This month is IPCC month – the Sixth Assessment Report from Working Group 1 is out on Monday August 9. We’ll have some detailed comments once it’s out, but in the meantime, feel free to speculate widely (always considering that IPCC is restricted to assessing existing literature…).
Open thread – please stick to climate science topics.
UAH TLT has been posted for July with a global anomaly of +0.20ºC, this up on the June’s chilly anomaly of -0.01ºC, with July =highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date. 2021 UAH TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range -0.05ºC to +0.20ºC.
July 2021 was the =5th warmest July on the UAH record, behind July 1998 (+0.38ºC), 2020 (+0.31ºC), 2016 (+0.26ºC) & 2019 (+0.25ºC) and equalling July 2010 (+0.20ºC).
July 2021 sits =65th on the highest all-month monthly anomaly list.
The first seven months of 2021 comes in unchanged as the 12th warmest Jan-Jul on the UAH record and the coolest Jan-Jul since 2014.
…….. Jan-Jul Ave …… Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2019 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2002 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 9th
2018 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 13th
2021 .. +0.08ºC
2014 .. +0.04ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 12th
There can be no palaeoclimate justice until Neanderthals stop privilege walking fire.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/07/what-about-neanderthal-privilege-and.html
Dr.R.Climate
I feel that I can follow your rules
“pleace stick to climate science topics”
and contribute allready here,
by what ought be well known and rather obvious things.
The typical small boys different from small girls (look the difference..), and further typical masculine way of studying and learning, is to crack open, to see what`s inside of it, and further tear it apart and into pieces.
The typical small boys want to get into it and to do it their own way. Consequently, it may be hard for them to put it all together again.
That rather masculine way follows them more or less for all their lives. And then it takes a girl and a woman to worship it, to admire it, to assemble and to heal it, to pray for it and to cure it and to try and put it all together again.
Thus if men and women can understand each other and learn to cooperate on it, they make a very strong team.
Theese aspects of it make much of the “style” of life and of research and science, perhaps even more decisive than what follows from facultary division.
Women can learn to analyze and to dissicate, and men can learn to assemble and to cure and to heal and to care. Fully developed personalities and characters ought to share both masculinum and femininum in a harmonical and well trained way, or permit the housemaid (or the stearmans private secretary at least) to assist and to do it whenever men feel not quite qualified for it.
I personally believe the women rather than men invented pottery and bronse- age, because I am a master of litting fire but when that is done, the women are attracked and steal “my” fire and begin to give orders. They order proper flat stones and white cloths on the tables, and firewood orderly chopped and cracked and delivered in stove- size.
Then they show frappingly qualified in the red orange and yellow hot charcoals with irons and can fuse bronse as easy as that without ever having learnt it. They score further very high as goldsmiths and in then pottery. I have seen it also in peasant rural brewery, bakery and bathing.
Women who did not behave and react that way were not taken serious, were not “chosen and set on” and thus could hardly survive stone age, I believe. So they seem quite selected in recent time, because stone age was especially long.
You might not believe it but I have studied this. Urban and catolic girls both from thickest London and Praha who grew up upstairs in the industrial Casernae did show that kind of high nose manners at my carefully assembled and lit fire in the wilderness,
as has been obviously demonstrated also by my further “evangelical” Harem in Basel and in Niedersachsen
This is about climate science topics, and I suggested “style” of thinking and of research, different from facultary division and definition. “Style” and behaviours and deep instincs that may show up and try and take over in any faculty for their own “gender” interests and purposes..
Science history reports of ideas, according to which, women have no soul. Only men and horses have soul they say.
But That never occured to me. My spontaneous recognition told me that as far as soul is concerned and real, the cat also has soul. Other fur animals and birds also have soul. The real problem with women is that they have all to much soul for a poor man.
So that very scolarly scientific opinion must have been stated in a monastry early on, with dutyful lack of experience, and not valid universally.
Thus about climate research, who is entitled to define its limitations and the “style” of it?
Because the surrealists quite often say that they are the people and they are the church, the true and orthodox science, and the climate scientists live only in their own and corrupt and paid world; they are of some insane “gender”.
But there must be limits. Law, and order, also to climate research, and not for homo- sexual and anti- sexual, perverse monastries “Thinktanks” to interfere and to define on that..
I personally derive my climate understanding to a large extent from those microchosmic (Down to earth, below the moon) horizons, whereas others do try and prosecute by a sandstorm of dry digitalism with spiral springs between the grains, punctualoism atomism…the dust- bowl.
When will they take the glue-forces , the moistures, the van der Waals forces, and the Gouda- girls serious?
1. This is not about climate science
2 What scientific backing is asserted looks more like arguing from a prejudiced conclusion
3 It is biased tending towards offensive
4 English appears not to be the writer’s primary language, but the word salad is a little hard to digest, especially given the inherent nastiness in the claims presented
Misogyny and homophobia (etc.) are imbedded in ancient prejudices, but using them to build up one’s ego is contemptible. Science is a methodology built up over time to provide evidence-based objectivity.
Thank you, Susan. I haven’t been paying much attention to Carbomontanus, but now I see his prejudices on display. I agree they’re no more welcome on RC than racism is. I appeal to our moderators to deal as decisively with them!
Not all of his material is offensive, as far as I can see, but his command of colloquial American English is far from perfect (not, in itself, a serious flaw). However, he does appear to be tempted to build himself up by insulting others. As noted elsewhere, I am (a) not a scientists, and (b) not interested in amplifying messages in order to dispute them. This one, however, was way over the line, and I endorse what I wrote.
sick american puppies
Hr Schürle, Yes!
When were Olga Kalasnikova from the Patrty entitled and employed and by woom here,…….
…… to interfere with our relations and passports and human rights and facultary rights and duties, and with our communication lines?
Susan :
Carbomontanus ( lit. : Peak Coal ) seems to be in an eccentric, possibly stringy, orbit around Lubos Motl’s Prague-based Reference Frame.
The evidence suggests his Basel evangelical harem riff may relate to militant Anabaptism in Calvin’s time.
It is cautionary that the pushback included the Consistory of Geneva and the Thirty Years War.
Ahhh, thanks Russell, leave it to a more literate, knowledgeable, and encyclopaedic brain than mine to spot the join. Motl, that explains it.
Susan, You give me too much credit, but do e-mail- a dead laptop ate your contact info
@Susan
#RealBoring
#ReallyUnnecessary
#ReallyUncalledfor
18th century Jane Austen’s characters are continually watching, judging and gossiping about others and, in turn, are watched, judged and gossiped about.
https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/jane-austen-and-social-judgement
I won’t live in a Jane Austen novel. It’s 2021. It’s only a climate science discussion forum. It’s the global Internet with people of differing cultures, social norms and languages participating from all over the world.
Learn to deal with diversity. The beauty of human beings is in diversity!
Please stop making up these ludicrous fanciful unfounded theories and judgments about other people, without an ounce of “evidence-based objectivity”. Looks to me it is nothing more than opinionated self-righteous blather of no use to anyone.
The internet equivalent to the “evidence-based objectivity” of witch burning in Salem or Lynching for violating Jim Crow etiquette .
Deal with it. Do not start flame wars over nothing at all.
Instead of being bent out of shape, ignore such comments, including my own, or leave.
Science is a Consilience of Evidence that is eventually derived from the above. And leads to a consensus because the evidence becomes obvious and overwhelming.
Revolutionary science (Kuhn) occurs because of odd strange bits of unexplained or new evidence becomes incorporated into a new paradigm and a new consilience.
These are built from the previous evidence set and happen within our understanding rather than the objective evidence.
I’ve been looking for a moment to ask this question… I’ve followed this site and climate science sources generally for about 20 years – to stay as up to date as possible, without being a climate scientist myself. But there is one potential spanner in the works recently that I don’t have any info to refute. Dmitry Orlov, author of many books on collapse related topics, reports evidence that the oceans are warming, but from the *bottom* up (and releasing CO2 as they warm). Source of bottom-layer heating is said to be increased thermal emissions from earth’s core. Can anyone shed light on this? Possible, true, slightly true, or rubbish?
Regards, Andrew A.
[Response: This is nonsense. The warming up f the ocean is much higher near the surface – see this figure for instance. – gavin]
I’m using your letter more as a foil for writing, than directly talking at you. I think you already know well most of what I’ll say below. But there are others who may need to hear it. And so I want to say something to them while writing this as if I’m talking to you, instead….
Andrew, you are facing similar problems that most of us face; those anyway who can’t afford the time and effort needed to achieve a comprehensive on some narrow topic. And that is that we don’t have to tools for proper discernment and therefore many arguments may seem reasonable and in need of refutation.
You did the right thing to write your question out and just ask. You have an answer and I hope it helps. It was kind of you to write as you did, too. Nicely asked!
I also lack most of the needed tools, too. I struggle. When it comes down to it, if I really care, then I will write to a scientist who specializes in some area of interest by email or call by phone and just ask for their help.
It’s been a wonderful set of experiences for me and I’ve learned far more this way about how things work than I might otherwise have, striking out on my own and just reading. I remember well a conversation with a young scientist at Woods Hole helping me understand a then-current understanding of the dynamics of carbon storage in boreal forest systems, for example. (He talked at length about his work in Canadian forests.) Some of my better and more fond memories are of this kind, in fact. I’ve been dealt with, very, very generously. And I’m in their debt for what I’ve been given.
Unfortunately, those who seek to confuse and confound the public and/or to complicate and frustrate the ability of scientists to communicate accurately with the public, use our ignorance as a weapon and tool. One of the ways is to “propose” something that is reasonable-sounding and then use an innate and visceral sense of a desire for fairness that most of us share to continue some of their own goals.
Continue to ask here or else take a moment and learn about a few organizations that you can write or call when you wonder about something you are being told. Just like what you did here. But I’d encourage you, when and if you feel the motivation, to try a phone call someday. If you are curious about ice, try the folks at the NSIDC. If you are curious about forest systems or the ocean, try Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Just give these folks a call and tell the secretary about the subject of the question and if there is anyone who might be willing to call you back on it. (There are many similar, excellent organizations.)
Take advantage of your curiosity and allow someone who knows their stuff well to share their work with you. Most will actually enjoy the opportunity! It’s not that often that someone from the public just calls a scientist, curious about what they may have learned, digging around in some peat bog, last summer! Many will be eating out of your hand, if you allow them the chance.
Best wishes,
Jon
#RealRespectful
#RealKindness
#ReallyMature
#RealHelpful
#RealDecent
#ReallyTrue
#RealGoodExampleofaRealGoodCommenttoMakeonRealClimate
The Seattle Times covers the latest Cliff Mass pronouncements: Seattle meteorologist Cliff Mass sparks controversy by diving into heat wave climate science
Not holding my breath.
Jim, it only took one visit to his site to see that he is playing the “I’m-even-crazier-right-wing” card as a career enhancement. Almost certain to get a job on the Fox weather channel, don’t you think?
Lots of illogical claims in a variety of areas beyond the climate question, but his fans obviously aren’t going to care. It’s a feature not a bug.
upside down day!
Daily CO2
Aug. 2, 2021 = 413.59 ppm
Aug. 2, 2020 = 413.6 ppm
Noisy, but we can enjoy the moment if we want.
Mike
I would appreciate some expert evaluation of the latest on land-based greenhouse gas emissions which is now going the rounds:
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-permafrost-greenhouse-gas-depth.html
Also mentioned in WaPo, if you are a subscriber:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/02/climate-change-heat-wave-unleashes-methane-from-prehistoric-siberian-rock/
I believe it’s a matter of proportion – for starters I looked up the usual chart (“Atmospheric lifetime and GWP relative to CO2 at different time horizon for various greenhouse gases” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas ) on Wikipedia (also, if you know, is that chart up to date?). It is all too common for moderately informed worriers to go overboard about these kinds of emissions, but I’d like to know “what’s wrong” and “what’s right” with it, beyond what I can read for myself.
Those who focus exclusively on extreme dry bulb temperatures are missing a large part of the picture. That includes the deadly Chicago heat wave of 1995.
Really extreme dew points continue to be reported near the shores of the Persian Gulf, with the water temperature near its seasonal maximum. At least half a dozen sites have reported dew points of 32C (90F) since the end of July. Persian Gulf Airport – OIBP – recorded 42/33 on July 28. Both Gheshm Island Airport – OIKQ, and Jask Airport – OIZJ have recorded 38/34 since then. All produce wet bulb temperatures around 34.7C, where 35C is the approximate lethal temperature for healthy people. OIZJ recorded 8 continuous hourly readings of 34C dew points on Aug. 1.
Latest research: “New ‘methane bomb’ found in Siberia’s permafrost”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300373771/climate-change-new-methane-bomb-found-in-siberias-permafrost
Thawing limestone releasing hydrocarbons and gas hydrates.
It’s not that big a deal. from the article:
“We would have expected elevated methane in areas with wetlands,” Froitzheim said. “But these were not over wetlands but on limestone outcrops. There is very little soil in these. It was really a surprising signal from hard rock, not wetlands.”
The carbonates in the outcroppings date back 541 million years to the Paleozoic era, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
“It’s intriguing. It’s not good news if it’s right,” said Robert Max Holmes, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Nobody wants to see more potentially nasty feedbacks and this is potentially one.”
“What we do know with quite a lot of confidence is how much carbon is locked up in the permafrost. It’s a big number and as the Earth warms and permafrost thaws, that ancient organic matter is available to microbes for microbial processes and that releases CO2 and methane,” Holmes said. “If something in the Arctic is going to keep me up at night that’s still what it is.” But he said the paper warranted further study.
Mike @6,
There have been four solitary days over the last six months with ESRL reporting MLO CO2 levels lower than the-day-a-year-before, what you term “upside down days”. They are inconsequential and as you appear to suggest, no more than noise.
What can be said of the MLO CO2 record of recent months is that it has not yet responded very robustly to the continuing La Niña. As in recent La Niña events, with anthropogenic CO2 emissions continuing at ≈10Gt(C)/year we would perhaps expect to see at MLO periods with the monthly-averaged annual rise in CO2 dropping well below +2ppm/year
So far through 2021 the wobbles have seen weekly-averaged CO2 increases dipping down below +1.0ppm/year with the Scripps data (a little above +1.0ppm/year with the ESRL data) from late March through to the start of June. This gave the odd week and fortnight of rolling 30-day averages below +2.0ppm/year. Since that time the wobbles have been less ‘deep’ and the rolling 30-day averages have been running along a little below +2.5ppm/year.
These dips-so-far below +2.0ppm/year are a lot less than we have seen through previous La Niñas, the dips through 2008, 2010/11, 2013 and 2016/17, despite the recent ENSO numbers (eg the MEI index) suggesting a stronger La Niña today than those since the 2010/11 event.
But those more-robust dips in CO2 may yet appear through coming days & months.
at mar 10: That sounds right to me as best I understand what you are trying to convey. We use different lexicons. I think the background rate of CO2 increase is about 2.4 ppm per year if we could knock out all the noise, wobbles, etc. It sounds like you are seeing a similar number on the rolling 30 day averages.
I think we are going to have a lot of chatter when the next hot EN cycle comes around. Some of that chatter will be about yoy CO2 numbers, but I think the bulk of the chatter will be about extreme weather events. Those grab headlines.
Cheers
Mike
Methane releases from limestone? Is that a methane bomb? I read that article, too.
from the WAPO article: ““It’s intriguing. It’s not good news if it’s right,” said Robert Max Holmes, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Nobody wants to see more potentially nasty feedbacks and this is potentially one.”
“What we do know with quite a lot of confidence is how much carbon is locked up in the permafrost. It’s a big number and as the Earth warms and permafrost thaws, that ancient organic matter is available to microbes for microbial processes and that releases CO2 and methane,” Holmes said. “If something in the Arctic is going to keep me up at night that’s still what it is.” But he said the paper warranted further study.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/02/climate-change-heat-wave-unleashes-methane-from-prehistoric-siberian-rock/
The methane bomb will probably go off rather slowly, but would be wise to assume that it could happen quickly and stop the warming that will drive methane releases. It’s too bad we don’t act wisely.
Cheers
[Response: It’s not totally clear that this is real. See this thread for instance:
https://twitter.com/carBenPoulter/status/1422373962844082178
-gavin]
the authors of the underlying study could be wrong, of course, but this is from that study:
“The almost perfect coincidence between the stripes where carbonate rocks crop out and the elongated concentration maxima strongly suggests that the maxima result from geologically controlled methane emissions from the ground. These cannot represent microbial methane from the decay of soil organic matter because soils are thin to nonexistent, nor can they come from wetlands because there are relatively few wetlands on the carbonate rocks, nor from vegetation because there is hardly any. Consequently, the source must be thermogenic methane from the subsurface. The Paleozoic carbonates are potential hydrocarbon reservoir rocks (10). This opens the possibility that methane was emitted from gas stored in the carbonates, probably in the form of gas hydrate.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/32/e2107632118
We wait for additional studies to support or refute the suggestion of emissions from rock reported by Froitzheim et al.
It should not surprize us.
Limestone and marble can be bitumineous indeed. The fameous Ekofisk oil and gasfield in the North sea was found in “Upper critaceus” = the same formation as the white cliffs of Dover and the Champagne- chalk.
So all the premises are there if there is limestone also in the Tundra.
And it may be bound in the form of Metanhydrat that is not stable at 1 bar but stable indeed at low temperature and higher geologic pressure deeper down.
And if that thaws….CH4 of rather fossile origin different from recent biological activities in marshes and thawing tundra, may come up.
There are fameous, large mud and Metan- volcanoes in Aserbadschan and the Caspian sea, so why not in Siberia?
Limestones are notoriously porous. Makes for lovely underground tourist attractions. Really suck for sequestration.
Dr. I. Czar
An artist colleague of mine told that, when cutting into “marble” of finest kind in all colours from Italia and elsewhere with higthspeed “diamond” electric saws,…
it smells…….sheere…. Fæces.
Promp & bæsj & dritt… we call it,….
….so no wonder at all!
10 MA Rodger kirjoitti:
Warmer nights, warmer winters, warmer LN’s. Consistent. Given LAs are now warmer than EN’s used to be, these results are unsurprising.
LN’s.
Typo.
Oops.
“This month is IPCC month – the Sixth Assessment Report from Working Group 1 is out on Monday August 9.”
Here’s my prediction. Surprisingly, we’ll see the IPCC backtrack on several key issues, based on a thorough and unbiased review of the most significant evidence.
Case in point: They will finally concede the total lack of any consistent correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Taking into account that the temp. rise from 1910 through 1940 was largely due to natural forcings, since the rise in CO2 levels was relatively minor; taking into account the following period of 40 years during which global temps either fell or remained level while CO2 levels rose precipitously; taking into account the unlikelihood that industrial aerosols could have masked an underlying temp. rise, since we see essentially the same picture in so many regions where industrial activity was low or nonexistent; taking into account that the period of roughly 1979-1998 was the ONLY period where CO2 levels and global temps rose in tandem; taking into account that during the following period from 1998 through 2015 (known to all climate scientists as “the pause”) global temps rose only slightly while CO2 levels continued to soar.
Case in point: They will finally concede the total lack of correlation between sea level rise and global temps since the late 1800’s through the present. During this period of well over 100 years, average sea levels have risen steadily at roughly the same rate (sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower) despite dramatic temp. rises between 1910 and 1940, equally dramatic temp. drops during the period 1940 through 1979, and a similar rise from 1979 to 1998.
Case in point: they will finally concede the lack of any consistent trend in the direction of greater or more prolonged droughts, as reflected in the following graph (https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsdata.2014.1/MediaObjects/41597_2014_Article_BFsdata20141_Fig5_HTML.jpg?as=webp), as published in Nature, 2014.
Case in point: they will finally concede the lack of any upward trend in N. Atlantic hurricanes over the last 140 years: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/images/cyclones-download1-2016.png?itok=b4bsXTPx
Case in point: they will finally concede that the recent heatwaves in the Pacific Northwest were by no means unprecedented (https://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/heat-waves_download3_2021.png )
I predict that their willingness to backtrack on so many crucial points will create a political firestorm that could bring the entire “climate change” movement to its knees. Can you imagine?
Well, frankly I for one cannot. Very sadly, these “scientists” will have no incentive to upset the applecart to which they have been dutifully harnessed all these many years. Assuming they are willing to check out all the points I’ve made above (they won’t be) and subject them to their most rigorous tests (they can’t be bothered) they will have no incentive to concede even the smallest points.
And so — life goes on. Enjoy your awkward dance toward oblivion.
Idiocy, pure and simple.
I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating.
The level of ego-inflated arrogant ignorance of Victor is mind boggling.
Victor, in his completely deluded self-importance believes that he alone, a science illiterate, is capable of pointing out the flaws of the science behind AGW. Likewise, Victor, untrained in statistics, believes he can lecture experts on the proper use of statistics. Those that have attempted to point out the absurdity of his arguments over and over again based on the science, the evidence, and often their substantial expertise are apparently just losers incapable of recognizing the genius of Victor. Victor just knows better.
Victor couldn’t possibly be wrong, he is so brilliant. The facts be damned. Rinse lather, repeat. It is tiresome and oh so boorish.
His attempt once again for the umpteenth time to rehash points like a supposed lack of correlation among other things that have been thoroughly debunked in the past belong in the Borehole, or better yet, the Crankshaft.
Bless BPL, a trained physicist, who has demonstrated skills in statistical analyses for trying futilely to set Victor straight once again. Sigh. Unfortunately, necessary, but wasted on poor Victor.
Victor, a musicologist, makes up his own definition of correlation–in his clueless mind, it must be clearly visible and in lockstep, which is completely wrong. Of course the whole purpose of a statistical correlation analysis of a time series is to help determine the strength of one variable in a multivariate relationship. It should be obvious that this is necessary because the relationship of one variable can be lost in the noise of all the other variables. But not to dear Victor. To Victor *correlation* must be something that is visually obvious. That is absurd.
There most certainly is correlation where the ignorant Victor says there is none. Doing the statistical analysis clearly shows it.
Yes, idiocy, pure and simple.
Victor is just a clueless idiot, pure and simple.
CCHolley: Those that have attempted to point out the absurdity of his arguments over and over again based on the science, the evidence, and often their substantial expertise are apparently just losers incapable of recognizing
RtW: that they are being trolled.
Yo, Vic! Welcome back. The fishing is still grand here. Have fun.
CCHolley,
You say “Victor has been ridiculing and insulting climate scientists on this site while posting his *garbage* for going on seven years now.” [My bold]
Is it really that long? Stone the crows!! It is!!!
@CCHolley
#RealRidicule
#ReallyInsulting
#RealVerbalAbuse
#ReallyPathetic
#RealCluelessness
#RealGoodExampleoftheGarbagePostedtoRealClimate
@Reality Check
Now that’s funny.
Victor has been ridiculing and insulting climate scientists on this site while posting his *garbage* for going on seven years now.
#ReallyRealGarbage.
In my humble opinion he’s earned the right to be treated with contempt. You may find that pathetic and clueless on my part and you may well be right. You may even have better ideas on how to handle, or should I say not handle, trolling denialism while keeping the discussion *focused* on a site run by climate scientists for the purpose of informed discussion of the science. However, I’ve worked too long and too hard in advocating for action on climate change while having to continually counter the misinformed beliefs of elected officials and other policy influencers that I’ve unfortunately totally lost patience with denier trolls like Victor.
#RealCurmudgeon
Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
Congratulations! You’re still an IDIOT!
I would have thought that by reading and via discussion with REAL Climate Scientists you would have learned a thing or two but, Nope. You’re still an Idiot.
That’s what I call being consistent!
Victor, the correlation coefficient for carbon dioxide and temperature is on the order of .92 – .93, so if you think that any scientist is going to say that there is no correlation, you are dreaming. You sound like Mike Lindell.
@Victor
#RealHumour
#ReallyEntertainingFiction
#RealAnnoyingfortheInsecure
#RealDistractionfortheUnfocusedSmallMindedEgotist
#ReallyWorksEverytime
Is this what we call whisful thinking?
There I have a very much better advice.
Now comes “Lorenzo” the St Laurentius night and day, 11 & 12 Aug, the Perseide- meteor swarm, that is the best of the year
Then the Italian astronomers lay down on the ground all with heads together in a star- form and look right up. and say ” oooooooh ” everytime there is a strong “falling star”.
During that stripe falling,… afterwards it is too late, you must whish it quite conscious and clearly. and you can whish whatever you want. But rather conscider your true and very highest whishes and keep them ready for that festival.
Then the chanses of your whishes come true, will improove quite consciderably.
Lorenzo is the annual festival of whisful thinking in Italia, so that whisful thinking does not spread all over the year, a quite scientific method.
Maybe Victor is trying to celebrate Lorenzo for us here? at a season where there are strong perseides enough indeed right up in the sky at night, for all those whishes.
#15 Where is that borehole again?
Sorry to be a pest, but this from Gavin is not enough:
[Response: It’s not totally clear that this is real. See this thread for instance:
https://twitter.com/carBenPoulter/status/1422373962844082178
-gavin]
The item is spreading like a game of “gossip”, fast and furious, and people who should know better are promoting it. I hope you will provide proper scientific analysis quickly.
hmmm … I see from the Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/02/climate-crisis-siberian-heatwave-led-to-new-methane-emissions-study-says – that Gavin Schmidt contributed to the work in question. The Guardian article provides clarity and perspective, but I continue to be alarmed by the responses I’m seeing hither and yon. Of course scientists are not in a position to correct gossip and innuendo from parties whose tendency to oversimplify and exaggerate shows a deficit in education in critical thinking (whether on the side of help or harm), but I wish it were possible to do so ;)
not a big deal. Methane from thawing permafrost is sufficient if you choose to worry about methane. That’s my take. Cheers
Covid infection data and covid mortality data don’t correlate ‘perfectly’, so I guess that means covid doesn’t cause death in Victors crazy world.
#12 Gavin’s note:
I have read through the substance of the twitter commentary and to me it does not address the issue clearly — especially Fig 1 panels region-wide concentration increase in March to April 2021. or the high CH4 levels shown in the winter panels thru late 2020 into 2021, which are quite different than May 2020 (Green).
So when Benjamin Poulter says this: ” a marked increase since June 2020″ – is relative to a two month record that began in April 2020. Of course the CH4 enhancement will increase in summer months.” it does not sound like it fits the real world observations presented in the paper. Nor it’s commentary.
eg The almost perfect coincidence between the stripes where carbonate rocks crop out and the elongated concentration maxima strongly suggests that the maxima result from geologically controlled methane emissions from the ground.
The regional emission observations continued long after the strips disappeared. Right through winter to May 2021. Are the first two panels May/June 2020 an anomaly for that time frame; Or is it the May/June 2021 panels?
He mentions albedo problems in detection because the limestone features where the authors detected CH4 enhancements, have high albedo!
– but may/june 2020 (green), is the same location in may/june 2021 (strong yellow with red) … so? What’s his point?
His ref example of High Albedo problem areas in Red here https://twitter.com/carBenPoulter/status/1422373969206956033/photo/1 does not show red in high Siberia region, which the paper is about.
eg he says Of course the CH4 enhancement will increase in summer months> – Well, generlaly speaking sure, especialy post a heat wave, right? But it sounds very unlikely (illogical) CH4 enhancement would be sustained or increase in the subsequent Winter months, as shown in Figure 1 panels – yet, Benjamin ignores this, Why?
Could you please explain why Poulter’s twitter opinion is better, more astute, than the content of the published paper? Thx.
PS Quote: Methane release from carbonate rock formations in the Siberian permafrost area
The spring 2021 concentration increase is unusual because the area was still snow-covered and temperatures were low (curve in Fig. 1). Methane emissions during spring thaw are known from Arctic permafrost but these occur generally later, around end of May (13). The area of maximum spring 2021 concentration increase coincides with the maximum of 2020 temperature anomaly, i.e., the Taymyr Peninsula and surroundings, making a link between summer 2020 heat wave and spring 2021 methane emission plausible.
and their primary finding is about this:
To conclude, our observations hint at the possibility that permafrost thaw does not only release microbial methane from formerly frozen soils but also, and potentially in much higher amounts, thermogenic methane from reservoirs below and within the permafrost. As a result, the permafrost–methane feedback may be much more dangerous than suggested by studies accounting for microbial methane alone.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/32/e2107632118
Some ground station CH4 monitoring units would be handy. Very easy to parse uncertainties about sat data in a second. No doubting, maybes, or questioning required.
PPS Benjamin says: “The alarmism over Siberian methane-climate feedbacks is most likely WRONG – to put it mildly – headlines like “Satellite images reveal a climate crisis nightmare in Siberia” overlook some fundamentally questionable issues with the article” https://twitter.com/carBenPoulter/status/1422373962844082178
Would someone on Twitter please be kind enough to point out to Benjamin Poulter the authors of the Paper did not write the articles nor create the Headlines about the paper?
Benjamin also says: “Third, in winter months, high-latitudes are dark 24 hours a day & so the sun doesn’t provide energy for satellites to measure surface reflectance & thus atmospheric CH4… ” https://twitter.com/carBenPoulter/status/1422373979495469058
However, weekly changes can be viewed on https://pulse.ghgsat.com/ from april 2020 thru july 2021 which suggests something different. You’ll need to blow up the global map and locate the region just west of the Laptev sea.
I do wonder if Benjamin bothered to check with the authors first before posting his comments to Twitter.
Newspaper Articles by Jounos and Bloggers are too easy to critcise, and not worth the effort. Methane Bomb is in the public domain now. So what if the lightweight journos, the ignorant or stirrers use it?
It’s the actual content of the published paper that should count, and it;s that which should be discussed, highlighted, or corrected objectively and maturely.
Besides, there isn’t enough alarmism going on about everything climate related as it is – so overreacting by immediately minimizing, or DISMISSING Out of Hand or UNDERMINING NEW REPORTS of potentially unexpected additional permafrost–methane feedbacks is not a sane or helpful response.
Even if they end up being Wrong … but the Bold Caps WRONG in the first Twitter post is self-indulgent, unnecessary, unfounded, unscientific, unsupported, and way over the top.
It’s as big a stuff up, an even bigger beat up than the over the top headlines are.
Obviously I expect way too much. My Bad.
The Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for July with a global SAT anomaly of +0.33ºC, the highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date and up on the May anomaly of +0.21ºC. The Jan-Jun 2021 monthly anomalies sat in the range +0.06ºC to +0.26ºC.
July 2021 is the 3rd warmest July on the ERA5 record behind 2019 (+0.40ºC) & 2016 (+0.36ºC) and July 2021 is the 43rd highest anomaly in the all-month EAR5 record.
The first seven months of 2021 averages +0.21ºC and is the 6th warmest start-to-the-year on the ERA5 record. For the full calendar year to climb to 5th spot above 2018 wound require the 2021 Aug-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +0.34ºC while to maintain 6th position (thus ahead of 2015), the average 2021 monthly anomaly Aug-Dec would have to exceed +0.32ºC. To drop below 2010 into 8th position the average Aug-Dec anomaly would have to drop below a chilly +0.02ºC.
…….. Jan-Jul Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.21ºC
2010 .. +0.18ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2007 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 13th
1998 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 15th
2014 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
2002 .. +0.05ºC … … … +0.00ºC … … … 16th
V: They will finally concede the total lack of any consistent correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
BPL: You seem unable to learn. There is a dramatic, very high, extremely significant correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. No matter how many times you say there isn’t, you’ll still be long. This is not something opinions can honestly differ on; the correlation is a number which can be computed from the data, and always gives the same answer. You are simply wrong, as wrong as if you said 2 + 2 = 7.
For once we agree BPL, there is a very high correlation, it’s just that CO2 lags temp by 6 months
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1961.15
Keith Woollard,
You presented a rather silly comment on last month’s UV thread about the question of primacy between chicken and egg (which obviously is the egg’s as there were eggs well before the first ever chicken evolved to peck its way out into the world, out of the egg laid by its non-chicken mother) to which you then offered the answer “temperature” acompanied by a link to this WoodForTrees graphic.
Now you troll in with this similarly ambiguous comment that “CO2 lags temp by 6 months.”
If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not trolling and were genuinely ignorant on this matter, I would suggest you be aware that the proper question (and a far better one than the chicken & egg version) is:-
If WoodForTrees provided use of the MEI Index or some other ENSO variable, (the PDO is provided and sort-of approximates ENSO) you would see that ENSO wobbles precede both temperature wobbles and CO2 wobbles and indeed drives both global temperature wobbles and CO2 wobbles,
But then, you’ve been trolling around long enough to know that.
MAR – What came first; El Niño or La Niña?????
Really? Here you are talking about an oscillating sequence between two arbitrary endpoints. I was talking about two different signals and how they relate. Instead did you mean to say ENSO Vs Temp?
And that is a fine question, but a different one.
BPL’s comment was about the temp Vs CO2 correlation. I plotted it and it is clear there is a good correlation and it is also clear that there is a delay between temperature change and CO2 change
Keith Woollard,
So when you asked in the July UV thread “Q. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” with the link to this WoodForTrees plot with the appended answer “A. Temperature”, what were you actually asking?
It was plain you were not really asking, about the initiator of a …->chicken->egg->chicken->egg->…. sequence, your “oscillating sequence between two arbitrary endpoints..” It is more likely that you were insinuating the erroneous view that CO2 (or more precisely ‘CO2 wobbles’) result from temperature (or more precisely ‘from temperature wobbles’).
To scotch this erroneous view, up-thread here I linked to evidence showing it is not that temperature waggles CO2 but that both are waggled by ENSO. You will find this to be true if you care to desist from trolling and take a look.
And so may I make so bold as to correct your comment up-thread here.
“it’s just that CO2 wobbles lag ENSO by ~6 months more than temperature wobbles lag ENSO by“.
I understand your point MAR, but the data does not support that assumption. See:-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/bz4qjRMTBjsjeKX4A
Clearly I can’t put ENSO on the woodfortrees graph, so I took the two time series out of woodfortrees, put them in to excel and added the ENSO divided by 40 from here:- https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/soi
It’s a messy display I am sorry, but using a screen dump I can’t really give you the ability to turn off various components. Suffice to say the CO2:Temp correlation is far far better than either of those compared with ENSO.
IMHO, you could argue that ENSO has an effect on temperature, but the affect of temperature on CO2 is far more obvious
Keith Woollard,
You say you understand but then make a complete horlicks of investigating.
Your graphic of nicely smoothed temperature and CO2 wobbles is polluted by an un-smoothed scrawly monthly record of Darwin-Tahiti sea level data. If you could be bothered to smooth the sea level data (for some other ENSO proxy), you would see it creates over most of its length a sweetly oscillating trace a few months in advance of both temperature and the laggard CO2.
Here is one I did earlier showing MEI preceding HadCRUT4 (although the individual links to graphs have been misbehaving on GoogleSites recently – if so click HERE and find Graph XI – it’s one of the yellow ones)..
As for your “far more obvious” nonsense, do read the link provided up-thread, which I provide again. Or try HERE or HERE or HERE etc.
Mar “Your graphic of nicely smoothed temperature and CO2” – No you are completely incorrect. The woodfortrees graph had the formula. There is no smoothing. As you don’t understand how it was made I will explain it in English …. each value is derived from the difference in value at this month compared to the average of that same month for the previous 5 years. This is done to remove seasonal variations as CO2@ML is highly seasonal and temperature is somewhat seasonal. ENSO is not. I first tried the same workflow for ENSO and the results were noisier.
In general I avoid smoothing and didn’t want to smooth ENSO and not the rest. but was hoping you could still gain insight. I used the “traditional ENSO index” from this page.
https://www.weather.gov/fwd/indices
If you feel there is a better one, let me know and I will use it instead. In the mean time, here is the same graphic as last time, with the ENSO trace replaced with a 12 month moving average and reversed sign. I also removed CO2 just to make it cleaner.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/KwEXhJCb2bEBXXMP8
and as a reminder, here is the CO2 Vs Temp plot at the same scale (no smoothing)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/2FBrpeqv6P4X35LM8
From these two plots alone, what I deduce is
1) The Temp Vs CO2 is a far better correlation than the smoothed ENSO Vs Temp
2) The Temp always leads CO2
3) ENSO sometimes leads Temp (e.g. 1967), sometimes lags (2008) and sometimes is in sync (1998)
4) ENSO and Temp are related, but the only way you can say one drives the other is if you choose a small time window as in the link you posted
5) Temp drives CO2 at least in the short term
Keith Woollard,
You are evidently a serious idiot if you think your downloading of WoodForTrees data labelled
does not download smoothed data!!
And the “Isolated from 60-running mean” does not say that
but surprise surprise says
Did you not notice the start date of the downloaded “Isolated from 60-running mean” data series! And when did Keeling begin his measurements at Mauna Loa?
Note also that if an idiot as stupid or uninformed as yourself were to attempt to identify the relative timing of wobbles in a set of data series, not appreciating this ‘centering’ would be fatal to your efforts.
I did point out that PDO was not a million miles away from being a proxy for ENSO. This WoodForTrees graphic may disillusion you of your ignorance regarding the ENSO wobbles and how they are precede the global temperature wobbles as well as the CO2 wobbles, this as a first step to grasping that it is ENSO that drives these temperature and CO2 wobbles both.
Still not smoothed. It’s a residual plot. I just misunderstood what the base it was removing from
And the base used to calculate the residual doesn’t move the location (in time) of the value. All those conclusions are still valid
Keith Woollard,
So “Averaged with 12-sample running mean” doesn’t yield smoothed data? Take a look at THIS and think about it.
Note I will be accusing you of trolling shortly. Surely nobody can be so thick!!
@MA Rodgers
Thanks for your clarifying posts on this, hadn’t seen the studies on the relationship of CO2 to ENSO before. Interesting stuff.
OK MAR, I am wrong about smoothing, but again, that doesn’t make any difference to the timing of the event nor the conclusions I made.
As a reminder :-
“From these two plots alone, what I deduce is
1) The Temp Vs CO2 is a far better correlation than the smoothed ENSO Vs Temp
2) The Temp always leads CO2
3) ENSO sometimes leads Temp (e.g. 1967), sometimes lags (2008) and sometimes is in sync (1998)
4) ENSO and Temp are related, but the only way you can say one drives the other is if you choose a small time window as in the link you posted
5) Temp drives CO2 at least in the short term”
From the data presented, are any of these statements incorrect?
Keith Woollard,
This has become ridiculously tedious.
You ask if any of your grand deductions are incorrect and “Yes. All of them.” is perhaps the best reply.
Just take the final part of #3 where you assert that in 1998 the temperature wobble and the ENSO wobble are “in sync” with neither wobbling earlier or later.
The monthly data you appear to be looking at is monthly HadCRUT4 and NOAA SOI data which certainly are not wobbling “in sync” through 1998. Look at the data and what do we find?
The ‘upside-down’ SOI has a peak value in January while HadCRUT4 has a peak value in February. And taking a running 12-month average to iron out the noise, the ‘upside-down’ SOI peaks May-April while HadCRUT4 peaks Sept-August. And ‘upside-down’ SOI sits positive (thus El Niño conditions) from March97 through to April98 while HadCRUT4 sits above its 5-year average from June97 through to Oct998. If that’s “in sync” you must be speaking a different language to me.
Now demonstrate that with the fit listed, Keith, including a p-value. And show that your time lag isn’t cherry-picked.
The 6 months was done purely visually, give me a day or so and I will do it properly with a cross-correlation
Cross correlation coefficient is 0.75, time shift is 4.49 months
See:-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/9KdQDwjNknikSszV7
time (in months) is down the vertical axis. CO2 on left, temperature (shifted down 4.49 months) is on the right. I had to display each dataset twice as that is a limitation of the software I used
Which still raises the question of interpretation: what does it mean that GLOBAL temperature lags CO2 AT MAUNA LOA?
If we’re talking about longer time scales, that’s not such a crucial question, since CO2 is well-mixed. But if we’re talking about 4 1/2 months, then we’re talking about the fine points of seasonal phasing, or so it would seem.
Interesting.
What this seems to show to me is the seasonal cycle. As temperatures go up in the northern hemisphere spring CO2 levels go down as plants begin to grow and absorb CO2. In the fall as temperatures go down and plants die off or go dormant, CO2 levels start to go back up. I think this would show what you see in the data. Temperature and plant growth actually drives CO2 levels rather than visa versa in the short term.
As for long term correlation of temperatures to CO2 levels and the timing, you would have to start with the data from when CO2 and temperatures were at equilibrium. That is, preindustrial. And then look at the timing of when temperatures started going up versus when CO2 started going up. This would be a difficult analysis because we do not have good data on CO2 levels prior to the start of Keeling’s work in the 1950s, nor do we have accurate temperatures prior to the beginning of the global instrumental record.
To say that the long term temperature changes lag CO2 is just not possible from your analysis.
Reply to CCHolley, not to Keith (we hit the limit of nested replies)
CCHolley: “As for long term correlation of temperatures to CO2 levels and the timing, you would have to start with the data from when CO2 and temperatures were at equilibrium. That is, preindustrial. And then look at the timing of when temperatures started going up versus when CO2 started going up. This would be a difficult analysis because we do not have good data on CO2 levels prior to the start of Keeling’s work in the 1950s, nor do we have accurate temperatures prior to the beginning of the global instrumental record.”
It would be a difficult analysis because we don’t have good CO2 or temperature data going back far enough in time? ARE YOU KIDDING? THE TEMPERATURE/CO2 CORRELATION IS A MAIN TENET OF AGW THEORY!!!!!! So the denialists are right? The evidence for AGW is weak?
RE. Mr. Know Knothing
Of course not. More silly talk from Mr. Know Nothing.
What is difficult is determining the exact temperature lag to the increases in CO2 levels. The evidence that increases in CO2 are raising temperatures is just about as strong as the evidence that the earth is spherical. Someday Mr. Know Nothing may actually look at that evidence, but I surly won’t hold my breath.
And I’ll just tidy up a few misconceptions here
Kevin, no not seasonal. Those temperature swings have a 4 ‘ish year period. And as I pointed out to you last month, it doesn’t make any difference if you use NH, SH or global temp. If it was a seasonal thing, then using the NH vs SH would lead to a different lag – and it doesn’t
CCHolley – same as above. And I have never claimed that this shows anything about the long term trend. Although it is curious that the short term trend clearly shows temp driving CO2, as well as the paleo record showing that. It’s almost like higher temperatures mean the oceans can hold less CO2 – who’d have thunk it! And let me be clear, I am not saying the current increase in CO2 since 1800 is not man made – it is. What I am saying is that the correlation between CO2 and temp does not imply CO2 is the master dial. And I will completely ignore the whole “equilibrium” baloney – never have been, never will be
Nothing unusual about the CO2 / ENSO correlation — this has been known for awhile.
See this 2005 paper “Terrestrial mechanisms of interannual CO2 variability”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GB002273
V: They will finally concede the total lack of correlation between sea level rise and global temps since the late 1800’s through the present.
BPL: Wrong again. See above. You need to learn what “correlation” means.
V: the lack of any consistent trend in the direction of greater or more prolonged droughts
BPL: Wrong again.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jgrd.50355
BPL: Wrong again.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jgrd.50355
V: Hi Bart. You should read the papers you link to:
“In conclusion, the evidence for unusually strong or
widespread annually averaged drying, as suggested in the
2007 IPCC AR4 report [Trenberth et al., 2007] is not supported by the evidence of the current work, . . The analysis reported here suggests that part of the drying trend in the last few decades is related to increases
in temperature and Potential Evapotranspiration. However,
the areas most affected are still isolated (Figure 16) and no
strong indication of a widespread drying trend is evident.”
Victor says
5 AUG 2021 AT 12:34 PM
BPL: Wrong again.
V: Hi Bart. You should read the papers you link to:
Weaktor, if your music is as bad as your scientific musings Billy Ray Cyrus may be in trouble.
Good piece in the G about rewilding:
“The fertile land of Norfolk is home to a host of stately homes, rare wildlife and more ponds than any other county. Now, estates in the area are trying to hunt down ancient “ghost ponds” in the hopes of reviving centuries-old seeds and discovering long-lost plants.
Botanists believe that this will lead to new plant discoveries; seeds can survive for centuries under layers of leaves and mud so once they are given water and exposed to sunlight the plants will grow. Already, six plants of the endangered wetland flower grass-poly have been found at the edge of an old cattle-watering pond on the Heydon estate in north Norfolk. The species had not been seen in the county since the early 1900s.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/01/norfolks-rediscovered-ghost-ponds-offer-up-trove-of-long-lost-plants?utm_term=429eecc8711b096386f10fec1a88a690&utm_campaign=GreenLight&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email
the planet is resilient, species come and go.
I like the new design look. It’s too bad it doesn’t have the “hush” and “hide” commenter function. Can that be added?
Cheers
Mike
Indeed. A minus button would be a plus. However, it may not be practical/practicable.
I always used the word practical – practicable seems weird – do you agree?
No. They are different words with different meanings. If you “always” use practical, you are probably doing it wrong.
another rewilding story:
Trees, grasses and wildlife are returning as Lord Randal Plunkett recreates a vanished landscape in County Meath
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/07/people-think-youre-an-idiot-death-metal-irish-baron-rewilds-his-estate
Cliff sure does enjoy playing the victim. Scroll down to:
The Seattle Times Hit Piece
The scientists’ rebuttal linked in the article contained a powerful statement I wish had been quoted, at least in part, in the article.
“The late June Pacific Northwest heat wave was an unanticipated event not foreseen by climate models or statistical analyses of the observed records. Clearly there is much yet to be learned about heat waves and our models and analyses must be improved. But it is also clear that climate change led to a large and dangerous increase in the severity of the heat wave. Professor Mass’ blog post is a fundamental misrepresentation of the causality of complex events and irresponsibly under-represents the role of global warming in June of 2021.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21012982-wwaresponse
It would have been irresponsible to quote that in the article because it is not true. The proof is in the historical record. The recent heat wave barely broke records that had been in place since CO2 was at essentially pre-industrial levels, so no correlation can be made between the recent record temperatures and AGW – it is just part of the variability of weather that has always occurred. Thus, many high temp records were set when CO2 was WAY lower than today.
Does this mean AGW isn’t real? No, it merely proves that high temps cannot be blamed on AGW, or if they can be then the high temps that occurred BEFORE AGW would prove AGW theory to be false.
I don’t think you read that right. Nothing false about what the article stated.
KIA: The recent heat wave barely broke records that had been in place since CO2 was at essentially pre-industrial levels, so no correlation can be made between the recent record temperatures and AGW
BPL: Thank you for that classic example of a pure non sequitur (your “so”).
From Western North American extreme heat virtually impossible without human-caused climate change:
• Based on observations and modeling, the occurrence of a heatwave with maximum daily temperatures (TXx) as observed in the area 45–52 ºN, 119–123 ºW, was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.
• The observed temperatures were so extreme that they lie far outside the range of historically observed temperatures. This makes it hard to quantify with confidence how rare the event was. In the most realistic statistical analysis the event is estimated to be about a 1 in 1000 year event in today’s climate.
• With this assumption and combining the results from the analysis of climate models and weather observations, an event, defined as daily maximum temperatures (TXx) in the heatwave region, as rare as 1 in a 1000 years would have been at least 150 times rarer without human-induced climate change.
• Also, this heatwave was about 2°C hotter than it would have been if it had occurred at the beginning of the industrial revolution (when global mean temperatures were 1.2°C cooler than today).
• Looking into the future, in a world with 2°C of global warming (0.8°C warmer than today which at current emission levels would be reached as early as the 2040s), this event would have been another degree hotter. An event like this – currently estimated to occur only once every 1000 years, would occur roughly every 5 to 10 years in that future world with 2°C of global warming.
Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse
A shutdown would have devastating global impacts and must not be allowed to happen, researchers say
“The signs of destabilisation being visible already is something that I wouldn’t have expected and that I find scary,” said Niklas Boers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who did the research. “It’s something you just can’t allow to happen.”
It is not known what level of CO2 would trigger an AMOC collapse, he said. “So the only thing to do is keep emissions as low as possible. The likelihood of this extremely high-impact event happening increases with every gram of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
Sounds bad. We can’t allow it to happen. Not sure how we prevent it from happening. We would have to stop our emissions and we aren’t making progress on that goal. Lots of talk, not much action. We are still increasing atmospheric level of CO2 by around 2.4 ppm per year.
Could the current rain and storms summer in Europe (England-France -Belgium-Germany-North-Italy-Poland-Ukraine) be due to a slowdown happening already? I guess it’s not the predicted area, and strong storms happen in US East coast too
And if the thermohaline circulation stops, is it worth reducing emissions anyway? I understand that we’ll get stronger storms in Europe, more heatwaves in Africa, which would then be deadly, and more sea-level rise. So we wouldn’t be able to stop West Antarctica collapse, but it might have a large influence on heatwaves in the short-term, in the next 10 or 20 years. But how would it affect Arctic methane emissions?
BPL: Wrong again.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jgrd.50355
V: Hi Bart. You should read the papers you link to:
“In conclusion, the evidence for unusually strong or
widespread annually averaged drying, as suggested in the
2007 IPCC AR4 report [Trenberth et al., 2007] is not supported by the evidence of the current work, . . The analysis reported here suggests that part of the drying trend in the last few decades is related to increases
in temperature and Potential Evapotranspiration. However,
the areas most affected are still isolated (Figure 16) and no
strong indication of a widespread drying trend is evident.”
Filling in the ellipsis: “with the possible exception of the land areas between 30°S and 30°N which have seen unprecedented dry conditions in the 1980s and 1990s.”
BPL: You seem unable to learn. There is a dramatic, very high, extremely significant correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. No matter how many times you say there isn’t, you’ll still be long. This is not something opinions can honestly differ on; the correlation is a number which can be computed from the data, and always gives the same answer. You are simply wrong, as wrong as if you said 2 + 2 = 7.
V: Your blind devotion to the power of a single number in determining a meaningful correlation is touching, Bart. The problem is spelled out for you very simply and very thoroughly in the following blog post, which you’ve preferred to ignore: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
viz: “How to Lie with Statistics”
V: They will finally concede the total lack of correlation between sea level rise and global temps since the late 1800’s through the present.
BPL: Wrong again. See above. You need to learn what “correlation” means.
V: No Bart, you are wrong. You are the one who needs to learn. The following is a graph of average sea levels since the late 18th century: https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif
Here’s a graph of global temperature anomalies over a similar period:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Time_Series.png
The glaring discrepancies between the two during the periods 1870-1910 and 1940-1979 (not to mention the notorious 1998 – 2015 “pause”) are impossible to ignore. By insisting on a “correlation” between the two, based on some ingenious number-juggling, you look like a fool.
Hilarious Victor. That devotion to a single number is called ‘maths’. . Established,, proven and universally accepted maths. Do you want us to give up on maths? Or just the bits that get in the way of your ridiculous views on climate change?
nigelj: “Hilarious Victor. That devotion to a single number is called ‘maths’. . Established,, proven and universally accepted maths. Do you want us to give up on maths? Or just the bits that get in the way of your ridiculous views on climate change?”
V: Well, first of all, math is NOT the same as science. It’s a tool used by scientists, who are expected to apply critical thinking to any such result. Secondly, blind devotion to some formula, designed to solve a problem by producing a single number isn’t very good math either. That approach was hilariously parodied in “The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, ” as you will recall, when the infallible “Deep Thought” comes up with the number “42” as the answer to “the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.”
If you study the data representing sea level rise and compare it with the data representing global temperatures over the same period, the lack of any meaningful correlation becomes obvious. You don’t need to “do the math” in order to see it. Moreover, as is evident from examination of the data ( https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig6-large.jpg?la=en-GB&hash=51FE8AC414D4FB8EDF0AB9656AE916B7 ), the steady rise that’s persisted all these many years, during both warming and cooling periods, began in the 1880’s, long before CO2 emissions could have been a significant factor.
Strawman. Because scientists don’t just rely on “a single number”. They eyeball graphs like you but the difference is their eye balls tell them something different to yours. Maybe consider that your eyeballs have a problem!
As to the rest of your comments: Yada, yada, yada.
V: “If you study the data representing sea level rise and compare it with the data representing global temperatures over the same period, the lack of any meaningful correlation becomes obvious.”
BPL: And once again, Victor substitutes his own definition of “correlation” for the correct one. For everyone else, try here:
https://bartonlevenson.com/ISK/Statistics/03Correlation.html
Weaktor: “If you study the data representing sea level rise and compare it with the data representing global temperatures over the same period, the lack of any meaningful correlation becomes obvious. You don’t need to “do the math” in order to see it.”
No, math isn’t needed. Only hallucinogenics and carnival funhouse mirrors!
“….you look like a fool.”
No, it’s not Barton giving that impression.
V: “Your blind devotion to the power of a single number in determining a meaningful correlation is touching, Bart.”
BPL: The correlation IS a single number, Victor. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. For temperature anomalies and CO2 from 1850 to 2019, that number is r = 0.9213.
That’s the correlation. 0.9213.
Correlation can only be between -1 and 1. This correlation is very close to 1. Since it’s a large sample, the correlation is highly significant. It has a p value of 6.7 x 10^-170.
You can’t redefine what “correlation” means to suit yourself. Words have meanings, and you have to use those meanings as generally understood.
On the same topic as Mike says: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/05/change-ocean-collapse-atlantic-meridional/ A critical ocean system may be heading for collapse due to climate change, study finds
referencing https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4 Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
and https://rapid.ac.uk/
Okay, real climate scientists, this new study out of Potsdam on loss of AMOC stability hit this climate lay person like a bomb this morning.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210805115420.htm?fbclid=IwAR0WHkjCfHRZkkjBwfW4D1FgX6jHZqETkF0sfTVG1DYjtHFRLWBj6wYTNfI
“The findings support the assessment that the AMOC decline is not just a fluctuation or a linear response to increasing temperatures but likely means the approaching of a critical threshold beyond which the circulation system could collapse.” Likely!
https://scienceblog.com/524586/major-ocean-current-system-may-be-approaching-critical-threshold/?fbclid=IwAR1RG4WFzQxG-1YUoDKXBC6J0Kb7NdgoIRvsZQfyrTqAkhZiGcR99zNF9vo
“I wouldn’t have expected that the excessive amounts of freshwater added in the course of the last century would already produce such a response in the overturning circulation. We urgently need to reconcile our models with the presented observational evidence to assess how far or how close the AMOC really is to its critical threshold”.
Strikes me as one of the most significant climate science findings in recent memory. Major mucking of Earth Systems the all-caps-second-coming-typeface banner headline across the top of the page.
The Guardian had a frightening article about a new paper on the Gulf Stream. The title of the paper is: “Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the AMOC””. They suggest that the Gulf Stream is showing signs of collapsing. Is this new data since your last post on this topic?
I hope that The Guardian is overreacting to this new paper.
michael Sweet,
That Guardian article is not the only report of the findings of Boers (2021) ‘Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation’ [ABSTRACT]
The two-state situation with the AMOC has been apparent for some time in the models (eg Boulton et al 2014) prompting work to establish the mechanisms which result in the flip from strong to weak AMOC.
Thus we now have Boers (2021) introducing “a robust and general early-warning indicator for forthcoming critical transitions” which utalises “eight independent AMOC indices” to show significant AMOC weakening over the last century “to a point close to a critical transition.” This finding challenges the IPCC AR5 conclusions
So if the IPCC’s ‘very unlikely before 2100’ is now so strongly questioned, the next step is to establish how close is “a point close”. Are we near enough to it to now challenge the +1.5ºC guidance?
The quotes from the more scientifically oriented outlets I quote in the message right above yours tend to say The Guardian is not overreacting. I wonder if the “likely” in one of the quoted is the IPCC definition. >66%
Jeff Masters, Stefan Rahmstorf, and Mike Mann have gone on high alert about this material.* The Guardian is not “trashy” – full stop, though like most outlets it does sometimes fall into sensationalistic headlines; it is also useful because it does not have a paywall. Of course the original is useful, but in this case it is a PDF.
As far as I can tell, the alert is that it will take much less than 300 years for the current to disappear, and the results of that are dire indeed. How much less is still open to question, so people who are assuming it will happen in their lifetimes may be going too far.
I’m not a fan of the “new ice age” elements (at least afaik in the northern hemisphere) since global warming has already affected mid/northern Canada and Siberia. I do believe we will have death-dealing anoxia (already on the way in some places).
_____
*I’ll post their responses in a top level comment below.
So if the IPCC’s ’very unlikely before 2100’ is now so strongly questioned, the next step is to establish how close is ”a point close”. Are we near enough to it to now challenge the +1.5ºC guidance?
I want to encourage the risk-based climate discussion framing I have pushed for a decade or more. I think it is absolutely vital because of the nature of chaotic systems. The key issue is, Patrick Mazza, that there is no answer to your question, quite literally, and never will be. Ys, someone might guess and get it right much like a broken clock, but actually predicting the phase changes in chaotic systems is still impossible, which brings us to…
The issue is not when it will flip, it is *that* it will flip, and if it does we are in very, very deep shit, indeed. Europe will cool dramatically and the oceans will charge full-tilt towards anoxia.
We. Must. Not. Accept. Nor. Allow. This. Risk.
It is not an academic question. IMO, if we the AMOC flips, collapse and mass extinction follow no matter what we do because it will take too many years to cool the planet enough to get it to flip back.
You all know what I see Nature demanding we do…
Time’s up.
Something interesting and open access: “Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25019-2
Lots of use of statistical analysis..
I am slow-numerate. That is, I can understand math and do math, but I have a very hard time retaining the formulas, etc., so *doing* math is torturous for me. That’s why you never see me challenging math-ish issues and do see me begging for help and/or confirmation of my maths. So…
The key takeaway from this is rates of change and magnitudes matter. This is not new news. What is new is quantifying those numbers. In so doing, the researchers give us benchmarks. Here’s my math.
10c over 1 million years = 0.00001C/yr.
By contrast, the current rate is closer to 1.2C over 171 yrs = 0.007C/yr.
0.007C/0.00001C = 701.75x FASTER.
The interplay of rates of change and temperatures is important. When you massively increase one value, you should need to reduce the other value. That is, there is no comfort in this paper; it is a stark warning to us all. When you are increasing temperatures 700x faster than ever before other than a very large bolide impact, the ecosystem should be expected to react in unexpected ways.
We hear so much about comparing this era to other eras, but the closest analogy for the current context? Chicxulub.
Time’s up.
Agreed, I make the argument occasionally that the final equilibrium temperature hardly matters — the immense change rates will get us long before then. And I’m not talking about perturbations in just the carbon cycle; the same is true for the other biogeochemical cycles. The phosphorus, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles all have enormous excursions caused by humans, and the stability of the biosphere depends sensitively on all of them. Earth has never experienced chemical perturbations this large and rapid in one of the cycles, let alone four.
#RealGoodComments
#RealStraight
#ReallyonTopic
#RealRespectful
#RealHonesty
#ReallyUseful
#RealGoodExamplesofGood
Thank you! Ten years ago, I tried to dig up estimates for the magnitudes of the perturbations for a presentation, which turned out to be surprisingly difficult. Here’s what I came up with:
Nitrogen: 80 megatons/year. Fertilizer production transfers 80 Tg of N per year from atmosphere to soil.
Sulfur: 108 megatons/year. 1 Tmol from transfer of oxidized and reduced sediments from mining to soil; 2 Tmol from transfer of reduced sediments to atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
Phosphorus: 9-32 megatons/year. Fertilizer production transfers 9-32 Tg of P per year from mining to the oceans.
Carbon: 33 Gt of CO2 (9 Gt C) released from burning fossil fuels in 2010.
I hope I did the conversions correctly, given my rusty high-school Chemistry!
Here’s the presentation: State of the Oceans 2011
Agreed. It is the truest of perfect storms. In fact, the news is so dire WRT chemical poisoning and plastics that everything else could conceivably end up being moot.
No bugs, no ecosystem.
Yes, we’re reverting the biosphere to a pre-Phanerozoic state. I like to quote Jeremy Jackson: “The future is bright for dinflagellates.”
Here’s my collection of “insect decline” stories: https://desdemonadespair.net/tag/insect-decline
Killian above.,
I don’t think an assessment of Song et al (2021) ‘Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions’ is a matter of mathematics. I think some very simple arithmetic is sufficient**.
The paper presents an interesting thought but one which has for some time been a concern of those mindful of the potential damage AGW could inflict on the natural world. (The original ideas for setting a numerical limit to the impacts of AGW (allegedly scribbled down on a napkin in a Stockholm restaurant) which kicked off that original +2ºC limit to post-industrial global warming (now reduced to +1.5ºC) also included both a lower less risky limit of +1ºC limit as well as a limit to the rate of warming, set at +0.1ºC/decade.)
**What these +5.2ºC and +10ºC/million-year “thresholds” from Song et al remind me of is the +6ºC warming since the LGM 12,000 years ago which broke (or more correctly ‘smashed’) both “thresholds” with no sign of any temperature-induced mass Holocene extinction until our very-own AGW took up the reigns to boost the extinction process initiated by seven billion humans. So while Song et al demonstrate an extinction event may be associated with large and quick global temperature excursions, it is things more specific than temperature that usually prove the agent of death, most famously the asteroid that kicked off the K-T extinction..
Mind, if any folk feel a nerdy mathematical approach is required in this extinction prediction business, there is still Rothman (2019)‘Characteristic disruptions of an excitable carbon cycle’ to provide some ideas.
Doktor K
I believe seveal of us would like to have it defined what you mean by “Regenerative”, that seems to be your missian and agenda in all your arguments.
If that could be done or exactly shown to without too many words and pages so it becomes Ad nauseam…, I think some people here would thank you very well.
And before doing so, lookm carefully over the conscepts of Schlaraffenland and Utopia from mideival history of whishful thinking in all their misery, so that you just do not re- cycle the same.
Can I please make a suggestion that if anyone wants to bring attention to a study of any sort they link to the study itself rather than some newspaper article written by someone who has read half of the press release derived loosely from the abstract. Particularly if the newspaper is something trashy like the guardian
Moderators – is this something that could be enforced?
I will second that.
Interesting: “The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a major ocean current system transporting warm surface waters toward the northern Atlantic, has been suggested to exhibit two distinct modes of operation. A collapse from the currently attained strong to the weak mode would have severe impacts on the global climate system and further multi-stable Earth system components. Observations and recently suggested fingerprints of AMOC variability indicate a gradual weakening during the last decades, but estimates of the critical transition point remain uncertain. Here, a robust and general early-warning indicator for forthcoming critical transitions is introduced. Significant early-warning signals are found in eight independent AMOC indices, based on observational sea-surface temperature and salinity data from across the Atlantic Ocean basin. These results reveal spatially consistent empirical evidence that, in the course of the last century, the AMOC may have evolved from relatively stable conditions to a point close to a critical transition.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4
While a search for this string: “Nature Climate Change “Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the AMOC”” (based on this article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse ) in google brings up only replicas and strange results, the same search in “duckduckgo” brings up the article from Nature on top, after warning me that Google tried to track me (you have to ask yourself on behalf of whom?) Conclusion, based on a lot of earlier experience: Google is trying to block searches for scientific climate research. Often it also brings up on top a lot of contrarian nonsense when I am searching for climate topics. As Facebook, who often blocks climate linked stuff (see also:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/facebook-fossil-fuel-industry-environment-climate-change ) , Google is an instrument of the climate denialist/fossil fuel industry.
I’ve seen the same.
I’ve always assumed it’s because the fossil fuel interests have spent the money to game Google’s search algorithm to position dozens of junk pages at the top of the list.
Mann thread
New article in @NatureClimate provides additional support for our earlier work (@Rahmstorf
et al 2015: https://nature.com/articles/nclimate2554) suggesting climate change-induced slowdown of ocean “conveyer belt” circulation already underway, decades ahead of schedule
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1423322950409785349
eg Patrick says: “How often emerging climate science findings tell us it’s happening faster than expected. And how rarely they don’t.”
eg Lucy Morales @Lucymorales416
We all have the moral obligation to speak up about the real causes of this #ClimateCrisis we have to make government leaders to take actions now!
Now? How?
Some leading scientists including Johan Rockstrom said that we might have crossed a tipping point already. Is there a model predicting how climate will evolve if the tipping point is crossed?
Oh for… posted in wrong thread. Please delete, I’ll post it in the right place
Op-ed just now by Lomborg, who else, in WSJ repeats the old argument that cold causes more deaths than heat. Reference is presumably to Gasparrini, Lancet 2015, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0
So yeah, there’s higher mortality in winter than in summer, and I guess even in India cold weather is bad for the people dying on the streets of Kolkata, but what do we know about total temperature-related mortality under global warming? The papers I’ve seen on a quick survey find more heat-related deaths, duh, but they don’t seem to consider whether there would be fewer cold-related deaths.
The cold-related deaths are mostly not people freezing in blizzards but a statistical thing of more deaths during below-average-for-season temperature periods, so it’s complicated.
Anybody know of real work done on this?
I wouldn’t waste a single second on anything Lomborg says.
With a greater amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (a consequence of global warming), winter storms can be more dangerous. With more jetstream wavering, and descending polar vortexes (a consequence of global warming), the winter season in general can be more dangerous. These effects should outweigh any “benefit” coming from a slight increase in the over-all average winter temperature.
This is a complex issue. I found this helpful: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold
What is perhaps more important is the overall impact on heat vs cold related deaths due to future anthropogenic climate change:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/will-climate-change-bring-benefits-from-reduced-cold-related-mortality-insights-from-the-latest-epidemiological-research/#more-21466
Ah, Karsten Johansen – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/unforced-variations-aug-2021/#comment-793938 – provides much better substance on the new AMOC research than I ever could.
Here are some links and a quote from Masters at YCC yesterday (pinned to top of link): The referenced Carbon Brief is from February 2020 and mentions 300 years, and the new material does not say “when”.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/noaa-and-csu-converge-on-an-active-hurricane-season-ahead/
Rahmstorf & Mann
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1423377378810765315
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1423322950409785349
nigelj: “Hilarious Victor. That devotion to a single number is called ‘maths’. . Established,, proven and universally accepted maths. Do you want us to give up on maths? Or just the bits that get in the way of your ridiculous views on climate change?”
V: Well, first of all, math is NOT the same as science. It’s a tool used by scientists, who are expected to apply critical thinking to any such result. Secondly, blind devotion to some formula, designed to solve a problem by producing a single number isn’t very good math either. That approach was hilariously parodied in “The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, ” as you will recall, when the infallible “Deep Thought” comes up with the number “42” as the answer to “the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.”
If you study the data representing sea level rise and compare it with the data representing global temperatures over the same period, the lack of any meaningful correlation becomes obvious. You don’t need to “do the math” in order to see it. Moreover, as is evident from examination of the data ( https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig6-large.jpg?la=en-GB&hash=51FE8AC414D4FB8EDF0AB9656AE916B7 ), the steady rise that’s persisted all these many years, during both warming and cooling periods, began in the 1880’s, long before CO2 emissions could have been a significant factor.
42 is 3*7*2.
But there is a lacking prime number in it, namely 5, thus hardly universal even from the beginning.
Re. “the lack of any meaningful correlation becomes obvious. You don’t need to “do the math” in order to see it.”
Wow!!!!!!
1. Obvious only to you is not a good argument. It’s an indication–definition even–of delusion.
2. Not knowing how to use a microscope means you’ll never see cells, true. However, it is not a proof they do not exist as experts say.
New open access research: “Multiple climate change-driven tipping points for coastal systems”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94942-7
I have only briefly read through this, but in addition to raising some serious concerns, it has a nice clear convincing way of explaining the tipping point idea.
“SLR 0.25M to 0,75Mcould be a problem! Oh, but 1.5M probably isn’t because we be smart and can Nordhaus everything! We can adapt!”
To which I ask, are NY, NOLA, et al., fully recovered from their hurricanes? Nope. And how do you fund dikes and gates and sea walls and pumps… for every coastal city, simultaneously?
And given many now accept 1M or *more* as likely by 2100… well…
This is about as useless and misleading a well-intended scientific paper as one might ever read – and they aren’t climate denialists! I do think they are all-in on Nordhausian econ or they wouldn’t be making the claim that 1.5M wouldn’t be a tipping point for some communities.
It’s an interconnected world. Ports being shut down, walled in, etc., anywhere affects things everywhere, e.g.
There must be a way past siloing these issues. Non-systemic analyses are more dangerous every day.
Your 1.5 metres sea level rise this century is certainly very plausible to me, but the writers probably just stayed with the IPCC sea level rise predictions because that is the global state of objective knowledge on the issues. If they go with higher estimates, or lower estimates, they could come in for criticism form all sorts of people including possibly those who commission their studies. The end result is it could distract attention away from their technical findings to a fight about whether their sea level rise predictions are credible and fit the state of current knowledge. I can see their dilemma, and so why they stick with the current IPCC estimates..
But there’s another way of looking at it because the study shows how even half a metre or so can have dire consequences.
The writers of the study have probably never even heard of Nordhaus, and would not necessarily be huge fans of neo classical economics.
@Killian
#RealUselessStudy
Yes. I struggled with comprehending how it came to be started let alone published, I found it shallow, based predominantly on guesswork and cherry-picked assumptions. I said nothing before because I didn’t want to draw attention to it.
RC, those are vacuous claims made on a SCIENCE website. Please provide some EVIDENCE its based on guesswork and cherry picked assumptions.
Yes. Very poor conclusions drawn by them.
Risk is an extremely undervalued metric, and done wrong WRT climate in pretty much every instance.
The writers of the study have probably never even heard of Nordhaus, and would not necessarily be huge fans of neo classical economics.
Because you think so? You say the stupidest damned shit, dude.
Every IPCC report is dominated by economics rather than the science and Nordhaus has been at the center of the IPCC economics discussions as his past observations were largely carried forward, and the guy is still bleating his nonsense.
Killian, not because I say so.. For all we know the writers of the study could be hard left and opposed to neo classical economics. Scientists don’t all fit one mould. You have no evidence to say otherwise. Scientists are also TRAINED to put their personal political and ideological leanings aside. Its an unproven slur to suggest they are letting their politics / economic views influence the science.
“Every IPCC report is dominated by economics rather than the science”
Nope. The reports are mostly about the science and mitigation with something buried in there about putting costs on climate change and costs on carbon, with some of it relating to Nordhaus. Don’t forget to wear your tinfoil hat. You’re starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
The IPCC summary for policy makers has to be signed off by government bureaucrats. THAT is where there may be influence that tries to minimise the effects of climate change and undermine the scientific findings.
My latest article in the professional literature is out, for those who care about habitable zone stuff (it’s vaguely climate related, after all). Ignore the Highlights, which are from an early version which came to the wrong conclusions. You might just want to download the pdf.
https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1dXnE7IbIsyvc
Thanks! Not entirely opaque to this layperson, fwiw I presume to post the title/publication info but not the abstract etc.
Habitable zones with an earth climate history model
Planetary and Space Science – Volume 206, 15 October 2021, 105318
BPL: The correlation IS a single number, Victor. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. For temperature anomalies and CO2 from 1850 to 2019, that number is r = 0.9213.
That’s the correlation. 0.9213.
Correlation can only be between -1 and 1. This correlation is very close to 1. Since it’s a large sample, the correlation is highly significant. It has a p value of 6.7 x 10^-170.
V: 0.9213. Very impressive looking number.
Now please tell me how that number is going to help you understand the relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures since 1850. How does it help you explain the rather steep rise in temperature between 1910 and 1940, when CO2 levels were relatively low? How does that explain the sudden dip in global temps from ca. 1940-1950, and the leveling off from then to 1979, while CO2 levels were beginning to soar? How does that explain the well-known pause in temperature rise from 1998 through 2015, while CO2 levels continued to soar?
Also please explain how any number you can possibly come up with when calculating the “correlation” between sea level rise and global temperatures, can help you understand the very complex relation between these two datasets? How can it explain the fact that a rise in sea level begins roughly in 1885, while there is little sign of temperature rise until roughly 1910? How can it explain the continuation of sea level rise at essentially the same rate, while temperatures are falling or remaining relatively flat from 1940-1979. How can it explain the continuation of sea level rise at essentially the same rate from 1979-1998, while temperatures were suddenly taking off over that 20 year period? And how can it explain the continuation of essentially the same rate of sea change during the 17 year “hiatus” of 1998-2015, when temperatures essentially leveled off?
If coming up with a number is sufficient for you, then I’m sorry but you are not doing science
V: “Now please tell me how that number is going to help you understand the relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures since 1850. How does it help you explain the rather steep rise in temperature between 1910 and 1940, when CO2 levels were relatively low? How does that explain the sudden dip in global temps from ca. 1940-1950, and the leveling off from then to 1979, while CO2 levels were beginning to soar? How does that explain the well-known pause in temperature rise from 1998 through 2015, while CO2 levels continued to soar?”
BPL: Well, the pause didn’t exist, but I’ll try to answer the rest of your question. It’s because the variance explained by a 0.92 correlation is the square of the correlation coefficient, or about 0.85. That means 15% of the variation of temperature is due to causes other than carbon dioxide.
Does that help?
Weaktor,
While it is true that correlation does not equal causation, it is even more true that if you have both correlation AND a physical mechanism, you almost certainly have a causal mechanism.
The correlation is strong. The evidence for the physical mechanism is even stronger–involving both theory and empirical evidence.
If you have a correlation but no physical mechanism, the science says to go look for a physical mechanism.
If you have a physical mechanism, but not correlation, the science says to look for confounding mechanisms that obscure the relationship.
If you have both, the science says take it to the frickin’ bank.
Keith’s correlation is an example of what statisticians call a trivial correlation. Both CO2 and temperature exhibit a seasonal cycle, so to say they are correlated six months apart is a “Duh, well, yeah!” kind of thing. He’s got two sine waves (roughly), separated by 180 degrees. Of course he gets a correlation.
If he tried temperature lagging CO2 by six months, that would also show a correlation, and of about the same magnitude. But he didn’t look at that. He looked for what he wanted to find, found it, and stopped looking. That was why I brought up “cherry picking.”
It’s also why annual data is better than monthly for correlating CO2 and temperature.
Didn’t see these comments down here, pity you didn’t use the new “reply” feature to keep it all together.
No, wrong in every way. They are not even close to sine wave and the value of the envelope of the cross correlation at the next peak is half of the 4.49 shift. And it is 39 months away. Did you not look? Those aren’t annual sine waves, they are 4’ish years!!! Go back and look at the time series display
OED disagrees with you and notes the word has been in the English lexicon since the 17th century.
————————–
practicable
Pronunciation /ˈpraktɪkəb(ə)l/
ADJECTIVE
1Able to be done or put into practice successfully.
‘the measures will be put into effect as soon as is reasonably practicable’
1.1Able to be used; useful.
‘signal processing can let you transform a signal into a practicable form’
Mid 17th century from French praticable, from pratiquer ‘put into practice’.
—————————
A grammar link (grammist.com) notes:
———————————
Practicable vs. practical
Something that is practical is (1) of or relating to practice, (2) capable of being put to good use, (3) concerned with ordinary, tangible things, and (4) being such for all useful purposes.
Practicable is more narrowly defined. It means capable of being put into practice.
Confusion occurs between practical‘s second definition and the main definition of practicable. Think of practical as a synonym of useful, and practicable as a synonym of doable and feasible. Another important distinction is that practical can apply to people (per definition three) and skills (definition two), whereas practicable typically applies to plans or actions.
——————–
So , as usual, you are in your own zone, or perhaps you are just lost in the ozone again (to use a musical metaphor from Commander Cody). But then what do actual experts know compared to your own vast store of knowledge?
Thanks. I guess I meant even if it is practicable, it might not be worth the effort (useful) in the “scheme of eternity” (relatively valuable compared to other ways of spending the time and effort).
For those who may still be confused, a slight edit:
Thanks. I guess I meant even if it is possible to do/something we could do/a viable option, it might not be worth the effort (useful) in the “scheme of eternity” (relatively valuable compared to other ways of spending the time and effort).
(Long-time teacher of English as a Foreign Language; this sort of thing is fun and interesting to me; no disrespect.)
Ladies and Gentlemen
I find news for you, that should add to the rumor- discussions of AMOC weakening and possible collapse.
”
Indian ocean warming can strengthen the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
”
You must google that. Then it comes up at Nature climate change. By Shiney Hu & Alexey Fedorov.
Their argumjent seems reasonable: Due to warming, more water evaporates in the Indian ocean that becomes more saline. That current rounds Cape di bueno esperanza and goes into the west- african current and crosses the Atlatic by the Passat- winds. Then into the Golf- stream and into the norwegian stream to the polar ocean.
We could now for many years Rahmstorfs Blaupunkt on the temperature change map displays, that strange, blue point southeast of Grønland, that is kept as a main argument and warning signal for collapse of the AMOC, and explained by increasing freshwater from the decay of the Grønland- glacier.
More salty water from the indian ocean due to warming there, is supposed to counteract that Blaupunkt.
And the article argues that the Indian and the Atlantic 0cean go quite in “tandem”.
Then you can look at this for yourselves. It is information of the sort that can possibly be put together.
===================000
Another discussion here is increasen of release of CH4 from the arctic tundra due to the same AGW.
I have found, and tend to believe, that such, sudden and large, deep mysterious craters in the mud, that makes sensation and alarm in the media each time, are rather traditional. indeed. Just by looking at it by means of Google Maps in satelite photo. which seems to be the best.
Look at the southwest side of the St Lawrence Island in the Bering street, and further to Yamal peninsula west of Obskaya Guba.
Then having learnt to judge the landscape on where to look for it, you can search over the very sub- arctic tundra. The premise is that it is flat enough with just deep marsh and clay sediments, frozen., and old enough by meandering rivers that take very long time rather undisturbed to develop.
Hudreds and thousands of round pools and pits approximately all of similar size, and by the size of those fameous sudden “blubs” in the tundra. entails rather clearly that it is very natural and traditional,
And what we must judge then is whether that phanomenon of Nature is coming more and more often in our days.
One thing can be said for sure, That is: Before the invention 0f the aeroplane and the telegraph and the satelites, this could go on rather un- remarkied by the worlds mainstream media.
KW: It’s almost like higher temperatures mean the oceans can hold less CO2 – who’d have thunk it!
BPL: The lag there is 800 years, Keith. Not six months.
At present the oceans are a net SINK for CO2, not a net SOURCE. You could have looked both these facts up.
again, sorry for the delay, didn’t see these messages.
“The lag there is 800 years, Keith. Not six months”
So? Completely different frequency. Of course the lag will be different
BPL: Well, the pause didn’t exist, but I’ll try to answer the rest of your question. It’s because the variance explained by a 0.92 correlation is the square of the correlation coefficient, or about 0.85. That means 15% of the variation of temperature is due to causes other than carbon dioxide.
V: More numbers. I read your essay on statistics and must say it’s impressive. I wish your grasp of science were as impressive, but it’s not. Scientists are expected to come up with explanations, not just numbers. The evidence raises many questions that are not answered by the numbers you’ve come up with. Don’t forget, the bottom line in all this is cause and effect, not just “correlation.”
And by the way, the “pause” (between 1998 and 2015 — not 2012) was very real, as recognized by a long list of climate scientists who racked their brains trying to account for it.
No, the pause wasn’t real, as I pointed out many years ago. You need 30 years to find a climate trend. And you, sir, are cherry-picking the start date with the strongest El Nino of that era, the 1998 El Nino. Start from 1997 or 1999 and you don’t get the same result.
Humorous that a musicologist with no formal training in the sciences believes he can lecture trained scientists on what makes good science.
More like sad, delusional, frustrating and a pain in the neck.
Perhaps, but based on their own comments, most on here are not climate scientists or any type of scientist. I suspect the majority posting here do not have a lot of science education. Some are scientists, and a few are climate scientists.
Hr Knowitall
I have reminded everyone here on what we shall do with the drunken sailor. in your context.
but, despite of that…..
…….Are you in any kind of way educated, inaugurated and enliteled to judge and to teach and to instruct people of who are the scientists and who are not?
Because, lacks of the same background upbringing training & education hardly guarantees and secures automatically your being a proper obvious and natural authority and judge and teacher of that.