It has rather been a bit chill in july in the Oslofjord but with a lot of pleasant well needed rain. It is rather a normal summer as I am aquainted to it..
But there has been some abnormal downpours floods and earthslides on places where that is not so expected
Vitis vinifera, Tomatoes, tomatoes and apple & fruit ripening tell of a rather positive “heat sum” in day- grades this far.
all in all hardly anything to worry about locally. The more accute and severe cosequenses of “global warmingt” seems to be wild and confused people loosing ground contact and messing up with it by trying to eradicate our most elementary orientation first in order to get it their way.. I see that there are some people doing that even here on Real Climate. And it is old technique.
And now we have it, the full consequenses of it, Vanne Vanne- not pussy things like kits and dogs, but bitties and barrels…. this will go worldwide… not just long frogs but large crocodiles and dragons.
I had to call the Fireward alarm. “How high?” they asked.
“Over the boots! I replied. They could breathe out. It was that way all the way. And no pumps remaining for us.
Thus, wat did I say?
Aristoteles, I said. What goes up must come down. And Claussius Clappeyron, that even gets worse at any centigrade.
David Youngsays
Sorry this is a reply to a comment – couldn’t see how just to post. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on Svensmark’s latest paper, 2021, in Nature “Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing”.
I can’t see that he has addressed previous criticisms (eg: no GCR trend), but better minds than mine would be interesting to hear from, or ref to any papers in reply to Svensmarks 2021 paper.
Thanks
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear David,
Thank you very much for this hint!
Although there does not seem to be a polemic with Svensmark
Heat record on Svalbart in july.
Svalbard airport longyear +10 C mean and Pyramiden + 10.1 C
That is above arctic climate norm.
Northern Norway extreemly dry and pleasant warm.
southern Norway a bit chill and way over normal rain here and there..
Look up DMI.dk. They take also Grønland. where rumors tell that it has been quite warm and rainy. And that is what eats glaciers, warm summer rain. DS
Adam Leasays
I’ve just booked a holiday to NW Scotland next year (Torridon/Wester Ross). I live in SE England south of London. If it comes to a choice between driving the full distance and flying to Inverness (from Gatwick which is a short train journey from my address) and hiring a car, which has the lowest carbon footprint? My car is petrol and fuel efficient (aroung 109g/km CO2 emissions I think) but I would be travelling alone and many of the roads I would be driving on are notorious for heavy congestion which reduces the efficiency.
I appreciate a better option that either of these is to take a day train or a sleeper train to Inverness and hire a car (it is difficult to get about in the Scottish highlands without a motor vehicle especially when hillwalking) but these two options are a lot more expensive.
Adam Lea,
You say “it is difficult to get about in the Scottish highlands without a motor vehicle especially when hillwalking”. I know the moron petrolhead Clarkson upset a few people driving a landie up a hill above Tongue but if you have the likes of Laithach in mind (as you’re off to Torridon), a motor vehicle will not in any way help your ascent. This comparison from the BBC shows the lowest carbon footprint for UK travel is the coach.
Adam Leasays
A motor vehicle will help in getting to the start of walks and getting back to my hotel when I finish. It is possible for a fair few hills in the highlands to get to the start of the route using trains and buses, but the timings between buses can be tight and there are usually only one or two buses a day and not always every day. I would need some sort of motor vehicle to get from Kinlochewe to the start of the route up Liathach and get back again in the evening. Linear walks are an option when using public transport.
If I took my own car I would not attempt the journey in one day, I would break overnight somewhere near Carlisle or Glasgow e.g. a Travelodge at one of the motorway service stations. I’ll have a look at the cost of the train nearer the time, advance tickets (if available) can only be booked up to 12 weeks in advance although a quick glance at the National Rail website suggests the cost of a return trip would be comparable with the cost of fuel even for a standard off-peak ticket.
Russellsays
Much as Jeremy might have preferred to coach up Cnoc an Fhreiceadain, a thousand vertical feet in a mile is a lot to ask of a pair of horses.
Richard Kirbysays
Adam, it would be a long drive on your own, and once you hit the A9 in particular, dangerous if tired.
A train to Inverness shouldn’t be that expensive (although the overnight sleeper can be ridiculous) given you can book well in advance as you say you are coming next year. That would certainly be the best for carbon footprint. Flights are artificially cheap, even if you pay the extra to mitigate.
You could hire an electric car from Inverness, but definitely look at charging options in the locations you want to go.
Barry E Finchsays
I bicycled to Parry Sound. The gear cable broke and I repaired it.
UAH have posted for July TLT with a global anomaly of +0.65ºC, a big jump on June’s +0.38ºC and the 2nd highest anomaly on the UAH TLT record (after Feb 2016 +0.70ºC). Given the emphatic reanalysis numbers of late (eg here and also CFSR showing July with a record-breaking all-month global anomaly), a record-breaking July temperature is to be expected even on the trend-defying UAH record.
The record-breaking JUuy promotes 2023-to-date from 7th warmest start-of-year last month to 5th this month, this after a particularly cool start to the year in TLT. Further high monthly nomalies like July will easily propel 2023 into hottest-year-on-record spot, requiring an Aug-Dec average of +0.57ºC to claim that top spot and +0.47ºC to claim 3rd.
The boost to temperatures through the end of 2023 & into 2024 are predicted due to the coming El Niño. This is looking less likely to be a monster El Niño with MEI, SOI, NINO3.4 so far all suggesting a weaker event. So the El Niño boost to global temperature may be also less of a monster. The CCS El Niño forecast may show better what to expect in coming weeks.
July was hot at the surface too, according to TempLS. It was hottest July by a considerable margin (0.23C), and the average to date is now higher than both 2016 and 2020
I’d reckon the hottest July SAT is entirely non-controversial but on that table you link-to @moyhu the Jan-Jul average-to-date is being compared with full annual averages. I note the blog has a new post showing 2023 Jan-Jul average-to-date still sitting in 3rd.
Geoff Miellsays
Nick Stokes,
ICYMI/FYI, given that July 2023 recordings are in as the hottest month on record, Zeke Hausfather posted an analysis on Aug 8, headlined What a record July means for 2023 temperature: Just how likely is 2023 to be the warmest year on record? Considering the state of ENSO, he wrote (bold text my emphasis):
This model gives a 98% chance of 2023 being the warmest year on record. The central estimate is 1.42C above 1850-1899 levels, with a range of 1.35C to 1.50C. It suggests there is a ~2.5% chance that 2023 exceeds 1.5C, and turns out to have a slightly better fit to the data (adjusted r²) than the version that doesn’t include the latest month. It also produced a good hindcast.
Geophysics is a branch of physics, as is geophysical fluid dynamics which encompasses all the mysteries of climate variation. Who will figure this stuff out first — climate scientists, condensed-matter physicists, or will it be a machine learning experiment?
The forcing involves extra/perturbation net radiant heating/cooling, which creates temperature changes over time…
… which then leads to changes in LW and possibly convective fluxes; then there are feedbacks (not seperated in time, generally), which may include SW changes, and then the temperatures and temperature-dependent fluxes must respond farther (or less if feedbacks are negative).
PS transfers of kinetic energy (or any mechanical energy that is not embodied in enthalpy**?) can be, for the sake of elegance here, simply included in the convective fluxes.
Those temperature changes won’t necessarily or generally align with the forcing (vertically) because as each layer changes temperature, it will brighten or dim its emission, and some of that may be absorbed by other layers, thus spreading out the temperature response. Eg., Part of stratospheric cooling can remain in part due to its not absorbing all of the increased LW flux from below. … And (vertically, horizontally, temporally), because of changes in convective/advective heat/energy fluxes, and the distribution of feedbacks. Note that changes in convective heat fluxes are not identical to changes in convection, etc.: if radiative effects alone produce hot and cold spots (or spatially-varied anomalies in humidity), they would tend to be advected downwind (or by current) or otherwise spread in some way via any turbulent mixing, if fluid flow itself were unaltered.
“When an additional LH flux from the surface is initially ‘turned on’, setting aside changes in atmospheric and surface composition (or texture, etc.), there is no radiant effect because temperatures have not changed. So the surface cools and the troposphere warms. There is no effect on OLR initially. As the temperature changes, emission of radiation changes; this increases the upward emission to Space from some of the troposphere, and the backradiation AND reduces the upward emission from the surface; it would (I expect) also reduce the SH flux from the surface. A new convective lapse rate is being established wherein the surface and some part of the lower troposphere are cooler and upper troposphere is warmer. The OLR may change; assuming a greater heat capacity at the surface (and the equilibrium warming of the upper troposphere is not too large relative to the cooling below), OLR may tend to increase during the transition to a new equilibrium (this is when the ‘escape to Space’ may be considered to occur). When equilibrium is achieved, the OLR is back to what it was before, with the net radiant cooling vertically redistributed (column total = OLR flux); the change in LH flux (at every vertical level) must be completely balanced by opposing changes in net LW flux and SH flux, because solar heating is the same (until we consider the radiative effects of H2O vapor, clouds, etc.). The ratio of atmospheric emission to Space to combined [direct atmospheric solar heating + emission of LW radiation absorbed in the atmosphere + LH and SH (net) fluxes from the surface] could be different in this new equilibrium, and I’m not sure if the 1/3 ratio would come up during the transition.”
I think that we have to treat the process described in the second sentence of this paragraph separately for land and sea. I imagine that as soon as latent heat flux starts to “eat” a part of the overall radiative energy input coming to the surface, the surface starts cooling immediately and its infrared radiation output starts decreasing accordingly.
Therefore, I think that the extent of the troposphere heating may depend on the extent of heat flux from deeper layers under the surface. I think that heat conductivity of soil is generally rather low. The terrestrial surface may therefore cool and its infrared radiation may decrease quite quickly, and resulting troposphere heating may be quite smal above land, if any.
The situation above ocean may differ, because convection can supply the warm water to the surface and thus help maintaining the high heat flow from the surface that was, as we assumed, suddenly intensified by switching the latent heat flux “on”. If so, I can indeed imagine a troposphere heating above its original temperature by this additional heat transport mechanism.
In such case, the result might be perhaps indeed a positive Earth energy imbalance, with outgoing longwave radiation output exceeding the mean solar radiation input on the expense of gradual ocean cooling. As soon as the heat (accumulated in the ocean during the previous period of weak latent heat flux) is radiated away in the space and ocean temperature decreases accordingly, we should obtain the new steady (“equilibrium”) state, with lower average Earth surface temperature in comparison with the starting state of the weak latent heat flux, and with the original mean Earth emission temperature.
Therefore, one quite important question might be, in which extent a decrease of the latent heat flux from the land, e.g. due to “continental drying”, can be mitigated by possible increase in latent heat flux from the ocean. Another important question may be, in which extent an artificial increase of latent heat flux from the land could induce an increased latent heat flux from the ocean, because it seems to be the only mechanism that might finally enable the desired “average” cooling of the entire Earth surface.
I cannot exclude that the artificial evaporation enhancement from the land may have limited potential because it in fact cannot effectively enhance the evaporation from the ocean. It may be possible that the desired artificial intensification of the global water cycle might be achieved only if we were able to intensify the direct evaporation from the ocean, and this may, again, depend on how effectively we can (or cannot) intensify the water transport from the ocean to the land. It is my feeling from the previous discussion that the climate science paid so far very little attention (if any) to such questions. It am afraid that, in fact, nobody knows the answers to these questions yet.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
You find your post as well as the related older contributions in my track of the discussion.
I strive to maintain it in form of a public orgpage that is easily accessible under link
If you would like to make comments directly in this orgpage, e.g. by introducing graphics, tables and like, please feel free to do so by using the following link for commenting:
“””one quite important question might be, in which extent a decrease of the latent heat flux from the land, e.g. due to “continental drying”, can be mitigated by possible increase in latent heat flux from the ocean”””
I recommend to include in your conceptual framework that ocean continues to operate at the “limit”.
Recently the concept of maximum evaporation from ocean surface is discussed in:
and Tu, Yang, and Roderick subsequently in 2022:
Testing a maximum evaporation theory over saturated land: implications for potential evaporation estimation https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/1745/2022/
From the latter eq 6 the simple temperature dependent relation is given for the Bowen ratio, or the ratio of sensible H to LE for a surface with unlimited water supply. This corresponds to the maximum rate of evaporation in surface partitioning.
0.24 y / Δ
where
y = psychrometric constant
Δ = slope of vapor saturation curve
e.g.
At 15C
Δ = 0.11 kPa/C
y = 0.066 kPa/C
Bowen Ratio 0.24(0.066 / 0.11) = 0.15
At 20C
Δ = 0.15 kPa/C
y = 0.066 kPa/C
Bowen Ratio 0.24(0.066 / 0.15) = 0.11
The slight temperature and pressure dependence in y is ignored for this example.
For example, Trenberth 2009’s ocean is giving 97.1 units LE vs 12 units H.
12/97.1 = Bowen Ratio = 0.12
To test the maximum evaporation relation, we can recover the surface temperature for Trenberth 2009’s ocean knowing only the surface partitioning Bowen ratio.
Using the maximum evaporation concept the Trenberth 2009 ocean surface should correspond to a temperature about 17C. The slope of the vapor pressure saturation curve must be about 0.13 kPa/C . This is confirmed in Trenberth’s thermal up column 400.7 Wm-2.
Tu, Yang, and Roderick:
“we show that LEmax corresponds well to observed evaporation under non-water-limited conditions and that the Ts value at which LEmax occurs also corresponds with the observed Ts”
PS
I have not touched on the additional proposal in Yang and Roderick i.e. “formulation to show that as Ts increases, a greater fraction of Rn is partitioned to evaporation (i.e. higher evaporative fraction) but Rn declines because of an increase in outgoing long-wave radiation. The consequence is that a maximum evaporation rate emerges naturally from that trade-off. We find that this maximum corresponds to the actual evaporation over global ocean surfaces at both local and global scales.”
Thank you very much for your thoughts and the references that I still have to read / watch.
As a very quick remark only:
Don`t you think that if, with respect to water transpiration, oceans really stably “work at their limits”, there might arise questions like: “Where comes the moisture transport between land and sea from?” and/or “How can the moisture transport between land and sea depend on terrestrial vegetation cover?”
I do not disprove the conclusions presented by Yang and Roderick. I just wonder if – provided that their conclusions are correct – any changes in terrestrial vegetation (and possible changes in evapotranspiration related thereto) might play any role in global climate. It appears to me that if they are correct, water transport between the land and the sea should basically depend on the global average temperature only?
It seems that if the evaporation from the oceans is any time at its limit, there should not be possible any variance dependent only on changes on the land surface (and in its hydrological regime). For me, it would have been an argument casting a severe doubt on the “biotic pump” hypothesis that seems to assume an namely, opposite – namely, that evaporation from the ocean and water transport between the land and the ocean may depend on the intensity of evaporation from the land.
Anyway, I just found out that the preprint by Makarieva et al, questioning correctness of evapotranspiration treatment in state-of-art climate models (and, particularly, in policies derived therefrom), issued in July as a regular peer-reviewed paper:
I do not claim any agreement or dispute with Makarieva and co.
Considering the evaporative fraction is bound fundamentally to temperature for a non-water-limited surface, we can use the 0.24(y/Δ) and data to estimate the relative impact of real terrestrial systems.
For consistency, I will refer to Trenberth 2009.
Trenberth 2009’s land is yielding a thermal up surface 383.2 with a Bowen Ratio 27/38.5 or 0.7
For an unlimited wet terrestrial system, supposing 100% wet-land, at say 15C, the unlimited ratio is estimated at 0.15 via 0.24(y/Δ).
Holding Trenberth’s land surface net radiation constant, the unlimited potential evaporative equivalent flux is 56 Wm-2.
Comparing the observed value of 38.5 to that of the ‘potential’ 56 results in about a 30% limiting case due to land surface water ‘unavailability’ in space or duration.
For Trenberth’s globe the same:
Thermal up 396
actual H: 17
actual LE: 80
Unlimited ratio: 0.13?
Observed actual ratio: 17/80 or 0.2
Unlimited case H: 12
Unlimited case LE: 85
An estimated globally averaged 6% limiting case of LE due to terrestrial moisture unavailability in space and duration.
Cheers
NOTE: It is important to consider that the assumption of constant surface net radiation is surely invalid between a limited and unlimited case! The “maximum” of surface net radiation is coupled to maximum evaporation as discussed in Yang and Roderick 2019.
Therefore, there must be a strict limit to surface net radiation imposed by the actual evaporation(transpiration). As with ocean and its unlimited case, this applies also to the globe and the actual 6% limited case.
Perhaps counterintuitively, surface net radiation can be allowed to rise higher than it otherwise would by limiting surface moisture in space or duration. In agreement with Makarieva and co, this suggests a compensating factor which outweighs the surface albedo effect of unnatural drying.
For this reason, climate sensitivity may in fact be deemed to increase as surface terrestrial catchments are profoundly altered (degraded).
And as always, it has never been disputed here that hydrological and temperature extremes should be expected to increase as catchments are degraded.
also PS, in terms of the ocean-to-land transport — I have not given it any thought – my hunch is it’s the condensation process which controls primarily the distribution and intensity flux delivery, and the land surface catchment properties which influence the resulting hydrology (runoff intensity, retention, infiltration, duration of moisture, etc).
I checked up Anastassia Makarieva and Victor Gorshov.
Their theory of “Biotic pump” at Wikipedia is rather what you should have pointed to and referred to. Then we might have been finished with this discussion and come further.
Makarevas theories are not unthinkable and impossible, only “unconventional” to many,
But I know the same allready from public school and highschool. It is probably old learnings of physical geography in the Humboldt and Köppen traditions, that relate ideologically rather to Linnaeus at Kungliga Akademin and to the Sorbonne style of thought, and not to “classical physics and statistics”, dry material mechanics with LEGO and dialectic materialism on that, , that blocks thinking in such arenas.
I have a much better access to it from the side of chemistery..
I have been describing a very accute and fresh natural example to it here in recent days, where all the environment and climatic experts & Knowitalls were very surprized and unprepared. .
It is a very good and readable Wikipedia article, very much better than dilettantisms and speculations about similar things on this website, that fail to hit the point. . Makarieva did.
“How can moisture transport between land and sea depend on terrestrial vegetation cower?”
Which is your notion and question..
I have lived with it all my life and it is obviously dependent and inter- related and makes a whole- ness.
It is like the chicken and the eg what causes what? and they forget the cock, the rooster, the worlds order and necerssary higher supervision and control!
which is sinful. It is male- discriminating and very unrealistic.
I have come over possible solutions to the problem in old, mideival scolastics on its very best. . By the old anglo-fransciscans and the Sorbonne University., who had to enter that congregational order to get to the University and learn Latin..
They have been discussing Aristoteles` 4 causal categories, of which only one is believed in today, the causa efficiens..
But for human belief and mentality, read possible climate understanding and politics, the 3 other categories are just as important.
I hope you get this because, you stated the problem
Does the vegetation cause the rain and the climate on land, or does the rain and the climate on land cause the vegetation?
Orthodoxy along with Humboldt and Köppen and all that tells that the climate causes the vegetation, wherefore flora and fauna is important signs and signals of the climate everywhere.
But might there be a causality also in opposite direction?
we have several examples of species and økosystems changing the environment premises to its own advantage, wherefore we end up with the hen and the eg, what causes what?,
My very best advice there is to enjoin it upon the people that they have totally forgotten
his highness, the rooster, the cock in that system. Which is sinful.
There is rising evidence that through evapotranspiration, terrestrial plants contribute to “rain recycling” – in other words, to a sustainable humidity transport from the ocean to interior of continents.
M+G “biotic pump” hypothesis suggests that in case of huge forest areas reaching from the coast into interior of a continent, this rain recycling effect might perhaps indeed become self-sustaining.
Even more appealing than this hypothesis, however, might be the opposite side of this coin:
Makarieva and her co-authors suggest also that in case of an insufficient water supply from the exterior (or, perhaps, insufficient area of the land cooled by intensive evapotranspiration so that it could maintain the self-sustaining high-intensity water cycle), the direction of the humidity flow may reverse, and evapotranspiration from the plant cover may become self-destructive – rather contributing to drying of the respective continent and to its switch from the humid, precipitation-rich hydrological regime to the arid, precipitation-poor one, than sustaining the original state.
I think that these aspects may be of a high practical importance and that works and thoughts of Makarieva et al therefore deserve more attention and more thorough examination than they get so far.
The fundamental ERROR here is the strange, systematic propaganda rumor & supersticion that necessary water on the ground is what cools the earth, and that this cooled earth is what also causes more water and rain to uplocate and to fall down on that spot / in that same land. .
Thus, water it artificially frirst and perhaps plant some trees, and the world will be saved. secured and we can disqualify the IPCC with its CO2- “theory”. that is ignoring science, logics, and common sense like this.
It is an industrialized, obviously stupidifying and consciously misleading propaganda, . that is betraying its advocats deeply.
It is the new and recently updated catechismic sales promotion and march order for
worshipful religious obedient progressive denialism and surrealism……….
……….. after tglobal warming had to be axepted also in that political cloosed society camp and order.
Thicker mosses, more humus and higher grasses bushes and trees keep and inhibit rain and water from rushing suddenly superfisciously into the creeks and out the rivers and back to sea again.
The forest and vegetation causes itself that way by securing and storing its necessary water from running off. This is well known traditional and elementary biological homøostasis.
It hardly re- cycles and causes more and further rain to fall down, as it seems to be believed here. It takes better care of what has allready rained down and protects the økosystems against drought periods where rain and scarce rain is allready there. .
Moral consequenses of that:
Resign on cutting your lawn when drought is expected, Resign also on “trimming” your trees and bushes if sudden rain can not be expected. Then it survives your “culture” better and you will have more prophit and pleasure, and less costs, work, and annoyances with it.
Propaganda and learnings & ideologies contra theese elementary things or ignorinjg it for other reassons, are pitiful and sinful.
And belonging in closed institutions and societies under strict supervision within error- bars, to learn obedience, scarcity, hygiene, economy, culture, work, and gardening first, such as in traditional prison camps and monastries. where no furter fucking and breeding is permitted
Because we cannot have the alternatives running around teaching and preaching and begging, ruining our towns and ackers and landscapes and living conditions.
You are making it difficult for yourself trying to defend thatb evaporational cooling, that wet towel in the winds, you know.,
Your section 4 from below:
“The situation above sea may differ, because convection can supply,….”
and then you discuss “that heat conductivity of the soil..” in section 5 above.
My wiew and experience is easier
I repeat….
Do not forget the great cycvles and cyclings in the climate. Day and night, summer and winter, and…..www.Jormungandr ( the fameous jet stream making meanders around the world biting itself in the tail) cycling all the time.
Thje russian winter coming even to Ceskoslovensko. My old flame Irena wrote that they were figure skating in Praha in December as there was only darkness and piss rain here.
And the Lillehammer Olympics. The year before they suggested having all skating rather in the steep streets of Lillehammer and feared for the very olympics, but when it came it was the opposite, Russian winter with splendid blue sky white snow and down to – 27 celsius 0n the ski stadions. It was a big success because temperature hardly matters in such brilliant weathers.
What is really ugly and chill is open water fog from Vltava for instance undercooled at – 10 and – 15 through your wools and onto your bare skins. “Frost fogs”, latent chill opposite to latent heat.
Whereas steady dry air hardly has got got any ” sensible” heat capacity.
And then the heat waves, in summer from eastern Europe and even from Spain and France, and then summer sun to it. That easily makes 30 celsius in April.
In Tromsø northern Norway they now and then have it from the east, from Russia in the midnight sun, and it is like Costa in clear weather.
That situation did hit Oregon and Alberta last year with easterly winds and warm air from the high summer canadian Taiga and northamerican plains,…… giving well above 40 celsius and bushfires without water.
patrick o twentysevensays
re Tomáš Kalisz (sorry for the delay): I think that we have to treat the process described in the second sentence of this paragraph separately for land and sea. I imagine that as soon as latent heat flux starts to “eat” a part of the overall radiative energy input coming to the surface, the surface starts cooling immediately and its infrared radiation output starts decreasing accordingly.
Yes, of course the sea surface temps (SSTs) generally change significantly more slowly than land temps, but the equilibrium change can be independent of how long the approach to equilibrium takes (though the transient response is important, as things must live through it). What I said is true in either case, as at the moment a (change in) forcing is turned on, a rate of change will happen, but the change still starts at 0 (at relative time = 0), land and sea alike.
As far as whether forced land wetting could draw in additional humidity from elsewhere, I suspect this will depend on various particulars. If we start with the idea that we can linearize to approximate responses to very small changes, a little additional humidity would tend to get carried downwind based on the prexisting atmospheric circulation. At what point will this go into a cloud, etc., and how much sooner will that cloud come due to the humidity? Then, how will that (change in latent heating/cooling (albedo and LW surface+cloud effects, latent heating/cooling of land surface, amount and location of latent heating in cloud, and any land/air(eg virga) wetting from that precip?) change the circulation? … I would refer you back to the articles/sources I’ve posted links to before (and links from those)
patrick o twentysevensays
“linearized” – of course, bifurcations can occur, eg: moist convection could initiate in a separate location…
The early August post at the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis is titled ‘An Odd Summer’ and reflects on the less-than-vigorous Arctic sea ice melt season contrasting with record global SAT and the record slow freeze-up down in the Antarctic. And just to add to the oddities, the record low Antarctic SIE (which on JAXA has now clocked up 169 daily records through the 217-days-so-far of 2023** and no sign of this 2023 record-setting ending anytime soon), NSIDC point to a pair of papers which investigated the Antarctic sea ice in pre-satellite years with contrasting conclusions.
The ten-year-old Gallaher et al (2013) ‘Anomalous Variability in Antarctic Sea Ice Extents During the 1960s With the Use of Nimbus Data’ used 1960s Nimbus images to assess Antarctic SIE back in the 1960s while Fogt et al (2022) ‘A regime shift in seasonal total Antarctic sea ice extent in the twentieth century’ used weather data beyond the Antarctic as proxies to reconstruct a seasonal Antarctic SIE record 1905-2020. To different levels, the two papers put the Antarctic SIE satellite record alongside earlier variability.
JAXA satellite data.
Updating the table of Record Low Antarctic SIE Days above, 2023 has continued hoovering up the days with only 48 of the 243 days-so-far escaping. (See Graph 3a here.)The massive margin of record being set by 2023 over recent months has been showing a bit of a drop over the last week such that the margin-of-record is dropped below 1 million sq km for the first time since 12th June.
The period in the JAXA data when previous max annual Antarctic SIE have been set stretches from 29th Aug to 3rd Oct with the lowest such maximum so far set in 2002 at 18,006,054 sq km and with the 2023 freeze season so-far reaching only 16,450,000 sq km. The top & tail of the Max Annual Antarctic SIE so-far run as follows:-
1st … … 2002 … … 18.01
2nd … … 2017 … … 18.06
3rd … … 2018 … … 18.11
4th … … 2022 … … 18.12
5th … … 1986 … … 18.13
6th … … 1989 … … 18.13
7th … … 2008 … … 18.27
……
41st … … 1998 … … 19.21
42nd … … 2012 … … 19.35
43th … … 2013 … … 19.50
44th … … 2014 … … 20.12
John Pollacksays
This is a verification to follow up on last month, when I challenged a forecast that Chuck Hughes posted from @WeatherProf concerning an exceptionally strong 500 mb high developing over the southwest US, with a projected center of around 6025m near the AZ/NM border at around 36N. I forecast that at on Aug. 7, 00UTC, the high would be around 5969m, around 33N, and on a more elongated east-west axis. I thought that this would result in scattered daily records, and perhaps just a few new August records.
In actuality, the graphic that Chuck Hughes posted was overforecast, butI underforecast. The actual high was around 6000m, according to the analysis, and was in Mexico just a little southwest of El Paso, TX. This was further south than either of us placed it. It was on a more elongated east/west axis, rather than being a rounded high centered a little south of the Four Corners on the posted graphic. This resulted in about an 80m error for the Four Corners in the Chuck Hughes forecast.
There were some temperature records concentrated near the Rio Grande Valley. I don’t have the Mexican figures. Daily records were set at San Angelo and Abilene in southwest Texas, both 108F, and also at Winslow AZ (103F), while Phoenix tied a daily record (114F). All of these readings were barely above the old records.
Del Rio, TX exceeded their old August record by 1F at 110F. Albuquerque reached 102F, 2F above the August record before this year. The standout was El Paso, TX. They reached 112F, 4F above their previous August record. Their sounding was dry adiabatic to around 490 mb, and the tropopause was a tropical 14.3km. There were no all-time records reached that I am aware of.
The SAT for the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis has been posted for July. Not unexpectedly, the global 2023 July SAT is “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!”, at +0.72ºC the highest monthly anomaly for 2023-so-far (previously June’s +0.53ºC), the warmest July on the ERA5 record (previously 2019’s +0.40ºC) and the highest monthly anomaly on he entire record (previously the El-Niño-boosted Feb 2016 +0.69ºC).
The “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!” July is quite extraordinary being 0.32ºC above the previous record set in 2019 (+0.40ºC), with ranked previous warm Julys running 2022, 2016, 2021, 2020 (+0.33ºC), 2018, 2017 (+0.27ºC) & 2015 (+0.15ºC).
The 2023 year-so-far has risen from its =3rd position in June to claim 3rd for its very own, the year-so-far anomaly now rivaling the full annual averages of the top-spot years.
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 2nd
2023 .. +0.43ºC
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.30ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.18ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 15th
There is perhaps a problem in waving this “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!” July as the product of AGW, which is an effect that has been on-going for decades while this latest drama is but a few months old. That is – while the ERA5 shows a record June & July, this was preceded by the 3rd warmest May, 5th warmest April, 2nd warmest March, 5th warmest Feb & 7th warmest Jan.
Why the sudden jump in SAT?
There is the new 2020 regs on shipping fuels which would tend to be an effect presumably heightened through the NH summer and impacting SSTs in recent years but this Hausfather & Forster post at Carbon Brief last month suggests we should also consider the Jan 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption (which I’d reckon suggests it having a greater-but-transitory effect over the next decade, greater-than the clean shipping fuel regs) plus the record-low dust from the Sahara as well as the building El Niño.
So a lot of analysis to be done to understand this “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!”
Wind and solar power pollute the Earth and make life miserable.
Recent global and local heat records reflect natural temperature cycles.
These are some of the themes of children’s videos produced by an influential conservative advocacy group.
Now, the videos could soon be used in Florida’s classrooms.
Florida is the first state to allow PragerU materials in public schools, where teachers will have the option of showing the five- to 10-minute videos in their classrooms. Florida public schools have roughly 3 million students, more than the entire population of Kansas. [more]
No, Hr Levenson. The People will have to help for that.
We have rules and regulations even catechisms for it.
The People will have to sing and pray and lift and work together rather the way that God has ordered and orders all the time. Then there will be results.
The alternatives belong in jail. Or better in Monastries as it was before, under strict control and supervision behind thick urban walls and error- bars, to train and learn the same so as to possibly come to their human rights rather, in that alternative way.
The error today is that the monastry capacity is way too low for all those alternatives, namely the wild gangs of preacher and beggar brothers and sisters.
Adam Leasays
Feels like the global weather has played a cruel joke on the UK this year. Reports just out that the global July temperature is the warmest on record, yet the UK has had one of its worst July’s for weather in recent memory. A relentless barrage of low pressure with the jet stream aimed at the UK like a cannon. Parts of the country have had their wettest July on record, mercifully this has not resulted in flooding thanks partly to a very dry period in May and June, and because the rain has fallen little and often rather than in deluges. The poor July weather has so far continued into August and is of stark contrast to June which was the warmest on record for the UK which itself followed a soaking wet March and a very dry February. Ridiculous windscreen wiper weather.
I’ve heard that the extreme heat across the NH continents this year along with the poor weather in northern Europe has been caused by a Rossby wave number five pattern which is notorious for getting locked in place. The same pattern happened last year except then it was the UK enduring the extreme heat. With these blocked patterns it all depends on where the ridges and the troughs get stuck as to who gets the drought and the deluge.
All heavy transport on the roads and railroads stopped in southern Norway due to sudden and quite extreeme rain, orange and even red warnings against flood and earthslides.
As some people are discussing aridification and even Rainbarrels here and denying the wapour pressure curve of water teaching that it only rules in closed systems.
It clears up again here and shall be sunshine on friday as we will pick Redcurry and drive to Askim with it. Only that we will have to cross the river Glomma, and my wife asks whether the bridges there will be in order. I hope so.
But I did warn and alarm you all. The record high temperatures in the northeast atlantic, I wrote, and that it will have its consequenses.
So what did I say / write?
But some people will allways deny Aristoteles and Claussius Clappeyron, purchasing the alternatives.
Bill Hendersonsays
There is an interesting new report on climate modeling – the GIGO fun with IAMs variety:
From the University of Exeter and the UK’s Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.
Well worth your time but scary. I wrote it up this way for a mailout:
Isn’t Team Normal [Mann, Ritchie, Solnit, etc. recently] basically saying there is no choice but mitigation within BAU, no deep systemic change, and hoping that Hothouse Earth or abrupt or runaway climate change are low probabilities that won’t happen. And if half by 2030 or staying under a 1.5C rise is no longer possible, so be it but we’ll keep on trying to reduce emissions as best we can (in BAU).
Is this still tenable or is this denial and faulted risk management? How about this warning from tipping point experts and actuaries:
“ The latest science on tipping points reinforces the need to race to zero and makes decarbonisation scenarios that feature temporary overshoot (ie allowing the temperature to increase beyond 1.5 ̊C before reducing it again) significantly more risky. Tipping points must be included if scenarios are to be realistic. They are no longer high-impact, low-likelihood events but are now high impact, high likelihood, and we need to mitigate and plan for them. Ignoring them in scenarios and modelling significantly understates risk.”
Ned Kellysays
@Bill H.
BAU is a suicide pact which includes the fiction of net zero by 2050
It’s mitigation denial from the usual quarters in the climate publishing bookselling industry
both 1.5C and 2C are delusional ambitions that should never have been entertained.
global avg temps as ‘climate’ goals is a lunacy that was never going to work and was designed not to.
Everything about the COP meetings the UNFCCC and the IPCC and how climate scientists have stupidly played their assigned roles in this kabuki theater is a disgraceful fraud.
nigeljsays
“global avg temps as ‘climate’ goals is a lunacy that was never going to work and was designed not to.”
What then do you suggest are appropriate goals?
Ned Kellysays
I will start with a couple of questions back to you-
And what is your opinion for the best Goals to be set? Have you ever thought about it yourself? Have you not ever seen alternative ghg emissions climate goals being proposed that don’t include average global temperatures ever since 1990? Is every single idea that is outside the mainstream conservative IPCC climate science system of Group Think automatically faulty and not valid?
The simple answer is enforceable hard targets in the extraction and use of fossil fuel sources of CO2 and other sideeffect ghg emissions from them.
Enforceable hard targets to first reduce then stop the manmade destruction of ecosystems, human interference in susceptible arctic zones, and forests that are in effect global CO2 and CH4 stores.
Both great ideas for implementation in 1990 before the white-anting by the wealthy nations of the global north OECD G7 iow the US Empire in Kyoto
Then third placing enforceable requirements for reparations and ecosystem repair actions by the ~20 nations most resposnibel for +90% of the historical global GHG emissions since 1800.
All quite doable, measrueable and actually effective if the hard goals are set accoring to the actual scientific knowledge at the time in 1990 and ever since.
Now, this is where you and others now come in and say
“oh no that’s not possible – it would never be allowed”
That the world is corrupt to the core does not change the fact that these kinds of hard physical material goals for each nation – or group of nations at different economic levels – are still in fact far better, far more accurate, far more easily measured than vacuous ephemeral and MOVING “average global temps” and/or global atmospheric PPM MOVING measurements are and much more rational and science based and p;lain common sense.
Count the coal being dug out of the ground and burnt – not the flaky temperatures that change like the wind because they reflect the weather across a year and not the actual GHG emissions! Like doh!
Then one can even toss in some negative GHG emission strategies each nation can be measured upon – strategies that are proven to work and measurable too.
And 5th taking on the militarization of the world which has entrenched the abuse of power including within the UNFCCC COP system – by first enforcing the demilitarization of the United States.
24 May 2021 … Militarizes are major emitters and should not be excluded from GHG reduction targets. Governments must demonstrate their commitment to the Paris …
Of course there is no chance and no hope of any of these things being implemented – therefore global destruction and civilization collapse are guaranteed to follow, sooner than expected – just as the global temps in atmosphere and oceans were similarly more than “expected” – aka fantasied about – we can still stop global warming people everyone man the battlements – the climate scientists and greenies wail – what BS it all is.
Nevertheless real material accountable goals were always the right way to go – the world stupidly allowed otherwise. Blame yourself and everyone else, but especially the United States Empire for where we are right now and where we are going to end up – dead.
NK: Is every single idea that is outside the mainstream conservative IPCC climate science system of Group Think automatically faulty and not valid?
BPL: Climate orthodoxy! Religion! Outside the box! Galileo! Pal review!
nigeljsays
Ned Kelly
“The simple answer is enforceable hard targets in the extraction and use of fossil fuel sources of CO2 and other sideeffect ghg emissions from them.”
I agree this is the simple answer. But presumably governments have settled for more indirect schemes like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes or subsidies (like Bidens plans) because they sound a little bit less scary for the voters and corporates. And there might be more cynical reasons.
But I believe carbon taxes or cap and trade could clearly still achieve the same outcome of phasing out fossil fuels fast if they had the right design and settings. The trouble is the prices on carbon are not high enough, and there is no schedule of prices on carbon over time.
And too much reliance in such schemes is being put on carbon sequestration rather than cutting emissions at source (or stopping fossils fuels extraction). This just delays the tough decisions and reduces time available to scale them up and wastes the use of carbon sequestration, which is an expensive and limited resource, on things where its not that hard to reduce emissions at source.
If only politicians would find the courage to at least have have tougher carbon tax or cap and trade schemes. Doing the right thing generally doesn’t get as much backlash as feared. Once the right thing is done it tends to often stick.
However its about all of us. If more people voted for green parties it would force the mainstream political parties to have stronger climate policies.
Just my two cents worth.
nigeljsays
Ned Kelly,
sorry I didnt get around to answering your questions. Will try now.
Your questions: “And what is your opinion for the best Goals to be set? Have you ever thought about it yourself? Have you not ever seen alternative ghg emissions climate goals being proposed that don’t include average global temperatures ever since 1990? Is every single idea that is outside the mainstream conservative IPCC climate science system of Group Think automatically faulty and not valid?”
My opinion is the goal of keeping keeping warming under xyz degrees is an important goal to have because that is essentially what we are trying to do. Trying to downplay it sounds contrived to me (if thats what you are suggesting). I think I get your criticisms of it and they are reasonable. It also has the potential for it being a green light to bad solutions like geoengineering or CCS fitted to coal fired generation, but it still seems like an important goal to have stated.
And even if we tried to make your suggested idea of making cutting fossil fuels extraction and use a primary goal ( or the only goal if you meant that), we cant really escape talking about temperatures because we have to know much warming is safe to allow (if any) and how much time that gives us to phase out use of fossil fuels. So at the very least its inevitable we end up with having a goal of keeping warming under xyz degrees. I don’t think its a major problem having such a goal but I acknowledge it does have some downsides as mentioned.
I would ideally prefer your idea of a schedule of phasing down fossil fuels extraction and use rather than the emissions targets per se although they are similar sorts of things.
I would also prefer your stated idea of a schedule of phasing down fossil fuels extraction and use rather than a carbon tax or cap and trade scheme as such. However we have carbon tax and cap and trade schemes, and as I previously stated I believe they could work to eliminate use of fossil fuels if properly designed and strong enough. The trouble is the existing carbon tax and cap and trade schemes around the world aren’t well designed or strong enough. Bear in mind this would be a potential problem for a schedule of phasing out fossil fuels extraction and use as well, although your idea looks like it would have more transparency and be less open to clandestine manipulation, and does nail the main culprit to the wall.
I have previously considered a plan of phasing out fossil fuels extraction and use and with penalties and enforcement, ( as opposed to just emissions reductions per se which is slightly different) but I haven’t promoted it because it looks a bit like a non starter politically. Cap and trade or carbon taxes don’t scare the horses quite as much.
IMO the IPCC generally leans a little conservative on various issues of the science and mitigation suggestions. But its how science has always worked and I think that’s a good thing in general terms. As long as people realise there is this leaning.
The thing is to discern is whether there is any malign influence on the IPCC reports and thinking from deniers and fossil fuels exporting countries that is making the reports EXCESSIVELY conservative. I’ve seen credible analysis that the fossil fuels exporting countries have managed to soften terminology in the summary for policy makers and reduce references to the words “fossil fuels” and downplay mention of long term SLR. Its really frustrating and totally wrong.
However the core scientific findings in the IPCC reports don’t appear to have been compromised. For example the IPCC reports have some scary projections on warming levels at BAU by 2100 and also by 2200 and 2300. They wouldn’t be there if the reports had been seriously compromised or corrupted. But some of this is buried away and I think this is unfortunate.
I guess we need some healthy scepticism about the IPCC, and I agree there is the potential for malign influences, but its important to keep scepticism evidence based and not to descend into conspiracy theories about the IPCC.
Ned Kellysays
For nigel, no worries, nothing will change anyway, but one comment I’d like to address.
Nigel said: “… we cant really escape talking about temperatures because we have to know much warming is safe to allow (if any) and how much time that gives us to phase out use of fossil fuels.”
What you’re doing here is using the false framing of temperatures to assume it’s the temperatures that decides/defines what is and what is not “safe” – iow your are using what in many respects you have already agreed, can see, is a reasonable framing not needing Temperatures, to then flip that and then say BUT only temperatures can be used as the yardstick for “success”.
Your added point about “timing” is another not logical assumption too imo.
I put it to you that instead the whole notion that any Temperature is a worthy framing of what is Safe or not is again not supportable. Why? Because we already possess that knowledge of what is both safe and optimum —- the last 10,000 years of a steady state of the global climate at it’s Optimum for a healthy Natural Biosphere for sustainability of Life —- and the physics behind why that is so. It goes beyond simply avg global temperatures.
That yardstick (and driver) is not Temperature but is the GHG status of the atmosphere which Humans have directly interfered with via emissions and severe land use changes destruction of forests the lungs of the atmosphere. Within that 10,000 years the avg global temperatures have been through swings and varied from year to year despite the overall stability of the Solar inputs and Atmosphere.
We can not affect the Earths rotation, axis, or orbits nor the Sun’s intensity cycles nor volvanic eruptions etc etc –
OUR only point of control is the GHGs ppm level and what the forced changes in those, and the related land use changes and forest destruction/growth. Measuring the avg global temps makes zero difference to these hard measurable facts. X ghg in = ppm out and therefore using temps as Goal is irrelevant and unnecessary.
We already have the Data points to hand long before Temps will be influenced over a much longer and delayed time-frame – therefore you should see, I think, that as far as timing is concerned avg temps are NOT fit for purpose.
First they Lag changes in what drives those temps +/- at rates we cannot measure nor control plus many other drivers impact those very Temps from year to year besides GHG and Land use changes.
There is your yardstick and counting human induced GHG emissions and impacts on land use. Simple … fix those set logical goals and the temperature continues to vary slightly from year to year from decade to decade, as per the cold 70s cold spell, will work itself out to it’s hearts content.
The goal is as simple as get back to 350ppm as fast as humanly possible – the first of which is stop increasing the production of GHG into the atmosphere. We have the Data – the temps are irrelevant, as is the timing.
My proof is in the pudding – has using +1.5C goals stopped us from not breaking it?
No.
When has anyone ever put a hard enforceable limit on the FF use, land use inputs, or generated GHG emissions per year upon any country or the world?
Never.
I rest my case.
nigeljsays
Ned Kelly
I have days when I think nothing will change in terms of a better response to the climate problem, and others where I think we might just be able to stop a total disaster. Apparently its normal to feel alternating hope and despair.
You continue to assert keeping global temperature under xyz shouldn’t be the goal. Emissions and levels of fossil fuels use should be the goal. You give further details on this.
One detail stands out “There is your yardstick and counting human induced GHG emissions and impacts on land use. Simple … fix those set logical goals and the temperature continues to vary slightly from year to year from decade to decade, as per the cold 70s cold spell, will work itself out to it’s hearts content.”
Having read your more detailed explanation, your idea on goals is quite persuasive, and I’m not having a big negative reaction. It would certainly have been a good counter to the denialists accusation that warming stopped after 1998.
However one thing in favour of the framing of the goal of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees is that about 1 degree of warming will apparently stop or considerably lessen the next ice age. Although this is defacto geoengineering.
But would your approach to framing goals such that emissions reductions is paramount over temperature make much difference to mitigating the climate problem? Who knows. I feel it may lead to at least modestly better mitigation. I doubt it would have made a HUGE difference, because however the goals are framed there are numerous factors getting in the way of a strong mitigation response, including psychological, political, ideological and selfish vested interests, and a complex society very dependent on high levels of energy use. It might need a succession of truly massive heatwaves and forest fires to wake people up from all that.
Richard Creagersays
Ned Kelly- Thank-You for the breath of sanity and clear vision. Leaving it in the ground, and digging it up and burning it while we watch the thermometer and bite our nails, are not compatible. FFs have to stay in the ground.
Thank you very much for your hint to this interesting announcement.
I think the word “gambling” in the title of the article is quite appropriate, “fraud” could be perhaps even better fitting.
Reasoning:
Public money is not an unlimited natural resource, although governments around the world are using to pretend they are. Present “carbon trading” scheme with a fixed, equal price for both “carbon emission” as well as “carbon removal” is in my opinion deceptive, because it does not reflect high costs of artificial “carbon removal”.
In fact, seemingly cheap measures like tree planting are to be seen of a quite limited value, because buildup of an additional biomass does work rather as a temporary carbon dioxide sink, than as a permanent one. A true, “perfect” geological storage by carbon dioxide chemical binding in alkaline basalt rocks, as touted by Climeworks, must be extremely expensive. I am afraid that it is unavoidable, because extracting CO2 from its very diluted mixture with other components of ambient air needs lot of energy. Climeworks wisely desisted from disclosing operational costs of their “Orca” pilot plant on Iceland, although it covers a significant part of energy consumed by the separation process by relatively cheap geothermal heat that is abundant on Iceland but hardly available on other sites like Louisiana.
Alone the announced investments into separation plant in Louisiana are quite impressive – assuming that the 600 million dollar plant can miraculously operate 60 years without any maintenance and at zero operational costs, each of the 60 million tons of the CO2 successfully “sucked” from the atmosphere during this time will cost 10 USD.
Furthermore, the announcement is completely silent not only about expected operational costs but also about investments necessary for the storage of the separated carbon dioxide.
Unless the price of “carbon allowances” covers all costs of a such artificial carbon dioxide removal, any public money investment into such processes does in my opinion effectively represent a subsidy to fossil fuel industry and a public support for a smooth continuation of their business. When I clicked on the link to the article, an Aramco advertisment popped-up first. Perhaps a pure accident, but quite symbolical.
I would like to add to the 10% valuable comments on this thread the exceptionally and historic good news in the fight to solve the climate emergency:
“Sweeping Constitutional Win for Held v. State of Montana Youth Plaintiffs
Helena, MT—In an historic first, Judge Kathy Seeley in the First Judicial District Court of
Montana ruled wholly in favor of the 16 youth plaintiffs in Held v. State of Montana, declaring
that the state of Montana violated the youth’s constitutional rights, including their rights to equal
protection, dignity, liberty, health and safety, and public trust, which are all predicated on their
right to a clean and healthful environment. The court invalidated as unconstitutional and
enjoined Montana laws that promoted fossil fuels and required turning a blind eye to climate
change. The court ruled the youth plaintiffs had proven their standing to bring the case by
showing significant injuries, the government’s substantial role in causing them, and that a
judgment in their favor would change the government’s conduct.”
GISTEMP & NOAA have both reported for July 2023, GISTEMP +1.18ºC & NOAA +1.12ºC. No surprise with their both holding “scorchyisimo!!!” status, but not quite as emphatically as the EAR5 reanalysis figures. GISTEMP & NOAA both show an emphatic hottest-July-on-record but unlike ERA5 not the highest monthly anomaly on record (GISTEMP 5th hottest & NOAA 13th) and not the highest monthly anomaly of 2023-so-far being lower than March 2023. (In GISTEMP March was +1.20ºC & in NOAA +1.23ºC.)
The record hottest July remains as a big jump up on the previous record. In GISTEMP the other top-ten warmest Julys sit 2019 (+0.94ºC), 2022, 2021, 2020 (+0.90ºC), 2016, 2018, 2017 (+0.82ºC), 2009 & 2015 (+0.73ºC).
In both GISTEMP & NOAA (& ERA5), the 2023 year-so-far averages as the third warmest on record with the coming El Niño expected to boost the anomalies through the remainder of the year. Mind, the strength of the El Niño isn’t so-far looking very great with MEI & SOI & NINO3.4 all a little sluggish with their El Niño indications.
So a bit of head-scratching:-
Is this “scorchyisimo!!!” July 2023 a harbinger of “scorchyisimo!!!” through the rest of the year complete with the El Niño boost? Or will the reasons for the continuing “scorchyisimo!!!” (which the Uni o Maine reanalysis shows has been pretty-much with us since early June) start to fade away and do so faster that the El Niño boost can replace it?
MA Rodger: – “Is this “scorchyisimo!!!” July 2023 a harbinger of “scorchyisimo!!!” through the rest of the year complete with the El Niño boost? Or will the reasons for the continuing “scorchyisimo!!!” (which the Uni o Maine reanalysis shows has been pretty-much with us since early June) start to fade away and do so faster that the El Niño boost can replace it?”
Berkley Earth published on Aug 14 their July 2023 Temperature Update, by Robert Rohde. The update included (bold text my emphasis):
The global mean temperature in July 2023 was 1.54 ± 0.09 °C (2.77 ± 0.16 °F) above the 1850 to 1900 average, which is frequently used as a benchmark for the preindustrial period.
This is the 11th time in the Berkeley Earth analysis that an individual month has exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) over the preindustrial benchmark. All other such occurrences have happened during December to April, i.e. during the traditionally more variable months of Northern Hemisphere winter and spring. This is the first time that a 1.5 °C anomaly has occurred during Northern Hemisphere summer. Such a temperature excess coming during the already hot summer months is more likely to lead to extreme temperatures and all-time records than if it had occurred at other times of the year.
Berkley Earth indicates:
* Likelihood of final 2023 ranking: first place (99 %), second or third place (1 %), top-3 overall (> 99 %);
* Likelihood of full-year 2023 to exceed +1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above the preindustrial benchmark is 20%.
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy published their latest communication on 14 Aug 2023 titled Uh-Oh. Now What? Are We Acquiring the Data to Understand the Situation? They concluded with:
A new climate frontier. The leap of global temperature in the past two months is no ordinary fluctuation. It is fueled by the present extraordinarily large Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). EEI is the proximate cause of global warming. The large imbalance suggests that each month for the rest of the year may be a new record for that month. We are entering a new climate frontier.
When the first author gave a TED talk 10 years ago, EEI was about 0.6 W/m², averaged over six years (that may not sound like much, but it equals the energy in 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, every day). Now EEI has approximately doubled. Most of that energy is going into the ocean. If Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover remains low, much of that excess energy will be poured into the Southern Ocean, which is one of the last places we would want it to go.
That does not mean that the problem is unsolvable. It is possible to restore Earth’s energy balance. Perhaps, if the public finds the taste of the new climate frontier to be sufficiently disagreeable, we can begin to consider the actions needed to restore a propitious climate.
Geoff Miell,
The purpose of your above comment is not entirely clear to me. Is this some betting tip you are giving?
That said, a detailed reply to the points you make:-
☻ The emboldened passage you quote from the July BEST Update is actually entirely banal. It is saying that because the NH summer is the hottest part of the NH year, this is the time when all-time NH temperature records are likely to occur.
☻ Through recent months, the shortening odds given for 2023 becoming the hottest calendar year on record (BEST gave it as 18% back in their February Update, 54% back in May’s Update and two months on it is now 99%) presumably result from the hotter-than-expected recent months. But the causes of today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” are yet to be properly understood. They could magically disappear in coming months just as they magically appeared in recent months. Add in a lacklustre El Niño and those odds of a record hot 2023 could start lengthening radically.
(As gathering numbers to illustrate such argument has apparently in past exchanges not been you cup of tea, I’m not minded to bother much with such additions.)
☻ The Hansen et al comment you link-to, in blaming the TOA energy imbalance for ‘fuelling’ today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” is actually the same conclusion made by seasoned denialist Judy Curry although with an entirely different slant on the implications of such ‘fuelling’. Indeed, for Hansen the rising TOA energy imbalance is a long-term consequence of AGW while for Curry it is all very short-term and (not quite so short-term) the Hunga-Tonga eruption sulfate emissions from shipping. I don’t think either provides a very satisfying account.
☻ The 60-to-60 SST reanalysis is mirrored by the full global SST measurements and is the reason for today’s global “scorchyisimo!!!” Unlike the SSTs, the land SAT is not so startling in its “scorchyisimo!!!” with NOAA placing July 2023 Land SAT as the warmest July but not by any massive margin with the July monthly anomaly sitting only 74th in the all-month rankings.
☻ Whether anomalies for a record low Antarctic SIE could be described as being “record highs” is at the least confusing. But the continued record-breaking 2023 Antarctic SIE has clocked up (JAXA data) 179 record days out of 227 days-so-far. And these are not “near record” but “actual record” and mainly verging on “off-the-chart record.”
Antarctic SIE levels are not so strongly coupled to AGW as the Arctic SIE and far less well understood, so this year’s crazy-low SIE could yet lead to a return to normal next year (as per 2020) or further into the future, or not.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “Is this some betting tip you are giving?”
I’ll rephrase: I guess we will see soon if the prognostications (by Berkeley Earth/Dr Rohde, James Hansen, Makiko Sato, & Reto Ruedy) are accurate, or not. But it seems perhaps you wish to read something else in to it?
MA Rodger: – “☻ The emboldened passage you quote from the July BEST Update is actually entirely banal. It is saying that because the NH summer is the hottest part of the NH year, this is the time when all-time NH temperature records are likely to occur.”
Except I’d suggest it’s not about NH temperature records – the text I quoted (including the bold text I emphasized) is part of the section sub-headed with “Global Summary“.
I’d suggest the point Dr Rohde in the report is making is that this is the first time that a +1.5 °C global monthly mean anomaly exceedance has occurred during the Northern Hemisphere summer. All previous other such occurrences (i.e. exceedances of +1.5 °C global monthly mean anomaly) have happened during December to April. Such a temperature excess coming during the already hot summer months is more likely to lead to extreme global mean temperatures and all-time global records than if it had occurred at other times of the year. That’s my interpretation, but it seems you have a substantially different comprehension.
Dr Robert Rohde tweeted on Aug 14:
After an exceptionally warm July — the warmest month humans have ever directly measured — 2023 is almost certain to conclude with the warmest annual average on record as well (99% likelihood).
I wouldn’t characterize that as being “entirely banal”. I think “horrifying” is more appropriate, particularly for all those people who are & will be directly suffering from the consequences of this current & future extreme heat.
MA Rodger: – “☻ Through recent months, the shortening odds given for 2023 becoming the hottest calendar year on record (BEST gave it as 18% back in their February Update, 54% back in May’s Update and two months on it is now 99%) presumably result from the hotter-than-expected recent months. But the causes of today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” are yet to be properly understood. They could magically disappear in coming months just as they magically appeared in recent months. Add in a lacklustre El Niño and those odds of a record hot 2023 could start lengthening radically.”
I’d suggest more data; leads to better understanding; leads to more accurate probabilities.
I think Prof Jason Box is one that provides a plain language description in his YouTube video published 4 Aug 2023 titled 5 factors behind the Global Heatwave 2023, and it’s not just El Niño, duration 0:11:54. He suggests the factors for the current extreme temperatures include:
1. Enhanced GHG effect;
2. Ocean heat content;
3. El Niño;
4. Shipping emissions;
5. TSI increase; and Prof Box also mentions
6. Reduced volcanic aerosol events. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdvn2pGyOw
No magic involved – just science!
MA Rodger: – “☻ The Hansen et al comment you link-to, in blaming the TOA energy imbalance for ‘fuelling’ today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” is actually the same conclusion made by seasoned denialist Judy Curry although with an entirely different slant on the implications of such ‘fuelling’.”
Seriously? You wish to lump Hansen in with Curry?
I get the impression you seem to despise Hansen – it seems to me you disparage his work every time he gets a mention (at least by me). What’s he done to you?
MA Rodger: – “☻ The 60-to-60 SST reanalysis is mirrored by the full global SST measurements and is the reason for today’s global “scorchyisimo!!!””
Yet earlier you stated: “But the causes of today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” are yet to be properly understood.” Which is it?
I’d suggest Jason Box has a clearer understanding of the causes – see above.
MA Rodger: – “☻ Whether anomalies for a record low Antarctic SIE could be described as being “record highs” is at the least confusing. But the continued record-breaking 2023 Antarctic SIE has clocked up (JAXA data) 179 record days out of 227 days-so-far. And these are not “near record” but “actual record” and mainly verging on “off-the-chart record.””
Did you look at the linked graph?
The Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly continues to remain at near record highs (in the negative direction). Per the linked graph, the record anomaly (extent departure) was in early Jul 2023 – so currently not quite at record highs. https://zacklabe.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/nsidc_sie_ant_anomalies-7.png
MA Rodger: – “Antarctic SIE levels are not so strongly coupled to AGW as the Arctic SIE and far less well understood, so this year’s crazy-low SIE could yet lead to a return to normal next year (as per 2020) or further into the future, or not.”
I’d suggest there’s no such thing as a “return to normal”. At best, it would be a short reprieve from ever diminishing SIE levels in an increasingly warmer world.
zebrasays
MAR,
I’m not sure what you are saying about the increasing EEI. Why would you question the idea that it is a logical consequence of the same factors that have been operating all along? And why wouldn’t it be reflected in the behavior of the temperature proxy?
zebra,
That’s an interesting question you ask of me.
I’m assuming your “Why would you question the idea that it is a logical consequence of the same factors that have been operating all along? is asking why I would say “I don’t think either provides a very satisfying account..” And in this “either” I referred-to, the first was my ‘take’ on Hansen et al saying
The leap of global temperature in the past two months is no ordinary fluctuation. It is fueled by the present extraordinarily large Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). EEI is the proximate cause of global warming. The large imbalance suggests that each month for the rest of the year may be a new record for that month. We are entering a new climate frontier.
… 10 years ago, EEI was about 0.6 W/m2 , averaged over six years … . Now EEI has approximately doubled.
which I described as saying “the rising TOA energy imbalance is a long-term consequence of AGW” and failed to make properly clear that this is what Hansen et al apparently put as ‘fueling’ the “scorchyisimo!!!”
So what I was saying here is that the idea of a simple long-term cause of our present “scorchyisimo!!!” (that is the doubled EEI over a decade) is something that “I don’t think … provides a very satisfying account” as the long-term does not explain the wobble but only the AGW onto which the wobble deviates-from. Hansen et al in the quote above does tell us “EEI has approximately doubled” and I did read this doubling as being the “present extraordinarily large Earth’s energy imbalance” because he doesn’t make particular mention of the most recent months average EEI although these ae certainly extraordinary. And these recent EEI are what Judy Curry et al are pointing-to, specifically the large monthly EEI for May, as the cause of the “scorchyisimo!!!”, adding confusingly an increased EEI being “primary” in global rising temperatures since 2015, plus adding the denialist comment “Any increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 (which impacts the longwave radiation budget) is lost in the noise” although which “noise” is not made clear.
So to your interesting question, “Why wouldn’t EEI be reflected in the behavior of the temperature proxy?” EEI logically is the cause of global warming, in that the energy accumulating in the planet system has to come from somewhere and for AGW that somewhere is EEI.
And as Hansen et al point out, EEI has increased alarmingly in the last few decades, something Curry sees being of little interest/concern (Judy being a denialist and all).
Most comparisons of EEI & AGW concentrate on OHC as the lion’s share of the EEI ends up in the oceans. What I can’t say I’ve seen is a comparison of EEI and SAT, this perhaps of interest because SAT is what we have to live with, while OHC is for the fishes.
I must admit that I would have expected the EEI-SAT comparison to show a whole lot of noise, but this appears far from correct.
Taking the six-month averages of EEI from this presentation Loeb et al (2021) Trends in EEI During the CERES Period which runs 2005.5-2019.5 and plotting it against ΔLOTI (for the average of the 6-months of the EEI & the following 6-months) (see 21/8/23 graph here) shows the wobble comparison is far from ‘a whole lot of noise’. The EEI & LOTI wobble plots show them impressively closely marched 2005.5-to-2011.5 and again 2018.0-to-2019.5 (this the deviation from their 2005-19 linear trends).
Inbetween these two periods of closely matched wobbles, the match is spiolt by a spike in EEI thro’ 2012 not reflected in LOTI. Plus LOTI runs somewhat above trend 2013.0-to-2015.0 and below trend 2015.5-to-2018.0, these not reflected in EEI. (Thoughts of ENSO as the culprit spring to mind.)
And using the 2001-2022 CERES data shown in the Curry et al blog fig5, (also shown by Hansen et al fig6) the extended wobble comparison continues to look impressive, bar a cool spike in LOTI in 2003-04 and LOTI runnng cool from 2020-on.
The wobbles in LOTI do seem bigger than you expect from a back-of-the-envelope calcualation of a temperature response from a forcing, perhaps more so as the wobbly EEI results from a forcing-feedback combination. So some thought required.
And as a final nerdy operation, that ‘running cool’ of LOTI 2020-on could be perhaps evaluated as 0.05ºC below the EEI while the latest incomplete EEI data suggesting an additional SAT rise of +0.10ºC, these comparing with a June-July 2023 LOTI “scorchyisimo!!!” of +0.12ºC above the 2022 numbers.
zebrasays
MAR, you might be interested in this if you haven’t seen it; I would be interested in your opinion,
since I am not so much involved with the statistical nuances.
What I am interested in is the physics and in particular how we communicate about it; I think that the denialists use every opportunity to obfuscate at fundamental levels, like cause and effect. Consider just these two statements:
Hansen: “EEI is the proximate cause of global warming.”
MAR: “the rising TOA energy imbalance is a long-term consequence of AGW”
And then there’s zebra: “the same factors that have been operating all along”
So even “perfect zebra” can make statements that are open to different interpretations.
What troubles me here is that I would prefer your statement (assuming we can come to an agreement about what we mean by “AGW”), but you then adopt Hansen’s phrasing. I think any reader trying to understand any of this, even with an elementary physics background, would be puzzled and open to further confusion by the denialist word-games.
To me, the EEI is caused by an increase in the conversion of outgoing radiant energy to thermal energy (AKA GHEffect), which is caused by anthropogenic increase in GHG.
So if we define AGW as that increase of thermal energy resulting from increase in GHG and GHE, your original phrasing is correct. From there, it seems to me easier to discuss the question of acceleration, if we understand that both global mean temperature results and EEI are proxies for the increase in the GHE.
As you say, there is feedback, so it is hardly far-fetched to propose that as a factor which “has been operating all along”, especially if there is any merit in the paper I cited. In addition, it may be, as I have suggested previously, that direct anthropogenic increases in water vapor would be contributing. And who knows what else.
I guess my reaction to this is that I don’t find it surprising at all that there is some non-linear stuff going on; after all, we are talking about a chaotic system.
zebra,
☻ The paper with a statistical flavour you suggest as interesting didn’t make much of a splash in the literature. I have a feeling the stats are a bit naive and the colourful triangular graphs are thus less sophisticated than those of, say, Nick Stokes who maintains his temperature trend viewer showing such triangles.
☻ In my use of the term AGW, I mean something a bit wider than simply temperature & the man-made warming. I’d consider the forcings humanity is inflicting on the climate as being AGW and also the emissions which generate those forcings. So the whole process.
In my view, an increased EEI (and it doesn’t necessarily keep increasing) is part-or-result of that process as without it there can be no warming.
☻ EEI is a complex beast with the magnitude of EEI a net value resulting from complex processes as well as more straightforward ones (like the GHG forcings). That Loeb et al 2021 presentation on ‘Trend in EEI During the CERES Period’ I used to get the 2005-19 EEI numbers concentrates on the trend through that period. (I have the view that it is not a very representitive period for EEI under AGW, a period which sees EEI rises from +0.4Wm^-2 to +1.1Wm^-2.) Loeb et al analyse the components of the global EEI trend +0.42Wm^-2/decade. The numbers run (for the net contributions to the total trend)
Clouds … … … … … . +0.18
Surface Albedo … +0.15
Aerosols … … … … .. +0.03
Water vapour .. … .. +0.36
LLGHG … … … … … . +0.20
Rising temps … … . -0.53
(Note the negative sign of the temp feedback & note these are net trends Wm^-2/decade. They come with big error bars.)
(Of course a denialist would here point to the small LLGHG contribution to the total trend as the other contributions provide together almost 4x. But being a denialist they would deny the worrying significance of these contributions being mostly feedbacks released by the LLGHG.)
My investigations into EEI/SAT prompted by your interesting question continue as I now have monthly EEI 2001-to-date and am humming-&-haring over what this monthly data shows.
“Think about the year 1970,” Mr. Huntsman says. “That’s the year we hit a trillion-dollar GDP, and the year Jimmy Page and Robert Plant wrote that great song ‘Stairway to Heaven.’ A great year, right? Well today we’re emitting roughly 6,500 million metric tons of CO2. Same thing we were emitting in 1970. And look how much more electricity we’re using, and look how many more transportation and miles we’re driving. We’ve expanded the economy 30 times over, nearly, and core CO2 has stayed flat. We should be celebrating this achievement, shouldn’t we?”
Which is, of course, completely missing the point.
I suggest this CEO goes on stage at the next shareholder assembly, and progressively strips down of any piece of clothing not 100% manufactured in the USA. To illustrate there might be a difference between domestic emission and footprint.
(Of course the CEO, being a very intelligent men, is well aware of that, but he has to pretend, in order to keep his job…)
Yes, it is completely wrong. Emissions are a huge amount higher now than they were in 1970. Huntsman obviously hasn’t read the IPCC reports. His figures are 53 years out of date.
Carbon emissions this year are about 10 gigatons, not 6.5. He’s too low by 35%, or to put it another way, emissions are 54% higher than he thinks.
Solar Jimsays
BPL: “Carbon emissions” should preferably refer to “black carbon,” those that contribute to darkening of ice, a rapid albedo change. The “emissions” of concern are those of carbonic acid gas, conventionally referred to as carbon dioxide (a description of molecular elements), That material is the result of oxidation from fossilized carbon by the addition of two oxygen atoms. Thus, 10 gigaton of carbon becomes 37 gigaton of carbonic acid gas, via molecular weight.
Also, this calculation is only from fossil material oxidation. Several more gigatons occur from biogeochemical “feedbacks” on. the global scale (forest burning, etc.). Then there are a host of other anthropogenic gases (man-made and those from “feedbacks”) that almost double “climate change” impacts. These totals result in estimated “CO2 equivalents” into the 50 – 60 gigaton range per year.
Thus, your misplaced statement of “too low” would be off by roughly an order of magnitude for the planet. However, the CEO’s statement has several framing statements and assertions, such as “we” and an implied definition of “emissions,” which could be interpreted as accurate for the USA alone, if we leave out a host of caveats and complicating factors (such as undercounting quantities and qualities of increasing methane (CH4) concentrations in the atmosphere). Regards, SJ
The CEO said emissions, whether US or world, had not changed since 1970. That was entirely wrong. Period,
Steven Emmersonsays
Huntsman is approximately correct regarding US CO2 emissions. Celebrating, however, risks taking one’s eye off the ball. US per capita emissions are still relatively high and must be reduced. Also, it’s a global problem.
Ray Ladburysays
It is akin to a guy falling from a tall building congratulating himself on hitting terminal velocity, so, at least things aren’t getting worse.
Brian C Dodgesays
It’s similar to the “CFC scare” tactics/propaganda that derided the actions taken(elimination of CFCs) and the results achieved(ozone recovery), It’s like arguing “we don’t need seatbelts; fatalities per passenger mile are falling” and ignoring the underlying effect of seatbelts on fatalities. The transition to low carbon energy not an achievement to celebrate but a process which needs accelerating to give us non zero chance of a survivable climate. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.07.28/main.svg
In general, this is the fallacy of an exclusive focus on ‘carbon intensity.’. China has had impressive goals to reduce carbon intensity in its 5-year plans for at least 2 decades now, and IRRC has regularly exceeded the the improvements budgeted. Yet we know how their total emissions curve has gone.
I suppose muted celebration that it didn’t go the way it would have sans those reductions in intensity isn’t altogether inappropriate, but it sure would be a shame if it detracted an iota from efforts to reduce actual global emmissions.
Then, too, Mr. Hunstman’s self-congratulatory rhetoric seems pretty lame when you consider that the EU not only stayed in Kyoto, but AFAIK has met overall targets for emissions reduction. Reminds me of my nephew, who actually said, after failing a test, “Well, I knew 47% of the material!”
I consulted the website https://kilimarealistene.no and found an old story among the surrealists still going very strong and updated to what Matthias Schürle, JCM and Tomas Kalisz has launched here in recent time, and thus worth studying.
It is Hans Jelbrings alternative model theory to rule out the CO2AGW greenhouse- effect, later furthered by a certain Dipl.Ing Heinz Thieme “Technischer Assessor” Upstairs at the old Leipzig railways, (best red in original to identify him politically professionally.) And by the fameous pair Zeller-Nicolov.
A best access to it is through Roy Spencers analysis on his own website and in 2018 at WUWT
I hope you get it all in red here, , but I can google the same by that sentence.
Spencers discussion there is very good. and with important references.
That story, Jelbrings theory planetary surface temperatures being caused to 3 digit accuracy by ground atmosphere pressures only and by distance from the sun, regarless of natural gas composition, gaseous IR spectra to be ignored, is a central prototype for further denialism and surrealism on the net and in the blogosphere.
In updated form , the same vertical convection now also discussi9ng water vapour and “Latent heat flux” causing the lapsrate and the planetary surface temperatures is contra and opposite to my learnintg of wind veather and rain and eventual warmth and chill in public school. Where the heat and the temperatures did drive and cause the vertical and horizontal convections and flowings,, and not convections and flowings (however latent also), was driving and causing the heats and the temperatures in molecular matter.
So it is really worthy of knowing what Roy Spencer has written about the same and about the importance of radiation in the higher and lower atmosphere.
I am able to breathe out and keep what I know about Archimedes`law, hot air balloons, atomic and molar weights, Daltons and Boyles laws, radiology, and spectrophotometry.
And about Calorimetry.
Try also Hans Jelbring Atmosfäriska effekten,
that later became a dogma for organized climate surrealism.
I apologize for not examining your references to WUWT and other similar sources – it is just for limited time and energy I have, not for lack of respect to you.
Let me touch a few specific points from your posts that puzzle me.
These topics are interrelated, however, each of them has in my opinion a significantly different position in present picture of Earth climate as regards the level of certainty / scientific understanding.
by Barton Paul Levenson, reassuring me that it is indeed a standard part of state-of-art climate science and that my source of this knowledge (the textbook Physical climatology written by prof. Dennis Hartmann, to that I several times referred during the previous discussion) is trustworthy and reliable.
b) Rain recycling by terrestrial vegetation
I have not checked in detail how strong is the evidence for so called rain recycling (mechanism of a stepwise moisture transport from the ocean to interior of continents, enabled by re-evaporation of moisture precipitated on land, wherein it is supposed that evapotranspiration by plants significantly contributes thereto). There are publications supporting the existence of this phenomenon by analyses of stable isotope ratio in rainfall, and I hope that the respective measurements were made carefully and rigorously and that the obtained data were evaluated and interpreted cautiously. As a summary of this point, I presently do not see reasons for doubting that the rain recycling by water re-evaporation from land indeed works and that the terrestrial vegetation indeed does play an important role therein.
c) “biotic pump” hypothesis
Different from rain recycling, I still see the “biotic pump” hypothesis (assuming that large land areas with an intense “small” (local) water cycle may enhance water transport from the ocean into this area, establishing this way a stable steady state that may exhibit a strengthened resilience against external disruptions such as e.g. changes in global mean temperature, oceanic currents etc.) as an appealing idea that has neither a strong theoretical background, nor a solid observational support yet. On the other hand, I do not see any strong theoretical reason or observational evidence disproving this hypothesis. Therefore, I still think that it may deserve a serious attention from the mainstream climate science.
I am afraid that I still do not understand what is actually your view on these topics.
2) Greening vs drying of continents and paleoclimate evidence as a support for hydrological regime predictions in the present climate change
It appears that present climate models predict a slight increase in the total annual global rainfall with rising global temperature and that this prediction is in accord with a global trend observed during the last decades.
Nevertheless, the works published / cited by rasmus do not appear to mention any general trend to more rainfall on the land, and they rather seem to disprove claims like “Sahel is greening”. On the other hand, I have not seen yet any data convincingly supporting hypotheses about a general trend to “continental drying”. This is the reason why I asked explicitly if the available data show a general trend in higher water transport from ocean to continents, and what is regional distribution in observed development in hydrological cycle intensity.
I am not sure that a shift of present Earth climate to an analogue of Pliocene warm wet climate in central Europe may necessarily be a pattern followed by present climate change. I think that there are at least two reasons for a high uncertainty of such assumptions. First, I think that positions of continents and oceanic currents may have changed since Pliocene; second, at the very start of Pliocene, there was quite likely no equivalent of the present human interference with climate-relevant aspects such as terrestrial vegetation cover.
3) Recommendations of a holistic approach vs requirement for a monocausal explanation of observed phenomena
It appears that you, on one hand, often mention a holistic approach that should help understanding the Nature, on the other hand, I have rather a feeling that you assume that the observed climate change must have a single cause. I think so because you assign the people discussing possible complexity of the mechanism of the present climate change as “denialists”, striving to disprove the role of radiative greenhouse effect in climate regulation.
Personally, I have rather a feeling that “monocausal” phenomena are rather rare in the Nature, and that identification anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as a “suspect” in the observed climate change does not exclude that this suspect may have an accomplice (or more accomplices).
As you may have seen at WUWT, the climate denialist and surrealoists own namely the very Roy Spenjcer and even Anthony Watts have disqualified the latent heat material pumping of air and condensing and evaporating cooling and warming matters up and down in the atmosphere, by the fameous vertical convections.
What Roy Spencer and even Anthony Watts hav decided to set on and to disqualify there, is to be studied, understood, and followed further.
I learnt this in public school about air chill heat and distillation condensation indoor and outdoor as the grand old Party with P from the verbal squit faculty had not yet fully entered the CATETER and burnt & forbidden and re- written our schoolbooks the rather progressive way along with their “newspeach”., progressive post- revfolutionary Surrealisms and denialisms.
The mighty aerobic vertical active Dieselling and Pumping of the atmosphere up and down (where ther earth is flat within error bars) does not cause and explain the planetary ground temperatures and lapse rates
H2O cooling liquids with latent heat flux in addition to it even less.
Vertical convection in the atmosphere is a cooling negative feedback to global warming,
to global warming that is due to the greengouse efrfect caused byn IR absorbance and emittance on oligo- atomic dis- continuous electromagnetic thermal spectra.
Green vegetation and higher vegetation with deeper toots is not driving and forcing and causing and mooving the water cycles inland.
On the contrary, it is damping and braking ( bremse) the same. It damps the too rapid evaporation and evapotranspirations and runoffs into the rivers and seas and oceans again. and damps, “brakes”.. = slows down the water cycles inland.
It is not bio- pumping. It is bio- damping =inhibiting and slowing and braking down the water flows and flushes.. As you cannot forcefully water your way inland to ” pump” more rain from the sea and from above to force mosture further forward inland there. Because If you add artificially to the product of a process, you will ratyher inhibit and stop going further that natural reasction flow and process.
Higher temperatures is what is driving the water cycles to go faster with more force and material & energy flow. To damp and to “brake” those cycles , it takes high, wide and wet swamps that evapotranspirate less than open waters… higher vegetation with deeper roots, and more shadow on the ground, more deeply porous ground and earth, will evaporate and evaportranspirate less-delay the cyclings, and save the water from “cycling” running away and back again too fast.
Or you must build artificial riverdams and reserves with artificial irrigation to brake and delay those flushes and flows and flooding cathasrophies that are also connected with intermediate serious droughts.
Alltogether, this is proper Hydrology to damp and to brake the ever increasing and growing water cyclings due to CO2 AGW global warming.
Surrealism & denialism must be stopped in those areas because it is intensionally politically stupidifying as we can see,
as it fights and hurts our elementary our necessary experience and learnings about Nature. ..
I am not sure that your assumption that plants with deep roots (e.g., typical forest) slow evaporation down in comparison with bare land and thus “save the water from cycling”.
According to Czech plant biologist Jan Pokorný, evapotranspiration from a forest during a hot summer day may double the amount evaporated from a free water table in the same location.
Well, I think we are allowed to find out for ourselves here.
From a flat and tight ground it will rush off, not sink down.. With thick mosses shrubs and shado0wy trees that also damps the winds, it will surely stay better back and better sink down in the more porous ground with capillary forces.. Well developed ground and soil with higher and tougher vegetation with deeper roots defenitely keeps and stores the rainwater meltwater and riverwater better, and damps the flushes out essencially.
Then when drought comes and water is scarce, I have the clear impression that plants adapt by stagnating growth and water metabolism for saving water and surviving, trying to live on by less “evapotranspiration”. They close the Stomata. Even fall off leaves to better stay alive and wait for the rain.
So all in all it moderates and damps the overall rain and weather swingings to its own advantages, which is also evolutionary plausible.
It hardly causes and drives more water to evaporate so that there shall be more rain further on. It obviously also cause and do the 9opposite, saves and stores and keeps the water away from “cycling”. on.
. So all in all, I tend to see more and more that fameous “watercycle” that shall take over for CO2 and IPCC and James Jansen,……. as an intensionally new and misleading propagandisc idea.from the side of Thinktank climate surrealism.
The free water table has the least possible water surface, but when wind comes, the surface and boundary layer transport increases radically. Trees and vegetation damps that windy stirring in the water and will rather damp the evaporation and save and keep the water where it is to the vital økosystems own advantage..
Moral:
Resign on furthering the contrarian surrealistic propaganda suggestions, and you will maybe better see and reallize what is really going on in nature. As if Gods finger was with it, Which is an earlier, quite fruitfrul theory among practical peasants..
“Vitalism” was ruled out shortly after God had also been ruled out. But it took only a few years, then “Bio” and “Øko..” came in and tok that vacant seat. Practically meaning the same. .
(Bio… was coined by GURU charles Darwin. And Øko… by the fameous GURU Ernst Haeckel to enter a fameous Sedesvacans)
Surrealism and denialism and that omniscirent manmade …….cycle does not belong to teach and to judge and rule in that essencial high seat that mankind obviously cannot resign on.
Brian C Dodgesays
Re greening of continents, moisture transport – It’s complicated, and probably dominated by nonlinear/threshold effects. “Albeit with uncertainty in establishing a direct causality between RH trends and the different empirical moisture sources, we found that the observed decrease in RH in some regions can be linked to lower water supply from land evapotranspiration. In contrast, the empirical relationships also suggest that RH trends in other target regions are mainly explained by the dynamic and thermodynamic mechanisms related to the moisture supply from the oceanic source regions.” Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Nieto, R., Gimeno, L., Azorin-Molina, C., Drumond, A., El Kenawy, A., Dominguez-Castro, F., Tomas-Burguera, M., and Peña-Gallardo, M.: Recent changes of relative humidity: regional connections with land and ocean processes, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 915–937, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-915-2018, 2018.
Regarding the effects of type of vegetation and it’s effects –
:”A fence built to prevent rabbits from entering the Australian outback has unintentionally allowed scientists to study the effects of land use on regional climates.
The rabbit-proof fence — or bunny fence — in Western Australia was completed in 1907 and stretches about 2,000 miles. It acts as a boundary separating native vegetation from farmland. Within the fence area, scientists have observed a strange phenomenon: above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. But the sky on the farmland side is clear….One theory is that the dark native vegetation absorbs and releases more heat into the atmosphere than the light-colored crops. These native plants release heat that combines with water vapor from the lower atmosphere, resulting in cloud formation. Another hypothesis is that the warmer air on the native scrubland rises, creating a vacuum in the lower atmosphere that is then filled by cooler air from cropland across the fence. As a result, clouds form on the scrubland side….” or both, plus oceanic sources, plus aerosol differences increasing the relative humidity above the threshold for effective rain droplet formation. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html
See also https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2016/ja_2016_amatya_008.pdf, especially the part about hydraulic redistribution by roots.
Carbomontanussays
Grass is allways greener on the opposite side of the fence, you see..
I believe less in a lot of things that I read from those regions.
Chuck Hughes,
The item on Atlantic hurricanes goes a bit beyond the reporting of a record for the rate of storms formation (4 in 39 hours) and converts the NOAA revised forecast which now projects 2023 as ‘above average’ (as have most prediction-givers) which the item converts into being ‘unusually active’.
While the 2023 hurricane season is just getting into its stride, so far it has been lots of tiny short-lived storms (thats ‘tiny’ in terms of hurricanes) but other than the number of storms a below average year-to-date (see the <Colorado Uni Real-Time cyclone page). This year so-far, the NOAA activity page has been reporting a lot of potential storms that failed to develop presumably because conditions are less conducive during an El Niño year.
Adam Leasays
The Atlantic hurricane season doesn’t really get going until the third week in August typically but atmospheric conditions so far have not been as unfavourable as is typical for an El Nino year. Vertical wind shear has been around average or slightly below average across the tropical Atlantic in places over the last few weeks. The Saharan air layer which had been quite active at the beginning of the month isn’t strong now. With very warm SSTs it is somewhat surprising that disturbances are struggling to develop and we so far have a quantity over quality season.
Adam Leasays
Out of the four forming from that burst, three didn’t intensify beyond moderate tropical storm strength. Franklin has a shot at becoming a cat 3 hurricane when it moves into the sub-tropics. It is kind of El Nino-like with struggling Atlantic storms and a very active east Pacific basin but the atmospheric conditions have not been like typical El Nino years so far. Vertical wind shear has been around average across the Atlantic and below average locally.
Now we have it again, datum. Extreeme rain and flooding.
Internet says “Don`t drive to Oslo today. The roads are flooded from both sides. Cars are trapped and flooded. Don`t call the cathastrophy number, we have no capacity. Cars are standing under water, we cannot rescue yours. Phone the insurance,.. All you can do is to try and save your values, we have to wait it all off!
I / We suddenly had 1`of water in the cellar, 1 1/2 ” higher than last time on 5 aug. The large cellar pump had not gone automatically on.
It sustains what the meteorologists Rasmus Benestad Met.inst.no and the dept of environment has said now for a while, namely “W…W…& W!” , wetter warmer and wilder!
And in that situation , some people teach and preach deseretification and aridification. and are suggesting spraying water on the ground teaching that it is the broken global hydrological cycle and that it is needing more “latent heat flux”
The latent heat flux is obviously being accelerated by CO2AGW and works all it can in extreeme mode now, for cooling the earth and our situation, saving us from our typical sins of greedyness, luxury and ignorance during so many years,….
And it has come a bit faster than even I and the Met.inst. no did expect.
Moral:
It is time now for more and more people to take to reason and rather chose primary and elementary physical and hydrological understanding.
Look over and after your most elementary and basic definitions and learnings there if it is really autentic and in order, or maybe rather was delivered from the surrealists, for alian purposes..
I can’t remember if I mentioned it at the time, so apologies if this is duplicate information. But I’ve had an article published in Physics Education:
Levenson, B.P. 2023. Pressure doesn’t make Venus hot: A computer exercise. Physics Ed.58, 055019.
It’s a response to Helbring, “Goddard” (Heller), Nikolov&Zeller, and most recently, Holmes. For legal reasons the journal wouldn’t let me mention any of them by name, but that doesn’t matter much.
Carbomontanussays
Levenson
I mention Hans Jelbring, Zeller and Nicolov, and “Dipl Ing” upstairs at the Railways in old Leipzig ( that must have been eastern line) Heinz Thieme, Technischer Assessor, as often as I can, mention them, and point at them.
You see, when the train went off track in old Leipzig, something must be the reason and someone to be blamed. But, as the ralway officers are all planted there from the grand old Party with P with certain privileges, that is not so easy and takes quite a Technical assessor.
They are politically and legally immune for instance, and allowed to consume some Vodka on duty, and are not necessarily due to have had any technical school. They may even be analphabets and still untouchable, upstairs at the railways in old Leipzig eastern line.
So Heinz Thieme gave Angela Merkel the blame for the climate dispute, because she is a priest daughter, and Climate may perhaps be “religion..” smile smile in the old DDR upstairs at the railways.
Putin also went to highschool in old Leipzig after Public school in Ljeningrad
Both Thieme Putin and Merkel graduated in old Leipzig. Merkel at the Planc Institurte of phusical chemistery, and Putin from STASI wityh black belt in Judo.
Pity that Levenson cannot draw out Heinz Thieme in Original where https://Heinz/thieme is really on his very best. The english translations do not quite get that eastern and prussian diciplinary sharpness.
ad for “Also schloss er messerscharf dass, nichts sein kann, was nich sein darf!”
And the politicians and the system in the west are misconsceived unreliable religious, and have the blame, they are not scientific as you can see..
But I am warning you all over there in the states for the same and pointing at the aesoteric roots of it…
. .
Because King Donald Grozny is of quite exactly of the same blood- group P,
P fpr Pure, Puttler Pork, Privileged, Prussian, and Populist….., and for Party, the grand old one.
Alltogether P for PPPPPPP seven times. and even trumP wher Pm is spoken pf.!
But simply Bloodgroup P then you get it.
Carbomontanussays
Levenson
I just mentioned precise targeting That is more important than ever. Wherefore crooky alternatives forbid it and go after it, smile smile, hum hum!
I can never forget, our parish priest came in class and told us of the prophet Nathan , Urias and Batseba. And of Nathans daring AD HOMINEM “Thou art the man, David!”
I later found the same again in Engald, the great bible in the tourist church opened on exactly that word.
To teach us morals in class,… and in church,…
I shall never forget it. .
Hans Jelbring, Zeller Nikolov, Heinz Thieme, you name them,… neither of them are kings , poets, musicians, and great warlords. And should not be feared and defended, treated as such.
It has rather been a bit chill in july in the Oslofjord but with a lot of pleasant well needed rain. It is rather a normal summer as I am aquainted to it..
But there has been some abnormal downpours floods and earthslides on places where that is not so expected
Vitis vinifera, Tomatoes, tomatoes and apple & fruit ripening tell of a rather positive “heat sum” in day- grades this far.
all in all hardly anything to worry about locally. The more accute and severe cosequenses of “global warmingt” seems to be wild and confused people loosing ground contact and messing up with it by trying to eradicate our most elementary orientation first in order to get it their way.. I see that there are some people doing that even here on Real Climate. And it is old technique.
Maybe others here have also got that impression?
.
And now we have it, the full consequenses of it, Vanne Vanne- not pussy things like kits and dogs, but bitties and barrels…. this will go worldwide… not just long frogs but large crocodiles and dragons.
I had to call the Fireward alarm. “How high?” they asked.
“Over the boots! I replied. They could breathe out. It was that way all the way. And no pumps remaining for us.
Thus, wat did I say?
Aristoteles, I said. What goes up must come down. And Claussius Clappeyron, that even gets worse at any centigrade.
Sorry this is a reply to a comment – couldn’t see how just to post. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on Svensmark’s latest paper, 2021, in Nature “Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing”.
I can’t see that he has addressed previous criticisms (eg: no GCR trend), but better minds than mine would be interesting to hear from, or ref to any papers in reply to Svensmarks 2021 paper.
Thanks
Dear David,
Thank you very much for this hint!
Although there does not seem to be a polemic with Svensmark
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1 ,
a newer article on complex influence of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity and solar activity on atmospheric circulation and cloud formation on Earth
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30447-9
might be perhaps interesting for the audience here on RC.
Greetings
Tomáš
PS to everyone
Heat record on Svalbart in july.
Svalbard airport longyear +10 C mean and Pyramiden + 10.1 C
That is above arctic climate norm.
Northern Norway extreemly dry and pleasant warm.
southern Norway a bit chill and way over normal rain here and there..
Look up DMI.dk. They take also Grønland. where rumors tell that it has been quite warm and rainy. And that is what eats glaciers, warm summer rain. DS
I’ve just booked a holiday to NW Scotland next year (Torridon/Wester Ross). I live in SE England south of London. If it comes to a choice between driving the full distance and flying to Inverness (from Gatwick which is a short train journey from my address) and hiring a car, which has the lowest carbon footprint? My car is petrol and fuel efficient (aroung 109g/km CO2 emissions I think) but I would be travelling alone and many of the roads I would be driving on are notorious for heavy congestion which reduces the efficiency.
I appreciate a better option that either of these is to take a day train or a sleeper train to Inverness and hire a car (it is difficult to get about in the Scottish highlands without a motor vehicle especially when hillwalking) but these two options are a lot more expensive.
Adam Lea,
You say “it is difficult to get about in the Scottish highlands without a motor vehicle especially when hillwalking”. I know the moron petrolhead Clarkson upset a few people driving a landie up a hill above Tongue but if you have the likes of Laithach in mind (as you’re off to Torridon), a motor vehicle will not in any way help your ascent.
This comparison from the BBC shows the lowest carbon footprint for UK travel is the coach.
A motor vehicle will help in getting to the start of walks and getting back to my hotel when I finish. It is possible for a fair few hills in the highlands to get to the start of the route using trains and buses, but the timings between buses can be tight and there are usually only one or two buses a day and not always every day. I would need some sort of motor vehicle to get from Kinlochewe to the start of the route up Liathach and get back again in the evening. Linear walks are an option when using public transport.
If I took my own car I would not attempt the journey in one day, I would break overnight somewhere near Carlisle or Glasgow e.g. a Travelodge at one of the motorway service stations. I’ll have a look at the cost of the train nearer the time, advance tickets (if available) can only be booked up to 12 weeks in advance although a quick glance at the National Rail website suggests the cost of a return trip would be comparable with the cost of fuel even for a standard off-peak ticket.
Much as Jeremy might have preferred to coach up Cnoc an Fhreiceadain, a thousand vertical feet in a mile is a lot to ask of a pair of horses.
Adam, it would be a long drive on your own, and once you hit the A9 in particular, dangerous if tired.
A train to Inverness shouldn’t be that expensive (although the overnight sleeper can be ridiculous) given you can book well in advance as you say you are coming next year. That would certainly be the best for carbon footprint. Flights are artificially cheap, even if you pay the extra to mitigate.
You could hire an electric car from Inverness, but definitely look at charging options in the locations you want to go.
I bicycled to Parry Sound. The gear cable broke and I repaired it.
Well done! It’s a good feeling to be competent to fix something like that.
UAH have posted for July TLT with a global anomaly of +0.65ºC, a big jump on June’s +0.38ºC and the 2nd highest anomaly on the UAH TLT record (after Feb 2016 +0.70ºC). Given the emphatic reanalysis numbers of late (eg here and also CFSR showing July with a record-breaking all-month global anomaly), a record-breaking July temperature is to be expected even on the trend-defying UAH record.
The record-breaking JUuy promotes 2023-to-date from 7th warmest start-of-year last month to 5th this month, this after a particularly cool start to the year in TLT. Further high monthly nomalies like July will easily propel 2023 into hottest-year-on-record spot, requiring an Aug-Dec average of +0.57ºC to claim that top spot and +0.47ºC to claim 3rd.
…….. Jan-July 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
2023 .. +0.26ºC
2019 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2022 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.17ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 11th
2018 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2015 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 8th
The boost to temperatures through the end of 2023 & into 2024 are predicted due to the coming El Niño. This is looking less likely to be a monster El Niño with MEI, SOI, NINO3.4 so far all suggesting a weaker event. So the El Niño boost to global temperature may be also less of a monster. The CCS El Niño forecast may show better what to expect in coming weeks.
July was hot at the surface too, according to TempLS. It was hottest July by a considerable margin (0.23C), and the average to date is now higher than both 2016 and 2020
I’d reckon the hottest July SAT is entirely non-controversial but on that table you link-to @moyhu the Jan-Jul average-to-date is being compared with full annual averages. I note the blog has a new post showing 2023 Jan-Jul average-to-date still sitting in 3rd.
Nick Stokes,
ICYMI/FYI, given that July 2023 recordings are in as the hottest month on record, Zeke Hausfather posted an analysis on Aug 8, headlined What a record July means for 2023 temperature: Just how likely is 2023 to be the warmest year on record? Considering the state of ENSO, he wrote (bold text my emphasis):
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/what-a-record-july-means-for-2023
Re Nobel Prize Winner Who Doesn’t Believe Climate Crisis Has Speech Canceled, this guy reminds me of the XKCD cartoon, Physicists.
The comments underneath that article are why I think humanity will fail to address the climate crisis and is ultimately screwed.
“Physicists”
Article just published in Physics Today, August 11: “El Niño and its impacts this year and in the future”
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/42564
Geophysics is a branch of physics, as is geophysical fluid dynamics which encompasses all the mysteries of climate variation. Who will figure this stuff out first — climate scientists, condensed-matter physicists, or will it be a machine learning experiment?
Ladies and Gentlemen
There is slow “moderation” here as if they were sleeping.
We shall go out for Mackerel in the climate today, it is grey weather, and I hope to be able to tell you of the results.
. No forestfires here, it is too wet and a bit chill. Last night it was thunder.
Speaking of being warm, check this out:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/8/3/2184955/-Climate-change-hits-hard-in-South-America-with-temperatures-over-100-in-the-Andes
Keep in mind this is mid-winter in South America.
Clarified, slightly edited, bulk of https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813100
The forcing involves extra/perturbation net radiant heating/cooling, which creates temperature changes over time…
… which then leads to changes in LW and possibly convective fluxes; then there are feedbacks (not seperated in time, generally), which may include SW changes, and then the temperatures and temperature-dependent fluxes must respond farther (or less if feedbacks are negative).
PS transfers of kinetic energy (or any mechanical energy that is not embodied in enthalpy**?) can be, for the sake of elegance here, simply included in the convective fluxes.
Those temperature changes won’t necessarily or generally align with the forcing (vertically) because as each layer changes temperature, it will brighten or dim its emission, and some of that may be absorbed by other layers, thus spreading out the temperature response. Eg., Part of stratospheric cooling can remain in part due to its not absorbing all of the increased LW flux from below. … And (vertically, horizontally, temporally), because of changes in convective/advective heat/energy fluxes, and the distribution of feedbacks. Note that changes in convective heat fluxes are not identical to changes in convection, etc.: if radiative effects alone produce hot and cold spots (or spatially-varied anomalies in humidity), they would tend to be advected downwind (or by current) or otherwise spread in some way via any turbulent mixing, if fluid flow itself were unaltered.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813576
Dear Patrick,
Thank you very much for your contributions.
I would like to return to an older one
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812931 ,
wherein you wrote
“When an additional LH flux from the surface is initially ‘turned on’, setting aside changes in atmospheric and surface composition (or texture, etc.), there is no radiant effect because temperatures have not changed. So the surface cools and the troposphere warms. There is no effect on OLR initially. As the temperature changes, emission of radiation changes; this increases the upward emission to Space from some of the troposphere, and the backradiation AND reduces the upward emission from the surface; it would (I expect) also reduce the SH flux from the surface. A new convective lapse rate is being established wherein the surface and some part of the lower troposphere are cooler and upper troposphere is warmer. The OLR may change; assuming a greater heat capacity at the surface (and the equilibrium warming of the upper troposphere is not too large relative to the cooling below), OLR may tend to increase during the transition to a new equilibrium (this is when the ‘escape to Space’ may be considered to occur). When equilibrium is achieved, the OLR is back to what it was before, with the net radiant cooling vertically redistributed (column total = OLR flux); the change in LH flux (at every vertical level) must be completely balanced by opposing changes in net LW flux and SH flux, because solar heating is the same (until we consider the radiative effects of H2O vapor, clouds, etc.). The ratio of atmospheric emission to Space to combined [direct atmospheric solar heating + emission of LW radiation absorbed in the atmosphere + LH and SH (net) fluxes from the surface] could be different in this new equilibrium, and I’m not sure if the 1/3 ratio would come up during the transition.”
I think that we have to treat the process described in the second sentence of this paragraph separately for land and sea. I imagine that as soon as latent heat flux starts to “eat” a part of the overall radiative energy input coming to the surface, the surface starts cooling immediately and its infrared radiation output starts decreasing accordingly.
Therefore, I think that the extent of the troposphere heating may depend on the extent of heat flux from deeper layers under the surface. I think that heat conductivity of soil is generally rather low. The terrestrial surface may therefore cool and its infrared radiation may decrease quite quickly, and resulting troposphere heating may be quite smal above land, if any.
The situation above ocean may differ, because convection can supply the warm water to the surface and thus help maintaining the high heat flow from the surface that was, as we assumed, suddenly intensified by switching the latent heat flux “on”. If so, I can indeed imagine a troposphere heating above its original temperature by this additional heat transport mechanism.
In such case, the result might be perhaps indeed a positive Earth energy imbalance, with outgoing longwave radiation output exceeding the mean solar radiation input on the expense of gradual ocean cooling. As soon as the heat (accumulated in the ocean during the previous period of weak latent heat flux) is radiated away in the space and ocean temperature decreases accordingly, we should obtain the new steady (“equilibrium”) state, with lower average Earth surface temperature in comparison with the starting state of the weak latent heat flux, and with the original mean Earth emission temperature.
Therefore, one quite important question might be, in which extent a decrease of the latent heat flux from the land, e.g. due to “continental drying”, can be mitigated by possible increase in latent heat flux from the ocean. Another important question may be, in which extent an artificial increase of latent heat flux from the land could induce an increased latent heat flux from the ocean, because it seems to be the only mechanism that might finally enable the desired “average” cooling of the entire Earth surface.
I cannot exclude that the artificial evaporation enhancement from the land may have limited potential because it in fact cannot effectively enhance the evaporation from the ocean. It may be possible that the desired artificial intensification of the global water cycle might be achieved only if we were able to intensify the direct evaporation from the ocean, and this may, again, depend on how effectively we can (or cannot) intensify the water transport from the ocean to the land. It is my feeling from the previous discussion that the climate science paid so far very little attention (if any) to such questions. It am afraid that, in fact, nobody knows the answers to these questions yet.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
You find your post as well as the related older contributions in my track of the discussion.
I strive to maintain it in form of a public orgpage that is easily accessible under link
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
If you would like to make comments directly in this orgpage, e.g. by introducing graphics, tables and like, please feel free to do so by using the following link for commenting:
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
@Tomas
“””one quite important question might be, in which extent a decrease of the latent heat flux from the land, e.g. due to “continental drying”, can be mitigated by possible increase in latent heat flux from the ocean”””
I recommend to include in your conceptual framework that ocean continues to operate at the “limit”.
Recently the concept of maximum evaporation from ocean surface is discussed in:
Yang and Roderick 2019
Radiation, surface temperature and evaporation over wet surfaces
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.3481
and Tu, Yang, and Roderick subsequently in 2022:
Testing a maximum evaporation theory over saturated land: implications for potential evaporation estimation
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/1745/2022/
From the latter eq 6 the simple temperature dependent relation is given for the Bowen ratio, or the ratio of sensible H to LE for a surface with unlimited water supply. This corresponds to the maximum rate of evaporation in surface partitioning.
0.24 y / Δ
where
y = psychrometric constant
Δ = slope of vapor saturation curve
e.g.
At 15C
Δ = 0.11 kPa/C
y = 0.066 kPa/C
Bowen Ratio 0.24(0.066 / 0.11) = 0.15
At 20C
Δ = 0.15 kPa/C
y = 0.066 kPa/C
Bowen Ratio 0.24(0.066 / 0.15) = 0.11
The slight temperature and pressure dependence in y is ignored for this example.
Convenient figures for Ocean are given in https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z/tables/3
For example, Trenberth 2009’s ocean is giving 97.1 units LE vs 12 units H.
12/97.1 = Bowen Ratio = 0.12
To test the maximum evaporation relation, we can recover the surface temperature for Trenberth 2009’s ocean knowing only the surface partitioning Bowen ratio.
Bowen ratio = 0.24(y/Δ)
0.12 = 0.24(0.066 / Δ)
Δ = 0.13 kPa/C
Using the maximum evaporation concept the Trenberth 2009 ocean surface should correspond to a temperature about 17C. The slope of the vapor pressure saturation curve must be about 0.13 kPa/C . This is confirmed in Trenberth’s thermal up column 400.7 Wm-2.
Tu, Yang, and Roderick:
“we show that LEmax corresponds well to observed evaporation under non-water-limited conditions and that the Ts value at which LEmax occurs also corresponds with the observed Ts”
PS
I have not touched on the additional proposal in Yang and Roderick i.e. “formulation to show that as Ts increases, a greater fraction of Rn is partitioned to evaporation (i.e. higher evaporative fraction) but Rn declines because of an increase in outgoing long-wave radiation. The consequence is that a maximum evaporation rate emerges naturally from that trade-off. We find that this maximum corresponds to the actual evaporation over global ocean surfaces at both local and global scales.”
PPS: The operating at the “limit” was in reference to Kleidon’s virtual seminar here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8i6Ha8c3so
thanks
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813634
Dear JCM,
Thank you very much for your thoughts and the references that I still have to read / watch.
As a very quick remark only:
Don`t you think that if, with respect to water transpiration, oceans really stably “work at their limits”, there might arise questions like: “Where comes the moisture transport between land and sea from?” and/or “How can the moisture transport between land and sea depend on terrestrial vegetation cover?”
I do not disprove the conclusions presented by Yang and Roderick. I just wonder if – provided that their conclusions are correct – any changes in terrestrial vegetation (and possible changes in evapotranspiration related thereto) might play any role in global climate. It appears to me that if they are correct, water transport between the land and the sea should basically depend on the global average temperature only?
It seems that if the evaporation from the oceans is any time at its limit, there should not be possible any variance dependent only on changes on the land surface (and in its hydrological regime). For me, it would have been an argument casting a severe doubt on the “biotic pump” hypothesis that seems to assume an namely, opposite – namely, that evaporation from the ocean and water transport between the land and the ocean may depend on the intensity of evaporation from the land.
Anyway, I just found out that the preprint by Makarieva et al, questioning correctness of evapotranspiration treatment in state-of-art climate models (and, particularly, in policies derived therefrom), issued in July as a regular peer-reviewed paper:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191/full
Greetings
Tomáš
Hello Tomas, thanks for your input.
I do not claim any agreement or dispute with Makarieva and co.
Considering the evaporative fraction is bound fundamentally to temperature for a non-water-limited surface, we can use the 0.24(y/Δ) and data to estimate the relative impact of real terrestrial systems.
For consistency, I will refer to Trenberth 2009.
Trenberth 2009’s land is yielding a thermal up surface 383.2 with a Bowen Ratio 27/38.5 or 0.7
For an unlimited wet terrestrial system, supposing 100% wet-land, at say 15C, the unlimited ratio is estimated at 0.15 via 0.24(y/Δ).
Holding Trenberth’s land surface net radiation constant, the unlimited potential evaporative equivalent flux is 56 Wm-2.
Comparing the observed value of 38.5 to that of the ‘potential’ 56 results in about a 30% limiting case due to land surface water ‘unavailability’ in space or duration.
For Trenberth’s globe the same:
Thermal up 396
actual H: 17
actual LE: 80
Unlimited ratio: 0.13?
Observed actual ratio: 17/80 or 0.2
Unlimited case H: 12
Unlimited case LE: 85
An estimated globally averaged 6% limiting case of LE due to terrestrial moisture unavailability in space and duration.
Cheers
NOTE: It is important to consider that the assumption of constant surface net radiation is surely invalid between a limited and unlimited case! The “maximum” of surface net radiation is coupled to maximum evaporation as discussed in Yang and Roderick 2019.
Therefore, there must be a strict limit to surface net radiation imposed by the actual evaporation(transpiration). As with ocean and its unlimited case, this applies also to the globe and the actual 6% limited case.
Perhaps counterintuitively, surface net radiation can be allowed to rise higher than it otherwise would by limiting surface moisture in space or duration. In agreement with Makarieva and co, this suggests a compensating factor which outweighs the surface albedo effect of unnatural drying.
For this reason, climate sensitivity may in fact be deemed to increase as surface terrestrial catchments are profoundly altered (degraded).
And as always, it has never been disputed here that hydrological and temperature extremes should be expected to increase as catchments are degraded.
also PS, in terms of the ocean-to-land transport — I have not given it any thought – my hunch is it’s the condensation process which controls primarily the distribution and intensity flux delivery, and the land surface catchment properties which influence the resulting hydrology (runoff intensity, retention, infiltration, duration of moisture, etc).
@ Thomas Kalisz
I checked up Anastassia Makarieva and Victor Gorshov.
Their theory of “Biotic pump” at Wikipedia is rather what you should have pointed to and referred to. Then we might have been finished with this discussion and come further.
Makarevas theories are not unthinkable and impossible, only “unconventional” to many,
But I know the same allready from public school and highschool. It is probably old learnings of physical geography in the Humboldt and Köppen traditions, that relate ideologically rather to Linnaeus at Kungliga Akademin and to the Sorbonne style of thought, and not to “classical physics and statistics”, dry material mechanics with LEGO and dialectic materialism on that, , that blocks thinking in such arenas.
I have a much better access to it from the side of chemistery..
I have been describing a very accute and fresh natural example to it here in recent days, where all the environment and climatic experts & Knowitalls were very surprized and unprepared. .
It is a very good and readable Wikipedia article, very much better than dilettantisms and speculations about similar things on this website, that fail to hit the point. . Makarieva did.
Kalisz
I came to think:
“How can moisture transport between land and sea depend on terrestrial vegetation cower?”
Which is your notion and question..
I have lived with it all my life and it is obviously dependent and inter- related and makes a whole- ness.
It is like the chicken and the eg what causes what? and they forget the cock, the rooster, the worlds order and necerssary higher supervision and control!
which is sinful. It is male- discriminating and very unrealistic.
I have come over possible solutions to the problem in old, mideival scolastics on its very best. . By the old anglo-fransciscans and the Sorbonne University., who had to enter that congregational order to get to the University and learn Latin..
They have been discussing Aristoteles` 4 causal categories, of which only one is believed in today, the causa efficiens..
But for human belief and mentality, read possible climate understanding and politics, the 3 other categories are just as important.
@ Tomas Kalisz
I hope you get this because, you stated the problem
Does the vegetation cause the rain and the climate on land, or does the rain and the climate on land cause the vegetation?
Orthodoxy along with Humboldt and Köppen and all that tells that the climate causes the vegetation, wherefore flora and fauna is important signs and signals of the climate everywhere.
But might there be a causality also in opposite direction?
we have several examples of species and økosystems changing the environment premises to its own advantage, wherefore we end up with the hen and the eg, what causes what?,
My very best advice there is to enjoin it upon the people that they have totally forgotten
his highness, the rooster, the cock in that system. Which is sinful.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813755
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813715
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813698
Dear Carbomontanus,
Many thanks for your comments.
There is rising evidence that through evapotranspiration, terrestrial plants contribute to “rain recycling” – in other words, to a sustainable humidity transport from the ocean to interior of continents.
M+G “biotic pump” hypothesis suggests that in case of huge forest areas reaching from the coast into interior of a continent, this rain recycling effect might perhaps indeed become self-sustaining.
Even more appealing than this hypothesis, however, might be the opposite side of this coin:
Makarieva and her co-authors suggest also that in case of an insufficient water supply from the exterior (or, perhaps, insufficient area of the land cooled by intensive evapotranspiration so that it could maintain the self-sustaining high-intensity water cycle), the direction of the humidity flow may reverse, and evapotranspiration from the plant cover may become self-destructive – rather contributing to drying of the respective continent and to its switch from the humid, precipitation-rich hydrological regime to the arid, precipitation-poor one, than sustaining the original state.
I think that these aspects may be of a high practical importance and that works and thoughts of Makarieva et al therefore deserve more attention and more thorough examination than they get so far.
Greetings
Tomáš
@ Tomas Kalisz
The fundamental ERROR here is the strange, systematic propaganda rumor & supersticion that necessary water on the ground is what cools the earth, and that this cooled earth is what also causes more water and rain to uplocate and to fall down on that spot / in that same land. .
Thus, water it artificially frirst and perhaps plant some trees, and the world will be saved. secured and we can disqualify the IPCC with its CO2- “theory”. that is ignoring science, logics, and common sense like this.
It is an industrialized, obviously stupidifying and consciously misleading propaganda, . that is betraying its advocats deeply.
It is the new and recently updated catechismic sales promotion and march order for
worshipful religious obedient progressive denialism and surrealism……….
……….. after tglobal warming had to be axepted also in that political cloosed society camp and order.
Thicker mosses, more humus and higher grasses bushes and trees keep and inhibit rain and water from rushing suddenly superfisciously into the creeks and out the rivers and back to sea again.
The forest and vegetation causes itself that way by securing and storing its necessary water from running off. This is well known traditional and elementary biological homøostasis.
It hardly re- cycles and causes more and further rain to fall down, as it seems to be believed here. It takes better care of what has allready rained down and protects the økosystems against drought periods where rain and scarce rain is allready there. .
Moral consequenses of that:
Resign on cutting your lawn when drought is expected, Resign also on “trimming” your trees and bushes if sudden rain can not be expected. Then it survives your “culture” better and you will have more prophit and pleasure, and less costs, work, and annoyances with it.
Propaganda and learnings & ideologies contra theese elementary things or ignorinjg it for other reassons, are pitiful and sinful.
And belonging in closed institutions and societies under strict supervision within error- bars, to learn obedience, scarcity, hygiene, economy, culture, work, and gardening first, such as in traditional prison camps and monastries. where no furter fucking and breeding is permitted
Because we cannot have the alternatives running around teaching and preaching and begging, ruining our towns and ackers and landscapes and living conditions.
Kalisz
You are making it difficult for yourself trying to defend thatb evaporational cooling, that wet towel in the winds, you know.,
Your section 4 from below:
“The situation above sea may differ, because convection can supply,….”
and then you discuss “that heat conductivity of the soil..” in section 5 above.
My wiew and experience is easier
I repeat….
Do not forget the great cycvles and cyclings in the climate. Day and night, summer and winter, and…..www.Jormungandr ( the fameous jet stream making meanders around the world biting itself in the tail) cycling all the time.
Thje russian winter coming even to Ceskoslovensko. My old flame Irena wrote that they were figure skating in Praha in December as there was only darkness and piss rain here.
And the Lillehammer Olympics. The year before they suggested having all skating rather in the steep streets of Lillehammer and feared for the very olympics, but when it came it was the opposite, Russian winter with splendid blue sky white snow and down to – 27 celsius 0n the ski stadions. It was a big success because temperature hardly matters in such brilliant weathers.
What is really ugly and chill is open water fog from Vltava for instance undercooled at – 10 and – 15 through your wools and onto your bare skins. “Frost fogs”, latent chill opposite to latent heat.
Whereas steady dry air hardly has got got any ” sensible” heat capacity.
And then the heat waves, in summer from eastern Europe and even from Spain and France, and then summer sun to it. That easily makes 30 celsius in April.
In Tromsø northern Norway they now and then have it from the east, from Russia in the midnight sun, and it is like Costa in clear weather.
That situation did hit Oregon and Alberta last year with easterly winds and warm air from the high summer canadian Taiga and northamerican plains,…… giving well above 40 celsius and bushfires without water.
re Tomáš Kalisz (sorry for the delay): I think that we have to treat the process described in the second sentence of this paragraph separately for land and sea. I imagine that as soon as latent heat flux starts to “eat” a part of the overall radiative energy input coming to the surface, the surface starts cooling immediately and its infrared radiation output starts decreasing accordingly.
Yes, of course the sea surface temps (SSTs) generally change significantly more slowly than land temps, but the equilibrium change can be independent of how long the approach to equilibrium takes (though the transient response is important, as things must live through it). What I said is true in either case, as at the moment a (change in) forcing is turned on, a rate of change will happen, but the change still starts at 0 (at relative time = 0), land and sea alike.
As far as whether forced land wetting could draw in additional humidity from elsewhere, I suspect this will depend on various particulars. If we start with the idea that we can linearize to approximate responses to very small changes, a little additional humidity would tend to get carried downwind based on the prexisting atmospheric circulation. At what point will this go into a cloud, etc., and how much sooner will that cloud come due to the humidity? Then, how will that (change in latent heating/cooling (albedo and LW surface+cloud effects, latent heating/cooling of land surface, amount and location of latent heating in cloud, and any land/air(eg virga) wetting from that precip?) change the circulation? … I would refer you back to the articles/sources I’ve posted links to before (and links from those)
“linearized” – of course, bifurcations can occur, eg: moist convection could initiate in a separate location…
The early August post at the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis is titled ‘An Odd Summer’ and reflects on the less-than-vigorous Arctic sea ice melt season contrasting with record global SAT and the record slow freeze-up down in the Antarctic. And just to add to the oddities, the record low Antarctic SIE (which on JAXA has now clocked up 169 daily records through the 217-days-so-far of 2023** and no sign of this 2023 record-setting ending anytime soon), NSIDC point to a pair of papers which investigated the Antarctic sea ice in pre-satellite years with contrasting conclusions.
The ten-year-old Gallaher et al (2013) ‘Anomalous Variability in Antarctic Sea Ice Extents During the 1960s With the Use of Nimbus Data’ used 1960s Nimbus images to assess Antarctic SIE back in the 1960s while Fogt et al (2022) ‘A regime shift in seasonal total Antarctic sea ice extent in the twentieth century’ used weather data beyond the Antarctic as proxies to reconstruct a seasonal Antarctic SIE record 1905-2020. To different levels, the two papers put the Antarctic SIE satellite record alongside earlier variability.
**JAXA satellite data.
Record low Antarctic
SIE days (to 3/8/23)
2023 … . 170
2016 … … 65
2017 … … 62
2022 … … 24
1986 … … 16
2002 … … 11
2018 … … 11
2001 … … . 7
Total 366
JAXA satellite data.
Updating the table of Record Low Antarctic SIE Days above, 2023 has continued hoovering up the days with only 48 of the 243 days-so-far escaping. (See Graph 3a here.)The massive margin of record being set by 2023 over recent months has been showing a bit of a drop over the last week such that the margin-of-record is dropped below 1 million sq km for the first time since 12th June.
Record low Antarctic
SIE days (to 30/8/23)
2023 … … 195
2016 … … 65
2017 … … 61
2022 … … 15
1986 … … 14
2018 … … 11
2002 … … 4
2001 … … 1
Total 366
The period in the JAXA data when previous max annual Antarctic SIE have been set stretches from 29th Aug to 3rd Oct with the lowest such maximum so far set in 2002 at 18,006,054 sq km and with the 2023 freeze season so-far reaching only 16,450,000 sq km. The top & tail of the Max Annual Antarctic SIE so-far run as follows:-
1st … … 2002 … … 18.01
2nd … … 2017 … … 18.06
3rd … … 2018 … … 18.11
4th … … 2022 … … 18.12
5th … … 1986 … … 18.13
6th … … 1989 … … 18.13
7th … … 2008 … … 18.27
……
41st … … 1998 … … 19.21
42nd … … 2012 … … 19.35
43th … … 2013 … … 19.50
44th … … 2014 … … 20.12
This is a verification to follow up on last month, when I challenged a forecast that Chuck Hughes posted from @WeatherProf concerning an exceptionally strong 500 mb high developing over the southwest US, with a projected center of around 6025m near the AZ/NM border at around 36N. I forecast that at on Aug. 7, 00UTC, the high would be around 5969m, around 33N, and on a more elongated east-west axis. I thought that this would result in scattered daily records, and perhaps just a few new August records.
In actuality, the graphic that Chuck Hughes posted was overforecast, butI underforecast. The actual high was around 6000m, according to the analysis, and was in Mexico just a little southwest of El Paso, TX. This was further south than either of us placed it. It was on a more elongated east/west axis, rather than being a rounded high centered a little south of the Four Corners on the posted graphic. This resulted in about an 80m error for the Four Corners in the Chuck Hughes forecast.
There were some temperature records concentrated near the Rio Grande Valley. I don’t have the Mexican figures. Daily records were set at San Angelo and Abilene in southwest Texas, both 108F, and also at Winslow AZ (103F), while Phoenix tied a daily record (114F). All of these readings were barely above the old records.
Del Rio, TX exceeded their old August record by 1F at 110F. Albuquerque reached 102F, 2F above the August record before this year. The standout was El Paso, TX. They reached 112F, 4F above their previous August record. Their sounding was dry adiabatic to around 490 mb, and the tropopause was a tropical 14.3km. There were no all-time records reached that I am aware of.
The SAT for the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis has been posted for July. Not unexpectedly, the global 2023 July SAT is “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!”, at +0.72ºC the highest monthly anomaly for 2023-so-far (previously June’s +0.53ºC), the warmest July on the ERA5 record (previously 2019’s +0.40ºC) and the highest monthly anomaly on he entire record (previously the El-Niño-boosted Feb 2016 +0.69ºC).
The “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!” July is quite extraordinary being 0.32ºC above the previous record set in 2019 (+0.40ºC), with ranked previous warm Julys running 2022, 2016, 2021, 2020 (+0.33ºC), 2018, 2017 (+0.27ºC) & 2015 (+0.15ºC).
The 2023 year-so-far has risen from its =3rd position in June to claim 3rd for its very own, the year-so-far anomaly now rivaling the full annual averages of the top-spot years.
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 2nd
2023 .. +0.43ºC
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.30ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.18ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 15th
There is perhaps a problem in waving this “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!” July as the product of AGW, which is an effect that has been on-going for decades while this latest drama is but a few months old. That is – while the ERA5 shows a record June & July, this was preceded by the 3rd warmest May, 5th warmest April, 2nd warmest March, 5th warmest Feb & 7th warmest Jan.
Why the sudden jump in SAT?
There is the new 2020 regs on shipping fuels which would tend to be an effect presumably heightened through the NH summer and impacting SSTs in recent years but this Hausfather & Forster post at Carbon Brief last month suggests we should also consider the Jan 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption (which I’d reckon suggests it having a greater-but-transitory effect over the next decade, greater-than the clean shipping fuel regs) plus the record-low dust from the Sahara as well as the building El Niño.
So a lot of analysis to be done to understand this “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!”
Scientific American:DeSantis’s Florida Approves Climate-Denial Videos in Schools
God help us all.
No, Hr Levenson. The People will have to help for that.
We have rules and regulations even catechisms for it.
The People will have to sing and pray and lift and work together rather the way that God has ordered and orders all the time. Then there will be results.
The alternatives belong in jail. Or better in Monastries as it was before, under strict control and supervision behind thick urban walls and error- bars, to train and learn the same so as to possibly come to their human rights rather, in that alternative way.
The error today is that the monastry capacity is way too low for all those alternatives, namely the wild gangs of preacher and beggar brothers and sisters.
Feels like the global weather has played a cruel joke on the UK this year. Reports just out that the global July temperature is the warmest on record, yet the UK has had one of its worst July’s for weather in recent memory. A relentless barrage of low pressure with the jet stream aimed at the UK like a cannon. Parts of the country have had their wettest July on record, mercifully this has not resulted in flooding thanks partly to a very dry period in May and June, and because the rain has fallen little and often rather than in deluges. The poor July weather has so far continued into August and is of stark contrast to June which was the warmest on record for the UK which itself followed a soaking wet March and a very dry February. Ridiculous windscreen wiper weather.
I’ve heard that the extreme heat across the NH continents this year along with the poor weather in northern Europe has been caused by a Rossby wave number five pattern which is notorious for getting locked in place. The same pattern happened last year except then it was the UK enduring the extreme heat. With these blocked patterns it all depends on where the ridges and the troughs get stuck as to who gets the drought and the deluge.
Yes, this is extreeme.
All heavy transport on the roads and railroads stopped in southern Norway due to sudden and quite extreeme rain, orange and even red warnings against flood and earthslides.
As some people are discussing aridification and even Rainbarrels here and denying the wapour pressure curve of water teaching that it only rules in closed systems.
It clears up again here and shall be sunshine on friday as we will pick Redcurry and drive to Askim with it. Only that we will have to cross the river Glomma, and my wife asks whether the bridges there will be in order. I hope so.
But I did warn and alarm you all. The record high temperatures in the northeast atlantic, I wrote, and that it will have its consequenses.
So what did I say / write?
But some people will allways deny Aristoteles and Claussius Clappeyron, purchasing the alternatives.
There is an interesting new report on climate modeling – the GIGO fun with IAMs variety:
The Emporer’s New Climate Scenarios
https://actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydewmk/the-emperor-s-new-climate-scenarios_ifoa_23.pdf
From the University of Exeter and the UK’s Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.
Well worth your time but scary. I wrote it up this way for a mailout:
Isn’t Team Normal [Mann, Ritchie, Solnit, etc. recently] basically saying there is no choice but mitigation within BAU, no deep systemic change, and hoping that Hothouse Earth or abrupt or runaway climate change are low probabilities that won’t happen. And if half by 2030 or staying under a 1.5C rise is no longer possible, so be it but we’ll keep on trying to reduce emissions as best we can (in BAU).
Is this still tenable or is this denial and faulted risk management? How about this warning from tipping point experts and actuaries:
“ The latest science on tipping points reinforces the need to race to zero and makes decarbonisation scenarios that feature temporary overshoot (ie allowing the temperature to increase beyond 1.5 ̊C before reducing it again) significantly more risky. Tipping points must be included if scenarios are to be realistic. They are no longer high-impact, low-likelihood events but are now high impact, high likelihood, and we need to mitigate and plan for them. Ignoring them in scenarios and modelling significantly understates risk.”
@Bill H.
BAU is a suicide pact which includes the fiction of net zero by 2050
It’s mitigation denial from the usual quarters in the climate publishing bookselling industry
both 1.5C and 2C are delusional ambitions that should never have been entertained.
global avg temps as ‘climate’ goals is a lunacy that was never going to work and was designed not to.
Everything about the COP meetings the UNFCCC and the IPCC and how climate scientists have stupidly played their assigned roles in this kabuki theater is a disgraceful fraud.
“global avg temps as ‘climate’ goals is a lunacy that was never going to work and was designed not to.”
What then do you suggest are appropriate goals?
I will start with a couple of questions back to you-
And what is your opinion for the best Goals to be set? Have you ever thought about it yourself? Have you not ever seen alternative ghg emissions climate goals being proposed that don’t include average global temperatures ever since 1990? Is every single idea that is outside the mainstream conservative IPCC climate science system of Group Think automatically faulty and not valid?
The simple answer is enforceable hard targets in the extraction and use of fossil fuel sources of CO2 and other sideeffect ghg emissions from them.
Enforceable hard targets to first reduce then stop the manmade destruction of ecosystems, human interference in susceptible arctic zones, and forests that are in effect global CO2 and CH4 stores.
Both great ideas for implementation in 1990 before the white-anting by the wealthy nations of the global north OECD G7 iow the US Empire in Kyoto
Then third placing enforceable requirements for reparations and ecosystem repair actions by the ~20 nations most resposnibel for +90% of the historical global GHG emissions since 1800.
All quite doable, measrueable and actually effective if the hard goals are set accoring to the actual scientific knowledge at the time in 1990 and ever since.
Now, this is where you and others now come in and say
“oh no that’s not possible – it would never be allowed”
That the world is corrupt to the core does not change the fact that these kinds of hard physical material goals for each nation – or group of nations at different economic levels – are still in fact far better, far more accurate, far more easily measured than vacuous ephemeral and MOVING “average global temps” and/or global atmospheric PPM MOVING measurements are and much more rational and science based and p;lain common sense.
Count the coal being dug out of the ground and burnt – not the flaky temperatures that change like the wind because they reflect the weather across a year and not the actual GHG emissions! Like doh!
Then one can even toss in some negative GHG emission strategies each nation can be measured upon – strategies that are proven to work and measurable too.
And 5th taking on the militarization of the world which has entrenched the abuse of power including within the UNFCCC COP system – by first enforcing the demilitarization of the United States.
Of course you and everyone else knows that 6% of global emissions are excluded from climate targets and reporting systems because it would make the US look like the colonial pariah it is.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-promise/2022/01/militaries-produce-6-of-ghgs-but-theyre-not-required-to-report-it/
Military Organizations Produce Significant Amounts of Unreported …
18 Jan 2022 … Governments are learning that their armed forces are responsible for up to 6 percent of global emissions—with no requirement to report it.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/worlds-war-greenhouse-gas-emissions-has-military-blind-spot-2023-07-10/
Insight: World’s war on greenhouse gas emissions has a military …
10 July 2023 … But defence forces are not bound by international climate agreements to report or cut their carbon emissions, and the data that is published by …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/11/worlds-militaries-avoiding-scrutiny-over-emissions
World’s militaries avoiding scrutiny over emissions, scientists say
11 Nov 2021 … Countries do not have to include armed forces’ emissions in their targets despite estimates sector creates 6% of greenhouse gases.
https://ceobs.org/governments-must-commit-to-military-emissions-cuts-at-cop26/
Governments: commit to meaningful military emissions cuts at COP26
24 May 2021 … Militarizes are major emitters and should not be excluded from GHG reduction targets. Governments must demonstrate their commitment to the Paris …
Of course there is no chance and no hope of any of these things being implemented – therefore global destruction and civilization collapse are guaranteed to follow, sooner than expected – just as the global temps in atmosphere and oceans were similarly more than “expected” – aka fantasied about – we can still stop global warming people everyone man the battlements – the climate scientists and greenies wail – what BS it all is.
Nevertheless real material accountable goals were always the right way to go – the world stupidly allowed otherwise. Blame yourself and everyone else, but especially the United States Empire for where we are right now and where we are going to end up – dead.
NK: Is every single idea that is outside the mainstream conservative IPCC climate science system of Group Think automatically faulty and not valid?
BPL: Climate orthodoxy! Religion! Outside the box! Galileo! Pal review!
Ned Kelly
“The simple answer is enforceable hard targets in the extraction and use of fossil fuel sources of CO2 and other sideeffect ghg emissions from them.”
I agree this is the simple answer. But presumably governments have settled for more indirect schemes like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes or subsidies (like Bidens plans) because they sound a little bit less scary for the voters and corporates. And there might be more cynical reasons.
But I believe carbon taxes or cap and trade could clearly still achieve the same outcome of phasing out fossil fuels fast if they had the right design and settings. The trouble is the prices on carbon are not high enough, and there is no schedule of prices on carbon over time.
And too much reliance in such schemes is being put on carbon sequestration rather than cutting emissions at source (or stopping fossils fuels extraction). This just delays the tough decisions and reduces time available to scale them up and wastes the use of carbon sequestration, which is an expensive and limited resource, on things where its not that hard to reduce emissions at source.
If only politicians would find the courage to at least have have tougher carbon tax or cap and trade schemes. Doing the right thing generally doesn’t get as much backlash as feared. Once the right thing is done it tends to often stick.
However its about all of us. If more people voted for green parties it would force the mainstream political parties to have stronger climate policies.
Just my two cents worth.
Ned Kelly,
sorry I didnt get around to answering your questions. Will try now.
Your questions: “And what is your opinion for the best Goals to be set? Have you ever thought about it yourself? Have you not ever seen alternative ghg emissions climate goals being proposed that don’t include average global temperatures ever since 1990? Is every single idea that is outside the mainstream conservative IPCC climate science system of Group Think automatically faulty and not valid?”
My opinion is the goal of keeping keeping warming under xyz degrees is an important goal to have because that is essentially what we are trying to do. Trying to downplay it sounds contrived to me (if thats what you are suggesting). I think I get your criticisms of it and they are reasonable. It also has the potential for it being a green light to bad solutions like geoengineering or CCS fitted to coal fired generation, but it still seems like an important goal to have stated.
And even if we tried to make your suggested idea of making cutting fossil fuels extraction and use a primary goal ( or the only goal if you meant that), we cant really escape talking about temperatures because we have to know much warming is safe to allow (if any) and how much time that gives us to phase out use of fossil fuels. So at the very least its inevitable we end up with having a goal of keeping warming under xyz degrees. I don’t think its a major problem having such a goal but I acknowledge it does have some downsides as mentioned.
I would ideally prefer your idea of a schedule of phasing down fossil fuels extraction and use rather than the emissions targets per se although they are similar sorts of things.
I would also prefer your stated idea of a schedule of phasing down fossil fuels extraction and use rather than a carbon tax or cap and trade scheme as such. However we have carbon tax and cap and trade schemes, and as I previously stated I believe they could work to eliminate use of fossil fuels if properly designed and strong enough. The trouble is the existing carbon tax and cap and trade schemes around the world aren’t well designed or strong enough. Bear in mind this would be a potential problem for a schedule of phasing out fossil fuels extraction and use as well, although your idea looks like it would have more transparency and be less open to clandestine manipulation, and does nail the main culprit to the wall.
I have previously considered a plan of phasing out fossil fuels extraction and use and with penalties and enforcement, ( as opposed to just emissions reductions per se which is slightly different) but I haven’t promoted it because it looks a bit like a non starter politically. Cap and trade or carbon taxes don’t scare the horses quite as much.
IMO the IPCC generally leans a little conservative on various issues of the science and mitigation suggestions. But its how science has always worked and I think that’s a good thing in general terms. As long as people realise there is this leaning.
The thing is to discern is whether there is any malign influence on the IPCC reports and thinking from deniers and fossil fuels exporting countries that is making the reports EXCESSIVELY conservative. I’ve seen credible analysis that the fossil fuels exporting countries have managed to soften terminology in the summary for policy makers and reduce references to the words “fossil fuels” and downplay mention of long term SLR. Its really frustrating and totally wrong.
However the core scientific findings in the IPCC reports don’t appear to have been compromised. For example the IPCC reports have some scary projections on warming levels at BAU by 2100 and also by 2200 and 2300. They wouldn’t be there if the reports had been seriously compromised or corrupted. But some of this is buried away and I think this is unfortunate.
I guess we need some healthy scepticism about the IPCC, and I agree there is the potential for malign influences, but its important to keep scepticism evidence based and not to descend into conspiracy theories about the IPCC.
For nigel, no worries, nothing will change anyway, but one comment I’d like to address.
Nigel said: “… we cant really escape talking about temperatures because we have to know much warming is safe to allow (if any) and how much time that gives us to phase out use of fossil fuels.”
What you’re doing here is using the false framing of temperatures to assume it’s the temperatures that decides/defines what is and what is not “safe” – iow your are using what in many respects you have already agreed, can see, is a reasonable framing not needing Temperatures, to then flip that and then say BUT only temperatures can be used as the yardstick for “success”.
Your added point about “timing” is another not logical assumption too imo.
I put it to you that instead the whole notion that any Temperature is a worthy framing of what is Safe or not is again not supportable. Why? Because we already possess that knowledge of what is both safe and optimum —- the last 10,000 years of a steady state of the global climate at it’s Optimum for a healthy Natural Biosphere for sustainability of Life —- and the physics behind why that is so. It goes beyond simply avg global temperatures.
That yardstick (and driver) is not Temperature but is the GHG status of the atmosphere which Humans have directly interfered with via emissions and severe land use changes destruction of forests the lungs of the atmosphere. Within that 10,000 years the avg global temperatures have been through swings and varied from year to year despite the overall stability of the Solar inputs and Atmosphere.
We can not affect the Earths rotation, axis, or orbits nor the Sun’s intensity cycles nor volvanic eruptions etc etc –
OUR only point of control is the GHGs ppm level and what the forced changes in those, and the related land use changes and forest destruction/growth. Measuring the avg global temps makes zero difference to these hard measurable facts. X ghg in = ppm out and therefore using temps as Goal is irrelevant and unnecessary.
We already have the Data points to hand long before Temps will be influenced over a much longer and delayed time-frame – therefore you should see, I think, that as far as timing is concerned avg temps are NOT fit for purpose.
First they Lag changes in what drives those temps +/- at rates we cannot measure nor control plus many other drivers impact those very Temps from year to year besides GHG and Land use changes.
There is your yardstick and counting human induced GHG emissions and impacts on land use. Simple … fix those set logical goals and the temperature continues to vary slightly from year to year from decade to decade, as per the cold 70s cold spell, will work itself out to it’s hearts content.
The goal is as simple as get back to 350ppm as fast as humanly possible – the first of which is stop increasing the production of GHG into the atmosphere. We have the Data – the temps are irrelevant, as is the timing.
My proof is in the pudding – has using +1.5C goals stopped us from not breaking it?
No.
When has anyone ever put a hard enforceable limit on the FF use, land use inputs, or generated GHG emissions per year upon any country or the world?
Never.
I rest my case.
Ned Kelly
I have days when I think nothing will change in terms of a better response to the climate problem, and others where I think we might just be able to stop a total disaster. Apparently its normal to feel alternating hope and despair.
You continue to assert keeping global temperature under xyz shouldn’t be the goal. Emissions and levels of fossil fuels use should be the goal. You give further details on this.
One detail stands out “There is your yardstick and counting human induced GHG emissions and impacts on land use. Simple … fix those set logical goals and the temperature continues to vary slightly from year to year from decade to decade, as per the cold 70s cold spell, will work itself out to it’s hearts content.”
Having read your more detailed explanation, your idea on goals is quite persuasive, and I’m not having a big negative reaction. It would certainly have been a good counter to the denialists accusation that warming stopped after 1998.
However one thing in favour of the framing of the goal of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees is that about 1 degree of warming will apparently stop or considerably lessen the next ice age. Although this is defacto geoengineering.
But would your approach to framing goals such that emissions reductions is paramount over temperature make much difference to mitigating the climate problem? Who knows. I feel it may lead to at least modestly better mitigation. I doubt it would have made a HUGE difference, because however the goals are framed there are numerous factors getting in the way of a strong mitigation response, including psychological, political, ideological and selfish vested interests, and a complex society very dependent on high levels of energy use. It might need a succession of truly massive heatwaves and forest fires to wake people up from all that.
Ned Kelly- Thank-You for the breath of sanity and clear vision. Leaving it in the ground, and digging it up and burning it while we watch the thermometer and bite our nails, are not compatible. FFs have to stay in the ground.
NK: global avg temps as ‘climate’ goals is a lunacy that was never going to work and was designed not to.
BPL: It’s a conspiracy! Probably the Jews are behind it.
There’s now a solution for our CO2 problem…
https://www.dw.com/en/us-takes-12-billion-gamble-on-carbon-sucking-vacuums/a-66514147
Dear Chuck,
Thank you very much for your hint to this interesting announcement.
I think the word “gambling” in the title of the article is quite appropriate, “fraud” could be perhaps even better fitting.
Reasoning:
Public money is not an unlimited natural resource, although governments around the world are using to pretend they are. Present “carbon trading” scheme with a fixed, equal price for both “carbon emission” as well as “carbon removal” is in my opinion deceptive, because it does not reflect high costs of artificial “carbon removal”.
In fact, seemingly cheap measures like tree planting are to be seen of a quite limited value, because buildup of an additional biomass does work rather as a temporary carbon dioxide sink, than as a permanent one. A true, “perfect” geological storage by carbon dioxide chemical binding in alkaline basalt rocks, as touted by Climeworks, must be extremely expensive. I am afraid that it is unavoidable, because extracting CO2 from its very diluted mixture with other components of ambient air needs lot of energy. Climeworks wisely desisted from disclosing operational costs of their “Orca” pilot plant on Iceland, although it covers a significant part of energy consumed by the separation process by relatively cheap geothermal heat that is abundant on Iceland but hardly available on other sites like Louisiana.
Alone the announced investments into separation plant in Louisiana are quite impressive – assuming that the 600 million dollar plant can miraculously operate 60 years without any maintenance and at zero operational costs, each of the 60 million tons of the CO2 successfully “sucked” from the atmosphere during this time will cost 10 USD.
Furthermore, the announcement is completely silent not only about expected operational costs but also about investments necessary for the storage of the separated carbon dioxide.
Unless the price of “carbon allowances” covers all costs of a such artificial carbon dioxide removal, any public money investment into such processes does in my opinion effectively represent a subsidy to fossil fuel industry and a public support for a smooth continuation of their business. When I clicked on the link to the article, an Aramco advertisment popped-up first. Perhaps a pure accident, but quite symbolical.
Greetings
Tom
an amendment to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813779
Dear all,
I would like to add a few references to works of prof. Mark Jacobson as a support for my opinion on the recent DAC projects:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-jacobson-1b58b38_the-health-and-climate-impacts-of-carbon-activity-7095778450170384384-AbD9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/19-CCS-DAC.pdf
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/AirCaptureVsWWS.pdf
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3tnX6IYUldrUCQiLXTTE4i
I would like to add to the 10% valuable comments on this thread the exceptionally and historic good news in the fight to solve the climate emergency:
“Sweeping Constitutional Win for Held v. State of Montana Youth Plaintiffs
Helena, MT—In an historic first, Judge Kathy Seeley in the First Judicial District Court of
Montana ruled wholly in favor of the 16 youth plaintiffs in Held v. State of Montana, declaring
that the state of Montana violated the youth’s constitutional rights, including their rights to equal
protection, dignity, liberty, health and safety, and public trust, which are all predicated on their
right to a clean and healthful environment. The court invalidated as unconstitutional and
enjoined Montana laws that promoted fossil fuels and required turning a blind eye to climate
change. The court ruled the youth plaintiffs had proven their standing to bring the case by
showing significant injuries, the government’s substantial role in causing them, and that a
judgment in their favor would change the government’s conduct.”
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
GISTEMP & NOAA have both reported for July 2023, GISTEMP +1.18ºC & NOAA +1.12ºC. No surprise with their both holding “scorchyisimo!!!” status, but not quite as emphatically as the EAR5 reanalysis figures. GISTEMP & NOAA both show an emphatic hottest-July-on-record but unlike ERA5 not the highest monthly anomaly on record (GISTEMP 5th hottest & NOAA 13th) and not the highest monthly anomaly of 2023-so-far being lower than March 2023. (In GISTEMP March was +1.20ºC & in NOAA +1.23ºC.)
The record hottest July remains as a big jump up on the previous record. In GISTEMP the other top-ten warmest Julys sit 2019 (+0.94ºC), 2022, 2021, 2020 (+0.90ºC), 2016, 2018, 2017 (+0.82ºC), 2009 & 2015 (+0.73ºC).
In both GISTEMP & NOAA (& ERA5), the 2023 year-so-far averages as the third warmest on record with the coming El Niño expected to boost the anomalies through the remainder of the year. Mind, the strength of the El Niño isn’t so-far looking very great with MEI & SOI & NINO3.4 all a little sluggish with their El Niño indications.
So a bit of head-scratching:-
Is this “scorchyisimo!!!” July 2023 a harbinger of “scorchyisimo!!!” through the rest of the year complete with the El Niño boost? Or will the reasons for the continuing “scorchyisimo!!!” (which the Uni o Maine reanalysis shows has been pretty-much with us since early June) start to fade away and do so faster that the El Niño boost can replace it?
GISTEMP LOTI
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.09ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +1.08ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2023 .. +1.03ºC
2019 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.73ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 13th
MA Rodger: – “Is this “scorchyisimo!!!” July 2023 a harbinger of “scorchyisimo!!!” through the rest of the year complete with the El Niño boost? Or will the reasons for the continuing “scorchyisimo!!!” (which the Uni o Maine reanalysis shows has been pretty-much with us since early June) start to fade away and do so faster that the El Niño boost can replace it?”
Berkley Earth published on Aug 14 their July 2023 Temperature Update, by Robert Rohde. The update included (bold text my emphasis):
https://berkeleyearth.org/july-2023-temperature-update/
Berkley Earth indicates:
* Likelihood of final 2023 ranking: first place (99 %), second or third place (1 %), top-3 overall (> 99 %);
* Likelihood of full-year 2023 to exceed +1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above the preindustrial benchmark is 20%.
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy published their latest communication on 14 Aug 2023 titled Uh-Oh. Now What? Are We Acquiring the Data to Understand the Situation? They concluded with:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/UhOh.14August2023.pdf
SST World (60S-60N) is currently (as at Aug 14) at record high levels (21.1 °C).
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
The Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly continues to remain at near record highs.
https://zacklabe.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/nsidc_sie_ant_anomalies-7.png
I guess we will see soon whether Berkley Earth/Dr Rohde, James Hansen, Makiko Sato, & Reto Ruedy are on the money, or not?
Geoff Miell,
The purpose of your above comment is not entirely clear to me. Is this some betting tip you are giving?
That said, a detailed reply to the points you make:-
☻ The emboldened passage you quote from the July BEST Update is actually entirely banal. It is saying that because the NH summer is the hottest part of the NH year, this is the time when all-time NH temperature records are likely to occur.
☻ Through recent months, the shortening odds given for 2023 becoming the hottest calendar year on record (BEST gave it as 18% back in their February Update, 54% back in May’s Update and two months on it is now 99%) presumably result from the hotter-than-expected recent months. But the causes of today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” are yet to be properly understood. They could magically disappear in coming months just as they magically appeared in recent months. Add in a lacklustre El Niño and those odds of a record hot 2023 could start lengthening radically.
(As gathering numbers to illustrate such argument has apparently in past exchanges not been you cup of tea, I’m not minded to bother much with such additions.)
☻ The Hansen et al comment you link-to, in blaming the TOA energy imbalance for ‘fuelling’ today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” is actually the same conclusion made by seasoned denialist Judy Curry although with an entirely different slant on the implications of such ‘fuelling’. Indeed, for Hansen the rising TOA energy imbalance is a long-term consequence of AGW while for Curry it is all very short-term and (not quite so short-term) the Hunga-Tonga eruption sulfate emissions from shipping. I don’t think either provides a very satisfying account.
☻ The 60-to-60 SST reanalysis is mirrored by the full global SST measurements and is the reason for today’s global “scorchyisimo!!!” Unlike the SSTs, the land SAT is not so startling in its “scorchyisimo!!!” with NOAA placing July 2023 Land SAT as the warmest July but not by any massive margin with the July monthly anomaly sitting only 74th in the all-month rankings.
☻ Whether anomalies for a record low Antarctic SIE could be described as being “record highs” is at the least confusing. But the continued record-breaking 2023 Antarctic SIE has clocked up (JAXA data) 179 record days out of 227 days-so-far. And these are not “near record” but “actual record” and mainly verging on “off-the-chart record.”
Antarctic SIE levels are not so strongly coupled to AGW as the Arctic SIE and far less well understood, so this year’s crazy-low SIE could yet lead to a return to normal next year (as per 2020) or further into the future, or not.
MA Rodger: – “Is this some betting tip you are giving?”
I’ll rephrase: I guess we will see soon if the prognostications (by Berkeley Earth/Dr Rohde, James Hansen, Makiko Sato, & Reto Ruedy) are accurate, or not. But it seems perhaps you wish to read something else in to it?
MA Rodger: – “☻ The emboldened passage you quote from the July BEST Update is actually entirely banal. It is saying that because the NH summer is the hottest part of the NH year, this is the time when all-time NH temperature records are likely to occur.”
Except I’d suggest it’s not about NH temperature records – the text I quoted (including the bold text I emphasized) is part of the section sub-headed with “Global Summary“.
I’d suggest the point Dr Rohde in the report is making is that this is the first time that a +1.5 °C global monthly mean anomaly exceedance has occurred during the Northern Hemisphere summer. All previous other such occurrences (i.e. exceedances of +1.5 °C global monthly mean anomaly) have happened during December to April. Such a temperature excess coming during the already hot summer months is more likely to lead to extreme global mean temperatures and all-time global records than if it had occurred at other times of the year. That’s my interpretation, but it seems you have a substantially different comprehension.
Dr Robert Rohde tweeted on Aug 14:
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1691023373290115073
I wouldn’t characterize that as being “entirely banal”. I think “horrifying” is more appropriate, particularly for all those people who are & will be directly suffering from the consequences of this current & future extreme heat.
MA Rodger: – “☻ Through recent months, the shortening odds given for 2023 becoming the hottest calendar year on record (BEST gave it as 18% back in their February Update, 54% back in May’s Update and two months on it is now 99%) presumably result from the hotter-than-expected recent months. But the causes of today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” are yet to be properly understood. They could magically disappear in coming months just as they magically appeared in recent months. Add in a lacklustre El Niño and those odds of a record hot 2023 could start lengthening radically.”
I’d suggest more data; leads to better understanding; leads to more accurate probabilities.
I think Prof Jason Box is one that provides a plain language description in his YouTube video published 4 Aug 2023 titled 5 factors behind the Global Heatwave 2023, and it’s not just El Niño, duration 0:11:54. He suggests the factors for the current extreme temperatures include:
1. Enhanced GHG effect;
2. Ocean heat content;
3. El Niño;
4. Shipping emissions;
5. TSI increase; and Prof Box also mentions
6. Reduced volcanic aerosol events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdvn2pGyOw
No magic involved – just science!
MA Rodger: – “☻ The Hansen et al comment you link-to, in blaming the TOA energy imbalance for ‘fuelling’ today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” is actually the same conclusion made by seasoned denialist Judy Curry although with an entirely different slant on the implications of such ‘fuelling’.”
Seriously? You wish to lump Hansen in with Curry?
I get the impression you seem to despise Hansen – it seems to me you disparage his work every time he gets a mention (at least by me). What’s he done to you?
MA Rodger: – “☻ The 60-to-60 SST reanalysis is mirrored by the full global SST measurements and is the reason for today’s global “scorchyisimo!!!””
Yet earlier you stated: “But the causes of today’s “scorchyisimo!!!” are yet to be properly understood.” Which is it?
I’d suggest Jason Box has a clearer understanding of the causes – see above.
MA Rodger: – “☻ Whether anomalies for a record low Antarctic SIE could be described as being “record highs” is at the least confusing. But the continued record-breaking 2023 Antarctic SIE has clocked up (JAXA data) 179 record days out of 227 days-so-far. And these are not “near record” but “actual record” and mainly verging on “off-the-chart record.””
Did you look at the linked graph?
The Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly continues to remain at near record highs (in the negative direction). Per the linked graph, the record anomaly (extent departure) was in early Jul 2023 – so currently not quite at record highs.
https://zacklabe.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/nsidc_sie_ant_anomalies-7.png
MA Rodger: – “Antarctic SIE levels are not so strongly coupled to AGW as the Arctic SIE and far less well understood, so this year’s crazy-low SIE could yet lead to a return to normal next year (as per 2020) or further into the future, or not.”
I’d suggest there’s no such thing as a “return to normal”. At best, it would be a short reprieve from ever diminishing SIE levels in an increasingly warmer world.
MAR,
I’m not sure what you are saying about the increasing EEI. Why would you question the idea that it is a logical consequence of the same factors that have been operating all along? And why wouldn’t it be reflected in the behavior of the temperature proxy?
zebra,
That’s an interesting question you ask of me.
I’m assuming your “Why would you question the idea that it is a logical consequence of the same factors that have been operating all along? is asking why I would say “I don’t think either provides a very satisfying account..” And in this “either” I referred-to, the first was my ‘take’ on Hansen et al saying
which I described as saying “the rising TOA energy imbalance is a long-term consequence of AGW” and failed to make properly clear that this is what Hansen et al apparently put as ‘fueling’ the “scorchyisimo!!!”
So what I was saying here is that the idea of a simple long-term cause of our present “scorchyisimo!!!” (that is the doubled EEI over a decade) is something that “I don’t think … provides a very satisfying account” as the long-term does not explain the wobble but only the AGW onto which the wobble deviates-from. Hansen et al in the quote above does tell us “EEI has approximately doubled” and I did read this doubling as being the “present extraordinarily large Earth’s energy imbalance” because he doesn’t make particular mention of the most recent months average EEI although these ae certainly extraordinary. And these recent EEI are what Judy Curry et al are pointing-to, specifically the large monthly EEI for May, as the cause of the “scorchyisimo!!!”, adding confusingly an increased EEI being “primary” in global rising temperatures since 2015, plus adding the denialist comment “Any increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 (which impacts the longwave radiation budget) is lost in the noise” although which “noise” is not made clear.
So to your interesting question, “Why wouldn’t EEI be reflected in the behavior of the temperature proxy?” EEI logically is the cause of global warming, in that the energy accumulating in the planet system has to come from somewhere and for AGW that somewhere is EEI.
And as Hansen et al point out, EEI has increased alarmingly in the last few decades, something Curry sees being of little interest/concern (Judy being a denialist and all).
Most comparisons of EEI & AGW concentrate on OHC as the lion’s share of the EEI ends up in the oceans. What I can’t say I’ve seen is a comparison of EEI and SAT, this perhaps of interest because SAT is what we have to live with, while OHC is for the fishes.
I must admit that I would have expected the EEI-SAT comparison to show a whole lot of noise, but this appears far from correct.
Taking the six-month averages of EEI from this presentation Loeb et al (2021) Trends in EEI During the CERES Period which runs 2005.5-2019.5 and plotting it against ΔLOTI (for the average of the 6-months of the EEI & the following 6-months) (see 21/8/23 graph here) shows the wobble comparison is far from ‘a whole lot of noise’. The EEI & LOTI wobble plots show them impressively closely marched 2005.5-to-2011.5 and again 2018.0-to-2019.5 (this the deviation from their 2005-19 linear trends).
Inbetween these two periods of closely matched wobbles, the match is spiolt by a spike in EEI thro’ 2012 not reflected in LOTI. Plus LOTI runs somewhat above trend 2013.0-to-2015.0 and below trend 2015.5-to-2018.0, these not reflected in EEI. (Thoughts of ENSO as the culprit spring to mind.)
And using the 2001-2022 CERES data shown in the Curry et al blog fig5, (also shown by Hansen et al fig6) the extended wobble comparison continues to look impressive, bar a cool spike in LOTI in 2003-04 and LOTI runnng cool from 2020-on.
The wobbles in LOTI do seem bigger than you expect from a back-of-the-envelope calcualation of a temperature response from a forcing, perhaps more so as the wobbly EEI results from a forcing-feedback combination. So some thought required.
And as a final nerdy operation, that ‘running cool’ of LOTI 2020-on could be perhaps evaluated as 0.05ºC below the EEI while the latest incomplete EEI data suggesting an additional SAT rise of +0.10ºC, these comparing with a June-July 2023 LOTI “scorchyisimo!!!” of +0.12ºC above the 2022 numbers.
MAR, you might be interested in this if you haven’t seen it; I would be interested in your opinion,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728480/
since I am not so much involved with the statistical nuances.
What I am interested in is the physics and in particular how we communicate about it; I think that the denialists use every opportunity to obfuscate at fundamental levels, like cause and effect. Consider just these two statements:
Hansen: “EEI is the proximate cause of global warming.”
MAR: “the rising TOA energy imbalance is a long-term consequence of AGW”
And then there’s zebra: “the same factors that have been operating all along”
So even “perfect zebra” can make statements that are open to different interpretations.
What troubles me here is that I would prefer your statement (assuming we can come to an agreement about what we mean by “AGW”), but you then adopt Hansen’s phrasing. I think any reader trying to understand any of this, even with an elementary physics background, would be puzzled and open to further confusion by the denialist word-games.
To me, the EEI is caused by an increase in the conversion of outgoing radiant energy to thermal energy (AKA GHEffect), which is caused by anthropogenic increase in GHG.
So if we define AGW as that increase of thermal energy resulting from increase in GHG and GHE, your original phrasing is correct. From there, it seems to me easier to discuss the question of acceleration, if we understand that both global mean temperature results and EEI are proxies for the increase in the GHE.
As you say, there is feedback, so it is hardly far-fetched to propose that as a factor which “has been operating all along”, especially if there is any merit in the paper I cited. In addition, it may be, as I have suggested previously, that direct anthropogenic increases in water vapor would be contributing. And who knows what else.
I guess my reaction to this is that I don’t find it surprising at all that there is some non-linear stuff going on; after all, we are talking about a chaotic system.
zebra,
☻ The paper with a statistical flavour you suggest as interesting didn’t make much of a splash in the literature. I have a feeling the stats are a bit naive and the colourful triangular graphs are thus less sophisticated than those of, say, Nick Stokes who maintains his temperature trend viewer showing such triangles.
☻ In my use of the term AGW, I mean something a bit wider than simply temperature & the man-made warming. I’d consider the forcings humanity is inflicting on the climate as being AGW and also the emissions which generate those forcings. So the whole process.
In my view, an increased EEI (and it doesn’t necessarily keep increasing) is part-or-result of that process as without it there can be no warming.
☻ EEI is a complex beast with the magnitude of EEI a net value resulting from complex processes as well as more straightforward ones (like the GHG forcings). That Loeb et al 2021 presentation on ‘Trend in EEI During the CERES Period’ I used to get the 2005-19 EEI numbers concentrates on the trend through that period. (I have the view that it is not a very representitive period for EEI under AGW, a period which sees EEI rises from +0.4Wm^-2 to +1.1Wm^-2.) Loeb et al analyse the components of the global EEI trend +0.42Wm^-2/decade. The numbers run (for the net contributions to the total trend)
Clouds … … … … … . +0.18
Surface Albedo … +0.15
Aerosols … … … … .. +0.03
Water vapour .. … .. +0.36
LLGHG … … … … … . +0.20
Rising temps … … . -0.53
(Note the negative sign of the temp feedback & note these are net trends Wm^-2/decade. They come with big error bars.)
(Of course a denialist would here point to the small LLGHG contribution to the total trend as the other contributions provide together almost 4x. But being a denialist they would deny the worrying significance of these contributions being mostly feedbacks released by the LLGHG.)
My investigations into EEI/SAT prompted by your interesting question continue as I now have monthly EEI 2001-to-date and am humming-&-haring over what this monthly data shows.
The Wall Street Journal: Peter Huntsman Is a CEO Who Doesn’t Equivocate About Climate
This claim is very, very wrong, isn’t it?
The numbers are vaguely in the ballpark of what you can read in OWID : https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
, Provided your restrict your view to domestic US émissions.
Which is, of course, completely missing the point.
I suggest this CEO goes on stage at the next shareholder assembly, and progressively strips down of any piece of clothing not 100% manufactured in the USA. To illustrate there might be a difference between domestic emission and footprint.
(Of course the CEO, being a very intelligent men, is well aware of that, but he has to pretend, in order to keep his job…)
Yes, it is completely wrong. Emissions are a huge amount higher now than they were in 1970. Huntsman obviously hasn’t read the IPCC reports. His figures are 53 years out of date.
Carbon emissions this year are about 10 gigatons, not 6.5. He’s too low by 35%, or to put it another way, emissions are 54% higher than he thinks.
BPL: “Carbon emissions” should preferably refer to “black carbon,” those that contribute to darkening of ice, a rapid albedo change. The “emissions” of concern are those of carbonic acid gas, conventionally referred to as carbon dioxide (a description of molecular elements), That material is the result of oxidation from fossilized carbon by the addition of two oxygen atoms. Thus, 10 gigaton of carbon becomes 37 gigaton of carbonic acid gas, via molecular weight.
Also, this calculation is only from fossil material oxidation. Several more gigatons occur from biogeochemical “feedbacks” on. the global scale (forest burning, etc.). Then there are a host of other anthropogenic gases (man-made and those from “feedbacks”) that almost double “climate change” impacts. These totals result in estimated “CO2 equivalents” into the 50 – 60 gigaton range per year.
Thus, your misplaced statement of “too low” would be off by roughly an order of magnitude for the planet. However, the CEO’s statement has several framing statements and assertions, such as “we” and an implied definition of “emissions,” which could be interpreted as accurate for the USA alone, if we leave out a host of caveats and complicating factors (such as undercounting quantities and qualities of increasing methane (CH4) concentrations in the atmosphere). Regards, SJ
SJ,
The CEO said emissions, whether US or world, had not changed since 1970. That was entirely wrong. Period,
Huntsman is approximately correct regarding US CO2 emissions. Celebrating, however, risks taking one’s eye off the ball. US per capita emissions are still relatively high and must be reduced. Also, it’s a global problem.
It is akin to a guy falling from a tall building congratulating himself on hitting terminal velocity, so, at least things aren’t getting worse.
It’s similar to the “CFC scare” tactics/propaganda that derided the actions taken(elimination of CFCs) and the results achieved(ozone recovery), It’s like arguing “we don’t need seatbelts; fatalities per passenger mile are falling” and ignoring the underlying effect of seatbelts on fatalities. The transition to low carbon energy not an achievement to celebrate but a process which needs accelerating to give us non zero chance of a survivable climate.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.07.28/main.svg
Well-said.
In general, this is the fallacy of an exclusive focus on ‘carbon intensity.’. China has had impressive goals to reduce carbon intensity in its 5-year plans for at least 2 decades now, and IRRC has regularly exceeded the the improvements budgeted. Yet we know how their total emissions curve has gone.
I suppose muted celebration that it didn’t go the way it would have sans those reductions in intensity isn’t altogether inappropriate, but it sure would be a shame if it detracted an iota from efforts to reduce actual global emmissions.
Then, too, Mr. Hunstman’s self-congratulatory rhetoric seems pretty lame when you consider that the EU not only stayed in Kyoto, but AFAIK has met overall targets for emissions reduction. Reminds me of my nephew, who actually said, after failing a test, “Well, I knew 47% of the material!”
Ladies and gentlemen
I consulted the website https://kilimarealistene.no and found an old story among the surrealists still going very strong and updated to what Matthias Schürle, JCM and Tomas Kalisz has launched here in recent time, and thus worth studying.
It is Hans Jelbrings alternative model theory to rule out the CO2AGW greenhouse- effect, later furthered by a certain Dipl.Ing Heinz Thieme “Technischer Assessor” Upstairs at the old Leipzig railways, (best red in original to identify him politically professionally.) And by the fameous pair Zeller-Nicolov.
A best access to it is through Roy Spencers analysis on his own website and in 2018 at WUWT
https://giving/credit/to/willis/eschenbach/for/setting/the/zeller/nicolov/silliness/straight.
I hope you get it all in red here, , but I can google the same by that sentence.
Spencers discussion there is very good. and with important references.
That story, Jelbrings theory planetary surface temperatures being caused to 3 digit accuracy by ground atmosphere pressures only and by distance from the sun, regarless of natural gas composition, gaseous IR spectra to be ignored, is a central prototype for further denialism and surrealism on the net and in the blogosphere.
In updated form , the same vertical convection now also discussi9ng water vapour and “Latent heat flux” causing the lapsrate and the planetary surface temperatures is contra and opposite to my learnintg of wind veather and rain and eventual warmth and chill in public school. Where the heat and the temperatures did drive and cause the vertical and horizontal convections and flowings,, and not convections and flowings (however latent also), was driving and causing the heats and the temperatures in molecular matter.
So it is really worthy of knowing what Roy Spencer has written about the same and about the importance of radiation in the higher and lower atmosphere.
I am able to breathe out and keep what I know about Archimedes`law, hot air balloons, atomic and molar weights, Daltons and Boyles laws, radiology, and spectrophotometry.
And about Calorimetry.
Try also Hans Jelbring Atmosfäriska effekten,
that later became a dogma for organized climate surrealism.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813793 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-813817
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-813773 .
Dear Carbomontanus,
I apologize for not examining your references to WUWT and other similar sources – it is just for limited time and energy I have, not for lack of respect to you.
Let me touch a few specific points from your posts that puzzle me.
1) Earth surface cooling by latent heat flow, rain recycling, biotic pump hypothesis
These topics are interrelated, however, each of them has in my opinion a significantly different position in present picture of Earth climate as regards the level of certainty / scientific understanding.
a) Earth surface cooling by latent heat flow
I highly appreciate recent remark
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-813824
by Barton Paul Levenson, reassuring me that it is indeed a standard part of state-of-art climate science and that my source of this knowledge (the textbook Physical climatology written by prof. Dennis Hartmann, to that I several times referred during the previous discussion) is trustworthy and reliable.
b) Rain recycling by terrestrial vegetation
I have not checked in detail how strong is the evidence for so called rain recycling (mechanism of a stepwise moisture transport from the ocean to interior of continents, enabled by re-evaporation of moisture precipitated on land, wherein it is supposed that evapotranspiration by plants significantly contributes thereto). There are publications supporting the existence of this phenomenon by analyses of stable isotope ratio in rainfall, and I hope that the respective measurements were made carefully and rigorously and that the obtained data were evaluated and interpreted cautiously. As a summary of this point, I presently do not see reasons for doubting that the rain recycling by water re-evaporation from land indeed works and that the terrestrial vegetation indeed does play an important role therein.
c) “biotic pump” hypothesis
Different from rain recycling, I still see the “biotic pump” hypothesis (assuming that large land areas with an intense “small” (local) water cycle may enhance water transport from the ocean into this area, establishing this way a stable steady state that may exhibit a strengthened resilience against external disruptions such as e.g. changes in global mean temperature, oceanic currents etc.) as an appealing idea that has neither a strong theoretical background, nor a solid observational support yet. On the other hand, I do not see any strong theoretical reason or observational evidence disproving this hypothesis. Therefore, I still think that it may deserve a serious attention from the mainstream climate science.
I am afraid that I still do not understand what is actually your view on these topics.
2) Greening vs drying of continents and paleoclimate evidence as a support for hydrological regime predictions in the present climate change
It appears that present climate models predict a slight increase in the total annual global rainfall with rising global temperature and that this prediction is in accord with a global trend observed during the last decades.
Nevertheless, the works published / cited by rasmus do not appear to mention any general trend to more rainfall on the land, and they rather seem to disprove claims like “Sahel is greening”. On the other hand, I have not seen yet any data convincingly supporting hypotheses about a general trend to “continental drying”. This is the reason why I asked explicitly if the available data show a general trend in higher water transport from ocean to continents, and what is regional distribution in observed development in hydrological cycle intensity.
I am not sure that a shift of present Earth climate to an analogue of Pliocene warm wet climate in central Europe may necessarily be a pattern followed by present climate change. I think that there are at least two reasons for a high uncertainty of such assumptions. First, I think that positions of continents and oceanic currents may have changed since Pliocene; second, at the very start of Pliocene, there was quite likely no equivalent of the present human interference with climate-relevant aspects such as terrestrial vegetation cover.
3) Recommendations of a holistic approach vs requirement for a monocausal explanation of observed phenomena
It appears that you, on one hand, often mention a holistic approach that should help understanding the Nature, on the other hand, I have rather a feeling that you assume that the observed climate change must have a single cause. I think so because you assign the people discussing possible complexity of the mechanism of the present climate change as “denialists”, striving to disprove the role of radiative greenhouse effect in climate regulation.
Personally, I have rather a feeling that “monocausal” phenomena are rather rare in the Nature, and that identification anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as a “suspect” in the observed climate change does not exclude that this suspect may have an accomplice (or more accomplices).
Greetings
Tomáš
@ Tomas Kalisz
As you may have seen at WUWT, the climate denialist and surrealoists own namely the very Roy Spenjcer and even Anthony Watts have disqualified the latent heat material pumping of air and condensing and evaporating cooling and warming matters up and down in the atmosphere, by the fameous vertical convections.
What Roy Spencer and even Anthony Watts hav decided to set on and to disqualify there, is to be studied, understood, and followed further.
I learnt this in public school about air chill heat and distillation condensation indoor and outdoor as the grand old Party with P from the verbal squit faculty had not yet fully entered the CATETER and burnt & forbidden and re- written our schoolbooks the rather progressive way along with their “newspeach”., progressive post- revfolutionary Surrealisms and denialisms.
The mighty aerobic vertical active Dieselling and Pumping of the atmosphere up and down (where ther earth is flat within error bars) does not cause and explain the planetary ground temperatures and lapse rates
H2O cooling liquids with latent heat flux in addition to it even less.
Vertical convection in the atmosphere is a cooling negative feedback to global warming,
to global warming that is due to the greengouse efrfect caused byn IR absorbance and emittance on oligo- atomic dis- continuous electromagnetic thermal spectra.
Green vegetation and higher vegetation with deeper toots is not driving and forcing and causing and mooving the water cycles inland.
On the contrary, it is damping and braking ( bremse) the same. It damps the too rapid evaporation and evapotranspirations and runoffs into the rivers and seas and oceans again. and damps, “brakes”.. = slows down the water cycles inland.
It is not bio- pumping. It is bio- damping =inhibiting and slowing and braking down the water flows and flushes.. As you cannot forcefully water your way inland to ” pump” more rain from the sea and from above to force mosture further forward inland there. Because If you add artificially to the product of a process, you will ratyher inhibit and stop going further that natural reasction flow and process.
Higher temperatures is what is driving the water cycles to go faster with more force and material & energy flow. To damp and to “brake” those cycles , it takes high, wide and wet swamps that evapotranspirate less than open waters… higher vegetation with deeper roots, and more shadow on the ground, more deeply porous ground and earth, will evaporate and evaportranspirate less-delay the cyclings, and save the water from “cycling” running away and back again too fast.
Or you must build artificial riverdams and reserves with artificial irrigation to brake and delay those flushes and flows and flooding cathasrophies that are also connected with intermediate serious droughts.
Alltogether, this is proper Hydrology to damp and to brake the ever increasing and growing water cyclings due to CO2 AGW global warming.
Surrealism & denialism must be stopped in those areas because it is intensionally politically stupidifying as we can see,
as it fights and hurts our elementary our necessary experience and learnings about Nature. ..
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813853
Dear Carbomontanus,
I am not sure that your assumption that plants with deep roots (e.g., typical forest) slow evaporation down in comparison with bare land and thus “save the water from cycling”.
According to Czech plant biologist Jan Pokorný, evapotranspiration from a forest during a hot summer day may double the amount evaporated from a free water table in the same location.
Greetings
Tomáš
Kalisz
Well, I think we are allowed to find out for ourselves here.
From a flat and tight ground it will rush off, not sink down.. With thick mosses shrubs and shado0wy trees that also damps the winds, it will surely stay better back and better sink down in the more porous ground with capillary forces.. Well developed ground and soil with higher and tougher vegetation with deeper roots defenitely keeps and stores the rainwater meltwater and riverwater better, and damps the flushes out essencially.
Then when drought comes and water is scarce, I have the clear impression that plants adapt by stagnating growth and water metabolism for saving water and surviving, trying to live on by less “evapotranspiration”. They close the Stomata. Even fall off leaves to better stay alive and wait for the rain.
So all in all it moderates and damps the overall rain and weather swingings to its own advantages, which is also evolutionary plausible.
It hardly causes and drives more water to evaporate so that there shall be more rain further on. It obviously also cause and do the 9opposite, saves and stores and keeps the water away from “cycling”. on.
. So all in all, I tend to see more and more that fameous “watercycle” that shall take over for CO2 and IPCC and James Jansen,……. as an intensionally new and misleading propagandisc idea.from the side of Thinktank climate surrealism.
The free water table has the least possible water surface, but when wind comes, the surface and boundary layer transport increases radically. Trees and vegetation damps that windy stirring in the water and will rather damp the evaporation and save and keep the water where it is to the vital økosystems own advantage..
Moral:
Resign on furthering the contrarian surrealistic propaganda suggestions, and you will maybe better see and reallize what is really going on in nature. As if Gods finger was with it, Which is an earlier, quite fruitfrul theory among practical peasants..
“Vitalism” was ruled out shortly after God had also been ruled out. But it took only a few years, then “Bio” and “Øko..” came in and tok that vacant seat. Practically meaning the same. .
(Bio… was coined by GURU charles Darwin. And Øko… by the fameous GURU Ernst Haeckel to enter a fameous Sedesvacans)
Surrealism and denialism and that omniscirent manmade …….cycle does not belong to teach and to judge and rule in that essencial high seat that mankind obviously cannot resign on.
Re greening of continents, moisture transport – It’s complicated, and probably dominated by nonlinear/threshold effects. “Albeit with uncertainty in establishing a direct causality between RH trends and the different empirical moisture sources, we found that the observed decrease in RH in some regions can be linked to lower water supply from land evapotranspiration. In contrast, the empirical relationships also suggest that RH trends in other target regions are mainly explained by the dynamic and thermodynamic mechanisms related to the moisture supply from the oceanic source regions.” Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Nieto, R., Gimeno, L., Azorin-Molina, C., Drumond, A., El Kenawy, A., Dominguez-Castro, F., Tomas-Burguera, M., and Peña-Gallardo, M.: Recent changes of relative humidity: regional connections with land and ocean processes, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 915–937, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-915-2018, 2018.
Regarding the effects of type of vegetation and it’s effects –
:”A fence built to prevent rabbits from entering the Australian outback has unintentionally allowed scientists to study the effects of land use on regional climates.
The rabbit-proof fence — or bunny fence — in Western Australia was completed in 1907 and stretches about 2,000 miles. It acts as a boundary separating native vegetation from farmland. Within the fence area, scientists have observed a strange phenomenon: above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. But the sky on the farmland side is clear….One theory is that the dark native vegetation absorbs and releases more heat into the atmosphere than the light-colored crops. These native plants release heat that combines with water vapor from the lower atmosphere, resulting in cloud formation. Another hypothesis is that the warmer air on the native scrubland rises, creating a vacuum in the lower atmosphere that is then filled by cooler air from cropland across the fence. As a result, clouds form on the scrubland side….” or both, plus oceanic sources, plus aerosol differences increasing the relative humidity above the threshold for effective rain droplet formation. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html
See also https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2016/ja_2016_amatya_008.pdf, especially the part about hydraulic redistribution by roots.
Grass is allways greener on the opposite side of the fence, you see..
I believe less in a lot of things that I read from those regions.
Are Tropical Instability Waves emerging during an El Nino? This is rare, any connection to the Baja California hurricane?
https://twitter.com/WHUT/status/1693234167163621626
(re nigelj and Ned Kelly https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813690 )
Why a (net)-CO2(eq) tax makes sense (or at least, it did), and also why it may not be enough – Recently posted this essay; I included a number of related links, including a full text pdf of Mark Z. Jacobson, et al. (2022) “Low-cost solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries”
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-delineating-pathways-east-antarctica-totten.html
And here come the hurricanes! This is pretty amazing looking at the map. It’s like the dam has broken.
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/22/atlantic-tropical-storms-record-burst
Chuck Hughes,
The item on Atlantic hurricanes goes a bit beyond the reporting of a record for the rate of storms formation (4 in 39 hours) and converts the NOAA revised forecast which now projects 2023 as ‘above average’ (as have most prediction-givers) which the item converts into being ‘unusually active’.
While the 2023 hurricane season is just getting into its stride, so far it has been lots of tiny short-lived storms (thats ‘tiny’ in terms of hurricanes) but other than the number of storms a below average year-to-date (see the <Colorado Uni Real-Time cyclone page). This year so-far, the NOAA activity page has been reporting a lot of potential storms that failed to develop presumably because conditions are less conducive during an El Niño year.
The Atlantic hurricane season doesn’t really get going until the third week in August typically but atmospheric conditions so far have not been as unfavourable as is typical for an El Nino year. Vertical wind shear has been around average or slightly below average across the tropical Atlantic in places over the last few weeks. The Saharan air layer which had been quite active at the beginning of the month isn’t strong now. With very warm SSTs it is somewhat surprising that disturbances are struggling to develop and we so far have a quantity over quality season.
Out of the four forming from that burst, three didn’t intensify beyond moderate tropical storm strength. Franklin has a shot at becoming a cat 3 hurricane when it moves into the sub-tropics. It is kind of El Nino-like with struggling Atlantic storms and a very active east Pacific basin but the atmospheric conditions have not been like typical El Nino years so far. Vertical wind shear has been around average across the Atlantic and below average locally.
In the news,
Scientific journal retracts article that claimed no evidence of climate crisis.
@ all and everyone
Now we have it again, datum. Extreeme rain and flooding.
Internet says “Don`t drive to Oslo today. The roads are flooded from both sides. Cars are trapped and flooded. Don`t call the cathastrophy number, we have no capacity. Cars are standing under water, we cannot rescue yours. Phone the insurance,.. All you can do is to try and save your values, we have to wait it all off!
I / We suddenly had 1`of water in the cellar, 1 1/2 ” higher than last time on 5 aug. The large cellar pump had not gone automatically on.
It sustains what the meteorologists Rasmus Benestad Met.inst.no and the dept of environment has said now for a while, namely “W…W…& W!” , wetter warmer and wilder!
And in that situation , some people teach and preach deseretification and aridification. and are suggesting spraying water on the ground teaching that it is the broken global hydrological cycle and that it is needing more “latent heat flux”
The latent heat flux is obviously being accelerated by CO2AGW and works all it can in extreeme mode now, for cooling the earth and our situation, saving us from our typical sins of greedyness, luxury and ignorance during so many years,….
And it has come a bit faster than even I and the Met.inst. no did expect.
Moral:
It is time now for more and more people to take to reason and rather chose primary and elementary physical and hydrological understanding.
Look over and after your most elementary and basic definitions and learnings there if it is really autentic and in order, or maybe rather was delivered from the surrealists, for alian purposes..
I can’t remember if I mentioned it at the time, so apologies if this is duplicate information. But I’ve had an article published in Physics Education:
Levenson, B.P. 2023. Pressure doesn’t make Venus hot: A computer exercise. Physics Ed. 58, 055019.
It’s a response to Helbring, “Goddard” (Heller), Nikolov&Zeller, and most recently, Holmes. For legal reasons the journal wouldn’t let me mention any of them by name, but that doesn’t matter much.
Levenson
I mention Hans Jelbring, Zeller and Nicolov, and “Dipl Ing” upstairs at the Railways in old Leipzig ( that must have been eastern line) Heinz Thieme, Technischer Assessor, as often as I can, mention them, and point at them.
You see, when the train went off track in old Leipzig, something must be the reason and someone to be blamed. But, as the ralway officers are all planted there from the grand old Party with P with certain privileges, that is not so easy and takes quite a Technical assessor.
They are politically and legally immune for instance, and allowed to consume some Vodka on duty, and are not necessarily due to have had any technical school. They may even be analphabets and still untouchable, upstairs at the railways in old Leipzig eastern line.
So Heinz Thieme gave Angela Merkel the blame for the climate dispute, because she is a priest daughter, and Climate may perhaps be “religion..” smile smile in the old DDR upstairs at the railways.
Putin also went to highschool in old Leipzig after Public school in Ljeningrad
Both Thieme Putin and Merkel graduated in old Leipzig. Merkel at the Planc Institurte of phusical chemistery, and Putin from STASI wityh black belt in Judo.
Pity that Levenson cannot draw out Heinz Thieme in Original where https://Heinz/thieme is really on his very best. The english translations do not quite get that eastern and prussian diciplinary sharpness.
ad for “Also schloss er messerscharf dass, nichts sein kann, was nich sein darf!”
And the politicians and the system in the west are misconsceived unreliable religious, and have the blame, they are not scientific as you can see..
But I am warning you all over there in the states for the same and pointing at the aesoteric roots of it…
. .
Because King Donald Grozny is of quite exactly of the same blood- group P,
P fpr Pure, Puttler Pork, Privileged, Prussian, and Populist….., and for Party, the grand old one.
Alltogether P for PPPPPPP seven times. and even trumP wher Pm is spoken pf.!
But simply Bloodgroup P then you get it.
Levenson
I just mentioned precise targeting That is more important than ever. Wherefore crooky alternatives forbid it and go after it, smile smile, hum hum!
I can never forget, our parish priest came in class and told us of the prophet Nathan , Urias and Batseba. And of Nathans daring AD HOMINEM “Thou art the man, David!”
I later found the same again in Engald, the great bible in the tourist church opened on exactly that word.
To teach us morals in class,… and in church,…
I shall never forget it. .
Hans Jelbring, Zeller Nikolov, Heinz Thieme, you name them,… neither of them are kings , poets, musicians, and great warlords. And should not be feared and defended, treated as such.