This month’s open thread. We know people like to go off on tangents, but last month’s thread went too far. There aren’t many places to discuss climate science topics intelligently, so please stay focused on those.
Climate science from climate scientists...
Re #13 Mal Adapted said MA Rodger, quoting Tim Palmer:
Fundamentally, as I said at the beginning, climate change is a problem in theoretical physics.
Nope. Fundamentally, climate change is a problem in economics, and therefore in politics. These things we know:
Both wrong. It is a problem of behavior and knowledge. Physics isn’t a living thing. It cannot create a problem. Economics isn’t even a thing. It is an attempt to explain behavior. It’s a construct. At least physics measures that which can be touched. Economics is but a series of abstractions.
Climate is a problem of consumption.
Period.
How we consume determines whether or not there is an issue WRT climate.
41 Al Bundy says: the most (only?) intelligent thing said on RC for days.
will brb (in a mth)
42 – Tom
Would the moon, with essentially no atmosphere, approximate the atmosphere you are thinking about? Temps on the moon are known – depends on if it is in sun or shade.
https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
34 – Hank “A loss of US$0.25 trillion triggered the crash of 2008 by comparison.”
Are you referring to Lehman Brothers?
From your article: “However, new research suggests that the momentum behind technological change in the global power and transportation sectors will lead to a dramatic decline in demand for fossil fuels in the near future.”
I’m not holding my breath on this one. Dramatic decline will happen if prices rise significantly, if economies slow significantly, or if forced by governments.
43 – ab “Just in the Mediterranean sea, WWF counted 1,25 millions of plastic fragments per km².”
I cant’ imagine why that would be, can you?
29 and 37 on hurricanes. I remember after Katrina in 2005, everyone was saying because of CC hurricanes would be more frequent – it was going to be horrible. Next 10 years saw few hurricanes hit the US. :)
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/26/hurrican-predictions-since-katrina-88813/
#43–Excellent exemple of a comment tending to “disrupt sensible conversation.”
Oh look! A squirrel!!
#50 The paper is behind a paywall, Gavin — and I have better things to do with my money than pay to read a paper I would not understand in any case, since I too am not a physicist. Since you profess to be an expert on this matter, I’d say it was up to you to either back off and accept Smirnov’s findings (not likely) or study the thing carefully, write a rebuttal — and then submit it to a legitimate physics journal for peer review. That’s how “real science” is done, no?
I’m curious to see how Smirnov’s paper will be received among mainstream climatologists like yourself. My guess is that just about everyone will try to ignore it and hope it goes away. Some brave soul might give it a shot. And who knows? Smirnov COULD be wrong after all. We won’t have a clue until someone actually reads it, reviews it, and publishes his (or her) findings in a peer reviewed physics journal.
[Response: Thanks for confirming that you didn’t read the paper and thus have no insight into it’s content. Unfortunately for me, I did read it. And I gave you the summary of a small part that was relevant. You desire for confirmation that it actually overturns a century of well-replicated science as completely transparent as it is futile. – gavin]
Ooh! OOOh! Here’s one for Victor:
Pedestrians walking around caused global warming (the globe described is the Moon).
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/229815/20180609/recovered-moon-landing-data-from-apollo-missions-solve-40-year-old-mystery.htm
Tom Swartz @42 & 46,
You are correct that the usual take on the total pre-industrial GHG effect is calculated as something like +33ºC but this requires albedo to remain constant at present day values. Yet without any GHGs, the clouds will be gone but the levels of ice will be massively increased, two conflicting albedo effects.
A paper of interest is Lacis et al (2010) ‘Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature’ which models what happens when you take CO2 and all the other long-lived GHGs from the atmosphere. There does remain a significant level of water vapour in tha atmosphere as the tropics under the noon-day sun will remain above freezing. But the model only runs for 50 years or so.
To add my own thoughts, that in the many millenia beyond fifty years, perhaps the oceans in the tropics could be emptied by evaporation and their content deposited as snow onto extra-tropical ice caps, the evaporation/snow-fall perhaps exceeding the flow of glaciers back towards the tropics, which thus become a desert. The atmospheric water vapour could be greatly reduced again by such a mechanism, reducing the average temperatures yet again.
V 50: Actually, if the findings of this one paper were to be confirmed by a panel of UNBIASED physicists, it would be GAME OVER for the whole climate change enterprise — the whole house of cards would collapse over the heads of a great many (self) important people.
BPL: And if your mother had wheels, she’d be a trolley. Equally likely.
Mr KIA posts “From your article: “However, new research suggests that the momentum behind technological change in the global power and transportation sectors will lead to a dramatic decline in demand for fossil fuels in the near future.”
“I’m not holding my breath on this one. Dramatic decline will happen if prices rise significantly, if economies slow significantly, or if forced by governments.”
Or if prices of electric cars fall below petrol cars. Its predicted electric cars will be cheaper than petrol cars within 7 years (unsubsidised costs).
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/news/electric-cars-may-be-cheaper-than-gas-guzzlers-in-seven-years/articleshow/63413876.cms
And if costs of renewable electricity fall below coal. Lazard analysis finds wind power is already cheaper than coal, and it is dominating new generation in America. Solar power is not far away in costs either. Generators are already choosing these options without being forced by government.
Trump is trying to force generators to choose coal and keep old, failing nuclear plants open as below. Madness.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/trump-plan-bails-out-coal-and-nuclear-plants-for-national-security.html
Victor,
Really?
Uh, Mr CO2 is trudging ever so slowly up a hill (from a human perspective Mr CO2 appears statuesque). Temppy the Magic Dog ranges at lightning speed higher or lower, levitating or ditching as Temppy so chooses.
Please stop refusing to rub your two neurons together. The point is clear: CO2 et al define a central value. Temperatures will range around that value based on various other variables. Climate science is largely about teasing out what those surrounding variables are and how they affect climate. Then scientists net out those variables to determine if their underlying thoughts about climate sensitivity are correct.
I retract my previous claim. You’ve been self lobotomizing for so long that “practice makes permanent”
Victor, LMGTFY
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324093626_Collision_and_radiative_processes_in_emission_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide
I’m sure people have tried to explain how Google works to you here repeatedly, when you’ve complained about not being able to find the disproof you believe is out there. Hint: you can find anything you can imagine on Google.
60 – nigelj
Predictions come and go. :)
The data (in kW) in that CNBC graph is deceptive. This list from the EIA (in kWh) is probably a better source:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
This graph gives a feel for the trends in power generation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electricity_by_type.png
Snow down to 4,500 feet now through Sunday night in the Oregon Cascades. Maybe the snow will soak up some CO2? :)
Yeah I know – it’s just weather.
Source:
https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=45.33075000000008&lon=-121.71031999999997#.WxzRRO4vyM8
Detailed Forecast
OvernightSnow showers. Low around 28. Breezy, with a west wind around 22 mph, with gusts as high as 34 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%. Total nighttime snow accumulation of 3 to 5 inches possible.
SundaySnow showers. High near 39. West southwest wind 16 to 20 mph, with gusts as high as 31 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 2 inches possible.
Sunday NightA 30 percent chance of snow showers, mainly before 11pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 30. West wind around 16 mph, with gusts as high as 28 mph. Little or no snow accumulation expected.
Victor #56
This paper is for instance utterly wrong, complete idiocy and plain ignorance when it states:
Quote;
Because anthropo genic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5%, the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is
∆T = 0.02 K, (6.20)
i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.
This is already fatal for the paper’s credibility.
Actually the paper’s calculations ( you didn’t even bother to examine, incompetence ?) yield 0.4 +/- .1 K for for a doubling of CO2 GHE without any feedback, a figure that compares to about 1.1 K found repeatedly in a series of calculations by various physicists since the 1930’s. The discrepancy is essentially due to a further fatal error confusing energy fluxes at surface and TOA, as already pointed out.
Quote:
Above, we have evaluated the change of the radiative flux ∆J↓ due to an increasing concentration of CO2 molecules, and our subsequent task is to transfer the radiative flux change into the change of the global temperature ∆T. The ratio of these changes is named the climate sensitivity, i.e. it is defined as [14, 72]
Again this is grossly mistaken too.
Two fatal flaws, that’s amply enough to kill this “paper”.
Period.
“Next 10 years saw few hurricanes hit the US. :)”
Then our luck ran out in 2017.
KIA, climate change (and dealing with it rationally) is all about the ‘long game.’ How many American cities need to be savaged in such ways before we recognize that, like the substance abusers we are as a society, ‘we have a problem?’
New Orleans is recovering, but its recovery is incomplete today, and in fact will likely never be complete, because the city was set on a whole different historical trajectory. I don’t know whether the same is true of Houston, too. But time will tell, and I do know that the vulnerability remains, and continues to increase.
This is a pretty powerful example of the costs of US climate change denial, actually, because it’s not just Houston. The strengthening of hurricanes, combined with sea level rise, are putting basically all coastal communities at risk. But there is no coordinated response in this country because federal and some state governments are in official denial about the problems, doing things such as scrubbing the words ‘climate change’ from websites and official documents, disbanding planning bodies and councils, and forcing officials to use euphemisms or to avoid whole topics in public conversations and official communications.
(For example, the US Navy would really like to harden the world’s largest naval base at Norfolk, VA, against the effects of sea level rise, but the majority caucus (and now the Administration) don’t want to hear about the problem–even though the municipal government, local real estate market, and just about everybody else are actively working on what has become a frequent flooding problem.)
And Weaktor continues to advance his candidacy for the title of Most Tits-On-A-Boar Useless human being ever to walk the planet.
Yet another week on the NOAA MLO CO2 posted giving an average 12-month rise for the year-to-date at +1.75ppm, the lowest such rise since 2009 which was both a second-La-Nina-year-in-a-row as well as a global-recession year. So it is an encouraging sign that the recent ‘accelerati-free’ annual global CO2 emissions appear to be showing some impact on atmospheric CO2 now the El Nino effects are behind us. (See here for graph of CO2 increases since El Nino began (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
And with the peak CO2 of the year behind us, we can also assess the peak MLO CO2 of 2018 relative to 2017.
Scripps .. .. .. .. .. .. NOAA
.. .. .. ..Monthly data
411.31ppm .. .. .. .. 411.25ppm
(+1.4ppm) .. .. .. .. (+1.6ppm)
.. .. .. ..Weekly data
411.81ppm .. .. .. .. 411.85ppm
(+1.6ppm) .. .. .. .. (+1.5ppm)
“Mr. Know It All says:
Snow down to 4,500 feet now through Sunday night in the Oregon Cascades. Maybe the snow will soak up some CO2? :)
Yeah I know – it’s just weather.”
Then why bother to post about it when the issue is climate change. Hint: You still do not understand or willingly try not to understand the difference between climate and weather. And you want to flaunt your ignorance.
victor
Possibly you don’t know that snow on Mt. Hood at any time of the year is not exactly unexpected.
MAR at 68: yes, I have been watching that also. yoy differential has fallen to under 2.0 ppm increase. I think this is is the trough that was to be expected as the EN event ended, but this last EN event was notable for it’s amazing jump in yoy numbers and also for its duration in terms of ending with a trough in the yoy number comparison.
I would love it if you turn out to be correct and that annual global emissions have actually fallen and are showing up in as you present the numbers. I don’t think that is the case, but as I say, I would love to be wrong about that.
I think the background increase rate for 2018 (decadal rate plus and minus 5 years as I have detailed) will be in the 2.4 to 2.5 ppm range.
The rate of increase controversy seems pretty academic to me because what is needed is to actually get to a net zero increase status as quickly as we can. A flat or slowly descending rate of increase is likely to be merely a moral victory where we may delay the onset of new devastating impacts of global warming. I think the image is a train or bus going over the cliff at a slower rate of speed. Would it be better to drive the train over the cliff at 40 mph instead of 80 mph? I really don’t think our speed/rate of increase matters because we don’t want to go over the climate cliff. And therein lies the problem: we don’t know exactly where the climate cliff is and we don’t know exactly how far we will fall when we go over that cliff.
I think we are in a situation where a great deal of caution and consternation is completely appropriate.
Cheers,
Mike
There is as yet still no real sense of urgency among the general public about greenhouse gas induced global warming. What is to be done about this or must we resign ourselves to the likelihood that, by the time the public wakes up, gross changes will already be irreversibly baked in?
Mike, #71–
In some circumstances, it might. Many things we might term ‘cliffs’ do in fact have a slope less than perpendicular, and for such situations it’s physically possible that a slower speed might mean multiple lesser decelerations, as opposed to one huge crash at the very bottom. What is the shape of the climate ‘cliff’? I’m guessing that that would be a very tricky question to answer.
So, while you are undoubtedly correct that what we really need is to see emissions start actually to fall, deceleration is still, IMO, a good thing.
Yeah, me too. But not despair, ’cause even if it’s logically justified, it never helps.
Gee, had we known that the survival of our civilization were predicated on getting the D students to accept science, we might have spent more on science education.
68 MA Rodger provides cherry-picked short term faux-comparative data graphs. Bollocks that graph supports his obsessive Biases on CO2 concentrations and historical growth and it’s drivers. Bollocks that graph supports any assertion that – “that the recent
‘accelerati-free’annual global CO2 emissions appear to be showing some impact on atmospheric CO2″There is no substantial genuine accurate data or scientific analysis to support such a conclusion at this time. None. The cherry-picked years and data points in the graph plus the lack of any supporting data evidence from past/present CO2 emissions by man, industry, agriculture and the environment itself on land and the oceans NOT presented by Rodger with what he does present in a Graph certainly does not support any such conclusion.
I think he needs to get his opinions and his work peer-reviewed before allowing such biased unsubstantiated claims here or anywhere. If it matters I have no tolerance for Luke-warmer’s cherry-picking minute data points nor ego driven biased bs artists be they deniers, fronts for inaction or if agree that CO2 forcing is major cause of global warming.
72 – Bill
What is to be done? How about confiscating FF powered cars? Many states are busier than a stump full of pissants right now – confiscating guns from law abiding, good ‘Murican gun owners who would never hurt anyone; all because some criminals misused them. If they can confiscate guns, why not cars? Do we have a deal? Do it! Have the 2020 D candidate run for Prez on that platform and shame the voters into voting for the D candidate FOR THE CHILDREN – it’s a sure win. :)
74 – Ray
You’re in luck. The young’uns today for the most part do accept AGW theory. They do so having no knowledge of the physics, but does that really matter? The old deniers are dying out, being replaced by young believers. The future is bright.
Bill, #72, asks:
IMO, yes, we must, because I think irreversible changes are baked in now. Sea level rise is Exhibit A in this regard. The region of Miami, for instance, is going to look very different in 2100 than it does now, even if emissions mitigation really takes off in the short term (as of course it needs to do.) I think it’s also inevitable at this point that we are going to see a lot less extent of coral reef in our tropical seas–again, that’s something that’s already basically happening now, and with warming set to continue for at least a couple of decades, realistically, it’s not going to improve anytime soon. Ditto for the decline of terrestrial glaciers. And probably ditto for some of the biological changes observed (definitely for extinctions that have occurred, or may occur.)
Et cetera. But there’s bad, and then there’s worse–and there’s still time to avoid significant amounts of the latter, or so it appears.
Of albedo effects, Lunar temperatures, and the unfortunate reality that humans change things significantly in the most incidental ways, sometimes:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/moon-astronauts-warming-1.4697741
But when Dr. Neish–a professor at my old alma mater, incidentally–asked “Should we morally be concerned about that?” I was obliged to recalibrate my irony meter.
Kevin M #73,
The analogy is even more to the point with respect to changing the population growth rate.
Negative outcomes are a function of both variables, and not in a nice way.
Bill D:
Excellent question. IMUMO the answer is in the domain of politics, and thus expressly off topic here, so I’ll merely link to what was said on a previous thread. While I’m scarcely optimistic, I’m not quite as pessimistic as Karsten Vedel Johansen. As I explained here, my hopes however faint are pinned on government of the people, by the people, for the people, simply because there is no higher moral authority. The specific proposal I support is a US national carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment tariff, generally if not entirely as detailed by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. It makes sense to me, and I figure its political chances are as good as any worthwhile proposal I’ve yet seen. YMMV.
Sea Level Rise Media Briefing https://youtu.be/jOk5ggTtmDw
mike @71,
Note that I do not claim that annual CO2 emissions have “actually fallen” but that they ‘are not reported risen’ (eg by the BCP) and such a situation is a substantial improvement on the preceding seventy years when they only stopped rising because of global recession. And, yes, emissions do need to fall to zero. As that isn’t going to happen immediately, identifying the progress on the path to zero is a useful measure of performance. If annual CO2 emissions have peaked, then that ‘path to zero’ is no longer lengthening and the journey on the ‘path to zero’ can properly begin.
But we would perhaps differ on how to represent the measure of the ‘path to zero’ – rise/fall over the last 10 years/10 or some other period, average annual rise/fall over last 5 years or 10 years etc. Even over a decade, such meaures still reflect ENSO & volcano eruptions (just like global temperature do) and the longer the period the less they will reflect any success with emissions as it begins to appear. (The decadal average is currently running at 2.275ppm/yr, the 5-year average 2.5ppm/yr, their trajectory simply reflecting the CO2 rise in 2018 relative to 2008/2013 respectively, so not indicative of anything useful.)
With the EPA presumably now trumped by that bloke determined to win the acolade of ‘Most Hated Man of the Century’, I have been minded to bring up-to-date the numbers in this EPA website but haven’t got very far yet. But relevant to our discussion here, the CO2 component is a trivial calculation and looks like this (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’) which if nothing else shows a goodly history of the CO2 wobbles.
Killian:
Shirley, the Killian of famed self-regard has heard of the hierarchical systems framework for investigating the universe of phenomena? Over on aTTP I discussed the role of Economics as the cultural institution within which investigation of human economic behavior is conventionally organized, specifically to avoid Killian’s unequivocal self-enhancing interje 8^(.
Contra Killian, the subject matter of Economics is at least as real as quarks are. The first indisputable evidence of markets, for example, are the ancient Sumerian clay tokens for commodities believed to be precursors to written symbolic language, and persisted for centuries more for accounting convenience before being replaced by currencies. There’s an argument for trade as a key cultural adaptation, that helped Homo sapiens become the last of our genus.
And so forth. I’m a little suprised that a commenter as scientifically meta-literate as Killian evidently is, would fail to acknowledge economics as an appropriate scientific subject matter, whether or not he regards any specific economic model as useful. Presumably he’s unimpressed by the US National Academies of Sciences’ Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Meh. It’s nobody’s problem but his.
I presume Killian won’t be impressed with this NAS Consensus Study Report for the National Science Foundation either: The Value of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences to National Priorities 8^D!
#75
So there! :)
Victor, that “real physicist” hasn’t done *anything* related to atmospheric physics until well into his 70’s (he’s 80 now). Other “real physicists” have done work in this area for decades (Jim Hansen, to name just one), and yet you decide to run for the one whose body of work in this area is tiny?
Two questions, Victor. Let’s see if you can answer the first, and are willing to answer the second:
1. How does Smirnov conclude that with his calculated climate sensitivity of 0.4 K, the human contribution until today is only 0.02 K?
2. Why do you get so excited about the “real physicist” Smirnov claiming something, but are all dismissive when other “real physicists” point to significant problems to be expected, and in part already observed, with our continuing CO2 emissions?
km at 73: says “Would it be better to drive the train over the cliff at 40 mph instead of 80 mph?
In some circumstances, it might. Many things we might term ‘cliffs’ do in fact have a slope less than perpendicular, and for such situations it’s physically possible that a slower speed might mean multiple lesser decelerations, as opposed to one huge crash at the very bottom. What is the shape of the climate ‘cliff’? I’m guessing that that would be a very tricky question to answer.
So, while you are undoubtedly correct that what we really need is to see emissions start actually to fall, deceleration is still, IMO, a good thing.
Mike says: I think you are correct. The climate cliff ahead is unknown terrain. Maybe it’s just a gentle slope that will give us lots of warning to speed up our response by hastening the deaths of lots of folks in subsaharan Africa and elsewhere. It’s pretty easy to identify the human populations that are going to serve as “canaries in the coalmine.” We should keep an eye on these folks so that we know when things have taken a turn for the worse in terms of global warming impacts.
How are we doing with CO2?
May CO2
May 2018: 411.31 ppm
May 2017: 409.91 ppm
1.4 ppm increase in yoy comparison. I think this is the trough that is to be expected after the end of a substantial EN event. I think the trough after the 1998-99 EN event was roughly 1 ppm in yoy comparison. I think this one is quite similar, but who knows? We are in uncharted territory with changes in global carbon cycle, with reports of falling emissions, etc. Time will tell.
Cheers
Mike
@mike, #71
” I would love it if you turn out to be correct and that annual global emissions have actually fallen and are showing up in as you present the numbers. I don’t think that is the case…”
I agree, I don’t think co2 emissions are stalling or even decreasing either, because I just don’t see any real grand scale changes in everyday politics, it’s just BAU almost wherever I look.
Another beautiful fracking boom in the US :) :
https://youtu.be/-IzgyM1r1y8
Just as a reminder: Methane gas has up to 100 times more powerful climate heating potential than co2. And the underreported gas emissions from the supply chain etc are huge.
86 Marco says:
“Victor, that “real physicist” hasn’t done *anything* related to atmospheric physics until well into his 70’s (he’s 80 now).”
V: Well, he’s published at least one textbook on the topic.
M:Two questions, Victor. Let’s see if you can answer the first, and are willing to answer the second:
1. How does Smirnov conclude that with his calculated climate sensitivity of 0.4 K, the human contribution until today is only 0.02 K?
V: I’m not a physicist, and see no point in reading his paper since I would not understand it. I’m certainly not in a position to evaluate the physics behind his hypothesis.
M: 2. Why do you get so excited about the “real physicist” Smirnov claiming something, but are all dismissive when other “real physicists” point to significant problems to be expected, and in part already observed, with our continuing CO2 emissions?
V: Well first of all what interests me is his presentation of an alternative to the view of climate sensitivity so widely accepted by supporters of the AGW paradigm. The fact that an alternative has been offered by an experienced physicist makes one wonder why so many keep insisting that “the science is settled.” Since becoming aware of Smirnov’s paper I’ve learned of many others that also question the so-called “consensus” view. I’m in no position to judge which view is correct, but the fact that alternatives have been offered by highly qualified scientists can’t be ignored. When AGW advocates such as Gavin refuse to respond to such efforts because they consider it beneath them to do so, then one has to wonder whether we are dealing with science or dogma.
Secondly, I tend to be sympathetic to Smirnov’s interpretation because it is consistent with the historical data on global temperatures, which is NOT consistent with the mainstream view.
New paper in Nature on Antarctic mass loss from 1992-2017
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0179-y
“Over this period, ocean-driven melting has caused rates of ice loss from West Antarctica to increase from 53±29 billion to 159±26 billion tonnes per year; ice-shelf collapse has increased the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula from 7± 13 billion to 33± 16 billion tonnes per year. ”
sidd
Then there’s the ever-increasing challenge of reduced oxygen in the oceans, with multiple causes (one being the increase in ocean temperatures) that already has caused serious problems, particularly in selected coastal areas around the world. Brief summary here http://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-deoxygenation A recent paper examining historical causes of deoxygenation expands the knowledge base on this little-discussed but important issue. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180611160510.htm
V 90: When AGW advocates such as Gavin refuse to respond to such efforts because they consider it beneath them to do so, then one has to wonder whether we are dealing with science or dogma.
BPL: Except that Gavin did respond to it, in detail, right here. Did you think we’d forgotten?
MAL, ever a waste of my time, thinks commerce is economics.
‘Nuff said.
@All
When do you guys think a blue ocean event in the arctic will happen? Any guesses? And what will be the consequences?
“Pew polled Americans on what should be NASA’s top priority, and guess what the most common response was? Climate science. Yep–that beat out Mars, the Moon, and even monitoring dangerous asteroids. ”
https://twitter.com/themadstone/status/1004421804767793154
Americans Think Climate Research Should Be NASA’s Top Priority
https://earther.com/americans-think-climate-change-research-should-be-nasa-1826604786/
87 mike
I maintain that something is still not “normal” at MLO readings.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png
See the broad spread of black dots relative to historical norms. And note the massive swings in weekly readings from march onward and getting worse.
March should be rising, when it suddenly drops 1 ppm in a week avg. Takes 3 weeks to recover and then drops again by .75 ppm in a week when it should be rising steadily, and historically it usually does.
In April the wk jumps 1.5 ppm and the next week rises marginally (= normal) but then crashes back a whole 2 ppm in one week. That is not “normal” behavior. Suddenly it jumps 1.5 ppm, rises marginally again and then drops again into June … which is normally the end of the roller coaster ride to the top, yet still that crash is down faster than normal. As June has progressed the readings are coming in near the May peak again (black dots) rather than continuing to fall gradually (which would be normal – see last June and every year before this one).
I do not what it means, I do not know why it’s happening nor how reliable these numbers are this year but (assuming they are accurate) it does seem to present a most abnormal pattern for these last 3 months of readings.
Another question I have in my mind:
There’s a lot of enthusiasm about CCS. Not that I’m a techno-fix believer in any sense. But who will pay for it and do it? I mean, there’s no economical profit, no funny money in it :’D …
to my friend Al at 82: you say: “Note that I do not claim that annual CO2 emissions have “actually fallen” but that they ‘are not reported risen’ (eg by the BCP) and such a situation is a substantial improvement on the preceding seventy years when they only stopped rising because of global recession.”
duly noted. I think we have substantial areas of agreement on the planetary situation and we argue too much over some details. I am sorry to be so pessimistic about reports of falling emissions. I think they are a lot like reports of the decline of North Korea’s nuclear capability. Our president says Kim is a tough guy, but he has taken his measure and solved the nuclear north korea problem. Ok, check that one off the list. Good news day, good news cycle. All talk is better than war talk, I suppose.
The path to zero is key. and the speed that we can make the trip down that path is key. In the end, this is a problem of sustainability and ecosystem management. Global resource overshoot and decimation of global biodiversity are well-documented. CO2 accumulation in the ocean and atmosphere is simply a hard measure of a primary signal in the system that looks very unhealthy.
Uh, oh:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/ioap-ect052318.php
Public Release: 23-May-2018
Earth’s climate to increase by 4 degrees by 2084
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences