This month’s open thread for general climate science discussions.
Reader Interactions
321 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2018"
Killiansays
argh…. that got all messed up. The last few paragraphs were meant to be deleted.
Victorsays
294 CCHolley
“What are the drivers of climate? Unbeknownst to Victor these are well understood.”
Apparently not. Or else climate scientists would have a better explanation for the temp. runup from 1910-1940 than lack of volcanic activity and a better explanation for the 1940-1979 hiatus than industrial aerosol cooling. (See http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-2.html for a thorough debunking of that notion.)
But Greenhouse theory explains nothing, it’s just a long series of contrivances. As I’ve already demonstrated, CO2 levels were too low to have much effect on either temperatures or sea level prior to the 1950’s…
HA HA HA HA HA!
Denial is so funny sometimes… well, when people aren’t dying as a result, anyway.
Victor, this is just so painful. Changes in global temperature don’t just happen. They have causes (or “contingencies” in your shocking comment). What do you think the “usual contingencies” are??? Well, two of them ARE changes in CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) and changes in aerosols. That the former is a positive forcing and that the latter is a negative forcing is not in question. Other factors include orbital and solar dynamics and albedo. So, what exactly is your “simpler” alternative explanation?
And, BTW, one of the nice things about physical models, is that we can draw conclusions about factors from system changes that move in the opposite direction from the impact of the factor. For instance, I can estimate the lift caused by a helicopter’s rotors even if it’s going down. Just like I can estimate the positive forcing of CO2, even if temperatures are going down. If you don’t get that, then please just give up the field.
CCHolleysays
Victor @302
Apparently not. Or else climate scientists would have a better explanation for the temp. runup from 1910-1940 than lack of volcanic activity and a better explanation for the 1940-1979 hiatus than industrial aerosol cooling.
But Victor refuses to read the multiple links to peer reviewed papers covering these periods. He just knows so much better that he does not have to. He is soooo smart!
Victor proclaims the possible explanations for these periods to be poor. In his opinion, a better explanation is needed. Why? Just because. Victor proclaims himself smarter than thousands of climate scientists even though he has no formal training in the hard sciences. Victor refuses to acknowledge that the drivers of climate ARE well understood. Apparently the physics are beyond his comprehension.
Still waiting for Victor’s alternative simpler alternative theory. A theory based on physics and supported by evidence. One that is consistent with nights warming faster than days and the arctic warming faster than the rest of the planet. An explanation with it’s added complexity to deal with off-setting the increasing greenhouse effect. One that explains why the measured radiative imbalance attributed to increased greenhouse gasses is doing nothing.
Nemesissays
Victor, victor all over the place. Well, he fits better to the forum than I do, obviously :’D Bye again :)
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor: “But Greenhouse theory explains nothing,…”
So, Weaktor, I anxiously await your explanation of why Earth’s temperature is 15 degrees C rather than -18 degrees C.
Victorsays
298 nigelj says:
“Your blog is nonsensical. You claim chinas temperatures have continued to increase recently despite their coal burning and sulphate aerosols, with no basic knowledge that 1) they have filters on the power stations to remove most particulate matter like this since the 1980’s,”
As you can see, SO2 emissions peaked in the Americas and Europe around 1980, but the upward trend continued uninterrupted in Asia all the way to 2010, while temperatures continued to rise. Apparently those filters didn’t do much.
“and 2) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere overwhelming particulates, which are short lived in the atmosphere. Because you dont know what you are doing!”
If CO2 were accumulating in the atmosphere to any significant degree since the onset of the industrial revolution, then why wouldn’t it have been overwhelming aerosol particulates after 1940, when global temperatures ceased to rise for roughly 40 years?
Your feeble response is a perfect example of the sort of thing I’ve been trying to drum into the thick skulls of the self-appointed “experts” posting here. It’s always possible to explain away inconvenient evidence by introducing factors that pertain to only one part of the total picture — ad hoc explanations that are easily refuted when one broadens the scope of the research. It would be interesting to see a response from one of the actual climate scientists supervising this blog.
#299 Mr. Know It All said I really enjoyed reading thru the insults in the above comments that have been posted just in the last couple of days.
In all fairness, you are committing what should be criminal activity, so… what do you expect? Crimes Against Humanity and Treason, ya know?
You should be thankful you get any forum, and I am sure you are laughing all the way to the bank/troll meetings, because everything you post belongs in the Bore hole, and worse. Hopefully the day your drivel is prosecuted with severe sentencing is near.
“As you can see, SO2 emissions peaked in the Americas and Europe around 1980, but the upward trend continued uninterrupted in Asia all the way to 2010, while temperatures continued to rise. Apparently those filters didn’t do much.”
I acknowledge asia’s S02 emissions have continued to rise, so one can assume they aren’t doing a great job filtering out S02. So fair point. But they are lower than western countries and are clearly having some effect, that’s all I ever claimed. The problem is asia use a dirty form of coal and last decade they were burning more of it hence the increase despite attempts to filter out SO2.
However SO2 levels in asia are very substantially below Europe or the Americas over the whole time frame, and this is important. So this has to be considered, and helps explain why warming has continued in asia.
“If CO2 were accumulating in the atmosphere to any significant degree since the onset of the industrial revolution, then why wouldn’t it have been overwhelming aerosol particulates after 1940, when global temperatures ceased to rise for roughly 40 years?”
Because the levels of CO2 were just not high enough to offset particulates. By the 1970s levels of CO2 were high enough to have a very dominant effect over sulphates, and other particulates, an this coincided with reduced SO2 output so warming is not surprising.
So its not an “ad hoc” explanation, Sherlock. Its a rather good, considered explanation for both China and western countries, and you provide no better overall climate theory. Its not a perfect answer and more work is needed, but its certainly a plausible answer. In fact you provide no explanation at all, other to invoke the fact you dont like scientists explanations, and you think theres some mysterious force driving climate change.
I have asked myself the same questions, and Im not saying you are wrong to ask them, but the way the atmosphere is heating points directly at CO2. This is something that is very important. Google greenhouse fingerprints or read these links:
You can’t look at this climate change thing in isolation, just by looking at correlations for example or the period after WW2. You have to consider the full picture. There is a gigantic weight of evidence, or consilience of evidence pointng at agw. Saying explanations for asias climate change are not 100% perfectly understood, doesn’t change the weight of evidence and basic physics.
nigeljsays
Victor @308, you also need to consider asia is burning significant coal since the 1980s with a certain level of CO2 produced as well as SO2, but asia is also getting other countries CO2 from a period of many decades before and after 1980s, as CO2 mixes globally. This also helps explain asias warming trend despite SO2 levels.
Dansays
re:308. “Your feeble response is a perfect example of the sort of thing I’ve been trying to drum into the thick skulls of the self-appointed “experts” posting here. It’s always possible to explain away inconvenient evidence by introducing factors that pertain to only one part of the total picture — ad hoc explanations that are easily refuted when one broadens the scope of the research. It would be interesting to see a response from one of the actual climate scientists supervising this blog.”
Wow, it is one thing to not understand how science is conducted via the scientific method. It is quite another level to flaunt such ignorance. Someone else said it but it is true: Every education institution you may have attended failed to teach your basic science. Or you were not paying attention. You have made no effort to learn at all here. Either because you are willfully stubborn or too insecure to admit to being wrong. Probably both. Again, read how the scientific method is conducted…for the umpteenth time. And btw, still waiting to hear why the stratosphere is cooling when it should be warming according to deniers like you. Crickets chirping…because you have not read the peer-reviewed science.
Killiansays
#306 Nemesis said Victor, victor all over the place. Well, he fits better to the forum than I do, obviously :’D Bye again :)
And no word or post counts. Imagine that.
If denial is criminal, and it is, isn’t aiding and abetting, which all this amounts to, also? Why, yes. Yes, it is.
RSS has posted an April TLT anomaly of +0.45ºC, down on March, more significantly so than seen in UAH, the eariler months of the year giving Jan +0.55ºC, Feb +0.49ºC, March +0.54ºC.
It is the 6th warmest April on the RSS TLT record (UAH had it 7th) behind 2016 (+0.95ºC). 1998 (+0.89ºC), 2010 (+0.59ºC), 2005 & 2017 (+0.56ºC). And April 2018 stands as 70th highest monthly anomaly in the full all-month record (In UAH it was =93rd.).
Regionally, relative to March, April RSS saw a lower TLT anomaly in all latitudes outside the polar regions which both saw increases.
In RSS, the first four months averaged +0.51ºC, the 4th warmest start to a year after 2016 (+1.01ºC), 1998 (+0.71ºC), 2010 (+0.66ºC) & 2017 (+0.60ºC). UAH puts the start of 2018 as 9th warmest after 2016, 1998, 2010, 2017, 2007, 2002, 2005, 2004. CarbonBrief have projected the full 2018 GISTEMP anomaly from the Jan-to-March data and found it suggests 2018 will be 4th hottest year on record with a 95% confidence range of 2nd to =7th.
mike @309,
As folk now find themselves discussing the content of Vaccuous Victor’s home-made borehole, I feel the required fix goes beyond putting our trollish visitor on a diet but that the line should be drawn under this particular troll’s input here. His latest heap of obfuscating pedantry @308 has been swept away and the ground duly cleansed many times before. In recent months I recall even providing the moron with a graph of the data demonstrating this very claim was just aberrant fantasy. That was back in March. Yet here he is back again with the same festering nonsense.
I note @308 he asks our hosts to input into his silly game. They did, boreholing his follow-on comment but perhaps it is time they send him home with a note to his responsible-adult that he shouldn’t be allowed back.
CCHolleysays
Victor @308
Your feeble response is a perfect example of the sort of thing I’ve been trying to drum into the thick skulls of the self-appointed “experts” posting here. It’s always possible to explain away inconvenient evidence by introducing factors that pertain to only one part of the total picture — ad hoc explanations that are easily refuted when one broadens the scope of the research. It would be interesting to see a response from one of the actual climate scientists supervising this blog.
Sigh.
The only one posting here with a thick skull is Victor. The only one explaining away inconvenient evidence is Victor. Victor ignores, ignores, ignores, ad infinitum. Victor refuses to read and understand the science even when presented with the pertinate peer reviewed papers. Victor’s refutations are childish and evidence of his limited critical thinking skills and certainly of his lack of scientific training. Victor’s self-awareness is mind boggling. His belief that he is smarter and more knowledgable than thousands of working scientists in the field of physics is delusion at its extreme.
Still waiting for Victor’s alternative simpler alternative theory. A theory based on physics and supported by evidence. One that is consistent with nights warming faster than days and the arctic warming faster than the rest of the planet. An explanation with it’s added complexity to deal with off-setting the increasing greenhouse effect. One that explains why the measured radiative imbalance attributed to increased greenhouse gasses is doing nothing.
Hey, Moderators. Please moderate unforced variations. Don’t just delay postings to create the appearance of moderation. Moderate the thread: Dump the obvious trolls so that a good faith discussion can happen here.
Mike
Nemesissays
@mike, #309
” The truth is sufficiently scary.”
The truth is not scary enough yet for too many people. I find the lies of the oil industry and overall denial much more scary than the truth. The truth is just the truth, it may be painful and hurting, but you can always rely on the truth, the truth always wins without any discussion at all, that’s the beauty of the truth, the beauty of painful reality, it can be denied, but there is no escape from the truth. That’s why I love the truth and nothing but the truth. I prefer the most painful truth over any sweet dreams and denial :) I just have to lay back and wait until the truth, reality takes it all, the truth, reality does not need any allies, so, back to silence for my part.
” Muddy water is best cleared by leaving it alone.”
argh…. that got all messed up. The last few paragraphs were meant to be deleted.
294 CCHolley
“What are the drivers of climate? Unbeknownst to Victor these are well understood.”
Apparently not. Or else climate scientists would have a better explanation for the temp. runup from 1910-1940 than lack of volcanic activity and a better explanation for the 1940-1979 hiatus than industrial aerosol cooling. (See http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-2.html for a thorough debunking of that notion.)
Victor, #286–
HA HA HA HA HA!
Denial is so funny sometimes… well, when people aren’t dying as a result, anyway.
Victor, this is just so painful. Changes in global temperature don’t just happen. They have causes (or “contingencies” in your shocking comment). What do you think the “usual contingencies” are??? Well, two of them ARE changes in CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) and changes in aerosols. That the former is a positive forcing and that the latter is a negative forcing is not in question. Other factors include orbital and solar dynamics and albedo. So, what exactly is your “simpler” alternative explanation?
And, BTW, one of the nice things about physical models, is that we can draw conclusions about factors from system changes that move in the opposite direction from the impact of the factor. For instance, I can estimate the lift caused by a helicopter’s rotors even if it’s going down. Just like I can estimate the positive forcing of CO2, even if temperatures are going down. If you don’t get that, then please just give up the field.
Victor @302
But Victor refuses to read the multiple links to peer reviewed papers covering these periods. He just knows so much better that he does not have to. He is soooo smart!
Victor proclaims the possible explanations for these periods to be poor. In his opinion, a better explanation is needed. Why? Just because. Victor proclaims himself smarter than thousands of climate scientists even though he has no formal training in the hard sciences. Victor refuses to acknowledge that the drivers of climate ARE well understood. Apparently the physics are beyond his comprehension.
Still waiting for Victor’s alternative simpler alternative theory. A theory based on physics and supported by evidence. One that is consistent with nights warming faster than days and the arctic warming faster than the rest of the planet. An explanation with it’s added complexity to deal with off-setting the increasing greenhouse effect. One that explains why the measured radiative imbalance attributed to increased greenhouse gasses is doing nothing.
Victor, victor all over the place. Well, he fits better to the forum than I do, obviously :’D Bye again :)
Weaktor: “But Greenhouse theory explains nothing,…”
So, Weaktor, I anxiously await your explanation of why Earth’s temperature is 15 degrees C rather than -18 degrees C.
298 nigelj says:
“Your blog is nonsensical. You claim chinas temperatures have continued to increase recently despite their coal burning and sulphate aerosols, with no basic knowledge that 1) they have filters on the power stations to remove most particulate matter like this since the 1980’s,”
If you follow the link I provided on my blog (https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution), you will find a graph titled “SO2 emissions by world region.” Here’s a more direct link: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
As you can see, SO2 emissions peaked in the Americas and Europe around 1980, but the upward trend continued uninterrupted in Asia all the way to 2010, while temperatures continued to rise. Apparently those filters didn’t do much.
“and 2) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere overwhelming particulates, which are short lived in the atmosphere. Because you dont know what you are doing!”
If CO2 were accumulating in the atmosphere to any significant degree since the onset of the industrial revolution, then why wouldn’t it have been overwhelming aerosol particulates after 1940, when global temperatures ceased to rise for roughly 40 years?
Your feeble response is a perfect example of the sort of thing I’ve been trying to drum into the thick skulls of the self-appointed “experts” posting here. It’s always possible to explain away inconvenient evidence by introducing factors that pertain to only one part of the total picture — ad hoc explanations that are easily refuted when one broadens the scope of the research. It would be interesting to see a response from one of the actual climate scientists supervising this blog.
need to rename this monthly post: Feed the Trolls.
Feed the trolls? don’t feed the trolls? Let me think… which way to go?
Larsen C melting in winter? should be fine. Nothing to worry about. The truth is sufficiently scary.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/foehn-winds-causing-antarcticas-larsen-c-ice-shelf-to-melt-in-winter
Warm regard,
Mike
#299 Mr. Know It All said I really enjoyed reading thru the insults in the above comments that have been posted just in the last couple of days.
In all fairness, you are committing what should be criminal activity, so… what do you expect? Crimes Against Humanity and Treason, ya know?
You should be thankful you get any forum, and I am sure you are laughing all the way to the bank/troll meetings, because everything you post belongs in the Bore hole, and worse. Hopefully the day your drivel is prosecuted with severe sentencing is near.
Count your blessings in the meantime.
I found one study on impact of high regional aerosol loadings in central China. Shows cooling. Go figure.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000GL011942
Victor @308,
“As you can see, SO2 emissions peaked in the Americas and Europe around 1980, but the upward trend continued uninterrupted in Asia all the way to 2010, while temperatures continued to rise. Apparently those filters didn’t do much.”
I acknowledge asia’s S02 emissions have continued to rise, so one can assume they aren’t doing a great job filtering out S02. So fair point. But they are lower than western countries and are clearly having some effect, that’s all I ever claimed. The problem is asia use a dirty form of coal and last decade they were burning more of it hence the increase despite attempts to filter out SO2.
However SO2 levels in asia are very substantially below Europe or the Americas over the whole time frame, and this is important. So this has to be considered, and helps explain why warming has continued in asia.
“If CO2 were accumulating in the atmosphere to any significant degree since the onset of the industrial revolution, then why wouldn’t it have been overwhelming aerosol particulates after 1940, when global temperatures ceased to rise for roughly 40 years?”
Because the levels of CO2 were just not high enough to offset particulates. By the 1970s levels of CO2 were high enough to have a very dominant effect over sulphates, and other particulates, an this coincided with reduced SO2 output so warming is not surprising.
So its not an “ad hoc” explanation, Sherlock. Its a rather good, considered explanation for both China and western countries, and you provide no better overall climate theory. Its not a perfect answer and more work is needed, but its certainly a plausible answer. In fact you provide no explanation at all, other to invoke the fact you dont like scientists explanations, and you think theres some mysterious force driving climate change.
I have asked myself the same questions, and Im not saying you are wrong to ask them, but the way the atmosphere is heating points directly at CO2. This is something that is very important. Google greenhouse fingerprints or read these links:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
You can’t look at this climate change thing in isolation, just by looking at correlations for example or the period after WW2. You have to consider the full picture. There is a gigantic weight of evidence, or consilience of evidence pointng at agw. Saying explanations for asias climate change are not 100% perfectly understood, doesn’t change the weight of evidence and basic physics.
Victor @308, you also need to consider asia is burning significant coal since the 1980s with a certain level of CO2 produced as well as SO2, but asia is also getting other countries CO2 from a period of many decades before and after 1980s, as CO2 mixes globally. This also helps explain asias warming trend despite SO2 levels.
re:308. “Your feeble response is a perfect example of the sort of thing I’ve been trying to drum into the thick skulls of the self-appointed “experts” posting here. It’s always possible to explain away inconvenient evidence by introducing factors that pertain to only one part of the total picture — ad hoc explanations that are easily refuted when one broadens the scope of the research. It would be interesting to see a response from one of the actual climate scientists supervising this blog.”
Wow, it is one thing to not understand how science is conducted via the scientific method. It is quite another level to flaunt such ignorance. Someone else said it but it is true: Every education institution you may have attended failed to teach your basic science. Or you were not paying attention. You have made no effort to learn at all here. Either because you are willfully stubborn or too insecure to admit to being wrong. Probably both. Again, read how the scientific method is conducted…for the umpteenth time. And btw, still waiting to hear why the stratosphere is cooling when it should be warming according to deniers like you. Crickets chirping…because you have not read the peer-reviewed science.
#306 Nemesis said Victor, victor all over the place. Well, he fits better to the forum than I do, obviously :’D Bye again :)
And no word or post counts. Imagine that.
If denial is criminal, and it is, isn’t aiding and abetting, which all this amounts to, also? Why, yes. Yes, it is.
Those are some awesomely fat trolls, I’d think.
RSS has posted an April TLT anomaly of +0.45ºC, down on March, more significantly so than seen in UAH, the eariler months of the year giving Jan +0.55ºC, Feb +0.49ºC, March +0.54ºC.
It is the 6th warmest April on the RSS TLT record (UAH had it 7th) behind 2016 (+0.95ºC). 1998 (+0.89ºC), 2010 (+0.59ºC), 2005 & 2017 (+0.56ºC). And April 2018 stands as 70th highest monthly anomaly in the full all-month record (In UAH it was =93rd.).
Regionally, relative to March, April RSS saw a lower TLT anomaly in all latitudes outside the polar regions which both saw increases.
In RSS, the first four months averaged +0.51ºC, the 4th warmest start to a year after 2016 (+1.01ºC), 1998 (+0.71ºC), 2010 (+0.66ºC) & 2017 (+0.60ºC). UAH puts the start of 2018 as 9th warmest after 2016, 1998, 2010, 2017, 2007, 2002, 2005, 2004.
CarbonBrief have projected the full 2018 GISTEMP anomaly from the Jan-to-March data and found it suggests 2018 will be 4th hottest year on record with a 95% confidence range of 2nd to =7th.
mike @309,
As folk now find themselves discussing the content of Vaccuous Victor’s home-made borehole, I feel the required fix goes beyond putting our trollish visitor on a diet but that the line should be drawn under this particular troll’s input here. His latest heap of obfuscating pedantry @308 has been swept away and the ground duly cleansed many times before. In recent months I recall even providing the moron with a graph of the data demonstrating this very claim was just aberrant fantasy. That was back in March. Yet here he is back again with the same festering nonsense.
I note @308 he asks our hosts to input into his silly game. They did, boreholing his follow-on comment but perhaps it is time they send him home with a note to his responsible-adult that he shouldn’t be allowed back.
Victor @308
Sigh.
The only one posting here with a thick skull is Victor. The only one explaining away inconvenient evidence is Victor. Victor ignores, ignores, ignores, ad infinitum. Victor refuses to read and understand the science even when presented with the pertinate peer reviewed papers. Victor’s refutations are childish and evidence of his limited critical thinking skills and certainly of his lack of scientific training. Victor’s self-awareness is mind boggling. His belief that he is smarter and more knowledgable than thousands of working scientists in the field of physics is delusion at its extreme.
Still waiting for Victor’s alternative simpler alternative theory. A theory based on physics and supported by evidence. One that is consistent with nights warming faster than days and the arctic warming faster than the rest of the planet. An explanation with it’s added complexity to deal with off-setting the increasing greenhouse effect. One that explains why the measured radiative imbalance attributed to increased greenhouse gasses is doing nothing.
Hey, Moderators. Please moderate unforced variations. Don’t just delay postings to create the appearance of moderation. Moderate the thread: Dump the obvious trolls so that a good faith discussion can happen here.
Mike
@mike, #309
” The truth is sufficiently scary.”
The truth is not scary enough yet for too many people. I find the lies of the oil industry and overall denial much more scary than the truth. The truth is just the truth, it may be painful and hurting, but you can always rely on the truth, the truth always wins without any discussion at all, that’s the beauty of the truth, the beauty of painful reality, it can be denied, but there is no escape from the truth. That’s why I love the truth and nothing but the truth. I prefer the most painful truth over any sweet dreams and denial :) I just have to lay back and wait until the truth, reality takes it all, the truth, reality does not need any allies, so, back to silence for my part.
” Muddy water is best cleared by leaving it alone.”
– Alan Watts
mike, #309–
“Feed the trolls?”
My ADD-like tendencies are showing here, but that could make a great song parody…
“Sometimes a person we love, through no fault of his own, can’t see past the end of his nose.”
Not you, Mike!