NOAA has posted the global anomaly for June at +0.93ºC, this the hottest June on record (as per GISTEMP). The NOAA June anomaly is +0.02ºC above the previous hottest June, a smaller margin than in GISTEMP which was +0.11ºC above the previous record (this the same margin as in the ECMWP’s ER5 reanalysis global temperature that gained a few comments up-thread). Previous warm NOAA June’s sit in descending order – 2016 (+0.92ºC), 2015 (+0.91ºC), 2017 (+0.84ºC), 2018 (+0.78ºC) and now in 6th place 2014 (+0.77ºC).
June 2019 sits as 14th warmest monthly anomaly in the all-month record (=21st in GISTEMP).
With half the year behind us, 2019 has the 3rd warmest start-to-the-year on record, as per GISTEMP, but unlike GISTEMP being run very close by the full annual averages of 2015 & 2017. So claiming the second place for the full 2019 calendar year will be a bigger ask than in GISTEMP.
47 nigelj 10 Jul 2019 at 4:33 PM
” https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219067
The influence of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism on environmentalism: A five-year cross-lagged analysis (full text available free). Explains why people like KIA are climate sceptics and rigid in their viewpoint.”
Great find. Thanks.
………………….
74 nigelj 12 Jul 2019
“Alan2102 @68, I agree the effects of climate change on agriculture are complicated, with both plusses and minuses, but the minuses look like they win out”
I think that will probably be true, in coming decades. But I am speculating, and so are the people who wrote the item you linked. It depends on too many factors that are hard to predict. The nature of many of those factors are described in the introduction section to which I referred Nemesis; I recommend that same passage to you. It is only a few paragraphs, but it is very informative. In 5 minutes you can multiply several-fold your knowledge of this critical area.
Nigel: “Even if there is some small advantage overall in a warmer climate, its in no way a justification for burning fossil fuels”
Who on earth would suggest such a crazy thing? Oh yes, denialists. Right.
Agriculture scientists deal with reality. Reality includes things like higher CO2 levels and warmer temps, intensifying in the coming decades. These folks do not *advocate* higher CO2 levels or warmer temps; they just acknowledge that this stuff is happening and must be figured-in to projections pertaining to agricultural productivity. It so happens that most climate change parameters have positive effects on productivity; they partially counter-balance the negatives (climate and other), also intensifying, like drought. In some scenarios, like one within the abstract that I posted (and there are many others), they abolish the negatives. But models and scenarios are speculative; we can’t know for sure, only guess.
Further, and to your first point (“the minuses win out”): agriculture scientists are conservative and deal almost exclusively with established variables. “Established” does not mean easy to quantify and account for; it only means surely in existence and unquestionably influential to at least some extent. Climate stuff falls into this category. But there are non-established variables coming to light all the time, such as technologies for reducing negative climate impacts on plants. These technologies are numerous and are documented in the literature, with more being published every month. We can become aware, disseminate the information, and widely act on it — and change the outcome. Or we can fail to do so. This stuff cannot be built-in to an agricultural projection for obvious reasons, even though it could change the outcome dramatically. So, the science is good as far as it goes, it just does not account for innovative and forward-looking actions not yet part of established practice, because it can’t.
There is, here, plenty of fuel for both optimism (“look at all the great stuff we could do!”) and pessimism (“yeah, lots of great stuff, but we’ll probably be too lazy and stupid to do it. The minuses will win out”).
Nigel: “you point out the world could feed 10 billion people if it has to.”
I did not say that, Nemesis did. Though I agree with him.
Nigel: “I think we would be well advised to get population down to well under 7 billion.”
Being well advised is good, but follow with a practical plan of action.
The paper has a companion table with the arguments dissected in detail.
That there are 42 arguments dissected… well… the authors have humor, I guess (see the video, it supports the humor hypothesis).
Nemesissays
German forests are about to collapse:
” ” 19.7.2019 – Trockenheit – Förster sehen Wald in Deutschland vor dem Kollaps
Förster und Waldbesitzer machen auf dramatische Auswirkungen des Klimawandels aufmerksam.
Die deutschen Wälder stünden kurz vor dem Kollaps, sagte der Vorsitzende des Bunds Deutscher Forstleute, Dohle, dem Portal „t-online.de“. Man könne nicht mehr nur von einzelnen Wetterereignissen sprechen. Am problematischsten sei derzeit die Trockenheit. Laut BDF ist es seit Anfang 2018 durch Schneebruch, Winterstürme, Dürre und Borkenkäferbefall zu einem erheblichen Baumsterben gekommen. Mehr als 100 Millionen Altbäume seien bereits abgestorben, hinzu kämen mehrere Millionen vertrocknete Jungpflanzen. Ähnlich äußerten sich die Forstbehörden in Niedersachsen und Nordrhein-Westfalen. Demnach sind neben Fichten jetzt zunehmend auch Buchen betroffen.”
Heat, drought -> bark beetles ect ect ect, new planted trees are dying as well. Man, we’ll have to plant new trees faster than they die, otherwise afforestation remains nothing but a joke in the face of ex….
William B Jacksonsays
No. 82 you ignore the fact that the paper has been shown to be a non peer reviewed joke.
Nemesissays
@O., #100
” I think, it would make sense to the research field, that the researchers could invest a littlebid more of their time explaining some possible misunderstandings, especially when it’s obvious, that the questions are coming from interested people, far from being denialists. But I just can ask or hope for it. If they are not interested giving more time to the answers, it’s their choice.”
Even more time?! The crucial climate related fact (CO2 heating up the atmosphere) is kown fo roughly 150 years now and still “interested” people ask interesting questions. And this is not just happening when it comes to climate heating, but related to gazillion other issues as well (just look around you and you will find out, that Hell is for real, if you don’t feel it yet, you will feel it soon). Have you ever heard about the ongoing 6th global mass extinction? That’s exactly what we are dealing with here and you still ask for more time.
You know, I study that shit for more than 30 years and I ended up chosing Death as my teacher quite some time ago, so I don’t have time.
Love,
Nemesis
Nemesissays
@O., #105
Nice study. Misinformation is propaganda and propaganda is not about facts, but about misinformation. Therefore one could argue forever with sceptics/deniers, while the planet is burning for real. This game is going on for a long time and will end soon as facts always win. And I love one specific harsh fact:
The deniers who spread misinformation will go down with the rest.
john byatt @103,
You say there is “Misinformation from our side as well” with a link to this image which shows a graph of the global seasonal cycle and its warming since 1880 with the annotation:-
“JUNE 2019 WAS 2.08°C ABOVE 1980-2015.
As this NASA image shows, June 2019 was 2.08°C or 3.74°F above 1980-2015 and thus even more above pre-industrial.
Remember the 2015 Paris Agreement when politicians pledged to act on the threat of climate change, including by: “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels . . .
The graph itself is the ‘GISTEMP Seasonal Cycle since 1880’ from the GISTEMP web pages. This plots monthly anomalies of the Seasonal Cycle relative to the global annual average.
Now this Seasonal Cycle existed in pre-industrial times. It has an amplitude of (+1.84446ºC – -1.9327ºC = ) +3.78ºC. So this image you link-to is telling us that the +1.5ºC Paris warming limit was broken, or more correctly, smashed to smithereens by the very first post-industrial summer.
Actual global warming “above pre-industrial levels” (or at least, since 1880) of individual Junes can be found from the usual June anomalies published by GISTEMP. The max-min spread for June stands at +1.4ºC but that includes the inter-annual noise (which is relatively low during June). It drops to +1.1ºC if you average out that inter-annual noise.
I hope that dispells any thoughts that there is “Misinformation from our side as well,” certainly misinformation that is allowed to sit and fester without correction, as does tend to be the overwhelming case with what we can politely call the denialst “misinformation”.
mike @92/97,
You repeat you expression of “hope” that you don’t misrepresent me. So let me clarify my position.
We humans are annually pumping 11Gt(C) of CO2 out into the atmosphere, a flux of increasing size that has been operating for a couple of centuries. With the biosphere & oceans drawing down perhaps 55% of that flux, the atmospheric burden of CO2 is increasing at perhaps 2.3ppm/year. On top of that, natural cycles impacting climate impose wobbles onto that increase, wobbles (in the carbon cycle) that are not yet seen as being significantly altered by the changes to climate wrought by humanity.
There are those who insist on arguing that the recent high level of atmospheric CO2 increase is indicative of there being now some significant alteration in the carbon cycle. I am always happy to discuss/argue stuff if it is based on evidence but my frustration at the utter lack of evidence (and previously even the absence of a high CO2 increase) has led me to brand such ‘argument’ as being “skyrocketry.”
Now, if folk are wanting to argue that the present high CO2 increase is due to some significant alteration in the carbon cycle, it would be good to know what that alteration comprises. If the 3ppm/year increase which has been recorded at MLO over the last 6 months (but not globally recorded) is the result of some awakened CO2 source, where is it? We are seeking something capable of emitting at least an extra 1.5gt(C) annually which should become quite evident if it persists at that level.
And that ignores the Airborne Fraction. Of course, it could be that it is the Airborne Fraction that has altered but that seems unlikely in a period of just 6 months.
I have no crystal ball to show where human emissions will be going in future years. And ditto with the natural emissions we will be initiating. Indeed, who does? But that lack of fore-knowledge does not sanction folk to go all skyrockety.
mikesays
I am curious, Al. you say at 111: “If the 3ppm/year increase which has been recorded at MLO over the last 6 months (but not globally recorded) is the result of some awakened CO2 source, where is it? We are seeking something capable of emitting at least an extra 1.5gt(C) annually which should become quite evident if it persists at that level.”
How did you arrive at the annual level of 1.5 gtC as significant?
I think watching the changes that are occurring with wetlands, forest fires, thawing permafrost, etc. may very well be quite significant at current levels under 1.5 gtC. The important consideration for me is that when we see new sources of CO2 and CO2e be reported in the scientific literature and when those reports indicate that these new sources are not “one-offs” but should be expected to repeat and build in output, I tend to think that these are significant events.
Cheers
Mike
Ignorant Guysays
MA Rodger #110:
The misinformation bit is that “Sam Carana” (that is not a person but a collective) is adding the seasonal cycle top value on top of the usual yearly mean anomaly to claim that the yearly mean anomaly is 1.8 C higher than you thought. The anomaly of last June was bad enough as it was, but not that bad. If you go to Sam Carana’s web site you will find some really impressive skyrocketry. Their favorite trick is to use a fourth order polynomial approximation to do extrapolations and forecasts. Anyone who knows just a bit of mathematics knows how stupid that is. I don’t think that Sam Carana is really ‘on our side’.
mikesays
July 14 – 20, 2019 412.14 ppm
July 14 – 20, 2018 408.58 ppm
3.56 ppm increase yoy. Noisy number.
I think some distinct part of the current increase can/should be attributed to changes in the global carbon cycle due to the warming of the planet. I am not sure what that number might be when it is smoothed out to eliminate noise. It might be 0.1 or 0.2 ppm. Maybe more, maybe less. Someone with time on their hand to run big number sets could come up with an estimate. Or we can just wait until we are seeing annual increases in the 4.0 plus ppm range and calculate the changes based on emission reports, etc. All of those exercises are interesting and academic unless they are leveraged to create big changes in human CO2e emissions. I haven’t seen any sign of that happening yet. To be clear, a big change would be a reduction of emissions on the level of 2gtC per year or more. Anything less is just moving the deck chairs around. We have to reduce from annual emissions of 10-11 gtC to 2gtC or less and sooner is better than later.
to IG at 113: I have not figured out what Sam Carana’s gig really is. Yes, I also think SC is a group, not an individual. The positions staked out generally seem pretty extreme. I wonder if this group is just a bunch of serious scientists who would lose all academic standing and scientific funding if they were to be as outspoken as Sam Carana can be?
Canaries in the coal mines? Kill the damn things, who needs them?
Cheers
Mike
Nemesissays
Hell is real and it’s a real hellish Madhouse.
Want to take a trip to the madhouse? It’s all in it, lots of historic geoengineering schemes as well (don’t ignore the denier part of it, because it fits perfectly into the overall picture):
I do understand why people are confused about climate heating. Hell is confusion and endless propaganda from all directions and we are right in the midst of it. Enjoy the ride in real Hell, we are just starting to feel a little bit of heat yet, there’s way more to come.
Love,
Nemesis
John Kellysays
Regarding natural sources of CO2, especially from melting permafrost, following these suppositions:
1. Most of the land is in the northern hemisphere.
2. Permafrost emissions will occur in the summer, when it’s warm enough for the microbes to do their work, and be largely suspended in the winter.
Is it possible that we could use a flattening of the saw-tooth pattern in the Keeling curve to detect the presence of significant natural emissions? That is, as the northern hemisphere in the summer greens, drawing carbon in, it also emits carbon from the warming permafrost. The permafrost boost would then diminish in winter, so the winter peaks would be less affected than the summer troughs.
An issue with this idea is that the permafrost emissions would seem to need to be very large to cut through the noise of usual fluctuations. Also, more basically, is #2 above even true?
A benefit of this approach (using the changing shape of the saw-tooth pattern) over comparing the concentration change from the prior year (e.g., over 3 ppm compared to a baseline closer to 2 ppm) is that it makes the mystery of the level of man-made emissions less important. In other words, when we see +3 ppm readings, we don’t know if they are due partly to natural sources or if it’s simply that human emissions went up that much, because we don’t have a great read on our emissions.
It seems this concept would work for more minor natural sources such as fires, but would be less effective for any natural emissions from the tropics, which have less seasonal variations in conditions. This is noteworthy since some reports have pointed to the tropics as the largest recent source of natural emissions.
HadCRUT has posted the global anomaly for June at +0.71ºC, an increase on May’s +0.61ºC. (May is the lowest monthly anomaly of the year-so-far. Highest is March at +0.87ºC.) It is the 3rd warmest June on the HadCRUT record, (while 1st warmest in GISTEMP, NOAA & BEST), in HadCRUT sitting below 2016 & 2015 (+0.74ºC) and ahead of 2017 (+0.64ºC), 2014 (+0.62ºC) and now in 6th place 1998 (+0.59ºC).
June 2019 sits as 26th warmest monthly anomaly in the HadCRUT all-month record (=21st in GISTEMP, 14th in NOAA, 36th in BEST).
With half the year behind us, 2019 is the 3rd warmest start-to-the-year on record (as per GISTEMP & NOAA & BEST) and with a start-of-year average sitting below the 2nd spot for annual average (2nd spot is 2015), this suggests 2019 would struggle to make second spot for the full calendar year (although 2nd spot is looking likely in GISTEMP & BEST and not unlikely in NOAA).
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2019 .. +0.73ºC
2015 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 6th
1998 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2018 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 4th
2002 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 13th
2007 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 14th
2014 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 5th
2005 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 7th
mikesays
Al, you say “There are those who insist on arguing that the recent high level of atmospheric CO2 increase is indicative of there being now some significant alteration in the carbon cycle. I am always happy to discuss/argue stuff if it is based on evidence but my frustration at the utter lack of evidence (and previously even the absence of a high CO2 increase) has led me to brand such ‘argument’ as being “skyrocketry.”
I think there are numerous arguments going on about CO2 and CO2e buildup in the atmosphere. One is based on numerous scientific citations/studies of changes in various realms that appear to have significant implications for our ability to reduce the buildup of CO2. Taken individually, none of these changes (wetlands, forest fire, warmed permafrost, etc.) are likely to be currently contributing significant amounts of ghg to the atmosphere. Taken in combination, these changes are likely to be contributing very small amounts of ghg to the atmosphere at this moment on an annual basis, but it’s hard to be certain of that because these changes are dynamic, cumulative and have feedback potential.
I think anyone who reads the studies about the changes in the permafrost, the appearance of karsts, etc. and doesn’t feel some alarm must not have much investment in the precautionary principle regarding our climate. Do the studies about these changes cause you any alarm or concern about the possibility that we might be stumbling into dangerous climate territory with the continued buildup of CO2 and CO2e?
Cheers
Mike
Nemesissays
And we get another extrem heatwave up to 40°C this week in Germany (and all over Europe, France up to 43°C^^), right after the recent extrem heatwave some weeks ago. And we are still in extreme drought conditions since June last year. And the groundwater tables are dwindling, just disappearing, you know^^ And I see the trees dying right in front of my very eyes (trees are living beings too, just like monkeys^^). And I see way more to come on that road to Hell. But hey, let’s discuss numbers, more data, data, data and, most important, let’s be OPTIMISTIC the more we make our way down to the Underwold.
You know, Hell is an eye- and mind-opening place as the harsh, inescapable and Hot Fire of Truth, the real Agni-Fire is rooted down there. Want more data? More numbers? More Truth? Just put more CO2 into the atmosphere and, please, hand me some more of that fuckin popcorn…
#116 “That is, as the northern hemisphere in the summer greens, drawing carbon in, it also emits carbon from the warming permafrost. The permafrost boost would then diminish in winter, so the winter peaks would be less affected than the summer troughs.”
and mike #118
Maximum MLO CO2 weekly record high reading each year
It’s a bit ridiculous for you two to blabber on about CH4 and ignore this.
Damned foolish…
nigeljsays
Mike, you appear to be concerned at the spike in MLO CO2 levels earlier this year from January to April, and that it might signify a step change in release of CO2 from the melting permafrost or some other natural process we are aggrivating by burning fossil fuels, however its hard to see why the permafrost would accelerate its melt quite so suddenly, and when I look at the latest MLO graphs on the NOAA website, this year is starting to follow the same pattern as the previous 4 years, so theres nothing unusual that sets it apart visually, no obvious step change compared to these previous years as below.
Maybe there is in the CO2 numbers for this year I dont know. Even if there was it could be higher emissions numbers, or a lot of forest fires happening at once by coincidence. You would need to see a change over a longer period to be sure there was a “step change” in the melting of the permafrost or numbers of forest fires. Changes in short term trends in the MLO data of a week to a year or two are probably natural variation unless they are very dramatic.
Having said that its all a bit beside the point to me. We know we are waking up a monster with the permafrost, and we know numbers and size of forest fires have grown so are generating more CO2. When I first became interested in climate change in the early 1990s I thought there looked like an awful lot of potential positive feedback loops. Its also distinctly possible that the IPCC is underestimating the rate of change in arctic permafrost given various articles describing various holes appearing in the region. Some sort of step change cant be ruled out but would still take time to become obvious in MLO data.
Solar Jimsays
RE: Mike #114 “To be clear, a big change would be a reduction of emissions on the level of 2gtC per year or more. Anything less is just moving the deck chairs around.”
I generally appreciate your comments and certainly your posted data. However, may I suggest that you more clearly differentiate between Carbon and Carbonic Acid Gas (CO2). Our current reported global emissions of 11 GtC equate to about 40 GtCO2, the relationship being 44/12 or 3.67. Therefore, your above statement suggests the fantasy of eliminating all of these emissions in about 6 years. Actually, we would do well to reduce by 2GtCO2 per year, while also restricting all other GHG emissions. These are unprecedented and Herculean tasks.
Is there a ready explanation for the earlier temperature being recorded as higher than it actually was or has there been a misclaim about the record being broken recently?
mikesays
Thanks to Solar Jim for the quick lesson on gtCO2 vs. gtC at 123.
Nigel at 122: No, not particularly concerned about permafrost thawing emissions. Not sure what gave you that impression. The current level of CO2 increase is driven primarily by emissions and mild warm ENSO state.
I am concerned as I have been for several years that there are numerous feedbacks that may be beginning to wake up due to warmed planetary conditions, but nothing new there.
You say: “We know we are waking up a monster with the permafrost, and we know numbers and size of forest fires have grown so are generating more CO2. When I first became interested in climate change in the early 1990s I thought there looked like an awful lot of potential positive feedback loops. Its also distinctly possible that the IPCC is underestimating the rate of change in arctic permafrost given various articles describing various holes appearing in the region. Some sort of step change cant be ruled out but would still take time to become obvious in MLO data.”
There are several global warming “monsters” beginning to stir: permafrost melt, forest fire increase, warmed wetlands. A smart person might be concerned about all of these issues, individually, and collectively. But, hey, life is short, we would all do well to do our time with grace and elan.
Cheers
Mike
mikesays
to Francis at 124: “The National Weather Service said Friday it took a long look at Thursday’s record afternoon temperatures before announcing late in the day that the thermometer had reached an astonishing 90 degrees at the official recording site at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.
The weather service first reported that a record of 89 degrees had been reached in an hourly sampling of airport weather. The actual temperature was 89.1, but it is the weather service’s practice to round to the nearest whole number.
But because the temperature of record is collected at an airport, it is sampled more frequently than on the hour, an NWS official in Anchorage said. Upon evaluation of minute-to-minute temperatures, the weather service said, meteorologists saw that at exactly 5 p.m. the temperature spiked to 89.6 degrees before cooling back down to 87.8 five minutes later.
Anchorage’s new highest temperature on record — after rounding – is now 90 degrees on Independence Day, 2019. The previous record of 85 was set on June 14, 1969.
Original story:
The temperature at Ted Stevens International Airport reached 90 degrees at about 5 p.m. Thursday, the weather service said late Thursday, crushing a 50-year record in Anchorage.
The previous record of 85 degrees was from June 14, 1969.
Daily temperatures in Anchorage have been recorded near the airport since 1952, said meteorologist Bill Ludwig with the National Weather Service in Anchorage.
Ludwig said the National Weather Services picks a location to collect official temperatures where “we’ve had the longest term quality records.” In Anchorage, he said that happens to be the airport and temperatures taken at other locations across Anchorage do not count for the record.
From 1943 to 1952, the official temperatures were recorded at Merrill Field, which also hit 90 on July Fourth.”
Official records are sort of…. official? The other records? Not so much.
Many thanks indeed for the background to the Anchorage data which is very useful. It will help me rebut a local denier’s use of cherrypicked data which he uses to claim that there is no AGW.
Ignorant Guy @113,
You are correct saying that the person or persons responsible for the pseudonym Sam Carana present some spectcular skyrocketry. I note “he” posts on 16th July what “he” brands the “Most Important Message Ever” and sets out projections for global temperature increase of somewhere between +0.15ºC/year and +1.15ºC/year to kick in over the next few months. So that would be the rate of global temperature rise becoming at least eight-times faster if not sixty-times faster than it has over the last four decades. I suppose on the plus side, if such increases were to take place, we’d know about it very soon. So spectacular predictions such as this have a pretty short sell-by period.
While I don’t myself see the AGW science as involving “sides”, I agree this Sam Carana is not on any “side” I would sign up for, although I’m sure the denialists would argue he was on the “other side” from them.
Nemesissays
Addendum to my recent post at #119:
New daily heat record today at 40.5°C in Germany (right in my area), the last record has been just 4 years ago in 2015 and was quite a bit further down south AND it is quite likely, that the record today will be broken again tomorrow, that’s the way it works as the impact is getting nearer and harder day by day.
Hot regards from Hell,
Nemesis
nigeljsays
Mike @125
“No, not particularly concerned about permafrost thawing emissions. Not sure what gave you that impression”
Well you gave that impression above @ 92 & 112 where you said “I think there are signs that many positive feedbacks are starting to wake up. Thawing permafrost, increased forest fire activities…” Perhaps you forgot. Anyway others have raised the same issues. I just like getting to the bottom of issues, no criticism of you intended.
O.says
Climate change: unprecedented coherence
– No climate fluctuation of the last 2,000 years has been as globally synchronous as the current warming –
Nigel: my concern is for the level of CO2 and CO2e in atmosphere and oceans. I am concerned when I see the yoy numbers continue to rise unabated. The feedback sources are numerous and pretty well-known. I post links to the hard science studies on changes in these feedbacks. I am concerned that the big CO2 numbers we see now might include some small feedback component, but I haven’t seen any compelling science to indicate it’s more than a small component at this time. It’s kind of like looking up at the blade of a guillotine. Hey, it’s not moving. That’s good news. Should we worry about it? Your call.
Yeah, I figured that the issue had to do with station records, but didn’t have time to finish running the issue down. So, thanks, mike!
And good luck to you, Francis. My experience suggests that your local yokel will just accuse ‘scientists’ or ‘alarmists’ or even ‘leftists’ of suppressing data in this case by their choice of “official” record.
That’s not to say that your efforts will be vain; it’s always the 3rd party, the “lurker”, not the interlocutor, who’s really ‘in play.’ But it does take patience. Good on you (as the Aussies would say)!
A new approach to hockeystick-type proxies of the last 2,000 year’s climate is presented in Neukom et al (2019) ‘No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era’. Rather than plotting an average global or NH temperature in the usual hockeystick style, there is enough geographical spread of data to plot the percentage of global surface at temperatures different departures from their two-milennia average. This shows that today’s warming is impacting 98% of the globe while the likes of the good old Medaeval Warm Period was only warming 40% of the globe at any one time. Likewise the Little Ice Age was only cooling 40% of the globe at any one time. CarbonBrief have coverage and reaction, this from Piers Forster:-
““Today’s human-induced warming signal is truly global in extent, whereas earlier events such as the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period were only ever regional. The study puts these findings on a firm statistical footing and is yet another nail in the coffin of the theory that today’s warming signal could be a natural fluctuation.””
Yesterdays daily heat record of 40.6°C in Germany has been pulverized by a margin of 2.1°C, we had 42.6°C maximum temperature today. Imagine:
The last daily record has been in 2015 with 40.5°C and now that record has been smashed by a margin of 2.1°C just 4 years later.
Enough for the sheeples to wake up?! Com on, gnahahaha, are you kidding?! Only when corpses en masse will be rotting in the streets the sheeples will wake up. So:
Gimme MORE HEAT.
Nemesissays
@O., #131
Still interested in the funny “little iceage” and the funny “medieval warm period” and shit? LMAO. Go here for some really interesting shit:
“… It was the largest known mass extinction of insects….”
Does that remind you of something?^^
Nemesissays
Correction of my comment #135:
The last daily heat record in Germany has been 40.3°C in 2015 and on 24.7. this year we got 40.6°C and on 25.7. this year we got 42.6°C, so the record of 2015 has been smashed by a margin of exactly 2.3°C. this year.
A jump of 2.3°C after just 4 years. That’s completely out of range.
O.says
@Nemesis: how long can it go on with dry summers, until the problem becomes really awkward for agriculture?
AFAIK last year forest management and agriculture started mourning, and this year get frightened even more. There are certain beetles that attack certain trees.
If two more hot summers follow, I would guess, situation might become worse enough that it pops up as fiscal issue, and one, which affects more than just some farmers and forest managements.
But some people even then will ignore the problem, of phantasize about CO2-can’t-be-the-cause. But they don’t provide other explanations (which aren’t falsified already).
Insight is nothing, one can provide. People must be open for it. If they are not, more facts don’t help. (But more information can help those who are open to it.)
Some people will ignore facts even if they are directly in front of them / before their eyes/nose.
O.says
Question to the experts of the field: how much could artificial hightening of the albedo be used to reduce the warm up?
I was looking a documentation about the permafrost in russia yesterday.
There is a lot of wide land with very dark soil.
Just an idea: one could (theoretically) bring large quantities of white sand (for example from deserts) and scatter it on the dark soil (melting permafrost area) on a large scale. How much influence could that have on the albedo of the earth and how much would it help in cooling down?
How much would be possible by whitening house roofs?
(On the other hand: how much heating up would occur by solar cells / photovoltaic, which are black? Would the ~20% efficiency factor on the one hand be eaten up by 80% heating up of the areas that contain solar panels?)
nigeljsays
Nemesis, I was watching Germany’s heatwave on the news last night, and it appears to have spread to the UK and other parts of Europe. I noticed that they said it was due to a looping effect of the jet stream allowing heat from N Africa to move north. These meandering wobbly loops have been associated with climate change weakening circulation patterns. I think you are probably in for more of these heatwaves.
“White roofs, streets could curb global warming. … If the 100 largest cities in the world replaced their dark roofs with white shingles and their asphalt-based roads with concrete or other light-colored material, it could offset 44 metric gigatons (billion tons) of greenhouse gases, the study shows…”
Covering the permafrost with light coloured sand sounds challenging. It would need a reasonable depth not to just all blow away so a huge volume of sand. But given that melting permafrost is such a threat, its an idea worth thinking about.
Nemesissays
@nigelj, #140
I saw that looping effect of the jet stream in the media as well, no surprise as the jet stream is falling apart more and more because of climate heating, that’s a given.
” I think you are probably in for more of these heatwaves.”
Hehe, not just me, but a looooot of people :) And these heat waves will just get hotter and hotter in the near term future, let’s eliminate the term “probably”.
You know, these heat waves are a sign that the Laws of Nature are still workin and give a shit about human ignorance. I love to see the Laws of Nature still workin, so bring on more Heat, I can’t wait to see the vampire system goin down, down, down.
Nemesissays
O., #138
” how long can it go on with dry summers, until the problem becomes really awkward for agriculture?”
Not for long, that’s for sure. The ground water tables are falling and falling all over Europe for quite some years now and no turning point in sight. I see a collapse of european agriculture in the not too distant future (not just because of the ongoing drought, but because of various factors). Last year I predicted that the extreme drought of 2018 will go on in 2019 and I was right. And I predict the extreme drought will go along with us in 2020.
” AFAIK last year forest management and agriculture started mourning, and this year get frightened even more. There are certain beetles that attack certain trees.
If two more hot summers follow, I would guess, situation might become worse enough that it pops up as fiscal issue, and one, which affects more than just some farmers and forest managements.”
Yes, the forests are dying not just in Germany and it’s a desaster, it’s a fiscal factor of vast proportions already and it will only get worse.
” Some people will ignore facts even if they are directly in front of them / before their eyes/nose.”
That’s a given, therefore I don’t talk to deniers anymore. You know, it has been said “the debate is over” quite some years ago, but still climate scientists debate with ignorant deniers, it’s a charade, like some bizarre circular canon on the way to hell. Btw, that swiss paper about the funny medieval warm period and the little iceage (just two of tons of games one can play with deniers, gimme more popcorn) didn’t change any deniers a iota at all. No surprise:
Please answer this simple question where I haven’t been able to find a satisfactory answer:
Adding one molecule of methane to the atmosphere causes the same immediate radiative forcing as how many molecules of carbon dioxide?
Yes, values are available for 20 year and 100 year windows – 84 and 28 respectively, from table 8.A.1 of WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL. But what about the *immediate* forcing per molecule?
It appears this should be the ratio of the “radiative efficiencies” and those numbers also appear in table 8.A.1 of WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL, in units of W m^-2 ppb^-1:
CO2: 1.37e-5
CH4: 3.63e-4
The ratio is 26.5. *BUT* that appears to be some sort of 100 year average as
it is close to the 100 year GWP in the same table, of 28.
The sources of those numbers are not referenced from the table. Also, “Radiative efficiency” is not defined in the AR5 glossary.
In my view this ‘radiative efficiency ratio’ is an important number to know, particularly given the “two baskets” approach to mitigation from the Paris Agreement.
To give the political example that got me posting this, here’s a quantitative assertion from New Zealand Climate Minister James Shaw:
The “25 times” he refers to appears to be for this ‘immediate radiative efficiency’ that I’m asking for.
Given the 20 year GWP of 84, and the methane lifetime of 9-12 years (some variation according to reference source) I would expect the immediate radiative efficiency ratio to be at least 100.
However, it is frustrating to me that this IRE does not appear to be derivable from the IPCC literature and I have also been unsuccessful in a literature search (including of this site.)
So can anyone help please: what is the immediate radiative efficiency ratio of CH4 to C02, showing reference sources?
nigeljsays
mike @132
“Nigel: my concern is for the level of CO2 and CO2e in atmosphere and oceans. I am concerned when I see the yoy numbers continue to rise unabated. ”
Well I’m extremely concerned as well, but I find I’m not drawn so much to closely tracking CO2 numbers, although I do read your information. I’m more drawn to sea level rise data, probably because I work in infrastructure design. I guess we are all drawn to various things, and its good to have a range of perspectives discussed on websites.
“The feedback sources are numerous and pretty well-known….I am concerned that the big CO2 numbers we see now might include some small feedback component, but I haven’t seen any compelling science to indicate it’s more than a small component at this time. ”
I agree there has to be a feedback component because we observe various feedbacks, and I haven’t seen anything either that suggests its more than small, however I recall someone (might have been you?)posted an article on the arctic permafrost region where changes to the landscape in terms of formation of holes and lakes indicates a possible acceleration of C02 emissions from these soils. I came across a similar article here:
It looks to me like this is possibly a factor in recent MLO trends, but probably not able to be detected yet in MLO data and not huge. You would need to see a sustained change in MLO trends over a decade and assuming all other things are equal and even then it would possibly just get buried by other factors. It certainly seems to be something outside of IPCC predictions, and its hard to see any reason why it would be temporary, and it looks like it can only get worse.
I think we do need to be careful not to read too much into short term trends on MLO C02 and sea level rise, which could be defined as anything up to 3 years perhaps. Natural variation clearly influences those trends a lot. This year has higher than anticipated MLO levels not fully explained by the known higher emissions levels (another sad trend) but easily enough explained by the weak el nino and I noticed there were a lot of forests fires earlier this year. But if next year and the next also has higher than anticipated C02 levels, it would be more significant and less easily explained by an el nino obviously.
“It’s kind of like looking up at the blade of a guillotine. Hey, it’s not moving. That’s good news. Should we worry about it? Your call.”
Of course we should worry about it. Goes without needing to be said.
slow wing @145,
The ratio of forcing CH4 per molecule/CO2 per molecule is something like 25. The reason this doesn’t seem to make sense with the 20-year & 100-year values is because those other are GWP numbers which are comparisons by weight & a ton of methane has more molecules (2.75x) than a ton of CO2.
Nemesissays
” “It’s kind of like looking up at the blade of a guillotine. Hey, it’s not moving. That’s good news. Should we worry about it? Your call.””
I see that blade moving. You need a fast eye to see it moving.
The grim reaper, always moving, always chopping heads off. There’s a lot to learn from that blade, a lot to learn about Life. Death is a ruler, Death is a teacher. No one should be afraid of the grim reaper, but everyone should be afraid of his own shortcomings, at least I am.
Solar Jimsays
RE: slow wing #145
We share a concern that climate science may be underestimating the present radiative forcing power of “natural gas” (which is mainly methane). For example, impacts from AGW seem to be occurring “faster than expected.” You might find June Unforced #190 – #195 of some interest. Good luck with your research.
O.says
@Nemesis: from last year…
“Drought 2018 is event of national magnitude
The fact that the prolonged drought was an event of national magnitude was assessed on the basis of the countries’ resilient damage reports and the 2018 harvest statistics. As the data from the harvest statistics showed, the drought had a significant impact on German agriculture:
Yields per hectare of cereals (excluding grain maize) in 2018 were 16% lower than the three-year average for previous years.
Schleswig-Holstein (-31%), Brandenburg (-27%), Saxony-Anhalt (-26%), Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (-25%) and Lower Saxony (-26%) were most affected.”
I watched the documentary “Ice on fire” in the name of Leo DiCaprio today. And I’ m not quite amused. It’s all about symptoms and tech solutions for meddling with symptoms of climate heating, tech solutions like iron fertilization of the ocean (again? Yawn) and direct air capture ect ect.
But not a single word about the US military being the biggest oil sucker, the biggest fossil fool of all, no word about the suicidal oil industry nor the suicidal car industry, no word about reducing consumption, less cars, less flights, less meat, less material shit and more sharing. And:
Not a single word about the completely flawed and injust/corrupt system we live in. Com on, this multi million dollar guy acted in movies like “Wolf of Wall Street”, but, in the face of the 6th global mass extinction, Leo can’t tell a single word about how that funny money and power gamez on the way to (climate) hell work? Com on, that documentary is like telling bedtime stories for little kids on their way to the slaughterhouse. I remember “After the flood” by Leo DiCaprio and I’m curios about part 3, 4, 5, 6… of Leo’s climate documentary series already. Let’s make another documentary, let’s make another bedtime story.
NOAA has posted the global anomaly for June at +0.93ºC, this the hottest June on record (as per GISTEMP). The NOAA June anomaly is +0.02ºC above the previous hottest June, a smaller margin than in GISTEMP which was +0.11ºC above the previous record (this the same margin as in the ECMWP’s ER5 reanalysis global temperature that gained a few comments up-thread). Previous warm NOAA June’s sit in descending order – 2016 (+0.92ºC), 2015 (+0.91ºC), 2017 (+0.84ºC), 2018 (+0.78ºC) and now in 6th place 2014 (+0.77ºC).
June 2019 sits as 14th warmest monthly anomaly in the all-month record (=21st in GISTEMP).
With half the year behind us, 2019 has the 3rd warmest start-to-the-year on record, as per GISTEMP, but unlike GISTEMP being run very close by the full annual averages of 2015 & 2017. So claiming the second place for the full 2019 calendar year will be a bigger ask than in GISTEMP.
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.11ºC … … … +0.99ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.95ºC … … … +0.91ºC … … … 3rd
2019 .. +0.94ºC
2015 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.93ºC … … … 2nd
2018 .. +0.81ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.73ºC … … … 6th
1998 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 9th
2014 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 5th
2007 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 14th
2002 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 15th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 8th
Misinformation from our side as well
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10161961590955161&set=a.10150592349770161&type=3&theater
47 nigelj 10 Jul 2019 at 4:33 PM
” https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219067
The influence of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism on environmentalism: A five-year cross-lagged analysis (full text available free). Explains why people like KIA are climate sceptics and rigid in their viewpoint.”
Great find. Thanks.
………………….
74 nigelj 12 Jul 2019
“Alan2102 @68, I agree the effects of climate change on agriculture are complicated, with both plusses and minuses, but the minuses look like they win out”
I think that will probably be true, in coming decades. But I am speculating, and so are the people who wrote the item you linked. It depends on too many factors that are hard to predict. The nature of many of those factors are described in the introduction section to which I referred Nemesis; I recommend that same passage to you. It is only a few paragraphs, but it is very informative. In 5 minutes you can multiply several-fold your knowledge of this critical area.
Nigel: “Even if there is some small advantage overall in a warmer climate, its in no way a justification for burning fossil fuels”
Who on earth would suggest such a crazy thing? Oh yes, denialists. Right.
Agriculture scientists deal with reality. Reality includes things like higher CO2 levels and warmer temps, intensifying in the coming decades. These folks do not *advocate* higher CO2 levels or warmer temps; they just acknowledge that this stuff is happening and must be figured-in to projections pertaining to agricultural productivity. It so happens that most climate change parameters have positive effects on productivity; they partially counter-balance the negatives (climate and other), also intensifying, like drought. In some scenarios, like one within the abstract that I posted (and there are many others), they abolish the negatives. But models and scenarios are speculative; we can’t know for sure, only guess.
Further, and to your first point (“the minuses win out”): agriculture scientists are conservative and deal almost exclusively with established variables. “Established” does not mean easy to quantify and account for; it only means surely in existence and unquestionably influential to at least some extent. Climate stuff falls into this category. But there are non-established variables coming to light all the time, such as technologies for reducing negative climate impacts on plants. These technologies are numerous and are documented in the literature, with more being published every month. We can become aware, disseminate the information, and widely act on it — and change the outcome. Or we can fail to do so. This stuff cannot be built-in to an agricultural projection for obvious reasons, even though it could change the outcome dramatically. So, the science is good as far as it goes, it just does not account for innovative and forward-looking actions not yet part of established practice, because it can’t.
There is, here, plenty of fuel for both optimism (“look at all the great stuff we could do!”) and pessimism (“yeah, lots of great stuff, but we’ll probably be too lazy and stupid to do it. The minuses will win out”).
Nigel: “you point out the world could feed 10 billion people if it has to.”
I did not say that, Nemesis did. Though I agree with him.
Nigel: “I think we would be well advised to get population down to well under 7 billion.”
Being well advised is good, but follow with a practical plan of action.
I enjoyed this one:
Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f
The paper has a companion table with the arguments dissected in detail.
That there are 42 arguments dissected… well… the authors have humor, I guess (see the video, it supports the humor hypothesis).
German forests are about to collapse:
” ” 19.7.2019 – Trockenheit – Förster sehen Wald in Deutschland vor dem Kollaps
Förster und Waldbesitzer machen auf dramatische Auswirkungen des Klimawandels aufmerksam.
Die deutschen Wälder stünden kurz vor dem Kollaps, sagte der Vorsitzende des Bunds Deutscher Forstleute, Dohle, dem Portal „t-online.de“. Man könne nicht mehr nur von einzelnen Wetterereignissen sprechen. Am problematischsten sei derzeit die Trockenheit. Laut BDF ist es seit Anfang 2018 durch Schneebruch, Winterstürme, Dürre und Borkenkäferbefall zu einem erheblichen Baumsterben gekommen. Mehr als 100 Millionen Altbäume seien bereits abgestorben, hinzu kämen mehrere Millionen vertrocknete Jungpflanzen. Ähnlich äußerten sich die Forstbehörden in Niedersachsen und Nordrhein-Westfalen. Demnach sind neben Fichten jetzt zunehmend auch Buchen betroffen.”
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/trockenheit-foerster-sehen-wald-in-deutschland-vor-dem.2932.de.html?drn:news_id=1029603
Heat, drought -> bark beetles ect ect ect, new planted trees are dying as well. Man, we’ll have to plant new trees faster than they die, otherwise afforestation remains nothing but a joke in the face of ex….
No. 82 you ignore the fact that the paper has been shown to be a non peer reviewed joke.
@O., #100
” I think, it would make sense to the research field, that the researchers could invest a littlebid more of their time explaining some possible misunderstandings, especially when it’s obvious, that the questions are coming from interested people, far from being denialists. But I just can ask or hope for it. If they are not interested giving more time to the answers, it’s their choice.”
Even more time?! The crucial climate related fact (CO2 heating up the atmosphere) is kown fo roughly 150 years now and still “interested” people ask interesting questions. And this is not just happening when it comes to climate heating, but related to gazillion other issues as well (just look around you and you will find out, that Hell is for real, if you don’t feel it yet, you will feel it soon). Have you ever heard about the ongoing 6th global mass extinction? That’s exactly what we are dealing with here and you still ask for more time.
You know, I study that shit for more than 30 years and I ended up chosing Death as my teacher quite some time ago, so I don’t have time.
Love,
Nemesis
@O., #105
Nice study. Misinformation is propaganda and propaganda is not about facts, but about misinformation. Therefore one could argue forever with sceptics/deniers, while the planet is burning for real. This game is going on for a long time and will end soon as facts always win. And I love one specific harsh fact:
The deniers who spread misinformation will go down with the rest.
john byatt @103,
You say there is “Misinformation from our side as well” with a link to this image which shows a graph of the global seasonal cycle and its warming since 1880 with the annotation:-
The graph itself is the ‘GISTEMP Seasonal Cycle since 1880’ from the GISTEMP web pages. This plots monthly anomalies of the Seasonal Cycle relative to the global annual average.
Now this Seasonal Cycle existed in pre-industrial times. It has an amplitude of (+1.84446ºC – -1.9327ºC = ) +3.78ºC. So this image you link-to is telling us that the +1.5ºC Paris warming limit was broken, or more correctly, smashed to smithereens by the very first post-industrial summer.
Actual global warming “above pre-industrial levels” (or at least, since 1880) of individual Junes can be found from the usual June anomalies published by GISTEMP. The max-min spread for June stands at +1.4ºC but that includes the inter-annual noise (which is relatively low during June). It drops to +1.1ºC if you average out that inter-annual noise.
I hope that dispells any thoughts that there is “Misinformation from our side as well,” certainly misinformation that is allowed to sit and fester without correction, as does tend to be the overwhelming case with what we can politely call the denialst “misinformation”.
mike @92/97,
You repeat you expression of “hope” that you don’t misrepresent me. So let me clarify my position.
We humans are annually pumping 11Gt(C) of CO2 out into the atmosphere, a flux of increasing size that has been operating for a couple of centuries. With the biosphere & oceans drawing down perhaps 55% of that flux, the atmospheric burden of CO2 is increasing at perhaps 2.3ppm/year. On top of that, natural cycles impacting climate impose wobbles onto that increase, wobbles (in the carbon cycle) that are not yet seen as being significantly altered by the changes to climate wrought by humanity.
There are those who insist on arguing that the recent high level of atmospheric CO2 increase is indicative of there being now some significant alteration in the carbon cycle. I am always happy to discuss/argue stuff if it is based on evidence but my frustration at the utter lack of evidence (and previously even the absence of a high CO2 increase) has led me to brand such ‘argument’ as being “skyrocketry.”
Now, if folk are wanting to argue that the present high CO2 increase is due to some significant alteration in the carbon cycle, it would be good to know what that alteration comprises. If the 3ppm/year increase which has been recorded at MLO over the last 6 months (but not globally recorded) is the result of some awakened CO2 source, where is it? We are seeking something capable of emitting at least an extra 1.5gt(C) annually which should become quite evident if it persists at that level.
And that ignores the Airborne Fraction. Of course, it could be that it is the Airborne Fraction that has altered but that seems unlikely in a period of just 6 months.
I have no crystal ball to show where human emissions will be going in future years. And ditto with the natural emissions we will be initiating. Indeed, who does? But that lack of fore-knowledge does not sanction folk to go all skyrockety.
I am curious, Al. you say at 111: “If the 3ppm/year increase which has been recorded at MLO over the last 6 months (but not globally recorded) is the result of some awakened CO2 source, where is it? We are seeking something capable of emitting at least an extra 1.5gt(C) annually which should become quite evident if it persists at that level.”
How did you arrive at the annual level of 1.5 gtC as significant?
I think watching the changes that are occurring with wetlands, forest fires, thawing permafrost, etc. may very well be quite significant at current levels under 1.5 gtC. The important consideration for me is that when we see new sources of CO2 and CO2e be reported in the scientific literature and when those reports indicate that these new sources are not “one-offs” but should be expected to repeat and build in output, I tend to think that these are significant events.
Cheers
Mike
MA Rodger #110:
The misinformation bit is that “Sam Carana” (that is not a person but a collective) is adding the seasonal cycle top value on top of the usual yearly mean anomaly to claim that the yearly mean anomaly is 1.8 C higher than you thought. The anomaly of last June was bad enough as it was, but not that bad. If you go to Sam Carana’s web site you will find some really impressive skyrocketry. Their favorite trick is to use a fourth order polynomial approximation to do extrapolations and forecasts. Anyone who knows just a bit of mathematics knows how stupid that is. I don’t think that Sam Carana is really ‘on our side’.
July 14 – 20, 2019 412.14 ppm
July 14 – 20, 2018 408.58 ppm
3.56 ppm increase yoy. Noisy number.
I think some distinct part of the current increase can/should be attributed to changes in the global carbon cycle due to the warming of the planet. I am not sure what that number might be when it is smoothed out to eliminate noise. It might be 0.1 or 0.2 ppm. Maybe more, maybe less. Someone with time on their hand to run big number sets could come up with an estimate. Or we can just wait until we are seeing annual increases in the 4.0 plus ppm range and calculate the changes based on emission reports, etc. All of those exercises are interesting and academic unless they are leveraged to create big changes in human CO2e emissions. I haven’t seen any sign of that happening yet. To be clear, a big change would be a reduction of emissions on the level of 2gtC per year or more. Anything less is just moving the deck chairs around. We have to reduce from annual emissions of 10-11 gtC to 2gtC or less and sooner is better than later.
to IG at 113: I have not figured out what Sam Carana’s gig really is. Yes, I also think SC is a group, not an individual. The positions staked out generally seem pretty extreme. I wonder if this group is just a bunch of serious scientists who would lose all academic standing and scientific funding if they were to be as outspoken as Sam Carana can be?
Canaries in the coal mines? Kill the damn things, who needs them?
Cheers
Mike
Hell is real and it’s a real hellish Madhouse.
Want to take a trip to the madhouse? It’s all in it, lots of historic geoengineering schemes as well (don’t ignore the denier part of it, because it fits perfectly into the overall picture):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNeOTOytEeA
I do understand why people are confused about climate heating. Hell is confusion and endless propaganda from all directions and we are right in the midst of it. Enjoy the ride in real Hell, we are just starting to feel a little bit of heat yet, there’s way more to come.
Love,
Nemesis
Regarding natural sources of CO2, especially from melting permafrost, following these suppositions:
1. Most of the land is in the northern hemisphere.
2. Permafrost emissions will occur in the summer, when it’s warm enough for the microbes to do their work, and be largely suspended in the winter.
Is it possible that we could use a flattening of the saw-tooth pattern in the Keeling curve to detect the presence of significant natural emissions? That is, as the northern hemisphere in the summer greens, drawing carbon in, it also emits carbon from the warming permafrost. The permafrost boost would then diminish in winter, so the winter peaks would be less affected than the summer troughs.
An issue with this idea is that the permafrost emissions would seem to need to be very large to cut through the noise of usual fluctuations. Also, more basically, is #2 above even true?
A benefit of this approach (using the changing shape of the saw-tooth pattern) over comparing the concentration change from the prior year (e.g., over 3 ppm compared to a baseline closer to 2 ppm) is that it makes the mystery of the level of man-made emissions less important. In other words, when we see +3 ppm readings, we don’t know if they are due partly to natural sources or if it’s simply that human emissions went up that much, because we don’t have a great read on our emissions.
It seems this concept would work for more minor natural sources such as fires, but would be less effective for any natural emissions from the tropics, which have less seasonal variations in conditions. This is noteworthy since some reports have pointed to the tropics as the largest recent source of natural emissions.
HadCRUT has posted the global anomaly for June at +0.71ºC, an increase on May’s +0.61ºC. (May is the lowest monthly anomaly of the year-so-far. Highest is March at +0.87ºC.) It is the 3rd warmest June on the HadCRUT record, (while 1st warmest in GISTEMP, NOAA & BEST), in HadCRUT sitting below 2016 & 2015 (+0.74ºC) and ahead of 2017 (+0.64ºC), 2014 (+0.62ºC) and now in 6th place 1998 (+0.59ºC).
June 2019 sits as 26th warmest monthly anomaly in the HadCRUT all-month record (=21st in GISTEMP, 14th in NOAA, 36th in BEST).
With half the year behind us, 2019 is the 3rd warmest start-to-the-year on record (as per GISTEMP & NOAA & BEST) and with a start-of-year average sitting below the 2nd spot for annual average (2nd spot is 2015), this suggests 2019 would struggle to make second spot for the full calendar year (although 2nd spot is looking likely in GISTEMP & BEST and not unlikely in NOAA).
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2019 .. +0.73ºC
2015 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 6th
1998 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2018 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 4th
2002 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 13th
2007 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 14th
2014 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 5th
2005 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 7th
Al, you say “There are those who insist on arguing that the recent high level of atmospheric CO2 increase is indicative of there being now some significant alteration in the carbon cycle. I am always happy to discuss/argue stuff if it is based on evidence but my frustration at the utter lack of evidence (and previously even the absence of a high CO2 increase) has led me to brand such ‘argument’ as being “skyrocketry.”
I think there are numerous arguments going on about CO2 and CO2e buildup in the atmosphere. One is based on numerous scientific citations/studies of changes in various realms that appear to have significant implications for our ability to reduce the buildup of CO2. Taken individually, none of these changes (wetlands, forest fire, warmed permafrost, etc.) are likely to be currently contributing significant amounts of ghg to the atmosphere. Taken in combination, these changes are likely to be contributing very small amounts of ghg to the atmosphere at this moment on an annual basis, but it’s hard to be certain of that because these changes are dynamic, cumulative and have feedback potential.
I think anyone who reads the studies about the changes in the permafrost, the appearance of karsts, etc. and doesn’t feel some alarm must not have much investment in the precautionary principle regarding our climate. Do the studies about these changes cause you any alarm or concern about the possibility that we might be stumbling into dangerous climate territory with the continued buildup of CO2 and CO2e?
Cheers
Mike
And we get another extrem heatwave up to 40°C this week in Germany (and all over Europe, France up to 43°C^^), right after the recent extrem heatwave some weeks ago. And we are still in extreme drought conditions since June last year. And the groundwater tables are dwindling, just disappearing, you know^^ And I see the trees dying right in front of my very eyes (trees are living beings too, just like monkeys^^). And I see way more to come on that road to Hell. But hey, let’s discuss numbers, more data, data, data and, most important, let’s be OPTIMISTIC the more we make our way down to the Underwold.
You know, Hell is an eye- and mind-opening place as the harsh, inescapable and Hot Fire of Truth, the real Agni-Fire is rooted down there. Want more data? More numbers? More Truth? Just put more CO2 into the atmosphere and, please, hand me some more of that fuckin popcorn…
https://youtu.be/l482T0yNkeo
Love,
Nemesis
#116 “That is, as the northern hemisphere in the summer greens, drawing carbon in, it also emits carbon from the warming permafrost. The permafrost boost would then diminish in winter, so the winter peaks would be less affected than the summer troughs.”
and mike #118
Maximum MLO CO2 weekly record high reading each year
2016 4 10 2016.2746 408.72 (Super El Nino year)
2017 5 14 2017.3658 410.40 +1.68
2018 5 13 2018.3630 411.85 +1.45
2019 5 12 2019.3603 415.39 +3.54
2019 average weekly growth since the 12th May week +3.20
MLO Monthly averages
May 2019: 414.66 ppm +3.42
June 2019: 413.92 ppm +3.13
Average global growth 2019 to April +2.60
Waiting on May, June and July numbers. Co2 Growth does not appear to be falling or stable.
Let me repeat, MIKE, et al.:
This new paper on clathrates seems to be *the* authorative work wrt describing formation, extent, behavior.
As far as I can tell from a quick perusal, it is not a paper focusing on outcomes or predictions, but still has some alarming info.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/9/6/251/htm
It’s a bit ridiculous for you two to blabber on about CH4 and ignore this.
Damned foolish…
Mike, you appear to be concerned at the spike in MLO CO2 levels earlier this year from January to April, and that it might signify a step change in release of CO2 from the melting permafrost or some other natural process we are aggrivating by burning fossil fuels, however its hard to see why the permafrost would accelerate its melt quite so suddenly, and when I look at the latest MLO graphs on the NOAA website, this year is starting to follow the same pattern as the previous 4 years, so theres nothing unusual that sets it apart visually, no obvious step change compared to these previous years as below.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Maybe there is in the CO2 numbers for this year I dont know. Even if there was it could be higher emissions numbers, or a lot of forest fires happening at once by coincidence. You would need to see a change over a longer period to be sure there was a “step change” in the melting of the permafrost or numbers of forest fires. Changes in short term trends in the MLO data of a week to a year or two are probably natural variation unless they are very dramatic.
Having said that its all a bit beside the point to me. We know we are waking up a monster with the permafrost, and we know numbers and size of forest fires have grown so are generating more CO2. When I first became interested in climate change in the early 1990s I thought there looked like an awful lot of potential positive feedback loops. Its also distinctly possible that the IPCC is underestimating the rate of change in arctic permafrost given various articles describing various holes appearing in the region. Some sort of step change cant be ruled out but would still take time to become obvious in MLO data.
RE: Mike #114 “To be clear, a big change would be a reduction of emissions on the level of 2gtC per year or more. Anything less is just moving the deck chairs around.”
I generally appreciate your comments and certainly your posted data. However, may I suggest that you more clearly differentiate between Carbon and Carbonic Acid Gas (CO2). Our current reported global emissions of 11 GtC equate to about 40 GtCO2, the relationship being 44/12 or 3.67. Therefore, your above statement suggests the fantasy of eliminating all of these emissions in about 6 years. Actually, we would do well to reduce by 2GtCO2 per year, while also restricting all other GHG emissions. These are unprecedented and Herculean tasks.
Post 34 mentions the recent record breaking temperature of 90F at Anchorage in Alaska. However this is disputed by Paul Homewood
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/07/14/anchorage-record-was-not-actually-a-record/
who includes a picture of a report from 1931 showing 92F for Anchorage
Is there a ready explanation for the earlier temperature being recorded as higher than it actually was or has there been a misclaim about the record being broken recently?
Thanks to Solar Jim for the quick lesson on gtCO2 vs. gtC at 123.
Nigel at 122: No, not particularly concerned about permafrost thawing emissions. Not sure what gave you that impression. The current level of CO2 increase is driven primarily by emissions and mild warm ENSO state.
I am concerned as I have been for several years that there are numerous feedbacks that may be beginning to wake up due to warmed planetary conditions, but nothing new there.
You say: “We know we are waking up a monster with the permafrost, and we know numbers and size of forest fires have grown so are generating more CO2. When I first became interested in climate change in the early 1990s I thought there looked like an awful lot of potential positive feedback loops. Its also distinctly possible that the IPCC is underestimating the rate of change in arctic permafrost given various articles describing various holes appearing in the region. Some sort of step change cant be ruled out but would still take time to become obvious in MLO data.”
There are several global warming “monsters” beginning to stir: permafrost melt, forest fire increase, warmed wetlands. A smart person might be concerned about all of these issues, individually, and collectively. But, hey, life is short, we would all do well to do our time with grace and elan.
Cheers
Mike
to Francis at 124: “The National Weather Service said Friday it took a long look at Thursday’s record afternoon temperatures before announcing late in the day that the thermometer had reached an astonishing 90 degrees at the official recording site at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.
The weather service first reported that a record of 89 degrees had been reached in an hourly sampling of airport weather. The actual temperature was 89.1, but it is the weather service’s practice to round to the nearest whole number.
But because the temperature of record is collected at an airport, it is sampled more frequently than on the hour, an NWS official in Anchorage said. Upon evaluation of minute-to-minute temperatures, the weather service said, meteorologists saw that at exactly 5 p.m. the temperature spiked to 89.6 degrees before cooling back down to 87.8 five minutes later.
Anchorage’s new highest temperature on record — after rounding – is now 90 degrees on Independence Day, 2019. The previous record of 85 was set on June 14, 1969.
Original story:
The temperature at Ted Stevens International Airport reached 90 degrees at about 5 p.m. Thursday, the weather service said late Thursday, crushing a 50-year record in Anchorage.
The previous record of 85 degrees was from June 14, 1969.
Daily temperatures in Anchorage have been recorded near the airport since 1952, said meteorologist Bill Ludwig with the National Weather Service in Anchorage.
Ludwig said the National Weather Services picks a location to collect official temperatures where “we’ve had the longest term quality records.” In Anchorage, he said that happens to be the airport and temperatures taken at other locations across Anchorage do not count for the record.
From 1943 to 1952, the official temperatures were recorded at Merrill Field, which also hit 90 on July Fourth.”
Official records are sort of…. official? The other records? Not so much.
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/weather/2019/07/05/with-a-high-of-89-anchorage-sets-an-all-time-high-temperature-record/
Are you thinking/suggesting that Alaska’s climate has not warmed as a result of AGW? If yes, good luck with that undertaking:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-temperatures-expected-to-soar-40-degrees-above-normal-this-weekend/
Cheers,
Mike
To Mike at 126
Many thanks indeed for the background to the Anchorage data which is very useful. It will help me rebut a local denier’s use of cherrypicked data which he uses to claim that there is no AGW.
Thanks again
Francis
Ignorant Guy @113,
You are correct saying that the person or persons responsible for the pseudonym Sam Carana present some spectcular skyrocketry. I note “he” posts on 16th July what “he” brands the “Most Important Message Ever” and sets out projections for global temperature increase of somewhere between +0.15ºC/year and +1.15ºC/year to kick in over the next few months. So that would be the rate of global temperature rise becoming at least eight-times faster if not sixty-times faster than it has over the last four decades. I suppose on the plus side, if such increases were to take place, we’d know about it very soon. So spectacular predictions such as this have a pretty short sell-by period.
While I don’t myself see the AGW science as involving “sides”, I agree this Sam Carana is not on any “side” I would sign up for, although I’m sure the denialists would argue he was on the “other side” from them.
Addendum to my recent post at #119:
New daily heat record today at 40.5°C in Germany (right in my area), the last record has been just 4 years ago in 2015 and was quite a bit further down south AND it is quite likely, that the record today will be broken again tomorrow, that’s the way it works as the impact is getting nearer and harder day by day.
Hot regards from Hell,
Nemesis
Mike @125
“No, not particularly concerned about permafrost thawing emissions. Not sure what gave you that impression”
Well you gave that impression above @ 92 & 112 where you said “I think there are signs that many positive feedbacks are starting to wake up. Thawing permafrost, increased forest fire activities…” Perhaps you forgot. Anyway others have raised the same issues. I just like getting to the bottom of issues, no criticism of you intended.
Climate change: unprecedented coherence
– No climate fluctuation of the last 2,000 years has been as globally synchronous as the current warming –
(article only in german language)
Klimawandel: beispiellose Kohärenz
Keine Klimaschwankung der letzten 2.000 Jahre war global so synchron wie die aktuelle Erwärmung
https://www.scinexx.de/news/geowissen/klimawandel-beispiellose-kohaerenz/
Nigel: my concern is for the level of CO2 and CO2e in atmosphere and oceans. I am concerned when I see the yoy numbers continue to rise unabated. The feedback sources are numerous and pretty well-known. I post links to the hard science studies on changes in these feedbacks. I am concerned that the big CO2 numbers we see now might include some small feedback component, but I haven’t seen any compelling science to indicate it’s more than a small component at this time. It’s kind of like looking up at the blade of a guillotine. Hey, it’s not moving. That’s good news. Should we worry about it? Your call.
Cheers
Mike
#126, 127, and previous–
Yeah, I figured that the issue had to do with station records, but didn’t have time to finish running the issue down. So, thanks, mike!
And good luck to you, Francis. My experience suggests that your local yokel will just accuse ‘scientists’ or ‘alarmists’ or even ‘leftists’ of suppressing data in this case by their choice of “official” record.
That’s not to say that your efforts will be vain; it’s always the 3rd party, the “lurker”, not the interlocutor, who’s really ‘in play.’ But it does take patience. Good on you (as the Aussies would say)!
A new approach to hockeystick-type proxies of the last 2,000 year’s climate is presented in Neukom et al (2019) ‘No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era’. Rather than plotting an average global or NH temperature in the usual hockeystick style, there is enough geographical spread of data to plot the percentage of global surface at temperatures different departures from their two-milennia average. This shows that today’s warming is impacting 98% of the globe while the likes of the good old Medaeval Warm Period was only warming 40% of the globe at any one time. Likewise the Little Ice Age was only cooling 40% of the globe at any one time.
CarbonBrief have coverage and reaction, this from Piers Forster:-
And if you seek a hockeystick-type graphic rather than global anomaly maps, then Figure 1 from the paper is for you.
Addendum to my recent comment at #129:
Yesterdays daily heat record of 40.6°C in Germany has been pulverized by a margin of 2.1°C, we had 42.6°C maximum temperature today. Imagine:
The last daily record has been in 2015 with 40.5°C and now that record has been smashed by a margin of 2.1°C just 4 years later.
Enough for the sheeples to wake up?! Com on, gnahahaha, are you kidding?! Only when corpses en masse will be rotting in the streets the sheeples will wake up. So:
Gimme MORE HEAT.
@O., #131
Still interested in the funny “little iceage” and the funny “medieval warm period” and shit? LMAO. Go here for some really interesting shit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
Quote:
“… It was the largest known mass extinction of insects….”
Does that remind you of something?^^
Correction of my comment #135:
The last daily heat record in Germany has been 40.3°C in 2015 and on 24.7. this year we got 40.6°C and on 25.7. this year we got 42.6°C, so the record of 2015 has been smashed by a margin of exactly 2.3°C. this year.
A jump of 2.3°C after just 4 years. That’s completely out of range.
@Nemesis: how long can it go on with dry summers, until the problem becomes really awkward for agriculture?
AFAIK last year forest management and agriculture started mourning, and this year get frightened even more. There are certain beetles that attack certain trees.
If two more hot summers follow, I would guess, situation might become worse enough that it pops up as fiscal issue, and one, which affects more than just some farmers and forest managements.
But some people even then will ignore the problem, of phantasize about CO2-can’t-be-the-cause. But they don’t provide other explanations (which aren’t falsified already).
Insight is nothing, one can provide. People must be open for it. If they are not, more facts don’t help. (But more information can help those who are open to it.)
Some people will ignore facts even if they are directly in front of them / before their eyes/nose.
Question to the experts of the field: how much could artificial hightening of the albedo be used to reduce the warm up?
I was looking a documentation about the permafrost in russia yesterday.
There is a lot of wide land with very dark soil.
Just an idea: one could (theoretically) bring large quantities of white sand (for example from deserts) and scatter it on the dark soil (melting permafrost area) on a large scale. How much influence could that have on the albedo of the earth and how much would it help in cooling down?
How much would be possible by whitening house roofs?
(On the other hand: how much heating up would occur by solar cells / photovoltaic, which are black? Would the ~20% efficiency factor on the one hand be eaten up by 80% heating up of the areas that contain solar panels?)
Nemesis, I was watching Germany’s heatwave on the news last night, and it appears to have spread to the UK and other parts of Europe. I noticed that they said it was due to a looping effect of the jet stream allowing heat from N Africa to move north. These meandering wobbly loops have been associated with climate change weakening circulation patterns. I think you are probably in for more of these heatwaves.
http://news.trust.org/item/20190726092711-au62j/
“Europe’s record heatwave threatens Greenland ice sheet” according to the UN.
O @139
“Question to the experts of the field: how much could artificial hightening of the albedo be used to reduce the warm up?”
I’m not an expert, but I remembered this study:
https://phys.org/news/2008-09-white-roofs-streets-curb-global.html
“White roofs, streets could curb global warming. … If the 100 largest cities in the world replaced their dark roofs with white shingles and their asphalt-based roads with concrete or other light-colored material, it could offset 44 metric gigatons (billion tons) of greenhouse gases, the study shows…”
Covering the permafrost with light coloured sand sounds challenging. It would need a reasonable depth not to just all blow away so a huge volume of sand. But given that melting permafrost is such a threat, its an idea worth thinking about.
@nigelj, #140
I saw that looping effect of the jet stream in the media as well, no surprise as the jet stream is falling apart more and more because of climate heating, that’s a given.
” I think you are probably in for more of these heatwaves.”
Hehe, not just me, but a looooot of people :) And these heat waves will just get hotter and hotter in the near term future, let’s eliminate the term “probably”.
You know, these heat waves are a sign that the Laws of Nature are still workin and give a shit about human ignorance. I love to see the Laws of Nature still workin, so bring on more Heat, I can’t wait to see the vampire system goin down, down, down.
O., #138
” how long can it go on with dry summers, until the problem becomes really awkward for agriculture?”
Not for long, that’s for sure. The ground water tables are falling and falling all over Europe for quite some years now and no turning point in sight. I see a collapse of european agriculture in the not too distant future (not just because of the ongoing drought, but because of various factors). Last year I predicted that the extreme drought of 2018 will go on in 2019 and I was right. And I predict the extreme drought will go along with us in 2020.
” AFAIK last year forest management and agriculture started mourning, and this year get frightened even more. There are certain beetles that attack certain trees.
If two more hot summers follow, I would guess, situation might become worse enough that it pops up as fiscal issue, and one, which affects more than just some farmers and forest managements.”
Yes, the forests are dying not just in Germany and it’s a desaster, it’s a fiscal factor of vast proportions already and it will only get worse.
” Some people will ignore facts even if they are directly in front of them / before their eyes/nose.”
That’s a given, therefore I don’t talk to deniers anymore. You know, it has been said “the debate is over” quite some years ago, but still climate scientists debate with ignorant deniers, it’s a charade, like some bizarre circular canon on the way to hell. Btw, that swiss paper about the funny medieval warm period and the little iceage (just two of tons of games one can play with deniers, gimme more popcorn) didn’t change any deniers a iota at all. No surprise:
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2019/07/27/berner-klimastudie-und-nature-wissenschaft-klimahysterie-kreationismus-das-ende-ist-nah/
Please answer this simple question where I haven’t been able to find a satisfactory answer:
Adding one molecule of methane to the atmosphere causes the same immediate radiative forcing as how many molecules of carbon dioxide?
Yes, values are available for 20 year and 100 year windows – 84 and 28 respectively, from table 8.A.1 of WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL. But what about the *immediate* forcing per molecule?
It appears this should be the ratio of the “radiative efficiencies” and those numbers also appear in table 8.A.1 of WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL, in units of W m^-2 ppb^-1:
CO2: 1.37e-5
CH4: 3.63e-4
The ratio is 26.5. *BUT* that appears to be some sort of 100 year average as
it is close to the 100 year GWP in the same table, of 28.
The sources of those numbers are not referenced from the table. Also, “Radiative efficiency” is not defined in the AR5 glossary.
In my view this ‘radiative efficiency ratio’ is an important number to know, particularly given the “two baskets” approach to mitigation from the Paris Agreement.
To give the political example that got me posting this, here’s a quantitative assertion from New Zealand Climate Minister James Shaw:
“Methane does matter because when it’s in the atmosphere it’s actually 25 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide is.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105250159/will-new-zealands-zero-carbon-bill-actually-save-us ; at 2m36s
The “25 times” he refers to appears to be for this ‘immediate radiative efficiency’ that I’m asking for.
Given the 20 year GWP of 84, and the methane lifetime of 9-12 years (some variation according to reference source) I would expect the immediate radiative efficiency ratio to be at least 100.
However, it is frustrating to me that this IRE does not appear to be derivable from the IPCC literature and I have also been unsuccessful in a literature search (including of this site.)
So can anyone help please: what is the immediate radiative efficiency ratio of CH4 to C02, showing reference sources?
mike @132
“Nigel: my concern is for the level of CO2 and CO2e in atmosphere and oceans. I am concerned when I see the yoy numbers continue to rise unabated. ”
Well I’m extremely concerned as well, but I find I’m not drawn so much to closely tracking CO2 numbers, although I do read your information. I’m more drawn to sea level rise data, probably because I work in infrastructure design. I guess we are all drawn to various things, and its good to have a range of perspectives discussed on websites.
“The feedback sources are numerous and pretty well-known….I am concerned that the big CO2 numbers we see now might include some small feedback component, but I haven’t seen any compelling science to indicate it’s more than a small component at this time. ”
I agree there has to be a feedback component because we observe various feedbacks, and I haven’t seen anything either that suggests its more than small, however I recall someone (might have been you?)posted an article on the arctic permafrost region where changes to the landscape in terms of formation of holes and lakes indicates a possible acceleration of C02 emissions from these soils. I came across a similar article here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-greenhouse-gases-emissions-arctic-alaska-a8874456.html
It looks to me like this is possibly a factor in recent MLO trends, but probably not able to be detected yet in MLO data and not huge. You would need to see a sustained change in MLO trends over a decade and assuming all other things are equal and even then it would possibly just get buried by other factors. It certainly seems to be something outside of IPCC predictions, and its hard to see any reason why it would be temporary, and it looks like it can only get worse.
I think we do need to be careful not to read too much into short term trends on MLO C02 and sea level rise, which could be defined as anything up to 3 years perhaps. Natural variation clearly influences those trends a lot. This year has higher than anticipated MLO levels not fully explained by the known higher emissions levels (another sad trend) but easily enough explained by the weak el nino and I noticed there were a lot of forests fires earlier this year. But if next year and the next also has higher than anticipated C02 levels, it would be more significant and less easily explained by an el nino obviously.
“It’s kind of like looking up at the blade of a guillotine. Hey, it’s not moving. That’s good news. Should we worry about it? Your call.”
Of course we should worry about it. Goes without needing to be said.
slow wing @145,
The ratio of forcing CH4 per molecule/CO2 per molecule is something like 25. The reason this doesn’t seem to make sense with the 20-year & 100-year values is because those other are GWP numbers which are comparisons by weight & a ton of methane has more molecules (2.75x) than a ton of CO2.
” “It’s kind of like looking up at the blade of a guillotine. Hey, it’s not moving. That’s good news. Should we worry about it? Your call.””
I see that blade moving. You need a fast eye to see it moving.
The grim reaper, always moving, always chopping heads off. There’s a lot to learn from that blade, a lot to learn about Life. Death is a ruler, Death is a teacher. No one should be afraid of the grim reaper, but everyone should be afraid of his own shortcomings, at least I am.
RE: slow wing #145
We share a concern that climate science may be underestimating the present radiative forcing power of “natural gas” (which is mainly methane). For example, impacts from AGW seem to be occurring “faster than expected.” You might find June Unforced #190 – #195 of some interest. Good luck with your research.
@Nemesis: from last year…
“Drought 2018 is event of national magnitude
The fact that the prolonged drought was an event of national magnitude was assessed on the basis of the countries’ resilient damage reports and the 2018 harvest statistics. As the data from the harvest statistics showed, the drought had a significant impact on German agriculture:
Yields per hectare of cereals (excluding grain maize) in 2018 were 16% lower than the three-year average for previous years.
Schleswig-Holstein (-31%), Brandenburg (-27%), Saxony-Anhalt (-26%), Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (-25%) and Lower Saxony (-26%) were most affected.”
https://www.bmel.de/DE/Landwirtschaft/Nachhaltige-Landnutzung/Klimawandel/_Texte/Extremwetterlagen-Zustaendigkeiten.html
I watched the documentary “Ice on fire” in the name of Leo DiCaprio today. And I’ m not quite amused. It’s all about symptoms and tech solutions for meddling with symptoms of climate heating, tech solutions like iron fertilization of the ocean (again? Yawn) and direct air capture ect ect.
But not a single word about the US military being the biggest oil sucker, the biggest fossil fool of all, no word about the suicidal oil industry nor the suicidal car industry, no word about reducing consumption, less cars, less flights, less meat, less material shit and more sharing. And:
Not a single word about the completely flawed and injust/corrupt system we live in. Com on, this multi million dollar guy acted in movies like “Wolf of Wall Street”, but, in the face of the 6th global mass extinction, Leo can’t tell a single word about how that funny money and power gamez on the way to (climate) hell work? Com on, that documentary is like telling bedtime stories for little kids on their way to the slaughterhouse. I remember “After the flood” by Leo DiCaprio and I’m curios about part 3, 4, 5, 6… of Leo’s climate documentary series already. Let’s make another documentary, let’s make another bedtime story.
Not quite amused, but somewhat amused,
Nemesis