This month’s open thread on climate topics (no joke).
Reader Interactions
221 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2023"
spilgardsays
Come now, the rigor shown in the WUWT showcasing of Danley Wolfe’s expert scatterplot “analysis” of temperature/CO2 correlation should have shaken the most-est and true-est sheep out of their delusional fantasy that CO2 influences climate. [/sarc]
Victorsays
“Fact: the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by 1900 was not negligible.”
Spencer Weart: “Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.”
“Fact: the period in question did have intensified solar activity and so TSI.” Irrelevant.
“Fact: the period in question did demonstrate a lull in volcanic activity.” Irrelevant.
“Fact: the period in question was too short to qualify as “climate”. 80 years is too short for you?
“Fact: the subsequent period post 1940 was 1) a time of war, and so increased aerosols due to troop movements, conflagrations,… followed by a post-war boom with emission of lots of sulfate aerosols (as is evident in any picture from the period of say, London or Los Angeles.”
Lots of CO2 was emitted during the same period. In any case, evidence of aerosol cooling is NOT evidence of CO2 warming. NO such evidence over a 40 year period.
“Your dismissal of the entire field of climate science” Hyperbole. I never dismissed climate science in general. Nor did I “dismiss” anything. I simply pointed to evidence that calls the mainstream view into question.
“your desire to dismiss the implications that the current fossil-fuel-based economy and civilization are not sustainable.” I have no such desire. I simply calls ’em as I sees ’em.
“Fact: the science does not give a flying fuck what you think.” Lots of folks don’t care what I think. I’ve gotten used to it.
“Argument from consequences has been recognized as a logical fallacy for thousands of years.” Not sure where that’s coming from. My concern about the consequences of the current climate madness is a totally separate issue.
“Care to provide us with ” rigorous experimentation, verification, and peer review to ensure the validity and reliability of research findings”???” No need. That’s already been done. I’ve simply drawn on findings already supported by such methods.
V: Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation.
BPL: Your “hence” is a non sequitur. That’s not how one measures a correlation, Victor. Quit making up your own definitions.
V: OK, let’s play by your rules for a moment. “CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century.” That’s according to Spence Weart, a climate scientist who is very far from being a “denier.” Will you at least accept THAT???? And what about the following 40 years, which saw NO rising temperature trend? That makes 80 years in which we see NO evidence of any significant temperature rise due to CO2 emissions — will you still insist on a correlation during this period? And on what basis?
“CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century.” That’s according to Spence Weart, a climate scientist who is very far from being a “denier.” Will you at least accept THAT????
So, let me get this straight, V–you attack 1900-1940 warming on the basis of Spencer Weart’s quote, but dismiss Ray’s suggestion that increased TSI during that span was a probable co-contributor to observed warming as “irrelevant?”
Can you really not see that this is pure denialism in action?–you don’t like the logical consequence for your argument, so you simply dismiss the point out of hand.
“Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 …. was mainly caused by some kind of natural, cyclic effect”
Had you only been able to resign on the word “cyclic” there, then I would not have identifried your para- scientific propagandistic thinktank resources and your blind reliance to your expert scriptures from that.
That “natural Cycles”- argument is old political catechismic rumors.
Unluckily for them I am an expert on cycles and cyclings, …. and it is not that easy to repeat the success of Milancevic in the climate. Especially when it is done uncritically and blindly also.
That habit of calling any detectible moovement for a cycle is vulgar, flat- sculled, uneducated supersticious, .religious. It is industrial political astrology also for instance.
I say you, quit smashing around you with a cycle, it betrays your unluckily deprived, alternative upbringings.
Chuck Hughessays
Just more Victor bullshit. It’s a disease.
Ned Kellysays
2023 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
The first ten days of April were in line with predictions, but then it has picked up. If the month ended today, the monthly average would be almost 3 standard deviations above the Met Office forecast for the “La Niña scenario”. We have to see daily values consistently below 423 ppm for the rest of the month to change that.
The last day below 423 ppm was on April 21, 2023. Unfortunately the values reached unprecedentedly high levels, peaking at 425.01 ppm on April 28. Therefore the weekly average is also the highest ever measured:
Week beginning on April 23, 2023: 424.40 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 420.19 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 399.32 ppm
Last updated: April 30, 2023
The annual increase is at 4.21 ppm.
No question, it is by far higher than the 10 y average of 2.51 ppm/a.
It is at #14. The highest weekly increases were (with dates giving the start of the week):
Note that 7 of the top 15 weeks are from 2016, during that year’s record El Niño.
An increase like we’ve seen last week is very unusual under ENSO-neutral conditions.
Same goes for most of April, actually. If we go by the Met Office forecast, April 2023 is on its way to becoming a 4-sigma event.
Victorsays
nigelj says
Yes. Victor thinks about correlations in a peculiar way.. Instead of just testing the data to see if there’s a correlation, he has this assumption that first there must be potential cause and effect before we can conclude theres a correlation. He has the whole thing backwards. You just test the data to see if theres a correlation, and how strong it is regardless of causation, or the level of causation that might exist.
V: I evaluated a scattergram purporting to reveal a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, based on the existence of a rising diagonal that dominated most of the graph. Now for those of you who know little or nothing about statistics, the existence of such a diagonal is regarded as a sign that a correlation exists. That’s the whole point of such a diagram. I demonstrated very clearly that the diagonal pertained ONLY to a 20 year period, the ONLY extended period where we see both CO2 levels and global temperatures rising significantly at the same time. What makes the scattergram misleading is the absence of the temporal dimension, which gives the impression that a diagonal representing only 20 years actually represented a long-term correlation. When we consider the timing we realize that this is not the case. Upon close examination of the data, we see that the telltale diagonal begins ONLY in the late 70’s and ends with the late 90s.
If this were a truly scientific forum, I’d have been thanked for pointing to this problem and any flaws to be found in my reasoning would have been noted and discussed. Instead I was simply accused of knowing nothing about statistics and viciously insulted for even raising the issue.
nigel: He should look at some of the strong correlations that exist between variables with no cause and effect know as spurious correlations. They still correlate!
V: Cause and effect had NO bearing on my analysis of that diagram. It was based solely on the relation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
Nigel: Of course with greenhouse theory we have both causation AND a decent correlation between CO2 and warming since 1900.
V: No sign of causation from the 1900s through the late 70s. Little to no sign of causation from the late 90s through 2015. NO long-term correlation, as demonstrated above. If you truly understood how science works you’d have seen the point immediately. A real scientist would have taken my analysis seriously and critiqued it according to the scientific method — as opposed to the “method” revealed in these threads, consisting of irrational dismissals and insults.
Come now, the rigor shown in the WUWT showcasing of Danley Wolfe’s expert scatterplot “analysis” of temperature/CO2 correlation should have shaken the most-est and true-est sheep out of their delusional fantasy that CO2 influences climate. [/sarc]
“Fact: the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by 1900 was not negligible.”
Spencer Weart: “Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.”
“Fact: the period in question did have intensified solar activity and so TSI.” Irrelevant.
“Fact: the period in question did demonstrate a lull in volcanic activity.” Irrelevant.
“Fact: the period in question was too short to qualify as “climate”. 80 years is too short for you?
“Fact: the subsequent period post 1940 was 1) a time of war, and so increased aerosols due to troop movements, conflagrations,… followed by a post-war boom with emission of lots of sulfate aerosols (as is evident in any picture from the period of say, London or Los Angeles.”
Lots of CO2 was emitted during the same period. In any case, evidence of aerosol cooling is NOT evidence of CO2 warming. NO such evidence over a 40 year period.
“Your dismissal of the entire field of climate science” Hyperbole. I never dismissed climate science in general. Nor did I “dismiss” anything. I simply pointed to evidence that calls the mainstream view into question.
“your desire to dismiss the implications that the current fossil-fuel-based economy and civilization are not sustainable.” I have no such desire. I simply calls ’em as I sees ’em.
“Fact: the science does not give a flying fuck what you think.” Lots of folks don’t care what I think. I’ve gotten used to it.
“Argument from consequences has been recognized as a logical fallacy for thousands of years.” Not sure where that’s coming from. My concern about the consequences of the current climate madness is a totally separate issue.
“Care to provide us with ” rigorous experimentation, verification, and peer review to ensure the validity and reliability of research findings”???” No need. That’s already been done. I’ve simply drawn on findings already supported by such methods.
V: Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation.
BPL: Your “hence” is a non sequitur. That’s not how one measures a correlation, Victor. Quit making up your own definitions.
V: OK, let’s play by your rules for a moment. “CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century.” That’s according to Spence Weart, a climate scientist who is very far from being a “denier.” Will you at least accept THAT???? And what about the following 40 years, which saw NO rising temperature trend? That makes 80 years in which we see NO evidence of any significant temperature rise due to CO2 emissions — will you still insist on a correlation during this period? And on what basis?
So, let me get this straight, V–you attack 1900-1940 warming on the basis of Spencer Weart’s quote, but dismiss Ray’s suggestion that increased TSI during that span was a probable co-contributor to observed warming as “irrelevant?”
Can you really not see that this is pure denialism in action?–you don’t like the logical consequence for your argument, so you simply dismiss the point out of hand.
@ Victor
“Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 …. was mainly caused by some kind of natural, cyclic effect”
Had you only been able to resign on the word “cyclic” there, then I would not have identifried your para- scientific propagandistic thinktank resources and your blind reliance to your expert scriptures from that.
That “natural Cycles”- argument is old political catechismic rumors.
Unluckily for them I am an expert on cycles and cyclings, …. and it is not that easy to repeat the success of Milancevic in the climate. Especially when it is done uncritically and blindly also.
That habit of calling any detectible moovement for a cycle is vulgar, flat- sculled, uneducated supersticious, .religious. It is industrial political astrology also for instance.
I say you, quit smashing around you with a cycle, it betrays your unluckily deprived, alternative upbringings.
Just more Victor bullshit. It’s a disease.
2023 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
The first ten days of April were in line with predictions, but then it has picked up. If the month ended today, the monthly average would be almost 3 standard deviations above the Met Office forecast for the “La Niña scenario”. We have to see daily values consistently below 423 ppm for the rest of the month to change that.
The last day below 423 ppm was on April 21, 2023. Unfortunately the values reached unprecedentedly high levels, peaking at 425.01 ppm on April 28. Therefore the weekly average is also the highest ever measured:
Week beginning on April 23, 2023: 424.40 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 420.19 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 399.32 ppm
Last updated: April 30, 2023
The annual increase is at 4.21 ppm.
No question, it is by far higher than the 10 y average of 2.51 ppm/a.
It is at #14. The highest weekly increases were (with dates giving the start of the week):
2016-07-31: 5.07 ppm (hence why the scale in my plot goes from 0 to 6 ppm/yr)
2016-06-12: 4.80 ppm
2016-04-10: 4.56 ppm
2016-05-22: 4.54 ppm
2019-04-28: 4.45 ppm
2012-05-06: 4.40 ppm
2014-04-13: 4.34 ppm
2016-01-31: 4.33 ppm
2020-03-22: 4.30 ppm
1998-07-19: 4.26 ppm
2016-04-17: 4.24 ppm
2010-04-18: 4.24 ppm
2023-04-23: 4.21 ppm
2016-03-20: 4.20 ppm
Note that 7 of the top 15 weeks are from 2016, during that year’s record El Niño.
An increase like we’ve seen last week is very unusual under ENSO-neutral conditions.
Same goes for most of April, actually. If we go by the Met Office forecast, April 2023 is on its way to becoming a 4-sigma event.
nigelj says
Yes. Victor thinks about correlations in a peculiar way.. Instead of just testing the data to see if there’s a correlation, he has this assumption that first there must be potential cause and effect before we can conclude theres a correlation. He has the whole thing backwards. You just test the data to see if theres a correlation, and how strong it is regardless of causation, or the level of causation that might exist.
V: I evaluated a scattergram purporting to reveal a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, based on the existence of a rising diagonal that dominated most of the graph. Now for those of you who know little or nothing about statistics, the existence of such a diagonal is regarded as a sign that a correlation exists. That’s the whole point of such a diagram. I demonstrated very clearly that the diagonal pertained ONLY to a 20 year period, the ONLY extended period where we see both CO2 levels and global temperatures rising significantly at the same time. What makes the scattergram misleading is the absence of the temporal dimension, which gives the impression that a diagonal representing only 20 years actually represented a long-term correlation. When we consider the timing we realize that this is not the case. Upon close examination of the data, we see that the telltale diagonal begins ONLY in the late 70’s and ends with the late 90s.
If this were a truly scientific forum, I’d have been thanked for pointing to this problem and any flaws to be found in my reasoning would have been noted and discussed. Instead I was simply accused of knowing nothing about statistics and viciously insulted for even raising the issue.
nigel: He should look at some of the strong correlations that exist between variables with no cause and effect know as spurious correlations. They still correlate!
V: Cause and effect had NO bearing on my analysis of that diagram. It was based solely on the relation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
Nigel: Of course with greenhouse theory we have both causation AND a decent correlation between CO2 and warming since 1900.
V: No sign of causation from the 1900s through the late 70s. Little to no sign of causation from the late 90s through 2015. NO long-term correlation, as demonstrated above. If you truly understood how science works you’d have seen the point immediately. A real scientist would have taken my analysis seriously and critiqued it according to the scientific method — as opposed to the “method” revealed in these threads, consisting of irrational dismissals and insults.