There has been a lot of commentary about perceived disagreements among climate scientists about whether climate change is (or will soon be) accelerating. As with most punditry, there is less here than it might seem.
Last year, Jim Hansen and colleagues published a long paper that included a figure suggesting that they expected that global temperature trends from 2011 to increase above the recent linear trends.
This has meshed with another argument around whether an acceleration of global temperatures in recent decades can already be detected. Tamino has made a case that it can be, if some of the ‘noise’ in the record is factored out (notably the linear impacts of ENSO and volcanoes). However, it not so obvious that the recent El Niño can be so easily removed in such a way. In my recent Nature commentary, I pointed out the difficulties explaining quantitatively why 2023 was so warm. Without further clarity on that, deciding whether we have yet seen an acceleration or not is a bit ambiguous.
Another view of the future is given by the results of climate models. We’ve discussed some of the issues with the latest CMIP6 round of simulations many times in recent years, nonetheless, by screening the model ensemble based on the likely range of climate sensitivity, we can create projections that align closely with assessed projections from the last IPCC report. These projections are the basis of our updated comparisons of CMIP6 models to observations, and specifically this graph:
It is worth remembering what the CMIP6 projections are based on. These simulations used historical GHG concentrations and aerosol emissions to 2014, and a mid-range scenario (SSP2-4.5) thereafter, which has continued increases of CO2 and CH4 as well as forecast decreases in aerosol emissions. The screening uses the likely range of 1.8 to 2.2ºC of transient climate response, roughly equivalent to to a screening uses equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.5 to 4ºC for a doubling of CO2 (Hausfather et al, 2022).
The question naturally arises as to who is correct, Hansen et al or the models?
We can assess this by extending our graph to 2050, and plotting Hansen et al’s projected range on top:
Remarkably, the Hansen et al projections are basically indistinguishable from what the mean of the TCR-screened CMIP6 models are projecting. Or, to put it another way, everybody is (or should be) expecting an acceleration of climate warming (in the absence of dramatic cuts in GHG emissions) (CarbonBrief has a similar analysis), even if we might differ on whether it is yet detectable.
Update (4/4): I was prodded to provide a histogram focused on the trends in the ensembles. Happy to oblige (note that this is only one run per model):
References
- J.E. Hansen, M. Sato, L. Simons, L.S. Nazarenko, I. Sangha, P. Kharecha, J.C. Zachos, K. von Schuckmann, N.G. Loeb, M.B. Osman, Q. Jin, G. Tselioudis, E. Jeong, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, J. Cao, and J. Li, "Global warming in the pipeline", Oxford Open Climate Change, vol. 3, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
- G. Schmidt, "Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory", Nature, vol. 627, pp. 467-467, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00816-z
- Z. Hausfather, K. Marvel, G.A. Schmidt, J.W. Nielsen-Gammon, and M. Zelinka, "Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem", Nature, vol. 605, pp. 26-29, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2
QUOTE July 2023
Meanwhile, there are some misinterpretations that should be corrected. We did not say that the
global temperature record to date shows an acceleration of the global warming rate. Quite the
contrary, whenever we present the data we draw a straight line beginning in 1970, which shows that
the warming rate has been linear (green line in Fig. 1). It takes little knowledge or courage for us or
anyone to point out that the data are nearly linear from 1970 to 2022.
The physics informs us that, as the data set becomes longer, it will show a post-2010 acceleration of
global warming. The physics is discussed in the present version of Global warming in the pipeline.
The main factor driving acceleration is reduction of human-made aerosols in the atmosphere, and
the principal confirmation is Earth’s measured energy imbalance.
We take no pleasure in being the bearer of bad news, but the physics tells us that humanity is in the
process of driving an acceleration of global warming. Why report this? The same reason that we
predicted that the Pinatubo volcanic eruption would cause global cooling. It is just conceivable that
predictions and real-world confirmation may eventually persuade the darned fools that we know
what we’re talking about.
I refer not only to those who deny the reality of human-caused climate change, but to those who
pursue a wishful thinking policy approach.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Peer+PublicReview.21July2023.pdf
QUOTE May 2023
Our research is focused on real world data and comparison with models, with the hope of gaining insights
about how the climate system works and where the real world is headed. Fig. 28 (lead figure) shows the
annual increase of GHG climate forcing based on real world data (which, BTW, is continually updated and
made available by Ed Dlugokencky of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory; Ed is an unsung hero
in the climate change story). Specifically, Fig. 28 compares the real-world growth rate of GHG forcing with
the RCP2.6 scenario, which is used in IPCC’s AR5 report as a scenario that would limit global warming to
about 2°C. Figure 28 shows that an enormous gap has opened between the real world and RCP2.6. The
“miracle” in RCP2.6 is largely an assumption of negative emissions via power plants that burn biofuels,
capturing and sequestering the CO2. Also beware of nations promising “net zero” emissions without defining
what they mean. As discussed in our paper, the present policy approach is not working and it is not likely to
work. For example, the cost to close the gap in Fig. 28 via carbon capture and storage is estimated as $3.4-
7.0 trillion per year – that’s the annual, growing cost. That miracle is not likely to happen.
There’s no time to get involved in Twitter wars. It’s disappointing that scientists who once contributed to
research progress, but now enjoy twittering, do not correct a nonscientist’s assumption that equilibrium
warming = committed warming but instead allow the misconception to persist and then use it to insist that we
are “wrong” in our assessment. Further, their claim that current scientific literature points to eventual global
warming being kept “well below 2°C” as being consistent with real world trends and policies is egregious, an
uncritical acceptance of models and the assumptions that went into them.
Let’s end with another figure from our paper, Fig. 25 (above), which compares the long-term global
temperature trend with our prediction of accelerated warming that accounts for declining atmospheric
aerosols and an uptick in GHG growth rates. As much as possible, the projection is based on data: measured
global energy imbalance and indirect indications of declining aerosol amount. It has become popular to say
that the emerging El Nino will cause global temperature to soon exceed 1.5°C. We don’t know that for
certain, but we can expect it to reach at least +1.4-1.5°C. An El Nino spurred global temperature close to
+1.5°C will not provide a valid measure of what the world will be like when the trend-line reaches +1.5°C,
but the El Nino spurred peak temperature will provide a first indication of whether there is a new, accelerated
trend line. If the 2024 temperature (peak global temperature lags El Nino by several months) falls clearly
above the yellow region in Fig. 25, it will tend to confirm the acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/CommittedWarming.25May2023.pdf
Apologies for the bad formatting, a result of the realclimate system here.
NKNews – In other news it’s reported that horses are still having difficulty drinking water. And scientists are human who posses human foibles like everyone else. Few are surprised by either report.
2024 tropical cyclone prediction
Michael Mann and colleagues predict a record-breaking 33 named storms for the 2024 North Atlantic hurricane season. It is the highest count ever projected.
For more than a decade, Michael Mann of the School of Arts & Sciences and his collaborators have annually reviewed historical weather data and current oceanic and atmospheric conditions, applying computational modeling to forecast coming hurricane seasons. These predictions are important for disaster preparedness and risk management in regions prone to hurricanes. This year, Mann and team anticipate 33 named storms, the highest to date.
“We’ve seen many hyperactive seasons over the past decade, and in just about all cases, like our prediction for this year, the activity is substantially driven by ever-warmer conditions in the tropical Atlantic tied to large-scale warming,” says Mann, Presidential Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science and director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.
This year’s predictions are influenced by particularly high sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic Main Development Region (MDR), which, as of this month, are recorded at more than 1.9°C above average according to NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch.
Why these matter
Mann cites three main reasons for why these results are of particular interest, saying, “first, from a preparation standpoint, these provide a lot of useful information as to whether those in areas impacted by Atlantic hurricanes should prepare for an especially active season.
“Second, these results underscore the seasonal relationship between climate and tropical cyclones, which helps to provide context for understanding how climate change is impacting hurricanes,” Mann says. “Since it’s the same basic relationships that are in play on seasonal and longer timescales, for instance, the warmth of the tropical Atlantic.”
Finally, it is an important demonstration of the strength of climate science models, Mann says. Scientists can make successful seasonal predictions based on the climate information they have, providing grounds for trust in longer-term climate predictions, particularly human-caused warming and its impacts.
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/2024-tropical-cyclone-prediction
This is a good one to get your teeth into. With Dan Miller
“Accelerating” Debate on Global Warming: Interview with Dr. Zeke Hausfather
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoegRrN-yvw
The Clayton’s Debate – The Debate you Have while Denying a Debate is Happening ?
Snippets worth catching:
@5 mins
“so it’s led to a a pretty big debate in the community as to why we got 2023 so far off”
“half a degree C that is what was Gob smackingly bananas as I said at the time ”
“but on this broader question of is the world warming faster now than it has
since 1970 I think there’s a growing consensus that it is (accelerating) though there’s still a debate about how much faster ”
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=IIhaqu5LgKHW0WQg&t=310
@9.30 mins
“we still see in climate model land evidence of this acceleration, Now the reason why scientists have been a little reticent to talk a lot about acceleration at least until recently um is sort of we’re haunted um by the Spectre of the Hiatus (1998->)”
“the actual Observations were wrong … [ their Data was wrong iow ] “there’s a certain reticence to to make similar claims in the opposite direction this time”
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=O28EsiAFrydOuczT&t=562
[ Seriously? They’re “scared” iow. Don’t trust their own work or science? ]
@12:30 mins
“because we have this consilience of evidence across what the models expect in a scenario like we’re in today with falling aerosols and flattening emissions because the ocean heat content and Earth Energy imbalance also show an acceleration I think we’re a lot more confident today claiming that there is a detectable accelerathttps://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=Jx3B-93jkcnHxrDV&t=743
ion”
There’s more .. another 1hr 20 mins of the same. Worth getting into. I recommend watching all of it and also reading many of the comments which are equally interesting …. and insightful perpsectives from The Public who care about Climate Change.
the url isolated —
…. I think we’re a lot more confident today claiming that there is a detectable acceleration
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=Jx3B-93jkcnHxrDV&t=743
People change their minds
and @ 50 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/live/LoegRrN-yvw?si=HgH39ZfrTG3b-g6q&t=2999
ZEKE: …. a big push to set a sort of ambitious Target you know to to limit warming well below 2 degrees which
is the unfccc language forever but aim to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and that led to a huge amount of scientific work on better understanding both the impacts at 1.5 and two and what sort of scenarios would be necessary to get to 1.5 degrees
now back in 2018 if you squint those scenarios looked like they could have been possible I think from the vantage point of today and you know six more years of not reducing emissions um it’s a lot harder to draw a line to1.5 degrees uh without overshoot.
now we’ve sort of sneakily defined redefined 1.5 degrees as instead of avoiding 1.5 degrees of minimizing how long we’re above 1.5 degrees and so these days like 96% of the scenarios the most recent ipcc report the limit 1.5 degrees or limit warming to 1.5 degrees by 2100 pass it on the way there you get to 1.6 1.7 some of them even 1.8 uh and then deploy you know 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide removal later in the century to to bring temperatures back down um that itself is a pretty heroic assumption
but you know I I think we certainly have been tried to explore that solution space more and out of the most recent ipcc report came this recommendation that governments need to cut emissions in half by 2030 to stay in track for these targets that’s not going to happen but I don’t think scientists saying that we need an even more stringent cut is going to change the needle there right
I think it’s more about how the public perceives this issue, how they vote, how politicians perceive this issue, and you know how the cost of mitigation change, that are going to dictate what actually happens not Scientists advocating for even more stringent Reductions …. “
end quote
So the Scientists have no agency then?
The Scientists have no influence over how the Public Perceives climate change?
The Scientists have no role to play in educating the Public better to understand the Implications?
The Scientists have no role to play in how people vote?
The Scientists have no influence over how politicians perceive this issue?
The Scientists have no role to play in how the costs of mitigation might be changed or reduced?
It is not the role of Scientists to be advocating for even more stringent Reductions of Emissions?
If not, then who is better qualified than Climate Scientists to do that?
These are the questions that come to my mind when listening to climate scientists like Zeke Hausfarher answer questions and talk about Climate Change and the near term future.
Wow, is insane the warming taking place in the North Atlantic and is not summer yet.
see thread
https://nitter.poast.org/DrKimWood/status/1783923101874720853#m
eg tropical atlantic graph
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGMHEOMKbEAAuJ9s.jpg
Dr. Kim Wood
@DrKimWood 12h
Area-averaged daily SST charts for four North Atlantic sectors are now available on my website!
The domain plus that day’s SST anomalies are shown in the inset map, and 2023 is highlighted for comparison.
Anomalies are computed relative to the daily 1991-2020 mean.
see more
https://kouya.has.arizona.edu/tropics/SSTmonitoring.html
Aerosol Data from PACE not yet available but coming “soon” they say
Kind Regards …
Ray Ladbury says
25 Apr 2024 at 8:50 PM
Ned Kelly
What you are NOT getting is the essential role of theory/modeling in science. You need the model to direct the empirical investigation. As George Box says, “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” Just because a model is wrong does not mean it is useless. The particular ways the models fail direct how we fix them. Your seeming advocacy that scientists discard the current model makes it clear that you do not understand how science is actually done–a characteristic you share with the denial crowd.
Where have I been? Doing science for 50 years. You?
—————————————————————–
Strawman!
Please stop misrepresenting my words and statements Ray!
It is you Ray who does not get it.
For 60 years I’ve been observing and researching how people like you fail to listen and therefore repeatedly fail to communicate effectively and subsequently fail to achieve their goals.
Name one Denier you have been able to educate and enlighten so far in your life. None.
Name one denier scientist the hosts of Real Climate have educated better. None.
Ned Kelly,
First: a denier is by definition ineducable, because they refuse to consider evidence.
Second, I have persuaded several skeptics that the science and the crisis are real.
Third, RealClimate has been quite effective at persuading skeptics who can be persuaded
Fourth, how we persuade people matters as much as whether you persuade them. I am not willing to shade the truth or abandon the scientific method just to persuade some ignorant food tube that I am correct.
Fifth, climate science ain’t my day job. In my day job, I’ve worked on numerous projects that have produced convincing data demonstrating that the crisis is real.
And lastly, you are obviously doing a bang up job of persuasion–tankies like you alienate even those who agree with you. And you wonder why nobody reads your crap.
Ray Ladbury says
30 Apr 2024 at 9:14 AM
Ray, your claims are not evidence what you believe is true.
This goes well with my two other responses here and on the other thread …. maybe Ray you could learn something from some really good Science?
George Lakoff: Moral Politics … see family, conservatives vs liberals vs bigots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM&t=33s
Then you might be interested in learning how brains actually think … ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ
Probably not, but some readers could well be interested in learning new thinsg that can actaually lead to greater understanding and solving problems instead of only complaining about them 24/7.
LD, actually I’ve read and enjoyed Lakoff going back to his writing back in the ’80s. In fact, I’ve used his ideas when addressing denialists one-on-one. And I’ve read quite a bit about how the brain works and how it tricks itself. The problem is that the way the brain works is not adequate to ensure human survival. And Lakoff’s emphasis on broad archetypes and conceptions may have been insightful for explaining the differences between the “liberals” and “conservatives” of the 90s, but I don’t think they can explain the utter collapse of values that Republicans have exhibited in their embrace of Cheetolini.
In many ways, the viewpoint Lakoff has expressed reflects some of the arguments made by Bacon in Novum Organum–and I contend that the solutions Bacon proposed remain the only workable framework for overcoming the feebleness of human cognition and prolonging the survival of the species. The scientific method remains the best tool for discerning the true nature of reality, and it is our understanding of reality–not the metaphors we live by–that will determine that survival.
Given what you say above Ray, you never really understood the cognitive science and linguistics behind that presented by Lakoff (nor Chomsky either), which went far beyond US politics (how myopic an observation.)
And it’s clear, at least to me you and your cohorts do not have an understanding of reality either.. Nor is climate science genre equipped with what is needed to determine the survival of humanity, or what passes for “civilization” today. I really feel sorry for you all
It’s actually people like Bacon who brought us Watt’s Steam engine and fossil fuel energy and modern day anti-human ‘economics ideology’ which is killing us and this world we live upon.
In Re to Ned Kelly, 1 May 2024 at 8:40 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821747
Dear Ned,
I suppose that James Watt was from the same sort of people that already in prehistory invented tools, domesticated animals and developed technologies like grain cultivation and processing or pottery that proved critical for survival of the mankind.
Personally, I think that technical creativity is very human and that it is the strength that we should rather support and cultivate than suppress. I see our weakness rather in our (low) capability to organize our own society and politics, as it somehow mirrors also in discussions on this website.
Greetings
Tom
Tomáš Kalisz says
2 May 2024 at 3:53 PM
So you think the “issue” was about Watt, pottery, and inventors do you? Your apparent misinterpretations of what was being said and why, based on your response, could not be more misguided Tomas. I suggest if you’re ‘genuine’ you’d get yourself up to speed on Lakoff (see multiple refs already provided on RC including “How Brains Think”) and the issues under discussion before inserting yourself into a conversation you do not appear to understand the subject matter thereof.
Simply because someone mentions the name Watt does not mean the conversation was about Watt or inventors. (big sigh)
Yet, out of the mouths of babes? “I see our weakness rather in our (low) capability to organize our own society and politics, as it somehow mirrors also in discussions on this website.”
Maybe, maybe not. Some useful hints:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4426
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/108-steve-keen
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
https://metacrisis.org/META-CRISIS/00.+%F0%9F%91%8B+About/Start+Here
https://www.clubofrome.org/ltg50/
That Ray embraced parts of Lakoff and has subsequently dismissed that scientific work by dozens of cognitive scientists is telling. It a shame to see such good work being limited and dismissed out of hand as not relevant to our present collective conditions.
Experience is the only genuine Teacher. So may it be. Kind regards ….
Ray,
You keep bringing up “the scientific method” but you can’t give a simple description of what you are talking about, and, (much more significant), how it can possibly be useful in convincing people who vote for Trump.
As I often point out, even the people here with actual science backgrounds devolve to the same level as the general public when discussing topics like human behavior, economics, politics and so on.
There is a whole lot of actual science about the psychology of those voters. It’s a topic that has been studied particularly after WWII and the Nazis, but it is a universal phenomenon. It’s called Authoritarian Personality, and it is a behavior that is extremely difficult to change.
It has nothing to do with “a collapse of values”. It’s just a different set of “values” than what many would like. And my suspicion is that it is just too scary a reality for people to accept, so you ignore the scientific method just like they do.
people here with actual science backgrounds devolve to the same level as the general public when discussing topics like human behavior, economics, politics and so on. …… says The Zebra.
Zebras are even smarter than the cohort of trolls who post their thoughts here about all things “climate science and solutions”.
(GRIN)
Lead – Horse – Water …. or was that Zebras?
Zebra says “You (Ray Ladbury) keep bringing up “the scientific method” but you can’t give a simple description of what you are talking about, and, (much more significant), how it can possibly be useful in convincing people who vote for Trump.? ”
This is such a frustrating comment. Ray Ladbury already said nothing will convince the denialists, and our only hope is convincing the moderate minded sceptics. Which I totally agree with. And Trumps supporters are probably mostly denialists.
Presenting the facts on climate science and promoting the scientific method have gradually increased the number of people accepting the science, according to polling, but clearly they haven’t convinced everyone and it looks like they never will. You will be left with a group of hard core denialists. The hard core denialists are a lost cause who will only be convinced of the science if SLR rises 20 metres, and even then many of them will still be in denial. Especially in countries like the USA where climate change has become very partisan and tribal. I do agree the authoritarian personality is part of the reason for denial. but there are other factors. like vested interests and political ideologies and other psychological factors and some of these make for very stubborn denial in some people.
.
Are there alternatives to just presenting the facts? IMHO shouting at denialists wont convince them. If Scientists start emoting or getting down in the gutter and lying and blatantly exaggerating they will be caught out.. Framing things to appeal to peoples ideologies might help a bit but is incredibly time consuming and contrived. There are no clever words that will convince hard core denialists and stick. The people who say facts dont work never provide a convincing alternative.
I believe all we can do is hope the ‘facts’ and scientific method convince enough fence sitting sceptics and at best a very small number of denialists to make some progress on the climate issue. That requires some hard work rebutting climate myths and explaining the science. I believe there is no clever short cut to this process. Nobody has presented a convincing alternative that would stick.
nigelj says
6 May 2024 at 2:47 PM
You seem to know a lot about this kind of polling – who heeds climate science advice.
What do the 1.4 billion Chinese, and 1.1 billion Indians say about it? Or the 280 million Indonesians?
Why don’t anyone here ever talk about the climate science / actions / responses of polling from the +200 million people living in Nigeria, Pakistan and Brazil?
I suppose they don’t count as much as an American denying ‘deplorable’ Trump supporter does, right? One can really only ask the questions … but we should already know the answers!
Aren’t the views of these 2.28 billion souls far more important and carry far more weight than a few miserly millions of Trump supporters in the USA?
What’s with this unhealthy obsessive American Myopia, because I say it is psychologically ‘sick’ and it permeates the entire western Golden Billion of wealth and privilege. While so many here keep crowing, Ray Ladbury included, how critically important the United States is when it comes to actions on climate change.
The ONLY nation who has quit the UNFCCC treaties, not once but twice FFS!!! Who needs the belligerent disrupted? No one does. I saw Ignore the US and their stupid ignorant citizens and media and politics completely.
imho US politics wars & their dysfunctional culture & polling and their corrupted dishonest media should be Banned from being discussed on this forum. It leads no where good!
I say who gives a fukc what the Americans in the USA thinks and says or does? They do not rule the world. They do not get to decide what the other 8 billion people think and do or say.
I put it to you nigel (all) that the sooner the rest, the World Majority, STOPS heeding anything arising form the USA the sooner genuine serious actions on climate change mitigation will begin to have a positive effect.
The USA especially it’s Government should be both ignored and ostracized – including ejected form the UN and UNSC as a recalcitrant international law breaker and warmonger who does not give a flying fukc about climate change issues.
The core issue and the barriers are and always has been GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS and not a few million idiot science deniers from America and the UK.
But instead that is what the science articles and the ‘commenters’ here continue talking about and addressing 24/7/365 …. maybe it’s time to actually wake up and get real on real climate?
I seriously doubt that, but it surely doesn’t hurt to ask the question now and then. As I wonder if this comment will make it past the gatekeeper this time. Being Shadowbanned is a thing everywhere now, not just on youtube and twitter and facebook and instagram.
And you do NOT need to be a Trump supporter or a climate science denier to be treated like that. No siree. (smile)
Kind regards
First there was this new article from NL — Clean air can worsen warming
Global temperatures have risen by leaps and bounds since last year. In addition to climate change, cleaner ship-gases of ships have probably contributed to this as well.
On the satellite image, the shipping routes from before 2020, such as here in the Atlantic Ocean, were clearly recognizable by the light-colored clouds. – Earthobservatory.nasa.gov
https://www.weerenradar.nl/weer-nieuws/hoe-schone-lucht-klimaatverandering-versterkt-minder-zwavel-aerosolen-van-schepen–8a8f4836-a07a-4432-bc07-4dc692c18c05
Here’s is a very good Aug 2023 Science article worth reading imo
‘We’re changing the clouds.’ An unintended test of geoengineering is fueling record ocean warmth
Pollution cuts have diminished “ship track” clouds, adding to global warming
https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth
— then following down the new research papers it’s references because of the near future additional research in the Pipeline already — I’ll just post few short quotes:
>> By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions.
>> The influence of pollution on clouds remains one of the largest sources of uncertainty in how quickly the world will warm up, says Franziska Glassmeier, an atmospheric scientist at the Delft University of Technology. Progress on understanding these complex interactions has been slow. “Clouds are so variable,” Glassmeier says.
>> Using such techniques, and 2 decades of calibrated imagery from NASA’s ailing Terra and Aqua satellites, Yuan and co-authors discovered 10 times more ship tracks than previously identified using manual techniques. In their study, published last year in Science Advances, they also found these tracks decreased by more than 50% in the main shipping corridors after the IMO regulations. […]
The increase in light, which was worsened by a lack of reflective Saharan dust over the ocean this year, “can account for most of the warming observed” in the Atlantic this summer, he says.
>> They compared clouds at these locations with nearby clouds free of any ship pollution. In Nature last year, they reported that these “invisible” ship tracks not only enhanced low lying marine clouds, as usual, but also markedly increased the volume of puffy cumulus clouds higher in the atmosphere, previously thought to be immune to the influence of ship pollution. They concluded that air pollution could be causing clouds to cool the climate at roughly double the previously projected strength.
>> The decline in pollution didn’t make the cumulus clouds any less puffy, they report in a new preprint in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). It suggests these clouds have a saturation point, after which added pollution does little to increase their depth, Watson-Parris says. “We removed 80% of the aerosols, but that’s still not taking us close to the preindustrial state.”
>> Observing this region with the Terra satellite, Diamond found that, with lower pollution, the cloud droplet sizes had grown to the largest size, by far, in the past 2 decades. Extrapolating from there, Diamond estimates in a paper last week in ACP that the IMO rules have caused warming globally at levels like those seen by Yuan.
>> Later this year [2023] , Diamond, Yuan, and others will begin to compare their techniques for studying the interaction of pollution and clouds, under the auspices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s small geoengineering research program. After a few more years, Wood says, “We’re really going to have something to say about these cloud adjustments.”
SEE — https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth
———————————
REFS –
Global reduction in ship-tracks from sulfur regulations for shipping fuel
Tianle Yuan
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn7988
Invisible ship tracks show large cloud sensitivity to aerosol
Peter Manshausen
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05122-0
Rapid saturation of cloud water adjustments to shipping emissions
Peter Manshausen
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-813/
Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical changes within a major shipping corridor after implementation of the International Maritime Organization 2020 fuel sulfur regulations
Michael S. Diamond
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/8259/2023/
Could solar geoengineering cool the planet? U.S. gets serious about finding out
Campaign seeks to understand reflective particles in the stratosphere, which cooling schemes would enhance
https://www.science.org/content/article/could-solar-geoengineering-cool-planet-u-s-gets-serious-about-finding-out
A study led by Roxy Mathew Koll of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), Pune, delves into the evolving climate of the Indian Ocean and its future projections. Understanding these changes is crucial for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, essential for safeguarding our collective future.
https://www.climate.rocksea.org/research/future-indian-ocean/
It should be obvious by now the world is on a high emissions track (see study projections above) that will not be turned around.
Saw a recent chat with Kevin Anderson …. no point sharing …. saying what’s needed now is for all advanced wealthy economies (OECD/West nations) to be at Net Zero Emissions by 2030.
That’s not 6 years from now. The level of denial in the both mainstream and alt climate action domain has become more ludicrous as each year passes. Meanwhile the climate science modellers and mathematicians are hard at it producing more and more stuff to no end.
Agnotology is a branch of social science which looks at the ways in which doubt or ignorance about certain subjects is created.
Applied Agnotology is as effective against scientists like James Hansen as it is against climate science in the hands of motivated corporate deniers and think tanks. Both use FUD, ridicule, spin, false claims and disinformation.
Recent NOAA models and data on the anticipated transition from Pacific El Nino conditions to La Nina conditions across Summer 2024:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
repeat (from April): WaPo gift links about US sea level rise (one of which was front and center today, 3 May):
The Drowning South
Where seas are rising at alarming speed
https://wapo.st/3JYXTcp
The new face of flooding
https://wapo.st/44iCuEi
Thanks, Susan! That first article was gifted to me by a friend here in South Carolina. It’s a really nice blend of objective information and accounts of what people on the ground are experiencing.
Just in case this makes it in time, noon today (3 May) zoom about Attribution Science with Climate Central, moderated by Bob Henson of Yale Climate Connections Eye on the Storm (also, Dr. Singh from Washington State U):
https://yale.zoom.us/webinar/register/7017145014668/WN_TZ6lvcxGROKOTOi_shkMAw#/registration
I’ll post whatever they share afterwards later.
In Re to Ned Kelly, 3 MAY 2024 AT 8:31 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821782
Dear Ned,
I am not interested in cognitive science, linguistic and vast majority of other scientific disciplines, because I strongly doubt that I would understand a single word therefrom.
It is, however, my pleasure reading about science when someone translates interesting observations the researchers made and insights they reached to a level on which I can grasp the point.
In your discussion with Ray, I just noted the mention of steam engine and “fossil fuel energy” in a context that raised my feeling that you consider them as something what is evil per se.
I may be, of course, wrong, and if so, I would like to apologize for my misunderstanding.
Please take my presentation of my own view on human technical creativity rather as a question if your view is different than as an attempt to misinterpret what you actually think. In my opinion, exploitation of fossil fuel energy was a big achievment in human history. This does not mean that it has not brought any negative side effects, nor that it must continue forever.
Please do not take as an insult when I say that I am not going to watch majority of videos you referred to. I just suppose that you share the same or similar views as their authors. That is why I am simply asking you how you personally see the role of human technical creativity in history of mankind, and if you perhaps see it directly linked to an anti-human “economics ideology”, how does the alternative proposed by you (and/or by people you trust to) look like.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz
well there is another response never posted here by the mods.
There are and will be many others.
Maybe ask a psychic what I think and say?
Or read a book on Lenin. LOL
Zebra,
The reason why I don’t bring up how the scientific method can persuade voters for Cheetolini is because it cannot. Such people are hopeless. They simply dismiss evidence unless it supports their pre-existing opnions.
If such people represent the majority of the human species, then we will go extinct and rightly so. A species incapable of accurately perceiving reality is doomed to failure eventually.
Ray, Monbiot did a good (possibly tl;dr) interview here: ‘You’re going to call me a Holocaust denier now, are you?’: George Monbiot comes face to face with his local conspiracy theorist – https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/may/04/youre-going-to-call-me-a-holocaust-denier-now-are-you-george-monbiot-comes-face-to-face-with-his-local-conspiracy-theorist – which confirms your opinion. It is a puzzle how consistent reality deniers are in the choices they make. One might think they could look behind the mirror, but they can’t.
A favorite short version for me is: ‘thing about reality is, it’s … wait for it … real.’ It continues to baffle and amaze me how much ground lies have gained with people who don’t want to know. I really don’t want to suffer the consequences, but we are all stuck with it.
“In fact the problem is that a large number of people don’t give a flying f* what the science says no matter what. One thing that climate scientists are not expert at doing is turning fools into gold.”
They’ll believe it when they’ve lost everything and are forced to move North.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/05/texas-houston-flooding
Chuck Hughes says
5 May 2024 at 11:30 PM
Which climate scientists are we supposed to be listening to and care about? Does the article tells us that? Can you?
(rhetorical questions)
[ why is the normal formatting on this page non-existent?]
[news machine translation]
Less emissions of aerosols in China leads to heat in the North Pacific
The North-East Pacific has warmed up more strongly than ever before between 2010 and 2020. It is unclear why exactly. Now researchers say: the phenomenon could be a consequence of lower air pollution.
07.05.2024
The significant decline of man-made aerosols in China may have ensured that the sea surface temperatures
in the North Pacific between 2010 and 2020. An international team of researchers wants to have discovered this relationship through the analysis of measurement data and with the help of computer simulations.
Because the cooling effect of particulate matter aerosols has decreased in the air, the air circulation in the atmosphere in the region is said to have changed, according to a recent publication. The study of the group around Xiao-Tong Zheng from the Ocean University of China in Qingdao is now in the journal »Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences appeared.
Contribution to Droughts in California NW USA / Canada too
Since the beginning of the tens of the years, there have been several record temperatures on the sea surface in the north-east Pacific. “These events had a serious impact on marine ecosystems,” the study says. These include negative effects on biodiversity, less usability of the ocean by humans, habitat compaction through coastal floods and a toxic algal bloom along the North American west coast. In order to limit the causes, the scientists investigated the extent to which various influences could have caused the heat waves.
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/weniger-ausstoss-von-aerosolen-in-china-fuehrt-zu-hitze-im-nordpazifik-a-52949ec6-37c6-46f6-8664-ab4b5bd64b3d
========================
Atmosphere teleconnections from abatement of China aerosol emissions exacerbate Northeast Pacific warm blob events
Hai Wang May 6, 2024
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313797121
Abstract (Only)
During 2010 to 2020, Northeast Pacific (NEP) sea surface temperature (SST) experienced the warmest decade ever recorded, manifested in several extreme marine heatwaves, referred to as “warm blob” events, which severely affect marine ecosystems and extreme weather along the west coast of North America. While year-to-year internal climate variability has been suggested as a cause of individual events, the causes of the continuous dramatic NEP SST warming remain elusive. Here, we show that other than the greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing, rapid aerosol abatement in China over the period likely plays an important role. Anomalous tropospheric warming induced by declining aerosols in China generated atmospheric teleconnections from East Asia to the NEP, featuring an intensified and southward-shifted Aleutian Low. The associated atmospheric circulation anomaly weakens the climatological westerlies in the NEP and warms the SST there by suppressing the evaporative cooling. The aerosol-induced mean warming of the NEP SST, along with internal climate variability and the GHG-induced warming, made the warm blob events more frequent and intense during 2010 to 2020. As anthropogenic aerosol emissions continue to decrease, there is likely to be an increase in NEP warm blob events, disproportionately large beyond the direct radiative effects.
A few things worth noting.
The prediction that is lining up with the observations is TCR not ECS, yet ECS is still
used for predicting future warming.
Also the CERES satellites have recorded that the energy imbalance (and warming) since 2002
is happening in the Absorbed Solar Radiation (Shortwave spectrum), and that there is a negative
energy imbalance in the longwave radiation spectrum, while the greenhouse gas levels increased.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2021GL093047
Has added CO2 slipped off It’s forcing curve?
Yes John, a 2021 paper. Loeb works out of Nasa Langley VA., he is no outlier radical afaik.
He is also a co-author with Hansen et al (2023) and informed the EEI Ceres aspects.
Loeb speaks about this info here:
https://youtu.be/NXDWpBlPCY8?si=11I7clo-fILrjTXS&t=2535
He says the Net radiative flux anomaly is rising rapidly and gets very high from 2021-2023 measurements.
Overall heat increase is massive since 2020 when CERES began
Gavin also speaks about this SWR/LWR ceres EEI issue below in recent interview – essentially saying this kind of ‘data’ needs to be inputted into the CMIP6 modeled updates (not done since 2015) before he/they can work out what it means. (iirc?)
Regards
More about “Much Ado About Accelerating Warming interview with Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhvNVihv5Ww
In many ways I wonder why ask a top end climate science ESM modeler onto to your show for 2 whole hours , and then basically waste his time with conflicting rhetoric and poorly planned interview questions that more or less end going no where and don;t clarify much if anything for the viewers. Read the comments and live chat feed — very few were satisfied, with Dan, Gavin and Leon speaking over the top of each other all the time. Wasted opportunity imho unless you’re willing to ignore the bs and pick the eyes out of it. Most would not bother – but still it is a good example of reality and why no one knows anything much at all if this is the best we can do.
Dan moves queries towards Hansen et al, ECS, LGM, Aerosols, 2023 here …. long disjointed complex climate model jargon filled convo
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=9DEtOFMg0GWWT0Xq&t=952
sensitivity and forcing and models and climate senstivity and aerosols again CMIP6 range of model outputs etc
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=Z2oUUgO4C6Qs7GPP&t=1474
No GCM CMIP6 models come close to saying the LGM ECS is high .. none come close to Hnasen’s numbers
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=hLPTquVuU4l1fIzN&t=1898
AND @ 35:12 mins OHC and EEI
GAVIN “uh but it does seem clear that there’s been an acceleration in this earth imbalance um and that that actually matches the uh the ocean heat content um changes that that we’ve been able to perceive as well so so we have um multiple data sets that all kind of suggest that that that has in fact been uh uh been increasing and uh quite interestingly uh the breakdown between how much is changing in the short wave so that’s the the solar radiation and reflection of the solar radiation versus how much is changing in the long wave uh seems kind of a little bit odd uh compared to what we might have expected uh naively so there’s more of a change in the short wave uh than we expect and there’s a little bit less of a change in the long wave than we expect”
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=8GjHZtrbKb5CUTf1&t=2112
IIRC I have already posted the reference url here on RC – There’s a twitter post and in his long 2023 critique of Hansens Pipeline paper by M Mann saying the EEI pointed to by Hansen et al as per CERES and other observations is NOT reflected in a OHC rise — apparently Gavin disagrees — who is right? Where is there evidence / data ? Or was this only their own “preliminary” commentary? See how this all goes in circles all the time — people declare their view is correct without supporting evidence or a peer reviewed paper or a IPCC Consensus.
Meaning what is good (demanded) for the Goose is not applied to the Ganders. This is the norm, not the exception.
——————————–
Leon Simons chips in as a prearranged quest questioner – about the 2020 IMO marine aerosol changes and Hansen et al 2023. Why Dan M would invite such a poor muddled speaker to do this is beyond me, a Leon’s communication (with no backup data/info to make his points) and who is very unclear/disjointed and the convo between him and Gavin (as should have been expected) was combative rhetoric on both sides and speaking past each other the entire time – the lack of respect is obvious, the tone is tedious – the “facts” and “Data” shared was minimal the opinions are all there was … but it is one section where the title of the interview was actually being addressed — pick it up at 1:24:50
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=eOl2KGRBTWiq0qvp&t=5090
Gavin’s most clear response/answer at the end was (unedited) — “There is a very extensive uh comparison effort that’s been going on that is not using Fair uh that is using the full GCM toer to ascertain what the impact of an 80% cut in the in the Marine shippings uh was uh we’ve done these experiments uh in house other groups have done this I I I saw a a pre-print um uh of the results from uh from from cesm uh just very recently uh these things are coming out uh I I don’t want to take people’s Thunder and tell you what the answers are going to be before they’ve been published because it’s up to them to tell you what those things are but it isn’t just one model and it isn’t just an energy balance model that is coming up with relatively small numbers right there is uh and you’re going to have to just kind of trust me on this there is a lot of modeling that’s being done uh and none of it shows uh very large impacts uh that are being uh um that some people have asked for right so I you know I I would like to be able to share all that stuff I can’t really you say you’re going to have to trust me a little bit on that um but I’m happy to wait for these things to come out and I don’t feel that I need to be hared uh because I’m not willing to say this is the answer “ end quote
This and other things said raises many questions about what is really going on, and why different people rely on different (not credible) data analysis and “preliminary” reports and thoughts; but reflect others out of hand. And why does it get so personal and defensive all the time? So much for “scientists” being objective and above it all and focusing on discussing observations and data ….. they don’t follow that rule much bar surface appearances imho.
But what really gets me is how so many of them in fact misrepresent the “info” they rely upon in public discussions and articles.
Who decided Carbon brief blog post equates to a valid scientific analysis about aerosols and IMO 2020 and the 2023 temperature spike? It wasn’t peer reviewed, no Data or calculations were provided for anyone to check their conclusions – yet Gavin is totally relying upon that out to “confirm” out research produced before the end of 2023.
OK now he says their is other info coming (which is fair) – as yet unknown – but is what has already been said “fair” and/or “reliable / credible”?
While Leon et al make assertions the IMO 2020 much be greater than suggested by Gavin and he too provides zero analysis of hard data to show Gavin’s assumptions are wrong. iow to me it;s BS from both sides – neither are following the scientific method neither are credible.
Here’s one example of Zeke making unfounded assumption where the data is clearly contrary to known observations up to 2023 — CMIP6 Assumptions for SO2 in SSRs that Gavin says are fantasies anyway.
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1444679408573419520
Actual SO2 emissions are circa 60-68 Mt …. I have seen 3 separate estimates. CEDS puts marine emission at 3Mt SO2 … and marine shipping expert scientists puts it ast only 1 to 1.5 Mt SO2 now.
Zeke, Gavin et al and the papers they are relying on do NOT of course know what the emissions actually were either – they all use the HIGHER number of course.
Zeke in his own words recently said the marine emissions don;t matter much, the bigger story is the 50% reduction of SO2 emissions since 1980 and provides a graph — he just discovered this fact? Out of the blue and didn;t already know about it – and is ONLY using the data point as something to argue against his fellow scientists like James Hansen et al? Really – is this where we are at today?
Data points at 20 paces – Quick Draw Fire!
Here is one of the “papers” Gavin and Zeke rely upon for their “preliminary analysis” of 2023 aerosol impacts
Climate and air quality trade-offs in altering ship fuel sulfur content
A. I. Partanen
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/12059/2013/acp-13-12059-2013.html
A Paper from 2013 Even before the 2014 cut off of real world observations in the CMIP6 models – that are extremely out of data and faulty – as per Gavin in the very interview.
Other examples arise. Scientists of many colours keep saying xyz science/data models etc the assumptions used as well are not accurate, are not supported by real world observations and yet the still double down and use those very same “faulty” analyses to support their rhetorical claims in the now.
They all do this by the looks of it — anecdotal observation only. This is where they lose credibility imho.
As per the comments section in this YT interview as in many many others like it.
Trying to find the actual credible data & analysis these people are relying upon and have it explained clearly is impossibility for the Public to follow and have explained to them simply and clearly and maturely.
IMO Leon Simons, if he thinks he is correct, should write up a detailed article response to Zeke, Gavin, any others he disagrees with and layout his arguments using credible data, and info from published papers, and institutions that support his views ….. or STFU.
Because the extremely disjointed unverified info he keeps posting to twitter is not much better than rubbish trolling …. it’s totally incoherent.
Mind you what those on the flip side have to say is not less coherent than Leon’s and equally unsupported rhetoric — or supported by Data/Info that is in fact wrong and does not say what they claim it suggests.
My values tell me this whole topic (excluding Hansens own comments/articles) are pathetically handled by all parties so far. None of what they have to say can be trusted by myself. YMMV.
But I believe it does NOT have to be like this. It’s a shame that it is. We the public are not well served by the politicians (obvious) nor a majority of climate scientists and their “systems” either. WE the public are all treated like ignorant fools who do not deserve to know what is really going on. WE should all juts mind out own business and leave the “adults” the scientists to do and say whatever they want and ignore us completely, except occasionally speaking down to us as mere “deplorables” not worth their time or energy. .
Trust your own instincts. Make your own decisions anyway.
Kind regards….
To clarify one simple thing I know to be true.
The CMIP6 Models (see zeke ref) DO NOT accurately reflect the major decrease in SO2 aerosols and that impact on clouds and albedo – they simply do not – ALL CMIP6 models underestimate dramatically the impacts of decreasing albedo from much less aerosols from 2020, in 2023 as well as going forward.
THE CMIP6 models DID NOT include an 80% reduction of marine SO2 emissions either.
None of the SSR scenario modelling is accurate, or reflects reality in 2023.
I repeat: NONE OF IT.
Therefore it is extremely unwise to unquestionably believe those climate scientists who say the opposite. eg Zeke Hausfather and Micheal Mann and co … nothing personal in that – the advice is to remain skeptical and follow the Data and high quality scientific research and not the Opinions of individuals no matter who they are.
Which is why I never expect anyone to believe me either. That is why I provide REFERENCES that informs me of Data and Information and Knowledge. What people do with this kind of information is their choice to make.
I know what I have done with it – I have thought about carefully and double checked what everyone had been saying about it publicly. That is all I can do.
PS
The other thing that really stood out to me was when Gavin intimated the rapidly accelerating EEI in recent years before 2023 which Hansen’s spends much time focusing upon is of no real importance. So there seems to be a very wide difference there.
The other surprising difference Gavin has with others is about the AMOC slowing down which he indicated was extremely unlikely to be an issue this century …. and he gives it no attention at all. Not interested basically.
You can skim the video to see where he addresses those two issues. My job is done what I wished to do.
[ My fingers crossed with the formatting here ]
@ 36:15 Gavin
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=GEcLB7xzmPIr0bsa&t=2174
Dan asks – were you saying though that I just so I understand this that the models have not
predicted (like models from 12 years ago or something) Have Not predicted that EEI would double in like 12 years?
Gavin:
Well no, no, they they all they all predicted that it will increase, increase of course we’re continuing to right right so I mean I mean the reason why it’s increasing is because there’s an increasing forcing (added GHGs and less aerosols obviously etc etc ) and it takes time for the Planet to catch up with that right.
So if we keep on increasing if we keep our foot on the accelerator then then know things will accelerate I mean it it just makes uh uh it’s it’s there’s no real mystery there um but it turns out that uh a lot of the
[ MODELED THEORETICAL ] acceleration uh that we see uh comes in the years after 2015 uh so the big the big shift in the shortwave comes 2015 and onwards …
[DAN- so that would be reflectivity of aerosols could be a possible explanation? ]
Like, like okay again – like people that have their one answer to everything like without actually doing the math right that that way is it’s not useful right you know okay like people should not assume just because they have a mechanism that that is the mechanism that solves all of the problems that that we have you really need to do the quantitative uh calculations that support that right ..
from 38:20 mins Gavin
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=jDll2bY7U9NmnOYI&t=2299
now uh why is why why can’t I just suddenly tell you what what those quantitative calculations uh uh
produce and then like put a stop to all of this all of this speculation okay?
…. and if you weren’t part of these discussions it it just seems a little bit strange um uh but uh in in
CMIP6 which is the latest round of these models uh the historical period went until 2014.
AFTER 2014 everything was projected using uh these these [ HYPOTHETICAL FICTIONAL ] story lines
– the SSP uh story lines um those are not terrible right — but you know so they range from burn it all to absolutely heroic efforts to uh to to cut emissions and then a couple of things in the middle um
but of course right you know in the real world lots of things have happened since 2014 that obviously were not predictable or predicted in 2015 and in fact these were these were designed you know uh you
know up around 2015 2016 um and
so so uh so those those those scenarios they don’t include covid they don’t include the pandemic responses they don’t include hunga tonga they don’t include um the 2015 or 2020 IMO Sulphur emissions changes;
they don’t in so so so they’re obviously wrong they don’t include you know the technological changes that have happened in China [ Coal plant scrubbers incl SO2 Aerosols] they don’t include you know um uh you know the IRA [pro-RE investments in the USA] they don’t include Trump administration, they
don’t include you know [ The Ukraine War ] so they don’t include lots of things that actually happened after 2014 right
Gavin- um now we have an institutional problem right uh in uh in how uh we built all those models and how we how we stored that data and and how we how we updated it um and the fact is we did not update it right so uh a lot of this stuff is done by volunteers um people said oh yeah we’ll update it and then we’ll provide you know updates from 2014 to 2015 2016 okay — that never happened right okay um and uh and so we’re still in 2024 looking at historical runs that finished in 2014 and a lot of the stuff that’s happened happened after 2014 right
so we we have we have a massive database of model runs that is his that is historical until 2014 and then speculative right and it’s diverged sufficiently from what actually happened [ IN THE REAL WORLD ] uh to make the ability to answer some of these questions about why things are happening in the CERES (EEI) Data uh it makes it very tricky to uh to do …………………. [end quotes]
Insert NK – YES SURE. Of course.
But what pray tell is it so WRONG with Climate Scientists using available DATA to try and fill some of the Knowledge Gaps to explain / theorise and speculate SOME of the LOGICAL POSSIBLE CAUSES of Temperature Spikes in 2023 thru 2024 in real time? Especially when they are using the very same Data sources that normally are being injected into the CMIP6 Models and your own?
This is NOT a crime. This is Normal, so why are they being harangued in ways you feel Zeke gets harangued and don;t like that Gavin?
Where is it written that all these other scientists and people MUST wait until these Climate Modelers whose work is a decade out of date get around to doing more work? No where is it written.
No where are people complaining about you Gavin or the other modelers for NOT having the SPECULATIVE OUTPUTS of MODELS that YOU NEED to say anything about the Temperature spikes or to analyze what might be causing the current warming Acceleration
Hansen et al where slandered and harassed for a year over their Pipeline paper with well known climate scientists outright telling the rest of the world there was NO ACCELERATION — now Gavin and many others say there is — and it;s to be EXPECTED and was Expected.
So what was all this criticism of Hansen et al 2023 really all about then?
Was it Much Ado About Nothing? Was it all a coordinated BEAT UP by people too lazy to put any effort into understanding what ti was Hansen et al were really saying? I think it was exactly that – but I cannot know. Too much knowledge is hidden from me and the rest of the public and Hansen himself.
What I do know for sure is that it definitely does NOT build trust or credibility in the scientists, the institutions or the systems arrayed on the problem of global warming.
When you fail to even TRUST EACH other and treat each other with Respect, how can the Public rationally trust you?
Gavin – where we go from here, says unedited:
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=FuBjm652q8kxPU3y&t=2455
we have uh tried to push a uh an accelerated update to these things right so we have we have a project called CERESMIP
[[ see already posted to RC by me https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1202161/full ]]
this project um and the idea is no let’s let’s update all of those things which we should have been doing on an annual basis um but let’s let’s catch up with that and then let’s redo those uh those uh model simulations uh so that they’re up to date right um and then we’ll be able to see like where or if uh there really is a discrepancy between what the models are showing and what the uh and what the observations uh say right up until now
we have not been able to do a like with like comparison and that um is frustrating for everybody I you know I totally understand it and we’re still waiting on some of those updates associated with the short-lived uh forcings not just not just the shipping emissions
but also you know what’s been happening in China
what’s been happening in India um
revisions to you know technologies that people have have used that create lots of emissions of of other things including organic carbons black carbon biomass burning
like all of those things are being updated literally as we as we speak okay um and uh
and they’re not they’re not perfectly known right I mean let’s let’s let’s be clear they’re we’re trying to we’re trying to make successively approximations um uh but uh but it’s it’s very hard to um uh to kind of
demonstrate that that they’re exactly right so so there’s always a little bit of fuzz with these things …
end quote
NK: Well there is always a bit of Fuzz with everything Gavin … including Hansen’s Pipeline Paper, and the questions and comments by Leon Simons as well as those by Zeke Hausfather that do not completely align with the accepted IPCC Climate Scientist’s “consensus” either from one tweet to the next … along with many others!
NK: Asks
THE obvious question to ask now is why is this information only now being shared publicly by Gavin when it could have been EASILY said mid-last year in 2023, or soon after Hansen’s paper was officially published in Nov 2023, when M Man wrote his articles, when Zeke made his posts on twitter and wrote his articles on Carbon brief, when Gavin wrote his Nature article on warming spikes acceleration, or the various news article reports where he was quoted, or even when he wrote this VERY SHORT minimalist article here on Real Climate?
Gavin’s commentary raised another question for me.
DR. Schmidt responds:
I don’t know that that’s a particularly interesting conversation to have.
[ Dan-Really? ]
Let me re-frame it though right? The faster we get to Net Zero the happier we’re all going to be.
[ Dan-All agreed ]
That’s so, you know we can argue about scenarios [SSPs] that are all, like basically, just fantasy scenarios. They are not based on anything real or any real policies or anything like that. They are Top- down, you know kind of accounting exercises.
[ Dan-cut your emissions along this slope and then things obviously, the Carbon budget you know ..]
[REF- SSPs called scenarios and storylines – https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-shared-socioeconomic-pathways-explore-future-climate-change/ and
– Unfortunately, the crossover date between historically-informed simulations and storyline-based scenarios (1/1/2015) falls in the middle of the CERES timeseries.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1202161/full \
Whatever, that’s not gonna happen, like we know, we all know that that’s not gonna happen.
and
DR. Schmidt responds:
No, no, no. So I mean, you know, people have done uh ‘estimates’ of you know where are we based on current policies. Where are we based on uh ‘promised policies’, and you know if you look at the ‘promised policies’, which obviously have to be realized, then know you’re looking at plus 2.5 C right.
[ Dan-doesn’t that assume CDR? ] No. [ Dan-That assume CDR? ] No, no, not as far as I know.
—————————————————————
OK and then on another part of the interview Gavin responds like this-
from 38:20 mins Gavin
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=jDll2bY7U9NmnOYI&t=2299
now uh why is why why can’t I just suddenly tell you what what those quantitative calculations uh uh produce and then like put a stop to all of this all of this speculation okay?
…. and if you weren’t part of these discussions it it just seems a little bit strange um uh but uh in in CMIP6 which is the latest round of these models uh the historical period went until 2014.
AFTER 2014 everything was projected using uh these these story lines – the SSP uh storylines um those are not terrible right — but you know so they range from burn it all to absolutely heroic efforts to uh to to cut emissions and then a couple of things in the middle um
but of course right you know in the real world lots of things have happened since 2014 that obviously were not predictable or predicted in 2015 and in fact these were these were designed you know uh you know up around 2015 2016 um and
so so uh so those those those scenarios they don’t include covid they don’t include the pandemic responses they don’t include hunga tonga they don’t include um the 2015 or 2020 IMO Sulphur emissions changes; […]
—————————
NK: Now assuming I am understanding this correctly, and could have the jargon / meanings wrong here:
I’m having a little trouble reconciling first ” just fantasy scenarios. They are not based on anything real or any real policies or anything like that” with well, they’re not terrible and they are used to produce the CMIP6 future simulations which everyone relies upon to gauge monitor the climate status (how bad it getting) and set COP goals accordingly.
Then we also find out these CMIP6 products were supposed to be updated annually but have not been once since 2015.
Clearly there is a shift in emphasis here but where is the line? What does this actually mean – anyone got any ideas?
Kind regards…
Here Gavin hones in on 2023 temperatures specifically, and the range of usual annual temperature projections that failed last year. and explains what he/they know don’t know about that.
https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=eFtEThkDVPYu0Kxk&t=2674
So Gavin is saying on this interview there is two things going on. How their projections failed in 2023 specifically … and the second bigger issue is how the temperatures ARE accelerating but they as yet cannot define exactly why that is so … what is causing that now and into the future. Not until they update their “Model experiments” and have more info to go on. cheers
So I think that covers all the main key issues in this interview of note.
Let us be real clear
There is Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Leon Simons is not a member of the Club of Rome, for example.
and there is Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
The latter equates to the Hansen et al 2023 Pipeline paper …. and his subsequent articles here
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/
Obvious of course, yet possibly badly overlooked.
SST Anomalies North Mid Atlantic
Rising to +0.9C to now in 2024
Map / Historical Graph
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGNOBMk8XUAAH7qh.jpg
It’s only natural variation, surely.
Could not possibly be from a ‘tiny’ reduction in SOx shipping emissions. :-/
related quotes:
2. The claim that the energy imbalance is increasing is not supported by ocean heat content data.
[ Dr. Gavin S disagrees – see i’view ]
– As nearly all (roughly 90%) of the global energy imbalance goes into ocean heating, a constant rate of increase in ocean heat content implies a constant, rather than increasing planetary energy imbalance, in contradiction of the claims by Jim and co-authors.
3. There is, furthermore, no statistical support for the claim that surface warming is currently accelerating. It is certainly true that the rate has increased since the 1970s, but that’s related to changes in aerosol forcing at that time that are not relevant to the warming of the past few decades.
– There is no evidence that the models are under-predicting human-caused warming.
5. There is no evidence that changes in ship-based aerosols have played any substantial role at all in recent warming trends. The existing literature on this (hat tip to Zeke Hausfather here) indicates a net effect on global surface temperatures of 0.05-0.06C:
https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansen
We need to wait for more data too arrive and run through Model experiments, says Gavin S. Some new research coming out soon. (recent i’view)
typo sorry
SST Anomalies North Mid LATITUDES – 30-60N
“Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.”
Ned Kelly, you are exploiting space generously provided by your hosts, who know a lot more than you do, to insult them. Your endless ongoings undermine your point.
Your interpretation of what is going on here is deeply flawed. I’m not sure why this makes you feel you are doing something worthwhile: the person whose time you are wasting the most is yourself.
Please get help.
For all practical purposes, RealClimate is The Ned Kelly Site. He provides the majority of the content on the site.
Thanks secular animist. I’m pretty good at sharing good content on current climate issues. I do what i can now as my time is very short.
Pre-Print – This is a PDF file of a peer-reviewed paper that has been accepted for publication.
2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years
Esper, J. et al. 2023
Here, we combine observed and reconstructed June-August (JJA) surface air 14 temperatures to show that 2023 was the warmest NH extra-tropical summer over the past 2000 years 15 exceeding the 95% confidence range of natural climate variability by more than half a degree Celsius. 16 Comparison of the 2023 JJA warming against the coldest reconstructed summer in 536 CE reveals a 17 maximum range of pre-Anthropocene-to-2023 temperatures of 3.93°C. Although 2023 is consistent 18 with a greenhouse gases-induced warming trend7 that is amplified by an unfolding El Niño event8, 19 this extreme emphasizes the urgency to implement international agreements for carbon emission 20 reduction.
we show that the 2023 JJA temperatures over the 30-90°N 32 landmass were 2.07°C warmer than the early instrumental mean between 1850 and 1900 CE
The extreme 2023 summer heat exceeded the 88 previous El Niño-affected summer of 2016 by 0.23°C, even though the monthly Nino3.4 index suggests 89 that the ongoing event has yet to unfold
However, the pre-Anthropocene–to–2023 estimate of 2.20°C established here for NH extra-tropical summers clearly demonstrates the unparalleled nature of present-day warmth at large spatial scales and reinforces calls for immediate 118 action towards net zero emissions.
(in full with token code) Accepted: 2 May 2024
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07512-y.epdf?sharing_token=FDqiajwm_gwsjPX0n8w8XdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MrHV_uKk027KUNvousNtH3_rTZfGd5PaukaM-iTDyX-pYKmliqaE-A7JV7tu9Gwr5NIxocHZZ5uh7GV7wXlqZIQjxsH7to4HUgFXnF6jtmboeqXDjJLhxFrzYNJ0lzfn4%3D
The Caribbean Sea has exhibited a fairly steady warming trend since mid-April. It’s well above average for 13 May and (currently) outpacing 2023. Ugh.
Map shows the latest SST anomaly map. Dashed box indicates region for area averaging.
it’s already at the 1991-2020 mean seasonal maximum *already* (per blue dashed line below)? 4 months ahead of schedule !
Area averaged 29C…that would be above average for peak season temps
https://nitter.poast.org/DrKimWood/status/1790393146440036499#m
Berkeley Earth’s analysis of April 2024.
Globally, April 2024 was the warmest April since records began in 1850.
The previous record for warmest April, set in 2020, was broken by a significant margin (0.14 °C / 0.25 °F).
The ocean-average and land-average each also set new records for the warmest April.
Our 12-month moving-average anomaly now stands at + 1.65 °C (2.97 °F) above the 1850-1900 average.
The El Niño that began last year has weakened to a weak category, and is likely to end soon.
2024 is very likely to be either the warmest or second warmest year on record.
https://berkeleyearth.org/april-2024-temperature-update/
James Hansen has another article out to be ignored, minimised, misrepresented, and dismissed as ‘handwaving doomism’ :-)
Comments on Global Warming Acceleration, Sulfur Emissions, Observations
16 May 2024
James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato
Global temperature (12-month mean) is still rising at 1.56°C relative to 1880-1920 in the GISS analysis through April (Fig. 1). [Robert Rohde reports that it is 1.65°C relative to 1850-1900 in the BerkeleyEarth analysis.[3]] Global temperature is likely to continue to rise a bit for at least a month, peak this summer, and then decline as the El Nino fades toward La Nina.
Acceleration of global warming is now hard to deny. The GISS 12-month temperature is now 0.36°C above the 0.18°C/decade trend line, which is 3.6 times the standard deviation (0.1°C). Confidence in global warming acceleration thus exceeds 99%, but we need to see how far temperature falls with the next La Nina before evaluating the post-2010 global warming rate.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/comments-on-global-warming-acceleration-sulfur-emissions-observations
A new under review preprint paper by Dessler and others
Coauthors and I have a new paper (under review) that estimates the impact of Hunga Tunga volcanic eruption over the past two years. The net effect of the eruption has been to cool the globe.
By the end of 2023, most of the Hunga induced radiative forcing changes have disappeared.
https://essopenarchive.org/users/523044/articles/741323-evolution-of-the-climate-forcing-during-the-two-years-after-the-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-eruption
Meaning, all other things being equal, 2022 and 2023 were cooler than they otherwise would have been excluding HTHH eruption. Recalling 2023 was gobsmackingly bananas hot, if no HTHH it would have been even hotter. But by how much?
They estimate:
“The Hunga eruption cooled the climate, but the amount of cooling is so small it will be
difficult to extract the signal from tropospheric meteorological observations. ”
The following was posted 24 April (2024):
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/decades-data-changing-atlantic-circulation
Warranted realism or unwarranted optimism?
RE in the Much Ado article by Gavin ….
“Last year, Jim Hansen and colleagues published a long paper that included a figure [Figure 24 above] suggesting that they expected that global temperature trends from 2011 to increase above the recent linear trends. ”
That Figure 24 has been updated with latest results — in that recent article by Hansen
see Figure 1 and the Blue line here –
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/MayEmail.2024.05.16.pdf
On May 20, the ocean heat content in the Main Development Region (MDR) of the Atlantic is now where it normally would be on August 10. Tropics Caribbean across to Africa
https://nitter.poast.org/BMcNoldy/status/1792535680805171454#m
see graph – the OHC is about double what it would normal be at this time of year in the MDA noted
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGOBc975a8AA_MM0.jpg
ref https://bmcnoldy.earth.miami.edu/tropics/ohc/
Facts are, as human history shows: the always dominant psychopaths won’t do anything to solve the climate problem. On the contrary, they will rather start the third phase of the world war which began in 1914, now for the remaining oil etc., and that phase will be the last, but they don’t care, they never did. They are maniacs. It’s already happening.
“A couple of months ago the Georgian public was shocked to learn through the Russian media that their Minister of Energy and deputy Prime Minister was planning negotiations with the Russian gas giant Gazprom. He did not deny this and other top officials started to lecture the public on the necessity of “diversifying energy supplies.” One of these officials went so far as to say that: “politics and economics are different things and they should be kept far apart from each other.”
Like many post-Soviet republics, Georgia has been heavily dependent on Gazprom with all the consequences this entailed. First, the price of Russian gas shot up (in 2005), and then in early 2006 the pipeline from Russia to Georgia was blown up and for some reason it took weeks to repair while Georgia (and Armenia) was freezing in the dark. Georgia was lucky to rid itself of this dependence when the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum pipeline was launched soon after. Since then, the country has enjoyed an uninterrupted supply of Azerbaijani gas which is said to be substantially cheaper than Gazprom’s. Since then, quite a few Russian think tanks openly lamented the fact that Moscow had lost one of its main instruments for putting pressure on Tbilisi.” Osv.
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_georgias_gazprom_mystery5061/
“(…) bypass Russia by investing in new trade routes along the Caucasus and Central Asia. However, ongoing local conflicts throughout the Caspian and Black Seas region and the Middle East risk further destabilizing the countries around the seas.
With shared national interests in a secure and stable Caspian and Black Sea region, Georgia is a critical partner of the United States in promoting peace, economic development, and stability.” https://www.fletcherforum.org/home/03/06/2024/the-path-forward-for-us-georgia-relations
“The inauguration of a “strategic partnership” between Tbilisi and Beijing has been widely celebrated by Georgian government circles but viewed warily by critics.
The announcement, made last week by Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, came as a surprise to some.
While the intensifying ties logically follow Georgia’s newfound role as a transit and energy corridor connecting Europe and Asia, the wording of the relevant joint statement left the country’s pro-Western voices fearful that it could signal a bigger geopolitical shift.” https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/The-Implications-of-Georgias-Strategic-Partnership-With-China.amp.html . Etc. etc.
This is the real climate policy: there is none but the greenwashing of fossil fuel business as extremely usual:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewables-growth-did-not-dent-fossil-fuel-dominance-2022-statistical-review-2023-06-25/ . In 1975, fossil fuel delivered 75 pct. of global energy consumption, now we are on 82 pct. fossil fuels…
Scientists, except for some, are too opportunistic and feebleminded to dare say anything against this enormous and by now deliberate crime against humanity and all life on earth. They are afraid losing their jobs. “Freedom” is a lie, we are living under the “liberal” tyranny of the oiligarchs, the smarter fascism of the Trumps, the Putins, the Musks, the Xis etc. That’s a sad fact and nothing new in history either, tyranny is the bleak normal among humans in history.
James Hansen is an exception, he speaks up, and many others won’t forgive him for that. Of course they won’t. But many others dare to speak up:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature https://www.earth.com/news/met-office-2024-co2-levels-will-surpass-the-point-of-no-return/ .
In fact *present CO2 levels are probably higher than anytime in at least 23 million years*, according to this research: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/48/9/888/586769/A-23-m-y-record-of-low-atmospheric-CO2 . (I don’t know why the IPCC never mentions that, but speak only of three to five my, without any supporting evidence. It’s probably the usual “optimism”…)
See also: “We calculate that the initial carbon release during the onset of the PETM occurred over at least 4,000 years. This constrains the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C yr−1. We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.” https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2681 , Zeebe et al.: “Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years”, 2016.
This isn’t about tiny statistical details regarding the calculation of the exact speed on the road to hell. It’s about turning away from that road or not.
Most politicians – the huge majority – won’t do that turning away, and they won’t admit that they won’t. Why not? The answer is capitalist dogma, be it in the US, in China “China sets challenging GDP target in face of regional tensions and ageing population -Economists say 5% target is ambitious, as premier Li Qiang tells annual gathering that global economy and problems at home are presenting hurdles to recovery” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/china-national-peoples-congress-gdp-target-growth-5-premier-li-qiang , in the EU, in Russia, in India etc. Neither liberalist nor communist capitalists will allow any deviation from the growth dogmatism, they all believe the absolute nonsense of endless, exponential growth on a limited planet like the earth, against all evidence: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4&t=884s&pp=ygURYWxiZXJ0IGEgYmFydGxldHQ%3D .
They are raving mad as never before, that’s the simple reality. Musk believes he can colonize Mars with ten thousand atomic bombs etc. (as if that would change anything, even if it was possible…) He’s a lunatic and a maniac, and he’s not alone, that’s for sure.
James Hansen is right in saying the “climate policy” in the Paris “agreement” (a voluntary agreement where everyone can do and lie as they please, is no agreement as we see) is pure bullshit, as he said already in november 2015. Everything done by the politicians since then has proven him right. When Gavin says that the climate models can’t explain what’s happening with the temperature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z , he is in fact seeing this and thus agreeing with Hansen and colleagues, he’s just hoping that he can seem to do otherwise, because he and his colleagues are afraid of Trump, for very good reasons: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-Oil-Industry-Is-Preparing-Executive-Orders-for-Trump.amp.html https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/oil-industry-orders-trump-day-one-00156705 etc.
Trump is a “modern” US fascist and a maniac. Trump, as Putin, James Inhofe, bin Salman, Xi Jinping, the “bluedogs” and all the orher usual suspects show us that our rulers simply won’t allow any effective climate policies, in fact most of them prefer outright lying https://e360.yale.edu/features/undercounted-emissions-un-climate-change war and fascism in order to keep their impossible greedy illusions alive: they are raving madmen.
We won’t be able to avoid the fight with these people it’s pure nonsense when Biden etc. believes we can, it’s a repetition of Chamberlain https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-09/us-slams-strikes-on-russia-oil-refineries-as-risk-to-oil-markets . There is no compromise between lying and trying to tell the truth and act according to the facts. The laws of nature don’t listen to lies, they just react to how much CO2 there is in the troposphere etc.
We must listen to Timothy Snyder: never obey in advance, that’s the road to tyranny. https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-obey-in-advance/
Oh dear, and you were doing so well, and mostly understandable given yoru refs as to what you believe to be ‘factual’, until Timothy Snyder appeared. My god there is a cigarette paper separating Snyder and Hit;ler and his fascist totalitarian crew of psychopaths. Snyder? There’s no difference between him and Netanyahu his neonazi cabinet or right wing zionist crazies, and all the fascist settlers in the Occupied Palestine.
It is the current elites like Synder out of the Deep State / CIA bastion of Yale who are driving the Western Bus full of the Golden Billion over the Cliff my dear fellow. There is this thing called Sophistry, about deceit and manipulation as deployed by Snyder et al, look it up. In the meantime some food for good thoughts:
Marcus Tullius Cicero – The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. – Marcus Aurelius
The most revolutionary thing one can do always is to proclaim loudly what is happening. – Rosa Luxemburg
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or committed Communist, but people for whom the distinction between facts and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” ~ Hannah Arendt re Eichmann et al and the US today.
America is a train wreck that collided with a dumpster fire and you’re trying to put that fire out with oil and plutonium and everyone wants to get as far away from you as possible! – Sahid Bolsen, an American
In Re to Ned Kelly, 20 May 2024 at 9:47 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-822264
Sir,
Have you ever heard any of the old Soviet jokes about Radio Yerevan?
Anyway, thank you for your Rosa Luxemburg citation.
Quite fitting to a person who does not recognize a difference between Adolf Hitler and Timothy Snyder, I am afraid.
Regards
Tomáš Kalisz
Yes. Rosa Luxemburg. Socialism or Barbarism. Humanity or Death. Family and Community based Values as opposed to unmitigated Greed and Avarice You’ve made your choice. Nothing left to say.
Many reject the Ancient Wisdom of the Native American Elders among many others across the world.
Seven Generations ……
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_he-y6emlc
Too many will never understand this now. Their minds have been poisoned with the toxicity. Here is a good example of alternative approaches that are working.
ASI is an “agent of change”, working with leaders on large-scale initiatives and uniting the efforts of society, business and government.
https://asi-ru.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
More info here – enjoy :-)
https://karlof1.substack.com/p/putin-chairs-supervisory-board-of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives
Things change. I suspect the above is as unsustainable as the current global economy is, but at least their heart is in the right place – they have their priorities right – so that alone will ensure their survival going forward.
Self-Destructive Cultures Never Survive they Entropy because they are Unsustainable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLy3uOWZuvo
in Re to Ned Kelly, 26 May 2024 at 1:12 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-822401
Sir,
As you have not reacted to my question regarding Radio Yerevan, I suppose that you decided to do so because you have no idea what it is about.
These jokes comprise the wisdom of people who experienced the gifts of real socialism and/or “Russian world” in its Soviet version in their own lives.
I also have this experience, and as I still possess a more-less working brain, I do not need to listen to anyone who admires Maduro, Putin, and likes.
For me, their propaganda is simply appaling, and I can hardly understand anyone for whom it may be appealing.
Honestly, I quite doubt that “Ruskij mir” anyhow fits with your ideas of degrowth etc.
If you would like to serve people with food and water, you cannot add chemical warfare thereto.
Regards
Tomáš
Suppose the mechanically-driven northern Ferrell Cell slowed significantly. That would cause rapid warming of the northern ocean in the nominal latitude range 30N to 60N by reducing the depth of the well-mixed layer (nominally 90 m deep). The sunlight would then be heating less water so it would heat to a higher temperature including higher SST. The Hadley & Polar Cells are thermally driven (tropics warmer than polar regions) but the Ferrell Cell is weaker and is mechanically-driven backwards, as you see on any simple pictorials of them. For example, if the northern Polar Cell weakened due to “Arctic Amplification” perhaps (I’m conjecturing) it would drive the Ferrell Cell weaker, which would reduce surface winds, which would reduce wind-driven vertical mixing, reducing the nominal 90 m depth of the “well-mixed layer” causing the shallower “well-mixed layer” to heat more (less water to heat). Now if this were so you’d think the ocean would gain heat more slowly, which it would if nothing else changed, but suppose the clouds above warmer ocean were reduced by being vaporized a bit by the extra warmth ? Then this would increase the solar SWR penetrating ocean so it’s possible to have a shallower “well-mixed layer” without reducing heat going into the ocean much, or at all. That’s all what’s called a “thought experiment”, I’ve no intention spending time trying to find whether ocean surface winds have slowed there, but if they had then that woul;d certainly warm the ocean “well-mixed layer” more than before. A feature of this would be a bigger increase in SST at 30-60N than in land warming at 30-60N because wind mixes the ocean 90 m (20m to 200m) deep but doesn’t mix land 90 m deep nor to any measurable depth at all except tornadoes.
For GoogleyTubes video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcdZvdSh9LQ Leon made an entirely-incorrect statement at 22:09 to 22:43 based on the SST pictorial being shown (a big lapse of logic by Leon).
Barry E Finch: – “Leon made an entirely-incorrect statement at 22:09 to 22:43 based on the SST pictorial being shown (a big lapse of logic by Leon).”
Did he? Please explain?
Barry, I think you have misunderstood (deliberately?) Leon’s comments, and have thus overreached to arrive at false conclusions. Much like it seems your comments in Feb 2024.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-819054
What do they really know with any certainty about what is going on and why when relying on their climate models and modeled observations? Not much at all frankly.
ECS-Cloud Feedback Symposium #33 — Panel Discussion
“Can we rule out internal variability as the main driver of recent tropical SST trends?”
Peter Huybers (Harvard) & Rob Wills (ETH Zurich)
https://youtu.be/1Y55LC5eMfM
This issue arose during the show – I learnt about something new to me – another fundamental unresolved / unsolvable flaw in climate models
Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing
Johannes Quaas et al. incl. Norman G. Loeb and Piers M. Forster, 2022
Abstract
Anthropogenic aerosols exert a cooling influence that offsets part of the greenhouse gas warming. Due to their short tropospheric lifetime of only several days, the aerosol forcing responds quickly to emissions. Here, we present and discuss the evolution of the aerosol forcing since 2000. There are multiple lines of evidence that allow us to robustly conclude that the anthropogenic aerosol effective radiative forcing (ERF) – both aerosol–radiation interactions (ERFari) and aerosol–cloud interactions (ERFaci) – has become less negative globally, i.e. the trend in aerosol effective radiative forcing changed sign from negative to positive.
Bottom-up inventories show that anthropogenic primary aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions declined in most regions of the world; observations related to aerosol burden show declining trends, in particular of the fine-mode particles that make up most of the anthropogenic aerosols; satellite retrievals of cloud droplet numbers show trends in regions with aerosol declines that are consistent with these in sign, as do observations of top-of-atmosphere radiation.
Climate model results, including a revised set that is constrained by observations of the ocean heat content evolution show a consistent sign and magnitude for a positive forcing relative to the year 2000 due to reduced aerosol effects. This reduction leads to an acceleration of the forcing of climate change, i.e. an increase in forcing by 0.1 to 0.3 W m−2, up to 12 % of the total climate forcing in 2019 compared to 1750 according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12221/2022/acp-22-12221-2022.html
———–
Is Anthropogenic Global Warming Accelerating?
Stuart Jenkins
Abstract
Estimates of the anthropogenic effective radiative forcing (ERF) trend have increased by 50% since 2000 (from +0.4 W m−2 decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.6 W m−2 decade−1 in 2010–19), the majority of which is driven by changes in the aerosol ERF trend, as a result of aerosol emissions reductions. Here we study the extent to which observations of the climate system agree with these ERF assumptions. We use a large ERF ensemble from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) to attribute the anthropogenic contributions to global mean surface temperature (GMST), top-of-atmosphere radiative flux, and we use aerosol optical depth observations. The GMST trend has increased from +0.18°C decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.35°C decade−1 in 2010–19, coinciding with the anthropogenic warming trend rising from +0.19°C decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.24°C decade−1 in 2010–19. This, as well as observed trends in top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes and aerosol optical depths, supports the claim of an aerosol-induced temporary acceleration in the rate of warming.
Further systematic research focused on quantifying trends and early identification of acceleration or deceleration is required.
The importance of continuing to track and constrain the early twenty-first century’s forcing trends is underappreciated, and future work should focus on providing better constraints to near-term forcing trends as well as their levels. Short-term ERF trends are vital to accurately assess this decade’s warming rate, with tangible, real-time impacts for global mitigation policy.
© 2022
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/24/JCLI-D-22-0081.1.xml
Are Northern Hemisphere boreal forest fires more sensitive to future aerosol mitigation than to greenhouse gas–driven warming?
[Yes, is apparently the answer to that question]
by Robert J. Allen et al 2024
The enhanced fire response is related to a deeper layer of summertime soil drying, consistent with increased downwelling surface shortwave radiation and enhanced surface evapotranspiration.
Here, we use the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) (20) whose land component, the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) (21), includes an explicit representation of fire activity (Materials and Methods) (22–24) to quantify the impact of 2015–2060 anthropogenic aerosol mitigation on fire carbon emissions (FIREC).
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl4007
summary ucr news article
The study found that boreal forests in the northern hemisphere are particularly vulnerable to negative effects of cleaning up aerosol pollution. This includes forests in Canada, Alaska, northern Europe, and northern Russia.
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/05/29/improving-air-quality-increases-forest-fires
The other thing reducing aerosols does is interfere in the effectiveness of solar panels which do not tolerate or function well in high heat mode ….incl, direct heat from direct sw solar isolation ….. solar panels operate on light input and operate best below 25C …….. at 40C and above they’re almost useless for producing electricity, and it also impacts their usable lifetime.
Just sayin’
So why is it that reducing ship-emitted aerosols over the oceans over a few years is a big deal that will accelerate warming – but massively increasing land-based aerosols in the peak summer radiation season at mid and high latitudes by increased forest fires lasting for decades doesn’t need consideration as a large negative feedback?
Just askin’
Another study arrives – indicating the same findings yet again.
30 May 2024
Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming
Tianle Yuan
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
news report
‘Termination shock’: cut in ship pollution sparked global heating spurt
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/termination-shock-cut-in-ship-pollution-sparked-global-heating-spurt
Hausfather and Schmidt double down on believing in their past assumptions / calculations / conjectures and their faulty climate models that do not include accurate aerosol impacts or cloud feedbacks to decide the issue down the track, and so they dismiss (and deny) the scientific underpinning of these findings out of hand yet again. Dismiss it, refuse to discuss it further. Mann will likely stick with his “not part of the acceptable IPCC Consensus” sophistry defense and block anyone on X who disagrees with his grand opinion.
These responses have become more predictable than increasing global warming is predictable. I recommend bypassing the intermediaries and read these papers for yourself and withhold judgment about what the reality is. But whatever.
NK: Hausfather and Schmidt double down on believing in their past assumptions / calculations / conjectures and their faulty climate models that do not include accurate aerosol impacts or cloud feedbacks to decide the issue down the track, and so they dismiss (and deny) the scientific underpinning of these findings out of hand yet again. Dismiss it, refuse to discuss it further. Mann will likely stick with his “not part of the acceptable IPCC Consensus” sophistry defense and block anyone on X who disagrees with his grand opinion.
BPL: Gosh, those scientists are dumb! If only they had NK around to teach them better!
In his overweening arrogance, NK assumes he has acolytes here who breathlessly follow his pronunciamentos rather than to our generous hosts who make it possible for him to exploit this here comment section to proselytize.
Our paper estimating the climatic impact of IMO 2020 shipping fuel regulation. We thought of it as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock.
I enjoyed the discussions and hope others would too. There are more relevant work that is coming out, including our new results. Looking forward to them!
https://nitter.poast.org/tianle_yuan/with_replies
AND
But I wouldn’t dismissive other groups results out of hand just because they don’t fit with my a priori assumption ;)
And I think that plugging in the global RF in FaIR is also imprecise for the reason you say exactly, but I wouldn’t call it “problematic” necessarily
we have a paper submitted using fully coupled CESM sims that confirms their results quite well.
Earlier this year I used this example to talk more about future controversies, and since then I’ve only grown more convinced I’m right: >>>
https://nitter.poast.org/DanVisioni/with_replies
Changes in Shipping Emissions As a Natural Analogue for Climate Intervention: Detecting and Attributing Changes Due to Specific Human Activities As a Testbed for Future Controversies.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/104ANNUAL/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/431888
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGO2-_vZWkAAj4QY.jpg
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGO2-_vVXgAAFuFE.jpg
What’s a “substantial contribution” and what’s “detectable”? Going forward this is going to be incredibly important, and discussions around aerosols will force everyone to have a much more nuanced conversation around attribution-nuance sometimes missing when talking GHGs.
—————–
SINGLE STUDY SYNDROME …… (sigh)
AKA When Journalists and Movie Actors self-appoint themselves as Smarter than Scientists and the Science / Data Output.
Andrew Revkin ✍ ☮️
@Revkin
8h
Boy is this climate paper, finding substantial prompt heating effects from the 2020-onward cuts in -style pollution, is stirring up all kinds of reactions – criticism from some climate modelers and “we told you so long ago” from those centering on shipping emissions over the last couple of years. As always, it’s important to avoid #singlestudysyndrome, but that doesn’t mean @tianle_yuan et al are wrong. Some reactions in below as I come across them. And feel free to reply with others! 1/
https://nitter.poast.org/Revkin/status/1796264125594587612#m
AKA when a so-called Journalist cannot tell the difference between the ACTUAL CONTENT of science paper and a distorted newspaper HEADLINE !!!
AND yet still thinks his services are required to ascertain THE FACTS … … the whole climate science ‘communication’ system has become unhinged … if it ever existed in the first place.