KM copies and pastes “BNEF projects that the overall industry’s cost reductions will continue, with $100/kWh at the pack level likely to be reached by around 2023… This is the point at which mass market electric vehicles (BEVs) are expected to reach sticker price parity with “equivalent” combustion vehicles,…”
Hmmm this would make wind and solar power with battery storage (say 12 hours) financially viable as well…. throw in some nuclear power and wide area grids to close the occasional longer periods of intermittency and we are home dry. I wont print a whole lot of numbers, this is not the thread for it.
#46 Thank you. Re: those graphs: so the job is to run to where the ball is going to be. We could easily stack a lot of breaking news on top of that, as you know. Looking at the final paragraphs here.
I’m trying to use a very simple example for my not so scientific friends who ask me about climate change
Your basic problem is that ‘greenhouse’ is an imperfect analogy, like all of them. KMcK’s ‘black paint in water’ is evocative, but it too leaves out the back-scatter of blackbody radiation by CO2. IMHO the ‘layers of blankets’ model is better, although it involves heat conductance and convection, not radiation primarily. Depending on just how un-scientific your friends are, this 2016 RC post might be sufficiently accessible. You can probably simplify it even more for them if not. OTOH, the global energy balance graphic, linked from IPCC AR4, bypasses verbal metaphors altogether ;^).
the global energy balance graphic, linked from IPCC AR4, bypasses verbal metaphors altogether ;^)
Well, this is awkward: the IPCC graphic does refer to back radiation from “greenhouse gases”. It’s a difficult analogy to avoid, apparently. Perhaps Mr. Lampson should tell his friends to replace that with “CO2, CH4, N2O and a few other, minor IR-absorbing gases” instead 8^}.
Mr. Know It Allsays
432 – Mal
“…. In the last three centuries, however, economically-driven transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere, much faster than it can be drawn down by the land and oceans, has greatly enhanced the greenhouse effect.”
Partly correct. The use of fossil carbon was not “economically-driven”, it was driven by necessity for survival. Europeans cut most of the wood required to provide heat, so they had to use something else – coal. Then, to feed the teeming hordes in cities, technology that used FF-powered machines, helped to accomplish that task. Thus, the use of FFs was not “economically-driven” (insinuating that perhaps there was a better option; there wasn’t) but driven by necessity and the known technology at the time.
51 – nigelj
“..Hmmm this would make wind and solar power with battery storage (say 12 hours) financially viable as well…. throw in some nuclear power and wide area grids to close the occasional longer periods of intermittency and we are home dry. I wont print a whole lot of numbers, this is not the thread for it.”
You’re boss isn’t going to be impressed when you don’t show up to work because the grid sucked all the juice out of your EV battery! If this isn’t the proper thread for those pesky numbers, which one is?! You keep saying IF there were enough storage, RE would work fine. Fact is there isn’t enough, and there isn’t going to be enough in the future. Run the numbers, this is a science website – we can handle it.
Killiansays
Re #33 Engineer-Poet said Dr. James Hansen advocating the use of (next-gen) nuclear fission at COP25
So what? He’s still wrong on an issue? Happens. People all have areas of ignorance. For him, and all but 3 that I know of, the issue is no training in regenerative systems. They are naturally science-tech leaning. No surprise.
But this is why it is a mistake to look to climate scientists for solutions; they simply do not look at the world from the perspective of the principles, patterns and functions of ecosystems. Love their work on science of the meta – climate – and physics of the system, but the natural aspects of it are simply not in their wheel houses.
The CO2 watchers will be aware that NOAA have published the MLO CO2 value for November which yields an annual increase of 2.27ppm/yr.
The global CO2 value for September has also been published although this will be subject to significant revision over coming months. (August was first published yielding an annual rise of 2.87ppm/yr which a month on has been revised down to 2.56ppm/yr.)
And there is also the daily ‘Estimated Global Trend’ which is highly smoothed and with the most recent few months-worth of values also subject to a great amount of revision. The annual rise in this daily ‘Estimated Global Trend’ data is graphed out here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) showing annual rise (light blue tace) and acceleration (black trace).
So how is the global CO2 rise running?
With revisions being so significant, the final result may be much different but, since the start of 2018 when the acceleration of the global CO2 rise went positive, it looks like the acceleration has peaked (for the second time) allowing the hope that we may be seeing an end to this acceleration wobble and the arrival of some deceleration.
(On the graph, the end of the light blue ‘annual rise’ trace waggles around like an eel so the value presently graphed [which is +2.74ppm/yr] isn’t very meaningful.)
Clark Lampson @44,
The actual AGW mechanism (see this RealClimate post) isn’t well described by either a greenhouse or a blanket analogy. The increase in CO2 levels doesn’t itself insulate the globe by presenting an insulation barrier of greater thickness. What is important is the parts of the atmosphere where an emitted photon has a clear shot at space. Because cold stuff emits less photons and because the atmosphere gets colder the higher you go, by adding more CO2 you put the clear shot at space higher in the atmosphere and thus colder. Being colder it will emit less photons so less energy escapes and the planet will have to warm to bring energy-out into balance with energy-in.
I haven’t met a good real-world analogy for that mechanism, yet.
Partly correct. The use of fossil carbon was not “economically-driven”, it was driven by necessity for survival. Europeans cut most of the wood required to provide heat, so they had to use something else – coal. Then, to feed the teeming hordes in cities, technology that used FF-powered machines, helped to accomplish that task. Thus, the use of FFs was not “economically-driven” (insinuating that perhaps there was a better option; there wasn’t) but driven by necessity and the known technology at the time.
Uh. “Economics” refers to the way humans allocate resources for survival and reproduction. “Economically driven” means “driven by economics”. When the demand for non-food energy exceeded the supply of wood, coal was economically the better option. The first commercial coal-fired steam engine was used to pump water out of a flooded coal mine in 1711, increasing production and profits. The rest is history, driven by economics. Damn, you’re dense.
nigeljsays
Mr. Know It All @56 I made no reference to using batteries in EV’s to feed the grid. I was assuming the conventional approach of on site storage.
I didnt go into details because this thread is for climate sciency stuff. Read my comment @2 on the FR thread, and notice that battery storage is a reasonable cost up to about 12 hours of storage. Above that I agee its expensive, but 12 hours storage allows a grid with mostly renewable power (wind and solar power) and the remainder could be geothermal, hydro or nuclear power. And battery prices have been dropping quite dramatically, and will fall further although at a flattening curve.
Chucksays
Mr. Know It All and Poet-Engineer, Thank you for your answers.
Anderson explains just how ridiculous BECCS is. Every year, we put 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. About half is captured by oceans and plants. The other half just builds up in the atmosphere, hence our CO2 concentration keeps going up.
BECCS technology does not exist. But the models assume that we’re going to build the technology to absorb between 10 and 20 billion tonnes CO2 every year. “That’s like bolting on another planet,” Anderson says.
“Virtually every single model that advises governments does this. Not just our government, but all governments. Because if you don’t do this, it’s a bit challenging for people like us and we won’t vote the politicians back in. That’s the belief.”
Of course, this all supports ongoing fossil-fuel use to 2100 and beyond. “It also masks the need for social change,” Anderson says. “We’re all pleased about that, because the last thing we want is people like us to have to change our lives.”
Going back to Richard Feynman, Anderson asks, “Are we trying to fool nature?” and replies, “I think we are completely trying to fool nature. And we know deep down that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.”
COP can be likened to an ocean gyre with the ‘axis of evil’, Machiavellian subterfuge and naïve optimism circulating with other climate flotsam and with nothing tangible escaping from it. Twenty-four COPs on, questions must surely be asked as to whether continuing with these high-carbon jamborees serves a worthwhile purpose or not? Thus far the incremental gains delivered by the yearly COPs are completely dwarfed by the annual build-up of atmospheric carbon emissions. In some respects the Paris Agreement hinted at a potential step change – but this moment of hope has quickly given way to Byzantine technocracy – the rulebook, stocktaking, financial scams, etc.; not yet a hint of mitigation or ethical conscience.
For the nuclear-discussion: back in 2003, UK said: nuclear power is too expensive (found that information on Wikipedia, but without a link a whitebook (?) was mentioned).
Look at how slow countries like norway are on their new nuclear power plants.
And look at how much effort it is to do the “Rückbau”. Of course the costs could just be shifted to the people, while the money goes to the energy-companies… then nuclear power is “cheap” ;-)
There were massive “Subventionen” over decades, to make nuclear power “cheap” – the tax payer has financed it though…
Al Bundysays
MARodger: I haven’t met a good real-world analogy for that mechanism, yet.
AB: OK, I’ll try something…
Imagine standing in a field on a cool night. Above you is an infrared heat lamp suspended by a wire from a crane.
The heat lamp is the sum of the whole sky’s CO2 molecules and is located at the median distance all of the CO2 molecules that are directly pelting you with infrared. Relay molecules don’t count. Just the CO2 molecules than peg it at the plate. More CO2 molecules means that the ones that warm you directly will be closer, just like the infrared lamp.
A consensus is emerging on accelerating ice loss in Greenland.
Gee, what a surprise! That hadn’t been warned about…
From the article:
The sheet’s total losses nearly doubled each decade, from 33 billion tons per year in the 1990s to an average now of 254 billion tons annually.
Doubling every ten years. Hmmm… While you idiots go on and on about denial and nuclear, destroying the usefulness of these fora, real issues are out there to be discussed. But, as has been the case here for four or five years, far too many substantive articles posted get scant attention.
But, all, please note: 10-year doublings today will be 5-year doublings tomorrow. More pointedly, if the AVERAGE over those decades is 10-year doublings, then the reality is that the recent rates are moving quickly towards that 5-year doublings rate already.
Someone care to do the calculations on SLR?
Thomassays
“The sceptics, they say that climate has always changed, we know it’s always changed, but this is extreme change that is off the charts.”
Everywhere the word “unprecedented” is being used more often.
Rush to save ancient rainforests that are burning for THE FIRST TIME EVER.
The rainforests from northern New South Wales to southern Queensland, are remnants of Gondwana, the ancient supercontinent that broke up about 180 million years ago.
These forests have been wet environments for thousands of years, but sadly because it’s so dry bushfires have taken hold in a rainforest on the north coast of NSW.
The rainforest at the Nightcap National Park was part of a four year protest to ‘save the forest’ in the 1970’s. But with the lack of rain the sub-tropical rainforests are at risk of being destroyed by fire.
Al Bundy @67,
Sorry. Your analogy (or perhaps more correctly ‘description’) misses the point that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, while bringing those CO2 molecules that warm you closer; they will also absorb the IR from farther-away CO2. The ones farther-away will no longer be warming you and the quantity of CO2 that can see you when it fires its IR remains constant – the warming IR remains constant – effectively you are surrounded by CO2 and remain surrounded by CO2. It is only the climate response to the reduced IR emission out into space than allows the atmosphere to warm and this warmer atmosphere in turn results in more IR from each CO2 molecule.
Chucksays
Killian – “please note: 10-year doublings today will be 5-year doublings tomorrow. More pointedly, if the AVERAGE over those decades is 10-year doublings, then the reality is that the recent rates are moving quickly towards that 5-year doublings rate already.”
CH I’ve always thought the projected rate of SLR was bunk. Your paragraph above is a great illustration of just why that is. The fact that all of the feedback processes are accelerating doesn’t seem to be part of the overall calculations from the IPCC.
Any future projections from Climate “experts” should also take into account that BECCS DOES NOT EXIST! Many people aren’t including that factoid in their rosy scenarios of future Climate impacts.
Dan H.says
MA @ 71,
You beat me to the response. The IR heat lamp would more closely mimic the sun’s incoming energy, especially considering that it is only moving in one direction. The CO2 molecules will be absorbing and emitting radiation in all directions. Additional CO2 molecules will do as you say. Quantifying this effect becomes tedious, as it would require calculating all the IR energy values, along with the absorbances of all the atmospheric molecules (both incoming and outgoing).
Basically, all the analogies are imperfect. I would stick with the imperfect greenhouse, as most people understand the basic concept of a greenhouse, even though it behaves significantly different from the atmosphere.
zebrasays
#71 MAR,
Analogy: Half-silvered mirrors, stacked by spacers that undergo thermal expansion.
The problem is, any analogy that captures the reality is going to be as inaccessible to the typical person as the thing itself.
Some math guy said something like that about some math thing, no?
I was on my Senators Facebook page looking at a thread on AGW and a contrarian posted this link to a Finnish study which claims global warming is almost entirely a matter of cloud cover variations. I tried a search on this site with no luck. Any comments?
New regional and winter season measurements of ecosystem carbon dioxide flux independently indicate that permafrost region ecosystems are releasing net carbon (potentially 0.3 to 0.6 Pg C per year) to the atmosphere. These observations signify that the feedback to accelerating climate change may already be underway.
Killiansays
Oops… That was from the Arctic Report Card.
Al Bundysays
MAR,
yep. Science is concerned with the CO2 molecules way up that are slinging energy to space; humans are concerned with the CO2 molecules near the surface that are slinging energy at us. Thus, any analogy must deal with diametrically opposed foci. My momentary-and-changing choice, “ef science”, is but one of many choices.
KMcK’s ‘black paint in water’ is evocative, but it too leaves out the back-scatter of blackbody radiation by CO2.
A feature, not a bug, in the sense that that analogy is meant to be a specific answer to the “400 ppm is tiny, Tiny, TINY I tell you!” meme. It’s not meant to be a model of how the GHE works.
[For those who missed it the first time and don’t want to scroll back up, the analogy was that 400 ppm in a roughly Olympic-sized pool of 500,000 gallons equates to 200 gallons of black paint. (Or whatever color you think will most disgust your interlocutor.)]
Further to my last comment on Mal’s #54, and generalizing, perhaps it’s worth recalling the advice given to parents not to over-explain in answers. The classic example is answering “Where did baby sister come from?” with a whole treatise on reproduction, when more often than not something much crisper, such as “Mommy grew her inside her body–that’s what mommies do,” would be more satisfactory.
Maybe the person you’re speaking to needs or wants a whole explanation of the GHE. More likely not. Only way to be sure is to listen closely to them, and maybe ask a few clarifying questions.
Then again, it’s quite possible that I’m exemplifying over-explanation in this very comment.
nigeljsays
George Cleveland @76, the essence of the research you quote is the old claim that galactic cosmic rays control the earths climate and are causing the warming period since the 1980’s. This has been debunked over and over, and here is some brand new research doing some more debunking:
George Cleveland
In the very Finnish news story you cite, they note:
“The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.”
All that’s missing is the “Oh, snap!” The fact that the only reference was an arxiv link, there is no journal citation is sufficient to cast doubt on the paper. If you actually look at it, it is a wonderful example of “so bad, it’s not even wrong.” Bullshit is forever.
Killiansays
Re #72 Chuck said Killian – “please note: 10-year doublings today will be 5-year doublings tomorrow. More pointedly, if the AVERAGE over those decades is 10-year doublings, then the reality is that the recent rates are moving quickly towards that 5-year doublings rate already.”
CH I’ve always thought the projected rate of SLR was bunk. Your paragraph above is a great illustration of just why that is. The fact that all of the feedback processes are accelerating doesn’t seem to be part of the overall calculations from the IPCC.
Any future projections from Climate “experts” should also take into account that BECCS DOES NOT EXIST! Many people aren’t including that factoid in their rosy scenarios of future Climate impacts.
Generally agree, but the “experts” is a bit insulting to the scientists and is not helpful nor accurate. But, yes, I have been saying this since 2007, that we need to look at the science not as static snapshots, but in terms of the worst case scenario precisely because the worst case is an existential threat to society, if not humanity, so the only sane response is to act as if the worst case is certain and work to mitigate it so it ceases to be certain.
On current trajectory, it’s guaranteed.
Some actually are starting to sy this, though they be very late to the party.
Careful, though, the regulars here don’t abide truth to power when it comes to their domination of these boards with tertiary b.s.
Further to my last comment on Mal’s #54, and generalizing, perhaps it’s worth recalling the advice given to parents not to over-explain in answers. The classic example is answering “Where did baby sister come from?” with a whole treatise on reproduction, when more often than not something much crisper, such as “Mommy grew her inside her body–that’s what mommies do,” would be more satisfactory.”
Heh. Like I said, it depends on how unscientific Clark’s friends are 8^D!
KMcK:
Maybe the person you’re speaking to needs or wants a whole explanation of the GHE. More likely not. Only way to be sure is to listen closely to them, and maybe ask a few clarifying questions.
Then again, it’s quite possible that I’m exemplifying over-explanation in this very comment.
I wouldn’t say that. Clark is here asking for advice on explaining AGW to his not-so-scientific friends. IMHO your points are well-taken, as usual. Are we even done with this yet ;^)?
Andrewsays
This is a very good interview by Nick Breeze of Dr. Peter Carter, Director of the Climate Emergency Institute and IPCC expert reviewer, at the COP25.
Dr. Carter expresses his concerns about how climate science was mostly absent from the COP25 talks, and how little was achieved.
a contrarian posted this link to a Finnish study which claims global warming is almost entirely a matter of cloud cover variations. I tried a search on this site with no luck. Any comments?
I predict you’ll get a few. IMHO the claim is nonsense, although I suppose “almost entirely” is a wide loophole. What is true is that uncertainty around the influence of clouds, figures in the inability of current models to narrow the range of ECS estimates further. Russell Seitz, for one, complains about the failure of ECS to converge, like it’s a fatal flaw in the whole modelling enterprise. I say the low end of the current confidence limits is plenty scary enough.
We talked a bit about that paper a while back. But it rather speaks volumes that the authors claim that climate models aren’t to be trusted because, well, they’re models, but then use a modeled result themselves. Logic… or not.
Guest (O.)says
@Kevin McKinney, #80: Under good conditions, Uranin/Fluorescein can be seen with 0.01 ppm in water. Under bad conditions, 0.1 ppm needed. Took me a while to find out the data, but when people say 400 ppm CO2 can have no effect, this is the right answer for their nonsense.
CCHolleysays
George Clevland @76
Here is a critique of the Finnish paper:
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Greenland’s ice sheet melting seven times faster than in 1990s
Greenland’s ice sheet is melting much faster than previously thought, threatening hundreds of millions of people with inundation and bringing some of the irreversible impacts of the climate emergency much closer.
Ice is being lost from Greenland seven times faster than it was in the 1990s, and the scale and speed of ice loss is much higher than was predicted in the comprehensive studies of global climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to data.
Greenland and the Arctic are simply in meltdown. There was a recent discussion about how accurate the models have been and I think that is true if you look at relatively simple big measurements like global temp rise, but I think there may be a lot of catastrophic features of global warming that the models have failed to warn us about, like loss of sea ice and Greenland melt, just to mention two important features.
I think it’s reasonable to look at the influx of cold fresh water from Greenland melt and wonder, hmm… What about AMOC? Isn’t it reasonable to expect faster slowdown of AMOC along with faster melt of Greenland ice?
No reason to panic, of course. Some folks have calculated that acceleration of our atmospheric CO2 adventure has peaked. If we can move from accelerating CO2 accumulation to simple straight line increase, we have achieved something important. I think it would be smart to push for net zero as soon as possible, maybe faster.
Warm regards
Mike
George Clevelandsays
CCHolley@92
Thank you. I’ll post this on Sen. Baldwin’s website.
Guest (O.)says
Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?
This was a article/discussion on this forum.
I asked for the data and got a newer link (I think from Gavin), and should look at gergs.net.
At that time I downloaded the dataset “All_palaeotemps.xlsx” as well as the webpage that linked to the dataset.
Later I tried to look at the data. I could open it, but got the message that not all data can be displayed, because of too much columns per sheet.
So, as an interested non-climatologist who would like to make a good graph from the data, I would need to have easy access to the data.
And that means: I would like to have ASCII-based datasets, so that no such problems would occur (dependency on certain software to open the data-file).
So I just thought about: either asking here again, or asking at gergs.net.
After looking here for a while and thinking about it, I decided to look at gergs.net, and maybe ask there to get the data ascii-based.
So I looked at gergs.net, and the page gave me a database error.
What a mess, what a shit.
If “Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?” is not a rhetoric question, but a wish to make better graphs, please provide the data in an easy accessible way. Then volunteers can jump in and try their best to make good graphs.
But if it’s a nightmare to just get the data needed for the graphs, then the mourning about bad graphs can’t be taken seriously, IMO.
George Cleveland @76,
You ask for comment about a non-peer-reviewed publication Kauppinen & Malmi (2019) and link to a set of critiques from proper climatologists has been provided @92. Myself, I don’t consider this entirely explains the level of nonsense within Kauppinen & Malmi (2019).
It is evident that the paper, as well as being packed full of gross error, actually sets out nothing but the findings of papers written by the same authors, one of which is yet-to-be-published. Those which have been published (but still not peer-reviewed) comprise Kauppinen et al (2011), Kauppinen et al (2014)[Abstract] and Kauppinen & Malmi (2018). So there is quite a pile of junk science concocted by these denialist fools. And none of it in any way is worth the paper/diodes it is written on.
GISTEMP have posted for November with an anomaly of +1.02ºC, the =2nd warmest anomaly of the year-to-date, equaling both October and April. The year-to-date anomalies span from +0.86ºC up to +1.18ºC, averaging +0.97ºC.
Globally, it is the second warmest November in GISTEMP record behind of 2015 (+1.06ºC) while ahead of 2016(+0.90ºC), 2017 (+0.88ºC), 2013 (+0.85ºC), 2010 & 2018 (both +0.82ºC) and 2009 (+0.80ºC).
It is =12th highest anomaly on the all-month GISTEMP record.
With just December to go to complete the year, 2019 will be in 2nd place for the year-to-date. To drop to 3rd place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Dec to average less than a chilly +0.38ºC, something last seen in 2000. To gain 1st place above 2016 would require Dec to average a ridiculously steamy +1.47ºC. (The highest Dec average to-date was +1.16ºC in 2015.)
One of the strange things with the surface temperature records over recent decades has been the remarkably linear rate of warming (see here for the HadCRUT record- usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’}. But now, with the warmest years on record also last five years 2015-19 and now (because 2014 sits in 6th place) a +0.1ºC gap between these years and the rest, there is perhaps the thought that we may be seeing the start of an acceleration. Certainly in GISTEMP these last 5 years sit well above the linear trend of the pervious nine half-decades. Tamino has a post looking at the signs of acceleration in SAT records (prompted by the acceleration evident in the ERA5 reanalysis data) which shows GISTEMP with an acceleration over the period 1979-2019 that is almost significant at 2sd. Yet I do not see evidence (beyond ERA5) pointing to any acceleration prior to 2014, suggesting that it is these last five years alone which provide enough of a step up in global temperature to impose that ‘almost-significant’ acceleration onto the 40-year record.
So I await 2020 with some intrepidation.
Al Bundysays
KM: This is the point at which mass market electric vehicles (BEVs) are expected to reach sticker price parity with “equivalent” combustion vehicles,…”
AB: You have direct personal knowledge that those references are NOT TRUE (as in the ludicrous claim that BEVs WILL improve and ICEs WILL NOT improve). Yet you use those references that you MUST have serious questions about. Why?
Al Bundysays
Ray Ladbury: a wonderful example of “so bad, it’s not even wrong.” Bullshit is forever.
AB: Duh. That’s why bullshit wins. Thus, if you wanna win, spout nothing but bullshit. (At least in this particular slice of planetary life)
____________________
Killian: Careful, though, the regulars here don’t abide truth to power when it comes to their domination of these boards with tertiary b.s.
AB: No. MOST of the folks here share your view about the wall humanity is “destined” to hit. But MOST folks are repulsed by your claim to be the one-and-only-first-and-most-special holder of said beliefs. The result is argument based on PERSONALITY, not factoids.
_______
Mal Adapted: Are we even done with this yet ;^)?
AB: Uh, “discussions” end when everyone involved dies. “Cohort replacement” is the standard way to end arguments. So you’d be way more effective by doing a Donald Trump on 5th Avenue than by spouting irrelevant truths here. (Note that such activities are being seriously contemplated by GOPpers)
Al Bundysays
Mal,
To dig deeper, it is an absolute fact that if 5 Supreme Court justices, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and whomever else is in line above Nancy Pelosi died in their sleep tonight the world might be saved.
So, do you press that button? And how does that choice “rate” you in comparison to E-P’s “Kill, enslave, or doom to abject poverty all non-white people”?
And yeah, I’d probably prove my evil core by pressing said button.
KM copies and pastes “BNEF projects that the overall industry’s cost reductions will continue, with $100/kWh at the pack level likely to be reached by around 2023… This is the point at which mass market electric vehicles (BEVs) are expected to reach sticker price parity with “equivalent” combustion vehicles,…”
Hmmm this would make wind and solar power with battery storage (say 12 hours) financially viable as well…. throw in some nuclear power and wide area grids to close the occasional longer periods of intermittency and we are home dry. I wont print a whole lot of numbers, this is not the thread for it.
Well worth reading: https://newleftreview.org/issues/II58/articles/kenneth-pomeranz-the-great-himalayan-watershed
#46 Thank you. Re: those graphs: so the job is to run to where the ball is going to be. We could easily stack a lot of breaking news on top of that, as you know. Looking at the final paragraphs here.
https://www.gm.com/masthead-story/GM-LG-battery-technology.html?socid=sf225351541_GM%20United%20States_TW_GM_05122019
Clark Lampson:
Your basic problem is that ‘greenhouse’ is an imperfect analogy, like all of them. KMcK’s ‘black paint in water’ is evocative, but it too leaves out the back-scatter of blackbody radiation by CO2. IMHO the ‘layers of blankets’ model is better, although it involves heat conductance and convection, not radiation primarily. Depending on just how un-scientific your friends are, this 2016 RC post might be sufficiently accessible. You can probably simplify it even more for them if not. OTOH, the global energy balance graphic, linked from IPCC AR4, bypasses verbal metaphors altogether ;^).
Me again (gotta get me an editor):
Well, this is awkward: the IPCC graphic does refer to back radiation from “greenhouse gases”. It’s a difficult analogy to avoid, apparently. Perhaps Mr. Lampson should tell his friends to replace that with “CO2, CH4, N2O and a few other, minor IR-absorbing gases” instead 8^}.
432 – Mal
“…. In the last three centuries, however, economically-driven transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere, much faster than it can be drawn down by the land and oceans, has greatly enhanced the greenhouse effect.”
Partly correct. The use of fossil carbon was not “economically-driven”, it was driven by necessity for survival. Europeans cut most of the wood required to provide heat, so they had to use something else – coal. Then, to feed the teeming hordes in cities, technology that used FF-powered machines, helped to accomplish that task. Thus, the use of FFs was not “economically-driven” (insinuating that perhaps there was a better option; there wasn’t) but driven by necessity and the known technology at the time.
51 – nigelj
“..Hmmm this would make wind and solar power with battery storage (say 12 hours) financially viable as well…. throw in some nuclear power and wide area grids to close the occasional longer periods of intermittency and we are home dry. I wont print a whole lot of numbers, this is not the thread for it.”
You’re boss isn’t going to be impressed when you don’t show up to work because the grid sucked all the juice out of your EV battery! If this isn’t the proper thread for those pesky numbers, which one is?! You keep saying IF there were enough storage, RE would work fine. Fact is there isn’t enough, and there isn’t going to be enough in the future. Run the numbers, this is a science website – we can handle it.
Re #33 Engineer-Poet said Dr. James Hansen advocating the use of (next-gen) nuclear fission at COP25
So what? He’s still wrong on an issue? Happens. People all have areas of ignorance. For him, and all but 3 that I know of, the issue is no training in regenerative systems. They are naturally science-tech leaning. No surprise.
But this is why it is a mistake to look to climate scientists for solutions; they simply do not look at the world from the perspective of the principles, patterns and functions of ecosystems. Love their work on science of the meta – climate – and physics of the system, but the natural aspects of it are simply not in their wheel houses.
The CO2 watchers will be aware that NOAA have published the MLO CO2 value for November which yields an annual increase of 2.27ppm/yr.
The global CO2 value for September has also been published although this will be subject to significant revision over coming months. (August was first published yielding an annual rise of 2.87ppm/yr which a month on has been revised down to 2.56ppm/yr.)
And there is also the daily ‘Estimated Global Trend’ which is highly smoothed and with the most recent few months-worth of values also subject to a great amount of revision. The annual rise in this daily ‘Estimated Global Trend’ data is graphed out here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) showing annual rise (light blue tace) and acceleration (black trace).
So how is the global CO2 rise running?
With revisions being so significant, the final result may be much different but, since the start of 2018 when the acceleration of the global CO2 rise went positive, it looks like the acceleration has peaked (for the second time) allowing the hope that we may be seeing an end to this acceleration wobble and the arrival of some deceleration.
(On the graph, the end of the light blue ‘annual rise’ trace waggles around like an eel so the value presently graphed [which is +2.74ppm/yr] isn’t very meaningful.)
Clark Lampson @44,
The actual AGW mechanism (see this RealClimate post) isn’t well described by either a greenhouse or a blanket analogy. The increase in CO2 levels doesn’t itself insulate the globe by presenting an insulation barrier of greater thickness. What is important is the parts of the atmosphere where an emitted photon has a clear shot at space. Because cold stuff emits less photons and because the atmosphere gets colder the higher you go, by adding more CO2 you put the clear shot at space higher in the atmosphere and thus colder. Being colder it will emit less photons so less energy escapes and the planet will have to warm to bring energy-out into balance with energy-in.
I haven’t met a good real-world analogy for that mechanism, yet.
Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
Uh. “Economics” refers to the way humans allocate resources for survival and reproduction. “Economically driven” means “driven by economics”. When the demand for non-food energy exceeded the supply of wood, coal was economically the better option. The first commercial coal-fired steam engine was used to pump water out of a flooded coal mine in 1711, increasing production and profits. The rest is history, driven by economics. Damn, you’re dense.
Mr. Know It All @56 I made no reference to using batteries in EV’s to feed the grid. I was assuming the conventional approach of on site storage.
I didnt go into details because this thread is for climate sciency stuff. Read my comment @2 on the FR thread, and notice that battery storage is a reasonable cost up to about 12 hours of storage. Above that I agee its expensive, but 12 hours storage allows a grid with mostly renewable power (wind and solar power) and the remainder could be geothermal, hydro or nuclear power. And battery prices have been dropping quite dramatically, and will fall further although at a flattening curve.
Mr. Know It All and Poet-Engineer, Thank you for your answers.
Killian @57: I’ve posted my comprehensive response to you over at Forced Responses.
Anderson explains just how ridiculous BECCS is. Every year, we put 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. About half is captured by oceans and plants. The other half just builds up in the atmosphere, hence our CO2 concentration keeps going up.
BECCS technology does not exist. But the models assume that we’re going to build the technology to absorb between 10 and 20 billion tonnes CO2 every year. “That’s like bolting on another planet,” Anderson says.
“Virtually every single model that advises governments does this. Not just our government, but all governments. Because if you don’t do this, it’s a bit challenging for people like us and we won’t vote the politicians back in. That’s the belief.”
Of course, this all supports ongoing fossil-fuel use to 2100 and beyond. “It also masks the need for social change,” Anderson says. “We’re all pleased about that, because the last thing we want is people like us to have to change our lives.”
Going back to Richard Feynman, Anderson asks, “Are we trying to fool nature?” and replies, “I think we are completely trying to fool nature. And we know deep down that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.”
https://redd-monitor.org/2019/09/05/nature-cannot-be-fooled-kevin-anderson-on-mitigation-as-if-climate-mattered/
COP can be likened to an ocean gyre with the ‘axis of evil’, Machiavellian subterfuge and naïve optimism circulating with other climate flotsam and with nothing tangible escaping from it. Twenty-four COPs on, questions must surely be asked as to whether continuing with these high-carbon jamborees serves a worthwhile purpose or not? Thus far the incremental gains delivered by the yearly COPs are completely dwarfed by the annual build-up of atmospheric carbon emissions. In some respects the Paris Agreement hinted at a potential step change – but this moment of hope has quickly given way to Byzantine technocracy – the rulebook, stocktaking, financial scams, etc.; not yet a hint of mitigation or ethical conscience.
https://kevinanderson.info/blog/category/quick-comment/
For the nuclear-discussion: back in 2003, UK said: nuclear power is too expensive (found that information on Wikipedia, but without a link a whitebook (?) was mentioned).
Just looked for the topic and found two articles:
New nuclear power in UK would be the world’s most costly, says report
Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report
Look at how slow countries like norway are on their new nuclear power plants.
And look at how much effort it is to do the “Rückbau”. Of course the costs could just be shifted to the people, while the money goes to the energy-companies… then nuclear power is “cheap” ;-)
There were massive “Subventionen” over decades, to make nuclear power “cheap” – the tax payer has financed it though…
MARodger: I haven’t met a good real-world analogy for that mechanism, yet.
AB: OK, I’ll try something…
Imagine standing in a field on a cool night. Above you is an infrared heat lamp suspended by a wire from a crane.
The heat lamp is the sum of the whole sky’s CO2 molecules and is located at the median distance all of the CO2 molecules that are directly pelting you with infrared. Relay molecules don’t count. Just the CO2 molecules than peg it at the plate. More CO2 molecules means that the ones that warm you directly will be closer, just like the infrared lamp.
Eh, it’s something…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/118102479/greenlands-ice-losses-rapidly-accelerate-hit-highest-sealevel-rise-projection
A consensus is emerging on accelerating ice loss in Greenland.
Re 68 nigelj said https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/118102479/greenlands-ice-losses-rapidly-accelerate-hit-highest-sealevel-rise-projection
A consensus is emerging on accelerating ice loss in Greenland.
Gee, what a surprise! That hadn’t been warned about…
From the article:
Doubling every ten years. Hmmm… While you idiots go on and on about denial and nuclear, destroying the usefulness of these fora, real issues are out there to be discussed. But, as has been the case here for four or five years, far too many substantive articles posted get scant attention.
But, all, please note: 10-year doublings today will be 5-year doublings tomorrow. More pointedly, if the AVERAGE over those decades is 10-year doublings, then the reality is that the recent rates are moving quickly towards that 5-year doublings rate already.
Someone care to do the calculations on SLR?
“The sceptics, they say that climate has always changed, we know it’s always changed, but this is extreme change that is off the charts.”
Everywhere the word “unprecedented” is being used more often.
Rush to save ancient rainforests that are burning for THE FIRST TIME EVER.
The rainforests from northern New South Wales to southern Queensland, are remnants of Gondwana, the ancient supercontinent that broke up about 180 million years ago.
These forests have been wet environments for thousands of years, but sadly because it’s so dry bushfires have taken hold in a rainforest on the north coast of NSW.
The rainforest at the Nightcap National Park was part of a four year protest to ‘save the forest’ in the 1970’s. But with the lack of rain the sub-tropical rainforests are at risk of being destroyed by fire.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-09/mt-nardi-fire-community-defenders/11766036
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/australia-wide/australia-wide/11763550
Chris Patten on “leadership” (incl AGW/CC) last Hong Kong Governor
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/leadership-in-uncertain-times/11770642
Why Climate Change Denial persists (Swedish studies) – “Ecological Masculinities: The studies showed the overlap between Right-Wing nationalists and Industrial Bread-Winner Masculinity.”
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/why-climate-change-denial-persists/11729332
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/origins-of-climate-denial-tracked/11774514
Al Bundy @67,
Sorry. Your analogy (or perhaps more correctly ‘description’) misses the point that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, while bringing those CO2 molecules that warm you closer; they will also absorb the IR from farther-away CO2. The ones farther-away will no longer be warming you and the quantity of CO2 that can see you when it fires its IR remains constant – the warming IR remains constant – effectively you are surrounded by CO2 and remain surrounded by CO2. It is only the climate response to the reduced IR emission out into space than allows the atmosphere to warm and this warmer atmosphere in turn results in more IR from each CO2 molecule.
Killian – “please note: 10-year doublings today will be 5-year doublings tomorrow. More pointedly, if the AVERAGE over those decades is 10-year doublings, then the reality is that the recent rates are moving quickly towards that 5-year doublings rate already.”
CH I’ve always thought the projected rate of SLR was bunk. Your paragraph above is a great illustration of just why that is. The fact that all of the feedback processes are accelerating doesn’t seem to be part of the overall calculations from the IPCC.
Any future projections from Climate “experts” should also take into account that BECCS DOES NOT EXIST! Many people aren’t including that factoid in their rosy scenarios of future Climate impacts.
MA @ 71,
You beat me to the response. The IR heat lamp would more closely mimic the sun’s incoming energy, especially considering that it is only moving in one direction. The CO2 molecules will be absorbing and emitting radiation in all directions. Additional CO2 molecules will do as you say. Quantifying this effect becomes tedious, as it would require calculating all the IR energy values, along with the absorbances of all the atmospheric molecules (both incoming and outgoing).
Basically, all the analogies are imperfect. I would stick with the imperfect greenhouse, as most people understand the basic concept of a greenhouse, even though it behaves significantly different from the atmosphere.
#71 MAR,
Analogy: Half-silvered mirrors, stacked by spacers that undergo thermal expansion.
The problem is, any analogy that captures the reality is going to be as inaccessible to the typical person as the thing itself.
Some math guy said something like that about some math thing, no?
New today, a review article in Science: Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change, by an international list of authors. The title is a mini-abstract. The prospect is gloomy, yet hope springs eternal. Your mileage may vary, however.
I was on my Senators Facebook page looking at a thread on AGW and a contrarian posted this link to a Finnish study which claims global warming is almost entirely a matter of cloud cover variations. I tried a search on this site with no luck. Any comments?
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html?fbclid=IwAR1pM40hqn31w4LQsJfB-CIQFWkMyU5eZP0znq3P0NLLpb6rYZ5NaJ3uX30
Dear Gavin and David,
Tried to tell you…
Oops… That was from the Arctic Report Card.
MAR,
yep. Science is concerned with the CO2 molecules way up that are slinging energy to space; humans are concerned with the CO2 molecules near the surface that are slinging energy at us. Thus, any analogy must deal with diametrically opposed foci. My momentary-and-changing choice, “ef science”, is but one of many choices.
Mal, #54–
A feature, not a bug, in the sense that that analogy is meant to be a specific answer to the “400 ppm is tiny, Tiny, TINY I tell you!” meme. It’s not meant to be a model of how the GHE works.
[For those who missed it the first time and don’t want to scroll back up, the analogy was that 400 ppm in a roughly Olympic-sized pool of 500,000 gallons equates to 200 gallons of black paint. (Or whatever color you think will most disgust your interlocutor.)]
Further to my last comment on Mal’s #54, and generalizing, perhaps it’s worth recalling the advice given to parents not to over-explain in answers. The classic example is answering “Where did baby sister come from?” with a whole treatise on reproduction, when more often than not something much crisper, such as “Mommy grew her inside her body–that’s what mommies do,” would be more satisfactory.
Maybe the person you’re speaking to needs or wants a whole explanation of the GHE. More likely not. Only way to be sure is to listen closely to them, and maybe ask a few clarifying questions.
Then again, it’s quite possible that I’m exemplifying over-explanation in this very comment.
George Cleveland @76, the essence of the research you quote is the old claim that galactic cosmic rays control the earths climate and are causing the warming period since the 1980’s. This has been debunked over and over, and here is some brand new research doing some more debunking:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818119305806?dgcid=rss_sd_all
George Cleveland was on a senator’s page…
…and found total garbage. Go figure, eh?
George, morons exist. Deal with it.
George Cleveland @76, climatefeedback has already dealt with that:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
George Cleveland
In the very Finnish news story you cite, they note:
“The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.”
All that’s missing is the “Oh, snap!” The fact that the only reference was an arxiv link, there is no journal citation is sufficient to cast doubt on the paper. If you actually look at it, it is a wonderful example of “so bad, it’s not even wrong.” Bullshit is forever.
Re #72 Chuck said Killian – “please note: 10-year doublings today will be 5-year doublings tomorrow. More pointedly, if the AVERAGE over those decades is 10-year doublings, then the reality is that the recent rates are moving quickly towards that 5-year doublings rate already.”
CH I’ve always thought the projected rate of SLR was bunk. Your paragraph above is a great illustration of just why that is. The fact that all of the feedback processes are accelerating doesn’t seem to be part of the overall calculations from the IPCC.
Any future projections from Climate “experts” should also take into account that BECCS DOES NOT EXIST! Many people aren’t including that factoid in their rosy scenarios of future Climate impacts.
Generally agree, but the “experts” is a bit insulting to the scientists and is not helpful nor accurate. But, yes, I have been saying this since 2007, that we need to look at the science not as static snapshots, but in terms of the worst case scenario precisely because the worst case is an existential threat to society, if not humanity, so the only sane response is to act as if the worst case is certain and work to mitigate it so it ceases to be certain.
On current trajectory, it’s guaranteed.
Some actually are starting to sy this, though they be very late to the party.
Careful, though, the regulars here don’t abide truth to power when it comes to their domination of these boards with tertiary b.s.
Kevin McKinney:
Heh. Like I said, it depends on how unscientific Clark’s friends are 8^D!
KMcK:
I wouldn’t say that. Clark is here asking for advice on explaining AGW to his not-so-scientific friends. IMHO your points are well-taken, as usual. Are we even done with this yet ;^)?
This is a very good interview by Nick Breeze of Dr. Peter Carter, Director of the Climate Emergency Institute and IPCC expert reviewer, at the COP25.
Dr. Carter expresses his concerns about how climate science was mostly absent from the COP25 talks, and how little was achieved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s
George Cleveland:
I predict you’ll get a few. IMHO the claim is nonsense, although I suppose “almost entirely” is a wide loophole. What is true is that uncertainty around the influence of clouds, figures in the inability of current models to narrow the range of ECS estimates further. Russell Seitz, for one, complains about the failure of ECS to converge, like it’s a fatal flaw in the whole modelling enterprise. I say the low end of the current confidence limits is plenty scary enough.
#76, GC–
We talked a bit about that paper a while back. But it rather speaks volumes that the authors claim that climate models aren’t to be trusted because, well, they’re models, but then use a modeled result themselves. Logic… or not.
@Kevin McKinney, #80: Under good conditions, Uranin/Fluorescein can be seen with 0.01 ppm in water. Under bad conditions, 0.1 ppm needed. Took me a while to find out the data, but when people say 400 ppm CO2 can have no effect, this is the right answer for their nonsense.
George Clevland @76
Here is a critique of the Finnish paper:
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
File under FASTER THAN EXPECTED:
Greenland’s ice sheet melting seven times faster than in 1990s
Greenland’s ice sheet is melting much faster than previously thought, threatening hundreds of millions of people with inundation and bringing some of the irreversible impacts of the climate emergency much closer.
Ice is being lost from Greenland seven times faster than it was in the 1990s, and the scale and speed of ice loss is much higher than was predicted in the comprehensive studies of global climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to data.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-seven-times-faster-than-in-1990s?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0dyZWVuTGlnaHQtMTkxMjE2&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email&utm_campaign=GreenLight
Greenland and the Arctic are simply in meltdown. There was a recent discussion about how accurate the models have been and I think that is true if you look at relatively simple big measurements like global temp rise, but I think there may be a lot of catastrophic features of global warming that the models have failed to warn us about, like loss of sea ice and Greenland melt, just to mention two important features.
I think it’s reasonable to look at the influx of cold fresh water from Greenland melt and wonder, hmm… What about AMOC? Isn’t it reasonable to expect faster slowdown of AMOC along with faster melt of Greenland ice?
No reason to panic, of course. Some folks have calculated that acceleration of our atmospheric CO2 adventure has peaked. If we can move from accelerating CO2 accumulation to simple straight line increase, we have achieved something important. I think it would be smart to push for net zero as soon as possible, maybe faster.
Warm regards
Mike
CCHolley@92
Thank you. I’ll post this on Sen. Baldwin’s website.
Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?
This was a article/discussion on this forum.
I asked for the data and got a newer link (I think from Gavin), and should look at gergs.net.
At that time I downloaded the dataset “All_palaeotemps.xlsx” as well as the webpage that linked to the dataset.
Later I tried to look at the data. I could open it, but got the message that not all data can be displayed, because of too much columns per sheet.
So, as an interested non-climatologist who would like to make a good graph from the data, I would need to have easy access to the data.
And that means: I would like to have ASCII-based datasets, so that no such problems would occur (dependency on certain software to open the data-file).
So I just thought about: either asking here again, or asking at gergs.net.
After looking here for a while and thinking about it, I decided to look at gergs.net, and maybe ask there to get the data ascii-based.
So I looked at gergs.net, and the page gave me a database error.
What a mess, what a shit.
If “Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?” is not a rhetoric question, but a wish to make better graphs, please provide the data in an easy accessible way. Then volunteers can jump in and try their best to make good graphs.
But if it’s a nightmare to just get the data needed for the graphs, then the mourning about bad graphs can’t be taken seriously, IMO.
George Cleveland @76,
You ask for comment about a non-peer-reviewed publication Kauppinen & Malmi (2019) and link to a set of critiques from proper climatologists has been provided @92. Myself, I don’t consider this entirely explains the level of nonsense within Kauppinen & Malmi (2019).
It is evident that the paper, as well as being packed full of gross error, actually sets out nothing but the findings of papers written by the same authors, one of which is yet-to-be-published. Those which have been published (but still not peer-reviewed) comprise Kauppinen et al (2011), Kauppinen et al (2014)[Abstract] and Kauppinen & Malmi (2018). So there is quite a pile of junk science concocted by these denialist fools. And none of it in any way is worth the paper/diodes it is written on.
GISTEMP have posted for November with an anomaly of +1.02ºC, the =2nd warmest anomaly of the year-to-date, equaling both October and April. The year-to-date anomalies span from +0.86ºC up to +1.18ºC, averaging +0.97ºC.
Globally, it is the second warmest November in GISTEMP record behind of 2015 (+1.06ºC) while ahead of 2016(+0.90ºC), 2017 (+0.88ºC), 2013 (+0.85ºC), 2010 & 2018 (both +0.82ºC) and 2009 (+0.80ºC).
It is =12th highest anomaly on the all-month GISTEMP record.
With just December to go to complete the year, 2019 will be in 2nd place for the year-to-date. To drop to 3rd place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Dec to average less than a chilly +0.38ºC, something last seen in 2000. To gain 1st place above 2016 would require Dec to average a ridiculously steamy +1.47ºC. (The highest Dec average to-date was +1.16ºC in 2015.)
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.03ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.97ºC
2017 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 2nd
2015 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 6th
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 5th
2013 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 9th
2009 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 10th
One of the strange things with the surface temperature records over recent decades has been the remarkably linear rate of warming (see here for the HadCRUT record- usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’}. But now, with the warmest years on record also last five years 2015-19 and now (because 2014 sits in 6th place) a +0.1ºC gap between these years and the rest, there is perhaps the thought that we may be seeing the start of an acceleration. Certainly in GISTEMP these last 5 years sit well above the linear trend of the pervious nine half-decades. Tamino has a post looking at the signs of acceleration in SAT records (prompted by the acceleration evident in the ERA5 reanalysis data) which shows GISTEMP with an acceleration over the period 1979-2019 that is almost significant at 2sd. Yet I do not see evidence (beyond ERA5) pointing to any acceleration prior to 2014, suggesting that it is these last five years alone which provide enough of a step up in global temperature to impose that ‘almost-significant’ acceleration onto the 40-year record.
So I await 2020 with some intrepidation.
KM: This is the point at which mass market electric vehicles (BEVs) are expected to reach sticker price parity with “equivalent” combustion vehicles,…”
AB: You have direct personal knowledge that those references are NOT TRUE (as in the ludicrous claim that BEVs WILL improve and ICEs WILL NOT improve). Yet you use those references that you MUST have serious questions about. Why?
Ray Ladbury: a wonderful example of “so bad, it’s not even wrong.” Bullshit is forever.
AB: Duh. That’s why bullshit wins. Thus, if you wanna win, spout nothing but bullshit. (At least in this particular slice of planetary life)
____________________
Killian: Careful, though, the regulars here don’t abide truth to power when it comes to their domination of these boards with tertiary b.s.
AB: No. MOST of the folks here share your view about the wall humanity is “destined” to hit. But MOST folks are repulsed by your claim to be the one-and-only-first-and-most-special holder of said beliefs. The result is argument based on PERSONALITY, not factoids.
_______
Mal Adapted: Are we even done with this yet ;^)?
AB: Uh, “discussions” end when everyone involved dies. “Cohort replacement” is the standard way to end arguments. So you’d be way more effective by doing a Donald Trump on 5th Avenue than by spouting irrelevant truths here. (Note that such activities are being seriously contemplated by GOPpers)
Mal,
To dig deeper, it is an absolute fact that if 5 Supreme Court justices, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and whomever else is in line above Nancy Pelosi died in their sleep tonight the world might be saved.
So, do you press that button? And how does that choice “rate” you in comparison to E-P’s “Kill, enslave, or doom to abject poverty all non-white people”?
And yeah, I’d probably prove my evil core by pressing said button.