This month’s open thread on climate science topics.
Reader Interactions
221 Responses to "Unforced variations: Mar 2019"
Killiansays
Despite the existence of Forced Responses, more integrated discussions are needed among scientists, too. I see virtually no accurate mitigation strategies put forward by any scientists, and certainly not climate scientists.
I think a large part of the reason is not understanding how the whole system works, not just the climate aspects.
For example, when a new paper says we have two hundred (just a fer instance) years before the poop rally hits the fan, are they thinking about the rate of decline of insects/bugs and the fact that rate of collapse leaves us nowhere near two hundred years?
Zebra
Mann’s basic premise is that a smaller temperature difference between the Arctic and midlatitudes will tend to weaken the jet stream, creating more extreme weather events, such as ones he describ
“A smaller difference in temperature between midlatitudes and polar latitudes creates a slower jet stream over- all, which favors more persistent weather patterns and is associated with the double-peak jet and QRA.
This mounting trend helps to explain the spate of long-lasting, extreme summer weather events seen around the Northern Hemi- sphere over the past two decades.”
The problem with this is that during summer the opposite trend has been observed: Arctic warming has been limited by ice cover (as you pointed out), not the case at midlatitudes. Which means the north/south temperature difference has increased, not decreased.
Restrepo, J.M., Mann, M.E., Uncertainty in Climate Science: Not Cause for Inaction, … maps, variability, Science of the Total Environment, 635, 1110-1123, 2018.
mikesays
hey Ray,
what’s your take on the ocean heat record for 2018, dude?
Should we be concerned or is it just one hot year of data that we can shrug off?
Cheers
Mike
SecularAnimistsays
On Wednesday 3/13, UNEP released a new report on the state of the Arctic, “Global Linkages – A graphic look at the changing Arctic“. From the UNEP press release:
Even if the world were to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, winter temperatures in the Arctic would rise 3-5°C by 2050 and 5-9°C by 2080, devastating the region and unleashing sea level rises worldwide, finds a new report by UN Environment.
Meanwhile, rapidly thawing permafrost could even accelerate climate change further and derail efforts to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term goal of limiting the rise in global temperature to 2°C …
Even if global emissions were to halt overnight, winter temperatures in the Arctic would still increase 4 to 5°C by 2100 compared to the late 20th century, the study finds. This increase is locked into the climate system by greenhouse gases already emitted and ocean heat storage.
The report also addresses the impacts of ocean acidification and plastic pollution.
Pretty interesting to skim through this long weather/news report and see no mention of climate change. I realize that people need to focus on the immediate threat and be sensitive to folks who are at risk. I also know that no one likes to be lectured about global warming, but I think it does bear mentioning periodically in a long report like this one that details record-breaking flooding, etc. These things are not disconnected.
How much of this will the redstate folks have to experience before they say, oh, global warming is a big deal? When that happens, the republican party will have to respond with action. I think that is the point at which we can start to hope for significant climate change legislation in the US. It will have to be bipartisan or it is just more culture war exchanges.
If you have family or friends in the redstates, take the opportunity to open the discussion with them when the flooding subsides. Be gentle. Use questions. When are we going to do something about this? Do you think this is normal weather? This looks a nasty change in normal weather to me. What do you think? Does it make sense to rebuild roads, houses on ground that was underwater in this event if this is the new normal weather?
I think let the redstaters say “are you talking about global warming?” Then you can say, “yeah, I guess so, but I was thinking about it more in terms of a new normal state of disastrous weather back there in (town/state).
We have to give these folks room to step out of the culture wars and make sense of their experience and have a different kind of “come to Jesus” moment.
Bad weather.
Mike
zebrasays
#102 Snape,
First, to repeat again from my original reply, I don’t believe all this stuff is at the “consensus” stage, so I am not jumping on anyone’s bandwagon yet. But let’s examine your reasoning.
You are disagreeing with Mann’s statement that there is a trend towards a lower N-S difference, because of the DMI data.
The DMI data is for above 80deg N. The “meeting” point, as Mann calls it, for the two different air masses, is around 60deg N. And, depending on which little graphic you look at, the boundary line can extend from a bit below 60 to a bit above on a slope.
So, first, you are talking about temperature values close to the surface at a point well removed from the point Mann is talking about.
Second, we are talking about different altitudes– the Jet Stream is at 35,000 feet, and it’s lateral speed is determined by how much the original orbital angular velocity of the (southern) molecules has been reduced in their travels.
Now, I am far from an expert, and didn’t write the models, and don’t have a supercomputer, but, again, from basic physics… why would I think that Mann is wrong and you are correct?
Whatever influence the relatively static arctic ocean’s surface temps have on the polar molecules seems trivial compared to other inputs that would occur over the course of their travels– there’s a lot of warming potential from 80deg to 60deg. (It might even be the case that, with less ice cover, the air mass moving south would have a higher humidity, which could certainly translate into higher temps as altitude is gained.)
So, to repeat again, there’s no reason to think the DMI surface temps are evidence of much at all for this question. But I’m happy to hear any physics-based argument to the contrary.
mikesays
carrie asks @ 100: “Why are the recent 3+ months of MLO CO2 average readings running around +1.00 above the medium term average of +2.50 ppmv despite no El Nino status/present that might increase the numbers that much if it had existed in 2018 onward?”
I think it’s global heat. Hot stage of EN, or neutral, or LN? So what? The global temp just keeps rising with the expected wobbles. A warmed planet handles CO2 differently than the planet we grew up with. As you know, it’s a very complex system and one of the most important measurable outputs is the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Flooding gets the headlines and the articles seldom or never mention CO2 emissions, accumulation and ocean acidification.
I had the same response when CO2 started jumping a few years ago at the beginning of the last hot stage of EN. Seeing numbers of 4 plus ppm in yoy comparison should be shocking, but we have sort of gotten used to it. I am sure all the cooler heads will be happy to jump in and tell you that you are over-reacting. You are not over-reacting. Most of the planet is under-reacting.
I keep thinking the species will wake up, but there is no guarantee that will ever happen. We may just have to stand by and watch over time as the cooler heads start to say, “uh-oh. This looks bad.” Then some of will have to step back and say, “oh, really? I wish we had seen this coming.”
I don’t think I am saying anything here that you don’t know. The CO2 numbers should be creating alarm. Tamino converts our carbon budget to CO2 in atmosphere and says we need to avoid climbing over 435 ppm. We are on track to pass that sorry number in around ten years.
Everybody stay positive! Maybe we can tweak capitalism a tiny bit and avoid going over the cliff.
Mike
Mr. Know It Allsays
100 – Carrie
Thomas, it’s been cold this winter in North America. Plants are awakening late this year, so CO2 uptake will be a little slower than usual.
Snapesays
Zebra
The study is looking at near surface temperatures (not 35,000’), and defines midlatitudes as 25’N – 75’N (DMI’s “north of 80” is therefore a pretty close metric for the arctic):
“Using European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) reanalysis data (ERA) confined to the midlatitude (25°N to 75°N) region of interest (28) and the QRA detection scheme described above and developed previously (26), M17 produced a composite of boreal summer [June to August (JJA)] zonally averaged near-surface (1000 hPa) temperature profiles associated with QRA-favorable time intervals. Differencing the QRA-favorable and climatological mean profiles, they defined an anomalous meridional temperature “fingerprint” associated with QRA conditions, onto which polar-amplified warming projects positively (although there is additional structure in the fingerprint related to, e.g., land/ocean contrast).”
******
I get your point though. Maybe all that matters is the temperature trend for a narrow band of atmosphere just north of the jet stream compared to just south of the jet stream. Hard to figure out what those trends would be given the jet is constantly wobbling. Even if you could, then we’re only talking a few hundred miles difference. How much would the trends differ over such a short distance? Also note: if the jet stream is at 60’ N or lower, as you mentioned, then both sides would likely fall within the study’s definition of midlatitudes, in which case ‘midlatitude vs Arctic’ is inaccurate/misleading.
Johnsays
Mike @106 It’s interesting that the Weather Channel discussion doesn’t mention climate change. However, today’s Omaha World-Herald, a regional paper, did. I talked with the reporter who wrote the article about what made this such a bad storm, and why climate change was making these events more likely. She also had a quote from James Hansen, who has roots in nearby Iowa.
However, it’s not all climate change. This area probably averages a big snowmelt flood about once in a generation. The 1881 flood was so bad that the Missouri River channel moved, and we have little pieces of Iowa on the west side of the river now. Although 1936 is now remembered for the ultra-hot dust bowl summer, the late winter was absolutely frigid, and there was a lot of flooding in many places when spring finally came. You can bet that there was a huge amount of jet stream excursion and blocking that year, too.
Mr. Know It Allsays
106 – mike
I think if weather deteriorates enough people in red states will start to be believers. Problem is that bad weather has always occurred in the USA – tornados, floods, hurricanes, snowmageddons, drought, heat waves, cold waves, etc. Based on the extremely hot past 2 or 3 summers in the PNW, and the lack of winter cold in Alaska/Canada, I am starting to be a believer but I will NEVER vote for a socialist – and ALL Ds in the USA are socialists or communists. Truth! They are their own worst enemy!
I’ve encouraged state and federal politicians (including Ds)to push for a law allowing energy saving measures to be installed by building owners with no interference from HOAs, zoning codes, etc AS LONG AS it is done safely. I’m thinking shading devices, insulated shutters, PV and thermal solar panels, heat reflecting paints, etc. Have not heard a word about it from any politician.
Carriesays
[Response: The report might be mostly fine, but the specific claim about the committed Arctic warming is wrong (via @Carbonbrief). – gavin]
So what if it is? Future Models are not reality. Future Paris Targets are not reality. Arguments about the arrangement of the deck chairs is not going to save the Titanic.
My wish is that all climate scientists got real about the known facts of life that affect current and prescient GHG emissions growth in the real world.
iow get out of hypothetical model-land and the ongoing denial of what is really happening and where that is heading. The USA is not even a party to the Paris Agreement while carrying +20% of global GHG forcings with only 330 million people. That’s reality, that’s a fact.
Alternatively keep pretending all is well and buy yourself a brand new Tesla Model 3.
Plus, there’s *way* more area between 60N and 80N than north of 80, AND the DMI north of 80 index–which I love as a quick and unambiguous indicator of what’s happening temperaturewise in the central Arctic Basin–is virtue of the grid scheme overweighted toward the highest latitudes (see the DMI discussion of the 80N ‘nuts and bolts’ for details–caveats, really–on that.)
It’s true enough that the atmosphere over the ice tends to be ‘clamped’ close to the freezing point summer, but then again, the ice edge is also tending to move poleward over time. I don’t think that Dr. Mann and the other researchers working on this problem have failed to include observed summer temperatures in the summer Arctic as they’ve done their sums.
Both GISTEMP and NOAA have posted for February, GISS with a higher anomaly than January (at +0.92ºC for Feb, up from Jan +0.87ºC) and NOAA with a lower anomaly than January (at +0.79ºC, down from Jan’s +0.88ºC). The difference is likely simply due to the lower global coverage of NOAA.
For GISS it is the 3rd warmest February on record (in NOAA 5th). In GISS Feb 2019 sits after 2016 (+1.34ºC) & 2017 (+1.12ºC) and ahead of 2015 (+0.87ºC) & 2018 (+0.84ºC). In NOAA Feb 2019 sits behind 2016 (+0.92ºC), 2017 (+0.92ºC), 2015 (+0.92ºC) & 1998 (+0.92ºC).
February 2019 is =14th warmest month in the all-month GISS record. For NOAA Feb 2019 is =44th.
As a start-of-the-year, Jan & Feb in GISS are 3rd warmest below 2016 & 2107 and above 2015, 2007 & 2018.
For NOAA, 2019 sits as 4th warmest start-of-the-year, below 2016, 2017, 2015 and above 2007, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2010 & 2018.
Most of these warm start-of-the-years are boosted by El Nino so 2019 with little such boost is looking pretty warm.
Carriesays
I think that climate scientists and activists/info providers need to stop shooting themselves in the foot. They need to seek some guidance from cognitive scientists, CBT psychologists/psychiatrist, plus PR Communications scientists/Ph.Ds etc. and apply what they know.
Every time a scientist decides to argue the point with “deniers” etc all they are doing is retriggering the False Memes and Narratives. Scientists need to stop choosing to defend their own science and knowledge which needs no defence. Posting “bob” posts is self-defeating. Carbon briefs column inches about a “small theoretical error” in “semantics” and Gavin emphasising that error here is self-defeating. They Lose when they do this. They undermine their own messaging and their own goals – the purpose of the science they are doing.
There are multiple points in the UNEP report that should have been emphasised – instead Carbon brief chooses to ignore them all and instead focuses on the one minor, and I say IRRELEVANT HYPOTHETICAL, “error”.
For it is irrelevant what the temps MIGHT BE, based on Models alone, in 2050, 2070, 2080 or 2100. The RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 are equally irrelevant to what the people the public need to know – and what the scientists already know about the PRESENT and near future out to 2030 but keep side-stepping.
Yes of course the science is important, and yes those models are “skilful” and “useful” to SCIENCE and to Climate Scientists but they are highly irrelevant distractions to the Public and those involved in Policy changes.
And yes the idea of Global temps and the amount of GHG emissions needing to by curtailed and by when are important to the UNFCCC Paris agreements, treaties etc. They need a scientific measurable “framework” in which to operate – but PUBLIC discussions about pseudo-disagreements between the UNEP report and Paris agreements and the IPCC and scientists is a waste of time. Have those discussion in-house. Publish corrections but that RAVE on Carbon brief is stupidity writ large. It’s self-defeating. It shows how unfocused their heads are at. It shows they do not get the problems of today.
It’s endlessly disappointing seeing scientists and activists, those with forums, website and twitter accounts wasting their time with such things and being so sensitive to ‘critics’ they become so easily distracted from the REAL task at hand.
Unless and until the focus switches to what is going on now today about the Climate Crisis (yes stop using the term climate change – it’s a dead end now) and the time frame of 2019 to 2030 then nothing will change and nothing will get done. Forget about 2050, 2080 and hypothetical models, they are not needed now. Keep it in-house, put it in the IPCC reports and then ignore it all. Even the UNEP report should not have been going there, because there is more than enough hard facts and scientific knowledge about TODAY that people need to hear about.
People GLAZE over about 1.5C, 2C, 3C and whether or not it might 0.5C or +9C in 2080. Stop it. Get to the facts of today – bring it down to their level about things they can and WILL understand about this Climate Crisis.
Like the Polar Vortex has been effected stationary weather cells the same thing is happening already in the tropics and subtropics. February a once in a 500 year flood event (itself meaningless but anyway) in the central northwest of Queensland Australia – one of the driest parts of the continent 670 mmm or rain in 9 days as the Monsoonal Low remained STUCK in place by surrounding Highs. It simultaneously created a one in a 200 year flooding event in Townsville.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has released a special climate review, officially calling the rain in north Queensland “exceptional”.
Twitter embed
Twitter: BOM accumulated rainfall 26 Jan to 7 Feb
View on Twitter
According to the special climate statement this year’s event has topped the comparable January 1998 and January 1953 events, in terms of area averaged rainfall within the North Coast-Herbert rainfall division.
Not only the BOM but many other cliamte scientists are still speaking about this – but there’s nothing on the Carbon Brief about it and nothing here. That’s the problem.
What’s being ignored by scientists is the scientific rigor about this and all the other similar events occruing all over the world from the Arctic to the Antarctic each and every week some where on Earth. But not a word. No context. Not perspective. No re-emphasing the validity of the climate science that ahs bene speaking about these kinds issues comeing for decades now. Even now ehen they are here, there is an earie silence.
No comment by RC experts about the impact of the “global warming caused” slowing of the Ocean Currents that drove this event off the scale! No comments about the slowing of atmospheric systems slowing down which drove these kinds of events off the the scale this year, last year, the year before.
No comment by RC and other scientists that energy and land-use drivers GHG emissions rather than falling are actually still increasing. No connection being made between the last 4 record global temps, the thousands of new RECORDS set in temperatures all over the world driving these vents and the impacts – 500,000 dead cattle and now thousands of farmers on the edge of Bankruptcy right now today! Not in 2050 or 2070 or 2100 but now today!
Here’s a a little info fwiw – a environmental scientist from Townsville, home of the Great barrier Reef scientists too – talking to the public and telling them the truth of it. backed up by a 14 year old school boy who seems to know much more about these matters PLUS the urgency for action on this climate crisis that is here now, today, than many of the posters and residents scientist here “appear” (due to their silence and distracting focus) to realise. https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-18-03/10889642
skim through it – pay attention to Panellist Professor Stephen Williams, as well as non-scientist Panellist Roger Hill (near the end he speaks to the carbon cycle drives the water cycle and it’s effects on soil health – he gets cut off by the idiot moderator who has no clue – I did, and so does Killian)
I could list a hundred items from all over the world that should be presented here but never is. The connections and the positive narratives connecting all the SCIENTIFIC DOTS are never told.
But we do have “bob’s” posts. Isn’t that great? No, it’s extremely disappointing. That needs to change – now – today! It’s way past time to “get real” and much more “skilful” too.
If you agree then please say so here. Now.
Carriesays
sorry bad formatting
“Queensland’s flood water crisis has killed 300,000500,000 head of cattle and cost farmers $300 $750 million!”
Carriesays
MLO CO2 March 18: 414.84 ppm
I believe that is a new all time daily record, though not 100% certain.
It is certainly a new 2019 record
Past comments of note include:
9 Jan 2019 at 10:23 PM
The avg Global Growth rate from May thru Sept has been + 2.546 ppmv YoY
Wait until the next El Nino hits and see how high it goes then. +4.00 ppm is not out of the question. 2018 8is already streets ahead of the last El Nino years 2015/2016 .. and I mean WAY UP.
So I will ask this very simple question… “WHAT CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS?”
for MAR: Hey, Al. Can you post your analysis (or link thereto) that shows slowing of the CO2 accumulation that relates to the 2014-2017 emission slowdown over at Tamino’s thread on CO2 buildup please?
[Response: To maintain CO2 concentrations at a stable level, you could only emit what was effectively being balanced by long-term sinks. On the hundred-year scale, that is basically only the deep ocean, and the current sequestration there is about 2 GtC/yr. Given we are putting out ~10 GtC/yr, that means you’d have to cut emissions by 80% to stabilise CO2 (which is not the same as stabilising temperature – that would continue to rise, though more slowly). – gavin]
I can barely wait for January, February and March Global results to arrive.
And the CH4 data through to March 2019.
E. Swansonsays
Snape (102) wrote:
The problem with this is that during summer the opposite trend has been observed: Arctic warming has been limited by ice cover (as you pointed out), not the case at midlatitudes. Which means the north/south temperature difference has increased, not decreased.
I found a similar difference in Arctic trends, which I pointed to in a paper I presented at the 2017 AGU Fall Meeting. I analyzed the MSU/AMSU data, separating out the annual data from the long term trend and found that the trend was less during Summer months than during Winter months. That result has been reported in the surface data as well, since the surface ice cover keeps the air just above at a near freezing, as mentioned. The reduced trend in summer did not cancel the long term trend seen in the RSS TLT data of 0.45 K/decade or the RSS TMT data of 0.24 K/decade.
I think there’s another explanation for the enhanced Winter warming, which is that there’s an increase in avection of warm, moist air from lower latitudes into the polar latitudes. This past Winter’s weather, with outbreaks of exceptionally cold air over the central US, was accompanied by unusually warm conditions over Alaska and other polar regions. I suggest that this points to an increase in tropic to pole circulation in Winter. Sad to say, I have no way to prove that warming is due to circulation or to direct warming from greenhouse gases. Jeniffer Francis and her Wavy Jet Streams may be focusing on a similar aspect of the changes underway, IMHO.
mikesays
from MAR at 115: “Most of these warm start-of-the-years are boosted by El Nino so 2019 with little such boost is looking pretty warm.”
Here’s a prediction: 2019 will be in the top 3 years for global temperature.
on daily co2:
Daily CO2
March 18, 2019: 414.84 ppm
March 18, 2018: 408.22 ppm
6.62 ppm increase in yoy comparison. Noisy number, but I don’t recall a variation in the 6 plus range before. I think it reflects a spikey day in 2019 with a low wobble day in 2018, so I don’t make too much of it, but still, a 6 plus number makes a person stop for a moment and think.
I like KIA’s thought at 109 that late spring in North America might be delaying CO2 uptake. I don’t know if that idea is solid in any particular way, but it sounds valid and it fits with my own sense that the carbon cycle of the planet does not function in the same way on a warmer earth. That could be bad for all of us, but not as bad as Socialists and Communists!
Well ok! Carry on
Mike
Matt Fulkersonsays
Here is the solution to climate change. Build high voltage DC transmission lines to all desert areas around the globe. Heat up large insulated areas of sand using mirrors that are way more than 20% efficient (e.g. solar panels). Use said build up of heat to generate electricity on demand.
Ammonitesays
Carrie 116 re Queensland Australia rainfall. Indeed. I have been challenged by intelligent people that are not cognisant of the scientific underpinnings of global warming as to what could possibly be a negative consequence of temperatures rising. Unfortunately I cannot utter half a sentence before being told I am completely wrong.
Meanwhile, my house has been flooded in this very event. The water peaked just two centimetres above the foundation – enough to destroy the floor, infest the place with mould, bring trees down, destroy access and block plumbing. Non-linear damage functions probably seem very abstract to many folks – until they have to be paid for in person.
The 30-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has been steady over the past two weeks, remaining within El Niño territory. The SOI value for the 30 days to 17 March was −13.3. However, the 90-day SOI is still well within neutral territory at −5.1.
While values of the 30-day SOI have been strongly negative for almost a month, SOI values during the northern Australian wet season can be volatile, and should therefore be viewed with caution. This is because the passage of tropical systems near Darwin and Tahiti can affect atmospheric pressure at these locations, and hence the value of the SOI.
A Cat 3 tropical cyclone has just traversed Cape York into the Gulf of Carpentaria of northern Australia.
Mr. Know It Allsays
121 – mike
“I like KIA’s thought at 109 that late spring in North America might be delaying CO2 uptake. I don’t know if that idea is solid in any particular way, but it sounds valid and it fits with my own sense that the carbon cycle of the planet does not function in the same way on a warmer earth. That could be bad for all of us, but not as bad as Socialists and Communists!”
It’s worse than I thought! I had no idea this stuff was happening – the photo is not real – it was taken during a protest:
The Jet Stream is formed by the interaction of the air masses in the two cells, not the other way around. I think that may be what is getting you confused.
Maybe you could do a little searching and find a good 3-D visualization (or animation) to clarify the path/history of a molecule, and what factors affect it along that path.
jgnfldsays
@124 “good” video!!!
Patrick Moore “founder” of Greenpeace and noted and well published “climate researcher”!!! From over 3 years ago!!!
mike @121,
You set out a prediction: “2019 will be in the top 3 years for global temperature.”
I would be less definite that to predict an outcome, but I would suggest an actual position for 2019 in the annual rankings – that of 2nd, behind top-placed 2016, seems a likely outcome. The GISTEMP top six years at present are:-
2016 .. .. +0.99ºC
2017 .. .. +0.90ºC
2015 .. .. +0.86ºC
2018 .. .. +0.82ºC
2014 .. .. +0.73ºC
So +0.86ºC would see an =3rd spot. And a +0.90ºC would see =2nd. So far, the start of 2019 has averaged +0.895ºC and the El Niño outlook suggests the small boost from ENSO will last through the year. And without a fading El Niño boost, January & February anomalies are usually below the annual average anomaly.
But, early days. A lot can happen in ten months.
Bill Hendersonsays
Back to the future – does anything clang? (103, Gavin’s response and Carrie’s reply 113 – check hyperlink and wording at page linked)
Last summer a group of eminent climate scientists published a warning that we were close to a threshold where human induced warming could set off a cascade of positive feedbacks which would increase temperatures to Hothouse Earth, a 5-7C rise in temperature, the end of civilization and maybe even humanity. They warned that “Incremental linear changes to the present socioeconomic system are not enough to stabilize the Earth System. Widespread, rapid, and fundamental transformations will likely be required to reduce the risk of crossing the threshold and locking in the Hothouse Earth pathway; these include changes in behavior, technology and innovation, governance, and values”.
This month a UN report on climate change in the Arctic predicted that temperatures in the Arctic in winter would rise by 3-5C by 2050 and 5-9C by 2080 (if emissions continue to track at the medium to high IPCC scenario range with only the present limited Paris Accord action). The Arctic ocean is predicted to be ice free in summer by 2030 and 45% of Arctic permafrost is expected to melt this century.
Change of Arctic albedo and increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from melting permafrost are two key positive feedbacks – will their combined increase in temperature globally help turn soil and forests to sources of GHGs instead of carbon sinks?
The Steffen et el Hothouse Earth paper (complimented by the Gasser et el paper published in September) predicts that once this threshold has been crossed, heating will be irreversible. It won’t matter what we decide to do then.
>KIA … It’s worse than I thought! I had no idea this stuff was happening – the photo is not real
Your contribution of fake news is notable.
Snapesays
Hi Eric
Zebra argues that what matters to the strength of the jet stream is the temperature of the air masses on either side. I don’t disagree, but notice the jet is not terribly wide…maybe 7’ latitude (483 miles) at most. If it’s centered at 55’N in winter (typical), that puts the northern edge several hundred miles shy of the arctic circle. It drifts south during summer, becoming even farther removed. So I’m a little confused by the Arctic warming/lazy jet stream connection. Maybe we should look at temperature trends for the latitudes that actually matter? I.e., 51.5’N compared to 58.5’N.
Worth noting, Cliff Mass says there’s NO evidence the jet stream has been getting more wavy. Perhaps he’s right, and we’re just hyper-focused on recent weather?
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Richard P. Feynman 1986 re the Shuttle disaster
So what? Well GCMs and RCPs are both “technologies” no less than the Space Shuttle’s computer systems and pre-programmed algorithms were.
No A.I., no computer tech, no forecast is smarter, wiser nor more intuitive than the best equipped human beings are on this planet.
Reality must take precedence.
Carriesays
“Romantic Illusions” will not cut it where the climate crisis is concerned.
Ammonite, you are like the soon forgotten people of Poland in September 1939 who were either killed or whose homes were burnt to the ground.
While know-it-all Amercian’s were giving lectures in New York about their data, theories, and hypotheticals that Germany was no big deal worth worrying about. That it was probably a positive for the world and for economic growth.
Snapesays
Mike,
“but not as bad as Socialists and Communists!”
The USA has for generations been a nice mix of free-market capitalism and socialism. Something like 80/20 by GDP.
Which of these socialist institutions do you want to eliminate?
– infrastructure
– public schools
– military
– law enforcement
– judicial system
– fire stations
– postal service
– city, state, national parks
Hundreds, if not thousands more.
patricksays
Here’s a 1-week infrared loop of Cyclone Idai, showing its curved path and stall, to make a direct hit on Beira, Mozambique. If I’m not mistaken that coastline would have a lensing effect on storm surge.
wrt to the historic flooding happening in the midwest, John at 111 says “However, it’s not all climate change. This area probably averages a big snowmelt flood about once in a generation. The 1881 flood was so bad that the Missouri River channel moved, and we have little pieces of Iowa on the west side of the river now.”
That’s right. It’s not all global warming.
Here is something I read today about the flooding, “Scientists say climate change is responsible for more intense and more frequent extreme weather such as storms, floods, droughts and fires, but without extensive study they cannot directly link a single weather event to the changing climate…
Major flooding is already occurring this week on the Mississippi river near several southern cities including Arkansas City, Arkansas; Natchez, Mississippi; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, according to river gauges and data from Noaa.
Noaa has also warned of flooding in coastal areas, caused by high tides. In its coastal forecast, the agency said the east and west coasts of the US can expect a slightly higher than normal chance of flooding this spring.
“The flooding isn’t only a factor in the midwest, it’s also on the coasts,” said William Sweet, a coastal flooding expert at Noaa. “There’s a clear climate change signal from the rising seas and the mid-Atlantic area in particular is in the crosshairs. Climate change is here, it’s clear and communities are being flooded far more than they used to be.”
Sweet said Noaa expects the mid-Atlantic region, stretching from New Jersey to Virginia, to experience a massive increase in flooding days, up from around 10 days to as many as 130 days a year, by 2050. “The numbers are staggering, some places will be flooding almost every other day,” he said.
Even if that turns out to be true, it will still be correct to say, hey, it’s not all global warming. yep, it’s not all global warming. repeat after me… it’s not all global warming. Some of it may be random weather.
Some might be attributed to a vengeful God, but I am not sure how we quantify the vengeful God contribution?
I think this is progress in the community of folks who just used to deny that global warming exists at all. Many now correctly identify that there are problems, but hey, it’s not all global warming.
I actually think that might be a good way to talk to your friends, family and/or acquaintances who are experiencing the flooding (or any of the weather catastrophe that are subject to increase in intensity or frequency by global warming). Rather than hammer away on global warming, just open with, Wow, terrible flooding! Are you doing ok? You know, this flooding? It’s not all global warming.
It’s so true, so true.
Cheers,
Mike
David B. Bensonsays
Changes in ocean ‘conveyor belt’ foretold abrupt climate changes by four centuries
Columbia University
2019 Mar 20
Phys.org
So maybe some aspects of the Younger Dryas initiation are not due to an impact event. This remains a puzzle, at least for me.
“Cliff Mass says there’s NO evidence the jet stream has been getting more wavy.”
I’ve come to be somewhat wary of what “Cliff Mass says.”
Francis and Vavrus certainly thought they had some, which is why they called their paper “Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming.”
New metrics and evidence are presented that support a linkage between rapid Arctic warming, relative to Northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, and more frequent high-amplitude (wavy) jet-stream configurations that favor persistent weather patterns. We find robust relationships among seasonal and regional patterns of weaker poleward thickness gradients, weaker zonal upper-level winds, and a more meridional flow direction. These results suggest that as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase.
I tend to view all the predictions of an ice-free summer Arctic with a grain of salt, based largely on recent failed proclamations (I think we all know who made them). Many discussion about recent sea ice trends have occurred on Neven’s arctic sea ice forum concerning this (I highly recommend visiting, if you are keenly interested). While there is no agreement among the contributors, many are suggesting that the recent flat-lining of the summer sea ice minimum is due to an increase in summer cloudiness, which is blocking solar radiation from reaching the surface ice (a contrasting albedo change). Others have pointed to ocean circulation making it more difficult to melt the remaining ice. Regardless, many are suggesting that we have reached a new paradigm, with no concrete timeline for the next change.
Several were expecting a decrease in winter maximum ice this year, following four years of low maxima, but the colder Atlantic led to enhanced sea ice growth (more than countering the warm Pacific side), resulting in only the 9th lowest extent in the 40-year satellite history record. Consequently, based on recent developments, I view 2030 as much too soon (IMHO).
zebrasays
#140 Kevin McKinney
I refer you to my comment over on FR on the “statistical significance” question Hank Roberts brought up.
You certainly are not going to convince Snape or his fellow travelers with that paper, since even my eyes glazed over pretty quickly… too much info, stilted, somewhat tortured, writing. (I know it is an actual paper, not intended for “public education”, of course.)
But how does it get reported, and how do the Cliff Mass types respond? Well, it’s easy to question all kinds of statistical choices and results. What I think we need to make clear to people is at a more basic level, because they can, if sincerely curious, internalize it.
-“If the temperature difference decreases, the winds slow down.”
-“If you increase the energy in the system, then patterns of energy movement by atmosphere and oceans must change.”
And then you tell people that what the scientists are trying to figure out is which of these two facts has a stronger effect, because it is a very complicated situation. (To which Swanson alludes at #120.) But, just because they can’t meet a statistical criterion one way or the other, it doesn’t mean those facts are in question.
mikesays
to snape at 136: I am fine with socialism and all the socialist institutions that you list. I was having a little fun at KIA’s expense. MKIA is the guy who is profoundly frightened by socialists and communists.
Thanks to MAR for weighing in on the heat level rankings. We both seem to think it’s going to be a hot year. I picked up a small free wading pool for my two youngest grandchildren to splash around in this summer. I may not be able to do much for their future, but I can work on giving them good memories of hot summer days spent splashing around in a pool.
Carrie: I am attempting discussion of the Kevin Anderson talk on the forced responses thread. I think you heard the same things that I did from KA.
Early results suggest ECS values from some of the new CMIP6 climate models are higher than previous estimates, with early numbers being reported between 2.8C (pdf) and 5.8C. This compares with the previous coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP5), which reported values between 2.1C to 4.7C. The IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) assessed ECS to be “likely” in the range 1.5C to 4.5C and “very unlikely” greater than 6C.
Yet, somehow, the suggestion is “wait for the technology to catch up.”
There may be a world in which that makes some kind of sense, but it’s not one that I’m familiar with. “I think we’re screwed worse than previously believed, but let’s not be hasty about acting. It would be terrible if the action we take was not fully understood to be futile first.”
“You certainly are not going to convince Snape or his fellow travelers with that paper…”
I think you are categorizing Snape a little too quickly; we’ve had quite a few interactions over on Open Mind, and I think he is someone who wants to learn (and does so rather in the way I do, which is by leaping right in.)
Be that as it may, whatever the merits of the language, Francis and Vavrus do, in fact, present actual evidence. One may question its merits, I suppose, but its very existence?
I’d note further that Francis & Vavrus (2015) has racked up a pretty respectable 207 citations:
“Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events”
(Another author on that one is Stefan Rahmstorf, a notable contributor here.)
An intriguing quote from the evidentiary point of view is this:
“Coumou et al. showed that the Northern Hemisphere summer jet and associated storm activity have weakened since 1979 and hypothesized that this could lead to more persistent, and therefore more extreme, summer weather.”
Following up the reference gets you Comou et al (2015):
“Here we report significant weakening of summer circulation detected in three key dynamical quantities: (i) the zonal-mean zonal wind, (ii) the eddy kinetic energy (EKE), and (iii) the amplitude of fast-moving Rossby waves.”
Sounds like ‘evidence’ to me (albeit only for the summer atmosphere).
Meanwhile, what’s Cliff Mass got, beyond bare assertions?
Well, he’s got evidence that cold spells are weakening and becoming less frequent, which as he notes, is “exactly what we would expect in a warming world.”
At least in this blog post he doesn’t say there is “no” evidence for the “lazy jet stream theory”. He says there is “there is little evidence for the “lazy jet stream” theory in observations.”
carriesays
141 Orca says: @135 Or wait for the technology to catch up.
The saddest aspect to that comment is that they likely believe it’s necessary to wait. It’s impossible for any human being to be smarter, much wiser and much more evidence based than the CMIP6 and the AR6.
And yet still people wonder how we ended up here. Still do not learn a thing of value from the last 30 years.
OK I’ll wait. When will the CMIP7 and AR7 be published? I’d hate to get something wrong about the precious DOGMA!
Mike,
Sorry about that. I read your comment out of context and was afraid you were serious.
Kevin, Zebra,
I’m relatively new to climate science, and my point of view tends to waffle back and forth depending on who’s argument I’m currently taking in. Right now, I’d put my money on Jennifer Francis, Michael Mann.
Despite the existence of Forced Responses, more integrated discussions are needed among scientists, too. I see virtually no accurate mitigation strategies put forward by any scientists, and certainly not climate scientists.
I think a large part of the reason is not understanding how the whole system works, not just the climate aspects.
For example, when a new paper says we have two hundred (just a fer instance) years before the poop rally hits the fan, are they thinking about the rate of decline of insects/bugs and the fact that rate of collapse leaves us nowhere near two hundred years?
**Important**: Trophic Cascades affect climate.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nature-destruction-climate-change-world-biodiversity_n_5c49e78ce4b06ba6d3bb2d44?fbclid=IwAR0_X_oNuzVI0Vmo06LHhYwmLHLve3yquJq9rgsB0hNB6XBKATOeGgoZP-4
Zebra
Mann’s basic premise is that a smaller temperature difference between the Arctic and midlatitudes will tend to weaken the jet stream, creating more extreme weather events, such as ones he describ
“A smaller difference in temperature between midlatitudes and polar latitudes creates a slower jet stream over- all, which favors more persistent weather patterns and is associated with the double-peak jet and QRA.
This mounting trend helps to explain the spate of long-lasting, extreme summer weather events seen around the Northern Hemi- sphere over the past two decades.”
The problem with this is that during summer the opposite trend has been observed: Arctic warming has been limited by ice cover (as you pointed out), not the case at midlatitudes. Which means the north/south temperature difference has increased, not decreased.
>86, 96 …
Well, it’s published this:
Published Articles | MICHAEL E. MANN
http://www.michaelmann.net/content/published-articles
Restrepo, J.M., Mann, M.E., Uncertainty in Climate Science: Not Cause for Inaction, … maps, variability, Science of the Total Environment, 635, 1110-1123, 2018.
hey Ray,
what’s your take on the ocean heat record for 2018, dude?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2019/jan/16/our-oceans-broke-heat-records-in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVUy0xOTAzMTc%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&CMP=GTUS_email
Should we be concerned or is it just one hot year of data that we can shrug off?
Cheers
Mike
On Wednesday 3/13, UNEP released a new report on the state of the Arctic, “Global Linkages – A graphic look at the changing Arctic“. From the UNEP press release:
The report also addresses the impacts of ocean acidification and plastic pollution.
UNEP Press Release:
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/3-5degc-temperature-rise-now-locked-arctic
Report in PDF Format:
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27687/Arctic_Graphics.pdf
[Response: The report might be mostly fine, but the specific claim about the committed Arctic warming is wrong (via @Carbonbrief). – gavin]
I think we have clearly entered the era of significant impacts:
https://weather.com/news/news/2019-03-16-deadly-flooding-midwest-impacts
Pretty interesting to skim through this long weather/news report and see no mention of climate change. I realize that people need to focus on the immediate threat and be sensitive to folks who are at risk. I also know that no one likes to be lectured about global warming, but I think it does bear mentioning periodically in a long report like this one that details record-breaking flooding, etc. These things are not disconnected.
How much of this will the redstate folks have to experience before they say, oh, global warming is a big deal? When that happens, the republican party will have to respond with action. I think that is the point at which we can start to hope for significant climate change legislation in the US. It will have to be bipartisan or it is just more culture war exchanges.
If you have family or friends in the redstates, take the opportunity to open the discussion with them when the flooding subsides. Be gentle. Use questions. When are we going to do something about this? Do you think this is normal weather? This looks a nasty change in normal weather to me. What do you think? Does it make sense to rebuild roads, houses on ground that was underwater in this event if this is the new normal weather?
I think let the redstaters say “are you talking about global warming?” Then you can say, “yeah, I guess so, but I was thinking about it more in terms of a new normal state of disastrous weather back there in (town/state).
We have to give these folks room to step out of the culture wars and make sense of their experience and have a different kind of “come to Jesus” moment.
Bad weather.
Mike
#102 Snape,
First, to repeat again from my original reply, I don’t believe all this stuff is at the “consensus” stage, so I am not jumping on anyone’s bandwagon yet. But let’s examine your reasoning.
You are disagreeing with Mann’s statement that there is a trend towards a lower N-S difference, because of the DMI data.
The DMI data is for above 80deg N. The “meeting” point, as Mann calls it, for the two different air masses, is around 60deg N. And, depending on which little graphic you look at, the boundary line can extend from a bit below 60 to a bit above on a slope.
So, first, you are talking about temperature values close to the surface at a point well removed from the point Mann is talking about.
Second, we are talking about different altitudes– the Jet Stream is at 35,000 feet, and it’s lateral speed is determined by how much the original orbital angular velocity of the (southern) molecules has been reduced in their travels.
Now, I am far from an expert, and didn’t write the models, and don’t have a supercomputer, but, again, from basic physics… why would I think that Mann is wrong and you are correct?
Whatever influence the relatively static arctic ocean’s surface temps have on the polar molecules seems trivial compared to other inputs that would occur over the course of their travels– there’s a lot of warming potential from 80deg to 60deg. (It might even be the case that, with less ice cover, the air mass moving south would have a higher humidity, which could certainly translate into higher temps as altitude is gained.)
So, to repeat again, there’s no reason to think the DMI surface temps are evidence of much at all for this question. But I’m happy to hear any physics-based argument to the contrary.
carrie asks @ 100: “Why are the recent 3+ months of MLO CO2 average readings running around +1.00 above the medium term average of +2.50 ppmv despite no El Nino status/present that might increase the numbers that much if it had existed in 2018 onward?”
I think it’s global heat. Hot stage of EN, or neutral, or LN? So what? The global temp just keeps rising with the expected wobbles. A warmed planet handles CO2 differently than the planet we grew up with. As you know, it’s a very complex system and one of the most important measurable outputs is the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Flooding gets the headlines and the articles seldom or never mention CO2 emissions, accumulation and ocean acidification.
I had the same response when CO2 started jumping a few years ago at the beginning of the last hot stage of EN. Seeing numbers of 4 plus ppm in yoy comparison should be shocking, but we have sort of gotten used to it. I am sure all the cooler heads will be happy to jump in and tell you that you are over-reacting. You are not over-reacting. Most of the planet is under-reacting.
I keep thinking the species will wake up, but there is no guarantee that will ever happen. We may just have to stand by and watch over time as the cooler heads start to say, “uh-oh. This looks bad.” Then some of will have to step back and say, “oh, really? I wish we had seen this coming.”
I don’t think I am saying anything here that you don’t know. The CO2 numbers should be creating alarm. Tamino converts our carbon budget to CO2 in atmosphere and says we need to avoid climbing over 435 ppm. We are on track to pass that sorry number in around ten years.
Everybody stay positive! Maybe we can tweak capitalism a tiny bit and avoid going over the cliff.
Mike
100 – Carrie
Thomas, it’s been cold this winter in North America. Plants are awakening late this year, so CO2 uptake will be a little slower than usual.
Zebra
The study is looking at near surface temperatures (not 35,000’), and defines midlatitudes as 25’N – 75’N (DMI’s “north of 80” is therefore a pretty close metric for the arctic):
“Using European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) reanalysis data (ERA) confined to the midlatitude (25°N to 75°N) region of interest (28) and the QRA detection scheme described above and developed previously (26), M17 produced a composite of boreal summer [June to August (JJA)] zonally averaged near-surface (1000 hPa) temperature profiles associated with QRA-favorable time intervals. Differencing the QRA-favorable and climatological mean profiles, they defined an anomalous meridional temperature “fingerprint” associated with QRA conditions, onto which polar-amplified warming projects positively (although there is additional structure in the fingerprint related to, e.g., land/ocean contrast).”
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/MannEtAlScienceAdvances18.pdf
******
I get your point though. Maybe all that matters is the temperature trend for a narrow band of atmosphere just north of the jet stream compared to just south of the jet stream. Hard to figure out what those trends would be given the jet is constantly wobbling. Even if you could, then we’re only talking a few hundred miles difference. How much would the trends differ over such a short distance? Also note: if the jet stream is at 60’ N or lower, as you mentioned, then both sides would likely fall within the study’s definition of midlatitudes, in which case ‘midlatitude vs Arctic’ is inaccurate/misleading.
Mike @106 It’s interesting that the Weather Channel discussion doesn’t mention climate change. However, today’s Omaha World-Herald, a regional paper, did. I talked with the reporter who wrote the article about what made this such a bad storm, and why climate change was making these events more likely. She also had a quote from James Hansen, who has roots in nearby Iowa.
However, it’s not all climate change. This area probably averages a big snowmelt flood about once in a generation. The 1881 flood was so bad that the Missouri River channel moved, and we have little pieces of Iowa on the west side of the river now. Although 1936 is now remembered for the ultra-hot dust bowl summer, the late winter was absolutely frigid, and there was a lot of flooding in many places when spring finally came. You can bet that there was a huge amount of jet stream excursion and blocking that year, too.
106 – mike
I think if weather deteriorates enough people in red states will start to be believers. Problem is that bad weather has always occurred in the USA – tornados, floods, hurricanes, snowmageddons, drought, heat waves, cold waves, etc. Based on the extremely hot past 2 or 3 summers in the PNW, and the lack of winter cold in Alaska/Canada, I am starting to be a believer but I will NEVER vote for a socialist – and ALL Ds in the USA are socialists or communists. Truth! They are their own worst enemy!
I’ve encouraged state and federal politicians (including Ds)to push for a law allowing energy saving measures to be installed by building owners with no interference from HOAs, zoning codes, etc AS LONG AS it is done safely. I’m thinking shading devices, insulated shutters, PV and thermal solar panels, heat reflecting paints, etc. Have not heard a word about it from any politician.
[Response: The report might be mostly fine, but the specific claim about the committed Arctic warming is wrong (via @Carbonbrief). – gavin]
So what if it is? Future Models are not reality. Future Paris Targets are not reality. Arguments about the arrangement of the deck chairs is not going to save the Titanic.
My wish is that all climate scientists got real about the known facts of life that affect current and prescient GHG emissions growth in the real world.
iow get out of hypothetical model-land and the ongoing denial of what is really happening and where that is heading. The USA is not even a party to the Paris Agreement while carrying +20% of global GHG forcings with only 330 million people. That’s reality, that’s a fact.
Alternatively keep pretending all is well and buy yourself a brand new Tesla Model 3.
#102, 107–
Plus, there’s *way* more area between 60N and 80N than north of 80, AND the DMI north of 80 index–which I love as a quick and unambiguous indicator of what’s happening temperaturewise in the central Arctic Basin–is virtue of the grid scheme overweighted toward the highest latitudes (see the DMI discussion of the 80N ‘nuts and bolts’ for details–caveats, really–on that.)
It’s true enough that the atmosphere over the ice tends to be ‘clamped’ close to the freezing point summer, but then again, the ice edge is also tending to move poleward over time. I don’t think that Dr. Mann and the other researchers working on this problem have failed to include observed summer temperatures in the summer Arctic as they’ve done their sums.
Both GISTEMP and NOAA have posted for February, GISS with a higher anomaly than January (at +0.92ºC for Feb, up from Jan +0.87ºC) and NOAA with a lower anomaly than January (at +0.79ºC, down from Jan’s +0.88ºC). The difference is likely simply due to the lower global coverage of NOAA.
For GISS it is the 3rd warmest February on record (in NOAA 5th). In GISS Feb 2019 sits after 2016 (+1.34ºC) & 2017 (+1.12ºC) and ahead of 2015 (+0.87ºC) & 2018 (+0.84ºC). In NOAA Feb 2019 sits behind 2016 (+0.92ºC), 2017 (+0.92ºC), 2015 (+0.92ºC) & 1998 (+0.92ºC).
February 2019 is =14th warmest month in the all-month GISS record. For NOAA Feb 2019 is =44th.
As a start-of-the-year, Jan & Feb in GISS are 3rd warmest below 2016 & 2107 and above 2015, 2007 & 2018.
For NOAA, 2019 sits as 4th warmest start-of-the-year, below 2016, 2017, 2015 and above 2007, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2010 & 2018.
Most of these warm start-of-the-years are boosted by El Nino so 2019 with little such boost is looking pretty warm.
I think that climate scientists and activists/info providers need to stop shooting themselves in the foot. They need to seek some guidance from cognitive scientists, CBT psychologists/psychiatrist, plus PR Communications scientists/Ph.Ds etc. and apply what they know.
Every time a scientist decides to argue the point with “deniers” etc all they are doing is retriggering the False Memes and Narratives. Scientists need to stop choosing to defend their own science and knowledge which needs no defence. Posting “bob” posts is self-defeating. Carbon briefs column inches about a “small theoretical error” in “semantics” and Gavin emphasising that error here is self-defeating. They Lose when they do this. They undermine their own messaging and their own goals – the purpose of the science they are doing.
There are multiple points in the UNEP report that should have been emphasised – instead Carbon brief chooses to ignore them all and instead focuses on the one minor, and I say IRRELEVANT HYPOTHETICAL, “error”.
For it is irrelevant what the temps MIGHT BE, based on Models alone, in 2050, 2070, 2080 or 2100. The RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 are equally irrelevant to what the people the public need to know – and what the scientists already know about the PRESENT and near future out to 2030 but keep side-stepping.
Yes of course the science is important, and yes those models are “skilful” and “useful” to SCIENCE and to Climate Scientists but they are highly irrelevant distractions to the Public and those involved in Policy changes.
And yes the idea of Global temps and the amount of GHG emissions needing to by curtailed and by when are important to the UNFCCC Paris agreements, treaties etc. They need a scientific measurable “framework” in which to operate – but PUBLIC discussions about pseudo-disagreements between the UNEP report and Paris agreements and the IPCC and scientists is a waste of time. Have those discussion in-house. Publish corrections but that RAVE on Carbon brief is stupidity writ large. It’s self-defeating. It shows how unfocused their heads are at. It shows they do not get the problems of today.
It’s endlessly disappointing seeing scientists and activists, those with forums, website and twitter accounts wasting their time with such things and being so sensitive to ‘critics’ they become so easily distracted from the REAL task at hand.
Unless and until the focus switches to what is going on now today about the Climate Crisis (yes stop using the term climate change – it’s a dead end now) and the time frame of 2019 to 2030 then nothing will change and nothing will get done. Forget about 2050, 2080 and hypothetical models, they are not needed now. Keep it in-house, put it in the IPCC reports and then ignore it all. Even the UNEP report should not have been going there, because there is more than enough hard facts and scientific knowledge about TODAY that people need to hear about.
People GLAZE over about 1.5C, 2C, 3C and whether or not it might 0.5C or +9C in 2080. Stop it. Get to the facts of today – bring it down to their level about things they can and WILL understand about this Climate Crisis.
Like the Polar Vortex has been effected stationary weather cells the same thing is happening already in the tropics and subtropics. February a once in a 500 year flood event (itself meaningless but anyway) in the central northwest of Queensland Australia – one of the driest parts of the continent 670 mmm or rain in 9 days as the Monsoonal Low remained STUCK in place by surrounding Highs. It simultaneously created a one in a 200 year flooding event in Townsville.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Townsville_flood
Queensland’s flood water crisis has killed
300,000 500,000 head of cattle and cost farmers$300$750,000 millionBy Matt Dunn AAP Feb 8, 2019
https://www.9news.com.au/2019/02/08/07/39/queensland-townsville-floods-news-update-flood-impact-in-northwest-queensland-revealed-in-dramatic-timelapse-visions-fs-flood-water
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has released a special climate review, officially calling the rain in north Queensland “exceptional”.
Twitter embed
Twitter: BOM accumulated rainfall 26 Jan to 7 Feb
View on Twitter
According to the special climate statement this year’s event has topped the comparable January 1998 and January 1953 events, in terms of area averaged rainfall within the North Coast-Herbert rainfall division.
It is difficult to oversell the amount of rain that has fallen in north Queensland. Places like Paluma, Woolshed, and Upper Bluewater got over two metres of rain in 12 days.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-15/queensland-floods-special-climate-statement/10816184
Not only the BOM but many other cliamte scientists are still speaking about this – but there’s nothing on the Carbon Brief about it and nothing here. That’s the problem.
What’s being ignored by scientists is the scientific rigor about this and all the other similar events occruing all over the world from the Arctic to the Antarctic each and every week some where on Earth. But not a word. No context. Not perspective. No re-emphasing the validity of the climate science that ahs bene speaking about these kinds issues comeing for decades now. Even now ehen they are here, there is an earie silence.
No comment by RC experts about the impact of the “global warming caused” slowing of the Ocean Currents that drove this event off the scale! No comments about the slowing of atmospheric systems slowing down which drove these kinds of events off the the scale this year, last year, the year before.
No comment by RC and other scientists that energy and land-use drivers GHG emissions rather than falling are actually still increasing. No connection being made between the last 4 record global temps, the thousands of new RECORDS set in temperatures all over the world driving these vents and the impacts – 500,000 dead cattle and now thousands of farmers on the edge of Bankruptcy right now today! Not in 2050 or 2070 or 2100 but now today!
Here’s a a little info fwiw – a environmental scientist from Townsville, home of the Great barrier Reef scientists too – talking to the public and telling them the truth of it. backed up by a 14 year old school boy who seems to know much more about these matters PLUS the urgency for action on this climate crisis that is here now, today, than many of the posters and residents scientist here “appear” (due to their silence and distracting focus) to realise.
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-18-03/10889642
skim through it – pay attention to Panellist Professor Stephen Williams, as well as non-scientist Panellist Roger Hill (near the end he speaks to the carbon cycle drives the water cycle and it’s effects on soil health – he gets cut off by the idiot moderator who has no clue – I did, and so does Killian)
I could list a hundred items from all over the world that should be presented here but never is. The connections and the positive narratives connecting all the SCIENTIFIC DOTS are never told.
But we do have “bob’s” posts. Isn’t that great? No, it’s extremely disappointing. That needs to change – now – today! It’s way past time to “get real” and much more “skilful” too.
If you agree then please say so here. Now.
sorry bad formatting
“Queensland’s flood water crisis has killed
300,000500,000 head of cattle and cost farmers$300$750 million!”MLO CO2 March 18: 414.84 ppm
I believe that is a new all time daily record, though not 100% certain.
It is certainly a new 2019 record
Past comments of note include:
9 Jan 2019 at 10:23 PM
The avg Global Growth rate from May thru Sept has been + 2.546 ppmv YoY
Wait until the next El Nino hits and see how high it goes then. +4.00 ppm is not out of the question. 2018 8is already streets ahead of the last El Nino years 2015/2016 .. and I mean WAY UP.
So I will ask this very simple question… “WHAT CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS?”
There aren’t any doh!
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-716430
2018 ~2.50 New GLOBAL Growth Rate Record for a Non-El Nino Year
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-716431
63
mike says:
10 Jan 2019 at 6:58 PM
for MAR: Hey, Al. Can you post your analysis (or link thereto) that shows slowing of the CO2 accumulation that relates to the 2014-2017 emission slowdown over at Tamino’s thread on CO2 buildup please?
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/climate-change-more-gas-from-trump-and-the-usa/#more-10316
Thanks
Mike
[Response: To maintain CO2 concentrations at a stable level, you could only emit what was effectively being balanced by long-term sinks. On the hundred-year scale, that is basically only the deep ocean, and the current sequestration there is about 2 GtC/yr. Given we are putting out ~10 GtC/yr, that means you’d have to cut emissions by 80% to stabilise CO2 (which is not the same as stabilising temperature – that would continue to rise, though more slowly). – gavin]
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-716751
Maybe I missed posting this info
MOST RECENT GLOBAL CO2 DATA
December 2018: 409.36 ppm +2.83
December 2017: 406.53 ppm
November 2018: 408.16 ppm +2.68
November 2017: 405.48 ppm
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
I can barely wait for January, February and March Global results to arrive.
And the CH4 data through to March 2019.
Snape (102) wrote:
I found a similar difference in Arctic trends, which I pointed to in a paper I presented at the 2017 AGU Fall Meeting. I analyzed the MSU/AMSU data, separating out the annual data from the long term trend and found that the trend was less during Summer months than during Winter months. That result has been reported in the surface data as well, since the surface ice cover keeps the air just above at a near freezing, as mentioned. The reduced trend in summer did not cancel the long term trend seen in the RSS TLT data of 0.45 K/decade or the RSS TMT data of 0.24 K/decade.
I think there’s another explanation for the enhanced Winter warming, which is that there’s an increase in avection of warm, moist air from lower latitudes into the polar latitudes. This past Winter’s weather, with outbreaks of exceptionally cold air over the central US, was accompanied by unusually warm conditions over Alaska and other polar regions. I suggest that this points to an increase in tropic to pole circulation in Winter. Sad to say, I have no way to prove that warming is due to circulation or to direct warming from greenhouse gases. Jeniffer Francis and her Wavy Jet Streams may be focusing on a similar aspect of the changes underway, IMHO.
from MAR at 115: “Most of these warm start-of-the-years are boosted by El Nino so 2019 with little such boost is looking pretty warm.”
Here’s a prediction: 2019 will be in the top 3 years for global temperature.
on daily co2:
Daily CO2
March 18, 2019: 414.84 ppm
March 18, 2018: 408.22 ppm
6.62 ppm increase in yoy comparison. Noisy number, but I don’t recall a variation in the 6 plus range before. I think it reflects a spikey day in 2019 with a low wobble day in 2018, so I don’t make too much of it, but still, a 6 plus number makes a person stop for a moment and think.
I like KIA’s thought at 109 that late spring in North America might be delaying CO2 uptake. I don’t know if that idea is solid in any particular way, but it sounds valid and it fits with my own sense that the carbon cycle of the planet does not function in the same way on a warmer earth. That could be bad for all of us, but not as bad as Socialists and Communists!
Well ok! Carry on
Mike
Here is the solution to climate change. Build high voltage DC transmission lines to all desert areas around the globe. Heat up large insulated areas of sand using mirrors that are way more than 20% efficient (e.g. solar panels). Use said build up of heat to generate electricity on demand.
Carrie 116 re Queensland Australia rainfall. Indeed. I have been challenged by intelligent people that are not cognisant of the scientific underpinnings of global warming as to what could possibly be a negative consequence of temperatures rising. Unfortunately I cannot utter half a sentence before being told I am completely wrong.
Meanwhile, my house has been flooded in this very event. The water peaked just two centimetres above the foundation – enough to destroy the floor, infest the place with mould, bring trees down, destroy access and block plumbing. Non-linear damage functions probably seem very abstract to many folks – until they have to be paid for in person.
Pretty good AGW skeptic video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
BOM Southern Oscillation Index
The 30-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has been steady over the past two weeks, remaining within El Niño territory. The SOI value for the 30 days to 17 March was −13.3. However, the 90-day SOI is still well within neutral territory at −5.1.
While values of the 30-day SOI have been strongly negative for almost a month, SOI values during the northern Australian wet season can be volatile, and should therefore be viewed with caution. This is because the passage of tropical systems near Darwin and Tahiti can affect atmospheric pressure at these locations, and hence the value of the SOI.
A Cat 3 tropical cyclone has just traversed Cape York into the Gulf of Carpentaria of northern Australia.
121 – mike
“I like KIA’s thought at 109 that late spring in North America might be delaying CO2 uptake. I don’t know if that idea is solid in any particular way, but it sounds valid and it fits with my own sense that the carbon cycle of the planet does not function in the same way on a warmer earth. That could be bad for all of us, but not as bad as Socialists and Communists!”
It’s worse than I thought! I had no idea this stuff was happening – the photo is not real – it was taken during a protest:
https://www.lifenews.com/2016/09/22/china-is-kidnapping-people-and-harvesting-their-organs-while-they-are-still-alive/
110 Snape,
The Jet Stream is formed by the interaction of the air masses in the two cells, not the other way around. I think that may be what is getting you confused.
Maybe you could do a little searching and find a good 3-D visualization (or animation) to clarify the path/history of a molecule, and what factors affect it along that path.
@124 “good” video!!!
Patrick Moore “founder” of Greenpeace and noted and well published “climate researcher”!!! From over 3 years ago!!!
Wow.
mike @121,
You set out a prediction: “2019 will be in the top 3 years for global temperature.”
I would be less definite that to predict an outcome, but I would suggest an actual position for 2019 in the annual rankings – that of 2nd, behind top-placed 2016, seems a likely outcome. The GISTEMP top six years at present are:-
2016 .. .. +0.99ºC
2017 .. .. +0.90ºC
2015 .. .. +0.86ºC
2018 .. .. +0.82ºC
2014 .. .. +0.73ºC
So +0.86ºC would see an =3rd spot. And a +0.90ºC would see =2nd. So far, the start of 2019 has averaged +0.895ºC and the El Niño outlook suggests the small boost from ENSO will last through the year. And without a fading El Niño boost, January & February anomalies are usually below the annual average anomaly.
But, early days. A lot can happen in ten months.
Back to the future – does anything clang? (103, Gavin’s response and Carrie’s reply 113 – check hyperlink and wording at page linked)
What Happens in the Arctic…
https://countercurrents.org/2019/03/20/what-happens-in-the-arctic/
We’re dead men walking.
Last summer a group of eminent climate scientists published a warning that we were close to a threshold where human induced warming could set off a cascade of positive feedbacks which would increase temperatures to Hothouse Earth, a 5-7C rise in temperature, the end of civilization and maybe even humanity. They warned that “Incremental linear changes to the present socioeconomic system are not enough to stabilize the Earth System. Widespread, rapid, and fundamental transformations will likely be required to reduce the risk of crossing the threshold and locking in the Hothouse Earth pathway; these include changes in behavior, technology and innovation, governance, and values”.
This month a UN report on climate change in the Arctic predicted that temperatures in the Arctic in winter would rise by 3-5C by 2050 and 5-9C by 2080 (if emissions continue to track at the medium to high IPCC scenario range with only the present limited Paris Accord action). The Arctic ocean is predicted to be ice free in summer by 2030 and 45% of Arctic permafrost is expected to melt this century.
Change of Arctic albedo and increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from melting permafrost are two key positive feedbacks – will their combined increase in temperature globally help turn soil and forests to sources of GHGs instead of carbon sinks?
The Steffen et el Hothouse Earth paper (complimented by the Gasser et el paper published in September) predicts that once this threshold has been crossed, heating will be irreversible. It won’t matter what we decide to do then.
>KIA … It’s worse than I thought! I had no idea this stuff was happening – the photo is not real
Your contribution of fake news is notable.
Hi Eric
Zebra argues that what matters to the strength of the jet stream is the temperature of the air masses on either side. I don’t disagree, but notice the jet is not terribly wide…maybe 7’ latitude (483 miles) at most. If it’s centered at 55’N in winter (typical), that puts the northern edge several hundred miles shy of the arctic circle. It drifts south during summer, becoming even farther removed. So I’m a little confused by the Arctic warming/lazy jet stream connection. Maybe we should look at temperature trends for the latitudes that actually matter? I.e., 51.5’N compared to 58.5’N.
Worth noting, Cliff Mass says there’s NO evidence the jet stream has been getting more wavy. Perhaps he’s right, and we’re just hyper-focused on recent weather?
https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/1079792438745550848?lang=en
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Richard P. Feynman 1986 re the Shuttle disaster
So what? Well GCMs and RCPs are both “technologies” no less than the Space Shuttle’s computer systems and pre-programmed algorithms were.
No A.I., no computer tech, no forecast is smarter, wiser nor more intuitive than the best equipped human beings are on this planet.
Reality must take precedence.
“Romantic Illusions” will not cut it where the climate crisis is concerned.
https://urplay.se/program/205843-ur-samtiden-baltic-sea-future-stabilitet-eller-kaos-vagval-for-klimatet
123 Ammonite, I feel for you all.
Ammonite, you are like the soon forgotten people of Poland in September 1939 who were either killed or whose homes were burnt to the ground.
While know-it-all Amercian’s were giving lectures in New York about their data, theories, and hypotheticals that Germany was no big deal worth worrying about. That it was probably a positive for the world and for economic growth.
Mike,
“but not as bad as Socialists and Communists!”
The USA has for generations been a nice mix of free-market capitalism and socialism. Something like 80/20 by GDP.
Which of these socialist institutions do you want to eliminate?
– infrastructure
– public schools
– military
– law enforcement
– judicial system
– fire stations
– postal service
– city, state, national parks
Hundreds, if not thousands more.
Here’s a 1-week infrared loop of Cyclone Idai, showing its curved path and stall, to make a direct hit on Beira, Mozambique. If I’m not mistaken that coastline would have a lensing effect on storm surge.
https://twitter.com/YouStormorg/status/1107562490555043840
wrt to the historic flooding happening in the midwest, John at 111 says “However, it’s not all climate change. This area probably averages a big snowmelt flood about once in a generation. The 1881 flood was so bad that the Missouri River channel moved, and we have little pieces of Iowa on the west side of the river now.”
That’s right. It’s not all global warming.
Here is something I read today about the flooding, “Scientists say climate change is responsible for more intense and more frequent extreme weather such as storms, floods, droughts and fires, but without extensive study they cannot directly link a single weather event to the changing climate…
Major flooding is already occurring this week on the Mississippi river near several southern cities including Arkansas City, Arkansas; Natchez, Mississippi; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, according to river gauges and data from Noaa.
Noaa has also warned of flooding in coastal areas, caused by high tides. In its coastal forecast, the agency said the east and west coasts of the US can expect a slightly higher than normal chance of flooding this spring.
“The flooding isn’t only a factor in the midwest, it’s also on the coasts,” said William Sweet, a coastal flooding expert at Noaa. “There’s a clear climate change signal from the rising seas and the mid-Atlantic area in particular is in the crosshairs. Climate change is here, it’s clear and communities are being flooded far more than they used to be.”
Sweet said Noaa expects the mid-Atlantic region, stretching from New Jersey to Virginia, to experience a massive increase in flooding days, up from around 10 days to as many as 130 days a year, by 2050. “The numbers are staggering, some places will be flooding almost every other day,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/mississippi-river-flooding-missouri-nebraska-noaa
Even if that turns out to be true, it will still be correct to say, hey, it’s not all global warming. yep, it’s not all global warming. repeat after me… it’s not all global warming. Some of it may be random weather.
Some might be attributed to a vengeful God, but I am not sure how we quantify the vengeful God contribution?
I think this is progress in the community of folks who just used to deny that global warming exists at all. Many now correctly identify that there are problems, but hey, it’s not all global warming.
I actually think that might be a good way to talk to your friends, family and/or acquaintances who are experiencing the flooding (or any of the weather catastrophe that are subject to increase in intensity or frequency by global warming). Rather than hammer away on global warming, just open with, Wow, terrible flooding! Are you doing ok? You know, this flooding? It’s not all global warming.
It’s so true, so true.
Cheers,
Mike
Changes in ocean ‘conveyor belt’ foretold abrupt climate changes by four centuries
Columbia University
2019 Mar 20
Phys.org
So maybe some aspects of the Younger Dryas initiation are not due to an impact event. This remains a puzzle, at least for me.
“Cliff Mass says there’s NO evidence the jet stream has been getting more wavy.”
I’ve come to be somewhat wary of what “Cliff Mass says.”
Francis and Vavrus certainly thought they had some, which is why they called their paper “Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005/meta
Abstract:
Maybe Cliff will be publishing soon… or not.
@135
Or wait for the technology to catch up
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-results-from-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-matter
Bill @130,
I tend to view all the predictions of an ice-free summer Arctic with a grain of salt, based largely on recent failed proclamations (I think we all know who made them). Many discussion about recent sea ice trends have occurred on Neven’s arctic sea ice forum concerning this (I highly recommend visiting, if you are keenly interested). While there is no agreement among the contributors, many are suggesting that the recent flat-lining of the summer sea ice minimum is due to an increase in summer cloudiness, which is blocking solar radiation from reaching the surface ice (a contrasting albedo change). Others have pointed to ocean circulation making it more difficult to melt the remaining ice. Regardless, many are suggesting that we have reached a new paradigm, with no concrete timeline for the next change.
Several were expecting a decrease in winter maximum ice this year, following four years of low maxima, but the colder Atlantic led to enhanced sea ice growth (more than countering the warm Pacific side), resulting in only the 9th lowest extent in the 40-year satellite history record. Consequently, based on recent developments, I view 2030 as much too soon (IMHO).
#140 Kevin McKinney
I refer you to my comment over on FR on the “statistical significance” question Hank Roberts brought up.
You certainly are not going to convince Snape or his fellow travelers with that paper, since even my eyes glazed over pretty quickly… too much info, stilted, somewhat tortured, writing. (I know it is an actual paper, not intended for “public education”, of course.)
But how does it get reported, and how do the Cliff Mass types respond? Well, it’s easy to question all kinds of statistical choices and results. What I think we need to make clear to people is at a more basic level, because they can, if sincerely curious, internalize it.
-“If the temperature difference decreases, the winds slow down.”
-“If you increase the energy in the system, then patterns of energy movement by atmosphere and oceans must change.”
And then you tell people that what the scientists are trying to figure out is which of these two facts has a stronger effect, because it is a very complicated situation. (To which Swanson alludes at #120.) But, just because they can’t meet a statistical criterion one way or the other, it doesn’t mean those facts are in question.
to snape at 136: I am fine with socialism and all the socialist institutions that you list. I was having a little fun at KIA’s expense. MKIA is the guy who is profoundly frightened by socialists and communists.
Thanks to MAR for weighing in on the heat level rankings. We both seem to think it’s going to be a hot year. I picked up a small free wading pool for my two youngest grandchildren to splash around in this summer. I may not be able to do much for their future, but I can work on giving them good memories of hot summer days spent splashing around in a pool.
Carrie: I am attempting discussion of the Kevin Anderson talk on the forced responses thread. I think you heard the same things that I did from KA.
Cheers
Mike
#141, Orca–
Wow. The linked reference says:
Yet, somehow, the suggestion is “wait for the technology to catch up.”
There may be a world in which that makes some kind of sense, but it’s not one that I’m familiar with. “I think we’re screwed worse than previously believed, but let’s not be hasty about acting. It would be terrible if the action we take was not fully understood to be futile first.”
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-018-0355-y/MediaObjects/41558_2018_355_Fig1_HTML.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0355-y
#143, Zebra–
“You certainly are not going to convince Snape or his fellow travelers with that paper…”
I think you are categorizing Snape a little too quickly; we’ve had quite a few interactions over on Open Mind, and I think he is someone who wants to learn (and does so rather in the way I do, which is by leaping right in.)
Be that as it may, whatever the merits of the language, Francis and Vavrus do, in fact, present actual evidence. One may question its merits, I suppose, but its very existence?
I’d note further that Francis & Vavrus (2015) has racked up a pretty respectable 207 citations:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=17370359702282105396&as_sdt=5,34&sciodt=0,34&hl=en
A more recent contribution is Mann et al (2017):
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242
“Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events”
(Another author on that one is Stefan Rahmstorf, a notable contributor here.)
An intriguing quote from the evidentiary point of view is this:
“Coumou et al. showed that the Northern Hemisphere summer jet and associated storm activity have weakened since 1979 and hypothesized that this could lead to more persistent, and therefore more extreme, summer weather.”
Following up the reference gets you Comou et al (2015):
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/324
“Here we report significant weakening of summer circulation detected in three key dynamical quantities: (i) the zonal-mean zonal wind, (ii) the eddy kinetic energy (EKE), and (iii) the amplitude of fast-moving Rossby waves.”
Sounds like ‘evidence’ to me (albeit only for the summer atmosphere).
Meanwhile, what’s Cliff Mass got, beyond bare assertions?
Well, he’s got evidence that cold spells are weakening and becoming less frequent, which as he notes, is “exactly what we would expect in a warming world.”
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/01/are-cold-waves-increasing-under-global_30.html
At least in this blog post he doesn’t say there is “no” evidence for the “lazy jet stream theory”. He says there is “there is little evidence for the “lazy jet stream” theory in observations.”
141 Orca says: @135 Or wait for the technology to catch up.
The saddest aspect to that comment is that they likely believe it’s necessary to wait. It’s impossible for any human being to be smarter, much wiser and much more evidence based than the CMIP6 and the AR6.
And yet still people wonder how we ended up here. Still do not learn a thing of value from the last 30 years.
OK I’ll wait. When will the CMIP7 and AR7 be published? I’d hate to get something wrong about the precious DOGMA!
Socialism? No, it was the 1950s:
https://boingboing.net/2019/03/13/they-were-socialist-invader.html
Mike,
Sorry about that. I read your comment out of context and was afraid you were serious.
Kevin, Zebra,
I’m relatively new to climate science, and my point of view tends to waffle back and forth depending on who’s argument I’m currently taking in. Right now, I’d put my money on Jennifer Francis, Michael Mann.