GWP* is a method of combining the effects of short lived climate pollutants (SLCPs e.g. methane) with long lived climate pollutants (LLCPs e.g. carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide).
As I understand it, it uses rates of change in emissions of SLCPs but absolute values for LLCPs.
If this measure is adopted for comparing greenhouse gases does it mean that carbon budgets (like the INDCs in the Paris Agreement?) will become more relaxed?
Quote from the article’s “conclusion”:
“This paper gives the first, strongly statistically significant, evidence for a high correlation between large worldwide earthquakes and the proton density near the magnetosphere, due to the solar wind. This result is extremely important for seismological research and for possible future implications on earthquake forecast……”
Very interesting! I’m guessing that if the solar wind and particles have enough energy to move Earth’s tectonic plates; it should easily have enough energy to cause some warming trends in the atmosphere.
They could use some warming trends down at the South Pole. Forecast to be -89 F in a few days:
Geoff Beacon @1,
A ‘heads-up’.
You may recall your question to me in a comment thread at Carbonbrief As with the comment here @3, it was ‘provoked’ by that Kevin Anderson resulting in your question “How much can “official science” be trusted? … What’s your view?
I did reply but its length meant it got stuck in the Disqus comment machine requiring moderation to be unstuck, moderation which I have just now ‘provoked’ into action.
So please consider yourself now ‘replied to’.
In that article Kevin Anderson discussess the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC). He says
But since its inception, the academic Commissioners who, in many respects guide the framing of the secretariat’s work, have failed to support the CCC in pursuing genuinely independent analysis.
As such the CCC have, in my view, misled parliament and the public – at least in terms of mitigation. Individually I respect the academic work of many of the commissioners, some of whom I know well and would call friends, but as soon as they don their CCC hat, academic rigour is weakened in favour of political expediency.
1. What is the immediate source of the pressure that requires “political expediency”?
Is it connected to the fact that the UK business department, The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), is the sponsoring department for climate policy and climate research in the UK? BEIS also appoint the members of the CCC.
2. Who are the “academic Commissioners” of the CCC? Is there a public list?
3. The CCC have discussed GWP* in their literature, where its new concept of CO2-e* gives a net-zero measure thatallows significant CO2 emissions.
Net-zero CO2e* seems a more lenient emissions target than net-zero CO2 (or net-zero CO2e).
Is this new concept likely to mislead public and parliament further?
Mr. Know It Allsays
I took your advice and checked out the Arctic Sea Ice link. Doesn’t look too bad right now, little bit below the 30 year trend. The trend for below normal amounts of ice appear to be heavily concentrated just off the Alaska and Russia coasts,and around the Kara Sea. The water depth off of Russia is very shallow, much of it 50-200 feet, according to Google Earth – wondering if that plays a role.
It’s surprising that there is still a tiny bit of ice in Hudson’s Bay and James Bay, just 521 miles north of downtown Toronto. It even shows ice by Anchorage – someone must have lost a cooler full of ice and beer. ;)
Also surprising are the very small areas where sea ice concentration is actually increasing over the decades as shown by the orange colors on the monthly Trends and Anomalies tabs.
I looked at Antarctica, and the orange colors for monthly increasing ice concentration per decade look larger than areas of declining ice concentration. Not sure what it indicates, since decreasing concentration “could” mean less calving of ice bergs (various reasons could cause this), and increased concentration “could” mean more calving (various reasons could cause that also).
With strong accusations quoted upthread that the CCC has “misled parliament and the public, this CCC report is probably the ‘smoking gun’ in that it suggests the UK would be doing its bit if it achieved zero-CO2 by 2050 through a linear reduction in its emissions between now and 2050.
While there is no sign that the UK government has taken the slightest bit of notice of this CCC report that states:-
“Our advice is offered with the proviso that net-zero is only credible if policies are introduced to match. Existing ambitions must be delivered in full. … The science demands it; the evidence is before you; we must start at once; there is no time to lose.”[My bold]
While there is still no sign that the UK government is taking this report seriously, there are two problem areas I see with the CCC report itself.
Firstly it asserts that the linear reduction in emissions through to a target of zero-by-2050 represents the “highest possible ambition,” and this ‘height’ is arrived-at because “the Committee do not currently consider it credible to aim to reach net-zero emissions earlier than 2050.”
Secondly, I don’t think it is correct to say “If replicated across the world, and coupled with ambitious near-term reductions in emissions,it would deliver a greater than 50% chance of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C.” That is for a ‘50% chance’, by 2019 we had a remaining global budget of 10-years-of-present-global-emissions. A linear redution to zero by 2050 would require 15-years-of-present-global-emissions (and a linear reduction does appear to be the plan in this June 2020 CCC Report summary).
Of course, the UK has a head-start on emissions-reduction in that it has already reduced its territorial emissions to 60% of 1990 levels (although its carbon footprint is running at more like 90% 1990), so a linear reduction from this 60% could be declared a bit below an allowance from the remaining global budget of 10-years-of-present-global-emissions, but that is seriously not equitable on a number of grounds and would not stand up under scrutiny.
[Finally, I’m very conscious that this comment runbs very close to discussing ‘mitigation method’ which is off-topic in these UV thread.]
Thanks. Now seen your reply. Agree with much of it but I think you showed much confidence in climate modelling when you said
So I would say that the scientific message has been set out correctly in the various IPCC Assessment Reports.
Too many things happening now…
– Cold spot in the North Atlantic
– New worries about East Antarctica
– 38C in London & that highest ever temperature in Siberia
– Fires in California, Siberia etc.
– Wavier jet stream making weather unpredictable
– Greenland melt going faster
Robert Ingersolsays
Re. 4, KIA, If I wanted to know what uninformed amateurs were “guessing”, I would have posted the question on twitter. Any SCIENTISTS with comments on this paper? I know it contradicts some previous credible research that found no link between solar activity and earthquakes.
John Pollacksays
Mr. Know It All @4 “They could use some warming trends down at the South Pole. Forecast to be -89 F in a few days.”
Could it be that they’ve already had a considerable warming trend? Record low at the South Pole is -117 F, set back in 1982.
UAH has posted for July 2020 with a TLT anomaly of +0.44ºC, a squeak up on June’s anomaly and the third lowest anomaly for 2020-to-date (which recorded +0.56ºC, +0.76ºC, +0.48ºC, +0.38ºC, +0.54ºC & +0.43ºC January thro’ to June).
July 2020 is the 2nd warmest July in the UAH TLT record, behind 1998 (+0.51ºC) and ahead of July 2016 (+0.39ºC), 2019 (+0.38ºC), 2010 (+0.33ºC), 2018 & 2017 (both +0.30ºC), 2002 (+0.23ºC), 2005 (+0.22ºC) followed by 2014 & 2009 (both +0.21ºC).
July 2020 sits =35th in the trend-defying UAH TLT all-month anomaly record.
After seven months, the ‘warmest year-so-far table’ in UAH TLT runs as follows (also showing the calender year averages & rankings):-
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.53ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.51ºC
2010 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 5th
2019 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 4th
2002 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 8th
2018 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.23ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2005 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 12th
So the start of 2020 is sitting in an impressive 3rd place for TLT record in a non-El Niño-boosted year. While 2020 may not top 2016 by year’s-end (it would require to average Aug-Dec above +0.544ºC to achieve that), slotting into 2nd place ahead of 1998 (which would require to average Aug-Dec above +0.440ºC) appears quite likely. To drop below 2019 into 4th would require an Aug-Dec average below +0.340ºC
Yesterday, on another thread, I made the following claim: “There is, in fact, no reason whatsoever to accept the basic premise that CO2 emissions are leading to a dangerous rise in global temperatures. Over and over again the “scientists” have failed to produce meaningful evidence for any of their claims. So what passes for science is not viable theories based on facts, but imaginative hypotheses based on ingenious arguments for why the facts do not support the theory.” My claim was, of course, angrily rejected by the usual suspects on this blog, for the usual reasons. I have consequently decided to make a useful list of items for them to contemplate.
OK, here goes.
Item: As I’ve already demonstrated, there is no long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. See, for example, the following blog post, in which I expose the misleading nature of one naïve attempt to establish such a correlation (other similarly misleading efforts were presented by contributors to this blog): http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html In all these cases, scattergrams purporting to demonstrate a long-term correlation actually reflect only a relatively brief 20 year period when CO2 levels and global temperatures happened to rise in tandem. When ALL the evidence is considered (as, for example, in the following scattergram, produced by Danley Wolfe, which places this 20 year period in perspective: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg?resize=622%2C461 ), the lack of a true long-term correlation is evident. To account for their failure to establish a clear correlation based solely on the CO2 and temperature records, many climate scientists have offered speculative explanations based on a the influence of a variety of other climatic factors. An instructive example can be found in a Skeptical Science blog post (aptly) titled “Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)”: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Item: Over a period of roughly 18 years, from 1998 through 2016 (just prior to an extreme El Nino event), we see what many investigators have characterized as a “hiatus” or “pause” in temperature rise. While temperatures did continue to rise during this period, the degree of rise was considerably less than that of the 20 year period from ca. 1979 through 1998, when temperatures rose rather dramatically. The meaning and validity of the so-called “hiatus” has been a bone of contention among climate scientists for some time, and a variety of explanations for its existence have appeared over the years. Regardless of what anyone might want to think about this temperature slowdown the fact remains: according to just about every dataset the rise in temperature during this period was considerably less than what might be expected based on the steep runup during the previous 20 year period. Moreover, according to yet another scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe, there was no correlation whatsoever between CO2 levels and temperatures between 1999 and 2014: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image008_thumb1.jpg?resize=606%2C449
Item: According to a surprising finding from a recent study, “current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” Fasulo et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245 Thus, according to the evidence uncovered by these researchers, sea level rise did NOT accelerate as widely expected by so many climate scientists, but in fact declined, potentially a huge embarrassment. Never fear. Our authors did some digging and discovered a handy explanation: the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Sound far-fetched? Pretty much, yes. If sea levels failed to respond to the drastic decrease in global temperatures from 1940 through 1950, it’s hard to understand how the much less intense and prolonged cooling effects of a volcanic eruption could have made much of a difference. This rather unlikely notion is, of course, only a hypothesis, as they (indirectly) acknowledge, but since the publication of their study, which revises the evidence to take the Pinatubo eruption into account, it’s been widely reported, on the basis of this theory alone, that sea level rise is in fact accelerating, thus serving to enhance the desired level of alarm.
All for now. More to come . . .
Piotrsays
” the solar wind and particles have enough energy to move Earth’s tectonic plates”
Mr Knows it All (4)
_That’s_ what you understood the paper argued? ;-))))) Whau.
One can never underestimate Mr Knows It All…
Piotrsays
Geoff Beacon (1) and (6): “the new concept of CO2-e* gives a net-zero measure that allows significant CO2 emissions”.
That’s hardly anything new – _all_ existing carbon budgets assume the Earth absorbs some of the human emissions of CO2.
To illustrate, let’s use the Schlesinger’s carbon budget from his 2013 “Biogeochemistry”, where you had human emissions of 10Gt C/yr, and out of it, in the atmosphere stayed 5Gt C/yr, while the other 5 GtC had to be absorbed by ocean and land.
Which means that if you reduced human emissions from 10Gt/yr to 5 Gt/yr, you would get stabilization of atm. CO2 (=your “net-zero emissions”), while STILL having “significant CO2 emissions”, to the tune of 5Gt C/yr.
Conversely, if somebody proposes reducing human emissions to ZERO – they are not going after _stabilizing_ the atmospheric CO2 conc. (i.e. your” “zero net emissions”), but they are after REDUCING it.
Which would make sense in the context of the Paris accord goals of containing the Earth temp. growth below 1.5 or 2C – since _stabilizing_ CO2 at, say, 450 or 500 ppm would not do.
“The RCP 8.5 CO2 emissions pathway, long considered a “worst case scenario” by the international science community, is the most appropriate for conducting assessments of climate change impacts by 2050, according to a new article published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The work was authored by Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) Risk Program Director Dr. Christopher Schwalm, Dr. Spencer Glendon, a Senior Fellow at WHRC and founder of Probable Futures, and by WHRC President Dr. Philip Duffy. Long dismissed as alarmist or misleading, the paper argues that is actually the closest approximation of both historical emissions and anticipated outcomes of current global climate policies, tracking within 1% of actual emissions.”
CO2? How are we doing?
Jul. 26 – Aug. 1, 2020 413.22 ppm
Jul. 26 – Aug. 1, 2019 409.97 ppm
Jul. 26 – Aug. 1, 2010 389.75 ppm
so, we’re looking at 3.25 ppm increase yoy (noisy number) and 23.50 ppm increase over 10 years.
Item: According to evidence gleaned from Antarctic ice cores, going back as far as 400,000 years ago, CO2 levels and global temperatures appear to have been closely correlated over a substantial stretch of time, during which both CO2 and temperature cycled from one extreme to the other. Upon close examination, however, it was determined that the rise in temperature consistently preceded the rise in CO2 levels, contrary to the assumption by Al Gore and many other climate change advocates who want to see this relationship as an early example of CO2 driven warming.
As with the examples I’ve already presented, certain advocates, unwilling to accept evidence that fails to support their theory, have taken pains to explain it away. See, for example, the following, from the Skeptical Science blog:
“In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.” (https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=25 )
Sorry, but the feedback hypothesis, widely disseminated by Richard Alley among others, won’t work. If the process began with oceanic warming, which then increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and the increase in CO2 then led, in turn, to even greater warming, which, in turn, raised CO2 levels even more, and so on, then that dynamic would be reflected in the ice-core data, where we’d soon see a reversal of roles, with warming following CO2. But that is NOT what we see. The CO2 levels consistently FOLLOW the warming, telling us the feedback explanation is not supported by the evidence.
Item: According to just about every record, global temperatures from 1940 through roughly 1979 either fell or remained relatively steady. The fact that CO2 levels were rising considerably during this same forty year period thus posed a challenge to those claiming CO2 levels are a principal driver of climate change. Consequently, advocates have insisted the evidence is misleading – a CO2-driven rise in temperatures must have been masked by the cooling effect of industrial aerosols (i.e. pollutants) produced, ironically enough, by the same process that also emitted large amounts of CO2. However, as I demonstrated some time ago on this blog, when we consult evidence from various regions where industrial activities are either minimal or non-existent, the underlying warming trend fails to appear. Clearly there never was such a trend.
Item: Over and over again we see, in both the media and the scientific literature, dire warnings of a future dominated by extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, heavy rainstorms, etc. Invariably, “climate change” is assumed to be the culprit, with the tacit understanding that by “climate change” is meant steadily rising global temperatures fueled by steadily rising CO2 emissions, due to the burning of fossil fuels. While it is indeed possible to make an argument associating rising temperatures with certain extreme weather events, there is nothing in any of the evidence supporting such an association that says anything about CO2 emissions. That’s simply assumed as part of the “climate change” meme. Since, as I’ve demonstrated above, so much of the actual evidence points away from such an influence, it would seem irresponsible to continually blame CO2 for weather events most likely triggered by natural forces. And if in fact increasing levels of CO2 emission are not the cause of these extreme weather events, we have no reason to predict that they will get any worse, or even continue, in the future. As we know, the natural forces that have controlled the climate for millions of years, wax and wane over time for reasons we may never understand.
In sum: As I insisted in my earlier post, we see a pattern: whenever the actual evidence fails to support the prevailing climate change theory its supporters strive mightily to explain the discrepancy away by any means possible. Or else, as in the case of extreme events, simply assume the evidence is there even when it is not.
Russellsays
The Great Apocalypse Debate has been rudely interrupted by a realone.
It isn’t the first time, and likely won’t be the last:
I see @9&13 Victor the Troll has re-appeared from under his mountain molehill with another episode of his incessant nonsense.
Note that one of the six ‘items’ he presents is allegedly supported by a recent paper, (Fasullo et al 2016) and concerns SLR (which if I recall correctly was how he first started here at RealClimate with this ridiculous no-correlation-with-CO2 campaign he has been waging against the universe). This recent paper he here waves is, of course, entirely misrepresented by poor Victor, not least in being less recent than this paper from the same authors which sort-of turns his SLR ‘item’ into an excellent example of a trumpism, this a little inappropriate for one who has professed to being “a card carrying lifelong Democrat, liberal to the gills,” thus he assured us someone who could never possibly be afflicted by “denial.” (Mind, the deinal-filled Donald T Rump has also expressed Democrat-leanings.)
Of Victor the Troll’s other items (that he probably genuinely believes to be real & true, and so many of them that together they must surely overturn all the findings of climatology on the issue of AGW and be worth at least one Nobel Prize), they are the same jigsawed temperature-CO2-correlation argument he has set out ad nauseam while unable to comprehend that such repetition does not convert the fantasy of his AGW denial into reality.
Urs Neusays
Geoff #1
GWP* adresses the point that SLCPs (like methane) do not lead to further concentration increase – and thus further warming – when emissions are stabilized (at least after some time, depending on the life-time of a specific SLCP).
It has been proposed by Allen et al.
Thus, if we discuss a remaining emission budget to stabilize global temperature at a certain level, and this not only for CO2 but for CO2 equivalent, this should be taken into account.
A calculation of remaining CO2e emission budget starts with existing emissions for SLCPs. If the emissions of an SLCP stay constant, they will cause no further warming (in contrast to CO2). Further warming will only be caused, when the emissions are rising. Sinking emission of the SLCP will reduce warming. CO2e* of the SLCP is accordingly calculated from the emission evolution of the last 10 or 20 years (proposed by Allen et al.).
This in fact leads to the result, that net zero CO2e* could be reached without CO2 emissions being reduced to zero.
However:
1) when SLCPs have been reduced to zero, this effect is gone and CO2 emissions have to be zero, too, to stabilize. Thus, methane emission reduction helps, but is not decisive for climate stabilization.
2) the reduction of methane, which is the most important SLCP, is quite a challenge, especially in agriculture which emits about half of anthropogenic methane, and might not be easier or more beneficial than that of CO2 in the end.
Therefore, the time gain by this new approach of CO2 equivalent calculation will probably not be very important.
On the other hand, there are still a few important consequences, if this calculation would be implemented by UNFCCC:
1) Reduction of CO2 will be more important for climate stabilization, because methane emissions ‘only’ have to be stabilized.
2) methane emissions lose weight in the UNFCCC ghg emissions inventories. This has consequences especially for developing countries in their share of emission reduction duties.
3) for countries like Switzerland, where methane emissions mostly come from agriculture and are very difficult to reduce and – with the current equivalent calculation – would have to be compensated by negative emissions, this problem would be ‘resolved’ at once, since methane emissions have decreased slightly for the last two decades.
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor,
Give it up. You have been told repeatedly and with great forbearance why you are wrong–from your lack of understanding of correlation to your utterly stupid idea that there can be only one influence acting on the climate at a time. If you were too stupid to understand them then, I hold out little hope of you understanding them now. Your learning curve does not have a positive slope. I’ve run across Russian bots that were smarter than you.
V 18: the rise in temperature consistently preceded the rise in CO2 levels
BPL: Sorry, but this is wrong. That happens only in a deglaciation. Later on temperature follows CO2. In any case, what happens in a natural deglaciation isn’t what’s happening now. There is no 800 year temperature lag between falling temperatures and CO2 now; 800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period.
Learn atmosphere physics, Victor. It’s not that hard. Start with something easy, like Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” or George Philander’s “Is the Temperature Rising?” Later you can go on to stuff with more math.
As I’ve already demonstrated, there is no long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
No, the only thing you succeeding in demonstrating was that you have no clue about statistics.
GIGO.
Killiansays
mike:
“The RCP 8.5 CO2 emissions pathway, long considered a “worst case scenario” by the international science community, is the most appropriate for conducting assessments of climate change impacts by 2050, according to a new article published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The work was authored by Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) Risk Program Director Dr. Christopher Schwalm, Dr. Spencer Glendon, a Senior Fellow at WHRC and founder of Probable Futures, and by WHRC President Dr. Philip Duffy. Long dismissed as alarmist or misleading, the paper argues that is actually the closest approximation of both historical emissions and anticipated outcomes of current global climate policies, tracking within 1% of actual emissions.”
1. Long-tail risks
2. I.e., climate extremes
Been saying this for YEARS.
It’s not about data. Should not have been for a long time now. It’s about the risk. Despite their skill in climate, none of the scientists I know of have been able to grok this.
Weird.
But, then, neither do all but a tiny fraction. Deep Green is wrong in what they think we should do – there’s no time to destroy and rebuild civilization – but are correct about the risk.
(It is true that the trend currently seems to be converging with 2019 and 2012 values–those being the #2 and #1 lowest September minima on record so far. But there’s time for both good and bad twists and turns in the melt season.)
William B Jacksonsays
18 Why must you post this nonsense over and over?
Oscar Wehmanensays
The Guardian newspaper had a recent piece touting the use of basalt rock dust on agricultural land as a sink for CO2. There is Ca in basalt dust. Looking around, the organic foods community likes rock dust. This seems to me to be a good idea! It scales to very large amounts without any high tech bottlenecks. Discourage limstone dust admixtures (to controle acidity). Good Idea??
While the Atlantic hurricane season has so far seeing record numbers of early-season named storms (but not an exceptional numbers of hurricanes developed from these storms), over the last week or so the predictions for the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season have been significantly amended. Previously the concensús was for a top-10 season with the predictions averaging 18 named storms of which 9 would reach hurricane strength and 4 of those Cat3+ hurricane strength. The most recent predictons have upped these numbers to 23, 11 and 5. Such an outcome would place the number of storms for the 2020 season 2nd only to the dramatic 2005 hurricane season.
The average Atlantic hurricane season has seen 12.1 named storms, 6.4 hurricanes with 2.7 Cat3+.
Mrkia: I’m guessing that if the solar wind and particles have enough energy to move Earth’s tectonic plates; it should easily have
AB: Ever seen a mouse trap? If a mouse has the strength to, well, it doesn’t take much power at all to set off a mousetrap or, apparently, a big earthquake.
Or the mouth of a doofus.
CCHolleysays
RE. Victor–Correlation
The level of ego-inflated arrogant ignorance is mind boggling. Victor, in his completely deluded self-importance believes that he alone, a science illiterate, is capable of pointing out the flaws of the science behind AGW. Likewise, Victor, untrained in statistics, believes he can lecture experts on the proper use of statistics. Those that have attempted to point out the absurdity of his arguments over and over again based on the science, the evidence, and often their substantial expertise are apparently just losers incapable of recognizing the genius of Victor. Victor just knows better. When a poster points out the fallacies made by Victor and attributes them to his complete and utter ignorance, then it is just bulling name calling. Of course it is, Victor couldn’t possibly be wrong, he is so brilliant. The facts be damned. Rinse lather, repeat. It is tiresome and oh so boorish. His attempts to rehash points that have been thoroughly debunked in the past belong in the Borehole, or better yet, the Crankshaft.
Victor, a musicologist, makes up his own definition of correlation–in his clueless mind, it must be clearly visible and in lockstep, which is completely wrong. The whole purpose of a statistical correlation analysis of a time series is to help determine the strength of one variable in a multivariate relationship. This because the relationship can be lost in the noise of all the other variables. Like any statistical analysis, the greater the sample size, the lower the uncertainty of the result. For time series analysis, most experts will tell you that at least 50 samples are required to obtain a meaningful result. That’s 50 years. Breaking the series into a short 20 year period is nonsensical and meaningless. As anyone knows with any background at all in statistics, the best correlation analysis would include all the years for which sufficient data exists. Sorry, Victor is just an idiot. Not an ad hominem, a clearly observable fact.
Al Bundysays
Welcome back, Case Study V. It’s amazing how some? many? most? human minds have been trained (self? school? peers? parents?) to seek validation for whatever their team’s adversary disbelieves or dislikes and ignore, minimize, belittle, and especially misinterpret everything else.
Victor, you’re amazingly resistant to growth. I shouldn’t still be amazed; when a lead sinker falls off a fishing line it’s gonna lay on the bottom until it’s covered up and buried.
A first indication of the global surface temperature for July is provided by the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis which has posted for July 2020 with an anomaly of +0.49ºC, the lowest monthly anomaly for 2020-to-date (which ranged +0.80ºC to +0.53ºC through its first 6 months). July 2020 is the 3rd warmest July in the ERA5 record, behind July 2019 (+0.56ºC) and 2016 (+0.53ºC).
Over the first 7 months of 2020, the average anomaly sits in 2nd place. An average anomaly of +0.60ºC for the remainder of the year would be enough to elevate 2020 into top-spot while an average below +0.50ºC enough to drop it into 3rd.
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.66ºC
2019 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.59ºC … … … 2nd
2017 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.46ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.36ºC … … … +0.32ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.45ºC … … … 5th
2007 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.23ºC … … … 12th
1998 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.21ºC … … … 14th
2014 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.29ºC … … … 8th
Upon close examination, however, it was determined that the rise in temperature consistently preceded the rise in CO2 levels,….
Not true.
Not a surprise, deniers of the science don’t keep up with the science, once they create a meme, it is never revised or discarded once better information is obtained. The latest science tells us, in actuality, based on those ice cores, the temperatures and CO2 levels actually rose in lockstep–the CO2 levels did not lag temperature rise.
Why so? Because it has been determined that the trapped air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack–those air bubbles used to determine CO2 levels are younger than the ice surrounding them when originally they were assumed to be the same age. In cores, like those from the Dome C, the age difference can be thousands of years. Reanalysis taking this newer knowledge into account shows that there very well likely was no lag.
Bill Hendersonsays
In tackling the global climate crisis, doom and optimism are both dangerous traps
Overheated polemics won’t solve this emergency – and the apocalypse is a needlessly high bar for action
This is a new chapter in what is becoming the RCP 8.5 ‘controversy’. Hausfather and Betts are top quality climate scientists; they both tend (like many other successful scientists) to be conservatives and I think both are in soft climate denial when it comes to mitigation possibilities within BAU. But their oped is a reasonable, fair overview of the emerging science and if all our many controversies were addressed in this open, evidence-based manner we’d be in much better shape as a society.
jgnfldsays
@victor
If you correlate numbers binned annually (various canonical series) versus numbers (ice core data) numbers binned over centuries do you see any differences in seeing short term, annual and decadal signals versus noise? How much noise does using numbers which are binned by centuries rather than annually eliminate from ther analysis?
Use ALL of your “immense” knowledge of the math behind the stats.
nigeljsays
New research that might be of interest (open access) “Analyzing the Arctic Feedback Mechanism between Sea Ice and Low-Level Clouds Using 34 Years of Satellite Observations”
Victor says “In all these cases, scattergrams purporting to demonstrate a long-term correlation actually reflect only a relatively brief 20 year period when CO2 levels and global temperatures happened to rise in tandem. ”
Victor seems to trace his finger over the scatterplot and say “look only one small part of the plot has the variables matching perfectly, or near perfectly”, so “there is no correlation for the scatterplot as a whole”. Everyone else here looks at the scatterplot for the entire period and says “yes there’s obviously a correlation for the overall period, not a perfect correlation obviously but there is clearly a correlation.” A statistical test confirms there’s a good correlation, from memory 0.7 on a scale from 0 – 1.0 (which goes from no correlation to perfect correlation). Yet Victor refuses to take instruction in how to either properly interpret scatteplots and graphs, or do a statistical test. This is a good example of how well intended people end up fooling themselves.
“The CO2 levels consistently FOLLOW the warming, (ice age cycles) telling us the feedback explanation is not supported by the evidence.”
What actually happens is a change in the solar forcing creates warming then CO2 increases. Then there’s more warming as a result of the solar forcing plus the additional CO2, and this cycle repeats. So the fact that the CO2 follows the initial blip of warming on the graph doesn’t mean its not amplifying the next round of warming. But again Victor refuses to learn how to read graphs properly.
“Flat temperatures mid last century….However, as I demonstrated some time ago on this blog, when we consult evidence from various regions where industrial activities are either minimal or non-existent, the underlying warming trend fails to appear. Clearly there never was such a trend”
It’s important to remember there was never going to be much warming mid last century due to CO2, because total atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had not built up much at that point, as well as the high particulates associated with unfiltered coal burning. If you look at the temperature record at NASA GISS, warming fell in the northern hemisphere mid last century due to the high levels of aerosols as you would expect, and was flat in the southern hemisphere because there was less industry and thus lower levels of aerosols, but there were still some. The argument that no area showed warming is not proven, and a bit weak, because there was never going to be much anthropogenic warming standing out at that point and any warming also gets lost in natural variation of ocean cycles. Its only after the late 1970’s that CO2 started to become a powerful driver of warming because of the accumulating levels, and so started to stand reliably from the effects of aerosols and natural variation. So the trends and forces are consistent with the increasing greenhouse effect.
RSS has posted for July 2020 with a TLT anomaly of +0.74ºC, a little down on June’s anomaly and the lowest anomaly for 2020-to-date (which recorded anomalies ranging between +1.02ºC and +0.76ºC through its first 6 months). July 2020 is the warmest July in the RSS TLT record, ahead of June 2019 (+0.71ºC), 2010 (+0.70ºC), 2016 (+0.69ºC), 2018 (+0.65ºC), 2017 (+0.64ºC) & 1998 (+0.63ºC).
July 2020 sits 24th in the RSS TLT all-month anomaly record.
For 2020 to gain hottest-year-on-record by year-end, it would require the Aug-Dec anomalies to average above +0.76ºC. To drop into 3rd spot below 2019, it would require the Aug-Dec anomalies to average below +0.61ºC. A year-on-year plot of RSS monthly anomalies is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Karsten V. Johansensays
A few days ago a recently newborn “climate sceptic” linked to these two curves, which should disprove everything scientific hitherto published about the holocene climate:
Of course he didn’t give any clues to the sources for this. Maybe someone here can help?
It’s rather easy to see that the GISP2-core (in unknown ways transformed to “global”) “temperature” must be the result of massive hidden “massaging” of the data, since it has almost no resemblance to other temperature reconstructions for the holocene. Fx. has the warmth of the last forty years completely disappeared, and it displays a cold snap around 7000 BP which should have been just as cold as the wellknown 8,2 k event, and which I have never seen anything about anywhere else (and I have studied a lot of such curves). Likewise completely hitherto unknown is it that the warm periods in the bronze age and around 1000 BP should have been just as warm as the holocene maximum 8000-6000 BP. Lots of data contradict this.
The actual graphic is from Humlum’s climate4you denialist website (Fig3 on this page).
The temperature graph is the genuine GRISP2 data (you can download it here) but has been the subject of much bish-bash-bosh as it staggers zombie-like about the deniosphere. Its misuse began life with denialist Don Easterbrook who used the GISP2 data to suggest that recent warming was miniscule relative to temperature fluctuations thro’ the Holocene, the extent of his ‘flaming pants’ being easily exposed (eg by this debunking exercise of Zeke Hausfather @CarbonBrief).
One obvious difficulty with using this GISP2 data as an illustration of AGW warming relative to Holocene temperatures is that the most recent data point is 0.0951409ky BP. So with Present=1950, that means the data runs only to AD1855.
The CO2 graph is presumably non-controversial, except Humlum is saying (rather like our Victor the Troll) that there is no sign of a CO2 signal in the GISP2 temperature data. Thus he boldly asserts “Other phenomena than atmospheric CO2 must have had the main control on global temperature for the last 11,000 years.” The forcing from the variations in CO2 as graphed would be less than a single decade’s worth of AGW forcing, demonstrating that Humlum is also trying his best to refute established science by means of a smoke screen from his own ‘flaming pants’.
Piotrsays
Oscar Wehmanen (28) [about using Ca in basalt dust to sequester some atm. CO2]
” Discourage limstone dust admixtures (to controle acidity).”
what do you mean? That paper discourages using limestone? It does no such thing – since the effect on uptake of atm. CO2 is based on the same principle – in both cases releasing carbonate into the water CO3^(2-), makes the water more alkaline
hence – either buffers the acidity of the soil or buffers the carbonic acid dissolved from the air (thus removing atm CO2). Both are parts of natural chemical weathering – and both are accelerated by crushing the rock (to increase surface area for the reaction).
limestone: CaCO3 (s) + CO2(g) + H2O -> Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3-(aq)
calcium silicates (part of basalt that reacts here ):
CaSiO3 (s) + 2 CO2 (g) + 3 H20 -> Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3-(aq) + H4SiO4(aq)
As you can see – if anything, in controlling acidity/taking up atm CO2, basalt is much less effective PER KG of rock than limestone – since large part of its chemical composition is of the elements that, unlike Ca, would not be involved in buffering acidity/absorbing CO2 – if anything – some (albeit relatively small in normal pH) of the main “other” component – SiO2 would convert into a weak acid H4SiO4, thus (slightly) undercutting the effect of carbonate dissolution….
So the only _disadvantage_ of using limestone instead of basalt I can see would be in the places where it is less easily available than basalt (thus requiring emission- and cost-expensive transport).
Piotr
Ah yes, it’s good to be back, basking in the warmth of all that withering sarcasm (and denial). The usual responses from the usual sources, mostly empty rhetoric and/or pointless ad hominem attacks. FYI, I do happen to have a considerable amount of scientific training and experience, including a considerable amount of experience with statistics, having collaborated rather intensively with professionals in this field, none of whom has ever had a problem with my response to their calculations. I wonder how many of YOU have actually engaged, as I have, in a serious research project. How many of you have published, as I have, anything of importance in peer reviewed journals?
Of course, none of this really matters. From my book: “As I see things, it’s already too late to argue one way or another on this topic. It’s not that “the science is settled” – I feel sure it isn’t – it’s that the issue is settled. Climate change is no longer a scientific matter, but a social construct. The debate is over and it’s been won by those most adept at influencing public opinion.”
It’s certainly not my intention to convince anyone reading here. As I’ve mentioned before, my reason for posting on this blog is simply to: waste my time — that’s it. As good a reason as any, I would suppose, for a dreamer like myself.
Actually, your responses very conveniently make my point. Since you can’t argue on the basis of the evidence, you invoke exactly the sort of ad hoc “explanations” I’ve highlighted. In just about every case, the evidence per se fails to support the prevailing theory, and must therefore be supplemented by introducing additional, complicating factors. While an explanation of this sort might, under certain circumstance, be valid, the attempt to validate one dubious hypothesis after another in this same manner is suspicious to say the least.
Bottom line: “. . . consider that for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives. This is so because one can always burden a failing explanation with an ad hoc hypothesis” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
nigeljsays
Victor Grauer says “I do happen to have a considerable amount of scientific training and experience, including a considerable amount of experience with statistics,
What specifically? What degrees or certificates, and from what exact institutes?
Al Bundysays
V: I’ve mentioned before, my reason for posting on this blog is simply to: waste my time — that’s it. As good a reason as any,
AB: Yep. Though folks pretend that comment threads are more important than the comic pages, we’re all here to waste time. I just took a break from working on my patent filing to wander by and reset my neurons.
And you. Where does the cage-rattler end and your inner doofus begin?
DasKleineTeilchensays
People might want to keep an eye on the Arctic sea ice
seems like the new normal has arrived…still not as bad as 2012, but certainly as bad as 2019.
CCHolleysays
RE. Victor @43
Yawn.
FYI, I do happen to have a considerable amount of scientific training and experience, including a considerable amount of experience with statistics,…
Sure he does, with all his degrees in the arts. And experience in statistics? His experience sure hasn’t taught him anything about statistics. Especially not how to properly use the statistical technique of correlation that can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related. Dah, it’s used to help understand relationships that are being studied–it is just a tool used in conjunction with other evidence–by itself, it neither proves or disproves causation.
LOL. Victor thinks the time of day is correlated to the position of the sun. Nope, time by definition is based on the position of the sun. Why would you perform a correlation test on that? It’s like saying pounds are correlated to weight or mph are correlated with speed. What a doofus.
As good a reason as any, I would suppose, for a dreamer like myself.
He’s a dreamer all right.
Actually, your responses very conveniently make my point. Since you can’t argue on the basis of the evidence, you invoke exactly the sort of ad hoc “explanations” I’ve highlighted.
Oh the irony. Yup, he’s a dreamer. Victor conveniently casts aside the plethora of evidence provided on his behalf. He doesn’t recognize evidence unless it supports his myopic view of the science. He doesn’t understand that scientific knowledge is based on ALL the evidence, evidence that he conveniently ignores. Where’s that scientific training?
Bottom line: “. . . consider that for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives.
But in the case of climate, we know what all the possible drivers are. Applying any of them to any period of time is not adding complexity to any “theory” because we already know they exist and that they have influence on temperatures, they are certainly NOT ad hoc. That’s just silly.
And of course, the simple minded Victor likes to incorrectly invoke Occam’s Razor. He thinks “Natural” in itself is a cause of temperature changes and the simplest “theory”, but he does not/cannot define exactly what this “Natural” is. What’s the mechanism? How does it create or reduce energy in the system? He won’t answer that because he cannot. Ironic. Invoking “Natural” is actually ad hoc. What a doofus.
John Pollacksays
OK, here goes. In juxtaposing Victor’s statement in 43 “I do happen to have a considerable amount of scientific training and experience, including a considerable amount of experience with statistics…” with his statement in 14 ” As I’ve already demonstrated, there is no long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.” I see two possible resolutions. First, Victor might be lying about his statistical prowess, either to himself or all of us. Second, he might be indulging in what Elliot Abrams famously referred to as “plausible deniability” during the Iran-Contra Scandal.
If there is no long-term correlation, why does he proceed to state in 18 “According to evidence gleaned from Antarctic ice cores, going back as far as 400,000 years ago, CO2 levels and global temperatures appear to have been closely correlated over a substantial stretch of time” ?
Correlation is one of the simplest of all statistics, with a standard formula for calculating whether two sets of numbers are correlated. The name really says it: if two data sets are co-related, then what is in one tells you something about what is in the other. If they are not co-related, then knowing one provides you no information about the other.
Looking at the CO2 and temperature curves for the past 400,000 years, they are highly correlated, as Victor actually agrees to.
For shorter periods, such as 1880 to present, it is indeed useful to examine Victor’s writings in his “a mole in the ground” blog that he refers to in 14. He “eyeballs” the period from 1880 to 1980 and concludes that there is no correlation. (Actually, there is, because both CO2 and temperature rise during that period.) He correctly concludes that there is a correlation between 1980 and 1998, but then states “I see no sign of correlation between 1998 and the present.” This is a statistical absurdity! Getting back to the co-relation: when carbon dioxide levels are higher, global temperatures are higher. If this were not the case, and there truly was no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, then temperatures post 1998 would return to levels seen in the early 20th century or late 19th century. They don’t. They are co-related with carbon dioxide levels. Victor doubles down on the statistical error by subdividing the data set into smaller and smaller intervals. This does not change the underlying relationship, only obfuscates it. That’s where he seems to go for “plausible deniability” – but it’s only plausible if you give a pass to his completely erroneous statistical reasoning.
nigeljsays
Victor says we cant explain things “on the evidence”. But scientists consider all the evidence and look for explanations that explain the totality of the evidence.
The things Victor calls ad hoc explanations are evidence. They are real things measured in the real world. His sophistry doesnt change that. He is only fooling himself and ignoring evidence and trying to pretend its an ad hoc explanation. Its Victor who ignores evidence.
The ‘evidence’ shows that the temperature changes coming out of the last glaciation cant be explained by changes in solar insolation alone, and only CO2 plus solar insolation explains them. But Victor doesn’t know this, and so he works from an assessment of correlations alone, one hand tied behind his back but not realising it.
Worse he doesnt know what the latest science says on the last glaciation. No layperson can keep up with it all.
Oh well, thats just my view. Not a scientist, but its obvious to me.
Mr. Know It Allsays
12 – John Pollak
“Could it be that they’ve already had a considerable warming trend? Record low at the South Pole is -117 F, set back in 1982.”
Not possible. CO2 concentrations were considerably above “pre-industrial” in 1982; the radiant energy would not have been able to produce a record cold at such high CO2 levels according to AGW theory – my money is on improperly calibrated measuring device. Also, even at today’s balmy -89 F, they’d need a rise in temperature of 121 F to start melting the ice, yet climate alarmists display mass hysteria about rising sea levels. ;)
34 – CCHolley
“… The latest science tells us, in actuality, based on those ice cores, the temperatures and CO2 levels actually rose in lockstep–the CO2 levels did not lag temperature rise…”
Please get with BL in post 23 above. He confirms that temperature rose ahead of CO2 levels during certain times as V indicated. When y’all get your stories straight, let us know what actually happened. ;)
GWP* is a method of combining the effects of short lived climate pollutants (SLCPs e.g. methane) with long lived climate pollutants (LLCPs e.g. carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide).
As I understand it, it uses rates of change in emissions of SLCPs but absolute values for LLCPs.
I see in Climate metrics under ambitious mitigation (Figure c) that total CO2-e* emissions reach net zero, when CO2 emissions are not zero.
If this measure is adopted for comparing greenhouse gases does it mean that carbon budgets (like the INDCs in the Paris Agreement?) will become more relaxed?
Has anyone looked at this Marchitelli paper in Scientific Reports? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3
I know it isn’t really climate-related, but the GSM cult is pretty excited about it. I am afraid this may be another embarrassment for this journal.
Provocative words from Kevin Anderson https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-18/turning-delusion-into-climate-action-prof-kevin-anderson-an-interview/
2 – Robert Ingersol
Quote from the article’s “conclusion”:
“This paper gives the first, strongly statistically significant, evidence for a high correlation between large worldwide earthquakes and the proton density near the magnetosphere, due to the solar wind. This result is extremely important for seismological research and for possible future implications on earthquake forecast……”
Very interesting! I’m guessing that if the solar wind and particles have enough energy to move Earth’s tectonic plates; it should easily have enough energy to cause some warming trends in the atmosphere.
They could use some warming trends down at the South Pole. Forecast to be -89 F in a few days:
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole/ext
Geoff Beacon @1,
A ‘heads-up’.
You may recall your question to me in a comment thread at Carbonbrief As with the comment here @3, it was ‘provoked’ by that Kevin Anderson resulting in your question “How much can “official science” be trusted? … What’s your view?
I did reply but its length meant it got stuck in the Disqus comment machine requiring moderation to be unstuck, moderation which I have just now ‘provoked’ into action.
So please consider yourself now ‘replied to’.
Greg Guy #3
In that article Kevin Anderson discussess the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC). He says
1. What is the immediate source of the pressure that requires “political expediency”?
Is it connected to the fact that the UK business department, The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), is the sponsoring department for climate policy and climate research in the UK? BEIS also appoint the members of the CCC.
(See Take climate policy from the UK business department.)
2. Who are the “academic Commissioners” of the CCC? Is there a public list?
3. The CCC have discussed GWP* in their literature, where its new concept of CO2-e* gives a net-zero measure thatallows significant CO2 emissions.
Net-zero CO2e* seems a more lenient emissions target than net-zero CO2 (or net-zero CO2e).
Is this new concept likely to mislead public and parliament further?
I took your advice and checked out the Arctic Sea Ice link. Doesn’t look too bad right now, little bit below the 30 year trend. The trend for below normal amounts of ice appear to be heavily concentrated just off the Alaska and Russia coasts,and around the Kara Sea. The water depth off of Russia is very shallow, much of it 50-200 feet, according to Google Earth – wondering if that plays a role.
It’s surprising that there is still a tiny bit of ice in Hudson’s Bay and James Bay, just 521 miles north of downtown Toronto. It even shows ice by Anchorage – someone must have lost a cooler full of ice and beer. ;)
Also surprising are the very small areas where sea ice concentration is actually increasing over the decades as shown by the orange colors on the monthly Trends and Anomalies tabs.
I looked at Antarctica, and the orange colors for monthly increasing ice concentration per decade look larger than areas of declining ice concentration. Not sure what it indicates, since decreasing concentration “could” mean less calving of ice bergs (various reasons could cause this), and increased concentration “could” mean more calving (various reasons could cause that also).
Geoff Beacon @6,
The membership of the UK CCC are listed with the introductions of this 277 page report – Committee on Climate Change (May 2019) ‘Net Zero – The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming’. (Also the Acknowledgements lists a whole pageful of other contributors.)
I should also make plain that I have not actually read through this report.
With strong accusations quoted upthread that the CCC has “misled parliament and the public, this CCC report is probably the ‘smoking gun’ in that it suggests the UK would be doing its bit if it achieved zero-CO2 by 2050 through a linear reduction in its emissions between now and 2050.
While there is no sign that the UK government has taken the slightest bit of notice of this CCC report that states:-
While there is still no sign that the UK government is taking this report seriously, there are two problem areas I see with the CCC report itself.
Firstly it asserts that the linear reduction in emissions through to a target of zero-by-2050 represents the “highest possible ambition,” and this ‘height’ is arrived-at because “the Committee do not currently consider it credible to aim to reach net-zero emissions earlier than 2050.”
Secondly, I don’t think it is correct to say “If replicated across the world, and coupled with ambitious near-term reductions in emissions,it would deliver a greater than 50% chance of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C.” That is for a ‘50% chance’, by 2019 we had a remaining global budget of 10-years-of-present-global-emissions. A linear redution to zero by 2050 would require 15-years-of-present-global-emissions (and a linear reduction does appear to be the plan in this June 2020 CCC Report summary).
Of course, the UK has a head-start on emissions-reduction in that it has already reduced its territorial emissions to 60% of 1990 levels (although its carbon footprint is running at more like 90% 1990), so a linear reduction from this 60% could be declared a bit below an allowance from the remaining global budget of 10-years-of-present-global-emissions, but that is seriously not equitable on a number of grounds and would not stand up under scrutiny.
[Finally, I’m very conscious that this comment runbs very close to discussing ‘mitigation method’ which is off-topic in these UV thread.]
Missing link to report.
MARoger #5
Thanks. Now seen your reply. Agree with much of it but I think you showed much confidence in climate modelling when you said
Too many things happening now…
– Cold spot in the North Atlantic
– New worries about East Antarctica
– 38C in London & that highest ever temperature in Siberia
– Fires in California, Siberia etc.
– Wavier jet stream making weather unpredictable
– Greenland melt going faster
Re. 4, KIA, If I wanted to know what uninformed amateurs were “guessing”, I would have posted the question on twitter. Any SCIENTISTS with comments on this paper? I know it contradicts some previous credible research that found no link between solar activity and earthquakes.
Mr. Know It All @4 “They could use some warming trends down at the South Pole. Forecast to be -89 F in a few days.”
Could it be that they’ve already had a considerable warming trend? Record low at the South Pole is -117 F, set back in 1982.
UAH has posted for July 2020 with a TLT anomaly of +0.44ºC, a squeak up on June’s anomaly and the third lowest anomaly for 2020-to-date (which recorded +0.56ºC, +0.76ºC, +0.48ºC, +0.38ºC, +0.54ºC & +0.43ºC January thro’ to June).
July 2020 is the 2nd warmest July in the UAH TLT record, behind 1998 (+0.51ºC) and ahead of July 2016 (+0.39ºC), 2019 (+0.38ºC), 2010 (+0.33ºC), 2018 & 2017 (both +0.30ºC), 2002 (+0.23ºC), 2005 (+0.22ºC) followed by 2014 & 2009 (both +0.21ºC).
July 2020 sits =35th in the trend-defying UAH TLT all-month anomaly record.
After seven months, the ‘warmest year-so-far table’ in UAH TLT runs as follows (also showing the calender year averages & rankings):-
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.53ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.51ºC
2010 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 5th
2019 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 4th
2002 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 8th
2018 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.23ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2005 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 12th
So the start of 2020 is sitting in an impressive 3rd place for TLT record in a non-El Niño-boosted year. While 2020 may not top 2016 by year’s-end (it would require to average Aug-Dec above +0.544ºC to achieve that), slotting into 2nd place ahead of 1998 (which would require to average Aug-Dec above +0.440ºC) appears quite likely. To drop below 2019 into 4th would require an Aug-Dec average below +0.340ºC
Yesterday, on another thread, I made the following claim: “There is, in fact, no reason whatsoever to accept the basic premise that CO2 emissions are leading to a dangerous rise in global temperatures. Over and over again the “scientists” have failed to produce meaningful evidence for any of their claims. So what passes for science is not viable theories based on facts, but imaginative hypotheses based on ingenious arguments for why the facts do not support the theory.” My claim was, of course, angrily rejected by the usual suspects on this blog, for the usual reasons. I have consequently decided to make a useful list of items for them to contemplate.
OK, here goes.
Item: As I’ve already demonstrated, there is no long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. See, for example, the following blog post, in which I expose the misleading nature of one naïve attempt to establish such a correlation (other similarly misleading efforts were presented by contributors to this blog): http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html In all these cases, scattergrams purporting to demonstrate a long-term correlation actually reflect only a relatively brief 20 year period when CO2 levels and global temperatures happened to rise in tandem. When ALL the evidence is considered (as, for example, in the following scattergram, produced by Danley Wolfe, which places this 20 year period in perspective: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image006_thumb2.jpg?resize=622%2C461 ), the lack of a true long-term correlation is evident. To account for their failure to establish a clear correlation based solely on the CO2 and temperature records, many climate scientists have offered speculative explanations based on a the influence of a variety of other climatic factors. An instructive example can be found in a Skeptical Science blog post (aptly) titled “Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)”: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Item: Over a period of roughly 18 years, from 1998 through 2016 (just prior to an extreme El Nino event), we see what many investigators have characterized as a “hiatus” or “pause” in temperature rise. While temperatures did continue to rise during this period, the degree of rise was considerably less than that of the 20 year period from ca. 1979 through 1998, when temperatures rose rather dramatically. The meaning and validity of the so-called “hiatus” has been a bone of contention among climate scientists for some time, and a variety of explanations for its existence have appeared over the years. Regardless of what anyone might want to think about this temperature slowdown the fact remains: according to just about every dataset the rise in temperature during this period was considerably less than what might be expected based on the steep runup during the previous 20 year period. Moreover, according to yet another scattergram produced by Danley Wolfe, there was no correlation whatsoever between CO2 levels and temperatures between 1999 and 2014: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image008_thumb1.jpg?resize=606%2C449
(The following website lists no fewer than 66 “explanations” for the hiatus, as of 2014: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html — as for the notorious paper by Karl et al, often cited as a “pause-buster,” that’s just one more excuse to be added to that long long list. If you carefully examine the graphs he provides (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tr_Karl/publication/277779273/figure/fig1/AS:601727157948448@1520474342520/Global-land-and-ocean-surface-temperature-anomaly-time-series-with-new-analysis-old_W640.jpg), you’ll see that just about all the “corrections” he’s made apply to the first half of the 20th century, with everything after that more or less the same as before. His claim to have debunked the hiatus is not based on his corrections, but on his curious decision to compare the 50 years from 1950-1999 with the first 15 years of the 21st century, with no explanation as to why he selected the last half of the 20th century as the basis for his comparison.)
Item: According to a surprising finding from a recent study, “current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” Fasulo et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245 Thus, according to the evidence uncovered by these researchers, sea level rise did NOT accelerate as widely expected by so many climate scientists, but in fact declined, potentially a huge embarrassment. Never fear. Our authors did some digging and discovered a handy explanation: the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Sound far-fetched? Pretty much, yes. If sea levels failed to respond to the drastic decrease in global temperatures from 1940 through 1950, it’s hard to understand how the much less intense and prolonged cooling effects of a volcanic eruption could have made much of a difference. This rather unlikely notion is, of course, only a hypothesis, as they (indirectly) acknowledge, but since the publication of their study, which revises the evidence to take the Pinatubo eruption into account, it’s been widely reported, on the basis of this theory alone, that sea level rise is in fact accelerating, thus serving to enhance the desired level of alarm.
All for now. More to come . . .
” the solar wind and particles have enough energy to move Earth’s tectonic plates”
Mr Knows it All (4)
_That’s_ what you understood the paper argued? ;-))))) Whau.
One can never underestimate Mr Knows It All…
Geoff Beacon (1) and (6): “the new concept of CO2-e* gives a net-zero measure that allows significant CO2 emissions”.
That’s hardly anything new – _all_ existing carbon budgets assume the Earth absorbs some of the human emissions of CO2.
To illustrate, let’s use the Schlesinger’s carbon budget from his 2013 “Biogeochemistry”, where you had human emissions of 10Gt C/yr, and out of it, in the atmosphere stayed 5Gt C/yr, while the other 5 GtC had to be absorbed by ocean and land.
Which means that if you reduced human emissions from 10Gt/yr to 5 Gt/yr, you would get stabilization of atm. CO2 (=your “net-zero emissions”), while STILL having “significant CO2 emissions”, to the tune of 5Gt C/yr.
Conversely, if somebody proposes reducing human emissions to ZERO – they are not going after _stabilizing_ the atmospheric CO2 conc. (i.e. your” “zero net emissions”), but they are after REDUCING it.
Which would make sense in the context of the Paris accord goals of containing the Earth temp. growth below 1.5 or 2C – since _stabilizing_ CO2 at, say, 450 or 500 ppm would not do.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-worst-case-co2-emissions-scenario-climate.html
“The RCP 8.5 CO2 emissions pathway, long considered a “worst case scenario” by the international science community, is the most appropriate for conducting assessments of climate change impacts by 2050, according to a new article published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The work was authored by Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) Risk Program Director Dr. Christopher Schwalm, Dr. Spencer Glendon, a Senior Fellow at WHRC and founder of Probable Futures, and by WHRC President Dr. Philip Duffy. Long dismissed as alarmist or misleading, the paper argues that is actually the closest approximation of both historical emissions and anticipated outcomes of current global climate policies, tracking within 1% of actual emissions.”
CO2? How are we doing?
Jul. 26 – Aug. 1, 2020 413.22 ppm
Jul. 26 – Aug. 1, 2019 409.97 ppm
Jul. 26 – Aug. 1, 2010 389.75 ppm
so, we’re looking at 3.25 ppm increase yoy (noisy number) and 23.50 ppm increase over 10 years.
It could be worse.
Cheers,
Mike
Continued from my previous post:
Item: According to evidence gleaned from Antarctic ice cores, going back as far as 400,000 years ago, CO2 levels and global temperatures appear to have been closely correlated over a substantial stretch of time, during which both CO2 and temperature cycled from one extreme to the other. Upon close examination, however, it was determined that the rise in temperature consistently preceded the rise in CO2 levels, contrary to the assumption by Al Gore and many other climate change advocates who want to see this relationship as an early example of CO2 driven warming.
As with the examples I’ve already presented, certain advocates, unwilling to accept evidence that fails to support their theory, have taken pains to explain it away. See, for example, the following, from the Skeptical Science blog:
“In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.” (https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=25 )
Sorry, but the feedback hypothesis, widely disseminated by Richard Alley among others, won’t work. If the process began with oceanic warming, which then increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and the increase in CO2 then led, in turn, to even greater warming, which, in turn, raised CO2 levels even more, and so on, then that dynamic would be reflected in the ice-core data, where we’d soon see a reversal of roles, with warming following CO2. But that is NOT what we see. The CO2 levels consistently FOLLOW the warming, telling us the feedback explanation is not supported by the evidence.
Item: According to just about every record, global temperatures from 1940 through roughly 1979 either fell or remained relatively steady. The fact that CO2 levels were rising considerably during this same forty year period thus posed a challenge to those claiming CO2 levels are a principal driver of climate change. Consequently, advocates have insisted the evidence is misleading – a CO2-driven rise in temperatures must have been masked by the cooling effect of industrial aerosols (i.e. pollutants) produced, ironically enough, by the same process that also emitted large amounts of CO2. However, as I demonstrated some time ago on this blog, when we consult evidence from various regions where industrial activities are either minimal or non-existent, the underlying warming trend fails to appear. Clearly there never was such a trend.
Item: Over and over again we see, in both the media and the scientific literature, dire warnings of a future dominated by extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, heavy rainstorms, etc. Invariably, “climate change” is assumed to be the culprit, with the tacit understanding that by “climate change” is meant steadily rising global temperatures fueled by steadily rising CO2 emissions, due to the burning of fossil fuels. While it is indeed possible to make an argument associating rising temperatures with certain extreme weather events, there is nothing in any of the evidence supporting such an association that says anything about CO2 emissions. That’s simply assumed as part of the “climate change” meme. Since, as I’ve demonstrated above, so much of the actual evidence points away from such an influence, it would seem irresponsible to continually blame CO2 for weather events most likely triggered by natural forces. And if in fact increasing levels of CO2 emission are not the cause of these extreme weather events, we have no reason to predict that they will get any worse, or even continue, in the future. As we know, the natural forces that have controlled the climate for millions of years, wax and wane over time for reasons we may never understand.
In sum: As I insisted in my earlier post, we see a pattern: whenever the actual evidence fails to support the prevailing climate change theory its supporters strive mightily to explain the discrepancy away by any means possible. Or else, as in the case of extreme events, simply assume the evidence is there even when it is not.
The Great Apocalypse Debate has been rudely interrupted by a realone.
It isn’t the first time, and likely won’t be the last:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/08/apocalypse-here-todays-weather-in-beirut.html
I see @9&13 Victor the Troll has re-appeared from under his
mountainmolehill with another episode of his incessant nonsense.Note that one of the six ‘items’ he presents is allegedly supported by a recent paper, (Fasullo et al 2016) and concerns SLR (which if I recall correctly was how he first started here at RealClimate with this ridiculous no-correlation-with-CO2 campaign he has been waging against the universe). This recent paper he here waves is, of course, entirely misrepresented by poor Victor, not least in being less recent than this paper from the same authors which sort-of turns his SLR ‘item’ into an excellent example of a trumpism, this a little inappropriate for one who has professed to being “a card carrying lifelong Democrat, liberal to the gills,” thus he assured us someone who could never possibly be afflicted by “denial.” (Mind, the deinal-filled Donald T Rump has also expressed Democrat-leanings.)
Of Victor the Troll’s other items (that he probably genuinely believes to be real & true, and so many of them that together they must surely overturn all the findings of climatology on the issue of AGW and be worth at least one Nobel Prize), they are the same jigsawed temperature-CO2-correlation argument he has set out ad nauseam while unable to comprehend that such repetition does not convert the fantasy of his AGW denial into reality.
Geoff #1
GWP* adresses the point that SLCPs (like methane) do not lead to further concentration increase – and thus further warming – when emissions are stabilized (at least after some time, depending on the life-time of a specific SLCP).
It has been proposed by Allen et al.
Thus, if we discuss a remaining emission budget to stabilize global temperature at a certain level, and this not only for CO2 but for CO2 equivalent, this should be taken into account.
A calculation of remaining CO2e emission budget starts with existing emissions for SLCPs. If the emissions of an SLCP stay constant, they will cause no further warming (in contrast to CO2). Further warming will only be caused, when the emissions are rising. Sinking emission of the SLCP will reduce warming. CO2e* of the SLCP is accordingly calculated from the emission evolution of the last 10 or 20 years (proposed by Allen et al.).
This in fact leads to the result, that net zero CO2e* could be reached without CO2 emissions being reduced to zero.
However:
1) when SLCPs have been reduced to zero, this effect is gone and CO2 emissions have to be zero, too, to stabilize. Thus, methane emission reduction helps, but is not decisive for climate stabilization.
2) the reduction of methane, which is the most important SLCP, is quite a challenge, especially in agriculture which emits about half of anthropogenic methane, and might not be easier or more beneficial than that of CO2 in the end.
Therefore, the time gain by this new approach of CO2 equivalent calculation will probably not be very important.
On the other hand, there are still a few important consequences, if this calculation would be implemented by UNFCCC:
1) Reduction of CO2 will be more important for climate stabilization, because methane emissions ‘only’ have to be stabilized.
2) methane emissions lose weight in the UNFCCC ghg emissions inventories. This has consequences especially for developing countries in their share of emission reduction duties.
3) for countries like Switzerland, where methane emissions mostly come from agriculture and are very difficult to reduce and – with the current equivalent calculation – would have to be compensated by negative emissions, this problem would be ‘resolved’ at once, since methane emissions have decreased slightly for the last two decades.
Weaktor,
Give it up. You have been told repeatedly and with great forbearance why you are wrong–from your lack of understanding of correlation to your utterly stupid idea that there can be only one influence acting on the climate at a time. If you were too stupid to understand them then, I hold out little hope of you understanding them now. Your learning curve does not have a positive slope. I’ve run across Russian bots that were smarter than you.
GO. AWAY.
V 18: the rise in temperature consistently preceded the rise in CO2 levels
BPL: Sorry, but this is wrong. That happens only in a deglaciation. Later on temperature follows CO2. In any case, what happens in a natural deglaciation isn’t what’s happening now. There is no 800 year temperature lag between falling temperatures and CO2 now; 800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period.
Learn atmosphere physics, Victor. It’s not that hard. Start with something easy, like Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” or George Philander’s “Is the Temperature Rising?” Later you can go on to stuff with more math.
#14, Victor–
No, the only thing you succeeding in demonstrating was that you have no clue about statistics.
GIGO.
mike:
1. Long-tail risks
2. I.e., climate extremes
Been saying this for YEARS.
It’s not about data. Should not have been for a long time now. It’s about the risk. Despite their skill in climate, none of the scientists I know of have been able to grok this.
Weird.
But, then, neither do all but a tiny fraction. Deep Green is wrong in what they think we should do – there’s no time to destroy and rebuild civilization – but are correct about the risk.
#7, KIA–
Not sure what you’re looking at when you say:
In fact, at present extent is running at the lowest levels ever seen for this date, and has been for some time:
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent/&time=2020-08-04%2000:00:00
(It is true that the trend currently seems to be converging with 2019 and 2012 values–those being the #2 and #1 lowest September minima on record so far. But there’s time for both good and bad twists and turns in the melt season.)
18 Why must you post this nonsense over and over?
The Guardian newspaper had a recent piece touting the use of basalt rock dust on agricultural land as a sink for CO2. There is Ca in basalt dust. Looking around, the organic foods community likes rock dust. This seems to me to be a good idea! It scales to very large amounts without any high tech bottlenecks. Discourage limstone dust admixtures (to controle acidity). Good Idea??
While the Atlantic hurricane season has so far seeing record numbers of early-season named storms (but not an exceptional numbers of hurricanes developed from these storms), over the last week or so the predictions for the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season have been significantly amended. Previously the concensús was for a top-10 season with the predictions averaging 18 named storms of which 9 would reach hurricane strength and 4 of those Cat3+ hurricane strength. The most recent predictons have upped these numbers to 23, 11 and 5. Such an outcome would place the number of storms for the 2020 season 2nd only to the dramatic 2005 hurricane season.
The average Atlantic hurricane season has seen 12.1 named storms, 6.4 hurricanes with 2.7 Cat3+.
The list of most active hurricane seasons presently runs as follows:-
… … … … … . Named … … Hurricanes … . Cat3+
2005 … … … … 28 … … … … 15 … … … … 7
1933 … … … … 20 … … … … 11 … … … … 6
2010 … … … … 19 … … … … 12 … … … … 5
1887 … … … … 19 … … … … 11 … … … … 2
1995 … … … … 19 … … … … 11 … … … … 5
2012 … … … … 19 … … … … 10 … … … … 2
2011 … … … … 19 … … … ….. 7 … … … … 4
1969 … … … … 18 … … … … 12 … … … … 5
2019 … … … … 18 … … … ….. 6 … … … … 3
Latest predictions (ave)
2020 … … … … 23 … … … … 11 … … … … 5
Mrkia: I’m guessing that if the solar wind and particles have enough energy to move Earth’s tectonic plates; it should easily have
AB: Ever seen a mouse trap? If a mouse has the strength to, well, it doesn’t take much power at all to set off a mousetrap or, apparently, a big earthquake.
Or the mouth of a doofus.
RE. Victor–Correlation
The level of ego-inflated arrogant ignorance is mind boggling. Victor, in his completely deluded self-importance believes that he alone, a science illiterate, is capable of pointing out the flaws of the science behind AGW. Likewise, Victor, untrained in statistics, believes he can lecture experts on the proper use of statistics. Those that have attempted to point out the absurdity of his arguments over and over again based on the science, the evidence, and often their substantial expertise are apparently just losers incapable of recognizing the genius of Victor. Victor just knows better. When a poster points out the fallacies made by Victor and attributes them to his complete and utter ignorance, then it is just bulling name calling. Of course it is, Victor couldn’t possibly be wrong, he is so brilliant. The facts be damned. Rinse lather, repeat. It is tiresome and oh so boorish. His attempts to rehash points that have been thoroughly debunked in the past belong in the Borehole, or better yet, the Crankshaft.
Victor, a musicologist, makes up his own definition of correlation–in his clueless mind, it must be clearly visible and in lockstep, which is completely wrong. The whole purpose of a statistical correlation analysis of a time series is to help determine the strength of one variable in a multivariate relationship. This because the relationship can be lost in the noise of all the other variables. Like any statistical analysis, the greater the sample size, the lower the uncertainty of the result. For time series analysis, most experts will tell you that at least 50 samples are required to obtain a meaningful result. That’s 50 years. Breaking the series into a short 20 year period is nonsensical and meaningless. As anyone knows with any background at all in statistics, the best correlation analysis would include all the years for which sufficient data exists. Sorry, Victor is just an idiot. Not an ad hominem, a clearly observable fact.
Welcome back, Case Study V. It’s amazing how some? many? most? human minds have been trained (self? school? peers? parents?) to seek validation for whatever their team’s adversary disbelieves or dislikes and ignore, minimize, belittle, and especially misinterpret everything else.
Victor, you’re amazingly resistant to growth. I shouldn’t still be amazed; when a lead sinker falls off a fishing line it’s gonna lay on the bottom until it’s covered up and buried.
A first indication of the global surface temperature for July is provided by the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis which has posted for July 2020 with an anomaly of +0.49ºC, the lowest monthly anomaly for 2020-to-date (which ranged +0.80ºC to +0.53ºC through its first 6 months). July 2020 is the 3rd warmest July in the ERA5 record, behind July 2019 (+0.56ºC) and 2016 (+0.53ºC).
Over the first 7 months of 2020, the average anomaly sits in 2nd place. An average anomaly of +0.60ºC for the remainder of the year would be enough to elevate 2020 into top-spot while an average below +0.50ºC enough to drop it into 3rd.
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.66ºC
2019 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.59ºC … … … 2nd
2017 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.46ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.36ºC … … … +0.32ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.45ºC … … … 5th
2007 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.23ºC … … … 12th
1998 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.21ºC … … … 14th
2014 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.29ºC … … … 8th
A plot of Copernicus ERA5 monthly data shown year-on-year is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’
RE. Victor–Ice Cores
Not true.
Not a surprise, deniers of the science don’t keep up with the science, once they create a meme, it is never revised or discarded once better information is obtained. The latest science tells us, in actuality, based on those ice cores, the temperatures and CO2 levels actually rose in lockstep–the CO2 levels did not lag temperature rise.
Why so? Because it has been determined that the trapped air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack–those air bubbles used to determine CO2 levels are younger than the ice surrounding them when originally they were assumed to be the same age. In cores, like those from the Dome C, the age difference can be thousands of years. Reanalysis taking this newer knowledge into account shows that there very well likely was no lag.
In tackling the global climate crisis, doom and optimism are both dangerous traps
Overheated polemics won’t solve this emergency – and the apocalypse is a needlessly high bar for action
Zeke Hausfather and Richard Betts
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/06/global-climate-crisis-doom-optimism-emergency
This is a new chapter in what is becoming the RCP 8.5 ‘controversy’. Hausfather and Betts are top quality climate scientists; they both tend (like many other successful scientists) to be conservatives and I think both are in soft climate denial when it comes to mitigation possibilities within BAU. But their oped is a reasonable, fair overview of the emerging science and if all our many controversies were addressed in this open, evidence-based manner we’d be in much better shape as a society.
@victor
If you correlate numbers binned annually (various canonical series) versus numbers (ice core data) numbers binned over centuries do you see any differences in seeing short term, annual and decadal signals versus noise? How much noise does using numbers which are binned by centuries rather than annually eliminate from ther analysis?
Use ALL of your “immense” knowledge of the math behind the stats.
New research that might be of interest (open access) “Analyzing the Arctic Feedback Mechanism between Sea Ice and Low-Level Clouds Using 34 Years of Satellite Observations”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/33/17/7479/348638/Analyzing-the-Arctic-Feedback-Mechanism-between
Victor says “In all these cases, scattergrams purporting to demonstrate a long-term correlation actually reflect only a relatively brief 20 year period when CO2 levels and global temperatures happened to rise in tandem. ”
Victor seems to trace his finger over the scatterplot and say “look only one small part of the plot has the variables matching perfectly, or near perfectly”, so “there is no correlation for the scatterplot as a whole”. Everyone else here looks at the scatterplot for the entire period and says “yes there’s obviously a correlation for the overall period, not a perfect correlation obviously but there is clearly a correlation.” A statistical test confirms there’s a good correlation, from memory 0.7 on a scale from 0 – 1.0 (which goes from no correlation to perfect correlation). Yet Victor refuses to take instruction in how to either properly interpret scatteplots and graphs, or do a statistical test. This is a good example of how well intended people end up fooling themselves.
“The CO2 levels consistently FOLLOW the warming, (ice age cycles) telling us the feedback explanation is not supported by the evidence.”
What actually happens is a change in the solar forcing creates warming then CO2 increases. Then there’s more warming as a result of the solar forcing plus the additional CO2, and this cycle repeats. So the fact that the CO2 follows the initial blip of warming on the graph doesn’t mean its not amplifying the next round of warming. But again Victor refuses to learn how to read graphs properly.
“Flat temperatures mid last century….However, as I demonstrated some time ago on this blog, when we consult evidence from various regions where industrial activities are either minimal or non-existent, the underlying warming trend fails to appear. Clearly there never was such a trend”
It’s important to remember there was never going to be much warming mid last century due to CO2, because total atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had not built up much at that point, as well as the high particulates associated with unfiltered coal burning. If you look at the temperature record at NASA GISS, warming fell in the northern hemisphere mid last century due to the high levels of aerosols as you would expect, and was flat in the southern hemisphere because there was less industry and thus lower levels of aerosols, but there were still some. The argument that no area showed warming is not proven, and a bit weak, because there was never going to be much anthropogenic warming standing out at that point and any warming also gets lost in natural variation of ocean cycles. Its only after the late 1970’s that CO2 started to become a powerful driver of warming because of the accumulating levels, and so started to stand reliably from the effects of aerosols and natural variation. So the trends and forces are consistent with the increasing greenhouse effect.
RSS has posted for July 2020 with a TLT anomaly of +0.74ºC, a little down on June’s anomaly and the lowest anomaly for 2020-to-date (which recorded anomalies ranging between +1.02ºC and +0.76ºC through its first 6 months). July 2020 is the warmest July in the RSS TLT record, ahead of June 2019 (+0.71ºC), 2010 (+0.70ºC), 2016 (+0.69ºC), 2018 (+0.65ºC), 2017 (+0.64ºC) & 1998 (+0.63ºC).
July 2020 sits 24th in the RSS TLT all-month anomaly record.
After seven months, the ‘warmest year-so-far table’ in RSS TLT runs as follows (also showing the calender year averages & rankings). 2020 sits in an impressive 2nd place for a non-El Niño-boosted start-of-year:-
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.83ºC
2019 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 4th
1998 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 6th
2017 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.53ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 5th
2014 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 11th
For 2020 to gain hottest-year-on-record by year-end, it would require the Aug-Dec anomalies to average above +0.76ºC. To drop into 3rd spot below 2019, it would require the Aug-Dec anomalies to average below +0.61ºC. A year-on-year plot of RSS monthly anomalies is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
A few days ago a recently newborn “climate sceptic” linked to these two curves, which should disprove everything scientific hitherto published about the holocene climate:
https://scontent-cph2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/116574335_10164440104950160_3292821392034169665_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=1480c5&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=QvSqDaC677EAX-r9jpC&_nc_ht=scontent-cph2-1.xx&tp=14&oh=0e94288eb27452343ce134cfec39ccc1&oe=5F505E8A
Of course he didn’t give any clues to the sources for this. Maybe someone here can help?
It’s rather easy to see that the GISP2-core (in unknown ways transformed to “global”) “temperature” must be the result of massive hidden “massaging” of the data, since it has almost no resemblance to other temperature reconstructions for the holocene. Fx. has the warmth of the last forty years completely disappeared, and it displays a cold snap around 7000 BP which should have been just as cold as the wellknown 8,2 k event, and which I have never seen anything about anywhere else (and I have studied a lot of such curves). Likewise completely hitherto unknown is it that the warm periods in the bronze age and around 1000 BP should have been just as warm as the holocene maximum 8000-6000 BP. Lots of data contradict this.
Karsten V. Johansen @40,
The actual graphic is from Humlum’s climate4you denialist website (Fig3 on this page).
The temperature graph is the genuine GRISP2 data (you can download it here) but has been the subject of much bish-bash-bosh as it staggers zombie-like about the deniosphere. Its misuse began life with denialist Don Easterbrook who used the GISP2 data to suggest that recent warming was miniscule relative to temperature fluctuations thro’ the Holocene, the extent of his ‘flaming pants’ being easily exposed (eg by this debunking exercise of Zeke Hausfather @CarbonBrief).
One obvious difficulty with using this GISP2 data as an illustration of AGW warming relative to Holocene temperatures is that the most recent data point is 0.0951409ky BP. So with Present=1950, that means the data runs only to AD1855.
The CO2 graph is presumably non-controversial, except Humlum is saying (rather like our Victor the Troll) that there is no sign of a CO2 signal in the GISP2 temperature data. Thus he boldly asserts “Other phenomena than atmospheric CO2 must have had the main control on global temperature for the last 11,000 years.” The forcing from the variations in CO2 as graphed would be less than a single decade’s worth of AGW forcing, demonstrating that Humlum is also trying his best to refute established science by means of a smoke screen from his own ‘flaming pants’.
Oscar Wehmanen (28) [about using Ca in basalt dust to sequester some atm. CO2]
” Discourage limstone dust admixtures (to controle acidity).”
what do you mean? That paper discourages using limestone? It does no such thing – since the effect on uptake of atm. CO2 is based on the same principle – in both cases releasing carbonate into the water CO3^(2-), makes the water more alkaline
hence – either buffers the acidity of the soil or buffers the carbonic acid dissolved from the air (thus removing atm CO2). Both are parts of natural chemical weathering – and both are accelerated by crushing the rock (to increase surface area for the reaction).
limestone: CaCO3 (s) + CO2(g) + H2O -> Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3-(aq)
calcium silicates (part of basalt that reacts here ):
CaSiO3 (s) + 2 CO2 (g) + 3 H20 -> Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3-(aq) + H4SiO4(aq)
As you can see – if anything, in controlling acidity/taking up atm CO2, basalt is much less effective PER KG of rock than limestone – since large part of its chemical composition is of the elements that, unlike Ca, would not be involved in buffering acidity/absorbing CO2 – if anything – some (albeit relatively small in normal pH) of the main “other” component – SiO2 would convert into a weak acid H4SiO4, thus (slightly) undercutting the effect of carbonate dissolution….
So the only _disadvantage_ of using limestone instead of basalt I can see would be in the places where it is less easily available than basalt (thus requiring emission- and cost-expensive transport).
Piotr
Ah yes, it’s good to be back, basking in the warmth of all that withering sarcasm (and denial). The usual responses from the usual sources, mostly empty rhetoric and/or pointless ad hominem attacks. FYI, I do happen to have a considerable amount of scientific training and experience, including a considerable amount of experience with statistics, having collaborated rather intensively with professionals in this field, none of whom has ever had a problem with my response to their calculations. I wonder how many of YOU have actually engaged, as I have, in a serious research project. How many of you have published, as I have, anything of importance in peer reviewed journals?
Of course, none of this really matters. From my book: “As I see things, it’s already too late to argue one way or another on this topic. It’s not that “the science is settled” – I feel sure it isn’t – it’s that the issue is settled. Climate change is no longer a scientific matter, but a social construct. The debate is over and it’s been won by those most adept at influencing public opinion.”
It’s certainly not my intention to convince anyone reading here. As I’ve mentioned before, my reason for posting on this blog is simply to: waste my time — that’s it. As good a reason as any, I would suppose, for a dreamer like myself.
Actually, your responses very conveniently make my point. Since you can’t argue on the basis of the evidence, you invoke exactly the sort of ad hoc “explanations” I’ve highlighted. In just about every case, the evidence per se fails to support the prevailing theory, and must therefore be supplemented by introducing additional, complicating factors. While an explanation of this sort might, under certain circumstance, be valid, the attempt to validate one dubious hypothesis after another in this same manner is suspicious to say the least.
Bottom line: “. . . consider that for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives. This is so because one can always burden a failing explanation with an ad hoc hypothesis” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
Victor Grauer says “I do happen to have a considerable amount of scientific training and experience, including a considerable amount of experience with statistics,
What specifically? What degrees or certificates, and from what exact institutes?
V: I’ve mentioned before, my reason for posting on this blog is simply to: waste my time — that’s it. As good a reason as any,
AB: Yep. Though folks pretend that comment threads are more important than the comic pages, we’re all here to waste time. I just took a break from working on my patent filing to wander by and reset my neurons.
And you. Where does the cage-rattler end and your inner doofus begin?
People might want to keep an eye on the Arctic sea ice
seems like the new normal has arrived…still not as bad as 2012, but certainly as bad as 2019.
RE. Victor @43
Yawn.
Sure he does, with all his degrees in the arts. And experience in statistics? His experience sure hasn’t taught him anything about statistics. Especially not how to properly use the statistical technique of correlation that can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related. Dah, it’s used to help understand relationships that are being studied–it is just a tool used in conjunction with other evidence–by itself, it neither proves or disproves causation.
LOL. Victor thinks the time of day is correlated to the position of the sun. Nope, time by definition is based on the position of the sun. Why would you perform a correlation test on that? It’s like saying pounds are correlated to weight or mph are correlated with speed. What a doofus.
He’s a dreamer all right.
Oh the irony. Yup, he’s a dreamer. Victor conveniently casts aside the plethora of evidence provided on his behalf. He doesn’t recognize evidence unless it supports his myopic view of the science. He doesn’t understand that scientific knowledge is based on ALL the evidence, evidence that he conveniently ignores. Where’s that scientific training?
But in the case of climate, we know what all the possible drivers are. Applying any of them to any period of time is not adding complexity to any “theory” because we already know they exist and that they have influence on temperatures, they are certainly NOT ad hoc. That’s just silly.
And of course, the simple minded Victor likes to incorrectly invoke Occam’s Razor. He thinks “Natural” in itself is a cause of temperature changes and the simplest “theory”, but he does not/cannot define exactly what this “Natural” is. What’s the mechanism? How does it create or reduce energy in the system? He won’t answer that because he cannot. Ironic. Invoking “Natural” is actually ad hoc. What a doofus.
OK, here goes. In juxtaposing Victor’s statement in 43 “I do happen to have a considerable amount of scientific training and experience, including a considerable amount of experience with statistics…” with his statement in 14 ” As I’ve already demonstrated, there is no long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.” I see two possible resolutions. First, Victor might be lying about his statistical prowess, either to himself or all of us. Second, he might be indulging in what Elliot Abrams famously referred to as “plausible deniability” during the Iran-Contra Scandal.
If there is no long-term correlation, why does he proceed to state in 18 “According to evidence gleaned from Antarctic ice cores, going back as far as 400,000 years ago, CO2 levels and global temperatures appear to have been closely correlated over a substantial stretch of time” ?
Correlation is one of the simplest of all statistics, with a standard formula for calculating whether two sets of numbers are correlated. The name really says it: if two data sets are co-related, then what is in one tells you something about what is in the other. If they are not co-related, then knowing one provides you no information about the other.
Looking at the CO2 and temperature curves for the past 400,000 years, they are highly correlated, as Victor actually agrees to.
For shorter periods, such as 1880 to present, it is indeed useful to examine Victor’s writings in his “a mole in the ground” blog that he refers to in 14. He “eyeballs” the period from 1880 to 1980 and concludes that there is no correlation. (Actually, there is, because both CO2 and temperature rise during that period.) He correctly concludes that there is a correlation between 1980 and 1998, but then states “I see no sign of correlation between 1998 and the present.” This is a statistical absurdity! Getting back to the co-relation: when carbon dioxide levels are higher, global temperatures are higher. If this were not the case, and there truly was no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, then temperatures post 1998 would return to levels seen in the early 20th century or late 19th century. They don’t. They are co-related with carbon dioxide levels. Victor doubles down on the statistical error by subdividing the data set into smaller and smaller intervals. This does not change the underlying relationship, only obfuscates it. That’s where he seems to go for “plausible deniability” – but it’s only plausible if you give a pass to his completely erroneous statistical reasoning.
Victor says we cant explain things “on the evidence”. But scientists consider all the evidence and look for explanations that explain the totality of the evidence.
The things Victor calls ad hoc explanations are evidence. They are real things measured in the real world. His sophistry doesnt change that. He is only fooling himself and ignoring evidence and trying to pretend its an ad hoc explanation. Its Victor who ignores evidence.
The ‘evidence’ shows that the temperature changes coming out of the last glaciation cant be explained by changes in solar insolation alone, and only CO2 plus solar insolation explains them. But Victor doesn’t know this, and so he works from an assessment of correlations alone, one hand tied behind his back but not realising it.
Worse he doesnt know what the latest science says on the last glaciation. No layperson can keep up with it all.
Oh well, thats just my view. Not a scientist, but its obvious to me.
12 – John Pollak
“Could it be that they’ve already had a considerable warming trend? Record low at the South Pole is -117 F, set back in 1982.”
Not possible. CO2 concentrations were considerably above “pre-industrial” in 1982; the radiant energy would not have been able to produce a record cold at such high CO2 levels according to AGW theory – my money is on improperly calibrated measuring device. Also, even at today’s balmy -89 F, they’d need a rise in temperature of 121 F to start melting the ice, yet climate alarmists display mass hysteria about rising sea levels. ;)
34 – CCHolley
“… The latest science tells us, in actuality, based on those ice cores, the temperatures and CO2 levels actually rose in lockstep–the CO2 levels did not lag temperature rise…”
Please get with BL in post 23 above. He confirms that temperature rose ahead of CO2 levels during certain times as V indicated. When y’all get your stories straight, let us know what actually happened. ;)