According to the somewhat* arbitrary customs of our age, the 1st of January marks the beginning of a new year, a new decade and, by analogy, a new start in human affairs. So shall it be at RealClimate too**.
This month’s topics will no doubt include the summaries of the 2020 climate (due Jan 14th or so), ongoing efforts to understand and predict extreme weather in a climate context, and the shift by the weather organizations (WMO, NWS) to a new set of climate normals (i.e. moving from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020).
In the spirit of this new year, please make a renewed effort to stay vaguely on climate science topics, try to stay constructive even when you disagree, refrain from posting abuse, and don’t bother with cut-and-paste climate denial (that stuff was tedious enough when it was originally wrong, and is simply boring now). Thanks!
*completely
**Seriously, we are thinking about how to update/re-position this blog, and would welcome constructive suggestions from readers.
Ideas for future topics.
A lot of press has recently been given to the idea that AGW will stop as soon as emissions of greenhouse gases are equivalent to their sequestration. How significant are long term temperature rises once net emission ends? Will the ice keep melting? Can loss of continental ice be reversed in the short term (decades)? Will sea ice and permafrost losses be reversed? Will we be be stuck at the current elevated global temperature or will it begin a decline? Is this as reversible as the loss of high altitude ozone?
I find it interesting everyone seems to suddenly want what 1. I have suggested and 2. I have offered this forum for the last ten years: A risk and solutions-based discussion of climate science, mitigation and adaptation.
So glad you all thought of it…
Goodness…
To the poster suggesting the climate scientists have “insight” into solutions? No, they largely do not. Therefore, I would ask them to focus forward on the RISKS of climate, better elucidating the long-tail, existential threats, etc., while, as that person suggested, still doing, but doing less of, going into the how and why of climate science and treat it purely as a given. That would include a strict no-deniers policy.
They might also have a “Citizen Scientist/Citizen Input” post, maybe monthly?, where people, like me, e.g., could get their views put forward with some robustness.
Some of us have proven we do have insight into solutions and future changes.
Anyone see the new paper on baked in temp rise being figured at 2.3C? Apparently about how cool areas are handled in models, i.e. they tend to be assumed to continue to be cool spots, but that is not what these authors propose will be the case.
You know I’m not surprised. Are you? You shouldn’t be. If you are, you need to change how you think of these issues.
#38, JDS–
Just imagine all of the CO₂ that was “sequestered” to produce this coal deposit in WY.
One of the most unnecessary ‘scare quotes’ I’ve ever seen–and I’m far too prone to using them myself.
#38, JDS–
One of the most unnecessary ‘scare quotes’ I’ve ever seen–and I’m far too prone to using them myself.
Western Hiker:
Another way of systematizing AGW-denial is John Mashey’s taxonomy of public denialists, in Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony. ClimateBall Bingo is yet another. IMHO they’re all creditable first-order models of AGW-denialism in public fora. Under-represented, of course, are the silent voices of private AGW-denialism, inner to the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump last year. Some of that implicit denial may match up with one or another classification system. Which might be gratifying to climate realists, as long as we remember that vast numbers of the Denialist-in-Chief’s faithful supporters will be voting in coming elections. Hell, some of them are preparing to violently reject the result of the last one! OTOH, two cheers for the gain of one and probably two Senate seats. We’re still on a razor’s edge 8^(!
As for the future of RC, I’m modestly interested in practical, scalable technical aids to national and global decarbonization, and I thank the earnest commenters who keep us up to date on those; I can always scroll on by when I get bored. I presume it’s clear, however, that the primary obstacles to capping the rise of GMST short of mass casualties in the 100s of millions aren’t technical, but political. For that reason, I’m more interested in attribution of human costs already paid for AGW. Rigorous peer-reviewed estimates, placing at least a lower bound on aggregate costs paid to date in dollars, deaths or other quantitative metrics, would help counter the specious lukewarmism of Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Jr., and Michael Shellenberger. Claims that the warming “won’t be bad”, cackles of ‘CAGW’, and accusations of ‘alarmism’ should be met with “Well, here’s how bad AGW is already. Ask the people who’ve paid with their homes, livelihoods and lives if it’s catastrophic. Barring a deus ex machina, their number is certain to rise with the amount of recently-fossil carbon in the atmosphere, which is certain to increase as long as we keep burning it. What would alarm you enough to support collective decarbonization?”
That said, I’m grateful to the blog’s authors for furnishing this high-quality learning platform. Obviously, whatever you all collectively decide is up to you. I’m sure it’s harder to be one of you, than to be a comprehensive non-expert like me 8^D!
Piotr: I am sure you can think of other catastrophes that are likely to occur.
AB: Let’s see…
Most biomes will substantially change their woody species. Since this is a warmward shift, if it’s too rapid for trees to live out their lives (as it almost surely is) most carbon currently held above ground in plants will burn in catastrophic events that will tend to permanently alter the local biome.
Once it gets going will the Amazon burn faster than the boreal forests?
Nature will do some of the work, but we’ll have to help replace old, dying biomes with new ones that will thrive in the new climate (assuming humans stabilize things). It’ll be fun figuring out what species to replant in vast burned areas. And animals will be a hoot, for sure.
#34 4 Jan 2021 at 4:48 PM MA Rodger says many things that make little to no sense, such as: “We have this coldest temperature recorded at Vostok that has recorded monthly average temperatures well below -70°C and no annual average above -53°C but which is at a lower altitude than, say Tingri, a station in Tibet which is at 4,300m (and thus with significantly lower atmospheric pressure than Vostok) that shows monthly average temperatures never dropping below -10°C, summer or winter, and no annual average below freezing.”
First off, if the moderator would allow me to post something in response to MA Rodger’s comments directed at me, as has not happened in the past when I tried to answer MA Rodger’s questions, then I will answer his questions. I must elucidate regarding this comment made by me; “There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere”. It is obvious that the Earth is warmed because of life giving rays of that amazing orb in the sky that comprises 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System, the SUN. What I should have stated is that certain parts of the Earth are kept warm by pressure of the gases in its atmosphere and certainly not by the presents of a trace gas that is 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere that only makes up between .03-.04% of that atmosphere, CO₂.
“If there’s no snow (or rain) falling from the sky and you’re not in a cloud, then the temperature decreases by about 5.4°F for every 1,000 feet up you go in elevation. In mathematical speak that is 9.8°C per 1,000 meters. However, if you’re in a cloud, or it is snowing/raining, the temperature decreases by about 3.3°F for every 1,000 feet up you go in elevation. Thus meaning it’s a change of 6°C per 1,000 meters.
Atmospheric pressure is simply the weight of the air pushing down on you from above. As you increase in elevation, there is less air above you thus the pressure decreases. As the pressure decreases, air molecules spread out further (i.e. air expands) and the temperature decreases. If the humidity is at 100 percent (because it’s snowing), the temperature decreases more slowly with height”.
https://www.onthesnow.com/news/a/15157/does-elevation-affect-temperature
If MA Rodger does not agree with the above information regarding atmospheric pressure, increased elevation and how that affects temperature, then I suggest that MA Rodger takes his, I’m sure well intentioned, complaints up with the author of this information; Joel Gratz, who, due to my experience at high elevations in Nepal, Tibet, Africa, Peru & in the U.S., that I agree with what he states, or I would not now submit the valid information.
I would hope that there is an outside chance that MA Rodger knows that at sea level there is effective O₂% of 20.9. On
Kilimanjaro, where I have been, the effective O₂% at over 19,000′ feet is 10.1.
#34 4 Jan 2021 at 4:48 PM MA Rodger says many things that make little to no sense, such as: “… coupled with the unsupported assertion that “there is no evidence that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate.” If MA Rodger has the results of an experiment that presents empirical proof that CO₂ has something to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate, now is the time to bring that information forth for all to see. Perhaps if MA Rodger was to expand his search for the truth beyond his normal; source, Wikipedia, he could find out what the truth really is about his devil in the sky, CO₂. I acquired this information below, titled; “Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations” from:
“650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations
— gavin @ 24 November 2005 –
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/comment-page-2/#comments
I’m sure that MA Rodger can explain all of this about the time lag between temperature and CO₂ in a very effective manner.
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
Abstract
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10073931/
Re #49 Barton,
You may find this paper useful:
Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1995: Thermostats, Radiator Fins, and the Local Runaway Greenhouse. J. Atmos. Sci. 52 , 1784-1806.
Piotr #44,
Your statement about whether climate is chaotic has the same issues as came up in the thread “Thinking, small and big” from Nov 29.
There is no “global” average of “storms that pass over you [your location]”. How can that make any sense?? There is only one your location.
And you are also not clear with your terminology; you imply that chaotic systems are not deterministic, but by definition they are. And what is a “chaotic interaction”??
This also relates to the question of what we use as a baseline, and the points along the time axis you are evaluating, and which variables are being considered. So for projecting local or regional (those terms should be clearly defined) climate, it is reasonable to see it as a chaotic system.
The answer to the Denialists is that we can predict, as with the weather, that someone will probably experience e.g. heavier downpours, in the nearer term, and that with continued forcing, there will be major changes, with mostly negative consequences, further out.
BTW, the rest of your comment was very interesting.
Western Hiker @27,
You question the influence of ENSO on 2020 global average temperatures suggesting there was an El Niño in 2020 which could have boosted 2020 temperatures, just not as big a boost as 2016 or 1998.
I am not so convinced any such boost was significant in 2020.
You presented ONI which sets the basis for El Niño/La Niña as five consecutive months of +/-0.5ºC thus calling an El Niño from Nov 2019 through to March 2020. It was the weakest of El Niño lasting just those 5 months and averaging +0.52ºC. The following La Niña (which you do mention) has been a lot stronger and it’s initial months would have impacted the final monthly temperatures of 2020, counteracting and El Niño boost.
And you could have just as easily chosen MEI which saw just one month manage the required MEI=+0.5 and also stronger La Niña numbers, suggesting the 2020 temperature boost would be negative.
Remember, the 2015/16 El Niño boosted 2016 temperatures by over a decade’s worth of AGW. Four year’s later, with hardily any El Niño boost, that temperature is being equaled if not topped in 2020.
J Doug Swallow @48
“Dan says: “And the process by which the research on global warming has followed. Peer-reviewed science as it has always been. The scientific debate is long over. It has been done (again, as always) through peer-review via scientific journals and conferences”.
“I am sure that Dan and I both agree that this IPCC graph from 1991 was constructed using the best peer reviewed science of the time….”
The 1991 study was not a hugely detailed study, and has been superceeded by several more recent studies and more detailed studies as below, showing the MWP was essentially a weak event. This is why there’s mounting concern about AGW. Only an idiot would claim the approach of peer reviewed science is wrong or cannot be trusted, because some study in the past was wrong. That would be a massive and rather obvious logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
J Doug Swallow @58, I had no trouble understanding MARs comments. Your bicycle pump theory is completely crazy. So given the climate has warmed since around 1975 – 2020, what great atmospheric pressure event happened around 1975 and ever since to cause the warming? Its obviously not CO2 emissions because as you have alleged they are just an insignificant trace gas…..and believe me its isn’t those emissions. So what is it? You do understand there has to have been some actual change in atmospheric pressure? Right? So what was it?
What we do actually know is that anthropogenic global warming itself is changing the pressure in anticyclones , but this is of no help to you because it is an effect of global warming, not a cause! Ha ha.
#63 7 Jan 2021 at 3:38 PM nigelj says: “Only an idiot would claim the approach of peer reviewed science is wrong or cannot be trusted, because some study in the past was wrong. That would be a massive and rather obvious logical fallacy”. How is nigelj able to construe my comment; “I am sure that Dan and I both agree that this IPCC graph from 1991 was constructed using the best peer reviewed science of the time” into what he said about the approach of peer reviewed science is wrong?
Then nigelj offers up something from his favorite source of information, Wikipedia after presenting his views about peer reviewed science.
“Good research and citing your sources
Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism. We welcome good short articles, called “stubs”, that can serve as launching pads from which others can take off – stubs can be relatively short, a few sentences, but should provide some useful information. If you do not have enough material to write a good stub, you probably should not create an article. At the end of a stub, you should include a “stub template” like this: {{stub}}. (Other Wikipedians will appreciate it if you use a more specific stub template, like {{art-stub}}. See the list of stub types for a list of all specific stub templates.) Stubs help track articles that need expansion”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article
#63 7 Jan 2021 at 3:38 PM nigelj says that I need to look into this Wikipedia link about the Medieval Warm Period where it states that; “Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a globally uniform event.[10]” There are hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that discount that claim, such as this one.
Ikaite crystals incorporate ocean bottom water into their structure as they form. During cooling periods, when ice sheets are expanding, ocean bottom water accumulates heavy oxygen isotopes (oxygen 18). When glaciers melt, fresh water, enriched in light oxygen isotopes (oxygen 16), mixes with the bottom water. The scientists analyzed the ratio of the oxygen isotopes in the hydration water and in the calcium carbonate. They compared the results with climate conditions established in Northern Europe across a 2,000-year time frame. They found a direct correlation between the rise and fall of oxygen 18 in the crystals and the documented warming and cooling periods. “We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate.html
“And J Doug Swallow, I hope your present trolling has not stopped you from working in your answers to the straightforward questions I set you @34 up-thread”
#34 4 Jan 2021 at 4:48 PM MA Rodger says: “So how can any but a half-wit proclaim that “There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere” given such evidence to the contrary? Where is the correlation between high atmospheric pressure and high temperature? Or low pressure and low temperature? J Doug Swallow, do astound us with your explanation. I for one do enjoy a good laugh”. I must elucidate regarding this comment made by me; “There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere”. It is obvious that the Earth is warmed because of life giving rays of that amazing orb in the sky that comprises 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System, the SUN. What I should have stated is that certain parts of the Earth are kept warm by pressure of the gases in its atmosphere and certainly not by the presents of a trace gas that is 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere and that only makes up between .03-.04% of that atmosphere, CO₂.
I will offer up my evidence to this question put forth in MA Rodger’s usual manner; “Where is the correlation between high atmospheric pressure and high temperature?”
https://www.reference.com/science/altitude-affect-temperature-6c82dc33893fed0e
I had in the past done a good deal of flying light aircraft in the mountainous areas of the West. It is warm air, plus altitude, that has caused many people to die when they tried to take off when the density altitude was at the aircraft’s ceiling when it was sitting on the ground. An airport I used frequently was at Dubois, WY and in the summer months I ALWAYS left early in the morning before it began to warm up much because its altitude is 7,298.6 ft.
“Keep in mind the standard temperature is 15 degrees C but only at sea level. It decreases about 2 degrees C (or 3.5 degrees F) per 1,000 feet of altitude above sea level. The standard temperature at 7,000 feet msl, therefore, is only 1 degree C (or 34 degrees F).
For example, the density altitude at an airport 7000 feet above sea level, with a temperature of 18 degrees Celsius and a pressure altitude of 7000 (assuming standard pressure) would be calculated as follows.
• 18 – 1 = 17
• 17 x 120 = 2040
• 2040 + 7000 = 9040 feet Density Altitude
This means the aircraft will perform as if it were at 9,040 feet.
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/active-pilots/safety-and-technique/weather/density-altitude
A question for you, what do you believe that an altimeter is measuring? What does it measure if not the altitude that must be adjusted for temperature?
Highest Temperature Extremes
Continent Highest Place Elevation Date
Temp. (Feet)
(deg F)
Africa 136 El Azizia, Libya 367 13 Sep 1922
North America 134 Death Valley, CA (Greenland Ranch) -178 10 Jul 1913
Asia 129 Tirat Tsvi, Israel -722 21 Jun 1942
Australia 128 Cloncurry, Queensland 622 16 Jan 1889
Europe 122 Seville, Spain 26 4 Aug 1881
South America 120 Rivadavia, Argentina 676 11 Dec 1905
Oceania 108 Tuguegarao, Philippines 72 29 Apr 1912
Antarctica 59 Vanda Station, Scott Coast 49 5 Jan 1974
The World Meteorological Organization changed what was reported above in 2010 regarding El Azizia, Libya.
Death Valley, CA.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
Beside the dates that these records were set when obviously CO₂ levels were lower than what they are today, please note that they take place where the elevations are low.
#34 4 Jan 2021 at 4:48 PM MA Rodger says: “Where is the correlation between high atmospheric pressure and high temperature? Or low pressure and low temperature?” I added the elevation to some of these places where the records were set for cold. Maybe MA Rodger cannot see any correlation between high atmospheric pressure and high temperature?
Below is a table of the lowest recorded temperatures in history. Vostok, Antarctica, tops the list, dropping to a bone-chilling -129 degrees in 1983.
Place Date Degrees
Fahrenheit Degrees
Celsius
World (Antarctica) Vostok July 21, 1983 –129 –89 11,444 feet
Asia Oimekon, Russia Feb. 6, 1933 –90 –68 2,460 feet
Verkhoyansk, Russia Feb. 7, 1892 –90 –68
Greenland Northice Jan. 9, 1954 –87 –66 7,680 feet
North America (excl. Greenland) Snag, Yukon, Canada Feb. 3, 1947 –81 –63 1919 feet
United States Prospect Creek, Alaska Jan. 23, 1971 –80 –62 643 feet
U.S. (excl. Alaska) Rogers Pass, Mont. Jan. 20, 1954 –70 –56.5 5,610 feet
Europe Ust ‘Shchugor, Russia Jan.1 –67 –55
South America Sarmiento, Argentina June 1, 1907 –27 –33 899 feet
Africa Ifrane, Morocco Feb. 11, 1935 –11 –24 5,400 feet
Australia Charlotte Pass, N.S.W. June 29, 1994 –9 –22 6,027 feet
Oceania Mauna Kea, Hawaii May 17, 1979 12 –11 13,803 feet
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/weather/lowest-recorded-temperatures#ixzz1xe3QI4Te
JDS 59: If MA Rodger has the results of an experiment that presents empirical proof that CO₂ has something to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate, now is the time to bring that information forth for all to see.
BPL: Start here:
Tyndall, J. 1859. Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies. Proceed. Roy. Soc. London 10, 37-39.
Tyndall, J. 1861. I. The Bakerian Lecture.—On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. The Royal Society. 151, 1–36.
Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag. 41, 237-275.
Callendar, G.S. 1938. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 64, 223-237.
Ramanathan, V., Coakley, Jr., J.A. 1978. Climate modeling through radiative-convective models. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 16, 465-489.
A 60,
Thanks!
The ERA5 re-analysis for December has been posted completing the 2020 calendar year. At +0.43ºC, December 2020 has the lowest monthly anomaly of the year which otherwise spanned +0.44ºC to +0.80ºC.
At +0.43ºC, December 2020 is the 6th warmest December on record, sitting below the pervious five years 2019 (+0.74ºC), 2015 (+0.74ºC), 2017 (+0.57ºC), 2016 (+0.53ºC), 2018 (+0.530C).
The full year 2020 averages +0.625ºC, just short of the El Niño-boosted 2016 which remains in top spot, although close enough for folk to declare the two equal top. The top ten warmest years thus run:-
2016 … … +0.632ºC
2020 … … +0.625ºC
2019 … … +0.592ºC
2017 … … +0.537ºC
2018 … … +0.457ºC
2015 … … +0.449ºC
2010 … … +0.323ºC
2014 … … +0.299ºC
2005 … … +0.285ºC
2013 … … +0.260ºC
A year-on-year graph of the ERA5 record is here [ usually 2 clicks to ‘download youyr attachment’].
J Doug Sallow @58&59,
May I begin by filling in the words you missed out from your initial sentences @58&59. “MA Rodger says many things that make little to no sense to J Doug Swallow, such as …
I note up-thread @47&48 you present a wondrously crazy argument, akin to arguing that World War Two cannot be finished because relations between London & Berlin still get a bit heated from time to time. But I digress from addressing the crazy nonsense you present @58&59.
So I identified an incongruity within your grand but unsupported assertion which proclaimed that “There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere” in that I pointed to the coldest location on Earth not having the lowest atmospheric pressure. Thus you revise your position to say:-
So what are these “certain parts of Earth” you speak of? Why are they affected by pressure while other “parts” are not? You present a long quote which witters on about cloud and rain/snow. Are you trying to say it is pressure and cloud/rain/snow that determine surface temperature? If you are, you do need to say it and not fanny about with cut&pasted quotes that actually say zip.
And also you now talk of these “certain parts” being “kept warm” which is different from being “warmed”, that being your original assertion. Is this change intentional? You do need to explain this properly.
And by-the-way, the final lines of your comment @58 are pure bullshit. O2 is a constant percentage of air up to 100km and I don’t think Mt. Kilimanjaro is quite that high. Perhaps (assuming this is it) you should read what numbers actually mean before you start mindlessly spewing them out while poncing about the interweb with them.
You also appear to be complaining that I resort normally to references on Wikipedia, your complain I can but assume being due to my question asking you ‘What is responsible for the big bite out of Earth’s IR emissions at Wavenumber 666’? In asking that question, I did link to a wikithing graphic. While this was itself adequately referenced via Wikithing, perhaps if I link to a NASA version of the same graph, then J Doug Swallow can stop bullshitting and respond to the question.
(And for completeness, the ‘ice age’ problem of two decades ago which you show described by Fischer et al (1999) has been addressed. And the link to a RealClimate comment thread from 2005; its purpose remains unexplained, presumably just part and parcel of the usual confusion exhibited by J Doug Swallow.)
Mal Adapted, #56
“What would alarm you enough to support collective decarbonization?”
The uncertainty about what will happen if don’t is enough for me. About 20 years ago I watched a show on NOVA, where a scientist compared Earth’s climate and ecosystems to a car’s engine. Thousands of interrelated parts. A random tweak to just one of the parts has the potential to bring the whole system down.
So, the risk of messing with an important component like CO2 seems ill advised in principle, never mind the more specific, concrete warnings coming from current research.
Zebra (61) “ There is no “global” average of “storms that pass over you [your location]”. How can that make any sense?? There is only one your location. ”
If you take the temperature in “one location” (affected by whether the storm passes over it or not), and integrate it with EVERY other location – you will get “global” average temperature for this day. And if you average this over decades – you get climatic-scale “global” temperature.
Zebra: “ And you are also not clear with your terminology; you imply that chaotic systems are not deterministic, but by definition they are.”
I imply that they are unpredictable in climatic time-scale even with supercomputers you can’t predict reliably your local weather even several WEEKS from now, much less in several DECADES from now. As “by definition “:
“chaotic: PHYSICS: behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.”
The local weather (e.g. local temperature) is strongly affected by which track a given storm takes – and the track is very sensitive to these “small changes in conditions”. The longer the local whether forecast, the more difficult to predict the effect of all these small changes over time.
But if you AVERAGE all local weathers over several decades (=local climate) and over the globe (=global climate) – those “small changes in the conditions” affecting your local weather – no longer matter.
Or in terms of my example:
Temporal integration: if over the decades 1000 storms went over me, and 2000 missed me, for my local CLIMATIC average – the outcome of one storm does not really matter.
Global integration: if the storm went to the left of me – my location won’t feel its effect, but the location to the left of me – will, so for the global average of this day’s temperature – whether the storm went over or to the left of me – does not really matter. And even more so when you combine multidecadal averaging with global averaging (=global climate).
Zebra: “The answer to the Denialists is that we can predict, as with the weather, that someone will probably experience e.g. heavier downpours, in the nearer term, and that with continued forcing, there will be major changes, with mostly negative consequences, further out. ”
Sorry, I may have misdirected you with my choice of the track of a storm as a stand-in for chaotic (=hard to predict) meteorological event affecting local “weather”. I should have been explicit: I meant effects on temperature, not on downpours. I’ll use your answer when I meet a Global Downpour sceptic (Noah’s neighbour? ;-))
For the much more common Global Warming sceptics, let me rephrase my answer:
Local weather is very sensitive to small changes in the very dynamic conditions
of air masses, hence it is hard to predict local temperature even a few weeks from now.
Climate is decadal-scale AVERAGE of weather. Hence averaging over several decades (“climate”) AND over globe (“global”) AVERAGES OUT these hard to predict effects of “small changes in the atmospheric conditions” that determine your local daily temperature. So the global models do not have to try to get all these “small conditions over the whole earth and many decades right” – they get the much easier to predict fundamental physics (the long-term global balance between solar radiation in and IR radiation out) right.
And that’s why I have more confidence in models predicting global climatic-scale temperature in 2100 than in prediction of my local temperature on a particular day several weeks from now.
And RSS TLT has posted for December 2020 (although their browser tool at time of writing has yet to update). At +0.57ºC, December 2020 has the lowest monthly anomaly of the year which otherwise spanned +0.74ºC to +1.02ºC.
At +0.57ºC, December 2020 is the 4th warmest December on record, sitting below 2019 (+0.81ºC), 2015 (+0.80ºC), 2017 (+0.63ºC) and above 2018 (+0.53ºC), 2003 (+0.52ºC), 2014 (+0.51ºC) & 2016 (+0.46ºC).
The full year 2020 averages +0.807ºC, just pipping El Niño-boosted 2016 to top spot, although close enough for folk to declare the two equal top. The top ten warmest years thus run:-
2020 … … +0.807ºC
2016 … … +0.806ºC
2019 … … +0.744ºC
2017 … … +0.680ºC
2010 … … +0.627ºC
2015 … … +0.611ºC
1998 … … +0.581ºC
2018 … … +0.538ºC
2014 … … +0.484ºC
2005 … … +0.469ºC
A year-on-year graph of the RSS TLT record is here [usually 2 clicks to ‘download youyr attachment’].
New from Carbon Brief: “Guest post: How human activity threatens the world’s carbon-rich peatlands.” Prof Angela Gallego-Sala, a professor in ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles at the University of Exeter. Dr Julie Loisel, an assistant professor in the geography department of Texas A&M University.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-human-activity-threatens-the-worlds-carbon-rich-peatlands
BPL @49.
The correct answer to your question is false. Clausius-K is a thermodynamic relationship independent of the local value of g. Now for a given mass of atmosphere surface pressure would be proportional to g.
#59, JDS–
The conclusion is the result of literally two+ centuries of research now*, so it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect one “experiment” to be citable as “the proof.” JDS has been pointed to the primer “Start Here” in the sidebar; if he wanted to understand, that would be a good place to, you know, start.
*I like to start this history with Well’s observations of downwelling IR, as we would now term it, published in 1814.
I’m sure he can, too, because, inter alia, the issue has been discussed at great length and depth on these very threads. Pretty sure “Start here” has some relevant material.
Hint: “feedbacks” are not “forcings.”
Second hint: there’s now much more up to date scholarship on the question.
J Doug Swallow @65,
“How is nigelj able to construe my comment; “I am sure that Dan and I both agree that this IPCC graph from 1991 was constructed using the best peer reviewed science of the time” into what he said about the approach of peer reviewed science is wrong?”
It was obvious to most people. What I said went right over your head didn’t it.
“Then nigelj offers up something from his favorite source of information, Wikipedia after presenting his views about peer reviewed science.”
There is nothing wrong with wikipedia provided it has references to the peer reviewed science, and the article on the MWP discusses numerous peer reviewed studies, if JDS had bothered to read the article. I will add a few more. Many peer reviewed studies of the MWP find it was a weak event with the last decades warming being greater, eg: Esper, Briffa, Cowley,Jones, etcetera. Im not aware of any study that shows it was warmer than present day temperatures, not studies for Europe as a whole.
——————————–
J Doug Swallow @66#63 7 Jan 2021 at 3:38 PM nigelj says that I need to look into this Wikipedia link about the Medieval Warm Period where it states that; “Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a globally uniform event.[10]”
“There are hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that discount that claim, such as this one.”
I don’t believe you about hundreds of studies. You don’t list them so its an empty claim. You list one study, but you hopelessly misinterpret it.
There was warming in a “tree‐ring site in New Zealand is Oroko Swamp located on the west coast of the South Island approximately 70km southwest of Hokitika. ” (I live in New Zealand and this is a fairy small area)’
Good grief, even assuming this study is correct, how does that translate to the world as a whole? LOL. I mean obviously it cannot be assumed to.
—————————————-
J Doug Swallow @68 posts a list of temperature extremes the same as he has before. He is repeating lists. This website has a moderation policy saying avoid repetition. Hes not even responding to anyone, or articulating it a bit differently or offering some commentary. Its boring beyond belief as well as proving precisely nothing. A few old temperature records from early last century prove nothing. Most temperature records have been set in recent decades. Why do you have a borehole if not for the comments posted by JDS?
JDS,#68–
And the North Pole is at a lower elevation than all of them. You’re cherry clicking and don’t even realize it.
MA Rodger, #62
“And you could have just as easily chosen MEI which saw just one month manage the required MEI=+0.5 and also stronger La Niña numbers, suggesting the 2020 temperature boost would be negative.”
I didn’t choose MEI because, apart from the ONI component, the variables show how ENSO is influencing weather patterns, not necessarily temperature:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
“Remember, the 2015/16 El Niño boosted 2016 temperatures by over a decade’s worth of AGW. Four year’s later, with hardily any El Niño boost, that temperature is being equaled if not topped in 2020.”
Yeah, something I never would’ve guessed.
So even before I have replied to his comments @58&59, our screwball troll is off on another serving of his demented nonsense @67,68&69 attempting to answer the question I set him up-thread @34;
(The question set out for him @297 Dec UV thread and repeated since also appears too difficult for the fool to contemplate; “What is responsible for the big bite [see graphic here] out of Earth’s IR emissions at Wavenumber 666?”)
So what nonsense does our crazy troll amuse us with @67,68&69?
We kick off with a link to a childlike description of the lapse rate – “Air is a mixture of gases, and at higher altitudes, air pressure decreases, which cools any gas.” Of course that is arrant nonsense above the tropopause where there is still plenty of gas that is warmer with altitude and falling pressure.
Following on, we get an aviator’s account of altitude which, as I remember it, was about ‘hot and high’ suggesting there is more to it than just Temperature = f(Altitude). And so, yes, an altimeter does just what it says on the box, it indicates ‘altitude’ by measuring air pressure. And temperature? That’s an independent variable. Thus ‘hot and high’.
Next we are treated to a simplistic comparison between extreme temperature records and other stuff. While the troll evidently needs some lessons in why extreme temperature records occur where and when they do and why climatology tends to rely on average temperatures; with this profound learning absent, the trolls comments can be usefully addressed directly.
The high extreme temperatures listed demonstrate one of the problems with such records – error – or perhaps more diplomatically – unreliability. Of the list provided showing record extreme high temperatures dating 1881-1974 (“when obviously CO₂ levels were lower than what they are today”), only one is not questioned on this Wikithing page, if they appear at all.
Proper consideration of altitude and thus the grand Temperature = f(Altitude) theory is reserved for the extreme low temperatures, again a list being provided (from here) with most having altitude added. Whatever the reliability or date of these events, they are a pretty laughable set of evidence to back up the grand theory. Here is that list (with missing altitudes added) ordered by altitude.
Mauna Kea, Hawaii.. … 12ºF … … … 12th … … … 13,803ft
Vostok Antarctic… … .-129ºF … … … 1st … … … 11,444ft
Northice Greenland. …-87ºF … … … 3rd … … … 7,680ft
Sarmiento, Argentina ..-27ºF … … … 9th … … … 6,027ft
Charlotte Pass, N.S.W.. -9ºF … … … 11th … … … 6,027ft
Rogers Pass, Mont… ..-70ºF … … … 6th … … … 5,610ft
Ifrane, Morocco. … … .-11ºF … … … 10th … … … 5,400ft
Oimekon, Russia. … … -90ºF … … … 2nd … … … 2,460ft
Snag, Yukon, Canada. ..-81ºF … … … 4th … … … 1,919ft
Prospect Creek, Alaska.-80ºF … … … 5th … … … 643ft
Verkhoyansk, Russia. ..-68ºF … … … 7th … … … 446ft
Ust ‘Shchugor, Russia..-67ºF … … … 8th … … … 279ft
J Doug Swallow,
We know all about the lapse rate so stories of your mountaineering & aviation adventures are unnecessary. On average the surface temperature is some +15ºC while the tropopause some 13km above our heads is far colder at roughly -60ºC. So while you contemplate the question I set out for you @297 Dec UV thread, consider this second question. Why is it that the troposphere temperatures range on average at the surface +15ºC down to -60ºC up at the tropopause yet physics suggests the solar warming from that distant but “amazing orb in the sky” should provide us with a planet with an average temperature of -18ºC? What is it that defines the planet’s temperature?
#70 8 Jan 2021 at 6:59 AM Barton Paul Levenson says:
“Tyndall, J. 1859. Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies. Proceed. Roy. Soc. London 10, 37-39”.
It is true that John Tyndall, using equipment that he designed, was able to demonstrate that certain gases in the atmosphere, such as CO₂, water vapor and ozone, absorbed heat. That did not prove that they made a greenhouse effect that was able to ‘trap heat’. Tell me what you know of that you are able to ‘trap’ with a gas.
“In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere.
Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth’s heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth’s surface would be ‘held fast in the iron grip of frost’ – the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect works as follows. Most of the Sun’s energy is radiated as visible light. This is not absorbed by the atmosphere and passes through to warm the Earth. The warm Earth radiates heat back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This is avidly absorbed by atmospheric water vapour and carbon dioxide, trapping the heat and preventing the Earth from freezing.”
https://archive.is/EC8Ig#selection-901.0-913.378
It is truly amazing that 161 years after the brilliant scientist, John Tyndall, made his own equipment to discover that certain gases absorbed heat, that now we have MIT treating us to this simplistic experiment to demonstrate that CO₂ absorbs thermal heat. No mention of how much CO₂ in ppm was required to absorb the heat of the candle nor of where this imaginary ceiling made up of GHGs is, such as how high it is. Once again we are told to believe [1:11] that these GHGs are able to pull off a miracle and actually ‘trap’ heat.
Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc
JDS 67: certain parts of the Earth are kept warm by pressure of the gases in its atmosphere and certainly not by the presents of a trace gas that is 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere and that only makes up between .03-.04% of that atmosphere, CO₂.
BPL: How does higher pressure result in higher temperature, JDS? Please give us the math that proves Earth’s 33 K of greenhouse effect are due to high pressure.
This should be good.
OC 78,
Thanks!
So if the partial pressure of H2O averages 392 Pa on a global basis, and total atmospheric pressure is 101,325 Pa, the volume fraction of water vapor is 0.00387 by Dalton’s law of partial pressures. But if Earth’s gravity were to increase to 1.5 g, water vapor pressure would not change, but overall atmospheric pressure would increase to 151,988 Pa. The volume fraction of water vapor would then decrease to 0.00258. Do I have that right?
#70 8 Jan 2021 at 6:59 AM Barton Paul Levenson says: “Callendar, G.S. 1938. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 64, 223-237”.
When trying to find out what Barton Paul Levenson thought was of importance, this below came up.
TITLE: Analysis of Temporal Signals of Climate
AUTHORS: Peter Stallinga, Igor Khmelinskii
JOURNAL NAME: Natural Science, Vol.10 No.10, October 16, 2018
ABSTRACT: The dynamics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is analyzed and it is shown that the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had a noticeable effect on these dynamics. The growth rate slowed down. Moreover, analyzing the year-on-year CO2 growth data, we can see an an-thropogenic footprint, possibly due to the burning of fossil fuels. On top of this anthropo-genic contribution is a natural contribution that is of similar magnitude, and that closely follows the ocean surface temperature (influenced by ENSO, El Niño Southern Oscilla-tion). This latter fact is consistent with the hypothesis of the correlation of global temper-atures and carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere being governed by Henry’s Law, in which carbon dioxide variations are the result of, rather than the cause of, temperature changes. This latter being the so-called “greenhouse effect”, sometimes mentioned as responsible for (anthropogenic) climate changes, and that cannot explain the observed phenomena described here. Similar conclusions are drawn on monthly data of carbon dioxide and temperature as well.
https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=2373745
The moderator is allowing me to put forth my views, unlike what has been the case in the recent past at this site, and I thank them for that courtesy that shows that they have some regard for what Karl Popper & Walter Lippmann felt about the value of a free discussion about basically any subject.
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” Karl Popper
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much”. Walter Lippmann
# 72 8 Jan 2021 at 12:23 PM MA Rodger says: “The ERA5 re-analysis for December has been posted completing the 2020 calendar year. At +0.43ºC, December 2020 has the lowest monthly anomaly of the year which otherwise spanned +0.44ºC to +0.80ºC.”
I certainly hope that Dr Martin Rodger, who holds a PhD in Operations Management although originally he was a Mechanical Engineer, will come to understand that due to my having studied this topic of anthropogenic climate change for several years, why I would go with what Richard Lindzen opinions are regarding this topic of the Earth’s ‘warming’.
Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983, when he joined the faculty at MIT, until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology.
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/rlindzen
Retired MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has ridiculed “hottest year” claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said.
“If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.” Lindzen pointed out, “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations—even if real—don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”
#72 8 Jan 2021 at 12:23 PM MA Rodger says: “The full year 2020 averages +0.807ºC, just pipping El Niño-boosted 2016 to top spot, although close enough for folk to declare the two equal top”.
I hope that MA Rodger will be able to explain how these events listed below from various parts of the globe factor into the “The full year 2020 averages +0.807ºC…”
Severe weather conditions, up to 2 m (6.5 feet) of fresh snow through New Year’s Day, Japan December 31, 2020
https://watchers.news/category/blizzards/
Blizzard conditions hit Midwest as powerful winter storm threatens East Coast, U.S. December 24, 2020
https://watchers.news/category/blizzards/
More than 100 000 livestock animals perish as intense snowstorms hit Patagonia, 70 percent of flock at risk August 24, 2020
https://watchers.news/category/blizzards/
Summer snowstorm kills nearly 500 livestock animals, strands 400 tourists in Xinjiang, China July 03, 2020
https://watchers.news/category/blizzards/
@75 “…I imply that they are unpredictable in climatic time-scale even with supercomputers you can’t predict reliably your local weather even several WEEKS from now, much less in several DECADES from now. As “by definition “:
“chaotic: PHYSICS: behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.” ”
So weather AND climate can just take a random walk to any value at all “because chaos”?! Theoretically possible. As is the fact that all the air molecules around you COULD randomly go to the other side of the room and you’d die in vaccuum. Just not very likely. Predicting a distribution IS often possible, and for any well understood chaotic process can be predicted quite exactly.
Chaotic/random processes simply do NOT mean ANY value of a variable is equally likely in the least. It means a certain distributions with certain parameters will describe the results.
Casinos rely on underlying chaotic machines/scripts to pass money around while taking a rakeoff. How can they do this over the long term? Jackpots COULD come up every other bet, after all.
Or: A common pastime in the old passenger ship days was to place bets for the EXACT charted noon-to-noon run each day as logged. How could anyone know what to bet? It depends on so many chaotic factors.
I could provide thousands more examples where chaotic factors make exact prediction impossible, yet where very accurate scientific predictions are both made and of great use.
Hell…think simple chaotic coin flips. Any adept can quickly discover whether a coin is “fair”. Back to casinos, some mechanical gambling machines do wear and will evolve away from designed chaotic output over time. NOT a random walk, an underlying distributional change. Casinos observe each machine every day for such.
You seem worried about point value changes. Most actual researchers in most scientific areas are FAR more interested in distributional change over point value change. Point values are nice, but there is always error. Scientists know this. Error parameters are usually far more important than the mean alone.
Randomness and chaos are not your friends if you are trying to make the “well the planetary climate–or any other large aggregation of point values–just changed randomly/chaotically for no reason at all”. This is a corollary of the failed “uncertainty is my friend” argument. Uncertainty is actually the friend of science so long as even a piece of the distribution can be clarified, not of antiscience.
Additional: If it was you trying to discriminate quantum chaos from classical chaos in weather/climate–I can’t track it down right now–that was just as silly. Quantum events are among the most “truly random” events known. Yet quantum mechanics is among the most accurate predictive theories around. How is this possible???
Kevin McKinney:
Indeed, it is unreasonable to expect “proof” in the natural sciences. Proof is for mathematics and distilled beverages. Or, mixing metaphors, law courts: JDS, defending fossil fuel profits on RC, demands the consensus case for AGW meet an unrealistic standard of proof. He places the burden on supporters of the consensus to prove it beyond his doubt. Good luck with that, climate realists.
That said: Having examined two centuries’ accumulation of evidence, the jury of thousands of hard-working climate scientists around the world has reached a verdict on the following three facts, by at least a “clear and convincing” standard if not “beyond reasonable doubt”:
1. The globe is warming;
2. It’s proximally due to the economically-driven (i.e. anthropogenic) transport of fossil carbon to the atmosphere and impairment of natural carbon sinks;
3) The socialized cost of the warming is now being paid in money and tragedy, and will mount along with atmospheric carbon.
The burden of proof is therefore on denialists. Good luck with that, denialists! As somebody once said*, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt“: IOW, don’t type with your head empty. Start by reading Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming, also linked under the “Science Links” section of the right-side menu on this page. Don’t stop there, however.
* QuoteInvestigator.com is like having a personal quote boy 8^D!
jgnfld (90): “ Chaotic/random processes simply do NOT mean ANY value of a variable”
Since I didn’t claim otherwise, nor my argument required so – I am not sure what this brings to the discussion, other than confusion.
jgnfld (90):” I could provide thousands more examples where chaotic factors make exact prediction impossible, yet where very accurate scientific predictions are both made and of great use.
precisely – because by averaging at large enough time/space scalse – the unpredictable point fluctuations cancel each other out, and what’s left is much more predictable. _That_ was my, if you excuse it, point.
jgnfld(90): “ You seem worried about point value changes“.
The opposite – since I am interested in global climate, I have argued that the hard to predict point values changes (i.e. local weather) are of little relevance for global climate.
jgnfld(90): “ Randomness and chaos are not your friends if you are trying to make the “well the planetary climate–or any other large aggregation of point values–just changed randomly/chaotically for no reason at all””
Again, I was arguing the opposite – I argued that “the planetary climate” WILL NOT change randomly/chaotically for no reason at all.
And I gave the reason why not: local random departures up or down pretty much cancel each other out over decadal (“climate”) and global (“planetary”) scale. Which is WHY I wrote in (75):
“That’s why I have more confidence in models predicting global climatic-scale temperature in 2100 than in prediction of my local temperature on a particular day several weeks from now.”
jgnfld(90) “ Additional: If it was you trying to discriminate quantum chaos from classical chaos in weather/climate–I can’t track it down right now–that was just as silly”
Again, it wasn’t me arguing that either. Are you sure that you are answering _my_ post (@75)?
[And if the answer is “yes”, then I had no idea that my arguments were so inscrutable … :-( ]
JDS @88 quotes R Lindzen as a so called authority, and says “Retired MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has ridiculed “hottest year” claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said.”
This is the same JDS who on last months UV thread @208 posted a list of various hottest year claims to try to support his climate science denialism. Its such a huge and hilarious contradiction even by his standards. I mean the entertainment value is priceless even although it should really be boreholed. So JDS are hottest year record reliable or not? I doubt we will get a coherent answer. If any answer.
If you counted up all the denialist-focused comments of the last two years here, I’d bet they’d be way over 50%.
Repeating a lie reinforces the lie.
I don’t think any of you care. You seem to need to see yourselves bopping someone over the head.
I posted this important issue…
53 Killian says:
6 Jan 2021 at 10:54 AM
Anyone see the new paper on baked in temp rise being figured at 2.3C? Apparently about how cool areas are handled in models, i.e. they tend to be assumed to continue to be cool spots, but that is not what these authors propose will be the case.
You know I’m not surprised. Are you? You shouldn’t be. If you are, you need to change how you think of these issues.
…and 38 posts later, not a single response.
Now, had I posted, “Hey, so-and-so, that’s just stupid” it would have had a dozen responses.
This has been true for a very long time.
Forget the denialists. There’s plenty of science to discuss.
Here’s that link, in case, you know, you want to discuss something other than intentional trolling.
Argggggggggh.
https://time.com/5926319/global-warming-climate-goals/
“But Monday’s study in the journal Nature Climate Change calculates that a bit differently and now figures the carbon pollution already put in the air will push global temperatures to about 2.3 degrees Celsius (4.1 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since pre-industrial times.”
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but some really crazy weather lately in the North Pacific. Worth noting even on a climate blog!
Highlights:
– Highest sea-level pressure ever recorded on planet Earth (and no Doug, it wasn’t particularly warm).
– Lowest pressure ever recorded in the North Pacific, Bering Sea and Alaska.
– In between, a rip roaring jet stream that generated up to 55’ waves, and a dumping of snow in Japan.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/record-extratropical-storm-bomb-cyclone-alaska-pacific-mk/
J Doug Swallow – re multiple coments bolstered by a variety of debunked or misrepresented sources:
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt*
Cold temperatures and snow tell us that weather is variable, and that it is winter. Climate is weather over space (whole planet + atmosphere) and time (decades). The “it’s cold somewhere” or taking a snowball to Congress are particularly revealing of prejudice combined with the absence of a wider point of view.
—
US public TV’s Nova produced an excellent layperson’s explanation of data collection and statistics as they apply to weather prediction and other subjects. I don’t know if this is available outside the US.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/prediction-by-the-numbers/
*Mal, I just noticed you too have picked up this very appropriate tag.
JDS 84: That did not prove that they made a greenhouse effect that was able to ‘trap heat’.
BPL: The greenhouse effect does not work by “trapping” heat. Until you understand the theory you’re criticizing, your critiques will be meaningless. You come off like a creationist talking about biology.
Look, open a book on atmosphere physics, read it, and work the problems. John Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” is a good one to start with.
JDS 87: This latter fact is consistent with the hypothesis of the correlation of global temper-atures and carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere being governed by Henry’s Law, in which carbon dioxide variations are the result of, rather than the cause of, temperature changes.
BPL: Except that the Ocean (which is what I assume they’re referring to by invoking Henry’s Law) has been measured as now being a SINK for carbon dioxide, not a SOURCE of it, something you can also tell from the radioisotope signature. You can’t really counter science articles with pseudoscience articles, JDS.