RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Climate Science / Unforced variations: Apr 2024

Unforced variations: Apr 2024

by

This month’s open thread on climate topics. Lots more discussion about 2023, aerosols, heat content and imbalances to come I expect…

Note, comments should be substantive even if you are arguing with who you perceive to be the worst person in the world. Comments that are mainly personal attacks will just get deleted.

Reader Interactions

357 Responses to "Unforced variations: Apr 2024"

  1. As comments for the Atlantic circulation post appear to be closed, I’ll reply to Weaktor here.

    Weaktor asks why “natural variation is not an adequate explanation for the current warming epoch.

    I reply: Because THE ENERGY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Natural variation oscillates. It doesn’t rise inexorably unless there is a NATURAL source of energy. No one has suggested an alternative to anthropogenic GHG that comes even close to explaining what we are seeing.

    And this is not a trivial amount of energy–it’s not warming a room or a city block, but an entire planet. You seem not to comprehend how large that is.

  2. Side-bar – the US is incapable of addressing what’s required to improve or solve the global warming situation now or into the future. Not until hit enters collapse mode and just by imploding US GHG emissions will eventually crater — finally in the end the US people will do something useful for the rest of the world when that happens.

    In the meantime the signs are all there where this is heading very fast – please have read of this little package – and note the early short video showing the Xiaomi e-car factory with its own native Giga Press that’s claimed to be able to pump out a car every 17 seconds!!!

    Spot the Human!

    https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/yellen-dispatched-to-beg-china-for

    There are some tough lessons in this article if you’re up for a slice of the Truth.

    (actually his substack is packed full of goodies and hard facts difficult to swallow)

    • Quote: “Side-bar – the US is incapable of addressing what’s required to improve or solve the global warming situation now or into the future.”

      If the US were to stop ALL GHG emissions instantly, and immediately start REMOVING as much GHG from the atmosphere as we were emitting one minute ago, it would have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on global warming.

      • RE Mr. Know It All says
        17 Apr 2024 at 9:27 PM
        If the US were to stop ALL GHG emissions instantly, and immediately start REMOVING as much GHG from the atmosphere as we were emitting one minute ago, it would have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on global warming.

        That’s some though bubble Mr KIA :-)

        Did you mean do that and keep doing it non-stop into the future … which is what I assume you intended?

        So stop all GHG emissions (only manmade output I assume) and then Remove as much it was emitting per day, each day from then on?

        Mmmm, imho it would have almost immediate noticeable effect on first the weather and very shortly thereafter would begin showing up in key measurements and all that would soon (?) be reflected in ongoing weather effects and ultimately the Climate – first in the US and subsequently elsewhere over time — the first might well be a sudden temperature spike (shock) that lasted many many months across the US north america

        Why would you think such a massive global shift in GHG emissions would have no “measurable effect” on the climate or global warming etc?

        btw it would also immediately turn the US into something similar to Lord of the Flies on steroids. Impossible to know how many milllions would die or how fast but it would be on the nightly news everywhere else that was till using fossil fuels and generating GHG emissions. (big smile)

  3. New Acceleration Warming / Temperatures Ref Link

    New Paper released 06 April 2024
    Exacerbated summer European warming not captured by climate models
    neglecting long-term aerosol changes
    Dominik L. Schumacher, Jitendra Singh, Mathias Hauser, Erich M. Fischer, Martin Wild & Sonia I. Seneviratne

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01332-8
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379642493_Exacerbated_summer_European_warming_not_captured_by_climate_models_neglecting_long-term_aerosol_changes

  5. Minimization is (imho) the New Denial – one more example – too easy to find more

    Zeke Hausfather @hausfath 16h

    The ship has largely sailed on limiting warming to 1.5C at this point, barring us getting very lucky with low climate sensitivity or actively geoengineering the climate.

    But there still are viable paths to limit warming to below 2C this century, as shown in the [ Delusional ? ] figure below:
    https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGKu6uJhaAAA90VF.jpg

    Note that these simplified scenarios allow for no net-negative emissions. It’s possible to expand the remaining carbon budget by removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than we emit, but even then it’s hard to come up with a plausible 1.5C scenario without overshoot and decline.
    https://nitter.poast.org/hausfath/status/1777719953267003494#m

    Meanwhile James Hansen points out Reality to no avail …
    “Of course, one can devise a scenario that stays under 2°C via a miraculous transition to zero emissions within a few decades, but the real world pays no attention to imaginary scenarios. Instead, the real world responds to the actual growth of GHG climate forcings.”

    As a very wise man once said – They know not what they do ….

    QUESTION: Are all SSPs falsified?

    https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGKua0LYXwAAkPcm.jpg

    Answer : YES

    ….. Kind Regards

  6. This is messy cut’n’paste of my Sabine whatsit GoogleyTubes comment.
    Oh I didn’t know the surface wind was measured slowing when I hypothesized a part of “gobsmacking bananas” high northern SSTs couple of days ago on Mister Think video and couple of weeks ago on Realclimate Web Log Site.
    ——–
    Here’s a sub-hypothesis, just an unsubstantiated Thought Experiment for Mister Think viewers. Suppose the northern mechanically-driven Ferrell Cell is slowing down ? What then ? The Hadley (0-30NS) & Polar (60NS-90NS) Circulation cells are thermally-gravitationally driven. Lower latitudes are warmer so the troposphere expands, is taller so air at the top runs towards the Poles (Coriolis Effect turns it). Ferrell Circulation Cell (30NS-60NS) flows backwards though, air descends where it’s warmer and ascends where it’s colder. My book “talks” about “eddy circulations” but I infer that it comes down to the Hadley & Polar Circulation cells shoving the weaker Ferrell Cells backwards (so you get that prevailing southwest surface wind in the northern hemisphere 30N-60N instead of northeasterlies). Suppose the Arctic Amplification (with Wonky Jet Stream feature) weakened the northern Polar cell causing it to push the northern mechanically-driven Ferrell Cell less strongly so it slows down. This reduces surface wind including over the oceans. That mixes to a shallower depth than the 90 m taken as a working annual average for the well-mixed layer. So the sunshine is heating less water so it heats to a higher temperature giving higher SSTs. This should also reduce the increase in ocean heat content (OHC), which is Earth’s energy budget imbalance (EEI), because there’s more LWR going to space (more Planck response). However not necessarily or maybe not as much as might be thought because suppose the cloud change response to warming air is a +ve feedback and is large either regionally or temporarily for some reason, or is just generally larger than thought ? If this were the case then reduced cloud from the warmer air reflects less solar SWR, puts more solar SWR into this shallower (compared with 90 m base line) well-mixed layer,. heating that layer even more and increasing both SST and OHC (which is increasing Earth’s energy budget imbalance (EEI)). I haven’t bothered to search for data about surface wind speed so if anybody finds it and it hasn’t slowed then that’s a defunct Thought Experiment about a way that wind speed reduction over ocean other than the tropical Pacific ENSO El Nino might increase SST and even increase Delta-OHC/EEI with it (which ENSO El Nino cannot do of course, it must always reduce Delta-OHC/EEI of course because it’s “old” energy being discharged to space with the atmosphere simply being in the way.

  7. Ned Kelly 8 APR 8:14 PM “…. year-on-year increases of
    10 ± 6 ZJ were observed from 2019 to 2020,
    19 ± 6 ZJ from 2020 to 2021, and
    18 ± 8 ZJ from 2021 to 2022,
    culminating to an increase of
    16 ± 10 ZJ from 2022 to 2023”
    ORAS4 OHC increase was 6 ZJ / year (0.38 w/m**2) until 1995 then took a sharp turn up to 14 ZJ / year (0.87 w/m**2) until 2012 when the ORAS4 plot ended. I used 0.87 w/m**2 until early 2023 when I discovered CERES was accurate enough, contrary to what I’d been informed in talks by scientists. So, you have above 0.63, 1.19, 1.13, 1.00 w/m**2 of EEI heat going into the ocean 2020 to 2023 as a sign of dire recent emergency even though I’ve had 0.87 w/m**2 of EEI heat going into the ocean since 1995. I requested few days ago that somebody explain to this Trenberth’s missing heat on steroids that’s happening. It’s now incumbent on Ned Kelly because that entity strongly broached the subject. Ned Kelly where on Earth is that VAST amount of missing heat going between the 1.86 w/m**2 of EEI (1.45 w/m**2 as the current trend) and the far smaller power fluxes going into the ocean ? Simple question. Answer it for the audience because nobody else has stepped up to the plate.

    • In Re to Barry E. Finch, 10 Apr 2024 at 11:04 AM,

      https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821192

      Dear Barry,

      So far, it was my feeling that Ned Kelly consistently objects that these high EEI values since 2020 can be (at least in a high extent) assigned to lower aerosol production above marine shipping lanes, due to desulfurization of the respective fuel.

      It was further my feeling that she also asserts that James Hansen et al explain these observations well, (perhaps contrary to CMPI6 models).

      For example,

      Ned Kelly, 10 Apr 2024 at 2:51 AM

      https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-821172

      says:

      “New Paper released 06 April 2024

      Exacerbated summer European warming not captured by climate models
      neglecting long-term aerosol changes
      Dominik L. Schumacher, Jitendra Singh, Mathias Hauser, Erich M. Fischer, Martin Wild & Sonia I. Seneviratne

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01332-8
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379642493_Exacerbated_summer_European_warming_not_captured_by_climate_models_neglecting_long-term_aerosol_changes ”
      —
      In this respect, I am somewhat confused by your question. Have I understood Ms. Kelly incorrectly?
      If so, what was/is in your opinion her message, and in which aspect she asserted/asserts something else than you?

      Greetings
      Tomáš

      • Tomáš Kalisz says
        11 Apr 2024 at 2:11 AM

        Thanks for your comment. Not that it matters much, but I am a “he/him/male/bloke” = I mentioned this in one of my responses to you but that was blocked/deleted unfortunately.

        RE “Ned Kelly consistently objects that these high EEI values since 2020 can be (at least in a high extent) assigned to lower aerosol production above marine shipping lanes, due to desulfurization of the respective fuel.”

        Tomas, saying I “objects” is I think the wrong word to use in this case …. (could be just semantics here) but it is more that I can see and l tend to agree with Simons/Hansen et al Hypothesis –
        ” that these high EEI values since 2020 can be (at least PARTIALLY or SIGNIFICANTLY) can be ATTRIBUTED to THE PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION since 2010 OF lower SO2 aerosol production above marine shipping lanes, due to desulfurization of the respective fuels.” ….. especially the 80% reduction from 2020.

        Yes, plus the other Global Reductions as well which has been essentially been Halved (+/-) Globally since circa 2000-2005 to now.

        Small progressive reductions have suddenly manifested as more obvious during this el nino period that has pushed record temperatures into the consciousness and the media reporting. I suggest as Hansen has shown even the initial reductions were showing up in the data albeit not as obvious before.

        imho the large change from 2020 shipping SO2 has been the straw that broke the camels back – so to speak. It made the issue more obvious in a dramatic way last year to now – Hansen says as el nino passes the underlying warming EEI imbalance will continue to become more obvious too – this to me is logical. ie the SO2 reductions ongoing will keep driving more warming that was the case before.

        Any accumulated heat (OHC) which was absorbed by less Albedo over the oceans into deeper layers the last 3 years during la nina period … will continue to resurface as increased “SST” temperature measurements — the ongoing reduction of SO2 in shipping will continue to show up as ASR/EEI and therefore higher SST and global GSAT as well.
        https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
        https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world

        AT some point it may become clear there is a significant measurable divergence from Observation Data and Model forecasts because are understating the forcing and impact of Aerosols like SO2 on the climate temperatures. We have to wait and see for repetitive results coming out.

        AND that Hansen et al Pipeline paper ONLY captured an analysis up to 2019 as far as shipping SO2 aerosol emissions are concerned – BUT following their LOGIC of their Hypothesis and Data and Analysis that the more substantial post-2020 SO2 IMO shipping reductions 80% must have had a significant effect on 2023-2024 SST and Surface Temperatures ….

        IF Gavin is only looking for 0.2C gap then that is where he will find it — in this SO2 reductions over the Oceans PLUS How that is incorrectly being included in existing Models…. especially the Cloud behavior over Oceans!!!

        My “rough” yardstick suggests IMO 2020 shipping reductions amounts to possibly a 13% Reduction of Global man-made SO2 emissions … but I will leave other more qualified to make a final determination.

        The problem being there is NO definitive measurement of these things (PACE data may help, don;t know yet) — the provided Data and the Opinions vary (my opinion is worth far less that others )

        I simply say Hansen et al sounds logical and internally coherent to me The naysayers arguments do not, and they offer no supporting evidence or data, only rhetoric and assertions (ie Speculation)

        Kind regards …..

        SEE many refs in my other posts –
        EG https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGKT8rWxWMAIdvFM.jpg

    • Barry E Finch says
      10 Apr 2024 at 11:04 AM
      It’s now incumbent on Ned Kelly because that entity strongly broached the subject …

      No it ain’t Barry.

      Just because I post a url link or quote a paper of a climate scientists will never make me responsible for what they say nor their work. I really do not have the time nor the inclination to answer everyone’s questions of me which are piling up – nor address their particular demands. Sorry.

      You can find Lijing Cheng on X twitter
      https://nitter.poast.org/Lijing_Cheng
      eg There is decadal variability; OHC rate peaks at late-1990s, then a drop and increases since ~2010. That’s why it is subtle for acceleration since 1990, but you will find a positive trend after 2005 or 2010. The most robust thing is a 2~3-fold rate increase after 1990 vs 1960-1990

  8. Susan Anderson:

    I want to thank you for a couple of times recently here at RC where you made a passing reference to the Heritage Foundation Project 2025 and the implications for doing away with NOAA by breakup, elimination and commercialization.

    I’ve finally remembered to downloaded the report, and right this moment, I’m left without a way to politely express my thoughts on how truly destructive this would be just to climate research science, let alone the work of the NWS if this were to be implemented (along with the the reclassification of thousands of federal employees to bend them to political will). And that doesn’t even address the other departments currently part of NOAA (I’ve yet to read that far).

    I hope the subject is brought to the attention of the public repeatedly between now and 11-05 by any and all concerned about such anti-science prospect. I’ll do what I can.

    An aside… I did chuckle at the testicular fortitude it takes to underpin the privatization of the NWS using a single prnewswire from AccuWeather a few years ago.

    • Yes, David, Project 2025 is a horror. It is worth remembering that Judith Curry has an interest as her husband was forming a weather company at the time she divided herself from the main body of climate science and started to opine against it. I dredged up this half of the argument (not about her personal interest, but a thoughtful and respectful reply to the attacks she made): glad it’s still online:
      https://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3314

      It’s too bad, because as a Warren Democrat I’ve never much cared for Biden. But he’s doing a good job and wisdom with age should not be a problem given the opposition’s deep dive into lies, threats, greed, etc.

    • hmmm, missed this before I posted same … guess a repeat will do no harm …

  11. The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory
    December 2023
    Life on planet Earth is under siege. We are now in an uncharted territory.
    We are losing the functions and resilience in the earth system while we at
    the same time are causing unprecedented energy imbalance on planet Earth.
    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/73/12/841/7319571?login=false

    DAAD Climate Lecture Series with Johan Rockström
    10 Jan 2024 – “A safe and just future for humanity on earth”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDcYkNwKyrc

    The 17 Things I Am Certain About
    | Frankly #60 Nate Hagens
    I am 100% certain that our Global macro situation is such that we are so far
    from Equilibrium with Debt and Supply chains and Geopolitics that there
    are no longer any non-radical non-disruptive Pathways back to Equilibrium
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPv0wa5U0WA

  12. In another forum far far away ….

    I need to put a reminder sticker on my screen,
    “Never engage with people who assert things that are not actually facts,
    and pull up completely irrelevant ones, and massively over-simplify things,
    most especially when it comes to climate change”.

  14. I’m an admirer of Abrahm Lustgarten (ProPublica & elsewhere, has done seminal work on Colorado River troubles etc., e.g.: Killing the Colorado https://www.propublica.org/series/killing-the-colorado – so I got his book – https://www.sciencenews.org/article/on-the-move-review-climate-change-where-people-live – On the Move: The Overheating Earth and the Uprooting of America. This bit seemed worth typing out about our current predicament:

    The systems aren’t just the physical characteristics of the earth … They are human. They are us. People are at the nexus of climate change, and as disasters collide with one another and overlap, they weigh on civilization, culture, and communities. We may intuitively understand this. But the gravity of the nightmare gets lost in its superhuman form … the ‘hyperobject’ because it is too big to grasp. Thinking too much about the terror of massive global change can be paralyzing, and the situation is made worse by the weighty knowledge that it is being brought on by our own deeds, along with ignorance, stubbornness, and willful denial – and that forestalling it will require personal sacrifice.

    The antidote to the terror could be more knowledge: How? When? The argument … accepts the scientific consensus. What remains unknown is a matter of degree and precision: How much worse will it get, and where? If there is no scenario in which the world remains untouched, in which life continues for the next hundred years much as it unfurled over the past hundred years, then it is all the more important to brace ourselves. Doing so is practical, but it has an almost spiritual dimension, too. Preparing ourselves mentally can help make clear what we all stand to lose and can allow us to adapt, to mobilize, and when necessary, to mourn. There is no more normal to be preserved. And so we need to get on with it, and face what’s coming.

    [I realize this extract leaves out action on mitigation, and regret that. He treats that elsewhere, along with the need to stop industrial strength lies and heedless spreading of same by silly people who don’t know any better.]

  15. Please, would someone explain the accuracy and reasoning behind the headlines and stories “NOAA fabricates temperature data from 30% of the 1218 USHCN stations that no longer physically exist.”

    You can find the story at zerohedge, epoch, and other like sites. It began to appear 3-4 days ago and is spreading rapidly throughout certain online ecosystems.

    If there are rational and verifiable reasons, please advise. I’m not a climate scientist.

    [Response: As you might expect, it’s nonsense. There are plenty of currently operating stations and so that’s what goes into the US and global means. However, there is an older product USHCN which NOAA started decades ago, and they wanted to keep the network static. Thus as some stations moved or were discontinued they wanted to keep the network, so they interpolate to those missing stations from nearby ones. It works fine, but if anyone doesn’t like it, they don’t need to use it. None of the global products use this since they can deal with shifting networks over time in a variety of reasonable ways. – gavin ]

    • Thank you Dr. Schmidt for the explanation. Makes sense to me. My gratitude to you and your fellow contributors (and the commenters here) for the outreach/info provided by places like RC.

    • Epoch Times, for those who don’t know, is a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong–a toxic religious cult originating in China. Last I saw, they were all in on Trump as well. Unfortunately, they seem to have a lot of reach; free copies of the ET were all over the place at my late mother-in-law’s assisted living facility, for example, and I’ve seen them show up in many other places as well, plus advertising for the product in various media.

      The ever-recurring Shen Yun shows which criss-cross North America–Europe, too?–are the purely cultural arm of this same effort.

      https://www.theepochtimes.com/

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

  16. Sidebar curiosity-
    The Real Prof. Katharine Hayhoe @KHayhoe 21h
    That is an iteration of number four, and as with all the arguments above, it is completely false. Burning fossil fuels kills millions of people a year.
    https://nitter.poast.org/KHayhoe/status/1778817913329275019#m

    NK FACT CHECK (?): Not Burning fossil fuels would kill Billions of people this year
    and the next! Make up your mind if you want to save lives or not. And work out why fossil fuels are being used in the first place before calling for them to be banned without any viable energy solutions today or alternatives tomorrow to replace that Energy Demand from People like yourself.

    Saying “We have to stop burning fossil fuels!” is rhetoric, a protest chant. It is not a viable Practical Solution for rapidly reducing GHG emissions, nor for stopping Global Warming. It is just not that simple because it is avoiding the actual drivers of increasing fossil fuel consumption. The modelling, recommendations and agreements of the IPCC and the UNFCCC are not viable solutions either. These institutions are not fit for purpose and should be reformed or disbanded. imho. Obviously people have different views.

    Anyways ….

  17. The GISTEMPv4 (numbers only so far) have been posted for March. NOAA has posted its March report.
    As expected, both give a tenth-in-a-row “scorchyisimo!!!” month, the longest such run on record.

    GISTEMP has a March global anomaly of +1.39ºC, down on Feb’s +1.44ºC but not by much. Jan was lower at +1.22ºC.

    March 2024 has the fourth highest monthly anomaly on the GISTEMP record, and it still sits within the high “bananas!” anomaly values seen in the last half of 2023.
    The 10 “bananas!” months run Jul +1.19ºC, Aug +1.20ºC, Sept +1.48ºC, Oct +1.34ºC, Nov +1.43ºC, Dec +1.35ºC, 2024 Jan +1.22ºC, Feb +1.44ºC, Mar +1.39ºC.

    So there is yet no peak “bananas!” appearing (ie using a 5-month rolling average) in GISTEMP. The continued high anomaly into March appears to be a southern hemisphere thing. In both GISTEMP & NOAA the SH March anomaly sits at +1.01ºC, the first month GISTEMP/NOAA SH has ever topped one degree.

    There is a peak showing in the global NOAA numbers but no way as strong as the peak in the ERA5 re-analysis numbers. Mind, the “bananas!” in 2023 were significantly stronger in ERA5 than in GISTEMP or NOAA. (That is the Jul-Dec average saw a bigger ‘up’ from the Jan-Jun average, in ERA5, an increase of +0.44ºC in ERA5 but +0.31ºC in GISTEMP/NOAA.) And the March ‘headroom’ relative to the previous hottest March (2016) is much less banana-esque in GISTEMP (+0.04ºC) & NOAA (+0.01ºC) than in ERA5 (+0.10ºC).

    Year-on-year graphics of GISTEMP & ERA5 can be found HERE (graphs 2b & c) while other up-to-date plots of the state of the “bananas!” can be found HERE (graphs first uploaded 15/12/23 & 14/2/24)

    The start of the year 2024-to-date is evidently “scorchyisimo!!!”, Jan-Mar within GISTEMP averaging +1.35ºC. (Previous hottest was 2016’s Jan-Mar +1.30ºC, above 2020’s +1.19ºC and 2023’s +1.02ºC.) The 2024 ave Apr-Dec will have to average below +1.17ºC for the 2024 full calendar year average to drop below top-of-the-rankings calendar year 2023 and Apr-Dec average below +0.96ºC to also drop below 2016.

  19. To fix climate change, we need to find the root cause of the problem, right? Fortunately Jane Fonda has done her part to help figure out the cause of climate change. Happy reading:

    https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2023/05/28/hanoi-jane-white-men-and-white-man-racism-are-to-blame-for-climate-change-n752832

    Then, to avoid future embarrassment when testifying before congress about possible solutions, it would be nice to have a good idea of the cost to fix the problem. A large engineering firm would be able to help with that. This list is from 2019 and is the latest full list ENR allows you to view without signing up. Get at least 3 bids, evaluate them, and pick one:

    https://www.enr.com/toplists/2019-Top-500-Design-Firms1

    • She’s more right than you think, KIA. It may be true that there are no “white dudes” running the CPC, but they are nevertheless patriarchal to the bone–which is why they are overwhelmingly, you know, “dudes.” That’s also why they are obsessed with status, territory, wealth and power–just like DJT and his cronies. Or the man who somehow is managing to buddy up to both DJT and the CPP–Vladimir Putin.

  21. Choosing to Fail, with Climate Scientist Kevin Anderson 12 Mar 2024
    @36 minutes – https://youtu.be/tVFSJINGueM?si=xn9XQIjLCCsVptp5&t=2166

    Quote “The IPCC Working Group 3 is just Exxon in Disguise!”

    “I wouldn’t get rid of the IPCC. I’ve for a long time said I don’t think Working Group 3 should be part of the IPCC. Reducing emissions is innately political and it hides that, almost like- “We’ve we’ve done these objective assessments in all of these Integrated Assessment Models (IAM)” you know, all of which in the Global North handfuls of these Models that always produce the same results, by the same sorts of people, using the same sort of modeling practices, with the same underlying assumptions basically.

    They’ll all tell you they’re a bit different but they are just tweaking a General Equilibrium Model which has Economic Growth at its Core. You can’t ask fundamental questions about Society. I don’t think they can be remedied, I don’t think you can solve them, I don’t think there’s a way to make them better.

    You know, every time you add something else to them I think it just hides the way they’re structured, the way they’re framed, is deeply part of the problem. And so work in WG3 to me, at least the majority of working group three which has been dominated by the integrated assessment models, these big models that are basically economic models with a bit of technology or a bit of mythical technology and a bit of social sciences bolted on the side and then a small climate model, but basically just economic models, the business as usual (BAU) models, these models have dominated what we have to do, can do about climate change.”

    AND @42:40 Mins https://youtu.be/tVFSJINGueM?si=np8QB-u1VLJenYj8&t=2559

    “What we’ve had is civil society has broadly taken the standard science and said: “You need to do a lot more!” and the Expert Science Community has said: “Oh don’t you worry. We’ll find some fluffy way with some mythical technology to solve it for you!” Or we’ve stayed quiet. So it’s Civil Society, well some people in civil society, that have been much more honest to the Science than the Scientific Community has been itself.

    I find that really disturbing. The scientific Community has done the science and then has not told a narrative that aligns with the science that we have done. We’ve relied upon Gaggles in Civil Society to actually do that for us, while we have just played a nice story line.” [end quote]

    Then pay close attention to what Kevin then says about the low Credibility of the expert Climate Science Community and the Dishonesty that has been going on for decades.

    “Until we experts think it’s a serious issue and demonstrate that publicly, then I don’t think people will really take our arguments quite so seriously either. […] We have embedded this Colonial view of the world and this Elite view of the world and yet we like to think of ourselves as good people in this, but there is something deeply problematic in all of this. We have to start to unpick this if we are going to be serious about climate change. It’s a scam.” [end quote]

    ————————————

  22. Who is Prof Nick Cowern?
    @NickCowern
    Physics prof emeritus. Atmospheric aerosols, methane, energy transition, sustainable living.
    Impatient for genuine global action.
    Comments re Hansen et al
    https://nitter.poast.org/NickCowern/search?f=tweets&q=hansen&since=&until=&near=
    eg
    “I think the issues are already implicit in the Hansen et al ‘Pipeline’ paper. A higher than expected aerosol-cloud coupling and stronger than expected cloud feedbacks (both of which contribute to the current rapidly falling albedo). The drivers of this crisis are GHGs + aerosols.”

    “@bberwyn Thanks for your excellent report on Hansen et al’s paper Global Warming in the Pipeline. Just want to comment on the critique by Trenberth. The failure of one high-ECS cloud model is obviously no basis for refuting observationally determined, model-free, high ECS.”

    New Study Warns of an Imminent Spike of Planetary Warming and Deepens Divides Among Climate Scientists
    By Bob Berwyn November 2, 2023

    But several well-known climate scientists said Hansen is confusing reticence with insistence on accuracy and robustness.

    “His commentary is terrible,” said Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds, and lead author of the section of the most recent IPCC report that covered climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity.

    “This is simply a very bad hotchpotch of a paper made out to be a new assessment of climate sensitivity and critique of IPCC,” Forster said. “It is nothing of the sort.” Instead, Forster said the paper is a combination of historical perspectives, geographic modeling and Hansen’s opinions.

    The high climate sensitivity estimates cited in Hansen’s paper “all seem quite subjective and not justified by observations, model studies or literature,” he said. “They portray their paper as an alternative but it doesn’t have rigor, systematic analysis or comprehensive literature review. It also does a great disservice to the hundreds of scientists from around the world that give many years of their lives to the IPCC process.”

    Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished professor emeritus with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said he was surprised the new paper was published, noting that the journal is relatively obscure.

    “I think it is likely wrong,” Trenberth said. “Hansen has never been involved in the IPCC in any capacity, even as a reviewer. He is not at all collegial and he tends to ignore legitimate criticism. He moves papers around until they get published. He stuffs papers full of extraneous stuff that would not be publishable by itself.”

    Trenberth said the new paper relies on an estimate of paleoclimate sensitivity that was proven wrong by a 2021 study that modeled ancient warm and cold periods, providing a way to accurately assess the climate impact of industrial age greenhouse gas emissions. He said Hansen’s team also seems to have ignored increasing water vapor caused by global warming as a factor in the recent warming surge.

    “Water vapor is a major feedback,” he said. “As temperatures go up so does the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere,” which amplifies global warming.

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112023/study-warns-of-spike-of-warming-divides-climate-scientists/

  23. OHC New paper by @ZhiLi_Ocean @ProfMattEngland & @SjoerdGroeskamp does ensemble average of ocean heat content datasets. Finds ~doubling of the rate of heat uptake by global ocean between 1990-2000 & 2010-2020.

    Recent acceleration in global ocean heat (OHC) accumulation by mode and intermediate waters
    Published: 28 October 2023 by Zhi Li, Matthew H. England & Sjoerd Groeskamp
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42468-z

    Here we analyze historical and recent observations to show that ocean heat uptake has accelerated dramatically since the 1990s, nearly doubling during 2010–2020 relative to 1990–2000. Of the total ocean heat uptake over the Argo era 2005–2020, about 89% can be found in global mode and intermediate water layers, spanning both hemispheres and both subtropical and subpolar mode waters.
    This shows that regional mode and intermediate waters are responsible for a disproportionate fraction of total heat uptake compared to their volume, with important implications for understanding ongoing ocean warming, sea-level rise, and climate impacts.

  24. Published: November 1, 2007

    This post is by Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He also serves as science advisor to Environmental Defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oppenheimer

    US support was probably critical to IPCC’s establishment. And why did the US government support it? Assistant Undersecretary of State Bill Nitze wrote to me a few years later saying that our group’s activities played a significant role. Among other motivations, the US government saw the creation of the IPCC as a way to prevent the activism stimulated by my colleagues and me from controlling the policy agenda.

    I suspect that the Reagan Administration believed that, in contrast to our group, most scientists were not activists, and would take years to reach any conclusion on the magnitude of the threat. Even if they did, they probably would fail to express it in plain English. The US government must have been quite surprised when IPCC issued its first assessment at the end of 1990, stating clearly that human activity was likely to produce an unprecedented warming.

    https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/

    • NK: Michael Oppenheimer, like Kevin Anderson, would probably not appreciate the use you are making of his stellar work.

      • Susan Anderson says
        17 Apr 2024 at 5:39 PM

        How would you know what MO “would probably appreciate or not” Susan?

        And what difference do you think it should make?

  25. According to a recent article in Nature, the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years, independent of future emission choices, which is about six times the cost of holding global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

    • Oh really? Senator John Kennedy has repeatedly asked global warming “experts” how much it will cost to fix global warming. Don’t remember anyone giving a good answer, but since you know it is 1/6 of the 19% income reduction over 26 years, please provide us that number. Please tell us the number that each nation will be responsible for spending to giterdone. I will direct Mr. Kennedy to your reply.

      • For the umpteenth time, you destroy what little credibility you thought you had when you say “experts”. Hint: they are, you are not.

    • These kinds of “economics” reports are equivalent to astrology and voodoo economics. (aka bs)

      Ignore them is the best one can do.

  26. Published yesterday (17/04/24) in Science Advances Vol. 10, No. 16

    Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates
    Vincent T. Cooper lead author

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk9461

    Would welcome any comments anyone would offer. Seems to my layman’s eye to have some relevance to several ongoing areas of focus currently under discussion/debate here at RC (ECS, SST, modeling, the IPC ranges, etc).

    • UGH… IPCC not IPC.

      My apologies to all for the spelling/grammatical errors in my few comments thus far. I’ll strive to not be in such a hurry in the future.

      I’ve heard about a technique called proofreading that might help ;-)

    • looks like it centers upon this – Our results suggest that the LGM feedback is more positive than the 2xCO2 feedback because of the LGM ice-sheet forcing and resulting SST pattern. Failing to account for this difference in feedbacks would lead to the inference of higher values of modern-day ECS from the LGM, e.g., (54). Some past studies using fully coupled models have considered these feedback differences indirectly by applying an “efficacy” adjustment (55) to the LGM forcings. The efficacy framework has led to disparate results for multiple reasons: changes in how forcing is quantified (40, 41, 56) before ERF became standard (2), the lack of data constraints on SST patterns simulated by fully coupled models (22, 44, 57), and the behavior of intermediate-complexity models with simplified cloud feedbacks (42, 43). Because efficacy is equivalent to the ratio of feedbacks λ2x/λLGM (58, 59), our results could be framed as a median LGM-forcing efficacy of 1.7 (Materials and Methods; tables S1 and S2), consistent with recent studies that find LGM-forcing efficacy greater than 1 using ERF and fully coupled models (23, 48, 49). However, the pattern effect framework we use replaces the need for forcing efficacy (text S1) (59), aligns with modern AGCM methods of quantifying feedbacks (60) and ERF (61), and incorporates data from the latest reconstructions of the LGM. …

      Might CLIMAP and 5000 yr timescales for GCMs make any difference? Way outside my wheelhouse.

      But I can predict M Mann’s attitude to such a paper — in fact I can all but quote it verbatim —

      Prof Michael E. Mann
      IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of a sharp decrease in (-climate sensitivity estimates-) must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?
      Jun 27, 2023 · 2:01 AM UTC Prof Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
      https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m

      Grinning …. I knew it wouldn’t take long for this ref to be applicable and useful ….. Anyways

  29. Temps not expected to lessen post-El Nino.

    For the 1st time in 200 years we expect no post-El Niño global cooling (in 2024-25).
    We project only a slight slowdown in warming this year,

    The Northern Hemisphere appears to be approaching 2°C of warming around mid-May:

    +1.94°C today!

    The global mean could also reach 2°C of warming between January & April of 2025:

    +1.61°C today!

    https://x.com/KrVaSt/status/1781235718167106021

    For the past 16 years the climate system and scientists’ research have been catching up to my projections. They are now exceeding them.

    Oh, yes, it’s accelerating.

    • On 17 Apr 2024, the global 365-day running mean SAT reached +1.60 °C relative to the 1850-1900 baseline, per Copernicus ERA5 data.
      https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1781284909333794919

      There’s a lot of water surface heat building off the coast of Africa and all around Europe. The Northern Hemisphere should prepare for an eventful summer!
      https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1781334441056461295

      Global SSTs: 5σ has become the new 2σ.
      https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1781703409659445432

      On 19 Apr 2024, Berkeley Earth published their report titled March 2024 Temperature Update by Robert Rohde. It included:

      2024 will very likely be one of the two warmest years since instrumental measurements began. Whether it is the warmest year on record will depend on whether it can maintain its current warmth long enough to exceed the record annual average set in 2023. It is typically true that the second year after an El Niño emerges is warmer than the first, though that is not guaranteed.

      The first three months of 2024 started with large anomalies, though this is expected to cool somewhat during the latter part of 2024.

      The statistical approach that we use, looking at conditions in recent months, now believes that 2024 has a 59% chance of being warmer than 2023, slightly better than a coin flip. The ultimate outcome will depend on the evolution of the current El Niño, the possible switch to La Niña late in 2024, and variation in other regions. However, it is very unlikely that 2024 will be any colder than the second warmest year overall.

      Estimated Probability of 2024 Annual Average final rankings:

      * 1st – 59%
      * 2nd – 41%
      * 3rd or lower – less than 1%

      This forecast probability of record warmth is largely unchanged from the 62% chance estimated last month.

      We also consider there to be a 80% chance that 2024 will have an annual-average temperature anomaly more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above our 1850-1900 average. The annual average in 2023 slightly exceeded the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) threshold in our dataset, and this is likely to occur again in 2024.

      https://berkeleyearth.org/march-2024-temperature-update/

  30. (Sigh) Gee it’s hard. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It’s not rocket science! Surely this latest denialism effort deserves a RC article to rectify all the errors and untruths?

    All the evidence is there, all one needs to do is explain it, communicate the issues to the people and the politicians and everyone will understand the catastrophic threats posed by global warming and the still never-ending increases of GHG emissions. Surely the truth is bad enough?

    ——-
    There is a chronic lack of civil discourse in Western society in that people have become far less civil and rarely engage in discourse. Driven by the proliferation of bias-confirming social media, people are herded into corners of the internet where views they agree with are amplified and dissent is swiftly marginalized, shouted down, or canceled altogether.

    Science, at least for now, is still practiced by humans, and thus the field is not immune from these forces. Groupthink, social pressures, adherence to authority, and the ever-pressing need to please those who decide what work gets funded can make the proper functioning of science—and the vital role of hypothesis nullification—quite difficult. The civilized exchange of conflicting views lies at the very heart of the scientific method, and even the most bedrock of theories is perpetually one well-designed experiment away from collapse.

    The phrase “settled science” is, therefore, oxymoronic. No such thing exists. One might find evidence in support of a particular hypothesis convincing, or a particular theory so well-established that few scientists are interested in doing further work on the matter, but in the scientific pursuit, one can’t ever say something is settled. Once that word is uttered—or worse yet, shouted—you depart from science and swerve into something more akin to religion.

    see Climate The Movie https://vimeo.com/924719370 ???

    I heard in some quarters climate activists are calling for climate science skepticism to be criminalized. That can;t be true can it?

    • In Re to Ned Kelly,

      Dear Ned,

      Although you might be frustrated by all these problems with a reasonable discussion (I agree to most of your criticism), I think that the climate science is not dead and that dissent voices may be finally heard.

      I hope that e.g. multi-criteria evaluations of global climate models (according to JCM, 19 Apr 2024 at 11:45 AM,

      https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821457

      not a part of the practice yet) become standard in a near future and help that modelling results and, especially, projections of future climate will be presented more humbly and perceived more soberly.

      Greetings
      Tom

    • Ned Kelly: “ The phrase “settled science” is oxymoronic. No such thing exists”

      Sure, then we can’t tell whether the Earth is flat or not, whether vaccines are not worse than the diseases they treat, and we shouldn’t dismiss those who say so with a Hitchen’s razor (“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence“). Instead give flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, Tomases and other Mr. Know-it-Alls – equal standing in the public discourse. As in:

      – Tomas K.: Dear Ned, Although you might be frustrated by all these problems with a reasonable discussion (I agree to most of your criticism), I think […] that dissent voices may be finally heard“

      – Ned K.: “ Oh Tomas, were reason and sanity to prevail, would be a grand thing. :-)

      And it didn’t make you think twice that, out of your contempt for “ Gavin and thousands others“, you are jumping into bed with a denier, who by claiming that science is not settled – diverts from the urgency of the response to “the catastrophic threats posed by global warming and the still never-ending increases of GHG emissions” ?
      See many dozens of posts of your friendly Tomas promoting his mass-evaporation scheme, and touting it as a REPLACEMENT for the GHG mitigation, the latter he dismissed as a “ brute-force” approach, that by relying “ on unsuitable tools may cause more harm than good“.

      And in the name of which, who asked us to … delay the reductions in the fossil fuel use “ trusting in human creativity [to] invent more suitable and more efficient tools“.

      “ Oh Tomas, were reason and sanity to prevail, would be a grand thing “, eh?

      • In Re to Piotr, 24 Apr 2024 at 6:29 PM,

        https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821601

        Dear Piotr,

        in addition to my explanation of 24 Apr 2024 at 3:29 PM,

        https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821598 ,

        I would like to repeat that I primarily deal with an electricity storage technology that, according my evaluation, has a technical potential to make economy transition to renewable energy sources (such as wind or solar energy) economically self-sustaining and thus societally acceptable and politically feasible.

        I asked here on Real Climate forum a question if massive solar energy exploitation could have negative environmental impacts, and if an alternative, not yet exploited mode of solar energy conversion into electricity, converting the waste heat into latent heat of water vapour instead of sensible heat and infrared radiation, could perhaps bring some positive synergies.

        I do not know yet what do you exactly mean under “urgent response to catastrophic threats posed by global warming”, both in terms of urgency, as well as in terms of proposed means. If you consider transformation of economy to renewable energy sources as one of useful mitigation means, you might have noted that we are in agreement at least in this particular point.

        In this respect, I do not fully understand yet why you stubbornly assert that I propose “replacing” (any) other climate change mitigation efforts with my “Tomas Kalisz Scheme” (how you named my question if massive solar energy exploitation in deserts might be perhaps carried out a way bringing about some positive synergies). This is simply not true.

        You are correct that I doubt about many mitigation means that are generally considered as a necessity. For example, the above mentioned economy transformation to renewable energy sources struggles with “intermittency” and “unreliability” of these sources. Building and keeping, in parallel, the renewable sources and “reserve” classical sources (that are indeed necessary in absence of an economically feasible large scale electricity storage) is extraordinarily expensive. The same applies for other alternatives, like massive exploitation of nuclear energy. I am reluctant to say “Well, there is no other choice, because the planet burns.” On one hand, I think that economy matters and a that any well-meant mitigation measure with an unfesible ecomomy will ultimately fail. On the other hand, I do not believe that no cheaper and quicker ways towards economy “decarbonization” than “brute force renewables by subsidies” or “brute force nuclear by subsidies”, or a combination thereof, do exist.

        Instead, I proposed something like “Do not try to push by public subsidies technologies that do not make sense economically; rather spend available money on better purposes like education, public health and general societal resilience (including defense). In a healthy resilient society, people come with more suitable and more feasible solutions soon.” I am aware that this approach is unusual in today discussion about public policies that seems to be obsessed by detailed planning and allegedly “scientific” predictions and projections of the future, nevertheless, I do not think that it is no viable alternative that can and should be easily dismissed.

        And, finally, if there will once indeed arise a necessity to “cool” the Earth artificially by a kind of a “reverse geoengineering” (intended to reverse the undesired effects of all “unintentional geoengineering” that the mankind carried out so far), I would like to see that possible costs, benefits and threats are considered and carefully compared for all means that may come into account. They in my opinion do not include the “direct air capture” (DAC, an artificial removal of atmospheric CO2 by technical means) or an artificial atmospheric pollution by aerosols only, but also the artificial management of latent heat flow form Earth surface. As some articles discussed on this forum (e.g. Lague 2023) suggest, it might be technically possible by changing water availability for evaporation from the land, and I do not see any reason why a further research in this direction should be arbitrarily labeled as a time and money wasting.

        Greetings
        Tomáš

        • TK,

          “Do not try to push by public subsidies technologies that do not make sense economically; rather spend available money on better purposes like education, public health and general societal resilience (including defense).

          So what you’re saying is, keep all those subsidies flowing to the fossil fuel industry?

          allegedly “scientific” predictions and projections of the future,

          OMG.

          I swear Tomáš, something about the way you write… it’s like a breath of stale zeitgeist from the late eighteen hundreds.

          It’s 2024. Tick tock.

          • In Re to Radge Havers, 28 APR 2024 AT 9:32 AM,

            https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821656

            Dear Radge,

            I said “education, public health and general societal resilience (including defense)”. I have not mentioned that fossil fuel industry has to be subsidized, and do not understand why you construe my post this way.

            As regards the Zeitgeist in my posts, you may be correct. I still remember regularly actualized big plans of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and even bigger plans of Communist Party of Soviet Union that were any time entirely based on endless wisdom of their scientific Weltanschauung.

            Greetings
            Tomáš

          • Tomáš Kalisz says
            28 Apr 2024 at 5:15 PM
            I have not mentioned that fossil fuel industry has to be subsidized, and do not understand why you construe my post this way.
            ————————–

            It’s easy to understand. It’s intentional manipulation Tomas …. it’s about making false allegations against you, by twisting what you said by putting words into your mouth never said — it called using STRAWMAN Fallacies to try and win a “faux debate” —- otherwise typically labelled Trolling. They are all Trolling you Tomas.

            That is why they falsely accuse you of being a “denier” and of being a “troll” as well.

            It’s what they do. They Lie. It’s all they got basically. Distortions and misrepresentations.

            And when that doesn’t work, and they are called out for this constant unethical behaviour the “targets” comments will be blocked and not published at all. Truth be damned.

          • TK,

            You seem to conflate government action on climate change with communism, so I was just wondering, since you’re concerned about subsidies to green tech, if you think government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry are in any way communistic? And I was also wondering if you think we can’t have money for both education and green tech at the same time? Your bit about “defense” isn’t clear to me. We have a Department of Defense and we’re always committed to spending tons on stuff related to what they do.

            Um, regarding the late 1800’s, think Gilded Age (among other things) and some rather stuffy editorializing.

            BTW, the only yammering booster of communism here has been your buddy and supporter NK.

          • in Re to Radge Havers, 29 APR 2024 AT 11:39 AM,

            https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821688

            Dear Radge,

            First of all, I have to admit that I misread your sentence about zeitgeist. I also admit that I admire many inventors and entrepreneurs of the end of nineteenth century. Here a few examples from the field of industrial electrochemistry:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Castner
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_H%C3%A9roult
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martin_Hall

            Their inventions needed no public subsidies to spread worldwide, and are being used till now. Instead of subsidies for green technologies, I would have rather tried to eliminate any subsidies for fossil fuels, Should it be not sufficient, then it is a sign that the available green technologies have to be replaced with better technologies.

            I agree that the USA is a rich country and has resources for funding education, healthcarte as well as defense. Nevertheless, I still think that instead of funding e.g. direct CO2 capture from air, the money dedicated for this purpose could certainly find a much better use.

            Greetings
            Tomáš

        • Tomas Kalisz.

          You complain that Piotr doesn’t interpret you correctly. If he doesn’t it may be because your writing is sometimes unclear. One example I did notice is Piotr gets the impression you think the water cycle is a forcing, and he keeps pointing out its a feedback. This is because you are not specific on what you mean by the water cycle, and in climate change terms it is generally a feedback (anthropogenic warming of the oceans, land and rivers causes evaporation…).

          I suspect you might mean the affects of deforestation on the local water cycle or irrigation schemes? This would be a forcing presumably. You need to say exactly what you mean when you discuss the water cycle.

          “Building and keeping, in parallel, the renewable sources and “reserve” classical sources (that are indeed necessary in absence of an economically feasible large scale electricity storage) is extraordinarily expensive.”

          Ok. Renewables plus storage (using known current technologies) are also admittedly expensive but only in the short term. In the long term the inevitable falling costs of renewables and storage (taking even conservative estimates), savings from not having to mine fossil fuels and the health savings from less particulate air pollution mean renewables work out cheaper than fossil fuels. I cant find the exact article I’ve seen on this, but this one is relevant:

          https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2022/september/net-zero-cheaper-and-greener-than-continuing-use-fossil-fuels.html

          “On the other hand, I do not believe that no cheaper and quicker ways towards economy “decarbonization” than “brute force renewables by subsidies” or “brute force nuclear by subsidies”, or a combination thereof, do exist.”

          What you believe doesn’t count for much unless you provide details and evidence. We have certain options to promote decarbonisation 1) governmnet subsidies 2) carbon taxes 3) cap and trade schemes 4) governmnet regulations. 5) government do nothing and we just keep our fingers crossed that the problem gets solved in some other way. Which option or options do you “believe in” and which options dont you believe in, and why?

          I lean towards carbon taxes, but properly targeted subsidies make sense to me if carbon taxes are not politically feasible. I mean subsidies for renewables and storage, and green hydrogen.

          I’m sceptical of subsidies for blue hydrogen or DAC because they just don’t seem like they have much future, as blue hydrogen is not really clean energy and the costs for DAC look astronomically high.

          Given you promote renewables plus some form of sodium storage would you object to subsidies for that?

          • in Re to 28 APR 2024 AT 4:22 PM,

            https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821662

            Dear Nigel,

            I promote sodium storage because I believe it can make electricity production from wind and solar reliable and economically competitive with electricity production from fossil fuels WITHOUT subsidies.

            Nevertheless, if there was a ca 100 000 Euro grant for a proof of this concept, we could skip ca 3 years of occassional “hobby-style” work and our project could be already significantly more advanced. Unfortunately, experimental testing yet unproven technical ideas is something what both public as well as private funding is not focused on.

            Greetings
            Tom

        • – Ned K.: ” All the evidence [of] the catastrophic threats posed by global warming and the still never-ending increases of GHG emissions [is there.]”

          -Tomas K: “allegedly “scientific” predictions and projections of the future”

          So much for Ned’s earlier commiseration with Tomas:
          “ Oh Tomas, were reason and sanity to prevail, would be a grand thing. ” :-)

        • in Re to Ned Kelly, 28 APR 2024 AT 9:58 PM,

          https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821676

          Dear Ned,

          I do not think that misunderstandings and misinterpretations are necessarily a sign of a bad will and of an attempt to manipulate.

          We all have our brains more or less “hardwired” so that our perception of a new information is strongly shaped by our previous knowledge and experience.

          For example, I observed how ridiculous looks the idea that humanity can (in a certain range) actively control water cycle intensity (by increasing or restricting water availability for evaporation) for people who once internalized the simple view that water cycle intensity depends solely on mean global surface temperature. It appears that accepting that things may be more complicated becomes extremely difficult if a person once “upgraded” a certain view in his/her thinking to a general and universal rule.

          I do not think that majority of your opponents (or opponents of James Hansen or Leon Simmons) lie and manipulate. Of course there may be also such cases, but I think that, mostly, people defend their views so vigorously just because they keep them for a proven truth.

          Greetings
          Tomáš

          • Post Script —
            Tomáš Kalisz says
            30 Apr 2024 at 4:18 PM
            in Re to Ned Kelly, 28 APR 2024 AT 9:58 PM,

            What so often happens is that when people can’t see it (something going on) they just assume it doesn’t exist.

            Then they will often further assume (by way of justification/cognitive dissonance type responses) it’s someone else (the one pointing to things they believe do not exist) who must have a problem instead. .. iow the one who they believe is not seeing things.

            And so it is. Welcome to the echo chamber. (smile)

            Kind Regards ….

      • Kalisz Apr. 26 “ I do not know yet what do you exactly mean under “urgent response to catastrophic threats posed by global warming”

        Since this was a quote from Ned, if you read his:
        NK: “All the evidence is there […] the catastrophic threats posed by global warming and the still never-ending increases of GHG emissions. Surely the truth is bad enough?”
        and ponder what that could possibly means – ask your “Dear Ned”, or buy yourself an English dictionary.

        I have already pointed to Ned the irony of him being in bed with a denier like you:
        ==
        And it didn’t make you think twice that you are jumping into bed with a denier, who by claiming that science is not settled – diverts from the urgency of the response to “the catastrophic threats posed by global warming and the still never-ending increases of GHG emissions” ?
        See many dozens of posts of your friendly Tomas promoting his mass-evaporation scheme, and touting it as a REPLACEMENT for the GHG mitigation, the latter he dismissed as a “ brute-force” approach, that by relying “ on unsuitable tools may cause more harm than good“. And in the name of which, who asked us to … delay the reductions in the fossil fuel use “ trusting in human creativity [to] invent more suitable and more efficient tools“.
        – “ Oh Tomas, were reason and sanity to prevail, would be a grand thing “ [(c) NK], eh?
        =====

        TK: “I would like to repeat that I primarily deal with an electricity storage technology

        Then write something interesting about that, instead of pushing your idiotic schemes of increasing the global of desalination 1000-FOLD, and carrying it out for 1000s of years to achieve at maximum 0.3K cooling. Unless your electric storage is as well thought of, as your evaporative schemes – then don’t bother.

        • in Re to Piotr, 28 APR 2024 AT 5:14 PM,

          https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821663

          Dear Piotr,

          I think that the words “urgent response” were yours. I dared to ask if you consider the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources such as wind and sun as a part of this response, and if so, why you think that my questions asked on this forum somehow undermine or hamper these efforts.

          Anyway, thank you for your question regarding sodium as an alternative for large scale electricity storage. This is an idea of an American inventor Stephen Skala, based on an old Castner method for sodium industrial production by electrolysis of molten sodium hydroxide, and on the idea that the reverse process – sodium reaction with water and oxygen – could be carried out in internal combustion engines. The appeal of his scheme is in that if used this way, 1 L of metallic sodium can release slightly more than 3 kWh energy.

          Although it is ca three times less than by burning 1 L oil, it is still ca 50 % more than by burning 1 L liquid hydrogen. The main advantage of sodium against hydrogen is thus in its significantly simpler and cheaper storage and transport. The advantage against oil is in direct sodium accessibility by sodium hydroxide electrolysis. Nobody can produce oil by electrolysis of a corresponding mixture of water and carbon dioxide formed by oil burning. Sodium is thus, along with hydrogen, one of a few alternative “true electrofuels” that are obtainable by direct electrolysis of the respective combustion products.

          What makes Skala’s scheme even more appealing is an invention of sodium fuel cell made by another American, Wilson Geisler Jr. Through its commercialization, we would like to circumvent Skala’s combustion engines. If we succeed, large Geisler’s generators will produce electricity from sodium, water and oxygen directly, without transforming a significant part of valuable renewable energy stored in sodium into useless waste heat.

          Greetings
          Tomáš

        • Tomas Kalisz Apr. 29: “I think that the words “urgent response” were yours”

          Then do quality control of your writing before you share the gems of your brains with the world. It is on you to express yourself clearly, not on everybody else to try to guess what the heck you wanted to express.

          And in this case your “clarification” is pointless anyway – I have just put the dot over i – what OTHER response would you expect to “the catastrophic threats posed by global warming“? Weak and slow?

          TK: “ Why you think that my questions asked on this forum somehow undermine or hamper these efforts ”

          I have already explained it to you in the post to which you are “replying”. Did you blank out before the “urgent response” ?

          === Piotr to Ned:
          “And it didn’t make you think twice that you are jumping into bed with a denier, who by claiming that science is not settled – diverts from the urgency of the response to “ the catastrophic threats posed by global warming and the still never-ending increases of GHG emissions” ? See [also] your friendly Tomas promoting his absurd mass-evaporation scheme, and touting it as a REPLACEMENT for the GHG mitigation, the latter he dismissed as a “brute-force” approach, that by relying “on unsuitable tools may cause more harm than good“. And who asked us to … delay the reductions in GHGs until “human creativity [to] invent more suitable and more efficient tools“.
          See?

  32. Ahoy Comrades, neither Russian scientists nor the Putin administration; not the Communist Party of China nor Xi Jinping ever deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and they don’t deny the existence of viruses nor the efficacy of vaccines either. A tough pill to swallow for many a know it all.

    • By all means, speak to us of the glories of Gazprom, one of the worlds top ranking carbon emitters (number 3 last I checked).

      Careful how you respond. This is your chance to shine for Mother Russia. Don’t mess it up and get yourself defenestrated.

      NK sez: “A tough pill to swallow for many a know it all.”

      Oh, the irony– on so many levels.

  33. Here is an excellent anecdotal event that paints a picture of a greater reality of dysfunctional fantasies unfolding from here on in. Only useful to those already awake to what’s going on.

    So first note that even Hausfather has admitted that +1.5C is dead …. I posit that the entire fictional scenarios pushed by the IPCC and the UNFCCC and climate scientists everywhere are long dead – and were never Viable to begin with.

    Scotland to ditch key climate change target
    3 days ago
    The Scottish government is to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030.
    The final goal of reaching “net-zero” by 2045 will remain, but BBC Scotland News understands the government’s annual climate targets could also go.
    Ministers have missed eight of the last 12 annual targets and have been told that reaching the 75% milestone by the end of the decade is unachievable.
    The Climate Change Committee (CCC) – which provides independent advice to ministers – warned back in 2022 that Scotland had lost its lead over the rest of the UK in tackling the issue.
    Last year ministers failed to publish a plan it promised – required under the act – detailing how they were going to meet the targets.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68841141

    Will this news wake anyone up? Of course not.

    READ the BS on this website The Climate Change Committee (CCC) — a copy and paste recreation of the IPCC and UNFCCC fantasy institutions – and JUST AS USELESS & DYSFUNCTIONAL — A FAILURE & NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE
    https://www.theccc.org.uk/

    Check this out —- “cutting edge” stuff /sarc from the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) —- designing effective climate policies. being INFORMED and ADVISED by Climate Science and Climate Scientists as far as the eye can see.

    example output – Published in 2023 …… Conclusions? — MORE RESEARCH NEEDED —
    The implications of behavioural science for effective climate policy (CAST) (informed by climate scientists)
    1. Outline (seriously – they admit to this in 2023)
    The Climate Change Committee (CCC) commissioned the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) to review the role of behavioural science, defined as the study of how humans think and behave, in designing effective climate policies.

    The first report reviews existing research about the effectiveness of different interventions to promote low-carbon behaviours in eight key areas.
    https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-implications-of-behavioural-science-for-effective-climate-policy-cast/

    READ IT THEN CRY IN DESPAIR!
    —————————————————-
    About the Climate Change Committee (filled to the brim with Climate scientists and Post-Graduates)
    [ for starters it is useless, dysfunctional and incompetent ]

    The Climate Change Committee (CCC) is an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. Our purpose is to advise the UK and devolved governments on emissions targets and to report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change. ( Equates to Useless)

    Members of the Climate Change Committee and the Adaptation Committee
    Everywhere you go .. high profile climate scientists and academic advisors and managers (aka New Age Cardinals) fill the ranks of Personnel at The Climate Change Committee (CCC)
    eg Professor Piers Forster
    Interim Chair

    Seriously READ what this Failure of an Institution is all About
    https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/
    —————-

    Everyone believes Piers Forster when it comes to AEROSOLS to….
    https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2295/2023/
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Piers-Forster-2

    Will this ever end?

  34. Additional commentary about Scotland to ditch key climate change target

    These Net Zero targets (proposed and enabled by Climate Scientists) have been barely set, were not anywhere near adequate to reach actual, global Net Zero. Yet already, everywhere governments are back peddling on them. But are irrationally claiming they’ll still reach Net Zero anyway (because they are advised by and enabled by Climate Scientists).

    This has been a consistent pattern since the 1972 UN Environment Conference in Stockholm. Governments promise action, make big promises (based on proposals and enabled by Climate Scientists). Then take no action at all, things get worse and worse, bringing us ever closer to global catastrophe which has been enabled by Climate Scientists!

    Absolutely, the only reason the massive 1992 Rio Earth Summit took place, was that absolutely no action had been taken on the Action Plan agreed to at the 1972 UN Conference.

    After making huge pledges (proposed and enabled by Climate Scientists) to address the climate and ecological crisis at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, governments said not right away, but we’ll have put in place major action plans (proposed and enabled by Climate Scientists) to tackle the global warming energy & economic problems during the coming 20-30 years.

    Which of course is now 30 years in the past. What happened when we got to this 30 years in the future which is today, and in this period they’d produced more emissions than in the whole of human history, before 1992.

    Well governments promised Net Zero by 2050 (proposed and enabled by Climate Scientists), or whatever random date that government had picked. With no realistic policy or technologies (proposed and enabled by Climate Scientists) to achieve this fanciful claim.

    By no coincidence its always and yet again nother 20-30 years in the future from now to 2050, and no action has been taken up to now, nor is any ready to be implemented tomorrow. Look at SCOTLAND and the The Climate Change Committee (CCC) – all the institutions directed and enabled by Climate Scientists globally now!

    It’s now crystal clear that this is just a strategy to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, to carry on with business as usual, whilst pretending to have a plan, and to be taking action as proposed and enabled by Climate Scientists everywhere.

    It’s straight up political fraud, ecocide by deception, kicking the can down the road and always being enabled by Climate Scientists for decades. A way of trying to blame humanity for its demise, by deception, saying it’s their fault OUR FAULT for not taking action.

    The Climate Scientists we keep being told are Innocent. Not Guilty. Really? How so does anyone come to that deeply flawed conclusion.

    Throughout all this time the public mainly voted for politicians promising action and claiming to have a plan (proposed and enabled by Climate Scientists). The politicians who are in the pockets of big business and billionaires who profited from this are guilty of ecocide by fraud, and should be held responsible.

    But so should the Climate Scientists because it is they who have willingly proposed these fake solutions and action plans.

    It is they who have in fact enabled the POLITICIANS and BIG BUSINESS INTERESTS to CAPITALIZE on this endless delays and dysfunctional incompetent Climate Action Goals, Plans and Non-Solutions.

    It is they who have produced the reports who staff these Government Institutions, the IPCC, the UNFCCC, and advise individual Governments.

    It is theywho have been advising (Misinforming) the Politicians and the Public for over 30 years with fake goals and flawed dysfunctional action plans as solutions.

    And they still are not telling the Truth nor admitting their own past faults, complicity, and current level of incompetence.

    Yes. It is this serious now. Time is running out. The truth is bad enough but far too many climate scientists are not telling the truth about the science.

    They are not telling the truth about themselves not being qualified or knowledgeable enough to give any advice to politicians and the public about Real Practical Achievable Solutions.

    But this is exactly where we are. This facade is about to collapse.

    • Pretty much the same sort of findings we saw with COVID denial a year or so ago.

      Your stat factoid may be correct. I’m not going to bother to fact check. Your “conclusion”–carefully unstated we all notice (VERY old propagandist trick, BTW)–is the problem for the same reason..

      • jgnfld says
        2 Apr 2024 at 8:40 AM
        Your “conclusion”–carefully unstated we all notice (VERY old propagandist trick, BTW)–is the problem for the same reason..

        What “unstated” conclusion which you appear to BELIEVE in totally?

        [ 3rd response, previous two blocked]

  36. Happy Earth Day 2024!

    Solutions for all our self-induced crises exist, the doers are working hard to bring them into practice, timely.

    “”Fittingly, on EarthDay2024 (Mon, Apr 22), California has reached 100% Wind-Water-Solar once again, for the 38th of the past 46 days.

    Those who claim it is impossible to achieve this 24/7 or 24/7/365 are the same as those who claimed it impossible to get 20%, 80%, or 100% for a period

    Such people have no credibility and no-one should listen to them.” Mark Jacobson LinkedIn post.

    Reason to celebrate, share and demand 100% clean WWS energy everywhere.

    • Silvia Leahu-Aluas.

      Thanks for that nice positive statement about renewables, based on real world data. IMHO renewables and zero carbon transport are the best overall solution to the climate problem. Not perfect, but considerably better than the alternatives.

      For example geoengineering is high risk, except perhaps at a limited level in the arctic. Fusion power is decades away at best. Nuclear power might have some part to play but faces massive challenges.

      Massive reductions in energy use as the primary solution to the climate problem don’t look practical. I would suggest huge levels of energy reduction could cause a massive collapse of the transport grid and 50% plus unemployment as demand is sucked out of the system. This becomes worse than the climate problem itself. Very few people are likely to support that plan.

      So I suspect that if its not renewables, society will opt for geoengineering with its considerable risks. So for me it makes sense to promote renewables, and moderate, realistic levels of energy use reduction and lifestyle changes. Of course we are fast running out of time even for that, but again the other options seem worse to me.

    • Yay!
      ——————————
      https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/electricity#abstract
      (global) capacity installation (presumably) per year:

      2023:
      Main Case: 374.9 GW solar PV, 107.8 GW wind
      Accelerated Case: 405.5 GW solar PV, 123.1 GW wind

      2028:
      Main Case: 539.6 GW solar PV, 167.3 GW wind
      Accelerated Case: 672.6 GW solar PV, 221.5 GW wind

      ———
      https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary :
      section: “Solar PV prices plummet amid growing supply glut”: (global)

      “ The current manufacturing capacity under construction indicates that the global supply of solar PV will reach 1 100 GW at the end of 2024” [presumably this is manufacturing capacity(?) – compare 1.1 TW to my calcs here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821049 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821250 : we’re about to be ~ 1/3 (?) to perhaps ½(?) of the way there (to being able to manufacture at a rate that w/could sustain 15 TW average solar PV power)*** ] “, with potential output expected to be three times the current forecast for demand. Despite unprecedented PV manufacturing expansion in the United States and India driven by policy support, China is expected to maintain its 80‑95% share of global supply chains (depending on the manufacturing segment). Although developing domestic PV manufacturing will increase the security of supply and bring economic benefits to local communities, replacing imports with more expensive production in the United States, India and the European Union will increase the cost of overall PV deployment in these markets. ”

      “Cumulative renewable electricity capacity in the main and accelerated cases and Net Zero Scenario”: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/cumulative-renewable-electricity-capacity-in-the-main-and-accelerated-cases-and-net-zero-scenario

      —————–
      https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-update :

      (global) “Analysts estimate 350 gigawatts direct current (GWdc) of photovoltaics (PV) were installed globally in 2023 (though recent data have indicated that number could be more like 440 GWdc); global installations are expected to increase to 400 GWdc in 2024 and 590 GWdc by 2027. 2023 estimates may increase as it was recently reported that China installed approximately 260 GWdc of PV panels in 2023.”

      “U.S. PV Deployment”: installed in 1st 9 months of 2023: EIA: 15.8 GWac; SEIA: 19.3 GWdc; (implied ILR = 19.3/15.8 ≈ 1.22) ;

      “EIA projects the percentage of U.S. electric capacity additions from solar will grow from 46% in 2022 (18 GWac) to 54% in 2023 (31 GWac), 63% in 2024 (44 GWac), and 71% in 2025 (51 GWac). ” (“Other analysts’ projections are lower, with a median value of 33 GWdc in 2023, growing to 36 GWdc in 2024 and 40 GWdc in 2025. ”)

      More: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88780.pdf – “Presence of Inaccurate PV Toxicity Information on State Websites” on p. 58

      https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-pv-market-outlook-4q-2023/
      —–

      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics#/media/File:2007-_New_solar_installations_-_annually_by_country_or_region.svg

      https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy

      ————–

      https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2023-year-review :

      “In 2023, the US solar market installed 32.4 GWdc of capacity, a remarkable 51% increase from 2022. ”

      “Our annual Year in Review report includes extended 10-year outlooks for every segment. The total US solar fleet is expected to nearly quadruple from 177 GWdc installed at year-end 2023, to 673 GWdc installed by 2034. By 2040, solar is expected to make up the largest share of electric generating capacity in the US. ” ; annual capacity installation grows to ~50 (“Base case”) to ~60 (“Bull case”) GWdc (why peaking in early 2030s, though?) (graphically estimated).

    • https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary :
      section: “Solar PV prices plummet amid growing supply glut”: (global)

      Oops, formatting got goofy; should look like:
      “ The current manufacturing capacity under construction indicates that the global supply of solar PV will reach 1 100 GW at the end of 2024”
      [presumably this is manufacturing capacity(?) – compare 1.1 TW to my calcs here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821049 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821250 : we’re about to be ~ 1/3 (?) to perhaps ½(?) of the way there (to being able to manufacture at a rate that w/could sustain 15 TW average solar PV power)*** ]
      “, with potential output expected to be three times the current forecast for demand.”…

      ———-

      More: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88780.pdf –

      Duck curves p.23-26;

      “IRA Impacts on U.S. Solar PV Manufacturing Capacity” p.40 (PS for various reaons (not protectionism) I would like to see the global supply chain become less concentrated in China, and more in Europe and the U.S.+Canada+… and also Africa because a lot of solar power will eventually be installed there, I believe.

      ———-
      Also, for anyone doubting the significance of Biden vs. Trump, see graph here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/we-might-be-closer-to-changing-course-on-climate-change-than-we-realized/ar-AA1nDOUn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=330004f1ca334acf995246742d95cc54&ei=44 (Yes, there’s still further to go, but we have to keep building on what we’ve got. eg., keep voting. Vote for Biden and vote for other Democrats (and like-minded independents), esp. progressives; and then keep the pressure on – push them to be better; be strategic (I have been particularly disappointed in Biden recently but I’m still going to vote for him in Nov; the alternative is @$j!#^&*$$*#!)

      • I think all these numbers/claims require a high degree of scepticism – and some supporting hard evidence.

        It’s April 2024 and they don;t even have hard number for Solar PV installations thru 2023 – iow they’re guessing estimating their claims. How could one look at these as “credible or reliable”?

        Their presentations are decidedly PR advertising and promotion – intended to create a NARRATIVE and not to provide hard nosed accounting of genuine hard Facts supported by real evidence.

        iow this stuff is Sophistry by design …. it begs you not to look too hard – it presents information that you cannot Parse (compare) easily in your mind — the yardsticks keep changing — that is NOT accidental, it is by design — It’s Marketing not Science.

        EG the global supply of solar PV will reach 1 100 GW at the end of 2024

        Oh Really? NO way. In 2024 they then say they will be lucky to “add” 400 GW globally

        What do they do with the other 700 GW of solar panels in 2024? In 2025? in 2026?

        This is spurious information for the Gullible and Naive Dreamers.

        Next — “China installed approximately 260 GWdc of PV panels in 2023.””
        VS
        – “350 gigawatts direct current (GWdc) of photovoltaics (PV) were installed globally in 2023 ”

        So 1.4 billion 17% of the world installed 75% of all Solar PV in 2023 ….. how is that GOOD NEWS?

        To date, total Renewable energy supply is NOT capable of meeting the yearly ENERGY Demand Increase each year!

        The above numbers via the EIA do NOT change this reality one bit.

        It’s typically labeled SPIN people. Be more Skeptical and Less Trusting.

      • PS via the EIA feport

        “In 2023, spot prices for solar PV modules declined by almost 50% year-on-year,”

        If ANY manufacturer had a cut in prices of 50% they would go out of business and into bankrupcy.

        I suggest NOT believing BS PR Spin like this. It’s nonsensical garbage.

        If Mercedes or GM cut their retail prices for Autos this year, would they still be in business in 2025?

        No, they wouldn’t.

        And no SANE bunisness is going to Manufacture an extra 250% More Autos or Widgets or Solar Panels (the 1,100 GW per year spin) every year than were bought this Year — or they too will quickly go bankrupt!

        Better to think rationally and maturely than believe in Lies and manipulated Statistics.

        But ymmv, so you do you. Believe whatever you want.

  37. We can now confidently presume that April 2024 will become the eleventh “scorchyisimooo!!!” month in a row, it becoming the warmest April on the ERA5 record.

    The daily global temperature anomalies provided by the excellent Copernicus webengine ClimatePulse yields an average anomaly for the first 21 days of April at +0.71ºC.
    The present warmest April in the ERA5 record is April 2016 which sits at +0.52ºC. April 2024 will thus become the warmest April on record unless the last nine days of the month cool enough to give an average anomaly of just +0.107ºC. While a daily anomaly that low hasn’t been seen since 1993 and a chilly nine-day average that low last appeared in 1992, what would be unprecedented would be a nine-day average dropping -0.6ºC from the preceding 21 day average. The biggest drop seen for such averages is -0.46ºC, and that appeared all the way back in 1941.

    The possibility of a twelfth “scorchyisimooo!!!” month in a row now looms (The hottest May in ERA5 is 2020 with an anomaly of +0.47ºC) and beyond that the possibility would remain for 2024 then besting the first of the 2023 ‘bananas’ months that kicked-off this unprecedented run of “scorchyisimooo!!!” months – June +0.53ºC, July +0.72ºC. Aug +0.71ºC, Sept +0.93ºC.

    Generally though, the ERA5 global SAT anomaly peaked late last November. That is the 5-month average topped out at +0.85ºC (so averaged earlySept-earlyFeb) and in the 70-odd days since then the 5-month average has slowly but steadily dropped to +0.76ºC. A graphic of the ERA5 daily anomalies through recent El Niño years is shown here -graph first posted 15/12/23.

  39. Massive Marine Ecosystem Crash Along Galicia’s Coast Due To Prolonged Atlantic Heatwave

    Nick Breeze listens to Guillermo Díaz Agras at the marine biology research station in La Grana in Galicia. The research station is a satellite of Santiago University and the team here conduct extensive research along the coast and in the river valley’s, called rias.

    What I expected to be an introductory overview of the research station turned into a horrifying cerebral experience; an awakening if you like.

    Guillermo showed me a long stream of images of dead dolphins, turtles and otters, saying simply: ‘That was just last week!’. He then explained how much of the indigenous shellfish are dying. The mussels no longer forming in this stretch of coast, the seaweed that bound the mussels to the rocks and the floating platforms, no longer there. The ecosystems that were embedded within them, gone.

    People should watch the interview with the marine biologist. Everything about the ecosystem he has spent his life studying is crashing. He looks like he has seen a ghost ! I have seen the look before on the face of other researchers. Science being a field where your emotions are kept in the closet but humans can see human trauma and I think anyone can see it in this guys face , and hear it in his voice.

    I know a very bright women PhD who mentioned to me that the calcite horizon had begun to shoal into the Puget Sound, with the same look of terror. Very few people would ever understand their fear without a lot of study. Brilliance being no protection to the terror of what their minds know. That they can see what is coming . That there is no forum to cry to, to share the pain of being witness to , death. People who have never been underwater in the oceans for periods of time adequate to get a spacial impression of what’s there will never feel the gut punch of these losses. Japan has seen very large kelp die-offs, Tasmania, Galicia, Calif. Oregon,

    Washington, and each place had divers that saw it . They know the difference between what was and what remains. Researchers, a few fishermen , a few divers, and we know for the most part it won’t fix itself and return to what we knew it used to be.

    The pain of these losses needs public exposure. Maybe we can only bear witness but we should be honest about the personal pain we are carrying around and with the our knowledge about why it happened.

    What a shame we do not have a friendly professional biologist on RealClimate to hear from about and explain such critical matters as this. Wouldn’t that be good? Oh well. Can’t have everything. :-(

    But there is this fwiw – COPOUT by Nick Breeze – https://amzn.to/4boQfnl

  41. I recently posted a new study here https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk9461 declaring a lower ECS (2.4C midpoint?) based on LGM evidence alone. and it is getting a bit of traction now being shared around. I think it might have motivated this comment using Enroads.

    If ECS = 5.0C (as it seems), then not even magic + low econ growth + low pop growth will be enough. In fact, we’d be close to +3C by 2100 under this implausible scenario.
    Browse over the set parameters to achieve a +2.8C temp in 2100
    https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGMBoyzwWUAAGxBZ.jpg
    Note the Minus 15 Gt/CO2 per year at 2100 ….. Miracles at Hopiumville, South Fantasia.

    That’s why we need an absurdly low ECS (think “J. Curry” levels) to keep selling hopium. That’s the move now.
    Create your own (set your own ECS and have fun at the same time)

    Yes, you can try it here (I set up an ECS = 2.0 and high econ growth + high pop growth and got +1.5C in 2050 and +1.3C by 2100): https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=24.4.0&p1=100&p7=85&p10=5&p16=-0.05&p30=-0.07&p35=2&p39=248&p47=5&p50=5&p373=50&p375=49&p57=-10&p59=-100&p63=12.4&p235=2.5&p64=3.7&p236=10&p65=100&p67=100&p78=2&p79=3600&p82=0.7&p80=0.2&p318=1.1&p319=2&p84=1&p85=1

    To set up the ECS = Click on the “Simulations” tab and then go to the “Assumptions”.
    ECS is the first item on the list.
    Status Quo = +3.3C by 2100 = https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=24.4.0

    PS Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates
    I’m unaware how this ONE study is parsed by those (eg Hausfarher who praises this paper highly already) with the Conservative Traditionalist’s Consensus Status Quo that all things must first meet muster via the IPCC process Assessment reports before being “acceptable/reputable” Science.

    Strange days indeed.

    • You (Ned Kelly) posted it here? I thought I (David) did on the 18th of April at 3:43pm.

      Hmm…

      • David, maybe? I don’t recall exactly. I’m not perfect, nor is my memory. If it was you, then Kudos to you!

        You can take that as a given (from me) all the time. Both giving kudos to others and being imperfect.

  42. Here is a direct link to Stefan Rahmstorg’s Wegener presentation on the AMOC, which is clear and easy to understand. (49 minutes)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX7wAsdSE60

    Prof. Rahmstorf discusses the danger of a major ocean circulation change with massive climate impacts around the world.
    This lecture was held on the occasion of Rahmstorf being awarded the Alfred Wegener Medal for his scientific achievements, the most prestigious award of the European Geosciences Union EGU.
    A peer-reviewed, open-access and fully referenced article (understandable for non-experts) on the same topic was published in Oceanography magazine the week before this lecture:

    tos.org/oceanography/article/is-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-approaching-a-tipping-point

  43. Here’s a good article story …

    My first reaction was to laugh. It’s pretty absurd to think about a 52-year-old billionaire having nothing better to do than turn my face into a subpar meme.

    Then came the nausea as I started to scroll through the thousands of responses; every flavour of climate denial imaginable (with an undercurrent of misogyny, to boot).

    It’s unsurprising, given the recent perspectives he’s shared: from tweeting that “What happens on Earth’s surface (eg farming) has no meaningful impact on climate change,” to saying at a right-wing political gathering organised by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party that “Climate change alarm is exaggerated in the short term.”

    Beneath his ‘hot takes’ and meme culture is a disturbing reality: one of the world’s richest men has taken possession of a global social media platform, and turned it into his very own playground of misinformation, conspiracies and hate speech.

    Instead of attempting to refute climate science, these outlets find it easier to ridicule the people who are sounding the alarm.

    https://www.context.news/big-tech/opinion/what-happened-when-elon-musk-turned-me-into-a-meme

  44. Being promoted by Michael Mann on X – Must be good.

    SAVE TODAY – WAS $300 NOW ONLY $210 | 6 payments of $50 NOW ONLY x $35

    EMBRACING OUR EMERGENCY — Thriving in Climate Change.

    Starts Today

    A 10-SESSION LIVE ONLINE COURSE

    HOSTED BY JOSH FOX & DANIEL PINCHBECK

    GUEST SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
    JANE FONDA
    MARIANNE WILLIAMSON
    BILL MCKIBBEN
    JAMIE WHEAL
    MICHAEL E. MANN
    MARGARET KLEIN SALAMON
    and more…

    With EMBRACING OUR EMERGENCY, we offer you the opportunity to join a new cadre of regenerative leaders.

    Over the five weeks, you will learn from legendary movement builders and courageous thinkers. You will reach a deeper understanding of the current state of the Earth and the global climate justice movement. You will access the practical tools, resources, networks, and visionary ideas you need to make productive, positive changes, right now, in your life and community.

    https://www.liminal.news/embracing-our-emergency?coupon=REBEKAH

    Killian must be happy they’re talking about “regenerative leaders” I suppose. Great progress?

    Kind Regards ….

  45. The northern permafrost region of the Arctic now emits more greenhouse gases than it captures, according to new research.

    The new study, published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, synthesised greenhouse gas measurements of the northern permafrost region between 2000 and 2020 to provide a carbon balance for the region, as well as the first comprehensive assessment of the quantities of greenhouse gases the area takes up and emits.

    The researchers’ work, conducted as part of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP2) project, used a bottom-up approach, focusing on estimating emissions based on specific source categories. Their results suggest that the area has already shifted from a sink to a small source of carbon.

    https://www.birdguides.com/news/arctic-permafrost-now-a-net-source-of-greenhouse-gases-say-scientists/

    Ramage, J, et al. 2024. The Net GHG Balance and Budget of the Permafrost Region (2000–2020) From Ecosystem Flux Upscaling. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GB007953

    WARNING: Has not been accepted by the IPCC gatekeepers, nor accepted by climate modeler groups for use in their next set of CMIP models, nor has this message or science research study been Approved of By M Mann or anyone else.

    It might be “wrong” or lack substantive Data, Evidence and Rigorous Analysis …. the Peer Review might be useless or incompetent, so beware!

  46. If someone else has already posted Ramage, J, et al. 2024. to RC my deepest apologies.

  49. Progressive (Liberalism) thought came out of the Enlightenment period. What enlightenment views as rationalism said we are all rational beings. Everybody is equally rational and therefore we can govern ourselves. We don’t have to depend on the king or the church to tell us what to do, we can govern ourselves. And not only that we’re all equal in terms of our rationality so we should have a democratic government. In addition it’s irrational to be against your material interests, therefore a rational government should be in favor of the material interests of all people.

    That’s the tradition of progressive thought. In addition facts matter, Science Matters. Because facts have consequences for material interests. Therefore if you just present people the facts, with the Science, they will Reason to the right conclusion ….. FALSE.

    There’s a flaw there. The flaw is that at the time they didn’t know about Framing and Metaphorical Thought. The idea of rationalism was that all thought was literal — that people only thought literally about things — that there was no Framing, there was no Metaphorical thought. And in addition, not only did people just think literally about things they were always Conscious of their Thoughts.

    According to that view, and we know from cognitive science that most thought is in fact Unconscious, most people don’t know all the Frames they use — they are not aware of the Metaphors they use — they just do
    it. And it’s a remarkable thing to know that now, but this history of Rationalism had a profound effect and it’s still there in the Democratic Party of the US, and is the preeminent way of Thinking in Scientific Circles as well.
    In the Democratic Party and throughout Science fields you find people who will defend this rationalist position “to the death”.

    Why? Because they cannot see anything else than that. To them this is how the world, how people think. Unfortunately they are stuck fast in false beliefs and flawed ideologies and have stopped listening to any contrary possibility.

    As a result they continue to incorrectly believe if they can just counter the wrong facts presented by the Climate Skeptics then the public and politicians will see the light and realize the Climate science on global warming is Real.

    What a total waste of time and energy that is. Despite their endless failures, despite all the Science that Lakoff and others have been showing for decades now, these neoliberal Democrats and Scientists continue to double down to argue incessantly and insist they are right.

    When in fact they are dead wrong and refuse to see it.