This month’s open thread for climate science discussions.
Reader Interactions
182 Responses to "Unforced variations: Feb 2019"
Carriesays
MLO CO2 readings data is “noisy” – yes that is true. The shorter the time frame the noisier it becomes. Hourly readings are like all over the place on many days. So there is nothing be alarmed about this week at MLO. Probably is only natural variation, if so it will fall very shortly, or the is an early forcing from the very weak just barely beginning of the 2019 El Nino which seems to have moved out of “watch 50/50” station… although of course this too could be nothing more than natural variation in the yardsticks they use to determine ENSO shifts. We’ll have to wait and see.
While the US has declared an el nino the BOM in Australia has not with the Next issue due 19 February 2019 .. so we will soon find out.
Week beginning on February 10, 2019: 412.41 ppm +3.86 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 387.17 ppm
Last updated: February 17, 2019 https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
It appears the last months (28 days) MLO CO2 weekly increases yoy are
+3.68, +3.07, +3.82 and now +3.86 ppm
Early days yet of course but it appears initially that at least one of my suggestions for 2019 is well on the way to coming true already. Let’s wait and see where things are at the end of May 2019 first. A lot can happen in a few months.
January 2019: 410.83 ppm +2.87 PPM
Feb to-date : 411.80 ppm +3.61 PPM (estimate)
Killiansays
This is quite unnerving re: CH4. Has this been posted before? 250% rise in 30 years, and accelerating…
Carriesays
93 mike says: “It’s always helpful to speak only about the things that can be stated clearly because it allows for more understanding and less confusion. “No ENSO in sight” misses the mark for speaking clearly.”
Sure does mike. I totally agree.
BTW what I actually said, if it matters, was No El Nino in sight
Maybe only a subtle difference to some, but to me it’s as clear as crystal and perfectly fitted the rest of what I was saying in perfect harmony and context!
However, no matter how hard we all try things do get lost in translation anyway. My suggestion then is, that when something said by anyone is not stated clearly enough, anyone, or as you claim “misses the mark” then the best strategy is to ask for it to be clarified and made clearer.
It’s not difficult a thing to do but for some perhaps impossible. :-)
@98 Killian
“Stealth methane accumulating at an accelerating rate. But from where? Maybe be positive feedback of warming. 2C in jeopardy.”
There is nothing wrong with what you said here. It certainly is at least partly due to a reinforcing feedback of warming. We can easily see the methane bubbling up from all sorts of places where permafrost is melting. It’s a predicted feedback that is confirmed by scientific observation. 100% behind you there.
However, then you linked to a Guardian article that literally tries to blame cows grazing on a pasture by implication! How could you spread this pseudoscience?
Cows grazing on pasture are part of a biome that reduces atmospheric methane. In fact the upland pastures and open woodlands/savanna soils are the only net atmospheric methane sink on the planet!
I have written about this before.
Biotic oxidation of methane is accomplished by methanotrophs which are bacteria that eat methane as their only source of carbon and energy, which is then incorporated into organic compounds via the serine pathway or the ribulose monophosphate pathway.[1] Of all the natural methane sources and sinks, the biotic oxidation is the most responsive to variation in human activities.[2] It can be improved by proper management of upland oxic soils by proper grassland/savanna/open woodland management in agriculture. Essentially the healthy grassland soils are an overall net sink for methane, while closed canopy forests, wetlands, and degraded soils are generally not.[3]
This knowledge leads to a similar strategy to reduce methane as we can use to reduce CO2. We must reduce the leakage of Natural gas from wells and pipelines and inefficient incomplete burning. Collect the methane from landfills and other manmade concentrated sources, so it can be burned as an energy source. (rapid oxidation)
We must change agricultural practices that remove the large ruminant herbivores from the grasslands where they belong to the new science based regenerative grazing methods. And yes that includes cows but also includes almost every other large ruminant in the world including wildlife, as the numbers are at all time record lows on every single continent. Yeah I know it is counter intuitive, but of all people here I thought at least you would already understand this. Part of the reason Methane levels are so high is that worldwide ruminant numbers on grasslands are so low. In fact many entire vast grasslands are completely gone lock, stock, and barrel.
When was the last time you saw a bison roaming the vast North American tallgrass prairie that stretched from Ohio to Eastern Oklahoma and even parts of Texas? OOPS that most productive biome on the planet is gone. Completely replaced by cornfields. Cornfields using copious quantities of haber process nitrogen and a significant source of global warming.[4] So we remove the sink and replace it with a source and wonder why methane and carbon dioxide levels are skyrocketing unchecked?
at Zebra: ok, I read your comments at 1. I am not sure that I understand what your mechanism is for reducing population. Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?
cheers,
Mike
Solar Jimsays
RE: Scott @ 104
Thanks for your discussion in relation to methane emissions and agriculture. However, please do not discount the industrialized countries multi-year fascination with the false solution of hydraulic fracturing (the lithosphere) for petroleum and fossil methane (aka “natural gas”). See, for example “New NASA Study Solves Climate Mystery – confirms methane spike tied to oil and gas” at DeSmog 1/16/18.
mikesays
ignore my comments at 105. Those belong on the FR thread.
Al Bundysays
Scott,
Yeah, the Guardian should have used a photo of intensive animal agriculture. I suppose they were trying to show that “even Betsy is too much”.
Got an opinion on the ” seaweed cure”? These folks have supposedly reduced cow methane from belches by up to 58% by adding seaweed to cow diets. It increased milk production, too.
And since that particular species of seaweed is not plentiful it would have to be farmed, say in the middle of those dead zones we’ve created near river mouths. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane
Carriesays
104
Scott E Strough says: “However, then you linked to a Guardian article that literally tries to blame cows grazing on a pasture by implication!”
That’s just silly and really poor form. It’s gaslighting and blaming someone for something they have no control over. The article doesn’t blame cows they have a picture of cows.
If you wanted to be so critical then why not write to TG and get up them for not posting a link to the actual paper.
I found it on my own and that paper says absolutely nothing about COWS. So get off his back and add something useful and actually connected to the paper the article and Killian was alerting people to .. it’s brand new, so new they have not finished editing and doing the page layout for it. Jeez.
I was going to post the link to it here, now I won’t. Go find it yourselves! So sick of the immature rudeness of the participants here. Even if I really liked your website and the work you do now all I have is bad taste in my mouth.
Carriesays
105 mike this is the last time I’ll ever be directing a comment to you or offering assistance of any kind.
Jonny McAneneysays
A number of years ago I did a guest blog on this site regarding a revision of the Greenland ice-cores (in particular the GICC05 timescale) in the first millennium AD. For those interested this is a quick follow up to that blog.
I, along with my co-author Mike Baillie, have published a new article in Antiquity (Antiquity 93 (367) 99-112) further revision to the Greenland ice cores back to around 2000 BC. We find that the GICC05 timescale is up to 14 years too old in the 2nd millennium BC, whilst the GISP2 timescale is over 40 years too old. Furthermore, we find that the abrupt climate event observed in various tree ring chronologies beginning around 1628 or 1627 BC is probably not caused by the Bronze Age eruption of Thera (modern day santorini) as has been suggested since 1984, but rather the large caldera forming eruption of Aniakchak, Alaska. Absolutely dating of this volcanic eruption to 1627 BC might improve understanding of the effects of volcanic forcing from high latitude eruptions.
Another consequence of our revised chronology is that we find disparate agreement with the radiocarbon evidence for the dating of Thera. While pedantry allows for thera to be hidden by the eruption of Aniakchak, it seems more probably that Thera erupted in the 16th century BC as suggested by archaeological evidence. This fits with the recent work of Pearson et al. (2018) who found that the radiocarbon claibration cure may be in error between 1660-1540 BC, and thus making the calibrated radiocarbon dates for Thera too old. That is, Thera ever was in the 17th century BC as suggested by radiocarbon dating, but actually erupted in the 16th century BC as suspected by archaeologists. If we can absolutely date Thera, not only would we have a better understanding of teh History and synchronicity of Near Eastern Bronze Age cultures (its fall out is a datum on a wide swath of archaeological sites), we might be able to get better understanding of the effects of large mid-latitude eruptions on the climate.
The relevant papers can be read on the following links.
Carrie,
Scott said, “by implication”. Now, use your brain. How could they imply (imply means to NOT say) Would a photo at the top of the article of cows in a pasture do?
I’m pretty sure the Guardian has 100% control over which photos they publish. So I’m just going to assume you were in a fowl mood and were squawking without engaging the frontal lobes. It always brings a chuckle when somebody resembles their remarks.
And seriously, though this subject probably belongs on FR, Scott’s comment was far and away the most interesting and informative comment on this thread. Don’t you agree?
_—–
Killian, I read (last night) that earlier and heavier spring rains are probably starting to melt permafrost faster than expected. Your instincts sound right. They measured a 30% increase in CH4 in years with that weather pattern
I didn’t ever meet him, but he made a real contribution.
Nemesissays
@Killian, #96
” Efficiency never overcomes growth… And this is one reason tech cannot, will not, save us.”
Well put. But the economy (and therefore politics) will never ever accept that :))
Btw, still spring temperatures in Germany and these temperature anomalies will go on during the coming days. Winter is over in Germany, Switzerland, Austria ect since the beginning of last week (it was a quite mild winter anyway). I am quite curious what this summer 2019 will be like 8)
Killiansays
Another CH4 feedback: Early spring rains in the Arctic.
Re #104 Scott E Strough said @98 Killian
“Stealth methane accumulating at an accelerating rate. But from where? Maybe be positive feedback of warming. 2C in jeopardy.”
There is nothing wrong with what you said here. It certainly is at least partly due to a reinforcing feedback of warming. We can easily see the methane bubbling up from all sorts of places where permafrost is melting. It’s a predicted feedback that is confirmed by scientific observation. 100% behind you there.
However, then you linked to a Guardian article that literally tries to blame cows grazing on a pasture by implication! How could you spread this pseudoscience?
Cows grazing on pasture are part of a biome that reduces atmospheric methane. In fact the upland pastures and open woodlands/savanna soils are the only net atmospheric methane sink on the planet.
I have written about this before.
Have you? How great for you! Have you ever paid attention to other things, for instance not assuming posting a link equals unqualified support for an article, or all points in an article? Or, that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, i.e. me not mentioning cows from that article does not mean I don’t know about cows? Or the myriad times I have talked about regenerative practices, including rotational grazing, etc.?
Now, that article cited several sources of CH4, and non-regenerative cattle husbandry *is* a problem, but that us not what caught my eye. Note what you quoted? It was about **temperatures**, so maybe go back and read the article again. A small apology, teeny-tiny, might also be good.
For the record, this is what piqued my attention:
However, other scientists warn that there could be a more sinister factor at work. Natural chemicals in the atmosphere – which help to break down methane – may be changing because of temperature rises, causing it to lose its ability to deal with the gas.
Carrie,
Thanks, as always, for your support, however, while the article was not about cattle per se, it did mention them, so Scott was not entirely out of line, just very presumptuous, and oddly so given my background and posting content here. Meh…
mikesays
Daily CO2
February 18, 2019: 411.86 ppm
February 18, 2018: 408.43 ppm
3.43 ppm, could be worse, it’s not 5 or 6 or 7 ppm.
I think our steady work on reducing emissions are pretty directly linked to the 3.43 ppm increase, so good work all! Let’s keep it under 4! That could be an optimistic rallying cry. To heck with 350 or any of that foolishness. That’s too discouraging. If we set a goal of keeping the yoy increase number under 4 ppm we can be be happy and optimistc almost every day.
weekly also well under 4 ppm!
February 10 – 16, 2019 412.41 ppm
February 10 – 16, 2018 408.55 ppm
going to drive my tiny electric car across town to exercise, then stopping to celebrate because it’s taco tuesday!
Cheers,
Mike
Al Bundysays
Mike,
CONGRATS! You’ll never have to worry about Carried interest again (it sure can be taxing,eh?)
nigeljsays
Scott Strough says that cattle roaming freely on the huge open grasslands could be in some form of climate equilibrium where emissions are absorbed by natural sinks. He appears to think end intensive dairy farming and adopt this model. This sounds correct, but the trouble is we have millions of cows in intensive dairy farms and the numbers look too high to all be accommodated on open plains.
I think we have to reduce meat consumption as well.
Carriesays
112 Al Bundy says: “Don’t you agree?”
I make it a rule to never agree with impertinent fools or fools in general. Sorry.
117 Killian, yes, it’s obvious the article did mention cows and there was a photo of cows there too.
[ For the general peanut gallery – I saw that. I must have seen that otherwise how would I have been able to get the info to go search for and find the Source Science Paper TG was writing about? Why go search for it without FIRST reading the damned article? Basic logic isn’t of much interest to many posters here. Back to Killian …. ]
Sorry a hasty ‘typo’ where I missed the qualifying info. My bad. My intent was however 100% spot on even if the obvious small error in my text was not 100% correct …. maybe we could crowd source to buy Gavin an editable forum program and drag this place kicking and screaming in the 20 teens? LOL
NOAA have posted for January with an anomaly of +0.88ºC, a small rise on December’s +0.86ºC and equalling the highest anomaly of 2018. (Last year anomalies ranged from +0.88ºC down to +0.70ºC with the year averaging +0.79ºC). This is then showing a little more warmth at the start of the year than did GISTEMP.
It is =3rd warmest January in NOAA (was 4th in GISTEMP) behind previous Januarys 1st-placed 2016 (+1.06ºC), 2017 (+0.91ºC), equalling and 2007 (+0.88ºC) and ahead of 5th-placed 2015 (+0.82ºC), this pretty-much an identical ordering as found in GISTEMP.
It is =19th warmest month on the all-month record (=25th in GISTEMP).
Within the global figure, oceans saw a cooling and while land saw a warming.
@ pretty much everyone,
Wow looks like I struck a nerve there with my essay on Methane considering the number of responses.
From the top. Solar Jim yes! Agreed 100% the source of the main problem is fossil fuels. Both the Melting methane from the permafrost and the soil sink are feedbacks, one a reinforcing feedback and the other a stabilizing feedback, and we are increasing the one and reducing the other, yet the real forcing is natural gas leaks. I was trying to find a pun there with leeks to lighten the mood but somehow it didn’t work.
Al Bundy,
No Al, I do not know about feeding cows with seaweed. Saw a cow eat some Sargasso weed once, walked right out on the beach and started chomping away, but I have no idea if it was healthy for the cow or not. Maybe that’s cracker cows’ secret? Who knows? That is the sum total of my knowledge on seaweed as a cow feedstock.
Carrie,
That’s fair. You are right that Killian didn’t write the article, but it is also quite true that the Guardian and especially Monbiot have been doing their best to put the false thought in peoples heads that it is cows and even cows on proper pasture are a major methane problem. So in this case it is not really an accidental thing that an article mostly about thawing permafrost and fossil fuel emissions has a heavily biased anti cow slant. Images do matter. Look how Robin McKie orders the content, literally in reverse order of importance. I have had to simply choose to not use certain references on this subject precisely because of this issue. Another example on this side of the pond would be the Cowspiracy film, which is also causing all sorts of problems with educating people as to what is needed to be done. Again, images do matter and although the content flaws were minor, they are there too.
Killian, yes I did see that. I don’t know what to make of it though. Atmospheric chemistry reducing the abiotic oxidation in the atmosphere? Certainly that would be an unforeseen emergent property in the system, wouldn’t it? How will the climate models handle this feedback? Is it even big enough to be significant? I am all questions about that with no answers, which is why the previous post didn’t mention it.I just don’t know anything about that particular feedback, so I remained silent so someone who does know can answer.
But this is what got me: “Perhaps emissions are growing or perhaps the problem is due to the fact that our atmosphere is losing its ability to break down methane.”
That’s a whole lot of speculation about the atmosphere losing its ability to break down methane, when we have a completely unmentioned loss of soils’ ability to break down methane! Why did the article ignore the obvious and well known, literally implying the opposite of what the science says, and instead focus on speculation?
So I will take my medicine and say sorry. Yes indeed I have been quite grumpy lately. Not the least because it is grueling enough to try and educate the urgency of action without the confusion caused by piss poor journalism. And yes I tried to make it clear I am angry at the article and not you, but you could have at least mentioned that they got a significant part wrong. Makes one wonder about the rest of the article actually.
In my defense I did want to make sure this information got out there again. Because it seems to me this is the “low fruit” yet nothing done about it yet. FYI
mikesays
At AB: very clever! I like it. Carrie – I just come here to post what I think about climate science and to read what others are thinking. We agree on a lot of stuff. You can weigh in or not on anything I post. Either way is fine with me.
At Zebra: sorry, I just don’t know what you are talking about wrt population. It’s not a topic of great interest to me. I think it would be helpful if there were fewer homo sapiens on the planet. I love my kids and grandkids and I understand why humans want to have babies, but I worry about how global warming will play out in the next 100 years. I think any human being that understands what global warming may bring to us in the next 100 years might think twice about having babies now.
Sad to hear about Wallace Broecker’s death. He saw the risk of global warming pretty early.
Cheers
Mike
Carriesays
Still no El Nino exists.
Five of eight climate models indicate the central Pacific is likely to reach borderline or weak El Niño levels during autumn, with four models remaining above threshold levels into winter.
El Niño predictions made in late summer and early autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current forecasts of the ENSO state beyond May should be used with some caution. The BOM says. THE scientific experts in the field.
Therefore when viewing data for global and MLO CO2 levels and temperatures from today going back – let’s say only 3 Months in this example – El Nino has played no role because … wait for it .. there was no El Nino in sight that could be imapcting on those readings!
Especially when one takes into consideration the well known LAG EFFECT upon such things as CO2 level between 2 to 8 months in duration.
No El Nino effect that could have been impacting on regional or global CO2 levels or Temperature November 2018 through to February 2019.
Why? Because no El Nino exists during this period.
Which logically leaves the possibility of “natural variation” or some other as yet unknown / undetermined driver of the sudden abrupt rise in CO2 readings ie GROWTH relative to historical norms and patterns at this time of year.
I defer in this instance to Killian who has verbalised one of my own thoughts and that of scientists who don’t come here about early spring shifts appearing to be now shifts in winter too that are, well, unprecedented in the historical records outside of El Nino affected Nov to Feb periods.
So the predominate issue is Climate change right? Is it any surprise when things are changing to the historical norms? The Guardians report on the Nesbit paper on CH4 is well worth a read. It could be implicated as well in rising CO2 levels and the higher temperatures of late.
A Japan body posted January as the equal second hottest January of all time contrary to other reports.
I heard Gavin on another thread here saying that there are on avg 55 new climate science papers being released/published every single day now. Things have changed there too. Good luck keeping up. :-)
Killiansays
Old Growth forests sequester more carbon than (scientists) thought.
105 – mike
“Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?”
Ask Ralph Northam.
Dansays
re: 125.
KIA: ““Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?”
Ask Ralph Northam.”
Once again, a truly vile comment by coward KIA. Disingenuous to the max. And lazily regurgitating what someone told him without a shred of fact. Hint: Northam is a doctor, sport. And you never read the bill. Textbook intellectual laziness just as you are re: climate change. Learn to read for comprehension.
Nemesissays
@Mr Know it All, #125
I know who you are, so leave me alone with that shit. I will only waste my precious time once for you:
Do you see the temperature anomalies in Europe?! I DO.
Now leave me alone, I won’t waste anymore time to you.
Much Love,
Nemesis
Al Bundysays
Mike: going to drive my tiny electric car across town to exercise
AB: Ask Killian if that’s the simplest way to exercise. ;-)
BPL,
I see Jesus not as a moral teacher but as an efficiency expert who happened to be Jewish. That turn the other cheek thing is about efficiency. Ask Killian how long this group would last in hunter gatherer land even if we all had every bit of the hunter gatherers’ knowledge.
So now can you see what Ray has been saying?
Carriesays
124 mike says: ” You can weigh in or not on anything I post. Either way is fine with me. ”
Great .. the you MO is passive aggressive and at times unnecessarily insulting to others. You lack respect for others generally. You take and do not give. You criticise others passive aggressively by cowardly dumping on them while responding to others rather than speak to the people concerned directly. I have no respect for people who repeatedly act like that. They make my skin crawl for good reason. It doesn’t only happen to me but to others I have seen this approach being applied to as well. It’s a HABIT and a distasteful one IMHO. The scales have titled way too far after giving you the benefit of the doubt in the past. No more. Not interested.
Al Bundysays
Carrie,
Did I read that right? You agree or disagree with a statement based firstly on your opinion of the speaker (as in, if speaker is a fool, disagree, else analyze statement…?
Add in the other case, to agree without significant analysis if speaker is a buddy.
Cool. Now I have evidence that I’m fairly accurate in my model of your mental program.
Oh yeah, thanks for letting me know how evil mike is. And here I thought he was a nice guy.
Mike,
My condolences. It appears that taxes ARE inevitable, even when the taxing “girl” promises to leave you be.
Al Bundysays
Nemesis,
“Just one more” is self delusion. There is no such animal.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @ 131, I gather you are saying “turn the other cheek” means we should walk away from conflict and war and the inefficiency and waste it brings, but that avoiding all conflict can render us defenceless in some situations? If so, this is why things like “turn the other cheek” need careful interpretation. Surely it is always going to depend on context?
In addition, procedural rules like turn the other cheek, or some improved version of this are not incompatible with ethical systems focused on outcomes, provided outcomes take precedence. The two systems are not mutually exclusive. So you, BPL and Ray are all wrong on this one.
Al Bundysays
Carrie,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please post three examples of mike’s passive aggressiveness. I’ll be happy to destroy your illusion.
Various people, including me, have taken their turn as the room’s ______.
At this moment in time you are certainly the, uh, stench in the room.
mikesays
Better, though noisy day on CO2 numbers:
Daily CO2
February 20, 2019: 410.65 ppm
February 20, 2018: 408.33 ppm
I would love to see a week, a month, a year or three at anything like 2.32 ppm or less.
I’m not sure, but I think Carrie is going to stop talking with me. I might get the silent treatment. That will sting a bit, but I am a pretty resilient old dude. I will probably survive.
United Nations says they think we have a problem with falling biodiversity that could cause problems with our groceries:
The 30-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has dropped rapidly over the last week, and for the 30 days to 17 February was −5.7. The 90-day SOI was +1.3. Both are within the neutral range.
Sustained negative values of the SOI below −7 typically indicate El Niño while sustained positive values above +7 typically indicate La Niña. Values between +7 and −7 generally indicate neutral conditions. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
Tropical Pacific ENSO-neutral, but some recent warming observed
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral. However, the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook remains at El Niño WATCH, meaning there is approximately a 50% chance of El Niño developing during the southern hemisphere autumn or winter, twice the normal likelihood.
El Niño typically results in below average autumn and winter rainfall for southern and eastern Australia.
Tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures have warmed slightly in the past fortnight. In the sub-surface, weak warmth extends down to 175 m depth. Recent weakening of the trade winds in the western Pacific means that further warming of the equatorial Pacific is likely in the coming weeks to months.
Five of eight climate models indicate the central Pacific is likely to reach borderline or weak El Niño levels during autumn (March-April-May), with four models remaining above threshold levels into winter (June-July-August).
El Niño predictions made in late summer and early autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current forecasts of the ENSO state beyond May should be used with some caution.
[ Note: Meaning it can go either way or not change at all. ]
Meanwhile with no El Nino in sight (able to be affecting the CO2 levels in the atmosphere as yet in any noticeable manner) the MLO CO2 levels persist above +3.20 ppm growth on the year before for this week not yet completed. January average was +2.87 ppm growth. Interesting times. :-)
Nemesis: Do you see any winter temperatures in Europe?! I DON’T.
AB: Don’t blame KIA. It snows a lot on mountaintops, and mountaintop living gets the exterior pressure to more equal the interior pressure. Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself, asking him to live in reality when reality hurts. He’d implode.
Al Bundysays
To the wannabe girl:
I’m going to shred every lie and error you post. I will praise you when you accidentally say something relevant and/or nice (except to your buddy, the sockpuppetmaster). Please try to increase the latter, otherwise I’m going to give folks plenty of opportunity to laugh….
….at YOU.
This site MUST clean up, and if the mods refuse, I’ll do what I can. If they want help, I’m offering my services, as others have mentioned (crowdfunding, etc). So. mods, either do SOMETHING or watch and hope.
Geez, mods, you have a world-class systems designer at your beck-and-call and you choose to….
…what?
Al Bundysays
Carrie: not interested
AB: yet entirely focused. Full humans are strange. Closets are toxic, but they do protect subhumans from fullhumans
Al Bundysays
What? You guys thought subhuman was an insult?
No, dudes. The insult is fullhuman.
zebrasays
#134 Al Bundy,
“‘Just one more’ is self delusion. There is no such animal.”
Ample evidence here.
We seem to be back to the full expression of Column-Inches Addiction without even the grace to keep the childish outbursts and reflexive posting over on FR where they might be at least slightly relevant.
And that’s coming from someone who actually wants to discuss real topics on FR, but would rather go without than see somewhat climate-scientific lines again get buried here on UV.
Nemesissays
@Al Bundy
” Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself, asking him to live in reality when reality hurts. He’d implode.”
BEST have posted for January with an anomaly of +0.87ºC, almost identical to December’s anomaly and standing towards the upper end of the range of 2018 anomalies. (Last year’s anomalies ranged from +0.91ºC down to +0.70ºC with the year averaging +0.80ºC). So not a great difference from GISTEMP & NOAA.
It is 4th warmest January in BEST (was 4th in GISTEMP, =3rd in NOAA) behind previous Januarys 1st-placed 2016 (+1.16ºC), 2017 (+1.00ºC), and 2007 (+0.88ºC) and ahead of 5th-placed 2018 (+0.79ºC) & 6th place 2015 (+0.78ºC).
It is 26th warmest month on the all-month record (=25th in GISTEMP, =19th in NOAA).
With ENSO indices (NINO3.4 & SOI) showing a bit more vigour over the last couple of weeks boosting the likely strength of the present El Niño, there is yet more reason to suggest 2019 will end up as the second warmest year on record after the big El Niño year of 2016.
mike @137,
I’ve been monitoring the daily NOAA Global CO2 ‘trend’ for about a month now and it does show a reasonable amount of stability. The smoothing corrections ripple back about 6 months so the end of the smoothed line is not a good predictor of where it may be going next but as a marker of where things are, it is a reasonable marker. The graph here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) shows how it deviates from annually averaged Global & MLO monthly dCO2 data.
So the present slow appearance of a second inflection (that would be the acceleration of dCO2 turning back up again) looks possible but isn’t a done deal while the smoothed-out wibbly-wobbles of dCO2 are today somewhere near 2.5ppm/year.
nigeljsays
“Meanwhile with no El Nino in sight (able to be affecting the CO2 levels in the atmosphere as yet in any noticeable manner) the MLO CO2 levels persist above +3.20 ppm growth on the year before for this week not yet completed. January average was +2.87 ppm growth. Interesting times. :-)”
I cannot normally bring myself to get that hugely interested in short term trends of a week or month. I will assume from the comment that we are currently higher than would be expected. I agree its hard to see how el nino is implicated. I know of no documented cause of the upsurge, nothing on the net that I could find.Perhaps the fact that temperatures are pretty high even for a non el nino year has some part in it.
I do know there have been a number of forest fires recently in Australia and elsewhere and the Californian forest fires were recent, and CO2 takes some time to mix through the atmosphere, so maybe its a delayed response to this.
Other possibilities could be an upsurge in emissions from fossil fuels due to the very cold period in America from late jan – feb 2019.
It could just be noise from the natural cycles. Or perhaps theres an increase in volcanic activity globally. It could be natural process of decaying organic matter speeding up somewhere, like some sort of tipping point, which would be ominous but I know of no specific case of this.
One month is pretty short term and is likely some combination of things and doesn’t look too ominous to me yet. If the rate remains unusually high for more than 3 months, to me it would suggest something outside the normal pattern of noise, and so ominous.
MLO CO2 readings data is “noisy” – yes that is true. The shorter the time frame the noisier it becomes. Hourly readings are like all over the place on many days. So there is nothing be alarmed about this week at MLO. Probably is only natural variation, if so it will fall very shortly, or the is an early forcing from the very weak just barely beginning of the 2019 El Nino which seems to have moved out of “watch 50/50” station… although of course this too could be nothing more than natural variation in the yardsticks they use to determine ENSO shifts. We’ll have to wait and see.
While the US has declared an el nino the BOM in Australia has not with the Next issue due 19 February 2019 .. so we will soon find out.
February 16: 412.53 ppm
February 15: 412.54 ppm
February 14: Unavailable
February 13: 412.10 ppm
February 12: 411.80 ppm
Last Updated: February 17, 2019
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
Week beginning on February 10, 2019: 412.41 ppm +3.86 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 387.17 ppm
Last updated: February 17, 2019
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
It appears the last months (28 days) MLO CO2 weekly increases yoy are
+3.68, +3.07, +3.82 and now +3.86 ppm
Early days yet of course but it appears initially that at least one of my suggestions for 2019 is well on the way to coming true already. Let’s wait and see where things are at the end of May 2019 first. A lot can happen in a few months.
January 2019: 410.83 ppm +2.87 PPM
Feb to-date : 411.80 ppm +3.61 PPM (estimate)
This is quite unnerving re: CH4. Has this been posted before? 250% rise in 30 years, and accelerating…
93 mike says: “It’s always helpful to speak only about the things that can be stated clearly because it allows for more understanding and less confusion. “No ENSO in sight” misses the mark for speaking clearly.”
Sure does mike. I totally agree.
BTW what I actually said, if it matters, was No El Nino in sight
Maybe only a subtle difference to some, but to me it’s as clear as crystal and perfectly fitted the rest of what I was saying in perfect harmony and context!
However, no matter how hard we all try things do get lost in translation anyway. My suggestion then is, that when something said by anyone is not stated clearly enough, anyone, or as you claim “misses the mark” then the best strategy is to ask for it to be clarified and made clearer.
It’s not difficult a thing to do but for some perhaps impossible. :-)
@98 Killian
“Stealth methane accumulating at an accelerating rate. But from where? Maybe be positive feedback of warming. 2C in jeopardy.”
There is nothing wrong with what you said here. It certainly is at least partly due to a reinforcing feedback of warming. We can easily see the methane bubbling up from all sorts of places where permafrost is melting. It’s a predicted feedback that is confirmed by scientific observation. 100% behind you there.
However, then you linked to a Guardian article that literally tries to blame cows grazing on a pasture by implication! How could you spread this pseudoscience?
Cows grazing on pasture are part of a biome that reduces atmospheric methane. In fact the upland pastures and open woodlands/savanna soils are the only net atmospheric methane sink on the planet!
I have written about this before.
Biotic oxidation of methane is accomplished by methanotrophs which are bacteria that eat methane as their only source of carbon and energy, which is then incorporated into organic compounds via the serine pathway or the ribulose monophosphate pathway.[1] Of all the natural methane sources and sinks, the biotic oxidation is the most responsive to variation in human activities.[2] It can be improved by proper management of upland oxic soils by proper grassland/savanna/open woodland management in agriculture. Essentially the healthy grassland soils are an overall net sink for methane, while closed canopy forests, wetlands, and degraded soils are generally not.[3]
This knowledge leads to a similar strategy to reduce methane as we can use to reduce CO2. We must reduce the leakage of Natural gas from wells and pipelines and inefficient incomplete burning. Collect the methane from landfills and other manmade concentrated sources, so it can be burned as an energy source. (rapid oxidation)
We must change agricultural practices that remove the large ruminant herbivores from the grasslands where they belong to the new science based regenerative grazing methods. And yes that includes cows but also includes almost every other large ruminant in the world including wildlife, as the numbers are at all time record lows on every single continent. Yeah I know it is counter intuitive, but of all people here I thought at least you would already understand this. Part of the reason Methane levels are so high is that worldwide ruminant numbers on grasslands are so low. In fact many entire vast grasslands are completely gone lock, stock, and barrel.
When was the last time you saw a bison roaming the vast North American tallgrass prairie that stretched from Ohio to Eastern Oklahoma and even parts of Texas? OOPS that most productive biome on the planet is gone. Completely replaced by cornfields. Cornfields using copious quantities of haber process nitrogen and a significant source of global warming.[4] So we remove the sink and replace it with a source and wonder why methane and carbon dioxide levels are skyrocketing unchecked?
[1]Methanotroph – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph
[2]Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743065/
[3]IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/10217/47280/Judd_colostate_0053N_10443.pdf?sequence=1+
[4]Methane flux in non-wetland soils in response to nitrogen addition: a meta-analysis https://www.jstor.org/stable/20788157?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
at Zebra: ok, I read your comments at 1. I am not sure that I understand what your mechanism is for reducing population. Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?
cheers,
Mike
RE: Scott @ 104
Thanks for your discussion in relation to methane emissions and agriculture. However, please do not discount the industrialized countries multi-year fascination with the false solution of hydraulic fracturing (the lithosphere) for petroleum and fossil methane (aka “natural gas”). See, for example “New NASA Study Solves Climate Mystery – confirms methane spike tied to oil and gas” at DeSmog 1/16/18.
ignore my comments at 105. Those belong on the FR thread.
Scott,
Yeah, the Guardian should have used a photo of intensive animal agriculture. I suppose they were trying to show that “even Betsy is too much”.
Got an opinion on the ” seaweed cure”? These folks have supposedly reduced cow methane from belches by up to 58% by adding seaweed to cow diets. It increased milk production, too.
And since that particular species of seaweed is not plentiful it would have to be farmed, say in the middle of those dead zones we’ve created near river mouths.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane
104
Scott E Strough says: “However, then you linked to a Guardian article that literally tries to blame cows grazing on a pasture by implication!”
That’s just silly and really poor form. It’s gaslighting and blaming someone for something they have no control over. The article doesn’t blame cows they have a picture of cows.
If you wanted to be so critical then why not write to TG and get up them for not posting a link to the actual paper.
I found it on my own and that paper says absolutely nothing about COWS. So get off his back and add something useful and actually connected to the paper the article and Killian was alerting people to .. it’s brand new, so new they have not finished editing and doing the page layout for it. Jeez.
I was going to post the link to it here, now I won’t. Go find it yourselves! So sick of the immature rudeness of the participants here. Even if I really liked your website and the work you do now all I have is bad taste in my mouth.
105 mike this is the last time I’ll ever be directing a comment to you or offering assistance of any kind.
A number of years ago I did a guest blog on this site regarding a revision of the Greenland ice-cores (in particular the GICC05 timescale) in the first millennium AD. For those interested this is a quick follow up to that blog.
I, along with my co-author Mike Baillie, have published a new article in Antiquity (Antiquity 93 (367) 99-112) further revision to the Greenland ice cores back to around 2000 BC. We find that the GICC05 timescale is up to 14 years too old in the 2nd millennium BC, whilst the GISP2 timescale is over 40 years too old. Furthermore, we find that the abrupt climate event observed in various tree ring chronologies beginning around 1628 or 1627 BC is probably not caused by the Bronze Age eruption of Thera (modern day santorini) as has been suggested since 1984, but rather the large caldera forming eruption of Aniakchak, Alaska. Absolutely dating of this volcanic eruption to 1627 BC might improve understanding of the effects of volcanic forcing from high latitude eruptions.
Another consequence of our revised chronology is that we find disparate agreement with the radiocarbon evidence for the dating of Thera. While pedantry allows for thera to be hidden by the eruption of Aniakchak, it seems more probably that Thera erupted in the 16th century BC as suggested by archaeological evidence. This fits with the recent work of Pearson et al. (2018) who found that the radiocarbon claibration cure may be in error between 1660-1540 BC, and thus making the calibrated radiocarbon dates for Thera too old. That is, Thera ever was in the 17th century BC as suggested by radiocarbon dating, but actually erupted in the 16th century BC as suspected by archaeologists. If we can absolutely date Thera, not only would we have a better understanding of teh History and synchronicity of Near Eastern Bronze Age cultures (its fall out is a datum on a wide swath of archaeological sites), we might be able to get better understanding of the effects of large mid-latitude eruptions on the climate.
The relevant papers can be read on the following links.
McAneney and Baillie (2019) “Absolute tree-ring dates for the late bronze age eruptions of Aniakchak and Thera in light of a proposed revision of ice-core chronologies”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331172340_Absolute_tree-ring_dates_for_the_Late_Bronze_Age_eruptions_of_Aniakchak_and_Thera_in_light_of_a_proposed_revision_of_ice-core_chronologies
McAneney and Baillie (2019) Supplementary material to above paper
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331175526_Supplementary_material_Absolute_tree-ring_dates_for_the_Late_Bronze_Age_eruptions_of_Aniakchak_and_Thera_in_light_of_a_proposed_revision_of_ice-core_chronologies
Pearson et al. (2018) “Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327049403_Annual_radiocarbon_record_indicates_16th_century_BCE_date_for_the_Thera_eruption
Jonny
Carrie,
Scott said, “by implication”. Now, use your brain. How could they imply (imply means to NOT say) Would a photo at the top of the article of cows in a pasture do?
I’m pretty sure the Guardian has 100% control over which photos they publish. So I’m just going to assume you were in a fowl mood and were squawking without engaging the frontal lobes. It always brings a chuckle when somebody resembles their remarks.
And seriously, though this subject probably belongs on FR, Scott’s comment was far and away the most interesting and informative comment on this thread. Don’t you agree?
_—–
Killian, I read (last night) that earlier and heavier spring rains are probably starting to melt permafrost faster than expected. Your instincts sound right. They measured a 30% increase in CH4 in years with that weather pattern
Let’s take a moment to remember Wally Broeker:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/obit-global-warming-grandfather-of-climate-science-wallace-smith-broeker-1.5023911
I didn’t ever meet him, but he made a real contribution.
@Killian, #96
” Efficiency never overcomes growth… And this is one reason tech cannot, will not, save us.”
Well put. But the economy (and therefore politics) will never ever accept that :))
Btw, still spring temperatures in Germany and these temperature anomalies will go on during the coming days. Winter is over in Germany, Switzerland, Austria ect since the beginning of last week (it was a quite mild winter anyway). I am quite curious what this summer 2019 will be like 8)
Another CH4 feedback: Early spring rains in the Arctic.
https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-rain-methane-2629292227.amp.html
I has a sad. Wally Broecker has died.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/us/wallace-broecker-dead-climate-change-scientist-wxc-trnd/index.html
Re #104 Scott E Strough said @98 Killian
“Stealth methane accumulating at an accelerating rate. But from where? Maybe be positive feedback of warming. 2C in jeopardy.”
There is nothing wrong with what you said here. It certainly is at least partly due to a reinforcing feedback of warming. We can easily see the methane bubbling up from all sorts of places where permafrost is melting. It’s a predicted feedback that is confirmed by scientific observation. 100% behind you there.
However, then you linked to a Guardian article that literally tries to blame cows grazing on a pasture by implication! How could you spread this pseudoscience?
Cows grazing on pasture are part of a biome that reduces atmospheric methane. In fact the upland pastures and open woodlands/savanna soils are the only net atmospheric methane sink on the planet.
I have written about this before.
Have you? How great for you! Have you ever paid attention to other things, for instance not assuming posting a link equals unqualified support for an article, or all points in an article? Or, that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, i.e. me not mentioning cows from that article does not mean I don’t know about cows? Or the myriad times I have talked about regenerative practices, including rotational grazing, etc.?
Now, that article cited several sources of CH4, and non-regenerative cattle husbandry *is* a problem, but that us not what caught my eye. Note what you quoted? It was about **temperatures**, so maybe go back and read the article again. A small apology, teeny-tiny, might also be good.
For the record, this is what piqued my attention:
Carrie,
Thanks, as always, for your support, however, while the article was not about cattle per se, it did mention them, so Scott was not entirely out of line, just very presumptuous, and oddly so given my background and posting content here. Meh…
Daily CO2
February 18, 2019: 411.86 ppm
February 18, 2018: 408.43 ppm
3.43 ppm, could be worse, it’s not 5 or 6 or 7 ppm.
I think our steady work on reducing emissions are pretty directly linked to the 3.43 ppm increase, so good work all! Let’s keep it under 4! That could be an optimistic rallying cry. To heck with 350 or any of that foolishness. That’s too discouraging. If we set a goal of keeping the yoy increase number under 4 ppm we can be be happy and optimistc almost every day.
weekly also well under 4 ppm!
February 10 – 16, 2019 412.41 ppm
February 10 – 16, 2018 408.55 ppm
going to drive my tiny electric car across town to exercise, then stopping to celebrate because it’s taco tuesday!
Cheers,
Mike
Mike,
CONGRATS! You’ll never have to worry about Carried interest again (it sure can be taxing,eh?)
Scott Strough says that cattle roaming freely on the huge open grasslands could be in some form of climate equilibrium where emissions are absorbed by natural sinks. He appears to think end intensive dairy farming and adopt this model. This sounds correct, but the trouble is we have millions of cows in intensive dairy farms and the numbers look too high to all be accommodated on open plains.
I think we have to reduce meat consumption as well.
112 Al Bundy says: “Don’t you agree?”
I make it a rule to never agree with impertinent fools or fools in general. Sorry.
117 Killian, yes, it’s obvious the article did mention cows and there was a photo of cows there too.
[ For the general peanut gallery – I saw that. I must have seen that otherwise how would I have been able to get the info to go search for and find the Source Science Paper TG was writing about? Why go search for it without FIRST reading the damned article? Basic logic isn’t of much interest to many posters here. Back to Killian …. ]
Sorry a hasty ‘typo’ where I missed the qualifying info. My bad. My intent was however 100% spot on even if the obvious small error in my text was not 100% correct …. maybe we could crowd source to buy Gavin an editable forum program and drag this place kicking and screaming in the 20 teens? LOL
NOAA have posted for January with an anomaly of +0.88ºC, a small rise on December’s +0.86ºC and equalling the highest anomaly of 2018. (Last year anomalies ranged from +0.88ºC down to +0.70ºC with the year averaging +0.79ºC). This is then showing a little more warmth at the start of the year than did GISTEMP.
It is =3rd warmest January in NOAA (was 4th in GISTEMP) behind previous Januarys 1st-placed 2016 (+1.06ºC), 2017 (+0.91ºC), equalling and 2007 (+0.88ºC) and ahead of 5th-placed 2015 (+0.82ºC), this pretty-much an identical ordering as found in GISTEMP.
It is =19th warmest month on the all-month record (=25th in GISTEMP).
Within the global figure, oceans saw a cooling and while land saw a warming.
@ pretty much everyone,
Wow looks like I struck a nerve there with my essay on Methane considering the number of responses.
From the top. Solar Jim yes! Agreed 100% the source of the main problem is fossil fuels. Both the Melting methane from the permafrost and the soil sink are feedbacks, one a reinforcing feedback and the other a stabilizing feedback, and we are increasing the one and reducing the other, yet the real forcing is natural gas leaks. I was trying to find a pun there with leeks to lighten the mood but somehow it didn’t work.
Al Bundy,
No Al, I do not know about feeding cows with seaweed. Saw a cow eat some Sargasso weed once, walked right out on the beach and started chomping away, but I have no idea if it was healthy for the cow or not. Maybe that’s cracker cows’ secret? Who knows? That is the sum total of my knowledge on seaweed as a cow feedstock.
Carrie,
That’s fair. You are right that Killian didn’t write the article, but it is also quite true that the Guardian and especially Monbiot have been doing their best to put the false thought in peoples heads that it is cows and even cows on proper pasture are a major methane problem. So in this case it is not really an accidental thing that an article mostly about thawing permafrost and fossil fuel emissions has a heavily biased anti cow slant. Images do matter. Look how Robin McKie orders the content, literally in reverse order of importance. I have had to simply choose to not use certain references on this subject precisely because of this issue. Another example on this side of the pond would be the Cowspiracy film, which is also causing all sorts of problems with educating people as to what is needed to be done. Again, images do matter and although the content flaws were minor, they are there too.
Killian, yes I did see that. I don’t know what to make of it though. Atmospheric chemistry reducing the abiotic oxidation in the atmosphere? Certainly that would be an unforeseen emergent property in the system, wouldn’t it? How will the climate models handle this feedback? Is it even big enough to be significant? I am all questions about that with no answers, which is why the previous post didn’t mention it.I just don’t know anything about that particular feedback, so I remained silent so someone who does know can answer.
But this is what got me: “Perhaps emissions are growing or perhaps the problem is due to the fact that our atmosphere is losing its ability to break down methane.”
That’s a whole lot of speculation about the atmosphere losing its ability to break down methane, when we have a completely unmentioned loss of soils’ ability to break down methane! Why did the article ignore the obvious and well known, literally implying the opposite of what the science says, and instead focus on speculation?
So I will take my medicine and say sorry. Yes indeed I have been quite grumpy lately. Not the least because it is grueling enough to try and educate the urgency of action without the confusion caused by piss poor journalism. And yes I tried to make it clear I am angry at the article and not you, but you could have at least mentioned that they got a significant part wrong. Makes one wonder about the rest of the article actually.
In my defense I did want to make sure this information got out there again. Because it seems to me this is the “low fruit” yet nothing done about it yet. FYI
At AB: very clever! I like it. Carrie – I just come here to post what I think about climate science and to read what others are thinking. We agree on a lot of stuff. You can weigh in or not on anything I post. Either way is fine with me.
At Zebra: sorry, I just don’t know what you are talking about wrt population. It’s not a topic of great interest to me. I think it would be helpful if there were fewer homo sapiens on the planet. I love my kids and grandkids and I understand why humans want to have babies, but I worry about how global warming will play out in the next 100 years. I think any human being that understands what global warming may bring to us in the next 100 years might think twice about having babies now.
Sad to hear about Wallace Broecker’s death. He saw the risk of global warming pretty early.
Cheers
Mike
Still no El Nino exists.
Five of eight climate models indicate the central Pacific is likely to reach borderline or weak El Niño levels during autumn, with four models remaining above threshold levels into winter.
El Niño predictions made in late summer and early autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current forecasts of the ENSO state beyond May should be used with some caution. The BOM says. THE scientific experts in the field.
Therefore when viewing data for global and MLO CO2 levels and temperatures from today going back – let’s say only 3 Months in this example – El Nino has played no role because … wait for it .. there was no El Nino in sight that could be imapcting on those readings!
Especially when one takes into consideration the well known LAG EFFECT upon such things as CO2 level between 2 to 8 months in duration.
No El Nino effect that could have been impacting on regional or global CO2 levels or Temperature November 2018 through to February 2019.
Why? Because no El Nino exists during this period.
Which logically leaves the possibility of “natural variation” or some other as yet unknown / undetermined driver of the sudden abrupt rise in CO2 readings ie GROWTH relative to historical norms and patterns at this time of year.
I defer in this instance to Killian who has verbalised one of my own thoughts and that of scientists who don’t come here about early spring shifts appearing to be now shifts in winter too that are, well, unprecedented in the historical records outside of El Nino affected Nov to Feb periods.
So the predominate issue is Climate change right? Is it any surprise when things are changing to the historical norms? The Guardians report on the Nesbit paper on CH4 is well worth a read. It could be implicated as well in rising CO2 levels and the higher temperatures of late.
A Japan body posted January as the equal second hottest January of all time contrary to other reports.
I heard Gavin on another thread here saying that there are on avg 55 new climate science papers being released/published every single day now. Things have changed there too. Good luck keeping up. :-)
Old Growth forests sequester more carbon than (scientists) thought.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1890/EHS15-0023
114 – Nemesis
“Winter is over in Germany, Switzerland, Austria ect since the beginning of last week (it was a quite mild winter anyway).”
Are you sure? Looks snowy to me.
Austria:
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/austria/salzburg/altenmarkt-im-pongau/altenmarkt-im-pongau.html
Switzerland:
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/schweiz/graubunden/silvaplana/silvaplana-switzerland.html
105 – mike
“Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?”
Ask Ralph Northam.
re: 125.
KIA: ““Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?”
Ask Ralph Northam.”
Once again, a truly vile comment by coward KIA. Disingenuous to the max. And lazily regurgitating what someone told him without a shred of fact. Hint: Northam is a doctor, sport. And you never read the bill. Textbook intellectual laziness just as you are re: climate change. Learn to read for comprehension.
@Mr Know it All, #125
I know who you are, so leave me alone with that shit. I will only waste my precious time once for you:
Switzerland: https://www.wetter.com/schweiz/bern/CH0CH0324.html
Austria: https://www.wetteronline.de/wettertrend/wien
Germany: https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/koeln
Much Love for now and you will get much more Love in the near term future,
Your’s sincerely, hot and rough,
Nemesis <3
#125
Just one more reply to my beloved denier called “mr know it all”, have fun, the global recent temperatures:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2
Do you see any winter temperatures in Europe?! I DON’T.
Temperature anomalies:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
Do you see the temperature anomalies in Europe?! I DO.
Now leave me alone, I won’t waste anymore time to you.
Much Love,
Nemesis
Mike: going to drive my tiny electric car across town to exercise
AB: Ask Killian if that’s the simplest way to exercise. ;-)
BPL,
I see Jesus not as a moral teacher but as an efficiency expert who happened to be Jewish. That turn the other cheek thing is about efficiency. Ask Killian how long this group would last in hunter gatherer land even if we all had every bit of the hunter gatherers’ knowledge.
So now can you see what Ray has been saying?
124 mike says: ” You can weigh in or not on anything I post. Either way is fine with me. ”
Great .. the you MO is passive aggressive and at times unnecessarily insulting to others. You lack respect for others generally. You take and do not give. You criticise others passive aggressively by cowardly dumping on them while responding to others rather than speak to the people concerned directly. I have no respect for people who repeatedly act like that. They make my skin crawl for good reason. It doesn’t only happen to me but to others I have seen this approach being applied to as well. It’s a HABIT and a distasteful one IMHO. The scales have titled way too far after giving you the benefit of the doubt in the past. No more. Not interested.
Carrie,
Did I read that right? You agree or disagree with a statement based firstly on your opinion of the speaker (as in, if speaker is a fool, disagree, else analyze statement…?
Add in the other case, to agree without significant analysis if speaker is a buddy.
Cool. Now I have evidence that I’m fairly accurate in my model of your mental program.
Oh yeah, thanks for letting me know how evil mike is. And here I thought he was a nice guy.
Mike,
My condolences. It appears that taxes ARE inevitable, even when the taxing “girl” promises to leave you be.
Nemesis,
“Just one more” is self delusion. There is no such animal.
Al Bundy @ 131, I gather you are saying “turn the other cheek” means we should walk away from conflict and war and the inefficiency and waste it brings, but that avoiding all conflict can render us defenceless in some situations? If so, this is why things like “turn the other cheek” need careful interpretation. Surely it is always going to depend on context?
In addition, procedural rules like turn the other cheek, or some improved version of this are not incompatible with ethical systems focused on outcomes, provided outcomes take precedence. The two systems are not mutually exclusive. So you, BPL and Ray are all wrong on this one.
Carrie,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please post three examples of mike’s passive aggressiveness. I’ll be happy to destroy your illusion.
Various people, including me, have taken their turn as the room’s ______.
At this moment in time you are certainly the, uh, stench in the room.
Better, though noisy day on CO2 numbers:
Daily CO2
February 20, 2019: 410.65 ppm
February 20, 2018: 408.33 ppm
I would love to see a week, a month, a year or three at anything like 2.32 ppm or less.
I’m not sure, but I think Carrie is going to stop talking with me. I might get the silent treatment. That will sting a bit, but I am a pretty resilient old dude. I will probably survive.
United Nations says they think we have a problem with falling biodiversity that could cause problems with our groceries:
http://www.fao.org/state-of-biodiversity-for-food-agriculture/en/
Chins up, no worries
Mike
Interesting new open access research paper: “Interactions between the atmosphere, cryosphere, and ecosystems at northern high latitudes.”
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/2015/2019/
Southern Oscillation Index
The 30-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has dropped rapidly over the last week, and for the 30 days to 17 February was −5.7. The 90-day SOI was +1.3. Both are within the neutral range.
Sustained negative values of the SOI below −7 typically indicate El Niño while sustained positive values above +7 typically indicate La Niña. Values between +7 and −7 generally indicate neutral conditions.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
Tropical Pacific ENSO-neutral, but some recent warming observed
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral. However, the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook remains at El Niño WATCH, meaning there is approximately a 50% chance of El Niño developing during the southern hemisphere autumn or winter, twice the normal likelihood.
El Niño typically results in below average autumn and winter rainfall for southern and eastern Australia.
Tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures have warmed slightly in the past fortnight. In the sub-surface, weak warmth extends down to 175 m depth. Recent weakening of the trade winds in the western Pacific means that further warming of the equatorial Pacific is likely in the coming weeks to months.
Five of eight climate models indicate the central Pacific is likely to reach borderline or weak El Niño levels during autumn (March-April-May), with four models remaining above threshold levels into winter (June-July-August).
El Niño predictions made in late summer and early autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current forecasts of the ENSO state beyond May should be used with some caution.
[ Note: Meaning it can go either way or not change at all. ]
The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is neutral. The IOD typically has little influence on Australian climate from December to April.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=Overview
Meanwhile with no El Nino in sight (able to be affecting the CO2 levels in the atmosphere as yet in any noticeable manner) the MLO CO2 levels persist above +3.20 ppm growth on the year before for this week not yet completed. January average was +2.87 ppm growth. Interesting times. :-)
Sorry forgot my last ref (see the Data tab for last years data)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
Nemesis: Do you see any winter temperatures in Europe?! I DON’T.
AB: Don’t blame KIA. It snows a lot on mountaintops, and mountaintop living gets the exterior pressure to more equal the interior pressure. Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself, asking him to live in reality when reality hurts. He’d implode.
To the wannabe girl:
I’m going to shred every lie and error you post. I will praise you when you accidentally say something relevant and/or nice (except to your buddy, the sockpuppetmaster). Please try to increase the latter, otherwise I’m going to give folks plenty of opportunity to laugh….
….at YOU.
This site MUST clean up, and if the mods refuse, I’ll do what I can. If they want help, I’m offering my services, as others have mentioned (crowdfunding, etc). So. mods, either do SOMETHING or watch and hope.
Geez, mods, you have a world-class systems designer at your beck-and-call and you choose to….
…what?
Carrie: not interested
AB: yet entirely focused. Full humans are strange. Closets are toxic, but they do protect subhumans from fullhumans
What? You guys thought subhuman was an insult?
No, dudes. The insult is fullhuman.
#134 Al Bundy,
“‘Just one more’ is self delusion. There is no such animal.”
Ample evidence here.
We seem to be back to the full expression of Column-Inches Addiction without even the grace to keep the childish outbursts and reflexive posting over on FR where they might be at least slightly relevant.
And that’s coming from someone who actually wants to discuss real topics on FR, but would rather go without than see somewhat climate-scientific lines again get buried here on UV.
@Al Bundy
” Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself, asking him to live in reality when reality hurts. He’d implode.”
Got me :’D Shame on me.
BEST have posted for January with an anomaly of +0.87ºC, almost identical to December’s anomaly and standing towards the upper end of the range of 2018 anomalies. (Last year’s anomalies ranged from +0.91ºC down to +0.70ºC with the year averaging +0.80ºC). So not a great difference from GISTEMP & NOAA.
It is 4th warmest January in BEST (was 4th in GISTEMP, =3rd in NOAA) behind previous Januarys 1st-placed 2016 (+1.16ºC), 2017 (+1.00ºC), and 2007 (+0.88ºC) and ahead of 5th-placed 2018 (+0.79ºC) & 6th place 2015 (+0.78ºC).
It is 26th warmest month on the all-month record (=25th in GISTEMP, =19th in NOAA).
With ENSO indices (NINO3.4 & SOI) showing a bit more vigour over the last couple of weeks boosting the likely strength of the present El Niño, there is yet more reason to suggest 2019 will end up as the second warmest year on record after the big El Niño year of 2016.
mike @137,
I’ve been monitoring the daily NOAA Global CO2 ‘trend’ for about a month now and it does show a reasonable amount of stability. The smoothing corrections ripple back about 6 months so the end of the smoothed line is not a good predictor of where it may be going next but as a marker of where things are, it is a reasonable marker. The graph here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) shows how it deviates from annually averaged Global & MLO monthly dCO2 data.
So the present slow appearance of a second inflection (that would be the acceleration of dCO2 turning back up again) looks possible but isn’t a done deal while the smoothed-out wibbly-wobbles of dCO2 are today somewhere near 2.5ppm/year.
“Meanwhile with no El Nino in sight (able to be affecting the CO2 levels in the atmosphere as yet in any noticeable manner) the MLO CO2 levels persist above +3.20 ppm growth on the year before for this week not yet completed. January average was +2.87 ppm growth. Interesting times. :-)”
I cannot normally bring myself to get that hugely interested in short term trends of a week or month. I will assume from the comment that we are currently higher than would be expected. I agree its hard to see how el nino is implicated. I know of no documented cause of the upsurge, nothing on the net that I could find.Perhaps the fact that temperatures are pretty high even for a non el nino year has some part in it.
I do know there have been a number of forest fires recently in Australia and elsewhere and the Californian forest fires were recent, and CO2 takes some time to mix through the atmosphere, so maybe its a delayed response to this.
Other possibilities could be an upsurge in emissions from fossil fuels due to the very cold period in America from late jan – feb 2019.
It could just be noise from the natural cycles. Or perhaps theres an increase in volcanic activity globally. It could be natural process of decaying organic matter speeding up somewhere, like some sort of tipping point, which would be ominous but I know of no specific case of this.
One month is pretty short term and is likely some combination of things and doesn’t look too ominous to me yet. If the rate remains unusually high for more than 3 months, to me it would suggest something outside the normal pattern of noise, and so ominous.
Re: Carrie/Mike. See FR.