This month’s open thread on climate science issues.
A lot of interest in the new Resplandy et al paper (WaPo), with some exploration of the implications on twitter i.e.
Interesting new paper “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition”
But I’m not sure about their argument on the consequences on future warming. 1/https://t.co/g29m3SzIvN— Reto Knutti (@Knutti_ETH) November 1, 2018
and
https://twitter.com/jamesannan/status/1057944837163491328
Meanwhile, the CMIP6 model output is starting to come out…
Just read about this Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in
atmospheric O2and CO2 composition in Nature by L. Resplandy et al. Would like to know what everyone thinks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/climate/ocean-temperatures-hotter.html
======================================
Letter | Published: 31 October 2018
Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition
L. Resplandy, R. F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M. K. Brooks, R. Wang, L. Bopp, M. C. Long, J. P. Dunne, W. Koeve & A. Oschlies
Nature volume 563, pages105–108 (2018)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8
=======================
AB – The ocean is the main source of thermal inertia in the climate system1. During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 2007 (2,3). However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007 (4,5). Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. We show that the ocean gained 1.33 ± 0.20 × 10^22 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface. We also find that the ocean-warming effect that led to the outgassing of O2 and CO2 can be isolated from the direct effects of anthropogenic emissions and CO2 sinks. Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 1991 (6)—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases (7) and the thermal component of sea-level rise8.
SN – 1476-4687
UR – https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8
DO – 10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8
ID – Resplandy2018
WG at 218 asks what we think about Resplandy and the warmer oceans. I guess sounds like good news for those of who like to get knee deep in the surf, but sometimes find the ocean waters a little too cold. But in terms of global climate stability, it suggests that the oceans will continue to pump heat into the atmosphere for a significant amount of time if/when we stop increasing CO2e accumulation in oceans and atmosphere, so this sounds like “baked-in” heat to come that we have not yet experienced. meanwhile, the US president wants to send troops to the southern border to deal with the crisis of immigration. Taken together as two concurrent “news” stories, I think our species might be in trouble.
William Geoghegan @218,
Resplandy et al (2018) is an interesting paper. The method does require the calculation of a small value by subtracting a big number from another number which could lead to large changes in the result if either of the two big numbers were to change under further analysis. But that said, the result does feed into assessments of SLR contributions back to 1990 and also an impact on the calculation of ECS. From the paper:-
I think most would not be surprised if the possibility of an ECS as low as 1.5ºC were ruled out by some analysis or other. The implictions for a “2°C global warming target” presumably follow from a shift in the average of the range for ECS but I’m surprised by the 25% reduction. Would it be so great? Would the carbon budget be that greatly affected? If you “see Methods” you find IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.10 given as a reference for the liner relationship between emissions and warming. For me, that doesn’t explain why ruling out what was always an unlkiely low value of ECS would have such an impact on carbon budgets.
MA @4.
The allowable carbon is nearly used up, so a unit change in the overall allowable net emissions would have a disproportionately large effect on the remaining budget. In other words this is because we’ve already used up the lion’s share of the budget, and a moderate change in the final budget can have a large impact on the little bit remaining for the lion’s cubs.
What are the units for “Density” and “Sensitivity” in the graph?
202 – BPL (October)
Not interested in even trying to find solutions to AGW? I can’t do much about that!
204 – Nigel (October)
That list was provided by Scott Nudd in comment ~ 192. I was commenting on his list. Typically the party in power loses seats in the midterms. I hope it doesn’t happen, but most talking heads think it will happen in the House – not unusual. If the Ds win, let me know if you see Rs rioting, bawling their eyes out, calling Ds thisaphobe or thataphobe, shooting up ball games, displaying cut off heads as “art”, putting on plays killing politicians, wearing genital hats, screaming at the sky, going to safe spaces, falsely accusing decent people of 40 year old sex assault crimes without a single witness, walking out of class/work, or generally acting like 2 year olds, etc. ;) Oh, and tell the families of the 262,000,000 people killed by their governments that the didn’t need a semi-auto firearm:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Get a grip.
219 – Killian (October)
“….tried, not conversed with.”
Good one! :)
If the doom and gloom reports are correct, your solution of a totally primitive lifestyle may be the only option. I doubt that will happen, or that we’ll even make a serious attempt to achieve that. So, what’s your best guesstimate as to how long our species will survive? It sounds like even if we all stopped using FFs today, the heat stored in the oceans, increased H20 in the air, the CH4 coming out of the tundra, etc will continue to drive temps higher so maybe it’s too late already? At any rate, how long does humanity have left on this big blue marble? That would have been a good Halloween question!
I have not seen any comment on consequence on sea levels. If oceans soak up more heat surely this will cause expansion and further rise. Any work done on likely impact?
This question is off topic a little, but since you are talking about the ocean, I have one. It is often stated that in the future hurricane intensity will increase, while frequency will be unaffected. However, since the storms can form over longer periods of time and larger areas, it seems like there should also be an increase in frequency if only because there are more possible storms.
Is the stable number due to a decrease in storm density in the historical allowed space.
Walter
So it matters because if we underestimated the amount of warming that goes in the ocean, that means we underestimated the amount of warming on earth, and that means we underestimated the sensitivity of the earth to our emissions and our fossil fuel burning emissions.
So by underestimating the amount of heat that is stored on earth, we kind of assume our planet is less sensitive and can actually take on more emissions to save the earth [from a] a surge in temperature. …
So yes it has an implication for climate sensitivity, as I said, but obviously an ocean that is warmer than we think, or that we thought, means organisms have to cope with a warmer environment–but also an environment with less oxygen, because a warmer ocean will hold less oxygen; and that’s what we call deoxygenation, oxygen loss. So it’s true that a warmer ocean means more stress on marine organisms.” –Laure Resplandy. Audio interview here (at 3:30):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172w4hyqwl5f4v
I did not predict this one. The sea floor is dissolving.
What the eff?!
https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/alterations-seabed-raise-fears-future-291163
The Resplandy result proportionately amplifies the importance of ocean albedo variation, and may so require some recalibration of SRM modeling.
UAH have posted its October TLT anomaly at the-average-for-the-year-so-far level of +0.22ºC, up on Septembers chilly +0.14ºC. The UAH monthly anomalies this year sit within the range +0.32C to +0.14ºC.
It is =9th warmest October in UAH TLT behind previous warm Octobers 2017 (+0.63ºC), 2015, 2016, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2014 & 2012 whilst tying with October 2006.
October 2018 is =89th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month UAH TLT record.
In the UAH TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 still sits 7th. With a lot more variation in TLT records, the final annual 2018 ranking is still yet to resolve itself. With just two months to go, the final ranking looks to be 6th to 8th, requiring the average for Nov-Dec to be a toasty (by UAH standards) +0.35ºC-or-above to climb up to 5th or a chilly +0.06ºC-or-less to fall down to 9th.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
1998 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2016 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 1st
2010 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2002 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.22ºC
2005 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 10th
2003 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.18ºC … … … 9th
Pine Island Glacier seems to be speeding up… like everything else. New bergs. Looks like a new record point of retreat. Changes since 2015 a bit scary.
Bottom melt specified as a cause.
https://twitter.com/StefLhermitte/status/1057264449122373632
I have a somewhat obscure question about the atmosphere: Some of the lowest trace molecules are attributed to formation by lightning. In this stormier world, is anyone measuring an increase in those substances?
[Response: In terms of atmospheric chemistry, the most important lightning-sourced compound is NOx and, yes, this is being monitored and is predicted to increase, impacting tropospheric ozone levels for instance. – gavin]
Omega Centaur @5,
But you do nothing but suggest a multiplying effect (that as we have run so deep into our since-pre-industrial carbon budget, a small reduction in carbon budget now will be big relative to the small amount remaining). What you do not do is examine this situation numerically. So allow me a back-of-fag-packet version.
To lose 25% of our remaining carbon budget (250GtCarbon) represents 62Gt(C) from our pre-industrial budget (800Gtcarbon), an 8% decrease, naively implied by an 8% increase in ECS, or an increase from ECS=3.2K to ECS=3.5K. What isn’t in the paper but can be seen at the top of this thread is a graph showing an increase in ECS implied by this Resplandy et al (2018) from ECS=2.35 to ECS=2.55, an increase of 8%. The implication of their estimate for ECS does not carry to the usual ECS value of 3.2K.
And at the top of this thread you will see there is somebody else who is “not sure about their argument on the consequences on future warming” presented within the paper.
#199 October UV MA Rodger,
You provided a very good reference…which you should have read first.
You were responding to my #179, where I said:
You seem to think the reference you gave refuted my statement, and that the period under discussion was not “noise”. But here’s what the experts said, referring to the Chukchi Sea, which brought down the overall Arctic extent for that month:
This sounds pretty much exactly the kind of causal relationship I suggested. Now, it might be worthwhile to articulate a clearer understanding of what we mean by “noise”, but that is the kind of thing I find people here very reluctant to do– it takes away all the fun of waving hands and breathless declarations about every little factoid that pops up. Still, if anyone is interested in such a discussion I will gladly participate.
Mr. KIA–“f the Ds win, let me know if you see Rs rioting, bawling their eyes out, calling Ds thisaphobe or thataphobe, shooting up ball games…”
Do shooting up synagogues and sending pipe bombs count? How about virtually continuous use of the term ‘libtard’ in multiple forums? Or maybe we should talk about assaults with pipes and cars, a la Charlottesville? And, of course, all those things have been happening while, allegedly, the ‘restoration of American greatness’ was in full flood. So I sure do hope it doesn’t get worse after the election.
I don’t think it’s my ‘grip’ that is slipping.
18 – Kevin
So you are aware of an R shooting up a synagogue? Tell us the who, what, when, where, and why? I didn’t hear about it. I heard about an anti-Semite, registered as a non-affiliated voter, who hates Trump.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/robert-bowers-politics-trump-republican-democrat/
So your first question is fake news. It is likely that the bomb guy was paid to do it – investigation is ongoing. Your other comments are also nonsense – that’s what happens when you need to get a grip – you’re the last to know.
Let’s get to it. Saving the planet that is. Keep your eye on the prize. Focus.
From the 1979 Charney report, “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” we find this:
“…However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global climate system, may be expected to slow the course of observable climatic change…”
Source:
https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf
In this video, Prof. Brad Marston says the 1979 Charney report’s predicted CC temperature rises are very close to the ones used today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6afxMMtyb44
Here’s my idea to save the planet:
The mass of the atmosphere over the ocean is equal to about the top 33 feet of water; allowing for the air over land, the mass of the earth atmosphere is ~ equal to the top 43 feet of the world’s oceans. Clearly the ocean with an average depth of over 12,000 feet can absorb a lot of heat. Problem is that the cold water is far below the surface. So, why not replace the warm upper layer with cooler water from below by pumping the warm upper layer down deeper. Or, perhaps pump the deeper water to the surface for faster cooling. Oil companies could do this – they have a lot of experience with deep water rigs. Pumps are fairly efficient, especially if pumping straight down. Would have to decide how far down to pump the warm water, what kind of distribution you’d want at the bottom, etc. Perhaps these things cold be unmanned fully-automated floating rigs, solar powered, with temp sensors so you don’t get the surface colder than you want, flashing lights to warn ships, satellite reporting of all parameters, etc. The oil companies (and others) can compete for government contracts to build them.
Potential problem: The cool water would absorb heat, but the solubility of CO2 in deep (high presure), cool water is greater than that of warm surface water:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01861a033
Questions I have are:
Is there a depth in the ocean where the water would contain less CO2 than surface water? If so, perhaps that water could be pumped up to the surface.
If not, then would the CO2 released by the cooler water (now at the surface) cause more warming than the cooling effect of cooler surface water?
What percentage of all the FFs that we’ll ever burn have we already burned? Might give a clue as to how much water has to be pumped to absorb the heat. Or maybe it could buy us enough time to transition to non-FF energy.
Now, get out and vote straight Republican. A D-run bankrupt banana-republic socialist utopia will not be able to build this – it ain’t going to be cheap. :)
Zebra @17.
I’m glad yhat you found my ‘reference’ to be “very good” although I was actually referring you specifically to the Figure 3 of that particular NSIDC monthly report. Yes, that report did feature analysis of ice concentrations in the Chukchi Sea which were at a record low at the end of that month – November 2017. As the report says, the SIE:-
And these exceptionally low Nov 2017 ice concentrations in the Chukchi Sea were attributed to a number of phenomenon – “warm conditions … in the Chukchi Sea into December of 2016” coupled with “strong winds from the north … at the end of March and early April” and also “a possible role of a strong oceanic heat inflow … via Bering Strait.”
I think we agree here. These exceptionally low ice concentrations in the Chukchi Sea at the end of last November (at its height, 130,000 sq km below any previous year, although 2017 was setting record lows in the Chukchi Sea from early Nov 2017 into December) are indeed more weather/noise than climate. Your argument @2 (Oct UV thread), @68 and again @179 was that discussion of this weather/noise “is not helpful.” You describe it as being “waving hands and breathless declarations about every little factoid that pops up.”
Outside particular analysis of SIE (swe are here at RC UV) I would agree but as I tried to explain @199 (Oct UV thread), the multi-decadal trend of reducing SIE is nowhere garranteed as linear. I asked if you saw the low November SIE of 2016 (not 2017 with the exceptional Chukchi Sea concentrations) as exceeding previous noise and suggested that if 2018 were to match 2016 (not 2017), it would be a worrying new development in SIE decline. Take a look at the NSIDC November 2017 Figure 3 graph (for some reason it wasn’t wanting to link directly @199 Oct UV).
Mind, the freeze-up of 2018 doesn’t now look anything like the reluctant 2016. But I am unrepentent with pointing to the exceptionally slow freeze-up through October 2018 SIE & comparing it with the exceptional 2016 Oct-Dec freeze-up.
Probably making a little ice in the Arctic – temps in deg. F:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute/74.70%2C-94.84?cm_ven=localwx_10day
Above normal at the South Pole:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/aq/amundsen-scott-south-pole-station/2258520/daily-weather-forecast/2258520
#11 Business-as-usual at times of increased CO2 Killian, and of course exactly as predicted when we add loads of CO2 to the atmosphere and a bunch of it dissolves in the oceans.
Shallowing of the calcite compensation depth, below (deeper than) which calcite is soluble and sinking shells dissolve in the water column or at the sea floor.
It’s one of the proxies by which geologists identify similar events in the past.
re Mr. KIA and his “If the Ds win, let me know if you see Rs rioting, bawling their eyes out, calling Ds thisaphobe or thataphobe, shooting up ball games…”
Look vile coward, my cousin knew six of the eleven victims in Pittsburgh. The synagogue is 100 yards from the house I grew up in. All were killed by one your brethren GOPers. As was the woman in Charlottesville. The unequivocal fact is that domestic (USA) terrorism by white male GOPers is the overwhelming majority source of terrorism in the USA. You must be so proud as you hide behind your keyboard spewing hate and ignorance.
Re #23 Dave_Geologist said #11 Business-as-usual at times of increased CO2 Killian, and of course exactly as predicted when we add loads of CO2 to the atmosphere and a bunch of it dissolves in the oceans.
Sure. But show me where anyone was predicting/expecting to see it *now.* Another “faster than predicted,” it would seem.
Mr KIA lists alleged nastiness and brutality by the Democrats when they supposedly loose elections. However it looks like the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in America recently are from the Republican sympathising side of politics, particularly when Obama was president but also under Trump.
Thats just how it is. Data below. I like data.
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/03/americans-are-more-likely-be-attacked-far-right-terrorists-islamists
https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/16396612/las-vegas-mass-shooting-terrorism-islam
Of course theres fault on both sides. The problem is often the extremists of whatever colour or flavour.
24 – Dan
See comment 19.
> The sea floor is dissolving.
And not for the first time. Look into the transitions between limestone and dolomite, which have taken spans of time out of the fossil record.
Let’s get to it. Saving the world that is.
Too late. Lockheed Martin is almost there. Watch the video:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html
And if Lockheed Martin doesn’t achieve useful fusion, perhaps this guy will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-LCfx9v4YQ
#21 MA Rodger,
“worrying new development”
It seems you are just not listening.
If you can offer some kind of physical reasoning about why a couple of months in a couple of years having a slow recovery would be significant, then please explain. Otherwise, handwaving and breathlessness are appropriate descriptors.
The climate system has been disrupted because of an increase in energy. We are experiencing extreme phenomena, as expected. But, those extreme phenomena are effects, not causes, so there’s no reason to change our projections and predictions based on their occurrence.
Non-linearity has to have a physical cause. A month where ice recovers slowly, but then reaches the expected maximum, is not the same as… OMG there’s a giant plume of methane being released from the tundra everywhere!!!
Get it?
#19, KIA–
Nice try, but no. Bowers may not be registered R, but he’s sure as hell a lot farther from a D–and his delusions are very much in line with the crap too often indulged in by the so-called president. (Specifically the fantasies about migrants being “rapists and murders” (TM) or “very bad hombres” (TM), etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
And you want to claim that Sayoc was “probably paid?” I perused several stories, but found nothing that suggested that. For perspective, you may want to consider this portrait:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-cesar-sayoc-trump-20181027-story.html
A loser, disturbed and alienated, glomming onto Trumpism in its extreme form. And seemingly pretty well-reported: specific quotes from specific sources, traceable in principle, if you have the wherewithal.
“…when you need to get a grip – you’re the last to know.”
That can be so–but it can be so in reference to anyone, including you, Mr. KIA.
So you might consider, too, some of the documented links between the violent right and support for Trump:
https://www.salon.com/2016/06/11/the_gop_must_be_proud_when_your_partys_nominee_is_the_darling_of_white_supremacists/
40 years of reporting on climate change:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/42-years-of-science-journalism-and-one-big-story-1.4889706
#28 Hank
Dolomite doesn’t form at the sea floor, other than in special circumstances like evaporite pans. Limestone is converted to dolomite in the subsurface by circulating Mg-rich fluid. Often after thousands of feet of burial.
#24 Killian. CCD migration has certainly been written about, although perhaps not often with a date put on it. It’s certainly salutary to see physical evidence already. Perhaps predicting a rate has been in the “too-difficult” box, like some glacial responses. Because it depends on how CO2 is incorporated into deep ocean currents and moved around, and represents a balance between primary production and solution not just pH, rates will be site-specific until we reach a new equilibrium. According to the paper, “only” about 2% of the ocean is affected so far, assuming no decline yet in shelly calcite formation. Acidification has been tracked through time in past oceans, giving clues to where the initial CO2 injection was happening during the PETM (IIRC the North Atlantic).
From 2008 “CaCO3 that fell to the seafloor in pre-industrial times, before any ocean acidification, may also be affected. As this CaCO3, lying at or near to the surface of the sediments, comes into contact with increasingly acidic deep bottom waters, it is likely that some of it, finding itself now lying beneath a suddenly shallower lysocline, will be chemically eroded via dissolution.”
Here are some papers from a 2010-2014 project looking at the reverse transition, with interesting tipping-point interactions with Antarctic Ice Cap formation.
See Ocean Acidification and Biological Consequences for a good overview (no, not that Koch). The Southern Ocean Aragonite Compensation depth (shallower than the CCD) is predicted to rise to the surface around the end of this century. Bad news, not just for pteropods: “Aragonite-producing pteropods are the dominant calcifiers, base of the food chain”.
Thanks Dave_Geologist.
Killian, you can look this stuff up:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&ei=BWXgW_KCMoe60PEPicGz-Ac&q=calcite+compensation+depth+%22climate+change%22&oq=calcite+compensation+depth+%22climate+change%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3…13929.18836..19283…0.0..0.216.1257.16j0j1……0….1..gws-wiz…….0j0i71j0i22i30j33i160j33i299j33i22i29i30.9A41b6RcFbo
would give you a good start on the subject.
KIA 6: Not interested in even trying to find solutions to AGW?
BPL: How does that follow from anything I said? Are you insane?
KIA 19: It is likely that the bomb guy was paid to do it
BPL: By who? The Jews? The Vatican? I have it! The Illuminati!
I hope everybody votes tomorrow.
zebra @31,
I suppose “breathlessness” is an appropriate description of my exasperation at you lack of thought in this matter, a thoughtlessness that has you accusing me of “handwaving” which is all rather odd given your final sentence @17.
Here is a question. Did the 2016/17 freeze season reach the “expected maximum”?
The daily max SEI was (and is) the lowest on record in JAXA & NSIDC. The monthly max SEI was (and is) the lowest on record in JAXA $ NSIDC. The monthly SIV max was (and is) the lowest in PIOMAS with the lowest level of min-to-max re-freeze since before 2007 (when the annual re-freeze became noticably bigger).
Now, if that is what you were expecting for the 2016/17 freeze season maximum, I woud ask why?
As for physical reasoning why a couple of months of very slow ice growth is significant (and especially if it proved to be recurrent), that is because (on my calendar alt least) a 2 month period is a very significant part of the freeze season.
26 – nigelj
It’s that pesky data again – be careful where you get your information.
FBI most wanted for terrorism:
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorism
Mr. KIA: “Let’s get to it. Saving the world that is. Too late. Lockheed Martin is almost there.”
So, tell me, are you this gullible in all aspects of your life? Or is this merely another rationalization for postponing action while the smart people save your pathetic tuckus yet again.
The solution is simple. All we have to do is move the earth 100,000 miles or so further from the sun. A simple engineering problem that should be solvable for a few trillion dollars. We have to solve this problem anyway in the next few billion years since no one thinks that we can control the sun. What are we waiting for? ;-)
So now we know for certain that Mr. KIA is an blatant liar and an anti-Semite enabler. That is now unequivocal.
Let’s be quite clear, KIA, about three things: 1. Someone utterly failed bringing you up because you do not have an ounce of basic morals. 2. You have made it crystal clear that you have no critical thinking skills at all and you just regurgitate lies (climate change lies/denial and or others); classic intellectual laziness. Textbook, in fact. And 3. Never, ever have children. Because you would just teach them that lies, hate and ignorance (scientific and otherwise) are acceptable. They are not at least in the USA, coward.
(BTW, how convenient of you to ignore all the photos of the Pittsburgh shooters van covered with Trump support signs and stickers.)
MAR @ Zebra.
We all know that according to the experts the most important thing is the long term trend, the ten years plus trend. Anything less is likely to be noise.Im not hugely into short term data.
But not “all” short term “stuff” is noise or handwaving. Not if its a significant event outside of expectations. And sure you need to figure out whats causing it. It seems to me the difficulty is working out what is hand waving and what isn’t, and avoiding confirmation bias or jumping to conclusions that something important has changed (eg warming has stopped / taken off, depending on your perspective).
The low sea ice in the arctic in 2016 was a weather event – possibly made more likely by climate change as below related to the jet stream. This is your physical mechanism. So it doesn’t seem to be just noise. Another similar event this year would be further evidence. So 2016 was significant and not simply hand waving.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113493-global-sea-ice-has-reached-a-record-low-should-we-be-worried/
2015 – 2017 was only a couple of years, but was significant as it ended a period of sluggish warming. It killed any remaining argument about a pause.
Was going to mention the recent global and MLO CO2 readings and growth rates but I thought better of it.
I was reminded that “The Future is still in Our Hands”
26: “The problem is often the extremists of whatever colour or flavour.”
Another problem is the inability of a lot of people to look at individuals in isolation, instead they pick a group with certain qualities or opinions they don’t like, cherry pick the extremists, then claim or imply EVERYONE IN THAT GROUP IS LIKE THAT in order to try and turn people against them. We haven’t really evolved that much mentally from the hunter-gatherer days.
https://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-depression-is-for-real-just-ask-a-scientist/?fbclid=IwAR2nC8_7jBUcjXCsL3SR6qQlV93C2IDaV-uulWV-YTcO-zkgjgfr3X0_yt8
A nice dispatch from the intersection of climate change and vulcanology–with a small dash of public policy thrown in.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/mount-meager-eruption-risk
Pretty pictures, too. Gotta love fieldwork.
The Resplandy et al. paper’s results are wrong. When correctly calculated, the ocean heat uptake they derive is in the middle of existing estimates, or below them if calculated over the last decade or so. Also, when calculated appropriately the uncertainty in the new estimate is far larger than the authors claim. See my analysis here: https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/
Mr. Know It All @40, your list inclues a mixture of suspects including white guys, moslems, latinos, domestic and international terror suspects, politics of suspects not clear. Your list proves precisely nothing.