As the climate monitoring groups add an additional dot to their graphs this week, there is some disquiet among people paying attention about just how extraordinary 2023 really was.
First, it’s been obvious for months that 2023 would be a record year – in temperatures (at the surface, troposphere and in the ocean), in Antarctic sea ice, in the number of big climate disasters etc. But this was not at all obvious at the beginning of the year – even assuming that El Niño would develop by the this winter. Indeed, even as late as October, with only two months to go, the estimates for the annual mean still did not encompass the eventual annual number.
In the GISTEMP product, the record was easily broken, and by a record amount. Only the jump from 2014 to 2015 (coincidentally (?) also a year in which El Niño developed over the year) was comparable (both 2023 and 2015 broke the previous record by more than 0.15ºC).
Records were similarly broken in the three MSU/AMSU TLT records (UAH, RSS, and NOAA STAR), and the AIRSv7 data (though not AIRSv6 for some reason), but the structural uncertainty in the satellite derived trends remains.
Why oh why?
So why was 2023 so special? There are lots of candidates, the ongoing El Niño, aerosol decreases, the Hunga-Tonga eruption, internal variability in southern ocean sea ice, extreme Indian-Ocean dipole, the NAO, low levels of Saharan dust, and maybe all of the above. However, none of them on their own are sufficient at least with present estimates. Better quantification is possible (based on updating the sulphate and water vapor data for HT in models, new aerosol emission files, new climate simulations etc.), and the progress of 2024 will hopefully also be informative. But right now, it’s a puzzle.
One swallow does not a summer make, and so I’m still withholding judgement on the degree to which this is a blip or a systematic shift, until we got some more of these factors quantified.
Through a glass, darkly
The comparison figure above neatly illustrates another issue that has come to the fore recently related to questions of exactly what is the warming from the “pre-industrial”? It’s clear that the multiple records post-1970 are all highly coherent (this is something that wasn’t so true 5 years ago, but since everyone now interpolates over the Arctic, the differences have reduced sharply). However, going back before 1940, there is a noticeable increase in the divergence of the records. This is mostly due to the sea surface temperature part of the product – and the two main efforts to define that, HadSST and ERSST from NOAA, adopt quite different methods to fill in missing data in the early part of the record. This leads to a roughly 0.1 to 0.2ºC difference in ‘pre-industrial’ baselines (Berkeley Earth, HadCRUT5 (and hence Copernicus/ERA5) use HadSST and are ~0.15ºC cooler in 1850-1900 than NOAA or NASA (who use ERSSTv5). For reference, 2023 is 1.39, 1.49, 1.37, 1.55ºC warmer than 1880-1900 for GISTEMP, HadCRUT5, NOAA, and Berkeley Earth, respectively, and it is 1.48, 1.34 and 1.54ºC warmer than 1850-1900 for HadCRUT5, NOAA and Berkeley Earth (the difference between the baselines is around 0.01 to 0.03ºC). It’s worth noting that there are some improvements in the uncertainty models for these products are in the pipeline (for instance, Lenssen et al, subm on the new GISTEMP ensemble).
This spread is frustrating to some folks who want (but will not get) a clear answer to the 1.5ºC question, but I would argue that this frustration is largely misplaced. The level of uncertainty that exists (around 0.2ºC) is simply not policy relevant (in the sense that no decisions related to mitigation or adaptation depend crucially on this number). Mitigation of CO2 and CH4 emissions is a worthwhile to reduce future climate risk regardless of whether we are at 1.4 or 1.6ºC above 1850 (the WMO has 1.45±0.12ºC (90% CI)), and adaptation to current and foreseeable future changes is a good idea regardless.
Ongoing issues
Last year at this time, I discussed ongoing work to understand trends in the Southern Ocean. Some of this work was recently published (Schmidt et al., 2023; Roach et al., 2023). The upshot is that the impact of recent anomalous freshwater from the melting of the ice sheet is enough to change the sign of the sea ice and SST trends from 1990 onward, and that the winds are a very good predictor of the interannual variability – and combined, you get a pretty good match to the observations…. until around 2016, when the rapid decline in sea ice extent starts. Efforts to update and improve the freshwater estimates will be undertaken this spring (register for the workshop here!).
As usual, updated graphics can always be found here, and I will undertake to update the model-observation comparisons over the next week or so.
Final amusing anecdote
While of no salience whatsoever, it’s funny to see how the denialists are dealing with all this. Of course, the records being set in the UAH TLT record blows the ‘climate has been cooling since 2016’ trope that they used through to about last summer, leaving them no plausible data refuge. No matter, they then switched to promoting a totally bogus website run by an anonymous coder that purports to give updated global temperature data, but is obviously totally borked. Funnily enough, this ‘data’ also has an upward trend! The subsequent flail is to retreat to “there is no such thing as global mean temperature!” (sure_jan.gif), and that our inability to explain everything about the (non-existent) temperature record is a sign that the ‘science isn’t settled’ (ha!) and therefore we know nothing (surprise!). Some things in climate remain extremely predictable.
References
- N. Lenssen, G.A. Schmidt, M. Hendrickson, P. Jacobs, M.J. Menne, and R. Ruedy, "A NASA GISTEMPv4 Observational Uncertainty Ensemble", 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.22541/essoar.169875979.91494792/v1
- G.A. Schmidt, A. Romanou, L.A. Roach, K.D. Mankoff, Q. Li, C.D. Rye, M. Kelley, J.C. Marshall, and J.J.M. Busecke, "Anomalous Meltwater From Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves Is a Historical Forcing", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 50, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106530
- L.A. Roach, K.D. Mankoff, A. Romanou, E. Blanchard‐Wrigglesworth, T.W.N. Haine, and G.A. Schmidt, "Winds and Meltwater Together Lead to Southern Ocean Surface Cooling and Sea Ice Expansion", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 50, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105948
Have climate deniers and BBC added nurdle spills to the tipping point list yet?
They seem an ideal climateball focus as their radiative forcing can vary from positive to negative as erosion and albedo decay compete over time.
Thanks Gavin… one more data issue when it comes to “Why oh why?”: I claculated the annual sigma’s of the monthly data and got this: https://i.imgur.com/astp7VD.png . 2023 holds the record in the monthly variability followed by 2016 ( post ElNino year) and 1992 (volcano). The source of 2023 is still unknown, however it’s comareable to Pinatubo and the very strong ElNino, one year too early. and not matching the “timetable” of ENSO: https://i.imgur.com/9MgWyCX.png .
Thanks for the update. It’s not *just* another dot on the graph, it sticks out like a sort thumb:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2024/01/13/nasa-on-tilt/
Please forgive the multiple comments.
I agree that from a scientific/technical point of view, the uncertainty (±0.2°C) in defining the “baseline” for pre-industrial isn’t important; in fact I would argue there’s that much uncertainty in where it should be. But I would also argue that from a social/political point of view, it is *very* important. How can we persuade people, let alone politicians, to take this as seriously as they should, when we can’t even agree on whether we’re over or under the 1.5°C limit? And — seriously — what do you think Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton will have to say about it? Donald Trump? The whole thing stinks, and only sows the kind of confusion which sometimes, even the NY Times won’t get right.
As you have correctly identified, the main source of the disagreement is the 19th-century average (for which we use Jan. 1850 through Dec. 1899); the two main SST datasets have their strongest disagreement there. Also, NASA doesn’t completely cover that period (it only starts in 1880) and ERA5 doesn’t have any at all.
That’s why I suggest that as our attempt to estimate “since pre-industrial,” we replace the “baseline = average 1850.0 to 1900.0” with “baseline = average 1950.0 to 2000.0, minus 0.4°C.” That leaves HadCRU almost unchanged, while bringing the others into alighment 1950.0-2000.0.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2024/01/08/how-far-to-the-1-5c-limit/
tamino: – “Also, NASA doesn’t completely cover that period (it only starts in 1880)…”
Thanks for that. I wondered why James Hansen and colleagues used a global temperature graph based on the GISS analysis with the 1880-1920 baseline, instead of the 1850-1900 baseline.
For example, see Fig. 1. Global temperature relative to 1880-1920 based on the GISS analysis, at:
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-acceleration-causes-and-consequences
tamino: – “That’s why I suggest that as our attempt to estimate “since pre-industrial,” we replace the “baseline = average 1850.0 to 1900.0” with “baseline = average 1950.0 to 2000.0, minus 0.4°C.” That leaves HadCRU almost unchanged, while bringing the others into alighment 1950.0-2000.0.”
I’d suggest the key issue is the accelerating rate of warming. What’s driving that is the record high Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1732751332195406003
I’d suggest whether the Earth System crosses the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold (relative to the 1850-1900 baseline) within the 2020s or early 2030s is only a technicality and not the most important issue – it’s already inevitable. The most important issue now is to cool off planet Earth if we wish to continue to have a viable civilisation beyond this century. From time interval 0:17:03, James Hansen said:
“The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail, and the 2-degree limit can be rescued only with the help of purposeful actions to effect Earth’s Energy Balance. We will need to cool off Earth to save our coastlines, coastal cities worldwide, and lowlands, while also addressing the other problems caused by global warming.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXDWpBlPCY8
If we don’t solve the climate crisis then nothing else will matter, because we won’t have an ongoing civilisation to deal with the other issues.
“I’d suggest the key issue is the accelerating rate of warming.”
I can guarantee this issue will never be addressed in small scale here, or anywhere else at any scale.
Forget it. Absolutely nothing about Climate is going to be solved because absolutely nothing is being done now to solve it.
They don;t even know how to solve it, let alone be doing something about it.
With climate as a key aspect to the Meta-Crisis meltdown driving civilization chaos and eventual destruction visavis a complete change of that “civilisation” is unavoidable and already guaranteed.
There is no reverse gear for the Human Superorganism and it’s embedded automatic systems
Have no doubt the IPCC and the COP systems will disappear before too long, and folks like Gavin et al will be out of a job soon enough. Many will die. The majority will die. It’s what happens in times like these.
Makes no difference if one is Mr. Know It All, Barton, or a climate scientist …. all will be taken by surprise.
Ned Kelly: – “Forget it. Absolutely nothing about Climate is going to be solved because absolutely nothing is being done now to solve it.”
So why are you here, Ned? Why waste your time here? Perhaps you should go fishing instead?
Perhaps you should stop trolling, disconnect your internet connection and become a human being again, while you still can?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818024
What I think is worse is that you are attempting to drag others into your ‘dark place’. I think that’s indefensible.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-817555
I am here to help people who can see or are on the cusp of seeing past the noise and the disinformation. The truth will set us all free. I am not wasting my time. It’s enjoyable and valuable. :-)
Your opinions and judgements are yours to hold and manage. They are not my concern.
Once individual people, one by one, recognize and embrace that “Absolutely nothing about Climate is going to be solved because absolutely nothing is being done now to solve it” then are entirely new vista, a new reality opens up before them and just that one mental step is unbelievably empowering. for them as individuals.
Consciously switching off the constant background “climate science / issues noise”, to stop listening to incredibly unwise people across the spectrum who have been constantly wrong, who are consistently misleading, who have no idea what they are talking about, is quite a freeing experience.
But it does take some self reflection and critical thinking to do it, as well as hearing more and more true accurate depictions of the reality. No one can do it for you, it’s up to each person to realise what is going on here.
It is far better to bend not break. You’re closer to the truth than you might realise Geoff. :-)
Here’s a hint of what some of it looks like:
1:04:02 – The Difference Between Wisdom and Intelligence
1:12:41 – Chesterton’s fence
1:13:03 – Progressive and Traditionalist as Dialectics
1:18:07 – Genetics and Intelligence vs Wisdom
https://youtu.be/_P8PLHvZygo?si=TjYY5PMcxeACxcl0&t=3822
NK: Absolutely nothing about Climate is going to be solved because absolutely nothing is being done now to solve it.
BPL: The inflation reduction act. EVs are replacing ICE vehicles all over the world. Renewable energy is growing much faster than anything else. It’s not as hopeless as you paint it.
You strike me as a denier of the “give up and don’t do anything” variety. I, for one, am not giving up.
NK: Once individual people, one by one, recognize and embrace that “Absolutely nothing about Climate is going to be solved because absolutely nothing is being done now to solve it” then are entirely new vista, a new reality opens up before them and just that one mental step is unbelievably empowering. for them as individuals.
BPL: That would definitely be a new reality. Not this one, though.
tamino says
13 Jan 2024 at 7:45 AM
How can we persuade people, let alone politicians, to take this as seriously as they should, when we can’t even agree on whether we’re over or under the 1.5°C limit?
The whole thing stinks, and only sows the kind of confusion which sometimes, no, ALL THE TIME NO ONE CAN get right.
Well good people have been pointing out these serious communication landmines to climate gurus for decades, but no they do not hear a word.
I even throw a bone to a dog now and then, just for the hell of it. Maybe a miracle might happen. Nah, don;t be silly.
And so on it goes :-)
Can you disaggregate the data to show the increase in maximum temperatures and the increase in minimum temperatures to see the difference? A reduction in the diurnal cycle is not as ‘alarming’.
I have heard (perhaps incorrectly) that about two-thirds of the anthropogenic warming is winter, night, and high latitude versus summer afternoons in, say, the US or Europe.
Is there recent data sufficiently finalized on TOA EEI and OHC to comment on?
I’ve been thinking lately that those measurements should be part of the discussion at this point…. they’ve been around long enough, given that the underlying physics/science is in fact settled. Can’t see much point in waiting another 30 years, eh.
Mostly, I’m glad to be off of the former Twitter–it was a time-suck, ineffective in terms of its putative purpose (promoting my music), a great way to meet extremely disagreeable people (virtually only, thank God), and I finally quit in disgust when Elon went all antisemitic–but these days I must admit there’s a sneaking yen for the “I told you so” schadenfreude I’m missing out on.
Ah, well–still a net gain, easily.
If I may be so bold, your post would be stronger without reference to the climate skeptics. The loonier amongst them will be irritated and unaffected, the more sane ones already have seen the flaws in the data sources you cite and your regular audience will not be much enlightened. The lower section of your otherwise excellent post would better serve as a comment, much the way Ken Rice does over at And Then There’s Physics.
Thomas W Fuller: – “If I may be so bold, your post would be stronger without reference to the climate skeptics.”
Why; is it getting too uncomfortable for you, as an apparent self-confessed ‘lukewarmer’, Thomas? I note these appear to be your comments on Jan 4:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817682
I’d suggest you are still mistaken & denying reality…
When are you going to ‘fess up’?
If we don’t include Berkeley Earth’s 2023 data point of +1.54 °C, then the Earth System technically hasn’t quite crossed the +1.5 °C annual global mean temperature threshold yet.
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1745897129636143470
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1745848911858638931
But record monthly temperatures are expected to continue through into mid-2024 due to a large EEI. James Hansen & colleagues have outlined their global mean temperature projection for 2024:
https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen/status/1745839183502221527
Meanwhile, a new study published on 27 Dec 2023 at Nature scientific reports by Audrey Minière, Karina von Schuckmann, Jean-Baptiste Sallée & Linus Vogt titled Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades, included the Abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1
Thomas W Fuller: – “…the more sane ones already have seen the flaws in the data sources you cite…”
What “flaws in the data sources”, Thomas? I’d suggest you need to be specific.
Hitchens’s razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
Luke Warmer,
Having some commitment issues are we?
or more opportunity to be mistaken about virtually everything (middle ground fallacy).
In politics it may be a practical necessity to seek middle ground in order to reach compromise, but here that’s just another way to falsely politicize the science. If you really want to hedge against error and can’t suss out the science (don’t feel bad, fewer can than will admit it) then learn how and why science works, why it’s effective, and how it fits into society. That will at least get you a bit farther than luke-warmism, which is an all around bad strategy that seriously misunderstands both science and politics.
Thomas Fuller on 4 February 2021:
“As I’m 66, I don’t know how long I would be able to sustain it, but I would be willing to wager that GAT doesn’t rise to .2C in any decade in my lifetime.”
https://archive.is/7uHhq#selection-1251.0-1251.154
Your ‘skeptic’ prediction was wrong and the data shows it. That’s the real reason you don’t want that discussion.
Gavin Schmidt even corrected on that, as have others, not that you seem to have listened:
“[Response: You don’t need to wait! GISTEMP trend from 2001 to 2020 is 0.23ºC/dec. Difference btw 2011-2020 and 2001-2010 is 0.21ºC, difference btw, 1991-2000 and the following decade is 0.24ºC etc. etc. In HadCRUT5 the last 20 year trend is exactly 0.2ºC/dec. I could go on, but you’d do well to the math before you wagered any actual money. – gavin]”
https://archive.is/7uHhq#selection-1255.0-1259.340
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/10/07/no-a-cherry-picked-analysis-doesnt-demonstrate-that-were-not-in-a-climate-crisis/#comment-212236
Thank you, Gavin, posts like this one are why I come here. Yours is the default voice of expert restraint, under the principle of least drama:
One swallow does not a summer make, and so I’m still withholding judgement on the degree to which this is a blip or a systematic shift, until we got some more of these factors quantified.
Tamino introduces more drama, though couched in reticent language like yours. His conclusion:
Despite the caveats, I consider the adjusted data to be a faithful and strong indicator of the trend in surface temperature which defines global warming. I don’t know why it has sped up, but in my opinion it has. And that is not good news.
In the previous comment thread, Tamino promised to keep us posted on his further work. I eagerly await his comments!
What stood out for me in 2023 was how warm the Atlantic ocean became, for weeks or even months there were strong positive temperature anomalies across almost the entire ocean.
Another notable feature of the weather was how bad it was here in the UK. We didn’t have traditional mid-latitude seasons, we had a hybrid of mid-latitude and rainy seasons. February, one of the driest on record. March, one of the wettest on record. June, hottest on record and very dry. July, one of the wettest on record. July-December, the fourth wettest such six month period on record going back to 1765, and I believe the year as a whole was something like the fourth wettest on record despite two very dry periods. From October to December there has been periodic episodes of flooding as the rivers remained elevated due to a complete lack of any settled weather, so alomst any low pressure system coming through could cause breaching of river banks somewhere. This wet period initially continued into January 2024 which saw the wettest first four day period on record in places, now it has dramatically flipped to a blocked weather pattern with little rainfall for the last week and freezing temperatures.
I know the UK is only a very small part of the globe but I am convinced climate change is making its presence felt through these frequent locked in weather patterns that swing between drought and deluge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaR0svqVRhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cWIyCs6nwQ
Where can I find the graph for the same period with the natural change only
Record temps being reported.
A decade ago, two decades ago, I would have gladly share the news with others … he look.
Now? It’s not worth it. There is nothing here normal people would understand. Not one thing.
Except the obvious total lack of knowing what the temps “record” really is, no clue if it’s +1.5C or not, nor even how or why these Temps happened this year.
That’s not a message anyone can sell or even give away.
No one is buying this stuff or listening ot the “promises” of just wait another year …….. then we’ll know anymore.
You’ve all collectively been saying the same thing every year since this website started, and the broader collective the same thing since 1992.
We are not sure exactly, we don’t really know.
My tip is: Give it up. Go do something else. Learn to fish?
I’m going to expand a bit on my comment about OHC and EEI, and ask what may be a controversial question.
I read Mal’s reference to Tamino… good work indeed… but I wonder about that quote: (My bold.)
“Despite the caveats, I consider the adjusted data to be a faithful and strong indicator of the trend in surface temperature which defines global warming. I don’t know why it has sped up, but in my opinion it has. And that is not good news.”
Does it? For me, global warming is defined as the increase in energy in the climate system [due to human activity].
As everyone here knows, that energy manifests itself in different ways… and GMST is only one of them.
Tamino’s second comment illustrates what I think is a problem in how the issue has been presented to the public; I would guess that even among people concerned about climate change, the vast majority thinks that the increase in GMST is a “cause” of the other phenomena, and so we see the Denialists focusing their attacks on that metric.
I’m happy to see Gavin acknowledge that tenths of a degree one way or the other is not necessarily probative. This agrees with a couple of comments last months where I suggested that bad stuff… eg AMOC disruption… could happen if we reach 2.0C but might not happen even if we reach 2.1C.
Which gets to the point here… given that what we are seeing in multiple areas appears (even if not formally) chaotic, why is anyone surprised that GMST might be exhibiting non-linear behavior?
zebra, way too logical mate.
” the vast majority thinks that the increase in GMST is a “cause” of the other phenomena”
the comment is excellent
Sadly.
Thanks, Zebra.
I agree that EEI and OHC are important metrics that need to be mentioned much more regularly in public discussion. They provide additional insight to the climate system that much of the general public would “get” if the terms were kept simple.
At this point I see them as an adjunct to GMST, because the former is the subject of an international agreement. Also, the relatively high-quality dataset for OHC is rather young, commencing in this century with good coverage by the ARGO observation program.
I will also note that the recent trend of OHC adds to the uncertainty as to the causes of the current spike in GMST. Going by the graphic for 0-2000m OHC in
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
we actually see a recent spike in OHC. Granted that the short-term trends are quite noisy, it still does NOT fit the standard narrative that excess heat is stored in the ocean during La Nina, and then released during El Nino. Now we have an El Nino with a strong spike in both GMST and OHC!
I don’t find “chaos” to be a satisfactory explanation, not that I have one. Chaos implies that there can be multiple quasi-stable climate states having the same basic metrics. Is this simply an unusual case of climate “noise” or are we crossing into a new basin of attraction with stronger heat uptake and faster GMST rise – a substantially different and even more precarious climate regime? Figuring it out seems potentially quite important.
I
I don’t either — there are too many cases of invariant stationary standing waves that don’t seem to budge in their locations over time. The pattern may be complex, but much better odds that we haven’t figured it out yet rather than punting it to chaos.
Science is always evolving. Consider that after all this time, an alternative to Navier-Stokes for fluid dynamics has just been presented ::
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/an-alternative-to-the-navierstokes-equation-based-on-the-conservation-of-acceleration/5E173F65E7F63E85B9D29CD34C5F6482
This is in the preeminent journal of fluid dynamics. Will this go anywhere? Likely only if it helps solve problems or describes behaviors not possible with conventional Navier-Stokes.
John Pollack:
“Figuring it out seems potentially quite important.”
Why John?
What difference to anything actually important in this world, and life on Earth, would it make?
iow, to put a different way to aid understanding:
What don’t know now that we need to know tomorrow before acting rationally to solve the multiple causes of the current crisis of rapid global warming and the current catastrophic climate change impacts caused by human beings already occurring and which we already know are going to become even progressively worse?
And Part Two:
What exactly does climate science (self-indulgent self-approving articles like these here) offer to the world in this regard that might enhance humanities response immediately?
And Part Three:
Playing Whack-a-Mole and being skillful at it, is nothing more than a game playing at Whack-a-Thing that is only a plastic proxy of a Mole in a Machine – and nothing more.
It might be “interesting” and “fun” for the game player involved in the “activity” every day, but it to does nothing help solve the current global crisis surrounding our climate and the ongoing destruction of the biosphere by humanity. Not one bit.
Note: Whack-a-Mole is a simple metaphor to describe beating climate science deniers over the head with a baseball bat = Irrelevant to anything and everything actually “important” in this world.
——————-
With a hat tip for @ Paul Pukite for his comment just above – chaos indeed – it seems to most present in people;s minds as opposed to the climate itself.
Why wouldn’t 2023 set a new temperature record? – I mean, given what is already known that should be the most obvious expectation to have each and every year.
That obvious rational fact is far a more pertinent observation to be making today, as opposed to the massive amounts of column inches being written about it now – a whole year later.
Here is another Factoid: They simply do not know. Gavin included.
And they also do not know what they “should be” doing instead either.
Why, Ned?
If it weren’t for climate science, we’d have no idea that we were in a climate-related predicament in the first place. We’d be at 420 ppm cheering for 840, instead of trying to figure out how to change before it’s too late. Nor can I see a way to tell a priori which piece of the picture will turn out to be important knowledge for the future, and which irrelevant.
Otherwise, if you think the whole endeavor and discussion are a waste of time, make some positive suggestions of actions to take that would have a practical effect that you approve of. I notice that you aren’t reticent about supplying lots of discussion, yourself. You also seem to be assuming that people aren’t doing other things with their lives that align with fixing the mess we’re in.
John Pollack says
18 Jan 2024 at 12:52 AM
” Why, Ned? – If it weren’t for climate science, we’d have no idea that we were in a climate-related predicament in the first place.”
John pay close attention to what I actually said:
1) “What don’t (we) know now that we need to know tomorrow before acting rationally ….” and
2) “I mean, given what is already known …”
No where did I say or even slightly hint that “climate science” doesn’t exist, or should not exist, or that there are not things we know about because of it’s outputs. In fact I said the complete opposite John.
If have a question for me, shoot, but I recommend you stop making all these false and unfounded assumptions about me or what I think. I think what I said. Nothing more.
John Pollack said:
If it weren’t for geology, we’d have no idea that we were in a constrained energy resource predicament in the first place. We’d be continuing the accelerating trajectory of crude oil usage in the 1950’s into the 1960’s.
However, geologists did inform us that fossil fuels were finite and non-renewable, and the oil shock and oil embargoes of the 1970’s let that hit home.
I just wanted to bring that up to point out how awful our current situation could be in that the finite-ness of crude oil stands at where it is, and not say 10X as much easily recoverable crude. It’s straightforward to.extrapolate the trends from the 1960’s in that case. By the same token, if we hit the hard limits quicker, we would have been on the way to a renewable energy economy sooner.
This plot shows what the trajectory of crude oil usage was in the 1960’s extrapolated to a finite total.
https://geoenergymath.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/euxirxoxsaeatme.png
It doesn’t take much imagination to extrapolate that curve upward if total crude was 10X. Consider ourselves fortunate?
Ned:1) “What don’t (we) know now that we need to know tomorrow before acting rationally ….”
J – Thinking rationally, you could have asked the same question of any day in the past several decades, and gotten the same answer. Therefore, the research and discussion of the past several decades must be worthless, or else it is worthwhile to keep going. You clearly don’t believe the latter possibility, leaving the former choice – if you mean your words.
You are also assuming that action and learning more are mutually exclusive. I disagree.
Ned previous 2) ” What exactly does climate science (self-indulgent self-approving articles like these here) offer to the world in this regard that might enhance humanities response immediately?”
J – Another reason to think that you believe the time for climate science has ceased, and only immediate action is justified, henceforth. I perceive (2) as both hostile and arrogant Neither quality is likely to serve your ostensible purpose of calling us to action. You’ve come onto a climate board to discuss how we’re discussing climate too much, and ought to quit. You’ve added quite a bit of verbiage to that discussion. It looks to me like you’re using the personal exemption accorded to one whose noble mission is to provide direction to the lost. I’m not really interested in following another evangelist, thanks.
John Pollack
I asked the question today – not decades ago.
And please STOP making assumptions and unfounded judgements about others, me especially.
I do not do it to you, so don’t do it to me!
Your response is totally irrational. Their is nothing else to say about it.
Good point, Paul. It could have been a lot worse, especially on oil! That said, I’m not sure how close we are to real supply constraints on natural gas, let alone coal.
I am always struck that the cheapest carbon sequestration, requiring zero capture energy, is to leave the coal in the ground.
NK: Here is another Factoid: They simply do not know. Gavin included.
BPL: Yes, that matches the definition of “factoid”–a definite statement that is factually incorrect but sounds authoritative.
NK Jan17: : Here is another Factoid: They simply do not know. Gavin included.
BPL: Yes, that matches the definition of “factoid”–a definite statement that is factually incorrect but sounds authoritative.
;-). Hoisted with your own petard, Ned? Ironic for somebody lecturing others for their terrible communication skills. See also the same Ned:
– Jan 11 – ridiculing others for … nuanced thinking:
NK to Gavin: “ Ah yes, those nuances. Exactly. People still looking at those nuances. :-) ”
– Jan 5 – uses word: ” approbation” as … a negative ” [pointed by Susan]
– Jan 2. NK: “ That’s my objective opinion” ;-)
And on a higher level of the … self-hoistery (?), after trying to shine the reflected light by bringing in Hitchens’ razor (“ What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence“), most(?) of his subsequent posts have been … patronizing assertions without evidence.
“Him that makes shoes go barefoot himself”, eh?
Ned Kelly, Merely dismissing what you cannot understand as uninteresting is neither mature nor scientific. Understanding the energetics of the hydrosphere and atmosphere is extremely important because those are the areas that will determine:
1) How much time we have before crossing over irreversible tipping points.
2) How persistent will be the effects of climate change in the face of any mitigations we develop.
Quit dismissing everything you don’t understand as trivial. It makes you sound like a tech bro.
Ray Ladbury says
18 Jan 2024 at 7:21 AM
It’s clear to me that it is you who is dismissing what you do not understand and trivialising it and then throwing a load of adhominem putdowns at me as you go along.
I know quite a lot and know what I am talking about and why. You clearly do not know. If you’d like to know then be respectful and ask appropriate questions. Stop assuming you already ‘know it all’ about others, what they know or don’t know, or what they are talking about is automatically flawed and/or uninteresting.
Perhaps it is you and the others here who are the clueless ones here?
OMG no, that can’t be possible!!! :-)
“Why wouldn’t 2023 set a new temperature record? – I mean, given what is already known that should be the most obvious expectation to have each and every year.”
Well, no, given that over the recent past we’ll see a record year, or two, or even three, but then a downward fluctuation that may last for several years more. (Indispensable, of course, to bring out denialati claiming that “the world is cooling now,” so they can humiliate themselves yet again.) Haven’t done the math, but off the top of my head ‘record warm’ is currently maybe a 20% probability in any given year.
Update: Curiosity got the better of me. Per NOAA (Global Land & Ocean), there have been 8 record warm years since 1998 (25 years):
’98 & ’03: 0.63C
’05: 0.70C
’10: 0.73C
’14: 0.77C
’15: 0.92C
’16: 1.03C
’23: 0.91C
So, a bit higher than I guessed: 32%. Of course, “past performance is not a guarantee of future results.”
Kevin McKinney says
18 Jan 2024 at 12:44 PM
See above ^^^^^^^
1) If every El Nino could be predicted years in advance, humiliation on both sides would disappear.
2) Did Hunga-Tonga cause the 2023 warming spike? The amount of H2O GHG pumped into the stratosphere and staying there was a +30% step change:
https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/HungaTonga-2023-1024×564.png
!
Kevin McKinney et al
We knew it was an El Nino right?
We knew sulphate aerosols were diminishing right?
We knew CO2 / ghg levels were higher right?
We knew energy use and GDP was increasing again right?
So, what else did we know about 2023 before and while the year unfolded?
Do you all really need to hand fed like babies every single comment that people make to this board? Or is it at all possible you could actually think rationally for yourselves without any assistance?
Ned Kelly ” given what is already known that should be the most obvious expectation to have each and every year [setting a new temperature record]. That obvious rational fact is far a more pertinent observation to be making today”
This would the case only if GHGs were the SOLE factor affecting the global temperature. They are not – hence the departures from the long term climatological trend caused by ElNino oscillations, by volcanoes and changes in the anthropogenic aerosols. And because of that – your “ most obvious expectation” and “obvious rational fact” of “each and every year” breaking temp. a record – are contradicted by the the global temperature anomaly data – for you I have chosen a webpage that seems to be commensurate with the level your scientific expertise:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/climate-change-meaning/
John, (also Paul, re “chaos”):
Please note that I did hedge my bets with “even if not formally”…. I have no formal background in chaos mathematics, and so I am hesitant to use the terminology… except as might be understood in a colloquial sense. (My best understanding is that people are still debating about its specific applicability in weather and climate.)
The issue for me, which I keep bringing up with little success, is that the answer to the question “is the science settled?” depends on what you define as “the science”.
Is there a point to answering the questions in your last paragraph? Or Gavin et al trying to ever better predict GMST? Of course there is, as you correctly state in your reply to Ned:
“Nor can I see a way to tell a priori which piece of the picture will turn out to be important knowledge for the future, and which irrelevant.”
That is exactly how science works, and why we do it.
However, if you are trying to communicate to those outside of the specialty, I think it is necessary to emphasize what I consider the settled science, which is the physics. And this is the source of my dissatisfaction with what I call “playing defense” on climate… whether with the resident trolls here or the more “official” Denialists.
To me, OHC (from Argo) and EEI are very similar in effect to the development of functioning telescopes, which put to rest any debate about how the solar system spins.
Now,
1. we have direct measurement of CO2 absorbing outgoing radiant energy, and also of
2. TOA energy in-energy out, and also
3. direct measurement, with consistent instrumentation, of a relatively uniform and very major component of the climate system.
But still, I see people getting sucked in to discussing Urban Heat Islands! and The Medieval Warm Period! and It’s The Sun!…. sigh.
So John, I really don’t see the logic in being cautious about OHC and EEI because they are shorter in record, in terms of answering any doubt that CO2 is causing the energy in the climate system to increase. It’s new instrumentation that validates all the other inputs supporting the underlying GHG principle. I don’t think we need multiple 30-year runs with a nice plot before accepting that.
.
And most important in terms of communication/education, 123 is short and simple, and “energy” relates to what people have been experiencing of late. Much more difficult to attack than GMST, because, unlike GMST, energy is a cause, not just an effect.
Zebra, quite a bit of work was done in the 70s,80s and 90s to use dynamical systems methodologies to extract low dimensional approximations to turbulent flow. It turns out that this is a difficult problem. We found that even a relatively simple model problem such as turbulent Rayleigh-Benard convection required an attracting subset of the phase space of at least 300 dimensions. However, the original insight by Edward Lorenz remains valid.. Lorenz demonstrated that systems of evolution equations such as climate models are sensitive to small changes in initial conditions. This concept of instability was the basis for the often referenced “butterfly effect”. In reality, when a trajectory in phase space leaves the vicinity of an equilibrium point it doesn’t become unbounded but will presumably be attracted to another locally stable or quasi-stable state. My background in GFD was a single course in grad school so I’m no expert but one might speculate that certain large scale convective flows currently in a quasi-stable state may destablize. What happens then is an interesting question. See John Pollack’s comment above.
Jonathan, thanks for the input. I almost missed your comment completely.
As I said in my comment, and also to Radge Havers below, I am very much in agreement with John P (and what you last said) on this, but I’m not clear on the correct terminology with respect to formal chaos theory. Can you offer some example of what you mean by “destabilize”?
I used the example of AMOC in a previous discussion… is the idea that if it enters a new state (e.g. greatly reduced circulation) with small variations, that qualifies as “another locally quasi-stable state”?
And that is different from a condition where AMOC varies greatly in intensity in shorter time periods?
This is my best understanding of what you and John said… that the latter doesn’t fit the chaos model?
J said:
“However, the original insight by Edward Lorenz remains valid.. Lorenz demonstrated that systems of evolution equations such as climate models are sensitive to small changes in initial conditions?”
Not valid when a forcing overrides the natural chaotic response — in that case the initial conditions mean very little. Every scientist and engineer should know the difference between a forced response and a natural response.
“I would guess that even among people concerned about climate change, the vast majority thinks that the increase in GMST is a “cause” of the other phenomena, and so we see the Denialists focusing their attacks on that metric.”
Correct. However If the focus in material directed at the public was switched to heat content the denialists would just switch their attacks to that metric. And ocean heat content has some significant uncertainties as below leaving itself open to attack:
“Acceleration of the ocean warming from 1961 to 2022 unveiled by large-ensemble reanalyses”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44749-7
A case of damned if we do, damned if we dont.
nigelj, I have no doubt that the denialists would switch their attacks, as you say. However, having the two fairly simple metrics is better than one. For example, rising OHC allows one to point directly to the amount of heat building up in the climate system, supporting the rise in GMST. It undermines such myths as attributing GMST rise to urban heat islands, undersea volcanoes, etc.
It also allows us to address the rate at which heat is entering the system, and point out that it well exceeds that needed to go from the last ice age to interglacial conditions (albeit sustained over a much longer period, so far.) A lot of people don’t have much sense of the magnitude of the current change, so another way of looking at it can be helpful.
John Pollack.
I agree with all your points. However I didn’t say we shouldn’t teach people about heat energy. My point was only that it probably wont decrease the denialist attacks. But we just have to live with that.
Heat energy flows is the driving force so should be taught. The blanket analogy would be a good place to have started introducing the idea of energy flows. Some websites do talk about energy in the system eg: skepticalscience.com:
Our climate has accumulated
3,347,062,958
Hiroshima atomic bombs
of heat since 1998
( At 7.29am, 22.01.2024)
https://skepticalscience.com/
Near bottom of home page.
That said I don’t think the main problem is lack of acceptance of the science. Polling by numerous agencies shows that globally the vast majority of people accept the science. The problem is lack of motivation to mitigate the climate change, and the reasons for that are a complicated mix of things.
I’ll trust what lifetime climatologist James Hansen said above the opinions expressed in this article any day, It’s obvious that multiple tipping points have already been breached and are now combining exponentially. Climate change is no longer a gradual linear phenomenon. It is unraveling exponentially…at an ever accelerating rate and severity. Humans will be lucky if a single human being remains on Earth past 2030.
Yes.
Except some humans will survive. We’re like rats, cockroaches and viruses.
R: Humans will be lucky if a single human being remains on Earth past 2030.
BPL: Want to sign over all your property to me, or at least all your bank accounts, as of January 1st, 2031?
“Obvious?” I don’t think so.
“Combining exponentially?” What is that even supposed to mean?
For all the people doubling down on the minor disagreements as to the scale of the trouble we’re in. Please stop fighting with each other, which is a displacement activity. Yes it’s bad. Yes, they know about it.*
Essential Elements for Turning a Cause into a Movement — Lessons from the Suffrage Struggle for Today’s Activists: History demonstrates that leaders of successful movements need to go beyond appealing to the powers that be. They need to unify. – https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/suffrage-movement-lesson-in-solidarity
Seriously, why do people come here to attack their hosts? It’s both rude and wrong. There are real enemies around.
It will not solve the smallest of tiny problems to join in this argument. Gavin is right:
Mike Mann and Jim Hansen both have an excellent grasp of the seriousness of our troubles, and are both doing their best; could we find ways to effect action rather than adding to oppositional hatred?
_______
* Here, for example: A Year in Crises: https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/a-year-in-crises/ – which barely touches the surface of the threat enhancers of a waste-based exploitation-based planetary degradation including warming, fires, floods, toxic waste, acidifying oceans, melting ice, etc.
THIS!!! Thank you, Susan.
There are few things more boring than a bunch of people who are in substantial agreement continuing to fight among themselves. In such a conflict, the lack of disagreement on the main facts leads to emphasis on minutia and–worse–to personal attacks.
Please get a grip. The person who disagrees with you about a few 10ths of a degree in climate sensitivity is NOT your enemy. The person who says civilization is done for by 2100 is not the enemy of the person who thinks we can hold out to 2250.
And most important, just because someone doesn’t think your particularly hobby horse is the one-and-only answer to the problem, does not make them a heretic!
Please, make a New Year’s resolution to be less boring this year!
Ray (and Susan),
“People who are in substantial agreement continuing to fight among themselves” is a perfect description of the thing called “science”…. most progress depends on lots of study of minutia, based on established fundamentals. True in art as well, Susan; most graduate shows consist of variations on some established theme or other.
What’s boring, to me at least, is endless pages filled with absurdly long responses to absurdly long gibberish that is flawed at the most fundamental level… repeated endlessly… which could be answered with basic physics and observation. But that seems to be the accepted practice.
So maybe the problem is that people need to “get published” (albeit on a blog) over and over, not the substance of the discussion. If this is supposed to be a place for real scientists to introduce real science, then it is perfectly appropriate to explore how well we understand and can predict the phenomena in question.
But you have to do it like scientists. Maybe answering the trolls all these years has rubbed off some of their bad habits.
‘“People who are in substantial agreement continuing to fight among themselves” is a perfect description of the thing called “science”…’
Bullshit! The discussions going on here are anything but scientific. For most, they simply involve adopting a position and citing anything they can find in support, while ignoring anything that does not. There is no attempt at falsification or prediction–both essential to science.
If people were more interested in learning about climate science than if shitposting and pretending to be clever, they might actually learn something.
” The discussions going on here are anything but scientific. For most, they simply involve adopting a position and citing anything they can find in support, while ignoring anything that does not. There is no attempt at falsification or prediction–both essential to science.
If people were more interested in learning about climate science than if shitposting and pretending to be clever, they might actually learn something.”
That’s exactly what I said.
Try reading before ranting, Ray,
Zebra: “‘“People who are in substantial agreement continuing to fight among themselves” is a perfect description of the thing called “science”…’”
RL: “The discussions going on here are anything but scientific. For most, they simply involve adopting a position and citing anything they can find in support, while ignoring anything that does not.”
Really? That is a rather creative interpretation.
As I said, Ray, try reading (carefully)… or, stop doing the rhetoric game just like the trolls, which is the alternative explanation for your response.
“The thing called science” doesn’t refer to “the discussions going on here”. That’s obvious just from basic English.
But maybe you just couldn’t wait to make a comment and didn’t get to my last paragraph, which makes it even more obvious:
“But you have to do it like scientists. Maybe answering the trolls all these years has rubbed off some of their bad habits.”
Maybe it has, indeed.
Zebra to Ray: – ” The thing called science” doesn’t refer to “the discussions going on here”. That’s obvious just from basic English.“,
Piotr: and … you are lecturing …Ray on that, even though it was him who … objected to your saying that Ray’s words on “the discussions going on here” are … “ a perfect description of the thing called “science“) ???
And after that – you have the gall to lecture Ray on …. his understanding of “basic English” and on “reading before ranting” and compare … him to “the trolls”?
============= Summary of the exchange ============
1. Ray about “the discussions going on here” : People who are in substantial agreement continuing to fight among themselves”.
2. Zebra about Ray’s above words: “ a perfect description of the thing called “science”…“.
3. Ray: “The discussions going on here are anything but scientific.”
4. Zebra: – ” The thing called science” doesn’t refer to “the discussions going on here”. That’s obvious just from basic English.“,
– Try reading before ranting, Ray”
– “Try reading (carefully)… or, stop doing the rhetoric game just like the trolls”
============
Well there’s trolling and then there’s trolling. For the most part, I think your classic numpty trolls, like the neds you sometimes get buzzing around here, can mostly be ignored.
However if the moderators of this site occasionally think it’s worth posting articles that address denialism, then I don’t think it’s too out of line to follow suit (judiciously) in the comment section. Further I’d suggest that as part of the process, scientists aren’t necessarily constrained to fighting amongst themselves. For example:
Given the porous nature and social context of the comment section, which allows most all commers, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to push back on some of the pernicious commenting. Or at least, just as a point of situational awareness, you probably don’t want to be contentious to the point of ignoring collegiality with people that you substantially agree with– a red flag there might be when trolls start applauding your posts. Counter productive, no?
Zebra says:
Makes perfect sense to me. Everything they said makes sense and is rational, and it follows what they said before, and since. No one else has a clue what was said or what it meant.
But English is my primary language. So I could be at a major advantage here over the Resident Language Police and their “shitpostings”. Yet again!
Radge Havers,
Just above this sub-thread, I responded to John Pollack on the topic of EEI and OHC. I thought we might have a good conversation where we hashed out the merits of elevating those metrics relative to GMST in the public discourse, thereby providing an example of disagreeing “like scientists”.
(Turned out we are apparently so much in agreement that we look like sockpuppets, as you can see, so no go.)
My point is that “contentious” is pretty vague. My policy is simple:
1. I give new commenters three strikes where I try to politely figure out what they are trying to say, and when they refuse to answer a question, I see that as evidence of trollness and put them on ignore.
2. I put people on ignore when they obviously have some “issue” resulting in spam-level commenting frequency, as well as for incoherent rantiness… perhaps a cognitive/personality issue, perhaps substance-related.
What I really don’t understand is people with real science backgrounds allowing themselves to be drawn in by the trolls to the level of the trolls both in pretend science and language.
That is something that mighty happen to anyone once in a while, but after commenting here all these years, how can people not recognize it as counterproductive and still participate in burying any real science that might be communicated to the public? After all, isn’t that what the trolls are trying to do?
So maybe disagreeing with people “on our side”, even strongly, but coherently, is a better use of the bandwidth than filling the page with nonsense replies to nonsense.
Zebra,
All that you say is reasonable, particularly if these were reasonable times.
Out of curiosity, do you think Mann should have sued Steyn?
Radge Havers, 21 JAN “you probably don’t want to be contentious to the point of ignoring collegiality with people that you substantially agree with – a red flag there might be when trolls start applauding your posts”
Careful, Radge, with stating this so explicitly – if after reading it, the RC deniers suddenly start to applaud my posts, just to confuse the hell out of me, I will blame you … ;-)
Seriously, though, for me – the more obvious test is whether my presumed allies (i.e. substantially agreeing with me on what is right) can deal with valid criticism.
– it’s much easier tell a person in their defeat than in their victory. And if they can’t,
and if they also use underhanded attacks against people whose arguments. and integrity, I respect (Gavin, BPL, Ray, Nigel, jgnfld, to name few), then we do not “substantially agree” and my restrain is off.
As for the responding to all the Neds, JCMs, TKs, and Victors – I ignore most of their mass production, but reserve the right to comment on some aspects, particularly if they regurgitate a frequent deniers myths. But it is always walking a thin line – when only responding reactively to their claim, we let them set up the agenda.
Radge Havers/b>
Who am I to judge?
But I almost missed your comment due to the spam-storm we are having these days.
Zebra,
No need to shout
:-)
I agree that the Recent Comments roll in the right column could be lengthened. In lieu of that, I generally click through the comment sections by date using the browser’s search feature.
I still sometimes miss things, but that’s from senior moments that occur independent of whatever methods I use.
The bold type did wake me up though!
Ouch! Speaking of senior moments… although I could blame my keyboard in desperate need of cleaning, which does skip stuff.
But using the date is a good idea, thanks. I do search by my name or the person with whom I have been conversing.
Susan Anderson presents the Women’s Suffrage movement of the USA as a potential yardstick and template for success?
Seriously? What a joke that is. The US was dragged kicking and screaming against it’s will into introducing the Vote for women. One of the biggest drags against that were – American Women! The other was it’s ludicrous collective delusional extremist Capitalist ideology and cultural belief systems
Rather than a success story the US Women’s suffrage movement is the poster child for Failure, and not success. The US was one of the LAST so-called “western liberal democracies” to adopt the women’s vote.
30 years after the rest of the world had already moved on. The USA should never be used as an example of “what to do” nor “how to do it” on any issue.
The default position should be – Do not ever be like America is or was!
NK: Rather than a success story the US Women’s suffrage movement is the poster child for Failure, and not success. The US was one of the LAST so-called “western liberal democracies” to adopt the women’s vote.
BPL: But they adopted it, which was the goal, so the movement was a success, not a failure. You are indulging a fallacy of equivocation, redefining “failure” so you’re right in the middle of the argument.
And how, pray tell, does this make the analogy irrelevant to the climate crisis?
Oh, right. You’re not interested in making things better. It gets in the way of your shitposting.
@ RL “And how, pray tell, does this make the analogy irrelevant to the climate crisis?”
Oh, right. You’re not interested in making things better. It gets in the way of your shitposting.”
Ask Susan Anderson, she might know. Ask yourself, you were the first to respond to her comment. Maybe you know? :-)
It’s kind of like using Wounded Knee was an analogy for modern day multiculturalism benefits.
The Civil War for what it means for African American equal rights and no longer living under tyranny.
Or Vietnam as the best example of Americans fighting for the liberation of a people!
Sort of doesn’t fit, does it? The Uniparty being the Champion for Urgent Action to stop global warming. None of it fits. And you know it.
America the only nation to quit the UNFCCC climate treaty system. Not once but twice.
The world series relates to the world like America relates to global warming. It simply doesn’t compute.
Oh come on, try to be honest at least once this week people, (smiling)
…1000 years later…
…Nedists believe the consumption of corn bread and peanut butter is sinful; during their lent they avoid stand-up comedy…
Thanks Gavin for confirming that various data bases indicate the planet is now passing the so-called limit of 1.5 degrees C, whether during this year or next.
Concerning “why oh why,” could you mention what you are using for the instantaneous, gas for gas, “Global Warming Potential” of methane (in comparison with CO2)? That is, with no time horizon used to factor in its’ eventual oxidation.
Thank you
That is – as Hansen et al. explained:
“Large 2023 warming is consistent with key findings in Global Warming in the Pipeline:3 reduced
aerosol cooling and high climate sensitivity.”
With below 2 ppm of methane, and a reported effect on heating of some 35% by those 2 ppm, this would seem to indicate a GWP,5-year of some two orders of magnitude stronger effect (Radiative Forcing and subsequent heat flux, “Earth Energy Imbalance”) than CO2 alone. Thus 420 + Hansen’s 100 due to albedo degradation + approx. 100 for CH4 and other GHG, and we have a present condition in excess of 600 ppm,e.. (The meme of GWP100 is irrelevant as we cross biogeochemical self-reinforcing feedbacks in which “Earth takes over.”) So I would add Methane to Hansen’s analysis.
The USA CliVar workshop on climate variability this spring is subtitled “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” for a reason — they are having a heck of a time figuring out a (self)consistent explanation.
https://usclivar.org/meetings/confronting-earth-system-model-trends
” If inconsistencies exist, can we relate this to deficiencies in the representation of forced trends or of internal variability and understand the origins of the problem? “
The Map Is Not the Territory – The Model is not the Reality. – The Abstraction is not the Abstracted.
This realization about Reality has enormous practical consequences.
https://bjgplife.com/the-intelligence-wisdom-gap-and-the-urgent-need-to-close-it/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9799347/
Following on from my previous on point comments (here and on UV) I offer the following additional perspectives: The intelligence-wisdom gap, and the urgent need to close it
The intelligence–wisdom gap and the urgent need to close it
Richard Armitage, GP
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9799347/
Message for Gavin Schmidt. I read your article which is that 2023 was such a hot effect is a very simple explanation of this phenomenon. I have been writing for three years and asking for cooperation with climatologists, but no one wants to have this effect now, and it is simple to cool our climate and expand the extent of the ice surface in the Arctic. If it appears from the panel, and it will definitely be displayed with cooperation because I know that I have devices that turn our planet on… First, what will happen and what will be the consequences if action is not taken immediately. Wait for the degradation of ice in the Arctic with an area of 2 million km 2 and a terrible drought around the world, this can be done to start working slowly.
Please forward a message to Gavin Schmidt. because our planet has no time to wait.
E-mail:
janusz_zzz@buziaczek.pl
GLOBAL WARMING CAN BE STOPPED AND CERTAINLY SLOWED DOWN.
The increased spread of global temperature product statistics (2nd figure) year 2000-ish onwards could have something to do with reductions in operational environmental monitoring networks sites that began in the mid 1990’s. There was also a change from analogue (continuuos) to digital (ntermittent) instrumentation around that same time and changes from in person visits to automated stations. Does any literature come to mind from forum users on this pre/post automation homogenization issue? Will call is a millenium digitization bug for now…
“Not just another dot on the graph?”
Yes. It is just another dot on a graph.
And it is nothing more than that.
Hello,
Why have all NCEP reanalyses been ruled out of the global estimate for 2023 in WMO and many others’ articles?
Evidently NCEP reanalyses R1/2 changed their SST anomalies near 2020 (like CFSv2 with NSST?) but I do not have more details.
Global Warming Acceleration: Causes and Consequences
12 January 2024
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/AnnualT2023.2024.01.12.pdf
Abstract. Record global temperature in 2023 helps reveal acceleration of global warming on
decadal time scales. The proximate cause of the acceleration is increase of Earth’s energy
imbalance, specifically a substantial darkening of the planet (decreased albedo) equivalent to
a CO2 increase of more than 100 ppm, although it is difficult to apportion the albedo change
between aerosol forcing and cloud feedbacks because of limited global measurements. Large
2023 warming is consistent with key findings in Global Warming in the Pipeline:3 reduced
aerosol cooling and high climate sensitivity. We expect record monthly temperatures to
continue into mid-2024 due to the present large planetary energy imbalance, with the 12-
month running-mean global temperature reaching +1.6-1.7°C relative to 1880-1920 and
falling to only +1.4 ± 0.1°C during the following La Nina. Considering the large planetary
energy imbalance, it will be clear that the world is passing through the 1.5°C ceiling, and is
headed much higher, unless steps are taken to affect Earth’s energy imbalance
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/AnnualT2023.2024.01.12.pdf
Just another boring report with graphs, and it’s probably wrong to boot?
Solar Jim 15 JAN 2024 AT 5:12 PM CH4 “Global Warming Potential” question. I used University of Chicago (David Archer I suppose) MODTRAN for some methane variations but I only did like tropical ocean with clear sky and with 0.66 km cloud, average, and might have sampled some temperate ones for a rough adjustment. It takes time to do them. IPCC and NASA have (I’m cut’n’ pasting old notes, not willing to review them first):
For CO2 f = 5.35 * ln(C/Co) w/m**2
For CH4 f = 0.036 * (M **½ – Mo **½) – [0.47 * ln[1 + 2.01/10**5 * (M * N0) ** 0.75 + 5.31/10**15 * M * (M * N0)**1.52] – 0.47 * ln[1 + 2.01/10**5 * (M0 * N0) ** 0.75 + 5.31/10**15 * M0 * (M0 * N0)**1.52]] w/m**2
C, Co == CO2 in ppmv
M, Mo == CH4 in ppbv
N, No == N2O in ppbv
C, M, N are quantities at the end date
C0, M0, N0 are quantities at the start date
For 1750 AD Co = 278 ppmv, Mo = 722 ppbv, No = 270 ppbv
Now C = 278 ppmv, M = 722 ppbv, N =
Table 1. Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing IPCC (2001)
Constant Gas Radiative Forcing
ΔF (W/m**2)
α = 5.35 CO2 α * ln(C/Co)
β = 0.036 CH4 β * (M **½ – Mo **½) – [f(M,No) – f(Mo,No)]
ε = 0.12 N2O ε * (N **½ – No **½) – [f(Mo,N) – f(Mo,No)]
λ = 0.25 CFC-11 λ * (X – Xo)
ω = 0.32 CFC-12 ω * (X – Xo)
The subscript “o” denotes the unperturbed (1750) global abundance
f(M,N) = 0.47 * ln[1 + 2.01/10**5 * (M * N) ** 0.75 + 5.31/10**15 * M * (M * N)**1.52]
From MODTRAN I got these approximations (because I did tropical selections not global)
MODTRAN Infrared in Atmosphere
CO2 415 ppmv N2O tropical ozone 28 ppbv
CH4 tropical atmosphere
ppmv clear cumulus
sky 0.66-2.7 km
w/m**2 base
290.0 260.0
0.5 9.46 0.51
1.0 8.90 0.10
1.5 8.49 9.79
1.78 8.30 9.63 2019 end
1.87 8.24 9.60
2.0 8.14 9.54
2.5 7.89 9.32
3.0 7.64 9.13
3.5 7.42 8.97
4.0 7.20 8.82
4.5 7.01 8.66
5.0 6.86 8.53
5.34 6.73 8.44
5.5 6.70 8.41
6.0 6.54 8.28
7.0 6.26 8.09
8.0 6.00 7.87
9.0 5.79 7.72
10.0 5.57 7.53
11.0 5.38 7.37
12.0 5.19 7.25
13.0 5.00 7.09
14.0 4.85 6.96
15.0 4.69 6.84
16.0 4.53 6.74
17.0 4.38 6.62
18.0 4.25 6.52
18.4 4.19 6.46
18.6 4.16 6.43
18.7 4.16 6.43
18.8 4.12 6.43
19.0 4.09 6.40
19.4 4.06 6.37 (3.70 average from 1.78 ppmv)
20.0 3.97 6.30
21.0 3.84 6.21
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0 2.99 5.52
30.0 2.90 5.46
37.0 2.27 4.99 (5.34 average from 1.78 ppmv)
38.0 2.21 4.92 (5.40 average from 1.78 ppmv)
45.0 1.68 4.51 (5.87 average from 1.78 ppmv)
47.0 1.55 4.42 (5.98 average from 1.78 ppmv)
50.0 1.36 4.26 (6.17 average from 1.78 ppmv) 148 Gt CH4 Peak +1.0 degrees by scaling Peter Wadhams’ 0.6 degrees for 50 Gt CH4
72.1 0.17 3.32 (7.22 average from 1.78 ppmv)