Half a dozen takeaways from a first read of the new IPCC AR6 report.
As climate scientists we tend to look at the IPCC reports a little differently than the general public might. Here are a few things that mark this report out from previous versions that relate to issues we’ve discussed here before:
- Extreme events are increasingly connected to climate (duh!)
- Sea level rise is a big deal
- Use, abuse and misuse of the CMIP6 ensemble
- The radiative forcing bar chart has gone full circle
- Droughts and floods are complicated
- Don’t mention the hiatus
There are other things that will get the headlines (the expected time before we get to 1.5ºC or 2ºC, the headline SLR numbers, the ‘unprecedented rate’ statement, constraints on climate sensitivity, carbon cycle feedbacks, the implications for the carbon budgets etc.), and other things worth noting – for instance, the much better and more direct graphics that they have clearly worked on a lot. As usual, most of the headlines will also focus on the Summary For Policy Makers (SPM) which was approved word by word by the governments over the last two weeks (full disclosure, I was advising the US delegation), but the full report will be worth dipping into over the next few months (there is a lot there to digest!).
1. Extremes: Back in 2012, the literature assessed by AR5 connecting changes in extremes to climate change was scant. As we wrote at the time, attribution of single events was difficult and experimental. But as was exemplified by the recent reaction to the PNW heatwave, things have moved on considerably. This has allowed the IPCC authors to produce regional assessments of past changes in heat extremes, intense precipitation and agricultural/ecological drought in drying regions (see below for a discussion on what that means), and produce assessed projections of a whole suite of what they call Climate-impact Drivers (CIDs) – which includes floods, marine heatwaves etc. People who (even a couple of weeks ago) were quoting the AR5 statements on extremes as if that was current are going to have to update their talking points (that is, of course, if they care about correctly reflecting the most up-to-date science…).
For example, IPCC finds that Northern Europe, Western Central Europe and Eastern Europe all show an observed increase in heavy precipitation events, such as the one causing the recent massive flooding in Germany and Belgium. Western Central Europe is one of the few regions where both an increase in extreme precipitation and in drought have already been documented. The IPCC notes that it’s the most rare and severe extremes which are expected to show the biggest percentage increase in frequency (see this past RealClimate post).
2. Sea Level Rise: The previous IPCC reports, notably AR4 and AR5 (to a lesser extent), have had a hard time dealing with SLR. This has been due to multiple issues, including a historical lack of comprehensive literature to assess, very uncertain observations of ice sheets, and difficultlies in blending different lines of evidence. In this report they’ve tried much harder to put the data together more coherently, there is more evidence, and they haven’t shied away from being explicit about the low-likelihood/high-impact possibilities (mostly associated with a collapse of WAIS). Literally, the sea level projection runs off the page… (Stefan will have a more detailed assessment later).
3. Use, Abuse and Misuse of the CMIP6 ensemble: I’ll discuss this in more detail in another post, but I want to commend the IPCC authors for dealing with the increased spread in the CMIP6 ensemble climate sensitivity in two very sensible ways. Firstly, the use constrained projections for all the temperature (and sea level) time series out to 2100 allows them to downweight (effectively to zero) the high (and low) ECS models that are outside of the assessed range (note this would not have made much (if any) difference in CMIP5). Secondly, they choose to focus on the patterns of change, not for certain time-periods, but for specific “Global Warming Levels” (GWLs). That is to say, what the expected pattern of rainfall (for instance) might be when the global mean temperature reaches 1.5ºC, or 2ºC or 4ºC etc. This allows them to include all the models (including good models with improved climatologies that happen to have high ECS like the NCAR CESM2 or the HadGEM3 models). Additionally, the GWL impacts plots neatly divorce the limited scenarios that were used in CMIP6 from the ability to assess impacts. Thus if policy-makers or others want to explore the impacts of other scenarios that might reach specific warming levels earlier or later than any one of the SSPs, they can do so easily, without having to rerun the models.
4. The radiative forcing bar chart has gone full circle: Almost every IPCC report has a version of the radiative bar chart showing the contributions over the historical period of all the different forcings (greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar, etc.). Every iteration has changed in trivial and sometimes substantive ways (I wrote a history of this a few years back), for instance, it’s oscillated from a vertical or horizontal presentation for no apparent reason, and the individual components have followed the scientific views of what was important. In this SPM it appears in Fig. SPM 2c and has gone back to being vertical. They have stuck with the contributions by emission (as opposed to concentration – something we pushed for last time), but the novelty here is that they are plotting the estimated temperature impact from each of the contributions (using the radiative forcing, the assessed climate sensitivity and an simple impulse-response model). Oddly enough this is most reminiscent of the very first bar chart that appeared in Hansen et al. (1981) which can be seen here.
5. Droughts and floods are complicated: The picture on droughts and floods is more complicated than most people think. First, there is a great deal of regional variation, second the historical metrics we use to assess drought (such as the Palmer Drought Severity Index) don’t perform very well in a changing climate, and third the attribution of meteorological or agricultural or ecological drought varies as well. Analyses that average over too wide an area, or that look at the wrong metrics, will come to erroneous conclusions. The IPCC authors went to a lot of trouble to disentangle this and the assessment in Fig. SPM3 of evidence for observed drought changes focuses specifically on agricultural and ecological drought (based on soil moisture), as opposed to hydrological drought (runoff) or meteorological drought (based on rainfall). This is because we don’t see strong attribution in total rainfall amounts, but we do in evaporative demand (which depends on temperature). Thus when we have a longterm precipitation anomaly (such as in the American South West (WNA in the hexagon plot above)), we can’t (yet) attribute the rainfall change, but we can attribute the soil moisture change. Floods are also complicated because they too don’t solely depend on a single factor (such as intense precipitation) – but instead are a function of prior state of soil moisture, water management practices and other hyper-local effects. Work here will continue to advance, but the picture is clear only in a few regions so far.
6. Don’t mention the hiatus: Readers will probably remember the prominence of the ‘hiatus’ in the discussions around the AR5 report (written in 2013) (see here, here, or here). Due in part to (IMO) an over-reliance on a single temperature record (HadCRUT4), and (it turns out) non-climatic biases in the ocean temperature records, the trends from 1998-2012 got a specific call out in the AR5 SPM:
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}
Section B.1, SPM AR5
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
Section D.1, SPM, AR5
Now however, the updates to the historical warming, the use of four datasets instead of one, and of course, the series of record breaking years subsequently (2014, 2015, 2016/2020), the issue of variability in decadal trends is no longer so salient. The shifts in the quoted trends (1998-2012 is now 0.12ºC/decade, 1951-2012 is 0.13ºC, HadCRUT5) underlines the trivialness of the issue. To be fair, there is one mention of the hiatus in the AR6 Technical Summary:
The observed slower global surface temperature increase (relative to preceding and following periods) in the 1998–2012 period, sometimes referred to as ‘the hiatus’, was temporary (very high confidence). The increase in global surface temperature during the 1998–2012 period is also greater in the data sets used in the AR6 assessment than in those available at the time of AR5. Using these updated observational data sets and a like- for-like consistent comparison of simulated and observed global surface temperature, all observed estimates of the 1998–2012 trend lie within the very likely range of CMIP6 trends. Since 2012, global surface temperature has warmed strongly, with the past five years (2016–2020) being the hottest five-year period between 1850 and 2020 (high confidence). {2.3.1, 3.3.1, 3.5.1, Cross-Chapter Box 3.1}
AR6 Cross-Section Box TS.1
Let this episode stand as a clear reminder for assessment reports not to get ahead of the science…
And so to bed…
Finally, let me finish up with a couple of personal observations. This was the first IPCC report where I was involved in the SPM approval process, and while that was frustrating at times, the vast majority of delegates were obviously focussed on getting the best summary consistent with the science that they could. Obviously, some countries had specific sensitivities, but seeing the negotiations on how those issues could be finessed while sticking to language that the authors approved of was impressive. In particular, the chairing of the meeting by Valerie Masson-Delmotte was a masterclass in effective meeting strategies. The virtual nature of the proceedings means that this was undoubtedly the SPM approval session with the lowest carbon footprint which might serve as a model for future efforts. However, the ‘all time zone’ nature of the proceedings and the very interrupted nature of my resulting sleep patterns has left a mark on pretty much everyone involved. Forgive me if I sleep in for the rest of this week…
References
- J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, pp. 957-966, 1981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.213.4511.957
Thanks for all this, keep it up!
Okay, I’ve rushed through the SPM and looked at some media responses. My takeaway is that the report continues the move, already seen in the 1.5 report, away from being “conservative” in the sense of avoiding anything that could be called “alarmist” and towards “conservative” in the military-planner and insurance-industry nse of paying attention to the most dangerous scenarios.
A lot depends on how journalists report this. So far they seem conservative in the old sense, concentrating on the 90% chance that current policies will give my grandson a terrible 3-degree world and overlooking the 10% chance he will get a catastrophic 4-plus-degree world.
Media imagery is more apocalyptic, overwhelmingly it’s wildfires, which of course are in the news now anyway and an apt image for heat. AR6 does properly notice the longer fire season.
“Media imagery is more apocalyptic, overwhelmingly it’s wildfires, which of course are in the news now anyway and an apt image for heat.”
Bill Moyers dessrves more credit for the “”Apocalyptic imagery” revival, , as the former Baptist minister and White House Press Secretary launched The Power of Myth into the popular imagination on PBS decades before his fund raising kick-started Climate Desk,
As Columbia Journalism Review noted in April:
” In the past year, a host of new solutions-focused climate podcasts launched from prominent outlets; they include Gimlet’s How to Save a Planet, Grist’s Temperature Check, and A Matter of Degrees—whose goal, according to its creators, is to help listeners “see the levers of power behind climate change — and how to empower yourself.” Then there are new efforts from legacy print outlets—from the Washington Post’s “Climate Solutions” section, to the New York Times’ Climate Solutions: A Special Report, to the solutions-oriented Bloomberg Green, which aims, per editor Aaron Rutkoff, to be to the climate-change era what Wired was to the dot-com era and Rolling Stone to the rock ’n’ roll ’60s.”
Russell, I am sure the people of Greenville, CA and Evia in Greece will be relieved that their homes were destroyed by a myth.
Ray, you’re a week behind on my coverage of the fires in Greece:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/08/is-olympia-burning.html
Gaslighting won’t get Bill Moyers off the hook for an existential threat inflation career that began with LBJ’s Daisy attack ad. .
The radiative forcing bar chart clearly shows why you should not use the default vertical bar chart layout. Having to read so many difficult long words printed vertically is not reader-friendly.
The “hiatus” was not “temporary”, it was a Fata Morgana, an statistical artefact of not considering how important choosing break points is for trend tests and thus how important it is to choose the right statistical model of a trend change with an *unknown* breakpoint.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2017/04/hiatus-signal-and-variability.html
The “hiatus” was as real as the subsequent “surge”, which was, however, “somehow” not pushed in the media.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2017/06/pause-hiatus-recent-warming-explosion.html
Yes, “If it bleeds it leads” is often overridden with, “If my owners could bleed (actually be forced to suck less blood) then it must not lead. Or follow. Shhhh.”
As an Earth Energy Imbalance advocate for understanding the climate condition (along with J Hansen etc.), I miss Radiative Forcing expressed as watts per square meter in the Summary, especially since that’s what it is. Having a derivative such as some best guess of the resulting temperature after a thousand years to reach “equilibrium” is not what I would be interested in, except as an additional discussion of computationally projected temperatures.
This is because of my present understanding that energy flow/flux or “heat transfer,” if you will, will attempt to “catch up” or follow the radiative forcing. For example, if RF is 3 W/m2 then energy flux (such as measured by Argo floats, presently about 1W/m2) will tend to rise toward that value.
Thanks for your work, Gavin. We are out of time and we haven’t produced significant reductions in emissions yet. It’s worrisome. Especially for our kids and grandkids as Spencer mentioned above.
June 2021 = 418.94 ppm
June 2020 = 416.60 ppm
Cheers, get a nap!
Mike
The report gives you just about everything you were hoping for, Gavin. You must be thrilled.
V: The report gives you just about everything you were hoping for, Gavin. You must be thrilled.
BPL: No, Victor. None of us are hoping that things will get steadily worse for civilization. We’re all hoping that somewhere along the line we made a huge mistake and things will be all right after all. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that that’s the case, and it’s pretty much hopeless at this point.
Not yet but we can’t tolerate another r4 year set back to Medieval times like we just had. Onward!
My, what a hopeless response; “None of us are hoping that things will get steadily worse for civilization. We’re all hoping that somewhere along the line we made a huge mistake and things will be all right after all. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that that’s the case, and it’s pretty much hopeless at this point”. Evidently Barton Paul Levenson is unaware that at the present time there are more humans on Earth living longer and more productive lives that at any other time in the history of humanity.
“One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialisation trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely within another couple of decades. It is the reason why the Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas said that once you start thinking about economic growth and the improvements in standards of living, it is hard to stop.”
The “abject poverty” claim is highly dubious. Meanwhile, industrialist ran the planet into the ground as they preyed upon the world’s gullibility and connedsumer lifestyles. What’s the point of alleviating poverty if you lose the planet in the process? This is a totally false metric, a straw argument of the worst kind.
No one wants this, but sticking your head in the ground doesn’t change reality. Adults deal with that reality. Victors deny it.
Ditto on the gratitude for the work that went into the report.
Saw this in the final personal comment: “ … Obviously, some countries had specific sensitivities … “.
I have always assumed that the IPCC reports are highly conservative because they must be signed off on by scientists from countries heavily dependent on oil and gas exports. Would you say that this perspective has an element of truth in it?
As someone who’s been at plenaries, I can tell you that there is a tension, but in the end what is in the SPM has to be in the underlying Chapters, and what is in the underlying Chapters is what is in the Science. So there is wrangling and compromise over what findings get emphasised and what language is used to describe those findings, but the SPM text is scientific.
If you want a fuller understanding, the Technical Summary (TS) is better (but longer) than the SPM, and has less political fingerprints on it. I’d always advise reading the TS rather than the SPM.
Thanks very much. It’s a comfort that the political is not overshadowing the science.
Silk is painting a rather more positive spin on that than reality does. There may be less political influence than in previous versions, but that is purely due to the SHTF, and nobody being able to legitimately claim otherwise.
You won’t see anything about simplification or localization in that report, I’m thinking, yet none of the goals wished for will happen without those things.
Although it doesn’t get much coverage in the SPM or Technical Summary, there’s a box in Chapter 3 on global surface warming in the early 21st century. As you’d expect, it concludes that the slower warming over the 1998-2012 period (which still exists in the AR6 datasets, although to a much lesser extent than in the AR5 ones) was a temporary event induced by internal and naturally-forced variability.
Blair Trewin: “As you’d expect, it concludes that the slower warming over the 1998-2012 period (which still exists in the AR6 datasets, although to a much lesser extent than in the AR5 ones) was a temporary event induced by internal and naturally-forced variability.”
V: Actually “the hiatus” lasted from 1998-2015, a total of 17 years, much too long to be dismissed as “a temporary event.”
Note: the starting date: 1998 – one of the strongest El Nino in the XX century. You do know what a strong EL Nino does to the global average that year, right, Victor?
Hint: after a heat wave everything looks like a hiatus. ;-).
Piotr: Note: the starting date: 1998 – one of the strongest El Nino in the XX century. You do know what a strong EL Nino does to the global average that year, right, Victor?
Hint: after a heat wave everything looks like a hiatus. ;-).
V: Fatuous. The evidence for the hiatus was so strong that a long list of climate scientists made strenuous efforts to account for it over many years. The most recent was the so-called “pause-killer” concocted by Karl et al. And if you read that paper carefully you’ll see that Karl’s conclusion was NOT based on your line of reasoning or that of anyone else. It was based exclusively on a comparison between the periods 1998-2012 and 1951-2012. As Gavin mentions above, “The shifts in the quoted trends (1998-2012 is now 0.12ºC/decade, 1951-2012 is 0.13ºC, HadCRUT5) underlines the trivialness of the issue.” No attempt to explain his invocation of the magic year 1951 was made in Karl’s extremely influential “pause-killer.” Nor has any explanation ever been demanded by the “scientists” who blindly accepted the result they were longing for.
Now how do you justify such a comparison, which looks very much like cherry-picking? What is so special about the year 1951 — other than providing Karl (and the IPCC) with a desired result.
Victor doesn’t understand that the early IPCC reports said there would be intermittent flat periods in the temperature record of about ten years or so due to natural variability. So we had a flat period as expected to nobodies great surprise except Victor. Its also of no great statistical significance and was not a “pause” in actual addition of heat energy into the system..
You also don’t draw a line between 1998 and some other point because that is arbitrary cherry picking. You draw a trend line through the middle of all the various peaks and troughs each year and the result is you get a flat period about 8 years long from about 2002 – 2010. Refer
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Victor: ” V: Fatuous. The evidence for the hiatus was so strong that a long list of climate scientists made strenuous efforts”
Then you would have NO Problem with using this “strenuous effort”
to PROVE that EITHER:
– 1998 WAS NOT a high-temperature anomaly associated with a very strong El Nino or
– the words: “the hiatus” lasted from 1998-2015,” are not yours, but made up by some forger “V.” bent on discrediting you as a notorious cherry-picker, who does not have the balls to admit his cherry=picking.
The choice of 1951 isn’t cherry-picking because if you instead start a few years earlier or later, you still get a very similar trend up to the present. To get a trend, you have to start somewhere, but if your starting point doesn’t change much, it’s not cherry picking.
On the other hand, as you referenced part 8 of a mole in the ground in a different posting, I will quote the comment that goes with the graph of temperatures from 1997 to 2017: “The spike we see for 2016 is due to an especially strong El Nino and does not reflect long-term temperature trends.” Exactly the same thing is true for 1998, and yet you insist on using 1998, and only 1998, not any surrounding year, and excluding 2016, even though it’s “special” in the same way as 1998. Now, that’s cherry picking.
Yes, there were strenuous objections when you and others started flogging the “hiatus” horse, starting your timing exclusively from 1998, because it was the only year that worked. The horse is dead. We’ve moved on. You’re still flogging it, but it’s not going to get up and give you a ride into the 21st century.
I don’t know why you’re arguing the point. The “hiatus” was for the most part a misuse of the cut off points for consideration. There was no true hearing hiatus, as all the scientists agreed, the physics of global warming and the radiative forcing hadn’t suddenly changed for the convenience of deniers or “sceptics” – the extra energy was still accumulating, just being disguised. Subsequent measurements of global temperatures prove the point and the scientists’ predictions. Now, in 2021, it’s if the “hiatus” never existed. Get over it.
John Monroe says::
The heat of the climate system during that period continued to be accumulated in the oceans fairly steadily with no sign of a *pause*. In response, sea levels also continued to rise with no sign of a *pause*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File:Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:NASA-Satellite-sea-level-rise-observations.jpg
And that should be no surprise because CO2 radiative forcing, as confirmed by changes in outgoing radiation measured by satellites, increased at a fairly consistent rate of 2% annually through that same period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:Greenhouse_gas_radiative_forcing_growth_since_1979.svg
Weaktor keeps coming back to the climate scientists who studied “the pause”. Yes, scientists did study the relatively flat portion of the curve, but what they were studying was where the energy was going instead of the atmosphere, not trying to explain some true anomaly of the science.
Any phenomenon has signal and noise. Scientists study signal. They also study noise in order to understand the system better and also to understand the signal better. That they study noise doesn’t negate the existence or importance of the signal.
Sometimes T increases are above trend. Other times they’re below trend. You’re turning a molehill into a mountain to avoid reality.
Victor knows that – he on purpose STARTED precisely when T was as high above the trend as it gets. “After a heat wave everything feels like cooling”.
Here is the temperature record in question:
– without looking too close at the X-axis units – guess WHICH was the year in the late 1990ies our Victor might have chosen as his reference point for his claims of a “hiatus” in global warming:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Time_Series-768×433.png
Now imagine, if our poor Victor went to a deniers conference and accidently started his presentation ONE YEAR BEFORE or AFTER the 1997-98 El Nino (i.e. 1996 or 1999). Hilarity would have ensued.
As this was my second time at a plenary I can agree with you that the Co-Chairs, especially Valerie Masson-Delmotte were very impressive in steering this to a successful conclusion. The process was much better handled now and the rules clearer. I saw very few cases where I felt a delegate wanted to actually change the scientific results (not allowed), but I remember at my first plenary (2007) an argument over scientific results with nuances that were well beyond those taking part in the argument. So on this there has been progress.
While the process is exhausting at times, it is important to know what it is about. The report is big, the SPM is short. Thus, there is a need for selectively choosing what goes into it. And the delegates can influence what goes in, and how the various evidence is summarized. They can affect the language but not the science. It is important to remember that their task is to present the outcome to policy makers, the SPM will inform climate policies for UN member states, negociating positions for the COPs etc. Continuing from Silks comment above, the Technical Summary (TS) is a better summary of the science, wheras the SPM straddles the divide between the scientific sphere and that of the policy makers. (I usually tell students who want to get a grasp of an AR report to read the SPM, then the TS and then the summary of each chaper)
It is also important to remember that there are real interests at stake here, some parties’ preference for specific wording reflects their wider interests, but is not a scientific opinion per se. At the same time, some debates were the results of the WG1 authors suggesting wording that was not transparent, and needed improvement. In this respect it is important to remember that the delegates may be more used to presenting material to policy makers than the WG1 authors. Thus in many cases, the changes to the text improved the readability and clarity (and there were other times where I don’t think interventions helped).
All in all, the SPM is good. It is (mostly) easy to explain to policy makers and the public, – and the graphics are much improved from previous reports. The main thanks go to the authors of the IPCC reports and the drafting team of the summaries. That was an incredible task. Bottom line is that this SPM does a fair job of explaining the main message of the report. For me important takeaways are improved knowledge on climate extremes (of all sorts), sea level rise and low probability – high impact events, and the urgency needed if the goal truly is to limit warming.
John Pollack: Yes, there were strenuous objections when you and others started flogging the “hiatus” horse, starting your timing exclusively from 1998, because it was the only year that worked.
Piotr: Victor knows that – he on purpose STARTED precisely when T was as high above the trend as it gets.
V: 1998 was NOT selected by me. It was widely accepted by a great many scientists as the beginning of a pause they tried desperately to explain away. If you examine the data you’ll see that it clearly represents a turning point, thus the logical place for the pause to begin.
Regardless of how any of us might want to think about the evidence from this period, there is a deeper issue to be considered that is rarely discussed. After all, what we are really looking for is not primarily a “trend” or even a “correlation,” but evidence for a cause and effect relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And no matter how one prefers to interpret the data, the evidence is simply not there.
As most climate scientists agree, the relatively modest rise in CO2 levels from 1910-1940 could not have been more than a minor influence on the rather steep rise in global temps we see during that period. So no matter how one might want to think about those years, they very clearly offer NO evidence for CO2 driven climate change.
Obviously temperatures during the following 40 years could not have been driven upward by CO2 emissions since there was no upward trend during that period. So, once again, no evidence for cause and effect.
As I’ve stated many times, the temperature rise during the following 20 years (1979-`1998) is the ONLY period where a cause and effect relation might be inferred, as both CO2 and temperature rose more or less in tandem. However, no matter how one might prefer to interpret the following years, whether you think there was a real pause or whether you think the “heat” got diverted into the ocean or whether a statistically insignificant fluctuation took place, due to natural variability and/or volcanic eruptions (see blog post above), the temperature record during the period 1998 through 2015 cannot possibly be seen as evidence for the cause and effect relation that’s been so commonly assumed. The surge in CO2 emissions during that period was NOT accompanied by a surge in temperatures, regardless of how one might want to explain it away.
Thus, no matter how one might want to account for the many discrepancies (or as Mr. Rodger would put it, “wobbles”) in the climate record, the only period during the last 130 years or so where we see anything at all that might suggest cause and effect lasted no more than 20 years.
Weaktor,
Unfortunately, your hypothesis is marred by your complete and total lack of understanding of both climate science and basic math. Global warming does not posit a linear and continual increase in atmospheric temperature and CO2 content. Rather it posits that the energy content of Earth’s climate system will increase. Since most of the mass of the system is in the oceans, and since the oceans warmed throughout your putative pause, only an idiot would look at the data and say greenhouse warming paused. If you look at what the actual climate scientists are saying, it is NOT that. Moreover, the assertion that the increase in greenhouse forcing from 1910 to 1940 was negligible is also false. Enhanced greenhouse warming at that time was a bit more than a quarter what it is today, smaller, but not negligible. Please come back when you are less wrong.
You might have stated that “the temperature rise during the following 20 years (1979-`1998) is the ONLY period where a cause and effect relation might be inferred, as both CO2 and temperature rose more or less in tandem.” but you can scream it into the void all you want, and it will still not be true.
Weaktor: “1998 was NOT selected by me. It was widely accepted by a great many scientists”
Piotr: Even if it were true, it would not get YOU off the hook for YOUR words:
– either you know that using OUTLIERS as a reference point is WRONG – then YOU don’t use them in YOUR claims.
– or you USE the outliers:
Victor: : “the hiatus” lasted from 1998-2015, a total of 17 years, much too long to be dismissed as “a temporary event.”
BUT THEN you have to EXPLAIN why using the 1998 El Nino outlier IN YOUR claim was correct, and WHY the one of the strongest El Nino years, AND NOT one year BEFORE or one year AFTER the El Nino years of1997-1998.
And you know why – If you used either 1996 or 1999:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Time_Series-768×433.png
– then your ” much too long hiatus” … is no more. No, it is not “stunned”, nor does it “pine for the Norwegian fjords” -it is dead, has ceased to be, is bereft of life, it rests in peace. This is an ex-hiatus!
Piotr I suspect he just cant grasp what you are saying. He literally doesn’t understand what he does.
Victor: Regardless of how any of us might want to think about the evidence from this period, there is a deeper issue to be considered that is rarely discussed. After all, what we are really looking for is not primarily a “trend” or even a “correlation,” but evidence for a cause and effect relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
JP: Thank you for stating this. I agree, and believe that it is the crux of the discussion, which has gotten severely and repeatedly sidetracked over lesser issues.
Victor: And no matter how one prefers to interpret the data, the evidence is simply not there.
JP: And there’s where I strongly disagree. The problem, as I see it, is that your methods of evaluation are narrow, and embody several assumptions about how the climate system ought to respond to rising CO2 levels that you seem to be unaware of.
You assume that if rising CO2 concentrations cause rising temperatures, this change will manifest itself quickly, certainly within a few years,. Using this unstated assumption, you proceed to demonstrate that there are periods lasting up to a few decades in the 20th century temperature record, where the trend in CO2 doesn’t match the trend in global surface temperature. You then conclude that CO2 isn’t the cause of rising global temperatures. Since your first assumption is false, you haven’t demonstrated what you think. No matter how many times you’ve repeated the point, it doesn’t refute CO2 as a large factor in rising global temperatures.
One problem with your assumption that CO2 changes will quickly manifest in rising air temperatures is that the oceans are truly important, and slow to respond. Over the last couple of decades, about 93% of the excess energy retained by rising greenhouse gases has gone into the ocean. However, this is not a smooth process. There are periods where some of the excess heat gets transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. (Most obvious is El Nino.) Heat is slow to move from the shallow layers of the ocean into the deeper parts, and there are only a few places in the world where this process is accelerated. The heat storage process can be disrupted if currents shift, and this depends on surface weather and the salinity of the ocean, as well as temperatures and direct heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean. So, there can be multi-decadal periods where the smooth relationship that you expect can be disrupted. The oceans may be taking up more or less heat than the longer term average, with the opposite effect on atmospheric temperatures.
Another issue is that there is a long term trend in rising temperatures, both surface air temperatures, and ocean temperatures. This is just what is expected if CO2 is enhancing the greenhouse effect, and more heat is being stored near the surface. You can’t get around that by breaking the data into shorter periods, which is another of your assumptions. If CO2 isn’t causing the warming, what is the reason why air temperatures didn’t drop back to early 20th century levels after the 1998 El Nino? Instead, they wobbled, and then began to rise again, even as the ocean also retained more heat. The next El Nino was even warmer, and so on. There is no magical inertia to temperatures. If greenhouse gases aren’t retaining extra heat, it will radiate back into space. The oceans will cool down, as well as the atmosphere. It’s not happening. You don’t need a “hiatus” to demonstrate that CO2 isn’t causing the warming. You need to show that despite the rise in CO2, that the oceans and atmosphere are undergoing a sustained cooling back to 1900 levels.
There has to be a reason why temperatures keep rising, ice disappearing, and oceans retaining more energy. Energy doesn’t appear out of nowhere. If the cause isn’t additional solar energy being retained by increasing greenhouse gases, the accepted and well-tested cause, then what is it? The only plausible alternative would be if the Sun is slowly warming over the decades, continuing to today. The trouble with this idea is that we have satellite measurements over several decades that show the solar energy output cycles slightly with sunspot cycles. If anything, it has been declining a little over the past 50 years as the solar cycles have weakened. Another problem is that if our measurements were subtly wrong, and the solar output is really increasing, it would have the effect of warming all of the atmosphere, not just the surface. Instead, we find the warming is strongest near the surface, and the lower stratosphere is actually cooling. This is exactly the predicted and verified effect of increasing greenhouse gases, but not an increasing solar energy output.
There are a lot of other measurements and tests, too numerous to go into. But I’ve mentioned a few of the main points.
Your unstated assumptions are getting in the way of your understanding, and are at least part of the reason why your ideas are so poorly received on this site.
@John Pollack
This was an excellent response to Victor about why and where he and so many others get stuck. You explained that with a lot of clarity John.
Similar responses to Victor’s arguments have been made many many times in the past. Maybe not as succinctly or clearly as John, but the same points have been explained over and over again.
But it does no good.
For Victor, discourse is never in the spirit of learning, rather it is to arrogantly proclaim superior knowledge in areas for which the evidence actually shows he has little or no knowledge or expertise.
Victor clearly never makes any attempt to understand the science and what the evidence actually tells us. He regularly ignores evidence and facts provided to him that make his points invalid and without merit.
Victor fails to understand or acknowledge basic physical laws…he has no formal training in physics or any of the physical sciences. He has zero understanding of how science works.
He has no knowledge of the history of science and how the case for AGW was built over many many decades. He has no knowledge of how data is analyzed. He fails to recognize uncertainty except when it supports his arguments.
Victor fails to understand complexity and how various factors can interplay with one another. He simply looks at information in isolation rather than in the context of the whole.
Obviously he does not understand what constitutes correlations. He has no understanding of statistical analysis. Regularly claims lack of correlation when correlation is statistically valid. Correlation has been explained countless times, yet he continues relentlessly to make the same false claims of lack of correlation and that there is no indication that there is a cause and effect while ignoring the actual physics and evidence. He has no clue as to how the climate system works, nor any clue as to the physical laws pertaining to heat and energy and doesn’t appear to be interested in learning, or perhaps is just totally incapable. As I said, what John wrote has been explained before…many times.
Victor’s critical thinking skills are also very questionable. He is incapable of drawing logical conclusions based on ALL of the available information rather he focuses on the mundane while ignoring the preponderance of the evidence. He has no clue as to how to sort out what is important from what is’t.
With Victor, it’s just trolling. He’s right and no matter what will not be persuaded otherwise. Seven years going.
V: “what we are really looking for is not primarily a “trend” or even a “correlation,” but evidence for a cause and effect relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.”
BPL: We don’t have to look for that because it was established many decades ago. You just haven’t gotten the message.
V: “And no matter how one prefers to interpret the data, the evidence is simply not there.”
BPL: Shortened V: La la la, I can’t hear you!
Weaktor wrote: “1998 was NOT selected by me. It was widely accepted by a great many scientists as the beginning of a pause they tried desperately to explain away.”
Which is pure adulterated bullshit.
No actual scientist, only those who play one on the internet to rope in gullible fools like Weaktor, would start a time series analysis at an outlier high point like 1998.
‘Nuf said about Weaktor’s non existent grasp of both science and statistics.
Figure 7.8 also attributes temperature change to different causes, but it’s very different to Figure SPM2b shown in the post.
Fig 7.8: CO2 1.0, CH4 0.3, halogens 0.2, N2O 0.1 ºC
Fig SPM2b: CO2 0.75, CH4 0.5, halogens 0.1, N2O 0.1ºC
They seem to be reporting the same thing, why the difference? They make the relative importance of methane look very different.
It’s probably not news, by now, that yesterday the Washington Post placed online a George Will column about the new IPCC report with the headline “With a closer look, certainty about the ‘existential’ climate threat melts away.” It appears today on paper under the headline “The climate threat’s certainty melts away.” Will ties this latest of his attacks on climate science to the Koonin book, using the phrase “Koonin says” (or equivalents) nine times.
In comparable circumstances 15 years ago, under the headline “Heat Rising at the Washington Post,” RealClimate posted a group-authored piece that ended by lamenting–by charging–that “the Washington Post does not seem to have a quality control in place that ensures minimal journalistic standards, such as intellectual honesty and basic fact-checking.” In that case it was a different columnist, though Will quickly, and deservedly, came up in the ensuing comments.
I hope RC considers posting about this new incident. (But that’s easy for me to hope, given that I haven’t been pushing the same rock up the hill for 15 years.)
Will, an institution at the Post and at many other newspapers, got his Pulitzer most of a half-century ago. But that’s only about stature. Should the Post have turned this column away?
Ray Ladbury: Unfortunately, your hypothesis is marred by your complete and total lack of understanding of both climate science and basic math. Global warming does not posit a linear and continual increase in atmospheric temperature and CO2 content. Rather it posits that the energy content of Earth’s climate system will increase. Since most of the mass of the system is in the oceans, and since the oceans warmed throughout your putative pause, only an idiot would look at the data and say greenhouse warming paused. If you look at what the actual climate scientists are saying, it is NOT that. Moreover, the assertion that the increase in greenhouse forcing from 1910 to 1940 was negligible is also false. Enhanced greenhouse warming at that time was a bit more than a quarter what it is today, smaller, but not negligible. Please come back when you are less wrong.
V: Ray, please. Stop blowing smoke. The question of whether or not “greenhouse warming paused” has nothing to do with the issue I raised. Regardless of whether it paused, the fact remains that this period produced NO evidence of a cause and effect relation between CO2 and temperature. Your failure to make this crucial distinction tells me how little you understand.
As to the warming from 1910 to 1940: “The scientists who brushed aside Callendar’s claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart “The Discovery of Global Warming” ( https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm )
V: “this period produced NO evidence of a cause and effect relation between CO2 and temperature.”
BPL: No matter how many times you say it, it still won’t be true.
Jim Eager says: No actual scientist, only those who play one on the internet to rope in gullible fools like Weaktor, would start a time series analysis at an outlier high point like 1998.
From the LA Times: “For years, the global warming ‘hiatus’ from 1998 to 2012 puzzled scientists and fueled skeptics looking to cast doubt on the very idea that Earth’s temperature has been on the rise, largely because of human-produced greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide — and that significant policy changes would need to be made to keep that rise in check.” https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20170503-htmlstory.html
Only one of a great many reports citing 1998 as the beginning of the “hiatus.” The date has been frequently cited by the IPCC.
Ladies and Gentlemen
Even Hiatus is discussed.
Hiatus is Latin and means a yawn. Or we might say a breathing- pause. What would be more normal in a complex, hydraulic pnevmatic and energetic system?
But everyone ought to have some learnings and experience here for how to read and to interprete and to explain online empirical curves, pattern recognition for instance on maps, and on servography and oscilloscopy.
Some basic analytic geometry, integrals and the derivative and extremal points and knickpoints. And be aquainted to the adjustable and mooveable passive lowpass and highpass filters, and bandpass filters eventually with adjustable positive feedback that can amplify periodical events and make anything go into strong resonjant spin regardless of input signals.
Then the analytic method itself takes over and goes into spin..
Maybe that is what often happens here and there? Too high positive feedback to it, in a situation of ajustable blinkers. giving an adjustable time- window?
I first learnt this on elementary amateur radio, and have used it with great success further on musical acoustics. It surely would work for empirical longtime graphs of climate data also.
Quite important is to be able to discriminate between CHOSMOS & CHAOS, and uncover eventual coherence, phase- coupple and eventual forced oscillation. The very trade business of climate surrealism has been trying that very hard, telling me of a .”cycle” that explains anything.. Nicola Scafetta & al for instance, and the fameous Yndestad in Norway.
Before picking into that, one should know Theodor Schwenk, Das sensible Chaos, wherefrom they probably got it.
But it is not that easy to repeat the success of Milancevic, which they are obviously trying.. (Or it may be Zen- buddhism astray.) I simply cannot make and finely regulate complex rados and pnevmatic oscillators from it.
Being rather better aquainted to sailinjg and to radio and musical instruments, I allways found that their works were unqualified and hopeless, not even proper yoga, astology or Eurytmie, but maybe inspired by that.
The very obvius Hiatuses in the curves is the quite consequent but short lived dip of temperatures after any solid El Nino. That is a plausible physical reaction to a strong or hot impulse effort each time. But I never see that discussed. Allthough that might be easier and quite more valuable to have explained., because it does obviously repeat and shows quite real.
But, that ENSO is obviously not a phase- couppled or coherent system., It is not even a proper repeating rumble or burble, It is no obvious Kelvin Helmholz wave that comes and goes under given conditions , like we quite often see it in Nature. and can repeat it in the lab.
The The AMOC- system on the other hand and the ugly stagnation of the jet- stream in bizarre meandering modes look more like chladni figures and phase- couppled, coherent oscillation by discrete numeral modes. Quite normal and plausible in pnematic, viscous, and electromagnetic systems.
Piotr: then your ” much too long hiatus” … is no more. No, it is not “stunned”, nor does it “pine for the Norwegian fjords” -it is dead, has ceased to be, is bereft of life, it rests in peace. This is an ex-hiatus!
V: The alarmists have been claiming that for years and years, finding all sorts of reasons to dismiss it. The hysterical nature of your post says it all. It won’t go away. Even the IPCC acknowledges it:
“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.” See blog post above.
NB: They too reference 1998 as the beginning of the reduced trend. If you have a problem with any of that, complain to the IPCC, not me.
Weaktor: “The hysterical nature of your post says it all.”
Hint- “the hysterical nature” was borrowed from Monty Python, genius. That “pining for the Norwegian fjords” didn’t trip anything in your brain?
And it is not me who ties himself in knots trying to deflect the responsibility for HIS OWN words …. onto others.- It was NOT some nebulous alarmists or LA Times that MADE YOU write in this thread::
“the hiatus” lasted from 1998-2015″
Victor
If you thought the choice of a v. strong ElNino year for the reference point was idiotic – YOU SHOULD HAVE MADE it clear, by writing, for example:
“according to some laughable idiots who do not know the first thing about statistics or climate, the so-called “hiatus” supposedly lasted from 1998-2015.. They are morons because if they started their “hiatus” a year before or a year after the 1997-98 ElNino – their “hiatus” would have … disappeared.
If you Victor, are NOT ready to sign under that, but you YOURSELF use 1998 – then your pathetic excuses: it’s not me who wrote ‘1998-2015″, it’s my enemies – do not work.
Pyotr: If you Victor, are NOT ready to sign under that, but you YOURSELF use 1998 – then your pathetic excuses: it’s not me who wrote ‘1998-2015″, it’s my enemies – do not work.
V: More hysteria.
No but you are hysterical!
draft from the third part of the report kinda “leaked”:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/greenhouse-gas-emissions-must-peak-within-4-years-says-leaked-un-report
When will it dawn on some here that Weaktor is not here to learn but only to disrupt the conversation with his repeatedly refuted ignorant bafflegab. He will never admit that he is wrong, that indeed, every single argument ever put forward by those asserting that AGW is a hoax has been shown to be wrong or irrelevant.
It’s not happening – wrong
It’s not warming – wrong
The “hockey stick” was disproved – wrong, the blade has only gotten longer
It’s not us – wrong
It’s not CO2 – wrong
It’s not fossil fuels – wrong
It’s volcanoes – wrong
It’s the sun – wrong
It will soon start cooling – wrong
Ice is growing, not melting – wrong
Arctic ice may be melting but Antarctic ice is growing – not any more
The cloud “iris effect” will stop the warming – nope
But the hiatus – cherry picking
It won’t be dangerous – wrong, just ask the inhabitants of Westphalia, Lytton or Paradise
CO2 is plant food – irrelevant red herring
CO2 is a trace gas – irrelevant red herring since 99% of the atmosphere is transparent to IR
Climate warming doesn’t enhance drought – wrong
Climate warming doesn’t turbocharge wild fires – wrong
Climate warming doesn’t cause more intense rainfall – wrong
Climate warming doesn’t cause more intense storms – wrong
ECS is 1 or certainly less than 2 – sorry, we’re already past 1 and we haven’t even doubled CO2 yet, and we are still a long, long way from equilibrium
Stop giving bitter-ender trolls like Weaktor the benefit of doubt and the attention that they crave.
They are irrelevant but dangerous time-wasters.
And they have already wasted precious decades.
You forgot the last refuge of the denialist: “Oh, if only the scientists had warned us!”
You’re wasting your breath. No matter how many times this is pointed out, the people here feed the climate denial trolls filet mignon, Tons of it.
As a former high school teacher who taught Environmental Studies for 25 years I am not the least bit surprised at the information provided in this report.
What has surprised me in recent years is that the ’90s projections of the speed and scope of climate change were FAR surpassed by reality. And we surely have many more nasty surprises in store for humanity and our biosphere.
As Pogo, the swamp possum in the old newspaper comics once said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Ain’t dat de truf! Thanks.
quoting @Susan
Your approval or disapproval is a counterproductive distraction. (The blog owners are our hosts, not you.)
This is too funny for words. I love it.
I hear there was some kind of method for blocking individual commenters here? If this is still possible with the new system would someone please let me know how to do it. I have at least 3 parked in my rubbish bin and I would like to permanently empty it and never hear from them again. Life is too short for crazy and nasty. Thanks.
Yes, I’d love never to see you “approve” or “disapprove” of anyone again. Your presumption of authority backed by insult is something I’d rather never see again. You have no idea who I am, and your efforts to “instruct” me and others detracts from whatever valid points you might have to make.
The new layout is such a mess that I can’t tell who Susan was addressing, but that doesn’t matter, her sentiment is right on the nose.
I hope we move to this model: We can disagree politely. We can post our best arguments with links if we want.
And we all stop with the presumption of authority and insults.
I have stopped naming people if I am in disagreement with them because I have no interest in the petty back and forth. If I name you in one of my comments, it means I respect your comments or analysis, even if I feel the need to quibble or clarify.
The folks who never add anything of value to the conversation are a complete waste of time. We can simply note from time to time that their posts have zero basis or value. There are two folks I can think of who clear that relatively high bar. I am not going to bother to name these two.
Thank you to Susan for creating the “approval, presumption of authority and/or insult” meme. That is dead on.
It would be lovely to have the killfile add on become operational on this website. It would increase value.
If folks find a means to “hush” or “hide” commenters in a way similar to killfile, please share that information.
Cheers
Mike
Now, if you care to look at a classic example of an ad hominem attack, look no further than “Reality Check”‘s abusive spew directed toward Susan. His motivation is clear–discredit Susan by claiming that she is “slow,” when anyone who posts here regularly knows she is anything but.
So, in addition to the misogyny, ageism and general hubris of the comment, there is also the resort to a logical fallacy. So, dude, you really aren’t off to a auspicious start here.
Guys, constant back and forth is just fucking boring. It obscures whatever points you are trying to make, and it just alienates (or bores) the casual reader.
“Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people.”–Eleanor Roosevelt
Let’s at least aim for the first two categories.
This is actually to Mike, but there was no reply link on his:
“I have stopped naming people if I am in disagreement with them because I have no interest in the petty back and forth. “
I’ve tried that.. It doesn’t work when they come looking for your posts just to be nasty.
To RC re: Susan:
I took your comment as supportive of her comment, but she took it the opposite. It is vaguely worded enough to be seen either way, I suppose.
I think Susan has accidentally revealed her biases with this – unless, of course, you meant to harass her, but that is not your style.
at Killian: if folks post in a nasty manner, I just ignore them. That back and forth is worse than useless. I figure, generally, just post in a polite and considerate manner, don’t stoop to insults or name-calling, don’t take the bait and get in to a personal back and forth and don’t bother trying to persuade folks to see things in a different manner or light if they have shown a long-standing commitment to a specific position. The ideological stuff only hardens with challenge. I figure ignore that stuff and let time and reality sort out who has figured things most accurately. None of the back and forth on a site like this matters very much. It can be educational, but that falls off as the site comments devolve into the vitriol and petty personal exchanges.
I have been asking for the kill file compatibility for years. I don’t think we are going to get that. But, hey, I keep asking.
Cheers
Mike
I am also reminded of a lesser-known quote from the Pogo comic strip: “He was a man of rare perception. In fact, some of his perceptions were so rare that they amounted to hallucinations.” We do see some of those posted, on occasion.
Just expanding on Mikes comment. I also find its sometimes hard identifying what comments replies are referring to, because the lines around peoples replies to comments are very faint and they are on a coloured background removing even more contrast. It looks pretty but it doesn’t help legibility.
@what Mike said
What happened?
The short answer is someone posted a quote/url about wood pellets.
Someone else, who was grateful, said thanks for that info.
They said to the group, this is the kind of info they like to know about and see shared.
Then the first person basically had a meltdown. (?)
I am only guessing but suspect they were deeply offended. (?)
The first person attacked, verbally abused, and slandered the other.
The second person corrected them, labeled what had happened, and laughed it off.
The truth is always an option.
I am always open to a mature respectful dialogue with anyone who is up to it.
RC: “I am always open to a mature respectful dialogue with anyone who is up to it.”
BPL: That must be why you said I needed to learn basic physics, and described Sally as incoherent, elderly, and slow. Because you’re open to a mature respectful dialogue with anyone who is up to it.
Physician, heal thyself.
Quoting:
“Yes, do yourself a favour and educate yourself as I have.” and
“Yes, educate yourselves. See how much CCS/BECCS everywhere is pie in the sky at this stage, and the foreseeable future. There’s a logical reason it never makes the global news. ”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/we-are-not-reaching-1-5oc-earlier-than-previously-thought/#comment-794362
Quoting
“Only here could recommending people here educate themselves by looking up the data and existing research on X subject by totally twisting that quite common advice into a Meta-Strawman Adhominem personal attack. [..] science degree is no guarantee of intelligence, wisdom or self-respect.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/we-are-not-reaching-1-5oc-earlier-than-previously-thought/#comment-794490
I never said @levenson needed to learn basic physics and I never described Sally nor anyone else as incoherent elderly or slow.
It never happened.
Could we please have the truth posted here? At least once.
Reality Check says @15 AUG 2021 AT 7:48 PM
“Self-awareness is tricky. I know a few moderators who allowed special dispensations for you (Susan Anderson) – she means well, she’s elderly and a bit slow, so please overlook her incoherent observations and the nasty judgements if possible…..I knew comprehension isn’t your forte and so I made the usual allowances for that upfront and didn’t react badly! But you treat kindness, respect, and sincerity as if it’s the plague.”
Care to NAME those moderators? I’ve seldom read such vile, nasty, sexist, ageist comments on this website. Please just stop or piss off. You’re worse than Killian.
Stop. This thread had nothing to do with me.
Do better. Be better.
Per BPL above:
“BPL: No, Victor. None of us are hoping that things will get steadily worse for civilization. We’re all hoping that somewhere along the line we made a huge mistake and things will be all right after all. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that that’s the case, and it’s pretty much hopeless at this point.”
Your wish is my command. A new peer-reviewed study has cast serious doubt on CO2 being the driver of global warming.
News article #1:
https://www.newsmax.com/scitech/sun-co2-global-warming-climate/2021/08/16/id/1032560/
Quote:
“However, scientists and solar physicists said the IPCC was “premature” in blaming CO2. They added the UN body’s conclusions were based on “narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total irradiance.”
The study, if confirmed, could deal a devastating blow to the IPCC ‘s conclusion that human emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of global warming.”
News article #2:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html
This is apparently the study published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA):
http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080
Let the poo flinging begin.
:)
KIA: ” A new peer-reviewed study has cast serious doubt on CO2 being the driver of global warming.”
BPL: I looked at the article. I have been submitting articles to astronomy journals for 40 years and have never heard of “Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics.” But be that as it may. I note the authors include Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. As I anticipated, this is a crap article by fossil-fuel-funded deniers with an axe to grind.
“Newsmax” articles tend to be of low quality and biased to the right. The “Epoch Times” is even more so.
“Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics” is a Chinese journal with a citation index around 1.24. It specializes in (as its name suggests) astronomy and astrophysics — not climate science.
Life is short. There’s too much bullshit out there to waste one’s time with it.
Willie Soon pioneered the use of bottom dollar pay-for-play journals to publish his “deliverables” , by finding co-authors happy to pad their bibliogaphies without having to pay publication fees
One of the aerospace engineer’s best efforts was adding contrarian giant clams to the palaeoclimate proxy list:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/01/willie-soon-clams-up.html
In other words, it’s the sun. Yawn.
Really? Citing the Epoch Times about a “paper” by Ronan Connolly (“independent scientist,” website GlobalWarmingSolved), Sally Baliunas, Willy Soon, Ole Humlum, David Legates, Nicolas Scafetta and some other usual suspects, that’s all you’ve got?
Surely you must be able to see the bottom of that barrel, even if it does have a thin coat of bought and paid for slime.
The fact that people get upset with other people over things not even directed to them tells you something about this “improved” comment system. It looks nicer but does it work better?
that’s because now you can easier find people’s posts on the subject?
Hardly a reason to abandon the new system and go back to the old one, where you had to scan all posts and/or rely posters to give the number of the post they referred to, and only then get upset with other people over things not even directed to them…
With the posts numbered it was easy to say in post 43 Mr Whats His Name said such and such. I disagree! Etc. With this set up not so much.
ONLY if the person replying to them included the number in their post. Most did it some didn’t. Perhaps not accidentally, those who didn’t – it were precisely the same ones to which one was tempted to jump in…
Now, with all the related posts grouped in the same place (and on the same screen) even it if is not obvious from the positioning and the offset to the right – all you need to do is CTRL-F and type the author’s name to find the post in question.
AND you can follow easily what is being said in a given discussion, as opposed to scanning ALL posts in a given thread in search of those posts that relate to the discussion you are interested in.
This was equally a problem with the earlier setup. Apparently the people who do this are addicted to reading their opinions in print. It’s sad, as this could be a fine science discussion if they would all cut it out. However, some of the more flagrant abuses of science and facts need correction. I had hoped the nesting would confine the endless nitpicking to the region of the offended and offendee, but habits are hard to break.
That is nothing new. At all. It’s always been rife here.
@Ray
It’s fine by me if you wish to not answer this week old question asked of you but in case you missed it: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/we-are-not-reaching-1-5oc-earlier-than-previously-thought/#comment-794491
Of course, beauty as well as hypocrisy, is in the eye of the beholder. That’s just how it is.
It is normal to make special allowances for our ‘friends’ without thinking about it.
Or even seeing it happen.
Oh hey there are no problems with global warming, icebergs, melting. Trash is no problem either. I think we better wake up
Hi all
I’m just a longterm lurker at this wonderful site,
I just wanted to say that people like Victor really need their ears boxed at this stage.
Also, this is for Victor:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
not that it will make the least bit of difference.
Long time mostly lurker but sometimes poster here.
I’m sure the board owners have noticed the deterioration here over the past few years. To my mind the 3 most important aspects are:
1. I think we all see or are coming to see that allowing long time disinformation and propaganda has social and emotional consequences on everyone. Essentially Vic et. al. are acting on the society here using the same techniques we see from all propagandists over the centuries. There is a reason the Communist Party combined the terms agitation and propaganda into a single whole portmanteau way back in the Bolshevik era. Allowing agitprop long term is not helpful (see below).
2. Continual repetitive single issue posts (one need only examine the sidebar for a few days to see the relevant actors) add zero additional value.
3. Whining, bullying, self pitying and self justifying posts are just plain juvenile and have no place. Might be OK once in a while, but whole threads being taken over by such? No value. Some few ad hominems are deserved, I suppose.
Not my board, not my decision, but the deterioration is real. I am a co-owner of a board in a totally unrelated, nonscience area. On it, such things simply get shut down after warnings are ignored. This is because the previous board in the same area got ripped apart by exactly the same sort of agitprop, single issue individuals, and bullies over a period of years. Took about 5 years, but it worked. Split the old board into multiple warring camps. It’s not just the lies and disinformation, it’s the emotions they generate over time. Each little thing isn’t much and the liars always point that out as a justification, but over a longer time period the little things tear the whole apart. Kinda’ like some countries these days.
I thoroughly agree with what you have said, but I suspect the process is not as self-aware as in the historical uses of propaganda. I think the dark forces are out certainly there driving a misinformation campaign, but they have found willing participants who go forth into the net armed with a sense of outrage and a mistaken assessment of their own scientific abilities. The actual foot-soldiers in the misinformation war play the role of useful idiots.
Frankly, it’s sad to watch given what is at stake.
There’s been a recent flurry of activity by Steve McIntyre which raises potentially important issues about palaeoreconstructions, and a paper by Ross McKitrick on problems with some attribution methodology. Neither of these are really in my field of expertise, but I wonder if anyone here has any views on these? Thanks.
Of COURSE there is a flurry of activity in various nonrelevant sources by M and M. And Soon, Legates, et. al. M and M have made quite lucrative blogging careers out of “questioning” paleoclimate studies.
“Questioning” in the big lie sense, not the scientific sense, that is.
One of the M’s did actually identify a real wrong value once many years ago that changed absolutely nothing in the final conclusions. It was accepted and he was given credit for it. Properly so. But that pales in comparison to the thousands upon thousands of misinformational “questions”. Even a monkey sometimes types a lucky word or two found somewhere in Shakespeare. But even a doublet, let alone a whole sonnet? No.
“which raises potentially important issues about palaeoreconstructions”
Only to those receptive to pseudoscience and cherry-picking reassuring them that “it’s not happening.”
M&M are die-hard bitter-ender AGW deniers. Neither have any formal training in climate science.
Well, I’m obviously not ‘receptive to pseudoscience and cherry-picking’. But McKitrick has published a critique of optimal fingerprinting in Climate Dynamics, and I wondered what others think about this.
While it is possible he found something of use, it’s likely others have, too ,or will. However, given the constancy of his denialist agenda, it is worth no layman’s time to pay any attention to what he does.
Hi Killian
I don’t want to labour the point, but a detailed criticism of an important attribution methodology has been published by McKitrick, and it would be great to hear what other climate scientists make of this. As I said it’s not my area of expertise but it does play a peripheral role in some of my work. It may be “worth no layman’s time to pay any attention to what he does” but this is not the case for climate scientists. I have no doubt that M and M are producing critiques aimed to slow climate action or produce doubt, but if they have uncovered flaws in the science then that seems to me to be important.
SH…
Uh, you DO know that M (and the other M as well) have a LONG history of primarily false, or misleading, or misinforming and usually cherry-picked “detailed criticisms” for decades. Except for 1 error in one value one time which changed precisely nothing he has (and they have) contributed nothing but FUD with the object of wasting the time of actual researchers. There is no reason to waste more time on either of them. If he actually said anything important it will show soon enough.
I might ask what your criteria are for labeling something an “important criticism”? What makes you think they ARE “important” in the first place?
“I don’t want to labour the point, but a detailed criticism of an important attribution methodology has been published”
I stand by my original. Unfortunately, they have made their reputation and must deal with it. As I said, if it’s a real thing, legit scientists *will* get around to it. I’ll be happy to read about it then.
Dr. Schmidt,
Re: 5. “Droughts and Floods are Complicated”
Thank you for your exacting look at the drought maps. The maps have shown adequate soil moisture in Western Massachusetts where there is drought, even after the July deluge.
At Sky Farm, in SW Sheffield, where we have clay subsoil with boulders and glacial till and Lenox Loam topsoil — beautiful soil, good at holding moisture, it is dry, four feet down.
My records show erratic, heavy snow and heavy rain that add up to above average annual precipitation that signifies nothing.
Without the regular warm front gentle soaking rains, the downpour events lead to run-off. Evaporation in the heat of dry days without clouds exhausts the soil. The new circulation of Climate Change is no joke.
Your conclusions are just right about variations from place to place. Our weather forecaster in Albany gives five different forecasts due to the rivers, hills, pavements. open lands and forests in this one forecast region.
I have not seen RealClimate reports before this that gave attention to the land. I am heartened to see your contribution. My thanks.
You can prevent the runoff with mulching, animals moving over the land to break up the crust on top, planting cover crops, etc.
jgnfld. I can’t seem to reply in the thread.
However, of course I know about M and M and their years of obstruction. People might have all sorts of nefarious motives, but if they have identified a credible problem then this seems to me to be important. As a result, we should divorce criticism of climate science from the person who is doing the criticising. M’s paper is criticising an important attribution methodology and it appears that Simon Tett has read it (I don’t know about whether Myles has) and encouraged publication. It’s published in a reputable journal and I was asking whether anyone here had any substantive views on the paper. It appears not.
Hello there,
I’ve a question regarding Fig. SPM2b. If I recall correctly, we are currently at +1.1° C warming compared to pre-industrial levels “in total”. If i read Fig. SPM2b, sulphur dioxide emmisions (i.e., air pollution) alone have a net cooling effect of -0.5° C. Doesn’t that mean that we have already enough GHG in the system to heat that system up to +1.6° C and that only our pollution is preventing that? Assuming this is a correct interpretation and assuming that our levels of pollution will go down as we are transitioning to renewable energies, doesn’t that mean that we essentially have to remove all additional GHG that we put into the atmosphere from now on after reaching zero GHG to stay around +1.5° C in the long term? Or am I missing something here?
Best,
Jochen
I think you’re right.
Yes. This is one of the issues with NetZero (of which there are quite a few), but it won’t happen all at once, at least, so there is time to get it through people’s heads we need to be drawing down carbon NOW, not waiting to 2050 to do nothing more than break even.
There is no such thing as “net-zero” (or carbon free, or zero carbon or any other derivative term of this deceptive concept). These are terms chosen to misrepresent the actual carbon emissions that are still being emitted (and unaccounted for) by human activity. It’s double-speak for the carbon illiterate and carbon lobby and serves the policy interests of business, industry and government. The use of these terms implies either dishonesty or misunderstanding (or both).
Carbon draw down will take far more time then we have left, therefore temperature regulation would be the first order of business (if we are even slightly interested in resolving this predicament). Virtually all carbon capture / carbon draw down schemes take an enormous amount of energy, effort and money to achieve and an enormous amount of time to have any measurable effect. This is not to say that this shouldn’t be done, it should, but it won’t help us enough in the time we have left.
What really needs to be done is to end present emissions immediately (while maintaining aerosol particulates to maintain masking effect), reduce temperatures and engage in mitigation and adaption efforts, including draw down. The scope of this project is stupendous and still apparently poorly understood.
The bogus “pre-industrial” date setting trick has fooled a lot of people (who should know better), including climate scientists that tend to prefer to present non-alarmist scenarios. This was a HUGE error in the Sixth Report and even shown the graphs shared by Gavin in this post. We’re already past 1.5C right now when you use the correct pre-industrial (when humans really started to make anthropogenic contributions to the atmosphere).
I note that the scientists here still tend to get distracted with the minutia and fail to realize that the Sixth Report still conveys (despite using an incorrect baseline). This is why we do not trust you, you don’t even believe your own data and what it represents (or fail to understand the significance and how this is already causing interconnected failures).
The Sixth Report makes it pretty clear that we’re losing habitability FAR faster then previously told by the experts who withheld their private opinions and toed the politically correct conservative reporting requirements. As Gavin said (and many others long before him), every single word is wrangled over (to ensure a comfortable level of acceptance). Governments and industry must look “concerned” but not too alarmed (“all is well” when it’s really not).
I didn’t find ANY workable solutions to draw down existing temperatures. No mention of the biological thermal maximums (unless I missed this somewhere). The near-future is hellish, the single generation future (your grandchildren) is non-survivable for mammals.