February’s MLO CO2 reading is added to the table, this still provisional (being calculated from the weekly values plus the 1stFeb value). The dip down towards 2.0ppm/yr projected by the model back in August isn’t yet evident, with the numbers looking more encouraging for the Met Office forecast. The numbers are graphed out here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Mr. KIA @ 169 (Feb.) Whether or not the presentation on tropical cyclones and their relationship to AGW that you referenced would make strong evidence in a court of law is irrelevant. You could perhaps find “experts” to convince a jury that neutrinos don’t exist or the Earth is flat. Nature is the court in session.
Concerning the presentation itself, Goldenberg disingenuously remarks toward the beginning that tropical cyclones are “nature’s big eggbeaters to balance out heat from the tropics with the cold up north.” As he should well know, a tropical cyclone derives its energy not from temperature differences between latitude, but from the heat energy stored in tropical oceans, and released by organized moist convection within the storm. As soon as a storm reaches a latitude where it is even partially driven by differences in surface temperature, it is reclassified as subtropical or extratropical. This is important because Goldenberg obscures the obvious relationship between strong tropical cyclones and the warm ocean water they require for development in his opening remark.
I do agree that the mainstream news media will generally sensationalize and simplify whatever science topic they choose to cover. Also, that long term trends in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity should not be based strictly on reported incidence, damage, or death tolls – because of changes in observational density, population, and warning effectiveness over time.
Goldenberg later explicitly ties Atlantic hurricane activity to sea surface temperature (see 1:28-9) with huge increases in hurricane activity and major hurricanes during the periods of warmer SSTs, but he ignores the fact that as ocean temperatures increase in general, the energy available to the storms will increase, along with their potential intensity if other factors allow them to develop fully. However, since development to full potential is relatively uncommon, it is important to use as large a sample as possible. Limiting his discussion of intensity to the Atlantic basin helps him to obscure this relationship, since tropical cyclones are more numerous in the Pacific, and have longer tracks over warm open ocean for maximal development.
As you yourself noted in Feb. comment 135, the amount of atmospheric energy depends strongly on moisture as well as temperature. The surface humidity in a well-developed tropical cyclone is near 100% at the ocean temperature, as winds stir breaking waves into a white froth. How do you justify your idea that tropical cyclones will cease to have more energy if ocean temperatures rise?
Mr. Know It Allsays
175 – nigelj from the February UV
“The codes have nothing to do with this issue…… The so called leftist pc has therefore not infested the engineering world. If its infested the corporate world all to the good. KIA is trying to conflate the engineering world with the corporate world.
Perhaps KIA can explain what is wrong with an owner wanting energy efficient buildings? ….”
Nothing wrong with an owner wanting energy efficient buildings – I did not say there was, but leftist PC has infected engineering. Ask any HR rep. ;) Also see LEED requirements – although not applicable to all buildings, many are concerned with equity, social justice, and other leftist PC frivolous malarkey. I’ll not get into the specifics – research it.
177 – CCHolley in February UV
“Making buildings more energy efficient and *green* are smart economic decisions, leftist PC has nothing to do with it.”
Yes, making buildings more energy efficient is smart. See comment above. Engineers are not social justice warriors – dollars for projects are scarce and it is not the job of engineers to be climate activists. Climate activism is forced on them with efficiency requirements in the law – and that’s fine.
Understand this: engineers do not, in general, design buildings – that is done by architects who want perty buildings. A lot of energy efficiency measures are butt ugly. That’s why I push for removal of zoning, HOA, and other measures that hinder home and building owners who want to install energy saving features. So far, not a single politician has shown any interest – they’re all too busy pushing for carbon taxes so they can use the money to prop up their failing PERS funds – which is EXACTLY what they will use it for; or else they are fighting to topple Trump or remove peoples Second Amendment rights. Those people don’t give a shit about climate change. :) You voted for them, not me.
And the “scorchyissimo!!!” continues with UAH TLT posting a Feb anomaly of +0.76ºC, a bit of a jump up from January’s +0.56ºC (although UAH didn’t show an increase between November & January when every other temperature record did). So following the equal-warmest Janurary on the UAH record, we have the second-warmest February, and this without any significant El-Niño-boost.
The warmest Febrarys in UAH now run 2016 (+0.86ºC), 2020 (+0.76ºC), 1998 (+0.65ºC), 2017 (+0.47ºC), 2010 (+0.46ºC), 2019 (+0.37ºC), 2002 (+0.30ºC) followed by 2003, 2004 & 2018 (all +0.25ºC).
Feb 2020 sits 3rd in the UAH TLT all-month anomaly record behind the El-Niño-boosted months Feb & Mar 2016.
The start to 2020 averages +0.66ºC, 2nd warmest on record after El-Niño-boosted 2016 (+0.71ºC) with 3rd & 4th spots also El-Niño-boosted, namely 1998 (+0.57ºC) & 2010 (+0.48ºC). The previous warmest un-El-Niño-boosted start to the year was 2017 down at +0.435ºC so the start of 2020 is truly “scorchyissimo!!!”
nigeljsays
Carbon Brief on climate tipping points. Very detailed but in plain language:
KIA 4: many are concerned with equity, social justice, and other leftist PC frivolous malarkey.
BPL: Got that, folks? Equity and social justice are “leftist PC frivolous malarkey.” You heard it here first.
William B Jacksonsays
Mr.KIA your post number 4 is sadly useless as it is obviously constrained more by your rightest pc beliefs rather than reality, a reality that increasingly leaves your thoughts where they belong…in the dustbin of history! I hope you come to realize how silly you make yourself seem and accept reality as it is not as you would have it be.
Mr. Know It Allsays
3 – John Pollak
“How do you justify your idea that tropical cyclones will cease to have more energy if ocean temperatures rise?”
Thank you for comments that are not mean or insulting, unlike a lot of folks around here. To answer your question, I’d point to the historical record – powerful storms occurred long before today, one of the most powerful was in 1935. AGW was not a big factor then.
7 – BPL
“BPL: Got that, folks? Equity and social justice are “leftist PC frivolous malarkey.” You heard it here first.”
This is the USA – everyone has equal opportunity – work hard, do the right thing, and you’ll do OK here – as it should be.
8 – WBJ
“Mr.KIA your post number 4 is sadly useless as it is obviously constrained more by your rightest pc beliefs rather than reality,…”
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Back to climate science, last month, someone asked why Spring seemed to be arriving early this year in Redmond, Washington although farther south where I’m at, we’re running slightly below normal temps so far this year. However, it is true that this year we will have the earliest spring in 124 years (since 1896):
KIA 4: many are concerned with equity, social justice, and other leftist PC frivolous malarkey.
BPL: Got that, folks? Equity and social justice are “leftist PC frivolous malarkey.” You heard it here first.
I shouldn’t be baited into OT stuff, I know, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard this many times before–albeit rarely so baldly stated. Justice is always “malarkey” to the privileged–among others.
And further evidence of “scorchyissimo!!!” appears with the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis for February which posts an anomaly of +0.80ºC, an increase on January’s +0.77ºC. So a second source finds the warmest Janurary on record is followed by the second-warmest February, this without any significant El-Niño-boost.
The top-10 warmest Februarys in ERA5 now run 2016 (+0.88ºC), 2020 (+0.80ºC), 2017 (+0.70ºC), 2019 (+0.51ºC), 2018 (+0.46ºC), 2010 (+0.42ºC), 2015 (+0.40ºC), 1998 (+0.35ºC), 2006 (+0.29ºC) and 2007 (+0.29ºC).
Feb 2020 sits 3rd in the ERA5 all-month anomaly record with only the El-Niño-boosted months Feb & Mar 2016 sitting higher.
The start to 2020 averages +0.78ºC, 2nd warmest on record after El-Niño-boosted 2016 (+0.81ºC) with 2017 in 3rd spot (+0.65ºC), 4th 2019 (+0.49ºC), 5th 2018 (+0.46ºC) and 6th 2007 (+0.42ºC).
CCHolleysays
RE. Mr. Know Nothing
….leftist PC has infected engineering…
Engineers are not social justice warriors – dollars for projects are scarce and it is not the job of engineers to be climate activists. Climate activism is forced on them with efficiency requirements in the law.
Is energy efficiency legislation just a leftest construct?
Not so much.
President G. Ford (REP) Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1974
President J. Carter (DEM) National Energy Act of 1978 (significant bipartisan support)
President R. Regan (REP) National Appliance Energy Conservation aAct of 1987
President G. Bush (REP) Energy Policy Act of 1992
President G. W. Bush (REP) Energy Policy Act of 2005
President G. W Bush (REP) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Al Bundysays
mrkia: Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
mrkia: This is the USA – everyone has equal opportunity
Polar Flyersays
NYT article about alleged science interference by Trumpists within the Department of the Interior (USA):
This is the USA – everyone has equal opportunity – work hard, do the right thing, and you’ll do OK here – as it should be.
Wow. You really, *really* don’t get out much, do you, KIA? People who do the right thing get screwed over all the time.
And to imagine that everyone actually has “equal opportunity” is the most amazing fantasy I’ve encountered in a while. But it does confirm that KIA is in a privileged bubble. Or just delusional.
William B Jacksonsays
#15 I vote delusional!
Mr. Know It Allsays
14 – Polar Flyer
“NYT article about alleged science interference by Trumpists within the Department of the Interior (USA):”
When the first sentence has a blatantly incorrect statement, in a leftist publication, it’s a bad sign:
Quote: “…including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial…”
Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing.
I’ll touch on a few other false statements in the article:
There is little debate that the earth is warming; the debate among scientists is about WHAT IS CAUSING warming. Also, some studies HAVE found the earth to not be warming for certain periods; ie “the pause”. Also, per history, warming occurred loooong before SUVs – like it or not, this casts doubt on AGW theory.
There IS huge debate among scientists about the rate of warming.
Warming WILL increase crop yields in the far north.
The benefit to increased water for farms FAR outweigh the negatives.
By adding language noting actual climate science uncertainty to agency reports Mr. Goklany makes the reports more accurate and less biased. If there is uncertainty, that HAS to be taken into account when policy is made, otherwise the policy basis is biased.
Says he gave a presentation at Interior promoting FFs and CO2 to human and environmental well-being. He would be correct – the use of FFs has enabled the world to be developed to the point it is today, making a comfortable life possible for billions, and making ANY life possible for other billions. Without FFs we’d still be cavemen. Without CO2 we’d all be dead, as would all the plants! Try to deny it.
Polar Flyer – interesting name, are you a goose, or do you fly those FF powered birds? ;)
In November you’ll have a choice to replace the Bad Orange Man – probably be either the Alzheimer, or the Bolshevik. ;)
jbsays
Knucklehead in America (KIA) at 9:
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Yeah. He really asked that. What a clueless idiot. Well, I started with a few, but I think there’s about a billion. I got tired. Feel free to pile on.
Republicans are fiscally responsible.
During a recession, government must tighten its belt.
Tax cuts create revenue.
The United States is a Christian nation.
Everyone has equal opportunity in the US.
The US has a better health care system than other developed nations.
Climate change is a hoax.
Climate change is not caused by human activity.
Climate change is not a bad thing.
It’s too late to stop climate change.
Climate scientists are just trying to grab the money.
Climate scientists are part of a massive disinformation campaign meant to allow government to promulgate a massive regulatory scheme.
Joe Biden is crooked, but Donald Trump is not.
It’s ok for bribery to be the President’s standard mode of operation.
Bribery is not a crime when the president does it.
Not standing during the pledge of allegiance is disloyal.
The confederacy was not about slavery. It was about state’s rights.
Immigrants are the cause of our economic ills.
Government never does anything right.
Free Markets will cure all ills.
Democrats always run deficits. Republicans don’t.
KIA, what part of Norman Foster don’t you understand?
He’s designed an entire new Indian state capital city coveing over 200 squre kilometers to take a bite out of the urban heat island effect in a tropical clime.
Ralphsays
“The dip down towards 2.0ppm/yr projected by the model back in August isn’t yet evident”
What is more important here?
Being right with your calculated projections or the actual increases in PPM and what that means?
“So a second source finds the warmest Janurary on record is followed by the second-warmest February, this without any significant El-Niño-boost.”
Which surely is not of any surprise to anyone. Is it? That’s what happens in a warming world driven by the cumulative increase in GHGs. Before you know it they’ll be an El Nino as well. It’s guaranteed.
Adam Leasays
15: It is tied to the fallacy of the just world, the belief that if you live a virtuous life and work hard, good things will happen to you and vice versa. It is common among those who lean to the right.
Unfortunately such a belief is tied to victim blaming as well.
In the real world, decent people get exploited and suffer, and evil people often gain at the expense of others, and never face consequences for their actions.
It might be comforting to believe in Karma, where good actions are rewarded and evil is punished, but the real world doesn’t operate like that.
Mikesays
at Ralph 21: I am watching Al’s CO2 projections with interest. I suspect I am not alone in that. There is a long history here of trying to project and understand the bumps and dips of CO2 increase.
I have trouble deciphering Al’s calculations and presentations, but I can follow the numbers and know when he hits or misses the mark.
The rest of what you say makes sense to me. CO2 continues to rise and with that, we get more heat. The ENSO cycle will bring new El Nino’s and La Nina’s to us and that will show up in global temps.
On the upside, we are seeing some upside down days now and that did not happen a few years ago. Here’s one:
Daily CO2
Mar. 4, 2020: 413.05 ppm
Mar. 4, 2019: 413.37 ppm
February 23 – 29, 2020 413.72 ppm
February 23 – 29, 2019 412.25 ppm
co2.earth for the numbers that I provide.
Cheers
Mike
Polar Flyersays
re#17- Thank you for reading the article I linked! Please pass it on. I hope it is relevant and of interest to the general RealClimate readership.
I would like to read which peer-reviewed articles you are basing your contention on that CO2 is generally good for plants. And, how did they define “good?” Does “good for plants [in general]” equate to “good for human agriculture?” or “good for human nutrition?” or “good for the ecosystem?” I’d like to know, because, Science. It’s my thing. :)
That is a genuine request, I do want to read any scientific literature that supports your point. What we probably agree is a waste of both of our time, is to litigate in this forum, the other question you wrote about, of whether post-industrial global warming is anthropogenic or not. Plenty of material on that topic is already easily available.
As for my alias “Polar Flyer,” I try not to share too much personal information on the internet. But like all people involved in climate science, I depend heavily on our modern energy infrastructure to make my contribution, and yes that includes the fossil fuel-based transportation sector. I hope it is not that way for much longer, though some forms of transportation will be more technically challenging to wean off of fossil fuels than others. I’m not one who sees zero role for fossil fuels in the economy, but I am very alarmed for the condition of the planet that my children will inherit if we do not make major structural changes to energy. So, no, I am not a goose– I guess your question was sarcastic but I wanted to offer a well-meaning answer. Thank you!
jbsays
Knucklehead in America (KIA) at 9:
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Continued from 18 above:
Markets don’t fail.
Markets will adequately fund basic research.
Apple, Microsoft and Intel are great examples of the great things that private enterprise can do without any assistance from government.
As are Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Glock, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, etc.
I don’t trust CNN.
The news media isn’t trustworthy.
Democrats are always playing politics.
The House investigation of Trump was entirely political.
Mueller exonerated Trump.
Mueller didn’t exonerate Hillary.
Democrats don’t believe in America.
Russia didn’t interfere in our elections. Ukraine did.
There is a deep state run by the Democrats and trying to undermine Trump.
Markets will correct pollution (and every other problem) without government intervention.
Union leadership is always corrupt.
Labor organization distorts markets.
Unions prevent workers from having a choice of employment.
Unions work against workers’ interests.
[__________] is not harmful. (fill in your favorite poisonous chemical)
You can actually drink fracking liquid.
Canada’s health system is terrible.
Britain’s health system is terrible.
France’s health system is terrible.
And so on.
George Soros is engaged in a massive conspiracy with other rich Democrats to buy political influence – and he has successfully taken over the country as a result. Charles Koch has not.
All Democrats believe that abortion is right.
We can replace Obamacare with free market solutions and our health care system will work better.
We’re not trying to undermine Obamacare.
Charles Koch does not tell me how to think.
I’m an independent thinker. Libtards are lemmings.
Those guys with the confederate flag, marching next to the guys in the hoods and the guys with the black and red armbands, aren’t racist. They’re just proud of their heritage.
Democrats want bigger government so they can take the extra money.
All those rich guys are self made men and they made it without government help.
The Heritage Foundation is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
The Heartland Institute is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
The American Enterprise Institute is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
The Cato Institute is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
And so on.
jbsays
Knucklehead in America (KIA) at 9:
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Sorry, I forgot the most important one:
If people suffer misfortune, its their own fault and they deserve what they get.
Unless it’s one of us.
nigeljsays
KIA @17
“NYT article about alleged science interference by Trumpists within the Department of the Interior (USA):”…..”When the first sentence has a blatantly incorrect statement, in a leftist publication, it’s a bad sign:….Quote: “…including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial…”Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing.”
No its not a blatantly incorrect statement. KIA is lying by omitting the full statement. This is what the article actually said “He also instructed department scientists to add that rising carbon dioxide — the main force driving global warming — is beneficial because it “may increase plant water use efficiency” and “lengthen the agricultural growing season.” Both assertions misrepresent the scientific consensus that, overall, climate change will result in severe disruptions to global agriculture and significant reductions in crop yields.” (so any increase in plant growth is ultimately outweighed by other factors).
Al Bundysays
mrkia: Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants!
AB: Clearly, increased CO2 is detrimental to brain function. Given that mrkia cares more about plants than brains my guess is that he’s a brain-dead GOPper.
Mr. Know It Allsays
24 – Polar Flyer
“I would like to read which peer-reviewed articles you are basing your contention on that CO2 is generally good for plants…..”
A quote from a USDA Agricultural Research Service paper:
“Higher CO2 concentrations provide a “fertilizer effect” to most plants, including crops,….”
Source:
Page 6 of this PDF file (document page 28):
One other comment about that Trump scientist putting “uncertainty” language in AGW science reports. Ever read the IPCC reports? The IPCC reports mentions certainty or uncertainty throughout the report, yet, the dishonest NY Times wants readers to think only the evil Orange man does such things. An excerpt from AR5:
“An integral feature of IPCC reports is the communication of the strength of and uncertainties in scientific understanding underlying
assessment findings. Uncertainty can result from a wide range of sources. Uncertainties in the past and present are the result of limitations of available measurements, especially for rare events, and the challenges of evaluating causation in complex or multi-component processes that can span physical, biological and human systems. For the future, climate change involves changing likelihoods of diverse outcomes. Many processes and mechanisms are well understood, but others are not. Complex interactions among multiple climatic and non-climatic influences changing over time lead to persistent uncertainties, which in turn lead to the possibility of surprises. Compared to past IPCC reports, the AR5 assesses a substantially larger knowledge base of scientific, technical and socio-economic literature.
{WGI 1.4, WGII SPM A-3, 1.1.2, WGIII 2.3}”
“We’ve found that one of the most worrying impacts of climate change has already begun,” said Simon Lewis, a professor in the school of geography at Leeds University in the United Kingdom and one of the senior authors of the research. “This is decades ahead of even the most pessimistic climate models.”
For maybe a decade – I don’t remember exactly when this specific thought came to me and I posted it here, but it’s been a while – I have said “There is no hysteresis.” I have said in all past extinctions and rapid climate changes there was an intact ecosystem so the changes had to propagate through a series of systems, or through sets of reinforcing nested systems, but this time we have preconditioned the planet for disaster by destroying the feedback systems that would slow change and give us a chance to change our systems on a time frame that is sociopolitically viable. Therefore, I have concluded over these years, we have no time for typical sociopolitical processes.
An extremely important point WRT this is despite having repeated the “There is no hysteresis” point for quite a while, I do not recall a single instance of anyone refuting it. I don’t recall anyone addressing it even once, including blog owners and guest scientists.
None refute it, yet analyses ignore it.
Maybe that will change now.
——————–
Aside: Here’s a nugget I stumbled upon while researching for this post… it’s from 2013: “We may be seeing a hysteresis in the Arctic with the very ice reduction in question shifting seasons so much that ice formation is pushed well into winter and ice melt is pushed consistently into March.”
I had forgotten I had noted that change that long ago. I thought it more recent.
Mr. Know It Allsays
4 Webcam views of beautiful Italian snow. 9 hours ahead of Pacific time (8 hours after March 8):
“I built this”–utterly ignoring everyone who helped him along, from the mother who suckled him to the graduate professor who mentored him to the government who funded his education.
I also like, “This country needs to be run more like a business,” or, given their support for DJT, I guess they mean a failed business
KIA 9: This is the USA – everyone has equal opportunity
BPL: This contradicts every study ever made of the subject in the past 50 years. All results indicate there is less social mobility now than even in our parents’ generation.
KIA 17: Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing. . . . I’ll touch on a few other false statements in the article: . . . There is little debate that the earth is warming; the debate among scientists is about WHAT IS CAUSING warming. Also, some studies HAVE found the earth to not be warming for certain periods; ie “the pause”. Also, per history, warming occurred loooong before SUVs – like it or not, this casts doubt on AGW theory. . . . There IS huge debate among scientists about the rate of warming. . . . Warming WILL increase crop yields in the far north. . . . The benefit to increased water for farms FAR outweigh the negatives. . . . By adding language noting actual climate science uncertainty to agency reports Mr. Goklany makes the reports more accurate and less biased. If there is uncertainty, that HAS to be taken into account when policy is made, otherwise the policy basis is biased. . . . Says he gave a presentation at Interior promoting FFs and CO2 to human and environmental well-being. He would be correct – the use of FFs has enabled the world to be developed to the point it is today, making a comfortable life possible for billions, and making ANY life possible for other billions. Without FFs we’d still be cavemen. Without CO2 we’d all be dead, as would all the plants! Try to deny it.
BPL: Wow! Such a target-rich environment! KIA manages to pack about a dozen denier cliches into a few small paragraphs! Let’s tackle the idiocy one statement at a a time:
KIA: Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing.
BPL: Global warming increases drought in continental interiors and storms along coastlines. Neither are good for plants.
KIA: There is little debate that the earth is warming; the debate among scientists is about WHAT IS CAUSING warming.
BPL: No, there is no debate about that at all. The warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases.
KIA: Also, some studies HAVE found the earth to not be warming for certain periods; ie “the pause”.
BPL: You must have missed the extensive debunking of that idiotic idea. There was no pause. You need 30 years to find a climate trend, 18 years of warming somewhat more slowly is noise, not a “pause.”
KIA: Also, per history, warming occurred loooong before SUVs – like it or not, this casts doubt on AGW theory.
BPL: Forest fires happened naturally for millions of years; therefore there’s no such thing as arson. Natural causes for climate change doesn’t mean there can’t be artificial causes, KIA.
KIA: There IS huge debate among scientists about the rate of warming.
BPL: No, there is not. Pretty much all the temperature series agree.
KIA: Warming WILL increase crop yields in the far north.
BPL: See above. And even if it did, it’s global yield that counts, not the fact that they might suddenly be able to raise more barley in Siberia.
KIA: The benefit to increased water for farms FAR outweigh the negatives.
BPL: Increased droughts and receding glaciers mean LESS water for farms, KIA.
KIA: By adding language noting actual climate science uncertainty to agency reports Mr. Goklany makes the reports more accurate and less biased. If there is uncertainty, that HAS to be taken into account when policy is made, otherwise the policy basis is biased.
BPL: Except that the “uncertainty” he notes doesn’t actually exist outside the denial blogosphere.
KIA: Says he gave a presentation at Interior promoting FFs and CO2 to human and environmental well-being. He would be correct – the use of FFs has enabled the world to be developed to the point it is today, making a comfortable life possible for billions, and making ANY life possible for other billions. Without FFs we’d still be cavemen.
BPL: The Romans, Byzantines, Chinese, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Renaissance era people, were all cavemen? Your history is as good as your science.
KIA: Without CO2 we’d all be dead, as would all the plants! Try to deny it.
BPL: Except that nobody is advocating getting rid of CO2, so this is a classic straw man.
Any other right-wing PC malarkey you’d care to try out?
Hats off to jb for his very familiar list of right-wing PC malarkey. Good job, jb!
Killiansays
Re #23 Mike said On the upside, we are seeing some upside down days now and that did not happen a few years ago. Here’s one:
Daily CO2
Mar. 4, 2020: 413.05 ppm
Mar. 4, 2019: 413.37 ppm
Why? COVID-19.
When I say simplicity, shutting down the vast majority of industrial production, solves our problems, maybe one or two of you can begin to wrap your head around just how rapidly things can change. And it’s the *only* way things can rapidly change. Thanks, virus, for the sad but effective proof of concept.
I have been directed to this site to find some answers to questions that arise from my own research as an economic historian.
Very recent work led by Lorenzo Polvani and an international team of scientists just published in January 2020 by Nature Climate Change (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4)
argues that large amounts of global and arctic warming are actually due to ozone depleting chemicals (CFCs, HFCs, other halons, and nitrous oxide [N20]), no less than 1/2 of all warming in the arctic and no less than 1/3 of all global warming between 1955 and 2005. These ozone depleting chemicals are trace gasses measured in parts per billion but have global warming potentials 100s to many 1000s of times greater than CO2. CFC-11 and CFC-12 are 19,000 and 23,000 times more radiatively efficient than CO2 per molecule. The global warming impact of methane has apparently also been underestimated, with one new study by Hmiel et al. in Nature arguing that anthropogenic CH4 releases have been 25-40% greater then previously thought (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1991-8). Another study by Thompson et al. in Nature Climate Change from November 2019 showed that N20 emissions have been rising far more than the IPCC had assumed since 2009 (by an estimated factor of 2.3!) (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0613-7). According to the US EPA, the global warming potential of N20 is 265-298 times greater than CO2 over a 100 year timescale (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials). Tropospheric ozone (O3) is both a potent direct greenhouse gas and plays a role in the lifetime and effectiveness of other greenhouse gasses. According to research by Jim Hansen and others published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2006), tropospheric O3 is estimated to have caused no less than 1/3 to 1/2 of the observed recent trends in arctic warming in the winter and spring, when O3 is easily transported to polar regions from lower latitude urban centers https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006348. According to a 2010 paper by Unger et al. in the proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences (citing work by the Fourth Assessment working group of the IPCC) that tropospheric O3’s direct cumulative radiative forcing when combined with fine particulates like black carbon may outweigh that of all the CO2 released since the beginning of the industrial era https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/02/02/0906548107.full.pdf. Sulphur hexaflouride (SF6) is perhaps the most potent anthropogenic greenhouse gas, and its emissions have been rising rapidly from use as an electrical insulator. Its 100 year global warming potential per molecule is estimated at 23,000 times that of C02. Its atmospheric abundance is low at 8.60 parts per trillion volume, but it is rising at a linear rate by 0.33 pptv per year and can persist in the environment for more than 1000 years. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/883/2017/acp-17-883-2017.pdf
The 100 year global warming potential of the replacement chemicals to CFCs, HFCs (C5H2F10, aka HCFC), was recently re-estimated to be somewhat lower than previously thought, but at 1,410 it is still over 1000 times greater per molecule than C02 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022285217301455. According to NOAA, these chemicals have been accumulating in the atmosphere at a rapid rate since 1990, with HCFC-22 and HCFC-134a above 250 and 100 pptv respectively in 2015 and increasing linearly. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/about/hfc.html
My question: Could ozone depleting chemicals and the other GHGs (with a large revision downward of CO2 radiative forcing and amplification feedbacks?) explain a modestly warming upper troposphere, higher tropopause, and a cooling stratosphere that are among the markers of anthropogenic climate change? Wouldn’t that also align with the strong empirical evidence of very little global warming since the preindustrial era until 1950 that then really accelerated after the 1950s and 1960s as CFCs, HFCs, halons, and SF6 emissions skyrocketed from their industrial use as refrigerants, solvents, propellants, and electrical insulating gasses? The spike in anthropogenic warming from N20 and CH4 could likewise be timed with the massive intensification of agriculture enabled by large-scale application of nitrate fertilizer and changes in land use patterns (deforestation) accompanying the green revolution since the 1970s. This was a time that was also accompanied by dramatically increased diesel tractor and diesel vehicle use, skyrocketing bunker fuel emissions from the expansion of container shipping, and rising heating oil emissions from a switch from coal to oil, which could account for much of the rest of the increase in N20, much of the tropospheric O3, and a large part of the fine particulate emissions increases. The timing of the acceleration of warming would also strongly imply a weaker climate sensitivity to C02 forcing and a greater cumulative forcing of these other greenhouse gasses. It was, after all, in the 1980s and 1990s that global warming really accelerated, not earlier. Would that not also align well with the much stronger warming over the poles (mostly accounted for by CFCs, HFCs, N20, tropospheric O3), strong stratospheric cooling from the depletion of/hole in the polar stratospheric 03 layer, and the much weaker than expected tropical upper tropospheric temperature anomoly and the weaker than expected deep ocean warming?
Al Bundysays
Mike: I am watching Al’s CO2 projections
AB: I have never seen a post in RC by an Al besides me. WTF?
Polar Flyersays
There is evidence for the hypothesis that plants will suffer decreasing micronutrient content in a higher-CO2 environment:
Which makes a lot of sense. If you imagine plants accumulating carbon faster, but the rate at which they accumulate micronutrients remains the same, you risk the plant growing to mature size before it accumulates the same nutrient content, and/or the nutrients it does absorb are diluted over a larger volume of plant material.
Basically, you may grow more rice or grow it faster, but it is nutritionally less valuable. I don’t see how that’s good for the plant or good for humans.
Another problem with the denialists’ theory that “CO2 is good for plants” is that different plants respond differently. How do we know that suddenly weeds or other nuisance plants won’t start becoming even more competitive against plants that are economically valuable? If I were a farmer, I’d be concerned about this in the long term. Do I need to buy more herbicides?
Were weeds that previously didn’t cause problems start to become more prolific? Will pest insect populations be impacted by changing plant physiology? Science can answer these questions, but if you don’t trust the scientists in the first place, why bother… Mr. KIA?
mikesays
At AB: MAR is another Al. The other Al I was referring to at 23
At Killian: yup, it might be Covid 19 driving the numbers down. I am not sure of that by any means, but it crossed my mind also.
I think survival may require degrowth. That’s not a popular idea, but it keeps popping up.
Trolls having a field day here now.
CO2? Marching upward:
Daily CO2
Mar. 5, 2020: 413.50 ppm
Mar. 5, 2019: 410.91 ppm
Waist deep in the big muddy and the big fool says, push on.
Killian says “When I say simplicity, shutting down the vast majority of industrial production, solves our problems, maybe one or two of you can begin to wrap your head around just how rapidly things can change. And it’s the *only* way things can rapidly change. Thanks, virus, for the sad but effective proof of concept.”
Yes stopping most of industrial production will certainly dramatically reduce CO2 levels and quickly. We didn’t need covid 19 to show us what is obvious. It will also cause massive supply shortages, and bring us to our knees. This is equally obvious.
Al Bundysays
At AB: MAR is another Al
AB: who has never identified himself as “Al”. So why are you tossing strange illogicals?
Polar Flyersays
Re #29- Thanks for the links, the videos were great. Who doesn’t like watching plants grow?? Yes, I read the IPCC reports. And yes, it is proven science that when you control for other variables, increasing CO2 above standard atmospheric conditions can increase growth, you and I agree on that. So let’s take it to the next level here. What’s overlooked is the difference between the controlled lab, where temperature, humidity, nutrition, etc, are all controlled while CO2 is varied– vs the real world, where changing atmospheric CO2 has higher-order effects on water availability, temperature, humidity, competition from other plants, herbivore populations, and so on.
What I’m really driving at is, and what I asked in my previous question but you didn’t address yet: what’s the definition of “good” used here? If you say “plants generally grow faster,” I say “so what?” What I care about is: is it good for mankind and for the overall health and stability of the ecosystem, because that has an impact on me and society. So lets take the USDA report in which you reference the “fertilizer effect,” and look at a little more context around it (quote from the document you linked, p28):
“Under projected climate change, the total external costs over all pesticide classes for U.S. agriculture per hectare could increase up to 70 percent from 2000 to 2100. Higher CO2 concentrations provide a ‘fertilizer effect’ to most plants, including crops, but there is likely to be a need for increasing rates of herbicide applications to control weeds because increased biomass of weeds requires more herbicide to kill them”.
Translation: “good” for photosynthesis in general? Sure maybe. But “good” for plants I like to eat and for minimizing fertilizer and other agricultural costs? Maybe not so much.
Coincidentally, I posted a link earlier today discussing another adverse impact of increased CO2 in practical plant physiology, which is degradation of nutrient composition. Things like that have a big impact to me in whether I consider the outcome “good” or not. If you have similar links to peer-reviewed, scientific papers, supporting positive outcomes for agriculture of a CO2-enriched biosphere, I genuinely do want to read them!
Lastly, as for uncertainty. The uncertainty (in AR5, for instance) that scientists use is more than a qualitative acknowledgement of imperfect knowledge and varied outcomes. In models, the uncertainty is quantitative, and there’s a rationale behind the range and numbers that result. And even despite that uncertainty, scientists can conclude with a high degree of confidence that CO2 is driving adverse climate change, they can make future predictions, and they find that new observations are in line with those predictions. That’s very different from what Mr. Goklany is accused of doing. He’s accused of interjecting qualitative statements of uncertainty, taken out of context, to intentionally introduce a political bias into the record and undermine scientific research. I would be more open-minded about his uncertainty if he were to show his math and it held up.
As scientists we work very hard to remove bias from our work. It is extremely disheartening, to say the least, when someone else comes along and introduces any bias, especially a deliberate, self-serving one, and especially if it appears coercively done.
EGS @40,
You come here with you question after a spell at SkepticalScience where I did note that you also arrived with a preciously-held answer to that question.
If you examine the forcing resulting from these various GHGs you will see that the acceleration in AGW (which begins in the 1970s) is not coincidental with any increase in forcing from CH4 or N2O or CFC or HCFC or HFC or SF6 or O3 or any combination thereof. The data available in IPCC AR5 WG1 Annex II Table AII.1.2 or on the NOAA AGGI webpage shows no increase in non-CO2 GHG forcing (relative to CO2 forcing) coincidental with the 1970s global temperature acceleration. The data actually shows the opposite – a slowing of CH4 forcing rate (which pauses during the 2000s) and a drop in the forcing rate from other non-CO2 GHGs (although not N2O or SF6 which retain a linear non-accelerating increase) from the 1990s-on while CO2 forcing rates continue apace. These numbers are derived from AR5 Table AII.1.2:-
Average increases in GHG climate forcings (Wm^-2/decade)
… … … … … … CO2 .. … … ‘”Other” + O3
1950s … … … … 0.05 … … … … 0.13
1960s … … … … 0.11 … … … … 0.14
1970s … … … … 0.18 … … … … 0.22
1980s … … … … 0.24 … … … … 0.25
1990s … … … … 0.22 … … … … 0.17
2000s … … … … 0.27 … … … … 0.07
EGS 40: Very recent work led by Lorenzo Polvani and an international team of scientists just published in January 2020 by Nature Climate Change (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4) argues that large amounts of global and arctic warming are actually due to ozone depleting chemicals (CFCs, HFCs, other halons, and nitrous oxide [N20]), no less than 1/2 of all warming in the arctic and no less than 1/3 of all global warming between 1955 and 2005.
BPL: That’s difficult to reconcile with CO2 representing 82% of the variance of temperature in that period.
February’s MLO CO2 reading is added to the table, this still provisional (being calculated from the weekly values plus the 1stFeb value). The dip down towards 2.0ppm/yr projected by the model back in August isn’t yet evident, with the numbers looking more encouraging for the Met Office forecast. The numbers are graphed out here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Predicted & Recorded increases in MLO CO2 (ppm/year)
… … … … … Met Office… … … .Modelled… … … … ..Actual… … … .. ..Actual
… … … . forecast [Smothd]. .[Original,Smoothed]… .[Unsmoothed]… .[Smoothed]
Jan19 … … … 2.64 … … … … … 2.74 … … … … … … 2.87 … … … … 2.85
Feb19 … … … 2.64 … … … … … 2.92 … … … … … … 3.43 … … … … 2.95
Mar19 … … … 3.04 … … … … … 3.13 … … … … … … 2.56 … … … … 3.02
Apr19 … … … 3.24 … … … … … 3.10 … … … … … … 3.08 … … … … 3.02
May19 … … … 3.38 … … … … … 3.16 … … … … … … 3.42 … … … … 3.21
Jun19 … … … 3.22 … … … … … 3.24 … … … … … … 3.13 … … … … 3.20
Jul19 … … … 3.00 … … … … … 3.07 … … … … … … 3.06 … … … … 3.05
Aug19 … … … 2.86 … … … … … 2.94 … … … … … … 2.96 … … … … 3.02
Sep19 … … … 2.63 … … … … … 2.78 … … … … … … 3.03 … … … … 2.84
Oct19 … … … 2.42 … … … … … 2.66 … … … … … … 2.53 … … … … 2.60
Nov19 … … … 2.44 … … … … … 2.44 … … … … … … 2.25 … … … … 2.49
Dec19 … … … 2.46 … … … … … 2.13 … … … … … … 2.69 … … … … 2.50
Jan20 … … … 2.48 … … … … … 2.07 … … … … … … 2.57 … … … … 2.54
Feb20 … … … 2.58 … … … … … 2.06 … … … … … … 2.35
Mar20 … … … 2.89 … … … … … 1.87
The arrival of March has been greeted by a cold wind from Newcastle:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/02/annals-of-feminist-glaciology-c2g2.html
Mr. KIA @ 169 (Feb.) Whether or not the presentation on tropical cyclones and their relationship to AGW that you referenced would make strong evidence in a court of law is irrelevant. You could perhaps find “experts” to convince a jury that neutrinos don’t exist or the Earth is flat. Nature is the court in session.
Concerning the presentation itself, Goldenberg disingenuously remarks toward the beginning that tropical cyclones are “nature’s big eggbeaters to balance out heat from the tropics with the cold up north.” As he should well know, a tropical cyclone derives its energy not from temperature differences between latitude, but from the heat energy stored in tropical oceans, and released by organized moist convection within the storm. As soon as a storm reaches a latitude where it is even partially driven by differences in surface temperature, it is reclassified as subtropical or extratropical. This is important because Goldenberg obscures the obvious relationship between strong tropical cyclones and the warm ocean water they require for development in his opening remark.
I do agree that the mainstream news media will generally sensationalize and simplify whatever science topic they choose to cover. Also, that long term trends in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity should not be based strictly on reported incidence, damage, or death tolls – because of changes in observational density, population, and warning effectiveness over time.
Goldenberg later explicitly ties Atlantic hurricane activity to sea surface temperature (see 1:28-9) with huge increases in hurricane activity and major hurricanes during the periods of warmer SSTs, but he ignores the fact that as ocean temperatures increase in general, the energy available to the storms will increase, along with their potential intensity if other factors allow them to develop fully. However, since development to full potential is relatively uncommon, it is important to use as large a sample as possible. Limiting his discussion of intensity to the Atlantic basin helps him to obscure this relationship, since tropical cyclones are more numerous in the Pacific, and have longer tracks over warm open ocean for maximal development.
As you yourself noted in Feb. comment 135, the amount of atmospheric energy depends strongly on moisture as well as temperature. The surface humidity in a well-developed tropical cyclone is near 100% at the ocean temperature, as winds stir breaking waves into a white froth. How do you justify your idea that tropical cyclones will cease to have more energy if ocean temperatures rise?
175 – nigelj from the February UV
“The codes have nothing to do with this issue…… The so called leftist pc has therefore not infested the engineering world. If its infested the corporate world all to the good. KIA is trying to conflate the engineering world with the corporate world.
Perhaps KIA can explain what is wrong with an owner wanting energy efficient buildings? ….”
Nothing wrong with an owner wanting energy efficient buildings – I did not say there was, but leftist PC has infected engineering. Ask any HR rep. ;) Also see LEED requirements – although not applicable to all buildings, many are concerned with equity, social justice, and other leftist PC frivolous malarkey. I’ll not get into the specifics – research it.
177 – CCHolley in February UV
“Making buildings more energy efficient and *green* are smart economic decisions, leftist PC has nothing to do with it.”
Yes, making buildings more energy efficient is smart. See comment above. Engineers are not social justice warriors – dollars for projects are scarce and it is not the job of engineers to be climate activists. Climate activism is forced on them with efficiency requirements in the law – and that’s fine.
Understand this: engineers do not, in general, design buildings – that is done by architects who want perty buildings. A lot of energy efficiency measures are butt ugly. That’s why I push for removal of zoning, HOA, and other measures that hinder home and building owners who want to install energy saving features. So far, not a single politician has shown any interest – they’re all too busy pushing for carbon taxes so they can use the money to prop up their failing PERS funds – which is EXACTLY what they will use it for; or else they are fighting to topple Trump or remove peoples Second Amendment rights. Those people don’t give a shit about climate change. :) You voted for them, not me.
And the “scorchyissimo!!!” continues with UAH TLT posting a Feb anomaly of +0.76ºC, a bit of a jump up from January’s +0.56ºC (although UAH didn’t show an increase between November & January when every other temperature record did). So following the equal-warmest Janurary on the UAH record, we have the second-warmest February, and this without any significant El-Niño-boost.
The warmest Febrarys in UAH now run 2016 (+0.86ºC), 2020 (+0.76ºC), 1998 (+0.65ºC), 2017 (+0.47ºC), 2010 (+0.46ºC), 2019 (+0.37ºC), 2002 (+0.30ºC) followed by 2003, 2004 & 2018 (all +0.25ºC).
Feb 2020 sits 3rd in the UAH TLT all-month anomaly record behind the El-Niño-boosted months Feb & Mar 2016.
The start to 2020 averages +0.66ºC, 2nd warmest on record after El-Niño-boosted 2016 (+0.71ºC) with 3rd & 4th spots also El-Niño-boosted, namely 1998 (+0.57ºC) & 2010 (+0.48ºC). The previous warmest un-El-Niño-boosted start to the year was 2017 down at +0.435ºC so the start of 2020 is truly “scorchyissimo!!!”
Carbon Brief on climate tipping points. Very detailed but in plain language:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change
KIA 4: many are concerned with equity, social justice, and other leftist PC frivolous malarkey.
BPL: Got that, folks? Equity and social justice are “leftist PC frivolous malarkey.” You heard it here first.
Mr.KIA your post number 4 is sadly useless as it is obviously constrained more by your rightest pc beliefs rather than reality, a reality that increasingly leaves your thoughts where they belong…in the dustbin of history! I hope you come to realize how silly you make yourself seem and accept reality as it is not as you would have it be.
3 – John Pollak
“How do you justify your idea that tropical cyclones will cease to have more energy if ocean temperatures rise?”
Thank you for comments that are not mean or insulting, unlike a lot of folks around here. To answer your question, I’d point to the historical record – powerful storms occurred long before today, one of the most powerful was in 1935. AGW was not a big factor then.
7 – BPL
“BPL: Got that, folks? Equity and social justice are “leftist PC frivolous malarkey.” You heard it here first.”
This is the USA – everyone has equal opportunity – work hard, do the right thing, and you’ll do OK here – as it should be.
8 – WBJ
“Mr.KIA your post number 4 is sadly useless as it is obviously constrained more by your rightest pc beliefs rather than reality,…”
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Back to climate science, last month, someone asked why Spring seemed to be arriving early this year in Redmond, Washington although farther south where I’m at, we’re running slightly below normal temps so far this year. However, it is true that this year we will have the earliest spring in 124 years (since 1896):
https://www.almanac.com/spring-2020-earliest-spring-in-over-100-years
https://www.columbian.com/news/2020/feb/28/the-astronomical-difference-a-leap-day-makes-well-have-earliest-spring-since-1896/
I shouldn’t be baited into OT stuff, I know, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard this many times before–albeit rarely so baldly stated. Justice is always “malarkey” to the privileged–among others.
And further evidence of “scorchyissimo!!!” appears with the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis for February which posts an anomaly of +0.80ºC, an increase on January’s +0.77ºC. So a second source finds the warmest Janurary on record is followed by the second-warmest February, this without any significant El-Niño-boost.
The top-10 warmest Februarys in ERA5 now run 2016 (+0.88ºC), 2020 (+0.80ºC), 2017 (+0.70ºC), 2019 (+0.51ºC), 2018 (+0.46ºC), 2010 (+0.42ºC), 2015 (+0.40ºC), 1998 (+0.35ºC), 2006 (+0.29ºC) and 2007 (+0.29ºC).
Feb 2020 sits 3rd in the ERA5 all-month anomaly record with only the El-Niño-boosted months Feb & Mar 2016 sitting higher.
The start to 2020 averages +0.78ºC, 2nd warmest on record after El-Niño-boosted 2016 (+0.81ºC) with 2017 in 3rd spot (+0.65ºC), 4th 2019 (+0.49ºC), 5th 2018 (+0.46ºC) and 6th 2007 (+0.42ºC).
RE. Mr. Know Nothing
Is energy efficiency legislation just a leftest construct?
Not so much.
President G. Ford (REP) Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1974
President J. Carter (DEM) National Energy Act of 1978 (significant bipartisan support)
President R. Regan (REP) National Appliance Energy Conservation aAct of 1987
President G. Bush (REP) Energy Policy Act of 1992
President G. W. Bush (REP) Energy Policy Act of 2005
President G. W Bush (REP) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
mrkia: Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
mrkia: This is the USA – everyone has equal opportunity
NYT article about alleged science interference by Trumpists within the Department of the Interior (USA):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/climate/goks-uncertainty-language-interior.html
Wow. You really, *really* don’t get out much, do you, KIA? People who do the right thing get screwed over all the time.
And to imagine that everyone actually has “equal opportunity” is the most amazing fantasy I’ve encountered in a while. But it does confirm that KIA is in a privileged bubble. Or just delusional.
#15 I vote delusional!
14 – Polar Flyer
“NYT article about alleged science interference by Trumpists within the Department of the Interior (USA):”
When the first sentence has a blatantly incorrect statement, in a leftist publication, it’s a bad sign:
Quote: “…including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial…”
Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing.
I’ll touch on a few other false statements in the article:
There is little debate that the earth is warming; the debate among scientists is about WHAT IS CAUSING warming. Also, some studies HAVE found the earth to not be warming for certain periods; ie “the pause”. Also, per history, warming occurred loooong before SUVs – like it or not, this casts doubt on AGW theory.
There IS huge debate among scientists about the rate of warming.
Warming WILL increase crop yields in the far north.
The benefit to increased water for farms FAR outweigh the negatives.
By adding language noting actual climate science uncertainty to agency reports Mr. Goklany makes the reports more accurate and less biased. If there is uncertainty, that HAS to be taken into account when policy is made, otherwise the policy basis is biased.
Says he gave a presentation at Interior promoting FFs and CO2 to human and environmental well-being. He would be correct – the use of FFs has enabled the world to be developed to the point it is today, making a comfortable life possible for billions, and making ANY life possible for other billions. Without FFs we’d still be cavemen. Without CO2 we’d all be dead, as would all the plants! Try to deny it.
Polar Flyer – interesting name, are you a goose, or do you fly those FF powered birds? ;)
In November you’ll have a choice to replace the Bad Orange Man – probably be either the Alzheimer, or the Bolshevik. ;)
Knucklehead in America (KIA) at 9:
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Yeah. He really asked that. What a clueless idiot. Well, I started with a few, but I think there’s about a billion. I got tired. Feel free to pile on.
Republicans are fiscally responsible.
During a recession, government must tighten its belt.
Tax cuts create revenue.
The United States is a Christian nation.
Everyone has equal opportunity in the US.
The US has a better health care system than other developed nations.
Climate change is a hoax.
Climate change is not caused by human activity.
Climate change is not a bad thing.
It’s too late to stop climate change.
Climate scientists are just trying to grab the money.
Climate scientists are part of a massive disinformation campaign meant to allow government to promulgate a massive regulatory scheme.
Joe Biden is crooked, but Donald Trump is not.
It’s ok for bribery to be the President’s standard mode of operation.
Bribery is not a crime when the president does it.
Not standing during the pledge of allegiance is disloyal.
The confederacy was not about slavery. It was about state’s rights.
Immigrants are the cause of our economic ills.
Government never does anything right.
Free Markets will cure all ills.
Democrats always run deficits. Republicans don’t.
4 : re: “architects want perty buildings’
KIA, what part of Norman Foster don’t you understand?
He’s designed an entire new Indian state capital city coveing over 200 squre kilometers to take a bite out of the urban heat island effect in a tropical clime.
“The dip down towards 2.0ppm/yr projected by the model back in August isn’t yet evident”
What is more important here?
Being right with your calculated projections or the actual increases in PPM and what that means?
“So a second source finds the warmest Janurary on record is followed by the second-warmest February, this without any significant El-Niño-boost.”
Which surely is not of any surprise to anyone. Is it? That’s what happens in a warming world driven by the cumulative increase in GHGs. Before you know it they’ll be an El Nino as well. It’s guaranteed.
15: It is tied to the fallacy of the just world, the belief that if you live a virtuous life and work hard, good things will happen to you and vice versa. It is common among those who lean to the right.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallacy/
Unfortunately such a belief is tied to victim blaming as well.
In the real world, decent people get exploited and suffer, and evil people often gain at the expense of others, and never face consequences for their actions.
It might be comforting to believe in Karma, where good actions are rewarded and evil is punished, but the real world doesn’t operate like that.
at Ralph 21: I am watching Al’s CO2 projections with interest. I suspect I am not alone in that. There is a long history here of trying to project and understand the bumps and dips of CO2 increase.
I have trouble deciphering Al’s calculations and presentations, but I can follow the numbers and know when he hits or misses the mark.
The rest of what you say makes sense to me. CO2 continues to rise and with that, we get more heat. The ENSO cycle will bring new El Nino’s and La Nina’s to us and that will show up in global temps.
On the upside, we are seeing some upside down days now and that did not happen a few years ago. Here’s one:
Daily CO2
Mar. 4, 2020: 413.05 ppm
Mar. 4, 2019: 413.37 ppm
February 23 – 29, 2020 413.72 ppm
February 23 – 29, 2019 412.25 ppm
co2.earth for the numbers that I provide.
Cheers
Mike
re#17- Thank you for reading the article I linked! Please pass it on. I hope it is relevant and of interest to the general RealClimate readership.
I would like to read which peer-reviewed articles you are basing your contention on that CO2 is generally good for plants. And, how did they define “good?” Does “good for plants [in general]” equate to “good for human agriculture?” or “good for human nutrition?” or “good for the ecosystem?” I’d like to know, because, Science. It’s my thing. :)
That is a genuine request, I do want to read any scientific literature that supports your point. What we probably agree is a waste of both of our time, is to litigate in this forum, the other question you wrote about, of whether post-industrial global warming is anthropogenic or not. Plenty of material on that topic is already easily available.
As for my alias “Polar Flyer,” I try not to share too much personal information on the internet. But like all people involved in climate science, I depend heavily on our modern energy infrastructure to make my contribution, and yes that includes the fossil fuel-based transportation sector. I hope it is not that way for much longer, though some forms of transportation will be more technically challenging to wean off of fossil fuels than others. I’m not one who sees zero role for fossil fuels in the economy, but I am very alarmed for the condition of the planet that my children will inherit if we do not make major structural changes to energy. So, no, I am not a goose– I guess your question was sarcastic but I wanted to offer a well-meaning answer. Thank you!
Knucklehead in America (KIA) at 9:
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Continued from 18 above:
Markets don’t fail.
Markets will adequately fund basic research.
Apple, Microsoft and Intel are great examples of the great things that private enterprise can do without any assistance from government.
As are Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Glock, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, etc.
I don’t trust CNN.
The news media isn’t trustworthy.
Democrats are always playing politics.
The House investigation of Trump was entirely political.
Mueller exonerated Trump.
Mueller didn’t exonerate Hillary.
Democrats don’t believe in America.
Russia didn’t interfere in our elections. Ukraine did.
There is a deep state run by the Democrats and trying to undermine Trump.
Markets will correct pollution (and every other problem) without government intervention.
Union leadership is always corrupt.
Labor organization distorts markets.
Unions prevent workers from having a choice of employment.
Unions work against workers’ interests.
[__________] is not harmful. (fill in your favorite poisonous chemical)
You can actually drink fracking liquid.
Canada’s health system is terrible.
Britain’s health system is terrible.
France’s health system is terrible.
And so on.
George Soros is engaged in a massive conspiracy with other rich Democrats to buy political influence – and he has successfully taken over the country as a result. Charles Koch has not.
All Democrats believe that abortion is right.
We can replace Obamacare with free market solutions and our health care system will work better.
We’re not trying to undermine Obamacare.
Charles Koch does not tell me how to think.
I’m an independent thinker. Libtards are lemmings.
Those guys with the confederate flag, marching next to the guys in the hoods and the guys with the black and red armbands, aren’t racist. They’re just proud of their heritage.
Democrats want bigger government so they can take the extra money.
All those rich guys are self made men and they made it without government help.
The Heritage Foundation is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
The Heartland Institute is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
The American Enterprise Institute is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
The Cato Institute is an independent think tank and a reliable source of information.
And so on.
Knucklehead in America (KIA) at 9:
Rightest pc beliefs – that’s a new one on me – can you name some?
Sorry, I forgot the most important one:
If people suffer misfortune, its their own fault and they deserve what they get.
Unless it’s one of us.
KIA @17
“NYT article about alleged science interference by Trumpists within the Department of the Interior (USA):”…..”When the first sentence has a blatantly incorrect statement, in a leftist publication, it’s a bad sign:….Quote: “…including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial…”Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing.”
No its not a blatantly incorrect statement. KIA is lying by omitting the full statement. This is what the article actually said “He also instructed department scientists to add that rising carbon dioxide — the main force driving global warming — is beneficial because it “may increase plant water use efficiency” and “lengthen the agricultural growing season.” Both assertions misrepresent the scientific consensus that, overall, climate change will result in severe disruptions to global agriculture and significant reductions in crop yields.” (so any increase in plant growth is ultimately outweighed by other factors).
mrkia: Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants!
AB: Clearly, increased CO2 is detrimental to brain function. Given that mrkia cares more about plants than brains my guess is that he’s a brain-dead GOPper.
24 – Polar Flyer
“I would like to read which peer-reviewed articles you are basing your contention on that CO2 is generally good for plants…..”
A quote from a USDA Agricultural Research Service paper:
“Higher CO2 concentrations provide a “fertilizer effect” to most plants, including crops,….”
Source:
Page 6 of this PDF file (document page 28):
https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/adaptation/Agricultural_Research_Service.pdf
Videos:
Plants in controlled environment chamber:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
Increase plant growth with CO2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgLGCH9ErVE
Controlled environment chamber with controllable CO2 levels (note the setpoint of 2,000 ppm, running at 750 ppm):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIyYt1qXI3U
Even NASA rocket scientists know that CO2 helps plants grow:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
One other comment about that Trump scientist putting “uncertainty” language in AGW science reports. Ever read the IPCC reports? The IPCC reports mentions certainty or uncertainty throughout the report, yet, the dishonest NY Times wants readers to think only the evil Orange man does such things. An excerpt from AR5:
“An integral feature of IPCC reports is the communication of the strength of and uncertainties in scientific understanding underlying
assessment findings. Uncertainty can result from a wide range of sources. Uncertainties in the past and present are the result of limitations of available measurements, especially for rare events, and the challenges of evaluating causation in complex or multi-component processes that can span physical, biological and human systems. For the future, climate change involves changing likelihoods of diverse outcomes. Many processes and mechanisms are well understood, but others are not. Complex interactions among multiple climatic and non-climatic influences changing over time lead to persistent uncertainties, which in turn lead to the possibility of surprises. Compared to past IPCC reports, the AR5 assesses a substantially larger knowledge base of scientific, technical and socio-economic literature.
{WGI 1.4, WGII SPM A-3, 1.1.2, WGIII 2.3}”
Source: PDF page 53 (document page number 37) found here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
;)
Copernicus satellite: Warmest winter in Europe by far.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/boreal-winter-season-1920-was-far-warmest-winter-season-ever-recorded-europe-0
Long-term context: Winter 2019/20 is more than 2°C warmer than every winter prior to 1975, chart.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/2020-03/Supplementary%20text%20for%20winter%202019_2020_0.pdf
“We’ve found that one of the most worrying impacts of climate change has already begun,” said Simon Lewis, a professor in the school of geography at Leeds University in the United Kingdom and one of the senior authors of the research. “This is decades ahead of even the most pessimistic climate models.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/04/tropical-forests-losing-their-ability-to-absorb-carbon-study-finds
For maybe a decade – I don’t remember exactly when this specific thought came to me and I posted it here, but it’s been a while – I have said “There is no hysteresis.” I have said in all past extinctions and rapid climate changes there was an intact ecosystem so the changes had to propagate through a series of systems, or through sets of reinforcing nested systems, but this time we have preconditioned the planet for disaster by destroying the feedback systems that would slow change and give us a chance to change our systems on a time frame that is sociopolitically viable. Therefore, I have concluded over these years, we have no time for typical sociopolitical processes.
An extremely important point WRT this is despite having repeated the “There is no hysteresis” point for quite a while, I do not recall a single instance of anyone refuting it. I don’t recall anyone addressing it even once, including blog owners and guest scientists.
None refute it, yet analyses ignore it.
Maybe that will change now.
——————–
Aside: Here’s a nugget I stumbled upon while researching for this post… it’s from 2013: “We may be seeing a hysteresis in the Arctic with the very ice reduction in question shifting seasons so much that ice formation is pushed well into winter and ice melt is pushed consistently into March.”
I had forgotten I had noted that change that long ago. I thought it more recent.
4 Webcam views of beautiful Italian snow. 9 hours ahead of Pacific time (8 hours after March 8):
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/veneto/belluno/cortina-d-ampezzo.html
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/trentino-alto-adige/bolzano/colfosco-alta-badia.html
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/veneto/belluno/arabba.html
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/trentino-alto-adige/trento/canazei-pecol.html
The ice maker is running smoothly. Temps well below normal:
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/trentino-alto-adige/trento/canazei-pecol.html
Maldives 13 hours ahead of pacific time – who drained the ocean?:
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/maldives/lhaviyani-atoll/kurendhoo/maldives-kuredu.html
Is increased CO2 turning Kenya into a green paradise (11 hours ahead of PT)?
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/kenya/taita-taveta-county/voi/tsavo-east-national-park.html
OOPS, wrong link above for the ice maker. Correct one here – temps below normal:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute?cm_ven=localwx_10day
Wind chills of -55 to -65 Friday and Saturday. Dress warmly:
https://www.wunderground.com/severe/ca/resolute
For the deniers who claim that the Australian wildfires could not be linked to global warming:
https://www.ecowatch.com/australia-wildfires-climate-crisis-2645390752.html
jb, Ooh, ooh! I got some:
Rightwing snowflake says:
“I built this”–utterly ignoring everyone who helped him along, from the mother who suckled him to the graduate professor who mentored him to the government who funded his education.
I also like, “This country needs to be run more like a business,” or, given their support for DJT, I guess they mean a failed business
Want more? I got more!!!
KIA 9: This is the USA – everyone has equal opportunity
BPL: This contradicts every study ever made of the subject in the past 50 years. All results indicate there is less social mobility now than even in our parents’ generation.
KIA 17: Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing. . . . I’ll touch on a few other false statements in the article: . . . There is little debate that the earth is warming; the debate among scientists is about WHAT IS CAUSING warming. Also, some studies HAVE found the earth to not be warming for certain periods; ie “the pause”. Also, per history, warming occurred loooong before SUVs – like it or not, this casts doubt on AGW theory. . . . There IS huge debate among scientists about the rate of warming. . . . Warming WILL increase crop yields in the far north. . . . The benefit to increased water for farms FAR outweigh the negatives. . . . By adding language noting actual climate science uncertainty to agency reports Mr. Goklany makes the reports more accurate and less biased. If there is uncertainty, that HAS to be taken into account when policy is made, otherwise the policy basis is biased. . . . Says he gave a presentation at Interior promoting FFs and CO2 to human and environmental well-being. He would be correct – the use of FFs has enabled the world to be developed to the point it is today, making a comfortable life possible for billions, and making ANY life possible for other billions. Without FFs we’d still be cavemen. Without CO2 we’d all be dead, as would all the plants! Try to deny it.
BPL: Wow! Such a target-rich environment! KIA manages to pack about a dozen denier cliches into a few small paragraphs! Let’s tackle the idiocy one statement at a a time:
KIA: Clearly increased CO2 is beneficial for plants! Science. It’s a thing.
BPL: Global warming increases drought in continental interiors and storms along coastlines. Neither are good for plants.
KIA: There is little debate that the earth is warming; the debate among scientists is about WHAT IS CAUSING warming.
BPL: No, there is no debate about that at all. The warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases.
KIA: Also, some studies HAVE found the earth to not be warming for certain periods; ie “the pause”.
BPL: You must have missed the extensive debunking of that idiotic idea. There was no pause. You need 30 years to find a climate trend, 18 years of warming somewhat more slowly is noise, not a “pause.”
KIA: Also, per history, warming occurred loooong before SUVs – like it or not, this casts doubt on AGW theory.
BPL: Forest fires happened naturally for millions of years; therefore there’s no such thing as arson. Natural causes for climate change doesn’t mean there can’t be artificial causes, KIA.
KIA: There IS huge debate among scientists about the rate of warming.
BPL: No, there is not. Pretty much all the temperature series agree.
KIA: Warming WILL increase crop yields in the far north.
BPL: See above. And even if it did, it’s global yield that counts, not the fact that they might suddenly be able to raise more barley in Siberia.
KIA: The benefit to increased water for farms FAR outweigh the negatives.
BPL: Increased droughts and receding glaciers mean LESS water for farms, KIA.
KIA: By adding language noting actual climate science uncertainty to agency reports Mr. Goklany makes the reports more accurate and less biased. If there is uncertainty, that HAS to be taken into account when policy is made, otherwise the policy basis is biased.
BPL: Except that the “uncertainty” he notes doesn’t actually exist outside the denial blogosphere.
KIA: Says he gave a presentation at Interior promoting FFs and CO2 to human and environmental well-being. He would be correct – the use of FFs has enabled the world to be developed to the point it is today, making a comfortable life possible for billions, and making ANY life possible for other billions. Without FFs we’d still be cavemen.
BPL: The Romans, Byzantines, Chinese, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Renaissance era people, were all cavemen? Your history is as good as your science.
KIA: Without CO2 we’d all be dead, as would all the plants! Try to deny it.
BPL: Except that nobody is advocating getting rid of CO2, so this is a classic straw man.
Any other right-wing PC malarkey you’d care to try out?
Hats off to jb for his very familiar list of right-wing PC malarkey. Good job, jb!
Re #23 Mike said On the upside, we are seeing some upside down days now and that did not happen a few years ago. Here’s one:
Daily CO2
Mar. 4, 2020: 413.05 ppm
Mar. 4, 2019: 413.37 ppm
Why? COVID-19.
When I say simplicity, shutting down the vast majority of industrial production, solves our problems, maybe one or two of you can begin to wrap your head around just how rapidly things can change. And it’s the *only* way things can rapidly change. Thanks, virus, for the sad but effective proof of concept.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/satellite-images-show-dramatic-drop-in-pollution-over-china-amid-coronavirus-outbreak-1.4833713
Scroll down.
I have been directed to this site to find some answers to questions that arise from my own research as an economic historian.
Very recent work led by Lorenzo Polvani and an international team of scientists just published in January 2020 by Nature Climate Change (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4)
argues that large amounts of global and arctic warming are actually due to ozone depleting chemicals (CFCs, HFCs, other halons, and nitrous oxide [N20]), no less than 1/2 of all warming in the arctic and no less than 1/3 of all global warming between 1955 and 2005. These ozone depleting chemicals are trace gasses measured in parts per billion but have global warming potentials 100s to many 1000s of times greater than CO2. CFC-11 and CFC-12 are 19,000 and 23,000 times more radiatively efficient than CO2 per molecule. The global warming impact of methane has apparently also been underestimated, with one new study by Hmiel et al. in Nature arguing that anthropogenic CH4 releases have been 25-40% greater then previously thought (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1991-8). Another study by Thompson et al. in Nature Climate Change from November 2019 showed that N20 emissions have been rising far more than the IPCC had assumed since 2009 (by an estimated factor of 2.3!) (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0613-7). According to the US EPA, the global warming potential of N20 is 265-298 times greater than CO2 over a 100 year timescale (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials). Tropospheric ozone (O3) is both a potent direct greenhouse gas and plays a role in the lifetime and effectiveness of other greenhouse gasses. According to research by Jim Hansen and others published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2006), tropospheric O3 is estimated to have caused no less than 1/3 to 1/2 of the observed recent trends in arctic warming in the winter and spring, when O3 is easily transported to polar regions from lower latitude urban centers https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006348. According to a 2010 paper by Unger et al. in the proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences (citing work by the Fourth Assessment working group of the IPCC) that tropospheric O3’s direct cumulative radiative forcing when combined with fine particulates like black carbon may outweigh that of all the CO2 released since the beginning of the industrial era https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/02/02/0906548107.full.pdf. Sulphur hexaflouride (SF6) is perhaps the most potent anthropogenic greenhouse gas, and its emissions have been rising rapidly from use as an electrical insulator. Its 100 year global warming potential per molecule is estimated at 23,000 times that of C02. Its atmospheric abundance is low at 8.60 parts per trillion volume, but it is rising at a linear rate by 0.33 pptv per year and can persist in the environment for more than 1000 years. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/883/2017/acp-17-883-2017.pdf
The 100 year global warming potential of the replacement chemicals to CFCs, HFCs (C5H2F10, aka HCFC), was recently re-estimated to be somewhat lower than previously thought, but at 1,410 it is still over 1000 times greater per molecule than C02 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022285217301455. According to NOAA, these chemicals have been accumulating in the atmosphere at a rapid rate since 1990, with HCFC-22 and HCFC-134a above 250 and 100 pptv respectively in 2015 and increasing linearly. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/about/hfc.html
My question: Could ozone depleting chemicals and the other GHGs (with a large revision downward of CO2 radiative forcing and amplification feedbacks?) explain a modestly warming upper troposphere, higher tropopause, and a cooling stratosphere that are among the markers of anthropogenic climate change? Wouldn’t that also align with the strong empirical evidence of very little global warming since the preindustrial era until 1950 that then really accelerated after the 1950s and 1960s as CFCs, HFCs, halons, and SF6 emissions skyrocketed from their industrial use as refrigerants, solvents, propellants, and electrical insulating gasses? The spike in anthropogenic warming from N20 and CH4 could likewise be timed with the massive intensification of agriculture enabled by large-scale application of nitrate fertilizer and changes in land use patterns (deforestation) accompanying the green revolution since the 1970s. This was a time that was also accompanied by dramatically increased diesel tractor and diesel vehicle use, skyrocketing bunker fuel emissions from the expansion of container shipping, and rising heating oil emissions from a switch from coal to oil, which could account for much of the rest of the increase in N20, much of the tropospheric O3, and a large part of the fine particulate emissions increases. The timing of the acceleration of warming would also strongly imply a weaker climate sensitivity to C02 forcing and a greater cumulative forcing of these other greenhouse gasses. It was, after all, in the 1980s and 1990s that global warming really accelerated, not earlier. Would that not also align well with the much stronger warming over the poles (mostly accounted for by CFCs, HFCs, N20, tropospheric O3), strong stratospheric cooling from the depletion of/hole in the polar stratospheric 03 layer, and the much weaker than expected tropical upper tropospheric temperature anomoly and the weaker than expected deep ocean warming?
Mike: I am watching Al’s CO2 projections
AB: I have never seen a post in RC by an Al besides me. WTF?
There is evidence for the hypothesis that plants will suffer decreasing micronutrient content in a higher-CO2 environment:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaaq1012
Which makes a lot of sense. If you imagine plants accumulating carbon faster, but the rate at which they accumulate micronutrients remains the same, you risk the plant growing to mature size before it accumulates the same nutrient content, and/or the nutrients it does absorb are diluted over a larger volume of plant material.
Basically, you may grow more rice or grow it faster, but it is nutritionally less valuable. I don’t see how that’s good for the plant or good for humans.
Another problem with the denialists’ theory that “CO2 is good for plants” is that different plants respond differently. How do we know that suddenly weeds or other nuisance plants won’t start becoming even more competitive against plants that are economically valuable? If I were a farmer, I’d be concerned about this in the long term. Do I need to buy more herbicides?
Were weeds that previously didn’t cause problems start to become more prolific? Will pest insect populations be impacted by changing plant physiology? Science can answer these questions, but if you don’t trust the scientists in the first place, why bother… Mr. KIA?
At AB: MAR is another Al. The other Al I was referring to at 23
At Killian: yup, it might be Covid 19 driving the numbers down. I am not sure of that by any means, but it crossed my mind also.
I think survival may require degrowth. That’s not a popular idea, but it keeps popping up.
Trolls having a field day here now.
CO2? Marching upward:
Daily CO2
Mar. 5, 2020: 413.50 ppm
Mar. 5, 2019: 410.91 ppm
Waist deep in the big muddy and the big fool says, push on.
Oh well,
warm regard to all
Mike
Destroying the total environment, UN Report:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/159/climate-change-emergency?page=5#post-6368
Killian says “When I say simplicity, shutting down the vast majority of industrial production, solves our problems, maybe one or two of you can begin to wrap your head around just how rapidly things can change. And it’s the *only* way things can rapidly change. Thanks, virus, for the sad but effective proof of concept.”
Yes stopping most of industrial production will certainly dramatically reduce CO2 levels and quickly. We didn’t need covid 19 to show us what is obvious. It will also cause massive supply shortages, and bring us to our knees. This is equally obvious.
At AB: MAR is another Al
AB: who has never identified himself as “Al”. So why are you tossing strange illogicals?
Re #29- Thanks for the links, the videos were great. Who doesn’t like watching plants grow?? Yes, I read the IPCC reports. And yes, it is proven science that when you control for other variables, increasing CO2 above standard atmospheric conditions can increase growth, you and I agree on that. So let’s take it to the next level here. What’s overlooked is the difference between the controlled lab, where temperature, humidity, nutrition, etc, are all controlled while CO2 is varied– vs the real world, where changing atmospheric CO2 has higher-order effects on water availability, temperature, humidity, competition from other plants, herbivore populations, and so on.
What I’m really driving at is, and what I asked in my previous question but you didn’t address yet: what’s the definition of “good” used here? If you say “plants generally grow faster,” I say “so what?” What I care about is: is it good for mankind and for the overall health and stability of the ecosystem, because that has an impact on me and society. So lets take the USDA report in which you reference the “fertilizer effect,” and look at a little more context around it (quote from the document you linked, p28):
“Under projected climate change, the total external costs over all pesticide classes for U.S. agriculture per hectare could increase up to 70 percent from 2000 to 2100. Higher CO2 concentrations provide a ‘fertilizer effect’ to most plants, including crops, but there is likely to be a need for increasing rates of herbicide applications to control weeds because increased biomass of weeds requires more herbicide to kill them”.
Translation: “good” for photosynthesis in general? Sure maybe. But “good” for plants I like to eat and for minimizing fertilizer and other agricultural costs? Maybe not so much.
Coincidentally, I posted a link earlier today discussing another adverse impact of increased CO2 in practical plant physiology, which is degradation of nutrient composition. Things like that have a big impact to me in whether I consider the outcome “good” or not. If you have similar links to peer-reviewed, scientific papers, supporting positive outcomes for agriculture of a CO2-enriched biosphere, I genuinely do want to read them!
Lastly, as for uncertainty. The uncertainty (in AR5, for instance) that scientists use is more than a qualitative acknowledgement of imperfect knowledge and varied outcomes. In models, the uncertainty is quantitative, and there’s a rationale behind the range and numbers that result. And even despite that uncertainty, scientists can conclude with a high degree of confidence that CO2 is driving adverse climate change, they can make future predictions, and they find that new observations are in line with those predictions. That’s very different from what Mr. Goklany is accused of doing. He’s accused of interjecting qualitative statements of uncertainty, taken out of context, to intentionally introduce a political bias into the record and undermine scientific research. I would be more open-minded about his uncertainty if he were to show his math and it held up.
As scientists we work very hard to remove bias from our work. It is extremely disheartening, to say the least, when someone else comes along and introduces any bias, especially a deliberate, self-serving one, and especially if it appears coercively done.
47:
Bundy, where is McGeorge now that we need him ?
EGS @40,
You come here with you question after a spell at SkepticalScience where I did note that you also arrived with a preciously-held answer to that question.
If you examine the forcing resulting from these various GHGs you will see that the acceleration in AGW (which begins in the 1970s) is not coincidental with any increase in forcing from CH4 or N2O or CFC or HCFC or HFC or SF6 or O3 or any combination thereof. The data available in IPCC AR5 WG1 Annex II Table AII.1.2 or on the NOAA AGGI webpage shows no increase in non-CO2 GHG forcing (relative to CO2 forcing) coincidental with the 1970s global temperature acceleration. The data actually shows the opposite – a slowing of CH4 forcing rate (which pauses during the 2000s) and a drop in the forcing rate from other non-CO2 GHGs (although not N2O or SF6 which retain a linear non-accelerating increase) from the 1990s-on while CO2 forcing rates continue apace. These numbers are derived from AR5 Table AII.1.2:-
Average increases in GHG climate forcings (Wm^-2/decade)
… … … … … … CO2 .. … … ‘”Other” + O3
1950s … … … … 0.05 … … … … 0.13
1960s … … … … 0.11 … … … … 0.14
1970s … … … … 0.18 … … … … 0.22
1980s … … … … 0.24 … … … … 0.25
1990s … … … … 0.22 … … … … 0.17
2000s … … … … 0.27 … … … … 0.07
You also bring here the literature citations previously presented at SkS. With the exception of Polvani et al (2020) ‘Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances’ which may be worth a little comment (it has been the subject of some corrections), I don’t see there is anything that would add to this reply.
EGS 40: Very recent work led by Lorenzo Polvani and an international team of scientists just published in January 2020 by Nature Climate Change (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4) argues that large amounts of global and arctic warming are actually due to ozone depleting chemicals (CFCs, HFCs, other halons, and nitrous oxide [N20]), no less than 1/2 of all warming in the arctic and no less than 1/3 of all global warming between 1955 and 2005.
BPL: That’s difficult to reconcile with CO2 representing 82% of the variance of temperature in that period.
I have my simple statistical analysis of the Hadley CRUTEM4 temperatures for 1850-2019 (N = 170).
Trend: dT = -14.7156 + 0.00756452 Year
p < 3.38 x 10^272
Match against CO2 (Mauna Loa 1959:2019, Law Dome ice cores 1850-1958):
r = 0.9213
r^2 = 0.8488
p < 6.70 x 10^-170
Read ’em and weep, Victor.
For those who want the raw data, I put it in the next post. Apologies for the length.