by Judith Curry
I’m working to wrap my head around the emerging UNFCCC pledges to cut carbon emissions, in preparation for the Paris meeting next December. Here’s what I’m reading.
I’ve tried to ‘storify’ this with titles to the articles (so you can get something out of this even without ‘clicking’ on links), and I’ve selected links that I regard to be fairly high quality articles that represent a spectrum of perspectives.
U.S. commitment
These pledges are called ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ (INDC). Carbon Brief has a good overview of the framework [link]
US Commitment to the UN [link]. Summary: Promises to cut emissions by 26% to 28% in 2025 against a 2005 baseline, confirming an existing goal jointly announced with China in November. Says the US will make best efforts to cut emissions by the maximum 28% by 2025.
Obama’s press announcement: Climate change is a global problem. Here’s another step towards solving it: [link]
Carbon Brief has a good summary [link] US climate pledge promises to push for maximum ambition
Tweet: As reality sets in, it looks like US is backing down a bit from its proposed CO2 emissions targets made at UN’s Copenhagen meeting in 2009 [link]
Slate: The wimpy new U.S. climate targets are letting the world down [link]
Obama’s CO2 Plan Will Only Avert 0.001° Of Warming A Year [link]
Technical and political feasibility
New U.S. #Climate Target is Achievable and Sends an Important Signal to the World [link]
Bloomberg: Obama’s new climate change plan in two charts. The President sends the UN a list of things he wants – and the Republicans don’t [link]
Vox: Obama has vowed to cut US emissions 17% by 2020. He’s not on track yet. [link]
Climate Madness: President Obama’s proposal to cut U.S. emissions by 28% over 10 years as America’s contribution to a global climate treaty will devastate our economy while doing nothing to reduce temperatures. [link]
Bloomberg: Obama’s UN Climate Vow Needs Court Wins, Cheap Natural Gas [link]
Daily Signal: The problems with Obama’s plan to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 30% [link]
The Hill: who should bear the burden of U.S. policy on climate change? [link]
White House: Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Shouldn’t Have A Say On UN Treaty [link]
Other international commitments
Carbon Brief Paris 2015: Tracking country climate pledges [link]
UNFCC Newsroom: more than 80% of global emissions covered and counting [link]
Russia:
- Russia submits INDP to the UN [link]
- Russia sketches emissions cut of up to 30% [link] …
- Russia’s Clever Climate Trick: Offers Forests As Carbon Sinks [link]
- Tweet: In an unusual attempt to make Obama look like a stronger leader, Putin submits weakest INDC yet offered to the UNFCCC. [link]
Europe:
- At least a 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030 compared to 1990 levels [link].
Mexico:
- Carbon Brief summary: Unconditional 25% reduction in greenhouse gases and short lived climate pollutants from a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, which would rise to 40% subject to the outcome of a global climate deal. For the unconditional pledge, this means peaking net emissions by 2026 and reducing emissions intensity per unit of GDP by around 40% from 2013 to 2030.
- Brookings: Mexico’s new national pledge on #climatechange could serve as an example for other nations:[link]
Australia
- The World’s Worst Climate Villain Just Showed Us Exactly How to Stop Global Warming [link]
- US submits climate target to UN “while Australia looks for excuses” [link]
Is it enough?
Even if the UN is successful at garnering the desired level of commitments and individual countries are successful at actually meeting these targets, is it enough?
From Climate Central:
After all of the INDCs have been submitted, it’s very unlikely they will be enough, collectively, to keep global warming to below 3.6°F — which is the overarching goal of the international climate negotiations. The world is currently on track to emit enough greenhouse gases by about 2040 to exceed that target, beyond which the risks of “dangerous” consequences of global warming escalate, scientists say. By incorporating nearly all the world’s economies, and by doing so in ways that encourage and link together individual climate actions, the Paris agreement is being designed to provide an entirely new framework around which more ambitious climate commitments could be made in the coming years.
Questions from EENews:
How will countries address the fact that the collective targets are clearly not adding up to enough to meet the climate stabilization goal of keeping temperatures below a 2-degree-Celsius rise?
Can the United States convince the rest of the world that its target won’t unravel after 2016?
538: America’s new climate plan is its boldest yet, and still not enough [link]. Excerpt:
There’s a consortium of four climate research organizations that analyzes this kind of thing and produces the Climate Action Tracker (CAT). The CAT method ranks countries’ submissions to the UN convention, formally known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), on the scale below.
According to this metric, the U.S. plan falls in the “medium” range. “They’re in the least ambitious end of the 2 degree global emission pathway,” physicist Bill Hare, founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, said. That means that if the U.S. goes no further than these targets, other countries will have to pick up the slack.
But where the extra reductions would come from remains uncertain. Other INDCs that CAT has analyzed, such as those of the EU, Switzerland, Mexico and Norway, also fall into the medium category. China has not yet submitted its INDC, but based on the agreement laid out in Beijing, “If you compare the U.S. to China, we see similar levels of effort,” Hare said.
JC reflections
The emerging INDC commitments appear to be sufficient for some kind of political success at the forthcoming Paris COP. Apart from the feasibility of actually meeting these commitments, there are several elephants in the room here, that people don’t seem to be talking about:
- We don’t know how the 21st century climate will evolve
- We don’t know, and whether reductions in emissions will actually alter the 21st century climate in beneficial ways.
- The unintended consequences of these policies could act to increase vulnerability to extreme events
- Deep, international focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an opportunity loss to deal with other more pressing and easily solved problems
In any event, it will very interesting to see how this plays out in terms of U.S. politics. Stay tuned.
The only thing which needs committing are the people who sign up for these insane commitments.
The road to Paris is like another well-paved path.
I’m fond of reminding myself and others that the Road to Heaven is also paved with good intentions. You just have to watch the terrain and topography carefully, ‘cuz the GPS is subject to possession by unruly and malevolent forces.
================
Silly me, I thought he was talking about a road to Rome.
What’s 3.6°F in Chinese?
I’m not seeing the good intentions side of this old saw.
“climate change is a global problem”
So is mental illness.
aneipris: at 7:01 am. Not an illness. Ambition, ignorance and agenda. He follows the advice of “Progressive” advisers. However, the president knows nil about “Climate Change”.
His announced goal is “Fundamental Change”, but he does not identify that Change. Based upon his actions, let me fill in his blanks:
It is Progressivism’s nirvana: the Regulatory State, guided by politicians.
It fits the bill for the sales pitch for the “progressive” Regulatory State.
“Climate Change”:
– Is fearsome; something must be done.
– Is “Scientific”
– Employs “Experts”
– The “Experts” are Disinterested in the outcome (of their scientific findings)
But the chain of command is political:
– Executives appointed by President
– Top Managers chosen by appointed executives
– Workabees subject to evaluation by Managers (personal objectives, performance reviews). This is Incentive, not Disinterest.
– Employees not appointed are protected by Civil Service laws.
Consequences
– What can you do without energy?
– Do you need some? Apply to the political powers to allocate some to you.
– Make nice to big brother
– No allocation or subsidy? Choose between eat or heat.
The Path to Idiocy crowded with Marching Clowns
all singing:
“Forward On the Glorious Path to Save the Earth
Down with the Dirty Capitalists
Up with the People.”
Different time, different places, new horse, same old tune.
Collectivism and Authoritarianism have proved themselves to be such blessings to mankind.
We hardly missed ye before ye returned with a vengeance.
In more rumbustious times (1968, Battle of Grosvenor Square), I went to the aid of a fallen policeman being viciously kicked by six “peace” demonstrators, and got attacked by mounted police for my pains. The police might have a new horse now, though.
Same ol’ soft shoes, no doubt.
===========
Nice tale Michael. So you swiftly learnt why the demonstrators were kicking the policeman. Hopefully next time you will not be so naive.
White House: Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Shouldn’t Have A Say On UN Treaty
All voters and all Senators “have a say”, whether WH likes it or not.
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps the Obamagrabafuror forgot that little detail.
He didn’t forget…he gives it the middle finger massage daily. The tragedy is the lameness of the response to it.
The clowns in the White House don’t understand the first thing about a representative democratic republic. No matter how much they may dislike it, the fact is that they have lost the majority in both Houses of the US Congress. In fact, any UN “treaty” will require a 2/3 vote in support by the US Senate to be ratified. That’s why the White House authoritarians wish they did not have to deal with the US Congress at all. Tough luck.
Which is why the WH will need to operate by executive commitments, regulations, and exec. orders…. to avoid going through Congress.
The Revolution has already been televised.
=========
“The Revolution has already been televised.”
Instead of barricading oneself isn’t the idea to go over the barricade?
“hich is why the WH will need to operate by executive commitments, regulations, and exec. orders…. to avoid going through Congress.”
Amazing how many conveniently forget that Obama based his campaign on promises to unite the country and reverse Bush’s presidential over-reach. How funny is that?
Representative Republic? How inconvenient. Let them eat cake.
We learned it from the water, the water …
It’s always keen ter journey, ter journey …
we see it in the water wheels too … even in
the stones as heavy as they are …Ter wander
ter wander … Oh wandering is the miller’s joy,
ter wander .. and serfs -don’t -care-fer-top-down
-rule- fer top down rule, but like non-arbitr’ry
rule of law fer all … we like non-arbitrary rule
fer all, oh liberty …oh liberty.. To wander …
ter wander ..
Song of the water wheel ….
Aw, so nice.
But that’s democracy! We can’t have that! “Our way” is too important!
“White House: Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Shouldn’t Have A Say On UN Treaty ”
So anyone who does not agree with current POTUS does not merit to have a voice. Sounds unpleasantly dictatorial.
Of course, since he knows he can not stand for office again, he does not give a flying fluke what anyone thinks any more.
I’ve just been watching Cool It — again — and it’s like Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again. They keep on making these commitments and (fortunately) failing to honor them. https://archive.org/details/CoolIt
My God, I never realised what nastly character Scheider was. Quite an eye opener.
My understanding is that these ‘intentions’ are not binding, and that it is unlikely the UNFCCC will attempt to make them so in some fashion like punative Green Climate Funding. That is a line of argument being advanced to avoid Constitutionally mandated Senate foreign treaty ratification.
Obama is banking on EPA regulations under its interpretation of CCA, which even liberal Harvard constitutional scholar Larry Tribe says are unconstitional on multiple grounds including 5th amendment and separation of powers. That issue is for sure headed to Scotus, with Peabody Coal funding, several states joining, and Tribe as lead lawyer. Sen. McConnell is urging states to just ignore the coming EPA planning mandate. That sets up potentially another SCOTUS issue (potentially two), and one where the much overlooked but vitally important final part of Robert’s ruling on Obamacare provides a precedent against the EPA.
Looks like the limits of an ‘imperial presidency’ are about to be tested.
The ‘intentions’ will probably keep the UNFCCC alive for another 5 yrs or so
Judith, in a way I hope so. IPCC commited to an AR6. That might not happen if UNFCCC implodes earlier. And an AR6 given a continued pause, Arctic ice recovery, healthy polar bears, and such, would have to either do a massive climb down, or be so ‘unscientific’ as to expose for all to see the sham that IPCC reports, especially the SPM and ‘confidence levels’, been at least since AR4.
The ‘intentions’ are very effective. They have already prevented global temperature from rising for about 18 years. [It must have been the ‘intentions’ that caused the stasis, because all other possibilities have been eliminated by the climate models.]
Rud Istvan – AR5 was all of those things and still “no-one” saw the scam. I think we would be better off if the IPCC collapsed without an AR6.
Mike, I suspect it will implode earlier. Not just IPCC, also background UNFCCC. But if it does perchance get to AR6, it will almost certainly be a massive ‘rub your nose it’ event. Stadium wave, PDO/AMO, sun cycles,… A bitter teaching lesson for the 97% of suckered or complicit academics.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change adopted in 1992 at Rio Earth Summit – not
waiting for climate science to mature, tried and convicted
greenhouse gases as dangerous and sold the idea to world guvuhmints. The IPCC exists to support the convention.
Take a look at its senior managers and reps with seats
on the board from undemocratic countries.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/06/08/the-ipcc-as-un-funding-mechanism/
For this we pay and pay and cede our precious liberties.
Why must we pay and pay and pay
And cede our precious libertay?
==================
Rud
I suspect that you overestimate people rational behavior. Every bad weather trend will be pointed to a a reason to reduce CO2 emissions.
As an example:
“if only CO2 levels had been lower then there would not be a drought in California” It can’t be proven correct or incorrect so it is a sustainable claim.
lese majesty. Done and done.
Anyone know Dr. Curry’s upcoming TV schedule?
I interviewed for Fox (Bret Baier show) on Sunday, for planned monday airing; got bumped by the Governor of Indiana. I think it is still in play, but haven’t heard when. I am flying to NYC tomorrow for a lengthy interview on Fri with John Stossel; not sure when that will air (I think he has a weekly program). I will keep you posted, but don’t know anything beyond this at present
Perhaps you would point out to John Stossel that Even Gavin admis that climate models don’t work because of incorrect assumptions.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/gavin_models_bscapture.png
Makes Paris seen a bit pointless really.
Tonyb
Holy cow, Tony! If the models are wrong it could be WORSE!!!
I know there may be restrictions on graphics for Stossel, but they can have a powerful and lasting impact with your message. Historical temperatures and the various oscillations at play could turn on some lights with the audience. The Arctic warming seems to be the major issue with my contacts.
The charts assisted Ross Perot in getting his message out, and they could be a help to you.
A bit OT – UCAR has announced that Richard Alley will speak at the Conference of World Affairs at Macky auditorium on the University of Colorado campus on April 8th at 3:00 to 3:50 PM. I was at the Curry/Trenberth “match” last year and I’m glad they’re giving this presentation the seating space it deserves.
No matter where you come down in the climate wars, I would suggest listening to Richard if you’re in town. He is an excellent presenter. His YouTube video: The biggest control knob: Carbon Dioxide, is a great introduction to the mechanics involving paleontology in my opinion.
He has my respect.
Odd — a big GISS model is actually running on the cool side:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
David Appell, RCP-2.6 is mission accomplished isn’t it :)
Of course with anomaly baseline and smoothing choices things can look better or worse than they really are.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-NZOrpik_fMk/VR23PIBZ7AI/AAAAAAAANUg/kC6Dg9SdMPc/w577-h349-no/ersstv4%2Bversus%2Be2rp1rcp2.6.png
Looking at SST, that model has always been hotter than observations.
Dallas: I didn’t smooth much of anything — just plotted the total warming expected using the annual averages, and compared it to the model’s results using their annual averages.
Isn’t RCP 2.6 on the low side?
David Appell, RCP2.6 is on the low side, but in the future not present. The smoothing I was joking about is Pinatubo volcanic. Just using annual dat (jan-dec) and a 1880-2014 baseline it should look like this.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UlgsJEo0v6M/VR27h_yxy3I/AAAAAAAANUw/tEZUQQm5kuI/w565-h322-no/GISS%2Bgbl%2Bversus%2Be2rp1rcp2.6%2Btas.png
Dallas: Like all volcanoes, Pinatubo didn’t have any effect on long-term warming. Once its aerosols fell out of the atmosphere, it was, temperature-wise, as if it never happened.
David Appell, “Dallas: Like all volcanoes, Pinatubo didn’t have any effect on long-term warming. Once its aerosols fell out of the atmosphere, it was, temperature-wise, as if it never happened.”
You can look at it that way or you can look at it like climate is less sensitive to forcing than the models project. If “all” atmospheric forcing is created equally, a model miss on the low side is an indication of too large a sensitivity. Steven Schwartz had that view along with Lewis and Curry which has been revised downward with new aerosol forcing estimates.
Then again, Bjorn Stevens was in the crew advocating “adjustments” since surface temperature Ts plus sst isn’t the same as tas produced by the models plus “surface” temperature has some Zeroth law issues.
Dallas wrote: “You can look at it that way or you can look at it like climate is less sensitive to forcing than the models project.”
The graph I gave disproves that idea.
Climate models are never going to be perfect — and can’t be anyway, since no one knows the exact emission pathway the world will take for the next many decades. We’ll have to make decisions (and already are) in the face of considerable uncertainty. Sorry, but that’s how it is.
David Appell, “The graph I gave disproves that idea.”
It doesn’t disprove it, but your graph is definitely different than mine :) Annual (jan-dec) without any smoothing and using the full 1880-2014 period as a baseline seems to indicate something else.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UlgsJEo0v6M/VR27h_yxy3I/AAAAAAAANUw/tEZUQQm5kuI/w565-h322-no/GISS%2Bgbl%2Bversus%2Be2rp1rcp2.6%2Btas.png
That uses climate explorer for both.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KJsjApBtEfQ/VRziB_r3lqI/AAAAAAAAEds/90aE27c69lM/s1600/GISTEMP%2Bvs%2BGISS-E2-R%2BRCP2.6%2Bave.JPG
Yours appears to have undocumented smoothing and baseline selection.;
Dallas: I didn’t “smooth,” except by using annual numbers (small difference from monthly).
I didn’t pick a “baseline” — it’s just total warming, and that’s independent of baselines anyway.
David Appell, “# tas [K] from GISS-E2-R model output prepared for CMIP5 RCP2.6”
That is the model data you linked to in degrees K. You converted that to anomaly and have zero close to 1880. For the GISS data you have 1880 about 0.1 C above zero in 1880. So GISS E2-R-RCP2.6 “:running cool” is based on your baseline however it happened to come about. Using either 1880 -2014 or 1951-1980 with no smoothing the model still runs slightly warmer than observations at the end 2014.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-PVfjyyixgDw/VR3VWn3errI/AAAAAAAANVE/EFwefuX7qDc/w575-h343-no/GISS%2Bgbl%2Bversus%2Be2rp1rcp2.6%2Btas1951-1980.png
That is using 1951-1980 baseline. Notice how the model starts below obs in 1880 and ends above obs in 2014 and at no time does the model remain above observations.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KJsjApBtEfQ/VRziB_r3lqI/AAAAAAAAEds/90aE27c69lM/s1600/GISTEMP%2Bvs%2BGISS-E2-R%2BRCP2.6%2Bave.JPG
There’s yours.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
That is GISS global with annual and 5 year running mean.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KJsjApBtEfQ/VRziB_r3lqI/AAAAAAAAEds/90aE27c69lM/s1600/GISTEMP%2Bvs%2BGISS-E2-R%2BRCP2.6%2Bave.JPG
There’s yours.
Dallas wrote: “That is the model data you linked to in degrees K. You converted that to anomaly and have zero close to 1880.”
No. For the model warming, I took the slope of the annual averages. (I’d be the same with anomalies w.r.t. any chosen baseline.) For the observations I took the slope of the anomalies, which is all we have.
David Appell, and how did you determine that slope?
slope via method of least squares
David, what’s that model’s prediction for temperature in 2100?
“After all of the INDCs have been submitted, it’s very unlikely they will be enough, collectively, to keep global warming to below 3.6°F”
Can somebody point me to the formula that allows to calculate global temperature anomaly as a function of greenhouse gas emission reductions. Just curious …
Approximately, delta_T = k*delta_C
where delta_C is the change in emissions over some time period, and delta_T is the change in temperature. k = 1.5 degC/trillion tons of carbon emitted, with 5-95 percentile limits 1.0 C/TtC and 2.1 C/TtC. See Matthews et al, Nature 2009 doi:10.1038/nature08047
This is appoximate, over only the long-term (where natural variability averages to zero).
PS: delta_C is change in *cumulative* emissions.
You gotta love the WH spokesman showing complete ignorance of the Constitution and science in one short press conference.
I have wonder if some if these people really believe it when they talk about “carbon pollution” or simply think the American public is too stupid to recognize their linguistic trick.
Some believe, some are just hired salesmen, and the public is both stupid and distracted in varying proportions. Nothing new under the sun.
The “Clean Air Act” needs to be amended: as reads “Green House Gases”,
amend to read “”Green House Gases except CO2”. Poof! No longer a “Pollutant”.
This crew is not ignorant of the Constitution. After all, Mr. Obama is a student of it. I am also sure he knows something about the history of what led to our revolution. He is not fond of the Second Amendment.
Further, he appears unfamiliar with immigration law as embedded in the Constitution. And so on.
Interesting fact: one of first to die for liberty was one Crispus Attucks (Boston Massacre). http://www.bostonmassacre.net/players/index.htm
The U. S. plan is a rehash of “climate initiatives” already in the hopper: CAFE standard revisions, Clean Power Plan, Central planning diktats on efficiency. Nothing new.
It’s nice to know that climate scientists and bureaucrats know where the global thermostat is so they can control the climate.
Will countries use INDC commitments to freeze immigration?
I looked up Mexico’s submission and reviewed it in a post I called: “Mexico´s CO2 Submission Curveball”.
Here’s a couple of quotes:
“The Mexicans claimed their goals represent a 25 % reduction “versus the business as usual case”. I found the slides (in Spanish) at a Mexican government website, so I can confirm they pulled a fast one. They assumed that “under business as usual” their emissions would increase from 781 (2013) to 1110 (2030) million tons of CO2 equivalent. Then they prepared a “goal” for 2030: 829 million tons.”
I went ahead and interpolated the 2015 emissions levels: 817 million tons of CO2 equivalent. Their goal, 829 million tons, wow, that´s 1 %, a teensy bit over the 2015 figure…..
Their submission has an error in one of the line items, I corrected to make the numbers add up and put the corrected figure in bold face (it’s a very minor goof on their part).
Anyway, the articles about the Mexican submission are deceptive.
Fernando, thanks for this on Mexico. I already caught the Russian bodge (forest growth offset). So, the US and the EU are the only large ‘marks’ (a gambling card shark term for the about to be fleeced) in the present UNFCCC Paris poker game.
Ristvan, any time you want me to I can look up the original in Spanish and load their data in excel. I’m more curious about the way they try to distort their submission in the media than the submission.
By the way, did you notice the comparison with Argentina and Brazil? Mexico does have a lot of exposure to fossil fuel prices, their production has already peaked, and it’s going to be impossible to bring it back to what it was a few years ago. Mexico needs to reform its energy industry, develop shale gas, and invest in hydropower.
Unfortunately that “plan” they submitted to the UN is completely devoid of any solid work. And this is understandable. The UN wonkocracy lacks the education and training to understand that such a plan requires years of study. The process is controlled by a mixture of pure scientists and bureaucrats. Climate scientists have a place at the table, but their dominant position makes the whole thing a huge waste of time.
We should apply this kind of cutting to the obesity problem, people will continue to get fatter, but not as fat as we imagine they could get.
This desire to limit the temperature increase to 3.6 degree is measured from which year?
Tonyb
Tony, the Schnellenhuber 2C by 2100 thing was grabbed out of thin air by his own gleeful admission. Pierre Gosselin’s blog provides English translations of the German MSM reports. It has traditionally been construed as since “pre-industrial”. In practice that has meant since about 1880, which is why CMIP5 hindcasts sometimes run back to near then.
Accept all that as ‘true’ even though silly. With about 0.7C ( somewhat fiddled) already experienced, leaves another 1.3C to end of century. Well, with an observational (Lewis and Curry 2014, Nic’s recent post using revised aerosols) ~70 year TCR of 1.3, we can all declare victory, forget about Paris, and go home since doing nothing will achieve Schnellenhuber’s fantasy 2C 2100 target.
Note, there is a warmunist move afoot to say the target should be 1.5C rather than 2C. A goalpost move to keep Paris alive given the above math? And there is another weaker move to say the 2C target was not by 2100, it was forever(ECS)… which is a long time in a world episodically cooling since the Holocene optimum some 10 millennia ago.
What’s the emissions pathway used to estimate temperatures in these cases? Do they take the cornucopian position?
Spiegel On Line International; April 2010;
Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html
[ quotes ]
Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations.
All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren’t terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.
For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.
‘Clearly a Political Goal’
Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”
But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.
“Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.
Rule of Thumb
The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber’s leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. “We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.”
[ more ]
Rud Istvan said: ”episodically cooling since the Holocene optimum some 10 millennia ago”
Rud my friend – for Holocene optimum;the data was harvested from thin air also! then the thermometer wasn’t accurate also. Regarding ”global temp” lying didn’t start in the 80’s – it started since the day Darwin published his book! Therefore: the Warmist use the lies ”Skeptics” use – to create themselves another warming in 100y.
Warmist are using Tony’s crystal ball, to ”predict”
Tony will tell you that: 1200’s was warmer than today – because was ”written” on a goat’s skin (150 years before paper was introduced in Europe, AND: half a millennium before thermometer was invented. That’s why: when I prove that; 1230-1700 was exactly the same ”global” temp overall as today – you cannot recognize the truth, BECAUSE: when you are constantly stewing in crap – you cannot smell the roses…
Paleontology has never demonstrated anything but net benefit for the biome with warming, and always, often explicitly, shows the detriment of cooling.
===============
Western academia’s supposed “97% consensus” — a form of revanchism against growing skepticism of global warming and AGW theory — is the biggest backfire in history if in the end it paints 97% of academia as hopelessly clueless. Western academia has become the Great Britain of great nations –e.g., once powerful, now a mediocre player at best on the world stage: a believer and purveyor of superstitious pseudo-science.
Yes. That is why I think AR6 is a great idea. 97% of academics will be eating large helpings of crow pie (a Wisconsin farmer expression), else exposed as so detached from reality as to be easily dismissed and ridiculed. No possible good ending for the likes of Mann, Rahmstorf, Santer, Schmidt, Feely (PMEL ocean acidification), Stirling, Derocher, and Rode (polar bears), Naomi Oreskes (Merchants of Doubt), or younger ‘ordained priests’ like Shakun (proxy CO2) and Marcott (proxy temp a la Mann).
eating crow requires a capacity to feel shame
have you observed such in that group?
many openly express the intent to silence all opposition
Shakun et al will probably find a way to make themselves come up smelling of roses, CO2-wise
It occurs to me; the politicians understand that 97% of scientists (not just climate scientists) believe global warming is real and manmade.
Since they denigrate the sceptics so much (the remaining 3%) and declare publicly that they should not have a voice; I’m betting the politicians also think that 97% of the public also believe it. Whereas the polls are nearly 50/50. If the pollies thought for a moment that 50% of the voters were sceptics, they wouldn’t be stating such a thing, as you’re alienating or offending 50% of the voters.
I believe they are alienating the voters.
Perhaps they think that the 50% non-believers are all Republican voters.
How many international parasites earn upper class incomes and live upper class lifestyles from this endless climate process? It’s a lot like the”Mideast Peace Process” with lots of permanent staff, isn’t it?
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
Alex Epstein
Conventionally, higher CO2 was projected to be beneficial until 2070.
Now Bjorn Stevens has constrained aerosol uncertainty. Nic Lewis finds climate sensitivity actually lower than IPCC’s lowest bound.
This low climate sensitivity indicates that more CO2 will be beneficial for much longer – probably ’till at least 2100.
So why are these pledges being made to constrain CO2 when fossil fuel use and higher CO2 provides greatest benefit to the three billion living in severe to extreme poverty?
How much global heat is Typhoon Maysak’s 225 kph (140 mph) venting off into space on its way to the Philippines?
https://evilincandescentbulb.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/typhoon-maysak.jpg?w=600
Not nearly as much as the open sea around it. Those cloud tops are cold: -60-70°C. And they block all the IR from the surface, unlike clear air which has a fairly wide window.
True enough – high clouds emit less than warm surfaces.
But also true, the dense clouds are blocking nearly all the shortwave in.
And, the upper regions of the troposphere are emitting more energy from clouds than they would be if the skies were clear. Those emissions lead to cooling ( especially at night ) which causes the cooler air to descend and ironically cause more convection. Tropical cyclones often intensify at night as a result.
The only difference between a typhoon and a hurricane is its location–they’re both cyclones. So great is the energy found in a hurricane if it could be harnessed it would power the US for years. Alas most of the energy is used up transferring a huge column of air into the upper atmosphere. Of the energy contained in an average hurricane, 1,500,000,000,000 watts… fully half of the global electrical output, according to an article by PBS’ NOVA, just 0.5% of the energy released is what we see flattening cities in places like Florida. Some 99.5% of the hurricane force cause no harm and is naturally dissipated — every second, some 2 million metric tons of air are circulated in, up, and out of the hurricane — where heat energy is radiated to empty space — which every day equals, the energy released by the fusion of four hundred 20 mega-ton hydrogen bombs (See, Rice University’s Hurricane Trivia at Houston TeacherTECH Archives).
Not just blocking, reflecting back out to space. But the question was how much “global heat is Typhoon Maysak’s 225 kph (140 mph) venting off into space on its way to the Philippines?”. Global heat doesn’t (AFAIK) include shortwave, although I’ll admit that’s a technicality. More importantly, since the reflection doesn’t happen at night, (AFAIK) the net result is greenhouse warming relative to clear air with a window for surface IR.
Wagathon
” which every day equals, the energy released by the fusion of four hundred 20 mega-ton hydrogen bombs ”
for sks fans:. that would be 533,333 Hiroshima bombs, (15 kt)
@wagaton
“Of the energy contained in an average hurricane, 1,500,000,000,000 watt”
Watts is for POWER, not energy.
I’m curious, is the air temperature just above the cloud tops warmer or cooler, than under clear air conditions? Does the sea surface warm or cool in the hurricane’s path? That should provide an insight.
Tropical Cyclone Structure:
Wagathon, I’m familiar with the process, but I was wondering if the latent heat may not warm the air layer just above the cloud tops? Something has to put the cloud tops where they are. I assume the water condenses into small droplets and thus the top of the cloud must be a bit warmer than the layer would be if under clear conditions?
I’m curious, is the air temperature just above the cloud tops warmer or cooler, than under clear air conditions? Does the sea surface warm or cool in the hurricane’s path? That should provide an insight.
Tropical cyclones are known as ‘warm core’ systems ( as opposed to ‘cold core’ of polar lows ). The core is warm because of all the additional realized latent heat of condensation. But the air above the clouds is dry, so it doesn’t share in the latent heat or much radiative heat ( not much H2O to absorb anything ).
Here’s a idealized model:
http://www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~roger/TCLecs/Fig2.4.png
On the right are isotherms ( of temperature as opposed to potential temperature on the left ). Temperatures are higher the near to the center until one reaches the upper levels ( the -60 isotherm in this case ) where the temperatures are nearly constant from outer reaches toward the center.
In addition to expending some of the oceanic heat, the wave action of the cyclone tends to mix the cooler ocean waters below toward the surface, reducing sea surface temperatures after the cyclone passes.
Before some of the inclined try to make a global warming case of this typhoon,
Let’s reflect that it became a Super Typhoon on
Mar 31, 06 GMT, at 10N 141E
SSTs for a few days before that indicate mostly COLDER than normal waters:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomp.3.26.2015.gif
So by the logic of jerking knees, reducing CO2 will reduce global temperatures which will cause MORE super-typhoons like this one!
FYI on Hurricanes. Global Tropical Cyclone Activity (Dr. Ryan N. Maue)
Figure half-way down the web page: “Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) — 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL. 12-Month running sums. Graph Updated February 28, 2015.”
http://models.weatherbell.com/global_major_freq.png
Pingback: Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Just do what China does and commit firmly to make commitments to develop policies to commit firmly to make commitments to develop policies to commit firmly…Maybe toss in a light tax or two, something any accountant can dodge.
To do the necessary fudging before the white elephants crush us, don’t use a conservative figure like Tony Abbott who can only serve as whipping boy to media luvviedom. Get someone with high cheekbones who claims to be of native ancestry and feels close to the earth etc etc. If you are disappointing the hungry rogues of Big Green, it’s prudent not to disappoint the Guardian-perusing classes at the same time.
And if you need to scale back from earlier follies and burn lots more fossil fuels, even brown coal, while doubling up on green preaching, Angela Merkel has the expertise there.
In a world awash with cheap coal, gas and oil, maybe an imaginative delegate could mention that the conference is preferring to run on low-emissions technology…without using the N word.
C’est la show business.
Honestly, unless the Republicans field another McCain, the Democrats and their climate pledges are going to be out in 2016.
And if the pause continues until then – well, even then I’d bet money that the faithful will still continue to say: the warming is just around the corner!
==> “I’d bet money that the faithful will still continue to say: the warming is just around the corner!”
Yeah – imagine that. Some people might think that two years of data won’t be conclusive to determining an issue as complex as climate change.
Well, what can you do when people’s beliefs are immutable and fanatical, eh?
“Well, what can you do when people’s beliefs are immutable and fanatical, eh?”
I usually just mumble, “Oh shut up Joshua” to myself.
Josh might be excused since he has acknowledged he can’t do the science. But now it appears he can’t do simple arithmetic.
It would be 20 years of data Josh, assuming the topic is the divergence between model projections and actual temps.
The first 1/4 of 2015 on GISS is probably .777C.
No reason to believe it’s not going to continue its upward streak through July.
The first 1/4 of 2015 on GISS is probably .777C.
No reason to believe it’s not going to continue its upward streak through July.
SSTs have been falling for six months ( from the all time high ).
SSTs tend to lead, so land and tropospheric temps, are likely to foloow, at least for the next few months.
Color me unimpressed with your comment.
In 2014 there were a lot of months were SST were the warmest ever; there were several months where land was way back in the pack. Way back.
They closed at the end of 2014. Now land and ocean are both near records. FEB 2015 was the 2nd highest land and 3rd highest SST; FEB 2014 was 44th warmest land and 7th warmest ocean.
Between now and the end of July there could be a month where both land and SSTs are the highest ever.
The past two weeks have seen significant increases in sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies across the eastern half of the tropical Pacific, especially near and along the coast of South America. SSTs for the NINO3 region, in the eastern Pacific, have increased by the largest amount for any two-week period since at least July 2001 (when the Bureau’s weekly monitoring dataset commenced).
The SST anomaly map for the week ending 29 March shows warm anomalies extending across nearly all of the equatorial Pacific Ocean …
Imagine that – the present 18th year of pause is already beyond 95% of all climate model possibilities, yet the trolls continue to repeat that the science is credible.
Nice try to redirect to a smaller number though.
Your lack of credibility continues to unimpress, but then again, your equal lack of any form of integrity already informed.
JCH
I wish you all the luck with this, I know how badly you and your friends want the temps to resume rising.
c1ue
Global warming that doesn’t exist – cannot ”pause”!!! Using the word ”pause” makes you a Warmist role of toilet paper – you are doing the Warmist dirty job… Spooking the public that: the non-existent global warming is only having a ”pause” until the Paris conference -> makes you a ”Warmist gelding” – because they cannot have any legitimate proof of something that doesn’t exist – they are only exploiting Skeptic’s ignorance – obsessed to be trendy; because contemporary the phony warming is fashionable…
I really don’t care about agitprop games.
The timing is immaculate. Europe soon plunging into the cold part of this solar minimum, and the inevitable increase in domestic demand being faced with 20-30% reductions by 2020. It’ll be pure Pandæmonium.
Not capital “P”, I hope. Of course, for human beings under political control, it might be just like “Pandæmonium”.
I had to look it up. I don’t carry such notions in my head. Pooh is a bear of little brain. 8-)
In the UK we are all under the control of the UK Climate Change Act. I have two lines of evidence pointing to northwest Europe turning much colder very soon and through to 2024. Something will have to break.
And UK newspapers report “excess deaths” around 10 to 20 thousand people per year, depending on who is counting. It is a case of “your money or your life” (Jack Benny). A choice of Heat or Eat for some.
There is an interesting article here by Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger (referenced by one of Judith’s links) that includes a “Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator.” You can enter your climate sensitivity estimate and your CO₂ reduction % to find out what effect that will have on the global temperature rise projected by the IPCC. If we use the IPCC’s sensitivity figure of 3.0°C, and if the Industrialized Countries reduce CO₂ by 100%, the amount of temperature savings that results is 0.052°C by the year 2050 and 0.137°C by the year 2100. Does anybody see a problem with this calculation?
Swood,
Sure, you should have used 200%!
according to th fine print:
“The results from our calculator are produced from climate change calculations performed using the MAGICC climate model simulator (MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change). MAGICC was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
This seems to me to be about a legit as anything else in CliSci.
Now, if you mean “Does anybody see a problem with this RESULT?”
I’d say: Only if we try to do it!
The calculator is great fun, and I wrote a piece about it here: http://donaitkin.com/if-we-do-all-this-by-how-much-will-we-reduce-temperature/
If the USA ceased all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, there would be no noticeable reduction in global temperature by 2050
Then the Cato calculator can’t be correct.
The US emitted 5.40 Gt CO2 last year. That’s 1.47 Gt of carbon (GtC), or (assuming it’s flat) 51.5 GtC by 2050. Using the carbon-climate response function of Matthews et al Nature 2009 (1.5 degC warming/TtC), the expected warming from that amount of emitted carbon is 0.08 degC.
How many degrees is that in Chinese Fahrenheits?
=============
Appell
Write and tell them they don’t know what they are doing and you know better.
You have be a little careful, because this is a version of the calculator filtered through Cato that is not giving the correct answers. Appell’s number agrees with the graph in AR5.
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/IPCC-AR5-SPM10.png
Lang: I suspect the user didn’t know how to use the model, or misinterpreted the results. The science is pretty clear.
Appell
Who cares what you ‘suspect’. You’ve demonstrated continuously you are a ‘know nothing’, just a cultist believer in CAGW. Instead of telling us what you suspect and what you believe, can you point to any authoritative reference that shows the CATO calculator has an error? If not, say so and apoligise for accidentally or intentionally attempting to mislead CE readers – again!
Lang, I’m not about to waste my time debugging a Cato model. Let’s see you prove their model is RIGHT, instead of blindly accepting its results.
Then you can go read:
The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions, H.D. Matthews et al, Nature 459, 829-832 (11 June 2009)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html
which finds that total warming is proportional to total carbon emissions, with a proportionallity constant of 1.5 degC/trillion tons carbon. Read the paper for the confidence limits.
Appell,
So you’ve made another unsubstantiated assertion and can’t support it. You can’t show any evidence to support your silly irresponsible, dishonest assertion.
Typical for you.
Peter Lang: Wrong again. I gave my numbers and analysis up above:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/01/road-to-paris-tracking-climate-pledges/#comment-690970
Just do the arithmetic.
MAGICC is itself a collection of simple gas-cycle, climate, and ice-melt models to efficiently emulate the output of complex climate models. MAGICC produces projections of the global average temperature and sea level change under user configurable emissions scenarios and model parameters. MAGICC is run using its default model parameter settings except for climate sensitivity, which you can choose from between 1.5°C and 4.5°C.
but hey, it’s only a model!
”Climate target” is loaded comment; because CO2 has nothing to do with the climate – otherwise: the deserts and rain-forests would have had SAME climate; because both places have SAME amount of CO2. because water regulates the climate – no ”climate scientist” talks about ”saving stormwater on dry lands to improve climate” = proof that they are not concerned about climate. The therm ”climate change” is only a nickname for the phony global warming.
2] China didn’t ”agree” to cut emission by 26% – Obama did
Yes, this faux agreement is just for show, to make it look like the progressives are “doing something” so they can keep their budgets growing and their low information voters voting.
But at least this iteration of progressive assininity won’t result in the Islamic fanatics in Iran getting nuclear weapons. Same principles, much greater damage.
Lefties live in a fantasy world with unicorn government which runs on magic pixie dust. No one can ride a unicorn faster than Obama. He spent a trillion of stimulus on ‘shovel ready’ jobs that didn’t exist, created a health care law that was impossible to implement, and made the Constitution magically disappear. What could go wrong?
All climate change roads may lead To Paris, but that doesn’t mean that they will be open when the conference ends. Why on Earth did they pick Paris in December after what happened there about the same time of the month in December 2010! A cold November followed by a burst of stronger Atlantic flow early December could dump a lot of snow. This could get very amusing.
Oh dear!
“A wet and windy period of the year usually as cyclonic systems move in from the Atlantic, the two most stormy periods are 25th – 29th November and 6th – 12th December. 98%”
http://www.metcheck.com/UK/singularities.asp
It’s the best time and place to hold it.
If it’s nasty cold and snowy…it’s normal for December.
If it’s not…It’s global warming & we’re doomed.
It would take November to turn colder than normal first for a big Paris snow hit 6th – 12th December.
Here’s something OT and just for fun. Is this numeracy or numerology? What would Statistician say? From the article:
…
Michael Hippke of the Institute for Data Analysis in Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany, and John Learned at the University of Hawaii in Manoa found that all 10 bursts’ dispersion measures are multiples of a single number: 187.5
…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630153.600-is-this-et-mystery-of-strange-radio-bursts-from-space.html#.VRykjB-c1B0
I see a consensus here, at least from the skeptics, that the efforts proposed so far are too weak, but I say give it a chance. It can turn the emissions curve around, and once that is seen to be happening, people will be more encouraged that this thing is working, even more if the temperature rise slows from that over the past 30 years that gave us 0.5 C.
Sea surface temperatures have risen less than that in 70 years.
It can turn the emissions curve around
It’s already turned.
Look at the top line ( the total ).
From 1990 to 2002 – concave up.
From 2002 to 2013 – concave down.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/afbeeldingen/001g_muc14_en.png
The developed world ( green and blue trends ) already has declining emissions.
It’s difficult to trust numbers from China, but this trend:
http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/03/CO2-emissions-to-2015-Peters.jpg
is certainly consistent with the Chinese economic slowdown.
By the way, that’s why it was easy for the Chinese to pledge to reduce – it was already happening.
That’s the way to make a silk purse out of a pig’s a$$, jimmy. What are they saying about this on your home planet huffpo, jimmy? Like Slate: WIMPY!
Just the California drought. The pictures are impressive. WUWT seem to be staying clear of this piece of news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/california-mandatory-water-cutbacks_n_6987444.html
Was the drought caused by the pause, jimmy? We have a lot of people with a lot of big lawns and a lot of farmers growing a lot of food on arid and semi-arid land in CA, jimmy. And we got a lot of Sierra Club clowns who don’t want dams blocking our lovely streams. If you don’t accumulate water for the bad times, you got problems. But we have to keep the minnows happy. You seem to be pleased by our predicament, jimmy. I am not surprised.
Let’s build the Bridge Canyon Dam!
http://grandcanyonhistory.clas.asu.edu/images/sites/coloradorivercorridor/BridgeCanyon/BridgeCanyonDamSite.jpg
Not pleased, but impressed. Worst in 1200 years according to one study. The government solution is rationing. I wonder what the free-market solution would be. Water for the wealthy?
Must be one of your BS huffpo studies, jimmy. Why don’t you be honest and admit that you people welcome weather events that you can claim are climate catastrophes caused by global warming. The free market solution would be to invest in dams to accumulate water in good times to sell to people who need it when nature is not kind to mankind.
In a free market people are perfectly free to oppose building dams and to win the day. I suspect what you really mean is some other type of market where that can’t happen.
So the dams are the lowest they’ve been for 1200 years, are they?
And it went from 5′ of snow to no snow in the space of a single year? Must be global warming then.
Quick question, why did they build huge dams if the region wasn’t historically prone to extreme drought?
Markets and politics are different mechanisms, little man.
Don
Thought you might be interested in this extract from the US Weather Review of 1889 together with my notes on them (read in the Met Office diary)
—— ——–
“Jan 1899 midsummer weather was being experienced in California-midday temperature from 70 to 80 f were observed in the great valley and southern California. At San Francisco a max temp of 78f was registered on the 26th the highest Jan maximum recorded during the past 27 years.
—– ——-
Authors note; For comparison below are modern records. The one set in 2014 only 1 f higher than 1889 (not 1953 as stated) Look at huge growth in the city-UHI considerations?)
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/01/31/january-ends-with-record-setting-temperatures-across-the-bay-area/
population of SF in 1899 350,000 in 1906 before earthquake; 837,000 in 2013
1.4 million in 1900 for all of California 38.8 million in 2014
——- ——- —-
The increase in population is staggering and must have an effect on the ability to store and use water resources.
tonyb
Jim D. There is record of megadroughts in the region. To try to attach any meaning at all to the current much shorter drought is intellectual dishonesty.
Maybe in the Gulag Union. You wanna fly out to Detroit and suppress Joshie? You’re a one-man gulag machine? LMAO.
The best sites for dams already have dams. That big greenie Nixon signed the endangered species act. Later that big greenie Reagan signed a bill that required the states to pay a much larger percentage of a dam project.
No problem… Whoops, Proposition 13.
My gawd you people are F ups.
Expect to live a decade on this planet without severe drought occurring somewhere upon it? In Australia we used to be taught that we exist at the mercy of drought, and it applied more to the half century before I was born than to my own lifetime.
As for the US, the present drought in the SW is easily one of the worst experienced since settlement. But what to say of the Dust Bowl, the Texas Drought of the 1950s and the Great Plains Drought of the mid-19th century, and so many others? The Texas Drought, especially, must have been like the end of everything for those caught in the middle of it, especially during the heat of 1954. Needless to say – or maybe it is needful? – there have been horror episodes before and after these events. The half century drought after 1550 AD looks to have been both long and extensive enough to be called the American west’s “worst” – but where’s the competition? The biggest killer drought of the last century hit Africa in the 1970s…and lake sediments suggest is was milder and briefer than past events not that far in the past.
As to heat, America’s most lethal heatwave occurred just months after Australia’s second most lethal – in 1896. And recent US heat waves, like 2012, have been terrible, even if the death score was lower. The world’s longest officially denominated heat wave occurred in West Australia in the 1920s. Ninety years in the past. Does that mean the climate is getting kinder? A rational person would conclude that if it got that hot for that long once, it might get that hot for that long again. Or hotter for longer. Where’s the rule? If the SW drought breaks soon, does one forget it? A rational person will remember how dry SoCal was in 2014, and how dry it may be again.
It comes down to this: normal events can be terrible. El Nino and La Nina are normal occurrences and will occur because there is a Pacific Ocean and Trade Winds – and even without these two scamps you will get extremes.
If we are not paying attention to what people like tonyb have to say on the subject of historical climate then how are we get any sense of proportion?
“The heathen stood on his ancient mound,
Looking over the desert bound
Into the distant, hazy South,
Over the dusty and broad campaign,
Where, with many a gaping mouth
And fissure, cracked by the fervid drouth,
For seven months had the wasted plain
Known no moisture of dew or rain.
The wells were empty and choked with sand;
The rivers had perished from the land;
Only the sea-fogs to and fro
Slipped like ghosts of the streams below.
Deep in its bed lay the river’s bones,
Bleaching in pebbles and milk-white stones,
And tracked o’er the desert faint and far,
Its ribs shone bright on each sandy bar.”
That’s from Bret Harte’s ‘The Miracle of Padre Junipero'(1864), describing California at the arrival of the missionary.
====================
Jim D
In article after article about the California drought, when they get a quote from NOAA, they cite the numerous droughts that have occurred before. Their response is more measured than the alarmists. Must be those nasty skeptic moles they get ahold of.
Root them out, I say.
Kim, I’m guessing that was the drought of the early 1800s which was referred to in the poem. As a result the missionaries and locals started on an aqueduct. Love those things.
One of the more outrageous climate episodes anywhere occurred when the bad drought of the 1860s was punctuated by the one true megaflood recorded in California’s history, through the winter of 1861-2. It got called biblical and noachian at the time. Amazing and awful, more a tight series than just one flood.
http://www.sanjoaquinhistory.org/documents/HistorianNS5-4.pdf
Then back came drought! Australia can swing radically between wet and dry – but California’s swing of the 1860s probably beats all.
I wonder if ignorance or forgetfulness of such conditions is healthy in these days of belief in “new climate”. Actually, I don’t wonder.
Moso, I believe Harte was characterizing the times just before Serra’s arrival, so maybe the 1760s. He also mentions all that devastation after only seven months of drought, better, drouth. It’s a drier sounding tongue.
==================
Some observers have concluded that the water shortage is due to the extraordinary amounts being used by pot farms.
@mosomoso April 2, 2015 at 7:56 am
Australia and US great plains drought increase strongly during solar minima, because El Nino increases, and the AMO warms and dries out continental interiors. Cali drought is a La Nina signal, a cooler PDO helps too.
Bullet train to nowhere and minnows are more important than water infrastructure projects to serve the thirsty people.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/jerrys-folly-turning-california-brown-to-appease-the-greens/
Jim D | April 2, 2015 at 12:41 am
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/01/road-to-paris-tracking-climate-pledges/#comment-689570
“Water for the wealthy?”. And for Donors. And for Delta Smelt. Smells fishy to me.
“Starting July 1, McDonald’s will pay at least $1 an hour more than the local minimum wage for employees at the roughly 1,500 restaurants it owns in the U.S.”
Meeting emission pledges by 2030 for the USA are more realistic as our economy becomes a service based economy. We have, as the UK and EU have exported emission intensive manufacturing off shore.
We will assemble the cars/trucks with components from on and off shore suppliers.
We will assemble and manufacture carbon-fiber ladened airplanes for off shore customers.
We will centralize health care into large conglomerates providing content for off shore.
We will increase the wages of our service workers, moving to a subsidized multi-tiered health care system offered to employees.
Walmart has shown that people are attracted to lower costs and perceived value as opposed to high cost and illusions. Most people can’t and don’t want to pay for shiny baubles unless they have significant disposable income, and, in a service economy, there will be fewer jobs in the higher income bracket.
Our forests, as the Russians, are a great carbon sink.
Agriculture is already implementing practices increasing carbon deposition into the soil, another carbon sink as opposed to source.
Cars and trucks and things that go will decrease emissions depending upon whether the pressure to increase miles per gallon remains.
The change to reworked carbon fuels will decrease emissions as the current renewable subsidies are withdrawn and innovation is allowed to proceed.
EPA will become a villain in the emissions war with its budget shrinking as Obama’s edicts take hold, propelled in part by high consumer’s energy costs and its political backlash. Republicans can say straight faced: “Democrats are responsible for you energy insecurity.”
Emission numbers are achievable because the moving parts mean a less upwardly mobile working class. Tell that to the people who just got a dollar/hour increase in wages. Bird in hand vs bird in the bush.
Blaming the previous administration’s conduct and policies for the present mess is a staple when one party takes the mantel of power, at least for the short term, until the party in power, for a term or two becomes the perceived obstructionists to progress.
George Orwell correctly forecast this sad state of affairs for science in the book he started writing in 1946, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
.
Unfortunately a personal reduction of 28% will still not reach the goal. Our population growth, partly from significant immigration, legal and illegal, increases at about .75% a year. From the 2005 base rate period to the 28% reduction period of 2025 the population will have increased about 17%. If my math estimating is correct the personal energy consumption will actually have to be reduced about 36% from 2005 levels to reach the goal. That seems much more daunting. Can somebody verify my estimates?
“1.We don’t know how the 21st century climate will evolve”. A rather broad statement. In my opinion they do have good idea how the climate will evolve.
“3.The unintended consequences of these policies could act to increase vulnerability to extreme events”. Oh really? It seems to me in point 1. JC is criticising speculation, and in point 3. JC is indulging in speculation.
A 20% reduction is pretty much ‘in the bag’ given the 2025 cafe standards will cut oil consumption by 2.2 billion barrels/day and normal replacement of air conditioning units.
The 25% target is just plain nonsense. The grid saturation point for windmills and solar panels is a lot lower then advocates would like anyone to believe.
So with all this catterwalling about anthropogenic emissions has the ratio between natural and anthropogenic emissions changed?
It changes all day long depending upon whom you’ve most recently believed.
===========
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this..
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
A pledge I’d like to see considered more is anthropogenic land use changes since 1850 (or so).
Plant cedar (juniper): http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/national-wildlife/gardening/archives/2006/planting-junipers-for-wildlife.aspx
Remove cedar (juniper): http://www.opb.org/news/article/cutting-down-desert-junipers-save-precious-water/
Land use changes: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01450.x/full
From the intro: “The distribution of sources and sinks of carbon over the land surface is dominated by changes in land use.”
And the original work:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.00013.x/abstract
(From the abstract) “Between 1850 and 1990, changes in land use are calculated to have added 124 PgC to the atmosphere, about half as much as released from combustion of fossil fuels over this period.”
And yet, I hear nary a word w/r/t.
And looking more at natural processes:
Ran across this:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1373930/-Massive-Glacier-Melt-and-Fresh-Water-are-Pouring-into-the-Gulf-of-Alaska?
From which this came: “Once these glacial rivers pour out into the larger body of water, they’re picked up by ocean currents, moving east to west, and begin to circulate there. This is one of the primary methods that iron — found in the clay and sediment of the glacial runoff — is transported to iron-deprived regions in the middle of the Gulf of Alaska.”
Which lead me to this:http://www.npr.org/2012/07/18/156976147/can-adding-iron-to-oceans-slow-global-warming
then to this study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11229.html
Money shot (last line in abstract):” Thus, iron-fertilized diatom blooms may sequester carbon for timescales of centuries in ocean bottom water and for longer in the sediments.
Interesting …
It isn’t just iron that’s important, but silicate.
AK,
Not quite clear on your meaning, but a little leg work I found this: “Considering that these silica shielded planktonic primary producers are thought to account for up to 45% of net primary productivity in the ocean [18], a further increase in carbon fixation could act as negative feedback for atmospheric CO2.” (Then from conclusion):” Finally, the increased exudation of dissolved organic carbon might increase aggregation and potential for sinking of particles.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090749
In the linked comment, and its links, there’s a discussion of the balance between diatoms, which incorporate silica(tes) in their shells, and coccolithophores, which use calcium carbonate. The latter work opposite to diatoms, because by sequestering calcium (Ca+2) ions they actually tend to acidify the ocean, and drive CO2 back into the atmosphere.
[…]
AK,
Ah. Misinterpted thinking the diatoms provided and not consumed.
So wouldn’t the sediments contained in the runoff provide additional silicates along with the iron?
Thanks for your help!
This is where they’re taking carbon out and sending it to the bottom. But without silica(tes), it could be coccolithophores blooming, and sending carbon and calcium to the bottom.
AK,
But won’t the runoff also contain the silica(tes)? Or are you suggesting they will likely be heavier sediments and fall before providing for the iron enriched diatoms? In the photos from the original article it appeared the sediments were suspended within the fresh water run off and I guess I assume they would remain so once mixed with the sea water allowing for diatomaceous use.
Perhaps. Depending on what’s eroding to produce them.
But, AFAIK, the ratio could be important, because if the silicates are used up before the iron, coccolithophores could bloom, cancelling out the effect.
Thanks AK,
More to add to my “find out about” list. Thanks for the guidance!
Hi Danny
Upthread mosomoso and I were talking about the current california drought and that if people look at the climate in context they will see California is beset by droughts, one of the worst being during the 1860’s.
Here is the journal of William brewer describing aT first hand the travails the drought brought.
http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/up_and_down_california/5-1.html
Of course, this must be treated as anecdotal as its text and as we know only figures count.
I recount this as you cited land changes from 1850 and of course the great cattle and farming surge during the 1860’s and later had a huge impact on landscape.
A year or so ago I read a book on the amount of co2 locked in the soil and how farming practices could either lock it up or release it. As a result of a comment i made here Rob Ellison wrote an article on the subject here, but as you say soil sequestration is not a subject that gets widely discussed. It ought to be.
Tonyb
Danny
Here is the article on soil carbon I referenced just above
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/07/soil-carbon-permanent-pasture-as-an-approach-to-co2-sequestration/
Tonyb
Tonyb,
Applicable, and politically doable from my view. Yet nary a word w/r/t the global warming CO2 discussion. As a plus, if it’s not CO2 all the time “first do no harm”.
Danny, the land use issue is really under appreciated. When soil loses carbon, it also loses moisture retention. So there is a huge list of indirect effects possible with land use change.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/AralSea1989_2014.jpg/800px-AralSea1989_2014.jpg
That should be the poster child for land use abuse, but it falls under the generic “Climate Change” . The former Soviet union had a virgin lands campaign where they converted something like 46 million hectares of virgin steppe in to wheat acreage attempted to irrigate with water that would wind up in the Aral Sea. Also in order to fight malaria huge areas were drained. Prior to that beaver were decimated which had impacts of millions more hectares of water shed.
Areas that have restored water sheds by filling canals and replanting trees indicate a cooling trend, unless of course you use Berkeley Earth :) so it stands to reason that there has been a significant land use impact on climate. Significant being a few tenths of a degree “Globally” but a few hundred re3cord high temperatures for the climate PR campaign.
Note: UHI and Land use impact on those warmest records EVAH seems to be missed in the press releases for some reason.
Capt. & Tonyb,
“Note: UHI and Land use impact on those warmest records EVAH seems to be missed in the press releases for some reason.” Maybe it’s easier to blame the amorphus “fossil fuels” as opposed to ourselves via our roads, buildings, and transportation choices which pretty much all use……….fossil fuels.
Tony, I wish to propose a ban on barbed wire as it correlates well with the beginning of the temperature trends. And juniper trees ………..should they be planted, or removed?
Being a (obviously) simple minded guy I’m gonna start with things I can see not those I cannot.
Not intented to single out anyone in particular (I used to play) but water use?: 914 listed in Ca. and 421 in Az.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/02/technology/california-golf-course-drought/
http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/state.aspx?state=AZ
Tonyb,
“…California beset by droughts…”
True. California has experienced droughts as long a 200 years and two as long as 140 years inthe last 1100 years – a very short interval in geologic time. They are called megadroughts or “stiner droughts”.
Check this out:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v369/n6481/abs/369546a0.html
No AGW required.
Regardless of whether it caused a particular drought, AGW makes droughts worse because higher temperatures increase evaporation rates.
David
Warming climate makes droughts worse. No A needed. It would be just as true without any of our help.
There is no proof from real data that warming makes droughts worse. Sorry.
David Appell –
And consequently increase the cloud cover and the amount of rain?
Yep.
?”And yet, I hear nary a word w/r/t.”
Listen harder. Everyone considers carbon emissions from land use changes. CDIAC has a yearly time series going back to 1750. Read William Ruddiman.
Higher average global temps make the planet wetter, colder temps make it dryer (arid). Life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder. Warm is good, cold is bad.
David,
Thank you for the William Ruddiman reference. I wrote poorly when I said “nary a reference” as my intention was w/r/t consideration of land use changes for “mediation” as it’s the “fossil fuels” channel all the time. If indeed, as has been suggested by Houghton, some 50% of sequestration of CO2 (I usually see 20-30%) can occur via land use change then it should be a higher level of concentration as it seems to be politically less of a hurdle.
Left versus right — the use of AGW theory and climate change has become the key the political tool in the Left’s takeover of the American economy (its what explains everything from California’s bullet train to nowhere to Teslas that run on sunlight — honest!):
Actually, GISS’s model is underprojecting global warming:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
The simpliest climate model is this:
total warming is proportional to total carbon emissions
where the proportionality constant is 1.5 C per trillion tons of carbon emitted. Plot it out — it works very well.
David
Here is the giss land/ocean temperature index
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
It seems to be steady from 2000 whereas your chart shows a sharp upwards trend. Can you explain why?
Tonyb
Tonyb: Climate models aren’t made to predict every little wiggle and turn in temperature, and there’s no need for that to happen anyway. They make projections of warming over the long-term, after natural variabliity averages to more or less zero, based largely upon radiation balance and energy conservation. As the graph at my link shows, at least one major model is running on the cool side. (Haven’t tested any others yet.)
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
Here’s the graph:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KJsjApBtEfQ/VRziB_r3lqI/AAAAAAAAEds/90aE27c69lM/s1600/GISTEMP%2Bvs%2BGISS-E2-R%2BRCP2.6%2Bave.JPG
“It seems to be steady from 2000 whereas your chart shows a sharp upwards trend. Can you explain why?”
Yes — it’s all about long-term trends. If a linear fit is a decent one, then a decent estimate of the long-term warming is
total warming = (linear trend)*(time interval)
which is, I believe, what most people mean when they talk about “total warming.”
Over the last 15 years, GISS’s linear trend is +0.08 C/decade. Over the last 20 it’s +0.12 C/decade.
Here ya go.
MODEL: 4.2C/century, (through 2100), IPCC5 (RCP8.5)
MODEL: 4.0C/century, (through 2100), IPCC4 ‘High Scenario’
MODEL: 3.2C/century ( since 1979 ), Hansen A
MODEL: 2.8C/century ( since 1979 ), Hansen B
MODEL: 2.0C/century, (‘next few decades’), IPCC4
MODEL: 1.9C/century ( since 1979 ), Hansen C
MODEL: 1.8C/century, (through 2100), IPCC4 ‘Low Scenario’
———————————————————————
Observed: 1.6C/century (since 1979), NASA GISS
Observed: 1.5C/century (since 1979), NCDC
Observed: 1.4C/century (since 1979), UAH MSU LT
Observed: 1.3C/century (since 1979), RSS MSU LT
Observed: 1.3C/century (since 1979), RATPAC-B 850 millibars
Observed: 1.2C/century (since 1979), RATPAC-B 500 millibars
MODEL: 1.0C/century, (through 2100), IPCC5 (RCP2.6)
Observed: 1.0C/century, (since 1979), RATPAC-B 300 millibars
Observed: 0.8C/century (since 1979 ), RSS MSU MT
Observed: 0.5C/century (since 1979 ), UAH MSU MT
… the simplified model you propose is obviously incapable of predicting the next period of global cooling. Such periods have happened before — irrespective of atmospheric CO2 levels — and, it’s only logical that they will happen again. That’s what everyone knows: climate change is real –i.e., it really does change.
Moderation, really Judith? What are you afraid of?
“… the simplified model you propose is obviously incapable of predicting the next period of global cooling.”
Why does a model have to predict (natural) periods of cooling? What we need to know is the long-term warming. In 100 years, they will look back on the “hiatus” as an inconsequential (though scientifically interesting) blip, just as we look on the period 1945-1975.
Eddie: I prefer to go by the latest (CMIP5) models.
As I said, the simpliest climate model is this: total warming is proportional to total carbon emissions, with the proportionality constant being 1.5 C per trillion tons of carbon emitted.
Eddie: I prefer to go by the latest (CMIP5) models.
So, one problem with the IPCC is they do a constant reset with each AR or CMIP and don’t look at how past predictions have done. The Hansen testimony, however is there for scrutiny and we can see how poorly it has done. Since the satellite era, temperature trends are all less than even the Scenario C which is the one in which carbon emissions went to zero in 2000.
As for the recent IPCC predictions, observed trends are all less than the predicted trends. To reach even the low level trends would require acceleratio of temperature trends. There is less and less reason to believe even the temperature trend predictions, much less the predictions of climatic chnage from aspects which in reality have nothing to do with global temperature.
Old models have been evaluated — that’s what goes in to making the next generation of models. There have been 5 ARs now; each contains a major chapter on model evaluation, if you want to read about it.
“As for the recent IPCC predictions, observed trends are all less than the predicted trends.”
Not sure what you mean by “recent,” but my graph shows the GISS model does a great job of calculating total warming. And, models don’t make “predictions,” they make projections.
Trying again, maybe without the moderation:
“… the simplified model you propose is obviously incapable of predicting the next period of global cooling.”
a) why does a model have to predict periods of cooling? What we need to know is the long-term warming. In 100 years, they will look back on the “hiatus” as an inconsequential (though scientifically interesting) blip, just as we look on the period 1945-1975.
b) today’s models won’t, and can’t, predict short-term trends, which depend on natural variability. No one can foresee natural variability like ENSOs, volcanoes, or solar changes. SOME DAY, with better computational power, we might be able to calculate changes in longer-term ocean cycles, and maybe ENSOs. But model power increases much slower than Moore’s law.
b) there aren’t going to be many, if any, periods of cooling in our future.
David,
Did you do the article with Dr. Curry’s responses to your questions w/r/t her financial disclosure?
“a) why does a model have to predict periods of cooling? What we need to know is the long-term warming.”
Why soley warming? Thought the intent of models was to indicate long term temperature trends not long term “warming” trends. That was interesting.
“b) there aren’t going to be many, if any, periods of cooling in our future.”
Evidence? Historically, we’ve this planet has cycled from glacials to interglacials. May I ask what indicators you have that this cycle has ended and we’ll be soley warming in perpetuity.
Nor can today’s models predict long-term trends — which depend on natural variability — and, as Craig Idso recently demonstrated, “centennial and millennial variations are substantially larger than those found at decadal timescales…,” substantially larger meaning that the models are off by, two orders of magnitude .
David Appell –
Does that really make any sense? Isn’t a model supposed to be able to predict climate, which includes warming and cooling? What would be our reason for having confidence in a model that claimed that it could predict warming but not cooling?
Unfortunately, we find this out after some high-profile predictions of short-term trends were made. If they say that they can make short-term predictions and this claim is shown to be false, then why should we have confidence in the long-term predictions?
What is the citation for Idso’s paper?
swood wrote:
“Isn’t a model supposed to be able to predict climate, which includes warming and cooling?”
That’s not what climate models do. They *project* (they can’t “predict”) the temperature change between two equilibrium states, given the forcings that occur between them. These states are far apart, in time, over which natural variability averages to zero — and after all feedbacks have played out.
“What would be our reason for having confidence in a model that claimed that it could predict warming but not cooling?”
Models can’t “predict.” But they could project cooling, if there were cooling forcings (like a Milankovitch factor). Right now, and into the foreseeable future, the net forcing forcing is positive, but its GHGs – aerosols, and the aerosols are complicated, since their forcing depends on location.
“Thought the intent of models was to indicate long term temperature trends not long term “warming” trends.”
Just a euphemism, since the trend has been one of warming and will continue to be one of warming.
“b) there aren’t going to be many, if any, periods of cooling in our future.”
Evidence?”
Principles of Planetary Climate, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Cambridge University Press (2010).
The next ice age is already toast, unless we remove a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere and store it somewhere.
“Thought the intent of models was to indicate long term temperature trends not long term “warming” trends.”
Just a euphemism, since the trend has been one of warming and will continue to be one of warming.
“b) there aren’t going to be many, if any, periods of cooling in our future.”
Evidence?”
Principles of Planetary Climate, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Cambridge University Press (2010).
The next ice age is already toast, unless we remove a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere and store it somewhere.
“b) there aren’t going to be many, if any, periods of cooling in our future.”
Evidence?”
See: Principles of Planetary Climate, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Cambridge University Press (2010).
BTW, the next ice age is already toast, unless we remove a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere and store it somewhere.
David,
“BTW, the next ice age is already toast, unless we remove a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere and store it somewhere.”
Maybe, just maybe, “we” already are! (But I don’t think we know enough about climate and nature yet to state for certain either way).
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/01/road-to-paris-tracking-climate-pledges/#comment-689678
More moderation, from someone who, ironically, complains about the suppression of views.
Danny Thomas: “Evidence?” Seriously? Do you read anything besides this site?
David,
I certainly do. But “Seriously” those were after all your words.
Anything on the financial disclosure article?
I was actually just using the terminology from your original post, where you used “predict” instead of “project.” What did you mean by “a) why does a model have to predict periods of cooling?” You originally seemed to be questioning the need to be able to predict/project cooling but your later comment seems not to be entirely in agreement.
Let me rephrase my other question. If they said that they can make short-term projections and this claim was shown to be false, then why should we have confidence in the long-term projections?
“If they said that they can make short-term projections and this claim was shown to be false, then why should we have confidence in the long-term projections?”
Because short-term projections depend on unforeseeable factors like volcanoes, solar intensity changes, ENSOs etc., and long-term projections depend on radiative balance and conservation of energy. (If heat keeps being added to a system, it will warm.)
Danny: You need to seriously expand your choice of reading material.
“Did you do the article with Dr. Curry’s responses to your questions w/r/t her financial disclosure?”
No, I didn’t see it.
David Appell,
Finally found it: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/27/week-in-review-45/#comment-678987 (Your request for financials from Dr. Curry)
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/27/week-in-review-45/#comment-679063
(Dr. Curry’s response)
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/27/week-in-review-45/#comment-678981
(Your further inquiry)
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/27/week-in-review-45/#comment-679068
(Dr. Curry’s follow up)
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/27/week-in-review-45/#comment-679095
(My request for a link for the expected article…………which by the way was ignored)
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/27/week-in-review-45/#comment-679095
(and finally your accusation of Dr. Curry showing her politics followed by your tossing in your politics…………..and I assume since I cannot find the article w/r/t Dr. C’s disclosed financials on your site maybe a bit more of your politics is showing as from what I could tell there was nothing “political” to write about so instead of writing that you chose to not respond).
Sorry you “didn’t see it” and hope this helps to make it easy for you. For this observer, your choice to not write about this disclosure says much, but will admit that my impression probably matters little in the scheme of things.
David Appell –
But of course this begs the question. Why don’t long-term projections depend on unforeseeable factors?
The key unknowns here being ‘if,’ the amount of the ‘heat,’ and the missing but implied phrase ‘as far as we know and assuming that we have accurately modelled all relevant elements of the system.’ But when somebody says that he feels very confident that X is going to happen, and then X does not happen, then it is understandable that one will be a bit wary when the same person, with the same sense of certainty, says that nevertheless Y is going to happen.
Furthermore, the whole structure does appear a bit rickety. In the words of Dr. William Collins, head of the Climate Sciences Department, and director of the Center at LBNL for Integrative Modeling of the Earth System (CLIMES) at the Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory (LBNL), as well as lead author on the Fourth and Fifth Assessment of the IPCC:
David Appell –
And I am still a bit confused by your implication that models do not have to predict periods of cooling. Could you elucidate that?
Next ice age is already toast? Walter Starck noted that if only humans really were able to heat the globe, “and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago.”
really appeal?
all of this effluvia to pronounce that temperature change is proportional to CO2 emissions?
what a prat.
Danny: I asked, she answered, except for the K-1 income. What do you expect me to say in response?
David,
Why not say that!
“I asked, she answered, except for the K-1 income. What do you expect me to say in response?”. CFAN is a privately held company, but I believe I recall that she has done some work (modest 15%?) with energy companies.
The quote: “Sorry, no way will I give out information on my company’s clients, that is proprietary and competitive information. I wrote a paragraph describing my company’s clientele in the conflict of interest post. Last year, contracts with energy companies (for weather prediction; nothing to do with climate) comprised less than 15% of the company’s income, but some of that was for wind power and hydropower prediction (the rest was for hurricane prediction and temperature prediction).” Seems pretty clear that therefore 85% was not for “energy companies”.
It states “15%”,”not climate but weather”,”some for wind and hydro.”
As a journalist, I’d suggest you write about what she offered (unless you were hoping/expecting some sort of “gotcha”). She even states a comment w/r/t her client list on the “conflict of interest post”. (I didn’t link to that, as I’m not the journalist and if you write you should do some of the work).
For this observer, I see little even handedness in the climate conversation and this is/was an opportunity for you to show your stripes. If you’re an “alarmist journalist” then there’s nothing to see. If you’re a “journalist”, you posed your questions, she responded, and although it may not hold much entertainment value you have the data for responsible reporting.
Wagathan wrote:
“Next ice age is already toast? Walter Starck noted that if only humans really were able to heat the globe, “and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago.””
We had well over a millennia to decide what to do about the next ice age, and it’s certainly not those now alive who had the right to make that decision for those in the future. They could have done it with about 60 ppm CO2. Instead we’ve decided for them and wildly overshot the mark, resulting in rapid climate change that will last for over 100,000 years, with the possibility of unknown consequences.
If I were a down and out unemployed klimate alarmist- “journalist”, I am pretty sure I would try to find something more productive to do than spending a lot of time on a blog preaching klimate konsensus dogma to a bunch of recalcitrant heretics.
“The quote: “Sorry, no way will I give out information on my company’s clients, that is proprietary and competitive information.”
Yes, that’s the kind of secrecy that is worrisome. And it wouldn’t be information about her clients, it’d be information about her income.
David,
Good enough to the United States Senate, but not good enough for you?
“Financial declaration
Funding sources for Curry’s research have included NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOD and DOE. Recent contracts for CFAN include a DOE contract to develop extended range regional wind power forecasts and a DOD contract to predict extreme events associated with climate variability/change having
implications for regional stability. CFAN contracts with private sector and other non-governmental organizations include energy and power companies, reinsurance companies, other weather service providers, NGOs and development banks. Specifically with regards to the energy and power
companies, these contracts are for medium-range (days to weeks) forecasts of hurricane activity and landfall impacts. CFAN has one contract with an energy company that also includes medium-range forecasts of energy demand (temperature), hydropower generation, and wind power generation. CFAN has not received any funds from energy companies related to climate change or any topic related to this testimony. ”
Maybe you should read and address her further words (especially the last one, huh?):http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/
“I note that during congressional questioning, I was never asked anything about my funding sources.
Again, I think that biases in testimony related to climate change are more likely to be ideological and political than related to funding.
So what is the point of asking for detailed financial information (including travel) from these academic researchers?”
And a question from me. Why do you care how much money she makes (if any) as opposed to from whom that money comes (which it seems she’s answered fairly clearly w/o naming specific clientele)?
David Appell –
What exactly is the evil to be avoided here?
“What exactly is the evil to be avoided here?”
What evil is Al Gore being accused of?
David Appell –
Exaggerating the threat of global warming and urging expensive policies that are unnecessary.
Swood: No, Gore is much more often accused of being in it for the money. You know that.
David Appell –
I thought that he didn’t need any money after selling Current TV to Al Jazeera, but that fanning the flames helped keep his Nobel Prize celebrity in the forefront. But how would Judith make money off her position? By selling consulting services to businesses that have an incentive to defeat climate change legislation? Could she earn more that way than she could coming at if from the alarmist side?
Gore is routinely pillored for his investments in clean energy, at the same time as he speaks out on climate change.
If him, why not all?
What about your sources of income, davey? How do you maintain your high calorie lifestyle with not visible means of support?
Hmmm. Is climate more important than politics?:http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/tom-steyer-nonprofit-shuts-down-climate-program-116584.html
I know I’m supposed to be ‘nice’ but I can’t fathom the people with money and bad ideas.
I was reviewing the Club of Rome and saw Ted ‘canibal’ Turner on the list
I realized how money and power in the hands of the xanax deprived ( such as Steyer)
is dangerous thing:
And so it begins: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060016259
“There is a 1-in-100 chance that more than $26 billion worth of California’s coastal property will be underwater with more than an additional $68 billion vulnerable at high tide.”
“There is a 1-in-100 chance that San Francisco could see sea-level rise of more than 5.4 feet by 2100,” the report added. “Extensive development along San Francisco Bay places billions of dollars of property and infrastructure at risk, including the headquarters of numerous technology companies in the South Bay area, along with the San Francisco and Oakland airports.”
“There is a 1-in-20 chance that the region will experience more than seven full months (214 days) of extremely hot days by end of century,” the report said.
“Somewhere, people are meeting to decide your future, and you are not invited.”
Some of them would just as soon not invite you to your future, either.
==============
Given that people tend to kick the bucket more readily due to cold than heat, that may be part of the plan. Works in the UK.
David , you have no data to back up anything that you say.
Of course I do Salvatore — you should know better by now. My blog post has links to the data:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/temp_trend_series
The real data
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
“the real data”
Why does Monckton only show RSS data, and never that from UAH? The latter has significantly better global coverage, and the former must now correct for a decaying satellite orbit by using a climate model…..
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/04/7_questions_with_john_christy.html
Here is a better representation of the truth.
Why is that a better representation?
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/04/7_questions_with_john_christy.html
Sorry sent it twice.
David you misrepresent what I have said. I said the global temperatures will trend down when my low value average solar parameters are met following 10 years of sub-solar activity in general.
The values have yet to be met but they are right around the corner then we shall see.
Salvatore, I quoted you correctly. You can click on the links to verify them.
Because it is showing the actual data versus the projections made by the models.
It does not look very close and seems to be worsening as the years go by.
David that is the data. What could you do that is what it shows. I am just reporting it.
My graph also shows the actual data, compared to the model’s projections. The model is too cold.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005.
If one looks at the average solar parameters over the past 2 or 3 years one will see my values have not been attained yet.
Salvatore, you have been making such pronouncements for years. As your 2010 and 2012 quotes show, you have been wrong all along — you just keep moving the dates further into the futher, never acknowledging your failures.
David , we will see. Take Care.
“We’ll see” is something else you’ve been saying all along, as the world keeps warming.
We’re already “seen.” For some reason, that evidence never sinks in.
OMG! Hasn’t Obama seen this evidence?
Wimpy New U.S. Climate Targets Are Letting the World Down
What can possibly save the Paris junket from being another big flop?
It’s enough to make an unemployable climate alarmist- “journalist” retire to a cabin near Mount Hood and commune with the squirrels. They can be tasty, if seasoned and roasted properly.
Trenberth is predicting 2015 is the year the pause the never was is toast. We shall see!
Gee I hope Think Progress archives their alarms.
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/580307468607205376
the temp. data
Salvatore: It’s ridiculous to talk about 10 years as if it means something about climate. It most definitely does not.
I’d have to know more about the NCEP reanalysis numbers, like their global coverage, etc. GISS, HadCRUT4, NOAA and Cowtan & Way all have positive 10-yr trends, from 0.03-0.06 C/decade — which, again, means absolutely nothing about climate change.
> … It’s ridiculous to talk about 10 years as if it means something about climate. It most definitely does not
Hard to believe this has not yet been asked, but in any case:
So what time length definitely does mean something ?
No slippy, slidy, question with a question BS. Just answer the question directly …
ian8888: Sorry, there is no one simple answer. The WMO says 30 years. Other people say 50 years. It must be a time period where the trend is representative of climate, and not natural variabilities.
What makes you think “natural variabilities” don’t extend right up to millennial scale?
AK: Such as?
Oh, perhaps the “Medieval Climatic optimum”, or the “Little Ice Age”.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/moys-20022.png
Neither is millennial scale. The first, and probably the second, weren’t global.
The graph shows millennial-scale changes. And so does this one, linked here.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n4/images/ngeo2094-f2.jpg
There’s a distinct change in behavior right around 1300. Note also the general trends, that might well be part of some multi-millennial scale natural variation.
I think any “distinct change is in your mind.” But, so what if there was a natural factor over 1000 yrs? Like Milankovitch factors?
You asked for an example of what could be natural internal variation. Now you suggest that maybe it’s externally forced?
What if it isn’t? What if it’s simply natural variation of a hyper-complex non-linear system. Just like most non-linear systems, in which patterns of natural variation tend to be scale-independent?
That doesn’t work, because internal fluctuations must conserve energy. The entire planet is heating up. What is cooling to compensate for that?
No, it doesn’t work that way. Conservation of energy only applies to closed systems. Huge, and hugely variable, amounts of energy both entering and leaving the system every second. Same goes for entropy, BTW.
The entire planet is heating. The net energy imbalance is known to be3 negative — more coming in than leaving. What is cooling to compensate for this?
Besides, CO2 is a greenhouse gas regardless of any other changes.
Nobody can say that without begging the question.
“Nobody can say that without begging the question.”
“Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
Begging the question. The fact that “A” doesn’t disprove “B” doesn’t mean “A” proves “B” unless you’re already assuming “B” is true.
In the Loeb et al paper, they calculate the OLR anomaly over the decade from satellite datat. See their Figure 2a.
This paper was discussed here. Using it to “prove” any heat imbalance is a clear case of begging the question.
Quoted from Kevin Trenberth at Quark Soup.
Begging the question.
And you must have known it, it’s at your blog. Is this dishonesty, or what?
“Using it to “prove” any heat imbalance is a clear case of begging the question.”
Figure 2a is the TOA OLR imbalance, not the missing energy.
You have evidence, I’m sure, that the TOA OLR imbalance is *positive*? Let’s see it.
“Nobody can say that without begging the question.”
“Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“A method for continuous estimation of clear-sky downwelling longwave radiative flux developed using ARM surface measurements,” C. N. Long and D. D. Turner, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 113, D18206, doi:10.1029/2008JD009936, 2008
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009936/abstract
“Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models,” Gastineau et al, J Climate, vol 27, 941–957 (2014).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00047.1
I’ll review all your references, but I suspect they’ll all boil down to begging the question. (Do you know what that is?)
David Appell (@davidappell) said: ”greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra”
David, ”longwave radiation” goes only; from 1 micron to couple of feet – IF the heat is over 1000C!!! No heat ”radiates out in space, it’s all canceled / neutralized by the ”cold vacuum” that constantly penetrates into the atmosphere! You are still peddling outdated old theories… Update your knowledge on my blog. You are constantly giving links to texts, created by the Politburo – instead, learn the truth from an honest person, me!
Electromagnetic radiation moves handily through a vacuum. Obviously.
Can anyone share with me how one searches for a particular comment made by another on a previous thread?
In the same post, use the browser menu search. In a different post, do a google search of words and phrases.
Canman,
Thank you!
Make sure you use “advanced search” and specify the domain (e.g. judithcurry.com) you want to search. Else you’ll get results full of the search strings from all over. Unless that’s what you want.
Danny – I’ll save you some trouble. Here is a good example of how Joshua totally ruins a post with trite bombs. His comments border on meaningless drivel. He just takes up a lot of space on posts with this crap. He focuses on meaningless details, analyzing them endlessly and fruitlessly. I really don’t understand why Judith tolerates him at all. I know I wouldn’t have. It’s a testament to her devotion to allowing all points of view, even if they are inane.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/22/sundays-climate-logic/
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
As an Australian, I urge caution when reading The Conversation, a blog referenced above.
It has a moderation policy that discourages freedom of expression.
Those who question the Establishment Opinion are rapidly banned forever.
One outcome – as mature readers might observe – is that the conversation has become similar to an undergrad rag, replete with people first discovering their uncontested brilliance.
The Oz approach to global warming is increasingly informed by hard data that show trivial national warming over the last century plus, as recorded in old, official puublications like Commonwealth Year Books from the 1950s and a CSIR (O) publication of the state of the climate from recording start to 1933.
We can derive 0.3 to 0.4 deg C of warming from then to now, but NOT the 1 deg C of official wisdom.
Geoff.
I’m one of them. I’ve been banned forever. So have many others that don’t accept the catastrophic belief in catastrophic climate change.
Geoff: UAH regional data has the lower troposphere over Australia warming +0.60 C just since 1979….
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
“Obama’s CO2 Plan Will Only Avert 0.001° Of Warming A Year [link]”
Does anything more need to be said, other than this unmeasurable reduction in temperature will cost the US Taxpayer between $8.8B and $42B per year?
The price of tyranny is high.
The Cato Institute linked at your link doesn’t reveal how they do their calculation.
What would you do, wallensworth, to cut emissions faster and also cheaper?
Uh-oh… tree rings are lying liars:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/agw-falsified-noaa-long-wave-radiation-data-incompatible-with-the-theory-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
Dave, why don’t you reconcile what you say below with what I sent in the above?
David Appell | April 3, 2015 at 12:17 am |
The entire planet is heating. The net energy imbalance is known to be3 negative — more coming in than leaving. What is cooling to compensate for this?
Besides, CO2 is a greenhouse gas regardless of any other changes.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fcdd7298970b-pi
Putting up unattributed graphs doesn’t cut it.
Re: “Russia’s Clever Climate Trick: Offers Forests As Carbon Sinks”
Bully for them!
Finally, a Russian political ploy that the U.S.A. should follow. Let’s do the same for American grasslands/prairies, agricultural lands, forests, and lawns.
I’m guessing France will remain “intended nationally determined,” pro-nuclear environmentalists whereas US commies will remain “intended nationally determined,” anti-nuke environmentalists.
Finally realizing his presumption about a putative global warming ‘signal’ within the rings of trees (See, Laepple, et al., ibid.) has all been one big mistake, it would be nice if Michael Mann would at the least say –e.g., THIS! …but, I’m not holding my breath.
David Appell, several times in this thread you repeat the observation that, “The next ice age is already toast, unless we remove a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere and store it somewhere.” If this is so, it would be an indication that ever-rising GHG emissions represent a very serious threat to humanity, one which humanity is not dealing with nearly to the extent you believe is necessary.
Actions speak louder than words, and the Obama Administration’s actions in dealing with America’s own GHG emissions are not consistent with the words they have used in warning of the dangers of climate change; in that the Obama Administration is not using the full legal authority of the EPA in aggressively suppressing America’s carbon emissions. The Obama plan does little more than encourage an already embedded-trend of moving away from coal towards natural gas, it is not in any way an aggressive GHG reduction plan.
The levels of GHG emission reduction needed to achieve a measurable impact on the current rate of rise of the Keeling Curve are not being pursued by the Obama Administration nearly to the extent they need to be pursued to properly mitigate the stated dangers, as listed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Reductions in America’s GHG emissions which might achieve a measurable slowdown in the rate of rise of the Keeling Curve are not currently a part of the President’s climate action plan.
David, may I inquire as to your own opinions concerning why the Obama Administration and the EPA have chosen not to use the full authority granted to them under the Clean Air Act and the 2009 Endangerment Finding to enforce very stringent reductions in America’s carbon emissions?
BB: I don’t know.
I doubt even rounded down, 0.1 C is as precise as implied.
“I doubt even rounded down, 0.1 C is as precise as implied.”
You’re welcome to read the Matthews et al paper that determines the proportionality constant and its uncertainty, and the CDIAC historical carbon emissions since 1900. Applying the Matthews equation to those emissions, the total warming calculated is on target, and certainly correct in its order of magnitude.
Furthermore, if the U.S. reduced its CO₂ emissions by 100% it would only avert 0.137°C of temperature rise by 2100, according to this (assuming a climate sensitivity of 3°C). So what should we be doing?
It’s ridiculous to give such temperature numbers to three decimal places, by you or by Chip Kappenberger. It shows both of you are blindly calculating and not thinking.
Last year the US emitted 5.4 GtCO2 (=1.5 GtC). If we super-unrealistically changed that to zero, it’d avoid about 120 GtC of emissions by 2100. By the carbon-climate response function I gave above (Matthews et al), the best estimate for the decrease in peak warming is 0.2 C, with the 5-95 percentile limits 0.1-0.3 C.
Whoever said the US can solve this problem alone?? Obviously we can’t. These kind of calculations indicate the massive scale of the problem, not that the problem need not be addressed.
But David, using 2 decimal points by NOAA for setting record warmth by .04 C, which was heard around the world, certainly accomplished its intended purpose.
When things get desperate I can see warming records with 4 decimal points. We have to keep our eyes on the larger picture, after all.
Unless threading is broken, this should have been here.
I doubt even rounded down, 0.1 C is as precise as implied.
“When things get desperate I can see warming records with 4 decimal points.”
Not from scientists you won’t.
David Appell –
What climate sensitivity does this assume?
David Appell –
So if you were the World Climate Change Czar what actions would you take?
“What climate sensitivity does this assume?”
It makes no assumptions about climate sensitivity.
David Appell –
How can one estimate the effect of a change in atmospheric CO₂ without reference to climate sensitivity?
swood: I suggest you read the paper — the math involved is pretty simple.
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/nature08047.pdf
BB
From a British perspective I would observe that the US has extremely cheap energy for vehicles and heating and business. This give you a huge advantage in the competitive world economy for your corporations whilst providing consumers with extra spending power.
Enforcing drastic carbon reduction is likely to result in a dramatic increase in energy costs wth the knock on effects for your economy.
Tonyb
If “progressives” can’t kill the economy via global warming regs, they will find some other way. They are already making “progress” on multiple fronts.
Tonyb, earlier this week, President Obama announced a US target of a 28% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2025 relative to a 2005 baseline.
Achieving a 28% reduction in US emissions by 2025 cannot be done without aggressive government intervention in the energy marketplace to raise the price of all carbon fuels and to constrain their supply, thus encouraging both significant energy conservation measures and an accelerated move towards adopting non-carbon energy resources.
The President’s existing climate action plan isn’t anywhere nearly aggressive enough to achieve a 28% reduction by 2025, let alone to make a reasonably good start at the task of largely decarbonizing the American economy by 2050.
Even a Congress controlled by Democrats will not put a price on carbon, so the Executive Branch has no other practical choice but to use the legal authority it already has in its hands via the Clean Air Act if it wants to get the job done of raising carbon fuel prices and constraining carbon fuel supplies.
Any other approach would be mere Kibbuke Theater designed to garner support from environmentally conscious voters, rather than a realistic approach for significantly reducing America’s GHG emissions.
We will know if the Obama Administration is truly serious about pursuing a 28% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2025 only if we see President Obama issuing formal directions to the EPA to use its full regulatory authority to the maximum extent currently allowed by law in suppressing US carbon emissions.
Tonyb: Unless you include negative external costs from using fossil fuels — costs socialized onto the country and the world and the far future — you can’t make any conclusions about “cheap energy.”
Energy costs more than what you pay at the pump or is on your electric bill.
BB
Would the US electorate vote for European style High energy prices or accept fuel rationing?
Obama would be handing the next democrat presidential candidate a poisoned chalice by going down that road at this time.
Tonyb
A key reason why the Democrats didn’t put a price on carbon when they were in control of the Congress in 2009 and 2010 was that Obamacare was much more important to them as an issue to be spending their political capital on, plus they could spend money on subsidizing the renewables as part of their economic recovery program.
Doing what was actually necessary to begin the difficult process of achieving serious carbon emission reductions was a talking point for the Democrats, it was not an issue they were serious about pursuing. If they had been serious about dealing with climate change, they would have taken steps after the 2010 elections to use the EPA to its fullest possible effectiveness in forcing GHG emission reductions.
GHG’s are emitted as a consequence of nearly all economic activities. But rather than ask for an equitable distribution of the pain that goes with substantial across-the-board reductions in carbon emissions, what the Obama Administration did instead was to bundle GHG reductions with reductions in other kinds of pollutants such as mercury and sulfur into a single plan targeted mostly at the coal industry — thus guaranteeing that their plan would be highly vulnerable to lawsuits of the kind that Lawrence Tribe is now leading.
Any successful EPA-administered plan to enforce serious GHG emission reductions must be its own separate program managed according to its own separate criteria, with its own uniquely-tailored regulatory enforcement framework. If an EPA-administered regulatory framework targeted exclusively at carbon emissions is properly designed and properly rolled out according to existing policies and procedures for publishing new regulations, it can be made bulletproof against lawsuits.
Adopting this kind of policy approach carries the obvious political risks, but there is no other public policy pathway which could make a serious dent in America’s carbon emissions. All roads to serious GHG reductions pass through the EPA. If serious GHG reductions are to be achieved at all in this country, that goal must be accomplished through a centrally-coordinated effort managed by the EPA, one which simultaneously constrains the supply of carbon fuels and which raises their price, thus encouraging energy conservation and an eventual transition away from fossil fuels.
The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has identified carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant carrying significant risks to human health and the environment. It is the EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to be the central coordinating agency of government in managing GHG pollution abatement activities. As long as the Obama Administration is not using the EPA to its maximum potential effectiveness in its proper and lawful regulatory role, then the President can be rightly accused of playing politics with the issue of climate change.
David , my sources for the data do not have an agenda and have been in existence long before your bogus data came along.
“David , my sources for the data do not have an agenda….”
Sure. You don’t even understand the context of the graphs you throw up.
Start posting real science. Further cartoons will be ignored.
David how can a theory be correct that has predicted every atmospheric process wrong.
It is both data and the atmospheric processes AGW theory predicted which proves this theory is full of it.
http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_impact/photo/john-christy-climate-change-chart-0a201a1637955761.jpg
the reality
David, you are in in denial and oblivious to the data and the facts.
I made my points. We will agree to disagree.
The only thing I’d agree with is that you have a multi-year history of making grand pronouncements that, one after the other, fail to come true.
And that you’ll put up any crappy graph if you think it supports you, without understanding their context.
“And that you’ll put up any crappy graph…”
Carefull D.A. You’ll find yourself twittercized if you use that word. Although on second thought, only if you’re a climate denier. So never mind
What ever makes you feel good. Have a great day.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/average.png
Dave something for you to think about.
Salvatore, the average of those three datasets shows +0.56 C of warming since Jan 1979.
Something for you to think about.
Nobody wants to have their electricity cut off at 10PM in winter to lower CO2 emissions. That’s what it will come down to – power rationing to really deal with the issue.
Interesting. Wrong target. Ration the EPA budget. About 50%.
That wouldn’t be penny-wise, but it would be pound-foolish (unless you oppose saving money):
“How the Clean Air Act Has Saved $22 Trillion in Health-Care Costs,” Alan H. Lockwood, Sept 7 2012.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/
David: I think you are talking about the EPA/CAA as a whole (particulates, black carbon (black lung), etc. I’ll bargain; just the portion of the budget that promotes bureaucratic fame and fortune by limiting CO2 at the cost of the economy, and increasing mortality by cold (see above). Remember, that portion is promoting “Climate Change” (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) as the threat of the century.
See: Peter, Laurence J., and Raymond Hull. “Peter Principle.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, July 3, 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Principle&oldid=560815577.
How much has mortality increased because of cold? (Cold where?)
The Peter Principle applies (which is questionable) to all hierarchical organizations. Yours too.
Google. “Excess Deaths in UK due to Cold – Google Search.” Search Engine. Google Search, March 3, 2015. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=excess+deaths+in+UK+due+to+cold.
They are talking about excess deaths being disproportionately among seniors, from which I conclude that the senior deaths are more than normal expectation. But I must agree that they could have been more explicit.
Cadman, Emily. “UK Sees Steep Increase in Winter Deaths.” Financial Times, November 26, 2013. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/763fcb26-5681-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2luySfQ2W
“Last year’s cold winter saw the number of excess winter deaths jump by nearly a third, according to official data.
“The Office for National Statistics estimates that there were 31,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2012-13, a rise of 29 per cent on the previous year.
“Last March was the coldest since 1962, with an average temperature of 2.2°C, and the second coldest since 1910.
“The majority of the excess deaths, 25,000, occurred among those aged 75 or above.”
Nelson, Fraser. “It’s the Cold, Not Global Warming, That We Should Be Worried about.” Telegraph.co.uk, March 28, 2013, sec. elderhealth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html
“No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive
“The government’s chief scientific officer, Sir David King, later declared that climate change was “more serious even than the threat of terrorism” in terms of the number of lives that could be lost. (2003)
“Since Sir David’s exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat.”
So it’s your belief we should warm up the ENTIRE world, significantly, with consequences not fully known, because the British government won’t help their poor pay for heat? Really??
Heat or Eat. Britain may be the canary in the coal mine. Do you think that excess mortality is NOT significant? Why not apply the Precautionary Principle to negative consequences?
Oh, yeah: And acidify the oceans, too.
Here’s an idea: the British government pays for new insulation for the homes of the poor. And new furnances. And influenza vaccinations.
What is the breakdown of the deaths you noted, by cause)?
Why isn’t the British government ensuring their citizens both eat and have heat? We have to heat up the entire planet because they won’t pay for insulation and food assistance?? That makes zero sense.
“Breakdown” (above): Read the fine list of references.
“Acidification”: Deceptive term for decline of alkalinity.
“Homes of the poor”: Done. They are called “Estates”.
“Influenza vaccinations”: Here they are called “Flu Shots”. Free at many drug stores. However, some people have allergic reactions to flu shots.
I’m done here. Claim victory if you wish. But consider the adage: None are so blind as those who will not see.
“Acidification”: Deceptive term for decline of alkalinity.
Wrong. All chemical solutions have an “acidity” and an “alkalinity.” When the acidity increases, the solution is properly said to be “acidifying.”
Our ocean’s acidity has increased by 30% since before the Industrial era began.
And the effects are the same no matter what you call it.
“Homes of the poor”: Done. They are called “Estates”.
Baloney. The people you claim are dying from cold aren’t living on “estates.”
“However, some people have allergic reactions to flu shots”
Not many. And if they are, they have troubles already. I still don’t see why that means they can’t get proper insulation and an efficient furnace, and why the entire planet needs to be heated up just for them.
“But consider the adage: None are so blind as those who will not see.”
Goes doubly for you.
Why so many comments, davey? Are you in the middle of dinner? Try to consolidate some of your BS, davey. Estates in limey land are like our projects, davey. You know what projects are, don’t you, davey? Now don’t reply with four f—— comments.
@David Appell (@davidappell
David sweetheart, don’t try to muddy the water with electromagnetism, please. In THE orbit the earth travels around the sun, the temp is -93C – that ”cold vacuum” penetrates trough the upper troposphere and is canceling any heat – IF there is heat to neutralize – if not, just zooms trough underutilized, and ”new cold vacuum” moves trough every 10 minutes – because the planet travels at 108000kmh trough new ”cold vacuum” all the time = the planet cannot get warmer than normal. ”Global” warming is the Grandmother of all lies! please read the second post, on my homepage; don’t be the last to learn the real proofs
(the links you are regularly giving, are the laundromat for brainwashing – get out of your septic tank and smell the roses – the truth is refreshing, try it)
“It’s not hatred, ignorance, greed, or blind nationalism that will end our world, I often think, but some system of ideas too dearly held. The ideologues, those who go on insisting about simple solutions, who believe that the world in all its marvelous variety must be put up in a single jar of preserves – they’ll put an end to us all.”
– a pertinent para from James Sallis’ novel “Others of my Kind.”
Faustino / Michael Cunningham
David Appell (@davidappell) | April 3, 2015 at 5:46 pm | Reply
Salvatore, the average of those three datasets shows +0.56 C of warming since Jan 1979.
Something for you to think about
My reply: From 1998-present the rise from the late 1970’s-1998 which was due to natural causes stopped.
What were the natural causes from the late 1970’s -1998 that caused the global temperature trend to rise?
High Solar Activity .Very High AP index as an example.
PDO to Warm Phase during late 1970’s (the climatic shift)
Volcanic Activity early 1980’s and 1992 then only to become very quiet post 1992.
AMO to warm phase 1995.
Super El Nino in 1998, with periods of more El Nino’s versus La Nina’s from the late 1970’s -1998.
Since 1998 the natural forces promoting warming( from 1978-1998) have all subsided and are presently trending toward promoting a cooler climate going forward. This should persist for the next 30+ years.
David you have a long wait until global warming will resume.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | I World New