the hydrological cycle. However, long term variations can only be accounted for by changes in the mean surface temperatures. This is based on physics, physics that Victor fails to learn. Warmer temperatures raise sea levels by melting land ice and thermal expansion of the water. Cooling temperatures lower sea levels by the growth of land ice and the contraction of cooler water.
The problems Victor states with sea level rise correlating to temperatures has nothing to do with the cause of the temperature rise. Nothing. Yes, one would expect long term sea level changes to follow temperatures. However, this correlation does not matter on what the cause of warming is. And, perfect correlation to temperature would not be expected because ice will not stop melting just because warming stopped, it takes time for the ice to reach thermal equilibrium. This is quite basic and even someone like Victor should understand that. Questioning the correlation of sea level rise to CO2 is pointless and meaningless, the direct correlation should be to its cause–warming temperatures.
So perhaps although we know sea level rises should be correlated to temperatures, if that correlation is not as close as one would expect, we might need to look at the data.
Yes, sea level measurement and analysis is highly complex and problematic as Stefan points out. Sea levels are effected by movement of land masses both upward and downward, changes in gravitational pulls on the water due to changes in ice masses. Changes in currents and winds, salinity, and so on. Tide gauges are located close to land, thus not giving a complete picture. Not only that, different tide gauge sites use different technologies. Different analysis of the data give different results.
The most commonly used sea level rise reconstruct is Church & White and is the one used by Stefan in the video. Interestingly, the chart becomes better correlated to temperatures once satellite measurements are used rather than tide gages.
But Church & White is not the only analysis. Jevrejeva et al and Hay et al reconstructs both are more closely aligned with temperature changes. Hay et al of 2015 shows steady rise from 1900 to 1940 with a plateau with almost no rise until about 1980, then a continuation of the earlier trend until 1993 when sharp acceleration begins. Hay et al is likely more accurate due to the statistical approach used. Note the date of the Hay paper, 2015, is after Stefan made his video.
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 can only be caused by warming. Water in the oceans does not appear by magic. Using sea levels to somehow cast doubt on CO2 warming is simply inane. Actually, it is absurd.
The Guardian says: “the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc), has weakened by 15% since 1950, thanks to melting Greenland ice and ocean warming making sea water less dense and more buoyant.
scientists (including Stefan) are saying we must avoid a serious disruption of the AMOC at all costs. I think by any reasonable measure, we have already incurred a serious disruption of AMOC. 15% weakening? Is that not serious? Maybe serious weakening is defined as 25% slowdown?
where did all the animals go? is the barn door open?
warm regards all
Mike
Victorsays
This is to announce the creation of yet another climate change post, part 3 in the series so far, on my Mole in the Ground blog. The topic: sea level rise. Since my comments are no longer welcome here, I urge all interested parties to read, and respond, at the blog: https://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/04/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-3-sea.html
S.B. Ripmansays
Mike #103: This was posted in the comment section of the AMOC article: Mike #7: Thanks for the continuing high-quality input. In this case your sense of urgency is laudable, but think of all those in the past who have stepped outside their areas of expertise, have made policy recommendations, and have embarrassed themselves; of the climate deniers who have let their personal beliefs (philosophical, political and/or religious) shape their science and who now have no credibility and can only find employment at or through corporations with vested interests and/or rich ideologues with think-tanks and endowments.
If the scientists stick to science, and the politicians stick to politics and call upon scientists to give evidence and inform policy decisions, they’ll all be better off.
BTW, this AMOC discussion is fascinating. We’re seeing highly uneven global warming, ocean currents spreading the warmth in counter-intuitive ways, and unlikely climate feedbacks. Complexity abounds. The non-scientist observer sits on the edge of his/her seat.
A paper put out by James Hansen’s group describes how global warming in the past may have engendered super-storms. If the AMOC stalls and warm pools proliferate in the tropics, it’s easy to imagine that occurring.
Carriesays
102 a sad state of affairs though it does explain a lot like when people move beyond their own narrowcasted area of expertise into mysticism and fantasy
what is the next comment going to be about that trumps a war hero or he is in the running to be the next pope?
If there’s a correlation to something we take seriously, say how many codfish are caught, or how late Spring comes, or how late blizzards happen, that’ll emerge once people try to correlate what they found about the AMOC with what’s known about those other things.
“Here we provide evidence for a weakening of the AMOC by about 3 ± 1 sverdrups (around 15 per cent) since the mid-twentieth century.”
sounds like evidence of the trend, not natural variation. can’t read what they had to say about natural variation, article is behind paywall at this moment.
“ocean observations, from arrays of sensors strung across the North Atlantic, offered a more reassuring picture: the current was hugely variable, and so a single snapshot could be unrepresentative.”
Yup, there is variability…
“Researchers have now gone back and taken another look. In a paper in Nature this week, scientists present palaeo-oceanographic evidence that deep convection of surface waters in the North Atlantic — the engine that keeps the AMOC in constant motion — began to decline as early as around 1850, probably owing to increased freshwater influx from Arctic ice that had melted at the end of a relatively cold period called the Little Ice Age (D. J. R. Thornalley et al. Nature 556, 227–230; 2018). This could have caused a weakening in the ocean circulation.”
So are we seeing variability or a weakening of the AMOC?
from the article: “Importantly, the findings agree that the AMOC is in a relatively weak state. The wide margin of disagreement between the two independent studies on when the circulation started to weaken is probably due to the different methods used — and it highlights how immensely difficult it is to capture the AMOC’s past variability. This will probably frustrate those who prefer their science to send a clear signal. But then, science is rarely so obliging. Can the effects of climate change and natural variability on the AMOC be disentangled? And if the ocean circulation is sensitive to climate change, as is highly likely, will the currents respond abruptly and perhaps violently at some point, or will the transition be smooth? These are among the most pressing questions in climate science.”
Hey, Hank, do you want to commit to your premise that the AMOC is just showing variability? Is that what the data says to you?
GISTEMP has posted for March with a TLT global anomaly of +0.89ºC, showing the same tiddly bounce back up seen in the March TLT anomalies, in GISTEMP up from +0.79ºC in February while January sat at +0.77ºC. It is 6th warmest March on record (=6th in UAH, RSS 5th), in GISTEMP behind March 2016 (+1.30ºC), 2017 (+1.12ºC), 2010 (+0.92ºC), 2002 (+0.91ºC), 2015 (+0.90ºC). Earlier 2018 months on GISTEMP were ranked similarly to MArch – Feb 6th and Jan 5th.
March 2018 sits as =20th highest GISTEMP anomaly on-record for all-months (=74th in UAH, RSS 52nd).
The three-month average Jan-Mar gives the =4th warmest start to the year (9th in UAH, RSS 6th) behind 2016, 2017 & 2015, and equalling 2010.
Douglassays
I have a question for any and all who think they might know the answer. I also know I’m probably going to be told to go look the answer up myself, or check the search engine box, but this would be a big time saver for me if anyone would like to give me their perspective, including the climate scientists on here. I’ve read a fair amount about carbon capture and storage, but I have very little technical expertise, or scientific expertise to be perfectly frank, and let’s throw in mathematical knowledge for good measure. From what I understand, drawing down co2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with CCS technologies is way beyond our means at present to make an appreciable difference. I know it is starting to be employed at the factory level, and even that is daunting, but here’s my question…
Is it even a remote possibility that in the future, technologies could draw co2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to make an appreciable difference? Let’s say hypothetically, several billionaires got behind R & D in this area, and spent billions on it. Could we theoretically do it in the future, or is the problem so daunting that it even would violate some rule of physics to even be possible?
If it could be done, is this even a good idea? Would we risk messing up the climate if we drew down greenhouse gases too quickly for example?
JCHsays
This 2006 guest commentary here, Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean, generated a very large response on the internet, much of it claiming Minnett was wrong, and that lack of publication proved it.
… The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. …
There is a real possibility that agricultural techniques such as biochar could make a difference. There is no real prospect of drawing down CO2 too fast.
hank at 107 says, regarding AMOC slowdown: “If there’s a correlation to something we take seriously, say how many codfish are caught, or how late Spring comes, or how late blizzards happen, that’ll emerge once people try to correlate what they found about the AMOC with what’s known about those other things.”
come on, Hank. Get with the program. The AMOC disruption is serious. The scientists who study AMOC are sounding the alarm. I think it’s quite late to sound the alarm, but then you come along and say, what about normal variation? and Does is have any impact on something we take seriously?
mike says: “come on, Hank. Get with the program. ”
I’m an equal opportunity critic. Blather is blather.
You’re coming to RC to criticize those trying to explain and understand climate change.
Look, reality is scary enough, and a basic understanding of variability is fundamental to how significance is calculated.
You can’t criticize people productively until you understand a little about how the science is done.
Yes, a 15 percent change is worrisome.
Being able to detect that from the paleo record is remarkable and commendable.
Douglassays
B 113
Thank you for responding to my question. So, that’s it? Biochar-possibly? No “machines” could be invented to do it? Thanks again, I do appreciate it.
The 2009–10 sea-level spike in the NE region coincides with two significant ocean and climate events: a 30% downturn of the AMOC9 (Fig. 4a) and an extreme negative NAO index27. Both winds20,23,25 and the AMOC4,5,18,21 can cause sea-level variability and change along the NE coast of North America on various time scales. After removing the seasonal cycle, the monthly NE sea-level composite shows a good correlation (R=0.78; 2-month lag) with the AMOC index (Fig. 4b). Especially, the two sea-level spikes during the winters of 2009–10 and 2010–11 coincide with the two AMOC minima, respectively.
Greg Simpsonsays
111 Douglas:
Yes, carbon capture can make a difference, but it’s pointless to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into coal when others are digging up coal and burning it. I would like to see more research being done, though. What we have now is not thoroughly tested.
Killiansays
111 Douglas said, #113 Bart said Is it even a remote possibility that in the future, technologies could draw co2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to make an appreciable difference?… If it could be done, is this even a good idea? Would we risk messing up the climate if we drew down greenhouse gases too quickly for example?
There is a real possibility that agricultural techniques such as biochar could make a difference. There is no real prospect of drawing down CO2 too fast.
Possible tech could do it? Sure. It’s possible the sun will blow up tomorrow,I suppose, but not very likely. Relying on non-existent tech to solve an existing, urgent problem is rather poor risk management. When solutions exist for that problem that do not create new problems, this is a good thing. As BPL said, there are ways to do this, but drawing down, no matter how you do it, will not be enough because we have serious issues from pollution and declining resources, including declining biosystems.
But, yes, using changes in agriculture alone, it should be possible to draw down more than enough to have negative emissions once things are ramped up to global scale. If we simplify and reduce emissions to 80-90% of current, all the more so.
Or, if we simplify to that degree, almost any sequestration would lead to at least a little draw down. Just letting the oceans restock themselves can drown 30Gt of carbon. That’s a one-time change, but permanent. Things like bio-char are essentially permanent as they can remain in the soil for a very long time. There are terra preta deposits in the Amazon that are very, very old and a meter or two thick. That is a lot of carbon and can be done anywhere on Earth. Regenerative gardening/farming and livestock management can do more.
The issue is merely awareness and will. We can do this.
Hank and Mike, you are talking past each other a bit.
Mike, Hank didn’t say it was natural variability, he was merely being scientifically pedantic in pointing out what is obvious: There’s a signal, but variability obscures that. He said this as a sort of caution to not overreact. He didn’t say that so clearly in his first response to you. He said it better in his second, but then he got a bit rude, as is his typical approach.
Hank, Mike is correct to be concerned. You consistently underplay the changes we are seeing. Those of us that have spoken more stridently the last ten years have been far closer to the mark than the cohort calling us alarmists. The nature of bifurcations alone *should* be enough to make everyone studying climate “alarmist.”
You think that because you can speak the technical side, the maths, of science better than some that you understand the system better. This is a logical fallacy. The last ten years have proven this. You are consistently behind the curve while others of us are ahead of it.
Scientific reticence has its negative aspect, and your comments typically express that perfectly, as they do here. 15% is a huge deal, not just worrying, given rapid, sub-decadal changes are part of the record, as Stefan wrote, and only more likely now than ever before. Tipping points are *the* thing in climate science.
So, Hank, ease up. You used to be approachable. I’ve looked at old conversations. Come back from the dark side and stop harassing people for being human.
nigeljsays
Douglas @111, not a climate scientist but I have done some reading about this recently. My understanding is carbon capture and storage is proven technology applied to coal fired power or direct atmospheric capture and burying the emissions. The trouble is its expensive (although not prohibitively). Its not going to happen until theres a realistic price on carbon or state subsidies. It’s not an approach that enthuses me, as it might tend to encourage keeping coal fired power.
The natural ways of carbon capture and storage is using farming systems that encourage soil carbon. This requires investment and different methods of farming and theres a current lack of farmers sufficiently motivated, and a lack of financial incentives for changing farming systems. There are some pilot schemes around that get subsidies, and it doesnt need huge subsidies. Its a question of political and individual will. It looks cost effective.
All these natural systems of modified farming can draw down a lot of CO2 given enough scaling up and enough time for the process to work, which takes significant time.The other benefit is modifying farming systems does not require new land, so its just about use of biochar, compost, no till farming etcetera.
And there is planting forests of course, but again this needs incentives and land. However it has significant potential to sequester carbon.
BECCS is another system that uses fast growing trees to be burned for electricity generation, and emissions stored underground in old oil wells, and deep permeable rock formations, but this needs gigantic areas of land, irrigation and fertiliser and expensive, energy intensive processes. Its plausible in theory, but a pilot scheme was abandoned because of problems so not looking promising. The huge scale and land and resources required has massive challenges and its own set of environmental impacts that could be negative. I do recall seeing that BECCS could draw down 30% of emissions, but needs land the size of two Indias!
Sorry I dont have time for internet references, and these things are reasonably easy to google.
Mr. Know It Allsays
111- Douglas
Yes, technology exists to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. They’ve pumped into underground, turned it into “rock”, etc. Don’t know how much energy it would take to make a dent – but if it’s not more than the output of a couple of big nuke plants, we might as well get right to it.
That would be a job for governments – probably take more than rich billionaires could come up with.
98 – Kevin
We can’t base our society on the false beliefs of a few people; they can believe what they want, but they can’t force the rest of us to affirm their beliefs and that is exactly what they are doing – see youtube video above in this comment.
#123, KIA–The ‘Paris is useless’ link is spectacularly stupid; please don’t waste your time and ours. Can you spot any of the numerous ‘fails’ in it, or do you need someone to hold your hand and walk you through it?
On gender: it’s way OT, but on the face of it, believing that gender is not purely a matter of biological inheritance is clearly not the same as believing that ‘there is no difference between men and women,’ since if the latter were what ‘Dems’ believed, there would be in their minds no ‘thing’ to be arguing over in the first place.
“We can’t base our society on the false beliefs of a few people…”
Sadly, observation proves the contrary, as the entire governmental apparatus is currently in the hands of an ultra-wealthy oligarchy which is busily structuring the social and economic framework of our society to their own immediate advantage–and doing so under the “false belief” that we can continue to use fossil fuels without let or hindrance, and never have a climatic or ecological ‘bill’ come due.
Of course, it comes due soonest for the poor, the foreign and the brown, and bites longest for the young, whereas the oligarchs are overwhelmingly white nativists of a ‘certain age’.
We could invent giant industrial plants to take CO2 out of the air by physical/chemical means, and some such processes have been tested. I’m not sure they can be deployed quickly, but we will probably have to do this eventually.
Killiansays
#122 nigelj said The natural ways of carbon capture and storage is using farming systems that encourage soil carbon. This requires investment and different methods of farming and theres a current lack of farmers sufficiently motivated
Wrong. In any industry growing as fast as regenerative farming we’d call it explosive. Maybe you should be in advertising… for FFs or cigarettes.
a lack of financial incentives for changing farming systems.
True.
All these natural systems of modified farming can draw down a lot of CO2 given enough scaling up and enough time for the process to work, which takes significant time.
Bull. Impacts are immediate. At one percent a year, that’s dirt to great soil in five years. Why keep bleating this false claim? Stop it. At half that, it’s ten years. And, in fact, most farm soil around the world actually only has 1-3% carbon, so the time is even shorter than the numbers above.
All that takes time is for you to let go of your biases and accept facts.
Here is but one example from but one technique, not a suite of techniques as any sane designer would *actually* do.
Three years after a single application of composted green waste,
we found that soil C and N increased by 26% and 54%, respectively,
at the valley grassland and by 37% and 53%, respectively, at the
coastal grassland. The additional C and N was stored in the FLF and
physically-protected OLF, and was likely derived from a combina-
tion of direct inputs of compost C and increases in plant production
One application, one, increased soil carbon 26%. No other actions, just adding compost to range lands. How about adding every year? How about that plus any number of other additional techniques?
Stop with your misinformation. Or is it disinformation, since you’ve been asked to stop this myriad times?
And NOAA has posted for March with a global anomaly of +0.83ºC, showing a bit more of a bounce back up than seen in the March GISTEMP/TLT anomalies, in NOAA up from +0.68ºC in February while January sat at +0.70ºC. It is 5th warmest March on record (6th in GISTEMP, =6th in UAH, RSS 5th), in NOAA behind March 2016 (+1.23ºC), 2017 (+1.02ºC), 2015 (+0.90ºC), 2010 (+0.85ºC). Of earlier 2018 months, Jan 2018 was also ranked 5th in NOAA but Feb 2018 ranked 11th.
March 2018 sits as =26th highest NOAA anomaly on-record for all-months (GISTEMP =20th, =74th in UAH, RSS 52nd).
The three-month average Jan-Mar 2018 gives the 6th warmest start to the year (GISTEMP =4th, 9th in UAH, RSS 6th), in NOAA behind 2016, 2017 & 2015, and 2001/2010. See here for a graph of recent monthly anomalies (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
good link on SLR, Hank. I think it says AMOC slowdown is going to create localized SLR on Atlantic Coast that will be an expensive nuisance, but I might be overstating the case there.
Here are some quotes to consider on the AMOC slowdown:
“I think we’re close to a tipping point,” climatologist Michael Mann told ThinkProgress in an email. The AMOC slow down “is without precedent” in more than a millennium he said, adding, “It’s happening about a century ahead of schedule relative to what the models predict.”
A video from Potsdam Institute explains how we know the slowdown is being driven by human-caused climate change: The observed fingerprint of temperature changes in the Atlantic are precisely what the models predicted would happen when the slowdown began in earnest.
The impacts are serious. A slow-down in deepwater ocean circulation “would accelerate sea level rise off the northeastern United States, while a full collapse could result in as much as approximately 1.6 feet of regional sea level rise,” as the authors of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) explained in November.
This extra rise in East Coast sea levels would be on top of whatever multi-foot sea level rise the entire world sees. An AMOC slowdown would reduce regional warming a bit, especially in Europe, but “would also lead to a reduction of ocean carbon dioxide uptake, and thus an acceleration of global-scale warming.” https://thinkprogress.org/climate-tipping-point-century-ahead-of-schedule-warns-scientist-06d633f968fc/
from Rahmstorf: Some of the AMOC’s disruption may be driven by the melting ice sheet of Greenland, another consequence of climate change that is altering the region’s water composition and interrupts the natural processes.
This is “something that climate models have predicted for a long time, but we weren’t sure it was really happening. I think it is happening,” said one of the study’s authors, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “And I think it’s bad news.”
As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.
an SR tweet: “And if the ocean circulation is sensitive to climate change, as is highly likely, will the currents respond abruptly and perhaps violently at some point, or will the transition be smooth? These are among the most pressing questions in climate science.”
Guardian Rahmstorf quote: “We are dealing with a system that in some aspects is highly non-linear, so fiddling with it is very dangerous, because you may well trigger some surprises,” he said. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know. We should avoid disrupting the Amoc at all costs.”
so, Hank… you say reality if scary enough and I agree with you on that. Please direct your constraints on talk about tipping points and our very dangerous fiddling with a highly non-linear system at the right folks: the scientists who are speaking. I am not putting words in their mouths. Can you get them to tone it down a bit? Are they making things sounds scarier than the reality? Get after them, buddy.
global average sfc T anomalies [as] indicative of anomalies in outgoing energy…is not well supported over the historical temperature record in the model ensemble or more recent satellite observations
CCHolleysays
Victor @104
This is to announce the creation of yet another climate change post, part 3 in the series so far, on my Mole in the Ground blog. The topic: sea level rise. Since my comments are no longer welcome here, I urge all interested parties to read, and respond,…
Not interested.
Discourse is never in the spirit of learning, rather it is to arrogantly proclaim superior knowledge in areas for which the evidence actually shows he has little or no knowledge or expertise.
Clearly never makes any attempt to understand the science and what the evidence actually tells us…never completes legitimate research of areas for which claims are made prior to posting. Expects others to do the work for him then ignores it…regularly disregards evidence and facts provided to him that make his points invalid and without merit.
Seems to fail to understand or acknowledge basic physical laws…likely no formal training in physics or any of the physical sciences. Zero understanding of how science actually works.
Has no knowledge of the history of science and how the case for AGW was built over many many years. Does not have any knowledge of how data is analyzed. Fails to recognize uncertainty except when it supports his arguments.
Fails to understand complexity and how various factors interplay with one another. Looks at information in isolation rather than in the context of the whole. Fails to understand what is important versus what isn’t in drawing conclusions.
Does not understand what constitutes correlations. Fails to understand that correlations can be non-linear over periods of time. Has no understanding of statistical analysis. Regularly claims lack of correlation when correlation is statistically valid.
Very questionable critical thinking skills. Is incapable of drawing logical conclusions based on ALL of the available information.
Moneymaking opportunities in the climate risk assessment area.
for the most part, government researchers aren’t in the business of telling people how to prepare.
Insurance companies are in that business, and are increasingly drawing on climate experts to advise them.
Jesse Bell, a research scientist at North Carolina State University’s Institute for Climate Studies consults for the actuaries who gauge risk for insurance companies. He says one thing they worry a lot about is extreme heat. “Heat and heat waves actually kill more people than any other extreme event. So this is more than hurricanes, tornadoes, all these other events,” he says.
Rebecca Owen, an actuary who advises insurers and health care providers about extreme weather, says hospitals have to plan on who to look out for. “If those heat waves come and we have people with upper respiratory disease or heart disease,” she explains, “their condition may become more severe, so they have to go to the emergency room.” She notes that people receiving dialysis are also prone to suffer during heat waves.
Climate change could also bring more droughts. That means more dust in peoples’ lungs. Longer pollen seasons mean more allergy medicine. Heavier rainfall means more traffic accidents to pay for. These are outcomes insurers are trying to get a handle on.
“It’s just a complex swirling mess,” says Owen. When actuaries share a beer at the bar, she says, they tell the same story: “We worry. Will we have enough assets to cover the expected costs? And then we’ll argue about what the expected costs are, because we don’t know.” Ultimately, she says, “climate change is going to hurt the people among us who have the fewest resources and the least resiliency.”
nigeljsays
MR KIA @123
“WOW, even the UN confirms that the Paris climate accord was of no value:’
Except the UN never said that. The UN said that its pledges are insufficient. But then obviously you start small and build up anyway.It doesn’t mean the agreement is of no value.
You are reading rubbish written by Delingpole who is a pathological liar who twists the truth, a classic case of stupid gone to college, and very politically motivated.
nigeljsays
Huge new discovery of reserves of rare earth elements used in technology, electric cars etc. On seabed near Japan.
There are 100s of scientific rigorous climate ‘articles’ of serious and urgent immediate concern in need of being communicated to the public and journalists that could written and presented here.
Instead readers get The Silurian Hypothesis, a weaker Atlantic overturning circulation, Harde Times, Alsup asks for answers (and gets none), Rideau Canal Skateway, then More ice-out and skating day data sets.
All useless rubbish that goes against every Principle in the IPCC Communication handbook and breaks every rule in the Marketing handbook of Common Sense and breaks every known fact in the scientific research finding of psychology, sociology, advertising, marketing, public communications, cognitive science and political science.
The ‘climate scientists’ here repeatedly ignore The Known Science of Communication as well as the already known facts of climate realities.
Instead it is Egos all the way down.
Brian Dodgesays
Mr. Know It All18 Apr 2018 at 1:50 AM “WOW, even the UN confirms that the Paris climate accord was of no value:”
The report actually says that the value of the Paris Accords is one third of the required amounts to keep global warming below 2 degrees.
“The NDCs that form the foundation of the Paris Agreement cover only approximately one third of the emissions reductions needed to be on a least-cost pathway for the goal of staying well below 2°C.”
Anyone who thinks that 1/3 = 0 and that therefore justifies sabotaging even the 1/3 by withdrawing completely from the accords is what former Secretary of State Tillerson said.
A sidebar link in this “Paris climate accord was of no value” story points to climate change denial business rag (Investors Business Daily) which misrepresents science to “prove” that “A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts”
“Climate Change: Scientists just discovered a massive, heretofore unknown, source of nitrogen. Why does this matter? Because it could dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that everybody claims are based on “settled science.”
The researchers, whose findings were published in the prestigious journal Science, say they’ve determined that the idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air is wrong. There are vast storehouses in the planet’s bedrock that plants also feed on.This is potentially huge news, since what it means is that there is a vastly larger supply of nitrogen than previously believed.” https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-model-nitrogen-rocks/
What the science actually says –
“About 11 to 18 teragrams of this nitrogen are chemically weathered in situ, thereby increasing the unmanaged (preindustrial) terrestrial nitrogen balance from 8 to 26%” http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/58
I don’t think that I would trust business advice from people that think “8 to 26%” is “vastly larger” or that 1/3=0, let alone depend on them for science analysis.
jgnfldsays
@123
Apparently Mr. Know It All doesn’t in fact know everything. The Paris Agreement is a beginning. In particular, it espouses transparency in proposed actions as no progress is possible without good information (good information being the bane of deniers). It is, in fact, “toothless” as the article states, but (surprise!) the teeth were never meant to be in the agreement but rather in the continuing transparency which over time will produce change.
I always love how deniers deem slow progress as no progress. It is going to take decades to change the energy economy. Simple fact.
Faster. Everythings going faster. This is a collapse by any measure. Seems the corals in the Great Barrier Reef took a bigger hit than expected.
As I old myself in 2011, it’s the extremes.
Do climate scientists need to communicate this more and averages less?
What does this tell us about the general state of the system, scientifically speaking, that ocean heat waves are now 33% more likely and are having such devastating effects?
If you bother to check what Mr. KIA claims is said by the pages he links to, you’ll find he misstates what’s there.
KIA said: “UN confirms that the Paris climate accord was of no value”
Actual words quoted from the link he gives:
UN Environment admits in its latest Emissions Shortfall report, even when you add up all the CO2 reduction pledges made by all the signatory nations at Paris, it still comes to only a third of what is supposedly necessary to stop the world warming by more than 2 degrees C by the end of this century.
1/3 of enough versus nothing — how old does a child have to be to tell the difference between “nothing” and “1/3 full”?
No wonder he has trouble understanding climate science. He has trouble with basic arithmetic. Or pretends to, of course.
Victorsays
130
CCHolley says, re Victor @104: “Not interested.”
Well, why would you be interested, CC? After I totally demolished your feeble attempt to compare the complex, confusing and controversial current state of climate science with Newton’s laws of motion, I wouldn’t expect you to be “interested.” If my arguments were as feeble as you claim, you’d have had no trouble refuting them, either here or on my blog. Yet, not a peep out of you.
Unless you regard a long list of ad hominem insults as refutation.
As for sea level rise: we see 30 years of steep global temperature rise during a time when, according to Spencer Weart, whose views on this matter are shared by most if not all climate scientists, “the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. . .” (from “The Discovery of Global Warming,” by Spencer Weart
— https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm)
Followed by a period of roughly 40 years during which we see NO rising temperature trend whatever. This assessment has nothing to do with my knowledge of physics, statistics, etc., or lack of same, but represents the widely accepted consensus among climate scientists on both sides of the fence. Please by all means explain how a period of roughly 70 years when CO2 levels could not have played more than a minor role in global warming can be part of some alarming “long term” trend, threatening the world with out of control sea rise.
I am more than willing to debate these issues on any available venue, but obviously you are not.
Mike @87,
You may have notd that ESRL seem to be suffering with eratic CO2 readings at MLO over the last week so we have had an exceptional run of “unavailabe” daily readings. The Scripps Institute have also had their problems so evem with Scripps managing a few recent daily values, the exceptional run of ESRL problems may still be down to messy CO2 readings.
Further to my blather @99, I did have a bit of a look at those MEI/CO2-rise wobbles.
This is the MEI/CO2-rise wobble graphed out (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’). It is probably best to restrict any analysis to post-Pinatubo years so no obvious volcanic effect is present.
Yet for the period 1997-to-date, MEI proves to be not such a good proxy as the CO2-rise ‘response’ is not looking entirely linear-in-form and is probably better characterised as a linear response to El Ninos with much of the rest of the time sitting at an unwobbled value (0.25ppm/yr below the long term linear trend in CO2-rise) with just the occasional La Nina incident resulting in the CO2-rise dipping significantly below that 0.25ppm/yr-below-average level. (In numbers, with a simple calculated linear relationship it still leaves two-thirds of the wobble unattributed: +/-0.9ppm/yr(2sd) reduces to +/-0.6ppm/yr.)
As of now (or perhaps mor precisely, as of last week given the ESRL problems) the CO2-rise is sitting at that unwobbled value (0.25ppm/yr below the long term linear trend in CO2-rise) but there does seem to be potential for one of those La-Nina-caused dips in the CO2-rise numbers perhaps in parallel with the re-aligned +8months ENSO dip. (The rolling 4-week & 9-week CO2-rise averages alongside MEI are all plotted here – usually 2 clicks).Yet with ENSO forecasts suggesting a transition to neutral conditions in the next month-or-so and probably thence to some form of El Nino for the back-end of the year, there would be little-enough negative ENSO appearing as a 12-month average to attribute much of a low CO2-rise to. (Can we expect an ENSO wobble any larger than the La Nina-conditions of 1997? Of course, that 1997-MEI-dip did also show a little CO2-rise dip!) Mind, these are also rolling 12-month average CO2-rise values being used so even if April came in with a CO2-rise of just 1ppm (and it would take some high CO2 levels to reverse the low rise seen through the start of the month, so a low rise is perhaps the expected outcome for April), such a low CO2-rise if restricted to a month or even two or more, it would not be so greatly significant within the 12-month average.
Carriesays
128 mike
Looks as if Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf are being extremely skyrockety. We do not need this type of scaremongering about ‘maybes’ and guesses. Do we? Mann “It’s happening about a century ahead of schedule relative to what the models predict.” Then logically either it is not really happening or the models were wrong. And wrong in aspects beyond the AMOC. Mann cannot have it both ways. Can he?
And yet “The observed fingerprint of temperature changes in the Atlantic are precisely what the models predicted would happen when the slowdown began in earnest.” Now the models are right? from Rahmstorf: “Some of the AMOC’s disruption may be driven” Only ‘may be’. Well is it or isn’t it? Hedging the bets yet again. We should wait until the science is definitive and backed up with evidence based observations of the real world before getting all skyrockety and hysterical. Shouldn’t we?
This is “something that climate models have predicted for a long time, but we weren’t sure it was really happening. I think it is happening,” He ‘thinks’ it’s happening but really he does not know. And yet the climate models did not predict this would be happening now according to Mann. So back to above, logically either it is not really happening or the models were wrong, and today’s models that say it may be happening now maybe also wrong.
“I think it is happening,” said one of the study’s authors, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
I think he may be wrong. I am not convinced by people who are not going to be convinced about their own models and their own science and their own claims. Especially when they cannot prove it or stand up to defend their own claims with maybes.
“As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.” May not? Great fear? May be a “tipping point”? May be come to a complete halt? But when will this may be happen? Sounds awfully skyrockety and ‘may be’ fear mongering.
an SR tweet: “And if the ocean circulation is sensitive to climate change, as is highly likely, will the currents respond abruptly and perhaps violently at some point, or will the transition be smooth? ” If? Or will, or will? Is ocean circulation sensitive to climate change and higher temps? Yes or no. 100 plus years of climate science, paleoclimate research, and atmospheric physics and here Rahmstorf states he does not know for certain yet.
Rahmstorf states “These are among the most pressing questions in climate science.” So he does not know. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know.” And people still wonder why activist climate deniers and special interest groups are easily able to drive a oil tanker sized argument through all the claims and public statements made by most climate scientists.
“We should avoid disrupting the Amoc at all costs.” Should we? But he just said the AMOC was already being disrupted. Too late already to not disrupt it. Imagine something could be done to turn back the dial of AMOC disruption. What are those actions in the real world? No vague motherhood statements please. What emissions by how much by when where exactly by whom what industries for how long? What replaces all that? What needs to change in society in nations in politics in governments to achieve those specific reductions and massive changes in social norms?
Be specific and prove that it can be done using science based verifiable evidence. No fairy tales, no mythical stories, no assumptions, no guesses, no hopes, no wild idealistic imaginations or fantasy scenarios.
No impossible skyrockety delusions or unfounded beliefs of reducing emissions that stops climate change stops the AMOC from collapsing while everything else remains the same.
The Song Remains the Same (Led Zeppelin NY 1973) “I had a dream. Crazy dream. Anything I wanted to know, any place I needed to go. Hear my song. People won’t you listen now? Sing along.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtVKz0rv4cg
After I totally demolished your feeble attempt to compare the complex, confusing and controversial current state of climate science with Newton’s laws of motion, I wouldn’t expect you to be “interested.”
Argument by assertion, climate science is not controversial or confusing. My attempt was straight forward and accurate, Victor is simply a moron incapable of understanding scientific realities (not an ad hominem, a direct observation).
As for sea level rise: we see 30 years of steep global temperature rise during a time when, according to Spencer Weart, whose views on this matter are shared by most if not all climate scientists, “the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. . .” (from “The Discovery of Global Warming,” by Spencer Weart
IPCC states that the period up to 1940 is so lacking in accurate data that it is impossible to determine with any precision what the exact causes were…that’s the scientific consensus. The amount of warming is also suspect due to to the uncertainties and the change in wartime measurements of sea surface temperatures. Again, this is a period of high uncertainty of which it is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. Victor has been told this many times. Sometime perhaps Victor should research how the earlier global temperature records have been constructed from the data along with the uncertainty. Not likely, though, actual research of the science is not something Victor seems capable of doing.
Exact rate of sea level rise for any period prior to satellites is also highly uncertain. However, latest Hay study shows greater correlation to temperatures. (Victor refuses to research and attempt to understand how sea level rise is determined and its uncertainties prior to the satellite era). Regardless, correlation of sea level rise to *global* temperatures is in no way indicative of the cause of warming. Also for any period of sea level rise, one needs to look at ocean temperature increases, which are not necessarily in lock step with global temperatures…i.e. anthropogenic aerosols are regional with mostly a cooling effect over land, not oceans. Not to mention that land ice will continue to melt long after any pause in temperature rise.
Please by all means explain how a period of roughly 70 years when CO2 levels could not have played more than a minor role in global warming can be part of some alarming “long term” trend, threatening the world with out of control sea rise.
False claim. Argument by assertion, there is no 70 year period where it can be shown CO2 warming only played a minor role in temperatures or sea level rise. Also a logical fallacy. Current trend since the 1970s and the satellite era are well documented. Sea level rise is accelerating. CO2 levels are accelerating. Surface temperatures are warming. And ocean temperatures are increasing.
On the other hand, Victor has been unable to explain why CO2 is not causing the current warming trend. He has not provided evidence showing that there are significant negative feedbacks that would offset the radiative imbalance caused by the energy absorption properties of the CO2. Radiative imbalance that has been observed and indisputable properties that result in an ECS of at least 2 degrees celsius. Nor has he provide evidence of alternative causes of warming that would result in the observed nights warming faster than days and winters warming faster than summers.
I stand by my observations of Victor posted @120. Victor’s latest post only confirms the observations. Victor belongs in the borehole, he’s earned it.
Interested in feedback about the issues raised in the following short radio segment in particular the use of the terms diabolic and wicked. Do you feel these approaches could be useful or not? Thank you.
132 – Hank R wrote “We worry. Will we have enough assets to cover the expected costs?”
From the CDC:
During 1999–2003, a total of 3,442 deaths resulting from exposure to extreme heat were reported (annual mean: 688). For 2,239 (65%) of these deaths, the underlying cause of death was recorded as exposure to excessive heat; for the remaining 1,203 (35%), hyperthermia was recorded as a contributing factor. Deaths among males accounted for 66% of deaths and outnumbered deaths among females in all age groups (Figure).
Let us know which insurers can’t handle the cost of fewer than 1,000 people per year dying from heat waves. I want to make sure I do not have any of their insurance.
Mr. Know It Allsays
136 – Carrie
“There are 100s of scientific rigorous climate ‘articles’ of serious and urgent immediate concern in need of being communicated to the public and journalists that could written and presented here.”
Got any examples of such articles that already exist? I want to see a good description of how global warming works – very detailed, how the models calculate temp rise due to increased CO2, etc.
You might want to get with Thomas to discuss better communication techniques.
“I am more than willing to debate these issues on any available venue, but obviously you are not.”
Yeah, we noticed your willingness to ‘debate’.
However, since your version of the verb has proven in the past here to mean ‘repetitively assert what you claim, without regard to logical rebuttals made’, the prospect is less than inviting. (Eg., the Great Air Conditioner Debacle, where you made yourself appear extremely foolish, IMO.)
I expect your assertions here will be rebutted as needed, but I for one certainly will not be following you elsewhere. Life is way too short.
Victor @91
Victor, apparently is a slow learner, the sea level issue has been discussed previously.
Sea level rise is highly variable about the mean level due to the hydrological cycle. However, long term variations can only be accounted for by changes in the mean surface temperatures. This is based on physics, physics that Victor fails to learn. Warmer temperatures raise sea levels by melting land ice and thermal expansion of the water. Cooling temperatures lower sea levels by the growth of land ice and the contraction of cooler water.
The problems Victor states with sea level rise correlating to temperatures has nothing to do with the cause of the temperature rise. Nothing. Yes, one would expect long term sea level changes to follow temperatures. However, this correlation does not matter on what the cause of warming is. And, perfect correlation to temperature would not be expected because ice will not stop melting just because warming stopped, it takes time for the ice to reach thermal equilibrium. This is quite basic and even someone like Victor should understand that. Questioning the correlation of sea level rise to CO2 is pointless and meaningless, the direct correlation should be to its cause–warming temperatures.
So perhaps although we know sea level rises should be correlated to temperatures, if that correlation is not as close as one would expect, we might need to look at the data.
Yes, sea level measurement and analysis is highly complex and problematic as Stefan points out. Sea levels are effected by movement of land masses both upward and downward, changes in gravitational pulls on the water due to changes in ice masses. Changes in currents and winds, salinity, and so on. Tide gauges are located close to land, thus not giving a complete picture. Not only that, different tide gauge sites use different technologies. Different analysis of the data give different results.
The most commonly used sea level rise reconstruct is Church & White and is the one used by Stefan in the video. Interestingly, the chart becomes better correlated to temperatures once satellite measurements are used rather than tide gages.
But Church & White is not the only analysis. Jevrejeva et al and Hay et al reconstructs both are more closely aligned with temperature changes. Hay et al of 2015 shows steady rise from 1900 to 1940 with a plateau with almost no rise until about 1980, then a continuation of the earlier trend until 1993 when sharp acceleration begins. Hay et al is likely more accurate due to the statistical approach used. Note the date of the Hay paper, 2015, is after Stefan made his video.
It can only be caused by warming. Water in the oceans does not appear by magic. Using sea levels to somehow cast doubt on CO2 warming is simply inane. Actually, it is absurd.
Reference:
Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
Hmmm. Forced or Unforced? Decisions, decisions…. I’m going with Unforced.
In case you missed it, Gavin Schmidt flies a TARDIS:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-earths-only-civilization/557180/?utm_source=feed
The Guardian says: “the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc), has weakened by 15% since 1950, thanks to melting Greenland ice and ocean warming making sea water less dense and more buoyant.
This represents a massive slowdown – equivalent to halting all the world’s rivers three times over, or stopping the greatest river, the Amazon, 15 times. Such weakening has not been seen in at least the last 1,600 years, which is as far back as researchers have analysed so far. Furthermore, the new analyses show the weakening is accelerating.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/13/avoid-at-all-costs-gulf-streams-record-weakening-prompts-warnings-global-warming?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
scientists (including Stefan) are saying we must avoid a serious disruption of the AMOC at all costs. I think by any reasonable measure, we have already incurred a serious disruption of AMOC. 15% weakening? Is that not serious? Maybe serious weakening is defined as 25% slowdown?
where did all the animals go? is the barn door open?
warm regards all
Mike
This is to announce the creation of yet another climate change post, part 3 in the series so far, on my Mole in the Ground blog. The topic: sea level rise. Since my comments are no longer welcome here, I urge all interested parties to read, and respond, at the blog: https://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/04/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-3-sea.html
Mike #103: This was posted in the comment section of the AMOC article: Mike #7: Thanks for the continuing high-quality input. In this case your sense of urgency is laudable, but think of all those in the past who have stepped outside their areas of expertise, have made policy recommendations, and have embarrassed themselves; of the climate deniers who have let their personal beliefs (philosophical, political and/or religious) shape their science and who now have no credibility and can only find employment at or through corporations with vested interests and/or rich ideologues with think-tanks and endowments.
If the scientists stick to science, and the politicians stick to politics and call upon scientists to give evidence and inform policy decisions, they’ll all be better off.
BTW, this AMOC discussion is fascinating. We’re seeing highly uneven global warming, ocean currents spreading the warmth in counter-intuitive ways, and unlikely climate feedbacks. Complexity abounds. The non-scientist observer sits on the edge of his/her seat.
A paper put out by James Hansen’s group describes how global warming in the past may have engendered super-storms. If the AMOC stalls and warm pools proliferate in the tropics, it’s easy to imagine that occurring.
102 a sad state of affairs though it does explain a lot like when people move beyond their own narrowcasted area of expertise into mysticism and fantasy
what is the next comment going to be about that trumps a war hero or he is in the running to be the next pope?
> Mike … ” 15% weakening? Is that not serious? ”
What’s the normal variation in the thing being measured?
To tell what change is unusual or detect a trend takes time and data.
LMGTFY
https://www.google.com/search?q=measures+of+normal+variation
https://www.google.com/search?q=normal+variation+natural+causes
If there’s a correlation to something we take seriously, say how many codfish are caught, or how late Spring comes, or how late blizzards happen, that’ll emerge once people try to correlate what they found about the AMOC with what’s known about those other things.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/heres-to-unsuicide-an-interview-with-richard-powers/
AMOC discussion:
from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5
“Here we provide evidence for a weakening of the AMOC by about 3 ± 1 sverdrups (around 15 per cent) since the mid-twentieth century.”
sounds like evidence of the trend, not natural variation. can’t read what they had to say about natural variation, article is behind paywall at this moment.
how about the variability argument? maybe this is just fine, some say: from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04322-x
“ocean observations, from arrays of sensors strung across the North Atlantic, offered a more reassuring picture: the current was hugely variable, and so a single snapshot could be unrepresentative.”
Yup, there is variability…
“Researchers have now gone back and taken another look. In a paper in Nature this week, scientists present palaeo-oceanographic evidence that deep convection of surface waters in the North Atlantic — the engine that keeps the AMOC in constant motion — began to decline as early as around 1850, probably owing to increased freshwater influx from Arctic ice that had melted at the end of a relatively cold period called the Little Ice Age (D. J. R. Thornalley et al. Nature 556, 227–230; 2018). This could have caused a weakening in the ocean circulation.”
So are we seeing variability or a weakening of the AMOC?
from the article: “Importantly, the findings agree that the AMOC is in a relatively weak state. The wide margin of disagreement between the two independent studies on when the circulation started to weaken is probably due to the different methods used — and it highlights how immensely difficult it is to capture the AMOC’s past variability. This will probably frustrate those who prefer their science to send a clear signal. But then, science is rarely so obliging. Can the effects of climate change and natural variability on the AMOC be disentangled? And if the ocean circulation is sensitive to climate change, as is highly likely, will the currents respond abruptly and perhaps violently at some point, or will the transition be smooth? These are among the most pressing questions in climate science.”
Hey, Hank, do you want to commit to your premise that the AMOC is just showing variability? Is that what the data says to you?
Cheers,
Mike
GISTEMP has posted for March with a TLT global anomaly of +0.89ºC, showing the same tiddly bounce back up seen in the March TLT anomalies, in GISTEMP up from +0.79ºC in February while January sat at +0.77ºC. It is 6th warmest March on record (=6th in UAH, RSS 5th), in GISTEMP behind March 2016 (+1.30ºC), 2017 (+1.12ºC), 2010 (+0.92ºC), 2002 (+0.91ºC), 2015 (+0.90ºC). Earlier 2018 months on GISTEMP were ranked similarly to MArch – Feb 6th and Jan 5th.
March 2018 sits as =20th highest GISTEMP anomaly on-record for all-months (=74th in UAH, RSS 52nd).
The three-month average Jan-Mar gives the =4th warmest start to the year (9th in UAH, RSS 6th) behind 2016, 2017 & 2015, and equalling 2010.
I have a question for any and all who think they might know the answer. I also know I’m probably going to be told to go look the answer up myself, or check the search engine box, but this would be a big time saver for me if anyone would like to give me their perspective, including the climate scientists on here. I’ve read a fair amount about carbon capture and storage, but I have very little technical expertise, or scientific expertise to be perfectly frank, and let’s throw in mathematical knowledge for good measure. From what I understand, drawing down co2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with CCS technologies is way beyond our means at present to make an appreciable difference. I know it is starting to be employed at the factory level, and even that is daunting, but here’s my question…
Is it even a remote possibility that in the future, technologies could draw co2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to make an appreciable difference? Let’s say hypothetically, several billionaires got behind R & D in this area, and spent billions on it. Could we theoretically do it in the future, or is the problem so daunting that it even would violate some rule of physics to even be possible?
If it could be done, is this even a good idea? Would we risk messing up the climate if we drew down greenhouse gases too quickly for example?
This 2006 guest commentary here, Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean, generated a very large response on the internet, much of it claiming Minnett was wrong, and that lack of publication proved it.
So all these years later:
The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation
D 111,
There is a real possibility that agricultural techniques such as biochar could make a difference. There is no real prospect of drawing down CO2 too fast.
hank at 107 says, regarding AMOC slowdown: “If there’s a correlation to something we take seriously, say how many codfish are caught, or how late Spring comes, or how late blizzards happen, that’ll emerge once people try to correlate what they found about the AMOC with what’s known about those other things.”
mike says how about sea level rise? Do we take that seriously? slowdown of AMOC is expected to cause Atlantic Coast SLR. Check the map here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/recent-sea-level-change/
come on, Hank. Get with the program. The AMOC disruption is serious. The scientists who study AMOC are sounding the alarm. I think it’s quite late to sound the alarm, but then you come along and say, what about normal variation? and Does is have any impact on something we take seriously?
Would you like to walk those back a bit?
Cheers
Mike
mike says: “come on, Hank. Get with the program. ”
I’m an equal opportunity critic. Blather is blather.
You’re coming to RC to criticize those trying to explain and understand climate change.
Look, reality is scary enough, and a basic understanding of variability is fundamental to how significance is calculated.
You can’t criticize people productively until you understand a little about how the science is done.
Yes, a 15 percent change is worrisome.
Being able to detect that from the paleo record is remarkable and commendable.
B 113
Thank you for responding to my question. So, that’s it? Biochar-possibly? No “machines” could be invented to do it? Thanks again, I do appreciate it.
PS for mike, I think this is the paper you’re looking for:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7346#f4
111 Douglas:
Yes, carbon capture can make a difference, but it’s pointless to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into coal when others are digging up coal and burning it. I would like to see more research being done, though. What we have now is not thoroughly tested.
111 Douglas said, #113 Bart said Is it even a remote possibility that in the future, technologies could draw co2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to make an appreciable difference?… If it could be done, is this even a good idea? Would we risk messing up the climate if we drew down greenhouse gases too quickly for example?
There is a real possibility that agricultural techniques such as biochar could make a difference. There is no real prospect of drawing down CO2 too fast.
Possible tech could do it? Sure. It’s possible the sun will blow up tomorrow,I suppose, but not very likely. Relying on non-existent tech to solve an existing, urgent problem is rather poor risk management. When solutions exist for that problem that do not create new problems, this is a good thing. As BPL said, there are ways to do this, but drawing down, no matter how you do it, will not be enough because we have serious issues from pollution and declining resources, including declining biosystems.
But, yes, using changes in agriculture alone, it should be possible to draw down more than enough to have negative emissions once things are ramped up to global scale. If we simplify and reduce emissions to 80-90% of current, all the more so.
Or, if we simplify to that degree, almost any sequestration would lead to at least a little draw down. Just letting the oceans restock themselves can drown 30Gt of carbon. That’s a one-time change, but permanent. Things like bio-char are essentially permanent as they can remain in the soil for a very long time. There are terra preta deposits in the Amazon that are very, very old and a meter or two thick. That is a lot of carbon and can be done anywhere on Earth. Regenerative gardening/farming and livestock management can do more.
The issue is merely awareness and will. We can do this.
Opportunities abound to invest in better infrastructure and reduce risks:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/17/us/san-francisco-earthquake-seismic-gamble.html/
Hank and Mike, you are talking past each other a bit.
Mike, Hank didn’t say it was natural variability, he was merely being scientifically pedantic in pointing out what is obvious: There’s a signal, but variability obscures that. He said this as a sort of caution to not overreact. He didn’t say that so clearly in his first response to you. He said it better in his second, but then he got a bit rude, as is his typical approach.
Hank, Mike is correct to be concerned. You consistently underplay the changes we are seeing. Those of us that have spoken more stridently the last ten years have been far closer to the mark than the cohort calling us alarmists. The nature of bifurcations alone *should* be enough to make everyone studying climate “alarmist.”
You think that because you can speak the technical side, the maths, of science better than some that you understand the system better. This is a logical fallacy. The last ten years have proven this. You are consistently behind the curve while others of us are ahead of it.
Scientific reticence has its negative aspect, and your comments typically express that perfectly, as they do here. 15% is a huge deal, not just worrying, given rapid, sub-decadal changes are part of the record, as Stefan wrote, and only more likely now than ever before. Tipping points are *the* thing in climate science.
So, Hank, ease up. You used to be approachable. I’ve looked at old conversations. Come back from the dark side and stop harassing people for being human.
Douglas @111, not a climate scientist but I have done some reading about this recently. My understanding is carbon capture and storage is proven technology applied to coal fired power or direct atmospheric capture and burying the emissions. The trouble is its expensive (although not prohibitively). Its not going to happen until theres a realistic price on carbon or state subsidies. It’s not an approach that enthuses me, as it might tend to encourage keeping coal fired power.
The natural ways of carbon capture and storage is using farming systems that encourage soil carbon. This requires investment and different methods of farming and theres a current lack of farmers sufficiently motivated, and a lack of financial incentives for changing farming systems. There are some pilot schemes around that get subsidies, and it doesnt need huge subsidies. Its a question of political and individual will. It looks cost effective.
All these natural systems of modified farming can draw down a lot of CO2 given enough scaling up and enough time for the process to work, which takes significant time.The other benefit is modifying farming systems does not require new land, so its just about use of biochar, compost, no till farming etcetera.
And there is planting forests of course, but again this needs incentives and land. However it has significant potential to sequester carbon.
BECCS is another system that uses fast growing trees to be burned for electricity generation, and emissions stored underground in old oil wells, and deep permeable rock formations, but this needs gigantic areas of land, irrigation and fertiliser and expensive, energy intensive processes. Its plausible in theory, but a pilot scheme was abandoned because of problems so not looking promising. The huge scale and land and resources required has massive challenges and its own set of environmental impacts that could be negative. I do recall seeing that BECCS could draw down 30% of emissions, but needs land the size of two Indias!
Sorry I dont have time for internet references, and these things are reasonably easy to google.
111- Douglas
Yes, technology exists to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. They’ve pumped into underground, turned it into “rock”, etc. Don’t know how much energy it would take to make a dent – but if it’s not more than the output of a couple of big nuke plants, we might as well get right to it.
That would be a job for governments – probably take more than rich billionaires could come up with.
WOW, even the UN confirms that the Paris climate accord was of no value: https://climatechangedispatch.com/trump-vindicated-un-confirms-the-paris-climate-accord-was-complete-waste-of-space/
95 – Ray
Here’s one for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkONHNXGfaM
Here are some stats for you:
https://www.americanewshub.com/2017/11/14/heres-percentage-democrats-believe-sex-not-determined-birth/
98 – Kevin
We can’t base our society on the false beliefs of a few people; they can believe what they want, but they can’t force the rest of us to affirm their beliefs and that is exactly what they are doing – see youtube video above in this comment.
#123, KIA–The ‘Paris is useless’ link is spectacularly stupid; please don’t waste your time and ours. Can you spot any of the numerous ‘fails’ in it, or do you need someone to hold your hand and walk you through it?
On gender: it’s way OT, but on the face of it, believing that gender is not purely a matter of biological inheritance is clearly not the same as believing that ‘there is no difference between men and women,’ since if the latter were what ‘Dems’ believed, there would be in their minds no ‘thing’ to be arguing over in the first place.
“We can’t base our society on the false beliefs of a few people…”
Sadly, observation proves the contrary, as the entire governmental apparatus is currently in the hands of an ultra-wealthy oligarchy which is busily structuring the social and economic framework of our society to their own immediate advantage–and doing so under the “false belief” that we can continue to use fossil fuels without let or hindrance, and never have a climatic or ecological ‘bill’ come due.
Of course, it comes due soonest for the poor, the foreign and the brown, and bites longest for the young, whereas the oligarchs are overwhelmingly white nativists of a ‘certain age’.
D 116,
We could invent giant industrial plants to take CO2 out of the air by physical/chemical means, and some such processes have been tested. I’m not sure they can be deployed quickly, but we will probably have to do this eventually.
#122 nigelj said The natural ways of carbon capture and storage is using farming systems that encourage soil carbon. This requires investment and different methods of farming and theres a current lack of farmers sufficiently motivated
Wrong. In any industry growing as fast as regenerative farming we’d call it explosive. Maybe you should be in advertising… for FFs or cigarettes.
a lack of financial incentives for changing farming systems.
True.
All these natural systems of modified farming can draw down a lot of CO2 given enough scaling up and enough time for the process to work, which takes significant time.
Bull. Impacts are immediate. At one percent a year, that’s dirt to great soil in five years. Why keep bleating this false claim? Stop it. At half that, it’s ten years. And, in fact, most farm soil around the world actually only has 1-3% carbon, so the time is even shorter than the numbers above.
All that takes time is for you to let go of your biases and accept facts.
http://www.carboncycle.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Ryals_et_al_2014.pdf
One application, one, increased soil carbon 26%. No other actions, just adding compost to range lands. How about adding every year? How about that plus any number of other additional techniques?
Stop with your misinformation. Or is it disinformation, since you’ve been asked to stop this myriad times?
And NOAA has posted for March with a global anomaly of +0.83ºC, showing a bit more of a bounce back up than seen in the March GISTEMP/TLT anomalies, in NOAA up from +0.68ºC in February while January sat at +0.70ºC. It is 5th warmest March on record (6th in GISTEMP, =6th in UAH, RSS 5th), in NOAA behind March 2016 (+1.23ºC), 2017 (+1.02ºC), 2015 (+0.90ºC), 2010 (+0.85ºC). Of earlier 2018 months, Jan 2018 was also ranked 5th in NOAA but Feb 2018 ranked 11th.
March 2018 sits as =26th highest NOAA anomaly on-record for all-months (GISTEMP =20th, =74th in UAH, RSS 52nd).
The three-month average Jan-Mar 2018 gives the 6th warmest start to the year (GISTEMP =4th, 9th in UAH, RSS 6th), in NOAA behind 2016, 2017 & 2015, and 2001/2010. See here for a graph of recent monthly anomalies (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
good link on SLR, Hank. I think it says AMOC slowdown is going to create localized SLR on Atlantic Coast that will be an expensive nuisance, but I might be overstating the case there.
Here are some quotes to consider on the AMOC slowdown:
“I think we’re close to a tipping point,” climatologist Michael Mann told ThinkProgress in an email. The AMOC slow down “is without precedent” in more than a millennium he said, adding, “It’s happening about a century ahead of schedule relative to what the models predict.”
A video from Potsdam Institute explains how we know the slowdown is being driven by human-caused climate change: The observed fingerprint of temperature changes in the Atlantic are precisely what the models predicted would happen when the slowdown began in earnest.
The impacts are serious. A slow-down in deepwater ocean circulation “would accelerate sea level rise off the northeastern United States, while a full collapse could result in as much as approximately 1.6 feet of regional sea level rise,” as the authors of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) explained in November.
This extra rise in East Coast sea levels would be on top of whatever multi-foot sea level rise the entire world sees. An AMOC slowdown would reduce regional warming a bit, especially in Europe, but “would also lead to a reduction of ocean carbon dioxide uptake, and thus an acceleration of global-scale warming.” https://thinkprogress.org/climate-tipping-point-century-ahead-of-schedule-warns-scientist-06d633f968fc/
from Rahmstorf: Some of the AMOC’s disruption may be driven by the melting ice sheet of Greenland, another consequence of climate change that is altering the region’s water composition and interrupts the natural processes.
This is “something that climate models have predicted for a long time, but we weren’t sure it was really happening. I think it is happening,” said one of the study’s authors, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “And I think it’s bad news.”
As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.
an SR tweet: “And if the ocean circulation is sensitive to climate change, as is highly likely, will the currents respond abruptly and perhaps violently at some point, or will the transition be smooth? These are among the most pressing questions in climate science.”
Guardian Rahmstorf quote: “We are dealing with a system that in some aspects is highly non-linear, so fiddling with it is very dangerous, because you may well trigger some surprises,” he said. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know. We should avoid disrupting the Amoc at all costs.”
so, Hank… you say reality if scary enough and I agree with you on that. Please direct your constraints on talk about tipping points and our very dangerous fiddling with a highly non-linear system at the right folks: the scientists who are speaking. I am not putting words in their mouths. Can you get them to tone it down a bit? Are they making things sounds scarier than the reality? Get after them, buddy.
Cheers
Mike
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/acp-18-5147-2018.pdf
global average sfc T anomalies [as] indicative of anomalies in outgoing energy…is not well supported over the historical temperature record in the model ensemble or more recent satellite observations
Victor @104
Not interested.
Discourse is never in the spirit of learning, rather it is to arrogantly proclaim superior knowledge in areas for which the evidence actually shows he has little or no knowledge or expertise.
Clearly never makes any attempt to understand the science and what the evidence actually tells us…never completes legitimate research of areas for which claims are made prior to posting. Expects others to do the work for him then ignores it…regularly disregards evidence and facts provided to him that make his points invalid and without merit.
Seems to fail to understand or acknowledge basic physical laws…likely no formal training in physics or any of the physical sciences. Zero understanding of how science actually works.
Has no knowledge of the history of science and how the case for AGW was built over many many years. Does not have any knowledge of how data is analyzed. Fails to recognize uncertainty except when it supports his arguments.
Fails to understand complexity and how various factors interplay with one another. Looks at information in isolation rather than in the context of the whole. Fails to understand what is important versus what isn’t in drawing conclusions.
Does not understand what constitutes correlations. Fails to understand that correlations can be non-linear over periods of time. Has no understanding of statistical analysis. Regularly claims lack of correlation when correlation is statistically valid.
Very questionable critical thinking skills. Is incapable of drawing logical conclusions based on ALL of the available information.
Mr. KIA relies on notably feeble sources for his news beliefs, sad to say.
https://www.google.com/search?q=climatechangedispatch+skeptic
https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=603230754
Moneymaking opportunities in the climate risk assessment area.
MR KIA @123
“WOW, even the UN confirms that the Paris climate accord was of no value:’
Except the UN never said that. The UN said that its pledges are insufficient. But then obviously you start small and build up anyway.It doesn’t mean the agreement is of no value.
You are reading rubbish written by Delingpole who is a pathological liar who twists the truth, a classic case of stupid gone to college, and very politically motivated.
Huge new discovery of reserves of rare earth elements used in technology, electric cars etc. On seabed near Japan.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12035508
Greg-118
Killian-119
Nigel-122
Thanks a lot for your responses. I am going to study this a bit, and probably have more discussions with you guys soon.
How embarrassing does it need to get
Republicans are even more persuasive than scientists when it comes to correcting misinformation about climate change, researchers found.
The findings have implications for environmental communication strategies that seek to improve awareness about climate change.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-republicans-persuasive-scientists-climate.html
There are 100s of scientific rigorous climate ‘articles’ of serious and urgent immediate concern in need of being communicated to the public and journalists that could written and presented here.
Instead readers get The Silurian Hypothesis, a weaker Atlantic overturning circulation, Harde Times, Alsup asks for answers (and gets none), Rideau Canal Skateway, then More ice-out and skating day data sets.
All useless rubbish that goes against every Principle in the IPCC Communication handbook and breaks every rule in the Marketing handbook of Common Sense and breaks every known fact in the scientific research finding of psychology, sociology, advertising, marketing, public communications, cognitive science and political science.
The ‘climate scientists’ here repeatedly ignore The Known Science of Communication as well as the already known facts of climate realities.
Instead it is Egos all the way down.
Mr. Know It All18 Apr 2018 at 1:50 AM “WOW, even the UN confirms that the Paris climate accord was of no value:”
The report actually says that the value of the Paris Accords is one third of the required amounts to keep global warming below 2 degrees.
“The NDCs that form the foundation of the Paris Agreement cover only approximately one third of the emissions reductions needed to be on a least-cost pathway for the goal of staying well below 2°C.”
Anyone who thinks that 1/3 = 0 and that therefore justifies sabotaging even the 1/3 by withdrawing completely from the accords is what former Secretary of State Tillerson said.
A sidebar link in this “Paris climate accord was of no value” story points to climate change denial business rag (Investors Business Daily) which misrepresents science to “prove” that “A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts”
“Climate Change: Scientists just discovered a massive, heretofore unknown, source of nitrogen. Why does this matter? Because it could dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that everybody claims are based on “settled science.”
The researchers, whose findings were published in the prestigious journal Science, say they’ve determined that the idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air is wrong. There are vast storehouses in the planet’s bedrock that plants also feed on.This is potentially huge news, since what it means is that there is a vastly larger supply of nitrogen than previously believed.”
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-model-nitrogen-rocks/
What the science actually says –
“About 11 to 18 teragrams of this nitrogen are chemically weathered in situ, thereby increasing the unmanaged (preindustrial) terrestrial nitrogen balance from 8 to 26%”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/58
I don’t think that I would trust business advice from people that think “8 to 26%” is “vastly larger” or that 1/3=0, let alone depend on them for science analysis.
@123
Apparently Mr. Know It All doesn’t in fact know everything. The Paris Agreement is a beginning. In particular, it espouses transparency in proposed actions as no progress is possible without good information (good information being the bane of deniers). It is, in fact, “toothless” as the article states, but (surprise!) the teeth were never meant to be in the agreement but rather in the continuing transparency which over time will produce change.
I always love how deniers deem slow progress as no progress. It is going to take decades to change the energy economy. Simple fact.
For Mr. KIA, who is fond of statpicking:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/08/transgender-issues-divide-republicans-and-democrats/
Faster. Everythings going faster. This is a collapse by any measure. Seems the corals in the Great Barrier Reef took a bigger hit than expected.
As I old myself in 2011, it’s the extremes.
Do climate scientists need to communicate this more and averages less?
What does this tell us about the general state of the system, scientifically speaking, that ocean heat waves are now 33% more likely and are having such devastating effects?
Are there no hysterises at all?
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/since-2016-half-the-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-perished/558302/?utm_source=twb
If you bother to check what Mr. KIA claims is said by the pages he links to, you’ll find he misstates what’s there.
KIA said: “UN confirms that the Paris climate accord was of no value”
Actual words quoted from the link he gives:
1/3 of enough versus nothing — how old does a child have to be to tell the difference between “nothing” and “1/3 full”?
No wonder he has trouble understanding climate science. He has trouble with basic arithmetic. Or pretends to, of course.
130
CCHolley says, re Victor @104: “Not interested.”
Well, why would you be interested, CC? After I totally demolished your feeble attempt to compare the complex, confusing and controversial current state of climate science with Newton’s laws of motion, I wouldn’t expect you to be “interested.” If my arguments were as feeble as you claim, you’d have had no trouble refuting them, either here or on my blog. Yet, not a peep out of you.
Unless you regard a long list of ad hominem insults as refutation.
As for sea level rise: we see 30 years of steep global temperature rise during a time when, according to Spencer Weart, whose views on this matter are shared by most if not all climate scientists, “the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. . .” (from “The Discovery of Global Warming,” by Spencer Weart
— https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm)
Followed by a period of roughly 40 years during which we see NO rising temperature trend whatever. This assessment has nothing to do with my knowledge of physics, statistics, etc., or lack of same, but represents the widely accepted consensus among climate scientists on both sides of the fence. Please by all means explain how a period of roughly 70 years when CO2 levels could not have played more than a minor role in global warming can be part of some alarming “long term” trend, threatening the world with out of control sea rise.
I am more than willing to debate these issues on any available venue, but obviously you are not.
Mike @87,
You may have notd that ESRL seem to be suffering with eratic CO2 readings at MLO over the last week so we have had an exceptional run of “unavailabe” daily readings. The Scripps Institute have also had their problems so evem with Scripps managing a few recent daily values, the exceptional run of ESRL problems may still be down to messy CO2 readings.
Further to my blather @99, I did have a bit of a look at those MEI/CO2-rise wobbles.
This is the MEI/CO2-rise wobble graphed out (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’). It is probably best to restrict any analysis to post-Pinatubo years so no obvious volcanic effect is present.
Yet for the period 1997-to-date, MEI proves to be not such a good proxy as the CO2-rise ‘response’ is not looking entirely linear-in-form and is probably better characterised as a linear response to El Ninos with much of the rest of the time sitting at an unwobbled value (0.25ppm/yr below the long term linear trend in CO2-rise) with just the occasional La Nina incident resulting in the CO2-rise dipping significantly below that 0.25ppm/yr-below-average level. (In numbers, with a simple calculated linear relationship it still leaves two-thirds of the wobble unattributed: +/-0.9ppm/yr(2sd) reduces to +/-0.6ppm/yr.)
As of now (or perhaps mor precisely, as of last week given the ESRL problems) the CO2-rise is sitting at that unwobbled value (0.25ppm/yr below the long term linear trend in CO2-rise) but there does seem to be potential for one of those La-Nina-caused dips in the CO2-rise numbers perhaps in parallel with the re-aligned +8months ENSO dip. (The rolling 4-week & 9-week CO2-rise averages alongside MEI are all plotted here – usually 2 clicks).Yet with ENSO forecasts suggesting a transition to neutral conditions in the next month-or-so and probably thence to some form of El Nino for the back-end of the year, there would be little-enough negative ENSO appearing as a 12-month average to attribute much of a low CO2-rise to. (Can we expect an ENSO wobble any larger than the La Nina-conditions of 1997? Of course, that 1997-MEI-dip did also show a little CO2-rise dip!) Mind, these are also rolling 12-month average CO2-rise values being used so even if April came in with a CO2-rise of just 1ppm (and it would take some high CO2 levels to reverse the low rise seen through the start of the month, so a low rise is perhaps the expected outcome for April), such a low CO2-rise if restricted to a month or even two or more, it would not be so greatly significant within the 12-month average.
128 mike
Looks as if Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf are being extremely skyrockety. We do not need this type of scaremongering about ‘maybes’ and guesses. Do we? Mann “It’s happening about a century ahead of schedule relative to what the models predict.” Then logically either it is not really happening or the models were wrong. And wrong in aspects beyond the AMOC. Mann cannot have it both ways. Can he?
And yet “The observed fingerprint of temperature changes in the Atlantic are precisely what the models predicted would happen when the slowdown began in earnest.” Now the models are right? from Rahmstorf: “Some of the AMOC’s disruption may be driven” Only ‘may be’. Well is it or isn’t it? Hedging the bets yet again. We should wait until the science is definitive and backed up with evidence based observations of the real world before getting all skyrockety and hysterical. Shouldn’t we?
This is “something that climate models have predicted for a long time, but we weren’t sure it was really happening. I think it is happening,” He ‘thinks’ it’s happening but really he does not know. And yet the climate models did not predict this would be happening now according to Mann. So back to above, logically either it is not really happening or the models were wrong, and today’s models that say it may be happening now maybe also wrong.
“I think it is happening,” said one of the study’s authors, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
I think he may be wrong. I am not convinced by people who are not going to be convinced about their own models and their own science and their own claims. Especially when they cannot prove it or stand up to defend their own claims with maybes.
“As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.” May not? Great fear? May be a “tipping point”? May be come to a complete halt? But when will this may be happen? Sounds awfully skyrockety and ‘may be’ fear mongering.
an SR tweet: “And if the ocean circulation is sensitive to climate change, as is highly likely, will the currents respond abruptly and perhaps violently at some point, or will the transition be smooth? ” If? Or will, or will? Is ocean circulation sensitive to climate change and higher temps? Yes or no. 100 plus years of climate science, paleoclimate research, and atmospheric physics and here Rahmstorf states he does not know for certain yet.
Rahmstorf states “These are among the most pressing questions in climate science.” So he does not know. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know.” And people still wonder why activist climate deniers and special interest groups are easily able to drive a oil tanker sized argument through all the claims and public statements made by most climate scientists.
“We should avoid disrupting the Amoc at all costs.” Should we? But he just said the AMOC was already being disrupted. Too late already to not disrupt it. Imagine something could be done to turn back the dial of AMOC disruption. What are those actions in the real world? No vague motherhood statements please. What emissions by how much by when where exactly by whom what industries for how long? What replaces all that? What needs to change in society in nations in politics in governments to achieve those specific reductions and massive changes in social norms?
Be specific and prove that it can be done using science based verifiable evidence. No fairy tales, no mythical stories, no assumptions, no guesses, no hopes, no wild idealistic imaginations or fantasy scenarios.
No impossible skyrockety delusions or unfounded beliefs of reducing emissions that stops climate change stops the AMOC from collapsing while everything else remains the same.
The Song Remains the Same (Led Zeppelin NY 1973) “I had a dream. Crazy dream. Anything I wanted to know, any place I needed to go. Hear my song. People won’t you listen now? Sing along.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtVKz0rv4cg
https://aeon.co/videos/the-majestic-earth-as-seen-through-the-eyes-of-astronauts-orbiting-above
Victor @142
Argument by assertion, climate science is not controversial or confusing. My attempt was straight forward and accurate, Victor is simply a moron incapable of understanding scientific realities (not an ad hominem, a direct observation).
IPCC states that the period up to 1940 is so lacking in accurate data that it is impossible to determine with any precision what the exact causes were…that’s the scientific consensus. The amount of warming is also suspect due to to the uncertainties and the change in wartime measurements of sea surface temperatures. Again, this is a period of high uncertainty of which it is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. Victor has been told this many times. Sometime perhaps Victor should research how the earlier global temperature records have been constructed from the data along with the uncertainty. Not likely, though, actual research of the science is not something Victor seems capable of doing.
Exact rate of sea level rise for any period prior to satellites is also highly uncertain. However, latest Hay study shows greater correlation to temperatures. (Victor refuses to research and attempt to understand how sea level rise is determined and its uncertainties prior to the satellite era). Regardless, correlation of sea level rise to *global* temperatures is in no way indicative of the cause of warming. Also for any period of sea level rise, one needs to look at ocean temperature increases, which are not necessarily in lock step with global temperatures…i.e. anthropogenic aerosols are regional with mostly a cooling effect over land, not oceans. Not to mention that land ice will continue to melt long after any pause in temperature rise.
False claim. Argument by assertion, there is no 70 year period where it can be shown CO2 warming only played a minor role in temperatures or sea level rise. Also a logical fallacy. Current trend since the 1970s and the satellite era are well documented. Sea level rise is accelerating. CO2 levels are accelerating. Surface temperatures are warming. And ocean temperatures are increasing.
On the other hand, Victor has been unable to explain why CO2 is not causing the current warming trend. He has not provided evidence showing that there are significant negative feedbacks that would offset the radiative imbalance caused by the energy absorption properties of the CO2. Radiative imbalance that has been observed and indisputable properties that result in an ECS of at least 2 degrees celsius. Nor has he provide evidence of alternative causes of warming that would result in the observed nights warming faster than days and winters warming faster than summers.
I stand by my observations of Victor posted @120. Victor’s latest post only confirms the observations. Victor belongs in the borehole, he’s earned it.
Interested in feedback about the issues raised in the following short radio segment in particular the use of the terms diabolic and wicked. Do you feel these approaches could be useful or not? Thank you.
Denial a coping mechanism for climate change
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/denial-a-coping-mechanism-for-climate-change/9680300
132 – Hank R wrote “We worry. Will we have enough assets to cover the expected costs?”
From the CDC:
During 1999–2003, a total of 3,442 deaths resulting from exposure to extreme heat were reported (annual mean: 688). For 2,239 (65%) of these deaths, the underlying cause of death was recorded as exposure to excessive heat; for the remaining 1,203 (35%), hyperthermia was recorded as a contributing factor. Deaths among males accounted for 66% of deaths and outnumbered deaths among females in all age groups (Figure).
Link:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm
Let us know which insurers can’t handle the cost of fewer than 1,000 people per year dying from heat waves. I want to make sure I do not have any of their insurance.
136 – Carrie
“There are 100s of scientific rigorous climate ‘articles’ of serious and urgent immediate concern in need of being communicated to the public and journalists that could written and presented here.”
Got any examples of such articles that already exist? I want to see a good description of how global warming works – very detailed, how the models calculate temp rise due to increased CO2, etc.
You might want to get with Thomas to discuss better communication techniques.
Victor, #142–
“I am more than willing to debate these issues on any available venue, but obviously you are not.”
Yeah, we noticed your willingness to ‘debate’.
However, since your version of the verb has proven in the past here to mean ‘repetitively assert what you claim, without regard to logical rebuttals made’, the prospect is less than inviting. (Eg., the Great Air Conditioner Debacle, where you made yourself appear extremely foolish, IMO.)
I expect your assertions here will be rebutted as needed, but I for one certainly will not be following you elsewhere. Life is way too short.