New year, new open thread on climate topics. Note that summaries and updates to include 2023 data will be posted on the surface temperature graphics page and model-observations comparison page over the next couple of weeks as the data becomes available.
patrick o twentyseven 20 JAN 2024 AT 7:09 PM “outgassing” It’s estimated that ~50% of heat inside Earth is from the kinetic energy of collision at 4.64 billion years ago and the rest from nuclear fission. I think it’s obviously highly-uncertain since they have 50%/50% but still there was only nuclear fission to provide the heat to liquify and cause outgassing before collision, and I don’t know the period of time over which the proto lumps were coalescing and nuclear fission was occurring, possibly the lumps were very cold before collision. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCYovuVKnxM
Barry E FInch: there was only nuclear fission to provide the heat to liquify and cause outgassing before collision
If by “collision” you mean the collision with Mars-size planet (which didn’t happen at “4.64” Ga) – then before it radioactivity is NOT the only source of energy – you have also energy of accretion (released when the “lumps” come together-) which together with fission (more intense than today) and Heavy Bombardment by asteroids was enough to melt the Mars-size Earth at the time, which then in turn allowed fourth source of heat – from the density differentiation – as the denser material sinks toward the core and lighter floats upward – they convert their potential energy into heat.
2024 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Daily readings slowly decreasing, yearly growth rates are still peaking at ‘record’ levels
Week beginning on January 14, 2024: 422.84 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 419.30 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 398.05 ppm
Last updated: January 21, 2024
The annual increase is at 3.54 ppm (!) which is of course higher than the 10 year average of 2.48 ppm/a.
What do rapidly rising atmospheric GHGs drive?
Some of the CO2 increase is due to increased outgassing from the recent spike + El Nino extreme. Interestingly, this spike may be best resolved by looking at the likely true nature of the ENSO behavior, which is the standing-wave dipole as measured by the SOI readings (Tahiti – Darwin atmospheric pressure) . An ENSO measure such as NINO34 is essentially providing a monopole reading across a relarively wide region of the equatorial Pacific, so it may be picking up more of the level shift of temperature rather than than the differentially discriminated temperature variation produced by an El Nino swing. One can already see that the SOI extreme is not as strong as NINO34 or the other monopole indices such as NINOx.
Dear Paul Pukite, am not presently monitoring the SOI shifts or data, but I trust your observations above. Everything is connected of course. El Nino drives CO2 and temps spikes as much as sustained CO2 temps drive the El Nino and ENSO behaviours.
I still recall the Oct 12, 2017 NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earths-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/
With the long term absence of subsequent reporting, one might believe it hasn’t happened since. Which is of course untrue and impossible (to say the least).
And quoting NASA-NOAA “The last El Nino in 2015-16 impacted the amount of carbon dioxide that Earth’s tropical regions released into the atmosphere, leading to Earth’s recent record spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The effects of the El Nino were different in each region. “
Along with:
Influence of El Niño on atmospheric CO2 over the tropical Pacific Ocean: Findings from NASA’s OCO-2 mission
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aam5776
From my saved records. I have not forgotten such events nor the fundamentals and proven principles they represent. I cannot speak for others.
I recall this too, and more importantly it’s valuable take away meanings:
July 18, 2016 2016 climate trends continue to break records
By Patrick Lynch,
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2465/2016-climate-trends-continue-to-break-records/
And yet still people, and climate scientists too, fail to expect (and actually publicly deny) that new records are most likely than not to again be broken all last year, and as we speak in 2024. I really cannot comprehend it, morally and ethically. To me, ymmv, it beggars belief in some peoples perceived credibility.
And despite all this and more, there is still no monitoring of the various aerosols emissions or volume in the atmosphere, nor solid reliable monitoring of the shifting Albedo measurements around the globe during the year, as well as no credible understanding of physics driven Clouds behaviour in this endlessly changing and rapidly increasing climate changes (being accurately modeled in the GCMs afaict)
….. was my terminology and semantics a little askew there? Apologies.
Thanks for your info and feedback.
JCM 19 JAN 2024 AT 12:13 AM “Does the icy dry polar night exhibit a relatively high or low sensitivity to trace gas?”. I haven’t been following the lengthy exchanges on irrigation, deforestation etc. last couple years so I don’t know whether that question’s rhetorical. Taking it as an RFI and altering “sensitivity” to “surface-troposphere warming” and altering “trace” to “infrared-active” the correct answer is that the so-called “greenhouse effect” warming in Earth’s troposphere and surface generally increases (note 1) as surface temperature increases (so it maybe can be considered a form of feedback, not sure) per the black best-fit line through the green hash plot of millions of measurements for 63,000 equi-spaced locations around Earth (grid pixels) at 2:37 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNgMyDRWWrA (all measurements 1998-2014 but only for clear skies, no clouds). I calculated from it at a surface temperature of 228K (-45 degrees) the “greenhouse effect” is zero and below 228K the “greenhouse effect” operates backwards (I forget whewther I used Emissivity Coefficient 0.99 or 1.00), cooling the surface instead of warming it, increasingly as the surface temperature drops. This, of course, is because the surface is barely or not heated by sunshine in winter and the warm air from lower latitudes arrives high and descends so it radiates LWR to space at a higher rate than the colder surface-air below is radiating LWR. Hence, if that arriving air had no so-called “greenhouse gases” in it then it would stay warmer and warm the surface more when it arrived there. Explained by Professor William van Wijngaarden at 22:09 to 23:29 with the 1970 IRIS-D on Nimbus 4 measured FTIR spectrum at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgP-lwf2tb8 (Antarctica during winter cooled a bit more by the”greenhouse effect”). The Arctic Ocean at 75N is warmer than 228K so that green hash plot gives a smallish but normal warming effect from GHGs yet the 194 w/m**2 of warm air at 75N in January from Kevin Trenberth animation (when I decided to take a butcher’s at Global Warmage in early 2013) that I used (weekly the whole year not just January) to calculate Arctic Ocean sea-ice-loss warming in July-August 2018 is considerably too much power for the Arctic Ocean at 75N January surface temperature which implies a negative (cooling) “greenhouse effect” same as the stratosphere (but I’m just recalling that I’m probably thinking of Zeke Hausfather’s High Arctic 80N-90N surface temperatures rather than 75N so maybe not so much). Maybe some discrepancy in my thought about the green hash plot versus KT animation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQOIHdlZngk at 14:29 to 15:10
Note 1: Jing Feng shows & discusses the interesting discontinuity in GHE between 300K-304K surface temperature.
Hi Barry OK –
firstly about the “shithouse”, is the analogy that there are birdshit splats on top of the window glass which is reflecting more shorter waves, but also acting to improve insulation of the outgoing longer waves? Special shit radiative effects (SRE) complicating the greenhouse glass situation?
as an aside about bird shit – it’s white(ish) and loaded with nitrogen. Cornell University estimated 30% of birds missing since 1970. 3 billion individuals vanished in north America along with 50% wet lands there (about 100 acres per hour, with wildlife decline rate having a curving relation to that but with discontinuities too).
And so we observe the carbon to nitrogen ratio in off-season field process residues worsening, 20:1 to 50:1 to 100:1. And anything worse than 20 or 30:1 you find the stems and litter will never (bio)degrade. They instead oxidize anyhow. You may notice it as excess leaves persisting after 1 year during a residual “nature” walk at the plantation. And that’s only 3 billion birds, not including the other missing shits.
I originally came to mentione these things here but I quickly realized to pull it back (way back) because I was surprised to learn even elemental moisture relations to environments are not yet realized, let alone how ecologies fit into that. I hoped to get back to it but the brakes are still ongoing and enforced on that here.
Back to shit radiative effects (SRE), moving from less shitty to more shitty shithouses, I suppose the apparent inward (downward) LW SRE is barely changing, but the outward SW SRE is strongly changing.
And so, putting it another way, the presence or absence of birdshit on the glass could be practically irrelevant in their greenhouse shit-glass effects, but very important in their albedo effects: More shitty, more reflected SW, cooler glass, but same LW SRE. – or, Less shitty, less reflective, warmer glass, same LW SRE.
It’s about the fraction of shit, and so the analogy or metaphor applies literally too. Fewer birds, less shit, hotter air. it works.
In response to “of course, this is because”, “warm air from lower latitudes” and “Wijngaarden”
I don’t love Wijngaarden’s description for the observation in Antarctica. Additionally, in the interior where it averages below 228K and is at great elevation, it is very likely practically shielded from heat import.
I propose alternatively:
generally speaking, owing to the curving vapor pressure relation to temperature, the vertical radiative cooling profile becomes increasingly top-heavy with increasing surface temperature.
That is, when it’s warmer, the radiative cooling rate in K/day increases aloft and decreases at the surface. Conversely, when it’s colder, the radiative cooling rate is less-top heavy. Then the radiative cooling rate aloft is reduced.
In extreme cases of cold, perhaps below your 228K critical threshold, the cooling profile becomes literally bottom-heavy. In other words, below 228K temperature, the radiative cooling rate appears to be actually higher at the surface compared to the air aloft. Extreme cold dry air has an extreme slow rate of radiative cooling.
This creates the unique condition where the Ts – Tr thermodynamic steady state is negative. That is, a surface temperature Ts that is colder than the temperature of emission Tr. This condition is precisely what Wijngaarden is noticing for Antarctica.
Wijngaarden is slightly misleading with his explanation IMO, where he suggests the Antarctic air aloft is “a much better radiator”. When in actual fact his observation is the result of the extremely slow rate of radiative cooling of the Antarctic air aloft.
This video is not a good example of clear communication for a number of reasons, like poor audio and speaking over each other is partly to blame, but there are still quite a number of really good points and knowledge to be gained nevertheless.
2023: +1.54ºC! Why Is Global Warming Accelerating? Interview with Leon Simons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCPf8vvedSI
———
Also see this popular interview with supporting refs and slides in January 2024 with Nate Hagens
Leon Simons: “Aerosol Demasking & Global Heating”
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/105-leon-simons
For other comments and Refs about these matters:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/not-just-another-dot-on-the-graph-part-ii/
Gaia says: “Oh my beloved self-centered humans…..”
(3 graphics)
http://tosommerfugle.blogspot.com/2016/04/mother-gaia-and-humans-on-earthday.html
O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion.
A tribute to those who are blind to their anger and prejudice, those who present half-baked fake skeptic arguments as if they are new insights, and those who use this section to lecture us all as if they own the place, repeatedly, at great length, and are free with their condemnations of anyone who dares to be independent or get in their way. I do wish those who are locked in to their righteousness would not make free with this comment section as if it belonged to them.
—
Mike Mann has fought the good fight on our behalf for decades. He’s done more to understand and get the word out than most people on this planet. We know what we know partly because of his work, and he has fought for our freedomes as well. He’s still doing it.
https://michaelmann.net/about/cv
https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/news/mann-in-the-middle/
Yes! Nice poem!
It IS BB day today (1/25), after all! Have a wee dram.
will do, very wee since it’s late, for you and for Robbie Burns!
Affirmative to those with half baked logics, displaying extreme bias and prejudice; to those lacking awareness, with a false sense of virtue. To those who impede the progress of their own ideologies, and choose to fight against their allies. It is ominous, insincere, and sick. Phony environmentalists; offering and doing nothing, while disparaging those who are out living it genuinely and for real.
imo Michael Mann is not the only one who has a far way to go and grow. We all have our limitations and we all tend to keep rising until we reach the level of our own incompetence. That is a wise truism because it is true and repeatable.
The Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy is a conceptual framework that illustrates the relationships and progression of information through various stages, each building upon the previous one. It is commonly used in information science, knowledge management, and data analysis. Let’s explore each level in detail:
1. **Data:**
– **Definition:** Raw facts or observations without any context or interpretation.
– **Characteristics:** Data are discrete, objective, and often unprocessed elements.
– **Example:** A list of numbers, a collection of words, or individual measurements.
2. **Information:**
– **Definition:** Data that has been processed, organized, or structured to provide context, relevance, and meaning.
– **Characteristics:** Information adds value to data by making it understandable and useful.
– **Example:** Converting a list of numbers into a graph or summarizing a set of measurements.
3. **Knowledge:**
– **Definition:** Information that has been interpreted and contextualized to form a deeper understanding.
– **Characteristics:** Knowledge involves the application of information, allowing for insight and comprehension.
– **Example:** Understanding the relationships between different sets of information or recognizing patterns.
4. **Wisdom:**
– **Definition:** The ability to make sound judgments and decisions based on knowledge and experience.
– **Characteristics:** Wisdom goes beyond understanding and involves the application of knowledge in a practical and insightful manner.
– **Example:** Using knowledge and experience to solve complex problems or make informed decisions [aka Sound Judgements! ].
In summary, the DIKW hierarchy represents a continuum where raw data are transformed into meaningful information, which is then interpreted to create knowledge. Ultimately, wisdom is achieved when this knowledge is ABLE TO BE APPLIED in a way that leads to effective decision-making and problem-solving.
The hierarchy emphasizes the progression from basic, unprocessed data to a higher level of understanding and practical application. This framework is valuable for disciplines such as data science, information systems, and knowledge management, providing a structure for analyzing and leveraging information effectively.
Copyright by NK
And then there’s the old joke:
A pilgrim climbs the mountain to see the great guru and has the following exchange:
Pilgrim: Oh, great guru, what is the secret of a happy life?
Guru: The secret of a happy life is wisdom.
Pilgrim: But what is the secret of wisdom?
Guru: The secret of wisdom is good judgment.
Pilgrim: But, what is the secret of good judgment?
Guru: The secret of good judgment is experience.
Pilgrim: But what is the secret of experience?
Guru: [Pause] Bad judgment.
“Copyright by NK”
Holy 2024! The path to Wisdom has become the intellectual property of a pseudonymous 19th century bushwacker! Well, stick that in your ChatGPT and crunch it!
Are we having fun yet?*
*AFAIK Bill Griffith has neither trademarked or copyrighted the phrase.
Ah yes…yet another “teacher” teaching actual professionals doing actual work in the field, how to do their work without ever having published a line of research himself.
Reminds me of those drunks you see at sports bars loudly informing one and all what THEY would have done instead of that stupid coach.
Don’t worry about copyright…your words are quite safe from others making money off them, I’m sure.
Ned Kelly. A nice comment and nicely tabulated. Although its reasonably obvious that data, knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are different although interrelated things.
M Mann seems to have good wisdom on the climate science and also climate solutions. For example promoting renewables, carbon sinks and moderate reductions in per capita energy use, a bit of everything seems like a sensible approach to me compared to the alternatives. Of course this doesn’t mean everyone will listen. Humans can sometimes be contrary. Wise men and women are frequently ignored.
James Hansen has good insight rather than good wisdom. He doesnt seem to appreciate the problems of scaling up nuclear power which look even more challenging than scaling up renewables.
Killian means well but does not always demonstrate good wisdom. For example the chances of society adopting his preferred solutions ( for example 90% reductions in energy use in the USA within 20 years as the primary solution to climate change) are clearly effectively zero and they would likely have catastrophic side effects. A good analogue is what happened in the great economic depression of the 1930s where energy use contracted by about 30% at one point leading to mass unemployment, poverty, and societal breakdown.
I was also troubled by Hansen’s promotion of geoengineering.
Susan Anderson: – “I was also troubled by Hansen’s promotion of geoengineering.”
What? You don’t consider what humanity has been doing for millennia as “geoengineering”, Susan? Humans are “geomorphic agents”, now land-shaping on a scale much more than the forces of nature, such as rivers, glaciers, rain and wind.
https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050307/full/news050307-2.html
You don’t think the consequences of human-induced GHG emissions, over centuries with coal use, and since the mid-1800s with oil and gas use, is a form of “geoengineering”, Susan?
In the YouTube video titled Dr. James E. Hansen in Conversation with Paul Beckwith, recorded 13 Nov 2023, published 27 Nov 2023, duration 0:43:12, Dr. James Hansen, former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, joins host Paul Beckwith, in a discussion about Hansen’s recent work. From the following time intervals:
0:37:38: James Hansen: “Yeah, yeah, no. The, the BFD, the big deal is this sudden increase in absorbed solar radiation.”
0:37:47: Paul Beckwith: “Yeah.”
0;37:48; James Hansen: “You know, if this, if this is a single event, which is just going to continue now, and if anything, get a little larger; it’s a big deal! If we say, ‘OK, we’re going to counteract that by sucking some CO₂ out of the air’, well it would cost more than a hundred trillion dollars at the current estimated cost. So it’s not happening.”
0:38:12: Paul Beckwith: “Yeah, and we don’t have, you know that’s, the, those technologies we haven’t demonstrated they’re scalable at all, or anything else. So I still think, I still talk about what I call the three-legged bar stool: slashing fossil fuel emission, carbon dioxide removal, that includes methane removal; and solar radiation management. Call it the artificial anthropogenic volcano, or something. You know, release sulfur in the atmosphere to counteract some of this stuff. I mean, we can easily take sulfur out of shipping fuels, right? We don’t need, there’s no controversy about that, but we try to replace what we’ve taken out by putting some sulfur in the atmosphere, and the whole world is into a big controversy saying: ‘Oh gee, you can’t do that, do geoengineering…’”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWUJ8Lvl-U
I’d suggest humanity’s long-term unintentional “geoengineering” is making our habitable planet increasingly more hostile for us.
Susan, what’s your solution(s) if “geoengineering” methods, in an attempt to reverse the Earth System’s current trajectory towards civilisation collapse, are not available to us?
Meanwhile, Yale Climate Connections highlights a 2023 report by insurance giant Lloyd’s, exploring the odds of a disruption of the global agricultural and food supply chain, leading to panic buying and price shocks. The report looked at “major,” “severe,” and “extreme” scenarios.
The “major” case would cost the world $3 trillion over a five-year period, with their estimated 2.3% chance of happening per year. Over a 30-year period, those odds grow to about a 50% probability of occurrence, provided the risks aren’t increasing, which they are with increasing Earth System warming.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/01/what-are-the-odds-that-extreme-weather-will-lead-to-a-global-food-shock/
Extreme weather events are the top risk facing supply chains in 2024, according to an annual outlook report from Everstream Analytics.
https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/extreme-weather–top-supply-chain-risk-2024-everstream-climate-change-food-shortages/704232/
Good points, imho, mostly …
There are some worthwhile efforts, but spraying sulfur dioxide is devastatingly wrongheaded. Dimming the sun has catastrophic unintended consequences (increased famine is the most obvious). It would have to be continuously maintained at an accelerating level, and fails utterly to halt the actual effect, which means a redoubled return when it inevitably reaches collapse or failure.
I can’t take Paul Beckwith seriously, as he predicts Arctic melt year after year. He does real harm in providing ammunition to fake skeptics in their attacks on catastrophists.
On the whole, I wish to support Mike Mann, but personally I think he’s being a bit obstinate in taking on all comers in his well meaning effort to stop lazy doomers from checking out. We do need to act, not succumb to apathy.
Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future does a good job of working out a possible scenario for its use, but we have to remember that’s fiction, and fiction is capable of delivering a better ending than we, in our cultivation of endless increasing consumption, waste, marketing, and toxics are headed for. Perhaps John Brunner’s The Sheep Look Up is more accurate.
I am neither a scientists nor a policymaker, just an old lady kicking the tires … and daring to venture where angels fear to tread.
Susan Anderson (at 27 JAN 2024 AT 2:46 PM): – “There are some worthwhile efforts, but spraying sulfur dioxide is devastatingly wrongheaded.”
Humans have already been “geomorphic agents” for millennia, with the unintended consequences now emerging of humanity likely being on a trajectory towards civilisation collapse in the coming next few decades. If, as you say: “spraying sulfur dioxide is devastatingly wrongheaded”, then what solution(s) are you offering to turn around the rising Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI), Susan? That’s what’s driving the Earth System towards becoming an increasingly more hostile environment for many species – the beginnings of a sixth mass extinction.
Paul Beckwith isn’t the only one saying we/humanity should be: “…lashing fossil fuel emission, carbon dioxide removal, that includes methane removal; and solar radiation management.” In other words, we/humanity need to: Reduce. Remove. Repair.
https://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
Sir David King says similar…
https://vimeo.com/527806796
Nothing less will do! The Laws of Physics are not negotiable!
Susan Anderson (at 27 JAN 2024 AT 2:46 PM): – “It would have to be continuously maintained at an accelerating level, and fails utterly to halt the actual effect, which means a redoubled return when it inevitably reaches collapse or failure.”
Your statement suggests to me you misunderstand/underestimate what’s required.
Susan Anderson (at 27 JAN 2024 AT 2:46 PM): – “I can’t take Paul Beckwith seriously, as he predicts Arctic melt year after year.”
Does he? When? Please provide references/links.
Per NASA, satellite-based summer Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking by 12.2% per decade due to warmer temperatures. Per the annual September minimum sea ice extent graph:
1980: 7.54 million km²
1990: 6.04 million km²
2000: 5.98 million km²
2010: 4.62 million km²
2020: 3.82 million km²
2023: 4.37 million km²
(2020, 2021 & 2022 were La Niña years)
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
NASA scientists who compared hundreds of thousands of satellite images, believe the world’s second-largest body of ice has shrunk by a fifth more than previously estimated.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-19/greenland-ice-sheet-shrinking-faster-than-thought-nasa/103363612
A Nature communications paper published mid last year (2023) suggests a ‘blue’ Arctic Sea event could be as soon as in the early 2030s.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8
Susan Anderson (at 27 JAN 2024 AT 2:46 PM): – “On the whole, I wish to support Mike Mann, but personally I think he’s being a bit obstinate in taking on all comers in his well meaning effort to stop lazy doomers from checking out.”
I think Michael Mann is heavily ‘sugar-coating’ the situation. I’d suggest many scientists don’t want to tell the truth about how dire the climate crisis is. See my comments thread beginning at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/10/unforced-variations-oct-2023/#comment-814799
I’d suggest we need to be brutally honest about the dire situation we/humanity are already in and an even worse situation we/humanity are heading towards, and what is now required, if we are to have any chance of avoiding civilisation collapse.
https://johnmenadue.com/part-2-towards-an-unliveable-planet-climates-2023-annus-horribilis/
Susan Anderson (at 27 JAN 2024 AT 2:46 PM): – “I am neither a scientists nor a policymaker, just an old lady kicking the tires … and daring to venture where angels fear to tread.”
One should understand the current situation and what’s required to avoid the situation becoming unmanageable BEFORE ruling out options.
There is geoengineering and geoengineering. One can argue that regulating our consumption of fossil carbon is also geoengineering–whether increasing or decreasing it. The problem I have with most of the geoengineering proposals I’ve seen is that they rely in the forcings we least understand–aerosols, fertilizing growth of algae in the oceans…even pacing mirrors or solar collectors in orbit to block incoming sunlight (in effect making up for the excess IR by blocking visible light).
These are complex forcings, and our ability to model them is much less well developed than is our ability to model changes in greenhouse gasses. That said, we have squandered 40 years trying to bring along the slow students in the class. We probably don’t have the luxury of being choosy in the mitigations we adopt to forestall the worst of the consequences of our inaction,
Geoff Miell says
27 Jan 2024 at 9:50 PM
“I think Michael Mann is heavily ‘sugar-coating’ the situation.”
Stop ‘sugar coating’ it. MM is an outrageous denier of reality. And an abusive internet Troll.
Plus a constant slanderer of anyone who disagrees with any of his endless prognostications.
Mann should be the one in court today being tried for Defamation. Or simply for being an offensive loud mouthed jackass.
That said, in regard the essential causes and solutions to climate. The daddy of them all is wealth. Wealth concentration if you will. Or the fact that wealth rules the entire world and not people. Call it by any name you wish. Morloch. Mammon. Both fit perfectly. The 1%? Tech Billionaires, Musk, Black Rock, Amazon, all of them.
Or describe tham as owning and driving what Nate Hagen’s The Superorganism — which is simply another term to describe the global economic / financial systems running on automatic in service to the Super Mega Wealthy desires and no one and nothing else.
These wealthy people are all crazed psychopaths, and pathological liars one and all. Essentially psychotics who have totally lost their humanity and any sense of personal responsibility for anybody apart from themselves and self-interests. Zero empathy – they are incapable of it.
When Michael Mann cries like a baby about the evils of fossil fuel companies and all those nasty bad deniers who dared criticise him, he is speaking of a knat on an elephants backside. It’s the elephant that is the cause of all the current and coming destruction – and killing it is the solution.
Michael Mann brings new meaning to the phrase — cannot see the forest for the trees.
And he is not alone here for there is an worldwide cabal of equally delusional climate science activists who back him in with these manifest self-serving and self-righteous delusions.
They are all ignorant fools who need to either wake up – then educate themselves about the world – or just get out the way.
An interesting, nay frightening fact, the global economy has tripled since 2000.
Tripled
There is a proven 99% statistical correlation between GDP and Energy Consumption across decades and for over 100 years.
Energy use has tripled since 2000 and ~99% of that has been provided by the expansion of Fossil Fuels consumption – and their resulting GHG emissions.
Net worth has tripled since 2000
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-rise-and-rise-of-the-global-balance-sheet-how-productively-are-we-using-our-wealth
The past two decades have generated $160 trillion in paper wealth
https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/the-future-of-wealth-and-growth-hangs-in-the-balance
Global public debt has increased more than fourfold since the year 2000, clearly outpacing global GDP, which tripled over the same time
https://unctad.org/publication/world-of-debt
To stop fossil fuel consumption (without first upending and regenerating the entire basis of and value systems of human societies and specifically addressing human population degrowth) would collapse the global economy and bring down civilizations and wipe out billions of the population.
To not stop fossil fuel and rising energy consumption (while continuing on the present systems driving the Superorganism) will, without any doubt whatsoever, collapse the global economy and bring down civilizations and wipe out billions of the population. .
NK > MM is …
JP > It’s really handy to operate under a pseudonym when your main purpose is to attack people. It doesn’t work so well if you actually want to be taken seriously.
Susan Anderson Jan 26– “I was also troubled by Hansen’s promotion of geoengineering”
Geoff Miell: Jan. 27″What? You don’t think the consequences of human-induced GHG emissions, over centuries with coal use, and since the mid-1800s with oil and gas use, is a form of “geoengineering”, Susan?
Piotr: and that’s your argument … in defense of geoengineering? I’d hate to see what you would say to the actions you oppose …”
Susan: Jan. 27 : “There are some worthwhile efforts, but spraying sulfur dioxide is devastatingly wrongheaded. Dimming the sun has catastrophic unintended consequences (increased famine is the most obvious). It would have to be continuously maintained at an accelerating level, and fails utterly to halt the actual effect, which means a redoubled return when it inevitably reaches collapse or failure.
Geoff: “Your statement suggests to me you misunderstand/underestimate what’s required.
Susan: Jan. 27 : “There are some worthwhile efforts, but spraying sulfur dioxide is devastatingly wrongheaded. Dimming the sun has catastrophic unintended consequences (increased famine is the most obvious). It would have to be continuously maintained at an accelerating level, and fails utterly to halt the actual effect, which means a redoubled return when it inevitably reaches collapse or failure.”
Geoff: “Your statement suggests to me you misunderstand/underestimate what’s required.
Piotr: Your statement suggests to me you misunderstand/misrepresent what’s been said:
Susan did not reject all geoengineering methods (“There are some worthwhile efforts “), but questioned one of them (“spraying sulfur dioxide“) – and pointed to the potential problems – some specific to this method (“increased famine“) others applying to all geoengineering methods that do not reduce GHGs concentrations (I have added some of my points):
a) not addressing the root cause (GHGs), but only one of the symptoms
b) once started, you would have to continue geoengineering forever, or as long as we don’t reduce GHGs conc. to their preindustrial levels, whichever comes first.
c) by taking the urgency away from reducing GHGs (since we control one of its major consequences)we encourage further …. increase in GHGs,
d) – c) means that geoengineering interventions have to further ramp up with time
e) -c) means also that the other main consequence of CO2 emissions – ocean acidification – accelerates.
f) the more acidic ocean take up less atm. CO2 => atm. CO2 increases faster => you need to ramp up your geoengineering EVEN MORE
g) geoengineering requires sustained international support – not likely if the negative effects of altering the climate would be borne disproportionally by some countries
h) the moment you stop – all the pent-up heating from the accumulated in the meantime GHGs- would be felt instantly – meaning that the ecosystems and species have no time to try to adjust^*
^* (were the increase in T gradual – species may try to adapt by migration and/or by genetic adaptation, with the massive increase in T following the stopping of the geoengineering scheme – would be to fast for either) .
So before endorsing those – I have to take other things into account
As for the other type of geoengineering – that do lower GHG concentration,
they should be fine providing that they don’t cause massive environmental damage AND are technically-feasible and more cost-effective than the reductions in GHG emissions via reduction of use and renewables.
Piotr (at 29 JAN 2024 AT 4:08 PM): – “a) not addressing the root cause (GHGs), but only one of the symptoms”
Now who’s misrepresenting, Piotr? It seems to me you have selective vision/comprehension – reiterating my earlier comment, just for you:
Repair/geoengineering methods on their own will be ineffective (particularly if human-induced GHG emissions continue).
Reducing human-induced GHG emissions to ZERO on their own will be ineffective to avoid our current trajectory towards civilisation collapse.
Removing atmospheric GHGs on their own will be ineffective (particularly if human-induced GHG emissions continue).
Paul Beckwith uses the analogy of the three-legged bar stool – without all three legs in place (i.e. “slashing fossil fuel emission, carbon dioxide removal, that includes methane removal; and solar radiation management“) the bar stool (i.e. a habitable planet for civilisation) will fall over.
Piotr (at 29 JAN 2024 AT 2:52 PM): – “Geoff Miell: Jan. 27″What? You don’t think the consequences of human-induced GHG emissions, over centuries with coal use, and since the mid-1800s with oil and gas use, is a form of “geoengineering”, Susan?
Piotr: and that’s your argument … in defense of geoengineering? I’d hate to see what you would say to the actions you oppose …””
I’ve provided examples of “geoengineering” that have unintentionally led us/humanity into this dire situation of an escalating climate crisis that is now an existential threat to civilisation. I think this is an example of you misrepresenting me.
Reiterating, just for you:
Clock’s ticking!
Anyone who is aware of Murphy’s Law would have a problem with geoengineering. At worst, it’s like saying “I don’t understand what causes an El Nino event, but here’s an idea to prevent them”.
Geoengineering is promoted by the IPCC
Yet one more reason why the IPCC is a serious problem for humanity and a major barrier to real practical solutions to global warming.
Not to mention that all the geoengineering proposals I’ve seen so far wouldn’t solve the issue of ocean acidification.
Time to chime in on this research team’s belief that they can attempt “model predictive control” of climate based on their knowledge of controls engineering and the application of a chaotic Lorenz model:
https://npg.copernicus.org/preprints/npg-2024-4/
“Leading the Lorenz-63 system toward the prescribed regime by model predictive control coupled with data assimilation”
in addition to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-818530
Dear Susan,
Thank you for this notice.
To be honest, I am quite confused by proposals that sulfate aerosol cooling effect could be exploited for mitigation of the rising greenhouse effect caused by rising concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases.
On one hand, we have read lot of complaints that less sulfur in fuels caused a decrease in sulfate aerosol concentration during the last decades (and especially in the very last one) and that it sulfate aerosol failed thus failed to compensate the rising grenhouse effect. In this case, proposals to consider re-introducing sulfate aerosol might have sense.
On the other hand, there are analyses asserting that sulfate aerosol on one hand decreases the shortwave input to Earth surface, however, without a substantial effect on surface temperature, because the lower SW input basically causes only lower latent heat flux from the surface, without a substantial change in longwave fluxes:
https://idw-online.de/de/news564976
https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/farm/BGC/uploads/veranstaltungen/1386254929_document__2013.pdf
https://pro-physik.de/nachrichten/kann-geoengineering-die-welt-retten
Both kind of messages comes from top climate scientists.
In parallel, laymen like me, asking here questions how such dicrepancies should be understood, are told that climate science is crystal clear and perfectly settled, and everybody who dares to doubt that rising concentration of carbon dioxide and further non-condensing greenhouse gases may not be a single anthropogenic interference with Earth climate is assigned as a “science denier”.
Isn’t it strange?
Greetings
Tomáš
Very strange indeed Tomas.
(deja vu hits)
Re: T. Kalisz Jan 27
Can you quote the scientific paper in which their authors wrote as you put it: “ climate science is crystal clear and perfectly settled“?
I ask because such absolute, unequivocal, claims (“crystal clear”, “perfectly settled”) are rather characteristic of non-scientists – politicians or, say, a troll, who tries to portray climate scientists as conceited and arrogant for not answering his demands for answer to his ill-informed questions.
You are like a third grader who has problems with addition and division, but found a calculus textbook, looked at few pages and wrote, using random phrases he read in the textbook, demanding explanations from the textbook authors. And when they rightly ignored him – questioned their ethics, as well as validity of mathematics.
To be scrupulously fair to Killian (with whom, of course, I’ve frequently differed), his view as I understand it is that we won’t have any choice except to do what he recommends. (I can’t quite square that with his view that the transition will be surprisingly painless; I would have thought that in any such scenario the pain would be precisely what forces the change. But apparently I almost never understand what he actually means, which is presumably why he thinks I’m a blockhead.)
Kevin
“To be scrupulously fair to Killian (with whom, of course, I’ve frequently differed), his view as I understand it is that we won’t have any choice except to do what he recommends.”
Yes correct. Killian has indeed suggested we have no choice but to decrease our energy use 90% within two decades because 1) we allegedly wont have enough resources to keep up present levels of energy use any longer (regardless of how the energy is generated) and 2) if we dont make huge reductions in energy use this very decade or next we will allegedly so destroy the environment with pollution and mining that we will cause our own extinction.
His claims sound very exaggerated to me and are not based on peer reviewed science and a broad look at all the evidence. BS in other words. Which just shows another form of lack of wisdom.
That said our high levels of energy use are environmentally destructive, and we arent mitigating that problem well enough. And we cant continue high energy use INDEFINITELY because resources are finite and some are very scarce. IMO we may be forced to make SOME reductions in energy over the next couple of decades,, although Im not convinced it would be anything like 90%.
“But apparently I almost never understand what he actually means, which is presumably why he thinks I’m a blockhead.)”
Hes accused me of the same. Hang in there. Your criticisms of his comments look mostly very valid to me.
Killian refuses to accept the failings / problems in his scientific claims and his simplification ideas because hes a typical stubborn egocentric crank. Not that Im a perfect or get everything right, but I learnerd a long time ago that while its important to have convictions and beliefs and fight for them you need to acknowledge you could be wrong and keep an open mind. Or you end up as a stubborn crank still believing the world is flat or vaccines dont work or whatever. I dont want to end up like that.
All too predictable.
Like offering shiny coloured beads to the former owners of Manhattan Island in the 17th century.
Too funny. :-)
The daily Copernicus ERA5 global anomalies for the first 17 days of January (as per the UoMaine Climate Reanalyser) suggest the full January 2024 figure will show a significant drop on the December 2023 figure with the lowest anomaly since June 2023.
ERA5 Global Anomalies 2023-on
Jan … … +0.25ºC
Feb … … +0.29ºC
Mar … … +0.51ºC
Apr … … +0.32ºC
May … … +0.40ºC
Jun … … +0.53ºC
Jul … … +0.72ºC
Aug … … +0.71ºC
Sep … … +0.93ºC
Oct … … +0.85ºC
Nov … … +0.85ºC
Dec … … +0.85ºC
Jan … … +0.66ºC (to 17th)
What happens in the final 14 days of January is in the lap of the gods. The drop in the daily anomalies through the first half of the month is unprecedented in recent years and without precedent, the second half of the month could surely go either way. (I’m keeping up-to-date a graphic with the UoMaine anomalies plotted here – graph First Posted 15/12/23)
The saying goes: “Don’t count your chickens.”
Let’s wait to the end of the month. Then the next month. Then wait for all other providers to stake their claims in the moving sands. And wait another month. And another. Wait until the end of the year. Then wait until January next year. Wait for another article titled: Not another dot on a graph?
Then wait another year. Then wait for the AR7. And wait again. Read some more profuse articles about the bad bad (no body) climate science deniers on RC. And then eventually ……. rollover and just die where we are. Exhausted from waiting and reading all of Mike Mann’s books.
MA Rodger says
6 Dec 2023 at 11:49 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816849
ref inserted was https://climate.copernicus.eu/how-close-are-we-reaching-global-warming-15degc
And that — “sooner than you think” — will actually, and totally depends on what the “Hypothetical YOU” actually Thinks.
What does this ‘Global temperature trend monitor’ say today?
How close are we to reaching a global warming of 1.5˚C?
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/software/app-c3s-global-temperature-trend-monitor?tab=app
+1.26C in December (is false)
30 year warming trend (is deceitful disinformation)
reach +1.5C in November 2033 (false, illogical, a factually incorrect conclusion)
This website information is False. And out of date. Meaning, it is not true.
It is Sophistry. A distortion of reality. Misleading and Manipulative.
Unreliable. Incompetent. And Untrustworthy too I suggest.
Lovely, but incoherent, list of accusations–pure Dunning-Kruger in action, in my opinion.
So, what are your numbers, Ned? And what (if anything) are they based upon?
Meanwhile:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/global-climate-highlights-2023
Headline: “Global temperatures: 2023 warmest year on record, close to 1.5°C above pre-industrial level”
Ned Kellys comments on Copernicus website..
To claim the copernicus information is false and out of date and misleading or dishonest fails to understand what they are doing. They are not making definitive predictions. They are only providing a tool to see what happens in you project the recent trend. Note that Copernicus said “The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S*) has developed a free application – the ‘Global temperature trend monitor’ – for anybody to use to see the current rate of global warming and explore how soon we could reach the 1.5°C limit if warming continues at today’s pace. ” The operative word is ‘IF’. Important little word that Ned Kelly either didnt read, or didn’t understand the significance of.
2nd attempt
I saw the word IF, and I know what it means. And I know why it is there.
My original comment stands. And it is a correct evaluation and conclusion to draw.
It is not fit for purpose. It needs to be called out for what it is. Fraudulent.
IF any readers or ‘scientists’ here cannot see that, then they have a serious problem.
Ned Kelly. So we should delete from the record all old models and their incorrect predictions? . This doesn’t make any sense to me. As long as people are aware they are old models and numbers, no problems. And the Copernicus website. makes it clear what dates apply to the numbers, and their modelling tool is only valid if warming trend stays as in the current year. Which we know it probably wont.
MA Rodger says
7 Nov 2023 at 10:03 AM
Nigelj may find these posts about October of interest too:
MA Rodger says
2 Nov 2023 at 8:07 PM
UAH TLT has reported for Oct 2023 with another highest all-time monthly anomaly at +0.93ºC,
The previously warmest October in UAH was 2020 with an anomaly of +0.47ºC.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/unforced-variations-nov-2023/#comment-815459
MA Rodger says
8 Nov 2023 at 9:16 AM
ERA5 has posted for October with a global SAT anomay of +0.85ºC, a small drop on the September anomaly of +0.93ºC giving October 2023 second spot in ERA5’s all-month monthly anomaly rankings
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/unforced-variations-nov-2023/#comment-815569
MA Rodger says
20 Nov 2023 at 6:17 AM
GISTEMP have posted for October with a global anomaly of +1.34ºC, a small drop on the September’s +1.47ºC but, no surprise, still the warmest October on record by a country mile.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/unforced-variations-nov-2023/#comment-816085
While I cannot speak for others commenting here, I myself do have a memory problem. Nor do I lack a grasp of the pertinent issues of global warming, recorded data sets, what GCMs actually are, and the other important aspects to climate science.
Being, what it can offer when accurate and backed by credible understandable evidence – along with it’s collective dire limitations in communicating the risks, the moral imperatives, and practical real world solutions to global warming and it’s catastrophic impacts..
Ned Kelly.
“The albedo numbers shown here (after Penttilä et al 2022) are just a few days old and the numbers appear to show it is albedo over the first nine months of 2023 (lowest months on record 4, second lowest 3) as the reason for the high EEI.”
Good point.. Yet one would expect this to make all of the first 9 months of 2023 very warm yet the warmest months were from July onwards, so maybe something else also contributed to that period of warming after July like reduced dust plumes from the Sahara, as in the Carbon Brief link, or the Tongan volcano water vapour issue.
“I myself do have a memory problem. Nor do I lack a grasp of the pertinent issues of global warming, ”
It seems you made a typo and meant you don’t have a memory problem? or was it a freudian slip? :)
“Nor do I lack a grasp of the pertinent issues of global warming”
Your grasp of the climate issue looks reasonably good to for a layperson, but you also make some mistakes. For example suggesting all coming years would set records as hottest year, leading to Piotr pointing out this would only occur if the only factor was increasing greenhouse gases, but we have also natural variation, like el nino and la nina.
“Being, what it can offer when accurate and backed by credible understandable evidence – along with it’s collective dire limitations in communicating the risks, the moral imperatives, and practical real world solutions to global warming and it’s catastrophic impacts..”
Do you mean the science? I think the IPCC could do more to communicate the risks of low probability high impact projections. And highlight this in the summary for policy makers. But I wonder if they have tried, but oil exporting countries refuse to sign off that sort of thing. A lot goes on behind the scenes.
The IPCC list various mitigation strategies. You seem to be implying they are not practical real world solutions. I think many of them are practical enough, and I really I doubt there are any more big solutions we have not thought of already. So we have to make do with what we have. A silver bullet solution is unlikely.
.
I never assume the drivers for X temp mark in any month or year all occurred in that specific month or year, or even decade.
I never assume anything MA Rodger says is credible or correct or rational. Nor backed up with Data.
tsk a typo -sorry – I myself do NOT have a memory problem …………NK
Ned Kelly Jan. 25: “ I myself do have a memory problem
And just when we thought that perhaps all is not lost with Ned, he comes back with … that: “I myself do NOT have a memory problem. NK …”
Oh, well, life unexamined perhaps is worth living after all. And then there was Ned’s closing:
NK: “ Being, what it can offer when accurate and backed by credible understandable evidence – along with it’s collective dire limitations in communicating the risks, the moral imperatives, and practical real world solutions to global warming and it’s catastrophic impacts..
I see, Ned, you have decided to become … a climate scientist… ;-)
—–
“ I believe climate scientists are the worst communicators in all of human history..” Ned Kelly
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818085 (Piotr 20240116 7:03 PM)
Dear Piotr,
I apologize for a delayed reply to your post.
Hereby, I would like to touch not only the objections raised by you on January 16 but also in your earlier contributions related to Barton Paul’s attempt of September 2023 for a quantitative analysis of the relationship between change of the global water cycle intensity and global mean surface temperature:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818027 (Piotr 20240115 2:04 AM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817944 (Piotr 20240112 8:26 PM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817941 (Piotr 20240112 7:13 PM)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817883 (Piotr 20240110 3:21 PM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817794 (Piotr 20240107 4:26 PM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817720 (Piotr 20240105 11:34 PM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816642 (Piotr 20231202 5:47 PM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817620 (Piotr 20240101 4:53 PM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-817353 (Piotr 20231223 1:08 AM),
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814607 (Piotr 20230924 1:06 PM).
I reviewed our previous discussion once again and came to the conclusion that further explanations from my side beyond the quite detailed level, reached especially in my posts of January 12, 4:03 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817917
and of January 9, 10:43 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817858
may not be helpful anymore.
To be honest, I believe that if you read Barton Paul’s analysis as well as his correction
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816604 (20231202 8:35 AM)
carefully, it might have been self-explaining and you could spare lot of effort you invested in asking your questions.
Moreover, I presently tend to agree with JCM objection that the main deficiency of Barton Paul’s model is the assumption that improved water availability for evaporation changes the latent heat flux only and retains the sensible heat flux unchanged.
I think that this (over)simplification may be indeed too serious to allow any reliable conclusion based on the results obtained this way. I would therefore agree to suspending further discussion based on Barton Paul’s model until this deficiency is rectified.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “ Hereby, I would like to touch not only the objections raised by you on January 16 but also in your earlier contributions related to Barton Paul’s [yada, yada] I presently tend to agree with JCM”
Which part of my answer to you:
==== Piotr, previous post: ==========
Until you address your past 3 internal contradictions. listed in:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818027 I see no reason in engaging you on NEW questions, based on what a third party [here: denier JCM] may have claimed or not.
====
you still don’t understand?
So far, out of these 3, you have answered ZERO. And if it were not enough – you also can’t understand
my two follow-up points that I made after your tried to weasel out of these contradictions by pointing finger at … BPL:
– TK Jan.13: “ I only somewhat wonder why you have not addressed them to Barton Pau in September“):
– Piotr Jan 15): ” A) I have challenged YOU by showing 3 CONTRADICTIONS within YOUR claims, which means that they will remain contradictions regardless whether BPL is right or wrong.”
– TK Jan 27: “I believe that if you read Barton Paul’s analysis as well as his correction carefully, it might have been self-explaining and you could spare lot of effort you invested in asking your questions”
Which part of “ they will remain [your internal] contradictions regardless whether BPL is right or wrong” you don’t understand?
As for the second follow-up point:
– Piotr Jan 15: “B) since you used BPL’s results to claim that he validated your scheme – it is too late now for you to distance yourself from his results. You can’t eat the cake and still have it.”
– TK Jan 26 “answer”: “ I presently tend to agree with JCM objection that the main deficiency of Barton Paul’s model [etc.] “.
Errr, I think your JCM went MUCH further than that. Responding to …you:
JCM: I completely support [Tomas’ ] decision to move off BPL’s detrimental framework recommendations. They are fundamentally misguided, reflecting flawed, non-physical, mathematically unsound, and selectively biased conceptual logics. [further JCM’s inflating his own ego by putting down others, deleted]
When BPL replied: “ There were lots of simplifications and unrealistic assumptions in my model, but that was kind of the point. Let’s see you do better.“. Surprisingly, JCM … didn’t. All bark and no bite?
Which does not get you, Mr. Kalisz, off the hook – quite the opposite – if follwoing JCM – you don’t trust BPL’s model, then many 10s(?), 100s (?) of your post in which you have been claiming that BPL’s model vindicates your hare-brained proposal (BPL told you – it doesn’t) – has been all for naught.
You can’t eat the cake and still have it.
TK: the main deficiency of Barton Paul’s model is the assumption that improved water availability for evaporation changes the latent heat flux only and retains the sensible heat flux unchanged. . . . I think that this (over)simplification may be indeed too serious to allow any reliable conclusion based on the results obtained this way. I would therefore agree to suspending further discussion based on Barton Paul’s model until this deficiency is rectified.
BPL: I’m open to suggestions as to a SH = f(T) or f(pH2O) function.
BPL: I’m open to suggestions as to a SH = f(T) or f(pH2O) function.
for SH = f(T) , as the first approximation you could use Cassius Clapeyron (+7%/C)
But would still be pointless in evaluation Kalisz’s scheme that tries to replace cooling from reduction of GHGs with EQUAL cooling by the increased evaporation – so Delta T in both cases
is either the same or at least close to each other.
And I don’t think SH = f(pH2O) – can capture Kalisz’s scheme – he convinced himself that doubling evaporation would not increase SH, which is obviously absurd given that RH at least near surface
is considerably less than 100%, even over oceans, MUCH less over the continents:
https://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-13-02179/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-13-02179-g001a.png.
So when you increase evaporation you would increase SH there – and where ever else the air masses would move that extra SH. You can’t express that in a single equation.
Your model does not resolve vertical dimension of atmosphere – at what elevation WV condenses.
Yet doubling the evaporation forces the condensation closer to Earth’s surface => the more of the latent heat … is reradiated back to surface, and the less latent heat escapes into space, thus reducing the latent heat cooling effect.
Finally, most of Kalisz’s extra evaporation would have to be over Sahara and similar hot, low RH, areas. Areas that:
1. have a lot of room for extra WV BEFORE hitting 100% (typical RH there – 20-30%)
2. the increased severalfold humidity would increase LW absorption over there
3. these are precisely the worst places to have large LW absorption – since there is much
more LW emission from hot Sahara than, say, from tundra. Your (deliberately) simple model
is not designed to represent it.
Hence many dozens of Kalisz’s posts claiming that your model vindicated feasibility of his scheme (despite you telling him repeatedly it didn’t) are baseless.
Most of Piotr’s confusion can be explained by a lack of understanding regarding the surface energy budget and the associated units. While I initially considered disregarding it, the discussion on partitioning Rnet into turbulent fluxes of H and LE should really not be butchered to such an extent as displayed above. Piotr’s impassioned responses clearly lack any foundation in knowledge on the issue.
JCM: “While I initially considered disregarding it ”
P: You should have followed your instinct. Would save you the public embarrassment. See below:
JCM: “ the discussion on partitioning Rnet into turbulent fluxes of H and LE should really not be butchered”
Except nobody was discussing partitioning “ Rnet into turbulent fluxes of H and LE” – I have shown the internal contradiction WITHIN Tomas Kalisz argument who did NOT discussed ANY “ partitioning Rnet into turbulent fluxes of H and LE“.
But I can see where you are coming from – you are like a little Johnny who found a hammer, and now tries his hammer on anything he can find – loose nails, grandpa’s clock , nailing legs of hens into the perches they sit on… And gets very defensive when somebody does not show interest in his hammer nor his hammering skills:
hammer: a paper JCM found on “partitioning Rnet into turbulent fluxes of H and LE”
hammering: between Jan 1-30 – the word “turbulent” appeared 29 times in this thread. Out of 29, 26 times … in your posts.
Of the remaining 3 – patrick questioned your general claim (p: “does not quite make sense“), Barry Finch mentioned “turbulent” as one of the many things “in the hundreds of long exchanges [he will not] find time to plough through” and BPL speaks about a …different turbulence (in the ocean).
Nobody else used this word at all – certainly not me, nor TK, whose scheme I was commenting on.
So all the “ butchering of the partitioning Rnet into turbulent fluxes of H and LE” is only in your head.
P.S. Quite telling that your post contains … NO falsifiable proofs that I am wrong, only your opinions about me. Those who can disprove opponent’s arguments do, those who can’t – post things like:
JCM: “ Most of Piotr’s confusion can be explained by a lack of understanding ”
JCM: “ the discussion should really not be butchered to such an extent as displayed above.”
JCM: Piotr’s impassioned responses clearly lack any foundation in knowledge on the issue.
The above says nothing about me, but a quite a bit about you: not the sharpest knife in a drawer (inability to understand even a simple argument you comment on),
arrogance founded on that ignorance, conceitedness. The egg is on your face.
irrespective of the emotional outburst of Piotr, if one diminishes moisture limitation at the surface, there is a corresponding increase of LE and decrease of H in turbulent heat flux partitioning. I hope this helps.
The provided paper reinforces the notion as a function of T, at the request of BPL, where the unrestricted saturated partitioning at Earthly avg temps is about 16% H and 84% LE.
For any initial condition scenario development, such as a doubling (or more aptly maximizing ET from land), this physical constraint compensation should be recognized. It was my understanding this was the comment offered by Tomas. In the current configuration of continental moisture properties, radiation fluxes are balanced at about 55% LE and 45% H. From ocean, as they are moisture unrestricted, they operate at about 85% LE and 15%H, as previously demonstrated.
I have provided other more introductory resources elsewhere to assist with this foundational concept. This moisture limitation is essential when trying to discuss moisture perturbation impacts on climates, such as clouds, radiation, and temperature. This seems self-evident. Cheers
pardon me: correction in terms of percentages for clarity – unrestricted partitioning for land is H at 16% of LE, or 6.25x less than LE. This ratio applies globally as well as saturated land is operating almost like ocean in terms of turbulent flux partitioning of Rnet. While it doesn’t have a huge impact on the percentage examples listed above, this point is important for clarity as I erroneously listed percentages in terms of total turbulent flux.
To clarify the importance of turbulent flux partitioning, an increasing proportion of LE is generally associated with lower ground temperatures, reduced H flux, greater cloud fraction, more reflected sunlight, and cooler climates than there otherwise would be.
It was mentioned in August here, except in the case of open ocean (Bowen Ratio = 0.24 y / Δ)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813634
For land surface, the generic dependence of Bowen Ratio is given as 0.27 y / Δ for a maximum potential evaporation over saturated land
from
“Testing a maximum evaporation theory over saturated land: implications for potential evaporation estimation”
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/1745/2022/
where
y = psychrometric constant
Δ = slope of vapor saturation curve
At 15C, for example
Δ = 0.11 kPa/C
y = 0.066 kPa/C
Land MaxEvap Bowen Ratio = 0.27(0.066 / 0.11) = 0.16
Or land maximum limit ratio of H/LE = 0.16 at 15C
where H = sensible heat flux and LE = latent heat of vaporization X evap
The actual partitioning will depend on land moisture availability.
“The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on the fighting the old, but on building the new.”
– Socrates
This!
Kate Raworth, The Story of Stuff, and working to promote a circular economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/the-planets-economist-has-kate-raworth-found-a-model-for-sustainable-living
https://www.storyofstuff.org/about/
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview
If you’d prefer much less comments from me, I recommend not asking me so many questions. (smile)
I’ve been puzzling what to write about the problems of fighting with each other when we should be facing outwards and doing stuff. AndThenTheresPhysics found this graphic, which addresses one angle:
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1362058117593366535 [I’d like to find a non-Xter source, but am too lazy to hunt out the original.] The reminder of Killian was apposite. I also remember RealityChek, whom I later came to admire as Peter Kalmus, who walks the walk. He was a special case, because he moved to act in the real world rather than staying to maintain arguments which were going nowhere.
People who spend hours crafting arguments and condemning via overwhelming time-consuming column-inches screeds anybody who doesn’t line up with their exact ideas can be largely correct in their conclusions that we are well along the path to mayhem and need to do something, but they are not helping. And then there’s the failure to see themselves as they disavow their use of this free comment section to promote their exclusive access to ‘the truth’ and endlessly argue while failing to acknowledge their rageous affect and modus operandi of attack and counterattack. This appropriation of RealClimate, which was formed and continues to serve the specific purpose of promoting scientific knowledge, is intellectually lazy, no matter how much detail and how many links they provide, honest though the material might be. One might go back to the DDOS attack at the time of ClimateGate to see RC’s unwavering support of integrity and knowledge. [here’s one of several posts about that -> https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/
I found this admittedly amateur comment I made at the NYTimes, and decided to expose my naive opinions in case there might be something there. Actually, there is one important something: Kate Raworth and The Story of Stuff projects.
Wrong link to AndThenTheresPhysics (Rahmstorf item is excellent but OT). Sigh. Here’s the right one:
https://twitter.com/theresphysics/status/1573585309765451777
Susan,–here’s a non (Sh)itter source for the cartoon.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-04-23
Thank you! Hope all will take a look if they haven’t already. Picture = 1000 words
Susan Anderson,
“I’ve been puzzling what to write about the problems of fighting with each other when we should be facing outwards and doing stuff…”
While people fighting with each other with words can be distasteful , upsetting and messy, such debate is human nature, and is common on virtually all website forums and clearly serves a purpose for people, and helps get at the truth. Banning it would be a huge imposition on free speech (not that you suggested that). Its also really important that warmists avoid Groupthink:
“Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs.[1] This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.[2][3]. Groupthink is a construct of social psychology….(Wikipedia)
However you and Ray Ladbury mentioned the need for warmists to have unity. Unity is obviously desirable. The difficulty is reconciling these two conflicting things of group unity, and the need to avoid group think. Its hard to see an ideal solution to this. You see political parties struggling with it. We just have to do our best to have a generally united front but allow for debate as well.
If debate is respectful it would help group unity. One problem is debates that become very abusive and too personal. Im talking blatant insults and name calling . Just borehole the really nasty posts or dont publish them. Without rules that are enforced society goes to hell quite fast..
“People who spend hours crafting arguments and condemning via overwhelming time-consuming column-inches screeds anybody who doesn’t line up with their exact ideas can be largely correct in their conclusions that we are well along the path to mayhem and need to do something, but they are not helping.”
We see people on this website pushing their hobby horses and certain obsessions. I assume thats who you mean. I think there need to be room for this, because it allows promotion of possible solutions and alternative theories, but some of them are very thin skinned when criticised, and get abusive and petty and you do get spamming.. Again there is only one way of dealing with this, and its the borehole, or just not publishing their comments. There is also the crankcase for the really crazy stuff.
“Violence and building walls is not going to protect anyone for long, but it sure as heck will make things worse. Caring and sharing and working together to fix things, along with cutting out all the waste and excess, is a better idea. But what a hope.”
Yes to that!
Nigel,
Although I agree that diversity of opinion is essential to avoiding groupthink–that is most definitely NOT what we see on these boards. Rather we have a majority of folks who really want to understand the science and start thinking about mitigations running headlong into a few malignant narcissists and mono-maniacs.
The discussion of land use certainly has some merits. However, I don’t know of anyone on Team Reality that disputes the desirability of improving soils, moisture retention, etc. However, it is irresponsible to assert that climate models are failing to consider such issues and that this will make the entire problem of global warming vanish.
Likewise, no one is saying that the ability to communicate the science to the lay public isn’t important. However, to blame the lack of progress in climate mitigation on the climate science community is he height of stupidity, irresponsibility and arrogance. In the first place, communication to the lay public is not even job one for climate scientists. Their role is to tease out the forcings and feedbacks that matter. It is not their job to advocate for particular policies, but rather that of politicians and policy makers. This is where the breakdown has occurred–not least because of the disinformation campaigns by fossil fuel interests. And these interests are still quite active
Promoting internal division when we face real external enemies is not helping the issue–and doing so just for grins and giggles or to stroke your oversized ego is reprehensible. It adds nothing to the discourse here.
Ray Ladbury.
Yeah I do see it much the same as you. The malignant narcissists and mono-maniacs annoy me as well, as you might have noticed. But I lean towards free speech and I cant see a case to ban them, and some of them do make good points sometimes. I did suggest borehole them if they get abusive or petty or spam the website. If you have a better solution to the problem of such people the floor is yours!
I agree about your scientists communications comment . I was quite critical of Ned Kelly suggesting scientists are entirely to blame for the publics confusion on climate change. Talk about exaggeration at best.
I hope I don’t promote internal division. I am normally polite and I avoid losing my temper, and I avoid making snarky rhetorical replies, but some slip out I suppose.
However if someone is talking BS I tend to sometimes respond to their comments, and I make no apologies for that even if its a warmist. Not going to tolerate BS.
Well, an ignore button might be nice feature to add to the site, more straightforward than a kill file.
As it is, the moderators may understandably be more concerned with responses to the articles that they post, which would make Unforced Variations a sort of mud room where people can stomp around without messing up the carpet in the main house.
And speaking of messing things up, there are those folks who have dedicated themselves to doing just that, and not in good faith either. That impulse to burn it all down is a problem that we should agree to resist. That doesn’t equate to groupthink. Not in the the current state of affairs, IMO.
I refer of course, mainly to the psychopathic Bart Simpsons with Internet access, and to the malicious propagandists dedicated to creating the most hostile environment possible for scientists (and pretty much anybody else who doesn’t dedicate their life to genuflecting and brown nosing certain reactionary interests). That said, I don’t have a definitive answer for how to handle that. It’s another area where reasonable people can disagree, I think.
——
Re: land use.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that there’s some sort of zero sum game going on between climate science and other forms of environmental protection. Doubly so when it leads to people trying to diminish the legitimacy of climate science.
Same goes for those who want to diminish it based on other dogmas that have nothing to do with the science at all, despite the obvious (and oblivious) rhetorical window-dressing.
(end rant)
[Take a break]
Radge, the problem is that the other threads are being spammed just as much as UV at this point.
I almost missed a comment on that “not just another dot” that was helpful in clarifying the “real science” topic under discussion, and I don’t know if my response will be buried as well, ending what was, again, a “real science” discussion.
It seems obvious that it isn’t about the substance for either side in many cases, just the desire to “get published”, even if it is in an internet food fight. The trolls seem to have found their soul-mates.
We all have an ignore button in our heads that we can push.
Zebra,
True. When it was first set up, people were more diligent about speaking up and directing inappropriate comments to the UV thread. We seem to have gotten out of that habit.
Radge Havers 28 JAN: “ Well, an ignore button might be nice feature to add to the site, more straightforward than a kill file.”
Won’t stop the causal readers coming to RC in search of an answer from being discouraged by the spammers. And unless universally applied – you would still be exposed 2nd hand – if those whom you did not ignore – reply to the ignored ones.
Therefore, if the RC moderators do not use the Borehole to deposit there post of the known deniers and those on ego trip, then at the very least enforce the promised rule of 1 post per day.
If 1 post per day is too strict – then perhaps 1 post per thread per day, or perhaps increase it to 2 post per day.
This would reduce the spamming ability of various Neds, not only on the general UV thread, but in the technical threads as well – the same Ned Kelly, according toMAR, produced
“ 38% of the comments & 58% of the verbiage” in thread “ Not just another dot on the graph part ii “.
Posting limit would help not only with spammers, but also force the rest of us to choose our battles, and put together a stronger argument in those we choose.
Indeed!
… although… The stated comment policy at the bottom of the page is
Not long ago the moderators were debating whether to just close this all down. They are busy, which I think puts some of the burden of maintaining comment hygiene on the commentariat.
Kate’s Donut Economics and the Democrats is like Jesus going into business with Satan Incorporated.
If The US Democrats is the solution you have no idea at all what the real problems are. No surprise there to me. Comparing a social fight for voting rights with actions to stop global warming was delusional enough to recognise the deep seated problems in the lack of critical thinking skills and lack of awareness of what is really happening in reality.
People in need of an education about reality and facts and wisdom need to go to:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
and/or
Reality Blind (aka Energy Blind and the Superorganism)
https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/
There you go again.
You prefer your rage to doing the best we can with what we have. Meanwhile, you condemn your hosts. If only you could get wise to how much time and effort you are wasting condemning others. You imagine we are ignorant because we don’t bow down to your insistence. We are not unaware, but your condemnations are so broad and all-encompassing it’s hard to see any good or wise intention there. Smart yes. Wise no.
In the end, by and large, the only person you can change is yourself.
Liz Warren and Ed Markey are my senators. Ed Markey has been fighting the good fight for over 40 years.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Sheldon Whitehouse
and many others
If you think it’s worth giving up on what is possible you will deserve Trump. But the rest of us don’t.
No, Democrats are not Satan Inc. I reject your grotesque wholesale insults. You’re not helping. I’m not wasting time providing point counterpoint to your distractionalist condemnations and self-righteous claims of knowing more and being better than your hosts and the rest of us.
I had a read of some of Nate Hagens book. He’s right that fossil fuels turbocharged our society and we are going to run out and it will be huge issue, and the solution requires a systems thinking approach.
But for me it just reinforces that we need to build renewables and electric transport before oil runs out and because of the climate problem. We should also cut our energy use, live more simply, and recycle and adopt a zero growth donut economy – but we cant expect everyone to go back to bicycles or candles or brick sized phones.
And we have no real alternative to renewables. 8 billion people need a lot of energy and we cant rely on wood and fusion is in its infancy.
I would also suggest that “systems thinking” means also considering the human element of how humans brains function, and how humans behave, and what people can be persuaded to do. Everything is part of the system ultimately.
Re Susan Anderson: Thank you for this link. (When I was a teenager, I actually came up with a doughnut shape when I was trying to understand economics, although the meaning was very different (money and stuff flowing around in circles…).)
PS my slogans suggestions: – did anyone like my song?:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818435
Took a moment to find it (one problem with some people’s endless screeds). Various pithy comments, useful. I’m glad to see some returning to topic and happily take a back seat until the impulse to be annoyed and annoying comes to me again.
In response to a few who reacted to my admission of lack of high-level scientific expertise and old lady kicking the tires stuff with dismissive and condemnatory language, yes, I’ll happily take a back seat when discussion doesn’t endlessly appropriate the hospitality of RC for rageous or otherwise unhelpful commentary. But as many of you know, I am not scientifically illiterate, having been science adjacent in many roles for most of my life (see PW Anderson, father). Teaching scientists to draw from life was probably my best experience, as it allowed me to observe from a position of expertise and authority how much better real scientists are at opening their minds and not faking it or getting distracted by problems with fear and ego.
One more contribution: this is a longish video of WHOI and the ISS discussing deep sea and space exploration, and scientific exploration. I was struck by the total absence of attack and defense, and the ability to speak to the youngest children and the most qualified scientists at the same time. When the subject of education came up, they particularly emphasized breadth of knowledge and study of the humanities and art. Astronaut comes on about minute 46, but the opening is also valuable.
Live from Space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2h0neJqW_s
Susan,
I can verify that. Quite a number of years ago, before desktop publishing, I took a couple of semesters of scientific illustration with mostly scientists.
At this point, for anyone looking for support, a plug for the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators.
“GNSI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization serving professionals in the field of visual science communication who increase science literacy through artistic channels.”
You can view portfolios and post jobs.
https://www.gnsi.org
Moving past the never-ending noise to the core issues at stake.
Critical Thinking | The West Was Never Rational – 11 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wHApGQRAOI
Real Hope is expectation of a different outcome without specifying what it needs to be. It’s hope in the unknown, in all the possibilities, in the emergence which will come. Inside of the word emergency is the word emergence. True Hope is really about facilitated group processes on what do we do in order to feel it all, in order to be able to act rationally and practically. I think that the one thing that is so insidious and perverse about our current society is individuality, in a way, and isolation. So if you’re alone watching Planet Earth and we think, “Yeah, that’s hard,” and maybe you have the psychological tools to handle that and maybe you don’t. But if you host a screening with 10 of your best friends and you’re all a bit sensitive and you feel safe to grieve and weep together, in the collective group space, that when real healing happens. Individually it happens as well, but it’s much harder and less common. And so I think that what I would love to see, and what probably will happen as this crisis deepens, and also expands in ways we cannot predict positively, will be collective places of grief and ritual, and for mourning our loss, which is in itself a profound form of activism, which is also a form of hope.
Hope in one hand and piss in the other. Report back on which fills up first.
There has been this massive ontological, physiological error in the middle of the global warming, climate science or carbon energy movements, that has entirely negated the role of biodiversity and nature at large. They are one and the same. So first of all, our economy is 100% dependent on nature. Not 70, not 60% but 100%. There’s nothing that enables you and I to be here right now if it were not for nature. Food, water, clothes, air, you name it. So 100% of the economy is dependent on nature, and yet they have been incorrectly approached as siloed problems. I can give two or three examples of the ways that biological and life processes create
the climate and how these feedback loops happen. First of all, one out of every two breaths that we take comes from the ocean. It comes from plankton, phytoplankton specifically. So every second breath of life essential oxygen is created by these organisms that are, by the way, dying out because we are extracting them from nature by the thousands of tons and packaging them up for Omega-3 supplements, and that is plain crazy. But phytoplankton, they also seed cloud formation. About 60% of the clouds in the southern oceans around the Antarctic are being seeded by plankton, because when they breathe, they create little molecules. Those molecules go up into the air and they seed clouds. So very practically, these planktons are seeding the clouds and seeding the entire climate system. Another example is the concept of keystone species. These are essentially key creatures inside of diverse ecosystems that activate a whole series of other ecological processes. So when you think of all of the animals that move and migrate through the earth, you have the wildebeest across the Serengeti, and they’re churning up soils and spreading seeds and making niches for other animals to live. And by pooping, they are bringing carbon back down to the soils. But they are moving across the land in these massive vein-like corridors called wildlife corridors. And you must see them as if they were red blood cells inside of your body moving through your veins. It is the same with the salmon, the salmons that take their annual migrations. From deep out in the ocean they collect all of the nutrients, nitrogen phosphates, and they come back up home and they swim up river, and they die hundreds of miles from the deep ocean back where they initially spawned. But those massive migrations, movements of all these fish, are literally feeding the
forest. So as all these creatures move, they are feeding the trees, they are feeding the carbon stocks, they are cycling these major ecological processes. And they are all part and parcel of the carbon cycle. And so amazingly a paper came out a few months ago that maybe you can find yourself that shows that the reintroduction of a lot of these keystone species like the musk ox, and the bison, the wolf, certain fish can detonate huge cascades of renewed carbon capturing inside of ecosystems. And almost everyone in the world including and especially climate scientists know absolutely nothing about these kinds of things. Nothing.
Dear Ms Kelly,
I do not know anything about keystone species yet. Could you shortly explain this ecological concept or provide a reference to some basic literature thereon?
It seems understandable that e.g. soil degradation accompanied by decrease of organic matter content can play a significant role in decreased Earth ability to sequester carbon dioxide, and perhaps even directly contribute to carbon dioxide release into atmosphere.
I can also imagine that mere “decarbonization” of world economy may not necessarily fix the climate change, if other important components of Earth ecosystem participating on climate regulation stay heavily perturbed by human activities.
I will therefore appreciate a more detailed introduction regarding components of Earth ecosystem that may in your opinion have a significant (and perhaps still neglected) role in this respect.
Greetings
Tom
I answered Tomas. It was a good response. Helpful
The powers that be chose to block it / delete it. Same as my others.
They’ll be suing me next!
There is a difference between ‘unity’ and collaboration for the better rather than the worse.
The election of Bush over Gore in 2000 is a sterling example. Abandoning any one of a number of different schisms could have changed the outcome. It is arguable that 9/11 could have been prevented, since the Bush administration was unwilling to learn from and listen to their predecessors who tried to pass on the info about Al Qaeda’s plans. The subsequent polarization and up arming, along with the radicalization of so-called Christians, and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, might thus have been avoided.
We also would have focused on addressing the worst of the administrative state, since that was another of Gore’s projects on which he had already made some progress. [of course, Clinton’s unapologetic ego was another adverse input, so this is not all on R’s]
As for dumping on Kate Raworth and positive efforts, it seems some ‘doomers’ (including those focusing on dire inarguable truths rather than doing the best with what little we have) prefer their cataclysm faster and sooner rather than supporting positive efforts, no matter how small.
New topic:
A fine video interview with Kaitlin Naughten on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and how to face up. We first met her as a brilliant teenager. Spoiler: potential 3-5 meter sea level rise if collapse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_BoZDS1gjU
If your time is short, please go to about minute 11 (and ignore Kaitlin’s stutter) on the subject of courage and caring for the future beyond our lifetimes.
Geoff Miell,
The idea of combining emissions reductions, carbon sequestration and some limited solar geoengineering (maybe in the arctic) to buy us time, has been suggested by various people, even the Economist.com. This is well intended thinking and has some logic, but it could be a slippery slope that leads to geoengineering becoming the main solution and abandoning of emissions cuts.
We already have the problem of countries counting on huge levels of carbon sequestration some time in the future and making insufficient emissions cuts. .Kicking the can down the road. We run the same risk if we encourage geoengineering.
nigelj: – “The idea of combining emissions reductions, carbon sequestration and some limited solar geoengineering (maybe in the arctic) to buy us time, has been suggested by various people, even the Economist.com. This is well intended thinking and has some logic, but it could be a slippery slope that leads to geoengineering becoming the main solution and abandoning of emissions cuts.”
I’d suggest we/humanity don’t have any choice now, if we wish to have an ongoing civilisation.
We/humanity need to do all of these:
Reduce.
Remove.
Repair.
https://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
Capitalism, and Mega Wealth Concentration, what’s it to you?
On Distinctions, from Jerry Mander’s (his real name) “Capitalism Papers” – the intro to which follows:
The meaning of words, every word, matters.
Re (intentional) geoengineering: if we’re going to manage solar heating, we could try to be strategic about it: https://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2021/09/13/Solar-Geo-and-Climate-Science
“How We Solved The Home Wind Turbine Problem” – “Undecided with Matt Ferrell” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQKHJm7vd4E
I don’t know about the $/materials/EROEI/etc., but I really like the Harmony Turbines’ design – it’s beautiful and elegant the way it furls and unfurls incrementally to handle different wind speeds.
“Why We Need To Rethink Wind Turbines” – “Undecided with Matt Ferrell” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRV5BGEQHKU
———-
A criticism of Simon Michaux https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/04/how-many-things-must-one-analyst-get-wrong-in-order-to-proclaim-a-convenient-decarbonization-minerals-shortage/
patrick o twentyseven
Thanks very much for posting the link on S Michaux. I had my own doubts about his claims. Mineral pessimists like Killian and Ned Kelly should read it.
I made some related comments on the resource scarcity issue to Paul Pukite on the “Not just another dot on the graph? Part II”
Some key excerpts from the link on Michaux:
“This one was debunking the somewhat infamous Simon Michaux un-peer reviewed document which purported to prove that there weren’t enough minerals in the world to enable us to get off of fossil fuels.”
“But what about the merits of his paper? Well, there aren’t any to speak of.”
” Michaux first commits the primary energy fallacy, multiplying the future requirement for energy by a large percentage. As I noted recently, with heat pumps, electrified ground transportation and some more efficient industrial electric heat, the USA’s primary energy demand drops by 50%, even accounting for continued inefficiencies. Fossil fuels are deeply wasteful forms of energy…..”
“Michaux makes so many compounding mistakes that it’s remarkable anyone takes him remotely seriously. But, of course, he is telling a story a lot of people want to hear, and so is being amplified by the usual suspects. He is undoubtedly taking their praise as indication that he’s right, as opposed to simply useful temporarily and soon to be discarded. Confirmation bias doesn’t overcome reality. He’s a regular on podcasts. He gets cited in comment threads and on Twitter and in LinkedIn by people who sometimes even get his name right. Someone defending his analysis on a LinkedIn thread yesterday said he was submitting his paper for peer review, which is always a bit of a crap shoot. It’s possible he’ll get it accepted. It won’t be in Nature Energy, that’s for sure.”
“A bunch of different groups have adopted him as their go-to guy for their particularly perverse view of the world. The degrowth types, a variant of the pastoralist utopians, who seemingly want everyone to live in ecovillages with 50 km diets, think he’s the bee’s knees, because there is no solution at all without radical elimination of people and the economy, and a complete transformation of every business and political process. The hydrogen types think it proves that hydrogen is the answer for all energy. The fossil fuel types amplify it to slow the inevitable decline of their revenues and profits. The internal combustion types amplify it because their entire business model is facing a cliff. These are all motivated thinkers.”
My comments: Michaux also bases his comments about resource scarcity on existing mines. He doesn’t seem to consider the possibility of opening new mines, and using minerals dissolved in geothermal brines and sea water and sea bed mining.
That said, we obviously do have a resource scarcity issue. Some materials are in particularly limited supply and there will be challenges and I acknowledge opening new mines wont happen overnight. But we need to avoid incorrect, illogical claims and biases whether showing excessive optimism and excessive pessimism. And we need to avoid feeding the denialists.
In re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-818661
Dear Patrick,
A few days ago,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-818577
I posted several references asserting that artificial deflection of solar irradiation may not mitigate increasing greenhouse effect, because it will be in great extent compensated by decrease of surface cooling due latent heat flux:
https://idw-online.de/de/news564976
To me, it appears that both James Hansen and Axel Kleidon cannot be right at the same time – their teachings seem to be contradictory to each other.
Could you comment?
Greetings
Tomáš
Gavin Schmidt answers questions/discusses on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Star Talk. Geoengineering at 11:45 “you can’t stop, like, ever”. How 2023 Broke Our Climate Models with Neil deGrasse Tyson & Gavin Schmidt [language]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHJKKsOHtAk&t=124s
Cited by Peter Sinclair, along with recent Sabine Hossenfelder’s worried video. AndThenTheresPhysics has also taken it on. https://thinc.blog/2024/01/28/the-weekend-wonk-what-happened-in-2023-are-our-models-wrong/
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/01/29/is-the-ecs-very-high/
[It’s almost as if these guys talk to each other. –What a conspiracy! /sarc off–]
The second best day of the year, World Wetlands Day, is quickly approaching. A key challenge identified this year is to encourage governments and communities to rediscover, value, and prioritize wetland conservation. Awareness has been in steep decline for decades, and it shows. Find an event near your place to uncover ways to participate and contribute meaningfully to your community. Visit https://www.worldwetlandsday.org/en/events for more information.
Thanks!
BPL & PO27 thanks. The statement “Oceanic warming should really only be occurring via SW cloud feedbacks” is incorrect.
The change in ocean heat content (OHC) on a global-annual basis is the energy difference between the global-annual integrations of the following powers:
Into ocean: SWR-ino + LWR-ino + LC-ino + SH-ino
Out of ocean: LWR-oo + LE-oo + SH-oo
-ino == Into or down through the ocean surface film (only ocean) from above.
-oo == Out of the ocean surface film in an upward direction.
LC == Latent heat of condensation at ocean surface film
LE == Latent heat of evaporation at ocean surface film
That portion of the expression LC-ino + SH-ino – (LE-oo + SH-oo) that is not converted into LWR in the atmosphere or is not manufactured by LWR in the atmosphere (depending on which of the 2 parts is larger) must amount to a negligible global-annual energy (by global-annual integration) compared with the annual changes in ocean heat content (OHC) being measured and considered sizeable enough to be of interest because there is negligible thermal capacity in the atmosphere compared with the ocean well-mixed layer and the larger thermal capacities of ice latent heat (net global-annual loss or gain) and land can only participate at a slow rate comppared with the ocean, a fluid, so there’s no appreciable direct source or sink (the sink to space is via conversion to LWR which apportions partly to down-welling to the ocean).
So on a global-annual basis the OHC increase simplifies to a very-acceptable accuracy to: SWR-ino + LWR-ino – LWR-oo
——————-
Suppose that the “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” loading in the troposphere was instantly increased. This would instantly increase LWR-ino by x w/m**2 and instantly reduce LWR up from the top of the troposphere by x w/m**2 (no net change in flux leaving the troposphere).
This would instantly warm the ocean more than before or instantly reduce its cooling, depending on which way the OHC had been going.
The top 1 mm, but power average of the top 10 microns, would instantly warm due to increased LWR-ino.
This heating would have 2 effects, causing the film to lose the extra heat in the upward and downward directions.
1) The LWR-oo + LE-oo + SH-oo would increase. The increasing LWR-oo partly balances the increase in LWR-ino, the x w/m**2.
2) The thermal gradient would decrease through the top 1 mm, or top 100, or top 50, or top 20, or top 10, or top 5, or top 2 microns, or whatever suchlike warming integration of the ocean surface film, from the warmer water below to the colder air above, and this would instantly reduce the rate of heat flow from the warmer water below to the colder air above, which instantly heats the ocean, increases OHC.
This applies also to spray droplets that are destined to return within seconds to the surface.
Thus the ocean would distribute the added LWR energy that’s no longer going up from the top of the troposphere between (1 above) which goes mostly to space on a global-annual basis and (2 above) which goes into the ocean on whatever combination of thermodynamic (such as thermal gradient decreasing already mentioned) and mechanical processes which pertain at the various depth ranges below the top few microns (e.g. air currents and PO27 mentioned for the tropics maybe sub-tropics that surface film salinity increase would invert the pycnocline causing (presumably very small depth range) overturning in situ.
Note at this point regardless of whether I described the processes accurately an increase in downwelling LWR heats the ocean or reduces its cooling and this is non-controversial established science.
Thus the statement I challenged at start of this comment is indeed incorrect.
According to climate simulation models if there is no net change in solar SWR absorbed into the ocean over the following 400 years then this instantly-increased downwelling LWR-ino due to instantly-increased tropospheric GHE gets balanced 85% (sort of, the 85% is temperature anomaly, not surface flux) by increased LWR-oo sufficient to get the LWR to space at sort-of 85% of where it’s headed. So meanwhile the other portion (2 above) heats the ocean for the next 400 years but at an ever-decreasing (evolving?) rate as plotted in the surface climate response curves:
at 9:55 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8
at 4:34 to 5:30 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WadywyVi7xMAt
(which James Hansen thinks is putting heat in sort-of 15% too fast)
———————————-
If SWR-ino changes then this increases or decreases ocean warming or cooling depending on whether SWR-ino increased or decreased.
My simple expression correctly doesn’t differentiate between changes in SWR-ino and LWR-ino. An increase of y w/m**2 in SWR-ino has the same effect as an increase of y w/m**2 in LWR-ino, both increase OHC and increase LWR-oo according to ocean mixing rate with OHC increase rate always decreasing and LWR-oo increase amount always increasing if held steayd with no further power changes.
If SWR-ino increases sufficiently then it can (easily) cause LWR-oo to exceed LWR-ino. Here are some plausible theoretical reasons why SWR-ino might increase that much, perhaps in combinations:
– insolation increases on a global-annual basis,
– surface albedo decreases such as by less reflection by ice & snow on a global-annual basis,
– atmospheric albedo decreases such as by less human sulphates pollution or less volcanic ash, on a global-annual basis,
– cloud reflectivity decreases such as by less human sulphates pollution, on a global-annual basis,
– cloud cover decreases on a global-annual basis due to a warming troposphere.
In this case OHC would be increasing solely because of SWR increasing since the SWR increase was sufficient to cause LWR-oo to exceed LWR-ino. For 2 of the 5 plausible theoretical reasons above probably a case of “The +ve feedbacks have exceeded what caused them” ( I recall Jim Hansen showing in 2011 the warm-up from Last Glacial Maximum LGM was 7% cause and 93% +ve feedbacks).
Is this a classic case of “The reduced clouds and ice caused warming which caused a greenhouse effect which increased CO2. Clouds LEAD CO2 !!!!”).
——————-
The permanent thermocline is being lifted at a rate averaging about 5.0 mm / day according to me calculation, from the dense-water pumps around Antarctica, mostly, and Greenland, shoving along the sea bed and lifting the ocean above. I think there’s something to be said about that and this topic but I’m out of steam.
My various “top of the troposphere” or similar in my recent comment S.B. “top of the atmosphere”