UAH has posted for October with a TLT anomaly of +0.46ºC, down on the exceptional +0.61ºC anomaly of September but otherwise the second highest anomaly of the year which Jan-Aug spanned from +0.47ºC down to +0.32ºC.
It is the second warmest October on the UAH TLT record behind of 2017 (+0.63ºC) while ahead of 2016 & 2015(both +0.44ºC), 1998 (+0.40ºC), 2003 (+0.29ºC), 2005 (+0.27ºC) and 2014 (+0.24ºC).
It is the =23rd highest anomaly on the all-month UAH TLT record.
With just two months to go to complete the year, 2019 sits in 3rd place for the year-to-date, this the likely position for end-of-year. To drop to 4th place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Nov-Dec to average less than a chilly +0.30ºC. To gain 2nd place above 1998 within the trend-defying UAH record would require Nov-Dec to average a exceptionally steamy +0.78ºC. (The highest Nov-Dec average to-date was +0.40ºC in 2015.)
They conclude that based on balloon measurements over the depth of the atmosphere, increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has no influence at all on global temperatures.
Have I missed any criticisms of this article?
Marcosays
Roy Banks @4:
What “article”? It’s not an article, but a presentation in front of a crank group. If I remember correctly, they’ve already been explained that the balloon data they use simply does not have the temporal and locational resolution to see the expected change, so instead of getting it reviewed in credible climate-related journals, they created their own journal and ‘published’ papers in that. And apparently now go to crank groups to present that work…
For those wishing to make a reply to Roy Banks @4 but who consider listening to the two idgits Connolly & Connolly droaning on for half the day, the slides from their talk (all 106 of them) which presents the latest serving of their grand theory are available hear. And to whet your appetites, their grand theory concludes:-
The IPCC was wrong to conclude recent climate changes were due to greenhouse gases. Computer models they were relying on were based on flawed early 20thcentury science. “Carbon mitigation” should no longer be considered a priority.
I note that the content you refer to was self-published in 2014 to a website created just for the purpose of presenting the researchers’ work. They invite an open ‘peer review’ process and did receive a few responses, which to my ear have a crankish sound to them. In short, this effort is not peer-reviewed.
I further note that the authors have felt it necessary to invent a ‘hitherto overlooked’ mechanism of energy transmission which they term ‘pervection’, which appears to be critical for their argument that the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This concept appears to have languished since 2014.
Igor Stravinsky famously declined specific criticism of the Disney treatment of his music from Rite of Spring, saying the segment did not, as an “unresisting imbecility,” merit it. It appears to me that the research community has made a comparable assessment of the work of the Drs. Connolly.
William B Jacksonsays
No 4 the work of the Connolly, is so childish as to be as some one once said, of such low value as to not even be wrong! I hope their hobby is at least amusing LOL!
“And I needed to–just for myself–make sure that I did whatever I could, so that I could look myself in the eye in the midst of this crisis.” –G. Thunberg (@1:41) (1 Nov).
“Well it’s the way you speak I think. It’s where you’re coming from. It’s how you come across, and your energy, and you’re so real and raw. And I think that’s why.” *** –E. DeGeneres (@1:52) (1 Nov).
***Why, as DeGeneres said, “now over 11 million people have been striking” (in Fridays for Future actions). It’s also why Thunberg has 2.93 million followers on Twitter. (–me)
“…reach has to be earned. …This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach.” –Jack Dorsey, on the new rules.
It seems to me that the Irish doctors have shown that the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above as is currently envisaged. That is what I argued last month on this forum.
However, their conclusion that because the current models are wrong then “increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not influence at all on global temperatures” is a total non sequitur.
Moreover, the correct model where absorption by CO2 is restricted to the boundary layer means that its effect is driven by the Bouguer-Lambert-Beer law which results in additional warming directly related to the concentration of CO2 rather than the logarithmic relation envisaged by the current models.
The work of C&C fits with the results of Christy and Spencer (C&S) who showed that the rise in temperature in the troposphere measured by satellites was less than that predicted by the computer models. But C&C have gone further and found that there are three regions in the troposphere: boundary layer, convection layer and LTE. The ground stations show a rise in temperature in the boundary layer, and the satellites of C&S measure the change in temperature in the convective and LTE layers. These show a lesser rise as the results of C&C imply. But that shows that global temperatures are rising as a result of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
As far as C&Cs explanation of the temperature lapse rate in the stratosphere goes, I think that will have been solved already by warming from above by the absorption by oxygen of incoming solar UV radiation and cooling from below by emission of longwave radiation from ozone.
Thomas Huxley, not Feynman wrote “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” The idea that the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is controlled by the outgoing longwave radiation from CO2 has been slain by C&C’s experiment. Occam may have stated that ‘Entities should not be multiplied without necessity’, but Einstein said: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The OLR balance is controlled by outgoing shortwave radiation produced by ice sheets and clouds. They are produced by a warmer surface as CO2 concentration rises. It is an oversimplification to claim that CO2 directly controls the TOA balance.
If Patrick red Unforced Variations & Twitter more assiduously, he’d know I asked Swedish shipowner Mikael Krafft to divert his two five masters from the Med to Valapariso to effect the carbon neutral delivery of 300 climate scientists to COP-25 a year before Miss Thunberg hopped the Atlantic– Kraft’s big clippersnormally cruise the Carribean in the winter anyway.
I have a question about the recently published paper by (members of) the EASAC: “Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy”. The press release about the paper states:
“…the current accounting rules under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) allows imported biomass to be treated as zero emissions when burned (on the assumption that the exporting country has recorded the forest carbon loss in their land use reporting). This provides an accounting loophole which allows an importing country to zero-rate its bioenergy emissions – creating the impression that national emissions are reduced while in reality offloading the responsibility for reporting the net increase in emissions to the exporting country.”
Here is what I don’t understand. I always took it that deforestation was counted as carbon emission, regardless of what happened to the harvested biomass. This would be a pessimistic but safe assumption. But with that assumption in mind, treating the burning of harvested biomass as zero emission is entirely justified, because the carbon would already be in the atmosphere in terms of the calculated budget. Counting it twice would simply be an error rather than an “accounting loophole”.
So where does the idea of this loophole come from? What are they referring to here? Is the carbon budget under the Paris agreement perhaps something different from the budget calculated by the IPCC?
A related question is about the “payback periods”. Isn’t that simply a more nuanced way of looking at the emission due to deforestation? If all deforestation is treated as an emission, then why would the “payback period” result in a higher estimate of atmospheric CO2?
Harking back to last month’s mentions of the Younger Dryas impact research at White Pond, near Elgin, SC, I found that there’s a pretty active Facebook page. Those who are interested in what fieldwork looks like may want to give it a look.
“A group of more than 11,000 international scientists has declared a ‘climate emergency’, and claims that ‘untold human suffering’ is unavoidable unless changes are made immediately”
and, of course, the GOPpers are leaving the Paris agreement. “What problem? We’ll just replace the 99% with robots and install bigger air conditioners.”
Russellsays
McDonald’s view that :
As far as C&Cs explanation of the temperature lapse rate in the stratosphere goes, I think that will have been solved already by warming from above by the absorption by oxygen of incoming solar UV radiation and cooling from below by emission of longwave radiation from ozone.”
suffers somewhat from stratospheric oxygen being UV transparent and below the UV absorbing ozone layer above it.
he also informs us that since retiring as computer programmer, he has been :
“studying… the causes of abrupt climate change. My hypothesis is that they were caused by major changes in sea ice area, and the reason that these events cannot be simulated by climate models is that the models are wrong.
I have identified the error but persuading the scientific community that I am correct is a formidable task, which I have postponed until I have completed my second project.
My second project shows that the chemistry used in the carbon cycle belongs to the 19th Century. The paradigm that silicate weathering draws CO2 down from the atmosphere and so maintains a global climate habitable for life is also wrong, as is ocean chemistry.”
All of which suggests the time thas come to invoke the emphatic word’s Nature‘s late great editor Sir John Maddox so ofter deployed on these occasions;( That’s enough. — Ed.)
I hear news bulletins reporting last month as the warmest October on record, which is probably from the Copernicus reanalysis which is indeed showing 2019 with the warmest October-to-date.
RSS has also now posted for October with a TLT anomaly of +0.70ºC, down on the exceptional +0.89ºC anomaly of September but otherwise an average anomaly of the year which Jan-Aug spanned from +0.82ºC down to +0.62ºC.
It is the third warmest October on the RSS TLT record (2nd in UAH) behind of 2017 (+0.84ºC) and 2015 (+0.78ºC), while ahead of 2016 (+0.65ºC), 2018 (+0.55ºC), 2014 (+0.55ºC), 2003 (+0.54ºC) and 2005 (+0.54ºC).
It is the 21st highest anomaly on the all-month RSS TLT record.
With just two months to go to complete the year, 2019 sits in 2nd place in RSS for the year-to-date (UAH it was 3rd), this its position for end-of-year, bar something really spectacular. To drop to 3rd place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Nov-Dec to average less than a very chilly +0.25ºC (chilliness not seen since the year 2000). To gain 1st place above 2016 would require Nov-Dec to average a scortchio +1.09ºC. (The highest Nov-Dec average to-date was +0.74ºC in 2015.)
patrick: “…reach has to be earned. …This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach.” –Jack Dorsey, on the new rules.
AB: I like to say that freedom of speech doesn’t imply freedom of amplification. And though money talks, paper has no inalienable rights.
Al Bundysays
Jonathan: So where does the idea of this loophole come from? What are they referring to here? Is the carbon budget under the Paris agreement perhaps something different from the budget calculated by the IPCC?
AB: Only a pack of morons would play to the metric when death is in the air. Gaming the system shows a lack of concern for the crisis at hand. Until things switch from me, me, me, My Country, My Country, My Country to us, us is effed.
Recently saw the video “how the greenhouse affect works” by A E Dessler. In it he mentions the hypothetical case of an atmosphere than warms with altitude and how in such an atmosphere increasing C02 would cause cooling. Is this what causes the stratosphere to cool. As I understand it the upper stratosphere (thermosphere) warms with altitude.
ABM 12: the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above
BPL: Nonsense. Different layers of atmosphere don’t “know” they’re at whatever level they’re at. Mars has less than stratospheric pressure but it has a greenhouse effect.
[In] the hypothetical case of an atmosphere than warms with altitude… increasing C02 would cause cooling. Is this what causes the stratosphere to cool.
As I understand it, yes. The stratosphere is pretty much all above the radiative TOA (‘top of atmosphere’), which means that upward-welling IR emitted there has a relatively low probability of being absorbed en route to space. (No idea what the actual number would be.) So the more CO2 emitting IR, the more radiation to space, and the more cooling.
(Corrections of, and amplifications to, this simplistic picture much welcomed.)
Erik Lindebergsays
MA Roger (18) wrote that the average RSS temperature anomaly for November and December has to drop to below +0.25°C to allow 2019 to end as 3rd warmest year behind 2016 and 2017. The correct value should be 0.37°C using the values in Rodger’s table, or 0.331°C by using all the three decimals reported by RSS.
The heading of second column in the table should read: “Jan-Oct Ave” not “Jan-Sept Ave”
nigeljsays
ABM 12: “the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above.”
This just doesn’t sound right to even this non expert. Why would a greenhouse gas molecule stop acting like a greenhouse gas molecule just because of it’s height within the atmosphere taken as a whole? I mean there just isn’t any credible reason.
“McDonald’s view … suffers somewhat from stratospheric oxygen being UV transparent and below the UV absorbing ozone layer above it.”
And how do you think the ozone layer forms?
Re #22 where BPL says: “Nonsense. Different layers of atmosphere don’t “know” they’re at whatever level they’re at. Mars has less than stratospheric pressure but it has a greenhouse effect.”
And its greenhouse effect is also restricted to its boundary layer, ie the layer which absorbs martian outgoing longwave radiation.
Re #25 where nigelj asks: “Why would a greenhouse gas molecule stop acting like a greenhouse gas molecule just because of its height within the atmosphere taken as a whole?”
A greenhouse gas warms the atmosphere by absorbing more radiation than it emits. That only happens at the base of the atmosphere. Elsewhere the radiationis in local thermodynamic equilibrium.
Eric Lindenberg @24,
Thank you for the corrections.
My reporting of the global emperature records in UV threads is not entirely automated and I quite often spot typos in the actual comments (eg Sept instead of Oct) and the spreadsheet that calculates the averages is not immune either (eg the Nov-Dec average to drop into 3rd place had a division by 3 instead of 2, although averaging below +0.36ºC rather than below +0.25ºC remains adrop back into chillier times, but such times were last seen seven years ago not ninteen years ago).
ABM 26: A greenhouse gas warms the atmosphere by absorbing more radiation than it emits.
BPL: If it did that it would heat up indefinitely. Your peculiar model of greenhouse effects ignores basic thermodynamics.
mikesays
Spikey day on CO2:
Daily CO2
Nov 6 2019: 410.07 ppm
Nov 5 2018: 406.95 ppm
Nothing to be alarmed about, but strange to see a number of 410 next to the September monthly number of 408.55 and October monthly number of 408.53.
I think the background trend at this moment continues to be in the 2.4 to 2.6 ppm increase range. I am watching MAR’s projections with interest. I hope he is correct with these projection:
Did you read that post? Rasmus wrote, “Not all of my colleagues may agree with my description of the greenhouse effect; it was a struggle to get this paper published.”
patricksays
#20 Al Bundy > I like to say that freedom of speech doesn’t imply freedom of amplification. And though money talks, paper has no inalienable rights.
“Money talks” is another way to say “quid [lots of quid]-pro-quo.” But there are papers at law that assert the inalienable rights of other papers, making them virtual persons–as so finely defined by the high court.
I agree, there ought to be a law against unearned amplification. Let’s call it the Dorsey rule. I like to say that for every right, there’s a responsibility.
patricksays
Russell (#13): More assiduously than you think. But I don’t go looking where it’s dim.
The ships you mention are not carbon neutral, regardless of your suggestion. The Star Clipper Line (which I checked out the last time you mentioned it) makes no claim about lowering carbon footprint or moving toward carbon neutrality. For good reason. It is about demonstrative luxury at sea, the “romance” of it, and the nostalgia.
It is dim to compare that with the Malizia II, G. Thunberg aboard–which posted its signal on its sails: “Unite Behind the Science–A Race We Must Win–Climate Action Now,” and more. This crossing was about a different sort of romance–of education, and of facing a great challenge. Captain Boris Hermann said it all, I think, when he linked his great regard for the seafaring past to the challenges of now and next (3:40-7:51):
Sorry I didn’t have time to read the paper but from general knowledge it goes like this:
“So where does the idea of this loophole come from? What are they referring to here? Is the carbon budget under the Paris agreement perhaps something different from the budget calculated by the IPCC?”
The loophole is on the emitting coutry’s side. Even though that country has not recorded the biomass harvest as an emission, it can emit without penalty, although it is in real life generating emissions within its boundary. This becomes meaningful when the harvesting country is not bound be Kyoto protocol (a non-industrialized country or an industrialized country that just doesn’t care). This situation exists, e.g., when biomass is harvested in the US and shipped to the Netherlands to be burned.
“A related question is about the “payback periods”. Isn’t that simply a more nuanced way of looking at the emission due to deforestation? If all deforestation is treated as an emission, then why would the “payback period” result in a higher estimate of atmospheric CO2?”
The payback period refers to the gap between biomass harvest and regrowth. During that gap, CO2 (from biomass burning) is in the atmosphere causing radiative forcing. Once the biomass has regrown (and CO2 has been recaptured by vegetation), the gap is closed (approximately) and the payback period ends. So even though the regrowth might make things look OK again, there has been a period of increased radiated forcing that has left its effects on the earth (such as marginally warmer oceans, lost ice cap etc.). The amount of forcing can be expressed equivalent to an amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Romainsays
All,
Questions for the knowledgeable people on this site.
If I read it properly, there was an increase in temperature of 2.14 degC between 2331 BC and 2291 BC, so in 40 years. And then a cooling of 1.89 degC between 2291 BC and 2212, so in 79 years.
And there are other such swings all along the record.
So, several questions:
– am I reading correctly?
– how real are these local temperature swings? (I mean can it be proxy measurement (deuterium in ice) uncertainty rather than real local temperature variations?)
– if it’s real, is there any explanation? I mean what could possibly have raised the temperature by 2 degrees in only 40 years?
– is there a site today that presents such swings?
(I’ve just checked the recent temperature record from Vostok station: it is more or less following the recent global trend, with sensibly less warming)
Thanks for your help.
Russellsays
As I explained at ATTP, the 50,000 sguare feet of sail carried by Krafft’s five masted ships gererate thrust enough to spin the propellers of the megawatt motor-generators that, power the winches and steering, light the lights and run the air conditioning.
We didn’t hear you cpmplqining when Miss Thunberg sailed Trans-Atlantic last summer on a boat that used similar gear to equally good effect on a smaller scale
Thomassays
MLO CO2 levels October 2019 came in at +2.53 ppm over October 2018.
The 12-month Growth Rate (running average) is approaching just under 3.0 ppm
No surprises there (at least not for me, ymmv) and this a non-Super El Nino year. Weren’t a small few suggesting it might crack +3ppm anyway earlier in the year? I am sure there was.
JUNE. Finally, and based on work with University of Manchester & Uppsala colleagues, to meet its Paris obligations the UK must achieve zero-carbon energy by around 2035 [versus the 2050 UK Goal]; that’s ‘real-zero’ not ‘net-zero’.
This requires an immediate programme of deep cuts in energy emissions rising rapidly to over 10% p.a.; such an economy-wide agenda will need to embed equity at its core if it is to succeed mathematically and politically, as well as morally. https://kevinanderson.info/blog/category/quick-comment/
OK they weren’t really climate scientists and ’emergency’ isn’t a scientific term backed by the IPCC, however,
SEPT. The IPCC approved and accepted Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate at its 51st Session held on 20 – 23 September 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/
AUG. An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/
30 years later GHG emissions are still increasing. A handful may still be able to escape on Musk’s battery powered spaceship to Mars.
Sorry, but, we’re all totally screwed now.
Carlsays
Could someone help me understand the discrepancies in the reporting on animal agriculture contributions to climate change, and especially if there is some major flaw of this white paper https://www.climatehealers.org/animal-agriculture-white-paper? The claim is AA is responsible for 87% of AGW…
[Response: It’s nonsense. They ignore the residence time, and hence over-estimate CH4 w.r.t. CO2. There are other issues too. Stick with the FAO report. – gavin]
Yes. Also the description others prefer is at odds with your (literally) unphysical description.
Carlsays
Re #42: Thanks for responding Gavin. I do see some red flags with the work, including the lack of peer review, quite extraordinary claims being made and claims of several substantial flaws in the IPCC reports… But on the other hand I cannot directly see what is wrong with the back of the envelope estimates made and the residence times are actually discussed. I tend to think the author has a point in arguing for a 10 rather than 100 year average for the forcings, given various potential threshold effects. Maybe there’s something else?
Killiansays
I suppose I wasn’t right about this either… 12 years ago, eh?
mike @43,
The jounal paper mentioned within the MIT News piece you link to is here. It gives an estimated cost of CO2 capture at $50 to $100 per ton CO2. Note the 43 kJ/mole mentioned is the quoted “about one gigajoule of energy per ton of carbon dioxide captured” within the MIT News piece which thus applies to the 60% cycling.
BTW, the historical sea ice data compilation plotted at Cryosphere Today appears to be from Walsh and Chapman at NCAR.
I found the Walsh and Chapman data site, no problem, but …
Does anyone know of a similar or copied animation that demonstrates the progression as well as GlenF did? I know of others, but his incorporated contemporaneous images of the Arctic in the 1930s, which I found instructive and think useful in trying to get over the footlights with the issue.
Susan Andersonsays
Oops, put my query inside the quote, but not a great matter. However,
Reason I’m back is to caution people that overreliance on the permanence of the internet is a global problem.
As I progress into my 70s, I find reasons to suggest paper is still an excellent way to keep records.
Al Bundysays
Thomas: sorry but we’re all totally screwed
AB: Ye of limited imagination! Said screwing has just begun. There is no limit other than extinction, and 99% death and destruction ain’t even close. 7,000,000,000 * .01 = 70,000,000. The GOPpers have much work to do to bring about their goal, which is to kill everything so they can pretend that the bible ain’t fiction.
UAH has posted for October with a TLT anomaly of +0.46ºC, down on the exceptional +0.61ºC anomaly of September but otherwise the second highest anomaly of the year which Jan-Aug spanned from +0.47ºC down to +0.32ºC.
It is the second warmest October on the UAH TLT record behind of 2017 (+0.63ºC) while ahead of 2016 & 2015(both +0.44ºC), 1998 (+0.40ºC), 2003 (+0.29ºC), 2005 (+0.27ºC) and 2014 (+0.24ºC).
It is the =23rd highest anomaly on the all-month UAH TLT record.
With just two months to go to complete the year, 2019 sits in 3rd place for the year-to-date, this the likely position for end-of-year. To drop to 4th place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Nov-Dec to average less than a chilly +0.30ºC. To gain 2nd place above 1998 within the trend-defying UAH record would require Nov-Dec to average a exceptionally steamy +0.78ºC. (The highest Nov-Dec average to-date was +0.40ºC in 2015.)
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.53ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.42ºC
2017 .. +0.40ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2010 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 4th
2015 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2002 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.21ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 11th
2003 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 9th
COP 25’s optional Easter Island field trip has been canceled:
https://tinyurl.com/y3wbqezd
National Geographic September edition has some interesting material on the warming arctic:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/09/
The subsection on the permafrost has some interesting information, perspectives of local people and some astonishing photos.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/arctic-permafrost-is-thawing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature/
The research carried out by Dr.s M., I. and R. Connolly has shown that the climate models are nothing more than elaborate computer games? See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
They conclude that based on balloon measurements over the depth of the atmosphere, increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has no influence at all on global temperatures.
Have I missed any criticisms of this article?
Roy Banks @4:
What “article”? It’s not an article, but a presentation in front of a crank group. If I remember correctly, they’ve already been explained that the balloon data they use simply does not have the temporal and locational resolution to see the expected change, so instead of getting it reviewed in credible climate-related journals, they created their own journal and ‘published’ papers in that. And apparently now go to crank groups to present that work…
For those wishing to make a reply to Roy Banks @4 but who consider listening to the two idgits Connolly & Connolly droaning on for half the day, the slides from their talk (all 106 of them) which presents the latest serving of their grand theory are available hear. And to whet your appetites, their grand theory concludes:-
borehole #4 please
#4, Roy Banks–
I note that the content you refer to was self-published in 2014 to a website created just for the purpose of presenting the researchers’ work. They invite an open ‘peer review’ process and did receive a few responses, which to my ear have a crankish sound to them. In short, this effort is not peer-reviewed.
I further note that the authors have felt it necessary to invent a ‘hitherto overlooked’ mechanism of energy transmission which they term ‘pervection’, which appears to be critical for their argument that the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This concept appears to have languished since 2014.
Igor Stravinsky famously declined specific criticism of the Disney treatment of his music from Rite of Spring, saying the segment did not, as an “unresisting imbecility,” merit it. It appears to me that the research community has made a comparable assessment of the work of the Drs. Connolly.
No 4 the work of the Connolly, is so childish as to be as some one once said, of such low value as to not even be wrong! I hope their hobby is at least amusing LOL!
RB 4: increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has no influence at all on global temperatures.
BPL: There is so overwhelmingly much evidence to the contrary, we can be sure the authors of the said article slipped up somewhere.
#2 (Russell):
“Dear Greta… You’ve made a long journey and help all of us… We would love to help you cross the Atlantic back.” –T. Ribara (1 Nov).
https://twitter.com/Teresaribera/status/1190371788028628992
https://www.dw.com/en/spain-to-help-greta-thunberg-get-to-cop25-in-madrid/a-51091374
“I send my support to the people in Chile.” –G. Thunberg (1 Nov).
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1190290812099186688
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1190318809971867648
“And I needed to–just for myself–make sure that I did whatever I could, so that I could look myself in the eye in the midst of this crisis.” –G. Thunberg (@1:41) (1 Nov).
“Well it’s the way you speak I think. It’s where you’re coming from. It’s how you come across, and your energy, and you’re so real and raw. And I think that’s why.” *** –E. DeGeneres (@1:52) (1 Nov).
https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1190355610027483136
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/01/madrid-to-host-un-climate-summit-after-chile-pulls-out
“This study by colleagues from Climate Central shocks even me…” –S. Rahmstorf
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1189806815275565056
OR:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/sea-level-rise-climate-central-study-906178/
***Why, as DeGeneres said, “now over 11 million people have been striking” (in Fridays for Future actions). It’s also why Thunberg has 2.93 million followers on Twitter. (–me)
“…reach has to be earned. …This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach.” –Jack Dorsey, on the new rules.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634373890347008
Re #4
Roy Banks,
Thanks for posting that link to the YouTube video where the Dr Connollys (C&C) describe their results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY . They provide evidence that supports my research into why the current climate models are unable to reproduce abrupt climate warmings such as those that initiated the Bølling-Allerød inter-stadial and at the end of the Younger Dryas.
It seems to me that the Irish doctors have shown that the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above as is currently envisaged. That is what I argued last month on this forum.
However, their conclusion that because the current models are wrong then “increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not influence at all on global temperatures” is a total non sequitur.
Moreover, the correct model where absorption by CO2 is restricted to the boundary layer means that its effect is driven by the Bouguer-Lambert-Beer law which results in additional warming directly related to the concentration of CO2 rather than the logarithmic relation envisaged by the current models.
The work of C&C fits with the results of Christy and Spencer (C&S) who showed that the rise in temperature in the troposphere measured by satellites was less than that predicted by the computer models. But C&C have gone further and found that there are three regions in the troposphere: boundary layer, convection layer and LTE. The ground stations show a rise in temperature in the boundary layer, and the satellites of C&S measure the change in temperature in the convective and LTE layers. These show a lesser rise as the results of C&C imply. But that shows that global temperatures are rising as a result of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
As far as C&Cs explanation of the temperature lapse rate in the stratosphere goes, I think that will have been solved already by warming from above by the absorption by oxygen of incoming solar UV radiation and cooling from below by emission of longwave radiation from ozone.
Thomas Huxley, not Feynman wrote “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” The idea that the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is controlled by the outgoing longwave radiation from CO2 has been slain by C&C’s experiment. Occam may have stated that ‘Entities should not be multiplied without necessity’, but Einstein said: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The OLR balance is controlled by outgoing shortwave radiation produced by ice sheets and clouds. They are produced by a warmer surface as CO2 concentration rises. It is an oversimplification to claim that CO2 directly controls the TOA balance.
If Patrick red Unforced Variations & Twitter more assiduously, he’d know I asked Swedish shipowner Mikael Krafft to divert his two five masters from the Med to Valapariso to effect the carbon neutral delivery of 300 climate scientists to COP-25 a year before Miss Thunberg hopped the Atlantic– Kraft’s big clippersnormally cruise the Carribean in the winter anyway.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2018/03/cut-climate-conference-emissions-downto.html
I have a question about the recently published paper by (members of) the EASAC: “Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy”. The press release about the paper states:
“…the current accounting rules under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) allows imported biomass to be treated as zero emissions when burned (on the assumption that the exporting country has recorded the forest carbon loss in their land use reporting). This provides an accounting loophole which allows an importing country to zero-rate its bioenergy emissions – creating the impression that national emissions are reduced while in reality offloading the responsibility for reporting the net increase in emissions to the exporting country.”
Here is what I don’t understand. I always took it that deforestation was counted as carbon emission, regardless of what happened to the harvested biomass. This would be a pessimistic but safe assumption. But with that assumption in mind, treating the burning of harvested biomass as zero emission is entirely justified, because the carbon would already be in the atmosphere in terms of the calculated budget. Counting it twice would simply be an error rather than an “accounting loophole”.
So where does the idea of this loophole come from? What are they referring to here? Is the carbon budget under the Paris agreement perhaps something different from the budget calculated by the IPCC?
A related question is about the “payback periods”. Isn’t that simply a more nuanced way of looking at the emission due to deforestation? If all deforestation is treated as an emission, then why would the “payback period” result in a higher estimate of atmospheric CO2?
Here is the paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcbb.12643
And this is the press release:
https://easac.eu/press-releases/details/easac-s-environmental-experts-call-for-international-action-to-restrict-climate-damaging-forest-bioe/
Harking back to last month’s mentions of the Younger Dryas impact research at White Pond, near Elgin, SC, I found that there’s a pretty active Facebook page. Those who are interested in what fieldwork looks like may want to give it a look.
https://www.facebook.com/WPHEP/
“A group of more than 11,000 international scientists has declared a ‘climate emergency’, and claims that ‘untold human suffering’ is unavoidable unless changes are made immediately”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/climate-emergency-declared-trump-begins-20816285
and, of course, the GOPpers are leaving the Paris agreement. “What problem? We’ll just replace the 99% with robots and install bigger air conditioners.”
McDonald’s view that :
As far as C&Cs explanation of the temperature lapse rate in the stratosphere goes, I think that will have been solved already by warming from above by the absorption by oxygen of incoming solar UV radiation and cooling from below by emission of longwave radiation from ozone.”
suffers somewhat from stratospheric oxygen being UV transparent and below the UV absorbing ozone layer above it.
he also informs us that since retiring as computer programmer, he has been :
“studying… the causes of abrupt climate change. My hypothesis is that they were caused by major changes in sea ice area, and the reason that these events cannot be simulated by climate models is that the models are wrong.
I have identified the error but persuading the scientific community that I am correct is a formidable task, which I have postponed until I have completed my second project.
My second project shows that the chemistry used in the carbon cycle belongs to the 19th Century. The paradigm that silicate weathering draws CO2 down from the atmosphere and so maintains a global climate habitable for life is also wrong, as is ocean chemistry.”
All of which suggests the time thas come to invoke the emphatic word’s Nature‘s late great editor Sir John Maddox so ofter deployed on these occasions;( That’s enough. — Ed.)
I hear news bulletins reporting last month as the warmest October on record, which is probably from the Copernicus reanalysis which is indeed showing 2019 with the warmest October-to-date.
Warmest Copernicus October anomalies.
2019 +0.69ºC
2015 +0.68ºC
2017 +0.60ºC
2018 +0.59ºC
2016 +0.59ºC
2012 +0.46ºC
2005 +0.41ºC
2014 +0.40ºC
RSS has also now posted for October with a TLT anomaly of +0.70ºC, down on the exceptional +0.89ºC anomaly of September but otherwise an average anomaly of the year which Jan-Aug spanned from +0.82ºC down to +0.62ºC.
It is the third warmest October on the RSS TLT record (2nd in UAH) behind of 2017 (+0.84ºC) and 2015 (+0.78ºC), while ahead of 2016 (+0.65ºC), 2018 (+0.55ºC), 2014 (+0.55ºC), 2003 (+0.54ºC) and 2005 (+0.54ºC).
It is the 21st highest anomaly on the all-month RSS TLT record.
With just two months to go to complete the year, 2019 sits in 2nd place in RSS for the year-to-date (UAH it was 3rd), this its position for end-of-year, bar something really spectacular. To drop to 3rd place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Nov-Dec to average less than a very chilly +0.25ºC (chilliness not seen since the year 2000). To gain 1st place above 2016 would require Nov-Dec to average a scortchio +1.09ºC. (The highest Nov-Dec average to-date was +0.74ºC in 2015.)
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.79ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.73ºC
2017 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 3rd
1998 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 5th
2015 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 4th
2018 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.53ºC … … … 6th
2005 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.46ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.41ºC … … … 10th
2013 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 9th
patrick: “…reach has to be earned. …This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach.” –Jack Dorsey, on the new rules.
AB: I like to say that freedom of speech doesn’t imply freedom of amplification. And though money talks, paper has no inalienable rights.
Jonathan: So where does the idea of this loophole come from? What are they referring to here? Is the carbon budget under the Paris agreement perhaps something different from the budget calculated by the IPCC?
AB: Only a pack of morons would play to the metric when death is in the air. Gaming the system shows a lack of concern for the crisis at hand. Until things switch from me, me, me, My Country, My Country, My Country to us, us is effed.
Recently saw the video “how the greenhouse affect works” by A E Dessler. In it he mentions the hypothetical case of an atmosphere than warms with altitude and how in such an atmosphere increasing C02 would cause cooling. Is this what causes the stratosphere to cool. As I understand it the upper stratosphere (thermosphere) warms with altitude.
ABM 12: the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above
BPL: Nonsense. Different layers of atmosphere don’t “know” they’re at whatever level they’re at. Mars has less than stratospheric pressure but it has a greenhouse effect.
Jim S., #21–
As I understand it, yes. The stratosphere is pretty much all above the radiative TOA (‘top of atmosphere’), which means that upward-welling IR emitted there has a relatively low probability of being absorbed en route to space. (No idea what the actual number would be.) So the more CO2 emitting IR, the more radiation to space, and the more cooling.
(Corrections of, and amplifications to, this simplistic picture much welcomed.)
MA Roger (18) wrote that the average RSS temperature anomaly for November and December has to drop to below +0.25°C to allow 2019 to end as 3rd warmest year behind 2016 and 2017. The correct value should be 0.37°C using the values in Rodger’s table, or 0.331°C by using all the three decimals reported by RSS.
The heading of second column in the table should read: “Jan-Oct Ave” not “Jan-Sept Ave”
ABM 12: “the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above.”
This just doesn’t sound right to even this non expert. Why would a greenhouse gas molecule stop acting like a greenhouse gas molecule just because of it’s height within the atmosphere taken as a whole? I mean there just isn’t any credible reason.
Re #17 where Russell says:
“McDonald’s view … suffers somewhat from stratospheric oxygen being UV transparent and below the UV absorbing ozone layer above it.”
And how do you think the ozone layer forms?
Re #22 where BPL says: “Nonsense. Different layers of atmosphere don’t “know” they’re at whatever level they’re at. Mars has less than stratospheric pressure but it has a greenhouse effect.”
And its greenhouse effect is also restricted to its boundary layer, ie the layer which absorbs martian outgoing longwave radiation.
Re #25 where nigelj asks: “Why would a greenhouse gas molecule stop acting like a greenhouse gas molecule just because of its height within the atmosphere taken as a whole?”
A greenhouse gas warms the atmosphere by absorbing more radiation than it emits. That only happens at the base of the atmosphere. Elsewhere the radiationis in local thermodynamic equilibrium.
Zwei Drittel aller nationalen Klimaschutzpläne sind ungenügend
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/klimawandel-ipcc-klimaschutzplaene-1.4669309
#26 As if…..LOL!
@O., #27
” Zwei Drittel aller nationalen Klimaschutzpläne sind ungenügend”
Oh, warum überrascht mich das nicht?
“A greenhouse gas warms the atmosphere by absorbing more radiation than it emits.”
No, that’s not how the greenhouse effect works.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Eric Lindenberg @24,
Thank you for the corrections.
My reporting of the global emperature records in UV threads is not entirely automated and I quite often spot typos in the actual comments (eg Sept instead of Oct) and the spreadsheet that calculates the averages is not immune either (eg the Nov-Dec average to drop into 3rd place had a division by 3 instead of 2, although averaging below +0.36ºC rather than below +0.25ºC remains adrop back into chillier times, but such times were last seen seven years ago not ninteen years ago).
ABM 26: A greenhouse gas warms the atmosphere by absorbing more radiation than it emits.
BPL: If it did that it would heat up indefinitely. Your peculiar model of greenhouse effects ignores basic thermodynamics.
Spikey day on CO2:
Daily CO2
Nov 6 2019: 410.07 ppm
Nov 5 2018: 406.95 ppm
Nothing to be alarmed about, but strange to see a number of 410 next to the September monthly number of 408.55 and October monthly number of 408.53.
I think the background trend at this moment continues to be in the 2.4 to 2.6 ppm increase range. I am watching MAR’s projections with interest. I hope he is correct with these projection:
Jan20 … … … 2.07
Feb20 … … … 2.06
Mar20 … … … 1.87
for monthly increases over previous year.
Cheers
Mike
Re #32 where Barton says:
No, because it only heats the air during the day. There is nothing peculiar with my model. It is the way that the greenhouse effect works.
Re #30 where Marco says:
Did you read that post? Rasmus wrote, “Not all of my colleagues may agree with my description of the greenhouse effect; it was a struggle to get this paper published.”
#20 Al Bundy > I like to say that freedom of speech doesn’t imply freedom of amplification. And though money talks, paper has no inalienable rights.
“Money talks” is another way to say “quid [lots of quid]-pro-quo.” But there are papers at law that assert the inalienable rights of other papers, making them virtual persons–as so finely defined by the high court.
I agree, there ought to be a law against unearned amplification. Let’s call it the Dorsey rule. I like to say that for every right, there’s a responsibility.
Russell (#13): More assiduously than you think. But I don’t go looking where it’s dim.
The ships you mention are not carbon neutral, regardless of your suggestion. The Star Clipper Line (which I checked out the last time you mentioned it) makes no claim about lowering carbon footprint or moving toward carbon neutrality. For good reason. It is about demonstrative luxury at sea, the “romance” of it, and the nostalgia.
It is dim to compare that with the Malizia II, G. Thunberg aboard–which posted its signal on its sails: “Unite Behind the Science–A Race We Must Win–Climate Action Now,” and more. This crossing was about a different sort of romance–of education, and of facing a great challenge. Captain Boris Hermann said it all, I think, when he linked his great regard for the seafaring past to the challenges of now and next (3:40-7:51):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H3ccIGO4Pg
RE: 14
Jonathan says:
5 Nov 2019 at 4:49 AM
Sorry I didn’t have time to read the paper but from general knowledge it goes like this:
“So where does the idea of this loophole come from? What are they referring to here? Is the carbon budget under the Paris agreement perhaps something different from the budget calculated by the IPCC?”
The loophole is on the emitting coutry’s side. Even though that country has not recorded the biomass harvest as an emission, it can emit without penalty, although it is in real life generating emissions within its boundary. This becomes meaningful when the harvesting country is not bound be Kyoto protocol (a non-industrialized country or an industrialized country that just doesn’t care). This situation exists, e.g., when biomass is harvested in the US and shipped to the Netherlands to be burned.
“A related question is about the “payback periods”. Isn’t that simply a more nuanced way of looking at the emission due to deforestation? If all deforestation is treated as an emission, then why would the “payback period” result in a higher estimate of atmospheric CO2?”
The payback period refers to the gap between biomass harvest and regrowth. During that gap, CO2 (from biomass burning) is in the atmosphere causing radiative forcing. Once the biomass has regrown (and CO2 has been recaptured by vegetation), the gap is closed (approximately) and the payback period ends. So even though the regrowth might make things look OK again, there has been a period of increased radiated forcing that has left its effects on the earth (such as marginally warmer oceans, lost ice cap etc.). The amount of forcing can be expressed equivalent to an amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
All,
Questions for the knowledgeable people on this site.
I’ve looked at the Vostok record here:
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat
If I read it properly, there was an increase in temperature of 2.14 degC between 2331 BC and 2291 BC, so in 40 years. And then a cooling of 1.89 degC between 2291 BC and 2212, so in 79 years.
And there are other such swings all along the record.
So, several questions:
– am I reading correctly?
– how real are these local temperature swings? (I mean can it be proxy measurement (deuterium in ice) uncertainty rather than real local temperature variations?)
– if it’s real, is there any explanation? I mean what could possibly have raised the temperature by 2 degrees in only 40 years?
– is there a site today that presents such swings?
(I’ve just checked the recent temperature record from Vostok station: it is more or less following the recent global trend, with sensibly less warming)
Thanks for your help.
As I explained at ATTP, the 50,000 sguare feet of sail carried by Krafft’s five masted ships gererate thrust enough to spin the propellers of the megawatt motor-generators that, power the winches and steering, light the lights and run the air conditioning.
We didn’t hear you cpmplqining when Miss Thunberg sailed Trans-Atlantic last summer on a boat that used similar gear to equally good effect on a smaller scale
MLO CO2 levels October 2019 came in at +2.53 ppm over October 2018.
The 12-month Growth Rate (running average) is approaching just under 3.0 ppm
No surprises there (at least not for me, ymmv) and this a non-Super El Nino year. Weren’t a small few suggesting it might crack +3ppm anyway earlier in the year? I am sure there was.
JUNE. Finally, and based on work with University of Manchester & Uppsala colleagues, to meet its Paris obligations the UK must achieve zero-carbon energy by around 2035 [versus the 2050 UK Goal]; that’s ‘real-zero’ not ‘net-zero’.
This requires an immediate programme of deep cuts in energy emissions rising rapidly to over 10% p.a.; such an economy-wide agenda will need to embed equity at its core if it is to succeed mathematically and politically, as well as morally. https://kevinanderson.info/blog/category/quick-comment/
NOV. Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’
Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency – Most countries’ climate plans ‘totally inadequate’ – experts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering
OK they weren’t really climate scientists and ’emergency’ isn’t a scientific term backed by the IPCC, however,
SEPT. The IPCC approved and accepted Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate at its 51st Session held on 20 – 23 September 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/
AUG. An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/
30 years later GHG emissions are still increasing. A handful may still be able to escape on Musk’s battery powered spaceship to Mars.
Sorry, but, we’re all totally screwed now.
Could someone help me understand the discrepancies in the reporting on animal agriculture contributions to climate change, and especially if there is some major flaw of this white paper https://www.climatehealers.org/animal-agriculture-white-paper? The claim is AA is responsible for 87% of AGW…
[Response: It’s nonsense. They ignore the residence time, and hence over-estimate CH4 w.r.t. CO2. There are other issues too. Stick with the FAO report. – gavin]
is this a big deal?
http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remove-carbon-dioxide-air-1025?fbclid=IwAR2SKfg7HRZhMOqJelFi18C3SqHoB5fijoCa2PXeCx72JQQ0SLOzCOjcrFM
“Did you read that post?”
Yes. Also the description others prefer is at odds with your (literally) unphysical description.
Re #42: Thanks for responding Gavin. I do see some red flags with the work, including the lack of peer review, quite extraordinary claims being made and claims of several substantial flaws in the IPCC reports… But on the other hand I cannot directly see what is wrong with the back of the envelope estimates made and the residence times are actually discussed. I tend to think the author has a point in arguing for a 10 rather than 100 year average for the forcings, given various potential threshold effects. Maybe there’s something else?
I suppose I wasn’t right about this either… 12 years ago, eh?
Arctic permafrost now may be a carbon source.
https://scitechdaily.com/arctic-shifts-to-carbon-source-stunning-reversal-after-capturing-carbon-for-tens-of-thousands-of-years/
mike @43,
The jounal paper mentioned within the MIT News piece you link to is here. It gives an estimated cost of CO2 capture at $50 to $100 per ton CO2. Note the 43 kJ/mole mentioned is the quoted “about one gigajoule of energy per ton of carbon dioxide captured” within the MIT News piece which thus applies to the 60% cycling.
I was trying to debunk the old chestnut about sea lanes in the 1930s, and was disappointed not to be able to find the superb animation put together at gergs.net mentioned in this comment by GlenF (gergs.net is gone, sadly).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic-misrepresentations/#comment-396221
Oops, put my query inside the quote, but not a great matter. However,
Reason I’m back is to caution people that overreliance on the permanence of the internet is a global problem.
As I progress into my 70s, I find reasons to suggest paper is still an excellent way to keep records.
Thomas: sorry but we’re all totally screwed
AB: Ye of limited imagination! Said screwing has just begun. There is no limit other than extinction, and 99% death and destruction ain’t even close. 7,000,000,000 * .01 = 70,000,000. The GOPpers have much work to do to bring about their goal, which is to kill everything so they can pretend that the bible ain’t fiction.