This month’s open thread on climate topics.
Reader Interactions
380 Responses to "Unforced variations: Aug 2024"
Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
For the Optimists:
https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2022/06/02/SSO_148878_031_07.pdf (1977)
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf (1969)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming (1959)
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002152491/page/377/mode/2up?view=theater (1856 –carbonic acid = carbon dioxide)
My apologies – my last link above was a few pages short. For those who have not seen it , here is a report in 1856 from female scientist Eunice Foote re CO2 in the air: Right before USA , UK and Europe proceeded to burn massive amounts of coal and oil.
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002152491/page/383/mode/2up?view=theater
“Thirdly. The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas [CO2]
The receiver containing the gas became itself much heated— very sensibly more so than the other—and on being removed, it was many times as long in cooling. ;
An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action as well as from Increased weight must have necessarily resulted. : On comparing the sun’s heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104°; in common air, 106°; in oxygen 108° ; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.”
Don, thanks for that link. I’d wanted to know more about Eunice Foot’s experiment for some time now.
Specifically, I’d been curious about the fact that the radiative source in her experiments was sunlight, whereas John Tyndall used a Leslie cube, which clamps the cube’s temperature at the boiling point of water. Given that the whole point of the GHE is the differential absorption of different frequencies of radiation–broadly speaking, longwave versus shortwave–the two experiments would seem to be quite different.
And so they were–but now I recall that about 50% of solar radiation actually falls within the IR part of the spectrum–though the relevant bands are just a small portion of the full span we refer to as ‘IR.’ It seems to me that both Eunice, and her husband Elisha–whose companion paper precedes hers in the collection whose digitized version you present–would have profited had they, like Tyndall, read William Charles Wells’ “On Dew.” (Elisha in particular seems to have gone somewhat astray in his analysis.)
Still warm ( 21 Aug 2024):
“The West Antarctic Ice Sheet may not be vulnerable to marine ice cliff instability during the 21st century ‘ Morlighem et al.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado7794
Can’t wait for Killian’s I have been telling you this for 15 years, but you never listen No? How comes?
The acceptance speech given by VP Kamala Harris at the DNC contained one reference to anthropogenic impacts to the climate. Yep, one reference in one sentence: “live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Wow. The following article at Vox discusses this as a part of an observation of priorities at the party and individual voter levels:
.
https://www.vox.com/politics/368706/kamala-harris-dnc-climate-change-policy-poll
.
Meanwhile, on August 19, there was a guest post at SkS (re-post from the Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler) which dealt with a post made by Donald Trump at his Truth Social site on August 5th:
.
https://skepticalscience.com/are-models-overestimating-warming.html
.
RC regulars will of course note that the original source for the graph Trump used was effectively dealt with by Gavin Schmidt’s article Spencer’s Shenanigans in late January of this year:
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
.
Yet more than six months later, the man running for president under the Republican banner, is spewing out the same misleading crap to his millions of followers. Pushback from Harris? Uh, lacking. Meanwhile, Harris couldn’t bother to say more than a single sentence about climate change in her acceptance speech outlining her major objectives if elected. Nor land degradation, the ecological crisis, the extinction crisis, etc.
I guess we will see if the upcoming ABC debate on September 10 can illuminate these subjects any better than the CNN debate in June did. That debate had a single question (directed to Trump) which he answered with his typical gibberish nonsense.
I realize the quandaries that Harris faces as she puts together policy positions in such a short timeframe. She has to create said positions in the face of many considerations, including how to explain the seemingly contradictory accomplishments that the Biden/Harris administration have achieved where climate action and energy production increases are concerned for example.
But failing to voice reasoned detailed arguments/plans on such critical issues, let alone allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged, is a failing that serves the U.S. voter and the world poorly.
Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL, which have been driving, and continue to drive, many billions of dollars of investment into climate change mitigation and adaptation.
As for “allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged,” clearly Harris’ proper priority is to get elected and prevent him from implementing his “Drill, baby, drill” agenda.
To paraphrase an old saw, “You don’t go into the climate wars with the electorate you wish you had; you go into them with the electorate that exists.”
As for rebutting the Trumpian FF nonsense, I’d submit that that is our job, not Kamala Harris. And I try to do it as best as I can. For instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-t_WoKmsK8
(Previously posted, so ignore if you’ve already seen it and feel that once was enough.)
Kevin, you wrote: “Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL…”
A rejoinder which survey and poll stacked one after the other show large portions of voters (particularly in red states) know almost zip about. After what, two years on now? And the view of these voters in conservative-run states are being influenced by what their conservative federal lawmakers and state governments tell them (or don’t) regarding the climate and infrastructure legislation.
If so inclined, here’s a decent read from Politico that illustrates this:
.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/16/georgia-ev-jobs-swing-voters-00173175
.
Continuing: “ As for “allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged,” clearly Harris’ proper priority is to get elected and prevent him from implementing his “Drill, baby, drill” agenda.”
I don’t get what this is supposed to mean. So what, if it’s abortion, inflation or other issues, she can state a position on and take Trump to task, but not two of the biggest challenges facing Americans and the world?
And regarding: “As for rebutting the Trumpian FF nonsense, I’d submit that that is our job, not Kamala Harris. And I try to do it as best as I can.”
I’m sorry, I think you’re partially wrong. It’s not just your job, mine and like-minded folks doing what we can, BUT it definitely 100% is also the job of those who aspire to be the next leader of the United States. Hell, if I was her, I’d task my staff to seek out voices to counter his $*+% and to craft rapid response messaging especially in the online and social media spaces where climate and the environment are concerned. There are several commentators here I think would do the work nicely, if so inclined. Truly.
I hope that the next two months of the campaign, the debate(s?), if or when she will submit to real press conferences to face questions, etc will help to render my concern and frustration both premature and needless.
BTW, yes I had seen the video previously. It left me chuckling :-)
David. I think anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem., however Kamala Harris only has a limited time each day to get in the media and get her message across. She will not get elected talking about the climate issue and spending a lot of time debunking Trumps lies. Climate just not a big priority with most people and convincing them otherwise is really hard.
The main concerns (of Americans (rightly or wrongly) are the economy, jobs, illegal immigration and crime and issues around abortion etc. Therefore Harris has to devote most attention to that and focus on sensible policies that would attract the swing voters. Hopefully she is elected, and its clear she will push good climate policies. I think thats what KM is getting at.
Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK. About false negative portrayals of China at school college and Fitch Ratings in a X Tweet 4 min video
https://nitter.poast.org/jambuki888/status/1817404727690473872#m
Walt says: “Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK. About false negative portrayals of China at school college”
The monologue is probably true to an extent. Some criticisms of China are clearly unjustified, or exaggerated and could be termed propoganda. But it doesn’t mean China is beyond all criticism. For example its a fact that Chinas government abuses human rights, opresses minority groups as pointed out by BPL, they are clearly considering invading Taiwan. Chinas government is an autocracy that steals intellectual property and probably hacks other countries computer systems, Chinas incomes and material living standards are lower than America, and they have serious environmental pollution. Fraud and corruption is common, in business and government and elsewhere..
This is NOT western propoganda that we all swallow, that you alleged in other comments on this page. It is based on solid verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. On some of those issues the evidence even comes from the Chinese government. It is not seriously contested even by them.
Not that America is perfect either. Obviously it isnt. And nobody commenting here has claimed otherwise. All people have done is point out a few facts about China, and rather than provide specific evidence they are wrong, you resort to silly accusations that its all American propoganda. .
I doubt that you are Chinese. I suspect you are some western guy frustrated with America and its failings and hypocrisy. However I suspect this has made you embrace China . Remember the quotation “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” And now the friend is China and they can do no wrong, and all criticisms of the friend are false and American propoganda. You have clearly lost objectivity, and you are on a slippery slope intellectually.
WH: Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK
BPL: And this relates to climate science how?
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is related interrelated. This should be obvious to everyone.
Maybe not.
The climate science, COP treaties, sanctions and tariffs, nuclear threats, geopolitics, propaganda, disinformation and political action to address global warming are directly related to everything else.
“Hot” models and “hot” paleo records continuing to pile up have proven we need a risk-based approach to climate policy. A new paper finds an ECS of 7.2C and ESS of 13.9C.
Anything other than a near-instantaneous, in terms of systemic change, reduction in unsustainable levels of, and types of, consumption is essentially begging to be overwhelmed by rates and magnitudes of climate/ecosystem changes.
From 15.0-0.3 Myr ago, our reconstructed pCO2 values steadily decline from 650 ± 150 to 280 ± 75 ppmv, mirroring global temperature decline. Using our new range of pCO2 values, we calculate average Earth system sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity, resulting in 13.9 °C and 7.2 °C per doubling of pCO2, respectively. These values are significantly higher than IPCC global warming estimations, consistent or higher than some recent state-of-the-art climate models, and consistent with other proxy-based estimates.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47676-9
[Response: There is less than meets the eye here. Look out for a blog post soon. -gavin]
[Further Response: Here.]
Killian,
You link to Witkowski et al (2024) ‘Continuous sterane and phytane δ13C record reveals a substantial pCO2 decline since the mid-Miocene’ which did get a mention in the June UV thread. My take on it was that its proposed decline in CO2 since 16Mya was non-controversial but while finding a global temperature of 16Mya of +16°C warmer than recent interglacials would thus suggest a sky-high climate sensitivity, such a 16Mya global temperature is not the normal outcome of paleoclimate studies.
Haven’t so much as looked at the paper, but for some reason the phrase “uncontrolled variables” is leaping to mind.
Regarding climate sensativity. The model data comparisons on this website have warming tracking at the middle of what a range of models predict. As a lay person I understand that the models that generate high climate sensitivity are at the upper part of this envelope of climate model predictions? If climate sensitivity was high, shouldn’t warming have been tracking towards the upper part of this envelope of model predictions?
Regardless of the correct value for CS, whether its medium or high, climate change is already causing significant problems and I believe it should be robustly mitigated with urgency.
I don’t and cannot really know. But what I would be mindful about is this :- Not if the envelope of model predictions is flawed. Not if the models are flawed. Not if the ‘system’ of modelling is flawed. Not if the ‘system’ is not fit for purpose. Not if the purpose is misguided.. Not if the assumptions are wrong. Not if the data is wrong or missing. Not if the peer review system is dysfunctional and broken. Not if the conclusions are illogical.
Now if people are absolutely certain about all that then you’re safe and sound. Assuming Gavin’s latest article ECS was competently peer reviewed by professionals with expertise in the scientific field before publication. Otherwise you are stuck needing to rely on your faith in other people and the system they operate. This is precisely where everyone is. Choosing who to believe.
New paper on 2023 temperature anomaly:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01637-8
“2023 was the warmest year on record, influenced by multiple warm ocean basins. This has prompted speculation of an acceleration in surface warming, or a stronger than expected influence from loss of aerosol induced cooling. Here we use a recent Green’s function-based method to quantify the influence of sea surface temperature patterns on the 2023 global temperature anomaly, and compare them to previous record warm years. We show that the strong deviation from recent warming trends is consistent with previously observed sea surface temperature influences, and regional forcing. This indicates that internal variability was a strong contributor to the exceptional 2023 temperature evolution, in combination with steady anthropogenic global warming.”
This caught my eye. I was aware of the unusual occurrence of the multi-year La Nina that proceeded the onset of this latest El Niño as a contributing factor (and had considered asking about that here), but didn’t feel I could present a question based on my modest meteorological understanding gained thru the years that would be worthy of reflection:
“We note, however, that our method does not identify the underlying reasons behind the 2023 SST pattern, or for those in earlier years. A shift in global warming induced e.g. by an upwelling of previously stored deeper water temperatures, or factors such as the global energy imbalance, aerosol cleanup or changes in cloudiness anomalously affecting some ocean basins, would also produce SST-induced corrections in our analysis, and could therefore still have contributed to 2023 temperatures. The transition to El Niño conditions after a multi-year La Nina event is also rare in the observed climate history, making 2023 special also for this reason.”
Re Tomas Kalisz Aug.29.
Dishonest analogy – in your example, the change in the position of a comma changed everything, In my post – my replacing the highlighted words with “for”:
– “This seems to indeed suggest that the situation might be more favourable now [ at least as regards the discussed threat of ] [for] the rapid multi-metre SLR.”
changes NOTHING, other than making your (false) claim it less meandering. Hence your insinuation of my misrepresenting your words is, as usually with your insinuations, baseless.
And your littering your sentences with words that contribute nothing to your argument – is not a problem of your English, but of clarity of your thinking/writing. I’d bet your Czech is as intellectually undisciplined, pretentious, and lacking self-awareness as is your English.
You can tell a lot about people by the language they use.
Paul P suggests:-
This is a foundational aspect of science — if A is needed to understand B, then making claims about B is usually met with indifference unless the mechanisms of A are known accurately and with certainty. Essentially, one’s credibility is cast in doubt unless you can show that you understand the fundamentals. This is a weird situation for climate science to be in, one that is not common to other sciences.
I posit that A are the individual climate models that are not known accurately nor with certainty then these unreal hypothetical incomplete math models of variable apples oranges grapes and sawdust outputs are put into a spread, onto which a calculated GMST (a represented version of reality) is plotted on a graph. A declaration is made the average spread of these not real models represent reality and are therefore reliable and accurate enough for scientific purposes to arrive at ‘science based’ decisions about what to do by when.
If this is how Physics was done on Earth where close enough is good enough and with zero certainty or logic to it, there would be no planes and no satellites or a reliable astronomy science based on facts evidence data and math.
It is my (possibly faulty) understanding that long term data analysis indicates the warming rate (and slr) of the present is the fastest ever in millions of years (during the recent run of interglacials) and is being driven by man made ghg emissions that is totally different physics than what occurred in the past before. Meanwhile they keep on pointing fingers at each other publicly claiming the others are wrong but not them doing the pointing.
Paul is right – this is weird and is not the case with other phsyical sciences afaik. Please ignore my comment. It matters not I know. In fact it looks like no one knows much at all.