Re #8. Interesting recent developments. The quick drop into record territory for a few days surprised me, though June ended exactly where I said it would: 9M, giver or take a few. But that was the easiest prediction in the history of ASI predictions bc May/June for the ASI is incredibly uniform.
My summer minimum will be posted sometime between the 10th and 15th. My very early call a couple months ago was around 4M, subject to revision in July.
Killiansays
Re: Heatwave.
Um, I have been begging for a long-trail risk-based approach to communicating climate for a loooong time here because… it’s the extremes that getcha. Those global averages are relevant only to scientists, really. The extremes break down ecosystems long before those averages arrive.
The BC Salish Sea coastal ecosystem may have been irrevocably changed.
The Climate State may Tip at 1.5 or 2 C of Global Temperature Rise
Yes. As I have been saying. I needed to know two things to figure this out pre-2010: Chaos Theory exists and ASI started melting somewhere between 300 and 315 ppm.
I think very few people have a visceral understanding of the implications of Chaos Theory. Any of you who never read Gleick, do so.
Introducing GISERA. GISERA is an alliance between your beloved CSIRO and the five biggest companies in Australia’s fracking industry. It’s a great setup: they provide the money, and the CSIRO provides the logo.
Those gas companies are very modest, so whenever GISERA publishes its research, they give CSIRO all the credit. Of course, CSIRO scientists care very deeply about their integrity. But don’t worry, GISERA fixed that problem by putting gas executives on all the committees overseeing its research. And just to be sure, we also cut hundreds of CSIRO climate scientists’ jobs and made the rest fear for their jobs if they speak out.
GISERA has made some terrific findings, like that time they said this river being on fire is totes normal and has nothing to do with the thousands of fracking wells all around it. […]
And that’s how we’ve been letting your trusted science agency be infiltrated and hollowed out by these Earth-fucking tumors.
But don’t worry, you still have your trusted Bureau of Meteorology.
Hello, I’m from the BoM, and today’s forecast is brought to you by our sponsors, who gave us millions to not mention climate change.
IMO, nothing wrong with a “bunch of grown adults” getting excited about their numerical simulations providing interesting results. So please, MA Rodger, if you haven’t already done so I’d suggest you comment in the discussion section at the open review site
Odds are that they aren’t reading this blog but they may appreciate getting some feedback.
Mikesays
from Carbon Brief:
“As Carbon Brief reported, the team of 27 researchers – who worked around the clock to finish their analysis within a week – found the heatwave was approximately a one-in-1,000-year event. But it was such a “very, very rare event” that they could not “really say with any certainty how rare it was”. The results suggest that climate change made the heatwave at least 150-times more likely.
While the severity of the heat could be “really bad luck, albeit aggravated by climate change”, the researchers offered another possible explanation – that the climate system had “crossed a non-linear threshold where a small amount of overall global warming is now causing a faster rise in extreme temperatures than has been observed so far”.
The findings “provide a strong warning”, the researchers concluded, that a “rapidly warming climate is bringing us into uncharted territory with significant consequences for health, well-being and livelihoods”.
Warning… climate system crossed a threshold… into Uncharted territory… with significant consequence for health, well-being and livelihood…
I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo.
The centrists like to suggest that their concern is for the global poor who will go hungry etc. if we commit to serious change, but that ignores the fact the global poor are already suffering rather greatly from economic exploitation and climate change driven by the first world CO2 emission engine.
Well, I don’t know what more to say. Soon it will be virtually impossible to ignore the fact that we may have already crossed thresholds, tipped the tipping points, etc. and launched the second act of the three act play known as the anthropocene.
Some here will say that I am wrong, it’s not that bad. Killian and I have heard a lot of that over the last few years. It is unfortunate that the alarmists don’t really have to do anything but wait for the scientists to start using the alarmist language that some of us have employed for the past few years.
We can still mitigate the disaster by kicking our butts into gear with regenerative agriculture, solar and wind power, a carbon tax that scares Allen Greenspan to death (is he still alive?) etc. but the species seems committed to marching over the climate cliff.
Feeling a little low about the news today. A billion coast animals dead is the report from Canada shores. Mostly molluscs, I suppose. Who cares about molluscs, right?
So, how are we doing on reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
yep, we are still going the wrong direction at breakneck speed.
Cheers
Mike
nigeljsays
“I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo….Some here will say that I am wrong, it’s (climate change) is not that bad.”
You have categoried me as centrist. Please stop making blatantly false statements about what I post on this website. I have never said those things or anything like them.
I’ve always advocated serious climate action as fast as possible, particularly building out renewables. This could be fast with enough government incentives and a tough carbon tax. I have REPEATEDLY supported things like regenerative farming, with some caveats that you might find we need to keep some limited industrial inputs to make it viable at scale. Ive never said impacts on poor people mean we should not change the system. I’ve never said or implied climate change is “not that bad”. Quite the opposite, backstabber.
What I’ve said is ideas like cutting consumption of energy and resources by numbers like 90% in ten years, posted by a couple of people, is nonsensical and would do more harm than good and wont happen anyway. Likewise things like MMT look dubious. Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.
Jim Baltersays
#39
Hey Victor. Your name starts with the letter “V”. Does that prove that you have no understanding of science, of climate science, of logic? Does it prove that you are a troll? Absolutely not!
nigeljsays
” Accelerated sea ice loss in the Wandel Sea points to a change in the Arctic’s Last Ice Area (open access, PDF).”
Paul Pukite (@whut) @55,
The idea of ‘pre-publish’ papers being bombarded by critiques from Joe Public (rather than their Peer Group) isn’t something I would myself advocate. Further, my criticism of the paper in question (by Miyoshi & Sun) does not extend to their work or even their statement of the implications of their current findings. Instead it rather narrowly concerns their intention to carry out further work and in that context the view that their study is “only a small step toward broad investigations” which in turn “may lead to effective control of weather events.” I note you have suggested their work may perhaps assist in “deconstructing seemingly erratic time-series such as ENSO.” But do you see that as a step towards the “control of weather events”?
It was in the context of this ‘controlling’ assertion that I was reminded of the reported work at the Academy of Balnibarbi in Lagado and how that too, by employing ‘hermetically-sealed storage of sunbeams’, could be harnessed to “control weather events.” Thus my comment up-thread @47.
Killiansays
57:
The entire post is a lie/rationalization.
E.g., you cannot say you support regenerative farming then say but it’s dangerous, so we must keep poisoning the planet. Idiotic logic.
That you were not even named, yet still jumped into solutions denialist mode is a beautiful proof of what Mike said. You know you are full of crap.
nigeljsays
Killian @67
“The entire post is a lie/rationalization.”
You’re constant unfounded unproven accusations of lies made against me and numerous other people are tiresome. A simple reading of this months FR page exposes the fact I was accurate. I think Gavin should ban you from this website. You’re a nasty, egotistical, abusing bully of a human being who personalises every issue and then tries to blame this on someone who did the same thing to you years ago. No website where I live tolerates people like you. Scepticalscience.com ( a warmists website despite the name) would ban you very quickly. They have a tough moderation policy and they enforce it: No name calling, foul language and accusations people are lying.
Imo you don’t add anything genuinely new except some dubious sounding idea called regenerative governance which just sounds like socialised ownership anyway. You want to accuse me of lying and being a fool or idiot, you’re going to start getting hit back like this from now on. Dozens of people share my view. No doubt you will, now frantically email this website trying to make a silly case for yourself.
“E.g., you cannot say you support regenerative farming then say but it’s dangerous, so we must keep poisoning the planet. Idiotic logic.”
Dangerous is your word not mine. Its entirely possible to support something in principle and including many elements of the idea, but acknowledge its not perfect and may require some more work. Or accept a compromise solution. Theres nothing illogical about that. The amusing thing is you yourself listed a case on the FR page where a regenerative farm facing difficult weather conditions could use some limited industrial inputs. The inconsistencies and lack of logic is entirely in your own comments.
Killiansays
56 Mike says:
9 Jul 2021 at 9:27 AM
from Carbon Brief:
… the researchers offered another possible explanation – that the climate system had “crossed a non-linear threshold where a small amount of overall global warming is now causing a faster rise in extreme temperatures than has been observed so far”.
The findings “provide a strong warning”, the researchers concluded, that a “rapidly warming climate is bringing us into uncharted territory with significant consequences for health, well-being and livelihoods”.
Warning… climate system crossed a threshold… into Uncharted territory… with significant consequence for health, well-being and livelihood…
I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo.
Yes. No matter how many times the uncertainty has been pointed out as a clear reason to act ASAP, the vast majority of commentary here and elsewhere is there’s too much risk to rapid change and, gosh, the dangers just aren’t that bad. RCP 8 is laughable!
Funny, but I think I hear that fat lady laughing…
The centrists like to suggest that their concern is for the global poor who will go hungry etc. if we commit to serious change, but that ignores the fact the global poor are already suffering rather greatly from economic exploitation and climate change driven by the first world CO2 emission engine.
Indeed. And massively distributed regenerative systems do nothing but improve the plight of the poor as they can then feed themselves and not give all their production away to rich countries who can pay more and leave them eating a poor diet of whatever is left over. This also would greatly reduce economic inequality by taking food production out of the hands of massive farming companies.
Well, I don’t know what more to say. Soon it will be virtually impossible to ignore the fact that we may have already crossed thresholds, tipped the tipping points, etc. and launched the second act of the three act play known as the anthropocene.
The reality is, in terms of risk, we were there ten years ago, if not longer. But all this risk was obvious way back in 2007. If one saw the new ASIE records in 2005 and 2007, then the info on thermokarst lakes from Katey Walter Anthony, et al., and didn’t understand the risk that indicated, that’s on them. Chaos Theory makes it clear even small perturbations can have massive effects, so what of massive perturbations? This was no-brainer level analysis, yet such analysis was and still is rare – but even the science purists have had to acknowledge the reality of truly rapid climate changes.
Some here will say that I am wrong, it’s not that bad. Killian and I have heard a lot of that over the last few years.
“Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes, but [they] can take or leave it as [they] please.” The problem is suicide in this case is also negligent homicide.
We can still mitigate the disaster by kicking our butts into gear with regenerative agriculture, solar and wind power, a carbon tax that scares Allen Greenspan to death (is he still alive?) etc. but the species seems committed to marching over the climate cliff.
If we have already passed otherwise-irreversible tipping points, it will take more than that, and it’s pretty likely Greenland has given it could have entered irreversible decline as early as +0.8C and, iirc from the recent paper, the mid-range on that is +1.6C, which we are perilously close to and guarnteed to exceed.
I say “otherwise-reversible” because I know of at least two papers modeling a rapid reduction in GHGs that found the poles do begin to stabilize in a relatively (decades) short time.
Rapid simplification gets us into negative GHGs almost immediately with virtually any of the proposed mitigation pathways.
Feeling a little low about the news today. A billion coast animals dead is the report from Canada shores. Mostly molluscs, I suppose. Who cares about molluscs, right?
I keep asking for info on how the coastal rain forest held up. Nothing yet.
And, as I have said over and over, and as too many here have minimized, it is, in fact, the extremes that trigger big shifts. The Great Barrier Reef is not dying 1% a year, it’s dying more like 30% per massive ocean heat wave. The scientists fear some species of mollusks may not recover for years, or at all.
Long-tail risks is the needed framing for climate. I’m tired of, “Don’t scare the little people!” bullshit. It was maladaptive ten years ago and is demonstrably suicidal now.
Killiansays
60 Barton Paul Levenson says:
10 Jul 2021 at 5:52 AM
n 57: Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.
This is unintelligent when addressing existential threats. You may as well say, we only need enough lifeboats for half the passengers and crew as we cruise Iceberg Alley. Oh, wait… What titanic incompetence your comment represents. Stop reacting with knee-jerk egoism if you ever want to be a grown up boy.
BPL: Bravo. I have nothing to add.
You never do WRT analysis of Rapid Climate Change.
You two are representative of the most dangerous class of people on the planet today: Centrists advising incremental responses as the Titanic sinks.
Killiansays
El Nino/Arctic Sea Ice Extent lows correllation mechanism confirmed by Scripps scientists!
The link above has the data on ENs and ASIE lows. I found no LN correllation.
An article states
“Heat bomb” describes the pockets of warm water from the Pacific Ocean that are speeding up the melting of sea ice. When the warm, salty and dense Pacific Ocean water enters the area through the Bering Strait, it settles deep beneath the frozen surface.
The mixing of the different waters generates phytoplankton growth and creates a “heat bomb” melting the ice above. The exact mechanism causing the ice to melt so rapidly had previously been unknown.
These pockets of warm water can last for months and even years causing a circular current called “eddies” or “heat bombs” as they mix and interact with the surrounding water.
While this does not confirm the specific EN/ASI correlation, I am confident that will come.
Mikesays
fires in CA sound bad:
“Firefighters battling the many wildfires in the region say the air is so dry that much of the water dropped by aircraft to quell the flames evaporates before it reaches the ground.
It comes just weeks after another dangerous heatwave hit North America, in which hundreds of sudden deaths were recorded, many of them suspected of being heat-related.
The region experienced its hottest June on record, according to the EU’s Earth observation programme.”
The beeb is straddling the fence on the silly issue of causation. They say scientists say attribution is difficult (which it is) and that a recent group find the heat waves to be virtually impossible without global warming. Come on, just say. This heat wave is part of global warming, it’s obviously true. The causation question is a clever way that denialists and lukewarmers can drag the discussion in to the weeds.
Good day on CO2, too bad it’s such a noisy number.
The next hot ENSO cycle is going to be scary and impressive. And some folks here will be saying we should address this issue as fast as possible, then reject the radical action that is needed as extreme and stupid. I guess that’s fine, I don’t need to resort to name-calling or even dropping names. I want little part of the personalized back and forth that jams up real climate. I read here to check on what others are thinking about global warming and solutions. If you are one of the people who think that net zero by 2050 will get the job done, I am happy for you, but I am not going to take you very seriously because I think you are just parroting the consensus science agreements and those consensus agreements have been consistently too conservative about the impact and speed of the warming. It’s like the temp records themselves, it’s plain to see if you look hard at the data.
Cheers
Mike
Richard the Weaversays
Killian: My very early call a couple months ago was
RtW: not even noticed. Do you have something to say?
Richard the Weaversays
Nigel: You have categoried me as centrist. Please stop
RtW: woo. Isn’t it grand that
Not extremely right wing is acceptable?
Richard the Weaversays
Killian: Yes. As I have been saying
RtW: Yes. As I have been saying, nobody reads a post that begins “Yes. As I have been saying”. Amazing levels of egotism coupled with mundane averageness tends to turn folks off.
That’s probably why nobody remembers your past prognostications. Many of them might not have been 100% wrong, but how would anyone know?
;-)
Richard the Weaversays
Nigel: You have categoried me as centrist. Please stop making blatantly false statements about what I post on this website.
RtW: Geez, dude. You are the Webster’s dictionary picture for’median’. Your stance on anything can be derived by averaging.
Richard the Weaversays
Nigel on Killian: Youre about as honest and smart as a used car salesperson :)
RtW: Wow. I can’t fathom how much it must hurt to have THE median human say that about me. Is there anything I can do to help you, Killian?
Oh, that’s right. You’re above the fray. Carry on, Godlet.
Richard the Weaversays
n 57: Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.
BPL: Bravo. I have nothing to add.
RtW: I do. X is preferable to stupid forms of Y.
YAWN.
Ray Ladburysays
To quote Jim Hightower:
“Ain’t nothin’ in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.”
In an hour that demands rare courage, we doom ourselves to failure if we cling to the median.
Killiansays
RtW,
You’re letting your ego and hurt feelings make you useless. It’s a choice. Think on it.
Killiansays
RtW: You are commenting on dynamics that began more than half a decade ago of which you seem to have zero knowledge.
Not an intelligent choice.
nigeljsays
Richard the weaver @69 & 71,
It depends what is meant by centrist. I don’t object to being called centrist in a political sense. I’ve mentioned I’m fairly centrist like that a couple of times. This doesn’t mean I oppose dramatic change if appropriate. It just means I’m not a tribal, doctrinaire, highly ideologically driven person. It means I sometimes prefer combined solutions, ironically rather like yourself.
My objection was to Mikes false insinuations that I think we should go slow on climate change mitigation, dont think anything should change much, and that “climate change is not that bad”. These are 100% false. For example I support the Paris accords. Getting rid of fossil fuels and building a new energy grid in 20 years or so would be one of the biggest and most rapid changes in history. However I do think our chances of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees look virtually impossible. I don’t think thats centrism. I think its facing reality. We can of course still try.
My views can be a bit nuanced, but I do deliberately use simple plain language repeated several times, and yet Mike still can’t seem to understand me. That says more about Mike than me.
—————————–
Killian @65
“n 57: Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.”
“This is unintelligent when addressing existential threats”
So you are saying stupid forms of extremism are intelligent?
Killiansays
Wet Bulb conditions already a problem. Say it with me now, “Faster than expected.”
The study, “The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance,” published today in Science Advances shows for the first time that some locations have already reported combined heat and humidity extremes above humans’ survivability limit. Dangerous extremes only a few degrees below this limit have occurred thousands of times globally — including in parts of the southwestern and southeastern United States — and have more than doubled in frequency since 1979.
Our survey of the climate record from station data reveals many global TW exceedances of 31° and 33°C and two stations that have already reported multiple daily maximum TW values above 35°C.
I repeat my call for the study of how our destruction of the ecosystem has reduced and/or eliminated hystereses in the climate system resulting in “faster than expected” changes and significantly higher climate sensitivities than expected.
Reality Checksays
64 Killian and 56 Mike
Since I first heard about climate change, GHGs and global warming and tipping points, I’d always assumed the elephant in the room was ‘the status quo’ in it’s broadest sense.
While most folks get anxious nervous and typically resist change I’m still surprised by where things are at, climate and status quo wise, 30 years later. How naive was I? I guess the future is not ours to see either.
Seems more likely than not, the climate scientists will be publishing a paper saying it is too late to avoid 2C and a very different extreme unpredictable ‘new age’ global climate system has arrived. The word Mitigation will quickly pass from everyday use. And there will be far less heated arguments about it. That’s my prediction for today, subject to change without notice.
K 65: You two are representative of the most dangerous class of people on the planet today: Centrists advising incremental responses as the Titanic sinks.
BPL: Except that I don’t, and never have, advocated “incremental responses.” I’m just not for YOUR solution and ONLY YOUR solution, like you are. The most dangerous class of people on the planet today are the ones actively doing the damage, like the fossil fuel companies and the politicians they use, but the second most dangerous are crackpots like you vending panaceas that will never be implemented.
jgnfldsays
Re. “You’re letting your ego and hurt feelings make you useless. It’s a choice. Think on it.”…
The projection is strong in this one. Truer words have rarely been spoken.
I’ve been looking for some time for papers that would model storms stronger than we used to have, with stronger winds, or more extreme phenomena. Now we have severe storms in Europe all summer, and several large tornadoes in China appeared on the news. Can you point me to papers tat would model even larger storms? What would happen in superstorms? What atmospheric conditions would cause them? Thanks
I have been looking for some years for theoretical models of storms. I want to know what would the consequences be if storms were bigger. We need to know it so we know how to build buildings and roads. That’s even more relevant as we seem to see see bigger storms, more strong thunderstorms, more strong hurricanes… the last week Europe had a large number, dozens of storms, with unusual large or abundant heavy hail, flash floods, some tornadoes, lot’s of lightning. Could you point me to papers on theoretical models of storms, or movies that show such theoretical storms? I don’t remember which scientist told me that if permafrost methane did happen, and Earth temperature would suddenly increase, we would have devastating storms. Is there a paper, probably old work, that calculated such things? Thanks
GISTEMP have posted the numbers for June with a global SAT anomaly of +0.85ºC, up on the May anomaly. June is the second highest anomaly of the year-to-date with the Jan-Jun 2021 monthly anomalies sitting in the range +0.64ºC to +0.88ºC.
June 2021 is the 3rd warmest June on the GISTEMP record (it was 5th in ERA5) behind June 2020 (+0.92ºC) & June 2019 (+0.91ºC).
June 2021 is the =58th highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record (71st in ERA5). Junes anomalies don’t rate very highly in GISTEMP with June 2020 managing just =34th.
And RSS have posted the numbers for June with a global TLT anomaly of +0.52ºC, down on the May anomaly. June is the second lowest anomaly of the RSS year-to-date with the Jan-Jun 2021 monthly anomalies sitting in the range +0.47ºC to +0.65ºC.
June 2021 is the 9th warmest June on the RSS TLT record (it was 19th in the trend-denying UAH TLT) behind Junes 2019, 2020, 2016, 2010, 1998, 2015, 2014 & 2017. June 2021 is the =58th highest anomaly in the all-month RSS record (=192nd in UAH).
Quick question, has anyone worked to calculate future casualties due to climate change in the future, particularly for developed countries?
I think that would help communicate to people the threat of climate change, it can be difficult to visualize the actual catastrophe, or even connect environmental deterioration with the destruction of human life.
Piotrsays
Mike (56): “I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo.”
I hope it is not a deja vu with a guy on another forum predicting incoming market correction, but never answering questions “when”. If he waits long enough,
he will be “proven” right: “A-ha! I predicted the correction, but you instead of embracing it, were asking questions about my prediction!”
TO make sure that it is NOT the case here, could you, Mike:
a) QUOTE some of those centrists you speak off, i.e. those who argued against “serious climate action [because] it would threaten the status quo.”
b) your and Killian warning about THIS SPECIFIC tipping point (“a faster rise in extreme temperatures” that would continue even if we reduce the average global temps to the levels before the tip – as is required by the definition of a “tipping point“).
I am asking about this specific tipping point, because a VAGUE possibility of some tipping points is practically a tautology, ergo meaningless, and as such , does not confer the status of an unappreciated prophet on somebody saying so, no more than the prediction of my guy on the market corrections.
From my patchy presence on RC, I recall seeing discussion of the following tipping points:
1. Antarctic ice shelves (which I don’t think no centrist here negated)
2. CH4 releases from permafrost (I guess centrist Gavin(?) was saying that there is no obvious proof happening it already), and no reason why it would continue after stabilizing/reducing the temps.
3. shutdown of AMOC by melting of Greenland ice – I guess the centrist argument there – was that such melting is not large enough to lower the salinity enough to shut down AMOC entirely and the effect is not obvious (the last shutdown in Younger Dryas caused …cooling).
4. Larger increase in global average temp. – although I recall only qualitative claims, no what would be the extra increases and what is their probability
5. The increase in the weather extremes has been mentioned, but again I don’t recall centrists questioning it – quite the opposite – centrist IPCC in 2007
came up with the offset Gaussian distribution graph – explaining the likely increase in frequency of extreme heatwaves in warmer world, and certainly not arguing to do nothing “because serious climate action would threaten the status quo“. But if they did – please let me know.
Richard the Weaversays
Piotr,
Maybe we are visualizing ‘farmed out land’ differently. I’m seeing hardpan with negligible organics and little ability to absorb and retain water. I doubt abandonment works well. Scott can tell us. Perhaps with remediation?
And I’m assuming the replacement system’s “50%” productivity is a moving target on the way towards building something like Killian or Scott would describe. Soil and perennials take time.
Your thoughts mesh well with a policy I have pondered. Instead of price supports and paying farmers to not produce, buy unprofitable farms in a strategic fashion for rewilding. And considering carbon would be nice. There’d be a lot less farmed out land if soil loss would quickly bankrupt you. Might be hard to figure out on an individual farm level, though.
The Amazon rainforest is emitting a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, according to a study. The giant forest had been absorbing the emissions driving the climate crisis but is now causing its acceleration, researchers said.
Most of the emissions are caused by fires, many deliberately set to clear land for beef and soy production. But even without fires, hotter temperatures and droughts mean the south-eastern Amazon has become a source of CO2, rather than a sink.
The research used small planes to measure CO2 levels up to 4,500m above the forest over the last decade, showing how the whole Amazon is changing. Previous studies indicating the Amazon was becoming a source of CO2 were based on satellite data, which can be hampered by cloud cover, or ground measurements of trees, which can cover only a tiny part of the vast region.
The research, published in the journal Nature, involved taking 600 vertical profiles of CO2 and carbon monoxide, which is produced by the fires, at four sites in the Brazilian Amazon from 2010 to 2018. It found fires produced about 1.5bn tonnes of CO2 a year, with forest growth removing 0.5bn tonnes.
The 1bn tonnes left in the atmosphere is equivalent to the annual emissions of Japan, the world’s fifth-biggest polluter.
The scientists said the discovery that part of the Amazon was emitting carbon even without fires was particularly worrying.
Luciana Gatti, at the National Institute for Space Research in Brazil and who led the research, said: “The first very bad news is that forest burning produces around three times more CO2 than the forest absorbs. The second bad news is that the places where deforestation is 30% or more show carbon emissions 10 times higher than where deforestation is lower than 20%.”
Prof Scott Denning, at Colorado State University, said the aerial research campaign was heroic. “In the south-east, the forest is no longer growing faster than it’s dying. This is bad – having the most productive carbon absorber on the planet switch from a source to a sink means we have to eliminate fossil fuels faster than we thought.”
A satellite study published in April found the Brazilian Amazon released nearly 20% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past decade than it absorbed. Research that tracked 300,000 trees over 30 years, published in 2020, showed tropical forests were taking up less CO2 than before.
Denning said: “They’re complementary studies with radically different methods that come to very similar conclusions.”
“We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviours at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions and governments,” it says. “We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
Not looking good. Is this the first time an IPCC report has highlighted consumption and life style?
jgnfldsays
Re. 86 Eco: “Quick question, has anyone worked to calculate future casualties due to climate change in the future, particularly for developed countries?”
I’ve seen various projections including some rather horrifying ones from some Pentagon scenarios some years ago in the Bangla-Desh region (basically absolute need for new territory in a crowded region and all powers in the region have nukes). But the real point here is people just don’t internalize future deaths very well. I mean “model” predictions of a million deaths in the US and 5 million worldwide are likely to become true soon enough even as mask/vaccine/even disease are all denied by a huge portion of the country. This even in the face of, as is happening now in LA county, 100% of all new hospitalizations/deaths occurring among the unvaccinated, for heaven’s sake.
mikesays
from RC at 90: per IPCC, “We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviours at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions and governments,” it says. “We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
Redefine our way of life and consumption? That sounds pretty extreme.
This is hard to classify as to where it belongs on UV or FR thread. Time will validate those of us who have pushed for changes that seem extreme to the folks in the large area of the bell curve. I think we are talking about accuracy obtaining at two standard deviations and above.
If a person was to plot public opinion, I think we would find that the folks at 1.0 standard deviation above the median think their ideas are pretty radical and they also probably think their idea solutions are also coincidentally at the limit of what is possible. What can a person say. We all have our personal blinders firmly in place.
I think that “Transformational change that redefines our way of life” is not a mainstream idea for how we respond to global warming. I think we are talking 2 and 2 plus on standard deviations statistically before we start hearing those kind of plans and projections.
Cheers
Mike
Guest (O.)says
During the last years, germany had not enough rain. So the soil/floor was dry, and woods had problems with bark beetle. Also other problems with drought started to become a problem.
Some weeks ago now there has been severe weather, a flood.
Since two days now, again severe weather has occured and is ongoing. In parts of germany disaster alarm has been proclaimed.
Some impressions (german text, but some videos to get impressions):
Some other european countries also had problems with the massive rain of the last few days.
Carbomontanussays
Ladies and Gentlemen
I heard a debate in the N. Parlament. The labour Delegate saying that his opponent, the Conservative delegate must be blunt stupid for not understanding the labours argument. To which his opponent replied that on the contrary, the Labours must be blunt stupid for not understanding the conservative argument.
The Parliament Precident, the Mr.Speaker, then gave a slight knock with his hammer and said: “I recommend to the representatives that they do not discuss each others blunt stupidity!”
(As if they were all blunt and stupid in any case.)
Maybe it is time to say the same here. It is not dignifried and polite you see, however traditional in the US
A quite more interesting theme is the weather, as was suggested here initially.
There has just been severe rain and flooding in Nordrein Westfalen Germany, not just severely hot on the pacific coast. There are 40 people reported dead and ruins and rubbish in the densely populated urban landscapes.
Angela Merkel says she is “Entsetzt!”, that means quite shocked.
And further cathastrophy in Belgia.
But here in the Oslofjord we have very stable and fine summer with some necessary rain and warm enough for a lot of tomatoes and wine in the sunny wall, and a lot of strawberries. The apples are coming healthy and splendidly.
michael Sweetsays
JGNFLD:
It is difficult to project future deaths. If people adapt to climate change rapidly less people will die. I suggest you look at the numbers of people who will be displaced by sea level rise. They will all need new homes. In Florida something like 11 million people will be affected by 2100 (depending on how fast the ocean rises). Worldwide it is hundreds of millions. There is no high land nearby that can be occupied by those people displaced in Asia. Many of the sea level rise maps use satellite data that measures land height at the tops of trees and building roofs.
From Climate Central: “rising sea levels could within three decades push chronic floods higher than land currently home to 300 million people”. How can you live where there are chronic salt water floods?
Your documenting that “peaceful research reactors” can be used to make weapons grade plutonium does not support that your original claim that “power reactors cannot be used to make weapons plutonium”. I have shown that that the 31 CANDU reactors can easily make weapons plutonium and all power reactors can be used with a simple change in the fuel cycle.
I am amazed that you continue to try to defend this deliberate lie. You should give up.
Mikesays
from the Guardian:
“The intensity and scale of the floods in Germany this week have shocked climate scientists, who did not expect records to be broken this much, over such a wide area or this soon.”
The call for risk-based climate communication focusing on long-tail and existential risks requires none of what is mentioned in that childish post. Neither Mike nor I have predicted any specific turning point to occur at any specific time.
Another unintelligent, defensive, petty, moot, argumentative, pointlessly pedantic post intentionally misrepresenting the issues raised.
This is normal for that poster. Such crap should be Bore Holed.
Killiansays
81 jgnfld says:
INTP. All facts, all the time.
Bore Hole these damned fools who think their taunts are worth the lives of billions.
Re #8. Interesting recent developments. The quick drop into record territory for a few days surprised me, though June ended exactly where I said it would: 9M, giver or take a few. But that was the easiest prediction in the history of ASI predictions bc May/June for the ASI is incredibly uniform.
My summer minimum will be posted sometime between the 10th and 15th. My very early call a couple months ago was around 4M, subject to revision in July.
Re: Heatwave.
Um, I have been begging for a long-trail risk-based approach to communicating climate for a loooong time here because… it’s the extremes that getcha. Those global averages are relevant only to scientists, really. The extremes break down ecosystems long before those averages arrive.
The BC Salish Sea coastal ecosystem may have been irrevocably changed.
https://gizmodo.com/an-estimated-1-billion-sea-creatures-cooked-to-death-in-1847244037
32 chris says:
7 Jul 2021 at 5:20 AM
The Climate State may Tip at 1.5 or 2 C of Global Temperature Rise
Yes. As I have been saying. I needed to know two things to figure this out pre-2010: Chaos Theory exists and ASI started melting somewhere between 300 and 315 ppm.
I think very few people have a visceral understanding of the implications of Chaos Theory. Any of you who never read Gleick, do so.
Here’s the latest episode of “Honest Government Ads”, showing how the fossil fuel industry “infiltrated and hollowed” out Australia’s CSIRO and BoM:
Honest Government Ad | We Make Everything Good Sh!t
IMO, nothing wrong with a “bunch of grown adults” getting excited about their numerical simulations providing interesting results. So please, MA Rodger, if you haven’t already done so I’d suggest you comment in the discussion section at the open review site
https://npg.copernicus.org/preprints/npg-2021-24
Odds are that they aren’t reading this blog but they may appreciate getting some feedback.
from Carbon Brief:
“As Carbon Brief reported, the team of 27 researchers – who worked around the clock to finish their analysis within a week – found the heatwave was approximately a one-in-1,000-year event. But it was such a “very, very rare event” that they could not “really say with any certainty how rare it was”. The results suggest that climate change made the heatwave at least 150-times more likely.
While the severity of the heat could be “really bad luck, albeit aggravated by climate change”, the researchers offered another possible explanation – that the climate system had “crossed a non-linear threshold where a small amount of overall global warming is now causing a faster rise in extreme temperatures than has been observed so far”.
The findings “provide a strong warning”, the researchers concluded, that a “rapidly warming climate is bringing us into uncharted territory with significant consequences for health, well-being and livelihoods”.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/pacific-north-west-heatwave-shows-climate-is-heading-into-uncharted-territory
Warning… climate system crossed a threshold… into Uncharted territory… with significant consequence for health, well-being and livelihood…
I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo.
The centrists like to suggest that their concern is for the global poor who will go hungry etc. if we commit to serious change, but that ignores the fact the global poor are already suffering rather greatly from economic exploitation and climate change driven by the first world CO2 emission engine.
Well, I don’t know what more to say. Soon it will be virtually impossible to ignore the fact that we may have already crossed thresholds, tipped the tipping points, etc. and launched the second act of the three act play known as the anthropocene.
Some here will say that I am wrong, it’s not that bad. Killian and I have heard a lot of that over the last few years. It is unfortunate that the alarmists don’t really have to do anything but wait for the scientists to start using the alarmist language that some of us have employed for the past few years.
We can still mitigate the disaster by kicking our butts into gear with regenerative agriculture, solar and wind power, a carbon tax that scares Allen Greenspan to death (is he still alive?) etc. but the species seems committed to marching over the climate cliff.
Feeling a little low about the news today. A billion coast animals dead is the report from Canada shores. Mostly molluscs, I suppose. Who cares about molluscs, right?
So, how are we doing on reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
Daily CO2
Jul. 8, 2021 = 417.90 ppm
Jul. 8, 2020 = 415.71 ppm
yep, we are still going the wrong direction at breakneck speed.
Cheers
Mike
“I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo….Some here will say that I am wrong, it’s (climate change) is not that bad.”
You have categoried me as centrist. Please stop making blatantly false statements about what I post on this website. I have never said those things or anything like them.
I’ve always advocated serious climate action as fast as possible, particularly building out renewables. This could be fast with enough government incentives and a tough carbon tax. I have REPEATEDLY supported things like regenerative farming, with some caveats that you might find we need to keep some limited industrial inputs to make it viable at scale. Ive never said impacts on poor people mean we should not change the system. I’ve never said or implied climate change is “not that bad”. Quite the opposite, backstabber.
What I’ve said is ideas like cutting consumption of energy and resources by numbers like 90% in ten years, posted by a couple of people, is nonsensical and would do more harm than good and wont happen anyway. Likewise things like MMT look dubious. Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.
#39
Hey Victor. Your name starts with the letter “V”. Does that prove that you have no understanding of science, of climate science, of logic? Does it prove that you are a troll? Absolutely not!
” Accelerated sea ice loss in the Wandel Sea points to a change in the Arctic’s Last Ice Area (open access, PDF).”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00197-5.pdf
n 57: Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.
BPL: Bravo. I have nothing to add.
Paul Pukite (@whut) @55,
The idea of ‘pre-publish’ papers being bombarded by critiques from Joe Public (rather than their Peer Group) isn’t something I would myself advocate. Further, my criticism of the paper in question (by Miyoshi & Sun) does not extend to their work or even their statement of the implications of their current findings. Instead it rather narrowly concerns their intention to carry out further work and in that context the view that their study is “only a small step toward broad investigations” which in turn “may lead to effective control of weather events.” I note you have suggested their work may perhaps assist in “deconstructing seemingly erratic time-series such as ENSO.” But do you see that as a step towards the “control of weather events”?
It was in the context of this ‘controlling’ assertion that I was reminded of the reported work at the Academy of Balnibarbi in Lagado and how that too, by employing ‘hermetically-sealed storage of sunbeams’, could be harnessed to “control weather events.” Thus my comment up-thread @47.
57:
The entire post is a lie/rationalization.
E.g., you cannot say you support regenerative farming then say but it’s dangerous, so we must keep poisoning the planet. Idiotic logic.
That you were not even named, yet still jumped into solutions denialist mode is a beautiful proof of what Mike said. You know you are full of crap.
Killian @67
“The entire post is a lie/rationalization.”
You’re constant unfounded unproven accusations of lies made against me and numerous other people are tiresome. A simple reading of this months FR page exposes the fact I was accurate. I think Gavin should ban you from this website. You’re a nasty, egotistical, abusing bully of a human being who personalises every issue and then tries to blame this on someone who did the same thing to you years ago. No website where I live tolerates people like you. Scepticalscience.com ( a warmists website despite the name) would ban you very quickly. They have a tough moderation policy and they enforce it: No name calling, foul language and accusations people are lying.
Imo you don’t add anything genuinely new except some dubious sounding idea called regenerative governance which just sounds like socialised ownership anyway. You want to accuse me of lying and being a fool or idiot, you’re going to start getting hit back like this from now on. Dozens of people share my view. No doubt you will, now frantically email this website trying to make a silly case for yourself.
“E.g., you cannot say you support regenerative farming then say but it’s dangerous, so we must keep poisoning the planet. Idiotic logic.”
Dangerous is your word not mine. Its entirely possible to support something in principle and including many elements of the idea, but acknowledge its not perfect and may require some more work. Or accept a compromise solution. Theres nothing illogical about that. The amusing thing is you yourself listed a case on the FR page where a regenerative farm facing difficult weather conditions could use some limited industrial inputs. The inconsistencies and lack of logic is entirely in your own comments.
56 Mike says:
9 Jul 2021 at 9:27 AM
from Carbon Brief:
… the researchers offered another possible explanation – that the climate system had “crossed a non-linear threshold where a small amount of overall global warming is now causing a faster rise in extreme temperatures than has been observed so far”.
The findings “provide a strong warning”, the researchers concluded, that a “rapidly warming climate is bringing us into uncharted territory with significant consequences for health, well-being and livelihoods”.
Warning… climate system crossed a threshold… into Uncharted territory… with significant consequence for health, well-being and livelihood…
I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo.
Yes. No matter how many times the uncertainty has been pointed out as a clear reason to act ASAP, the vast majority of commentary here and elsewhere is there’s too much risk to rapid change and, gosh, the dangers just aren’t that bad. RCP 8 is laughable!
Funny, but I think I hear that fat lady laughing…
The centrists like to suggest that their concern is for the global poor who will go hungry etc. if we commit to serious change, but that ignores the fact the global poor are already suffering rather greatly from economic exploitation and climate change driven by the first world CO2 emission engine.
Indeed. And massively distributed regenerative systems do nothing but improve the plight of the poor as they can then feed themselves and not give all their production away to rich countries who can pay more and leave them eating a poor diet of whatever is left over. This also would greatly reduce economic inequality by taking food production out of the hands of massive farming companies.
Well, I don’t know what more to say. Soon it will be virtually impossible to ignore the fact that we may have already crossed thresholds, tipped the tipping points, etc. and launched the second act of the three act play known as the anthropocene.
The reality is, in terms of risk, we were there ten years ago, if not longer. But all this risk was obvious way back in 2007. If one saw the new ASIE records in 2005 and 2007, then the info on thermokarst lakes from Katey Walter Anthony, et al., and didn’t understand the risk that indicated, that’s on them. Chaos Theory makes it clear even small perturbations can have massive effects, so what of massive perturbations? This was no-brainer level analysis, yet such analysis was and still is rare – but even the science purists have had to acknowledge the reality of truly rapid climate changes.
Some here will say that I am wrong, it’s not that bad. Killian and I have heard a lot of that over the last few years.
“Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes, but [they] can take or leave it as [they] please.” The problem is suicide in this case is also negligent homicide.
We can still mitigate the disaster by kicking our butts into gear with regenerative agriculture, solar and wind power, a carbon tax that scares Allen Greenspan to death (is he still alive?) etc. but the species seems committed to marching over the climate cliff.
If we have already passed otherwise-irreversible tipping points, it will take more than that, and it’s pretty likely Greenland has given it could have entered irreversible decline as early as +0.8C and, iirc from the recent paper, the mid-range on that is +1.6C, which we are perilously close to and guarnteed to exceed.
I say “otherwise-reversible” because I know of at least two papers modeling a rapid reduction in GHGs that found the poles do begin to stabilize in a relatively (decades) short time.
Rapid simplification gets us into negative GHGs almost immediately with virtually any of the proposed mitigation pathways.
Feeling a little low about the news today. A billion coast animals dead is the report from Canada shores. Mostly molluscs, I suppose. Who cares about molluscs, right?
I keep asking for info on how the coastal rain forest held up. Nothing yet.
And, as I have said over and over, and as too many here have minimized, it is, in fact, the extremes that trigger big shifts. The Great Barrier Reef is not dying 1% a year, it’s dying more like 30% per massive ocean heat wave. The scientists fear some species of mollusks may not recover for years, or at all.
Long-tail risks is the needed framing for climate. I’m tired of, “Don’t scare the little people!” bullshit. It was maladaptive ten years ago and is demonstrably suicidal now.
60 Barton Paul Levenson says:
10 Jul 2021 at 5:52 AM
n 57: Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.
This is unintelligent when addressing existential threats. You may as well say, we only need enough lifeboats for half the passengers and crew as we cruise Iceberg Alley. Oh, wait… What titanic incompetence your comment represents. Stop reacting with knee-jerk egoism if you ever want to be a grown up boy.
BPL: Bravo. I have nothing to add.
You never do WRT analysis of Rapid Climate Change.
You two are representative of the most dangerous class of people on the planet today: Centrists advising incremental responses as the Titanic sinks.
El Nino/Arctic Sea Ice Extent lows correllation mechanism confirmed by Scripps scientists!
You may recall this post from 2015 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/unforced-variations-aug-2015/comment-page-5/#comment-635199
and other discussions since. Simply, I predicted ocean and air energy from EN’s must impact the ASI, primarily the ocean heat content, as the primary flow of ocean currents in the Arctic Ocean is Pacific > Atlantic.
The link above has the data on ENs and ASIE lows. I found no LN correllation.
An article states
https://www.cbs8.com/article/tech/science/scripps-institution-of-oceanography-heat-bombs-destroying-arctic-ice/509-fcee1005-ba14-412c-a7e7-f1dd302ac34b
While this does not confirm the specific EN/ASI correlation, I am confident that will come.
fires in CA sound bad:
“Firefighters battling the many wildfires in the region say the air is so dry that much of the water dropped by aircraft to quell the flames evaporates before it reaches the ground.
It comes just weeks after another dangerous heatwave hit North America, in which hundreds of sudden deaths were recorded, many of them suspected of being heat-related.
The region experienced its hottest June on record, according to the EU’s Earth observation programme.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57794263
The beeb is straddling the fence on the silly issue of causation. They say scientists say attribution is difficult (which it is) and that a recent group find the heat waves to be virtually impossible without global warming. Come on, just say. This heat wave is part of global warming, it’s obviously true. The causation question is a clever way that denialists and lukewarmers can drag the discussion in to the weeds.
Good day on CO2, too bad it’s such a noisy number.
Daily CO2
Jul. 10, 2021 = 417.07 ppm
Jul. 10, 2020 = 415.51 ppm
The next hot ENSO cycle is going to be scary and impressive. And some folks here will be saying we should address this issue as fast as possible, then reject the radical action that is needed as extreme and stupid. I guess that’s fine, I don’t need to resort to name-calling or even dropping names. I want little part of the personalized back and forth that jams up real climate. I read here to check on what others are thinking about global warming and solutions. If you are one of the people who think that net zero by 2050 will get the job done, I am happy for you, but I am not going to take you very seriously because I think you are just parroting the consensus science agreements and those consensus agreements have been consistently too conservative about the impact and speed of the warming. It’s like the temp records themselves, it’s plain to see if you look hard at the data.
Cheers
Mike
Killian: My very early call a couple months ago was
RtW: not even noticed. Do you have something to say?
Nigel: You have categoried me as centrist. Please stop
RtW: woo. Isn’t it grand that
Not extremely right wing is acceptable?
Killian: Yes. As I have been saying
RtW: Yes. As I have been saying, nobody reads a post that begins “Yes. As I have been saying”. Amazing levels of egotism coupled with mundane averageness tends to turn folks off.
That’s probably why nobody remembers your past prognostications. Many of them might not have been 100% wrong, but how would anyone know?
;-)
Nigel: You have categoried me as centrist. Please stop making blatantly false statements about what I post on this website.
RtW: Geez, dude. You are the Webster’s dictionary picture for’median’. Your stance on anything can be derived by averaging.
Nigel on Killian: Youre about as honest and smart as a used car salesperson :)
RtW: Wow. I can’t fathom how much it must hurt to have THE median human say that about me. Is there anything I can do to help you, Killian?
Oh, that’s right. You’re above the fray. Carry on, Godlet.
n 57: Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.
BPL: Bravo. I have nothing to add.
RtW: I do. X is preferable to stupid forms of Y.
YAWN.
To quote Jim Hightower:
“Ain’t nothin’ in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.”
In an hour that demands rare courage, we doom ourselves to failure if we cling to the median.
RtW,
You’re letting your ego and hurt feelings make you useless. It’s a choice. Think on it.
RtW: You are commenting on dynamics that began more than half a decade ago of which you seem to have zero knowledge.
Not an intelligent choice.
Richard the weaver @69 & 71,
It depends what is meant by centrist. I don’t object to being called centrist in a political sense. I’ve mentioned I’m fairly centrist like that a couple of times. This doesn’t mean I oppose dramatic change if appropriate. It just means I’m not a tribal, doctrinaire, highly ideologically driven person. It means I sometimes prefer combined solutions, ironically rather like yourself.
My objection was to Mikes false insinuations that I think we should go slow on climate change mitigation, dont think anything should change much, and that “climate change is not that bad”. These are 100% false. For example I support the Paris accords. Getting rid of fossil fuels and building a new energy grid in 20 years or so would be one of the biggest and most rapid changes in history. However I do think our chances of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees look virtually impossible. I don’t think thats centrism. I think its facing reality. We can of course still try.
My views can be a bit nuanced, but I do deliberately use simple plain language repeated several times, and yet Mike still can’t seem to understand me. That says more about Mike than me.
—————————–
Killian @65
“n 57: Centrism is preferable to stupid forms of extremism.”
“This is unintelligent when addressing existential threats”
So you are saying stupid forms of extremism are intelligent?
Wet Bulb conditions already a problem. Say it with me now, “Faster than expected.”
Article: https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2621/Dangerous-humid-heat-extremes-occurring-decades-before-expected
Paper: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838
I repeat my call for the study of how our destruction of the ecosystem has reduced and/or eliminated hystereses in the climate system resulting in “faster than expected” changes and significantly higher climate sensitivities than expected.
64 Killian and 56 Mike
Since I first heard about climate change, GHGs and global warming and tipping points, I’d always assumed the elephant in the room was ‘the status quo’ in it’s broadest sense.
While most folks get anxious nervous and typically resist change I’m still surprised by where things are at, climate and status quo wise, 30 years later. How naive was I? I guess the future is not ours to see either.
Seems more likely than not, the climate scientists will be publishing a paper saying it is too late to avoid 2C and a very different extreme unpredictable ‘new age’ global climate system has arrived. The word Mitigation will quickly pass from everyday use. And there will be far less heated arguments about it. That’s my prediction for today, subject to change without notice.
K 65: You two are representative of the most dangerous class of people on the planet today: Centrists advising incremental responses as the Titanic sinks.
BPL: Except that I don’t, and never have, advocated “incremental responses.” I’m just not for YOUR solution and ONLY YOUR solution, like you are. The most dangerous class of people on the planet today are the ones actively doing the damage, like the fossil fuel companies and the politicians they use, but the second most dangerous are crackpots like you vending panaceas that will never be implemented.
Re. “You’re letting your ego and hurt feelings make you useless. It’s a choice. Think on it.”…
The projection is strong in this one. Truer words have rarely been spoken.
Too bad the speaker is deaf to his own words.
Hi,
I’ve been looking for some time for papers that would model storms stronger than we used to have, with stronger winds, or more extreme phenomena. Now we have severe storms in Europe all summer, and several large tornadoes in China appeared on the news. Can you point me to papers tat would model even larger storms? What would happen in superstorms? What atmospheric conditions would cause them? Thanks
Hi,
I have been looking for some years for theoretical models of storms. I want to know what would the consequences be if storms were bigger. We need to know it so we know how to build buildings and roads. That’s even more relevant as we seem to see see bigger storms, more strong thunderstorms, more strong hurricanes… the last week Europe had a large number, dozens of storms, with unusual large or abundant heavy hail, flash floods, some tornadoes, lot’s of lightning. Could you point me to papers on theoretical models of storms, or movies that show such theoretical storms? I don’t remember which scientist told me that if permafrost methane did happen, and Earth temperature would suddenly increase, we would have devastating storms. Is there a paper, probably old work, that calculated such things? Thanks
GISTEMP have posted the numbers for June with a global SAT anomaly of +0.85ºC, up on the May anomaly. June is the second highest anomaly of the year-to-date with the Jan-Jun 2021 monthly anomalies sitting in the range +0.64ºC to +0.88ºC.
June 2021 is the 3rd warmest June on the GISTEMP record (it was 5th in ERA5) behind June 2020 (+0.92ºC) & June 2019 (+0.91ºC).
June 2021 is the =58th highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record (71st in ERA5). Junes anomalies don’t rate very highly in GISTEMP with June 2020 managing just =34th.
The first half of 2021 averages +0.79ºC and is the 8th warmest start-to-the-year on the GISTEMP record (7th on ERA5).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.13ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.11ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.98ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.97ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.79ºC
2007 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 11th
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 15th
And RSS have posted the numbers for June with a global TLT anomaly of +0.52ºC, down on the May anomaly. June is the second lowest anomaly of the RSS year-to-date with the Jan-Jun 2021 monthly anomalies sitting in the range +0.47ºC to +0.65ºC.
June 2021 is the 9th warmest June on the RSS TLT record (it was 19th in the trend-denying UAH TLT) behind Junes 2019, 2020, 2016, 2010, 1998, 2015, 2014 & 2017. June 2021 is the =58th highest anomaly in the all-month RSS record (=192nd in UAH).
In RSS TLT the first half of 2021 averages +0.55ºC and is the 7th warmest start-to-the-year on record (12th on UAH).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.95ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 5th
2017 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 4th
2021 .. +0.55ºC
2015 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 9th
Quick question, has anyone worked to calculate future casualties due to climate change in the future, particularly for developed countries?
I think that would help communicate to people the threat of climate change, it can be difficult to visualize the actual catastrophe, or even connect environmental deterioration with the destruction of human life.
Mike (56): “I think Killian and I have been raising the alarm about crossing tipping points for years with the centrist commenters suggesting we need to be careful because serious climate action would threaten the status quo.”
I hope it is not a deja vu with a guy on another forum predicting incoming market correction, but never answering questions “when”. If he waits long enough,
he will be “proven” right: “A-ha! I predicted the correction, but you instead of embracing it, were asking questions about my prediction!”
TO make sure that it is NOT the case here, could you, Mike:
a) QUOTE some of those centrists you speak off, i.e. those who argued against “serious climate action [because] it would threaten the status quo.”
b) your and Killian warning about THIS SPECIFIC tipping point (“a faster rise in extreme temperatures” that would continue even if we reduce the average global temps to the levels before the tip – as is required by the definition of a “tipping point“).
I am asking about this specific tipping point, because a VAGUE possibility of some tipping points is practically a tautology, ergo meaningless, and as such , does not confer the status of an unappreciated prophet on somebody saying so, no more than the prediction of my guy on the market corrections.
From my patchy presence on RC, I recall seeing discussion of the following tipping points:
1. Antarctic ice shelves (which I don’t think no centrist here negated)
2. CH4 releases from permafrost (I guess centrist Gavin(?) was saying that there is no obvious proof happening it already), and no reason why it would continue after stabilizing/reducing the temps.
3. shutdown of AMOC by melting of Greenland ice – I guess the centrist argument there – was that such melting is not large enough to lower the salinity enough to shut down AMOC entirely and the effect is not obvious (the last shutdown in Younger Dryas caused …cooling).
4. Larger increase in global average temp. – although I recall only qualitative claims, no what would be the extra increases and what is their probability
5. The increase in the weather extremes has been mentioned, but again I don’t recall centrists questioning it – quite the opposite – centrist IPCC in 2007
came up with the offset Gaussian distribution graph – explaining the likely increase in frequency of extreme heatwaves in warmer world, and certainly not arguing to do nothing “because serious climate action would threaten the status quo“. But if they did – please let me know.
Piotr,
Maybe we are visualizing ‘farmed out land’ differently. I’m seeing hardpan with negligible organics and little ability to absorb and retain water. I doubt abandonment works well. Scott can tell us. Perhaps with remediation?
And I’m assuming the replacement system’s “50%” productivity is a moving target on the way towards building something like Killian or Scott would describe. Soil and perennials take time.
Your thoughts mesh well with a policy I have pondered. Instead of price supports and paying farmers to not produce, buy unprofitable farms in a strategic fashion for rewilding. And considering carbon would be nice. There’d be a lot less farmed out land if soil loss would quickly bankrupt you. Might be hard to figure out on an individual farm level, though.
Amazon Rainforest Now Emitting More CO2 Than It Absorbs https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs
The Amazon rainforest is emitting a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, according to a study. The giant forest had been absorbing the emissions driving the climate crisis but is now causing its acceleration, researchers said.
Most of the emissions are caused by fires, many deliberately set to clear land for beef and soy production. But even without fires, hotter temperatures and droughts mean the south-eastern Amazon has become a source of CO2, rather than a sink.
The research used small planes to measure CO2 levels up to 4,500m above the forest over the last decade, showing how the whole Amazon is changing. Previous studies indicating the Amazon was becoming a source of CO2 were based on satellite data, which can be hampered by cloud cover, or ground measurements of trees, which can cover only a tiny part of the vast region.
The research, published in the journal Nature, involved taking 600 vertical profiles of CO2 and carbon monoxide, which is produced by the fires, at four sites in the Brazilian Amazon from 2010 to 2018. It found fires produced about 1.5bn tonnes of CO2 a year, with forest growth removing 0.5bn tonnes.
The 1bn tonnes left in the atmosphere is equivalent to the annual emissions of Japan, the world’s fifth-biggest polluter.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03629-6
The scientists said the discovery that part of the Amazon was emitting carbon even without fires was particularly worrying.
Luciana Gatti, at the National Institute for Space Research in Brazil and who led the research, said: “The first very bad news is that forest burning produces around three times more CO2 than the forest absorbs. The second bad news is that the places where deforestation is 30% or more show carbon emissions 10 times higher than where deforestation is lower than 20%.”
Prof Scott Denning, at Colorado State University, said the aerial research campaign was heroic. “In the south-east, the forest is no longer growing faster than it’s dying. This is bad – having the most productive carbon absorber on the planet switch from a source to a sink means we have to eliminate fossil fuels faster than we thought.”
A satellite study published in April found the Brazilian Amazon released nearly 20% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past decade than it absorbed. Research that tracked 300,000 trees over 30 years, published in 2020, showed tropical forests were taking up less CO2 than before.
Denning said: “They’re complementary studies with radically different methods that come to very similar conclusions.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/30/brazilian-amazon-released-more-carbon-than-it-absorbed-over-past-10-years
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/04/tropical-forests-losing-their-ability-to-absorb-carbon-study-finds
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X21001972
Research published on Friday estimated that Brazil’s soy industry loses $3.5bn a year due to the immediate spike in extreme heat that follows forest destruction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X21001972
Crushing climate impacts to hit sooner than feared: draft UN report
the upcoming 2022 IPCC 6th Assessment Report
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210623-crushing-climate-impacts-to-hit-sooner-than-feared-draft-un-report
“We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviours at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions and governments,” it says. “We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
Not looking good. Is this the first time an IPCC report has highlighted consumption and life style?
Re. 86 Eco: “Quick question, has anyone worked to calculate future casualties due to climate change in the future, particularly for developed countries?”
I’ve seen various projections including some rather horrifying ones from some Pentagon scenarios some years ago in the Bangla-Desh region (basically absolute need for new territory in a crowded region and all powers in the region have nukes). But the real point here is people just don’t internalize future deaths very well. I mean “model” predictions of a million deaths in the US and 5 million worldwide are likely to become true soon enough even as mask/vaccine/even disease are all denied by a huge portion of the country. This even in the face of, as is happening now in LA county, 100% of all new hospitalizations/deaths occurring among the unvaccinated, for heaven’s sake.
from RC at 90: per IPCC, “We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviours at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions and governments,” it says. “We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
Redefine our way of life and consumption? That sounds pretty extreme.
This is hard to classify as to where it belongs on UV or FR thread. Time will validate those of us who have pushed for changes that seem extreme to the folks in the large area of the bell curve. I think we are talking about accuracy obtaining at two standard deviations and above.
If a person was to plot public opinion, I think we would find that the folks at 1.0 standard deviation above the median think their ideas are pretty radical and they also probably think their idea solutions are also coincidentally at the limit of what is possible. What can a person say. We all have our personal blinders firmly in place.
https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Statistics/STstandardNormalDistribution.html
I think that “Transformational change that redefines our way of life” is not a mainstream idea for how we respond to global warming. I think we are talking 2 and 2 plus on standard deviations statistically before we start hearing those kind of plans and projections.
Cheers
Mike
During the last years, germany had not enough rain. So the soil/floor was dry, and woods had problems with bark beetle. Also other problems with drought started to become a problem.
Some weeks ago now there has been severe weather, a flood.
Since two days now, again severe weather has occured and is ongoing. In parts of germany disaster alarm has been proclaimed.
Some impressions (german text, but some videos to get impressions):
Ueberschwemmung 1
Ueberschwemmung 2
More Impressions on the flood in germany:
Hochwasser (Twitter)
Some other european countries also had problems with the massive rain of the last few days.
Ladies and Gentlemen
I heard a debate in the N. Parlament. The labour Delegate saying that his opponent, the Conservative delegate must be blunt stupid for not understanding the labours argument. To which his opponent replied that on the contrary, the Labours must be blunt stupid for not understanding the conservative argument.
The Parliament Precident, the Mr.Speaker, then gave a slight knock with his hammer and said: “I recommend to the representatives that they do not discuss each others blunt stupidity!”
(As if they were all blunt and stupid in any case.)
Maybe it is time to say the same here. It is not dignifried and polite you see, however traditional in the US
A quite more interesting theme is the weather, as was suggested here initially.
There has just been severe rain and flooding in Nordrein Westfalen Germany, not just severely hot on the pacific coast. There are 40 people reported dead and ruins and rubbish in the densely populated urban landscapes.
Angela Merkel says she is “Entsetzt!”, that means quite shocked.
And further cathastrophy in Belgia.
But here in the Oslofjord we have very stable and fine summer with some necessary rain and warm enough for a lot of tomatoes and wine in the sunny wall, and a lot of strawberries. The apples are coming healthy and splendidly.
JGNFLD:
It is difficult to project future deaths. If people adapt to climate change rapidly less people will die. I suggest you look at the numbers of people who will be displaced by sea level rise. They will all need new homes. In Florida something like 11 million people will be affected by 2100 (depending on how fast the ocean rises). Worldwide it is hundreds of millions. There is no high land nearby that can be occupied by those people displaced in Asia. Many of the sea level rise maps use satellite data that measures land height at the tops of trees and building roofs.
From Climate Central: “rising sea levels could within three decades push chronic floods higher than land currently home to 300 million people”. How can you live where there are chronic salt water floods?
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-flooded-future-global-vulnerability-to-sea-level-rise-worse-than-previously-understood
DBBenson:
Your documenting that “peaceful research reactors” can be used to make weapons grade plutonium does not support that your original claim that “power reactors cannot be used to make weapons plutonium”. I have shown that that the 31 CANDU reactors can easily make weapons plutonium and all power reactors can be used with a simple change in the fuel cycle.
I am amazed that you continue to try to defend this deliberate lie. You should give up.
from the Guardian:
“The intensity and scale of the floods in Germany this week have shocked climate scientists, who did not expect records to be broken this much, over such a wide area or this soon.”
File under “faster than expected.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/16/climate-scientists-shocked-by-scale-of-floods-in-germany?utm_term=931151dd6a5a0998b7a1c9e44e941bdd&utm_campaign=USMorningBriefing&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=usbriefing_email
87
The call for risk-based climate communication focusing on long-tail and existential risks requires none of what is mentioned in that childish post. Neither Mike nor I have predicted any specific turning point to occur at any specific time.
Another unintelligent, defensive, petty, moot, argumentative, pointlessly pedantic post intentionally misrepresenting the issues raised.
This is normal for that poster. Such crap should be Bore Holed.
81 jgnfld says:
INTP. All facts, all the time.
Bore Hole these damned fools who think their taunts are worth the lives of billions.