This month’s open thread on climate topics. Please try to stay on topic and refrain from posting tedious, oft-debunked nonsense. Look out for more reports of ridiculously high global temperatures and intense rainfall, and more confident predictions of the budding El Niño event and annual temperature rankings…
Michael Mann has an impressive sounding new book on the climate issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/30/human-civilisation-climate-scientist-prof-michael-mann
“We’re not doomed yet’: climate scientist Michael Mann on our last chance to save human civilisation. Damian Carrington. Environment editor.”
“The renowned US scientist’s new book examines 4bn years of climate history (including some really interesting factoids) to conclude we are in a ‘fragile moment’ but there is still time to act”
“We haven’t yet exceeded the bounds of viable human civilisation, but we’re getting close,” says Prof Michael Mann. “If we keep going [with carbon emissions], then all bets are off.”
“The climate crisis, already bringing devastating extreme weather around the world, has delivered a “fragile moment”, says the eminent climate scientist and communicator in his latest book, titled Our Fragile Moment. Taming the climate crisis still remains possible, but faces huge political obstacles, he says…….”
IMO Mann seems to have a very sensible understanding of the climate situation from the science to the climate history, the mitigation options, the politics and the realities of human psychology. I’m not sure you will get a better or more rational overview. Of course since when have humanity listened to rational argument…..
nigelj: – ““We’re not doomed yet’: climate scientist Michael Mann on our last chance to save human civilisation. Damian Carrington. Environment editor.””
Climate researcher Leon Simons tweeted on Oct 1:
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1708385928153018786
I agree with Leon Simons.
Per Berkeley Earth (BE), the global mean temperature in August 2023 was 1.68 ± 0.09 °C (3.02 ± 0.16 °F) above the 1850 to 1900 average, which is frequently used as a benchmark for the preindustrial period. BE now consider there to be a 55% chance that 2023 will have an annual-average temperature anomaly more than 1.5 °C/2.7 °F above the 1850-1900 average.
https://berkeleyearth.org/august-2023-temperature-update/
And the Earth System is “doomed” to inevitably breach the +1.5 °C longer-term/multi-year global mean warming threshold, most likely before this decade ends.
See Figure 25 in the Hansen et. al. pre-print paper Global warming in the pipeline, version 3 (23 May 2023) at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474.pdf
That means the purple areas indicated for the +1.5 °C warming scenario, in the animation included in the tweet by Professor Stefan Rahmstorf on May 25, are “doomed” to become no longer habitable (MATs ≥ 29 °C). And as global mean warming continues upwards and onwards as human-induced GHG emissions likely continue, increasingly more areas on the globe will become unlivable.
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1661450321766371329
nigelj: – “IMO Mann seems to have a very sensible understanding of the climate situation from the science to the climate history, the mitigation options, the politics and the realities of human psychology.”
IMO, Professor Mann’s heavy ‘sugar-coating’ of the dire climate situation is likely to figuratively give one ‘diabetes’.
A different perspective about the dire climate situation is briefly explored in my comments (and included links) at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/#comment-814795
Geoff Miell,
“Climate researcher Leon Simons tweeted on Oct 1:We are not doomed yet? Define “we”. Define “doomed”. Many of those living below or near sea level realize their land is doomed to end up below the waves sooner or later.“ The world will not end” is a pretty narrow definition of “we are not doomed”.
IMO this is a shallow response. It should be obvious that Michael Mann was paraphrasing and meant modern human civilisation as a whole is not doomed yet. And hes right. We know that at even at current level of warming, some problems are inevitable and baked in, but that is a long way from proving civilisation as a whole is doomed.
“IMO, Professor Mann’s heavy ‘sugar-coating’ of the dire climate situation is likely to figuratively give one ‘diabetes’.”
Surely you are joking. This is the same Mann who just said “We haven’t yet exceeded the bounds of viable human civilisation, but we’re getting close,” says Prof Michael Mann. “If we keep going [with carbon emissions], then all bets are off.”“The climate crisis, already bringing devastating extreme weather around the world, has delivered a “fragile moment”, “. Does this sound like sugar coating the problem?
I think we have a serious climate problem and we should mitigate that problem. But your very one sided relentlessly doomy commentary is at risk of feeding denialists who say its too late to do anything. It also makes you sound like a concern troll. I have never even heard you promote mitigation of the problem.
nigelj; – “IMO this is a shallow response.”
I’d suggest Leon Simons alludes to committed sea level rise (SLR) at current atmospheric GHG concentrations and ocean heat content. SLR certainly won’t stop even if humanity stops GHG emissions ASAP.
Glaciologist Professor Jason Box suggests “… we’ve committed already to more than 20 metres of sea level rise …”
See my comments re SLR at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/the-amoc-tipping-this-century-or-not/#comment-813939
I’d suggest Leon Simons’ statement:
… is much ‘deeper’ than you seem to realize. And regions like Florida, Bangladesh, the Mekong River Delta, Fiji, etc. are already experiencing damaging SLR.
With at least a metre of SLR likely committed by 2100 regardless of any deep GHG emission cuts, with potentially multi-metre SLR in the same timeframe if we/humanity cannot drastically reduce human-induced GHG emissions within this decade, many more vulnerable coastal locations will inevitably go under the waves.
IMO, Prof Mann fails to mention the inevitable catastrophes of committed SLR (within this century to millennia) and the increasingly more areas on the globe committed to becoming unlivable due to extreme heat/humidity (within the next few decades). In my view, that’s ‘sugar-coating’ what tens/hundreds of millions are perhaps already experiencing, escalating into perhaps one, two or maybe even three billion people into the coming next few decades.
nigelj; – “I have never even heard you promote mitigation of the problem.”
You haven’t been paying attention, have you nigelj?
What’s required to avoid worst-case catastrophic conditions for humanity in the coming decades? Reduce, Remove, Repair – see the quote from ClimateCodeRed.org in my comment at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/the-amoc-tipping-this-century-or-not/#comment-813939
I’d suggest it’s still going to be a very rough ride, for some more than others, regardless of any rapid GHG emissions cuts. I think ‘sugar-coating’ the situation is unproductive for avoiding this profound looming existential threat to human civilisation. People need to be aware what’s really at stake – that’s what I’ve been attempting to do here at this blog. The clock’s also ticking.
Giving up is not an option, unless one wishes to condemn billions of people (likely including loved ones and even oneself, depending on age/life-expectancy) as civilisation heads on a path towards collapse from apathy/resignation/denial, with consequent mass sufferings and deaths.
The entire framing of the situation in terms of “we are doomed” or “we’ll be fine if…” is misguided. We are where we are. We can either take actions that make things better, or we can make things worse–probably much worse. There is a very long list of adverse effects–some with horrifying consequences–before we get to “doom”. Indeed, “doom” might be letting ourselves off easy. If we continue down the path we’re on, we have no idea how bad things will get. Unfortunately, if we simply say we are doomed, we will find out just as assuredly as if we denied the problem
With respect, Geoff, a couple of points.
True, and profoundly tragic. But not civilization-ending.
You’re being quite unfair here. It took about 20 seconds of searching to find Dr. Mann giving this interview, focused on the prospect of committed SLR of 1 foot by 2050, and talking about the possibility *if we act promptly* of averting multi-meter SLR by 2100. (Presumably, 1 meter or so would be unavoidable.)
Geoff Miell
N: “IMO this is a shallow response.”
GM: I’d suggest Leon Simons alludes to committed sea level rise (SLR) at current atmospheric GHG concentrations and ocean heat content. SLR certainly won’t stop even if humanity stops GHG emissions ASAP….
N: Yes I agree there is substantial committed SLR. I have never said otherwise. Your response to my comment is a non sequitur and is taking one sentence out of context. My point was that Simons was being shallow because he is missing the point that Michael Mann was PARAPHRASING the situation and that he wasn’t suggesting everything will be just fine, or that some things are not already baked in and serious.
GM: IMO, Prof Mann fails to mention the inevitable catastrophes of committed SLR (within this century to millennia) and the increasingly more areas on the globe committed to becoming unlivable due to extreme heat/humidity (within the next few decades). In my view, that’s ‘sugar-coating’ what tens/hundreds of millions are perhaps already experiencing, escalating into perhaps one, two or maybe even three billion people into the coming next few decades.
N: Perhaps he doesnt mention those things in the interview in the link I posted, however I did a very quick google search, and Mann has done NUMEROUS interviews on Sea level Rise. In his discussion on the recent NOAA report he talks about SLR that is already baked into the system, and how its a problem. However Mann makes the point that we can still prevent the worst of SLR, particularly the possibility of rapid and serious SLR this century.
The SLR already baked in is obviously a serious concern, but it will be a slow process (provided we stop emissions) and is something we could adapt to although costs will be considerable. The real challenge is rapid and substantial SLR within a single century particularly this century, because it will be hard to adapt to, and quite crippling, and its something we can still prevent if we act fast. I believe that is why Mann talks most about SLR this century. He has his focus and priorities right. Some links on Mann talking about SLR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxaNywH5wM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwa6wjFDdM
Michael Mann certainly talks about the considerable dangers of worsening heatwaves here:
https://www.pbs.org/video/extreme-heat-1692729973/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgoUS1rX6O0
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/climate-change-linked-to-heatwaves-fires/
I don’t have time to check if he specifically mentions the very serious high heat / high humidity events. I would hope he does obviously. However I get the feeling you have unrealistic expectations of him. Nobody is going to be able to mention every possible climate danger. Plenty of other scientists have talked about the high humidity / high heat problem. Its not all up to M Mann. He is not superman.
GM: I think ‘sugar-coating’ the situation is unproductive for avoiding this profound looming existential threat to human civilisation. People need to be aware what’s really at stake – that’s what I’ve been attempting to do here at this blog. The clock’s also ticking.
To suggest Mann is sugar coating the issue is unjustified. I’ve given you enough examples and links to demonstrate this. The fact he might not have mentioned every conceivable climate risk is not “sugar coating” anything.
And there is the question of which doomy studies have credibility.
However I agree with the majority of your views expressed on various threads, particularly that we face a profound existential threat to our civilisation.
Ray Ladbury: – “Indeed, “doom” might be letting ourselves off easy. If we continue down the path we’re on, we have no idea how bad things will get. Unfortunately, if we simply say we are doomed, we will find out just as assuredly as if we denied the problem”
I’d suggest it’s now only a question of degree/magnitude of how bad things will get.
Kevin McKinney: – “You’re being quite unfair here. It took about 20 seconds of searching to find Dr. Mann giving this interview, focused on the prospect of committed SLR of 1 foot by 2050, and talking about the possibility *if we act promptly* of averting multi-meter SLR by 2100. (Presumably, 1 meter or so would be unavoidable.)”
Unless I’m missing something, I’d suggest there’s no reference to SLR or extreme heat/humidity within The Guardian article that nigelj links to above. I’m basing my comments on what’s being reported and quoted.
Where is this interview you’ve found that refers to “committed SLR of 1 foot by 2050…” Link please? Is it this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxaNywH5wM
The NOAA report Prof Mann refers to in the YouTube video includes Table 2.3: Global mean sea level and contiguous United States scenarios, in meters, relative to a 2000 baseline. The outlook for global SLR at year-2050 (relative to year-2000 baseline) ranges from 0.15 m (low) to 0.43 m (high).
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
The UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers has adopted the oceanographer John Englander’s 9-Box Matrix (see Table 3) as a design tool for guidance for planning for future flooding from rising seas, in addition to whatever current flooding a location may be experiencing. For year-2050, the recommendations range from 30 cm / 1 foot (low) to 1 m / 3 feet (high).
https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/rising-seas-the-engineering-challenge
So 1 foot SLR by 2050 is really the bare minimum.
I’d suggest most people are not going to take the time to go hunting for it, let alone take time to listen to it (or find and read a full transcript of it, if it’s available) unless they are really keen.
The Guardian article referred above by does include:
IMO, Prof Mann (if the quote is accurate) is implying it’s still possible to keep warming below the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold. Evidence/data indicates that’s fantasy – even the scholarly reticent IPCC now indicates it’s no longer possible. See the IPCC’s AR6 WG1 SPM, Table SPM. 1, on page 14.
nigelj: – “Plenty of other scientists have talked about the high humidity / high heat problem. Its not all up to M Mann. He is not superman.”
Indeed, but it seems to me Prof Mann is one of a small group of ‘go to people’ that the media seeks out for comments on climate issues. I’d suggest he should tell it how it is, not how it seems the media wants to present it to their readers/viewers.
Live interviews make it much more difficult for the media to censor comments.
Barbara Moran writes in a piece at WBUR headlined Many scientists don’t want to tell the truth about climate change. Here’s why, concludes with:
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2023/10/03/1-5-degrees-celcius-un-climate-change-report-barbara-moran
Ray Ladbury sums it up. Another way to get real:
Here we all are, and what are we going to do about it? We can try to make our future less bad. Giving up is not that. Its a condition of being alive, to at least try.
We can because we must.
Geoff Miell
“Indeed, but it seems to me Prof Mann is one of a small group of ‘go to people’ that the media seeks out for comments on climate issues. I’d suggest he should tell it how it is, not how it seems the media wants to present it to their readers/viewers.”
IMO Mann does tell it like it is, in the sense he doesn’t downplay the problem. He has told people about the IPCC projections of warming, SLR, and the extreme weather. He may not have mentioned high heat / humidity events but I haven’t read his book or seen all his interviews. I think the last IPCC report is quite convincing overall and neither overstate or understate the projected warming rates, and SLR. etc,etc. .
Some scientists have even worse projections than the IPCC scenarios, but that does not mean they are all correct. Mann may not agree with those. I think climate change will be bad if we do nothing, but I’ve seen some Implausible studies for example a study suggesting billions of people could die within the next 20 YEARS. James Hansen has very pessimistic projections on SLR but they were not accepted by the IPCC team.
I admit I’m being a bit defensive of M Mann. He has worked very hard on the science and communicating to the public, and for his trouble he has had death threats and incessant insults. The last thing he needs is wamists telling him he’s doing a bad job. If people treated me like that I would say stuff all of you I’m going to retire.
The public and politicians must by now reasonably familiar with the basic IPCC projections on SLR and warming and those are scary and robust looking. Given that is clearly not enough to scare the hell out of them and motivate robust action, why would you think another metre of SLR (or whatever) will make a difference? The problem is most people are psychologically hard wired to respond urgently to very immediate, obvious theats like covid where bodies pile up outside hospitals, not slowly developing insidious threats like climate change.
I think we will get more robust climate mitigation as weather conditions get so bad its undeniable, and as the prices of things like EVS drop further.
Don’t get me wrong. You have posted lots of copy and paste of studies with very pessimistic predictions. We do need to read those and give them some thought. And honesty and accuracy about the problem is always the priority. But it is important not to concentrate too much on talking about problems already baked in. Because If the public get the wrong message that we are already doomed, that is just the excuse they need to give up on mitigation. We shoot ourselves in our own foot.
Geoff, in response to your comment, yes, the interview you linked was the same one that I was referring to. Sorry I neglected to actually add the link as I had intended!
I haven’t read the underlying report you refer to, but the headline ‘takeaway’ that is discussed is prominently set forth 30 seconds in, in big bold letters. I quote:
Mann’s comment on deniers:
Doesn’t sound like “sugar coating” to me.
Kevin McKinney: – “I haven’t read the underlying report you refer to, but the headline ‘takeaway’ that is discussed is prominently set forth 30 seconds in, in big bold letters. I quote:
US coastline to see up to a foot of sea level rise by 2050 (Feb 15, 2022)”
Kevin, I’ve already highlighted in my earlier comment to you (at 4 OCT 2023 AT 9:05 PM) the reference to Table 2.3: Global mean sea level and contiguous United States scenarios, in meters, relative to a 2000 baseline, contained in the NOAA report. IMO this is the key piece of information (that it seems to me both you, and Prof Mann, have clearly missed):
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
I’d suggest the media headline you’ve highlighted:
…has got it clearly wrong – that’s not what’s actually in the report. Table 2.3 also includes US Contiguous SLR at year-2050 (relative to year-2000 baseline) ranges from 0.31 m (low) to 0.52 m (high).
The NOAA report indicates in Table 2.3 that the US coastline could see up to 0.52 m (or more than 1½ feet) of sea level rise by 2050, which I’d suggest is significantly more than “up to a foot” the media headline indicates. It seems to me Prof Mann has repeated the media headline and not what’s actually specified in the NOAA report. IMO, that’s ignoring/downplaying key information.
Additionally, Table 2.2 shows SLR scenarios for eight coastal regions of the United States, highlighting regional variations.
I’d suggest climate scientists need to stop kowtowing to media sensitivities and include the range of possibilities from best- to worst-case scenarios when making media appearances. People need to have a firm grasp of the unvarnished facts.
Geoff Miell
“I’d suggest the media headline you’ve highlighted:US coastline to see up to a foot of sea level rise by 2050……has got it clearly wrong – that’s not what’s actually in the report. Table 2.3 also includes US Contiguous SLR at year-2050 (relative to year-2000 baseline) ranges from 0.31 m (low) to 0.52 m (high).”
The media headline clearly got it wrong.
“Prof Mann has repeated the media headline and not what’s actually specified in the NOAA report. IMO, that’s ignoring/downplaying key information.”
Mann does not repeat the media headline. Mann says “there is a foot of SLR already BAKED IN by 2050″. The media headline says ” US coastline to see up to a foot of sea level rise by 2050″, which is obviously a total projection including SLR baked in AND any additional SLR from increased emissions from the 2000 baseline until 2050. Likewise the NOAA report is total projection.
Mann also says that its not too late to stop additional SLR (ie not baked in) so he clearly believe SLR could be higher than one foot by 2050. You are not reading things accurately and the full context of what he says. So Mann is not downplaying anything.
I wrote a comment above @OCT 5 2.25. I believe it spells out a more realistic picture about Mann and our overall climate problem.
nigelj: – “Mann also says that its not too late to stop additional SLR (ie not baked in) so he clearly believe SLR could be higher than one foot by 2050.”
Per my earlier comment to you (at 3 OCT 2023 AT 12:40 AM):
Unless planet Earth begins cooling back down to pre-industrial age Holocene climate conditions, SLR is unstoppable – likely a foot (or more, depending on further GHG emissions) SLR committed by 2050, a metre (or more) SLR committed by 2100, and SLR will inevitably keep going until the EEI reduces to zero or all the land-based ice sheets melt.
Substantial (and catastrophic) SLR is already ‘baked-in’ due to the current levels of atmospheric GHG concentrations and ocean heat content.
IMO, Prof Mann is downplaying the ongoing and relentless threat of SLR to coastal communities and infrastructure.
In the recent YouTube video titled Michael Mann on CNN with Jake Tapper Discussing “Our Fragile Moment” (OCT 5 2023), duration 0:04:42, Professor Mann says from time interval 0:01:55 (bold text my emphasis):
“It’s the rate at which we are warming the planet. But we can stop it. If we stop polluting the atmosphere with carbon pollution, the warming of the planet stops and the impacts that we’re seeing stop getting worse. We’ll still have to contend with those impacts that are baked-in but we can prevent it from getting worse.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EeRdLaocZA
I’d suggest overshooting the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold is already ‘baked-in’, and likely to arrive within the 2020s, regardless of any deep human-induced GHG emissions cuts in the interim.
I’d suggest overshooting the +2.0 °C global mean warming threshold is probably ‘baked-in’, and on our current GHG emissions trajectory likely to arrive by mid-century. Per Andrew Y. Glikson:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345345361_The_Age_of_Consequences
nigelj: – “You are not reading things accurately and the full context of what he says. So Mann is not downplaying anything.”
IMO, Prof Mann continues to downplay what’s already ‘baked-in’ and what’s required to avoid worst-case outcomes:
1. Reduce;
2. Remove;
3. Repair.
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
Nothing less will do.
The Laws of Physics are not negotiable.
And time is running out before we/humanity are ‘locked-in’ to civilisation collapse later this century, and the dire consequences for billions of people deriving from that.
Geoff, from your link:
“Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 – 12 inches (0.25 – 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 – 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 – 2020).”
That’s the first of the “4 key takeaways” highlighted on the front page. So please don’t tell me that “it’s not in the report.” Clearly, it is.
Relinking, for convenience:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
Kevin McKinney (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 3:41 PM): – “That’s the first of the “4 key takeaways” highlighted on the front page. So please don’t tell me that “it’s not in the report.” Clearly, it is.”
Are you sure about that? Kevin, have you downloaded and looked through the actual NOAA technical report or just the “4 takeaways” at the link provided?
It seems to me most of the key pieces of information (including very important caveats) have been ignored in the NOAA technical report to produce a more sanitized/less shocking simpler version in the “4 takeaways”, for all the lazy people who can’t be bothered reading any of the actual report.
In the Executive Summary of the actual report, it includes (on page xii, bold text my emphasis):
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf
I’d suggest that “(0.25–0.30 m over 2020–2050)” equates to the baseline “Low” SLR scenario for Contiguous United States for year-2050 of 0.31 m in Table 2.3.
There are four other higher SLR scenarios for Contiguous United States for year-2050:
* Intermediate-Low: 0.36 m
* Intermediate: _ _ _ 0.40 m
* Intermediate-High: 0.46 m
* High: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.52 m
I’d suggest the higher SLR scenarios are ignored in “Takeaway #1”., which makes it seem that it’s not as bad as it more likely could be. Meanwhile, GHG emissions continue unabated, which makes the “Low” SLR scenario increasingly less likely and the other scenarios particularly including the “High” SLR scenario increasingly more likely.
I’d suggest the media are too lazy to report the key information in the actual technical report, and just copied the “4 Takeaways”.
Geoff Miell,
I’m inclined to agree with you that Mann should acknowledge that there is no realistic possibility of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees (because of the lack of time left, the economics, the state of the technology, and the lack of political will and the aerosols issue. )
I disagree with you that 2 degrees is “baked in” and I suspect so would most scientists. I don’t believe that level of warming is baked in and I think we have enough time left to dramatically reduce emissions, and enough technology and there is a chance people will get more motivated.
Being very pessimistic about keeping warming under 2 degrees is also not helpful because believe me if we say 2 degrees is baked in at this stage, all mitigation of any consequence will all be dead. People will just give up completely. You have to hang onto to SOME level of hope to motivate people.
My understanding is Mann promotes the usual IPCC prescription of mitigation strategies of renewable energy, electric transport and negative emissions technologies and of meeting paris accords goals of net zero by 2050. I’m ok with that. Its a very ambitious goal but I believe its still achievable.
Regarding your article climate code red on “reduce, remove, repair”. Getting back to preindustrial levels of CO2, and the holocence climate is an interesting idea. We could call it the safest option I guess. However the 1 degree of warming thus far is unlikely to cause us massive problems, and I did read a couple of studies somewhere that it has stopped or greatly diminished the severity of the next ice age. We should probably give that some consideration.
Remember the global climate does fluctuate for natural reasons. Trying to achieve a perfectly stable climate is probably a fantasy dream on multiple levels. I think the goal should be to 1) avoid our civilisation causing RAPID rates of climate change and 2)avoid our civilisation causing the climate slipping into a completely new state like some type of subtropical hothouse earth. And if we could avoid another ice age or reduce the severity it would be nice.. Just my opinion of course.
However your statements that 1.5 degrees is baked in, does seem contradicted by your promotion of reduce remove repair that would get us back to a pre industrial level of CO2 and a holocence climate. So which is it?
nigelj: – “I’m inclined to agree with you that Mann should acknowledge that there is no realistic possibility of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees (because of the lack of time left, the economics, the state of the technology, and the lack of political will and the aerosols issue. )”
The Earth System is already exceeding the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold on multiple occasions on a daily, weekly, and recently on monthly average bases. I’d expect this year (2023) may perhaps get very close to breaching the +1.5 °C threshold on a yearly average basis, but next year (2024) looks like firming into a dead certainty to exceed the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold on a yearly average basis (barring a nuclear war, major volcanic eruption or major meteor ground strike in the interim). I’d suggest it’s now fantasy to say/expect it’s still possible to avoid breaching the longer-term/multi-year +1.5 °C threshold, particularly while human-induced GHG emissions continue unabated.
nigelj: – “I disagree with you that 2 degrees is “baked in” and I suspect so would most scientists.”
It seems to me you missed the word “probably” in my earlier statement:
While human-induced GHG emissions continue unabated AND humanity also doesn’t begin large-scale atmospheric carbon drawdown soon, ‘probably’ moves rapidly closer to ‘inevitable’.
Another worrying trend is the apparent rapid growth in atmospheric methane concentrations since 2006, per this Global Biogeochemical Cycles paper titled Atmospheric Methane: Comparison Between Methane’s Record in 2006–2022 and During Glacial Terminations, by Euan G. Nisbet et. al. published 14 Jul 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GB007875
We’ve well and truly crossed the 400 ppm line in modern atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, and the 500 ppm line for CO₂-equivalent. Per paleo-historical data, the Earth System is now entering climate territory not encountered for many MILLIONS of years, heading towards mid-Miocene-like climate conditions.
See my comments at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/#comment-814867
nigelj: – “My understanding is Mann promotes the usual IPCC prescription of mitigation strategies of renewable energy, electric transport and negative emissions technologies and of meeting paris accords goals of net zero by 2050. I’m ok with that. Its a very ambitious goal but I believe its still achievable.”
I’m NOT OK with that. “Net-zero by 2050” is far, FAR TOO LATE. It means essentially that the Earth System will likely overshoot the +2.0 °C global mean warming threshold by 2050.
Net-zero is certainly not enough. We/humanity need NEGATIVE emissions/atmospheric carbon drawdown at large-scale, to reduce atmospheric GHG concentrations back to pre-industrial Holocene levels (or at least well below 350 ppm CO₂-equivalent).
Meanwhile, billions of people are at risk from lethal wet-bulb temperatures if global temperatures increase by +1 °C or more above current levels, per a 9 Oct 2023 PNAS paper by Daniel J. Vecellio et. al. titled Greatly enhanced risk to humans as a consequence of empirically determined lower moist heat stress tolerance
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305427120
Figure 1 shows annual hot-hours under (A) 1.5, (B) 2, (C) 3, and (D) 4 °C of warming relative to preindustrial level, (E) population projection in 2050 following the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2, and (F) population subject to accumulated duration of 1 wk to 3 mo of uncompensable heat stress annually under 1–4 °C of global warming (the shaded area corresponds to the 10th to 90th percentiles of CMIP6 model spread).
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2305427120/asset/0d860b17-46dd-42cd-9769-b74100008b12/assets/images/large/pnas.2305427120fig01.jpg
Figure 4 shows Tw thresholds across a range of Ta and RH environments taken from laboratory-based measurements in young, healthy adults doing work associated with the minimal activities of daily living.
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2305427120/asset/bb7054e5-92cd-44c1-86e0-d6ec91927533/assets/images/large/pnas.2305427120fig04.jpg
nigelj: – “However your statements that 1.5 degrees is baked in, does seem contradicted by your promotion of reduce remove repair that would get us back to a pre industrial level of CO2 and a holocence climate. So which is it?”
‘Reduce, remove, repair’ is intended to get the Earth System back to a ‘safe’ climate for humanity and civilisation. It’s already unsafe now at current longer-term/multi-year +1.2-1.3 °C levels.
@ Nigelj
You asked last monh “since when did humanity listen to reason?”
There I know an answer.
“Reason is a lonesome thing, one is allways alone with it!”
That is according to Frederik Stabel, cartoonist and sarcastic humorist in Drøbak, where I come from.
UAH TLT has reported for Sept 2023 with the highest all-time monthly anomaly of +0.90ºC, no surprise given the daily re-analysis numbers have been in up the crazy “scorchyisimoooo!!!!” region since the first week of September. The previous all-time highest monthly anomaly in UAH was the El-Niño-boosted +0.70ºC in Feb 2016, which just topped last month’s +0.69ºC of Aug 2023.
The previously warmest September in UAH was 2019 with an anomaly of +0.45ºC.
The 2023 year-to-date average has now risen to 3rd spot in UAH TLT with a “scorchyisimoooo!!!!” for the 2023 calendar year looking the likely outcome.
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2023 .. +0.38ºC
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2017 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2022 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.17ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2002 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 11th
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 8th
nigelj:
The greenhouse effect and anthropogenic warming is based on good evidence. So we cannot just discard it even if it adds another influence to the planets climate, therefore complicating things.
Research on the effects of CO2 emissions on warming goes back over 100 years. Svante Arrhenius found the effect is very significant compared to other factors. Nobody has convinced the scientific community as a whole that his work is wrong.
V: “Recently, Arrhenius has been lauded as the father of the theory of the greenhouse effect, even of global warming. One author
claimed that “Arrhenius had enough spectroscopic information to estimate that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air could warm the world by four to six degrees,” that “the industrial output of carbon dioxide had already reached a level comparable to the amount that circulated naturally,” and
that Arrhenius had “discovered the greenhouse effect in 1896″ [Weart, 1992]. All three statements are misleading and incorrect. The spectroscopic information available to Arrhenius was quite primitive. . . .
Given that the CO2 theory of climate change fell out of scientific favor and was not revived in its modern form until the mid-1950s [Fleming,
1998], it is much easier to argue for a significant intellectual gap between the work of Arrhenius and current climate concerns than it would be for simple continuity.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98EO00310
In other words, Arrhenius’ theory was essentially ignored by the scientific community until it was “discovered” in the mid-1950’s by certain individuals who found it helpful as a basis for their favored agenda.
nigel: And his calculations essentially predicted 1 degree of warming in the 20th century from industrial CO2 emissions which proved reasonably accurate. If the prediction had proven to be wildly inaccurate it would have made me sceptical of AGW.
V: In what sense was it accurate? The warming during the first half of the 20th century could not have been due to CO2 emissions — and there was NO warming to speak of for the next 40 years.
nigel: You dont discard AGW without good cause just because it cannot explain everything easily. You look for cooling factors that explain why there might be a flat period in the temperature record. Remember they are not hypothetical themselves in the sense of things that ‘might’ be cooling factors. They are known cooling factors.
V: Evidence for cooling is NOT and never will be evidence for warming. Sorry. The evidence for a warming trend during the period in question (ca. 1940-1980) is simply not there. The notion that it would have been there if not for various cooling tendencies is purely an assumption with no scientific basis.
Victor
V: “One author claimed that “Arrhenius had enough spectroscopic information to estimate that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air could warm the world by four to six degrees….this is misleading and incorrect…… The spectroscopic information available to Arrhenius was quite primitive.”
N: Using that reasoning many long established and well accepted theories and laws of science are incorrect because they were based on information more primitive than todays standards. But of course they are not incorrect. Better quality more recent information just helped confirm the theories and their methodology.
N: “And his calculations essentially predicted 1 degree of warming in the 20th century from industrial CO2 emissions which proved reasonably accurate. ”
V: “In what sense was it accurate? The warming during the first half of the 20th century could not have been due to CO2 emissions — and there was NO warming to speak of for the next 40 years.”
N: My mistake. Anthropogenic warming from 1980 – 2022 was about 1 degree C. However anthropogenic warming in the 20th century was about 0.7 deg. C, so Arrhenius estimate was not too far off given the limitations of his study..
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
V: “Evidence for cooling is NOT and never will be evidence for warming. Sorry. ”
N: I never said it was.
Nigelj
I red that an earlier, quite good colleague had joined the climate- surrealists, and once stated that
“Tyndall in his time had very primitive and rough classical methods. “Today, we have much better optoelectronic devices, staistics and computers with error bars, smile smile.”
Well, he was not the very best on instrumentation and on experimental design simplicity along with autentic understanding 0f the natural law physics of the remedies and component. Thus, I once got a bit fameous and mentioned in the lab for having solved it all rather by 2 paralell RC couplings (Resistor Condenser..) for proportional passive damping instead of a rather advanced and phaenomenal, planned IC– online signal “computer”.
One becomes enchanted by modern time and american lifestyle mass produced toys and consumer products you see, and forget Arcimedes and Ohm and Faraday and Ørsteds laws, and that easy does it, simplicity works. And that it is also timeless wisdom that cannot be improoved. Good as gold and better than gold at any time, known by the old greeks if not in stoneage allready.
.
(You can beat a whole factory of heavy industries simply by timeless wisdom, and resign on all the production secrets and your secret varnish……..
……. that is nothing but sales promotion of Chevrolet against Ford, who sold all in black, simply coal tar on iron , oven- baked.)
(“Fordschwarz” we call it. Lipid oil on iron, burtt off. Then you can resign on industrial sprayboxes for dilettants also ). .
Tyndall was really very clever and scientific and knew of many such things.
Tyndall used a doubble beam detection method with scientific radiation sources. Similar metal cubes filled with water carefully boiling over finely regulated gas flames. Radiating out through pure shiny silver, pure gold, “Husblas” ( painted clear gelatine) on brass, and sooted brass.
Then for detection, Tyndall used a scientific termopile of copper-constantan. Known and used by Herschel also..
And a most sublime mirror galvanometer .in microamperes, recently invented.
To fight or to deny that, you will have to fight both thermoelectricity and Ørsteds experiment together with the boiling point of water, that is also scientifric..
Because, if that balanced mirror galvanometer turns out at all when you change the gas in one of the coloumns, you can draw certain conclusions about the consequenses on earth temperatures by tiny changes of the atmospheres gas contents, given that you can also resign on fighting Lavoisiers pioneering calorimetric experiments and Lord Kelvins quite rough repetitions of the same for the Royal society.
No optoelectronic FET tranistor and no advanced Sidewinder missile IR- transducer and ultra- fast computer with Servo can beat it.
And if you do not know how and what it is about, then you must buy and put together labeled and patented production secrets with the secret varnish also, from the experts, who are trying to cheat you that way all the time.
You see, when children are brought up with atrtificial,LEGO and Playmobil and told that this is quite more healthy for them and told not to find and rather play with feathers and pinecones stones and straws and twigs and shells and rusty nails broken glasses, candles, and snowballs, frogs flies and dandelions,… then they are intensionally and politically stupidi- fied!.
I repeat…!
They get further stupidi- fied when they are told to buy and to use gigabytes instead of counting it on their fingers and draw it freehanded. and then try and tell what it really is. .
They are given mass produced consumer product proteses for awareness and consciousness and scill, and today we see the full consequenses of that.. .
Hr Victor
Spectroscopy and spectrometry both by prisms and gratings has been rather essencial accurate and reliable ever since Fraunhoder, William Herschel, and the Bunsen- Kirchoff laboratory.
It seems rather clear to me after having followed the climate dispute for a while, that climate surrealism denialism ( as I call it ) corelate very clearly to major lacks of learnt ideas and experiencs of what critical & reponsible & reliable scientific and empirical physical measurement & observation is about.
Such surrealisms denialisms seem to me more and more clearly as the consequent behavious of individs and asso0ciations of individs and their officers, who for some strange social and political reason were forbidden to learn about that. Sharing classical symptoms and signals of being our privileged socially and racially segregated, highnosed low nobility
Who can they be? I am getting more and more suspicious.
I feel more and more able to categorize them psyco- politically commercially and ideologically also. . as a peculiar and ab- normal human character type, who must have had their highschool and professional diplomas through privileged, industrialized exam- & diploma- cheating.
Or maybe grown up behind error- bars in a closed society, in a so called scientific peoples republic.
It reminds me more and more of the fameous Chief Engineer at Cernobyl who also had his educations, diploma and his warrants 0n the Party Quote in a very betraying way..
V: Arrhenius’ theory was essentially ignored by the scientific community until it was “discovered” in the mid-1950’s by certain individuals who found it helpful as a basis for their favored agenda.
BPL: They all met in a secret underground headquarters, the halls outside the doorway guarded by vicious Dobermans trained to kill at a command. “Uncle Joe” headed the table, with Chairman Mao on his right. Surrounding them were representatives from the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Vatican, and the Learned Elders of Zion.
“We must implement global totalitarianism. But how to do it?” asked Stalin.
“We must impoverish the masses,” agreed Mao. “But how? How?”
“Wait! I have it!” spoke up Trilateral Sam, who, true to his allegiance, wore a tricornered hat. “We’ll tax them into submission!”
“But who would possibly agree to a global tax?”
“We’ll make something up. Some fake, fraudulent emergency. Anyone?”
A new recruit raised a trembling hand.
“Yes, go ahead, son. Speak up,” said Uncle Joe, tamping tobacco down in his pipe.
“Well… In 1896, Svante Arrhenius proposed that burning coal could result in a warming climate.”
“But a warming climate would be good for everybody, wouldn’t it?”
“Not necessarily. Suppose we bribe and threaten a bunch of scientists into saying it would destroy the world?”
“I think the boy has something,” spoke up a Bilderberger.
“All right,” said Uncle Joe. “We will try it. Contact the chief scientists. Make it clear that their research grants will all go away unless they cooperate with our evil plan.”
The vote, as always, was unanimous.
Hr Levenson
Maybe even you can begin to adapt my theory (Pat.pend) about this phaenomenon, hardnecked even hard- core surrealism and denialism to certain more or less obvious things.
In French Delire de negation or Cotards syndrom, but that is Cotards patent
I call it Bloodgroup P. P for Party the grand old one. And further for Pure, Pork Privileged Populist, Pamp, Pøbel, Puttler Prigosjinj.,…… & cetera, as many P- s as possible.
Being a certain especially inaugurated and politically socially warranted class, race, and order.
Against what, sinful race crossings of A for Arier, B for Bastard, 0 for Næger, rhesus plus and minus for ape more or less has got no chanse at all. We have not yet understood it, and have not yet seen the rising sun.
The worlds creation took place in the hard twenties and thirties and the worlds craddle stood on the factory floor of Stalin Hittler Qvisling and Mussolini where the earth was flat within error bars and light fell over land.
That is what I find back to asking the grandchildren of those pioneering Partisans with that rather peculiar chosmology and conscepts of science and of time and history.. clear roots in those days popular surrealisms. Giving a religious damn to facultary order in public school and highschool.
One should ask Victor for a hair- or blood, or urine, or spit, or sperma sample,,….in order to be able to judge him right. Due to such consequent Peculiarities.
(P also for Peculiar.)
Is it that especialy pure race or class with the peculiar, especially pure political warrant after all?
I have been suspecting that for serious now for a long time, that it rather may root back in his grandfathers sins 3-4 generations ago along with Mendels laws of heritage with especially pure breeding further. Then they cannot be blamed or improoved or kept responsible Then It must be brought to Museum as a protected scientific sample for higher scientific studies.
Victor may be such a case..
Todays or tomorrows gene- technologies may perhaps find out the truth about him.
The Vatican is told, still to have a professional holy exorcist, But they are not in charge in the USA are they?
<They see their world and empire and state religion and possible careers and positions after the revolution threatened and ruined by James Hansens explaination of the ground temperatres of Venus that were fround by a russian Venera zonde. And Al Gores suggested medicinee medicine for it: "Skip all taxes on human work, which is an ugly prussian idea in any case, and tax Big Coal and Big Oil instead!"
As they have allways set on "Das Kapital", and on "Dia- lectic materialism" in vulgar forms, and vodkia kaviar and salami for lifetime from Stalin if they can simply become obedient soviet citizens under the coalsmokes of the Stali- Steel progressive futuristic plans.
That is their own grandfathers sins, and grandmothers lullaby and state religion in personal heritage. Also in the US. Especially in "The Rust Belt" as in Donbas. With Azovstal.
They have invested their lives and eternalm bliss in it. And got nothing else to live for, having no other mental archetyp training of dreams and prayers.
So they are actually fighting for life, for their "existance", and for their holy promised rents from Stalin, and will deny anything else. Thus training and preparing for purgatory as we find them here..
That is my diagnosis.
Salomos formula: "Mans number is 70. Only strong men live until 80.
Thus simply take their age and count back in time. Who were the old masters? Their prrivate grand- grandparents ( and if you have none, you will by instinct chose your step- grandparents for the good or for the worse )
Ask"Who was Stradivarius?",…. in 9 of 10 cases they will describe their arbitrary private grand- grandfather that they maybe just got a glimpse of. That is an Archetyp.
"Stradivarius?…. hmmmm…. he was ann old pedantic clerki in the community,…. he was a railway officer…. he was a quite comjmon worker who hardly went to school…. he was a soldier and later a lorry driver…… he was a Sherriffv assistant…!"
Thus you can ask further, what did the world look like as your grandp0arents and grand grandparents went to school? What did they learn? What did they believe? How did they behave?
There it sits.
And what kind of Porno did they read secretly under the schooldesk at Confirmatione? That gives lifes fix ideas of moral and how to become an adult and get in charge in society.
Weaktor once again demonstrates what happens when stupidity gets sent to college: They start opining on subjects in which they have zero understanding. In this case, he extends his encyclopedic ignorance to include not just climate science, but also the history of climate science and how science works generally.
Arrhenius’s work on the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was not ignored. Indeed, you do not ignore the work of a scientist if Arrhenius’s caliber. Rather, we had to wait for our understanding of absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation to catch up to fully appreciate the fact that “saturation” of the absorption lines does not mean that absorption stops altogether. The absorption lines for the CO2 molecule in the IR are broad and complicated. They are further distorted by collisional broadening.
Remember, Arrhenius’s original theory predates even the first paper on quantum mechanics by Planck. The concept of a photon didn’t even exist at the time, and the existence of absorption spectra was still a mystery. It was not until the ’50s that understanding of molecular dynamics had advanced sufficiently that the mechanism of the enhanced anthropogenic greenhouse could be understood. Even then, there remained controversy. Some scientists even thought the emission of aerosols would bring about an ice age (showing that Weaktor’s characterization of aerosol effects was appreciated even then and is in no way the sort of ad hoc addition he claims). They were wrong because they underestimated the climate sensitivity to increasing CO2.
Weaktor is even wrong when he contends that cooling cannot be evidence for warming,. Cooling of the stratosphere even as the troposphere warms is a signature of greenhouse warming. The two together constitute strong evidence that it is greenhouse gasses that are warming the planet.
I apologize in advance to those near Weaktor when he reads this. Remember to stay low to the ground so you are not overcome by smoke inhalation as his brain explodes.
Robert Cutler:
(Continued from last month.) I did look at your posting and material on the Soon discussion. Unfortunately, it didn’t help. You seem to be trying to have things two ways in several instances. Foremost, what are you saying about the role of carbon dioxide? You say that you have included a “compensation” in the calculations, yet you also suggest in other places that it is solar magnetic fields that are the cause of recent temperature rises. You say that sunspot data before 1800 are unreliable, yet you extend your “Sunspot Component x2 vs. TSI” graph back to 1750! You say that you are just applying a smoothing filter, but you are clearly concerned with solar cycles, and the only reason for applying filters of those lengths is to deal with a cycle.
“Do you seriously believe that I have enough degrees of freedom in any of the model variants to accidentally predict not just the overall trends, but also a significant number of very distinct features? ” Seriously, yes.
Empirical pattern matching requires statistical testing of the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship. It is the probability that you are engaged in pattern matching that successfully improved the goodness of fit, but doing so in a way that allows a match from random data. It doesn’t speak well for your statistical abilities that you represented your model as having one degree of freedom. Every potential adjustment that you could make on your model represents at least one degree of freedom.
In this case, you also have the difficulty that you are proposing that energy is being somehow transferred to the Earth’s surface through magnetic effects that manage to mimic the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, such as a warmer surface but cooler tropopause. Are you aware that the magnitude of greenhouse forcing now greatly exceeds the fluctuations in TSI? This leaves you in the position of saying that those magnetic fluctuations somehow provide a lot of excess energy to the Earth’s surface and oceans right now, even though we aren’t seeing any large direct effects. This is physically highly implausible, but can be expected from an incorrect empirical model.
Not bad Hr Pollack.
Just think of being allowed to interprete other complex systems in such a wild way, where you somehow have to be reliable and responsible.
Such common behaviours is what upsets me most of all., having to be reliable and responsible now and then and not sell away my reputation and credibility for nothing.
It must be the Privileged of that famjeous bloodgroup P.
To my knowledge, sunspot data are reliable to the accuracy that we need it ever since the invention of the astronomical telescope.
John Pollack
First, thanks for your thoughtful discussion. I now know that I’m not going to convince you with the data I have, which is fine. I only posted on this forum to make people aware of the result, and to hopefully get some constructive feedback.
On sunspots data accuracy, it’s not me blaming the data for a failed model, that’s not my style, it’s a number of well-known scientists being critical of the data for other statistical reasons. I’ve admitted that it could be the model failing, and gave the reason why. Without confidence in the data, all I can say is that the model isn’t accurate prior to 1900, and that it’s likely the sunspot data.
As for comparing it x2 to TSI back to 1750, I take your point, but you might also want to consider that sunspot data is the proxy data used for TSI reconstructions in that time period. Both results are based on the same data, so it doesn’t matter if the data is bad, the results are likely to track. What’s really interesting to me is that my model best matches the PMOD composite of space-based sensor data. If I’m not mistaken, that’s the composite favored by the IPCC.
I don’t understand your both-ways comment. I’m not saying there’s a single forcing function. On my github page I show a hybrid model that optimally sets the gain of the sunspot model and the gain of the co2 model and an offset parameter for minimum error. The parameters are jointly estimated, so I’m not playing favorites. Frankly, I don’t think that CO2 is playing much of a role. The small amount of co2 added in the first plot on the page doesn’t really change much.
Null hypothesis? Let’s play with CO2 for that one. If CO2 drives temperature, then temperature must lag CO2 in time.
I created this plot for a discussion on a different website, where I’ve independently validated the author’s result. The frequency response and coherence functions are basic tools for analyzing stochastic signals in the frequency domain. Results are shown for increasing amounts of averaging, which helps eliminate signals that aren’t correlated to temperature and CO2, but also results in poorer frequency resolution because of the shorter time records; I’m breaking the dataset into smaller chuncks. This analysis used 65 years of CO2 data as measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory and compares it to HadCRU5 global temperature. There are only minor differences in the results if I use hemispherical temperature data instead of global data.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_no_detrend.png
What this middle phase plot shows is that CO2 lags temperature by six months for time periods of a little longer than a year to periods of at least 10 years (0.1 yr^-1). If temperature was being driven by CO2, the phase ramp would have tended up, not down. I’ll also point out that the lag is less than 2 months for the annual cycle, which is a different CO2 process, one that’s probably also driven by daylight hours. Separating processes based on frequency is the main advantage of working in the frequency domain. The bottom line is that even over 10-year periods, I can’t find any evidence in measured data that CO2 leads temperature over the last 65 years.
If I detrend the data by taking out the overall slope in each dataset, I get less FFT window leakage above 0.1 yr^-1, so the results are a bit less noisy.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
Yes, technically the core model has four degrees of freedom; there’s no need to question my statistical abilities. In fact, if you want to get super technical, you missed a few. The core model has 1,191 degrees of freedom when you count all of the taps weights in the 99-year moving average model for monthly-sampled data . My point was that only the moving-average length really affects the shape, and that parameter is largely constrain by solar characteristics. The gain and offset parameters are required to convert from units of sunspot number to degrees. Gain does technically affect shape, so I’ll admit that now to avoid an argument from you, but because of the detail in the prediction and all of the various segments with different slopes, it too is very constrained. I guess I question your motives a bit because you clearly understand that gain, offset and delay do not have the same ability to overfit a complex shape as say the 2nd, 3rd and 4th order terms in a polynomial model.
The sun provides almost all of the energy that affects climate. The sunspot signal is the best unbiased dataset we have to use as a proxy for solar activity. It is not random, as you describe, in fact it’s not even very noisy. It is complicated, that’s why the prediction is complicated. The model is simple.
As I was trying to figure out how the model was working I kept running into a magnetic connection. I didn’t start with the theory that the sun’s magnetic fields might be influencing earth, I just kept getting hints that it did. So I went looking for research on how solar magnetic fields might affect climate. The theory seems to be that galactic cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar magnetic field, can affect cloud and/or ice crystal formation, which of course would change the the energy balance.
I don’t know if magnetic fields play a role. It could very well be that reconstructions of TSI are missing some features that I’ve observed in the magnetic data. I’ve gone down the TSI path far enough to know that we don’t have a clue as to how TSI varies over more than one or two sunspot cycles. There are plenty of strong opinions, but there’s no data to back up those opinions. The story is a bit better with solar magnetic data because we’ve been able to measure its effects over longer periods in times, and we can measure cosmogenic particles in ice cores and tree rings.
“If CO2 drives temperature, then temperature must lag CO2 in time”. Obviously incorrect. Any bod who’s read a bit about the ocean for an hour or so and has a functioning brain knows that’s a false assertion.
Mr. .Cutler, you are discussing the trees, while missing the forest. The most fundamental criticism by John – comes at the end of his post:
John: “This is physically highly implausible, but can be expected from an incorrect empirical model.”
If you can’t come up with a physically plausible mechanism, all your conclusions based on statistics
alone are useless, actually worse than useless – since they pretend an insight, where there is none.
Without knowledge of physics of the atmosphere you have NO idea if the correlation you find are spurious or not, For instance looking ONLY at the statistics, you can get :
US spending on science, space and technology correlates with the number of suicides by hanging, strangulations and suffocation, r=0.9979 !!!
Despite this great r (What’s your r in comparison?) – no sane person would claim that one factor causes the other.
Yet your analysis above is based on much weaker correlation, and your causation reasoning is contradicted by the physics (see John’s point that if the Sun was main driver of global warming, not GHGs – then tropopause should have warmed as much or more as lower troposphere yet the opposite is true).
So this is the foundation on which you want to … stake the future of humanity – for if you are correct in concluding:”: “ Frankly, I don’t think that CO2 is playing much of a role.” – then there is no point in reducing the use of fossil fuels.
A true scientist is humble – knows the limits of their knowledge, in the vein of Socrates “I neither know nor think I know“, You and the other deniers are the opposite – you assume that you are so brilliant that you come up with solutions that no climatologist over decades of their research ever thought of.
Furthermore, this arrogance is based on ignorance – the deniers field is full of people whose specialty lies elsewhere – McIntyre – mining company director, McKitrick – economist, or our
RC deniers – Victor, JDS, Know-it-All, Tomas Kalisz, Macias Shurly etc. – they all assume their expertise in their own field automatically translates into a brilliance in climatology.
And since they don’t know climate physics – they don’t know what they don’t know
– and based on that – assume that … it must be unimportant.
Agree that climate scientists do not know what is going on
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1709979785626046722
Probably need to get back to the foundations of geophysical fluid dynamics to try to determine how all the climate dipoles are simultaneously superimposing their signals to create these huge spikes in temperature. Look at all the ocean hot-spots constructively iterfering:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7wpPHQXcAA2jmR.jpg
And note the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), which has just started to emerge. Indonesia right now looks bad, as the impact of El Nino is worsening the fire conditions
https://twitter.com/DrTELS/status/1710094352058405207
Cutler used a 100-year smoothing filter to transform cyclic sunspot data into something that would show long term trends, which is the expected approach that an””it’s the sun” flerf would argue.
Really what Cutler should do is apply zero averaging to the data, i.e. keep it raw, and same with the model and see if that matches. This provides a narrow window in which increasing the number of DOF has less of an effect.
Nigelj: “And his calculations essentially predicted 1 degree of warming in the 20th century from industrial CO2 emissions which proved reasonably accurate. ”
V: “In what sense was it accurate? The warming during the first half of the 20th century could not have been due to CO2 emissions — and there was NO warming to speak of for the next 40 years.”
N: My mistake. Anthropogenic warming from 1980 – 2022 was about 1 degree C. However anthropogenic warming in the 20th century was about 0.7 deg. C, so Arrhenius estimate was not too far off given the limitations of his study..
V: Excuse me? Aside from the last 20 years, there could have been NO anthropogenic warming in the 20th century. As for the accuracy of Arrhenius’ prediction, I’d say a period of 40 years, during which CO2 levels rose significantly while temperatures didn’t rise at all, was long enough to falsify the theory that a rise in CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise. Once a theory is falsified that should be it. You can’t then suddenly revive it by pointing to what happened afterward. That’s called “moving the goalposts.”
V: “Evidence for cooling is NOT and never will be evidence for warming. Sorry. ”
N: I never said it was.
V: Not in so many words, no. Yet evidence of cooling is ALL the evidence you provided to support Arrhenius’ theory.
Victor, the period 1980 – 2000 still had significant warming if you look at the graph I posted, and the first 40 years of warming last century were partly caused by CO2 emissions because emissions did rise in that period. So it adds up. So Arrhenious’s projections of 1 degree in the 20th century were not too far off. In fact we had almost a degree of anthropogenic warming from 1980 – 2020 just 40 years, so the actual rate of warming is arguably worse than Arrhenius predicted.
I’m not intending to provide technical evidence Arrenhius model was correct. I just mentioned nobody has convinced the scientific community as a whole that Arrhenius’s model was fundamentally wrong and predictions based on that model were not too far off. Quite good for such a basic early model. We have better now. All this seems lost on you because you are too busy trolling and debating for the sake of debating, rather than to learn.
V: The warming during the first half of the 20th century could not have been due to CO2 emissions
BPL: Why not?
The Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis has been posted for September with an even more emphatic “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!!” as the table below of the top-twelve ERA5 monthly anomalies on record demonstrates. The second-warmest September on the ERA record(Sept 2020 +0.43ºC) sits down in 24th in this ranking. (A graph of year-on-year ERA5 anomalies is posted here – Graph 2b. It’s not quite ‘off the graph’, yet.)
2023 … … 9 … … +0.93ºC
2023 … … 7 … … +0.72ºC
2023 … … 8 … … +0.71ºC
2016 … … 2 … … +0.69ºC
2016 … … 3 … … +0.63ºC
2020 … … 2 … … +0.60ºC
2020 … … 1 … … +0.58ºC
2016 … … 1 … … +0.55ºC
2015 … . 12 … … +0.54ºC
2019 … . 12 … … +0.54ºC
2020 … . 11 … … +0.54ºC
2023 … … 6 … … +0.53ºC
The 2023 year-to-date rankings for ERA5 is now also become “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!!”
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2023 .. +0.52ºC
2016 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.31ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
As for the rest of the year, the coming El Niño showed a bit of a boost at the end of August (NINO3.4, SOI) but hasn’t roared up the indicator board since. (NINO3.4 for Sept 2023 managed +1.5ºC, which compares with say Sept 2015’s +2.3ºC & Sept 1997’s +2.2ºC.) And whatever has caused the crazy anomalies of the last four months (& the really crazy ones in the last 3 weeks) could perhaps run out of steam*** But even a lacklustre boost from the coming El Niño will surely prevent any possibility of the average for ERA5 Oct-Dec dropping below a rather chilly +0.36ºC which would be required now to prevent 2023 claiming the warmest calendar year on record accolade.
*** The chatter about what is causing the recent “scorchyisimooooo!!!!!!!” has gone a bit quite of late. I still struggle to see any of the likely suspects being the culprit for an unattributed +0.2ºC boost to global anomalies which has been much more than +0.2ºC through September (the likely suspects being the coming El Niño, reduced pollution from shipping, the Hunga-Tonga eruption, etc) although the idea of the recent crazy anomalies “running out of steam” does raise the thought that various analyses of the Hunga-Tonga eruption don’t always show the ejected stratospheric water vapour warming more than the ejected SO2 was cooling. So they likely cancel each other out, prett-much.
But here’s a speculative thought – what if the residency time of these two are different? What if the SO2 has been washed out quicker since the Jan 2022 eruption, perhaps through the last boreal winter, while the H2O has clung on up there?
Hmm. Interesting speculative thought. Residence time in “the atmosphere” is pretty short for H2O–but what about the stratosphere specifically? Not too many CCNs up there, perhaps? And what about the effects of stratospheric temps? Ice, one would think, would not exhibit surface tension, which (one would also think) would have a drastic effect on the agglomerative tendencies of a wannabe ice cloud particle. A lot of this must be known in the met/climate communities, surely, but I have no real clue.
I saw a video from Andrew Dessler 4 weeks ago about that Hunga-Tonga eruption. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48khYqrw0Ss
Barry E. Finch,
That is interesting to see. While SO2 and H2O are both shown diminished since the eruption, the H2O is shown lingering on after the SO2 is back to some semblance of normal.
First of all, all those who criticize Michael Mann’s approach to communicating and solving the climate emergency, should thank him and all the others for setting up this website, where you can criticize him or offer your knowledge and ideas (except for some failed AI experiment, false information and other nonsense still posted against the rules) .
Second, we all need to focus on solutions, apply them and fight for them every minute of every day.
Third, there are different approaches among climate scientists on how to communicate, get involved in solving the crisis: some promote an optimistic view, others a pessimistic one, others a realistic one (we are where we are and here are all the scenarios in front of us, worst to best, with less and less time to figure out how to get on the best or better ones), others protest and get arrested, no matter which, we should be grateful that they are engaged, instead of just releasing study after study, which is obviously valuable and necessary, but not sufficient, and staying out of the public debate and politics, out of fear of losing scientific objectivity and credibility.
Thank you, @Michael and @group for your competence, your courageous public engagement and for allowing us to learn and debate on this forum.
Now, let’s get to work. First task for today: abandon fossil fuels.
Thank you Silvia.
May I offer a philosophic variation to language, to the extent that “fuels” commonly refers to a substance that is “good to burn,” such as firewood in a wood stove. However, fossilized carbon, from underground, as many now know, is bad/tragic/lethal to burn precisely because the process removes oxygen form the air and combines it with hundreds of millions of years of underground, fossilized carbon, to form a vast overabundance of atmospheric Carbonic Acid Gas. Thus, resulting in ecologic acidification due to carbonic acid, and Hothouse Earth.
So, the phrase “abandon fossil fuels” (in my humble opinion) is somewhat like kicking yourself in the teeth! – because fossil carbon should not be considered a “fuel” in the common sense. It might be more appropriate to say “we should abandon the concept of fossil fuels,” since the immense use of this scheme has been based on an inherent fraud, because fossilized (underground) carbon is not a form of Energy. (It is a mined substance, in the three forms of Matter.) Hope this small “matter” of linguistics makes some minimum of sense. Regards, SJ
A new report on the probable trajectory of the EV transition:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/evs-reach-86-percent-global-vehicle-sales-2030/695324/
Basically, with the investment patterns in place now, the transition is unstoppable. (Which explains why the former President is now tilting at the EV windmill–so to speak. He has a gift for picking the unwinnable fight.)
And before everybody jumps on me with explanations that cars aren’t the answer, aren’t sustainable, and so forth, well, that may well be. But they are necessary for ordinary folks to live their daily lives in many, many places under the current reality. So while we make our larger society more sustainable and less reliant on massive wasteful energy expenditures, better that transportation drastically cuts emissions.
V: The warming during the first half of the 20th century could not have been due to CO2 emissions
BPL: Why not?
V: “The scientists who brushed aside Callendar’s claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming — https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
nigelj: In fact we had almost a degree of anthropogenic warming from 1980 – 2020 just 40 years, so the actual rate of warming is arguably worse than Arrhenius predicted.
V: The bulk of the warming was only from 1980 – 1998. Subsequently, as is well known, temperature rise levelled off for the following 18 years. Regardless, as I pointed out in my previous post, a period of 40 years with no appreciable temperature rise was more than enough to falsify the notion that a rise in CO2 levels would produce a rise in temperatures. Once a theory is falsified no amount of apparently supporting evidence based on subsequent events can magically reinstate it. Clearly the warming events subsequent to 1980 were due to natural variation, NOT CO2.
Nigel: All this seems lost on you because you are too busy trolling and debating for the sake of debating, rather than to learn.
V: I’m basing my arguments on evidence and basic principles of scientific method. Your responses are based on an agenda supported by group think.
V: a period of 40 years with no appreciable temperature rise was more than enough to falsify the notion that a rise in CO2 levels would produce a rise in temperatures.
BPL: No, it is not. You’re assuming CO2 is the only thing that affects temperature. It is not. We have made this point to you about a trillion times already. Seriously, stop the straw man arguments.
V: The bulk of the warming was only from 1980 – 1998. Subsequently, as is well known, temperature rise levelled off for the following 18 years.
I don’t know if it’s “well known”, but, even to a layman like me, it’s “well debunked” (or at least attempted to be debunked) as “the hiatus” vs “the escalator”.
And it’s the second time today that people are somehow denying the existence of past years (Earlier it was the whole 2003-2023 period when GCM did not improve at all, now it’s the period since 1998+18=2016 and now ? That’s 7 years I was pretty sure to have lived through – although they were not necessarily the most pleasant… )
If I understand it correctly, when we go back to neutral / La Nina ENSO, we’ll see the line “warming has stopped since 2023/2024” pop up, right ? Is there a way to patent it somehow ?
It looks like sheere and trained, orgaized and systematic propaganda with fine words related to quite ca “thinktank”, Victor, Maybe even related to virtual intelligence.
and only interesting as such.
My identification of it is rooting back in some kind of re- establishe and highly studied “communist cell” because it is quite similar to that and hardly to anytyhing else that I know.
But other thinktanks and “conventicles may just have learnt and taken over the craft of propaganda and trolling & paracitism from that kind of advanced, systematic and intellectual sources.
On how to stalk and to chase rats and nests of rats …. that is more my practical learnings and experience about it.
===============000
To all and everyone:
Call it rather for rats and treat them cunningly as that. . Trolls are something different.
On chasing bears, train on rats frirst, who are free victim at any time. . Both are quite clever opportunistic omnivores.
Mr. .Cutler, you are discussing the trees, while missing the forest. The most fundamental criticism by John – comes at the end of his post:
John: “This is physically highly implausible, but can be expected from an incorrect empirical model.”
If you can’t come up with a physically plausible mechanism, all your conclusions based on statistics
alone are useless, actually worse than useless – since they pretend an insight, where there is none.
Without knowledge of physics of the atmosphere you have NO idea if the correlation you find are spurious or not, For instance looking ONLY at the statistics, you can get :
US spending on science, space and technology correlates with the number of suicides by hanging, strangulations and suffocation, r=0.9979 !!!
Despite this great r (What’s your r in comparison?) – no sane person would claim that one factor causes the other.
Yet your analysis above is based on much weaker correlation, and your causation reasoning is contradicted by the physics (see John’s point that if the Sun was main driver of global warming, not GHGs – then tropopause should have warmed as much or more as lower troposphere yet the opposite is true).
So this is the foundation on which you want to … stake the future of humanity – for if you are correct in concluding:”: “ Frankly, I don’t think that CO2 is playing much of a role.” – then there is no point in reducing the use of fossil fuels.
A true scientist is humble – knows the limits of their knowledge, in the vein of Socrates “I neither know nor think I know“, You and the other deniers are the opposite – you assume that you are so brilliant that you come up with solutions that no climatologist over decades of their research ever thought of.
Furthermore, this arrogance is based on ignorance – the deniers field is full of people whose specialty lies elsewhere – McIntyre – mining company director, McKitrick – economist, or our
RC deniers – Victor, JDS, Know-it-All, Tomas Kalisz, Macias Shurly etc. – they all assume their expertise in their own field automatically translates into a brilliance in climatology.
And since they don’t know climate physics – they don’t know what they don’t know
– and based on that – assume that … it must be unimportant.
I normally won’t respond to anyone who makes personal attacks, or makes blanket claims without providing supporting evidence, so this response is not directed at Piotr, it’s directed to others who are willing and capable of hearing more than one viewpoint.
Piotr asks: “Despite this great r (What’s your r in comparison?) ”
I’ve decided to not quote the sanity portion of the comment to help make the question sound more like a serious question than a rant. I prefer RMS error for time-series data, and show that in the plot legend for each model. But I’m sure others are curious, so I’ve computed R.
On my github page there several model variants. These Pearson R values are computed for several of them and are shown in order of decreasing R. The value is computed from year 1900 on. This largely limits the effects of inaccurate sunspot data prior to 1800. Sunspot data accuracy is believed to be better than 5% from 1800 to 1850. Accuracy is 15 to 20%, or is unknown for many years from 1728 to 1800 (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997).
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
Sunspot 99-11-42: R=0.983
Hybrid full-sunspot/CO2 model: R=0.981
Sunspot 98-Notch-42 R=0.981
Sunspot Core 99 Year Moving-Average: R=0.963
CO2-only model: R=0.956
Piotr further writes: “Without knowledge of physics of the atmosphere you have NO idea if the correlation you find are spurious or not, For instance looking ONLY at the statistics, ”
This is quite incorrect. There are several tests that help validate an empirical model, or can show that the model is fundamentally flawed. The first test of a spurious correlation is checking for causality. The sunspot model passes this test with flying colors. There are no significant features in the sunspot prediction occurring after changes in temperature, and there are a number of temporal details to compare.
CO2 fails the causality test completely as I’ve shown in my previous response. Since making that post I’ve discovered that this six-month lag has been known for a very long time. This paper uses a frequency-domain approach similar to mine https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040975 and was the continuation of a similar result computed in 1990. My CO2 causality results only use measured data which cover the last 65 years. As this covers most of the global warming trend attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, there is no need to resort to using proxy data which has insufficient temporal accuracy to resolve six months.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
The second test for a valid response is coherence, which helps estimate the amount of one signal present in another. If one signal is not related to another, even if they have the same power spectrum, then the coherence will drop with averaging and the result is likely a spurious correlation. The coherence measurements I’ve performed show that solar activity does affect climate. In particular, there is relatively high coherence for periods longer than 50 years. Also for 22, 6.6, 3.7, 2.5 and 1.7 year periods (approximate). There are other periods, but these are the most notable. Coherence is low for the 11-year cycle.
The coherence is relatively high between temperature and CO2, both for the annual cycle, and for periods from 2-10 years, so temperature and CO2 are related. For periods of 2-10 years CO2 lags temperature by six months, and sensitivity varies between 3-5 ppm/°C.
The third test involves explaining the model parameters. In my case, why 99-years and not 102? Why a moving average and not some other filter? Why is additional attenuation needed for the 11-year cycle? I believe I now have reasonable answers to those questions.
Piotr then proclaims: “If you can’t come up with a physically plausible mechanism, all your conclusions based on statistics alone are useless, actually worse than useless – since they pretend an insight, where there is none.”
I’m going to interpret this proclamation as “empirical models bad”. To counter this line of thinking, I’m going to use an analogy.
Most of you probably own, or have owned a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. For your vehicle you likely built an empirical fuel-efficiency model (e.g. MPG). For input energy you used volume (gallons or liters), as a proxy for the energy content in a liquid, without even knowing, or caring, what the energy content actually was. You then computed the ratio between distance traveled and the volume of fuel to establish a scaling factor that has no physical basis — not unlike converting sunspot numbers to temperature. The MPG model is useful because it works, it’s simple, and there’s no need to know what’s under the hood. The model doesn’t work under every condition, so three models are often developed, one for city driving, one for highway, and one for the teenage son. Confidence in the models will grow with time if the predictions remain accurate.
Now lets consider an alternative to the empirical MPG model, we’ll build a physical model. This model is going to be very complicated because it has to take into account not only the energy in the fuel, but also the efficiency of the combustion process. Energy balance models will have to be developed to account for all of the thermal losses. Mechanical friction models will have to be developed for all of the engine components, and then the transmission and differential. Rolling resistance of the tires will have to be factored in as well, and also the vehicle aerodynamics and mass. Engine accessories such as the power steering pump, air conditioning and alternator will have to be considered in terms of their loads and efficiencies, as well as losses in the belts. Pumping losses and exhaust restrictions will also have to be factored in. Many of these sub-models will be very complex as the temperature of the air, liquids and metals will play a role, as well as the engine RPM. Also, the fuel delivery system is dynamic as it has to compensate for many parameters including load, engine octane, and atmospheric density. And then there are the random factors. Is the road level, winding, bumpy, smooth, wet, icy, or covered in snow? What’s the payload (e.g. number of people in the car)? How aggressive is the driver?
When the physics based model is finally ready, will it be accurate? Well the first question to ask is accurate against what? In this example the complex physics based model will obviously be compared to the simple empirical MPG model. What happens if they don’t match? I suspect that the MPG model will not be tossed as being “worse than useless”. Instead, the complex model will be tweaked with “better” guesses of the physical parameters which are difficult to measure. Then, when the model still isn’t accurate relative to the empirical model, people will start to wonder if they missed something, and will add some new physical parameter such as body paint color, or coolant turbulence, all while possibly missing the fact that that the fuel had more 10% ethanol content than what was listed on the gas-station pump.
Now I ask you, are current climate models with all of their complexity and tuning correct? Have they been over fitted to compensate for incorrect values for other parameters? Are they even as accurate as the simple empirical sunspot-based model. This much I do know, over more than a couple of sunspot cycles TSI is unknown, and that climate models should be sensitive to TSI. I also suspect that solar magnetic activity may affect global temperature by modulating galactic cosmic rays which interact with the atmosphere. As far as I know, the influence of GCR’s is largely ignored in existing climate models.
Robert Cutler Oct.8
“ Sunspot 99-11-42: R=0.983; Hybrid full-sunspot/CO2 model: R=0.981; Sunspot 98-Notch-42 R=0.981; Sunspot Core 99 Year Moving-Average: R=0.963; CO2-only model: R=0.956 ”
These are …surprisingly high Rs. I don’t want to waste my time on going with a fine comb through your statistical computations, because as long as they are detached from the underlying physics – they don’t offer much insight into the climate. Therefore, I will work within your argument, i.e. treating your numbers as if they were correct and seeing whether they are at least consistent with each other:
1. you use period from 1900 – i.e., one the two likely forcings have very different influence – changes in solar similar in magnitude throughout, CO2 – negligible in the first half and increasing ramping up in the second half. By starting your analysis in 1900 you disadvantage CO2 forcing – it could have R=1 over the last 50 years, but have much lower overall R over the 120 years (since there was practically correlation in the first half of the time). And in this group we NOT interested in history (when there was not enough CO2 to dominate climate) but in present and future, so the only fit of concern – is the one in the last few decades.
2. For complex natural systems it is A LOT – typically for “strong association” is one for 0.6<R<0.8, yet the Co2 pulls a massive R=0.956, despite being weakened by including the low R period !
So either
– this (and by extension other) Rs are wrong, and there is no point in comparing them,
OR
-this R=0.956 is real and how do you reconcile the factor with such a high R with your claim " Frankly, I don’t think that CO2 is playing much of a role”?
3. If your Rs are real – how do you interpret that R for your “Sunspot 99-11-42” is HIGHER than R for “Hybrid full-sunspot/CO2 model” – wouldn’t this mean that CO2 not only does not contribute to the warming AT ALL, but actually counters it (since it weakens the correlation between sunspots alone and T)? Could you offer any thermodynamic mechanism , in which increased CO2 had ANTI-greenhouse effect? And how would this cooling effect be consistent with R=0.956 between CO2 and T? “ Frankly, I don’t think that CO2 is playing much of a role“, eh?
Piotr, Oct 7 “ Without knowledge of physics of the atmosphere you have NO idea if the correlation you find are spurious or not, For instance looking ONLY at the statistics: “US spending on science, space and technology correlates with the number of suicides by hanging, strangulations and suffocation has r=0.9979 “[ i.e. beats your pitiful in comparison R=0.983 hands down].
RCutler Oct.8: This is quite incorrect. There are several tests that help validate an empirical model, or can show that the model is fundamentally flawed. ”
Those are still tests WITHIN statistics – what I was talking is that statistics ALONE is not enough – you need physical (thermodynamic) mechanism proving that the statistical relationship is real
not spurious. Specifically, I followed on the point John, that you have evaded repeatedly:
– if the Sun was main driver of global warming, then tropopause, being earlier in the path of solar SW radiation, should have warmed as much or more as lower troposphere. Yet the opposite is true. And this opposite is consistent with CO2 forcing – since lower troposphere is earlier in the path of the LW radiation emitted from the Earth surface – thus warms more than tropopause.
Ergo physics of the atmosphere supports the Co2 being dominant drive and the role of questions the role of the Sun. I.e. the opposite to your statistics-ONLY conclusions.
if the Sun was driving temp. – with solar radiation hitting tropopause BEFORE troposphere –
should warm the former more. Instead, we see that tropopause cools while troposphere warms.
i.e. a physical contradiction to your claim that it is the Sun. On the other hand increasing GHGs – leads
was the observation that tropopause cools why lower troposphere warms – more that
Piotr.
The high R values are from the large overall trend. I could likely get high R values if I compared corn yields to temperature. (https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/fdd07122022_fig1.png). This is why I prefer RMS error for this application. You’ll find that the hybrid model and the full sunspot model have the same RMS error performance and that both are better than the 99-11-42 model.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
You accuse me of ignoring tropopause cooling yet neither you or John have responded to the very serious causality issue with CO2. Temperature changes lead CO2 changes by six months. Refer to (Koutsoyiannis et al. 2023), https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35. Or to the method I used to independently verify Koutsoyiannis ‘ result, which I learned later is very similar to the method used by (Park, 2009) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009GL040975. I can find no evidence of CO2 leading temperature over the last 65 years of directly measured data. None.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_no_detrend.png
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
As for the tropopause cooling, without debating the merits of that particular argument I will say that you seem to be working from the assumption that the only effect the sun has on the earth is through radiative forcing. If you read my postings carefully, I have been very consistent in my statements that the sun’s magnetic fields may play a role, likely through the modulation of GCR’s, which in turn may affect cloud and/or ice-crystal formation, leading to changes in energy balance. Further, my x1,x2 sunspot components suggest that TSI may have been a declining influence on temperature since the 1940’s. Note, I’m not claiming that x2 is TSI, only that it most closely resembles TSI reconstructions.
https://localartist.org/media/SeperateComponents.png
About R Cuttler
“I can find no evidence of CO2 leading temperature over the last 65 years of directly measured data. NONE.”
Discussion:
What Robert Cuttler cannot find does not show or proove anything exept about him/ herself.
RC: Temperature changes lead CO2 changes by six months.
BPL: Really. You never heard of seasonal variation? You’d get a high correlation with six months in the other direction, too. In fact, there are correlations all over the place, if you don’t correct for seasonal variation or other known cyclical effects.
Cutler said:
What the amateur sleuths such as Cutler miss is that the important correlations are to the erratically varying temperatures, not to the secular temperature trends — obviously may things can correlate to that. But try to use Cutler’s and other deniers’ “favorite pet”< sunspot cycles to cross-validate any of the major climate indices.
They have never been able to. It’s actually much more straightforward to apply known values of tidal forcing to the ocean fluid dynamics and perform an eye-opening cross-validation to the observed time series — consider AMO for example:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2855758/275285104-2012cc95-b6b1-4404-8943-b088a3130206.png
Robert Cutler
“I have been very consistent in my statements that the sun’s magnetic fields may play a role, likely through the modulation of GCR’s, which in turn may affect cloud and/or ice-crystal formation,”
This is essentially the cosmic ray theory of climate change. The effect is not considered to be strong enough to explain global warming trends since the 1980’s as below from Cosmos website:
Svensmark’s theory in a nutshell is this: cosmic rays are atomic fragments – mostly nuclei – blown into space from exploding stars that constantly bombard the Earth. When they enter the atmosphere, their electric charge helps form clusters of molecules – aerosols – that in turn act as seeds, or nuclei, for water droplets to condense around, creating clouds.
More cosmic rays means more ‘cloud condensation nuclei’ (CCN), more clouds, and a colder climate. Fewer rays means a warmer climate.
Which is where the sun comes in. At times of high solar activity, signified by higher numbers of sunspots, our own star’s magnetic field helps shield the planet from cosmic rays, meaning less cloud formation and thus higher temperatures. When the sun is ‘quiet’, there is more ionisation in the atmosphere, meaning more clouds and a cooler climate.
Svensmark’s new paper – the “last piece of the jigsaw” – co-authored by Martin Bødker Enghoff, also at DTU Space, Nir Shaviv, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Jacob Svensmark at the University of Copenhagen – demonstrates in the lab that cosmic ray ionisation can lead to greater cloud formation than previously believed.
The paper then argues that the result “should be incorporated into global aerosol models, to fully test the atmospheric implications”.
Scientists involved in related research, however, doubt the new findings make much difference to accepted climate models.
“The authors need to quantify the effects in an atmospheric model rather than just speculating,” says Ken Carslow, of the University of Leeds, UK, who has also studied potential links between cosmic rays and aerosol formation as part of CERN’s Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment. “It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important,” he states.
Terry Sloan, of the University of Lancaster, UK, whose own research has calculated the contribution of cosmic rays at less than 10% of the global warming seen in the 20th century, is also dubious. He points out that other atmospheric “impurities”, such as dust and salt particles, play more important roles as cloud-condensing nuclei.
“The effects [of ionisation] are too small to measure except in the dust- and impurity-free atmosphere such as in their experiments,” Sloan says. “Dust in the atmosphere plays a much bigger part in cloud formation.”
Steven Sherwood concurs. The paper itself, he notes, only suggests the result “may be relevant in the Earth’s atmosphere under pristine conditions”. Even if things do work in the real world the same way as in a laboratory, cloud growth due to ions would only make up “several per cent” of the total.
“Several per cent ain’t much, and the real atmosphere is not pristine,” Sherwood says. While the new research has shown that cosmic rays can produce particles big enough to seed clouds, that was never “the real problem” with Svensmark’s ideas. A bigger issue is the number of such particles, which “would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.”
“If clouds were affected by cosmic rays,” he adds, “they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed.”
https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response/#:~:text=More%20cosmic%20rays%20means%20more,where%20the%20sun%20comes%20in.
BPL: “Really. You never heard of seasonal variation? You’d get a high correlation with six months in the other direction, too. In fact, there are correlations all over the place, if you don’t correct for seasonal variation or other known cyclical effects.”
Correlation is a time-domain analysis. I’ve done a frequency domain analysis; this allows me to separate processes by frequency. Could you not tell that from the plots?
In the frequency domain the seasonal variations have a fundamental frequency of 1 Year^-1, i.e. 1 (cycle/year). The seasonal variation is not a pure sinusoid, so there’s also harmonic energy at 2 year^-1 (i.e. six months), which is on the far right in the plots.
For the fundamental energy in the seasonal variation at 1 year^-1, the delay between temperature and CO2 is not six months, but less than 2 months (0.14-year marker). It’s a different CO2 process, so it’s not surprising that it has a different lag.
The six-month delay is for frequencies of 0.1-0.5 Year^-1, or time periods of 2-10 years minimum. I’ve used other techniques to look at periods of longer than 10 years, and am reasonably confident out to at least 20 year periods that CO2 lags temperature.
It turns out that some of the seasonal variation is not related to seasonal variations in temperature. I say this based on the lower coherence at that frequency, and also on dropping sensitivity with averaging. There are other seasonal signals which could affect CO2 but which fluctuate in phase relative to temperature. Daylight hours for example.
No one cares about sunspots except for the climate science skeptics who desperately cling to anything they can to provide alternate explanations to what is observed. Sunspots variations DO NOT generate the mechanical forcing needed to initiate the huge subsurface waves that occur during El Nino events. Are people lacking in physical intuition that much?
@ Nigelj
That was quite a good discussion of the Svensmark theories.
There is an impact of the 11 year sunspot cycles on the longtime temperature graphs, that is easily seen earlier on, but in the last 2-3 periods it has been disturbed by other and noisy effects due to weak solar maxima.
But it is much easier explained by solar UV and X-ray that varies a factor of 10 from solar min to solar max, so going to the galaxies is far fetched. As I can see it, it is only another version of the ABC speculations, Anything But CO2.
At low solar activity, the Ozone layer at 30 Km in the stratosphere weakens, so UV comes down to the troposphere causing photochemical smog and more cloudiness there.
The contrast of weather in solar maxima and minima has been rather remarkable here where I live. Solar max with many sunspots have given clear winter and summer weather, extreeme winter night chill and extreeme summer warmth droughts, and bathing waters.
The opposite in solar minima har been rather warm winters and sour chill foggy and rainy summers. and the same is seen further in the ice- situation of the greater lakes and in the fjords. The record ice winters with fameous clogging of the fjords and the belts have come regularly at solar minima.
It can all be explained by UV, Ozone and formation of more sulphate- aerosols in the lower troposphere during solar minima. As SO2 goes to nanoparticles of H2SO4 in moist air by tropospheric UV and ozone. rather than by galaxies.
This, I think, is a more handy and plausible theory that can be checked up the easier way.
As sunspots come back, the weathers clear up. It is seen also in the tree- rings, the history of nasty summers contra fameous bathing summers. The northern taiga wants it chill with
foggy and rainy summers. Wide rings at solar minima. No galaxy needed.
@ Nigelj
Further to be known about Svensmark.
Who is Danish from the University of København and quite a strange person as if he is lacking orderly danish Examen Artium, and was inaugurated to science through the socialist labour union for scientific political leadership on the party quote.
A situation similar and parallel to the Grand old Party with P over there in the states.
“Galactic radiation” is a popular neologism.
It was called “Chosmic radiation” discovered in 1905 by manned balloon and Electrometer. Called “Höhenstrahlung” in German. as it hardly reacts to radioactive shieldings, ionizes the air, darkens a silver bromide film and causes that a common electroscope dischages a bit faster at the top of the Eiffel tower than at the feet of the same in Paris.,
They could slowly find out that it is mostly extreemly energetic protons that causes furher showers of sub- atomic ionizing particles in common air. More energeric than any other known radioactive source.
This is basic pensum of Artium radioactivity with methods such as the geigercounter, the electrometer, the scintillators, the photographic bromide film, and….. the fameous pioneering Wilson cloud chamber.
That has inspired Svensmark, But Svensmark & al. lacking artium did not recall its name. The Wilson cloud chamber did play a main role in the discovery of positrons and myons and mesons…. until rather the bubble- chamber took over.
What Svensmark also did not recall or did not technically physically undertsand or had not yet learnt, was that for the Wilson chamber to work scientifically, the air must be rentlessly filtered and cleaned, Any alian UFO dirt, natural or antropogene, ionizing radiations from any industrial Pary source however old and grand,…… must be shown and cleansed out and shielded off by up to decimeters of isotope- free lead.
Which is not the situation in common air and in the climate.
After inicial experiments “in the cellars” of Copenhagen with a smaller university acceloerator, they got it to the fameous “CLOUD” in CERN” with the large Hadron Collider.
Cloud in Cern also has a large Wilson chamber of several cubic meters under scientific control and observation,. And could pump it down and add SO2, O2,N2 CH3 and NH3 under controlled conditions and then turn on the Larhe Hadron Proton Accelerator..
And found nanoparticles of NH4 HSO4
Count it roughly over, one atomic radius is about 0. 15 nanometer
“Halleluja, Svensmarx verified..!”
But Cloud in Cern said “wait a bit”. . Now, Mr Svensmark, you are to explain to us us how that can possibloy grow from a Nanometer up into 50 nanometers at least and into cloud- micrometer drops. Sodium yellow is about 500 nanometer wavelength. . quite cloudy white and diffuse visibles is well above that again.
Cern was obviously, cunningly infameous to Svensmarx in that way.
.
They served him carefully produced ammoniumsulphate nanoparticle molecules fom the “Cloud” tank. Svensmark, as they could suspect, having shirked chemistyery as such, was alian to the fact that ammoniumsulphate happens to be a fameous, non- hygroscopic salt.
Whereas SO3 in the air is severely hygro9scopic and makes dramatically acid smokes and rains in much less than a second. Simply set off an atomic bomb or even a 50 Kg Conventional TNT bomb in moist air and everyone can see that “CLOUD” forms from empty air by the speed of sound under Wilson cloud- chamber conditions. .
So why go all the way to Cloud in Cern?
I would have used Uranium pitchblende that works eminently and brilliantly on scintillation and in the Wilson chambers.
They even began discussing pristine smells of high mountain pinewood turpenes under blue sky over white snow that should save their galactics,, ignoring reality worldwide that may be coalsmoke and stinky diesel set off at bright dayligh in the lower troposphere. .
Robert Cutler:
Statistical relationships, while interesting, need to be backed up by a physical cause. Empirical relationships without a cause are most commonly the result of random associations, and need to be tested against the null hypothesis. They don’t generally produce good forecasts. WHAT IS YOUR FORECAST for the change in decadal mean global surface temperature ending in 2036, which you indicated would be a test of your model?
We now have an improving set of dynamical climate models that are based in physical relationships and observations of various important processes. They don’t include everything affecting climate, and never will. However, they are reproducing the main features expected from the very large increase in GHGs in recent decades. That includes rising surface temperatures, along with observed fingerprints such as falling tropopause temperatures. (This fingerprint didn’t arise from tuning models, but from radiation physics,) They produce a surface temperature rise in the approximate range of 0.2C to 0.3C from the decade 2013-2022 to 2027-2036 – barring a catastrophic volcanic eruption or nuclear war. They aren’t very sensitive to solar fluctuations in the recently observed range.
Your objections to the evolving consensus science are incoherent. You agree in some places that there is a causal relationship between T and CO2, but suggest that T drives CO2, based on your six-month lag. I note that the other publications you reference don’t really agree on the timing of the lag, which is a warning sign of weak statistics. But let’s take your hypothesis at face value.
If temperature is driving CO2, then the large increase in global temperature in the past few decades is causing people to produce more and more CO2 through their rising fossil fuel consumption. The alternative is that the large rise in CO2 isn’t anthropogenic after all. It’s some natural process by which rising temperatures cause CO2 to be released from some very large, but unknown source. I suggest that you will be unable to demonstrate either alternative.
On the other hand, there is your sunspot model. Incoherently, you suggest that there is no significant relationship between CO2 and T; it’s all due to solar fluctuations, instead. In some unspecified manner, those are managing to imitate the CO2 fingerprints. This manner should involve somehow smoothing through the well-observed sunspot cycle, but must invoke some weak century-scale cycle to produce the large multi-decadal rise in surface temperatures. I find that a very dubious proposition. You don’t.
Go ahead, make us a forecast with your model, and explain your reasoning.
Agree with everything else you said, but PLEASE don’t keep on suggesting that predictions are the only path forward. That goes for not only you John Pollack, but everyone in the climate science community. We need to learn from machine learning research that the way to go is cross-validation with respect to historical records. Machine learning would never make advances if all their training runs waited for future predictions to pan out. That is just patently stupid considering that most neural network training runs look good on the data that they were trained on but fail outside that on test and validation. Cross-validation is one of the only means of weeding through all the potentially failed predictions.
Take tidal predictions as an example. Of course these are easily checked via fresh predictions because you only need to wait a day or two in advance to get new data. But one could just as easily go back several years and cross-validate from training intervals to test intervals. That’s the point — if we are dealing with behaviors that take years to develop, the obvious choice is to use historical records as we can’t afford to waste time waiting for new data.
John Pollack.
There’s no need to shout, my temperature predictions are in the plots on my github page. They always have been. Look at the last three plots. As for my reasoning, the prediction from the core moving average model leads the earth’s response by approximately 13 years, so the die is cast. My model is not an equation that you plug future dates into, it’s a simple filter responding in a complicated way to the information encoded in the sunspot signal. If temperatures suddenly rise next year and remain elevated, then the model is wrong because that information isn’t in the existing sunspot signal, at least according to my model.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
My model is based entirely on solar forcing. To build a physical model I need to know what TSI is and nobody knows what TSI is, we don’t have the data. All we have are a wide range of reconstructions, all based on semi-empirical models. If solar magnetic fields play a role, as I suspect they do, then I might at some point be able to find a climate signal that matches magnetic activity, or some of the other signals I’ve created from my model.
My position on CO2 is far from being incoherent. All my sunspot model suggests is that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature to any significant degree. For the model to be valid, there has to be low climate sensitivity to CO2. Has the range of estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 triggered your “warning sign of weak statistics”? How much longer would temperature need to stay level, before you conclude that your” improving set of dynamical climate models” are fundamentally flawed?
The analysis showing that CO2 lags temperature is robust and accurate. The estimate of sensitivity at 5 ppm/°C for 10-year periods is also correct. What I’ve been unable to determine, so far, is if the CO2 process behind the overall trend is related to temperature; leading, or lagging. There are spectral features I expected to find that aren’t present. Also the CO2 trend doesn’t match the temperature trend. Even after taking the log of the CO2 the CO2 trend has more curvature than the temperature trends. Honestly, John, I can’t find anything that doesn’t suggest that the temperature and CO2 trends are nothing more than the spurious correlation of two rising trends. The only information content in the CO2 signal shows that temperature drives CO2, and that the sensitivity is small. Don’t bother telling me about your models, I want to see the answer in measured data.
For the frequency-domain impaired I’ll show you one of the time-domain plots I created for a visual reality check of the frequency-domain results. I’ve removed the seasonal signal using a one-year moving average, and de-trended the data using second order polynomials. This affects the shape of the result so be careful. I’ve chosen to show the Southern Hemisphere Temperature result because the six-month CO2 lag is quite easy to see, even for multi-decade trends. Also, these results highlight how the temperature and CO2 trends can be quite different. The scaling for the de-trended data is 6ppm/°C.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png
Ignore anything to do with sunspots. No matter how hard they try it never matches any climate change pattern,
I try to tweet my comment as it goes into moderation as it occasionally gets bypassed. This is the last one I contributed on the morning of the 17th
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8o9LA0X0AAc47g.png
Robert Cutler,
You may be of the opinion that “position on CO2 is far from being incoherent” and in this opinion you may have found reassurance in the paper you cited previously on this thread Koutsoyiannis et al (2023) ‘On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere’ but this paper is one that should never have been published – it is that poor.
Both you and Koutsoyiannis et al note the wobbles in atmospheric CO2 track global temperature with a six month lag. This lag is well known. (Your linked graph plotting CO2 & SH temp as deviation from trend provides a far less obvious result than a simpler plot of the 12-month differencing of 12-month rolling MLO CO2 & global temp.)
But both you and Koutsoyiannis et al fail to note another well known lag – that global temperature (and thus also atmospheric CO2) tracks ENSO with a lag of something like four months. Given the different measures of ENSO and to keep matters simple, perhaps the NINO3.4 anomaly would be the purest measure to demonstrate the ENSO lead on global temperature and CO2 (although -ve SOI is not a measure of temperature which might add a little more reassurance).
Thus to suppose “the CO2 signal shows that temperature drives CO2” is incorrect, even w.r.t. the interannual wobbles. And to use such a finding to dismiss the impact of rising CO2 on climate is thus also incorrect.
One implication of the ENSO signal being imprinted on global temperature is that it remains strongly evident when 36-month rolling averages are plotted.Thus your sunspot model is impacted enough to at least make a big difference graphically, certainly over the recent few years, as this Jan 2023 RealClimate graphic will perhaps illustrate.
There are folk who have (cannot seen an up-to-date version) extracted the ENSO signal from gloal temperature to identify the underling warming trends (eg here or here) but they also correct for volcanic and solar effects at the same time, the latter somewhat unfortunate for your temp-sunspot modelling.
PP: Ignore anything to do with sunspots. No matter how hard they try it never matches any climate change pattern,
BPL: Used as a proxy for sunlight, they do have a significant (but very small, 1% or so of the variance) effect on surface temperature variations.
Cutler,
I gave you the information you needed on your GitHub site here:
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/issues/2
This is a concise model of natural climate variation due to tidal forcing and it works for ENSO, AMO, PDO, IOD, QBO and likely more.
Yet you now seem reticent to engage with someone that knows how to do geophysics as you have now shut down your repository to others willing to teach you about relevant models. Your site now says:
“An owner of this repository has limited the ability to comment to users that are collaborators on this repository.
That’s a pity.
Of course you’re free to comment on my GitHub … but I kind of doubt you will ;)
R. Cutler Oct. 14: “I could likely get high R values if I compared corn yields to temperature.”
So what? I can have r=o.9979 if I compared “US spending on science, space and technology correlates with the number of suicides by hanging, strangulations and suffocation“. Correlation does not prove causation.
RC: “This is quite incorrect. There are several tests that help validate an empirical model”
Except, all the 3 tests you proposed are STATISTICAL. As such, they cannot prove that your statistical relationships reflects PHYSICAL causation. And PHYSICALLY-plausible mechanism is critical to sieve out spurious correlations:
A spurious correlation is a statistical correlation that suggests causality (A determines B), despite having no plausible PHYSICAL mechanism for A affecting B. That’s why I said:
“Without knowledge of physics of the atmosphere you have NO idea if the correlation you find are spurious or not “.
RC: “ You’ll find that the hybrid model and the full sunspot model have the same RMS error performance”
Again – claim based on the statistics only, claim that you were unable to support with a plausible physical mechanisms. You haven’t explained:
– why Co2 does NOT have influence on temperature despite us knowing since at least 1896 of its greenhouse properties, nor
– how the sunspots dominate the climate – even though it can’t be by changing solar flux toward Earth, as this is contradicted by the fact that the tropopause cools instead of warming. You tried to save your theory with the deus ex machina – magnetic effects – even though you have not provided a viable description of the mechanism, nor did you quantify how it would have the correct direction, timing, and magnitude of the radiative forcing to explain the observed global warming trends.
RC: You accuse me of ignoring tropopause cooling yet neither you or John have responded to the very serious causality issue with CO2.
Irrelevant. We challenged your claim A on its own ground – you can’t dismiss it
with “But you ignored my point about B”. And we ignored your point B for the reason
obvious to everybody else but you:
You claimed that CO2 can’t possibly affect temperature because you discovered a curious 6-month lag behind temperature, so if it lags T then it can’t cause a change in T. This lag is well known and called … “seasons“.. And where you see “ CO2 6 months AFTER T=>no causation“, one could as easily see: “ CO2 is 6 month AHEAD of (next year’s) T => causation, with a 6-month inertia of T“.
Worse still, by simplifying a very complex system (climate) to your caricature – 2 potential drivers (sunspot and CO2) and one output (T), and by assuming the instantaneous responses (i.e.: lags=0) – you implicitly ignore , that is, you implicitly assume that not only the inertia, but also all potential confounding variables and their relationships – are as unimportant.
And what ignoring the confounding factors and/or feedbacks can lead to – I will illustrate
with a classic denier’s “statistics-only” argument: in the ice cores, if you squint hard enough, in some deglaciations, the increase in Co2 seems to come a bit AFTER the increase in T – and since in your test of causality, the cause cannot lag behind the result – BANG! Co2 cannot possibly warm the Earth – it is the warmer Earth that must have increased (thermodynamically inert) Co2.
All good, except …. being wrong – the warming was TRIGGERED by Milankovic cycles (higher insolation in summer in the Arctic) – but then this local increase in insolation was AMPLIFIED by the four positive feedbacks – decrease in albedo, and increase in water vapour, and larger releases from ecosystems of Co2 and CH4. All four increase the Earth temp. which, in the next cycle, further decreases albedo and increases CO2, CH4 and vapour, making it even warmer, and so on and on.
Hence, instead of the conclusion that CO2 and CH4 do not affect climate because they have lagged temp. increase at the beginning of deglaciation – the ice cores suggest the opposite – that without Co2 and CH4 it would be much more difficult to explain how a small warming by Milankovic cycle resulted in massive (up to 8C globally) increase in temperature. And we know PHYSICALLY plausible mechanisms for that – both CO2 and CH4 do absorb LW radiation.
Furthermore, the presence of the feedbacks (absent in your analysis) challenges another conclusion of the deniers: since CO2 and CH4 lagged T => CO2 and CH4 do not warm climate => our emissions of CO2 and CH4 are inconsequential => we can emit as much CO2 and CH4 as we want.
But after we bring physics into consideration, and allow for feedbacks – the lesson is the opposite: not only do CO2 and CH4 contribute to the warming of the climate (if they didn’t they would not be a part of the positive feedbacks with temp.), but also the albedo and water vapour feedbacks with temperature, which amplified the effects of increasing conc. of CO2 and CH4 in interglacials, will ALSO amplify the effect of (more rapidly) increasing conc. of CO2 and CH4 today, and in the future.
So instead a statistic-only conclusion that the climate is not affected by humans, by adding physics we see climate as sensitive to what we do to CO2 and CH4, and in fact MORE sensitive – the other two feedbacks would amplify the consequences of our actions – if we increase GHGs – albedo and vap0ur feedbacks would make warming WORSE than the effect of CO2 and CH4 alone.
That’s why statistical-only models that ignore physics, and therefore complexities, confounding variables, and feedbacks in climate – are in fact a “negative knowledge” – fake-knowledge pretending an insight (“Frankly, I don’t think that CO2 is playing much of a role “) is worse than no pretense to an insight at all.
RC: nobody knows what TSI is, we don’t have the data
BPL: Look again:
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html
R. Cutler: “ nobody knows what TSI is, we don’t have the data”
BPL: Oct. 19. “Look again” [ and give the NOAA link to the data that “nobody knows”]
Oops, Barton. you just blew Mr Cutler’s justification for not having physically plausible explanation for the statistical patterns he claims to have observed.
And looking at the graphs of that TSI that nobody knows, found simply by typing “TSI graphs” in Google Search, we see that ~ 11-year cycle e.g.:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320918200/figure/fig1/AS:558232059617280@1510104302477/Composite-Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-at-the-mean-absolute-level-of-DIARAD-SOVIM-and.png:
The problem for Mr. Cutler’s theory is:
1. 11-yr cycle oscillationsM/b> around the mean in TSI are supposed to produce the monotonic increase in global T (“the global warming”) seen in the last decades
2. even in the short periods when they happen be in phase (it’s an oscillation so sometimes TSI has to go up) – the increases in radiation are too small to account for the observed global warming trend:
– the TSI increases from 1362 to somewhat above 1363 W/m2. When spread over the spherical Earth- it has to be divided by 4 – so the max-min effect is ~ 0.3W/m2.
For a comparison, extra CO2 – provides ~ 1.65 W/m2, while methane adds another 1 W/m2.
And if believe RC: “Frankly, I don’t think that CO2 is playing much of a role “, then during the downward half of the TSI oscillation we should have seen global cooling …
To sum up, the temporal pattern is all wrong, and the magnitude an order of magnitude too small.
Mr. Cutler challenged with explaining why tropopause gets colder instead warmer (consistent with warming from the inside, i.e. by GHGs; while countering the warming from outside, by the Sun), said:
“ you seem to be working from the assumption that the only effect the sun has on the earth is through radiative forcing. If you read my postings carefully, I have been very consistent in my statements that the sun’s magnetic fields may play a role
So you are saying that while the radiative forcing for the TSI goes up and down,
the magnetic effect of the same TSI goes … only up (needed to produce global warming).
Re – Piotr 13 Oct. – Since we don’t have option to edit the posts after the send – please ignore the last paragraph of my prev. post (from if” the Sun was driving temp. “).
Robert Cutler,
You tell us:-
If you do “now have reasonable answers to those questions,” what are they? Perhaps just start with the first one; why 99 years? And if I may be so bold as to set another, why do you correlate you SSN parameter using years:months 1:01-to-99:12 with the temperature year:month 112:06, a lag of 12.5 years after the last SSN data used?
MA Rodger
The length of the moving average is related to solar characteristics. I’m working on a paper that describes the reason for the length. It’s reasonably complicated.
As for the 13-year offset, the core moving-average model output leads the earth’s response by 13 years. I suspect that most of time difference comes from the sunspot signal leading the slower changes in solar activity by one 11-year cycle. Not all changes in the core nuclear reactor make it through the convection layer at the same rate. Some of my correlation analysis suggested that there’s a 2-3 year delay in earth’s response to solar activity. It’s just a guess, but one sunspot cycle plus 2-3 years for the earth’s response seems like a good place to start.
When I add a second filter to compensate for the 11-year cycle, I loose some, or all of that prediction capability because I need extra sunspot data to settle the additional filter.
If the model is correct, global temperatures will remain steady, or perhaps fall a bit over the next decade. If global temperatures start to rise again, then the model is wrong.
RC: I suspect that most of time difference comes from the sunspot signal leading the slower changes in solar activity by one 11-year cycle. Not all changes in the core nuclear reactor make it through the convection layer at the same rate. Some of my correlation analysis suggested that there’s a 2-3 year delay in earth’s response to solar activity. It’s just a guess, but one sunspot cycle plus 2-3 years for the earth’s response seems like a good place to start.
BPL: In other words, you’re Fourier-analyzing the climate.
You can match any curve–any curve at all–if you add in enough sine/cosine terms. But it’s meaningless. That’s what Ptolemy did with the solar system.
It’s better to have a physical theory behind your model. BTW, a theory, based in whatever science you’ve got on the subject, has to predict the behavior of your chosen variable before you get your match. Coming up with a curve like the one you want and then picking sciency sounding reasons for why it matches doesn’t count.
There’s some truth to this, but never throw the baby out with the bath water. Consider that a modern tidal prediction analysis can contain 100’s of sin/cos terms. All tidal prediction involves is brute force Fourier series curve-fitting, very little physics needed at this point of the SOTA … yet it works, validated and good to go, Not at all meaningless.
Of course a physical theory is needed in building the foundation. It’s now clear that natural climate variability outside the nearly linear-response model of tides is governed by non-linear dynamics. That means that conventional inverse Fourier series analysis no longer works to tease out the relevant cycles. Issues such as aliasing and a piling up of cross-harmonics makes it much more difficult to extract anything from say a ENSO NINO34 time-series.
All hope is not lost though. I know how to do it and a physical model to match.
nigelj
I’m obviously aware of Svensmark’s theory, Tinley’s as well. I don’t know if either one is correct. I’d honestly never considered that magnetic fields might play a role in climate until I started trying to understand how the simple moving average interacted with the sunspot proxy signal, and what the proxy signal was conveying through all of its various modulations by solar activity. When I kept getting hints that solar magnetic fields were involved, I went searching for any related research.
V: I’m basing my arguments on evidence and basic principles of scientific method. Your responses are based on an agenda supported by group think.
ROTFLMAO
Yes!
Putin spoke: “It takes one to know one.”
Victor is not a troll factory in Ljenhingrad. They havent got that capacity and cannot afford it.
It is millions and other millions of frustrated proletarian pioneer loosers from the rustbelt with modern IT and PC over there in the states,
Puttler just smiles and says “Yes, thank you, Hum Hum, Smile Smile!”
He does not have to pay a Kopek for it. He is sure of being served and to win this war. . Only NATO and Ukraina is against it, smile smile. .
Hi,
Well Twitter\X has gone a bit extreme on the jump in September to +0.,93. I am struggling to understand how people cannot await more information on it and why one month is not any indication of anything going on beyond the standard model of CC projections?
Interesting to know what others think as it is an El Nino year ongoing into 2024. I see it all as averaging out og 0.2C per decade and hence 1.5C permanently is still 15 years away.
15 years? You’re kidding, right? We are currently all too close to crossing 1.5C.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1117842
https://twitter.com/WMO/status/1523769782373392384
This comment would be silly if it weren’t seriously oblivious.
Pete Best: – “I am struggling to understand how people cannot await more information on it and why one month is not any indication of anything going on beyond the standard model of CC projections?”
I’d suggest there’s plenty of analysis of what’s going on…
Berkeley Earth (BE) published on 13 Sep 2023 their August 2023 Temperature Update by Robert Rohde, including an exploration of “Causes of Recent Warmth”.
https://berkeleyearth.org/august-2023-temperature-update/
Per BE, the factors contributing to global temperature change during the last 10 years include:
1. Man-made global warming;
2. El Niño / La Niña cycle;
3. Solar cycle – Total Solar Irradiance (TSI);
4. Hunga Tonga eruption;
5. Marine fuel pollution reduction – IMO 2020 marine fuel rule change
https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ForcingFactors-August2023-2.png
In the YouTube video titled 5 factors behind the Global Heatwave 2023, and it’s not just El Niño, published 4 Aug 2023, duration 0:11:54, glaciologist Professor Jason Box highlights the factors driving the record temperatures:
1. Enhanced greenhouse effect;
2. Increasing ocean heat content;
3. El Niño;
4. Ship sulphur emissions reduction;
5. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI);
6. Reduced volcanic sulphur emissions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdvn2pGyOw
These factors are driving the record high Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1708549133634519394
An increasing EEI will inevitably increase the Earth System’s rate of warming.
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, and Leon Simons, in their communication titled Global Warming is Accelerating. Why? Will We Fly Blind?, dated 14 Sep 2023, included:
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-is-accelerating-why-will-we-fly-blind
Pete Best: – “I see it all as averaging out og 0.2C per decade and hence 1.5C permanently is still 15 years away.”
The Hansen et. al. pre-print paper <Global warming in the pipeline, version 3 (dated 23 May 2023), includes (on page 39):
We conclude that peak aerosol climate forcing – in the first decade of this century – had a (negative) magnitude of at least 1.5-2 W/m². We estimate that the GHG plus aerosol climate forcing during the period 1970-2010 grew +0.3 W/m² per decade (+0.45 from GHG, – 0.15 from aerosols), which produced observed warming of 0.18°C per decade. With current policies, we expect climate forcing for a few decades post-2010 to increase 0.5-0.6 W/m² per decade and produce global warming at a rate of at least +0.27°C per decade. In that case, global warming should reach 1.5°C by the end of the 2020s and 2°C by 2050 (Fig. 25).
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474.pdf
With the EEI remaining at record highs, I’d suggest an accelerated warming rate of “at least +0.27°C per decade” is much more likely. That means the breaching of the +1.5°C longer-term/multi-year threshold is thus much more likely by the end of the 2020s, as Hansen et. al. indicate.
The next year or two should reveal any emerging increasing warming trend.
Meanwhile, Copernicus Climate Change Service has published a graph showing the 30 warmest months on record globally. It includes:
#1: Jul 2023: 16.95 °C
#2: Aug 2023: 16.82 °C
#3: Jul 2019: 16.63 °C
#4: Jul 2022: 16.61 °C
#5: Jul 2016: 16.59 °C
#6: Jul 2021: 16.56 °C
#7: Jul 2020: 16.55 °C
#8: Jun 2023: 16.51 °C & Aug 2016 & Jul 2018
#11: Jul 2017: 16.49 °C
#12: Aug 2019: 16.47 °C
#13: Aug 2021: 16.42 °C
#14: Aug 2017: 16.41 °C & Aug 2022
#16: Jul 2015: 16.38 °C & Aug 2020 & Sep 2023
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/era5_global_sfc_temp_30_warmest_months.png
HI, great reply and thanks.
1. Man-made global warming;
2. El Niño / La Niña cycle;
3. Solar cycle – Total Solar Irradiance (TSI);
4. Hunga Tonga eruption;
5. Marine fuel pollution reduction – IMO 2020 marine fuel rule change
here for example, what about CCN (clouds decreasing) and what about the fires in Indonesia and Canada? Do these add anything to the GHG forcing mix?
Regards
Pete
I feel I owe you an apology for an exaggerated reaction which was too personal. Glad you and Geoff Miehl are engaging on specifics. I wish you were right. Here’s an interesting Gavin thread:
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1710292048366973096
for non-Twixsters, in essense: “We won’t hit 1.5°C this year (in most analyses – NOAA, GISTEMP, HadCRUT – slightly more likely in Berkeley Earth). But next year will be warmer. Look for an update next Thursday.”
Pete Best: – “,,,what about CCN (clouds decreasing) and what about the fires in Indonesia and Canada? Do these add anything to the GHG forcing mix?”
In general terms, clouds decreasing means less of the Sun’s energy would be reflected out to space and more energy arriving on the Earth’s surface.
Fires in Indonesia and Canada (or mega-fires anywhere) means more CO₂ emissions and soot/particulates/aerosols. The CO₂ emissions add to the accumulating atmospheric GHG concentrations, which are likely to stay in the atmosphere for a very long time and thus contribute to more warming. The soot/particulates/aerosols emitted into the atmosphere contribute to cooling, but stay in the atmosphere for only days, weeks or perhaps up to a few months (depending on size and height attained in the atmosphere). Soot/particulates may fall on ice sheets, darkening them and increasing the rate of melting.
Per Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, the 2023 Canada wildfires emissions have already doubled the previous annual record.
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/2023-canada-wildfires-emissions-have-already-doubled-previous-annual-record
As for magnitudes of these effects, you would need to ask someone else.
BPL: You’re assuming CO2 is the only thing that affects temperature. It is not. We have made this point to you about a trillion times already. Seriously, stop the straw man arguments.
V: You could make the same “point” a trillion times more while standing on your head and it would make no difference. There was no sign of any meaningful temperature rise over a period of 40 years, while CO2 levels were rising significantly. The aerosol excuse won’t work because any underlying warming masked by industrial aerosols would show up in any number of regions where the sort of industrial activities that would produce such aerosols are either rare or nonexistent. As I’ve demonstrated over and over, that is NOT the case. There’s been a concerted effort here to insist that the effects of such aerosols can spread widely throughout all regions of the world, but that flies in the face of everything we know about this type of pollution. To wit:
“The average troposphenc lifetime of aerosol particles
and of their precursor gases is of the order of only days or
weeks . . . The short lifetime also implies large spatial
and temporal variability in the concentrations of aerosol
particles.” https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_01.pdf
That’s from an IPCC report — but of course nothing will convince those whose very identity has become entangled in the familiar “climate change” dogma. It will always be possible to find some additional consideration that explains away just about any problem to support a favored hypothesis. This, by the way, is the primary reason for Occam’s Razor, as expressed quite eloquently in the Wikipedia article on this topic: “consider that for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives. This is so because one can always burden a failing explanation with an ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses are justifications that prevent theories from being falsified.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Nothing could be more ad hoc than the absurd assumption that evidence for cooling, due to aerosols or anything else, must be taken as evidence for warming. Needless to say, without evidence for warming during the 40 years in question, there is NO basis for establishing a long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Very Stable Genius: “ There was no sign of any meaningful temperature rise over a period of 40 years” vs.
Reality:
Victor: – “V: You could make the same “point” a trillion times more while standing on your head and it would make no difference.”
There we have it, ladies & gentlemen; Victor the climate science denier.
Victor: – “There was no sign of any meaningful temperature rise over a period of 40 years, while CO2 levels were rising significantly.”
And yet per Copernicus Climate Change Service (3CS), in their latest update titled Surface air temperature for September 2023, indicate otherwise.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-september-2023
3CS includes graphs, for the period 1979 through Sep 2023 (i.e. 44 years & 9 months), for:
* Monthly global surface air temperature anomalies; and
* Monthly European surface air temperature anomalies.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/ftp-data/temperature/2023/09/ERA5_1991-2020/ts_1month_anomaly_Global_ERA5_2t_202309_1991-2020_v01.1.png
…clearly showing trends of “meaningful temperature rise”. But what would 3CS know, aye Victor?
Over a similar period (i.e. mid-1979 through 2022), NOAA provides a graph of Global Monthly Mean CO₂.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_all_gl.png
Or see the YouTube animation titled Carbon dioxide pumphandle – 2022, showing a history of atmospheric CO₂, from 800,000 years ago until January 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7jKxO4nKZc
Victor: – “It will always be possible to find some additional consideration that explains away just about any problem to support a favored hypothesis.”
Meanwhile, September 2023 was the warmest September on record globally, with a global-mean surface air temperature of 16.38°C according to the ERA5 dataset.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/era5_global_sfc_temp_30_warmest_months.png
September 2023 had a temperature +1.75°C relative to the 1850-1900 average baseline.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/t2m_time_series_era5_all_month9_wrt_1850-1900.png
Victor: – “Needless to say, without evidence for warming during the 40 years in question, there is NO basis for establishing a long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.”
The scientific evidence/data is clearly there, Victor. I’d suggest you simply refuse to accept anything that conflicts with your “no warming” narrative.
To all and everyone here about Victor
I must say it about him behind his back pointing at him, as he is not adressable the polite and civilized way at his shiny side,….
……. seeming hardly aware also that such manners are quite undignified and betraying, causing also his employer and owner a lot of mis- credit.
Victor teaches: that
“…There is NO basis for establishing a long term co- relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.”
As far as I can see, The Tyndall experiment by doubble channel measuremen of IR absorption in common air from 100 Celsius boiling water tenmperature from a brass (?) cube with 4 alternative radiating sides, silvered, 9olden , painted with “Husblas” that is clear colourless gelatine, and black sooted…..
……through a gas coloumn and onto a termopile , copper iron termoelectric scientific device recently invented… and a same radiating device onto the opposite termopile side for zero blank reference comparision and difference signal, …… and into the recently invented extreemly sensitive mirror galvanometer……..
……….If that galvanometer is set to zero and reacts repeatedly and consequently to the addition of traces allready of certain fameous natural gases such as H2O, CO2 and CH4….
……….then we can draw a certain conclusion by which Victors teaching is flawed allready by Tyndall 1860.
Given that we are also able to resign on denying and fighting the nature of heat as shownn by Lavoisier and repeated by Lord Kelvin to The Royal Society. Fitghting this will be frighting the boiling point of water, Herschels discovery of Infrared light, Thermjoelectricity by bi- metal couples, and H.C.Ørsteds electromagnetism!
I repeat….!
Victor seems not aware of all that he is denying or have not yet learnt, or quite more plausible, is simply giving a damn to.
Which is quite betraying, unpolite and personally disqualifying..
Such snobbish manners reminds me first of all of national progressive pioneering socialists, who were able to teach that elemjentyary basic emjpirical experimental critical design is misconsceived and irrelevant and not scientific…..because it is only peoples group- speach and supersticions, political propaganda , even “Religion..” smile smile………… thus to be etnically eradicated by the pioneers..
Victor is placing himself and his very teachings and behaviours in that political category with its sharply drilled progressive propaganda. Demonstrating further adult certificates and exam.,diploma on the Party quote as we know it from before. .
And as for the aerosols and coalsmokes and acid rains, the large regional smoggy situations worldwide for 40 years from 1940 to 1980,… for how long did that fameous situatuion hang in the air,?What caused it? And what cleared it up quite a bit at least here where I live? As we were fully hydroelectric in those days. And why was french heavens and airs quite more clean and blue and clouds were white,… than Germany Sachsen Böhmen and Polen continuously for all those years?
( Answer: Closer to the sea and waymore nuclear power No massive burning of lignite for open chimneys in france)
Medical Propolis from the bee hives was tar black in Northern Germany. Here it was brick red and yellow ocker. …….
……. and he is teaching us for argument that aerosols when formed are remaining in the airs only for days or weeks.
Another symptom of progressive political upbringing and sharp religious drill is blatant lack of conscepts of time and of material reality and budgets, and active dialectics against the same. .
Victor: – “Needless to say, without evidence for warming during the 40 years in question, there is NO basis for establishing a long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.”
Rinse rather repeat over and over again.
Victor the troll a musicologist with no formal training in the physical sciences or statistics who refuses to learn a damn thing yet has claimed for years that he knows more than all those highly trained intelligent individuals that actually have expertise. For the trillionth time, he has no clue what constitutes correlation. Victor needs to crawl back into the hole he’s been hiding in for the last several months and STFU.
Victor is no musicologist, not even on balalaika. That must be heavy metal. Victor is having all the wind instruments, pnevmatic oscillators against him here.
Where are the percussions and the superstrings?
Geoff Miell says:
Victor: – “There was no sign of any meaningful temperature rise over a period of 40 years, while CO2 levels were rising significantly.”
And yet per Copernicus Climate Change Service (3CS), in their latest update titled Surface air temperature for September 2023, indicate otherwise.
V: You’ve entirely missed the point. I was referring to the 40 year period from 1940-1979, when temperatures initially fell dramatically and then levelled off, with no sign of any warming trend, despite the significant rise in CO2 levels during that time. If Arrhenius’ theory were correct, global temperatures would have climbed along with CO2 levels during that period — but they did not. The theory was therefore falsified. Once a theory is falsified, that’s it. You cannot reinstate it based on what happened after it had been falsified — that’s called “moving the goal posts.” While it’s widely assumed that any rise in global temperatures must be due to CO2, that’s ALL it is — an assumption.
Victor: – “V: You’ve entirely missed the point. I was referring to the 40 year period from 1940-1979, when temperatures initially fell dramatically and then levelled off, with no sign of any warming trend, despite the significant rise in CO2 levels during that time.”
Still regurgitating long-debunked myths, aye Victor? From a NewScientist article published on 16 May 2007 (more than 16 years ago) headlined Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO₂ does not cause warming, beginning with:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
See also Figure 25 (on page 39) in the Hansen et. al. pre-print paper titled Global warming in the pipeline, version 3 (dated 23 May 2023), showing the global mean temperature relative to 1880-1920, from 1880 through 2022, plus an outlook through to 2050 with post-2010 accelerated warming rate of 0.27 to 0.36 °C per decade.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474.pdf
And here was Victor a little earlier in this thread (at 5 OCT 2023 AT 11:17 AM), bold text my emphasis:
Victor, the climate science denier, regurgitator of climate myths, and denier of reality.
Geoff Miell. Well said, but Victor has already been told about the reasons for the flat period of temperatures mid last century a hundred times over the last 5 years or so, and it doesn’t seem to register. I put him in the well educated stubborn crank category.
nigelj: – “Well said, but Victor has already been told about the reasons for the flat period of temperatures mid last century a hundred times over the last 5 years or so, and it doesn’t seem to register.”
Thanks. I have no doubt Victor has been “told” numerous times.
I don’t respond to Victor for his benefit.
I respond (hopefully) for the benefit of others (who may not be as well informed) who may read it.
I do wonder why the moderators at this blog allow Victor to continue to regurgitate the same old climate science denial, long-debunked climate myths and denial of reality – in reference to the blog Comment Policy:
https://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/comment-policy/
nigelj: – “I put him in the well educated stubborn crank category.”
The descriptors “willfully ignorant” comes to my mind.
V: I was referring to the 40 year period from 1940-1979, when temperatures initially fell dramatically and then levelled off, with no sign of any warming trend, despite the significant rise in CO2 levels during that time. If Arrhenius’ theory were correct, global temperatures would have climbed along with CO2 levels during that period — but they did not. The theory was therefore falsified.
BPL: Nope. You are attacking a straw man. Nobody ever said CO2 was the ONLY influence on temperature. You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Repeat after me:
Other things also influence temperature.
Other things also influence temperature.
Other things also influence temperature.
Keep repeating it until it sinks in.
Obviously the warming signal is what did not happen, which was a 30-year cooling trend that removed the energy the earth store up during the 30-year warning trend caused by a natural cycle from 1910 to 1940. That’s what 60-year natural cycles do: 30-years up; 30-years down; 30-years up; 30-years down: 30-years up; 30-years down: etc.
BPL: You’re assuming CO2 is the only thing that affects temperature. It is not. We have made this point to you about a trillion times already. Seriously, stop the straw man arguments.
V: You could make the same “point” a trillion times more while standing on your head and it would make no difference.
BPL: Not to you, no. Evidence isn’t going to change your mind. Nothing will.
You meet Winston Churchill’s definition of a fanatic: a man who will not change his mind, and will not change the subject.
Bochow and Boers investigate direct human caused changes to surface heat flux partitioning and the associated climate regime shifts.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add9973
Persistent soil moisture deficit is simulated as a 40% reduction of the evapotranspiration and a 40% increase in the sensible heat.
It is endorsed by Dr Dessler
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1710769212489191737
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk5670
Geoff Miell,
Your comments up thread on M Mann.
I’m inclined to agree with you that Mann should acknowledge that there is no realistic possibility of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees (because of the lack of time left, the economics, the state of the technology, and the lack of political will and the aerosols issue. )
I disagree with you that 2 degrees is “baked in” and I suspect so would most scientists. I don’t believe that level of warming is baked in and I think we have enough time left to dramatically reduce emissions, and enough technology and there is a chance people will get more motivated.
Being very pessimistic about keeping warming under 2 degrees is also not helpful because believe me if we say 2 degrees is baked in at this stage, all mitigation of any consequence will all be dead. People will just give up completely. You have to hang onto to SOME level of hope to motivate people.
My understanding is Mann promotes the usual IPCC prescription of mitigation strategies of renewable energy, electric transport and negative emissions technologies and of meeting paris accords goals of net zero by 2050. I’m ok with that. Its a very ambitious goal but I believe its still achievable.
Regarding your article climate code red on “reduce, remove, repair”. Getting back to preindustrial levels of CO2, and the holocence climate is an interesting idea. We could call it the safest option I guess. However the 1 degree of warming thus far is unlikely to cause us massive problems, and I did read a couple of studies somewhere that it has stopped or greatly diminished the severity of the next ice age. We should probably give that some consideration.
Remember the global climate does fluctuate for natural reasons. Trying to achieve a perfectly stable climate is probably a fantasy dream on multiple levels. I think the goal should be to 1) avoid our civilisation causing RAPID rates of climate change and 2)avoid our civilisation causing the climate slipping into a completely new state like some type of subtropical hothouse earth. And if we could avoid another ice age or reduce the severity it would be nice.. Just my opinion of course.
However your statements that 1.5 degrees is baked in, does seem contradicted by your promotion of reduce remove repair that would get us back to a pre industrial level of CO2 and a holocence climate. So which is it?
BPL: Evidence isn’t going to change your mind.
V: What evidence did you have in mind, Bart?
Geoff Miell says
Victor: – “V: You’ve entirely missed the point. I was referring to the 40 year period from 1940-1979, when temperatures initially fell dramatically and then levelled off, with no sign of any warming trend, despite the significant rise in CO2 levels during that time.”
Still regurgitating long-debunked myths, aye Victor? From a NewScientist article published on 16 May 2007 (more than 16 years ago) headlined Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO₂ does not cause warming, beginning with:
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
V: We’ve gone over this before. As I’ve demonstrated, there was NO sign of any underlying warming trend in several remote regions where industrial aerosols were unlikely to have had much of an effect. See http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
Note the phrase “appears to have been” in the above quote. The aerosol theory is an assumption, not a fact supported by evidence.
Continuing with the same quote:
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases.
V: From the same blog: “If SO2 aerosols indeed have a cooling effect strong enough to counter the greenhouse warming alleged for CO2 during the years 1940-1979, then we would expect the growing volume of such aerosols in Asia [where “clean air” controls were not implemented until much later] to continue the same cooling trend well into the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Is that in fact the case? Let’s look: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674927810500029-gr1.jpg
This graph is taken from a paper titled “Comparative Analysis of China Surface Air Temperature Series for the Past 100 Years,” by Guoli Tang et al. It is labeled Figure 1 and depicts temperature anomalies for 5 different data sets measuring Chinese surface air temperatures. What we see looks very similar to the worldwide data that’s been so widely disseminated. Clearly, temperatures in China have not abated due to the increasingly high levels of SO2 pollution produced by their many coal burning plants during this entire period.”
Just “no.” For just one relatively recent example:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809518315096
The “aerosol theory” to which I referred is the theory that industrial aerosols masked an underlying worldwide warming trend over a 40 year period. The article you’ve linked us to provides evidence of various types of aerosol cooling (and warming) in various locations, such as north India and Russia. None of the evidence presented in this paper treats any of the issues I’ve raised. And of course industrial aerosols have a cooling effect (in the regions where they are produced), I’ve never claimed otherwise.
Here’s the only reference to global warming I could find in this paper:
“The atmospheric aerosol is generally assumed to contribute to “global dimming”, defined as the decrease of direct solar radiation arriving at the Earth’s surface, producing a cooling effect that can mask the global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases.”
Note the word “assumed.” No actual evidence of such an effect is presented.
Well, perhaps you should be a little clearer in the first place. “The aerosol theory” clearly isn’t adequate to describe what you intended.
As to your quote and the conclusions you draw, I’m afraid it’s yet another example of you cherry-picking. As a reminder, your conclusion was:
You’re apparently intending to cast doubt on the idea that aerosols can cool global temperature via dimming–although this would appear to be at odds with your “I’ve never claimed otherwise.” However, the case studies demonstrate the predominantly cooling effects of all three types of aerosols studied. (See figure 6, particularly panels c, f, and i.) The literature discussed in the paper also “presents evidence” that this aerosol cooling mechanism is very real.
The novel aspect of the paper is the point that for extremely high albedos, this cooling effect can switch sign–logical, since if the aerosols are less reflective than the surface beneath them–ice is the prime example–then the net change in energy absorbed will be positive. It doesn’t happen all that much, as their Figure 6 shows, but it does happen. That is what the “assumed” is referring to–not some imputed doubt about whether aerosols do in general cool.
Which brings us to the last part of the argument: the global versus local effects. Since the areas of albedo more reflective than 0.5 are relatively scarce, there is good reason given in this paper to believe that, indeed, “global dimming” is a real effect. Yes, aerosols are spatially inhomogenous; but the the atmosphere is a mixing bowl, and heat advects.
To all and everyone
About Vitor behind his back since he is immune from the other side. Pity.
Is anything on moove here on Victor?
Victor seems to have been slighty shocked by an element that was tgo be ignored / denied. Sulphur.
Now he is shocked and forced to mention SO2. He will also deny that.
Sulphur in all its 8 oxidation states from sulphide to sulphate is another vital and very common element in the universe.
No life without sulphur. giving also fascinating and fameous phaenomena in the solar system all the way from the sunscraper comets in vacuum, via the Venerian atmosphere to moon and Mars with huge sediments of dirty Gypsum or stucca CaSO4 .2H2O gining high hopes for water reserves there. Then at Ceres obvious eruptions in Vacuum of strong brine with bathing salt Glaubersalz CaSO4 .6 H2O. And then Io , the sulphur- planet cycling around Jupiter. there we see Yellow and brown elementary sulphur and blue sulphur flame plasma from the volcanoes.
No serious planetary astronomy without Sulphur being discussed, Levenson. Yiou are failing there also..
The stink- bomb experiment every year in orderloy schools and highschoolas tells us that rather Science is being shown and learnt. S +Fe is fused to FeS, and then given some drops of thin HCl.
That gives H2S in the classroom and all over the school every year.
But I have found an even better method Mix choisest harzes and solid turpenes and collophonium , with sulphur in a testtube and heat that carefully. It gives Mercaptanes in the classrooms as if the Devil has made in his pants and laid rotting for 5 weeks.
Then remember “Greek fire” believed to have been inferiour to gunpowder. But it is chemical warfare. Maybe by a copper barrel or “Discos” with choisest tars mixed with elementary sulphur and some Salpeter to make it glow and smoke slowly from inside . Thrown in over the town walls.
“Greek fire” intelligently introduced ,… could demoralize a whole besieged city at war,
And further today by the same greek recepy, a whole classroom of teachers on setting your behavioral grades. behind closed doors is de- moralized. .
But for normal and in civil life, Sulphur Sulphates choisest Thiols and Mercaptanes are also quite healthy. It is Garlic and Mustards, strong and sharp cabbage, Horseradish and Scurvy weeds, further important medicines but also strong poisons.
Whereas CO2 is working together with H2O in the longwave light IR area, , sulphur rather works together with oxygen and free radical catalysts in the shortwave UV area giving the white clouds and photochemical smogs in the 6th oxidation state of sulphur to which it is brought by shortwave sunshine.
SO3 and sulphur in its sixth oxidation state is quite extreemly hygroscopic . whereas CO2 is not. The H2CO3 molecule hardly exists in the universe whereas H2SO4 does indeed.
SO2 and CO2 into the atmosphere is working in opposite direction.
Stinky mercaptane & aromats nostalgic Kerosene for routine fuel in the worlds fleet of longrange jetliners, the Aeroflot- method, makes “chemtrails” that can settle the global warming rather soon.
It has been suggested for serious.
Correcture Bittersalz Bating- salt, epsom- salt is magnesiumsulphate. MgSO4 . 7H2O.
To everyones surprize, brilliant white dashes of it on Ceres,.
Victor says
“From the same blog: “If SO2 aerosols indeed have a cooling effect strong enough to counter the greenhouse warming alleged for CO2 during the years 1940-1979, then we would expect the growing volume of such aerosols in Asia [where “clean air” controls were not implemented until much later] to continue the same cooling trend well into the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Is that in fact the case? Let’s look:”
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674927810500029-gr1.jpg
The clean air controls in China were not introduced “much later” than western countries. Western countries started to phase in controls on sulphate aerosols during the early 1980’s. China actually first introduced controls on sulphate aerosol emissions in 1987:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083421
By 1990 these scrubber devices to remove aerosols had started to have some significant impact on reducing aerosols.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/11/931/2011/acp-11-931-2011.pdf
In 2006 – 2007 there was a big push to fit more scrubbers to clean up remaining aerosol problems.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b901357c
This easily helps explain why warming in China started to increase in around the 1990s in the graph posted, becoming significant around 2000, and generally following the increasing global warming trend after that to 2022 as per ythe graph.
It’s likely other Asian countries like Japan followed a similar trend but I picked China because of its size and contribution.
And the temperature trend in China is not influenced only by sulphate aerosols. Higher global concentrations of CO2 over time since the 1980s also create stronger warming effect making it easier to overwhelm aerosol effects.
There will be local effects on warming in China from other factors. as well. The point is there will not be a perfect correlation in China between when aerosol controls were introduced and warming trend. . But there is clearly a relationship between fitting controls to aerosols and resumption of a warming trend.
I get that Victor doesn’t take statements by scientists at face value and likes to check things and thats good. But Victors scepticism about aerosols and also the correlation between CO2 and warming is crazy, and ignores an obvious mountain of evidence staring him in the face! I think he knows this and is just trolling.
“I get that Victor doesn’t take statements by scientists at face value and likes to check things and thats good. But Victors scepticism about aerosols and also the correlation between CO2 and warming is crazy, and ignores an obvious mountain of evidence staring him in the face! I think he knows this and is just trolling.”
You cannot convince a man of the truth of something when his identity/ego demands it is false. Humans are primarily driven by emotion, not logic.
Adam Lea: – “You cannot convince a man of the truth of something when his identity/ego demands it is false.”
Upton Sinclair reportedly said:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair
And some just like being contrary, to gain attention/notoriety.
Enjoy the classic Monty Python’s Flying Circus Argument Clinic sketch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc
Adam Lea: – “Humans are primarily driven by emotion, not logic.”
Until reality bites…
ICYMI/FYI, posted at Climate Code Red on Oct 18 was a piece by David Spratt headlined One swallow doesn’t make a Spring, so do a few super-warm months mean global warming has really hit 1.5°C? It included a reference to the latest communication by James Hansen & colleagues:
https://www.climatecodered.org/2023/10/one-swallow-doesnt-make-spring-so-has.html
According to a study by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the number of large, simultaneous wildfires in the western US is going to increase.
Gavin or any climate professional: Where can I find mean figures for cloud albedo in the visual and near-infrared? I’ve been trying Google Scholar, but almost all the publications seem to be about determining the effect of pollution on cloud albedo, without explicitly giving figures for cloud albedo. I would like to be able to say cloud albedo globally averages 0.5 in the visual and 0.3 in the near-infrared, or something of that sort. Can anyone point me to a source?
Levenson
Excuse me for interfering.
I recommend you and everyone to clear up their conscepts of Abedo first.
Not everything is thermic planc spectra, and not every surface has got a uniform continuous albedo emission/ absorbance/reflection spectrum . Not everything is black and white and grey. diffuse reflecting / eitting or mirroring.
Albedo meaning whiteness ignoring red yellow, green, grey and blueness, is unqualified.
The green look from the side into a sheet of common soda glass is due to a snip of its IR absorbance further a bit into deep red visible light. And due to the absorbance of Fe++ in the glass. By addition of Mg++ so called “glass soap, that gives rather the complimentary colour purple to the gloass, it looks clean white, but spectrophotometry will show rather greyness.
The glass oven looks high orange hot inside, the liquid glass takenn out is only deep red hot when seen in a dark room. But sand particles inside of that trans lucent molten glass radiates the same high orange hot.
Explain…..
Such basic physics must be understood in the planetary sciences first, before you can discuss “albedo”
Whereas Freshmen in the climate and on the planets have not yet learnt all theese and similar things.
Barton —- Alas, as pointed out even in
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_albedo
the albedo varies significantly with cloud properties.. Not clear what a global average could usefully indicate. However….
The earliest attempts to determine global albedo were studies of moonshine. Later studies used satellite data. All indicate remarkable stability of global albedo for the past many decades.
Unfortunately I don’t recall where I left any links to the papers I found. Hope this helps anyway….
Barton, the last post on
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background?page=1&scrollTo=9114
contains the 2 links related to global albedo that I found. Hope this is of some help to you.
Levenson
Might I perhaps help you, as you seem unaquainted to measurement and quantification theory and engineering and scientific praxis.
If you could only jack down.
You are asking for albedo and data for it, in visible and near infrared, as if it was a reliable magnitude that can be had from the experts and tipped into your routine toy for all the supreme freshmen & dilettabnts that are performing “Science” on your own level.
I can withness for you that I have met with the same situation a few times..
I was exploring into oscillating air inside tubes with holes. , and had first examined it by microphone and RC couppled oscilloscope that gives a clean pure ring for a sinus, and anything but sinus inside there in reality.
I found wild snakes and dragons see https://Urnesstil biting themselves in the tail, dancing dynamically steadily quite centrally in the green, fruitful meadows of the empirical matematical faculty of research into Nature. With loops and extraloops in steady configuration.
That round glassy screen oscilloscope RC- couppledv being actually the cristal ball of the 20ieth century having come up with a lot of further futuristic things, fruitful and appliciable.
,Supremely elevated above all, so- called classical physics , As natural and as real as can be.
Beat that!
And heard the same. down into detail with my own naked ears. .
Conscious audical and perhaps also musically enlighted mind is a really very advanced and sensitive oscilloscope.
Which is believeable, and not supersticious. .Darvin will sustain it. The Pope has also come over to our side in recent time. Science must come after.
Human and even animal ideal and conscious presception of sound and language down into tiny meaningful details under very dirty tricky conditions also, is quite vital. In order to get the possible meaning. What is it? What is it about? What does it mean?
As for instance all through stoneage and in Paradise,,…..What kind of monster, what kind of dragon/ snake / bird possible danger , possible friiend, possible prey is that? Species pleace, and how large. Just by listening carefully because it may be night or behindv your back. . The sound LOGOS in complex systems.
Then I went to the library of physics, and to my great surprize I found hardly anything about it. I found 2 meters of Keyeboards, 1 foot of strings and violins, and only 1 1/2 inch of wind instruments, pnevmatic oscillators. All of which I could disqualify in only one and a half week It does not represent reality of musical sound as we find it initially, using rather scientific facultary observatiuonal methods.
Ifound it discussed by scolarly dilettants as Newtons craddle. The absolute mass point praticle Psi daising Sinus in the absolutely straight cylinder, assumed to be . classic mechanical linear elasticity
.
The oscilloscope tells us that it simply aint not and cannot possibly be so, as the partials are elastically coherenht phase- coupple and oscillate without beating and expand dynamically on changed current. It is rather a coherent and viscous system with gluefrorces, van der waalsforces, in empty air and not sticking onto dry classical solid material surfaces.
The solustion was to disqualify that very false physical model conscepts with its false ideas of matter, and rather analyse and design it as we analyse design and discuss a complex radio- oscillator, a radar clystron for instance. It sounds as well in the jugs and in the beer bottles,
That absolutely straight cyloinder and air being a sandstorm with spiral springs between the grains is deeply misconsceived and supersticious, from pre-microphonical and pre- oscilloscopical time.
Wherefore healthy science and engineering use the windunnel and the ships model tank.
Your “Albedo” is such a “Psi” a magnitude or Operator, “that may be complex….smiloe smile…” but that hardly exists, just in order to save and secure a falsely chosen EXPERIMENTAL ARCHETYP ( read desktop experiment) of what it is about.
You will end up in a thornehenge on the coimputer if you take it for physicaloly real and set on it and count on it As it also came for all those who set on the obscure complex mass point patrticke “psi” daising sinus in the absolute spiral spring
It aint not white
It aint not grey either.
It aint not even black…
It is what it is, ja hå va hå. JHVH.
It aint not linear elasticity the module of elasticity has got no constant value in space at 100 decibel and above. It oscillates rather as an air molecule. and not as a “psi”.
Look after the better “take” on it and then you may get it.
I managed In Duci Jubilo quartet taken out of empty air by chopped firewood and free handed welded irons in 4-5 years by the better “take”.
Set on the chladni experiment the oscilloscope the sond microphone and the flutefish by finger and ear measurement insted and not on “Psi” and Albedo in the mega- gigabyte computer.s
Your “scolarly” basic para- meters may be rotten in space and not phaenomenologically congruent.
See that your basic PARA-METERS are real and phaenomenologically AD-EQVATe first.
And be aware alol the time that you may be approaching it from the wrong side and from an inferiour, supersticious, or obsolete, set / religion of learning and enlightment
There are many histories from science history of people who suddenloy took it simply by another and better “take” on it.
Look especially after your own EXPERIMENTAL ARCHETYPS, your basic desktop experiments and hypnotizing representative artificial model- toy daises & adult professional methods.
What is it really? What is it about? Has it got anything to do with empty air in bright daylight and at a light bright moonlight night, with more or less common Nephelai day and night?
They deny atmospheric back radiation and call it “against the 2nd law” having never been shown diffuse reflection by the snowball lamp experimental archetype in the darkness.
In addition to that you must also know Helmholz theory of colour vision Goethes Farbenlehre, together with elementary Bunsen Kirchoff spectrometry and spectroscopy. And the thermophile with frequency filters, pyr- geometry.
Your albedo theory from 500 to 2000 nanometer looks to me as a rather rotten conscept like soundspeed being constant in space so that the particle psi and the linear elastic air sauuseage psevdo spiral spring rocking pure Sinus in the absolute cylinder with gliding coefficients and end correctures can be scientific smile smile.
Those people did all swear officially to something that they called “classical physics” and never delivered any functioning music acoustical device and could block and keep back a whole field of research and throw dirt on reputation and credibility of science as such. . . They were unaquainted to matter and to nature in any responsible facultary way and were anonymeously “peer rewiewing” what was sent in to their periodicals.
We have them here again as surrealists and denialists. The Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät.The snobbish systematic inaugurated knowitalls in charge.
nigelj: The clean air controls in China were not introduced “much later” than western countries. Western countries started to phase in controls on sulphate aerosols during the early 1980’s. China actually first introduced controls on sulphate aerosol emissions in 1987
V: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_wY4IdJRPHE/WwOiXEeiFWI/AAAAAAAABSE/yDID4wQKU2UsVRbleKwJ8dBc530Wboa2ACLcBGAs/s1600/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes.png
See also: https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution-does-it-get-worse-before-it-gets-better
As is evident from the graph, emissions in Asia continued to rise while those in the Americas and Europe fell.
Victor,
“As is evident from the graph, emissions in Asia continued to rise while those in the Americas and Europe fell.”
Correct, but judging by the graph, total quantities of SO2 emissions in Asia were well below Europes or the Americas for the entire period 1900 – 2010 including after levels fell in Europe around 1980. So Asia’s SO2 emissions were never enough to suppress the warming. Its that simple.
@ Nigelj & al
about Victor & al behind his back as he is not adressible from his shiny side.
That graph ” ourworldindata.org…” is very informative showing a clear fall in summa summarum of about more than a third since 1980, of sulphur.
But, as he has been teaching, it does not go wide and it falls down in a few days to maximum 2 weeks.
so we have not understood this.
Burnt elementary sulphur S + O2 -> SO2 is antique related to Vulcanos. where it is found. further related to smoking Hell and Satans workshops. .
SO2 in the air is especially toxic to mould and microbes. and was used in the wine- barrels for desinfection. I have also seen it recommended by routine for killing bee- hives.
SO2 dissolves in caustic waters giving sulphite, that is another frameous remedy for “Yeast- stop!” in the wineries and breweries.
Smoking early metal industries where sulphide ores were “roasted”, MeS + 3/2 O2 -> MeO + SO2 did have very fameous environmental impacts further around. The landscapes died as if Vulcanos or Satan was operating there.
Sulphite spray and even burning of sulphur is a fameous method against mould and paracites in the ftuit and wineyards.
Elementary sulphur is a chosmetic powder ever since Cleopatra and the old Pharaos. I have seen it for serious in quite recent time against Akne and Impetigo skin disease.
Then be aware of S + NaOH + xH2O heated in a terttube and diluted. It gives polysulphide and thiosulphate solution . With a mild acid then, the reaction is reversible and you get a suspension of allmost white, elementary sulphur, so called sulphur- milk. If the water is only mild, non- toxic acid then, you can spray it on the plants against mildew, that is a fungus.
Conclusion:
Sulphur is quite a remedy you see, and in all its oxidation states, no life on the plantets without sulphur, no Hell either, and no qualified Pharmacy. How often do I have to repeat that.
So we cannot have the Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät to rule and teach over our sulphurs and sulphides and sulphates, sulfitts, polysulphides and thiosulphates here.
Both GISTEMP and NOAA have reported for September with the expected “scochyisimooo!!!!! and unlike the UAH TLT September anomaly, both GISTEMP & NOAA were literally “off the graph” when I plotted them. The numbers below are GISTEMP. NOAA are pretty-much the same.
The increase of Sept 2023 above all previous monthly anomalies is about half that seen in UAH TLT or the ERA5 SAT re-analysis. (Large increases in this all-month maximum anomaly are previously associated with El Niños etc.) Of the nine 2023 months-to-date, four feature in this top-ten with a fifth (June 2023) down in 20th spot.
Top Ten all-month anomalies
1st .. 2023 … … 9 … … +1.47ºC
2nd .. 2016 … … 2 … … +1.36ºC
3rd .. 2016 … … 3 … … +1.35ºC
4th .. 2020 … … 2 … … +1.24ºC
5th .. 2023 … … 3 … … +1.20ºC
6th .. 2023 … … 8 … … +1.19ºC
7th .. 2023 … … 7 … … +1.18ºC
8th .. 2016 … … 1 … … +1.17ºC
9th .. 2020 … … 3 … … +1.17ºC
10th . 2019 … … 3 … … +1.17ºC
The increase of Sept 2023 above previous Septembers matches UAH & ERA5. To put this in context, the increase above all previous GISTEMP Septembers is roughly four-times larger than any previous such increase.
Highest previous September anomalies
33rd .. 2020 … … 9 … … +0.98ºC
49th .. 2022 … … 9 … … +0.92ºC
49th .. 2021 … … 9 … … +0.92ºC
59th .. 2016 … … 9 … … +0.90ºC
62nd .. 2022 … … 9 … … +0.89ºC
To prevent 2023 becoming the warmest calendar year on record, the average anomaly Oct-Dec would have to average below a chilly +0.76ºC, something which hasn’t been seen since 2014. And with October almost half-gone, the Uni of Maine Daily SAT Tracker still showing the continuing “scorchyisimooo!!!!”, there is still no sign of any Autumn chills.
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2023 .. +1.10ºC
2016 .. +1.05ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.04ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 9th
nigelj:
Victor,
“As is evident from the graph, emissions in Asia continued to rise while those in the Americas and Europe fell.”
Correct, but judging by the graph, total quantities of SO2 emissions in Asia were well below Europes or the Americas for the entire period 1900 – 2010 including after levels fell in Europe around 1980. So Asia’s SO2 emissions were never enough to suppress the warming. Its that simple.
V: Take another look at this graph of Chinese temperatures since 1870: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674927810500029-gr1.jpg
See the big dip from 1945-1955? See also no sign of temperature rise afterward, until the mid 80’s? So if aerosol emissions in China were “never enough to suppress the warming” after the mid 80’s, then how were they enough to suppress the warming prior to the mid 80’s?
Jonny: Sorry Ms. Jones — the dog ate my homework.
Teacher: But Jonny, according to your mother, the dog was staying with your grandma all week.
Jonny: Well, I went to visit my grandma the other day.
Teacher: But Jonny, your grandma said you didn’t visit her at all that week.
Jonny: Well, she was taking a nap when I went over there.
Teacher: But Jonny, her housekeeper didn’t see you there either.
Jonny: Well, her housekeeper must have been upstairs cleaning when I was there.
Teacher: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Victor,
“So if aerosol emissions in China were “never enough to suppress the warming” after the mid 80’s, then how were they enough to suppress the warming prior to the mid 80’s?”
I would say the flat period of temperatures in Asia from about 1945 – 1980 is due to Asias sulphate aerosol emissions (in the graph) PLUS aerosols from North America and Europe migrating to Asia, making total aerosol loading in Asia very significant enough to suppress anthropogenic warming (which was quite weak at that time anyway).
As previously explained with studies quoted, aerosols can travel a significant distance. and still have some effect. Maybe not right around the world but definitely from N America and eastern parts of Europe to Asia for example.
Then we come to the period on your graph 1980 – 2010 where aerosol emissions were still lower in Asia than Europe or N America, and as aerosols fell in N America and Europe fewer would have migrated to Asia, , so warming continued in Asia over the period 1980 – 2010.
You’re thought provoking sometimes, but for me the flat period of temperatures mid last century both globally and in Asia is thus adequately explained by industrial aerosols and trends in volcanic activity as per the published studies on the subject. I see no reason to be sceptical about any of that theory, even if we don’t have every last detail 100% sorted out.
Part of the issue here is Victor’s framing, which is that aerosol forcings must always be exclusively local. It’s true, of course, that tropospheric aerosols have a pretty limited lifetime, and can therefore only advect so far before raining out, settling out, or just dispersing. And yes, that means that there is a lot of spatial inhomogeneity in direct aerosol forcings–amply demonstrated in the study I linked, as well as in the preceding literature on the topic, much of which was cited and discussed in that study.
However, thermal energy doesn’t rain out or settle out. It does, though, very much ‘disperse.’ So, if the average global albedo increases or decreases sufficiently, one should expect a global thermodynamic effect. A decrease in insolation was empirically detected decades ago; here’s a review article from 2001:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168192300002410
Since the early 80s, though, the trend has–or at least, had in 2014–largely reversed:
https://iac.ethz.ch/group/climate-and-water-cycle/research/radiation-and-the-hydrological-cycle/global-dimming-and-brightening.html
That, of course, was the view based on surface trends. But there’s also the view from above the atmosphere. This is more recent work (2021):
https://iac.ethz.ch/group/climate-and-water-cycle/research/radiation-and-the-hydrological-cycle/global-dimming-and-brightening.html
So that implies a reinforcement of GHE-induced warming–though it’s possible that the albedo effects are wholly or in part a consequence of warming, in which case they are a feedback mechanism.
V: Teacher: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
BPL: Stop misusing that. It refers to choosing the simpler explanation that covers all the facts. It never refers to always making things as simple as possible even if you leave out crucial information. That’s not Occam’s Razor. That’s stupidity.
BP,
From Brittanica:
“Philosophers usually conceive of Occam’s razor in terms of two kinds of simplicity: syntactic and ontological. Syntactic simplicity refers to the elegance of a theory, meaning that the theory itself is concise, relying on fewer assumptions than other theories. By contrast, ontological parsimony refers to the object a theory is trying to explain, specifically the object’s simplicity as a phenomenon.”
As is often the case, the question here is: “What’s the question?”
If someone asked me why the GMST does not correlate precisely with CO2 over the entire extent of the time series, my response would be: “Why should it?”
(Of course, zebra’s-troll-test tells us that I would not get an answer.)
The consensus is that CO2 increases the energy in the (complex, chaotic) climate system, and thereby results in changes. If you reject that, then it is necessary to create new entities to explain the changes that we do observe.
So Ockham would say the current consensus is the best Theory to pursue… that’s how the Razor is practically applied in science. The issue is not simply simplicity, but that the new entities are not established. You work with what you already know works.
It appears that in Victor’s very simple world, neither aerosols nor heat can spread from one place to another effectively. The wind doesn’t blow, and the seas are made of jello.
As Kevin M. noted “Yes, aerosols are spatially inhomogenous; but the the atmosphere is a mixing bowl, and heat advects.”
Victor, IMO there are likely to be several reasons for the flat temperatures in Asia in the middle of last century despite their relatively low levels of aerosols emissions over that period.
Firstly aerosol migration into Asia from other areas.
Secondly, adjacent air masses at different temperatures can influence each other.
Thirdly as I mentioned before air parcels at a particular temperature in a particular region can move long distances due to such things as the jet stream winds, trade winds and Hadley Cell circulations. So essentially relatively cooler air in regions with strong aerosol emissions like America and Europe moves to areas like Asia. Things mix together. Thus every region ended up with roughly similar flat temperatures mid last century.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/current-jet-stream-polar-front-causes-direction.html
https://scijinks.gov/trade-winds/
https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/hadley.html
However there is also some local variation in the global warming trend. For example arctic has warmed faster than other regions because the heat tends to get trapped in that region.
More woeful news for Arctic warming deniers:
The northern limit of winemaking is closing in on the Arctic Circle in Noway and elsewhere :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/10/come-for-wine-stay-for-skiing.html
Ladies and Gentlemen
On wineries and breweries.
For climate proxies there are 2 species that should especially not be chosen for proof and proxies of climate. Those 2 species are Vitis vinifera and Hordeum vulgare, both coming from Mt Ararat in Kurdistan, and brought further to worldwide and cared for by quite especially fanatic and religious artificial human interests.
I repeat….!
For botanic signals and climate proxies, chose especially traditional and guaranteed wild local species that seed out and grow without human help.
“But… the Vikings grew “Corn ” on east Grønland and they grew wine in England in the warmj mideival period……… smile smile!” is betraying fanatic bullshit. Wine has been grown in England continously ever since the Romans were there, and King Henry VIII noted himself for 9 royal vineyards in Kent in the little ice age.
The art of it is choisest and special artificial cultivars, and …. agriculural and gardening knowledge and art of making artificial microclimate on most incredible and impossible sites.
Winery in Gvarv Telemark is no surprize.
They are allready fameous for their very fine apples cherries plums and pears. It is oecological and microclimate niches in a rather complex landscape with Taiga needlewoods, oak and maple and esherwood wild apples and cherries, and snowspot & glaciers mixed tightly together on the map, Very warm summers in the lower, walley bottoms windshielded and windstill on the sunny slopes, good enough even for wine and tomatoes, and wild reindeers uphill in but a few Km distance.
I have the very critical rather southern and termophile sort Muscato blanco a petites grains in the sunny wall just on the other side of the fjord and several red tomatoes mixed into it and can say, wherever you can get sweet plums, also conscider wine. But look up for the more adapted and northern cultivars perhaps. Ask in Eastern europe or in Connecticut and Midwest for the best, local sorts. .
We stole a clone in Oslo downtown in Norways hottest hole, planted there and pissede on by the swedes to feel at home, and later forgotten. It has become quite fameous 150 m higher in our location next by. .
Muscato bianco a petites grains is quite close to Mt. Ararat and phoenician greek,…., giving also the fameous Tokajer that is grown for serious on choisest locations even in southern Slovakia. Not successful every year, but a favourite among Kings and Emperors.
For the rest, conscider apples pears and plums also like they do at the best locations in Telemark.
For brews and brandy, think over ciders and calvados rather from Normandie like the French had to do 170 years ago when all european wines exept for Tokaier was ruined by the american Phylloxera flee. We live away from it and are allowed to plant natural clones. without occulation, that is forbidden all over EU.
England is now winning prices for their “champagne”,English wineries are upcoming again.
@ Russel & al
Further on northern wineries and agricultural botanic climate proxies.
It is what everyone ought to know about and that it must be examined sceptically.
There is another fameous wineyard even further north in Sogndal 61 deg North. That has won Italian 1st price in blindtest.
They set on a new hybrid Solaris, that is hybrid of 2 earlier hybrids from Freiburg Germany, that shows to yield better and at higher quality when getting away from Freiburg, the further north the better. And has become very exellent also in english wineries
And that ought to tell what is worth knowing about it, if you go after “Solaris grapes” on Internet.
It takes a best and most experienced gardener Bjørn Bergum who really goes in for it and knows how to find the best soil and hot microclimate niches in the especially vertical and complex terrain. And then 2 or more women at least to do the work Halldis Nedrebø aborginean from Sogn and a Szuszanna Barna all from Ungarn, who knew this from before and who came when she heard of it. .
It is higly artificial of course, with thorrough knowledge of nature and of autentic brewery, together with especially strong autentic beliefs in it.
Thus telling perhaps even more of human characters than of climate.
But the weather in Sogndal, (I was there last summer) is better than in Balestrand further out in the fjord, that is fameous for its ….. not very best…. ciders…… and calvados…
Strong choisest sparkling ciders from Hardanger further south, who did brew it since mideival time, beats many an industrial EU- “champagne for Silvestro. And they are known to export Gravensten apples for cider to Oregon.
Gravensten, the Danish national apple, is a lucky Danish wild crossing close to James Greeve.. Exellent for fresh eating but can hardly be stored, Gravensted has got huge trees that carry enormeously, thus must be driven right to the mill as fast as possible at the right day and moment..
All this together is very good basic advices for successful gardening in the climate. Where you can also find many good proxies in the hills and meadows around..
https://youtu.be/T0qRoeEcKtY?si=MXeAcKiTxgBixbe2
Anyone watched this in relation to two papers on Antarctica which look to be essentially saying that it’s warming quicker than models can acknowledge
Thoughts ?
Adam Lea: You cannot convince a man of the truth of something when his identity/ego demands it is false. Humans are primarily driven by emotion, not logic.
V: Yes, thank you. Excellent point!
BPL: [Occam’s Razor} refers to choosing the simpler explanation that covers all the facts. It never refers to always making things as simple as possible even if you leave out crucial information. That’s not Occam’s Razor. That’s stupidity.
V: Once again, I totally agree. A good example is Einstein’s General Relativity, a much more complex explanation of gravity than Newton’s. So yes, it’s the simplest explanation that accounts for the most evidence, not just the simplest per se, that satisfies Occam’s Razor.
Nevertheless. The problem with the aerosol excuse is that there is in fact NO evidence whatsoever for a warming trend during the period in question. As with the “dog ate my homework” excuse, it’s ALL nothing more than an excuse, i.e., an assumption based on little more than the need to support an insupportable theory. All the FACTS point to the inescapable conclusion that CO2 levels have little to no effect on global temperatures. The assumption that there was some sort of underlying temperature rise, masked by aerosol emissions, is contradicted by the absence of any evidence of such a rise in regions where aerosol emissions would have been minimal at best. Face it. Humans are primarily driven by emotion, not logic.
Victor
“Nevertheless….. blablabla…….not logic!”
That paragraph really tells me more about your own mentality, than about anything else. You have hardly been elementary and critically trained to give a systematic and comprehensible, true & valid description of anything at all, exept for yourself and your owner, who is to be kept stricty secret.
nigelj says
Victor,
“As is evident from the graph, emissions in Asia continued to rise while those in the Americas and Europe fell.”
N: Correct, but judging by the graph, total quantities of SO2 emissions in Asia were well below Europes or the Americas for the entire period 1900 – 2010 including after levels fell in Europe around 1980. So Asia’s SO2 emissions were never enough to suppress the warming. Its that simple.
“Economic growth and industrialisation in China over the recent decades has been supported by increasing consumption of energy from coal, making China the world’s largest emitter of major air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and black carbon,” said study lead author Dr. Yixuan Zheng. https://www.earth.com/news/a-drop-in-chinas-aerosol-emissions-brings-about-a-rise-in-global-warming/
V: Nigel, you are doing exactly the sort of thing Occam’s Razor was designed to guard against. .
“Even if some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary, there still remains a justified general bias toward the simpler of two competing explanations. To understand why, consider that for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives. This is so because one can always burden a failing explanation with an ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses are justifications that prevent theories from being falsified. . .
For example, if a man, accused of breaking a vase, makes supernatural claims that leprechauns were responsible for the breakage, a simple explanation might be that the man did it, but ongoing ad hoc justifications (e.g., “… and that’s not me breaking it on the film; they tampered with that, too”) could successfully prevent complete disproof. This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be technically ruled out – except by using Occam’s razor.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
This is what we see when we analyze the “dog ate my homework” excuse. For every piece of evidence calling the excuse into question, a clever kid will always be able to come up with some complicating factor that “explains” away the common sense conclusion. Your approach is remarkably similar.
You want to claim that an underlying warming trend was masked by the cooling effect of industrial aerosols. When I informed you that no such warming trend could be found in remote regions far from the influence of industrial aerosols, you insisted that such aerosols can spread far and wide from their source to every corner of the world. When I responded that the effect of such widespread aerosols would be seriously dissipated as they traveled far from their source, you insisted that nonetheless they would have had a significant cooling effect — in literally every corner of the world!
[From an IPCC report:
“The average troposphenc lifetime of aerosol particles
and of their precursor gases is of the order of only days or
weeks. . . . The short lifetime also implies large spatial
and temporal variability in the concentrations of aerosol
particles.” https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_01.pdf%5D
You then went on to claim that the sudden rise in global temperature after the mid 70s was due to the installation of anti-pollution measures in the US and Europe. In response I demonstrated that no such measures had been taken in Asia, where aerosol concentrations continued to rise unabated — yet essentially the same temperature rise took place in this continent as in the US and Europe. In response you claimed that the degree of pollution in Asia was not as intense as that in the US and Europe, and as a result had less of an effect. When I then questioned how it was that this lower degree of pollution nevertheless had the effect of masking the supposed underlying warming on that continent as well as everywhere else, you assumed that aerosols originating from the West somehow made their way to Asia, providing enough of a cooling effect to mask the warming there.
Do you see the resemblance to my “dog ate my homework” parable? Confronted with reasonable, evidence-based responses to each of your objections, you offer increasingly unlikely “saving hypotheses” in a desperate effort to shore up a clearly falsified theory.
You will, of course, never give in — for the very same reason that so many have now become convinced of the “climate change” paradigm. And if you insist on invoking that so-called “consensus,” think a bit about how Elizabeth Holmes managed to convince so many “experts” that she was some sort of genius. Think also of Bernie Madoff — or Enron. Or the tulip madness that consumed Holland.
Victor, so the question is why did Asia have flat temperatures in the middle of last century despite producing relatively low levels of aerosols? There are numerous factors that easily explain this, probably acting in combination:
1)Industrial aerosols migrating to Asia from Europe and N America on the winds probably contributed something. Im basing my comments on a study I did read and not just assuming they did.
2)Volcanic aerosols are also implicated in the flat global temperatures mid last century, and can move huge distances, and cool the entire planet slightly for several years.
3)Air masses migrating between regions by way of the planets circulatory system: the trade winds and hadly cell circulation and jet stream winds. The ocean currents transfer energy and this in turn affects air temperatures.. These forces move energy huge distances. Adjacent regional air masses also effect each others temperatures.
I’ve mentioned some of this to you before and I have never said aerosol migration is the only factor.
The point being that Asia (and other areas) with low levels of aerosol production probably would have had rising temperatures mid last century “but for” the iaerosols migrating to Asia and air masses and ocean currents and heat energy migrating between different regions.. As KM pointed out the atmosphere is a huge mixing bowl. So Asia and everywhere else ended up with flat temperatures mid last century.
Although you still get some local variation. The arctic has heated more than elsewhere as heat seems to get trapped there.
These things all seem like obvious and adequate explanations, and its why I’m just not sceptical about the issue. I know a lot of factors are involved, but the climate is a complex system, Occams Razor or not.
Refer my other comments above thread on air circulation, and by KM and JP.
V: Nigel, you are doing exactly the sort of thing Occam’s Razor was designed to guard against. .
BPL: No, he isn’t.
Victor, if you want to tell if aerosols are a legitimate factor to add into the mix, do a regression of temperature anomalies on CO2 alone. Then add aerosols. If the t-statistic on the aerosol term is significant, it was worth adding in the aerosols. You could also do a partial-F test (regression with, regression without) to see if a significant fraction of variance is accounted for.
https://bartonlevenson.com/ISK/Statistics/04Regression.html
https://www.statology.org/partial-f-test/
This site needs a collapse & ignore functions to get past the dishonest piffle from amateurs telling us reality isn’t real and knowledge/evidence don’t matter.
From this quarter, accusations are confessions.
Borehole please?
Hi Susan,
My reply to your most recent comment disappeared–I don’t see it in the borehole, either, but I’ll check again.
Yes, please. It’s not only that they post non-sense, but very long non-sense and some of it, non-sense to power n, not only contrary to science, but contrary to understandable language.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?
Sylvia and Susan,
It is not up to the moderators, but rather the regular commenters, to improve the situation. As I’ve pointed out many times, the trolls aren’t here to have a serious discussion or debate, but rather to create the illusion of that.
The only thing they care about is getting responses that seem to validate their framing… “their (pretend) science is making those lib scientists work to respond!” Hah! Unfortunately, many here are all too willing to respond to long, repetitive, incoherent gibberish with equally long responses.
I understand that there is an inclination to demonstrate one’s expertise, but the trolls’ errors are far more basic… ‘splaining about nuanced statistics to people who are incapable of elementary logic, or high-school level scientific/quantitative reasoning, is a fool’s errand. Sorry folks.
You can easily tell what’s going on in about 3 comments, and confirm the diagnosis by asking a specific, concrete question… they never respond with a specific concrete answer, if they respond at all. Why let them get away with it… why let them own you?
It is indeed annoying to try to find anything in all the noise; the one thing the moderators could do, which would not require any work or decisions on their part, would be to provide a complete “latest comments” list each time, so that people can scroll through quickly and ignore the stuff they know is a waste.
Yes Zebra. But the endless efforts to bring chronic fake skeptics with a need to write reams of material on somebody else’s blog, plus the well meaning efforts of others to educate them, has made this comment section much less worthwhile: it’s hard to find nuggets of real discussion of the material posted by our superb hosts.
As you say, I am not in charge of them and it’s not my business. Every once in a long while I come back, and if I have something to say, say it. It’s discouraging to have to scroll and scroll and scroll … I do think Victor has wasted enough people’s time over a long enough period that it would be nice if he were stopped.
Zebra says “It is not up to the moderators, but rather the regular commenters, to improve the situation” (being the proliferation of completely tedious, crazy, stupid comments by trolling denialists)
The regulars have already done all they can. For example they have rebutted denialists comments, but regardless of the approach it doesn’t make them go away and doesn’t do much to improve the quality of the comments. Therefore its up to the moderators to borehole the trolls comments more frequently (as they have done with De Niles). The borehole is a great idea because it preserves freedom of speech.
However IMO not all denialists comments should be bore holed. Some things need rebutting or debating or discussing. It’s a judgement call.
FWIW, I’ve learned some things from responses here to trolls’ assertions. I’m not a climate scientist, and frankly some of what’s posted would otherwise be out of my depth.
The handling depends, I guess, on the intended audience. If RealClimate is a window for the general public to see professional climate scientists at work, there should be at least a nod to accessibility for the less well informed.
I confess that I also give some amateur attention here to trollology and how it’s evolving (stagnant mostly with maybe a more political edge to the usual corporate oiliness).
Not looking forward to the added wrinkle of AI feeding climate disinformation and how to deal with that.
“Technology-driven false narratives diminish climate action potential by denying the severity of the crisis, downplaying its gravity, and striking down climate solutions. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/05/11/how-does-ai-feed-climate-disinformation-and-why-is-it-so-prevalent/
Just thought I’d toss that out there.
Radge, you are correct that the question is who the intended audience is. But if you want to educate “the public” about climate science, and science in general, you won’t do it by allowing the Denialists to control the framing and the discussion.
That is unfortunately what happens when people keep responding to whatever the troll says, but the troll is not required to answer the question.
I use the term “sincere student” to describe someone who is willing to learn and comes to raise an issue. If someone asks you to explain something, the first thing you have to do is establish what their knowledge/understanding already is. You have to go back to the place where they are getting everything right before you can work on what they are getting wrong.
So whether someone is being argumentative or polite, their sincerity is easily tested by asking them questions to establish that starting point. If they aren’t willing to provide that information, you can be sure that there is no point in continuing the discussion.
And if the troll’s purpose is to create doubt and confusion, continuing to respond is aiding their effort.
Zebra,
Fair enough.
I don’t really have a solution, What you suggest sounds good, in principle anyway. How that would work in practice…? would certainly take practice.
I do suspect AI could necessarily change the way we think about dealing with denialists, Just something to look forward to.
:-/
Miss Anderson
We are lacking both borehole and crankshaft here.
There you are right
I believe the problem is that it would be too much for them to administer.
Factum est that the junkyard is important.
There you can really find things and re- cycle things.
The junkyard and the “bitty” plays a basic role in orderly responsible and orderly archaeology and in facultary science. In Theology, Medicine, Philosophy, and Justice.
Garbagology was essencial even for NASA, for getting to the moon and safely back again.
I discuss it each time with my “GP” (General practioner medical doctor)
If there is no “bitty” and “pissoir” “Toilets” the dirts will take over the very place.
It is a matter of elementary hygiene even in the spaceships.
With 3 hygienic categtories and private doors or “genders” in all responsible taverns.
1 Ladies
2 Genthemen and
3 Men ony!
Ah, I forgot, it’s now the crankshaft. Here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/03/the-crank-shaft/
Tom Fuller, the busy hardworking people here don’t review/post comments every day. Your comment appeared (5th Internat…) and others have replied to it. Your insistent emphasis on outlier Nobelists whom you so eagerly embrace has ‘trumped’ my effort to get you to see that you are wearing selective blinders about authority. It would be interesting if you subjected your biases about the relative value of the scientific enterprise to the same skepticism.
Susan Anderson,
The Crankshaft has a slightly different role than the Borehole being where the comments of folk espousing grand cranky theories get sent.
The Borehole has been a quiet place of late with just one addition this year so far, and that just recently posted into RC just 3 minutes after your most recent post. So it’s not that contribution from Thomas W Fuller mentioned up-thread. (The Borehole does require our hosts to redirect the offending comments which is an extra call on their busy time.)
When RC was new the Borehole was quite a busy place with, in the first weeks, redirected comments arriving at an average rate of almost 5-a-day. That soon fell below 2-a-day and then below 1-a-day and through the years further still, with the rate through 2021 averaging down at 0.16-a-day and 2022 below 0.02-a-day.
@ MA Rodgers
I see, I scored one hit at the Crankshaft.
Look for yourself.
There, Gavin Schmidt may have been drunk that night, and not seen that of voltage and possible current & material effects, that I described in detail for him.
MA Rodger
The Koutsoyiannis paper was interesting to me for obvious reasons, but I didn’t initially trust the result, which is why I did my own analysis. The concern I had was the use of a 1-year difference to detrend the data, which is the same approach you suggested. In the frequency domain the difference is a sinusoid, which plotted in log-magnitude form looks like this.
https://localartist.org/media/diff_sinc_FRF.png
The difference operation detrends the signal by attenuating low-frequency energy, which is exactly where I expected to find the CO2 process driving the trend. For example, 10-year periods are attenuated by 10dB, which leaves less than 1/3 of the signal. With a deep nulls every 1 yr^-1, it’s also quite effective at removing the seasonal signal and its second harmonic. With the first peak response at 0.5 year^-1 (2 year periods), most of the emphasis is on energy at that frequency in any time-domain analysis. My frequency domain approach separates the energy based on frequency, but doesn’t attenuate the low-frequency energy I’m most interested in analyzing. It also allows me to measure delay as a function of frequency. In the frequency domain, delay is the negative derivative of phase wrt frequency.
I want to make two points using the phase plot on the left, middle panel.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
First, if you look at the phase trend at about 0.8 yr^-1, you’ll see that there’s a v-shaped change in trajectory. This coincides with the start of the spectral energy associated with the seasonal process. The phase is sloped in a different direction because the response is the mixing of two processes with different delays. The closer we get to 1 year^-1, the more the seasonal process dominates the phase response.
Now follow the trend back towards zero frequency. If another temperature/CO2-related process was starting to dominate, I would again expect to see evidence of that in the phase. With fewer averages I could follow the phase trend lower in frequency, and while the result was noisy, I still couldn’t find evidence of another process linking CO2 and temperature, even over 20-year periods.
My reason for using a 2nd order polynomial instead of a difference function in the time-domain plot is that I again wanted to preserve as much low-frequency energy as possible. The one-year moving average perfectly preserves the low frequencies and very effectively nulls out the seasonal process. When doing this analysis, I wasn’t really looking to confirm the six-month delay, there wasn’t a need to. I was looking to see if I could detect a change from one process to another over longer periods in time. What I expected to see, and didn’t, was longer trends starting to take larger swings in amplitude. This would indicate a transition to process where the impact of CO2 on temperature, or temperature on CO2 was much greater than a few ppm/°C. The swings are a bit larger, but are consistent in amplitude with the process where CO2 lags temperature by six months, or longer.
Robert Cutler,
I will admit to not reading Koutsoyiannis et al (2023) with any dedication and if they do use Fourier Transforms on ‘differenced’ data (and I did not see that they do) that would be a poor decision.
Perhaps their apparent lack of use of Fourier Transforms is the lesson here. There are valid and potentially more useful alternatives.
In this regard, may I offer to you a simple graphical illustration of the relationship between ENSO & SAT, and thus by implication a relationship between ENSO & dCO2.
I have posted a three-panel graph here – POSTED 23rd October 2023 plotting monthly SOI (data 1866-on) with HadCRUT5 (data 1850-on) over the years 1873-2023. The data plotted is in both cases the 12-month rolling average of the annually differenced values.
I think you can only agree that this plot demonstrates that the SOI and the HadCRUT5 SAT record easily pass the Grand Old Duke of York’ test in that “when they were up they were up and when they were down they were down!” Further, and here I have applied a little colour-coded assistance, you will note the grey ‘ups’ and the pink ‘downs’ indicate that SOI generally leads SAT in this 150-year-long march, the data showing a lead of four or five months.
Now, you may argue that Fourier Analysis provides no “evidence of another process linking CO2 and temperature” but a relationship between SOI & temperature is clearly present in the three-panel graphic. Indeed, it is well known. I note that Koutsoyiannis et al (2023) have also identified it (using SOI data 1951-to-date) and report this finding down in their Appendix A.3. “The principal directions are SOI→ and SOI→[CO2]. In the former case, the explained variance is 33%, and the causality type is HOE [‘hen-or-egg’] but very close to unidirectional with a time lag of 4 months. In the latter case, the explained variance is 30%, and the causality type is unidirectional with a lag of about a year.” (They report →In[CO2] explaining 35% variance in their main analysis.)
And I would conclude by pointing out that this evidence of a ENSO→ causality presents fundamental problems for any assertion of there being direct →CO2 causality.
MA Rodger
Thanks, I will spend some time on this, however I will likely limit my analysis to the 65 year period for which we have measured CO2 data.
I can’t help but note that in applying both a one-year difference, and one-year moving average, you really have focused your analysis on energy with a 2-year period. When I look at this, I won’t be changing the frequency content much, if at all.
I really don’t get the argument about SOI/ENSO unless you’re trying to say that ENSO significantly affects CO2 independent of temperature. In that case there’s room for causality confusion. I don’t believe that it does for one simple reason. For periods of 2-10 years, I’ve found the coherence is high and results stable with changes in the number of ensemble averages and frequency resolution. Anyway, let’s see what I can discover with SOI.
MA Roger
Here are the results of my quick-look at SOI and causality. The results are self-consistent, with the order of causality being SOI->Temperature->CO2.
I’m not going to tie this back to physics, this is simply signal analysis. You tell me if this makes sense from your perspective.
Results were computed using data from https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/soi/ and https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/current/download.html. MLO data is from https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/data/index.php?category=Greenhouse%2BGases¶meter_name=Carbon%2BDioxide&frequency=Monthly%2BAverages&pageID=2
First Temperatures/SOI: (assumed forcing function is in the denominator)
https://localartist.org/media/SOI/frfcoh43_6_12_SOI_1866.png
There are several things to notice:
1. When I first ran the calculations I found a 180 phase shift. This indicates that the sign of the SOI relative to temperature signal is inverted. I visually confirmed this and then corrected for it by inverting SOI before analysis. This is why there’s a ‘-1* ‘ in the title. This wasn’t necessary, but it’s easier not to have to visually work around phase wrapping at +/- 180 degrees. I used Southern Hemisphere temperature data. The results were similar for NH and Global temperature though a bit noisier.
2. Top row: The magnitude response shows the sensitivity (in parenthesis) is ~0.1 °C/SOI and fairly flat. The flat response tells me that this there is not a derivative or integral relationship involved, at least not above frequencies of 0.2 yr^-1.
3. Middle row: The phase response shows that temperature nominally lags SOI by 0.3 year. However, for energy at 0.6 yr^-1, there is a six-month delay. Similarly, for energy at 0.1 yr^-1, there is a much longer delay, but how much is not certain. The value is changing and the coherence is much lower at this frequency, largely due to the energy in the temperature trend.
4. Bottom row: The coherence is high for energy for energy between 0.1 and 0.7 yr^-2. This is a much more informative and reliable approach than the ‘Grand Old Duke of York’ test. This result tells us where the results are trustworthy, or could be if we had a lot more data to average.
5. This result used data from 1866-present. The following CO2 results used data from 1958-presents.
Now for CO2/Temperature result.
https://localartist.org/media/SOI/frfcoh5_10_20_SH_MLO.png
The only things to point out here are that the SH temperature data leads CO2 by about 0.6 year, which is a bit more than the 0.5 year I’ve observed for global and NH data, and that the sensitivity is 3ppm/°C at a frequency of 0.3 yr^-1.
So, if the SOI leads SH temperature by 0.3 year, and SH temperature leads CO2 by 0.6 year, then SOI should lead CO2 by 0.9 year. and the sensitivity should be about 0.3 ppm/SOI (0.1*.3).
https://localartist.org/media/SOI/frfcoh5_10_20_SOI_MLO.png
Cutler said:
ilter
No, signal analysis is not adding a low-pass filter of ~100-year period to data — that’s called signal removal.
Start over and don’t do ANY signal filtering, IOW keep it raw, Then you can start understanding what’s happening with the data. Example: https://github.com/pukpr/GeoEnergyMath/discussions/26#discussioncomment-7399856
Robert Cutler,
You enquire of me “if this makes sense from your perspective.”
Your numbers show the ENSO signature appearing in the temperature and CO2 data with appropriate time-lags, which is what I would also suggest should be seen. Of course, this SOI/Temp/CO2 analysis results from your assertion up-thread that the CO2 increases over the decades result from temperature increases, or as you put it “the CO2 signal shows that temperature drives CO2, and that the sensitivity [assumed as meaning ECS] is small..” It is not an assertion I could accept although I am not sure if you are still of that opinion. Thus you show ENSO→Temp→CO2 but do you still find ENSO→CO2 a problem? And thus is the Man-made Emissions→Rising CO2→Rising Temps relationship still problematic for you?
If you are interested, there is plenty of data to demonstrate these relationships if you still doubt the conventional understanding that CO2 is the control knob of climate and that humanity is recklessly playing with that knob.
MA Rodger
“Thus you show ENSO→Temp→CO2 but do you still find ENSO→CO2 a problem? ”
Not at all. ENSO does not appear to drive [CO2] directly, if that’s what you’re implying. In my response I wrote:
“So, if the SOI leads SH temperature by 0.3 year, and SH temperature leads CO2 by 0.6 year, then SOI should
lead CO2 by 0.9 year. and the sensitivity should be about 0.3 ppm/SOI (0.1*3).”
These are the results shown in the last plot. If ENSO directly impacted [CO2], then the delays would not have added, nor the sensitivities multiplied to match the ENSO->CO2 result.
The maximum sensitivity for temperature->[CO2] is on the order of 6ppm/°C. Temperature forcing is responsible for ALL of the [CO2] variation around a second-order trend — even over multiple decades. The analysis does not show that [CO2] is a detectable driver of anything. Nor does it show that temperature is responsible the 2nd-order trend in [CO2].
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png (link repeated here for convenience)
This result is not consistent with what one would expect if anthopogenic emissions were a significant factor. It is the result one would expect if the long-term temperature and [CO2] trends were not related. If there is a relationship, it’s likely non-linear with memory, or hysteresis.
It can be argued that seeking useful answers solely through calibration to Radiative Force, whether natural or otherwise, is unlikely.
The control knobs for TOA energy balance include both Radiative Force and Radiative Feedback.
Meddle with one, or the other, and you will find an Imbalance.
A Forcing vs Temperature curve depends on Feedback.
Holding all else constant, Feedback depends only on Temperature, so we can reduce ΔT to a Radiative Force.
However, it’s unreasonable to assume that the current system exhibits the same Feedback characteristics as a natural Earth.
All else is not equal. We have Human caused variations to Feedback.
The Forcing vs Temperature curve is becoming increasingly shifted compared to a Natural Earthly one.
These alterations represent unnatural, non-inherent changes to Feedback. Consequently, unnatural changes to climate sensitivities too.
To all and everyone
Can anyone try and understand this for me?
In response to “understanding”.
In looking at various sources I find that in year 2022 the anomalous Radiative Force was about 3 Wm-2. This virtual Force resulting in an observable net effect of 1.4 Wm-2.
This suggests a virtual radiative Feedback of -1.6 Wm-2, or thereabouts. This is typically depicted with a lambda net symbol.
Correct me if you find different values or notation.
In todays climates we have been able to imagine, so-far, that this Feedback is some combination of a lapse-rate Feedback, a water-vapor Feedback, a Planck Feedback, a cloud Feedback, and so-on.
In common discourses it is assumed that such factors are effectively temperature controlled, in some sort of optimization scheme. Eisenman suggests maximum “stability” i.e. negativity of net feedback, in a preindustrial situation. http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Eisenman-Armour-submitted-2023.pdf
Others also propose temperature controlled net emission of trace gases as a feedback, such as from soils, wetlands, forests, and so-on which wilt and erode as a response to radiative Force.
The lambda therefore is assumed to depend on temperature, and temperature alone. Non-temperature controlled effects are to be categorized as a Force (as far as I can tell).
BPL has noted elsewhere, for example, in his scientific non-proof, starting with the line “the proof follows”, that at 255K the earth System albedo is to be set at 0.3, and that the planet must always be set to an emissivity of 1. https://bartonlevenson.com/CO2%20Evidence.html
I have read this story many times. This is evidently some consequence of the astronomical Earthly effective “black” temperature of about 278K. This black body must induce an albedo effect while maintaining its LW radiative blackness, with additional temperature controlled effects such as trace gas emission to produce something resembling the pre-industrial situation.
I think it sends my mind into knots so I should refrain from further contemplation on that story. Perhaps it is meant to be a neat and tidy proof for a thing that is not to be proved.
However, returning to the Radiative Force + (-) Feedback paradigm, I see no reason why radiative Feedbacks must be solely temperature controlled, when humanity is pressing its fingerprint into all things all the time.
What of “missing” cloud fraction, or “missing” lapse rate response. What of overabundant oxidation of soil organics?
A Feedback regime rendered more powerless than it otherwise would be. A consequence of humanity directly, not a consequence of radiative Forces alone.
JCM: – “This suggests a virtual radiative Feedback of -1.6 Wm-2, or thereabouts. This is typically depicted with a lambda net symbol.”
Leon Simons tweeted on Oct 10, including:
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1711664194829873513
The graph included with the tweet shows curves for:
* Total greenhouse gases – in 2022, radiative forcing at ~4 W/m² at 560 ppm CO₂-equivalent (excluding aerosols)
* Net greenhouse gases & aerosols – in 2022, radiative forcing at ~3 W/m²
* Earth’s Energy Imbalance – in 2019-2023, ~1.4 W/m² net flux
* Total aerosols – in 2022, negative forcing ~1 W/m²
The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) just hit a new record high, at 1.66 W/m², 36-month running mean, per latest CERES data. That’s equivalent to 13.5 Hiroshima magnitude nuclear bombs per second in excess Earth heating over the last 3 years.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1717709527108419662
Geoff, not directed at you this time, but language police guy zebra must observe:
“The higher the Energy Imbalance, the more (net) heat is absorbed by planet Earth and the faster she warms.” (??)
Rather
“The higher energy imbalance that we measure at the top of the atmosphere is the result of more warming heat being absorbed by the climate system instead of being re-radiated to space.”
And before anyone says “stop picking nits, we understand what he means”, it doesn’t matter what “we” understand… confusing causes and effects is a mainstay of the Denialist meme machine.
I happened to be cleaning out some boxes the other day, and found a proposal I had written some 30 years ago about adapting Physics 101 for students who had little prospect of becoming physicists or engineers. It followed a limited test run, which convinced me that “the public” is actually capable of understanding useful concepts if they are presented consistently, in a form and language appropriate to their level of education. (And yes, I know about the study effect.)
This no doubt influenced me to attempt that in “comments world” here and elsewhere, and I know it isn’t necessarily easy to do, but communicating requires knowing your audience, not just the subject matter.
zebra
Well, it is not the way that I plan my great discoveries and nobel prices.
Wheneven an UFO, I first try and give it a reasonable and plausible , natural or physical explaination. It must be “A thing, a circumstance, a “substance”” , else I cannot deal with it.
Then I try and find or borrow or even invent the methods by which it can possibly be observed measured and described in a practical way, and to check up whether it is rather bullshit, bluff, and cheatings.
If that is not possible and if anyone else also cannot do it, it belongs in The British Museum dept. of incredible, impossible , unbelieveable things, They have such a Dept or Chamber in the British museum owned by His Majesty. .
And if even that is not possible, then it is an UFO and I must disqualify it.
I have had to approach a lot of peculiar things in my life that way. And have found or seen one and only one UFO. Nobody could believe it.
But if you cannot think rather practically and concrete how possibly to do that and cannot even describe or ask for or not even invent empirical and critical methods that can possibly be carried out practically, then you are helpless.
It may be other peoples property, and if it is more than 500 years old then it is automatically seized by the National Antiquities Office and to be given to them first. It may even be under UNESCO- protection.
Then for all and everyone, avoid believing in or do business with people who do not share this dicipline from public school on how to work real wonders.
Usually no explanation is better than a wrong explanation when it comes to practical remedies.
It’s not surprising that empiricists find it troubling that the sensitivity of climates is neither observable nor constant.
There is no physical law to be discovered there.
The efforts are noble – however – to quantify the dependency of the net Feedback on radiative Force.
It is an academic pursuit of shear determination. To parametrize each and every process down the line.
A sketchy thing.
Meanwhile, the real world and its practical remedies persist in parallel.
There is no need for great discoveries, Nobel prizes, and prestige there.
Common wisdom through the ages – we know it deep down.
No need to interfere in such things.
But, that’s what people do. They really are getting in the way.
JCM
The chosmological chard- house has fallen 3 or 4 times during my lifetime.
What, seems to have settled it better now for a while, was the determination of the hubble constant, that was known only to 50% inaccuracy as I first learnt about it, quite similar to todays situation of the CO2- climate response delta T per doubbling of CO2.
The age of the universe was determined to somewhere between 9 and 90 billion years along with different examples and plausible arguments.
Now, they claim an age of about 13 or 14 billion years with 3 chiffres accuracy. What, decided on that very group or class of theories was that the fameous hubble constant is a reality through several other and independe4nt arguments, that must have a universal value somehow.
The same situation is that of the deltaT / doubbling – theory and argument. That converges onto 3 +- 1.5 deg in todays litterature. Which is quite good indeed and giving a possible practical political meaning.
I am very well aquainted to lower accuracies than that from practical chemistery, such as when pH can only be determined within a factor of 10 such as “pH 6 or 7 “or something in that area” on a logaritmic scale from 0 to 14 with 7 in between.
Such things are not strange or unscientific or unsettled to me at all.
Not allways minutely on the milli9meter in antsteps you see, in science. But quite more often “rather roughly…. approximately…” which may decide life or death, yes or no.
Wherefore I preferre to teach people about the reliable constants. The body temperature of the snowman for instance and the boiling point of pure water at sea level, and 1AU, the distance to the nearest star as seen from here., and how a stone falls from the leaning tower in Pisa down to earth below.
Another reliable natural constant is the normal barometric pressure at sea level measuring 10 meters of water. And air pressure halving for each 5.5 Km upwards. , Balloon volumes then doubbling. So what about breathing uphill in Himalaya? or flying Helicopter there? Should one rather think in terms of Turbo to get up there?
The Turbo- jets at 11 and at 22 Km heigthth must really have good turbo compressors. The civil commercial long distance jetliners fly and burn away kerosene in only 1/4 of air- thickness at sea level. Even with pure oxygen for breathing they must have pressure suits and pressure cabins up in the stratosphere, explain,…..
Another rather reliable constant reference given that you are discussing fur animals is piss- warm. Then we are discussing and pointing scientifically at reality in the real world.
Some empirical theories may rule practically and universally you see. Other model theories and suggestions do not.
There we must make our choises and set on what rather seems to keep, regardless,…. and disqualify the alternatives.
I see that the borehole is back! Thank you!
I’ll try to behave myself.
It looks like the timestamps on the comments therein are showing 2022 instead of 2023. But I am a little bleary eyed…
Another report trying to wake up decision-makers from their stupor, fossil fuel induced or not. And all of us for not doing enough to stop it.
The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biad080/7319571
Please offer one solution or the set of solutions you are applying, individually or collectively, so we can adopt them, if they make sense and if they actually address the problem. The problem being we are getting ourselves and millions of other species extinct.
the problemm is that ” decision makers” are not connecting/ associating central climate characteristica, parameters and issues to their “Existencial” premises.
Thus, cannot take it for serious.
Silvia Leahu-Aluas is hardly the qualified and right one to wake them up and point at and tell them what really matters, because they are highly trained allready and immune to such kind of political & commercial, secteric, sales promotion.
It may have worked day before yesterday when she learnt it, but now it is decadent and worn out blunted off, having been mis- used by the popular mass moovements so many times.
Looks like the folks who were banking on a Maunder Minimum are going to have to find another way to pretend we’ll be cooling soon.
published: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 23:55 UTC
“NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) issued a revised prediction for solar activity during Solar Cycle 25 that concludes solar activity will increase more quickly and peak at a higher level than that predicted by an expert panel in December 2019. The updated prediction now calls for Solar Cycle 25 to peak between January and October of 2024, with a maximum sunspot number between 137 and 173.”
The new prediction is for a run-of-the-mill activity level, vs the maximum sunspot number of 115 they’d forecast in 2019.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
And this one just because time-lapse imagery from sun-observing satellites is so fun:
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/time-lapse-of-solar-cycle-25-displays-increasing-activity-the-sun
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
I’m sure many people on here are familiar with the concept of risk compensation, whereby someone who feels better protected/more secure after incormorating safety equipment/measures subconsciously compensates for the additional safety by engaging in more risky behaviour, offsetting at least some of the safety benefits:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123100/
Is there an equivalent when it comes to reducing carbon footprint, for example, a family who have taken action to reduce their fossil fuel dependance use that to justify occasional carbon intensive treats like a long haul flight.
I recently found an article regarding analysis which has apparently revealed that the transition to electric vehicles which is happening quite rapidly in the UK could lead to even worse traffic congestion than if drivers continued with fossil fueled vehicles, because the reduction in tangible financial cost of using an EV makes it more likely someone will choose to use a car over public transport, or be more likely to adopt lifestyle changes which induce more car mileage (public transport is very expensive in the UK).
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/electric-cars-prompt-more-traffic-192804952.html
Hopefully it doesn’t come to pass as the UK has some of the most congested roads in Europe.