There’s a lot to potentially unpack in #98, in which Al asks:
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?
First, the point I was making wasn’t about BEVs versus ICEs, it was about the observed decline in battery costs and the expectation that it will continue, which I regard as pretty robust, since it’s based primarily on the well-established phenomenon of economies of scale. My perspective is that with deployment expanding rapidly, we’re now in what is sometimes termed a “virtuous circle”, in which increasing scale and falling costs form a positive feedback loop.
Second, I *don’t* have “direct personal knowledge that those references are NOT TRUE.” I have your opinion that ICEs may improve enough to compete. It’s duly noted, and I give it some weight. But not so much that I’m going to start second-guessing or editing professional analysts when they give *their* opinion–especially in the light of point #1 above.
I know you are working on some projects to improve ICE tech, and I wish you Godspeed. I know you are a smart and knowledgeable guy, and I know your heart’s in the right place. But soon enough we *will* have relatively direct personal experience of what the marketplace decides vis a vis BEV versus ICE. And that’s when we’ll actually know whether the particular projection I cited was valid or not.
#99–
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)…
I’ve got to push back on that a bit. Yeah, bullshit is forever… but in many cases, its nature becomes self-evident over time. In which case, the bull-shitter loses credibility–an effect limited only by the availability of new suckers. (Which itself tends to be in inverse proportion to the notoriety of the bullshitter–so the bigger the bullshit ‘win’ in the short term, the less sustainable over time.)
So the net effect of bullshit becomes a matter of scale in time and in space.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @98, you are confusing improvements in automobiles with price aren’t you? Its almost not debatable that lithium batteries will fall futher in price, and maybe electric engines as well, with more mass production ramping up, but its hard to see ICE’s falling much in price, although the technology will continue to improve.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @100, “So, do you press that button?” I have asked myself the same question The trouble is another 100 or more evil morons would spout up in their place, especially given the outrage that would follow pressing said button. You would just be left with a guilty conscience, and a worse problem.
However the Dems need to get organised and a bit more ruthless. Of course this is hard when your world view revolves around being nice to people, honest and inclusive.
Bob Loblawsays
The current state of viewing comments at RC is making it almost unreadable. What used to be an occasional bug is now commonplace.
As I try to read comments, this is what happens:
On the main page, Unforced Variations says there are 100 comments. In the Recent Comments area, the last one is from Al Bundy, and the pop-up starts “Mal. To dig deeper…” Click on the comments link, and you get to page 1, where it also says 100 comments. Click on Next (or 2), and you get to a page with only 92 comments. The last one is from CCHolley. The Recent Comments section has now changed.
The “How good have climate models been…” thread is even more bizarre. Main page says there are 103 comments, and that message is the same when you click on Comments and get to page 1. Click on “3”, and you can see comments up to 103 – but if you click on 2, there are only 88 comments visible.
How about “10 years on”? Similar story. 115 comments according to the main page. Only 113 according to pages 2 or 3.
Not a browser issue, as far as I can tell – I’ve tried Firefox from work and home (different operating systems) and a different browser at home.
Something is seriously borked in how the comments are stored and retrieved for display. Whatever is happening, it affects both the comments as displayed, and the comments added to the Recent Comments sidebar.
On the positive side, it probably slows down the rate of postings by “the usual suspects”.
Al Bundysays
Folks,
Did you notice that I took Trump’s Thanos commercial (where his head is perched atop Thanos’ body and the resulting abomination wipes out the Democratic leadership with a snap of his finger) and admitted that I also sin? We’re in this together and none of us are pure evil or pure grace.
Did I just admit that GOPpers are human? O snap.
Thomassays
Australia breaks continental (average) Maximum Temp Record 2 days in a row
Tues 17th 40.9 C
Wed 18th 41.9 C
Maximums hit +49 C in some inland places.
Melbourne City forecast Friday is +44 C – other places much higher.
Current Catastrophic Fire conditions to extend into Saturday.
Total Fire bans almost nation wide, ex-Tasmania.
NSW State has declared a State of Emergency 2nd time in a few weeks.
Military Army/Air Force deployed for direct assistance to Fire Fighters
(an unprecedented action for Bush fires)
~98% of Rural Firefights are everyday unpaid local Volunteers
All are exhausted after two months of non-stop bush fires across the continent
800 homes lost so far and still 4 months to go at least.
Historically ‘wet’ un-burnable Rainforests are tinder dry, even up Far North Queensland in the wet tropics but no fires there (yet.)
Fires in other Sub-Tropical Rainforests (National Parks) are still burning
3 extremely large out of control fires in regions Nth, Sth and west of Sydney are now burning closer toward more populated areas and towns.
Please send rain.
– – –
The Australian summer of 2012–2013, known as the Angry Summer or Extreme Summer, resulted in 123 weather records being broken over a 90-day period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Summer
That is so Passé
PS The Scientists have long said this would happen just like this.
And not only in Australia as you know. I hear Madrid COP25 was Cop-Out.
I’ve expected no better than that for the very very long time.
Next Stop Glasgow and they can then tear up the Paris (Non) Agreement and be done with it.
mikesays
post test
Ray Ladburysays
Kevin McKinney: “I’ve got to push back on that a bit. Yeah, bullshit is forever… but in many cases, its nature becomes self-evident over time. In which case, the bull-shitter loses credibility–an effect limited only by the availability of new suckers.”
Two counter examples falsify the rule–and there are many more I could cite. One counter example currently resides at 1600 Penn Ave. here in DC. He consistently polls 40% approval despite spouting utter bullshit–over 15000 documented lies in the first 3 years of his residency there. The other example is Faux News. What happens when a significant portion of the population simply rejects the truth.
Barry Finchsays
This is how the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere causes warming. The so-called “greenhouse effect” effect is nothing at all like the effect that warms a greenhouse. A vast “shimmer” of transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER) in the long-wave band (LWR) is caused by molecules of water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2) and some other gases in the troposphere due to their collisions (averaging 2,700,000,000 collisions / second) with other molecules, which are almost always going to be nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) because they are almost all of the gas quantity in the troposphere. The H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2 and some other gases are being called “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” because the overall effect (not just this part) ends up causing warming of Earth’s troposphere. All except H2O are called “well-mixed greenhouse gases” because their boiling and freezing points are so low that they don’t condense or freeze in the troposphere, not even near the top, so they get spread out well mixed around Earth and well mixed vertically in the troposphere. The well-mixed GHGs now punch above their weight compared with water vapour (H2O) because the upper half of the troposphere is so cold that almost all H2O forms on dust/salt particles in liquid or solid form there rather than being a GHG but the others remain as GHGs. The lowest quarter or so of the troposphere where it’s warmer and water vapour (H2O) is king is already highly “saturated” without much additional “enhanced greenhouse effect” possible (still, H2O has such a broad absorption band that it still manages to match CO2 pretty much exactly 1:1 net as a 100% +ve feedback).
——————
The GHG molecules don’t emit a photon (LWR unit) of LWR when they collide and they don’t later get to emit a photon of LWR after every collision, only after a few of them (note 1). What happens is that a collision might cause a GHG molecule to vibrate in a certain way (so with a certain energy) of which the GHG molecule has the capability of any one of a selection (called its “vibrational modes”). GHG molecules with more vibrational modes are more powerful GHGs because they have a broader absorption/emission band. The GHG molecule now has “molecular vibrational energy (MVE)” if the collision did cause it to vibrate. Energy cannot be created without destroying matter and matter doesn’t get destroyed by this. What happens is that one or both of the two molecules slows down such that the total “molecular translational energy (MTE)”, aka “molecular kinetic energy”, aka “heat”, is reduced by precisely the same amount as the MVE that the GHG molecule acquired, so (m1*v1**2 + m2*v2**2)/2 after collision is less than (m1*v1**2 + m2*v2**2)/2 before collision because either v1 or v2 or both was reduced, thus obeying the Law Of Conservation Of Energy. Effectively, the temperature of the 2 colliding molecules was reduced by an energy amount equaling the MVE that the GHG molecule acquired, what happened was energy transmutation from one form to another. When this vibrating GHG molecule hits another molecule it loses its vibration (note 1) and one or both of the two molecules speeds up such that the total MTE, aka “heat”, is increased by precisely the same amount as the MVE that the GHG molecule lost. So it just moved speed/heat from one N2 or O2 (almost always) molecule to another. However, ==here we go==, very occasionally/rarely and not very often at all compared with the 2,700,000,000 collisions / second that happen to this GHG molecule (note 2) the GHG molecule with MVE will spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE. Now it has converted one-photon’s-worth of “heat” in the troposphere to one photon of LWR. It has cooled the troposphere by one-photon’s-worth of “heat” (one molecule is now in a global Mini Ice Age ?).
——————
LWR is also radiated from the surfaces of liquids & solids such as the surface of the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in spray above the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in clouds, the surfaces of any water droplets at all, the land surface, the surfaces of trees & grass, the skins of animals, the surfaces of dust, salt, volcanic ash, any ash and any surface whatsoever on the ocean or land or in the troposphere. Except for 10% of this LWR whose photons happen to have wave-lengths in a band called “the atmospheric window” this LWR goes into the vast “shimmer” of LWR in the troposphere with a distribution of energy quantity at each wave-length in the LWR band that you’ve all seen hundreds of plots of all over the place.
——————
GHG molecules also absorb LWR provided that the photon’s energy (which is its wave-length) perfectly matches one of that GHG molecule’s MVE mode energies and the photon goes through (or tries to go through) the area of the GHG molecule that absorbs that wave-length (obvious example, CO2 isn’t at all fussy what part of its molecule a photon of wave-length 15.00 microns goes through, it’ll swallow it and vibrate). Obviously, a GHG molecule neither knows nor cares whether a photon of a certain wave-length trying to go through it was emitted by the surface of the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in spray above the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in clouds, the surfaces of any water droplets at all, the land surface, the surfaces of trees & grass, the skins of animals, the surfaces of dust, salt, volcanic ash, any ash and any surface whatsoever on the ocean or land or in the troposphere, or emitted by another GHG molecule (H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2 and any other GHG molecule) because all photons of the same wave-length are the same. A GHG molecule with MVE that it got by absorbing LWR can, of course, ==here we go again==, very occasionally/rarely and not very often at all compared with the 2,700,000,000 collisions / second that happen to this GHG molecule (note 2) spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE. In this case the GHG molecule transmuted LWR back to LWR, it transmuted a photon to an identical photon, so it did nothing at all other than change the direction in which the photon is going. This is the cartoon that scientists show the public because it’s a simple analog that Earth tried to cool itself to space and failed, but since there are 2,700,000,000 collisions / second there’s just about a bat’s chance in hell that the GHG molecule will spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE before it collides and loses its MVE (note 1). The coal/oil shills use the highly-incorrect nature of this ludicrously-over-simplified cartoon to “disprove” the physics theory but it isn’t the physics theory that’s incorrect, it’s the cartoon that’s incorrect. It doesn’t describe the physics theory hardly at all as I’ve explained in detail above. This is why I dislike this cartoon. When a vibrating GHG molecule hits another molecule it loses its vibration (note 1) and one or both of the two molecules speeds up. This means that “heat” increased, what happened was energy transmutation from one form to another, energy transmutation from LWR to “heat” with MVE as the intermediary step.
——————
Now the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” explanation that I think is clearest, obvious and difficult to challenge by mis-direction disinformation and subterfuge per the memes concocted by the coal/oil shills. 17% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the ocean or land surface because the photons are in a wave-length band called “the atmospheric window” that doesn’t get absorbed by the GHGs. It’s my understanding that this will narrow slightly with increased GHGs, but this isn’t the prime “enhanced greenhouse effect” and I’m not addressing any additional warming it might cause. 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the GHG molecules in the troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere (note 2). This 83% of the LWR is the part that gets reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs and causes an energy imbalance with insufficient energy going out, which causes global warming, ocean heating and ice fusion, which causes climate change, which causes a variety of nuisances that I haven’t studied.
——————
The troposphere has an upper and a lower surface. The upper surface is the top of the troposphere (the tropopause) and the lower surface is the surface of the ocean or land. LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the lower surface will warm that surface so it stays in Earth’s ecosphere but LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the upper surface has a good chance to make it through the increasingly-thin tropopause, stratosphere and the ultra-thin extended atmosphere to space and be energy lost to Earth’s ecosphere, thus cooling it. LWR reaching the upper/lower surfaces was produced by GHG molecules, the surfaces of water droplets and the surfaces of solid particles (sea salt, ash, dust) throughout the troposphere sending photons upwards/downwards as described in detail earlier.
– There is an average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space. If you could float at this altitude and watch/count photons with special eye balls and brain you’d see 50% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you. If you counted it at 48% then you’d need to float upward to get more of the LWR photon production below you. If you counted it at 52% then you’d need to float downward to get more of the LWR photon production above you. This is obvious. When you float to the place where 50.0000000% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you then you are at the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space.
– There is an average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land. You could float and find that the same way as the preceding.
These 2 altitudes in the troposphere are approximately for illustration only and as a global average (I’m not quantifying the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” in this comment, only describing its operation accurately):
—- average — —- average global —-
—- altitude — —- temperature —-
6,600 metres -29.75 degrees 50% of the “shimmer cloud” of LWR photons that will make it to the tropopause are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude.
1,650 metres 3.7 degrees 50% of the “shimmer cloud” of LWR photons that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude.
These values are approximate. They are to demonstrate how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works, not to provide quantities. They are approximately correct though. They are based on a global average ~12,000 metres height of the troposphere but it varies geographically from 9,000 to 16,000 metres.
—————
If tropospheric GHGs are increased then 2 changes occur per my explanations above since the start of my comment:
1) More LWR than before is produced by the GHGs, and
2) More LWR than before is absorbed by the GHGs because the LWR photons have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach their goal of going up past the top of the troposphere or going down past the bottom of the troposphere and being absorbed into the ocean or land.
Note that I have not included “(3) The LWR photons emitted by the surface of the ocean and land have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach space” because I’m dealing with the 83% of the LWR reaching space that’s created by GHG molecules in the troposphere obtaining, then losing, MVE with spontaneous photon emission caused. I’m not dealing with the 17% of the LWR in a wave-length band called “the atmospheric window” that gets directly to space after being emitted by the surface of the ocean and land. If that 17% is reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs (I’m not sure) then that’s an additional, unrelated, means of the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” (there’s no particular reason why there has to be only one mechanism).
—————
The result of combined effects/changes (1), (2) above is that the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the top of the troposphere gets higher, so perhaps it raises from the 6,600 metres to 6,700 metres (as an example). Also, the LWR quantity is reduced slightly (the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”) for reason of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate explained below.
—————
Likewise, identically, the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land gets lower, so perhaps it lowers from the 1,650 metres to 1,550 metres (obviously, it depends on the change quantity. I just showed a random example) because it has to get past more GHG molecules that might absorb the photon.
—————
In either case GHG photons were trying to reach their goal of the top or bottom of the troposphere but now there are more GHGs in the way so it needs, == on average ==, to be a bit closer to make it. So that’s why the “cloud” of LWR that will reach the top is a higher cloud than before and the “cloud” of LWR that will reach the bottom (ocean or land) is a lower cloud than before
—————
The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
The average altitude for LWR to space got higher (6,600 metres —> 6,700 metres in my example) which means LWR to space is from colder (slower) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to space is from higher-up-than-before molecules on average, so there are fewer GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to less MVE which leads to less LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause less LWR than before to be passing upwards through the top of the troposphere.
That’s the upper end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works.
——————
The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres —> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called “downwelling LWR radiation at the surface” and I’ve explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface.
That’s the lower end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works.
———
Note 1: I haven’t yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don’t know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn’t find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2.
Note 2: I’ve read on the internet that spontaneous emission of a photon of LWR by a GHG molecule with MVE will typically occur after ~1.0 seconds with MVE but I’m not accepting that without some serious fact checking which I haven’t done yet. One photon / second just seems way too minuscule to me. I also need that information to calculate whether mis-calibration method of the STAR MSU/AMSU instrument makes the RSS & UAH TLT temperature O2 proxy analyses analyse a significantly lower total of energy than thermometers measure, or whether the difference is negligible. It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above.
Note 3: 80% of Earth’s atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The “greenhouse effect” warming can only happen in Earth’s troposphere, there’s no effect in Earth’s tropopause and the effect is “backwards” in Earth’s stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that’s how it’s known with total certainty that it’s increased “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there’s no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you’ll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That’s the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it’s a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there’s only 0.4% of Earth’s atmosphere’s molecules above, negligible.
Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the instrument on a satellite show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. From this atmospheric physicists have calculated the 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs.
Al Bundysays
from Heriot Watt U:
Bacteria living 4000m below the ocean surface in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone (CCFZ) are consuming carbon dioxide and turning it into biomass, a new study shows.
Until now, scientists believed the main source of biomass on the seafloor was the organic matter that floated down towards the depths: dead fish, plankton and other detritus.
Prof. Andrew K. Sweetman from the Lyell Centre for Earth and Marine Science and Technology at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh said: “We have recently made two major findings.
“In contrast to similar studies in the north Atlantic Ocean, we found that bacteria and not seafloor animals were the most important organisms consuming organic detritus that floats down towards the ocean floor.
“We also discovered that benthic bacteria are taking up large amounts of carbon dioxide and assimilating it into their biomass through an unknown process. This was completely unexpected.
“Their biomass then potentially becomes a food source for other animals in the deep sea, so actually what we’ve discovered is a potential alternative food source in the deepest parts of the ocean, where we thought there was none.
“If we upscale our results to the global ocean, our findings reveal that 200 million tonnes of CO2 could be fixed into biomass each year by this process.
“This equates to approximately 10% of the CO2 that the oceans remove each year, so it’s possibly an important part of the deep-sea carbon cycle.
“We found the same activity at multiple study sites separated by hundreds of kilometres, so we can reasonably assume this is happening on the seabed in the eastern CCFZ and possibly across the entire CCFZ.”
How is our ongoing plastic “fertilization” project going to affect this unknown biological process? Does it stall with increased acidity? How will higher temps affect it?
Al Bundysays
From the Atlantic article (about ocean mining) that links to the HWU piece:
Drazen rolled his eyes and sighed. “There’s a Belgian team in the CCZ doing a component test right now,” he said. “They’re going to drive a vehicle around on the seafloor and spew a bunch of mud up. So these things are already happening. We’re about to make one of the biggest transformations that humans have ever made to the surface of the planet. We’re going to strip-mine a massive habitat, and once it’s gone, it isn’t coming back.”
It is possible that ocean mining will become one of the key solutions. The ocean’s Big Limitation is that there’s too few nutrients at the surface to make use of the incoming light. Spew up goop at the bottom of the system, causing massive blooms at upwelling points that spread into the rest of the ocean. We fight off the toxic ones while harvesting the benign ones. We can’t remember what fish taste like.
Ric Merrittsays
I have not documented it so thoroughly as Bob Loblaw at #105 (if you can trust the numbers) but I also am seeing glitches in counting and display of comments.
nigeljsays
Thomas @107, not good and utterly consistent with climate change. Hope rain comes and temperatures drop. We are watching from across the ditch.
nigeljsays
BL @105, I have the same issue. This invisible comments problem has been pointed out numerous times. No idea what it is, unless it could be a conflict with a recent windows OS update?
But if you want to read the comments, just post something random like xyz, and the invisible comments will appear. Strange though this is.
Barry Finchsays
@107 Thomas: I’m not going to look/study myself (too busy) but could there be more La Nina like conditions now or last 36 months (since the big 2015/16 El NIno). I refer to the change in rates that started 1995 AD when when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed due to a warming tropical Atlantic Ocean surface due to the global warming. All kinds of big climate items took a radical rate increase within a very few years of that:
– Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds have increased 30% (1 m/s) since 1995 AD
– The ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly rate DOUBLED at ~1999 AD (reason for the “pause/hiatus” in GMST 2002-2015)
– Humongous El Nino 1997/8 AD
– GMST increase slowed (“pause” or “hiatus”)
– GMST ==El Nino years== started pulling ahead of La Nina faster at +0.23 degrees / decade vs +0.165 degrees / decade
– Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) mass loss took a doubling
– Perhaps the Antarctic circumpolar westerlies began strengthening & tightening then but I haven’t pinned ENSO as the cause yet
– Few other things I’ve forgotten (not checking my notes for this little comment)
I’m likely being a 1-trick pony maybe with some confirmation bias since I 1st noticed this 6 years ago but likelihood is simply due to ENSO being a vast feature of Earth’s climate (the biggest on decadal time scales as far as I recall) and eastern Australia is located at the cuttng edge of ENSO.
Thomassays
@117 I’m sceptical of the view that ENSO operates independently of the global climate. As if there’s this Climate System and then there is what ENSO does to it. Then it’s ‘simply’ that which equals the short term weather effects.
For a start Climate is the ‘weather’ measured across 30 years. ENSO is an integral part of what makes up ‘the’ historical Climate data to begin with – it is not a free agent – it is inseparable from Climate norms.
regarding “but likelihood is simply due to ENSO”
Logically, in a world absent global warming the idea maybe worth considering.
One should also keep in mind much of the continent is beset with drought going 8-10 years in places which might discount the last 36 month period. Indicating it’s much more than ‘simply’ an ENSO La Nina effect which I don’t believe is in play anyway. ENSO is neutral has been a long time.
eg “Trade winds remain stronger than average over the tropical Indian Ocean.” and “(ENSO) remains neutral.” What’s more likely a current driver is “Positive IOD events are often associated with a more severe fire season for southeast Australia. ” http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml
But IOD does not operate in a vacuum either, it’s not independent of the Climatic conditions, nor is it a singular cause in and of itself.
In my view ENSO and IOD are both ‘riding on top of’ the long term ‘horse’ that is global warming. On top of the long term droughts. On top of the already permanently changed Regional Climates across all Australia (and the world at large today.)
Meaning, the ’30 yr Climate regime’ here has already changed significantly. The ENSO status of 2020 is not the same ENSO of 1960 or even 1990. Even if the measured data/numbers make it appear so, it is playing out in a totally different world of climate than before.
My view is multiple ‘weather’ drivers and prior changes are all cumulatively impacting Australia’s long term climate. Bringing us the severe (worst ever) drought and unprecedented drying out of wet rainforests regions – these things didn’t just happen in September. It’s been progressively going this way for decades now in slow incremental steps.
Any short term extreme weather events arrives under these now different pre-existing conditions. This is all reflective of a sustained long term global climate change driven by rapid warming. The Science is there for this logical conclusion.
Today’s crisis events will surely pass, as the 2013 record breaking heatwaves and bush fires passed. Yet neither period could be considered “normal” over hundreds to thousands of years. Nor could it simply be the impacts of a one-off ENSO or IOD dynamic the primary cause/s. Because worse La Nina / IOD conditions have arisen in the past and the results were nothing like today or in 2013.
Results and Outcomes are the best scientific yardstick to use here in regard Adaption Catastrophes – not the standard data about ENSO readings. Wild fire science et al are on the job and they explain it quite well.
Some people argue the problem is because of more triggers that start these fires, foolish people or intentionally, and power-lines. Claim the impacts are worse because more people have houses in the bushland surrounding cities today, and population growth.
I say these excuses are irrelevant distractions from the root cause and the problem (here and all over the world) – it is what happens AFTER the “spark” that can ignite fire happens – that is the real problem we’re facing.
Wild fires everywhere today are of an order of magnitude never experienced before. No matter how hot or windy it was back when.
PS
Californian, Canadian Siberian, Amazon, Chile, Greece, and European wild fires happen too. Why would what is happening in Australia be a concern to anywhere else?
Because it’s probably a signal of how matters will continue getting worse. The unexpected cumulative impacts will be global. Australia is a major food exporter to the world. Grains, Livestock meat, Fibre and Dairy. Exports have already evaporated on every front. Livestock cattle, dairy and Wool producers have been forced to de-stock becasue there is not enough water or food to keep them alive. Even native animals like Kangaroos are dying from thirst. Coastal farming areas typically receiving offshore rains are also in severe extended drought for the first time.
Broad acre grain farms are bare soil everywhere. Silos for export are empty. The largest cotton farms in the world are bare. Their massive irrigated water supply dams are empty.
The future seems more likely what is happening in Australia now will be happening in the rest of the world too more often. Eventually all at the same time.
Imagine Australia’s conditions being transposed to the Ukraine, Russia, Canada, South America, China, India and the USA simultaneously. A Mid-West with no crops of potatoes, corn, wheat, barley, cattle or feedstocks? Rivers and irrigation dams drying up? Every year that passes make this scenario more likely.
ENSO or no ENSO. What happens when Australia too is no longer exporting Food around the world? While climate change and overfishing continues to push world’s ocean fish stocks to the verge of collapse.
Today the UNFCCC Paris Accords are on the verge of collapse too. Emissions rates have been increasing not slowing. COo2 growth alone near +3ppm yoy in 2019, a new record high rate with no El Nino driving it higher.
How grim do things have to get to address the denial, the excuses, and the inaction on a global scale?
Barry Finch @110,
Concerning your Note 1 – the average relaxation time for a CO2 molecule to emit a 15μm photon is measured in tenths of seconds. Thus the vast majority of molecules excited (through collision or photon absorption) into the bending vibrational mode that can emit a 15μm photon will lose that excitation due to molecular collision and not through spontaneous (or induced) photon emission. A straightforward reference for the ‘tenths-of-second’ relaxation time is something I have sought but never found. The references that do exist are buried within rather complex analyses.
Concerning your Note 3 – You discuss the average global ‘all-frequency’ emssion height for photons into space. Note that the emission height across the CO2 15μm waveband does vary and the very central part of it already has an emission height up in the stratosphere. Thus this tiny part of the spectrum is a small cooling factor within the warming due to added CO2, and this cooling becomes more significant with increasing CO2 levels although never enough to match the warming with increasing CO2. See perhaps Zhong & Haig (2013) ‘The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide.’
Barry Finchsays
@111 Al Bundy: Every little thing that’s helpful helps but the stated 0.54% relief from the actual problem, the cause, seems quite minor. “the global ocean, our findings reveal that 200 million tonnes of CO2 could be fixed into biomass each year “. So 0.2 Gt/year CO2 is 0.54% of the 37 Gt/year CO2 that humans are making. If scientists can find 10 such processes of similar quantity then it gets well onto the playing field.
Barry Finchsays
@118 Thomas: I’ll leave it with you because I was only suggesting that the bods browsing past consider wind speed increase since 1995 AD themselves. So it was a quickly-worded comment and, in that vein, I note that my ambiguous quick wording was then accidentally misquoted by inference (by omission) by you with:
“regarding “but likelihood is simply due to ENSO” Logically, in a world absent global warming the idea maybe worth considering”.
I’ll give 3 quotes and leave it with everybody, no more thought or comment from me.
——
Quotes: “Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. “We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales.”
—————-
Quotes: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
————-
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014 Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
Barry Finchsays
@119 MA Rodger: Thanks for the “measured in tenths of seconds”. I’ll remove the caveat. However, I hadn’t thought of the implication of “CO2 molecule to emit a 15μm photon is measured in tenths of seconds”. Do you have reference to some indication of average relaxation time for CO2, H2O, CH4, N2O, O3 separately and/or wave-length/energy ranges separately ? I’m thinking you don’t because you type that you “sought but never found” definitive detail. My explanation is not for CO2 molecule or for a 15μm photon, it’s for the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
——
I know about stratospheric CO2 molecules emitting 15.00 microns of course. Thanks for the Zhong & Haigh (2013) which I don’t think I had come across. I’ll remove the CO2 15μm example to avoid side chat because it isn’t really necessary. Analogies & examples are 2-edged swords. I recall both Sarah Gilles & Stephen Schneider using the bath tub analogy (Sarah nearly drowned) but Stephen tried a cheque book analogy with Aussies and the entire remaining argument was Aussies saying they used QuickBooks instead and that bank accounts prove that climate is all cycles and it’s an Ice Age now, though I might be having a false memory syndrome for amusement purposes.
nigeljsays
Thomas @118 says “Today’s crisis events will surely pass, as the 2013 record breaking heatwaves and bush fires passed. Yet neither period could be considered “normal” over hundreds to thousands of years. Nor could it simply be the impacts of a one-off ENSO or IOD dynamic the primary cause/s. ”
Yeah there clearly aren’t any ENSO conditions to explain these bush fires.
“Some people argue the problem is because of more triggers that start these fires, foolish people or intentionally, and power-lines. Claim the impacts are worse because more people have houses in the bushland surrounding cities today, and population growth.”
People are most likely trying to falsely rationalise the problem away, often known as grasping at straws. This is easier than tackling the real problem. The main thing is hotter and drier conditions induced by climate change lead to larger areas being burned, but also the drier hotter conditions probably do cause more lightening strikes etc to catch hold.
“How grim do things have to get to address the denial, the excuses, and the inaction on a global scale?”
Probably very grim. Firstly people are slow to accept new science, especially when its telling them they have to change their ways, for example look at your typical tobacco smoker and how they remain in denial for years. And human civilisation is addicted to oil. Of course most people do eventually accept new science and give up drugs, but it can take time. This year has shown some evidence people are waking up with the youth marches and so on.
Secondly there is the problem that humans are hard wired by evolution to respond most strongly to immediate and significant threats, like a house burning down, loss of a job, etc. Humans are not hardwired to respond so strongly to climate change and other slow motion train wrecks, and problems that more strongly impact on later generations of people. There are many studies on this, here is one:
That is not to say its a black and white issue. Some people do respond to future threats, just that many have a weaker response. The frog being slowly boiled alive and doing nothing is also good analogy. But I don’t think its a hopeless situation, because people can be educated to see the bigger picture.
But this is why I’m sceptical that we will see many people making huge lifestyle changes although we are seeing some lifestyle changes. The climate problem will probably either be solved with renewable energy and technology and a few lifestyle changes as a wedge sort of thing, or it wont be solved at all.
Two counter examples falsify the rule–and there are many more I could cite. One counter example currently resides at 1600 Penn Ave. here in DC. He consistently polls 40% approval despite spouting utter bullshit–over 15000 documented lies in the first 3 years of his residency there. The other example is Faux News. What happens when a significant portion of the population simply rejects the truth.
It’s about time scale, isn’t it? Dubya made it into a second term, which is a distinction that Trump may very well not be able to emulate. He was popular–until he wasn’t. The bullshit just got too thick on the ground.
Fox/Faux probably entails a different mechanism, and a still-longer time scale. You recall the adage about science advancing one funeral at a time? (Heisenberg, was it?)
#109 Ray Ladbury: Yes and now we’ve got deepfakes. The harm is then not necessarily that, say, the faker wants to make me fall for the deepfake–which is easy enough–but that the faker wants me to throw up my hands and say, see–there is no such thing as the plain-spoken truth–or it’s pointless to try to find it now–or just too hard. Then, too, never send to know for whom the fakers fake, or against whom. The faker attack against climate science is just as putinesque as any political one and it rhymes with the narratives of the omnigarchy.
HadCRUT have posted for November with an anomaly of +0.70ºC, a bit down on the October anomay of +0.75ºC. The year-to-date anomalies span from +0.61ºC up to +0.87ºC, averaging +0.72ºC.
It is the second warmest November in HadCRUT record (as per GISTEMP & NOAA) behind of 2015 (+0.84ºC) while ahead of 2013(+0.66ºC), 2005 (+0.63ºC), 2001 (+0.61ºC), 2004 (+0.60ºC), 2010 & 2018 (both +0.59ºC) and 2016 & 2017 (both +0.55ºC).
It is 37th highest anomaly on the all-month HadCRUT record (=12th in GISTEMP, =22nd in NOAA).
With just December to go to complete the year, 2019 remains in 3rd place in HadCRUT and will very likely remain there for the full year. To drop to 4th place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Dec to average less than a chilly +0.18ºC, something last seen in 1984. To gain 2nd place above 2015 would require Dec to average a steamy +1.21ºC. The highest Dec average to-date was the El-Niño-boosted +1.16ºC of 2015. (For GISTEMP 2019 is firmly in second place behind 2016, while in NOAA 2019 could still drop from second to third.)
Thomas: For a start Climate is the ‘weather’ measured across 30 years.
AB: Not “is”, “used to be”. As if one could compare the ‘weather’ in 2019 to 2049 as if they were based on an identical climatic background. Definitions MUST evolve to keep pace with evolving change. I’m thinking that ‘climate’ is the ‘weather’ as measured and normalized across 5 or 10 years. It used to be that we could let nature average itself out over 30 years; now we need to figure out what said average would be IF said climate actually lasted 30 years.
I’m not dissing or disagreeing but (hopefully) clarifying what you said with, “Any short term extreme weather events arrives under these now different pre-existing conditions.”
Al Bundysays
nigelj: look at your typical tobacco smoker and how they remain in denial for years. And human civilisation is addicted to oil. Of course most people do eventually accept new science and give up drugs, but it can take time.
AB: Perhaps in extreme cases, but normally dying of cancer cures smoking. Very little besides death of the consumer matters enough to change the economics for the vendor. Remember the old joke…
“Quitting smoking is easy. I’ve done it hundreds of times.”
_______
patrick: omnigarchy
AB: Excellent word. Brings shades of the obedient AI… Sucks to not be able to afford a quantum computer, eh?
_______
Kevin McKinney: Fox/Faux probably entails a different mechanism, and a still-longer time scale. You recall the adage about science advancing one funeral at a time? (Heisenberg, was it?)
AB: Given that time has run out it sucks that Heisenberg had a point. A paradigm change is required, eh? Fortunately, the advancement of science beyond where its current momentum will inevitably carry it is completely unnecessary for said paradigm change. Unfortunately, science is no longer in the game. The weather has the only megaphone that matters (other than politics). The only question is nigelj’s: just how hard does the weather have to pound humanity and the biosphere?
______
patrick,
Yeah. This site is populated by folks a good standard deviation above the norm. Thus, there’s no “may” about it. Our mileage is pretty irrelevant when pondering the world as a whole.
AB 128: I’m thinking that ‘climate’ is the ‘weather’ as measured and normalized across 5 or 10 years.
BPL: “I’m thinking” isn’t a good method. There’s a reason WMO picked the 30 year period in 1935 and a reason that period is still used to define climate today. It has to do with the statistical properties of climate, and is not based on anyone’s subjective feelings.
123: “Probably very grim. Firstly people are slow to accept new science, especially when its telling them they have to change their ways, for example look at your typical tobacco smoker and how they remain in denial for years. And human civilisation is addicted to oil. Of course most people do eventually accept new science and give up drugs, but it can take time. This year has shown some evidence people are waking up with the youth marches and so on.
Secondly there is the problem that humans are hard wired by evolution to respond most strongly to immediate and significant threats, like a house burning down, loss of a job, etc. Humans are not hardwired to respond so strongly to climate change and other slow motion train wrecks, and problems that more strongly impact on later generations of people. There are many studies on this, here is one:”
Thirdly, there is the problem that significantly reducing ones carbon footprint requires taking sacrifices for little tangible benefit. I gave up driving for three years and cycled all local journeys, including the 19 mile round trip to work, in all weathers. Going without a car reduces mobility, and some activities that are possible with a car to do the journey are not possible without a car (e.g. transporting hundreds of kg of manure to the allotment). There is a tangible benefit of increased cardiovascular health and fitness, and some benefit of reduced transport costs (less so when the cost of UK trains are taken into account), but there is the increased cost of elevated vulnerability. There are road accidents a driver will walk away from where a cyclist will end up fighting for their life. Ultimately, being almost killed by a careless driver did happen to me, and I was extremely fortunate to fully recover with no life changing consequences. I could give other examples, such as reducing the thermostat to 12C means enduring less comfort than having it set to 18C. Shunning holidays because it is unnecessary transport means giving up one of the things that enhances quality of life, for no tangible benefit apart from a small reduction in expenditure. Not eating meat is a sacrifice without tangible benefit if you enjoy the taste of meat. This is the fundamental problem as I see it, how do you get every individual to work together on reducing carbon footprint in a way that is acceptable to the population at large, because telling people they have to give up things they enjoy and/or enhance convenience is not going to work. If there is an answer to this I would love to hear it, if only to replace despair with hope and optimism.
Dan H.says
BPL,
The reason they chose 30 years was one of convenience. They wanted an easy comparison of current conditions to past. A new condition is calculated every 30 years. Today is compared to 1961-90. In 2020, a new 30-yr period will be used for comparison. Statistics had little to do with it.
Mr. Know It Allsays
KM: “This is the point at which mass market electric vehicles (BEVs) are expected to reach sticker price parity with “equivalent” combustion vehicles,…”
Sticker price parity will not be enough to convince people to buy. People want to be able to crank up the heat (necessary for winter driving) without halving the range. What if they get stuck all night in the middle of nowhere when it’s 0F outside – with an ICE the heater will keep them alive, with an EV maybe they’ll have frostbite or worse.
94 – George
“…Thank you. I’ll post this on Sen. Baldwin’s website.”
Would that be Cheesehead Senator Tammy Baldwin?
100 – Fascist Al
“And yeah, I’d probably prove my evil core by pressing said button.”
Nah, we don’t want nutbag Pres. Nazi Polident Piglosi.
104 – nigelj
“However the Dems need to get organised and a bit more ruthless. Of course this is hard when your world view revolves around being nice to people, honest and inclusive.”
Now that there is funny, nigelj! It’s even harder when your political candidates spout abject nutbaggery and idiocy 24/7/365. Dems – we want: to legalize all drugs (Petes Buttisthegig), to confiscate wealth from citizens until none are wealthy (Pocahantas), open borders (all of them), free everything (all of them), Socialism (all of them), Communism (all of them), drag queens teaching sex ed to toddlers (all of them), to let men shower with girls (all of them), man and woman are the same (all of them), it’s OK to give sex change treatments to 7 year olds (all of them), minorities can do no wrong (all of them), all straight white people are evil (all of them), confiscate firearms in violation of the Second Amendment (all of them), all Christians are evil (all of them), the USA is not legitimate because of slavery (all of them),…..
You can’t make this stuff up! Run on all that. They’re ACTUALLY DOING IT! ROFLMAO
:)
Mr. Know It Allsays
110 and 122 – Barry Finch and 119 MA Rodger
Hey, there may be some science in those comments! Thank you! Too tired to read right now, but I will – it looks promising and if some of the other real scientists (not wannabes) can comment that would be helpful.
FYI: Here’s a video showing every coal plant in the world from 1927 to 2019:
One of the comments had a link to this video showing how the Paris Accords were a scam: (apparently that guy didn’t win his election)
Is his description of the IPCC scam correct?
109 – Ray Ladbury
“What happens when a significant portion of the population simply rejects the truth.”
Assuming that is a question, the answer is: “The popular vote goes to the known, long-time criminal – in 2016 that was HRC.” ;)
118 – Thomas
“How grim do things have to get to address the denial, the excuses, and the inaction on a global scale?”
Good question. Scientists (and even little brainwashed children) say the science is settled. Good; happy to hear it! Would it be helpful if, starting now, we focused the money and brain power going into climate models into finding and developing methods to capture and store carbon instead? Anyone have the numbers for $$ going into CC models versus CCS R&D? Clearly, most of us are still using FFs so might as well start trying to remove some from the air.
129 – Al Bundy
“Yeah. This site is populated by folks a good standard deviation above the norm.”
A guy who “knows it all” makes a big difference in that calculation.
;)
Dan H.says
Mr. KIA,
To further add to Thomas’ post at 118, the short answer is very grim. The longer answer is more complex. At the present, the majority is better off than at any time in history. Even poorer countries are prospering (not all though, but that is more political than anything else). Many have claimed that this current prosperity is a mortgage on the future, but that future seems to be pushed further and further away. Any mitigation needs to consider the welfare of the general populace. Idealistic solutions have been viewed (rightly or wrongly) as favoring the elite. They are the ones that can afford the changes, and it is resented by the poor. The false claim that all these policy changes will help the poor particularly, falls on deaf ears. It is very difficult to convince someone that they will be better spending more of their limited resources on fixes that they cannot experience directly. Most people are short-term thinkers. However, once basic needs have been met, people turn to long-term goals. Hence, the best medicine is to satisfy these short-term goals, so that long-term solutions can be addressed.
Note the list of EV cold-weather advantages. And also, note that a BEV can run the heater much longer in cold weather than a typical ICE can idle before running out of fuel–something about not having the parasitic loss consequent to keeping a couple of hundred pounds of metal in constant motion to generate your heat.
On EV value in general, you’re “evaluating” in a similar one-sided manner. For instance, you’re missing the fact that already EVs win on the extremely important metric of lifetime ownership cost. Random example:
It appears that 2 meters of SLR are now going to soon arrive, with more in the future.
Al Bundysays
AB 128: I’m thinking that ‘climate’ is the ‘weather’ as measured and normalized across 5 or 10 years.
BPL: “I’m thinking” isn’t a good method. There’s a reason WMO picked the 30 year period in 1935 and a reason that period is still used to define climate today. It has to do with the statistical properties of climate, and is not based on anyone’s subjective feelings.
AB: But the statistical properties of climate have changed. From your link:
1978: 7
2008: 55 (last year on chart)
———
difference: 48
Nearly a tripling of the rate. I’m thinking “I’m thinking” is a much better starting point than “I refuse to think beyond what worked in 1935”. Note that using my pondering and your data results in 30/3 = 10 years. Granted, this is a tad apples/oranges (but that is my point, eh?) because the 1935 definition was based primarily on ENSO et al because that was before climate change had risen above the noise.
But that is no longer even remotely the case. La Ninas are generally hotter than the previous decade’s El Ninos. Nobody here (besides you?) thinks that 2008 had the same climate as what existed back in 1978. We all wish we lived in that fantasy land.
nigeljsays
Dan H @33
“The reason they chose 30 years was one of convenience. ” Rubbish. Its statistics and the fact that the longest natural ocean cycles are around 20 years so you want a period of time not contaminated with that.
—————————
KIA @134, you must be desperate to have to resort to a list of complete lies.
William Jacksonsays
Mr KIa’s post are despicable and should in many cases be boreholed.
nigeljsays
Adam Lea @132, I hear you, and feel a bit the same. I will respond on the FR page, its more appropriate for mitigation stuff.
Al Bundysays
MRKI: You can’t make this stuff up! Run on all that. They’re ACTUALLY DOING IT! ROFLMAO lies.
AB: True. I’m no good at making up and/or parroting lies. However, you are stellar!
AB: “Yeah. This site is populated by folks a good standard deviation above the norm.”
MRKIA: A guy who “knows it all” makes a big difference in that calculation.
;)
AB: Yep, otherwise it would be significantly higher. :-)
nigeljsays
Regarding @138, something else new related to Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier: “RECORD HIT FOR MOST ICE TO MELT IN ANTARCTICA IN ONE DAY, DATA SUGGESTS: “WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY”
Actually the record for most ice melt in a single day for the Antarctic is just related to Antarctica as a whole. Got the name of the researcher Fettweis confused with Thwaites for a second there.
It appears that 2 meters of SLR are now going to soon arrive, with more in the future.
Given that’s just one glacier holding back 2M, and we have clear evidence of 1.5M SLR pulses in sub-100yr time frames in far less unstable conditions than today, the researcher’s caveat of “We are not saying that it’s going to happen in the next 100 years or so, but it could certainly begin in that time period” makes little sense.
1. It’s already begun. Mass loss is here. We just had unprecedented Antarctic surface melt.
2. If we got 1.5M in less than a century during more stable periods, why would we not expect that now, particularly with virtually every new study requiring the caveat of “faster than expected” just a few years ago?
But I’m curious what *you* meant by “going to arrive soon?” Some of us get shit on pretty heavily around here for such talk – even though we’ve been right all along. Does your “soon” equal a century or two or…?
Dan H 133: The reason they chose 30 years was one of convenience. They wanted an easy comparison of current conditions to past. A new condition is calculated every 30 years. Today is compared to 1961-90. In 2020, a new 30-yr period will be used for comparison. Statistics had little to do with it.
BPL: You completely ignored the link I provided, didn’t you?
KIA 134: Dems – we want: to legalize all drugs (Petes Buttisthegig), to confiscate wealth from citizens until none are wealthy (Pocahantas), open borders (all of them), free everything (all of them), Socialism (all of them), Communism (all of them), drag queens teaching sex ed to toddlers (all of them), to let men shower with girls (all of them), man and woman are the same (all of them), it’s OK to give sex change treatments to 7 year olds (all of them), minorities can do no wrong (all of them), all straight white people are evil (all of them), confiscate firearms in violation of the Second Amendment (all of them), all Christians are evil (all of them), the USA is not legitimate because of slavery (all of them),…..
Fellow Brits may have been awoken on Saturday morning (28 Dec) to the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme being ‘Guest Editored’ by a climate change denier (one of the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy) who invited a couple of his denialist chums onto the programme. (The Guest Editor on Monday will be Greta Thunberg which may see us back to the old ‘balance’ of one scientist for each featured swivel-eyed lunatic.) With denialist blather eminating from my radio, this is the point that I would usually pop in a complaint in to the BBC. But rather than “do something that I know in advance is futile,” (coz it will result in nought but an anodyne reply,) I thought it would be more interesting to present a transcript of these two grand old duffers being interviewed by Evan Davis of the BBC. (See here – usually 2 clicks to download your attachment)
I’ve added a couple of debunks when the old duffers got a bit fruity with their lies. Some bits I’m not sure about. So has Africa been deprived of fossil-fuel use to the point of them having to chop down and burn the forests in its stead?
The bulk of the denialist whitter provides plenty-enough reason why the BBC don’t want these fantasists spouting their poison across the airwaves.
And when they are put on the same spot they provided for Paul Nurse & the Fellows of the Royal Society – “So what would you do about it?” – we are told that they must have a say to open up te debate, Judy Curry should be given a say, and then more nuclear research because apparently “we shouldn’t pay more in premium than the risk we’re running.”
So let’s get this straight – if you have a house, you insure it to its total value and if the likelyhood of it burning down to the ground in the next year is small, the premium will be commensurately small. And so if you have a planet that will almost certainly be stuffed good-&-proper in the next century, you would happily spend a goodly proportion of the worth of that planet to prevent it.
Simples!!
KIA 135: Is his description of the IPCC scam correct?
BPL: If you have proof it’s a scam, produce it. If you have no proof, STFU.
KIA: “The popular vote goes to the known, long-time criminal – in 2016 that was HRC.”
BPL: Except that for all the GOP investigations, she has never been charged with a crime or indicted. You are bearing false witness, and not for the first time.
Fluorescein is remarkable–thanks for that example!–but even good old ink is pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
[Reminded of this one partly by our discussion, but also partly by trying to scrub an ink stain out of a futon cover the other day… :-( ]
AB, #98 & 99–
There’s a lot to potentially unpack in #98, in which Al asks:
First, the point I was making wasn’t about BEVs versus ICEs, it was about the observed decline in battery costs and the expectation that it will continue, which I regard as pretty robust, since it’s based primarily on the well-established phenomenon of economies of scale. My perspective is that with deployment expanding rapidly, we’re now in what is sometimes termed a “virtuous circle”, in which increasing scale and falling costs form a positive feedback loop.
Second, I *don’t* have “direct personal knowledge that those references are NOT TRUE.” I have your opinion that ICEs may improve enough to compete. It’s duly noted, and I give it some weight. But not so much that I’m going to start second-guessing or editing professional analysts when they give *their* opinion–especially in the light of point #1 above.
I know you are working on some projects to improve ICE tech, and I wish you Godspeed. I know you are a smart and knowledgeable guy, and I know your heart’s in the right place. But soon enough we *will* have relatively direct personal experience of what the marketplace decides vis a vis BEV versus ICE. And that’s when we’ll actually know whether the particular projection I cited was valid or not.
#99–
I’ve got to push back on that a bit. Yeah, bullshit is forever… but in many cases, its nature becomes self-evident over time. In which case, the bull-shitter loses credibility–an effect limited only by the availability of new suckers. (Which itself tends to be in inverse proportion to the notoriety of the bullshitter–so the bigger the bullshit ‘win’ in the short term, the less sustainable over time.)
So the net effect of bullshit becomes a matter of scale in time and in space.
Al Bundy @98, you are confusing improvements in automobiles with price aren’t you? Its almost not debatable that lithium batteries will fall futher in price, and maybe electric engines as well, with more mass production ramping up, but its hard to see ICE’s falling much in price, although the technology will continue to improve.
Al Bundy @100, “So, do you press that button?” I have asked myself the same question The trouble is another 100 or more evil morons would spout up in their place, especially given the outrage that would follow pressing said button. You would just be left with a guilty conscience, and a worse problem.
However the Dems need to get organised and a bit more ruthless. Of course this is hard when your world view revolves around being nice to people, honest and inclusive.
The current state of viewing comments at RC is making it almost unreadable. What used to be an occasional bug is now commonplace.
As I try to read comments, this is what happens:
On the main page, Unforced Variations says there are 100 comments. In the Recent Comments area, the last one is from Al Bundy, and the pop-up starts “Mal. To dig deeper…” Click on the comments link, and you get to page 1, where it also says 100 comments. Click on Next (or 2), and you get to a page with only 92 comments. The last one is from CCHolley. The Recent Comments section has now changed.
The “How good have climate models been…” thread is even more bizarre. Main page says there are 103 comments, and that message is the same when you click on Comments and get to page 1. Click on “3”, and you can see comments up to 103 – but if you click on 2, there are only 88 comments visible.
How about “10 years on”? Similar story. 115 comments according to the main page. Only 113 according to pages 2 or 3.
Not a browser issue, as far as I can tell – I’ve tried Firefox from work and home (different operating systems) and a different browser at home.
Something is seriously borked in how the comments are stored and retrieved for display. Whatever is happening, it affects both the comments as displayed, and the comments added to the Recent Comments sidebar.
On the positive side, it probably slows down the rate of postings by “the usual suspects”.
Folks,
Did you notice that I took Trump’s Thanos commercial (where his head is perched atop Thanos’ body and the resulting abomination wipes out the Democratic leadership with a snap of his finger) and admitted that I also sin? We’re in this together and none of us are pure evil or pure grace.
Did I just admit that GOPpers are human? O snap.
Australia breaks continental (average) Maximum Temp Record 2 days in a row
Tues 17th 40.9 C
Wed 18th 41.9 C
Maximums hit +49 C in some inland places.
Melbourne City forecast Friday is +44 C – other places much higher.
Current Catastrophic Fire conditions to extend into Saturday.
Total Fire bans almost nation wide, ex-Tasmania.
NSW State has declared a State of Emergency 2nd time in a few weeks.
Military Army/Air Force deployed for direct assistance to Fire Fighters
(an unprecedented action for Bush fires)
~98% of Rural Firefights are everyday unpaid local Volunteers
All are exhausted after two months of non-stop bush fires across the continent
800 homes lost so far and still 4 months to go at least.
Historically ‘wet’ un-burnable Rainforests are tinder dry, even up Far North Queensland in the wet tropics but no fires there (yet.)
Fires in other Sub-Tropical Rainforests (National Parks) are still burning
3 extremely large out of control fires in regions Nth, Sth and west of Sydney are now burning closer toward more populated areas and towns.
Please send rain.
– – –
The Australian summer of 2012–2013, known as the Angry Summer or Extreme Summer, resulted in 123 weather records being broken over a 90-day period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Summer
That is so Passé
PS The Scientists have long said this would happen just like this.
And not only in Australia as you know. I hear Madrid COP25 was Cop-Out.
I’ve expected no better than that for the very very long time.
Next Stop Glasgow and they can then tear up the Paris (Non) Agreement and be done with it.
post test
Kevin McKinney: “I’ve got to push back on that a bit. Yeah, bullshit is forever… but in many cases, its nature becomes self-evident over time. In which case, the bull-shitter loses credibility–an effect limited only by the availability of new suckers.”
Two counter examples falsify the rule–and there are many more I could cite. One counter example currently resides at 1600 Penn Ave. here in DC. He consistently polls 40% approval despite spouting utter bullshit–over 15000 documented lies in the first 3 years of his residency there. The other example is Faux News. What happens when a significant portion of the population simply rejects the truth.
This is how the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere causes warming. The so-called “greenhouse effect” effect is nothing at all like the effect that warms a greenhouse. A vast “shimmer” of transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER) in the long-wave band (LWR) is caused by molecules of water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2) and some other gases in the troposphere due to their collisions (averaging 2,700,000,000 collisions / second) with other molecules, which are almost always going to be nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) because they are almost all of the gas quantity in the troposphere. The H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2 and some other gases are being called “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” because the overall effect (not just this part) ends up causing warming of Earth’s troposphere. All except H2O are called “well-mixed greenhouse gases” because their boiling and freezing points are so low that they don’t condense or freeze in the troposphere, not even near the top, so they get spread out well mixed around Earth and well mixed vertically in the troposphere. The well-mixed GHGs now punch above their weight compared with water vapour (H2O) because the upper half of the troposphere is so cold that almost all H2O forms on dust/salt particles in liquid or solid form there rather than being a GHG but the others remain as GHGs. The lowest quarter or so of the troposphere where it’s warmer and water vapour (H2O) is king is already highly “saturated” without much additional “enhanced greenhouse effect” possible (still, H2O has such a broad absorption band that it still manages to match CO2 pretty much exactly 1:1 net as a 100% +ve feedback).
——————
The GHG molecules don’t emit a photon (LWR unit) of LWR when they collide and they don’t later get to emit a photon of LWR after every collision, only after a few of them (note 1). What happens is that a collision might cause a GHG molecule to vibrate in a certain way (so with a certain energy) of which the GHG molecule has the capability of any one of a selection (called its “vibrational modes”). GHG molecules with more vibrational modes are more powerful GHGs because they have a broader absorption/emission band. The GHG molecule now has “molecular vibrational energy (MVE)” if the collision did cause it to vibrate. Energy cannot be created without destroying matter and matter doesn’t get destroyed by this. What happens is that one or both of the two molecules slows down such that the total “molecular translational energy (MTE)”, aka “molecular kinetic energy”, aka “heat”, is reduced by precisely the same amount as the MVE that the GHG molecule acquired, so (m1*v1**2 + m2*v2**2)/2 after collision is less than (m1*v1**2 + m2*v2**2)/2 before collision because either v1 or v2 or both was reduced, thus obeying the Law Of Conservation Of Energy. Effectively, the temperature of the 2 colliding molecules was reduced by an energy amount equaling the MVE that the GHG molecule acquired, what happened was energy transmutation from one form to another. When this vibrating GHG molecule hits another molecule it loses its vibration (note 1) and one or both of the two molecules speeds up such that the total MTE, aka “heat”, is increased by precisely the same amount as the MVE that the GHG molecule lost. So it just moved speed/heat from one N2 or O2 (almost always) molecule to another. However, ==here we go==, very occasionally/rarely and not very often at all compared with the 2,700,000,000 collisions / second that happen to this GHG molecule (note 2) the GHG molecule with MVE will spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE. Now it has converted one-photon’s-worth of “heat” in the troposphere to one photon of LWR. It has cooled the troposphere by one-photon’s-worth of “heat” (one molecule is now in a global Mini Ice Age ?).
——————
LWR is also radiated from the surfaces of liquids & solids such as the surface of the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in spray above the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in clouds, the surfaces of any water droplets at all, the land surface, the surfaces of trees & grass, the skins of animals, the surfaces of dust, salt, volcanic ash, any ash and any surface whatsoever on the ocean or land or in the troposphere. Except for 10% of this LWR whose photons happen to have wave-lengths in a band called “the atmospheric window” this LWR goes into the vast “shimmer” of LWR in the troposphere with a distribution of energy quantity at each wave-length in the LWR band that you’ve all seen hundreds of plots of all over the place.
——————
GHG molecules also absorb LWR provided that the photon’s energy (which is its wave-length) perfectly matches one of that GHG molecule’s MVE mode energies and the photon goes through (or tries to go through) the area of the GHG molecule that absorbs that wave-length (obvious example, CO2 isn’t at all fussy what part of its molecule a photon of wave-length 15.00 microns goes through, it’ll swallow it and vibrate). Obviously, a GHG molecule neither knows nor cares whether a photon of a certain wave-length trying to go through it was emitted by the surface of the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in spray above the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in clouds, the surfaces of any water droplets at all, the land surface, the surfaces of trees & grass, the skins of animals, the surfaces of dust, salt, volcanic ash, any ash and any surface whatsoever on the ocean or land or in the troposphere, or emitted by another GHG molecule (H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2 and any other GHG molecule) because all photons of the same wave-length are the same. A GHG molecule with MVE that it got by absorbing LWR can, of course, ==here we go again==, very occasionally/rarely and not very often at all compared with the 2,700,000,000 collisions / second that happen to this GHG molecule (note 2) spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE. In this case the GHG molecule transmuted LWR back to LWR, it transmuted a photon to an identical photon, so it did nothing at all other than change the direction in which the photon is going. This is the cartoon that scientists show the public because it’s a simple analog that Earth tried to cool itself to space and failed, but since there are 2,700,000,000 collisions / second there’s just about a bat’s chance in hell that the GHG molecule will spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE before it collides and loses its MVE (note 1). The coal/oil shills use the highly-incorrect nature of this ludicrously-over-simplified cartoon to “disprove” the physics theory but it isn’t the physics theory that’s incorrect, it’s the cartoon that’s incorrect. It doesn’t describe the physics theory hardly at all as I’ve explained in detail above. This is why I dislike this cartoon. When a vibrating GHG molecule hits another molecule it loses its vibration (note 1) and one or both of the two molecules speeds up. This means that “heat” increased, what happened was energy transmutation from one form to another, energy transmutation from LWR to “heat” with MVE as the intermediary step.
——————
Now the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” explanation that I think is clearest, obvious and difficult to challenge by mis-direction disinformation and subterfuge per the memes concocted by the coal/oil shills. 17% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the ocean or land surface because the photons are in a wave-length band called “the atmospheric window” that doesn’t get absorbed by the GHGs. It’s my understanding that this will narrow slightly with increased GHGs, but this isn’t the prime “enhanced greenhouse effect” and I’m not addressing any additional warming it might cause. 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the GHG molecules in the troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere (note 2). This 83% of the LWR is the part that gets reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs and causes an energy imbalance with insufficient energy going out, which causes global warming, ocean heating and ice fusion, which causes climate change, which causes a variety of nuisances that I haven’t studied.
——————
The troposphere has an upper and a lower surface. The upper surface is the top of the troposphere (the tropopause) and the lower surface is the surface of the ocean or land. LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the lower surface will warm that surface so it stays in Earth’s ecosphere but LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the upper surface has a good chance to make it through the increasingly-thin tropopause, stratosphere and the ultra-thin extended atmosphere to space and be energy lost to Earth’s ecosphere, thus cooling it. LWR reaching the upper/lower surfaces was produced by GHG molecules, the surfaces of water droplets and the surfaces of solid particles (sea salt, ash, dust) throughout the troposphere sending photons upwards/downwards as described in detail earlier.
– There is an average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space. If you could float at this altitude and watch/count photons with special eye balls and brain you’d see 50% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you. If you counted it at 48% then you’d need to float upward to get more of the LWR photon production below you. If you counted it at 52% then you’d need to float downward to get more of the LWR photon production above you. This is obvious. When you float to the place where 50.0000000% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you then you are at the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space.
– There is an average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land. You could float and find that the same way as the preceding.
These 2 altitudes in the troposphere are approximately for illustration only and as a global average (I’m not quantifying the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” in this comment, only describing its operation accurately):
—- average — —- average global —-
—- altitude — —- temperature —-
6,600 metres -29.75 degrees 50% of the “shimmer cloud” of LWR photons that will make it to the tropopause are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude.
1,650 metres 3.7 degrees 50% of the “shimmer cloud” of LWR photons that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude.
These values are approximate. They are to demonstrate how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works, not to provide quantities. They are approximately correct though. They are based on a global average ~12,000 metres height of the troposphere but it varies geographically from 9,000 to 16,000 metres.
—————
If tropospheric GHGs are increased then 2 changes occur per my explanations above since the start of my comment:
1) More LWR than before is produced by the GHGs, and
2) More LWR than before is absorbed by the GHGs because the LWR photons have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach their goal of going up past the top of the troposphere or going down past the bottom of the troposphere and being absorbed into the ocean or land.
Note that I have not included “(3) The LWR photons emitted by the surface of the ocean and land have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach space” because I’m dealing with the 83% of the LWR reaching space that’s created by GHG molecules in the troposphere obtaining, then losing, MVE with spontaneous photon emission caused. I’m not dealing with the 17% of the LWR in a wave-length band called “the atmospheric window” that gets directly to space after being emitted by the surface of the ocean and land. If that 17% is reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs (I’m not sure) then that’s an additional, unrelated, means of the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” (there’s no particular reason why there has to be only one mechanism).
—————
The result of combined effects/changes (1), (2) above is that the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the top of the troposphere gets higher, so perhaps it raises from the 6,600 metres to 6,700 metres (as an example). Also, the LWR quantity is reduced slightly (the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”) for reason of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate explained below.
—————
Likewise, identically, the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land gets lower, so perhaps it lowers from the 1,650 metres to 1,550 metres (obviously, it depends on the change quantity. I just showed a random example) because it has to get past more GHG molecules that might absorb the photon.
—————
In either case GHG photons were trying to reach their goal of the top or bottom of the troposphere but now there are more GHGs in the way so it needs, == on average ==, to be a bit closer to make it. So that’s why the “cloud” of LWR that will reach the top is a higher cloud than before and the “cloud” of LWR that will reach the bottom (ocean or land) is a lower cloud than before
—————
The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
The average altitude for LWR to space got higher (6,600 metres —> 6,700 metres in my example) which means LWR to space is from colder (slower) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to space is from higher-up-than-before molecules on average, so there are fewer GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to less MVE which leads to less LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause less LWR than before to be passing upwards through the top of the troposphere.
That’s the upper end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works.
——————
The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres —> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called “downwelling LWR radiation at the surface” and I’ve explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface.
That’s the lower end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works.
———
Note 1: I haven’t yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don’t know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn’t find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2.
Note 2: I’ve read on the internet that spontaneous emission of a photon of LWR by a GHG molecule with MVE will typically occur after ~1.0 seconds with MVE but I’m not accepting that without some serious fact checking which I haven’t done yet. One photon / second just seems way too minuscule to me. I also need that information to calculate whether mis-calibration method of the STAR MSU/AMSU instrument makes the RSS & UAH TLT temperature O2 proxy analyses analyse a significantly lower total of energy than thermometers measure, or whether the difference is negligible. It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above.
Note 3: 80% of Earth’s atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The “greenhouse effect” warming can only happen in Earth’s troposphere, there’s no effect in Earth’s tropopause and the effect is “backwards” in Earth’s stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that’s how it’s known with total certainty that it’s increased “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there’s no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you’ll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That’s the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it’s a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there’s only 0.4% of Earth’s atmosphere’s molecules above, negligible.
Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the instrument on a satellite show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. From this atmospheric physicists have calculated the 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs.
from Heriot Watt U:
Bacteria living 4000m below the ocean surface in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone (CCFZ) are consuming carbon dioxide and turning it into biomass, a new study shows.
Until now, scientists believed the main source of biomass on the seafloor was the organic matter that floated down towards the depths: dead fish, plankton and other detritus.
Prof. Andrew K. Sweetman from the Lyell Centre for Earth and Marine Science and Technology at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh said: “We have recently made two major findings.
“In contrast to similar studies in the north Atlantic Ocean, we found that bacteria and not seafloor animals were the most important organisms consuming organic detritus that floats down towards the ocean floor.
“We also discovered that benthic bacteria are taking up large amounts of carbon dioxide and assimilating it into their biomass through an unknown process. This was completely unexpected.
“Their biomass then potentially becomes a food source for other animals in the deep sea, so actually what we’ve discovered is a potential alternative food source in the deepest parts of the ocean, where we thought there was none.
“If we upscale our results to the global ocean, our findings reveal that 200 million tonnes of CO2 could be fixed into biomass each year by this process.
“This equates to approximately 10% of the CO2 that the oceans remove each year, so it’s possibly an important part of the deep-sea carbon cycle.
“We found the same activity at multiple study sites separated by hundreds of kilometres, so we can reasonably assume this is happening on the seabed in the eastern CCFZ and possibly across the entire CCFZ.”
https://www.hw.ac.uk/news/articles/2018/deep-sea-mining-zone-hosts-co2-consuming.htm
How is our ongoing plastic “fertilization” project going to affect this unknown biological process? Does it stall with increased acidity? How will higher temps affect it?
From the Atlantic article (about ocean mining) that links to the HWU piece:
Drazen rolled his eyes and sighed. “There’s a Belgian team in the CCZ doing a component test right now,” he said. “They’re going to drive a vehicle around on the seafloor and spew a bunch of mud up. So these things are already happening. We’re about to make one of the biggest transformations that humans have ever made to the surface of the planet. We’re going to strip-mine a massive habitat, and once it’s gone, it isn’t coming back.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/20000-feet-under-the-sea/603040/
It is possible that ocean mining will become one of the key solutions. The ocean’s Big Limitation is that there’s too few nutrients at the surface to make use of the incoming light. Spew up goop at the bottom of the system, causing massive blooms at upwelling points that spread into the rest of the ocean. We fight off the toxic ones while harvesting the benign ones. We can’t remember what fish taste like.
I have not documented it so thoroughly as Bob Loblaw at #105 (if you can trust the numbers) but I also am seeing glitches in counting and display of comments.
Thomas @107, not good and utterly consistent with climate change. Hope rain comes and temperatures drop. We are watching from across the ditch.
BL @105, I have the same issue. This invisible comments problem has been pointed out numerous times. No idea what it is, unless it could be a conflict with a recent windows OS update?
But if you want to read the comments, just post something random like xyz, and the invisible comments will appear. Strange though this is.
@107 Thomas: I’m not going to look/study myself (too busy) but could there be more La Nina like conditions now or last 36 months (since the big 2015/16 El NIno). I refer to the change in rates that started 1995 AD when when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed due to a warming tropical Atlantic Ocean surface due to the global warming. All kinds of big climate items took a radical rate increase within a very few years of that:
– Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds have increased 30% (1 m/s) since 1995 AD
– The ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly rate DOUBLED at ~1999 AD (reason for the “pause/hiatus” in GMST 2002-2015)
– Humongous El Nino 1997/8 AD
– GMST increase slowed (“pause” or “hiatus”)
– GMST ==El Nino years== started pulling ahead of La Nina faster at +0.23 degrees / decade vs +0.165 degrees / decade
– Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) mass loss took a doubling
– Perhaps the Antarctic circumpolar westerlies began strengthening & tightening then but I haven’t pinned ENSO as the cause yet
– Few other things I’ve forgotten (not checking my notes for this little comment)
I’m likely being a 1-trick pony maybe with some confirmation bias since I 1st noticed this 6 years ago but likelihood is simply due to ENSO being a vast feature of Earth’s climate (the biggest on decadal time scales as far as I recall) and eastern Australia is located at the cuttng edge of ENSO.
@117 I’m sceptical of the view that ENSO operates independently of the global climate. As if there’s this Climate System and then there is what ENSO does to it. Then it’s ‘simply’ that which equals the short term weather effects.
For a start Climate is the ‘weather’ measured across 30 years. ENSO is an integral part of what makes up ‘the’ historical Climate data to begin with – it is not a free agent – it is inseparable from Climate norms.
regarding “but likelihood is simply due to ENSO”
Logically, in a world absent global warming the idea maybe worth considering.
One should also keep in mind much of the continent is beset with drought going 8-10 years in places which might discount the last 36 month period. Indicating it’s much more than ‘simply’ an ENSO La Nina effect which I don’t believe is in play anyway. ENSO is neutral has been a long time.
eg “Trade winds remain stronger than average over the tropical Indian Ocean.” and “(ENSO) remains neutral.” What’s more likely a current driver is “Positive IOD events are often associated with a more severe fire season for southeast Australia. ” http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml
But IOD does not operate in a vacuum either, it’s not independent of the Climatic conditions, nor is it a singular cause in and of itself.
In my view ENSO and IOD are both ‘riding on top of’ the long term ‘horse’ that is global warming. On top of the long term droughts. On top of the already permanently changed Regional Climates across all Australia (and the world at large today.)
Meaning, the ’30 yr Climate regime’ here has already changed significantly. The ENSO status of 2020 is not the same ENSO of 1960 or even 1990. Even if the measured data/numbers make it appear so, it is playing out in a totally different world of climate than before.
My view is multiple ‘weather’ drivers and prior changes are all cumulatively impacting Australia’s long term climate. Bringing us the severe (worst ever) drought and unprecedented drying out of wet rainforests regions – these things didn’t just happen in September. It’s been progressively going this way for decades now in slow incremental steps.
Any short term extreme weather events arrives under these now different pre-existing conditions. This is all reflective of a sustained long term global climate change driven by rapid warming. The Science is there for this logical conclusion.
Today’s crisis events will surely pass, as the 2013 record breaking heatwaves and bush fires passed. Yet neither period could be considered “normal” over hundreds to thousands of years. Nor could it simply be the impacts of a one-off ENSO or IOD dynamic the primary cause/s. Because worse La Nina / IOD conditions have arisen in the past and the results were nothing like today or in 2013.
Results and Outcomes are the best scientific yardstick to use here in regard Adaption Catastrophes – not the standard data about ENSO readings. Wild fire science et al are on the job and they explain it quite well.
Some people argue the problem is because of more triggers that start these fires, foolish people or intentionally, and power-lines. Claim the impacts are worse because more people have houses in the bushland surrounding cities today, and population growth.
I say these excuses are irrelevant distractions from the root cause and the problem (here and all over the world) – it is what happens AFTER the “spark” that can ignite fire happens – that is the real problem we’re facing.
Wild fires everywhere today are of an order of magnitude never experienced before. No matter how hot or windy it was back when.
PS
Californian, Canadian Siberian, Amazon, Chile, Greece, and European wild fires happen too. Why would what is happening in Australia be a concern to anywhere else?
Because it’s probably a signal of how matters will continue getting worse. The unexpected cumulative impacts will be global. Australia is a major food exporter to the world. Grains, Livestock meat, Fibre and Dairy. Exports have already evaporated on every front. Livestock cattle, dairy and Wool producers have been forced to de-stock becasue there is not enough water or food to keep them alive. Even native animals like Kangaroos are dying from thirst. Coastal farming areas typically receiving offshore rains are also in severe extended drought for the first time.
Broad acre grain farms are bare soil everywhere. Silos for export are empty. The largest cotton farms in the world are bare. Their massive irrigated water supply dams are empty.
The future seems more likely what is happening in Australia now will be happening in the rest of the world too more often. Eventually all at the same time.
Imagine Australia’s conditions being transposed to the Ukraine, Russia, Canada, South America, China, India and the USA simultaneously. A Mid-West with no crops of potatoes, corn, wheat, barley, cattle or feedstocks? Rivers and irrigation dams drying up? Every year that passes make this scenario more likely.
ENSO or no ENSO. What happens when Australia too is no longer exporting Food around the world? While climate change and overfishing continues to push world’s ocean fish stocks to the verge of collapse.
Today the UNFCCC Paris Accords are on the verge of collapse too. Emissions rates have been increasing not slowing. COo2 growth alone near +3ppm yoy in 2019, a new record high rate with no El Nino driving it higher.
How grim do things have to get to address the denial, the excuses, and the inaction on a global scale?
Barry Finch @110,
Concerning your Note 1 – the average relaxation time for a CO2 molecule to emit a 15μm photon is measured in tenths of seconds. Thus the vast majority of molecules excited (through collision or photon absorption) into the bending vibrational mode that can emit a 15μm photon will lose that excitation due to molecular collision and not through spontaneous (or induced) photon emission. A straightforward reference for the ‘tenths-of-second’ relaxation time is something I have sought but never found. The references that do exist are buried within rather complex analyses.
Concerning your Note 3 – You discuss the average global ‘all-frequency’ emssion height for photons into space. Note that the emission height across the CO2 15μm waveband does vary and the very central part of it already has an emission height up in the stratosphere. Thus this tiny part of the spectrum is a small cooling factor within the warming due to added CO2, and this cooling becomes more significant with increasing CO2 levels although never enough to match the warming with increasing CO2. See perhaps Zhong & Haig (2013) ‘The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide.’
@111 Al Bundy: Every little thing that’s helpful helps but the stated 0.54% relief from the actual problem, the cause, seems quite minor. “the global ocean, our findings reveal that 200 million tonnes of CO2 could be fixed into biomass each year “. So 0.2 Gt/year CO2 is 0.54% of the 37 Gt/year CO2 that humans are making. If scientists can find 10 such processes of similar quantity then it gets well onto the playing field.
@118 Thomas: I’ll leave it with you because I was only suggesting that the bods browsing past consider wind speed increase since 1995 AD themselves. So it was a quickly-worded comment and, in that vein, I note that my ambiguous quick wording was then accidentally misquoted by inference (by omission) by you with:
“regarding “but likelihood is simply due to ENSO” Logically, in a world absent global warming the idea maybe worth considering”.
I’ll give 3 quotes and leave it with everybody, no more thought or comment from me.
——
Quotes: “Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. “We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales.”
—————-
Quotes: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
————-
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014 Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
@119 MA Rodger: Thanks for the “measured in tenths of seconds”. I’ll remove the caveat. However, I hadn’t thought of the implication of “CO2 molecule to emit a 15μm photon is measured in tenths of seconds”. Do you have reference to some indication of average relaxation time for CO2, H2O, CH4, N2O, O3 separately and/or wave-length/energy ranges separately ? I’m thinking you don’t because you type that you “sought but never found” definitive detail. My explanation is not for CO2 molecule or for a 15μm photon, it’s for the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
——
I know about stratospheric CO2 molecules emitting 15.00 microns of course. Thanks for the Zhong & Haigh (2013) which I don’t think I had come across. I’ll remove the CO2 15μm example to avoid side chat because it isn’t really necessary. Analogies & examples are 2-edged swords. I recall both Sarah Gilles & Stephen Schneider using the bath tub analogy (Sarah nearly drowned) but Stephen tried a cheque book analogy with Aussies and the entire remaining argument was Aussies saying they used QuickBooks instead and that bank accounts prove that climate is all cycles and it’s an Ice Age now, though I might be having a false memory syndrome for amusement purposes.
Thomas @118 says “Today’s crisis events will surely pass, as the 2013 record breaking heatwaves and bush fires passed. Yet neither period could be considered “normal” over hundreds to thousands of years. Nor could it simply be the impacts of a one-off ENSO or IOD dynamic the primary cause/s. ”
Yeah there clearly aren’t any ENSO conditions to explain these bush fires.
“Some people argue the problem is because of more triggers that start these fires, foolish people or intentionally, and power-lines. Claim the impacts are worse because more people have houses in the bushland surrounding cities today, and population growth.”
People are most likely trying to falsely rationalise the problem away, often known as grasping at straws. This is easier than tackling the real problem. The main thing is hotter and drier conditions induced by climate change lead to larger areas being burned, but also the drier hotter conditions probably do cause more lightening strikes etc to catch hold.
“How grim do things have to get to address the denial, the excuses, and the inaction on a global scale?”
Probably very grim. Firstly people are slow to accept new science, especially when its telling them they have to change their ways, for example look at your typical tobacco smoker and how they remain in denial for years. And human civilisation is addicted to oil. Of course most people do eventually accept new science and give up drugs, but it can take time. This year has shown some evidence people are waking up with the youth marches and so on.
Secondly there is the problem that humans are hard wired by evolution to respond most strongly to immediate and significant threats, like a house burning down, loss of a job, etc. Humans are not hardwired to respond so strongly to climate change and other slow motion train wrecks, and problems that more strongly impact on later generations of people. There are many studies on this, here is one:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483
That is not to say its a black and white issue. Some people do respond to future threats, just that many have a weaker response. The frog being slowly boiled alive and doing nothing is also good analogy. But I don’t think its a hopeless situation, because people can be educated to see the bigger picture.
But this is why I’m sceptical that we will see many people making huge lifestyle changes although we are seeing some lifestyle changes. The climate problem will probably either be solved with renewable energy and technology and a few lifestyle changes as a wedge sort of thing, or it wont be solved at all.
Ray on the ‘foreverness’ of bullshit, #109–
It’s about time scale, isn’t it? Dubya made it into a second term, which is a distinction that Trump may very well not be able to emulate. He was popular–until he wasn’t. The bullshit just got too thick on the ground.
Fox/Faux probably entails a different mechanism, and a still-longer time scale. You recall the adage about science advancing one funeral at a time? (Heisenberg, was it?)
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-old-is-the-average-fox-news-viewer-in-america.html/
Did somebody say habitability?
https://twitter.com/martine_maron/status/1208276950357176320
#109 Ray Ladbury: Yes and now we’ve got deepfakes. The harm is then not necessarily that, say, the faker wants to make me fall for the deepfake–which is easy enough–but that the faker wants me to throw up my hands and say, see–there is no such thing as the plain-spoken truth–or it’s pointless to try to find it now–or just too hard. Then, too, never send to know for whom the fakers fake, or against whom. The faker attack against climate science is just as putinesque as any political one and it rhymes with the narratives of the omnigarchy.
https://twitter.com/ernamanama/status/1208831324712292353
HadCRUT have posted for November with an anomaly of +0.70ºC, a bit down on the October anomay of +0.75ºC. The year-to-date anomalies span from +0.61ºC up to +0.87ºC, averaging +0.72ºC.
It is the second warmest November in HadCRUT record (as per GISTEMP & NOAA) behind of 2015 (+0.84ºC) while ahead of 2013(+0.66ºC), 2005 (+0.63ºC), 2001 (+0.61ºC), 2004 (+0.60ºC), 2010 & 2018 (both +0.59ºC) and 2016 & 2017 (both +0.55ºC).
It is 37th highest anomaly on the all-month HadCRUT record (=12th in GISTEMP, =22nd in NOAA).
With just December to go to complete the year, 2019 remains in 3rd place in HadCRUT and will very likely remain there for the full year. To drop to 4th place by end-of-year behind 2017 would require Dec to average less than a chilly +0.18ºC, something last seen in 1984. To gain 2nd place above 2015 would require Dec to average a steamy +1.21ºC. The highest Dec average to-date was the El-Niño-boosted +1.16ºC of 2015. (For GISTEMP 2019 is firmly in second place behind 2016, while in NOAA 2019 could still drop from second to third.)
HadCRUT data
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.81ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2015 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.72ºC
2017 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.60ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 6th
2014 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 5th
2005 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 7th
1998 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2013 .. +0.51ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 9th
2002 .. +0.51ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 13th
Thomas: For a start Climate is the ‘weather’ measured across 30 years.
AB: Not “is”, “used to be”. As if one could compare the ‘weather’ in 2019 to 2049 as if they were based on an identical climatic background. Definitions MUST evolve to keep pace with evolving change. I’m thinking that ‘climate’ is the ‘weather’ as measured and normalized across 5 or 10 years. It used to be that we could let nature average itself out over 30 years; now we need to figure out what said average would be IF said climate actually lasted 30 years.
I’m not dissing or disagreeing but (hopefully) clarifying what you said with, “Any short term extreme weather events arrives under these now different pre-existing conditions.”
nigelj: look at your typical tobacco smoker and how they remain in denial for years. And human civilisation is addicted to oil. Of course most people do eventually accept new science and give up drugs, but it can take time.
AB: Perhaps in extreme cases, but normally dying of cancer cures smoking. Very little besides death of the consumer matters enough to change the economics for the vendor. Remember the old joke…
“Quitting smoking is easy. I’ve done it hundreds of times.”
_______
patrick: omnigarchy
AB: Excellent word. Brings shades of the obedient AI… Sucks to not be able to afford a quantum computer, eh?
_______
Kevin McKinney: Fox/Faux probably entails a different mechanism, and a still-longer time scale. You recall the adage about science advancing one funeral at a time? (Heisenberg, was it?)
AB: Given that time has run out it sucks that Heisenberg had a point. A paradigm change is required, eh? Fortunately, the advancement of science beyond where its current momentum will inevitably carry it is completely unnecessary for said paradigm change. Unfortunately, science is no longer in the game. The weather has the only megaphone that matters (other than politics). The only question is nigelj’s: just how hard does the weather have to pound humanity and the biosphere?
______
patrick,
Yeah. This site is populated by folks a good standard deviation above the norm. Thus, there’s no “may” about it. Our mileage is pretty irrelevant when pondering the world as a whole.
xyz
AB 128: I’m thinking that ‘climate’ is the ‘weather’ as measured and normalized across 5 or 10 years.
BPL: “I’m thinking” isn’t a good method. There’s a reason WMO picked the 30 year period in 1935 and a reason that period is still used to define climate today. It has to do with the statistical properties of climate, and is not based on anyone’s subjective feelings.
http://bartonlevenson.com/30Years.html
123: “Probably very grim. Firstly people are slow to accept new science, especially when its telling them they have to change their ways, for example look at your typical tobacco smoker and how they remain in denial for years. And human civilisation is addicted to oil. Of course most people do eventually accept new science and give up drugs, but it can take time. This year has shown some evidence people are waking up with the youth marches and so on.
Secondly there is the problem that humans are hard wired by evolution to respond most strongly to immediate and significant threats, like a house burning down, loss of a job, etc. Humans are not hardwired to respond so strongly to climate change and other slow motion train wrecks, and problems that more strongly impact on later generations of people. There are many studies on this, here is one:”
Thirdly, there is the problem that significantly reducing ones carbon footprint requires taking sacrifices for little tangible benefit. I gave up driving for three years and cycled all local journeys, including the 19 mile round trip to work, in all weathers. Going without a car reduces mobility, and some activities that are possible with a car to do the journey are not possible without a car (e.g. transporting hundreds of kg of manure to the allotment). There is a tangible benefit of increased cardiovascular health and fitness, and some benefit of reduced transport costs (less so when the cost of UK trains are taken into account), but there is the increased cost of elevated vulnerability. There are road accidents a driver will walk away from where a cyclist will end up fighting for their life. Ultimately, being almost killed by a careless driver did happen to me, and I was extremely fortunate to fully recover with no life changing consequences. I could give other examples, such as reducing the thermostat to 12C means enduring less comfort than having it set to 18C. Shunning holidays because it is unnecessary transport means giving up one of the things that enhances quality of life, for no tangible benefit apart from a small reduction in expenditure. Not eating meat is a sacrifice without tangible benefit if you enjoy the taste of meat. This is the fundamental problem as I see it, how do you get every individual to work together on reducing carbon footprint in a way that is acceptable to the population at large, because telling people they have to give up things they enjoy and/or enhance convenience is not going to work. If there is an answer to this I would love to hear it, if only to replace despair with hope and optimism.
BPL,
The reason they chose 30 years was one of convenience. They wanted an easy comparison of current conditions to past. A new condition is calculated every 30 years. Today is compared to 1961-90. In 2020, a new 30-yr period will be used for comparison. Statistics had little to do with it.
KM: “This is the point at which mass market electric vehicles (BEVs) are expected to reach sticker price parity with “equivalent” combustion vehicles,…”
Sticker price parity will not be enough to convince people to buy. People want to be able to crank up the heat (necessary for winter driving) without halving the range. What if they get stuck all night in the middle of nowhere when it’s 0F outside – with an ICE the heater will keep them alive, with an EV maybe they’ll have frostbite or worse.
In 2018 EVs were 2.1% of US passenger car sales:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Sales2016US-10
EV sales are down for 2019:
http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/usa/
I’d consider one if the price was 1/2 the cost of a strippy model ICE. If EVs are the only thing offered, people will buy them:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2019/09/20/the-future-of-electric-vehicles-will-us-manufacturers-lead/
94 – George
“…Thank you. I’ll post this on Sen. Baldwin’s website.”
Would that be Cheesehead Senator Tammy Baldwin?
100 – Fascist Al
“And yeah, I’d probably prove my evil core by pressing said button.”
Nah, we don’t want nutbag Pres. Nazi Polident Piglosi.
104 – nigelj
“However the Dems need to get organised and a bit more ruthless. Of course this is hard when your world view revolves around being nice to people, honest and inclusive.”
Now that there is funny, nigelj! It’s even harder when your political candidates spout abject nutbaggery and idiocy 24/7/365. Dems – we want: to legalize all drugs (Petes Buttisthegig), to confiscate wealth from citizens until none are wealthy (Pocahantas), open borders (all of them), free everything (all of them), Socialism (all of them), Communism (all of them), drag queens teaching sex ed to toddlers (all of them), to let men shower with girls (all of them), man and woman are the same (all of them), it’s OK to give sex change treatments to 7 year olds (all of them), minorities can do no wrong (all of them), all straight white people are evil (all of them), confiscate firearms in violation of the Second Amendment (all of them), all Christians are evil (all of them), the USA is not legitimate because of slavery (all of them),…..
You can’t make this stuff up! Run on all that. They’re ACTUALLY DOING IT! ROFLMAO
:)
110 and 122 – Barry Finch and 119 MA Rodger
Hey, there may be some science in those comments! Thank you! Too tired to read right now, but I will – it looks promising and if some of the other real scientists (not wannabes) can comment that would be helpful.
FYI: Here’s a video showing every coal plant in the world from 1927 to 2019:
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/visualizing-every-coal-power-plant-world-1927-2019
One of the comments had a link to this video showing how the Paris Accords were a scam: (apparently that guy didn’t win his election)
Is his description of the IPCC scam correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkar4jn3JWw
109 – Ray Ladbury
“What happens when a significant portion of the population simply rejects the truth.”
Assuming that is a question, the answer is: “The popular vote goes to the known, long-time criminal – in 2016 that was HRC.” ;)
118 – Thomas
“How grim do things have to get to address the denial, the excuses, and the inaction on a global scale?”
Good question. Scientists (and even little brainwashed children) say the science is settled. Good; happy to hear it! Would it be helpful if, starting now, we focused the money and brain power going into climate models into finding and developing methods to capture and store carbon instead? Anyone have the numbers for $$ going into CC models versus CCS R&D? Clearly, most of us are still using FFs so might as well start trying to remove some from the air.
129 – Al Bundy
“Yeah. This site is populated by folks a good standard deviation above the norm.”
A guy who “knows it all” makes a big difference in that calculation.
;)
Mr. KIA,
To further add to Thomas’ post at 118, the short answer is very grim. The longer answer is more complex. At the present, the majority is better off than at any time in history. Even poorer countries are prospering (not all though, but that is more political than anything else). Many have claimed that this current prosperity is a mortgage on the future, but that future seems to be pushed further and further away. Any mitigation needs to consider the welfare of the general populace. Idealistic solutions have been viewed (rightly or wrongly) as favoring the elite. They are the ones that can afford the changes, and it is resented by the poor. The false claim that all these policy changes will help the poor particularly, falls on deaf ears. It is very difficult to convince someone that they will be better spending more of their limited resources on fixes that they cannot experience directly. Most people are short-term thinkers. However, once basic needs have been met, people turn to long-term goals. Hence, the best medicine is to satisfy these short-term goals, so that long-term solutions can be addressed.
#134, KIA–
You are massively ignorant about EVs. They don’t work in cold weather? Then why do you think the highest EV market share is in Norway?
Learn:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/13/electric-vehicles-work-cold-weather/
Note the list of EV cold-weather advantages. And also, note that a BEV can run the heater much longer in cold weather than a typical ICE can idle before running out of fuel–something about not having the parasitic loss consequent to keeping a couple of hundred pounds of metal in constant motion to generate your heat.
On EV value in general, you’re “evaluating” in a similar one-sided manner. For instance, you’re missing the fact that already EVs win on the extremely important metric of lifetime ownership cost. Random example:
https://www.corporateknights.com/channels/clean-technology/faceoff-electric-vs-gas-cars-on-cost-15555966/
Oceans will rise:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/28/submarine-to-explore-why-antarctic-glacier-is-melting-so-quickly
It appears that 2 meters of SLR are now going to soon arrive, with more in the future.
AB 128: I’m thinking that ‘climate’ is the ‘weather’ as measured and normalized across 5 or 10 years.
BPL: “I’m thinking” isn’t a good method. There’s a reason WMO picked the 30 year period in 1935 and a reason that period is still used to define climate today. It has to do with the statistical properties of climate, and is not based on anyone’s subjective feelings.
AB: But the statistical properties of climate have changed. From your link:
1905: -26
1935: -8 (when decision was made)
———-
difference: 18
1978: 7
2008: 55 (last year on chart)
———
difference: 48
Nearly a tripling of the rate. I’m thinking “I’m thinking” is a much better starting point than “I refuse to think beyond what worked in 1935”. Note that using my pondering and your data results in 30/3 = 10 years. Granted, this is a tad apples/oranges (but that is my point, eh?) because the 1935 definition was based primarily on ENSO et al because that was before climate change had risen above the noise.
But that is no longer even remotely the case. La Ninas are generally hotter than the previous decade’s El Ninos. Nobody here (besides you?) thinks that 2008 had the same climate as what existed back in 1978. We all wish we lived in that fantasy land.
Dan H @33
“The reason they chose 30 years was one of convenience. ” Rubbish. Its statistics and the fact that the longest natural ocean cycles are around 20 years so you want a period of time not contaminated with that.
—————————
KIA @134, you must be desperate to have to resort to a list of complete lies.
Mr KIa’s post are despicable and should in many cases be boreholed.
Adam Lea @132, I hear you, and feel a bit the same. I will respond on the FR page, its more appropriate for mitigation stuff.
MRKI: You can’t make this stuff up! Run on all that. They’re ACTUALLY DOING IT! ROFLMAO lies.
AB: True. I’m no good at making up and/or parroting lies. However, you are stellar!
AB: “Yeah. This site is populated by folks a good standard deviation above the norm.”
MRKIA: A guy who “knows it all” makes a big difference in that calculation.
;)
AB: Yep, otherwise it would be significantly higher. :-)
Regarding @138, something else new related to Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier: “RECORD HIT FOR MOST ICE TO MELT IN ANTARCTICA IN ONE DAY, DATA SUGGESTS: “WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY”
https://www.newsweek.com/record-hit-ice-melt-antarctica-day-climate-emergency-1479326
Actually the record for most ice melt in a single day for the Antarctic is just related to Antarctica as a whole. Got the name of the researcher Fettweis confused with Thwaites for a second there.
Re #138 David B. Benson said Oceans will rise:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/28/submarine-to-explore-why-antarctic-glacier-is-melting-so-quickly
It appears that 2 meters of SLR are now going to soon arrive, with more in the future.
Given that’s just one glacier holding back 2M, and we have clear evidence of 1.5M SLR pulses in sub-100yr time frames in far less unstable conditions than today, the researcher’s caveat of “We are not saying that it’s going to happen in the next 100 years or so, but it could certainly begin in that time period” makes little sense.
1. It’s already begun. Mass loss is here. We just had unprecedented Antarctic surface melt.
2. If we got 1.5M in less than a century during more stable periods, why would we not expect that now, particularly with virtually every new study requiring the caveat of “faster than expected” just a few years ago?
But I’m curious what *you* meant by “going to arrive soon?” Some of us get shit on pretty heavily around here for such talk – even though we’ve been right all along. Does your “soon” equal a century or two or…?
Dan H 133: The reason they chose 30 years was one of convenience. They wanted an easy comparison of current conditions to past. A new condition is calculated every 30 years. Today is compared to 1961-90. In 2020, a new 30-yr period will be used for comparison. Statistics had little to do with it.
BPL: You completely ignored the link I provided, didn’t you?
KIA 134: Dems – we want: to legalize all drugs (Petes Buttisthegig), to confiscate wealth from citizens until none are wealthy (Pocahantas), open borders (all of them), free everything (all of them), Socialism (all of them), Communism (all of them), drag queens teaching sex ed to toddlers (all of them), to let men shower with girls (all of them), man and woman are the same (all of them), it’s OK to give sex change treatments to 7 year olds (all of them), minorities can do no wrong (all of them), all straight white people are evil (all of them), confiscate firearms in violation of the Second Amendment (all of them), all Christians are evil (all of them), the USA is not legitimate because of slavery (all of them),…..
You can’t make this stuff up!
BPL: I think you just did.
Fellow Brits may have been awoken on Saturday morning (28 Dec) to the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme being ‘Guest Editored’ by a climate change denier (one of the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy) who invited a couple of his denialist chums onto the programme. (The Guest Editor on Monday will be Greta Thunberg which may see us back to the old ‘balance’ of one scientist for each featured swivel-eyed lunatic.) With denialist blather eminating from my radio, this is the point that I would usually pop in a complaint in to the BBC. But rather than “do something that I know in advance is futile,” (coz it will result in nought but an anodyne reply,) I thought it would be more interesting to present a transcript of these two grand old duffers being interviewed by Evan Davis of the BBC. (See here – usually 2 clicks to download your attachment)
I’ve added a couple of debunks when the old duffers got a bit fruity with their lies. Some bits I’m not sure about. So has Africa been deprived of fossil-fuel use to the point of them having to chop down and burn the forests in its stead?
The bulk of the denialist whitter provides plenty-enough reason why the BBC don’t want these fantasists spouting their poison across the airwaves.
And when they are put on the same spot they provided for Paul Nurse & the Fellows of the Royal Society – “So what would you do about it?” – we are told that they must have a say to open up te debate, Judy Curry should be given a say, and then more nuclear research because apparently “we shouldn’t pay more in premium than the risk we’re running.”
So let’s get this straight – if you have a house, you insure it to its total value and if the likelyhood of it burning down to the ground in the next year is small, the premium will be commensurately small. And so if you have a planet that will almost certainly be stuffed good-&-proper in the next century, you would happily spend a goodly proportion of the worth of that planet to prevent it.
Simples!!
KIA 135: Is his description of the IPCC scam correct?
BPL: If you have proof it’s a scam, produce it. If you have no proof, STFU.
KIA: “The popular vote goes to the known, long-time criminal – in 2016 that was HRC.”
BPL: Except that for all the GOP investigations, she has never been charged with a crime or indicted. You are bearing false witness, and not for the first time.